LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 8:23 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Applicants definitely aren't going up. The number of people taking the LSAT continues to decline rapidly.


So do you think they will decline indefinitely to zero?

Yes. That is clearly what I think.



The point being that your entire proposition rests on the fact that since LSAT test-takers have gone down they must continue to do so. Have you taken the logic portion of the LSAT yet?
Last edited by MikeSpivey on Wed May 22, 2013 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby longlivetheking » Wed May 22, 2013 8:27 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Applicants definitely aren't going up. The number of people taking the LSAT continues to decline rapidly.


So do you think they will decline indefinitely to zero?

Yes. That is clearly what I think.



The point being that your entire proposition rests on the fact that since LSAT applications have gone down they must continue to do so. Have you taken the logic portion of the LSAT yet?


mike no disrespect but i think what tiago's saying is because the number of lsat takers have been decreasing for each sitting, including february, there is a high chance that applications are unlikely to go up. i don't think in any of his comments he said "applications must continue to decline".

also tiago has a 177 if i'm not wrong.

LRGhost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby LRGhost » Wed May 22, 2013 8:31 pm

Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 8:33 pm

I keyed in on the word "definitely" because there is nothing definite. Certainly there is a credible argument to point that atmospheric influences have and will continue to diminish interest in law school, but the fact that LSAT test-takers are down last cycle does not mean they will continue to go down, because that line of thinking would lead one to conclude that they would go down to zero, i.e. applications are down this year so they will be down next year, applications are down next year so they will be the following, etc. ad infinitum.

Anyway, it is neither here nor there it's just a pet peeve of mine when people say "definitely" about things that are not 100% certain. Oh yea, it's also a pet peeve of hiring partners, as that line of thinking can lead to disastrous consequences for the firm.

Apologies if I sounded more snippy than I meant to. I only meant to sound slightly snippy.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 8:34 pm

LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.

User avatar
Ruxin1
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Ruxin1 » Wed May 22, 2013 8:38 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.


(Income is tied to this)

Lol

User avatar
loomstate
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:07 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby loomstate » Wed May 22, 2013 8:40 pm

well lets speculate based on self-interested party's gut feeling (read boomer logic) that applications go up for the sake of his TTTT consultancy

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 8:41 pm

loomstate wrote:well lets speculate based on self-interested party's gut feeling that applications go up for the sake of his TTTT consultancy


lol. I actually want them to do down because it makes life much easier for everyone. My TTTT consultancy will be fine whether there are 50k applications or 45k. Especially since my biggest profit center is consulting for law schools.

LRGhost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby LRGhost » Wed May 22, 2013 8:43 pm

loomstate wrote:well lets speculate based on self-interested party's gut feeling (read boomer logic) that applications go up for the sake of his TTTT consultancy


You're being a fucking dick for no reason bro.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Wed May 22, 2013 8:47 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.


I'm not sure they will go back up. People who are starting to understand about law school employment simply won't go. I think as the data becomes more commonly understood and if biglaw hiring declines over the next few years as predicted, I think more people will opt for other careers. The only thing I see supporting law school is IBR and PAYE options. There is no way to justify the cost of law school without either biglaw or a minimal repayment option.
Last edited by NYstate on Wed May 22, 2013 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 8:51 pm

NYstate wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.


I'm not sure they will go back up.


Eventually they will. The whole point I am making is none of us really know, including LSAC who I speak to frequently and who has the data on June LSAT registrants. It very well may be that we are 2, 3 , or 5 years away from a bounce. T

This debate got out of hand in a weird fashion and again, I apologize if whatever ill-structured prediction I have offended anyone. I have no idea I'm just guessing like the rest of people.

LRGhost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby LRGhost » Wed May 22, 2013 8:53 pm

NYstate wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.


I'm not sure they will go back up. People who are starting to understand about law school employment simply won't go. I think as the data becomes more commonly understood and if biglaw hiring declines over the next few years as predicted, I think more people will opt for other careers. The only thing I see supporting law school is IBR and PAYE options. There is no way to justify the cost of law school without either biglaw or a minimal repayment option.


I'll bet you any amount of money they go up within 5 years from what the number is at the end of this cycle.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Wed May 22, 2013 8:55 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
NYstate wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.


I'm not sure they will go back up.


Eventually they will. The whole point I am making is none of us really know, including LSAC who I speak to frequently and who has the data on June LSAT registrants. It very well may be that we are 2, 3 , or 5 years away from a bounce. T

This debate got out of hand in a weird fashion and again, I apologize if whatever ill-structured prediction I have offended anyone. I have no idea I'm just guessing like the rest of people.


Isn't there some discussion with these people about applicants dropping and schools closing outside of some massive reform? I mean as I recall, for example,NYLS charges about the same as Columbia or Harvard. Do people really think that this will continue indefinitely?

My honest sense is that as better employment data is circulated and understood, 0Ls are going to not undertake 6 figures of debt ( over $200,000) for law school. This is pretty much the first year that better data is available.

I am interested in your thoughts.

User avatar
longlivetheking
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:15 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby longlivetheking » Wed May 22, 2013 8:59 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
NYstate wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
LRGhost wrote:Just because they declined doesn't mean they'll continue to decline. They will go back up. It's a matter of when.


Bingo. 'Tis all I am saying.


I'm not sure they will go back up.


Eventually they will. The whole point I am making is none of us really know, including LSAC who I speak to frequently and who has the data on June LSAT registrants. It very well may be that we are 2, 3 , or 5 years away from a bounce. T

This debate got out of hand in a weird fashion and again, I apologize if whatever ill-structured prediction I have offended anyone. I have no idea I'm just guessing like the rest of people.


mike, can you give us a confidence-range on the possibility of applications going up and staying the same? (of course, based on your gut feelings)

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 9:03 pm

Isn't there some discussion with these people about applicants dropping and schools closing outside of some massive reform?

