Following LSAC charting shenanigans is part of my hobby here at OTLSS, as so much discussion seems to hinge on this data and its implications. While I appreciate the fact that LSAC gives us raw data, their interpretation of the data is always a bit puzzling.
So far, we have the following raw data comparing 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 (weeks are the numerical week where the data is reported by LSAC, with week zero being the week of the first date of reporting for the new cycle):
Week 2015 Applicants Week 2016 Applicants Calc. % Change Reported % Change
0 11415 0 13881 17.8 0.6
2 13816 2 16817 17.8 3.4
5 17506 3 17987 2.7 2.9
6 19904 6 20095 1.0 0.7
LSAC Chart in Eyestrain-o-Vision, 1/1/2016
OTLSS Version, 1/6/2016
First of all, I would have given LSAC far more credit than they reported in week "zero" and week two. There seems to be a large difference between 17.8% and 0.6% of even 3.4%, but hey. Interestingly enough, the initial data also tracked what I had previously for 2013 BEAUTIFULLY, almost algorithmically, dare I say, prior to Week 6. Again, interesting, but possible, I guess. However, LSAC's compressed chart makes all of this very hard to see, which is also a curious choice given the tendency to not reflect the data accurately in the chart. Perhaps the Week 6 "swerve" of 2016 into 2015 territory will right itself more towards 2013 again, but only time will tell - at least my percent differences and their percent differences track in recent weeks, so that is reassuring.
Second of all, a more interesting turn of events seems to be happening in my Applications vs. Applicants chart:
For several years now, you could count on the average applicant filing seven applications. Now, we appear to be strongly on course for 5.5 applications per applicant, a significant departure. This would indicate that applicants are being much more selective in their choices, for various reasons, rather than having "safety schools" or taking a scattershot approach. Clearly there has been some psychological shift, and if the trend continues to hold true it will be interesting to see what else occurs in the future.
Until next time, keep up the good fight, and let's see how the pro-law-school-crowd responds.
Until next time, keep up the good fight, and let's see how the pro-law-school-crowd responds.
The automobile industry in '08 and '09 faced decreased demand for their Cobalts, Hummers, Saturns, Pontiacs, Plymouths and Mercurys. What did they rationally do? They cut manufacturing capacity. They renegotiated labor agreements. They cut the number of dealerships. They innovated and began to sell vehicle based on quality and innovation rather than cash back incentives and spiffs. Lets talk about the legal profession. What did the law schools and ABA do when faced with overcapacity? (glutted supply of attorneys) Added law schools, decreased admissions standards and increased enrollments. The professors and deans didn't take pay cuts and increased tuition. The professors and deans have somehow beaten the system! As a matter of fact, as noted on the Faculty Lounge Blog, they are celebrating the upcoming LSAC convention in NYC. They are looking forward to the cocktails and food provided free of charge. While most of their students and alum struggle to find work, the law Deans and professors will be celebrating.
ReplyDeleteWhat a noble and honorable "profession," huh?!?! Notice the silence from state bar association pigs, judges, and practicing lawyers when this garbage was happening.
DeleteLet them choke on their oysters on the half-shell.
DeleteThe tragedy is that applicants fail to grasp that the ONLY ones who should be contemplating legal education are those who want to pursue “learning for learning’s sake” and couldn’t care less about using the degree apart from teaching or credential collecting. Both options are fine, but probably account for, at most, five percent of today's applicants. Law school should be seen as equivalent to a degree in medieval art history.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of today’s applicants want to enter the legal profession to obtain paying employment, or even “hang a shingle” as a backup plan. The cost and financing of the degree presuppose a remunerative outcome. Without exception, however, these applicants are headed for profound disappointment and financial peril. They are in pursuit of the unattainable. They are entering into a marketplace that is now is so hopelessly flooded (and growing slightly smaller each year) that they will be spit out of the employment merry-go-round within 3-4 years and forced to solo. Few who travel the law path so far can change careers. They WILL be forced to solo. Soloing today is no longer economically viable. Ask any five. And today’s crop of applicants is likely less able than the horde of struggling solos already out there, against whom they will be forced to compete.
Try as they might, even the best and the brightest of the class of 2019 will be thrown into a blood sport in which they must cage-fight desperate practitioners in a battle to the death. Joey, if you really liked Movies about Gladiators, now may be a great time to go to law school.
9:22 is spot on. I am a solo and sitting at my computer posting because I have no work today and tomorrow. Prior to '07, I used to have three and four matters up everyday and the phone rang with prospects daily. I routinely went well over 2500 minutes per month on my cell bill. Nope, not any more. I thought I was going to be retained today for a couple of bills to appear in court on a traffic matter. I kept getting called and it looked promising; they took my address to drop off a retainer. Either some desperate kid took it for fifty bucks or their going pro se. Oh, you will also be competing with hordes of Pro Se defendants too.... The economy may have improved, but not for the average lawyer.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you take credit cards, instead of waiting for the clients' to drop off money?
Delete“The Class of 2019.” What a thought! What can these people possibly be thinking?
ReplyDeleteObviously, they’re not.
In today’s shrinking job market and at today’s tuition, enrolling in law school reflects (1) utter ignorance of the general economy and business world, not to mention the legal economy, (2) failure to conduct even a modicum of due diligence, (3) mathematical illiteracy so as to be unable to calculate and budget loan repayments, (4) delusional self grandeur on a North Korean scale, and possibly (5) an inability to think for oneself and disregard the loving, though misguided, advice of family and long outdated concepts of social prestige. The old canard that lawyers are “bad at math” has deteriorated to a situation where they lack any conceptual awareness of numbers. Enrolling in law school today is the equivalent of paying $1.75 for a 44-cent stamp.
Today, the once-proud boast, “I’m going to law school” identifies the type of person who places six stamps on a letter, hoping the post office will deliver it six times faster. Unhappily, in a market economy, such numerical illiteracy makes a person lawful prey.
Market economy my foot...
DeleteTurn off the student loan money from the Federal Bank of Unicorn Farts and the whole scam dies right now.
Yes, the pipeline of easy risk-free loan $$$ - end it and 10 law schools will shut down within 6 months.
DeleteFederal loan funds
Deletegushing like raging river
water sports for deans
Modern ball and chain
heavier with each new step
Non-dischargeable
Standards slip away
greased by ever flowing loans
trip this toilet now
Its cultural conditioning and its powerful... In Illinois, its Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow rolled into La Law, Good Wife, Blue Bloods and Boston Legal. It's a mystique....It's like an old car commercial...Ride the wind with Fury! It's not sit on the Edens in Traffic with Fury!
DeleteGlobal leadership
DeleteTo a funky hip-hop beat
Indiana Tech
Just one-thirty-eight?
We'll give you a scholarship
Thomas M. Cooley
Accreditation:
ABA distributes in
Box of Cracker Jack
"It's not 'sit on the Edens in Traffic with Fury!' "
DeleteOK, I LOL'ed at that one.
You kids and you're rap music.... Here's a hat tip to Bonnie Tyler, so you kids can get some class:
DeleteSung to Bonnie Tyler's, "It's a Heartache"
It’s a toilet
Nothing but a toilet.
Scams you when it’s too late
Scams you when you’re down.
Law’s a fool’s game
Nothing but a fool’s game.
Standing in the cold rain
Feeling like a clown
It’s a toilet
Nothing but a toilet.
Loves you ‘til your bank breaks
Then it lets you down.
It ain’t right with loans to bear,
When you find, they just don’t care for you
It ain’t wise to heed someone
Whose Lexus lease is dependent on … you.
It’s a toilet
Nothing but a toilet.
Scams you when it’s too late
Scams you when you’re down.
Law’s a fool’s game
Nothing but a fool’s game.
Standing in the cold rain
Feeling like a clown
It’s a toilet
Nothing but a toilet.
Loves you ‘til your bank breaks
Then it lets you down……..
Law school has been designed to be overextended and expensive. A two-year associates degree should be sufficient, especially one emphasizing law. No need for two more years. And law school should be reduced to two years from three. Get rid of useless electives. Of course, those three years not being schooled amounts to lost money...money which will be missed.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, it would be four years for a law degree and if you wind up unemployed, and you most likely will, it would be similar to the many who are unemployed with a bachelor's degree.
Yes, and no.
DeleteFor "lawyers" doing routine document review and the like, YES an associates degree is sufficient.
However, for lawyers that are actually practicing law (and deal with real legal concepts), a full 4 year college + 3-4 years of law school is appropriate.
People go to law school to become lawyers. Everything should be geared to that end.
DeleteThe standard for lawyers should be raised, not lowered. I agree with 1:46.
DeleteMore schooling does precious little to raise those standards when colleges and law schools and matriculate and pass on whomever. The profession needs to step up and enforce strict requirements on the LSAT and the Bar Exam, so people who are unfit for the practice of law don't make it in the gauntlet in the first place.
Delete"Now, we appear to be strongly on course for 5.5 applications per applicant, a significant departure. This would indicate that applicants are being much more selective in their choices, for various reasons, rather than having safety schools or taking a scattershot approach. "
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I wonder if schools are waiving admission fees less often this year. Does anyone know?
OK, but when will schools start closing? Will they start closing?
ReplyDeleteAll this data is interesting, but we need to start seeing schools shut down.
I recall there was once a 'Law School Death Watch' site. Does anyone know anything about it?
DeleteDeath-watching struggling law schools is entertaining, and may unwittingly give some solace to 'respectable' second and third tier schools. The reality is that all third tier schools need to close, and about half the second tier. Ask solos... it's the profession that's on death watch.
If you're considering law school, think hard about whether you will be able to get the type of job you want Talk to people. Also, look around at the schools you're considering and see how many professors actually were lawyers. If there aren't many, ask yourself why not. Finally, run the numbers and figure out if law school makes financial sense.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the Faculty Lounge law blog produced by law professors and deans, you will earn 114K in a stable profession that continues to hire at a fairly brisk pace. They claim that most of their recent grads are "where they want to be" within two years max. They are impartial.
Delete“Should I go to law school?”
DeleteThe relevant question is, “Should I be a lawyer?”
Asking, “Should I go to law school” is like asking, “Should I go to the recruiting office this morning and complete the 6-page paperwork?” You should be asking: “Am I willing to join the army, subject myself to military discipline, serve several years, and allow myself to be placed in a combat situation if required?” Thank God many fine individuals answer, “Hell Yes!”
The relevant question for today’s law school applicant is: “Can I actually be a lawyer who gets compensated for my work?” (If the compensation thing isn’t important, then by all means, go).
LSAT prep materials and law schools sure don’t have the answer, kids. Here’s where to get that answer:
First, interview 7 currently practicing solos who graduated from law school anywhere between 2000 and 2015. Chances are now inevitable you’ll eventually solo. Discover whether they are the only breadwinner in the family, or whether they are “it.” Did they set out to solo? Topics to discuss include: Obamacare, advertising, office sharing, access to credit, taxes, tax penalties, clients, and business outlook. “Do you think things getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?”
Second, interview another 7 lawyers in whatever field you chose who have some current connection to a firm or company and who graduated pretty much whenever. Try earnestly to find happy, successful lawyers; people whom you wish to emulate. Use the old-timers’ perspective to gain a long term view of the profession (are things getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?), and use more recent graduates’ experience to explore topics such intra-office politics, survival strategies, clients, Obamacare, and their thoughts on their impending soloing.
Honestly interview all 14 lawyers. Don’t merely talk to granddad who retired from a corporate legal department seven years ago, and your mom’s close friend who writes a freelance brief out of her house every now and then. No; interview 14. Don’t waste time asking them about Torts class, how to brief a case, their favorite prof, or whether the bar exam is tough. Spend your time on their professional experiences.
Interfacing with 14 lawyers from today’s legal trenches will give you the answer you need.
You won’t be going to law school.
I concur in part and dissent in part. Running a solo practice is not the issue with a good CPA. It is not the clients or the hassles. I signed up for that and it's part of the territory. We see clients at their worst in difficult jams. What we didn't bargain for is the complete onslaught of attorneys coming online from 225 law schools that lowered admission standards. They continued to pump out attorneys even when the "dealerships" were overflowing with stock. Law Deans are now Willie Lowmans, or closers... The prawfs continue to use smoke and mirrors tell newbies and the rest of the world that the average attorney earns $114K with brisk hiring.
DeleteAn average of $114k, if true, would not imply that the typical graduate can make any money in law. Consider a group in which one person makes a million a year and the other nine make zero: the average is $100k, but nobody's income is even close to that. Which is why people who know a bit of math want to see not only measures of central tendency, such as averages, but also standard deviations and other clues as to distribution. (Another reason to know some math.)
DeleteAnd that's how the legal "profession" is: a few people make millions; some make hundreds of thousands; most get modest incomes; many get nothing at all and are probably not counted in calculations of average income. The result is a weird distribution that cannot be usefully summarized with a single measure such as the mean (average).
What's really happening is increasingly evident. Applicants are registering with LSAC earlier in the year than they did five years ago. They are also registering earlier for the LSAT. Thanks to better information, not only from Law School Transparency but also from Top Law Schools, Law School Numbers, and Admission by the Numbers, they finally understand the irrational premium placed on early applications by elite US law schools. They are also increasingly preferring elite law schools to shitholes and dumpster fires, for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteThese new figures should shut up Brian Leiter once and for all. Leiter, the morally depraved scam artist who is still trying to lure unsuspecting law students into disastrous careers as law professors, claimed as recently as October 30 that LSAT registrations were up 7.4%, which would lead to more hiring by law schools. I find it incredible that Leiter's brand of self-serving, pseudoscientific analysis would be tolerated at an elite law school. Chicago really doesn't need to deceive aspiring law professors in order to fill its seats.
