2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby sinfiery » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:11 am

JCougar wrote:I already have a job, thanks.

How do you like HYS?




JCougar wrote:Or you can just go the low debt route and choose where you actually want to practice law--some place stable, some place that isn't defending large investment banks that crashed our economy, etc.


JCougar wrote:end up getting a Shitlaw job making $60K/year. If you're one of the lucky ones to even get a job at all. Even schools in the T6 these days have to stuff their completely unemployed grads into school-funded jobs where the school pays a public interest organization to have you work there for free for one year.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15508
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:36 am

JCougar wrote:Or you can just go the low debt route and choose where you actually want to practice law--some place stable, some place that isn't defending large investment banks that crashed our economy, etc.

Yes, someplace stable, where all of 40% of students even get legal jobs at all. After busting your ass to get above median and land a job in some shitlaw factory working only 60 hours a week for 40K/year, and all with only 100K debt, you too can live the American Dream!

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby cahwc12 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:06 am

sinfiery wrote:Yes...permanent changes...we are witness. 2009-2012 changed law as we know it permanently....yes...yes....fear...run...cower...etc.


I understand you need to better your job prospects coming out of LS in however many years you have left so continue to do work, my son. Do work.


Your numbers are awesome for this cycle but it bothers me how you write off one of the more knowledgeable posters on this forum. Honestly if I weren't going specifically into EE IP and I had read this stuff, I'd be scared shitless to go almost anywhere outside HYS.

WhiskeynCoke
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby WhiskeynCoke » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:08 pm

I'd be scared shitless to go almost anywhere outside HYS.


Try waiting tables at a shitty restaurant with shitty clientele for a few years. There are worse things than "settling" for CCN.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby sinfiery » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:18 pm

cahwc12 wrote:
sinfiery wrote:Yes...permanent changes...we are witness. 2009-2012 changed law as we know it permanently....yes...yes....fear...run...cower...etc.


I understand you need to better your job prospects coming out of LS in however many years you have left so continue to do work, my son. Do work.


Your numbers are awesome for this cycle but it bothers me how you write off one of the more knowledgeable posters on this forum. Honestly if I weren't going specifically into EE IP and I had read this stuff, I'd be scared shitless to go almost anywhere outside HYS.


I write off parts of his perspective. Ones I think are clearly exaggerations. Such as a permanent change within the legal market having occurred.

Obviously things are bad and it isn't a risk-free high return investment to attend law school as it may have been even a few years ago (What is? Med school? Nope. Maybe dentistry), but the extent to which he vilifies the prospect in so many threads on this forum is something that I will continue to write off.

Especially when he continues to scream his points in a thread unveiling the very statistical information that starts to counteract the view of the continuous and permanent decline of the legal job market for LS graduates that he spouts to such ridiculous extents.


WhiskeynCoke wrote:Try waiting tables at a shitty restaurant with shitty clientele for a few years. There are worse things than "settling" for CCN.


As someone making less money than most every waiter in this country, I can say this is damn true.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:34 pm

sinfiery wrote:I write off parts of his perspective. Ones I think are clearly exaggerations. Such as a permanent change within the legal market having occurred.


That's not my opinion...that's the opinion of just about every lawyer practicing right now. How many practicing law firm partners have you talked to in the last 12 months? I've spoke with dozens. There's going to be no "bounceback" in biglaw hiring. If anything, it's going to continue to thin out -- at least for people straight out of school. Clients are becoming less interested in paying $300/hour for an attorney with 0 years of experience, no matter what school they went to or what their grades.

Big law firms are going to operate more and more like businesses in the near future. There's even been discussion of the ABA making changes to allow non-lawyers to buy ownership stakes in law firms (I'm not sure if things will go this far). It's going to hurt a lot of lawyers with huge debt, and it's to my detriment as well (even though I'm not paying sticker), but I think we're going to eventually see Biglaw starting salaries go down to where they historically were. Biglaw to $160K was/is an unsustainable market bubble just like the real estate bubble. There was a rush to compete with the Cravath model that distorted the market for 20 years or so, but clients' view on the value of legal services is changing permanently. And the economics of Biglaw-client relations have changed as well. It's now a buyer's market for legal services.

It's a cultural change, as in a global economy, clients will be focused on value more than empty prestige. I don't think that, in the long run, this will be a bad thing for lawyers, but it's going to continue hurting law students unless tuition declines steeply.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:40 pm

Similarly, the law school tuition bubble is a result of the Biglaw salary bubble. People take out astronomical amounts of debt because they think Biglaw will pay it off. But there's just not those kinds of jobs anymore, and if you do get one, it's very hard to stay there over 5 years.

The problem right now is that the Biglaw bubble has burst, but the law school tuition bubble hasn't burst yet. So right now, it's the law students getting royally screwed. The value of a JD isn't worth what it used to be. It never was worth sticker except maybe 20 years ago. But it's worth even less now.

Hutz_and_Goodman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Hutz_and_Goodman » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm

One option (I'm doing this, feel free to pm me) is attending a non-t14 on a full ride+ scholarship. Most people admitted to the t14 will have this option. If my school is any indication, students attending on these scholarships do quite well (at my school 2/3 of the people from 2008 to last year have big law). If your grades suck or you hate ls you preserve the option to drop out without debt. It may be harder to get big law this way than at a t14,but as stated above you can miss it from t14 and many who do get it lament the golden handcuffs.

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby jkpolk » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:51 pm

No shit some people are going to fail. People dont cut it in all walks of life. Maybe your appearance/immutable characteristics aren't what an employer wants. Maybe you're dumb. Maybe you prioritize family and another candidate prioritizes work. Maybe your daddy isn't sweet enough. Maybe you piss off the wrong person. Maybe your degrees and background aren't marketable to clients. This is NOT bad or shocking. It's the way of the world- and the sooner you accept it the sooner you'll be able to accept your place and live a happier life. The pyramid is getting
    slightly
steeper in an already stratified world- this is a change in degree not a change in kind.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby sinfiery » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:53 pm

polkij333 wrote:No shit some people are going to fail. People dont cut it in all walks of life. Maybe your appearance/immutable characteristics aren't what an employer wants. Maybe you're dumb. Maybe you prioritize family and another candidate prioritizes work. Maybe your daddy isn't sweet enough. Maybe you piss off the wrong person. Maybe your degrees and background aren't marketable to clients. This is NOT bad or shocking. It's the way of the world- and the sooner you accept it the sooner you'll be able to accept your place and live a happier life. The pyramid is getting
    slightly
steeper in an already stratified world- this is a change in degree not a change in kind.

I'm rather impressed at how you cut right to the root of the argument.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:02 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
JCougar wrote:Or you can just go the low debt route and choose where you actually want to practice law--some place stable, some place that isn't defending large investment banks that crashed our economy, etc.

Yes, someplace stable, where all of 40% of students even get legal jobs at all. After busting your ass to get above median and land a job in some shitlaw factory working only 60 hours a week for 40K/year, and all with only 100K debt, you too can live the American Dream!


The number is more like 60% unless you are talking about a TTT. And within the T14, it's not like it's perfect, either...it's more like 70-80%. So that means a significant chunk of T14 graduates end up never working as a lawyer. Now, probably about half of those without "full-time, JD required" jobs simply have decided they don't want to practice law. It's easy to go through law school and end up totally revolted and sickened by the prospect of practicing law. But they still have the debt around their shoulders. Another segment works at "JD preferred" jobs--not all of which are terrible. If you go to Washington DC and work in one of the government agencies, many times those are "JD preferred" jobs. I worked in one of those my first summer, and it's not a bad gig. Pay is low, but they qualify for the 10-year public service IBR, which is almost as good as Biglaw when it comes to managing your debt--and the hours are fantastic. 40 hours a week on the dot. By 5:01pm, the office is a ghost town.

Of course, there are still a lot of people that never work as a lawyer at all, but it's easier to manage not working as a lawyer if you have zero debt, or at least something under $50-60K. The thing where you're wrong is that there's no magic line at the "T14" that helps you get any law job at all. You can pay sticker at a T14 and not only miss out on Biglaw, but miss out on any legal job at all. If you strike out at OCI--whether it be from the T14 or a lower T1, you're all in the same boat and will have to network your ass off or use family connections to get something.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:09 pm

polkij333 wrote:No shit some people are going to fail. People dont cut it in all walks of life. Maybe your appearance/immutable characteristics aren't what an employer wants. Maybe you're dumb. Maybe you prioritize family and another candidate prioritizes work. Maybe your daddy isn't sweet enough. Maybe you piss off the wrong person. Maybe your degrees and background aren't marketable to clients. This is NOT bad or shocking. It's the way of the world- and the sooner you accept it the sooner you'll be able to accept your place and live a happier life. The pyramid is getting
    slightly
steeper in an already stratified world- this is a change in degree not a change in kind.


Historically, though, school hasn't been a "bet your career" investment. That kind of risk was associated with starting your own business, etc.

30 years ago, if you failed at law school, you found another career and moved on. It wasn't too much money, so you could even drop out after 1L without such a negative downside. Today, failing at law school at sticker price will make you a heavy debtor for the rest of your life--it will inhibit your ability to buy a home and it may ruin your credit.

I agree that not everyone who goes to law school is cut out to be a lawyer. But, until recently, the downside for not cutting it at law school wasn't crippling, inescapable, life-altering debt.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:36 pm

cahwc12 wrote:Your numbers are awesome for this cycle but it bothers me how you write off one of the more knowledgeable posters on this forum. Honestly if I weren't going specifically into EE IP and I had read this stuff, I'd be scared shitless to go almost anywhere outside HYS.


I do have to say that EE IP is a major exception to today's legal market. The job prospects are many times better than that of your average JD. If you have an EE background and can get yourself into a T25 school, you'll have to really screw up to not have something decent lined up by graduation. Getting IP biglaw with below median grades with an EE background certainly isn't unheard of. And IP is actually one of those areas where there are a decent number of midlaw boutiques that actually hire new graduates even if you miss out on Biglaw.

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby jkpolk » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:44 pm

JCougar wrote:
polkij333 wrote:No shit some people are going to fail. People dont cut it in all walks of life. Maybe your appearance/immutable characteristics aren't what an employer wants. Maybe you're dumb. Maybe you prioritize family and another candidate prioritizes work. Maybe your daddy isn't sweet enough. Maybe you piss off the wrong person. Maybe your degrees and background aren't marketable to clients. This is NOT bad or shocking. It's the way of the world- and the sooner you accept it the sooner you'll be able to accept your place and live a happier life. The pyramid is getting
    slightly
steeper in an already stratified world- this is a change in degree not a change in kind.


Historically, though, school hasn't been a "bet your career" investment. That kind of risk was associated with starting your own business, etc.

30 years ago, if you failed at law school, you found another career and moved on. It wasn't too much money, so you could even drop out after 1L without such a negative downside. Today, failing at law school at sticker price will make you a heavy debtor for the rest of your life--it will inhibit your ability to buy a home and it may ruin your credit.

I agree that not everyone who goes to law school is cut out to be a lawyer. But, until recently, the downside for not cutting it at law school wasn't crippling, inescapable, life-altering debt.


I agree with you that some people get fucked by debt, and that is unfortunate for them. But I think they deserve every bit of that misfortune. Back in the day elite, professional filtering was done earlier on and through different mechanisms. The difference isn't that cost has gone up, it's that our society has changed its approach. People didn't bet their careers because they didn't have careers to bet- they were generally locked in to a range of careers by their family's wealth. Allowing people to take on debt and strive has benefits, but it has costs, i.e. providing access to school necessitates cost and risk. So the conclusion is simple- there is no free lunch. Unless you are demonstrably exceptional, or are already part of the elite, dont strive unless you are willing to be fucked - which is exactly the same situation people have been encountering for thousands of years. Everything is on the table - I don't understand where the pity for people who behave recklessly comes from.

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:49 pm

polkij333 wrote:I agree with you that some people get fucked by debt, and that is unfortunate for them. But I think they deserve every bit of that misfortune. Back in the day elite, professional filtering was done earlier on and through different mechanisms. The difference isn't that cost has gone up, it's that our society has changed its approach. People didn't bet their careers because they didn't have careers to bet- they were generally locked in to a range of careers by their family's wealth. Allowing people to take on debt and strive has benefits, but it has costs, i.e. providing access to school necessitates cost and risk. So the conclusion is simple- there is no free lunch. Unless you are demonstrably exceptional, or are already part of the elite, dont strive- which is exactly the same situation people have been encountering for thousands of years. Everything is on the table - I don't understand where the pity for people who behave recklessly comes from.


You and I differ greatly on the matter of "empathy." I don't think anyone deserves to have their life ruined for striving to educate themselves.

Anyhow, I sense that you know very little about law school and the legal market itself. Get back to me and see how you feel about who "deserves" what after you get a set of grades and have gone through OCI.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby cahwc12 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:03 pm

JCougar wrote:
cahwc12 wrote:Your numbers are awesome for this cycle but it bothers me how you write off one of the more knowledgeable posters on this forum. Honestly if I weren't going specifically into EE IP and I had read this stuff, I'd be scared shitless to go almost anywhere outside HYS.


I do have to say that EE IP is a major exception to today's legal market. The job prospects are many times better than that of your average JD. If you have an EE background and can get yourself into a T25 school, you'll have to really screw up to not have something decent lined up by graduation. Getting IP biglaw with below median grades with an EE background certainly isn't unheard of. And IP is actually one of those areas where there are a decent number of midlaw boutiques that actually hire new graduates even if you miss out on Biglaw.


This is very encouraging to hear, thanks! Hopefully it will be even better next cycle when I apply...

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15508
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:54 pm

JCougar wrote:The number is more like 60% unless you are talking about a TTT. And within the T14, it's not like it's perfect, either...it's more like 70-80%. So that means a significant chunk of T14 graduates end up never working as a lawyer.

If only there was some place with data for us to check this claim.

JCougar wrote:Another segment works at "JD preferred" jobs--not all of which are terrible. If you go to Washington DC and work in one of the government agencies, many times those are "JD preferred" jobs. I worked in one of those my first summer, and it's not a bad gig. Pay is low, but they qualify for the 10-year public service IBR, which is almost as good as Biglaw when it comes to managing your debt--and the hours are fantastic. 40 hours a week on the dot. By 5:01pm, the office is a ghost town.

You sound like an admissions rep at some shithole tier 1 law school with terrible employment prospects. Pretty scary.

JCougar wrote:Of course, there are still a lot of people that never work as a lawyer at all, but it's easier to manage not working as a lawyer if you have zero debt, or at least something under $50-60K.

It was you who said keeping debt down around 100K made paying it back plausible even on a Shitlaw salary. Here's the quote:

JCougar wrote: $100K in debt is at least plausible to pay off if you--like most of your classmates even at the bottom end of the T14--end up getting a Shitlaw job making $60K/year.

Again, sounding like an admissions officer. "We have scholarships too. You can keep your debt around 100K, which is what our average grad ends up with. Easy to pay off on that 60K salary we can promise. Just sign right here!"

JCougar wrote:The thing where you're wrong is that there's no magic line at the "T14" that helps you get any law job at all.

Can I be wrong about something if I never said it? But since you brought it up, the T14 does seem to do a pretty damn good job of getting people legal jobs. Whether that is worth 250K+ is a different debate. But no need to use anything other than the truth to get the message out.

The sad thing is I thought you and I had agreed a while back that going to law school is a bad idea for most people. Now it sounds like you think people will do just fine if they only limit their debt to (insert number here depending on mood: anywhere from 50K-100K.)

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:25 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:If only there was some place with data for us to check this claim.


There is a place to check it, of course. You can look at Law School Transparency. Once you subtract out all the school-funded temp "jobs" the T14 is stuffing people into, you get a number between 70% and 80% for most non HYS schools. Like I said above, some of those jobs are decent JD advantage jobs, but certainly not all of them are. All you have to do is look at some of the legal employment threads on here to realize the T14 isn't safe.

Tiago Splitter wrote:The sad thing is I thought you and I had agreed a while back that going to law school is a bad idea for most people. Now it sounds like you think people will do just fine if they only limit their debt to (insert number here depending on mood: anywhere from 50K-100K.)


It depends on where people are going. I think going to a second-tier school for around $50K total is probably credited if you are seriously interested in a legal career in the school's city, rather than looking for some post BA boredom relief. $100K total is fine for the bottom end of the T14, and possibly some of the schools just outside of it if the circumstances are right (i.e. you're from Texas, you want to practice in Texas, and you decide to go to Texas). I mentioned $100K in this thread as a maximum debt load people should be looking at, lest you really want to do Biglaw, in which case taking out full tuition at HYS might be worth it for you.

It's just my perspective, but what I'm saying isn't really all that controversial. 10 years ago, a JD cost significantly less, and the job prospects were better. Even 10 years ago, though, the JD was over-priced.

If you're paying sticker in this environment, you're 1) cross-subsidizing scholarships to people in your same class with better numbers (i.e. paying double tuition, once for yourself and once for your classmate), 2) funding a largely unproductive legal education bureaucracy, and 3) at many schools, funding a number of non-law programs (many universities take the massive profits garnered from law school tuition to pay for general university expenses). If you're comfortable with an outsized amount of your future earnings going to these causes for an unsure return on investment, go right ahead.

WhiskeynCoke
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:12 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby WhiskeynCoke » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:09 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
If only there was some place with data for us to check this claim.


There is a place to check it, of course. You can look at Law School Transparency.


Complete RC fail/sarcasm miss or some next-level out-sarcasming? Only you can decide.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby sinfiery » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:35 am

JCougar, until you compare the value of a JD with relative income figures of not perusing a JD, I cannot take you seriously.


Start by comparing it to an alternative of a minimum wage job and work your way up if need be.
40 year forecast.
etc, etc.



Not this bullshit, debt is bad, be afraid nonsense.
Use your probabilities of statistics for getting a job. Research and see if years out of LS increase or decrease the chance to get a legal job with a JD. Stuff that isn't so readily apparent but is very valuable when evaluating a degree.

User avatar
Arculease
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 3:19 pm

.

Postby Arculease » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:34 am

.
Last edited by Arculease on Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:42 am

Arculease wrote:Everyone calm the fuck down. Yes, a JD is overpriced and the legal market is shrinking. Good news? The supply side is adjusting for this. That is why LSAT administrations are continuing to plummet along with total number of applicants. Will the problem be solved instantly? No. It will take another couple of years to stable out, but it will stabilize, so stop spreading the gloom and doom and put things into perspective (which was this thread's foundation).


The bad news is that this is taking a huge toll on the reputation of the profession in general. As the graph earlier ITT demonstrated, the people skipping out on law school are disproportionately those with higher numbers. People with other options who would have normally gone to law school. We're spending our reputational capital out the ass to keep the Ivory Tower well-provisioned.

It is not a good thing for the future of this profession, if people believe that the folks who go to law school are taking the sucker's bet. I know it's hard to believe that law could ever become a second or third tier career path, but the status of profession is partly dependent on the belief that we are capable of self-regulating.

And if you think that this effect will be less pronounced at the higher end of schools/jobs, think again. Parents, teachers, friends recommend that people attend NYLS and Cooley because they mistakenly believe that all lawyers are rich and successful. That kind of simplistic thinking is a double-edged sword that can be turned against graduates of T20 schools just as easily as it was used to the benefit of TTTs.

User avatar
Arculease
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 3:19 pm

.

Postby Arculease » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:06 pm

.
Last edited by Arculease on Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby 06102016 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:56 pm

..

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2012 October LSAT Takers: 37,780! (-16.4%)

Postby JCougar » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:04 pm

sinfiery wrote:Not this bullshit, debt is bad, be afraid nonsense.
Use your probabilities of statistics for getting a job. Research and see if years out of LS increase or decrease the chance to get a legal job with a JD. Stuff that isn't so readily apparent but is very valuable when evaluating a degree.


Debt isn't necessarily bad. For example, medical students probably take out just as much debt as law students. However, the job market for MDs makes up for that, and makes medical school a great idea.

When only 55% of JD graduates are getting full time legal jobs 9 months after graduation (a non-negligible percentage of which are school-funded "jobs" to make the stats look better than they are), someone should start asking some hard questions. Of those maybe 50% of graduates that do get non-school-created full-time legal jobs, a good 60% of these start out at salaries $60K or lower. Probably no better than ~10% of all law graduates start out making six figures.

I'm not saying $60K is a bad salary. I think it's plenty of money, especially if you are just starting out your career. But it isn't such a good idea if you're going to take out $200K in debt to get that salary.

I'm not saying "be afraid" so much as "buyer beware." You can go ahead and take whatever risk you want. I just think paying sticker at even a lot of T14 schools is riskier than a lot of 0Ls realize.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Socratease and 3 guests