Monday, December 28, 2015

Tracking the dramatic decline of LSAT scores at the 25th percentile for incoming law school classes, 2010-2015.

The ABA recently published the fourth annual "509" disclosures of accredited law schools, which include the 25th percentile LSAT score of each school's most recent incoming class. As well, National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) Chief Erica Moeser published each school’s 25th percentile LSAT score for the year 2010 in last December's edition of "The Bar Examiner." (p. 7-11) Therefore, we now have five years of LSAT data, covering the five-year long decline in law school applicants (87,900 in 2010 to 54,130 in 2015) and One-L enrollment (52,488 in 2010 to 37,058 in 2015).

The charts below show the distribution of changes in scores at the 25th percentile for classes entering law school between 2010 and 2015 and the number of schools where the 25th percentile score dipped below 150. [1] I also list the schools that lowered their 25th percentile score by four points or more during that period, a dispiritingly long list. I assume that this data will be published shortly at Law School Transparency, but I wanted to get it out there as soon as possible given that the application season is in full swing.

I note specifically the staggering 10-point LSAT decline experienced by Brooklyn Law School (BLS) at the 25th percentile, placing it in a two-way tie for the steepest decline of any law school in the country. BLS Dean Nicholas Allard has led the effort to place the blame for falling bar passage rates on Moeser and the NCBE, rather than on law school admissions practices. Allard’s noxious fog of bluster and accusations can be dispelled with the following three words: "Ten point decline."

A few years ago, Paul Campos wrote a book called "Don’t Go to Law School (Unless)." A possible alternate title for this blog post might be "If You Must Go to Law School, For God’s Sake Don’t Go to (      )."   "(      )" would include the vast majority of those schools that reacted to the dropoff in applicants by substantially lowering their admissions standards, especially those where the admissions standards were pretty low to begin with. The Deans and unprotesting tenured faculty at these schools have displayed a level of greed, recklessness, and contempt unworthy of professionals.

Change in LSAT score at the 25th percentile for incoming law school classes between 2010 and 2015
# of Schools
Up by 3 pts.
Up by 2 pts.
Up by 1 pt.
Down by 1 pt.
Down by 2 pts.
Down by 3 pts.
Down by 4 pts.
Down by 5 pts.
Down by 6 pts.
Down by 7 pts.
Down by 8 pts.
Down by 9 pts.
Down by 10 pts.

LSAT score at the 25th percentile, incoming class
# of Schools,
# of

Charleston, Appalachian, Ave Marie, Faulkner, Florida Coastal, Mississippi Coll., Southern, Texas Southern, Thomas Jefferson, Valparaiso, Western New England
140 or below
Arizona Summit (140), Charlotte (140), Cooley (138)

25th percentile score down by 10 points, 2010-2015

Emory 166 to 156
Brooklyn 162 to 152

Down by 9

Hofstra 156 to 147

Down by 8

Elon 153 to 145
Northern Kentucky 152 to 144
Western New England 151 to 143
Charleston 151 to 143
Thomas Jefferson 149 to 141
Arizona Summit 148 to 140
Charlotte 148 to 140

Down by 7

Georgetown 168 to 161
Villanova 159 to 152
DePaul 156 to 149
McGeorge 155 to 148
Suffolk 152 to 145
New England 151 to 144

Down by 6

Georgia 162 to 156
Arizona 161 to 155
America 158 to 152
Catholic 156 to 150
San Francisco 155 to 149
Vermont 153 to 147
Golden Gate 151 to 145
Southern Illinois 151 to 145
John Marshall (Chi.) 151 to 145
Capital 150 to 144
Dayton 150 to 144
LaVerne 150 to 144
Faulkner 148 to 142
Cooley 144 to 138

Down by 5

Southern California 166 to 161
Illinois 163 to 158 
Boston Coll. 163 to 158
Brigham Young 161 to 156
Florida State 161 to 156
Florida 160 to 155
UCal-Hastings 160 to 155
Tulane 160 to 155
Pepperdine 159 to 154
Connecticut 158 to 153
Pittsburgh 158 to 153
Cincinnati 157 to 152
Kentucky 157 to 152
Quinnipiac 154 to 149
St. Thomas (Minn.) 154 to 149
Samford 153 to 148
Drake 153 to 148
Akron 152 to 147
Pace 152 to 147
Arkansas (Little Rock) 151 to 146
Northern Illinois 150 to 145
Ohio Northern 149 to 144
South Dakota 149 to 144
Barry 149 to 144
South Dakota 149 to 144
Mississippi Coll. 147 to 142
Ave Maria 147 to 142
Valparaiso 147 to 142
Florida Coastal 146 to 141

Down by 4

Michigan 168 to 164
Vanderbilt 165 to 161
Boston U. 164 to 160
Baylor 162 to 158
George Washington 162 to 158
Colorado 161 to 157
Cardozo 160 to 156
Ohio St. 160 to 156
Temple 159 to 155
Richmond 159 to 155
Georgia St. 159 to 155
Houston 159 to 155
South Carolina 156 to 152
SUNY-Buffalo 155 to 151
Louisville 155 to 151
Seattle 155 to 151
Missouri-Kansas City 154 to 150
Marquette 154 to 150
Campbell 154 to 150
Willamette 154 to 150
Memphis 153 to 149
Maine 153 to 149
Montana 153 to 149
New York Law Sch. 153 to 149
Washburne 153 to 149
William Mitchell 152 to 148
Cal Western 151 to 147
South Texas 151 to 147
Idaho 151 to 147
Whittier 150 to 146
Touro 149 to 145
Dist. of Columbia 149 to 145
Roger Williams 149 to 145
Appalachian 146 to 142
Texas Southern 145 to 141

[1]   The first chart omits the three accredited law schools in Puerto Rico, those schools accredited after 2010, and Penn State (which filed an incomplete 509 report for some reason). Also, in 2015, Rutgers-Camden and Rutgers-Newark merged to form a single a law school. I assigned Rutgers a 3 point decline because its 2015 score is 4 points lower than the 2010 score for Rutgers-Camden and 2 points lower than the 2010 score for Rutgers-Newark. The second chart omits Penn State and the accredited law schools in Puerto Rico, but includes the newly-accredited schools.


  1. Interesting to see a couple of T-14's taking hits, along with other well-regarded schools like Emory. In the realm of affirmative action there's a thing called the "cascade effect." That is the idea that to meet their goals of diversity top-tier institutions will accept people who otherwise would have gone to second-tier institutions. They, in turn, will raid the third-tier institutions and so on down the line. That is clearly what is happening here, and it is reaching into the upper echelons. HYS have long turned away loads of applicants who are as well qualified as people whom they admit because they don't have seats for them. For now they can keep their standards where they are due to a surplus of highly qualified applicants, but one wonders whether the disease will ever spread that high.

    1. If affirmative action were the cause, we'd expect the lesser institutions to pick up lots of high-scoring people rejected by the top institutions. (Unless, improbably, many of those applicants would have given up on law school if they didn't get into a Harvard.)

      The real reason resembles your suggestion. As Dybbuk said above, the number of applicants has fallen by 40% over the past five years. That's 34,000 people—almost as many as this year's matriculants! As the pool of applicants evaporates, all but two or three law schools have no choice but to lower their standards, and many also find themselves with unfilled seats.

      But it goes beyond that. Disproportionately the strongest performers on the LSAT—say, those scoring 170 or better—avoid law school, while the weakest performers do apply. Consequently, the shrinking pool of applicants is also declining in quality. Now, only about 2% of the people taking the LSAT score 170 or higher. That √©lite group has become so small that Harvard, Yale, and Stanford could snatch it up, leaving all other schools with nobody in that range. That doesn't happen, but nonetheless schools that used to get a lot of people in that range now find themselves driven deep into the 160s, which is why storied Michigan has slid four points at the 25th percentile. So the Michigans are now ousting schools that used to be solidly in the 160s. And those schools in turn are driving out the ones that were in the high 150s. And so on.

    2. Sorry, I meant to say that the 40% decline represents a loss of 34,000 people per year. I should have put that more clearly.

    3. Old guy, 11:02 here. You need to work on that reading comprehension. I didn't say affirmative action was the cause, I merely compared the cascade effect of affirmative action to why well-regarded schools are dumbing down their admissions standards - schools above them in the food chain are taking people they'd have had in years past, forcing them to reach lower still.

    4. It will come as no surprise that the schools on dybbuk's post above were also the same schools that signed on to Dean Rand's (University of North Dakota) 11-24-14 letter to Erica Moeser, NCBE, questioning the reliability and fairness of the July 2014 bar exam.

      Law Deans these days are no better than pandering politicians, but they are not nearly as slick. They need better spin doctors.

    5. I noticed the same thing, Duped. My how far the once-mighty have fallen! dybbuk123 did a great job of summarizing the newest data.

  2. Comparing the numbers for the bottom-feeders is outright scandalous. Cooley's former low-water mark of 144 has now been passed by a number of allegedly respectable law "schools". Those 8 schools that improved their 25th percentile LSATs deserve (very limited) accolades for not just jumping headlong into scamming idiots.

  3. Not surprised by Emory. It's in Atlanta. lol

  4. Excellent work. The second table is particularly striking.

  5. The stunning realization is that 25% of these schools' students scored *below* these already low numbers. How much lower are, e.g., the 10th percentiles? For some reason, the schools aren't saying...

    1. More accurately, 25% of those schools' students scored at or below those already frightfully low numbers.

  6. Don't forget that Chicago gave up on maintaining its LSAT brackets several years ago. It was a lot easier to start competing on GPAs instead. The world is full of gullible people with high GPAs but marginal reasoning ability. Those people can get a better deal at Chicago, Cornell, or Berkeley than anywhere else.

    1. It's also easy, particularly in an era of rampant grade inflation, to collect a high GPA. Scoring highly on the LSAT, by contrast, requires real ability.

    2. That's a good point OG - take a look at your beloved Indiana Tech's GPA and LSAT splits, which you posted in your prior article:

      Undergraduate GPAs (75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles):
      2015: 3.61, 3.42. 2.99
      LSAT scores (same percentiles):
      2015: 153, 151, 148

      This looks like another attempt to gain accreditation - those unlucky thirteen brave souls in Indiana Tech's class of 2018 appear to have disproportionately higher GPAs than their LSATs would indicate. I wonder how many budding political scientists, business administrators, or other holders of soft BAs rank amongst those unhappy few?

  7. Isn't NYU Law down 4 points from 4 years ago? 170 to 166.

    1. Yes, but only down 3 points from 5 years ago-- 169 to 166.

      The 2010 numbers are not available at the ABA disclosure site, but were published by Erica Moeser in December, 2014 edition of "The Bar Examiner." I linked to the edition in my post.

    2. It's nice to see that Third Tier Drake is in the category of toilets that has seen its 25th percentile LSAT score drop by 5 points, in the span of 5 years. By the way, Crooklyn's steep decline shows conclusively that the pigs there have WILLINGLY lowered admi$$ion$ "standards" - in order to get more asses in seats. How honorable, huh?!?!

  8. Also Stanford and Columbia are close at the 25th percentile - 169 vs 168 and same at 50th and 75th. Not clear the high GPAs at Stanford are really meaningful in a market where there are tons of non-Ivy applicants and applicants from less selective schools when you compare the eastern law schools with applicants from the most competitive schools. When you look at Ivy applicants, Stanford is slightly more selective than Columbia.

  9. Goes to show you how important timing is. The law schools scammed out many intelligent young people in those bubble years. I don't care what anyone says, 165+ LSAT clearly indicates at least above average intelligence. These are people that could easily have contributed in any profession, but got destroyed by law school instead.

    Law schools and employers spun it as these people being stupid and deserving what they got.

    But realistically speaking, NOW the applicants are dumb. But these applicants will likely do better because of trickle up.

    Of course the connected still are fine and always were fine, regardless of any merit. And it's still a dumb idea to go to law school. But employers always hire from graduating classes, and with less to go around a bunch of these people will be fine.

    A lot better than where they would have been 10 years ago with the better scores, and especially their current scores.

    People that had graduated around the recession are just going to wind up being lost generations. They won't have the experience necessary and are out of school too long to be attractive for anything that does open up. Their fate has already been written, and it's one of struggling solo, doc review and other low level work that won't pay well and will lead to ulcers and either depression and/or drinking problems.

    Well it is what it is. If they learn one thing though, and it's a lesson I learned too, it's that nobody in this world, especially the government, cares about you. So you owe them the same thing they owe you: jack shit.

  10. The connected is given too much emphasis here. Either you have the schmooze/ bringing in business abilities or you don't. Being connected does not mean anything. Look at the guy from Princeton/HBS who murdered his hedge fund father. Connected to all the right clubs and schools and neighborhoods, but to none of the people he met. An extreme case, but there is a certain downward mobility to many children of successful people and a certain amount of upward mobility for people who have the smarts and skills, even if not born with the connections.

    1. I don't agree. The connected enjoy enormous undeserved advantages. The "certain amount of upward mobility" for the rest of us is a lot smaller than most people think. "Meritocracy" is a myth.

      A handful of ordinary people will move up. Most privileged people, however, will stay up. If they move down, it is usually because of something dumb such as squandering money or (in the case that you mentioned) committing a grave crime.

    2. So basically the argument is that being connected doesn't matter, because one guy murdered his father and thereby was actually punished for it.

      Well I'll tell you what, unconnected people that murder their fathers tend not to do so well in life either.

    3. Indeed, there are a certain number of advantages that are inextricable from wealth (which, really, connections is only a proxy for). If you come from a rich family, you can engage on riskier ventures without having to worry about where your next month's rent will come from. Someone from a privileged family can absorb the cost of law school, such that even if they fail to have a career in law they haven't lost anything. Their connections ensure they'll have a career and even downward mobility will need several generations to take its toll.

    4. There is no question that connections are important, but they have their limits. White shoe firms have certain standards in terms of law schools and class rank. If you don't meet them, you don't get hired.

    5. If you are connected, your father is probably connected too. Murdering your father is like murdering a connected person.
      If you are caught murdering a connected person your life is going to become very very hard, connections or not.

    6. The main skill that connected people learn is how to talk to gate keepers. Being around the 1% in your formative years will enable you to confidently talk to potential employers and clients. Sure, some of the children of rich people are losers, but that doesn't mean that connections aren't useful.

    7. I worked as an attorney, including a partner, in big law for many, many years. Aside from a handful of children of clients, or what would hopefully be clients, many of whom were just at the law firm for a limited first job experience, in some cases to move on to the family business, there were not many lawyers who got their jobs through connections. They got their jobs by going to good law schools and/ or doing very well in law school. Most people looked good, relatively speaking, and behaved in a certain way. You would not have people with obvious issues that you might encounter in a local public high school class. The lawyers look and act differently from those who are on the local subway.

      I have a colleague from college whose dad was a manual laborer who ended up a career big law partner. Most people were white, with a few non-whites mixed in. I would be surprised if any of these people used connections to walk into big law. I surely didn't. The record either gets you in for an interview or doesn't. If you have good people skills and look relatively good, you will have a relatively high offer rate from job interviews.

      If your record does not cut it, dad's call to the law firm is not likely to help, unless you are a very big client. I think that just gets you a closer look, and not necessarily a job.

    8. I also want to respond to Old Guy that merely going to Harvard or Yale as an undergrad may give a person lifelong "connections." The doors open in organizations that are very selective. Not everyone who goes to Harvard or Yale has these connections starting out. Most people don't.

      Elite educational backgrounds lead to elite jobs with some frequency. They also lead to meeting others with elite educational backgrounds, and finding a partner or spouse with an elite educational background, socializing with the elite and living with the elite.

      In some very expensive apartment buildings, a substantial percentage of the residents will be receiving Harvard or Yale alumni magazines. Coincidence? No, of course not,

      There are others who parlay a successful family background into successful careers. However, many of these people are born brilliant and are incredibly gifted. It is not handed to them on a silver platter. Think of many reality TV stars in this category. It may be that these people were born with such extraordinary gifts, that had an advantage over 99% of the population. If your father was an extraordinarily accomplished _______ (add any admired career), maybe successin life is more likely to be in the DNA than for the rest of the population.

    9. Big Law actually prefer lawyers who come to them with excellent law school resume from a top law school/well-respected law school in its local market, but with otherwise no 'advantages'; the reason being that the less you have when you start the hungrier you'll be and the more loyal you'll be if you beat the odds and succeed - because you will owe the firm EVERYTHING.

      A successful Big Law firm actually doesn't need an associate's connections ..... because it's already successful. And if a new law school graduate's connections are that strong, then there's actually no reason for him/her to go for the grueling life of a Big Law associate - their connections can get them a softer more stable spot. And as 8:54 noted, in any event, those with strong connections are unlikely to stay in Big Law for very long.

      What Big Law sells are its skills, its experience, its depth, its commitment etc etc etc. What it's not selling are country club connections, let alone Social Register memberships. These things don't hurt, but they're not at all what a firm leads with, and from the firm's point of view, those types of things are earned by its partners as markers of their success as lawyers, not because of accident of birth.

      There is of course one exception to this - the soft nepotism shell game. Almost all Big Law firms have anti-nepotism rules, but they may well preferentially hire the reasonably well-qualified son/daughter/in law of a partner at another Big Law firm. But that person still needs to have a resume that is more or less comparable to the resumes of all the other associates the firm is hiring.

    10. @8:54: I too have my connections to Big Law and Wall St.

      While there is a definite underclass of unconnected associates that would be removed within 3-5 years who could be said to be fairly unconnected, everyone on partnership track or in a "good" high profile position was connected.

      They loved to hide their connections though.

      It's obvious who is getting the good work and has stability, who is looked on favorably, and who has no such advantage.

      The fact is there are just way too many intelligent people with fine metrics that will never get the opportunity of the lesser intelligent and lower metrics that are connected. Not to mention if you have the best tutors, preferential grading and resources helping you, it's a lot easier to have those metrics in the first place.

      I would say the unconnected person that just goes to class and studies on their own and does well is certainly smarter than the connected person that has access to test banks and answers, has a good word put in for them with the profs, has parents that will edit and assist their work and then followup with a prof for why the grade wasn't high, etc. As well as access to tutors for any testing as well as any subjects, and plenty of time to study as no need to work.

      The advantages add up. Someone only denies these advantages if they themselves have benefited and don't want the less advantaged to understand the system. I don't have kids, but if I did, I would set them up to succeed by taking advantage every step of the way. My middle class parents were too dumb to understand that, but every "good" job I've had I've noticed my co-workers were set up and they set their kids up.

      I don't know who you think you're fooling with your posts denying the advantage. If someone is too stupid to realize it's there, they're probably too stupid to be a decent attorney to begin with. They also probably would be too stupid to understand the law school scam exists. But the audience you're preaching too is likely more savvy, being such a limited subsect.

    11. 11:14 am again.

      I looked at the website of one great big Big Law firm (not one I've ever had any contact with) and noted in the partner biographies I looked at that it has partners from Auckland New Zealand, Australia, Toronto, Taipei, QUEENS, Tulsa Oklahoma, Denver NORTH CAROLINA, Tarboro North Carolina etc etc.

      I also noted that they were almost all law review at Harvard, Penn, Columbia etc. This, not connections, is the key to their success.

      The bigger the law firm the less connections matter.

      I will also note that in my home town there is a law firm that has historically hired a lot of connected people, and that that firm now lags way behind other newer firms that hired more or less solely passed on academic performance in law school.

      Finally, on a slightly different note, I agree that there is a strong bias against older law school graduates, who generally are not 'connected'. I think, however, that this bias is not because of lack of connections, but has more to do with the fact that law firms prefer to hire people with little or no prior non-legal work experience so that their associates have no base line against which they can compare their life at the firm with.

    12. A lot of people who made partner in my experience went to the local state university, worked like a dog, and then got into a T8 law school. No connections there. They went to state u because they were not well off financially.

      Maybe if you are going to work in a small law firm, nepotism counts. Big law firms will bend for clients, but not bend to the point that they promote someone who is not qualified. I think the author at !1:32 has not worked at big law.

      Sure, people who use every connection they have to bring in business to their firm will do better. However, those connections may come through a Yale undergrad education via a relatively low rated public high school in a poor neighborhood.

      Yes, I know people who at a very young age asked to go to elite schools, notwithstanding parents who could not pay for the school. Yes, those people ended up in elite private schools, elite colleges and elite law schools for the ones who wanted to be lawyers. Now they have substantial connections. Their fathers are still servants to the upper middle class or died as poor immigrants who did not speak English after years in the US. America is the land of opportunity if you get on the right track and stay on the right track.

      Law has its challenges, no question, but you make your own connections in life through your own efforts.

    13. It's kind of funny how desperate this guy is to try and convince us connections don't matter.

      I'm guessing it's a deep-seated insecurity or projection.

      Also the poor reading comprehension and weak logic is very hard to continue enduring. I guess that's all you needed a few decades ago though to stay in Big Law if you were connected. Actually probably it's still enough, most of the stuff Big law produces always seems like it's at a 10th grade level at best. What a profession!

    14. Oh for heaven’s sake! Of course connections help. In more than a few cases, they have propelled less qualified persons into desirable positions ... and kept them there. Obviously it’s better to have connections than not. That's not news.

      The general topic here is law school, and the specific complaint is that it isn’t worth all the time and money it costs. Since the Great Recession, law school isn’t simply “not worth it;” today’s dearth of jobs means that law school impoverishes a person and then effectively brands him out of other professions.

      Law school today is a losing proposition thanks to dynamics removed from connections and privilege: an annually increasing horde of increasingly desperate attorneys who are all chasing what is, at best, a stagnant volume of work which is being slowly undermined by technological advances. Yes, at every stage of this Rat Race, those with privilege or connections have an extra weapon in their arsenal, but they’re all on the same ship.

      Law schools are culpable for increasing tuition to obscene levels, and most of all, failing to correlate their output to anything remotely resembling even highly optimistic market needs. If you’re in law school now, you’re studying to be redundant. Being privileged may make unemployment easier, but it won’t create a job, and being connected with the family who owns the trucking company won’t increase the volume of the company’s litigation. The family is equally connected with the lawyers presently handling their work. As well as the lawyers who are on standby for conflicts cases.

      Astor went down with the Titanic.

  11. Holy Toledo, Batman! I don't see my TTT! Golly, that must mean I am making a shit load of money! Got to go now, the phone is ringing with a new client.....

  12. i see that 0Ls paid attention to the donut comment at Emory.

    Brooklyn LS was such a piece of shit LS I dont even have to post a link for all its outrageous stunts it has pulled in the past.

  13. I was just looking at some LSAT 25th percentile figures, 2015 vs. 2014 for the Top 14 law schools. Virginia was down an astonishing 3 points IN A SINGLE YEAR. Columbia was down 2 points, as were Berkeley, Cornell, and Georgetown. Yale and Nortwestern managed to increase by a single point.

    1. Columbia kills its reputation for the money these days. My class was 275. If they went back there they would be at 170 25th percentile.

    2. Columbia increased its class size by several percent in 2015. Seems that the competition schools are much lower in LSAT scores so they can grab for the money by increasing class size. Columbia is smug with the number 4 ranking.

      If the class size were 275, Columbia probably would still be number 4 but possibly running neck to neck with Stanford in scores.

      Columbia has a job availability advantage that Stanford will have trouble meeting due to location. True even if you want a job in LA.

      I was wait listed at Stanford and as an east coast resident did not even return the card indicating interest. I knew it would be easier to find work from Columbia. I was right in the sense that I got a good first job and got it in the summer of my second year after having a summer job. Columbia rocked for jobs. Stanford, maybe if you are in San Francisco but otherwise maybe a job risk.

    3. There is a big geography element in getting first jobs except for Harvard. Some Yale people had trouble getting jobs in NY even back then when Columbia had it easier. Being able to get on a subway and being at a school where there are lots of local grads is a big help in getting a first job.

      All of that being said, most of the Columbia career successes in my class were white male. The white males had careers as partners. Leaving aside less than a handful of partners in each class, most Columbia Law women ended up badly with a worthless degree. Columbia Law minorities, with the exception of a few who branched out on their own, did worse than the women.

      Today people with my record will follow the safer career course of med school with the information gap about law school having closed. The plus 170 LSAT applicants like myself won't touch Columbia with a ten foot pole unless they know they have the exceptional people skills needed for long term success in law or they are white male.

      If you are not white male, a Columbia Law degree is the equivalent of walking on a melting lake, and boy will you probably fall in and not be able to get out. Law discriminates way in favor of white males, but they call it merit.

    4. That is possible, although I would posit that most of the white males that went to law school also did not do well.

      And I've seen plenty of females, white and asian, in high level jobs through Big Law and government. Most don't go to partner level, that is true, but a lot get married to a high earner, and the class structure is undeniable.

      If you are upper class, no matter your race or gender, you have certain opportunities available to you. It just so happens the upper class women either choose government or marry and don't look for partner. This isn't too PC to say, but look around and you'll definitely see it.

    5. My class had that too but few women and fewer minorities kept the great jobs for long. They are many times bestowed on people in their 30s and 40s and after that it's curtains.

  14. Why didn't Michael Simkovic calculate the value of a law degree for persons with extremely low LSAT scores? Could it be because that value is considerably less than a million dollars?

    Note: Simkovic is the discredited law school shill who openly associates with the notorious sociopath and law professor Brian Leiter.

  15. I have worked as an attorney in a state government office for over 20 years. There are approximately 25 attorneys in my office, most of whom (including myself,) had connections when we were hired. That said, due to budget cuts, we have done very little hiring in the past five years. The connections that were good enough to land a job back in the day are insufficient today.

    1. Thanks for your candor regarding connections. I think a better term would be "network." The sad think about your post is not the connections part, but the lack of hiring and budget cuts. Multiply that by 50 States and all of the counties and local gub'mints and the Feds and you get a crisis in the profession. We are uniquely suited to gub'mint "kill all the lawyers" was a knock on the Administrative nature of law, and gub'mint. We are the gub'mint, even a private solo. We carry out the rule of law.

    2. The government has preferentially hired college graduates instead. They just call them "compliance" positions, or something like "contract management."

      Law really shouldn't exist anymore. Outside of litigators it has no real purpose or use. And even for litigation, honestly they should probably just let paralegals do that too, a 4th year paralegal is going to be a lot better prepared than a 1st year attorney.

  16. Lawyers are absolute deadbeats in their own right. I used to do home foreclosures, and the number of lawyers who lost their houses back in 2010-2012 was amazing. Their revenues went down, starting fighting with the wife, a divorce gets filed, and the whole house of cards came crashing down. The house had 3 mortgages, both the cars get repo'd, they default on the credit cards. So, there I am, checking all the liens on the credit report for lis pendens - multiple credit cards, and auto financing companies for deficiency on the cars. The "lawyer lifestyle" was a stage show; it wasn't real. The veneer of success could only be maintained by spending every dime one month before it flowed in. And these guys went to law school back when it was cheap.

  17. I've been driving through Philadelphia lately and there are signs up all along the highway advertising for Villanova Law like it is a Strayer University associates degree program with guaranteed admission. I never saw advertisements aimed at the general public ON THE HIGHWAY for any law school before in my life. Villanova is one of the more reputable law schools you will find just outside of the elite, I can't imagine how bad they are doing to beg for applicants on the highway like a hooker looking for johns. Seeing that their 25th percentile is 7 points lower confirms my suspicions. They're apparently desperate for any sucker's loan money they can their hands on. It's a shame there are so many stupid people too stupid to see what they're really after.