One has to believe that the other faculty at Chicago have resigned to have to live with him, not that they like his caustic, self-destructive personality and the negative attention he brings to the school. It's more like having the in-law you can do nothing about.
DeleteOr at least I hope. I hold U of C in high regard, so hopefully the law school is not an anomaly.
Drake Law is looking for an Academic Success Director, to help flog the semi-literate clods they're milking for federal money across the academic finish line!
ReplyDeletehttps://drake.hiretouch.com/job-details?jobID=31938&job=director-academic-success-law-school-998251
Most TTTs now have an Academic Success Director. They are paid with the loan money scammed from the low LSAT students to try to get said students up to a standard where they can pass the bar.
DeleteLast summer the ABA apparently intimated to Indiana Tech that it would have to bring in someone to drag brain-dead centurions through the program by the scruff of the neck. So Indiana Tech hired this person:
Deletehttp://law.indianatech.edu/staff/admin/dannebohm/
"The Assistant Dean for Student Advancement and Assessment has over 20 years of experience in education, training, and program management experience. In addition to her JD, she possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Secondary Education. Most of her teaching experiences have been working with students preparing for standardized exams. This has involved extensive classroom teaching experience, as well as significant amount of work doing one-on-one tutoring and feedback. For approximately the past five years, she has assisted hundreds of students pass the bar exam. She has designed and implemented pre-bar programming which assisted students, including at-risk students, to prepare for the rigors of the bar exam. Furthermore, she has practiced in the areas of family law and estate planning, including volunteer and pro bono work in these areas. She currently has a scholarly work in progress To Serve, But Not Protected?"
The "bad at math" thing is, indeed, a canard. I personally know two high school valedictorians--my father and stepfather--who went to law school (although my dad has said he should have become a doctor due to the money). My salutatarian wife attended law school with me. I'm sure there are many such examples. Furthermore, your comment made me wonder whether other professions, like medicine or accounting, require advanced math. Quick internet research suggests the answer is no. I say all this merely to defend the intellectual reputation of lawyers versus other professionals. I still think law school and the practice of law are terrible things that most people should avoid.
ReplyDeleteAdvanced math, in the sense of calculus and beyond, is required by very few professions and is not really a useful skill to have. Many lawyers are criticized for lacking basic math skills, though. Speaking of the lawyers I know in my life, many are valedictorians and other high-achievers, but also shockingly innumerate. They are nevertheless excellent legal practitioners, but I would not impute mathematical talent upon them.
DeleteWell, here's one lawyer who uses the calculus all the time (not necessarily in his work) and is shocked to see it characterized as not useful.
DeleteBut, yes, "bad at math" in this context means ignorant of rudimentary arithmetic. The quantitative incompetence of many legal practitioners is disgraceful.
DeleteI doubt whether one can be a good lawyer without a solid foundation in arithmetic. See Leila Schneps's Math on Trial: How numbers get used and abused in the courtroom.
11:22 here,
DeleteI work in a position that probably technically counts as STEM and for me calculus is unequivocally useless. I use discrete mathematics more than anything, but it is still pretty low-level usage that didn't actually require any sort of formal training.
It's nice to use it in your own time, but very few people benefit professionally from knowing calculus.
In new news, this new Illinois law is effective, allowing non-citizens to practice law in Illinois. Forget the problem of lawyer under-employment especially of the young, and forget rule of law
ReplyDeleteAttorney Licensure of Non-Citizens (P.A. 099-0419, SB 23)
Adds attorney licensure of non-citizens to Illinois statute in line with the intent of President Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=099-0419&GA=99
The rule of law militates in favor of licensing people without regard for their citizenship.
DeleteExcluding non-citizens—or people of a specified race, gender, age range, and so on—is no way to solve the problem of underemployment.
I concur with Old Guy. The issue for Illinois and other sanctuary jurisdictions is discrimination and sending a strong message to Trump and others that they are full of shit. The real issue for legal unemployment or over saturation of the profession is that the law schools lowered their standards and pumped out less qualified attorneys regardless of national origin or race. There is not enough legal work to go around for everybody whether you are an undocumented refugee from Iceland or descended from the Mayflower and are a Trump approved American Oregon militia.
DeleteIt doesn't help matters, but it is a small injury. doing this is the equivalent of kicking the rubble after the building was demolished.
DeleteUm, the rule of law means that only citizens can practice law.
ReplyDeleteAre you by chance a graduate of Indiana Tech?
Delete