Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Erode Forum

[afitouri]

I'm not going to argue with how crappy or not-crappy the legal job market is. People can make decisions for themselves. I do, however, take issue with the complete lack of economics knowledge going on in this thread.

But the gov't only wants to use "core" inflation in its statistics.

Yes. Measuring wildly volatile data and trying to derive some sort of meaningful overall trend from them is a waste of time. If otherwise relatively static prices increase significantly, then there's probably something to it. Also, complaining that the government is trying to sugarcoat things by suggesting deflation is just around the corner either doesn't understand what sugar-coating or what deflation is.

THANK YOU. Exactly what I was saying before. The people who write the rules on what a recovery is and then insiting we are in one is as honest as the ABA writing the rules for employment reporting and then schools boasting 99% employment. It's a farce.

Just because the gov't spoon fed you one definition, that happens to be neatly included in your USA-indoctrination books I mean textbooks, doesn't mean it's the best or only definition. I think the gov'ts definitions are arbitrary and misleading. Just look at the economic indicators, to call this a recovery doesn't mean it's a recovery, it means we have a very playful and amusing definition of recovery.

a)A recession is defined as the period of time in which the economy is contracting.

Again, many organizations have different definitions of a recession. Saying "A recession is defined as..." is already a false statement. Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there, the end.

[071816]

After reading this entire thread I have a hard time understanding why OP even wants to go to law school. You seem to be just as much of an idiot as you make everyone else out to be. If you currently have a stable job as a CPA and you are so ready to go back to it why don't you just stick with your current job??

[robotclubmember]

After reading this entire thread I have a hard time understanding why OP even wants to go to law school. You seem to be just as much of an idiot as you make everyone else out to be. If you currently have a stable job as a CPA and you are so ready to go back to it why don't you just stick with your current job??

I have good connections to my market and like I already said, I crunched the numbers and found a favorable ROI pursuing a legal career. My models were based on information from last year (and boy a year changes a lot) but I'm already set on the course. I'm also acknowledging the course is not immutable. Further, I want a legal education. I like school.

Not so. The post I made right after OP says:

I think you have an inflated view of T14s and make arbitrary distinctions between schools (e.g. T1). If you're going to say things like "YOU ARE STUPID" to certain groups of people, at least have the ability to recognize your own failings in the same post.

there is an exception to every rule and the exception may be arising more frequently, but a decent job that requires a jd is still the rule for t14 grads.

That's my feeling on it. No matter how you raise the issue there will be exceptions on one side, rule on the other, and by no means am I suggesting its black and white, just trying to simplify for the sake of discussion.

[drays917]

Again, many organizations have different definitions of a recession. Saying "A recession is defined as..." is already a false statement. Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there, the end.

That's true, but the definitions differ based on which indicators are rising/falling, generally focused on GDP. There is no accepted definition that means "expanding slowly and beneath peak output". "Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there", but that doesn't mean they're correct.

[Gizmo]

Just because the gov't spoon fed you one definition, that happens to be neatly included in your USA-indoctrination books I mean textbooks, doesn't mean it's the best or only definition. I think the gov'ts definitions are arbitrary and misleading. Just look at the economic indicators, to call this a recovery doesn't mean it's a recovery, it means we have a very playful and amusing definition of recovery.

Isn't there an LSAT question for what's going on here? Something about changing the meaning of a word?

Again, many organizations have different definitions of a recession. Saying "A recession is defined as..." is already a false statement. Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there, the end.

Sources? Also, seeing posts about defining terms from the "Should I check AA" guy made me lol.

[MTal]

Robot Club is a CPA...he actually understands things that other lawyers find useful like financial statements, unlike the rest of you ethnic studies chumps.

[robotclubmember]

Again, many organizations have different definitions of a recession. Saying "A recession is defined as..." is already a false statement. Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there, the end.

That's true, but the definitions differ based on which indicators are rising/falling, generally focused on GDP. There is no accepted definition that means "expanding slowly and beneath peak output". "Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there", but that doesn't mean they're correct.

The definition that claims this is a recovery is about as accurate as my definition of the feces I just blasted my toilet with being a healthy and nutritious snack for children of all ages.

[rayiner]

Again, many organizations have different definitions of a recession. Saying "A recession is defined as..." is already a false statement. Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there, the end.

