UPDATE: Well, somebody's ears over at LSAC must have been burning, because they have republished their chart with formatting that I think we can all agree with. Although, I am glad to keep a record of LSAC's prior charting for "instructive purposes."
 |
| OTLSS Prediction Based Upon LSAC Graphical Data |
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it..."
Yep, that's 1984-esque Doublethink for you. Or LSAC graphical applicant data, take your pick.
As we all know, application rates have been declining for several years now, many times in the double-digit-percentage range. Although it appears to be showing signs of slowing, the rate of decline has not bottomed out yet. One would not know this by looking at LSAC's graphical representation, however, and if anything, one would be inclined to think that there is a modest uptick in some cases. This is especially confusing in that the most recent year-over-year decline has been more than negligable, yet the 2014 and 2015 lines are right on top of each other.
To verify whether or not this was actually the case, I took an old copies of the LSAC chart I for 2012 to 2014 that I had lying around (yes, I know). With an oversized print out and pencil and paper in hand, I, an army of one, gentle readers, interpolated my own data for 2012 to 2014. I then added the "accurate" data that has been numerically published by LSAC for this cycle. Feast your eyes on the results:
As we all know, application rates have been declining for several years now, many times in the double-digit-percentage range. Although it appears to be showing signs of slowing, the rate of decline has not bottomed out yet. One would not know this by looking at LSAC's graphical representation, however, and if anything, one would be inclined to think that there is a modest uptick in some cases. This is especially confusing in that the most recent year-over-year decline has been more than negligable, yet the 2014 and 2015 lines are right on top of each other.
To verify whether or not this was actually the case, I took an old copies of the LSAC chart I for 2012 to 2014 that I had lying around (yes, I know). With an oversized print out and pencil and paper in hand, I, an army of one, gentle readers, interpolated my own data for 2012 to 2014. I then added the "accurate" data that has been numerically published by LSAC for this cycle. Feast your eyes on the results:
Wait, what? The 2015 line is not on the 2014 line at all, but 5-10% percent below the 2014 line. Just as LSAC has stated verbally.
I can hear the apologists already. "C'mon, DNT, we all know it was YOU who fudged the data by interpolating the results manually. If you actually used the hard data, you would see that LSAC is being completely forthcoming. It's the scambloggers, not LSAC, that can't overcome their own bias, because they so desperately want the decline to stay true."
Luckily, Matt Leichter has been doing this very thing on our collective behalf, so you don't have to take my estimate for it.
Wow, there is that pesky 5-10% decline again, and my chart looks pretty much like his (only do take Matt's chart over mine, for the aforementioned reasons). Maybe if I adjust the scale on my own chart...
Ah, there it is! Right on top of each other! See, everybody, the decline has stopped, just like LSAC has been charting all along! In fact, there appears to have been no meaninful decline for the past two-and-a-half years! Happy times for the Law School Cartel are right around the corner!
Oh, well. People tell themselves whatever they need to, if for no other reason than to ease the pain of their own cognitive dissonance. Maybe LSAC should talk to their buddies at NALP and pay some JD-Advantage candidates to train them on the nuances of Excel on a go-forward basis. Because, as we all know, "lawyers are bad at math."
I can hear the apologists already. "C'mon, DNT, we all know it was YOU who fudged the data by interpolating the results manually. If you actually used the hard data, you would see that LSAC is being completely forthcoming. It's the scambloggers, not LSAC, that can't overcome their own bias, because they so desperately want the decline to stay true."
Luckily, Matt Leichter has been doing this very thing on our collective behalf, so you don't have to take my estimate for it.
Wow, there is that pesky 5-10% decline again, and my chart looks pretty much like his (only do take Matt's chart over mine, for the aforementioned reasons). Maybe if I adjust the scale on my own chart...
Ah, there it is! Right on top of each other! See, everybody, the decline has stopped, just like LSAC has been charting all along! In fact, there appears to have been no meaninful decline for the past two-and-a-half years! Happy times for the Law School Cartel are right around the corner!
Oh, well. People tell themselves whatever they need to, if for no other reason than to ease the pain of their own cognitive dissonance. Maybe LSAC should talk to their buddies at NALP and pay some JD-Advantage candidates to train them on the nuances of Excel on a go-forward basis. Because, as we all know, "lawyers are bad at math."
Et tu, LSAC? Is there no honesty?
ReplyDeleteDon't the better schools want the applications in by February the latest?
ReplyDeleteI can see a toilet in the bottom 50 taking applications well into August, but a reasonably good law school (top 100) should have an earlier cut-off.
I'm predicting the 2015 line will start to dip as we get into March and April.
Check out the admissions webpages of Cooley and the Infilaw schools. They don't even state deadlines. At Indiana Tech, you can apply as late as July 31 for the Sept. start this year.
DeleteThe $40,000 impulse buy.
Just a couple of years ago, someone at Paul Campos's site Inside the Law School Scam contacted a bunch of "top" law schools in the middle of the summer and found that many were still accepting applications, though their formal deadline had passed many months earlier.
DeleteThe Cooleys of the law-school scam are even more desperate: some of them send out offers of "scholarships" to people who haven't even shown any interest in attending.
As for Indiana Tech, someone applied to the inaugural class the day before classes started. The dean's response (quoted in an interview with the media)? "We'll take him." How very selective.
Old Guy
I remember that anecdote, Old Guy. The really funny thing was that the dean--it must have been Alexander back then--didn't realize how foolish it made him look. Running a law school is all about maximizing revenue while strictly maintaining the pretense of selectivity. After an outburst of honesty like that, it's no wonder the trustees preferred a clown like Pond Cummings as his replacement.
DeleteOur own Charles Cooper wrote this about Alexander's rag-slime band:
Deletehttp://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dean-peter-alexander-just-doesnt-care.html
He aptly observed that Alexander appeared to regard the students as an inconvenience. And plenty of other scamsters must have viewed them in the same light. Why can't the little bastards (as that odious Pless characterized the LSAT-boosting shills at the Univershitty of Illinois) just drop off their money and leave? How inconvenient that we have to teach them, or at least pretend to do so!
Old Guy
@Old Guy -- that's all academics.
DeleteSomething like 50% of college graduates get jobs that don't require a college degree. Academics know it, so they basically treat their students like trash.
Not even forty years ago, an able-bodied man (and sometimes a woman) could still get a very respectable and well-paying blue-collar job with only a high-school diploma, or even without. The income from that job would support a family with a house and a car.
DeleteToday a professional degree may well be worthless—but still cost a quarter of a million dollars.
Old Guy
Law is still a losing game, even for many in the T14 schools.
ReplyDeleteIncreases in applications and class sizes at higher ranked law schools are still the norm. Healthy and sometimes huge, depending on the school, numbers of transfers are ballooning the class sizes at higher ranked law schools.
Scam clerkships/ big law/ small law jobs for young people and huge job losses after that. These jobs are scams because they mostly last only a few years at best. Still no place to go for many experienced lawyers with top records.
The oversupply of lawyers who are going to lose jobs and need to find new jobs is in no way abating- even from the best schools.
@11:17 -- I think your comments are very wise, and speak to a fundamental problem with law in general. The career duration of a lawyer is what? 10 years at most?
ReplyDeleteLet's presume you actually get a job practicing law after law school, meaning you're one of the "lucky" 50% to 60% of law school graduates. These "lucky" graduates will only practice law for a limited time period before they "age out."
So when you hit 40 years old, your options (save for a few staff attorneys) are as follows: (1) make partner; (2) go solo; (3) go in-house; (4) go public sector; or (5) go into academia. See the problem? Unless you're already in the public sector, the other options are extremely difficult.
Back when the economy was better AND the market was less saturated with JDs, these lawyers could transition into non-law or "JD advantage" jobs. But now, that's not an option either.
Bottom line: even if you have some initial success as a new lawyer, it's likely not to last long term.
2:33 I agree with your observations, and wish the message was out there, The time to find out about the short nature of many legal careers is BEFORE you enroll.
DeleteThat is what Elie Mystal calls the information gap. Got me to law school, when the real information about employment outcomes would have kept me away.
Just wish it would not happen to anyone else - college students who can do just about anything with their lives relying on bad data in deciding to go to law school. Data on first year employment outcomes is bad data for students who attend top law schools - because the data reflects a much rosier employment set of outcomes than the reality several years down the road.
To add to your description, many in house positions are short-lived. Most do not last a career, and once the in house jobs is gone, the lawyer may or may not get another job. There are a variety of reasons for the short tenure of many in house lawyers, but one important reason is surely an unlimited pool of ultra-qualified replacements, and very few in house jobs as compared to the numbers of applicants for in house jobs.
There was a time when attorneys couldn't advertise. No billboards, buses, benches, television commercials, restaurant placemats, etc. The phone book showed a name, address and of course, a phone number...no faces, no bragging, no front or back covers, no spine, no inserts, no two-page ads, no previous clients' testimonials and no gimmickry. It was an even playing field which the Supreme Court of the United States changed in the Bates case so now it's Showtime. If you have the money, you could play too.
DeleteAbsolutely that was the case with law firms not permitted to advertise. The same went for accounting firms, they were not permitted to advertise either. In fact, no professional firm should be permitted to advertise because it not only provides an even playing field, but those professions should regulate themselves well enough to ensure ONLY the best provide the services. Professional service firms like law, accounting, medicine, engineering and architecture provide very serious work to their clients thus it should be well-regulated. Although accounting firms are permitted to now advertise, can anyone recall an accounting firm advertising in the same silly, unprofessional manner as law firms do?
DeleteCoast Guard Lawyer here. We average 200 applications for every civilian attorney opening and 12 applicants for every JAG or military vacancy. The public sector is simply not an option for anyone. Really like and agree with 11:17 and 2:33's comments as many of the attorneys who apply to us have literally been run out of firms or corporations. Sad, so very sad.
Delete@7:12 -- 2:33 here
DeleteIt seems to me that public sector is something you do right after law school, or you simply can't get into it. Unless, of course, you're friends with a sufficiently powerful politician who can get you in. Thoughts?
Generally, the real sad part is that we lawyers are not professionals anymore. We're revenue generating commodities who can easily be discarded. In short, we are a dime a dozen ..... err, more like a dime for 12 dozen.
I often tell young attorneys to beware that yearly 2.5% increase in salary due to inflation. After 3 or so years, it's simply cheaper to hire a more recent law school graduate who will do the same mindless work for 7.5% less the price.
@1:27 - long time public sector lawyer here. I never worked in private practice. Most of the people in my office have long-term public sector experience. When we post a job, the majority of applicants (and hires) come from the AG/DA or other public sector offices.
Delete2:33 and 7:52. Coastie here. Agree with both of you. DHS and other agencies for whom I worked (Army, Navy) like attorneys from the public sector and yes, you should demonstrate a passion or calling for public service. Sounds hokey . . . no?? But I have sat on selection panels and we always ask that question. I thank God and whatever powers that be for job security, a pension, and a 150K salary.
DeleteMakes you wonder who they're trying to fool with that phony graph. Applicants would actually be more likely to apply if they thought it was easier to get in with fewer competitors. Any dean who relied on that graph would look like a fool at the end of the cycle when his numbers came up short. So there's no practical reason for LSAC to lie, in effect, about the real numbers.
ReplyDeleteThat's yet another clue that we're dealing with some pathological liars at LSAC.
The pathetic shill Brian Leiter was reduced to crowing that applications are "down 5% from last year." Apparently he thinks there's hope the decrease could be even less by the end of the cycle.
ReplyDeleteHere's the real news, Professor Leiter: a decrease is still a decrease. Legal faculty hiring is down by far more than 5%, and will stay depressed for years. Your favorite fawning students, assuming there are any left, are extremely unlikely to obtain tenured positions at even the worst law schools. The fantasy is likely to continue, but its total departure from reality has already occurred.
I keep hearing about this Professor Leiter. Is he really that bad?
DeleteAny more details?
DeleteCheck out Leiter's threats to sue philosophy professors for defamation, even when their posts don't mention him by name. Surely a distinguished professor like yourself can do his own research when the details are all over the Internet. What on earth did you think that fat summer research stipend was for, if not to do your own research?
