Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
zanda
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:36 am

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby zanda » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:50 am

Samara wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:there should be 40-50 law schools

I hope you're trolling.

The number sounds about right. I was going to say something closer to 25 or 30, but there does seem to be a place for smaller state public schools.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby DoubleChecks » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:01 am

Fred_McGriff wrote:
MrAnon wrote:
Fred_McGriff wrote:Be clear to differentiate between good regional TTTs and TTTToilets. 70% of South Carolina's bar association went to the University of South Carolina, which is a TTT. If you want to practice in the state, it's a better bet than anywhere else. The same goes for schools like Ole Miss and Montana.

For the overwhelming majority of those schools they're a scam, but for some of them, they provide decent regional employment and are relatively cheap.


Probably 1/4 of graduates for such flagship schools are completely unemployable in the legal profession. There's only room for so many lawyers in Montana, Mississippi, and SC.


Touche, but with the cost of living in those places, some of that bottom quarter will wind up doing alright... I'd imagine there are plenty of Ole Miss shingle hangers in small towns in the delta that scrape by etc. Law school probably wasn't the best idea, but I doubt they're starving.

If you live in one of those states, are well connected, and above medians, can go for very cheap, they're not all that bad of an idea, especially compared with everywhere else in TTT and TTTT


Well sure okay, but this sounds like the exception and not the rule. tbf, when people talk, I take them to mean in general, or else almost EVERY topic would have disclaimer/exception posts following lol. Yes, if you only need a degree for a law job you would get from an inside connection, go to local TTT. If you get a full ride no strings attached scholly and don't have anything better to do for those 3 yrs and want to practice law, go to TTT. If you are independently wealthy and want to go to law for self-edification, go to TTT, etc.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby Samara » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:11 am

zanda wrote:
Samara wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:there should be 40-50 law schools

I hope you're trolling.

The number sounds about right. I was going to say something closer to 25 or 30, but there does seem to be a place for smaller state public schools.

Seriously? At the lowest point of this recent weak market, there were 1.5 law school grads for every new law job. If you cut down to 50 schools, you would have three new law jobs for every new law grad. Those extra law grads would get jobs mighty fast. Then what do you do in a couple years when the surplus of grads is eaten up, the economy rebounds, and more than two-thirds of all new law jobs are going unfilled?

I think there are too many law schools, but let's not go crazy.

User avatar
Opie
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby Opie » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:38 am

Ideally I think there should be about .8-.9 law jobs for every law grad. That way there is still enough incentive to do well in law school.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby Samara » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:58 am

Opie wrote:Ideally I think there should be about .8-.9 law jobs for every law grad. That way there is still enough incentive to do well in law school.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Plus, there is a not insignificant proportion of law school students who don't intend to practice.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby vanwinkle » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:39 pm

Samara wrote:Seriously? At the lowest point of this recent weak market, there were 1.5 law school grads for every new law job.

Say what? From what I've read, even before the economy tanked, there were 1.5 law school grads for every new law job. More specifically, there were approximately 45,000 law grads and 30,000 jobs taken by recent graduates. For examples of this, see this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=138221#p3632902

That post refers to Class of 2007 data, where hiring was complete well before our current downturn hit. Additionally, you can look at the NALP data ( http://www.nalp.org/employmentpatterns1999-2009 ) and add the two columns (men+women or minorities+nonminorities) to get the total number of jobs taken by recent graduates. In 1999, 2004, and 2009, they all come out to around 30,000 jobs total. There are over 200+ law schools graduating somewhere around 45,000 new lawyers each year, so even by 2009, before the downturn, we were already at 1.5 grads for each entry-level job opening.

Even after we get through the backlog and the economy fully recovers (which could take several more years at this point), we never needed the number of schools we have now. In the meantime, we're still creating 45,000 new lawyers per year, with no real need for any of them. The backlog of unemployed lawyers is so large that it could fill every job opening (and for the most part it is). Something drastic needs to be done to stop the glut from growing.

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby JamMasterJ » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:41 pm

Samara wrote:
zanda wrote:
Samara wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:there should be 40-50 law schools

I hope you're trolling.

The number sounds about right. I was going to say something closer to 25 or 30, but there does seem to be a place for smaller state public schools.

Seriously? At the lowest point of this recent weak market, there were 1.5 law school grads for every new law job. If you cut down to 50 schools, you would have three new law jobs for every new law grad. Those extra law grads would get jobs mighty fast. Then what do you do in a couple years when the surplus of grads is eaten up, the economy rebounds, and more than two-thirds of all new law jobs are going unfilled?

I think there are too many law schools, but let's not go crazy.

legalzoom will destroy us all.



That's trolling

btw, zanda: my first thought was kill everything below BC but if you think about it, places like OSU, Wisconsin, UT-Knoxville, and Lewis and Clark need to be there.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby Samara » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:46 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
Samara wrote:Seriously? At the lowest point of this recent weak market, there were 1.5 law school grads for every new law job.

Say what? From what I've read, even before the economy tanked, there were 1.5 law school grads for every new law job. More specifically, there were approximately 45,000 law grads and 30,000 jobs taken by recent graduates. For examples of this, see this thread:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1#p3632902

That post refers to Class of 2007 data, where hiring was complete well before our current downturn hit. Additionally, you can look at the NALP data ( http://www.nalp.org/employmentpatterns1999-2009 ) and add the two columns (men+women or minorities+nonminorities) to get the total number of jobs taken by recent graduates. In 1999, 2004, and 2009, they all come out to around 30,000 jobs total. There are over 200+ law schools graduating somewhere around 45,000 new lawyers each year, so even by 2009, before the downturn, we were already at 1.5 grads for each entry-level job opening.