That's true, but the definitions differ based on which indicators are rising/falling, generally focused on GDP. There is no accepted definition that means "expanding slowly and beneath peak output". "Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there", but that doesn't mean they're correct.

The definition that claims this is a recovery is about as accurate as my definition of the feces I just blasted my toilet with being a healthy and nutritious snack for children of all ages.

Why are you arguing about the definition of recovery when we're talking about the definition of recession?

[Wade LeBosh]

Again, many organizations have different definitions of a recession. Saying "A recession is defined as..." is already a false statement. Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there, the end.

That's true, but the definitions differ based on which indicators are rising/falling, generally focused on GDP. There is no accepted definition that means "expanding slowly and beneath peak output". "Anyone can pull from the numerous definitions out there", but that doesn't mean they're correct.

The definition that claims this is a recovery is about as accurate as my definition of the feces I just blasted my toilet with being a healthy and nutritious snack for children of all ages.

It's all relative.

[robotclubmember]

Why are you arguing about the definition of recovery when we're talking about the definition of recession?

since we've narrowed ourselves down to those two options, to define one is to define what the other is not. it's all the same. this debate is already dead to me. if it's your opinion that this is a true recovery, then i don't want to interfere with your opinion. you will be able to find a definition that supports your assertion, absolutely. i am of the opinion that because we are recessed far enough from the base year, and because most GDP gains have been gutted by inflation, and because unemployment continues to rise, and because the housing market never recovered from its meteoric decline, and because real wages and consumer spending is absolutely stagnant, that we are still in a recession, regardless of whatever fed propoganda definition of recession or recovery we are using. i am of the opinion that due to a poor financial position and generally poor monetary and fiscal policy, that we will remain in a recession for a protracted period of time. i am of the opinion this will not turn into a depression. i'm not saying the sky is falling, but look around you.

[sunynp]

Given the terrible reporting of data by law schools, which everyone knows exists, how reliable is this information in the article? Could there have been over-reporting from the schools? How reliable was the information for previous years?

Also from the article:

The national median starting salary at law firms dropped to $104,000 from $130,000 in 2009, reflecting a shift in the distribution of jobs and salary adjustments at some firms, the NALP said today. The report cited information submitted by 192 laws schools and covering 93 percent of 2010 graduates.
“This is in some ways the fallout of 2008,” NALP Executive Director James Leipold said in a phone interview. “This class was the class that was most squeezed by the recession.”

It is confusing because the data reports 93 percent of 2010 graduates but the salary is reported for 2009? And then the year 2008 is mentioned?

[Bill Cosby]

Robot Club is a CPA...he actually understands things that other lawyers find useful like financial statements, unlike the rest of you ethnic studies chumps.

CPA =/= economist.

[sunynp]

Another question: how useful is the measure of national median for salary on individual decisions? I think more specific information would be helpful.

[pattonthicke]

Just went through the whole thread and am a bit confused as to why op gives a fuck about other ppl's decision to go to law school. Also, confused, why op assumes that non t14ers are just ignorant little shits who dont have access to the internet and cant clearly see that the legal sector is shit. As a non t14er myself, i know its ugly. I know i need big law to pay off my debt, and only have a 5% chance at it. I can read MOTHERFUCKER!!! I know that I probably wont be that special little snowflake that actually gets big law. I know when i graduate i will be deep in debt with little chance of paying it off before i die. But guess what, maybe i dont care. Why you ask, do i go to law school anyway? In the spirit of Gov Chris Cristie, its none of your business why i decide to go to law school!!!! I dont ask you, so dont ask me.

[MTal]

Just went through the whole thread and am a bit confused as to why op gives a fuck about other ppl's decision to go to law school. Also, confused, why op assumes that non t14ers are just ignorant little shits who dont have access to the internet and cant clearly see that the legal sector is shit. As a non t14er myself, i know its ugly. I know i need big law to pay off my debt, and only have a 5% chance at it. I can read MOTHERFUCKER!!! I know that I probably wont be that special little snowflake that actually gets big law. I know when i graduate i will be deep in debt with little chance of paying it off before i die. But guess what, maybe i dont care. Why you ask, do i go to law school anyway? In the spirit of Gov Chris Cristie, its none of your business why i decide to go to law school!!!! I dont ask you, so dont ask me.

You have no business going to law school.

[robotclubmember]

Just went through the whole thread and am a bit confused as to why op gives a fuck about other ppl's decision to go to law school. Also, confused, why op assumes that non t14ers are just ignorant little shits who dont have access to the internet and cant clearly see that the legal sector is shit. As a non t14er myself, i know its ugly. I know i need big law to pay off my debt, and only have a 5% chance at it. I can read MOTHERFUCKER!!! I know that I probably wont be that special little snowflake that actually gets big law. I know when i graduate i will be deep in debt with little chance of paying it off before i die. But guess what, maybe i dont care. Why you ask, do i go to law school anyway? In the spirit of Gov Chris Cristie, its none of your business why i decide to go to law school!!!! I dont ask you, so dont ask me.

Like I mentioned to another poster, it's a tough balance to strike when approaching this issue. In my experience, if you say all law schools are potentially a bad investment (key word = potentially, and it's true), you get discredited for being chicken little, crying wolf what have you. If you call out some schools but not others, you'll get called out on deriding people's personal decisions. There is no safe way to introduce the issue without getting called out by someone or another. The best I was able to do was to say that while the rule in T14 is good prospects, there are plenty of exceptions. And that it is a gamble beneath a certain level of school, and ymmv.

There is a reason I post this stuff in admissions and not the current student forum. I'm only interested in piling on to influence more people not to go to law school or exercise caution in doing so. I can def appreciate the bad-economy-thread fatigue that current law school students on this forum experience, but I haven't been around as long, and there are new people piling in everyday to whom this is real news, this is shit they never even dreamed of. The sheer volume of law school students, the disarray that the supply demand curve for the legal field is in is evidence that many prospectives simply do not know what is going on or are in denial. This article clearly shows that the supply demand EQ has shifted and the price of lawyers has fallen. That's why it affects me. For every lawyer that goes to law school without a plan, that doubles down on a useless lib arts degree with a useless law degree, it dilutes the field for the rest of us that have a genuine interest in the law and have done their due diligence. I have a direct interest, because the price of my services (i.e., my salary) will be diminished in the future, as is shown in the article. But it will hurt you and those going to TTT's far more than it will ever hurt me, and that's the part that I care about most (believe it or not). Also, it's wasteful of taxpayer dollars for students with a non-viable plan to take federally backed loans they can't repay or discharge and get a useless law degree with it.

You are in law school. This article is not aimed at you. You have already made your supper and you will eat your peas. This article is aimed at prospective applicants. It's a good article that deserved a share, and ultimately exposing lurkers to the discussion is a good thing I think.

P.S.: I am not a MOTHERFUCKER!!!

[prezidentv8]

This thread delivers.

[areyouinsane]

On a board where mid-law is often frowned upon, I'm thinking that discussing solo practice might be a little bit off-topic/out of place. I could be wrong though.

"Mid-law" jobs for the most part hire either:

1.) Biglaw refugees looking for saner work hours and willing to accept a 20-40% pay cut in exchange for same,

2.) Ex-government lawyers (SEC, IRS etc) looking for a raise in pay/chance to be equity partner,

3.) Lawyers from small firms with portable business and excellent rainmaking/schmoozing skills.


Recent JD's meet none of these criteria, hence Mid-Law is largely a chimera that 0 L's must blindly believe in in order to justify their decision to attend a non Top 14 school. The bi-modal salary distribution charts prove beyond any doubt that Mid-Law does not really exist for entry-level grads- it's either 160 K or 40-50 K (or less in saturated markets like NJ/NYC).

Do not delude yourself into thinking that if you strike out for Biglaw at OCI, there will be mid-sized firms willing to offer you an 80-90 K starting salary as a "consolation prize." Entry-level jobs paying that kind of $$$ are extremely rare.

For example, here is what many of you might consider a "midlaw" firm:

http://www.wilsonelser.com/

This place generally requires 2-3 years of experience and pays about 65 K. They do sometimes hire people right out of law school, but not often. I had many friends who worked at this place and other firms similar to it like this one:

http://www.lskdnylaw.com/careers.asp

[FeelTheHeat]

Robot Club is a CPA...he actually understands things that other lawyers find useful like financial statements, unlike the rest of you ethnic studies chumps.

CPA =/= economist.

Also, I enjoy MTal's rationalization that not being a CPA equates to being unable to understand economics and numbers.

[robotclubmember]

To add, if your opportunities, tastes, and abilities are suited to a career in law, and the viability of your plans are supported by reality and not some fiction of 99% employment, then you should go to law school.

If you do not have sufficient opportunities (top school, preferably not at sticker), you should reconsider.
If your tastes do not suit you to law (as in, you aren't going out of genuine passion but because you don't have a job after ugrad and don't know what to do next), you should reconsider.
If you do not have the right abilities (you can't maintain good grades after 1L or there is reason to believe you lack the abilities to compete in law school), you should reconsider.

2 out of 3 isn't good enough anymore. The laws of supply and demand still apply to you, no matter who you are. If any one of those three pieces are not there and you are still going to attend law school, you should re-evaluate your decision-making process. Law school just isn't for everyone. It might not even be for me, I don't know yet.

[cmckid]

Robot Club Member, you are dumb. dumb, paranoid, misguided, and just plain dumb.

You realize that about 500 different foundations track GDP, inflation, etc etc etc worldwide, cross checked against different countries, different formulas, different metrics, on an almost constant basis? That an entire profession, many of whom are funded by political interests that would be more than happy to humiliate the Obama administration by pointing out the flaws in its numbers, crunch, recrunch, and check every single number that comes out.

I don't know how people like you actually exist. Paranoids like you have no concept that there are thousands of people in D.C. alone whose job it is to check this stuff, not to mention indepenent research foundations, university professors, magazines like the economist, and financial services forecasters.

Please, get a clue. I'm going to make a wild guess that you DIDN'T study economics in undergrad.


As to the meat of this- this is a jobless recovery because this is a recession caused by overleveraging in the financial sector, which allowed companies to play fast and loose in general. Now companies are using their cash and profits to build reserves, while the financial sector deleverages, meaning that job growth won't catch up until the financial services stop deleveraging and begin lending in earnest.

Basically, we're fundamentally ok now, but no one is taking a risk by expanding until Europe settles down, greece gets bailed out, financial sector gets straightened out, and consumer appetite picks up. There- reality. Stop making crap up about a government conspiracy.

[TheFactor]

To add, if your opportunities, tastes, and abilities are suited to a career in law, and the viability of your plans are supported by reality and not some fiction of 99% employment, then you should go to law school.

If you do not have sufficient opportunities (top school, preferably not at sticker), you should reconsider.
If your tastes do not suit you to law (as in, you aren't going out of genuine passion but because you don't have a job after ugrad and don't know what to do next), you should reconsider.
If you do not have the right abilities (you can't maintain good grades after 1L or there is reason to believe you lack the abilities to compete in law school), you should reconsider.

2 out of 3 isn't good enough anymore. The laws of supply and demand still apply to you, no matter who you are. If any one of those three pieces are not there and you are still going to attend law school, you should re-evaluate your decision-making process. Law school just isn't for everyone. It might not even be for me, I don't know yet.

you mad?

[FeelTheHeat]

Robot Club Member, you are dumb. dumb, paranoid, misguided, and just plain dumb.

You realize that about 500 different foundations track GDP, inflation, etc etc etc worldwide, cross checked against different countries, different formulas, different metrics, on an almost constant basis? That an entire profession, many of whom are funded by political interests that would be more than happy to humiliate the Obama administration by pointing out the flaws in its numbers, crunch, recrunch, and check every single number that comes out.

I don't know how people like you actually exist. Paranoids like you have no concept that there are thousands of people in D.C. alone whose job it is to check this stuff, not to mention indepenent research foundations, university professors, magazines like the economist, and financial services forecasters.

Please, get a clue. I'm going to make a wild guess that you DIDN'T study economics in undergrad.


As to the meat of this- this is a jobless recovery because this is a recession caused by overleveraging in the financial sector, which allowed companies to play fast and loose in general. Now companies are using their cash and profits to build reserves, while the financial sector deleverages, meaning that job growth won't catch up until the financial services stop deleveraging and begin lending in earnest.

Basically, we're fundamentally ok now, but no one is taking a risk by expanding until Europe settles down, greece gets bailed out, financial sector gets straightened out, and consumer appetite picks up. There- reality. Stop making crap up about a government conspiracy.

--ImageRemoved--

[cmckid]

Robot Club Member, you are dumb. dumb, paranoid, misguided, and just plain dumb.

You realize that about 500 different foundations track GDP, inflation, etc etc etc worldwide, cross checked against different countries, different formulas, different metrics, on an almost constant basis? That an entire profession, many of whom are funded by political interests that would be more than happy to humiliate the Obama administration by pointing out the flaws in its numbers, crunch, recrunch, and check every single number that comes out.

I don't know how people like you actually exist. Paranoids like you have no concept that there are thousands of people in D.C. alone whose job it is to check this stuff, not to mention indepenent research foundations, university professors, magazines like the economist, and financial services forecasters.

Please, get a clue. I'm going to make a wild guess that you DIDN'T study economics in undergrad.


As to the meat of this- this is a jobless recovery because this is a recession caused by overleveraging in the financial sector, which allowed companies to play fast and loose in general. Now companies are using their cash and profits to build reserves, while the financial sector deleverages, meaning that job growth won't catch up until the financial services stop deleveraging and begin lending in earnest.

Basically, we're fundamentally ok now, but no one is taking a risk by expanding until Europe settles down, greece gets bailed out, financial sector gets straightened out, and consumer appetite picks up. There- reality. Stop making crap up about a government conspiracy.

--ImageRemoved--

That dudes hair...
IS SO RIDICULOUS. I want that hair. So bad.

[robotclubmember]

Robot Club Member, you are dumb. dumb, paranoid, misguided, and just plain dumb.

You realize that about 500 different foundations track GDP, inflation, etc etc etc worldwide, cross checked against different countries, different formulas, different metrics, on an almost constant basis? That an entire profession, many of whom are funded by political interests that would be more than happy to humiliate the Obama administration by pointing out the flaws in its numbers, crunch, recrunch, and check every single number that comes out.

I don't know how people like you actually exist. Paranoids like you have no concept that there are thousands of people in D.C. alone whose job it is to check this stuff, not to mention indepenent research foundations, university professors, magazines like the economist, and financial services forecasters.

Please, get a clue. I'm going to make a wild guess that you DIDN'T study economics in undergrad.


As to the meat of this- this is a jobless recovery because this is a recession caused by overleveraging in the financial sector, which allowed companies to play fast and loose in general. Now companies are using their cash and profits to build reserves, while the financial sector deleverages, meaning that job growth won't catch up until the financial services stop deleveraging and begin lending in earnest.

Basically, we're fundamentally ok now, but no one is taking a risk by expanding until Europe settles down, greece gets bailed out, financial sector gets straightened out, and consumer appetite picks up. There- reality. Stop making crap up about a government conspiracy.

o hai i see ur new here. hallo.

many foundations DO challenge the numbers. that's how government obfuscations and accounting gimmicks get brought to the public's attention (which the public seems complacent with, for the same reasons they are complacent with banning gay marriage or a 1930's prohibition era attitude on marijuana or an invasive TSA or firing whisteblowers or stupid legislative acts with patriot or freedom in their name that are designed to reduce your liberties -- they just don't care anymore). i'm not just making up how the gov't manages inflation, i even described it in this thread. and i think that the definition misses a lot and understates inflation and gave my reason why: it only considers core inflation, and most inflation that affects ordinary households is NOT "core" inflation. since real growth is growth less inflation, and we're understating inflation, we are overstating real growth. do you see what i am saying now? and it is not widely disputed that this is true. i don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement that, while we have technical definitions that say one thing, there is a fuller picture they do not tell. when you look at the fuller picture, it's difficult to justify saying we are not in a recession currently, which the government is doing. The government is not really that honest, if you haven't noticed. I'm not paranoid about it, but I think the facts bear out that the economic data (i.e., inflation metrics, BLS unemployment data) isn't the most transparent and can be obfuscated and misrepresented.

Ok, thank you for regurgitating a very base overview of why we are in a recession. A lot of original thought there. This thread isn't about a government conspiracy, if you haven't noticed, it's about law school being a lulzy venture in this day and age, and specifically, how the supply demand curve of the legal field has shifted down and price has fallen as a result.