 |
| Sigh. Some people never learn. |
Hot off the presses, friends-of-the-scam-movement. Given the latest issuance of emboldened malarkey from LSAC that more-or-less seems to argue that "LSAT scores don't matter," I figured that they had to have some "good news" up their sleeve that they were eagerly awaiting to trumpet - otherwise, they would not make such outlandish claims (or, at least I think they wouldn't).
Overall, I suppose this was bound to happen, even given LSAC's inability to accurately chart their own data at times. The decline had been slowing rather than accelerating, and this result, while not great for the scam-blog movement, is not terrible either. Given past history, one can anticipate that there will be approximately 56,000 applicants this year as last year. Hardly a "bumper crop" of student loan conduits compared to prior years in any event.
Get ready for the Dean Allards of the world, however, and prepare yourself now, mentally, for the victory lap from the Law School Cartel. Things are on the upswing! Happy days are here again! Just look at that million-dollar degree! Being a lawyer is a sound choice for "defending liberty" and "pursuing justice," and don't forget all the lucrative JD-Advantage opportunities! Woo hoo!
We however, know the truth - the market is still glutted, multi-decade practitioners warn against entering the field, and law schools are buying-out law prof faculty. The price for a JD is still outrageous. Bar passage rates still decline due to loosening standards. The NCBE continues to decry the situation, and the ABA continues to say nothing.
Stand firm this cycle, friends. While we graduates and practitioners don't have any legal duty to warn, we are here precisely because of the fact that if we don't, who will? Certainly not the Cartel. And while we can't convince everyone to look at other alternatives, there have been those who listen and those who continue to listen. Let's do our part to prevent as many students as possible from making a mistake that will affect them for decades to come, despite the rosy prognostications of people who aren't, well, y'know, actual practicing lawyers.
As of 11/27/15, there are 70,863 2016 applications submitted by 13,881 applicants for the 2016–2017 academic year. Applicants are up 0.6% and applications are down 4.1% from 2015–2016."
ReplyDeleteThe above is from the LSAC website. The excellent news is applications are down 4%. I think we can infer that OLs are getting more selective and will not go to law school (hopefully) unless they get into a top law school. If applicants are up .6% but applications are down 4% I doubt that any law school not in the T14 is reaping the benefit of the applicant increase.
That drop in applications is excellent news indeed. However, we may be looking at either an anomaly or a sharp reversal here. As recently as October 30, Brian Leiter, the morally depraved scammeister at Chicago, was crowing on his blog that LSAT takers in September and October were up 7.4% compared to last year.
Delete12:40 here. The number of LCs (Loan Conduits) taking the LSAT are irrelevant since schools often will only look at the highest score. I took the LSAT one time and never thought of retaking it. Now, it seems that all OLs take the LSAT multiple times to increase their chances of getting a scholarship.
DeleteNothing really counts except an ass in the seat. The ABA 2015 report should come out in the next week or so. Here is the ABA 2014 report,
http://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2014/12/aba_section_of_legal.html
All the "scam blogging" activities will count for naught unless (a) either the federal dollars dry up or (b) the endless supply of Lemmings is cut off.
ReplyDelete(a) will never happen as the schools can simply keep lowering admissions standards. Schools are already admitting vast numbers of drooling idiots who can't even tie their own shoes. And what's going to happen when these Lemmings graduate and can't pass the bar? Nothing. They're "intelligent, sophisticated consumers" who assumed the risk they would have trouble finding a job.
And nobody in a position of power is going to stop the federal dollars from drying up. When these loans fail to be paid off, what happens? Who gets stuck with the bill? Isn't it the US Taxpayer? Nobody in government cares enough to actually do anything and all the major stakeholders are too invested in (and extract rent) from the current system. The elites in charge at the ABA, LSAC, and the administration at most of the law schools milked you and are done with you. You are like a $5 hooker to them.
Worst case scenario is maybe an Indiana Tech or two goes under. But that's it. Schools might have to make do with a little less tuition dollars. But you know what will happen? All it means is more classes taught by Toileteer adjunct professors, maybe one less assistant to the dean, and maybe a Lawprof somewhere buys their Volvo with one or two fewer options.
All the scambloggers have done is educated those who maybe were on the fence already. You have no hope of reaching the outright cretins (by my estimate, 50,000) attending their first semester. They're too stupid for you to reach.
As painful as it is, 12:53 is right. And I can see it now-the hopeless adjuncts are sold as "experienced practitioners" now teaching law school. Sorry to say, it's hopeless, although I take an even dimmer view. The limitless supply of applicants is largely comprised by debt ridden grads with worthless liberal arts degrees. So what's another ton of debt, when the college debt isn't going to get paid either? It's less embarrassing to say you're going to law school than to admit that you're working at The GAP for $10/hour, no benefits. The way grad school loans are structured, you can live pretty well for three years, and if you were basically unemployable before, what difference does 150K more of loans matter? None of the debt is going to get paid, period.
DeleteWill this negatively affect the country? Yes, but not for a decade or more; we're Americans-nobody plans that far ahead. It appears the scam will never die.
Over the past few years, a few law skules have effectively closed down. I'm thinking in particular of Hamline, which "merged" with William Mitchell to form Mitchell|Hamline (though the "merged" law school now seems to be using the name William Mitchell), and a campus of the Cooley chain. Other law schools are teetering on the brink. Indiana Tech desperately dropped tuition to zero and still drew in only 15 students. Vermont, Charleston, Thomas Jefferson—all are close to collapse.
DeleteAnd now our message is being echoed in the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
We're not really trying to reach lemmings directly; after all, as you said, they're too blind and unthinking for that. But our efforts are having a broader effect.
I don't believe that "the schools can simply keep lowering admissions standards". Those standards are rapidly approaching the vanishing point. People with scores in the 120s get into "prestigious" fourth-tier institutions such as the Univershitty of Texas. People with scores in the mid-140s get "merit"-based "scholarships". If standards drop much farther, the law skules will start to admit farm animals.
Old Guy, I'm 12:53. I am sorry to disagree with you because I broadly respect your opinions.
DeleteHowever, I think it is not too much to expect the lower tier schools to start admitting actual non-humans. After all, a chimp or an orangutan can, more or less, sign their name.
All this would take is a concerted effort by animal law activists and recent JD Advantage grads (you know who you are!) to make this happen.
Sentient non-human animals deserve the right to a JD!
Good point, 12:53. All those deft animal-law activists should exercise their vaunted global leadership to demand the admission of dolphins into law school. Cetaceans of the world, unite!
DeleteHell, dolphins might even drive up the quality of the class at some law skules.
Hey, @8:37 and Old Guy:
DeleteI turn your attention to a scholarshit article published by a law student who would later become an adjunct at Nando's famous Third Tier Drake Law School and Toilet Cleaning Training Centre, entitled "Could a Chimpanzee or Bonobo Take the Stand?" If they can testify in Federal Court, then why can't they get into law school?
https://www.animallaw.info/article/could-chimpanzee-or-bonobo-take-stand
Its not only federal dollars, but folks stuck in mediocre management positions in retail, food and hospitality earning around 35-50K. Think Walmart or a district manager for Wendy's. These folks do NOT earn overtime and work crazy hours around the clock. They work to the bone 60-80 hours per week, weekends and holidays included. Many graduated with BA degrees in exercise physiology or English lit. from Eastern Iowa River Central University or DeVry with a 2.8 GPA. They look at the nearly open admissions standards of many ranked and unranked law schools and apply. They will be accepted. Even if they earn 30-40K as a solo, because they can't find a job, it is still better than what they had. They at least can set their own schedule and not work beyond 50 hours per week. And to boot, they are now a LAWYER. Prestige Baby.
ReplyDeleteEarning $30k as a solo is no easy task, particularly for a recent graduate.
DeleteRight on. Most of our UNDERSERVED clients can reasonably afford 3 bills per court appearance, some a few dollars more for a serious matter. Do the math. That would be 100 court appearances or 300 one time NEW clients. How many new clients have you signed up lately in this over saturated market? Prior to '06 I routinely earned 75K with a nice mix of appointed and private work. Today, the appointed work has dried up and new clients are few and far between, even for an experienced attorney.
Delete...folks stuck in mediocre management positions in retail, food and hospitality earning around 35-50K...Even if they earn 30-40K as a solo, because they can't find a job, it is still better than what they had.
DeleteUh, how do they pay off a couple hundred grand in loans if, by your own numbers, they do not realize any improvement in an already low income? It would seem like 40K salary would be better than 40K salary + 200000K in nondischargeable debt.
Stonemason makes a good point. A debt of $200k at 8.5% amortized over 25 years requires $1610 in monthly payments. That's $19,320 per year, after taxes. How exactly is someone supposed to pay that on a $40k income (not "salary")? After taxes (including self-employment taxes), fees associated with keeping one's license to practice law, and those monstrous payments, there might be $5k or $6k left for such things as food and housing.
DeleteAnd, as we've said above, making $40k or even $20k as a new sole practitioner is difficult.
Besides which the "mediocre" manager works for three years, acquiring income and experience, while the would-be lawyer is in law school.
And what's this business of not working more than 50 hours per week? A new solo would have to do everything from drawing in business to keeping the accounts and sweeping the floor.
I agree with you fellers. No, they may not improve their lot financially. But they can work their own hours and become a LAWYER!!!! A Law Trained Man! They can go from Walmart manager to being Lincoln, Darrow, Marshall, Cochran, How cool is that? Plus, they can avoid paying their loans for many years with deferments, hardships, forebearances and when the gig is up, go on IBR. Lot better than being the Walmart manager of toothless women in stained blue smocks selling Asian made sweatshop crap.
DeleteIBR/PAYE. Who cares what the debt amount is if you only pay a fixed % of income, regardless of that amount?
DeleteI don't agree with that, but that is how many people think. IBR/PAYE is fast becoming the plan of choice for financing law school, as opposed to an emergency reprieve.
Which is why it should end, or at least be cut way back.
A 0.6% increase in applicants (if the rate holds steady over the rest of the application season) following a four-year long 36.7% decrease. That does not even seem worthy of being called a dead cat bounce-- maybe a dead rat.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But didn't the scamsters get all excited last year about another insignificant temporary increase in the number of applicants?
DeleteI think the biggest excitement was over LSAT test takers, not actual applicants. For February 2015, LSAT takers were up 4.4% over the previous year.
DeleteSome attributed that increase not to greater interest in law school, but to greater numbers of repeat LSAT takers. That, in turn, is the result of greater awareness that highly competitive law school admissions are the only remaining path to a decent career in law.
I would like to thank blogs like this one. Until earlier this semester I would have been among this crowd. However now that I've seen the true statistics I intend how to use my economics degree to go get a masters in accounting and be actually employable.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the Grammer my phones autocorrect acts up.
DeleteIt's ok. You're going into accounting.
DeleteI'm a CPA and can say unequivocally that the level of utility of an accounting degree is much higher relative to a JD. It's far easier for accountant to leverage their accounting background into financial management positions, line management, government, even banking, in addition to traditional accounting. Moreover, the training is actually useful, the typical CPA isn't nearly as douchey, the work is no less challenging, average CPAs still get jobs, you don't need strong connections, prestige isn't paramount, etc. Most of the sh*t that makes law suck doesn't apply. Hours can be long and brutal in Big 4, and pay not as high as big law until the partner level, but you don't need a Big 4 gig to have the education pay off. Lots of other opportunities abound. Good choice.
DeleteOn Thursday, a woman at work told me the woman in the cube next to hers is taking the LSAT this weekend. I turned to the potential victim and said, "Don't do it!"
ReplyDeleteJust like with most people who have made up their minds to go to law school, her eyes glazed over when I talked about the terrible job prospects, the general unpleasantness of the profession and the potential crushing debt she faces. She is probably convinced that she will be doing cutting edge legal work, making top dollar, and earning all sorts of fame for her brilliance.
She has no idea what she's in for.