Even after we get through the backlog and the economy fully recovers (which could take several more years at this point), we never needed the number of schools we have now. In the meantime, we're still creating 45,000 new lawyers per year, with no real need for any of them. The backlog of unemployed lawyers is so large that it could fill every job opening (and for the most part it is). Something drastic needs to be done to stop the glut from growing.

Whooooooooooops. Owned by vanwinkle. I thought that 45k/30k figure was for Class of 2009.

Still, don't you think cutting down to 50 schools is rather drastic, especially considering the large class sizes of TTTTs?

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby vanwinkle » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:51 pm

Samara wrote:Whooooooooooops. Owned by vanwinkle. I thought that 45k/30k figure was for Class of 2009.

Still, don't you think cutting down to 50 schools is rather drastic, especially considering the large class sizes of TTTTs?

Yes, I think it's drastic. I also think that drastic steps may be necessary at this point. If I had to pick a number, I'd probably pick 100, but the problem is that there are still many schools left that just shouldn't exist. For example, the NYC metro area does not need a dozen law schools. CLS, NYU, Fordham? Sure. Cardozo, Brooklyn? In better times, they had at least decent placement, so maybe. But by the time you get to Hofstra, Rutgers, St. John's, etc., you're into the land of the completely unnecessary.

Okay, maybe Rutgers, since I guess NJ could use more than one law school... but do they really need two campuses? Then you raise the problem of representation. NJ would throw a fit if you downsized their number of schools because you counted them in the "NYC region", even though they are... Even within NY you'd have real problems with this. Out of the above, if I say the top five schools survive, that's four in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn, and then none in Queens or the rest of Long Island.

Politically it might be more viable to slash it to 50 nationwide while things are still terrible, and then as the economy recovers and there's actual demand for more lawyers again, let things grow by accrediting schools when and where they're actually needed. At that point it'd be okay to start opening new schools, since unlike the current situation, there'd be demand for that many more graduates.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby Samara » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:59 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
Samara wrote:Whooooooooooops. Owned by vanwinkle. I thought that 45k/30k figure was for Class of 2009.

Still, don't you think cutting down to 50 schools is rather drastic, especially considering the large class sizes of TTTTs?

Yes, I think it's drastic. I also think that drastic steps may be necessary at this point. If I had to pick a number, I'd probably pick 100, but the problem is that there are still many schools left that just shouldn't exist. For example, the NYC metro area does not need a dozen law schools. CLS, NYU, Fordham? Sure. Cardozo, Brooklyn? In better times, they had at least decent placement, so maybe. But by the time you get to Hofstra, Rutgers, St. John's, etc., you're into the land of the completely unnecessary.

Okay, maybe Rutgers, since I guess NJ could use more than one law school... but do they really need two campuses? Then you raise the problem of representation. NJ would throw a fit if you downsized their number of schools because you counted them in the "NYC region", even though they are... Even within NY you'd have real problems with this. Out of the above, if I say the top five schools survive, that's four in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn, and then none in Queens or the rest of Long Island.

Politically it might be more viable to slash it to 50 nationwide while things are still terrible, and then as the economy recovers and there's actual demand for more lawyers again, let things grow by accrediting schools when and where they're actually needed. At that point it'd be okay to start opening new schools, since unlike the current situation, there'd be demand for that many more graduates.

100 or so sounds about right, so long as the line is not drawn strictly at T2. You're right about some areas more overserved than others: NY, CA, FL. As a matter of principle and practicality, I think state schools, especially flagship schools, should be given precedence over private schools. For-profit schools should be illegal.

I don't understand how closing more schools is more politically feasible than closing fewer. Regardless, I think it would be dangerous to overcorrect. Even if it is better in the short term, there would be pressure to quickly expand the number of schools down the road, which would again result in lower accreditation standards. I think it's still better to have too many than too few.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby DoubleChecks » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:16 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
Samara wrote:Whooooooooooops. Owned by vanwinkle. I thought that 45k/30k figure was for Class of 2009.

Still, don't you think cutting down to 50 schools is rather drastic, especially considering the large class sizes of TTTTs?

Yes, I think it's drastic. I also think that drastic steps may be necessary at this point. If I had to pick a number, I'd probably pick 100, but the problem is that there are still many schools left that just shouldn't exist. For example, the NYC metro area does not need a dozen law schools. CLS, NYU, Fordham? Sure. Cardozo, Brooklyn? In better times, they had at least decent placement, so maybe. But by the time you get to Hofstra, Rutgers, St. John's, etc., you're into the land of the completely unnecessary.

Okay, maybe Rutgers, since I guess NJ could use more than one law school... but do they really need two campuses? Then you raise the problem of representation. NJ would throw a fit if you downsized their number of schools because you counted them in the "NYC region", even though they are... Even within NY you'd have real problems with this. Out of the above, if I say the top five schools survive, that's four in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn, and then none in Queens or the rest of Long Island.

Politically it might be more viable to slash it to 50 nationwide while things are still terrible, and then as the economy recovers and there's actual demand for more lawyers again, let things grow by accrediting schools when and where they're actually needed. At that point it'd be okay to start opening new schools, since unlike the current situation, there'd be demand for that many more graduates.


I'm sad law schools either 1) whine so much and/or 2) have so much political clout. Even setting aside the AMA, for just optometry school...there is only one in all of TX (~100 spots). Yeah, go QQ Dallas cuz you ain't gots one lol.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Ethics of TTTs and TTTTs

Postby birdlaw117 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:20 pm

Jah'rakal wrote:ABA accredited these schools, thus proving they can indeed provide quality education, nothing wrong with those schools

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That is all.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests