Friday, January 11, 2013

Update on collapsing applications to law schools

LSAC has updated its volume summary through the first week of January.  The total applicant pool remains down 22% over 2012.  42% of  applicants had applied by this point in the cycle last year, so we're still heading for 53,000 total applicants (this is a lower number than the total number of people admitted to ABA law schools in any year over the last decade).

If law schools admit the same proportion of applicants this year as last year, and the same percentage of admitted students matriculate, the six-year window for first year enrollment will look like this:

2009:  49,400

2009:  51,600

2010:  52,500

2011:  48,700

2012:  44,481

2013:  34,700

Since the latter number would put quite a few law schools out of business, we can anticipate that schools will cut admissions criteria even further, and offer even bigger discounts off advertised tuition.  These strategies have natural limitations, however. Admissions criteria have already been cut close to the bone at several dozen schools who are admitting entering classes with median LSAT scores below those of all LSAT takers, and median GPAs below the median GPA of all current college graduates.  And while people go into law because they're bad at math, cutting real tuition to stanch the bleeding from the fiscal bottom line has even more obvious limitations.

If we estimate these desperation strategies will result in an entering class of 2013 of 37,000 members, we get the following striking fiscal picture:  In the fall of 2010, law schools had enrolled 153,500 people over the course of the previous three admissions cycles.   This coming fall, they will have enrolled approximately 130,180 over the previous three cycles.  Assuming dropout rates have remained constant, that means there will be around 15.3% fewer people enrolled in ABA law schools than three years earlier.  It's difficult to extrapolate precise revenue changes from this picture: nominal tuition will have risen about 15% over that time frame, but real tuition tuition will certainly have risen less, because schools will have given out more "scholarships" in an effort to stem the collapse in enrollments.

And of course since we're dealing with units within American universities, operating costs will have almost surely increased by quite a bit more than 15%, since the cost of providing a "first-rate education" (aka administrative empire-building, or the Chemerinsky Principle) always rises faster than any other factor in these calculations.

In sum, a lot of balance sheets are going to run red.






188 comments:

  1. Great start to my morning. Thanks for posting these numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But admitting people with lower gpa's and LSAT scores provides more "access" to the profession.

    And they can still fill out a loan application.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts oh what a party we'd have.

    What part of "You losers got your asses handed to you" don't you understand? Here are the victories law schools won:

    1. IBR - basically unlimited enrollment.
    2. DOMINATED you losers in law school. Ever consider the possibility that you morons don't have jobs, because you're incompetent and stupid, and not due to anything law schools did to you?
    3. And while you keep posting nonsense about how enrollment COULD drop, it HASN'T dropped. Law schools have more than enough applications to FILL EVERY SEAT.

    Cooley's Deans are pulling 1/3 to 1/2 of A MILLION dollars each year.

    What did you losers make?

    This isn't about law school vs. anti-law school; it's about winners vs. losers. You're a bunch of losers, that's why you don't have jobs, that's why you can't get your finances together, that's why you whine on here all day. You'll always be losers. Even if all law schools went away, you'd whine about something else.

    Know your place and shut your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you get AIDS.

      Delete
    2. Hey Mr. Infinity, quiz question:

      Is 44,481 more or less than 52,500???

      Delete
    3. Put a bullet through your skull, Epic Fail.

      Delete
    4. 641: agree. Or a spasm of arrogance from the ancien regime.

      Delete
    5. "Off with their heads!"

      Delete
    6. You are correct, in part. I think the law schools have certainly "won" (some say "cheated") over the course of the past decade. But, scamblog discussions now involve how to move forward after being cheated. How do we educate the public that law school is mostly a TOTAL fraud for roughly 70% of today's applicants?

      In my opinion, holding such discussions is not whining. To me, it's about taking action.

      Delete
    7. Aww. Looks like a winner decided to whine on a blog.

      LOL

      Delete
    8. I would hardly call Mr. Infinity/Epic Fail/World Travelling Law Student a "winner" by any stretch of the imagination.

      Delete
    9. Mr. Infinity, this goes without saying but you are an idiot. Half of all law grads can't find work because they're incompetent and stupid? Where are all of these legal employers who are aching for employees, but can't find anyone competent?

      Delete
    10. I bet you read your post thinking you'd really unleashed rhetorical hell and made yourself look successful. You failed miserably on both counts. I probably make more than you do. But, that isn't the reason you're a loser - it's because you post shit like this on the Internet. You are an embarrassment.

      Have a nice weekend.

      Delete
  4. That's irrelevant; the financial aid office can fill it out for them, and show them where to sign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I was referring to the comment 'But admitting people with lower gpa's and LSAT scores provides more "access" to the profession.

      And they can still fill out a loan application.'

      They don't even need to be able to fill out the application.

      Delete
    2. And they can always use a thumbprint if they can't sign their own name.

      Delete
    3. When I took the LSAT, some people in the room were unable to write that passage (a promise not to cheat) that had to be copied out in cursive; the proctor had to show them how to form the letters. Someone told me that the same thing happened at her state's bar exam. Jesus, are we ever plumbing the depths!

      Delete
  5. There are major ethical issues with admitting people who have no chance to succeed on the bar exam. This will exert some pressure on how deep schools will dig, but it'll require other pressures to keep other schools acting ethically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There are major ethical issues with admitting people who have no chance to succeed on the bar exam. This will exert some pressure on how deep schools will dig, but it'll require other pressures to keep other schools acting ethically."

      It's clear that a large number of schools will face a choice of either admitting the bottom of the LSAT population, or closing.

      Given that choice, it's a no-brainer to do the first, while hoping that things will change soon/sending out resumes/hoping that enough other schools do the same that the bar exams will be 'revised'.

      Delete
    2. Ethics already get little more than lip service. The LSAC has been trying to drum up interest among students in community colleges (why not go into law rather than hairdressing or HVAC?) and those applying to business school. Next it will go after the lower primates.

      Some law schools may become glorified three-year bar-review cram courses. Their graduates still won't find work, but at least more of them will have the (ahem) distinction of being lawyers.

      Delete
    3. "It's clear that a large number of schools will face a choice of either admitting the bottom of the LSAT population, or closing."

      I think that some schools are now just holding on, hoping that other schools will close first. Given those reduced admission numbers, something has to give.

      The first school closing will likely set off a shockwave - who wants to attend a low-ranked school if there is a chance that it will go out of business soon?

      However, rather than flat-out closing, we will probably have a few "mergers", "consolidations", and "elimination of satellite campuses" first.

      Delete
    4. How many satellite campuses are there? Cooley has multiple campuses, but do other law schools?

      Anyway, I agree that prospective students should assess the risk that their law school will close before they graduate.

      Delete
    5. The bottom end is already trying to snuff out the LSAT to avoid the reality of taking 143 LSAT kids.

      Frankly, I don't think Big Academia cares one iota about ethical issues. They can admit people and get three more years of revenue before the disastrous bar results come back.

      That's six substandard class years worth of tuition they can grab before the ABA can even do a damn thing. Why stop? There's an iceberg ahead, yeah, but right now the money is flowing.

      The parallel trend, of course, will be deans golden parachuting it. The 3-year lag gives them time to get out before being blamed. Matasar (NYLS) already found his lifeboat and Hasl (TJLS) is retiring. Won't be shocked to see the brass at Cooley cash in, either.

      Delete
  6. I'm still wondering how they'll get 37,000 matriculants for this fall. I'm thinking law school may make sense for about 5,000 of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because all 37k are part of that group of 5k.

      Delete
    2. Precisely..."Less Competition!" declare Snowflakes.

      Delete
  7. The academic powers that be will not change. They will just continue to skirt around the problem. Schools will just hike up their tuition and fees each year and continue to enroll a large number of transfers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That works only for the schools that are destinations for transfers.

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

    ReplyDelete
  9. At one tier one law school, dropout rates for 1L and 2L are up. The overall number is more than double any previous year. Still a small number but a significant change. Most of the withdrawals are due to debt/job concerns and not the usual family emergency/health/I made the wrong choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that most of them are leaving because of debt or employment?

      Delete
  10. Saddest part. The smart money, high LSAT scores or those that would have had high LSAT scores, are wising up and the dumb money keeps rushing in.

    Don't let the standard slip, there are still plenty of people to dissuade.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The dropout rate won't remain constant. It's a major, major topic of conversation among 1Ls and even some 2Ls. There isn't as much stigma attached to dropping out anymore. Obviously, it will still be difficult to tell mom and pop, but I think more people will drop out than have ever done it before. Everyone knows dropping out is smart for the bottom half (and probably a bit higher too) at my school (t30).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very interesting point. Since law schools stopped flunking people out almost all attrition in recent years has consisted of transfers, who are of course zero sum in terms of overall law school enrollment (although the transfer market is very good for high ranked schools and very bad for low ranked ones).

      Any real increase in the actual non-academic dropout rate would have a big effect on law school finances.

      Delete
    2. I dropped out of UT after 1L last year.

      Delete
    3. Why is it very bad for low ranked schools? Presumably most of the people transferring are the top performers who have schollies. I realize there's a loss of revenue at the margins which isn't good but it doesn't seem terrible either.

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure you can presume that, and even if they have a 1/2 scholly or a 3/4, it's still a loss of revenue. Moreover, you're also losing a student who will more likely 1) be employed, 2) pass the bar.

      Delete
    5. They also lose someone who just might make it as a lawyer—and who could have been a poster child for the law school. A few weeks ago I discussed that Appalachian Something-or-Other Law School, whose Web site touted its most prominent graduates—only one or two of whom were even employed as lawyers. Ridiculously but tellingly, the skule even boasted of someone whose forefathers for the past 170-odd years had all been lawyers … but he turned out not to be a lawyer himself. Maybe the applicants are too dumb to see the implications for those that can't claim a 170-year lawyerly pedigree.

      Delete
    6. I attend a TTTT, and a lot of people who transferred out last year didn't seem to be the types to have schollies.

      Schools aren't going to care about class rank as much now, since the schools that TTT/TTTT students are transferring to are going to be losing a bunch of their students anyways.

      Delete
    7. What would reduce the stigma even more is if other graduate programs started allowing you to transfer in law school credits. "Come do our Masters in Political Science/Legal Studies/Legal History and we'll count the credits you finished at law school!".

      Delete
    8. Bored JD,
      Concur re: #2. On #1, more likely yes but still a low % chance of that happening w/r/t TTTs.
      8:07

      Delete
  12. The LSAC data is interesting

    Taking 2011 you see an pattern as follows:

    Applications 78,800
    Admitted (offered) 55,800
    Matriculated 45,600
    1st Year Enrolment 48,700

    The interesting difference is between the number "admitted" and those that actually matriculated and were 1Ls - only about 82% of those offered a slot in 1L in 2011 actually went to law school. Thus even if law schools were to offer all 53,000 applicants in this cycle a 1L slot, they would likely get only about 43,000 1Ls

    The numbers for 2012 are not detailed yet, but there were 68,000 applications to get to 44,500 odd 1Ls. The yield though was probably not good because the waiving of application fees probably meant that many applicants were less committed to going to law school than in 2011. This year could also see low yields because the economy seem to be recovering.

    Ninety law schools reported a 10% drop in admitted first years for 2012 - another drop this year and schools will start to have to close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mac: The numbers are broken down here:

      http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/12/endgame.html

      Delete
    2. Thanks -

      I suspect the admitted to starting law school figures will be worse this cycle than last. The two reasons are the growing economic recovery which makes it likely that many candidates will have a job alternative to law school - plus law schools increasingly desperate efforts to get application, including waiving application fees, which mean that more applicant than usual will be uncommitted - not serious about going to law school.

      By late summer 2013 we are going to start hearing the first sounds of law schools closing.

      Delete
    3. If a student is admitted to more than 1 law school, does that count as just 1 "admission" or does that count as multiple "admissions" in these numbers?

      Delete
    4. I have been puzzling over that question - it was not actually clear how the law schools come up with the total number of applicants. It may be that because the LSAT scores are directly verified from the LSAC they can count how many LSAT takers' scores are asked for. On the other hand there could be duplication.

      Delete
  13. At most schools, 1Ls now have their first semester grades and are starting their second semester. Are students setting realistic goals - i.e. if I can't beat the curve this semester i'll drop out? Not a law student, but I was not too long ago, and I know that people must be talking. What is being said?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Still not low enough. You need well under the 20,000 mark to keep all the people with law degrees who get starting jobs employed throughout their careers. Even with classes of 20,000, the pyramidal structure of the legal job market in terms of experience will put at least half and maybe even as many as 80% of the lawyers who get first year jobs out of business before they reach the 40 year career mark. There are very very few jobs for experienced lawyers in the second half of their careers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really need to post more often Old Guy and perhaps even on more forums like ATL so you get your message out. I would not let it dissuade you that your comment has nothing to do with the OP, just let it out.

      Delete
    2. I'm Old Guy, and I did not post the message above.

      Delete
    3. This is not old guy. Look at all the recruiters on Laterlink advertised on AbovetheLaw, all formerly from ___ BigLawfirm. How many recruiters can the legal job market add each year? Not an unlimited number. Long term many of these people will starve trying to be legal recruiters.

      You may think these are Old Guys/ Girls. They are in their 20s or 30s. They are examples of what is happening because there are not enough legal jobs for associates, judicial clerks, shorter term government workers to go to long term.

      It guess worse when people totally age out of being a non-partner lawyer, by 15 years or more from graduation. Many more lawyers forced into solo practice where they cannot make a living.

      Delete
    4. The problem is that you post this shit without even attempting to back it up. I realize there's not a lot of data out there but there's some and if you're going to make these comments over and over and over at least put in a minimal amount of effort to back them up.

      Delete
    5. Where I live, in NY, the Bureau of Labor statistics published median lawyer salaries - about $165,000 for the state. A big percentage of the high paying jobs are in large law firms. Large law firms are very much age pyramids, many young people, few old people. I have worked in large law firms for years and looked up the ages of the lawyers regularly, so I ought to know. In house, you have fewer very young lawyers, but also not that many old ones - the jobs tend not to last that long. There are also not that many in house jobs. A lot of the high paying jobs in NY go to recent grads who are working in large law firms.

      The problem is that when you take away larger firms and take away in house, there are some jobs, but not tons. The number of almost 25,000 first year jobs in a profession of 500,000 lawyers should give you a hint that younger lawyers are a disproportionately high percentage of all legal jobs.

      I can look at the alumni directories at 3 of the top 4 schools and tell you that the statistics are not what you would expect. Yes, the information in those directories is proprietary.

      Delete
    6. 11:41 some of my friends are brilliant, hard working minorities from the top schools, including Harvard and Stanford Law and they average a little over age 40. They were partners at major law firms and GCs and then lost those jobs. Some recovered in administrative positions, but some are still struggling and not working. The ones who are working do not have job security. It could all end tonight. The ones who are working spent several years each in unemployment. So much for being a brilliant respected minority from Harvard or Stanford or another top school. The problem is there are too many of them and the legal job market is too skewed in favor of recent grads. All of these people had trouble finding real permanent long term legal work and some have not found that work yet.

      Delete
    7. 12:00,
      Actually it's 728,200 employed as lawyers. Agree re: most in large firms being under 40. Disagree regarding in house jobs being temporary. The amount of work they go through to hire someone they usually keep them. Obviously if there's a RIF or a merger people will be cut but that's how it is in any job where you're a cost center.

      Delete
    8. I also don't think the math is quite that simple (25K first year jobs compared to 728K total). That 25K includes a lot of shit jobs that really shouldn't be counted at all (solos, contract/temp work) where you're not really gaining any marketable experience so you're back to competing against an ever increasing pool of people for those jobs.
      11:41

      Delete
    9. My understanding is that 228,000 or so are solos.

      The numbers of total law grads, total lawyers and the numbers of first years both who get and do not get jobs should scare many 0Ls who do any type of due diligence from applying.

      The numbers of lawyers do not work unless a lot of lawyers who formerly had jobs end up as solos. A 0L would have to think carefully about whether he or she wants to be a solo.

      It is not only the first year employment stats for lawyers, but also the 900,000 law grads who are either unemployed or solos that are scaring away even the top students with the top LSATs if they realize that is the actual number.

      The last few years, with the plight of there being so many lawyers and so few jobs does not lead to job security in house. On the contrary, some major corporations that formerly had longer tenure of lawyers because it was hard to hire are now seeing that a lawyer is totally fungible and can be replaced in a split second. If the manager has a sorority/ fraternity mentality with a big emphasis on office politics and fit, the manager's group becomes a revolving door.

      It is something to worry about if you are a 0L- where are you going to be able to work longer term and what are your chances of working longer term?

      Delete
    10. The Harvard Law stats posted on their website spoke about in the neighborhood of 172,000 lawyers in firms outside the top 250 firms. There is not a huge number of mid-sized firms at least in NY where I live. The entry ticket to these firms for an experienced lawyer is a large book of business. Not a situation where a single business producer will support experienced lawyers who work for him/ her as long as the worker lawyers do a good job. Another reason for a 0L not to apply Also the figure that only 10% of Harvard and 7% of other top schools makes partner at the top 250 firms leads to the question - Where is everyone else? Do they have a job? What kind of job and at what salary?

      After all the outright deception by law schools, the smart 0Ls are rightly very hesitant about going to law school.

      Delete
    11. If only 10% of Harvard is a partner in the top 250 firms and these firms represent over 20% of all practicing lawyers, that makes only 50% of the class employed as lawyers if the distribution works the same way for other legal jobs. The figures at Yale and other top schools would be 7% partners in the top 250 firms and 35% of the class if the numbers are distributed similarly among other legal jobs, not counting solos.

      So where is the other 65% of the class at Yale and other top law schools? Did they all become successful businessmen, Congressmen, senators, or state legistlators, or maybe President of the United States?

      If I were a 0L today doing the diligence, I might think that law schools were hiding something by not publishing employment statistics beyond 9 months.

      Delete
    12. 1:44,
      Why you would you assume the distribution works the same way? There's no evidence to that effect and common sense suggests otherwise.

      Delete
    13. ^Just to clarify, I mean with respect to the distribution for the % of grads that are partner in biglaw being the same for other lawyer jobs.

      Delete
    14. The question is where is everybody if about 113,000 are in BigLaw and there are 500,000 lawyers in the aggregate? Some law grads -900,000 to be more exact - do not have real jobs. A 0L who is smart and sees that statistic may have second thoughts about enrolling. Only 10% making partner in the top 250 law firms at Harvard and 7% at top schools is a pretty daunting statistic. Where is everybody else working?

      Delete
    15. The 500,000 number also includes doc review and temp work, so the number of real full-time permanent legal jobs is less than 500,000. If the number of doc review and temp jobs is in the six figures, the portion of the class that does not make partner at a BigLawFirm is in trouble - there are few other jobs to go to.

      Delete
  15. The increasing number of effectively open-admissions law schools may be dangerous for America. At my upper mid-range school, we see occasional applications from people with LSATs less than about 135. The truth is that many can barely write a coherent paragraph.

    Law schools have no business sending these people into the profession. Unless these students fail to graduate or fail the bar exam, the bar is likely to be quite dumbed-down 20 years from now. Unsophisticated clients will be at their peril. Denying admission in the first place is less cruel than failing students and graduates later on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Idiocracy" shall come to pass.

      Delete
    2. Hell, already a large number of lawyers cannot write a coherent paragraph.

      Delete
  16. Do these 1L figures include LLM folks or is that an entirely separate number? And does an LLM do for you if it's not tax and not prestigious enough to get you some foot in the door for a teaching job?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not including LLMs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This fantastic news truly is a great start to the day.

    ReplyDelete
  19. MacK: "I suspect the admitted to starting law school figures will be worse this cycle than last. The two reasons are the growing economic recovery which makes it likely that many candidates will have a job alternative to law school - plus law schools increasingly desperate efforts to get application, including waiving application fees, which mean that more applicant than usual will be uncommitted - not serious about going to law school. "

    What's probably also happening is that the word is getting out that the majority of students at the majority of schools simply should not go. When you've taken the LSAT, applied to some schools, and have been admitted to a couple, the next step is to actually sign on the line for your first year of $30-$50K. I imagine that a growing number of potential students are reconsidering things at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another question. If law schools totally "drop their trousers" on admission credentials how are they going to cope once these kids show up in law school. If they really cannot write or pass exams what will the schools do? What do they do when the kids start flunking? If they kick them out they do not get the 2L and 3L tuition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good question. I now work for a the TTTT equivalent of an undergrad / MA program. This is exactly what is happening here -- everyone gets passed no matter what, usually with a B. It's pretty funny seeing the frustration of the faculty, as they clearly are not oblivious to this predicament, but have to comply with it regardless out of financial interest and a "fuck it" attitude.

      Delete
    2. The curve is arranged so that no one fails out.

      Delete
    3. Grades can be set so that 10% of the class get an A, 10% get a C-, and 80% fall in between.

      My TTTT calls it a "grade normalization." What it means is that you can do absolutely horrible on an exam and if everyone else is even worse you can get an A.

      Delete
    4. Conversely, if you spot all the issues and so does everyone else, you can get a C-.

      Delete
    5. The whole practice is set up on the assumption that cohorts are equal in overall strength. So grade normalization is a protection against grade inflation and an assurance that an A one year would be an A the next, and so on. BigLaw hiring is done on the same principle, that the cream of the class this year will be as good as any other, so we can set hiring cyclically instead of being like any other business and just posting an opening.

      I suspect you'll see a cataclysmic shift in these practices once people figure out that the Class of 2010 was two to three times as deep intellectually as the Class of 2015. I suspect there will be situations were BigLaw associates won't be able to cut it and the partners will cry foul and rethink their ability to just grab the cream of the crop.

      I also suspect law schools will figure out that the constant grading curve harms their 2L enrollment figures, and that the constant grading curve has lost all meaning when the A from the Class of 2015 wouldn't have gotten a B is the Class of 2010. A related problem is that law school exams don't meaningfully distinguish from one test-taker to the next, but that's another issue.

      The point is that I suspect feedback from BigLaw about the "top 10%" not being what it used to and/or market realities will cause schools to abandon the curve and look for alternatives.

      The most likely one, IMO, is to drop the curve and go to undergrad-style grading for the 1L courses. This would de-emphasize 1L and force BigLaw to look for other traits than relying on the school's grading system. Grade inflation would result to keep the kids encouraged and improve their job prospects ('he had a 3.7 GPA!').

      The second thing I think you'll see law schools do is seriously push certification, e.g., make it mandatory for every graduate to get a certificate in a sub-field, like business law or tax law or family law. Then, regardless of GPA/class rank, the student could advertise their GPA in a "practice-ready" area. I suspect they'll open these courses up the 2nd part of 1L to get the kids committed to a specialty area, because if you did poorly in Property, that's okay, you're going to be "majoring" in criminal law, and in your criminal law courses, you'll have a 3.8, even if your overall class rank is 20th percentile.

      At this point, it's all about how creative schools can be in shuffling the deck chairs to meet student and employer demand. Given what we've seen, I'm confident they have the ability to impress us.

      Delete
    6. Except that Biglaw hiring has shrunk considerably in the past few years so they can get the top 5% or whatever instead of the top 10%.

      Delete
    7. ^^ Not a bad idea re: certification in a practice area. Unlike some people on this blog that want to make entry into the profession easier, I think entry should be more difficult. Then again, I'm biased - I'm already an attorney. When I hear people talking about moving legal education toward a European model (Bachelor's level law degree), I cringe. That can only mean MORE lawyers. Require a certain amount of work in the field prior to entry, e.g., working as a paralegal for a few years. I've heard that MBA schools typically require some number of years of experience in corporate America before they will even consider you for admission. Then again, I could be misinformed. In any event, this would be a step in the right direction - higher barriers to entry + make it harder = fewer people applying to law school = fewer attorney. Oh - and stop these LLM diploma mills and if you ever get in a position to hire someone, do not under any circumstances hire a foreign trained LLM. Put a stop to this madness. The law school are basically selling out the American student by admitting all these fuzzy feriners. Say no to this traitorous behavior.

      Delete
    8. The European model limits the number of people who can become lawyers. Large numbers of students are kicked out of law school after the first—or even the fourth or fifth—year of study, and they don't get back in. Sounds like a great idea to me.

      Delete
    9. ^ And what's your basis for this assertion ?

      Delete
    10. Another responder here. I favor the European model too, of undergrad law majors. That doesn't have to increase the number of lawyers through. Remember, Germany and the uk have fewer lawyers than the uSA.

      Some thoughts. 1) actually learning law in ug as a major or one of two majors may turn off a lot of ppl from being lawyers. Then without the stigma of a jd, those ppl can go into no law careers. 2) some ppl, like me, just wanted to learn law. I'm a 0L . I have a phd. I'd like a legal education but it's too expensive, long, and stigmatizing. I wish it were a ug major, then I coudlve been done with it by now. 3) a hard bar exam. Can still keep lawyer numbers low. It should. 4) there's educational reps beyond the ug degree in many euro places. In Britain, you gotta take a 1 yr "practice course" and then be an apprentice for 1-2. Yrs. in Germany you gotta do a 2-3 yr referendar internship in cts, prosec, law offices. And they have 2 bar exams, both hard.


      Lastly I'd just say it'd be nice for ug programs to diffuse legal knowledge in society without producing a lot of extra lawyers.

      Sorry for bad typing, it's the ipad

      Delete
  21. Could ANY non-tenured faculty member, law school or not, actually fail a student given the absurd tuition the student brings in with the government-guaranteed loans? The school Administration would view that as flushing tens of thousands of dollars down the toilet. Just give the kid a B or C and "keep on keepin'on".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now and then someone does get an F in a single course. But no one fails out of the whole law school.

      Reportedly the dean at my élite law school encouraged one poorly performing student several years ago to reconsider whether law school was the place for her. One student in several years.

      Delete
    2. This isn't true; or, at least, it wasn't when I was a VAP several years ago. People did fail and were asked to leave. For schools near the bottom, bar passage rates are a concern. Whether that's true any more, I have no idea.

      Delete
  22. Some of this year's applicants will have been lured in by the various advertisements, thinly disguised as journalism, that extol the great "opportunity" to get into a higher-ranked school—possibly even with a discount ("scholarship"). Some of them, however, will be disappointed with the offers that they get. Rather than settling for a lower-ranked law school, they may reject all offers of admission—even those that they might have accepted just a year or two ago.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The pressure needs to be on:

    1) Tell prospective students that they can negotiate scholarships and what the best way to do this is. When I was applying, I was "thankful" to receive a large scholarship. I never considered the notion of trying to ask a law school for more money. Now, students regularly do this, even applying to schools they don't want to attend in order to have more leverage. Tell them to set a "total debt goal" and refuse to accept any offers above that. Of course you have to be willing to walk away in order to negotiate effectively.

    This is another way to make "Special Snowflake Syndrome" work against the law schools. Show students scholarship statistics, and let them ask why they aren't special enough to receive the same scholarships, and instead have to subsidize the tuition of other students.

    2) Continue to tell students that it is okay to drop out of law school. It's the responsible decision and actually shows more maturity than continuing to pour money into a rapidly decreasing investment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The lower admission statistics just means that there are more opportunities for minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups to go to law school and then become wealthy lawyers!

    It's A Good Thing!

    ""Because only one thing counts in this life-- get them to sign on the line which is dotted!"

    "Blake", Dean, Glengarry Glen Ross Law School

    ReplyDelete
  25. All law schools have to do is this . . . start athletic departments. Seriously. That's what all the small liberal arts colleges are doing. Then the kids who want to keep playing after college will go to law school.

    But really, why don't they start offering one year degrees to CPAs and doctors and stock brokers etc. One year and you have a specialty degree of law in (fill in blank) that will help you get employed in your (saturated) field here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is truly the beginning of the end for the practice of law as we know it in the U.S.:

    http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/closing_act_ethics_20_20_proposals_crack_open_the_door_for_foreign_lawyers/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said above, it's time for those in hiring positions to say NO F'in Way to these Foreign LLM students. Let's say I wanted to work in good 'ole Paris (assuming my French was decent, which it is not). Do you really think I, as an American attorney, would be given such carte blanche to just traipse into the French legal system? Screw these Internationalists. And do not, under any circumstances hire any foreigners.

      Delete
  27. "Law schools must reduce their J.D. class sizes. They should do so immediately and permanently."

    Frank H. Wu, Chancellor & Dean of UC Hastings College of the Law.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-h-wu/shrinking-law-schools_b_1934539.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but Wu is a fucking snake in the grass. Just four years ago he wrote a dipshit article, "Why Law School Is for Everyone" (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/applying/articles/2009/04/22/why-law-school-is-for-everyone). Now he's portraying himself as an honest and principled reformer. In fact, he's just trying desperately to keep the ship from sinking.

      Delete
  28. At my TTTT I know at least four law professors that have been fired this year. Of course the dean is not going to admit it is because of falling enrollment, but I think the dean is looking to fire professors for any reason at all. One of the professors had 10+ years experience and was tenured. Nobody is safe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "One of the professors had 10+ years experience and was tenured. Nobody is safe."

      That's OK - as well all know, all law school professors can immediately become partners at Vault 100 law firms if they lose their jobs.

      Delete
    2. At my élite law school, a professor of well over forty years' standing said that tenure doesn't mean much: he has an endowed chair, yet they could still fire his ass.

      Delete
    3. 9:26, if the fired lawprofs are adjuncts, I don't give a shit.

      Delete
    4. I am curious what school has fired tenured professors? I have not heard this has happened anywhere yet.

      Delete
  29. "9:26, if the fired lawprofs are adjuncts, I don't give a shit."

    Adjuncts don't have tenure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why I don't give a shit. 9:26 didn't make that clear except for one.

      Delete
  30. I graduated in May '11. I still have no job as a lawyer, despite searching everywhere, all the time!

    **I CANNOT SAY THIS ANY CLEARER: IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE TOP 40% OF YOUR CLASS AFTER FIRST SEMESTER OF LAW SCHOOL....DROP OUT NOW AND SAVE YOUR LIFE! DON'T MAKE MY MISTAKE.

    Sorry to yell, but sometimes yelling is effective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, you mean top 10% and on the main law review. Nobody cares about moot court or the international law journal.

      Delete
    2. Top 10% and membership in the flagship law review aren't good enough.

      Delete
    3. @10:18 - Come to think of it, you are correct. I know graduates from University of New Hampshire School of Law who were notes or comments editors on the flagship law review and could only find positions as doc review monkeys or paralegals. Talk about a waste of human potential. If I had majored in business administration instead of liberal arts, I could have found a job upon graduating from college in 2004. It wouldn't be with a Fortune 500, but I could have landed a respectable $35,000 per year salary with benefits at a local company.

      Delete
    4. And I'm in the same situation. Some people here, however, dismiss me as Old Guy.

      Delete
  31. I can't believe people aren't still jumping at the Most Versatile Degree Ever(c).

    I'm broke and unemployed. My alma mater wants me to give them money because their statistics say I'm employed. I would give money to anyone who could make them go out business faster.

    We could completely shut every law school in the country for 5 years and not notice anything different with regards to the price of legal services. That's how severely over-saturated this market is.

    This wouldn't be an issue if the degree were actually versatile, and if it were, people might still go just to accomplish something and have an advanced degree.

    But it isn't - in fact, it's a toxic stain - and every time a dean repeats the malicious lie that JDs are valued outside of attorney positions, I think Satan gets to sharpen his pitchfork. In conjunction with the bogus employment numbers, it's the biggest lie the deans have propagated.

    But of course, it's just "puffery" and the Best Courts Ever(c) have no interest in finding fraudulent conduct when a wealthy, well-dressed, well-credentialed asshole knowingly lies to naive customers.

    The second biggest myth propagated by the Silvertongues is that people have lucrative 40-year careers in the law. I can't tell you how many older, previously-successful lawyers I've met who have seen their practices fade over the last decade. Small firms are about as volatile as restaurants. One client gets bought out and suddenly you're 40 and holding a bag of nothing. Think bigger firms will hire you for an associate position? Oh, Lord, no. You're just stuck.

    The deans lie when they promote the idea of a stable profession. By 40, you have to either have a government/corporate job or a good book of business or a very good niche skill or you're done. I hear deans propagating this "boomer retirement" myth. BS. Boomers have been bleeding out of law for fifteen years already. You see any pool of vacant clients?

    It appears transparency about the BS has started to actually affect law school applications, such that they're going below what the law schools projected. On that end, kudos to the media and bloggers who started the dialogue to spread awareness about this profession and its myths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this post. Boomers have been big victims of the scam. The reasons are the law school scam, the debt and the ABA's form of non-regulation which makes no effort to protect 40 year careers for a good percentage of lawyers. In a profession that was adequately regulated, the 40 year old losing a major client could get another job. Associate positions would not be reserved for only the recent graduates. There would be jobs to go to. The way it is now, even with a top law degree, many lawyers are facing real unemployment, no income and poor prospects of getting any type of legal work. You do not like to think a top 14 or T6 or T3 law degree is going to give you the option of washing dishes or cleaning house if you want to eat. There is no place to turn in law if you lose a job or a major client. There is no demand for your services. No one wants to hire you, and this goes on for years, not a few months.

      Delete
    2. If you actually have a legal job and are one of the winners of the profession, you may be able to move to a non-legal job within your company or with a client. That being said, most lawyers are trying to move because they do not have and cannot get legal jobs, and if you do not have a job, your law degree from the best school (read double Harvard or double Yale) is probably not going to be a help in getting you a nonlegal job. In fact every fourth tier BA who has experience in the exact same job will beat your Harvard/ Yale ass for a non-legal jobs where you have some relevant experience but have not done the exact same job.

      Delete
    3. Being Harvard or Yale does not prevent you from being fired in this profession. A lot of it is about fit and that means being the most social person in the world. Harvard and Yale may get you legal jobs when you are very inexperienced, but they do not make you fit into the club once you mature. It is like trying to join an exclusive fraternity or sorority in the 1950s, very few people get in and if you do not have the goods to get in, there is nothing, no matter how much education you have and how hard you work, to fit in so you can hold on to your legal job.

      Delete
    4. You can thank the ABA for these phenomena. A part-time group of volunteers, many of whom are conflicted law profs at low ranked schools, should not be running a profession that affects that makes or in this case breaks the lives of 1.4 million law grads. You need a full time body that is addressing the problems and has the legal authority to drastically cut enrollment, eliminate the degree of up or out that goes on today, where most lawyers find themselves out of work, cut the cost of going to law school and force employers to hire an age diverse legal workforce, so lawyers do have prospects of careers and not just shorter term jobs.

      Delete
    5. "I can't tell you how many older, previously-successful lawyers I've met who have seen their practices fade over the last decade."

      This is so very true it's sad.

      As for the ABA, I would love to have a national alternative to them led by solos and small firm lawyers. Any unemployed JD want to get this started?

      Delete
  32. I think this just means law schools will reduce their class sizes, even if this means they will take in less tuition money. In a few years I predict there will be some level of a bounce back in law school admissions, so with the increase in tuition money the law schools will be ok financially.

    It's nice to see this is finally self-correcting. Kudos to LawProf for publicizing the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So, how long before law schools start to shut down?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm betting that the first closure will be announced no later than 2014.

      Delete
    2. Summer 2014 we will either have 20% reduced class size overall for all law schools or we will have multiple schools closing down.

      Delete
  34. Law schools right now have a tremendous opportunity for upward mobility on the USNews rankings, but only if they slaughter the fatted calf and significantly cut their costs, especially the salary costs that represent the overwhelming majority of the costs of running a law school.

    If a law school were able to effectively cut costs, it could effectively reduce class size without sacrificing the coveted USNews entering class metrics. By reducing class size, they can maintain their current positioning in the LSAT/GPA game, by far the most important criteria influencing the rankings.

    Thus, while the continued collapse of applicants forces law schools with bloated budgets to lower their admissions standards in order to fill their classes and pay their enormous payroll costs, a slimmer, leaner law school could catapult up the rankings by decreasing their class size.

    If I were a dean attempting to implement this, note that I wouldn't necessarily advocate for a law school cutting its nominal tuition price as it reduces its operating expenses. A high nominal tuition price allows for very effective price discrimination between admitted students, which maximizes the benefit of each student to the law school's bottom lines: income via tuition, and also USNews metrics. The law school must continue to play this price discrimination game if values its USNews ranking, but it doesn't have to keep spending mountains of money on its professors. This strategy I believe is what Hastings is implementing in order to move up the rankings.

    Publius Lex

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately whatever they would make up in selectivity they would lose in academic reputation rankings. These rankings are static year to year because nothing ever changes, but the first school to slash faculty salaries or increase workload is going to get absolutely savaged. We need to lobby USNWR to just get rid of the category entirely, it's irrelevant to job prospects.

      Delete
    2. "Reputation" is a patently stupid criterion. Who can possibly speak to the reputation of each of the 200-odd law schools in the US? Especially for law schools affiliated with a university, irrelevant factors affect reputation. ("Sure, I've heard of Bumblefuck U's law school—or at least of Bumblefuck U's football team.")

      I'd love to smuggle Princeton's non-existent law school onto the list and see what its "reputation" was.

      Delete
  35. @10:10--The top 100 law schools (and some others) will be OK financially. They're not going anywhere.

    The toilet schools, on the other hand, will have to close shot. It simply will not be worth keeping them open if they can't generate a profit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so sure that the schools in the so-called top 100 will survive. Maybe some of them will close their doors as well. Brooklyn? Hofstra? Catholic? Pepperdine? Seton Hall?

      Delete
    2. Yeah, the top 50 law schools will survive, and those law schools attached to large state universities with big endowments. Its so many of the smaller private schools that will shut down. Some private schools are surprising well funded though and will stick around despite being toilets. I graduated from DU (University of Denver) and I'm aware of their balance sheets to a certain extent. They aren't going anywhere, despite the fact that the school is sub-par.

      Delete
  36. "In sum, a lot of balance sheets are going to run red."

    ....with the blood of law school deans!

    That would make the perfect tagline to a lawl skool horror movie, like "Night of the Living Dead 3Ls" or "Motherfuckest: the Cooley Hacksaw Massacre."

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Exorcist V: This Time It's Persoanl"

    "The power of Shyster compels you!"

    "The power of Shyster compels you!"

    "The power of Shyster compels you!"

    "The power of Shyster compels you!"

    ReplyDelete
  38. It will be very interesting to see which schools close and which do not.

    Brooklyn, Catholic and Seton Hall--I don't think these three will go anywhere. They'll do what they have to, but they still have relatively good reputations.

    Hofstra? Turo? New York Law School? I'm not so sure about these.

    In Philly, Drexel & Villanova may close, but I don't think Temple is going anywhere.

    Wydner (which holds classes in a former motel) will shut down for sure.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  39. 9:49 and 9:58 AM (Craig) --sorry to hear this has happened. At what point do you just decide to stop looking for a lawyer job and move on? I would think that after maybe a year of being unable to find a job in the field I would just cut my losses, move on, and try to make it in some other field (where an employer would actually want to pay me to work).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been trying to play both hands the last year with two different resumes: one for lawyer jobs and one for non-lawyer jobs.

      Employers in other fields don't seem to buy "I have no preference whether I practice law or not" or "After maturing a bit, I've realized private practice may not be for me." It's hard even getting an interview with HR people who've been trained to think "JD = lawyer = better job than this." I've applied to basically everything that's steady and full-time.

      I left a generic office/research job to attend school, thinking that with a JD, making 13/hr at age 23 would be the low point of my career. Boy, was I stupid.

      Even with the economy improving (sorta), I'm not even sure I could get my pre-law school job back because of the JD. Despite my experience, I've been turned down for similar jobs that I could have easily gotten right before attending law school.

      No joke, kids, aside from being a felon, it's the most toxic thing you can put on your resume, as it turns otherwise-qualified people to "oh, why is he applying here? he's a LAWYER." If you write a lengthy cover letter explaining why law is a dead end, they'll think you're a whiner and a failure. My life would be better if I spent 7 years getting a PhD in art history or meso-American culture instead of the 3 I spent in law school.

      Dean Fuckwad doesn't get this, and probably never will.

      Delete
    2. Drop the JD from your résumé and fill the gap with a carefully crafted claim of professional experience—perhaps self-employment.

      Delete
    3. I've debated that. I've also debated telling them I was in and out of rehab for three years, but that I finally found Jesus and sobriety and - shazam - new me would like to work again. Of course, I'd then have to carry on a ruse of Christian teetotalism and never ever mention the license to law in my pocket. Maybe I could tell them I was addicted to meth, instead?

      Plus, google is not my friend in this case. The law school has lists with my name on them, and those crap skip-tracing sites link my old city with my law school city and my name/age.

      Lying isn't as easy as it used to be.

      Delete
    4. I am not 9:49 or 9:58 but I think the answer may depend on whether one ever worked as a lawyer. If you have never worked as a lawyer, I would look in one or more areas outside of law as much as I looked in law after a year of unemployment from passing the bar, and maybe a lot sooner.

      For people who were at BigLaw and got laid off, including partners, recovery can be a more long term proposition. I know people who got back in after periods of 2 or 3 years. Some people set up solo practices and got back to Biglaw after longer periods like 5 years as a solo. I think being laid off, especially as a very senior associate, partner or counsel in a big firm and it taking long to get back is pretty common today.

      Delete
    5. Craig, The good news is that once you get the first non-law job, the JD taint will be forgotten. When you look from that job, no one will care that you got a JD or it may be an interesting thing that someone interviewing you notes in passing but could not care less about. Once you are working, the last job failure disappears, at least for lawyers.

      Delete
    6. Do not lie on your resume. It will get you fired from the next job. Rehab on the other hand is private medical information and no one is entitled to learn about that.

      Delete
    7. I was talking to someone, not in business or anything, about lawyers struggling to make a living and the response was a polite laugh of disbelief. Too many people, even HR types apparently, still automatically assume law degree = golden ticket, and if you can't make a good living as a lawyer its because there's something seriously wrong with you.

      You guys need to keep pushing the reality of having a law degree into the public eye. Hopefully soon the meme of the struggling, underemployed lawyer becomes as accepted as that of the wealthy, glamorous lawyer. And the public will come to just accept that for most people a law degree is a junk degree. When you see characters in sitcoms etc. equating a law degree to a degree in philosophy or political science or basketweaving* then half the battle would have been won.

      * I don't know why people keep dissing basketweaving, it would be a more practical skill than half of what of what is taught in colleges nowadays.

      Delete
    8. Like the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa goes to law school and ends up unemployed and in the hospital with no health insurance.

      Delete
    9. I (Old Guy) am the one who invoked the trope of underwater basketweaving. It was commonly used in the sixties and seventies to refer to a course or degree that is vapid or pointless—the sort of thing that is pursued by idiots who have no business attending university.

      Delete
  40. I think it would be useful to have a discussion of the problems that law schools face in cutting costs. I have been over this (and provoked the hell out of prawfsblawg (I think I'm banned)) by laying out the problem. Basically, cutting faculty pay is potentially constructive dismissal allowing a professor to claim the benefits of the tenure rules as a contract - and damages. In addition a number of schools have a reverse seniority system for layoffs, i.e., most junior and cheapest profs go first.

    Although the prawfs on prawfsblog lack the practical experience to see the issue - it is extraordinarily difficult for law schools to cut payroll costs - and that is the bulk of their spending. However, what is a straightforward solution is to just close the whole law school.

    In any event, once a law school goes into the red - it is hard to see how it will get back to black - let alone contributing 20-40% of its tuition to the main school - any disinterested observer will say the same thing, enrolment will continue to decline, tuition cannot go up, laying off faculty means cutting cheap professors and keeping expensive. The urge to close the school will be very strong.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The toilet schools, on the other hand, will have to close shop. It simply will not be worth keeping them open if they can't generate a profit."

    Closure seems really drastic.

    I would bet that there is a lot of investment income and some endowment income that will keep any school at any level afloat for a few more years at least.

    All they need do is scale down. Cut down on class size and faculty etc.

    But closure? Nah. Not unless a major media story finally convinced the public that LS is a scam in this day and age, and the result was no one applying to LS at all, which, as Mr. Infinity dismally points out, is not happening and the opposite is in fact true.

    So the lemmings will still be lemmings and the ABA will continue to look the other way and the bought off politicians will keep the SL funds available and etc and the scam will live on.



    ReplyDelete
  42. Major media story? Yahoo news, for example, listed a 4th tier law degree as one of several useless degrees. I think the "scam" of law school is starting to get some notice.

    But true, there will always be lemmings running to law schools. It's just that there will be fewer of them; not enough to keep the toilets open.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Media is a bit behind on these things.

      A second-tier degree is often useless. Limiting it to 4th tier gives the illusion the second tier (reputable places like Boston U., GWU, U. of Florida, U. of Illinois, etc.) are still worth it. Often, they're not.

      Delete
    2. That's why those shouldn't be called second-tier institutions. Really, they're at or near the top of the fourth tier.

      Delete
  43. ARE DONATIONS ALSO COLLAPSING??? I have to think that this is a small, but not insignificant part of law school budgets.

    The fundraising letters that I get from my law school sound increasingly desperate. The dean says something like "our giving rate is much lower than similarly ranked and situated schools." Maybe that should tell him something. Grads are struggling and/or dislike the professors and administration. Both are true for me. I donate to my UG state school because I know they literally could not do everything that they do with state funding alone. I have a really hard time donating to my law school, which is "non-profit" in name only.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone at my school who asks me for money will get an earful of profanity.

      Delete
  44. Steve Diamond just can't let sleeping dogs lie.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/01/diamond-law-school.html#comments

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tried to comment, but then i saw that they are moderated and won't show up until cleared. and in my comment i may have called diamond a "pin-headed pseudo-intellectual." my bad.

      by the way, to follow up, i had three conversations with 1Ls at my school today regarding dropping out. it's happening. shit is going down.

      Delete
    2. ^ No way you're off in crazyland!

      Delete
    3. "The university has entered into a social contract of sorts with society as a whole: academics accept lower salaries than can typically be found in the private sector in return for a commitment to train the next generation of our society"

      Ha. Well he did qualify it with "typically". Do you think he will be a "typical" law professor, by his definition, if he got laid off and move straight into that $200k BigLaw job?

      Delete
  45. As ever, the comments (after about 50 or so) start to run off into crazyland.

    No law schools will close this year. Nor next year. Nor the year after. Nor ever. Some may change their business model, but they won't be closing anytime soon.

    I predict that we'll see flying cars before we see law schools closing in numbers that make a significant difference to the oversupply of lawyers.

    These comments start to sound like "when I win the lottery I'm going to buy a mansion and a Ferrari", then the next person comes along and says something like "yeah and I'm going to bang supermodels every night", then someone else comes along and says something like "me too, but then I'm going to buy a space rocket and go up into space."

    Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We have no evidence that any law schools are even close to closing, nor even planning on it. A few law schools are making superficial gestures to cut class sizes and perhaps reinforce their doors against the storm, but most don't really care. Why? Because they are all clueless? Probably not. Probably because they know their business models and financials and relationship with the entire university community far better than a bunch of unemployed law grads on a blog comments section.

    If you think that any university would let its law school close, you're mad. Imagine the shame, the loss of prestige, the ridicule, the widespread talk that its degrees (across the board) are worthless. Universities will prop up any "failing" law schools with all of their financial power, and there's plenty of that to go around, easily enough to cover the costs of a bloated law school until it can get its ducks in a row. No university administrator will let his or her law school disappear. Some may change a little, but none will close.

    Law schools closing in 2014. Yeah, right!

    Sometimes these comments are like the invading army cheering and claiming victory when still outside the castle walls and having fired just one arrow. The battle has started, but we're a long way from any law schools closing. And anyone who thinks that this will end with swarthes of law school closing down and shamed greedy professors begging for crumbs on the streets will be grossly disappointed.

    If your end game is law schools closing, then give up now - the law schools have already won that battle.

    Are there other noble, positive changes that can be made, like student loan reform, transparency, curriculum changes, class size changes. How about we focus on those instead of drifting off into law school closing la la land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two words, pal: dental schools. They closed, schools endured the shame and moved on. Law schools are going to close if no one shows up for class or if no one enrolled passes the bar. It's not a matter of if, but when. Unless there's an explosion in demand for legal services or for jobs that require the unique educational prep that American law schools offer, 50 schools will shutter within 8 years. At this rate, the class of 2018 might have 25,000 matriculants.

      Delete
    2. A handful of dental schools closed in the 1980s. And there's two differences between law schools and dental schools:

      1: dental schools teach dentistry, which compared to law is a niche subject. There's no retooling a dental school, whereas law schools have huge flexibility in how they integrate with other university departments (e.g. undergrad law classes, working with the business school, becoming more of a liberal arts department etc.)

      2: dental schools are a money hog, like medical schools. Equipment, clinical facilities etc. Fewer students will force them to close, obviously. But law schools have classrooms that can be used for any subject, by any professor, and by any student if need be, low operating costs (if professors take a pay cut, which they will instead of getting fired.) A dental school is a dental school. A law school is a block of classrooms and library space.

      Just putting law professor salaries in line with those of other tenured professors outside law would reduce costs by half, so there is HUGE room for flexibility to keep law schools open when there are fewer students.