That has been my experience too. I told a good friend of mine that his son should not attend law school after HE solicited my advice. He berated me for "discouraging" education. The lady in the cube above sits there all day with her hopes and dreams and is bored because she thought her Psych degree from Missouri Central Southern University would provide fulfilling challenging work. She no doubt has viewed slick law school websites that all but promise "new possibilities" "many opportunities" and other lofty platitudes and bury jobs data. Become a "world beater." These things border on hucksterism.
DeleteHow did "education" come to be equated with universities?
DeleteWe are all in favor of education, a lifelong pursuit. We just don't agree that education can be bought from the likes of Leong, Dougie Fresh, and McElroy. Education is a self-directed endeavor unattested by diplomas. Some people who never finished high school are a damn sight better educated than many hacks with doctoral degrees and tenure.
Perhaps the equation Education = Degrees stems from the scourge of consumerism, which leads people to think that everything, even self-cultivation, can be obtained with a credit card.
"We are all in favor of education, a lifetime pursuit. We just don't agree that education can be bought from the likes of Leong, Dougie Fresh, and McElroy."
DeleteThat ls such a great observation, an aphorism for the ages. You may have just immortalized those clowns forever.
OG, you've certainly banged on about classism in the legal profession, and I suspect that law has such a cachet precisely because it fits into American classism (and delusions about how it works). "Education", by which people usually mean "formal, degree-granting, structured teaching by academics," has been sold not just as a way to increase your income, but as a Great Equalizer and other such malarkey. Nonsense. Universities, whatever their otheir other merits, have a centuries-long history as playpens for aristocratic princelings and bourgeoise scions. Just because "college graduates" earn more money does not mean that college renders anyone who attends equal on the job market.
DeleteLaw school is starting to fade into memory, but I can recall what a crock of shit the label of "Equalizer" is. I remember people with class ranks in the bottom 10% easily sailing past me (Top third at graduation) to get interviews and jobs. Me? The dude with years of construction experience and employers who universally said that I was hard-working, careful, and did my best to deliver good work product to the customer? Fuck, I was lucky to get the dignity of an automated rejection letter. For many people with winning outcomes, law school was just a veneer of meritocracy applied on top of traditional human nepotism. But by claiming that college is a Great Equalizer, we can pretend that anyone who ends up with a great-pay, low-work job in a politically protected industry deserves it. You should have done what they did, Pleb! Should have gone to college!
But what politician is going to get up and tell the lumpenproles and struggling lower middle class people that they are very likely fucked? That those white collar good jobs they keep hearing about are often passed from generation to generation, or at least from golfing buddy to golfing buddy? I'm in construction, which is fairly meritocratic at least until you hit large scale contracts (At which point it's unions and the Mafia). Even that is a capital intensive business where contacts are hugely important, at least to gin up initial business. With American manufacturing long past its heyday, where do all these people go? Better to invent an answer than to say "You're fucked. Learn to enjoy eating rewarmed Fancy Feast."
So we pretend that Education is something mysterious and which much be acquired at great expense from our Betters. I learn every day, and if want to work in construction and do well you have to. You can't just learn "your trade", you have to learn all the trades that intersect with your work. You need to learn not just what is done, but why it needs to be done. But this isn't "real Education". You learn it by doing actual physical work. You don't necessarily get any sort of official qualification, and your primary resume item is your portfolio of projects. Even worse, the person you learn it from might be some uncouth son of a bitch who casually uses language that would be considered horribly classless. And this person might not even have gone to college!
College has been wildly oversold. People really do believe that without it, you will be left cleaning toilets and scamming SSDI for the rest of your life. That no "real job" will take you without a sheepskin. It was damn near absurd at times when I reentered the construction industry (I had experience dating back to my teens). There I was, marveling at $30/hour starting pay and lots of work, and older guys with solid jobs and good incomes would be asking me if their son should go to law school too! "But it's EDUCATION!" "Education is THE KEY!" "I want my son to get a GOOD OFFICE JOB." Oh well, it's their funeral.
Thirty-five or forty years ago, that dipshit degree in psychology from Missouri Central Southern University at East Bumblefuck got one onto the boomer managerial track at some bank or widget-making company. That's a pretty good result for someone who wasn't qualified to do much of anything. Today, however, those jobs are few (not to mention unstable), but people with degrees abound.
Delete35-40 years ago you didn't even need a college degree for those jobs. All you had to do was walk on. There were actually jobs to be had.
DeleteNow we have way too many people and not nearly enough jobs. 40 years ago was right at the beginning also of women entering the workforce. But there also wasn't all the foreign labor available, or the outsourcing options. Not to mention the absolute population explosion the past couple of decades, especially the last decade.
The next phase is of course robots/automation, which is really speeding up too.
I think capitalism and a full employment economic model has reached the end of its shelf life. 50 years from now people will look at capitalism the same way we look at serfdom and slavery now. Economic models have to change with technological and cultural realities. This is in fact how humanity progresses, although it's generally unfathomable to the vast majority as it's occurring.
Historically there were also plagues and wars, I suppose those could happen again too. Anyway, no use worrying much about any of this. Just keep scraping out a living like everyone else until something changes.
If your good advice cannot spare your coworker a harrowing six-figure gamble, you can at least offer her a sure-fire way to save $165.
DeleteThe cartoon gang at Indiana Tech Law School is reimbursing the cost of taking the December, 2015 LSAT for persons who fill out an application to Indiana Tech, I assume as a desperation gimmick.
"Upon receipt of your application we will reimburse you for the cost of your Credential Assembly Service (CAS) Report fees and Law School Report ($165 for the CAS Service and $28.00 for your Law School Report to be sent to Indiana Tech Law School)."
http://law.indianatech.edu/admissions/lsat-reimbursement/
That's an interesting development. Zero-Ls who are competitive for Harvard and Yale may as well take advantage of it, just for the free sitting of the LSAT.
DeleteNote that the coming year's tuition at Indiana Tech will allegedly be $19,750. I say "allegedly" because the present year's tuition is inaccurately listed at $29,500, a figure that is exactly $29,500 too high.
http://law.indianatech.edu/admissions/costs/tuition/
I saw my forty-something sister-in-law at Thanksgiving. She is about to take her first year, first semester at, .... wait for it, Northern Illinois. I begged her not to go, but she went anyway. I begged her to drop out, but she coolly informed me that I should not worry that she would find no job, as she had a plan to put Legal Zoom out of business. These people are simply delusional at this point.
ReplyDeleteWe're proud of you, Tricia. You tried your best to dissuade her, as an advocate in the finest sense of the word. However, only a fraction of our interventions will be effective.
DeleteThat's why we keep putting the facts out there, by every possible means. Thousands of contacts times any fraction of effectiveness could mean that we save several hundred people from lifetime debt and misery. It's worth the effort, and maybe at times a little "coolness" from our relatives, to reduce the pernicious social, economic and environmental effects of the law school scam. And if we can save someone we love, that's a priceless bonus.
Oh, Tricia, she obviously knows vastly more about the subject than you do. After all, she's a daydreaming 1L at a horrible law school, and you have thirty trifling years' experience as a lawyer.
DeleteThe cultural allure of the lawyer can’t be underestimated. Schools know this and exploit it, and this makes attempts to enlighten others about the financially untenable situation facing today’s lawyers often end in frustration. This allure started with the lofty role played by lawyers in the Founding. In more recent years, a separate –yet linked– role has emerged whereby lawyers are the prototypical professionals who make a handsome living while performing meaningful, exciting work. This manifests itself in everything from LA Law to Boston Legal.
DeleteJust as the hereditary title ‘Lord’ is deeply ingrained in the English psyche, the title and perceived prestige of ‘lawyer’ holds a similar sway over Americans’ minds. Even when diminished, the title itself still sparkles. This might seem like harmless nostalgia, but the schools thrive on this. People go into debt to the tune of $100,000 to buy that sparkle. Of course, the lawyers of the Founding and their financial position have little in common with today’s lawyers, yet when we warn families and friends about the financial futility of modern practice for a starting lawyer, we violently collide with that cultural programming. We are seen as debunking Jefferson and dissing Atticus. Many people simply will not hear what we say; worse, we are perceived as negative and even against the system. It truly is frustrating.
Scamblogging has played a great role is exposing the truth and providing support and validation for those in the trenches who have witnessed the slaughter that is modern practice. It yells “Truth!” to that 40-year-old who believes $100,000 and three years of her life will better her position. Scamblogging has its own roots in the American experience. The anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, published for some 30 years by the courageous William Lloyd Garrison said this in explaining his opposition to a far more invidious bondage:
I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm ..... urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.
Maybe it was the string bean casserole. Did you guys have Stove Top stuffing? Its pretty good actually. I would have joined you and brought my tax returns (Schedule C) from the last few years. And I am not Governor Rauner either.
DeleteSpeaking of "cultural programming" I once asked a political guy that I did free legal work if he knew of anybody that was hiring lawyers. He told me that he saw an Armored Car in town and thought it was stopping at my house. "Ain't all you lawyers rich?"
DeleteHow do we handle this? I'm 50 and I can't tell you how many people in their 40's and early 50's want to go to law school. It just doesn't sink in when you tell them that there is a significant age bias in law as well as the fact that they do not have a long enough runway to make the whole thing pay off.
DeleteI turned down a T14 admission at age 31 in part because age discrimination exists even for a 34-year-old grad. How can someone 50+ make it, especially outside the very top schools? The other main reason I turned it down is because practicing law is a pretty miserable career, even for the winners. Also scamblogs.
DeleteTell them to listen to Old Guy, who was past forty when he went to law school.
DeleteThe age-related bias in law is not just significant; it's all but insuperable. Don't expect to find work as a lawyer if you are past your twenties upon graduation.
I finally found work, even good work, after much weeping and gnashing of teeth. But I was a top student at a top law school, with much else to offer. And I rarely got so much as an interview, while at my school the rich little dumb-dumbs who were scarcely half my age all got jobs.
Slightly off topic here, but certainly related to law school admissions.
ReplyDeleteI passed by my local law school a few weeks ago, and they were bribing undergrad students to take the GRE rather than the LSAT and then apply to that very school. They claimed it was cheaper, that it encourages diversity--well, it is a lot easier--and it made the school stand out nationally.
The bribe consisted of a t-shirt, a sandwich, and a frozen drink.
Was that Northern? The Sister In Law's school?
DeleteI took both the GRE and the LSAT. I wouldn't say the GRE is "easier" than the LSAT, but it is different. You can do well on the LSAT, but still blow the GRE math section. Likewise, if you don't do well on the LSAT, you can still do well on the GRE math section.
DeleteThe reading comprehension section of the GRE does seem easier than the LSAT's, but you do need to have a good vocabulary to do well on the GRE. This is not really the case with the LSAT, since there is no sentence completion type section.
However, the real differences between the LSAT and the GRE isn't the subject matter of the test. Rather, the real differences (which helps explain why law schools may start looking at GRE scores) are:
(1) the GRE is computer based, thus it can be taken on any day of the year (making it easier to study for). By contrast, the LSAT is still on paper, and must be taken during 4 test days.
(2) the GRE is used for multiple types of graduate programs ranging from engineering/sciences to humanities majors. Thus, people may be enticed to ALSO apply to law school, in addition to other programs.
These two differences may be used to the law schools' advantage to increase the number of applicants. In other words, it's all a ploy.
They're all basically tests of academic aptitude. I would imagine people who do well on one do well on others, and vice versa. These nonprofit test makers, especially ETS, seem to act like for profits these days. ETS is marketing the GRE as a substitute for the LSAT and GMAT to steal market share from LSAC and GMAC it appears. That's probably in no one's favor save the schools and ETS. GMAC and LSAC are witnessing the utility of their specialized tests dwindle. Now lemmings who thought a useless grad degree in English was a good idea can get suckered in to an even worse JD from a tier 4.
DeleteThis is all true. But these efforts have paid off to some degree. Law schools are more transparent with respect to employment outcome, place greater emphasis on legal practice, and professors care more about these things too. There is a long way to go but there has been movement in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteSchools still do not care about teaching students how to be actual lawyers. Nothing has really changed.
DeleteDumba$$. The funding should be cut regardless of outcomes.
ReplyDeleteGovernment loans have driven up tuition levels to the point where even "good" outcomes destroy the recipient's life.