DeleteNEWS ALERT...Indiana Tech Toilet of Law is offering a part time degree scam er ahem I mean option.
ReplyDeleteCan one of you pull off a few sheets of two-ply and deal with this story?
Everyone, the writing is on the wall! Now that the elites have seen the grass roots movement to lower applicants to law school is finally succeeding, they are rapidly implementing what is known as the LLLT program. (Perhaps the acronym is a subtle jab at the LTTT lower tier 3 law school designation)? This LLLT program effectively allows people with ASSOCIATES DEGREES TO BECOME ATTORNEYS. They will be permitted to give legal advice to everyone in their area of expertise, they will be permitted to fill out and draft all applicable forms, and will be able to counsel their clients regarding how to speak with and present their case before the judge. This is effectively sidelining all middle class attorneys. The elite banking and insurance cartels are doing this for two reason: (1) by reducing the number of qualified and intelligent Plaintiff's attorneys, lawsuits and large settlements against banks and insurers will diminish significantly. (2) By creating such a dearth of work in the area of Plaintiff's litigation, the Defense litigation market will be flooded with new arrivals all competing for the same piece of the smaller pie. This will allow insurance defense attorney hourly rates to plummet. This is the latest in the scam the elites are foisting upon every day normal Plaintiff's attorneys and WE MUST STAND UP TO THIS INJUSTICE! We did not go to law school for three years and endure all of our trials and tribulations to be dealt this wretched and disrespectful hand. The American Bar association recently published this article promoting LLLT practice, and the logic, of course, is horrifically flawed. If the market will be flooding with LLLTs that do not even require attorney supervision, there will be no reason or ability to pay in house LLLTs to deliver services on behalf of your firm in a profitable fashion. The entire thing is a scam designed to further destroy the every-day legal practitioner! This is their latest attempt to circumvent the plummeting law school applicants that we have finally achieved as a result of our concerted effort in getting the word out that law school was a complete scam. What is the solution of the elite? Bypass lawschools completely. These people will not even need a prerequisite bachelor's degree! It is unbelievable and we must speak out before it is too late. There is no such thing as a free lunch people.
ReplyDeleteThe elite banking and insurance don't care about this measure. This is purely an initiative by law schools to get more asses on seats and tuition money flowing in. Asses on seats and tuition incoming. That is all they care about. And the ABA is just a rubber stamp for whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteThis is an important message to all attorneys who have struggled to pass the bar and go through three years of law schools to be part of what was meant to be a dignified profession: the writing is on the wall for most attorneys with the new LLLT program that has been implemented by the state of Washington and will soon spread to every state in the country. Do not doubt that this is the ultimate goal of the elites coming to full realization. Now that the elites have seen the grass roots movement to lower applicants to law school against their wishes is finally succeeding, in a panic they are rapidly implementing what is known as the LLLT program (perhaps their acronym is a subtle jab at the LTTT lower tier 3 law school designation)? This LLLT program effectively allows people with ASSOCIATES DEGREES TO BECOME ATTORNEYS. They will be permitted to give legal advice to everyone in their area of expertise without attorney supervision (they can have their own practices), they will be permitted to fill out and draft all applicable forms, and they will be able to counsel their clients regarding how to speak with and present their case before the judge. This is effectively sidelining all middle class attorneys. The elite banking and insurance cartels are doing this for two reasons: (1) by reducing the number of qualified and intelligent plaintiffs' attorneys, lawsuits and large settlements against banks and insurers will diminish significantly; and (2) by creating such a dearth of work in the area of plaintiffs' litigation, the defense litigation market will be flooded with new arrivals all competing for the same piece of the smaller pie. This will allow insurance defense attorney hourly rates to plummet. Everyone, you must understand that the writing is on the wall. The elites were shocked at the challenge to their power in the blogosphere. This is the latest scam the elites are foisting upon every day normal plaintiffs' attorneys and WE MUST STAND UP TO THIS INJUSTICE! We did not go to law school for three years and endure all of our trials and tribulations to be dealt this wretched and disrespectful hand, and be told to "accept" the new reality while the bankers continue to rake in whatever they please!
ReplyDelete