Thursday, December 13, 2012

Applications to law school are collapsing

In 2010 87,900 people applied to ABA law schools.  This number was down 12.6% from the all-time high of 100,600 six years earlier -- a fact that ought to have served as an early warning signal to law schools.  After all, in 2008 and 2009 the economy was in the deepest recession since the 1930s, which should have have driven applications to professional school in general and law school in particular to new highs.

In 2011 David Segal published a series of critical articles in the New York Times regarding the economics of legal education, which provoked mostly cries of outrage from inside legal academia.  Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch at the Law School Transparency project continued to run into a stone wall when they asked law schools to disclose something resembling actual employment and salary statistics for recent graduates.  In short, denial remained the order of the day.

Meanwhile applications fell by 10.7% -- yet law schools admitted almost exactly the same number of students (55,800 v. 55,900 in 2004) as they had seven years earlier, when they had had 22,100 more applicants to choose from.

By the fall of 2011, serious cracks began to appear in legal academia's complacent facade.  A year's worth of bad publicity, capped by the imminent publication of Brian Tamanaha's measured but all the more devastating indictment Failing Law Schools,  had enabled LST and others to help convince a couple of US senators to write letters to the ABA Section of Legal Education, suggesting that this august body might want to consider being a little more forthcoming with employment data.  Suggestions from senators have a way of getting the attention of bureaucrats, and lo and behold by next spring the ABA was for the first time publishing some useful school-specific graduate employment numbers.

Applications, not coincidentally, continued a sharp downward trend.  By January of this year it became clear they would fall even more sharply from the previous year than they had between 2010 and 2011.  In the end they were down another 13.7%.   With the publication of the class of 2011's fairly catastrophic employment figures, denial began to give way to serious concern.

Now comes word that applications in this admissions cycle appear to be in something like free fall. As of December 7th, they are down 24.6% from the same time last year, while the total number of applicants has declined by 22.4% year over year.  These numbers suggest that law schools will have a total of somewhere between 52,000 and 53,000 applicants to choose from in this cycle, i.e., slightly more than half as many as in 2004, when there were 188 ABA accredited law schools (there are 201 at the moment, with an emphasis on "at the moment").

To put that number in perspective, law schools admitted 60,400 first year JD students two years ago.  Since a significant percentage of applicants are unwilling to consider enrolling at any school below a certain hierarchical level, and/or will decline to enroll at certain other schools without receiving massive discounts on the advertised tuition price, these numbers portend fiscal calamity for more than a few schools. But out of that calamity will come the beginnings of a more rational and just system of legal education for the next generation of lawyers.





173 comments:

  1. the scholarship / cross subsidized tuition impact should be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This seems like really great news. However, are there any other explanations for a drop-off in applicants and applications? I can already hear every northeastern law school's Baghdad Bob saying that this is merely due to Sandy this year and that applications will rise to previous levels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Applications have been open for some time now. And some people are retaking and applying. Maybe a small number of people were affected but not a huge percentage.


      Schools are already starting to scramble. You can see it in the huge scholarships that Virginia is throwing around and their backing off of yield protecting string applicants.

      Delete
  3. If I'm reading this correctly, there are about 50,000 applicants and law schools admit about 50,000 people each year.

    So, my guess would be that the standards for admission are dropping like a rock to the point that, soon, law school admission will look just like the real estate lending industry that caused the real estate boom: Anyone who can fog a mirror can get into law school and get the massive, non-dischargeable student loans that go with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's already the case. People with LSAT scores in the very bottom few percentiles are getting into law schools.

      Delete
  4. Wow. Just wow.

    Great work, LP.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I worry much more for the profession than for the law schools. As long as there are more applicants than seats, schools will have enough customers. Class sizes have been cut to preserve LSAT/GPA medians for USNWR purposes, but when every school is admitting less qualified applicants than before the rankings will stay the same as everyone falls.

    Despite the law school scam, six years ago there still was a limit on available seats and that meant the schools did play a role in forcing people with marginal qualifications to pursue another line of work. The people who could not have been admitted to any law school six years ago are going to be solo practitioners six years from now.

    I predict job growth in state bar counsel jobs, investigating various professional failures and drumming them out of practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree law schools are no longer a gatekeeper. However, I'm hopeful that the State bars will step up to fill this role.

      If acceptance rates hit 100 percent, law school is going to be like cosmetology school. Lawyers will be more of a joke than we already are. Can you really expect someone with a below 140 LSAT to read and understand the Rules of Professional Conduct ???

      Delete
  6. This is great news! I wish that the data showed an even greater decline, but it's a start. I think, for now, the schools at the top will be safe but bottom-feeder schools will have to start trimming the fat. Tier 1 and 2 Schools will cut their 1L class size and, then, take any mouth-breather who manages to receive a 2.0 gpa or above at their local TTT or TTTT. These sub-par transfer students won't affect the school's ranking and will provide the school with warm bodies and federally-funded tuition dollars the schools "need". There are a few mid-ranged trap schools that are already playing this game.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's depressing to realize that a problem ruining your life can only be rectified for "the next generation."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't give up all hope yet .

      Delete
    2. Agreed.

      Who would have thought three years ago that the longstanding corrupt empire of the law schools would be under *this* degree of siege today?

      We should form a League of Creative Vengeance to see what we can accomplish for those already f*cked.

      Delete
  8. Let's see what other tricks they have up their sleeves. Big tuition and fee hikes, lots of transfers, heavy duty soliciting of people who haven't even taken the LSAT, AAMPLE-type programs are all pretty scummy, but I feel like we haven't reached the bottom yet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is great news. Keep attacking the demand side, and the scam will collapse on its own. No doubt the law school cartel will keep lobbying for more back door bailouts like IBR, but without enough lemmings to sign the dotted line the scam cannot go on indefinitely in its present form.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow. It looks like we've hit early 2008, if we compare it to the real estate bubble bursting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. More data here:
    http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/lsac-volume-summary.asp

    Looks like fall 2013 will be bloody for law schools.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am so proud to have been a part of this grassroots movement. When we started this in earnest more than 4 years ago, many posters on various forums scoffed at us, saying we would get nowhere. I started a blog, Exposing the Law School Scam (now deleted) and made a short video focusing on my perspective of the numerical pitfalls of attending law school. Many laughed at it.

    I focused on the law school numbers. Many laughed.

    Yet we are winning now. And our movement continues to snowball.

    Here's to Scotty! And to Loyola 2L! And to Tom the Temp! And to Nando! And of course to LawProf and DJM!

    Great work, all.

    What we have done here, this grassroots movement winning against a rich and well-connected industry, may be unprecedented. A lot of our success has to do with the education level of our members, and the internet, of course, and the education level and small cohort size of the prospective suckers (law school applicants, who are readers and internet users).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You had nothing to do with anything...these are market forces at work.

      Delete
    2. Blogs like the OP's and other media criticism had everything to do with the devaluation of law school which led to a shift in the market. Market forces don't exist in an information vacuum.

      Delete
    3. ^This. The market forces are working because of the grassroots movement in providing thorough information.

      Delete
  13. I am the poster above who started the Exposing the Law School Scam. One more thing to say: I would have toasted JD Underground, as well, because it was also a genesis of the movement. But its role as a nexus of this movement was contrary to the desires of its owner, a graduate of a top law school who is now a programmer, having been forced out of biglaw after about 3 years.

    A raspberry to you, admin....

    ReplyDelete
  14. It looks like the peak applicants to seats ratio (in their data) was in 2003. There were 1.71 applicants per admitted law student seat. In 2011 it dropped to 1.41. It looks like, if the number of available seats were to stay steady (and it obviously can't), the ratio will be 0.95 in 2013.

    It really is a waterfall of sudden failure. Something has to give.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny how the truth about employment is drying up the applicant pool.

      Delete
  15. So now there is a law school for every applicant? This is yet another betrayal of the profession by the law schools. Implicitly, the legal profession has placed its trust in the law schools to be its gatekeepers-- selecting the brightest and most promising students, thereby helping the profession retain (what is left of) its cultural mystique, as well ensuring a higher quality of legal work. Instead, the law schools have turned a JD into the equivalent of a matchbook arts degree, for the sake of money.

    dybbuk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do believe that some of the brighter chimpanzees could get into law school in the US.

      Delete
  16. As I've said before, the smartest money with the best stats are fleeing law. I expect the medians to drop at T14 and possibly Harvard.

    Other schools are going to have to give out full scholarships to entice the best credentialed applicants.


    The sad part is that we could have avoided this entire mess if schools had been willing to be honest about employment instead of deceptive and duplicitous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a mess for the law schools.

      The profs and admins get paid. Everyone enjoys their perks.

      It's the students who are left holding the bag.

      Delete
    2. It's about to become a mess for the law schools. If they can't get paying students to hold the bag for them, all those profs and admins are going to find their schools shuttered.

      Delete
  17. How can this be possible?

    I just read in the New York Times -- the paper of record -- that Law School was Worth the Price. I also read, in the same paper's dealbook blog, that now was a great time to go to law school.

    Surely they aren't wrong and aren't engaging in puffery, right? Aren't they law faculty? The alpha and omega for omniscience and ethics?

    ReplyDelete
  18. When the bubble bursts, the best part will be watching arrogant law professors fail to find real jobs.

    I know of one data point which may foreshadow the situation. John Dwyer was the dean of Berkeley Law School and resigned in the midst of a sex scandal. He didn't lateral to the partnership ranks of an AmLaw100 firm, as lawprofs like to suggest. He runs a two-attorney appellate shop.

    http://johndwyerlaw.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why, of course they'll find jobs. Sable-carpeted corner offices at the white-shoe law firms are being held vacant in expectation of the arrival of thousands of new senior partners from the professoriate.

      Delete
    2. I'm also looking forward to this lie being exposed. I think a lot of lawprofs could transition back into government or private practice for very lucrative sums. These are mainly the ones who have remained relevant by being consultants or "of counsel" with their former firms/organization.

      However, MOST of them could not get traditional law jobs because they don't know how to do anything practical. And even if they could get those jobs, they would be miserable doing them after being a law prof. Almost NONE of them could be successful in solo or small firm setting marketing themselves and dealing face to face with regular people as clients. The "pay us 200k or we'll go to private practice" lie is one of the biggest around.

      Delete
    3. They are only getting jobs if they can bring in clients.

      Delete
    4. Umm, don't cry for John Dwyer. He's surely making a mid six figure income. Criminal defense is almost always done in one or two person shops, to avoid conflicts with co-defendants in drug conspiracies.

      Delete
  19. My thinking is that someone needs to look at endowments for third tier, fourth tier and unranked schools. If the endowment is too small, the school won't be able to offer the tuition incentives needed to continue to attract matriculation of even lower quality applicants. So which low ranked and unranked schools have small endowments? Which schools risk closing for lack of matriculation in the next few years? In other words, which schools should applicants avoid? Anyone know how to find this information? Anyone want to take a stab at coming up with a list of the riskiest schools to attend? Or is this analysis off because i'm thinking that law school applicants are too rational to react to economic incentives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone want to take a stab at coming up with a list of the riskiest schools to attend?

      Any of them at sticker price, and all but six or seven without them being virtually free to attend.

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    2. Search this blog for the term "trap schools."

      Delete
    3. Likely biggest problem in free standing law schools I should think.

      Delete
    4. Also there is this book called Don't Go to Law School... unless, which has some analysis on that subject.

      Delete
    5. Muwahahaha ..ha... ha.. (cough, cough)December 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

      "Also there is this book called Don't Go to Law School... unless"


      Gee. I wonder if anyone here reading this blog has ever heard of that book?

      And I wonder if the blog's author has ever heard of that book?

      Perhaps he should promote it here, as a public service?

      Delete
    6. I posted that- I'm a regular commenter here and I did it tongue in check.

      Geez.

      Delete
    7. No - I'm sure if you were a regular poster here, we would recognize your name.

      Delete
    8. Here is the endowment data for over 800 schools:

      http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2011NCSEPublicTablesEndowmentMarketValues319.pdf

      Someone will need to pull out those having law schools.

      (I believe some law schools have separate endowments as well - I believe that is where ex-Dean "Fast Larry" Sager at UT-Austin got *his* bag money.)

      Along these lines, here is a new avenue of attack...how happy will the IRS be about "non-profits" (a scrutinized category) having engaged in behavior that goes up to (and likely over) the line of fraud?

      "Non-profits" violating the "public policy" goals of their privileged status are subject to having it revoked and retroactive taxation applied.

      A few law schools dismembered by the IRS will get some press...remember, it was the IRS that brought down Capone, too...

      Delete
  20. The jobs crisis in the legal profession cannot be emphasized enough. It particularly hits women because there is no slack in law firms for women who want to raise kids. In house is not the answer. It does not last.

    Most women lawyers, even from the top schools, do not make it through. That means that most women lawyers do not have a real full-time, permanent legal job when their kids are grown.

    I am talking about Harvard, Yale, Columbia Law Schools and other people who worked for BigLaw. There is no slack for women raising kids. Employment policies are unisex.

    While you are likely to have a decent career for the first half of your career if you are a
    female lawyer from a good law school, the second half is a disaster for many women.

    Do not go to law school if you are a woman and want a family and a job. Many of my female classmates from the top schools who had kids do not have real legal jobs, and have not had real legal jobs for the last 8 or 10 years.

    Once you are a woman over 50 who has worked anything less than 2800 hours a year for any portion of your career, you are likely to be unemployed. Law firms will not hire older women and in house is no better if one is not managing other lawyers.

    If your practice area declines, as mine has, it is impossible to switch practice areas and find someone to train you if you are an older woman. There is an oversupply of first years that you cannot compete with.

    In terms of earning a living, the top law degree is likely to become useless at some point in the second half of a woman's career. Maybe you mitigate that risk by saving money when you are young and can work, or by finding a successful husband.

    None of my contemporaries bargained for sustained unemployment and underemployment when we signed up for law school. A very high percentage of my female contemporaries who went to top law schools are similarly situated - no real legal job and no ability to get a real legal job because the demand for older women lawyers stinks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A very high percentage of my female contemporaries who went to top law schools are similarly situated - no real legal job and no ability to get a real legal job because the demand for older women lawyers stinks."

      As does the demand for older male lawyers. Hooray for equality!

      Delete
    2. One thing a lot of people don't get about in-house gigs is that many come with a guaranteed expiration date. Could be 5 years, 10 years, maybe you get lucky and it's 20 years. At that point, you're making "too much," and it costs more to provide you health coverage than it would cost to provide for someone in their early 30s with a few years experience. So middle management just tosses you out on your ass and hires a new, cheaper in-house group. Now you're in your 40s or 50s with no job and no clients, probably still having kids/spouse/mortgage to worry about.
      Don't wait to enroll kids, this could be your life!

      Delete
    3. Agree with C completely. In my job we deal with in-house counsel all the time and it's like a revolving door. The contacts we have at the start of a case are typically gone by the time the case is resolved. A couple ex-inhouse attorneys we dealt with later came to us looking for work. It is NOT a reliable gig.

      Delete
    4. The market is not great for older white males, but better than for women.

      Males generally did not take any down time. By this I mean most men did not spend less than full sail on their careers; they would sacrifice and not see their kids for days to do the job. I do not include not taking time off or working part-time. Women who worked full-time but did not spend nights and weekends entertaining clients got screwed.

      My practice area does have some unemployed white men. The bulk of the unemployed are older women though.

      The problem of being treated incredibly unfairly in house, like a high school clique, is prevalent in the legal profession. Many legal employers that I have observed do not impose any standards of decency, fair play or human dignity in the in house jobs where I have known lawyers. Anything the manager wants goes, and that includes the revolving door after a lawyer has been pushed from pillar to post in the job. Why? Just like law school tuition. Because they can. With the huge surplus of lawyers, anything goes.

      Delete
    5. Your post is only tangentially related to LP's, but I'm sure glad you didn't waste this opportunity to grind the gender discrimination axe.

      Delete
    6. The fact that so many older women grads of top law schools do not have real legal jobs is a good reason not to go to law school. I know I would not have enrolled in law school had I known that I was facing a high probability of unemployment 25 years down the road. It may be sooner unemployment for more recent grads because the market has deteriorated.

      It is important to post my views because there is no official data on long-term employment outcomes, and my observation is that they are not good from the top schools.

      0Ls and 1Ls can read this and be warned. They can believe me or ignore me. The warning I am giving would have made all the difference to me if I had read posts like mine at the time I was deciding on a career. I know if I had read this blog, and particularly the comments, that I would never had gone to law school.

      Delete
    7. Sounds like a big reason big law firms hire women is as eye candy.

      Delete
    8. I just don't see it...December 13, 2012 at 1:43 PM

      Look, I'm sorry you're un(der)employed, but I know lots of middle aged women lawyers who are still plugging along in their day jobs as in-house associate and deputy GCs.

      And of my last 5 GCs, 2 were women.

      So I don't know what kind of mickey mouse in-house depts you're talking about, frankly.

      Delete
    9. 1:43 "And of my last 5 GCs, 2 were women."

      Why did you have 5 GCs? No question middle aged women get jobs. My experience is that most of those jobs do not last, which you may be confirming here. By the time those women hit their mid-fifties, it is curtains for most of them, if not long before then.

      I know of a few women GCs who suffered sudden disappearance from their jobs. One day they were insiders, and the next day they were out of a job. It is not clear to me that any of these women made it back into the legal profession. While some may have made enough money to retire, some may have made a relatively modest amount of money.

      I have had some great jobs. My female law school classmates have had some great jobs. Problem is that most of us are no longer in those jobs and there is a very limited or nonexistent market for our services. The jobs of most women lawyers do not last. We need jobs that take us until retirement, and we cannot get those jobs.

      Delete
    10. "Why did you have 5 GCs?"

      11 years at company A and 5 now at company B.

      The average tenure is considerably longer than it looks from the above, though.

      In company A, I started there near the end of the (then) ~ 15 year GC's term. He retired after a long career both in the military (West Point BS, Harvard JD) and in industry. The next 2 GCs were 20+ year employees at that company and one is still there as GC. His predecessor left to be GC of a famous footwear company (and retired from there).

      And one of the women had had a 25+ year career at company B, with almost 10 as GC, but retired right after her obligatory 12 months "steering the ship" tenure following a merger.

      Her replacement is from the purchasing company, where she had been GC of one of their smaller divisions.

      In both company A and B, there are many women lawyers. There is more of a disparity in both companies when it comes to the IP lawyers, but they do exist and the disparity in numbers is pretty closely reflected in the original undergrad disparity (i.e., relatively fewer female engineers and chemists).

      Tenure at these companies (I keep in close touch with colleagues at A and am still employed in the new "hybrid" (post-merger) B) is not substantially different for men/women.

      Then again, these are companies that demand a commitment to diversity from the outhouse counsel, so I guess they could hardly do this with a straight face if they were firing based on gender biases.

      In any event, sorry to hear about your circumstances. Is it possible that you are over-focusing on gender, and under-focusing on your particular area of specialization's becoming a de-emphasized practice area?

      Delete
    11. My in house group cleaned out all the older lawyers based on soft factors like fit, comfort, wanting to work with people. Now the group is exclusively in the first half of its legal careers, whereas before there was a variety of ages.

      The company gives complete discretion in hiring and firing to individual managers. The company also has not had a stringent anti-harrassment policy, and did not for example require new or existing hires to complete anti-harrassment training.

      If you are a younger man, you cannot imagine being harrassed in an in house group.

      One commenter here said that a committee made hiring and firing decisions at their company. A company really needs that layer of protection to prevent the type of horrible treatment and firing decisions I and the older people in my group suffered after a new manager took over in a high school clique type maneuver to achieve the "best fit".

      In a better market, a lawyer just shrugs this off and moves on. In this market, there is no place to move to.

      Insofar as being in a bad practice area, it is one of the hazards of aging. I have tried to branch out, but essentially an older person needs to go to a tiny law firm in a temporary capacity at an undergrad pay rate in order to branch out, if he or she is lucky enough to have the opportunity to branch out at all. What I am saying is that a lawyer trying to branch out from a dying practice area may not be able to get enough training to actually move to or work in the new practice area.

      Delete
    12. It all comes down to oversupply. A degree from a top school does not help here. A manager from a bottom school can do in the top school grad, and there are few employment options left in an oversaturated market.

      There is a reason why there are 900,000 unemployed lawyers in the United States and only about 500,000 working outside of solo practice. Oversupply of lawyers does very bad things to lawyer careers. Maybe you have been lucky so far, but with this type of oversupply, luck only takes you so far.

      Eventually because you are walking on thin ice in an oversupply environment, you fall into the icy cold water. If you are still in your mid-forties or younger, you have a lot of time to go walking on thin ice.

      Delete
    13. "If you are a younger man, you cannot imagine being harrassed in an in house group. "


      - I am almost 50. My friends remaining at company A are all older than me, although there are some newer younger people there now. I was the "youngster" there when I joined (although some others were only 1-2 years older than me), until the next couple of hires after me. One of which was an Asian male (younger than me) and the other was a white female (older than me).



      "One commenter here said that a committee made hiring and firing decisions at their company."

      - I made a very similar comment several weeks ago, so it may have been my comment you saw. The act of hiring lawyers in the companies I know is always a substantial investment in time and energy. If you spend 6-9 months finding and hiring someone (which is not uncommon), you don't want them gone quickly.


      I can't imagine the idea of picking lawyers up like driftwood on the beach and then discarding willy-nilly, and still just don't understand your views and experiences. Possibly it's a large company/small company divide, with the small companies acting wild-wild-west because they don't get the regulatory scrutiny of large companies?

      But it's more likely they way large company law depts function with their client base by being grouped into "business facing" teams. E.g. in a company where a division president gets used to getting advice from a certain subset of the law dept's people, they like continuity and don't want to have to get new people used to their business unit. I've seen a GC literally screamed at by a division VP for "not trying hard enough" to retain a lawyer who decided to move on to another company. Business division management participate in the interview process of anyone making it to second rounds, so their invested in the process and invested in whoever gets hired.

      Delete
    14. Crap. "they're". Beg pardon. Guess I get what I deserve for relying on auto-fill and not previewing...

      Delete
    15. My group in a large company had half the group fired. No one cared. The manager had complete discretion in hiring and firing, and no one gave those decisions a second thought.

      No one left in the group is in the second half of their career (the fired people all were). In fact when they put in an ad for a new person in the group to replace the older lawyers who were fired, it had an experence cap that even most 35 year olds would not meet.

      Each company is different.

      Delete
  21. You're welcome, law school swine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What happens when bar exam pass rates start to plummet? I know rates in NYS were already down this year. Will those in the academy invent a crisis, saying that the "man" is using the bar exam merely as a pretext to keep minorities down? Perhaps, they will put pressure on the back-end to help water down the exam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bar rates will plummet because no one can afford barbri.

      I can't wait for BarBrIBR, which will allow you to fold it into your Scam Tithe for the next twenty years before jamming it to the taxpayers.

      Delete
    2. I can't believe it's not already the norm for law schools to offer their own bar prep classes during spring semester and charge a $6000 "administrative fee" for it. It seems like its be a huge revenue generator.

      Delete
    3. Professors wouldn't be willing to teach it.

      Delete
    4. ^^^^^ WTF?

      Who do you think teaches BarBri now?

      Hell, Chemerinsky taught one section of mine.

      Delete
    5. Wasn't Michigan down too?

      I don't think the bar examiners are going to be interested in lowering standards in a profession already tainted by incompetence and dishonesty.

      Delete
    6. Professors wouldn't want to be assigned to do extra teaching above their already exigent six hours per year.

      Delete
    7. Did you miss it? The clowns at Cooley are already claiming something is "wrong" with the most recent bar exam:

      "...it defies logic and experience that all Michigan's law schools would suddenly and simultaneously experience a decline in results of the magnitude represented in 2012."

      http://www.cooley.edu/commentary/are_the_bar_results_for_real.html

      bwahaha

      Delete
  23. "Since a significant percentage of applicants are unwilling to consider enrolling at any school below a certain hierarchical level, and/or will decline to enroll at certain other schools without receiving massive discounts on the advertised tuition price, these numbers portend fiscal calamity for more than a few schools."

    OTOH, for the 10 or so true national schools, and the #1 regional schools in any significant market, students who wouldn't have been admitted in 2007 probably have a shot now. That's got to be a draw at some level. Kids who would've been at GW get to go to Penn, would've been Penn get NYU, kids would've been NYU get to go to Harvard, kids who would have been at Harvard get to go to Yale, etc.

    So ironically, the same prestige dynamic that will kill 3rd and 4th tier schools may simulataneously entrench schools like HYS CCN, as well as metro- or state- powers like UNC, Hawaii, Colorado, or Ohio State (the Denver/Dayton kids get to go to CU/OSU) -- and probably leading regional schools that share a big market with a national school, like BU/BC, Fordham, Temple, GW, Houston, SMU. A lot (but not all) of the latter are public schools that usually have lower tuitions and, relatedly, lower cost structures.

    The prestige train is likely to accelerate the shakeout. Unclear how private, high-cost, high tuition, 3rd and 4th tier schools survive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. New York Law School deathwatch.