      So two words back at ya, pal, if you think that 50 schools will shutter in 8 years.

      Dream on.

      (You might get five closings, from the shitty for-profit end of the rankings, and I'd be surprised at even that.)

      Delete
    3. Tulane shuttered its School of Engineering 4 years ago and New Orleans actually needs more engineers.

      Delete
    4. 4:54 - a rambling post filled with a bunch of stupid analogies. Now who could this be??

      Delete
    5. "No law schools will close this year. Nor next year. Nor the year after. Nor ever."

      I will wager you that by Dec. 31, 2014, three (3) law schools currently accredited by the ABA will have plans to completely exit the market by the 2017-2018 school year.

      Delete
    6. I don't know for certain that a law school will close soon, but do I know for certain that such a contingency is being contemplated at the law school I work at. Don't shoot me, I'm not a prof, just an IT guy ... who sometimes sees docs that the less than tech savvy administrators/trustees save to non-private backup drives.

      The IT guy

      Delete
    7. For eff's sake, colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have closed.

      Some six-year-old for-profit law school will be belly up before its tin anniversary.

      Delete
    8. If it closes before its tin anniversary, it won't have a pot to piss in.

      Delete
  46. Agreed, there is a massive over-supply of lawyers, and being able to actually practice law is a fool's dream for many/most law school graduates.

    However, I think the jury is still out on whether a law degree is of any use in non-law jobs.

    The reason I say this is because I'm old enough to remember (and was actually working) when the economy was still good, back in 2002 to 2006.

    Jobs were much more like a "revolving door" back then. An employer would hire you, and not give so much emphasis on if you'd last too long.

    By contrast, these days, you basically cling onto any job you can get, because there will not be another. Employers are much, much more careful of who they hire.

    I think a better economy will greatly help the issue of law school graduates getting jobs not practicing law.

    But, unfortunately, Obama got re-elected, so an economy that is actually "good" is still a long ways off. (sorry about the political commentary, but I had to say it)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right because things would be so much better if Romney/Ryan was elected instead, especially for the non-rich.

      Delete
    2. We'd all have jobs from the trickle-down blah blah blah.

      Delete
  47. balance sheets will run red, but most likely schools will not close, just cut back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^^^ THIS ^^^

      All this talk of fifty schools closing is dumb, and shows that many of us still have our heads in the clouds instead of reality.

      Delete
    2. "many of us.."

      STFU Leiter.

      Delete
  48. I think Ogopogo and the Loch Ness Monster are the same creature and he just swims under the earth to go between Canada and Scotland.

    And the Lost City of Atlantis was made by Aliens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I think you are JD Painter.

      This page has some telltale signs of you being here (e.g. ranting anonymous multiposts about Epic Fail / World Traveler / Infinity who you are obsessed about.)

      Delete
  49. I just discovered something that...if true...makes me very disappointed in LP and DJM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What...They are law professors?

      They should be tarred and feathered!

      Delete
    2. A very disappointing flaw in their methodology.

      Delete
    3. Let's see. You're hiding the ball. You're attempting to undermine Campos and Merritt. You think you've discovered a secret "flaw" that only your gigantic brain could have come up with. You must be a law professor. So whatever you say has the taint of self-interest. Go ahead, then. Tell us why Campos and Merritt aren't credible, and (hilariously) why you are.

      Delete
    4. The flaw: Campos doesn't account for the bitter tears, boo boos, uncomfortable questions, and the existential crises of lamenting law school administrators.

      What a meanie!

      Delete
    5. I remember one law professor troll on this blog who tried to pretend s/he was a scamblogger who had seen the light (scambloggers are all losers ((obviously)) and was "moving on." S/he actually said something like "law schools closing is great unless you or someone who depends on you works for a law school."

      There is nothing better than watching law schools struggle to stay alive, while also watching these "academics" troll and spew their hatred, and make their inane arguments over and over and over again. Happy flailing, you cockroaches.

      Delete
    6. Well if you've discovered a flaw, let's hear it...

      Delete
  50. "balance sheets will run red, but most likely schools will not close, just cut back."

    It's not about how many schools there are, it's about how many graduates there are (and how much they paid for the degree).

    If schools cut back on class sizes across the board, and that alone gets us down to a reasonable number of graduates, then it doesn't really matter if no schools are actually forced to close.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I could not resist commenting. Very well written!
    Feel free to visit my blog ; Best Buy Shares Today

    ReplyDelete
  52. Stupid parasite. Go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Stupid parasite. Go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @8:25PM Oh noes! You've been undermined! Better post that nastygram twice!

    U mad bro?

    ReplyDelete
  55. No, never once did Painter mention Epic Fail and his multiple other identities and or handles if you will and so to speak and what have you and if I may be so bold as to suggest that it seems likely that all indications are possibly it was other people, and youse all will just have to take my word on that.

    But seriously, hey you know I get gooooze pimples because Nostrildamius predicted way back in the olden days about the fall of the law school MAFIA cartel. It's all right there in the runic heroglyphic inscriptions of the Lasceaux caves in his prophesizing plain as day.

    And they called him Nostrildamius because he had a nose bigger than Copernicus.

    Charley

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  57. What would you call a law prof who has published a set of flash cards for Admin. Law, and whose final exam consists entirely of the material from the flash cards, verbatim, thus making it incumbent upon his students to purchase said flash cards, thereby enriching said professor?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I got this site from my buddy who told me concerning this site and at the moment this time I am browsing this website and reading very informative
    content here.

    Take a look at my web blog - 13th birthday party ideas

    ReplyDelete
  59. Later on, among the continued practice ending up will continue to be auxiliary accustomed burning
    the various chords. Then you can quickly and easily figure out how to play any chord in any key on the spot, whether you've memorized that specific chord or not. The last type of chords we will discuss in this article are spread voicings.

    Check out my website: piano chords apologize by one republic

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is easy and doesn't cost the clicker money but the problem is getting these individuals together. If it is a new product, a gift, the introduction of a new group or even the details of the products and services, Facebook provides an easy field of advertising. Buy facebook fans or buy twitter followers is a way to increase the frequency of customer visits to your site and in other way, to bring more potential customers to your business.

    Visit my homepage :: get Google Plus One Votes

    ReplyDelete
  61. The oil of oregano, an effective herb is also a natural cure, with a high content of carvacol in it being very effective if taken internally every day.
    A man can develop a yeast infection in various ways.
    Finding the best vaginal yeast infection remedy that will work for you will end all the
    disturbing symptoms of the infection improving the quality
    of your life.

    My web page; recurrent Yeast infection after hysterectomy

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well with the internet the world has suddenly become the customer base
    of many businesses, especially Facebook. An
    experienced service provider from the industry can anly assist
    you buy Facebook fans and likes that would be real
    and active Facebook users. The more Facebook fans you can make,
    the more followers you can get, which eventually add to your growing clientele base.


    My web site get facebook fans

    ReplyDelete
  63. In looking for the proper collar for the pets, things that
    you need to consider are safety, the training process as well as your convenience.

    You should teach your dog and talk to him during training sessions.
    --LINK REMOVED agility dog training austin

    ReplyDelete

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