      Especially when the tenured faculty and "trustees" realize that they can sell the silverware for more than the restaurant will ever again bring in.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, law-school touts have been pitching the decline in applications as a great "opportunity".

      Delete
    3. It all depends on whether they decrease class size in response to even fewer applicants or whether they abandon that effort in order to maintain revenues.

      Still, an applicant barely on the cusp of a lower T14 who under lower standards would now be admitted is probably eligible for big money from a T25. The latter might be a better deal given that a T14 costs 250K all-in. It then depends on how savvy a negotiator the applicant is. One benefit to TLS has been the common wisdom that scholarships are not gifts from the benevolent law school gods but just a starting price to be negotiated like a used car.

      Delete
    4. "The prestige train is likely to accelerate the shakeout. Unclear how private, high-cost, high tuition, 3rd and 4th tier schools survive."

      They're facing death; if they raise tuition, it's likely that they simply can't fill their seats. And in a couple of years they'll be graduating people who can't pass the bar.

      Of course, several more years is several more years of high incomes for the people running them, so they'll keep going until the sheriff actually evicts them.

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Had a frank conversation with a person in administration at my crappy law school. He asked what the law school could do to help students.

    I said "cut your tuition and enrollment in half."

    He asked "but then how would we attract the best students?"

    I said, "I don't care; if you can't cut your tuition and enrollment and survive, you should not survive."

    The look on his face, like I just shot his dog, was priceless.

    Law school's significantly underestimate how angry recent graduates are over the law school debt they've incurred.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His response doesn't make much sense. Obviously students are concerned about cost, or else they'd still be going to law school in record numbers, and cutting class size is only going to make admissions more selective.

      Delete
    2. You should have asked him to explain how high tuition and high enrollment helps attract the "best students." That would be funny!

      Delete
    3. 8:52 here,

      I am pretty sure he meant how will the school give reverse robin hood scholarships to top students without a huge base of lemmings paying sticker (like I did).

      Delete
    4. Even so, his response doesn't make sense. For one thing, that law school evidently doesn't attract the best students; else you wouldn't have called it crappy.

      Delete
    5. Cutting tuition is a good way to attract students.

      Why is there an idea that if you don't charge as much or more than Harvard that you must not be good?

      Delete
    6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

      http://www.nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/stephen-trachtenberg-is-not-sorry-20120927

      Delete
  26. I'm sure he thought that, but if tuition and class size are cut in half he'll have to give out fewer schollys and they'll cost less so it wouldn't lower the standards.

    What he probably meant was "but then how would the school have money to pay my salary?"

    ReplyDelete
  27. It couldn't be happening to a more deserving group of people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We're getting close...couple more years like this and my dream of 64 law schools - t14 + 50 state universities may become a reality.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is good, but not enough.

    Not until the law schools actually close down will we know that the war is won. For now, they are in trouble, and they know it, as evident by their recent propaganda spurt.

    I think the target number should be 25,000 applicants total, because if I recall correctly, there were only 25,000 jobs for new lawyers.

    The reason for a 1:1 ratio is if law schools decide to admit everyone, which I can see the desperate losers doing. This way, at least all of them will have a good chance at some work if they graduate.

    P.S: Anyone else expect the schools to start scouring the streets for homeless people to enroll?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to enroll, but to apply, so as to keep the ratios high.

      Incentivizing the application process by passing out packs of cigarettes like VP Gore's campaign team trolling for votes in Detroit...

      Delete
  30. Professor Campos, Any ideas on what will happen to students at law schools that fold prior to the students' graduation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They won't have to pay their federal loans, for one thing. One of the ways they can be discharged is if the school folds.

      Delete
    2. ^^^^^^^ HAH!

      Can you imagine if they only knew this, how many 3L's right now would be on their knees, hands clasped, praying "Oh Please, OH PLEASE!"??

      I'd guess approximately 75% of all at any T3/4 school.

      Delete
  31. I am fairly certain they get tax-free debt discharges if that happens, imagine doing that and then just finishing your JD somewhere else w/o the hefty price tag....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you finish the JD elsewhere, the cancelled debt springs back to life. The only way the discharge works is if the school closes and the student walks away without re-enrolling in the same degree program elsewhere. This still seems like it would be a good option for a lot of students.

      Delete
  32. It all rests in the hands of thr Bar Examiners now. If they hold the line, this ugly and human tragedy will be over in less than a decade.

    Word has finally got out that most would be better off with a GED and an Associates degree than a JD.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Federal student loans provide for a discharge of the debt in the event of the death or total and permanent disability of the student or if the school closes before the student graduates. Most private student loans do not have such discharges.
    http://www.finaid.org/beyond/tuitioninsurance.phtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The disability is very hard to prove.

      Delete
  34. The link stated that so far there have been 16,241 applicants at this time. Maybe if the right forums or message boards are targeted, we can reduce the projected tally from the estimated 52,000

    ReplyDelete
  35. This is wonderful news. I cannot wait to call these asshole law professors in for interviews.

    -Walmart Day Shift Supervisor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure that you want to hire them?

      Delete
    2. Since most spent their time at toilets fleecing others, it is only fitting that they should be hired to clean the public toilets at Walmart.

      Delete
  36. Generally speaking there has been a roughly 20% attrition from admitted applicants to matriculants over the past decade. If we round to 53k applicants, and (wrongly) assume admission of every single applicant, that brings us to roughly 42.5 matriculants—already 3k fewer than fall 2011.
    But there are several reasons that one can’t turn all applicants into admissions, and why all admissions won’t turn into matriculants. LP has noted some, but I think there are more. On why the schools can’t convert 100% of applicants to admissions:
    1. Many are applying to top schools at which they don’t have a shot or won’t get in.
    2. Many are restricted to applying to a small geographical area. This might seem like a small deal but if there is a bubble of TTT/TTTTs in an area that has less access to the applicant pool, this can place greater stress on schools in that area. The fact that each individual school doesn’t have access to the entire population of applicants is a big deal, potentially.
    On why admissions to matriculants will have an attrition rate of 20% or greater:
    1. At least a few will apply, find a job, and withdraw their applications. Many others will apply as a backup, and get cold feet. Given the slowly recovering job market, and the fact that the knowledge about the law school/job market has come from insiders to the general population, we might even expect a greater number of people to privilege that 40-50k job as against a law admission at a top school.
    2. There is evidence in the numbers that students are becoming more selective. Why are applications down by an extra 2%? The most likely hypothesis is probably that students in the know are becoming much more averse to attending lower ranked schools.
    3. Many are applying contingent upon receiving enough aid to go to their desired school, and there is anecdotal evidence that students have become more stubbon/saavy in this regard.
    Given these recent numbers I can’t fathom matriculants for the class of 2016 that is close to the 40k mark. Class of 2014 had 45k matriculants and the larger, lucrative class of 2013 is exiting the doors in the spring. Shit is starting to really hit the fan.
    There is sort of a perverse structure here in the sense that the one thing that might save some schools on the bottom (not all, the numbers are too dire to save them all) is if the legitimate schools start/keep cutting down on enrollment. Another problem for those out there with degrees outside the top 25 or so schools is that these closures and lax admission policies are going to further stratify the profession. Employers have increasingly used school ranking as a proxy for quality and the news is out that admissions have really started to tank at the lower schools. I suspect this makes them all the more skeptical (relatively speaking) of a degree from anything but the top schools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The geographic restriction is significant. Not everyone is willing or able to pull up stakes and move to Bumblefuck in order to attend the disTTTTinguished Bumblefuck Skule of Law.

      Delete
  37. Bar exams will be weakened so the dummies can pass...you watch...it will be done under the guise of increasing diveristy or some crap like that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the movie "Catch Me If You Can" there's a joke that Leonardo DiCaprio didn't have to cheat to pass the bar. He says, "I studied for three weeks and I passed" without ever going to law school. Everyone laughed at the joke, but after graduating from law school last May, I realized that the real joke is that he wasn't joking. The bar exam (at least in NJ) is already a joke. I could coach a smart college freshman for a month and get them to pass the bar.

      Delete
    2. I don't agree. I think you need more than a month, but just an entire bar review course should do the trick if you are good at multiple choice exams.

      Delete
    3. But the point is that people at low-ranked law schools aren't good at multiple choice exams, otherwise they would have a higher LSAT score.

      I agree state bars should hold the line on admissions. There are some encouraging sings from Florida. The state where I practice, on the other hand, could care less.

      Delete
  38. This is great. I am a 3L who was duped by my school's 95% employment rate when I applied in 2009. Now that they have to put out meaningful data accounting for every student in their graduating class, students just don't want to even apply or take the LSAT. I don't blame them, a little over 50% shot at landng a FT job requiring a jd is pathetic.

    I expect it to drop even more. The classes of 2012 and 2013 are the biggest on record. The employment outcomes for those classes 9 months out for FT jd required jobs is going to drop below 50%. Career Services office at my school won't say a word about how the class of 2012 is doing. It's going to be bad. Wait till prospective students see those numbers. Applications will continue to plummet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know.

      It's too late for you, but you can warn others.

      Delete
    2. It really makes me so angry that these dishonest schools hid and continue to hide behind lies at the expense of their students.

      All the Deans and placement people who claim that they didn't know how bad it was are complete liars.

      Again, it wouldn't matter so much if they weren't milking every penny they could out of every student.

      They should have to be made to pay for this, and if it means their own house of cards falls down on them, so be it. Most of them should go to jail.

      And then there are people like the ones planning to open an new school in Indiana. When people accused him on TLS of just opening the school to make money because it wasn't needed, he decided to be offended and go away. At no point did he even bother to try to refute the comments made, because he couldn't. So he just pretended to be offended in his mid-western way and went home.

      To continue to open new schools in this environment of dropping applicants should be illegal.

      Delete
  39. When biglaw or exciting public interest jobs were a possible outcome, even a longshot outcome, you could get students in the door.

    Would-be applicants now know that the chances of getting biglaw or sierra club, even from HYS, are long odds.

    If the NFL draft went from 7 rounds to 3 rounds, it would crush a lot of dreams at Miami of Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many people get BigLaw from HYS. Few people are allowed to stay in BigLaw from HYS.

      Delete
    2. Actually, it wouldn't, since the NFL Draft operates on more of a true meritocratic system, where abilities are determined somewhat-objectively and players from anywhere have a chance to be first-round material.

      Not so in law, as the overlords decided that prestige controls over any metric of personal ability, including GPA/LSAT.

      Delete
  40. It's about time that people are starting to see the light!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sad thing for me...I can get people to pass law school (and the Bar), provided they put forth the effort. My old school knows this, a few profs and admin people want me hired to do just this. But the people in charge won't hire me to get their students through. It makes the profs look bad that a non-prof, non-practicing grad can do what they can't do.

    Not interested in a forming a business to do this. Besides, looks like the amount of possible clientele is reducing.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oh, my old school is non-ABA, CA-accredited.

    If not for the large number of new attorneys, small schools DO have a place in large states. One LS in a state like CA, TX, FL would be ridiculous by the sheer size of the state. Again, this might be mitigated by the number of existing and recent attorneys.

    ReplyDelete
  43. To those so-called "Christian" Law Schools, in particular, and to all Law Schools in general:

    'Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay them back, declares the Lord."'

    Romans 12:19, bitches. Shafted law students, rejoice - you may still have to struggle, but know that the duplicity and lies are coming back to roost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's the point of a "Christian" law school, anyway?

      I just assume that any law school that calls itself "Christian" is one of the foulest of the toilets—probably a fund-raising front for some far-right agenda. The students must be chuckleheads who spend their time praying rather than studying.

      Delete
    2. Oh, you've seen Liberty Law School?

      http://www.liberty.edu/academics/law/index.cfm?PID=4932

      "Liberty University School of Law is a law school committed to academic and professional excellence in the context of the Christian intellectual tradition.

      We are a law school where what is taught comports with history, objective reality, morality, and common sense."

      Cuz they don't at Yale.

      Delete
    3. "Christian intellectual tradition" was risible enough before they followed it up with "objective reality".

      Delete
  44. So many of the top students no longer apply to law school, and the average LSAT scores of admitted students drops. The schools either reduce their number of incoming, or accept those who really shouldn't be there and likely cannot pass the Bar.

    If they reduce the number of incoming, it will still take years to burn off the "extra" attorneys currently out there.

    If they don't reduce the number of incoming, they will have graduates who cannot pass the Bar, lowering their pass rates. Except that it's likely the respective Bars will lower their passing score. This would succeed in kicking the problem down a few more years until there are so many incompetent attorneys that ANY prestige remaining for the legal profession would be gone. Beaten to death by the last gasps of the Boomers who got theirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the schools straight up fudge their stats, which isn't out of the realm of possibilities (see Villanova and Illinois).

      Delete
  45. Joan King and Joan Wexler left the law school racket at the right time. They saw the writing on the wall back in 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Those religious schools that claim that they try to educate students to pursue social justice are the worst type. You might have thought that such schools would have modest tuition. WRONG! How can you pay back 200K+ of loans pursuing social justice if there are no jobs pursuing social justice.

    At least with Phoenix or Cooley you know you're being taken for a ride but are taking your chances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How could you pay it back even if you had one of those jobs?

      Even if such jobs existed, they wouldn't go to dumbbutts who have Jesus on the brain.

      Delete
    2. ^^^

      They don't have Jesus on the brain, they have Jesus in their heart.

      Delete
  47. Hello, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one
    and i was just

    wondering if you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you stop it, any plugin or
    anything you can advise? I get so much lately it's driving me crazy so any support is very much appreciated.
    Also visit my page : http://www.thespainforum.com/weather.php

    ReplyDelete
  48. I predict most law schools and their media shills are going to be massively promoting PAYE. This is their greatest weapon in halting the slide in applicants, and they will grabbing hold of it with both hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. Buy all the education you want, and only pay 10% of your income for 20 years.

      Frankly, this is a pretty sweet deal. If you were homeless, I don't know why you wouldn't just enroll in some school and take out loans. You'll never have to repay them and there is no quality control.

      I await stories of this type of abuse, and then the "enlightened" left telling why people are blowing it out of proportion.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, thanks Barry.

      You're not on our side whatsoever.

      Delete
  49. I hereby predict that by 2014 at least one law school will have announced its plans to close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real question is "which ABA-accredited dump will be first?"

      I would bet after this next admissions cycle that summer of 2013 we see at least five law schools off the grand list disappear through closure/merger.

      Seven schools are already below 150 on median LSAT, and most of the bottom-feeders are already admitting over 50% of their applicants, with a smaller application pool this cycle. The economics simply aren't there to support certain places, and my gut feeling that the Trustees of these places know that.

      Delete
    2. I think the first to go will be a law school attached to a larger university in an urban area. Once the university realizes the law school's real estate is worth more than it can squeeze from its student loan conduits, the university will shut it down without hesitation.

      Delete
  50. Warms the heart to know that there are deans who are experiencing the same anxieties as the normal lawyer peons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shirley, you jest.

      All them deans have warm chairs awaiting them in corner offices at Cravath or Skadden.

      Delete
    2. No, those chairs and corner offices are for the professors. The deans will all be appointed to the Supreme Court.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Shirley, you got me. I was just trying to downplay the utter significantness of Deanships so as not to upset the proles here.

      Delete
  51. Matt Bodie (at SLU) starting to get it?December 13, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/12/law-school-sustainability.html

    (Some excerpts...)

    Law school applicants and LSAT takers are both down by double-digit ... students are taking on higher and higher levels of debt and are met with a job market that is the worst in decades.

    ...Commentators at Above the Law, Inside the Law School Scam, and the New York Times lay out the numbers and ask why anyone would ever attend law school, unless ... free.

    Law schools and the law professors who help govern them need to confront these issues. However, in conversations with colleagues at other schools, I've heard about the difficulty in bringing up these concerns with fellow faculty members. ... many professors have closed ranks, and a prof who brings up these issues may seem to be casting her lot with the critics.

    ...On the other hand, speaking up in defense of legal education draws cries that one is a Pollyanna or a con artist.

    ...As a law professor, I believe that there is a lot of good in legal education, but it's tough to say that to someone who is 26, unemployed, and carrying $120,000 in debt.

    ...instead of continuing to debate whether [NB-emphasis not in Bodie's original] law schools are failing, we need to recognize the problems and deal with them constructively...

    Below I sketch out a few thoughts about law school sustainability:... ...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Irony Alert.

    I got an email from some continuing education place that is holding a seminar in (wait for it...) Las Vegas about how you can expand your law practice by counseling (wait for it...) students who are overburdened with student loans!

    It's almost too funny to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Law prof: Georgetown is giving out Dean's grants with the stipulation that recipients have a moral obligation to repay them in the future.

    If not a stipulation- definitely strongly stayed that if you take need based aid, you have a moral obligation to repay it.


    Isn't that assuming a lot? Like that people will even get jobs to repay their loans much less grant money!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol. Moral obligations to repay. And why would they do this for need based rather than merit?

      Delete
    2. A grant is not repaid; a loan is.

      What about the moral obligations of people who were born into wealth and never have had to lift a fucking finger? Go and hit their asses up for money.

      Delete
    3. Strongly stated that students have a moral obligation to repay need based aid. It truly is the worst of the scammers coming out in that statement .

      Delete
    4. Eh for them need based and merit is the same thing- they don't have the program of need based aid that Harvard does.

      The point is : why give aid at the same time as lecturing people that they have a moral obligation to pay it back?


      Wrong on so many levels.

      Delete
    5. If this is true -that GULC is now expecting need-based grants to be repaid by the students - that is a big change from 10 years ago. I had a need based grant there, it was a real grant, and no weasel language about "moral obligations" to pay it back. A grant is a grant. That seems very strange to me that they would make that kind of a change now, when they should be trying harder to attract applicaants, not less hard.

      Delete
  54. can someone tell me how to search on this blog? On the top of the screen i remember seeing a search function, but it now seems to have vanished....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh - you're right. I hadn't noticed it disappeared.

      Oh wait - check upleft corner.

      I did a quick test and it will find words in the actual blog posts, but will not find words in comments.

      For words in comments, use google restricted to the URL.

      Delete
    2. yeah - still not there...maybe its because im using google chrome? idk...weird

      Delete
    3. Chrome is all I ever use, except for certain government electronic filings not supported for which I have to use (blech) IE.

      But it is up there in the upper left - you do have to make sure the scrolligon is fully seated at the top before it will be visible.

      This version of Chrome happens to be "Version 23.0.1271.97 m".

      Delete
  55. May I point out an issue that is not addressed in the posting. There are several data points in law school applications:

    1. The number of unique candidates who take the LSAT in a given year.

    2. The number of those candidates (and those from previous years) who go on to apply to law school.

    3. The number of applicants who meet the minimum matriculation standards set by the ABA (law schools actually cannot admit anyone - you have to have a college degree in most cases.)

    4. The number of applicants offered a 0L place at a law school they chose to apply for (as in some people will not apply for out or area schools or schools below a certain rank.)

    5. The number of applicants who offered a place actually go to law school.

    At each of 1-5 the number of potential 0L's that start law school in a given year is reduced, in some instances by a lot, in other by a few. By the numbers above though it seems that 2 - the number of applicants is in this cycle at 95% of the number of 0L seats - so law schools in the broad are undersubscribed. However, in reality the t14 are almost all still oversubscribed - while a lot of lower ranked schools are probably more significantly undersubscribed than 95% - perhaps by a lot.

    Skipping past all of that though, a key issue is that we will not know the result of 5 until somewhere around August 2013 when law students pay their tuition deposits. Here is the big wrinkle - falling unemployment and a nascent economic recovery which could very likely by late summer 2013 mean that potential 0Ls better non-legal employment prospects will discourage many applicants from accepting that law school offer. If that happens late summer and fall 2013 could be very torrid for many law schools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are states where one can get into law school with as little as a couple of years of university. (Not surprisingly, Cooley happens to operate in two of those states.) Probably the decline from (2) to (3) is minimal: people who don't even meet the minimum standards aren't likely to apply.

      It's true that we won't know (5) until next August or so. But we do know that several law schools this past July were aggressively soliciting applications for the school year about to start, and even some of the high-ranking law schools were willing to receive applications even though their deadline had passed about six months earlier.

      Delete
    2. I agree, but I would point out that the state of the economy could make the offer to admitted ratio, the yield, substantially lower in fall 2013 - if the employment market is stronger than it was in 2012 there will be a fall in yield.

      Delete
  56. While the aggregate number of law students will go down next year, I wonder if s nontrivial number of Tier 1 & 2 schools will actually enroll MORE students. Here's why:

    Tier 1 & 2 law schools will have to compete fiercely for students next year, by offering "scholarships." Revenue will thus plummet. However, you can always cram a few more bodies into any space, so to offset the plummeting revenue, I bet many schools will increase enrollment by 10% or so to help cover the revenue gap cased by offering larger scholarships. (If this extra 10% is offered partial scholarships themselves, then the expansion won't necessarily hurt the school's US News stats. Or schools could dip down below their normal cutoffs and snatch up full-freight students from Tier 3/4).

    This will of course reduce the pool of students available to go to Tier 3/4 schools, which won't be able to dip down and accept more lesser-competitive applicants, since such applicants won't exist.

    The more Tier 1/2 schools that do this, the more Tier 3/4 schools that will have to close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to see private schools do that, and then I'd love to see the antitrust case that results when one of the third tiers gets litigious to stay in business.

      Delete
    2. There is no basis for an antitrust claim in the above.

      Delete
    3. Antitrust is way too fact-specific to make that assertion, and the key word in the previous was "litigious."

      Anyway, if the higher-ranked schools know it will eliminate competition for legal educational services in a given market, and they lower prices (giving out more generous scholarships) knowing it will force the other schools to fold, then yea, it's a plausible antitrust claim. Probably not a successful one, but one plausible enough that someone will ask questions.

      Consider the market for legal education services in Oklahoma. There's three law schools, one public and two private. They have a collective monopoly on legal education services in Oklahoma. As competition becomes fierce for the 155 LSAT scorer, what happens if Tulsa slashes its prices (i.e., scholarship reduced tuition) so far that it knows OKC has no way to compete on price for those students? What if I told you Tulsa has 10x the endowment OKC does?

      Note, I'm not saying it would be successful. I'm saying that law schools are run by egomaniacs who would likely file a plausible claim if others were still profiting in the business. Heck, that's why the ABA always be accrediting - someone got butthurt for being left out.

      Delete
  57. @7:44am

    There is still more work to be done, schools need to close, but yes I too am really happy with the progress this movement has made, every month I go on yahoo answers and look for questions about law school so I can answer and warn them not to go and I usually receive positive feedback from those. I also scour facebook for pre-law society pages and post comments there too, every little bit helps

    ReplyDelete
  58. Could anyone imagine how many law schools would close if the U.S. Government required minimum employment outcomes (perhaps 75% employed in at least $50k/yr jobs) before it qualified for government backed loans to students? Wow. Only the top 25 would be left standing.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Top 3 Reasons Why a Printable printable ged practice test free Practice Test Can Help Your Future

    ReplyDelete
  60. The lag effects of the legal job market. Had to happen. Small firms are feeling the pinch more than others. I know a few firms that have taken out small business loans for payroll. The numbers will drop further.

    ReplyDelete
  61. NICE BLOG!! Law is a set of categorized rules and regulations under which any society or country is governed. Thanks for sharing a nice information.
    Top MBA Colleges in India
    Best MBA Colleges in India




    ReplyDelete
  62. Awesome article! I have gradually become fan of your article and would like to suggest putting some new updates to make it more effective.
    Houston accident and personal injury lawyer

    ReplyDelete
  63. In this article I will teach you the basics of how to have fun
    learning your chords by playing out of a Fake Book. Www.
    Best Regards.

    Feel free to visit my homepage ... piano chords and notes chart

    ReplyDelete
  64. In the world of social networking, numbers say a lot about one's business. This company sends out invites from the page to innumerable people and gets the invitations accepted. One of the most riveting prospects of the position is, for individuals, groups, companies and businesses to create their own pages to elevate and support their products, brands and services.

    my web-site Buy Google Plus One Votes Cheap

    ReplyDelete
  65. there are lots of family dog web pages which provide totally free information on several unique instruction troubles.
    Bond With Your Dog Through Play. 435-896-1737
    Annabella, Utah Trainers: Chris and Julie Holt.



    My weblog :: Paw Law Dog Training Academy
    My web site :: gun dog training accessories

    ReplyDelete
  66. Moreover it helps in promoting the services of various organizations.
    An experienced service provider from the industry can anly
    assist you buy Facebook fans and likes that would be
    real and active Facebook users. It gives you info such as fan interaction and
    visitor demographics but it is limited and can't provide info on sources of traffic, keyword data and other sophisticated data.

    Feel free to visit my homepage http://socialbears.com/facebook-fans/

    ReplyDelete
  67. That's nice information i got this right off.
    that

    ReplyDelete
  68. Awesome article! I have gradually become fan of your article and would like to suggest putting some new updates to make it more effective.
    Houston car accident

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.