I am interested in your thoughts.


I personally think schools will close. We've already seen three schools that were going to do just that if they were not absorbed by state systems. That said Kent Syverud, who has been the Dean of two top twenty law schools (disclaimer* my Dean at both) President of LSAC, and is now in charge of the ABA section on legal education debates the other side --that no schools will close. He is pretty compelling in his reasoning. So while again I think the market would suggest a good number should close, I think there is a premium placed on universities to have a law school similar to the fact there is a premium placed on a JD, that will defy the rationale of the market.
Last edited by MikeSpivey on Wed May 22, 2013 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Wed May 22, 2013 9:39 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
Isn't there some discussion with these people about applicants dropping and schools closing outside of some massive reform?

I am interested in your thoughts.


I personally think schools will close. We've already seen three schools that were going to do just that if they were not absorbed by state systems. That said Kent Syverud, who has been the Dean of two top twenty law schools (disclaimer* my Dean at both) President of LSAC, and is now in charge of the ABA section on legal education debates the other side --that no schools will close. He is pretty compelling in his reasoning. So while again I think the market would suggest a good number should close, I think there is a premium placed on universities to have a law school similarly to the fact there is a premium placed on a JD, that will defy the rationale of the market.


This is interesting information. My theory is that applications only got to the point they did because people didn't understand the true employment figures. I don't think the higher number of applicants represents a true market demand for law degrees. I think that false employment data created a false demand.

Once people understand that they are going to never practice law and will be paying down debt for 20 years from many schools, they will stop going. I think the ABA should do everything to help transparency for students and then see what happens. If they are so sure of the value of a law degree, they should embrace 0Ls getting complete employment information. Then the ABA will have a better picture of the true 0L demand for legal education.

Whether universities like to boast about having a law school or whether they like getting the kickback percentage they get from law student loans or some other reason, the interest of the university is completely different from that of an 0L looking for a career and a better life. As 0Ls realize that they aren't getting a career from many schools, they won't go.

So I don't think that LSAT takers and applicants will increase. I find it a little hard to believe that the ABA can't see the need for major reform given the oversupply of lawyers and the soul-crushing debt of most new attorneys. At any rate, that is my argument. I give 0Ls credit to understand reality - it will just take a few more years to sink in.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Wed May 22, 2013 9:42 pm

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Hey Mike,

So then was this year a total aberration or can we use this year's admission numbers to project our chances for next cycle?

LRGhost
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby LRGhost » Wed May 22, 2013 9:44 pm

NYstate wrote: I give 0Ls credit to understand reality


This is foolish. We have reached, or are very close, to the nadir as far as apps go. People are still applying and that in itself is a negative EV decision. I give 0Ls no credit.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 9:46 pm

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Hey Mike,

So then was this year a total aberration or can we use this year's admission numbers to project our chances for next cycle?


Certainly not an aberration. It's part of a cycle based on several factors but most notably the sea-change in employment opportunities and the increased attention by the media, insiders like Paul Campos, Brian Tamanaha, etc.

Also, I think many people's best guess would indeed be to use this year's numbers to project as much as you can about next year. Keep this in mind: this is exactly what law school admissions offices do when projecting goals in LSAT, uGPA, enrollment, etc. So indeed the fact the law schools use this year to prject next year is a great reason to do so.

Only time will tell, of course, how similar the years are.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Wed May 22, 2013 9:56 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Hey Mike,

So then was this year a total aberration or can we use this year's admission numbers to project our chances for next cycle?


Certainly not an aberration. It's part of a cycle based on several factors but most notably the sea-change in employment opportunities and the increased attention by the media, insiders like Paul Campos, Brian Tamanaha, etc.

Also, I think many people's best guess would indeed be to use this year's numbers to project as much as you can about next year. Keep this in mind: this is exactly what law school admissions offices do when projecting goals in LSAT, uGPA, enrollment, etc. So indeed the fact the law schools use this year to prject next year is a great reason to do so.

Only time will tell, of course, how similar the years are.


Alright good to know. I only use '11-'12 and '12-'13 when derping around on myLSN.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed May 22, 2013 9:58 pm

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Hey Mike,

Alright good to know. I only use '11-'12 and '12-'13 when derping around on myLSN.


I don't know what derping means but it sounds disgusting

User avatar
lhanvt13
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:59 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby lhanvt13 » Wed May 22, 2013 10:16 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
I don't know what derping means but it sounds disgusting

Eh just take it as a synonym for screwing around

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Wed May 22, 2013 10:49 pm

LRGhost wrote:
NYstate wrote: I give 0Ls credit to understand reality


This is foolish. We have reached, or are very close, to the nadir as far as apps go. People are still applying and that in itself is a negative EV decision. I give 0Ls no credit.

No, I'm not foolish. I understand better than you the slow percolation of truth about legal employment into mainstream America. Even the T14 kids are slowly catching on to the sacrifices required to repay tremendous debt. So far the plan they have is biglaw ( which seems to depend on school and on what you think the hiring market will be in 2 or 3 years and a willingness to live very frugally for a few years), PSLF ( which an even smaller number will get) and IBR or PAYE. As more of them falter as biglaw hiring shrinks , or they realize they can't take 3-5 years of biglaw - not saying they all will, but some definitely wont make it- and government hiring remains a shambles, more of them will get that even the best schools are not good investments for everyone.

This is pretty new stuff to absorb. But the message of cost of education far surpassing employment will become common wisdom. Just look at how much TLS has changed in the past 3 years. Now people are worryingly about debt instead of talking up " models and bottles"; now people are advising people to not go to law school instead of claiming people trying to inform about employment were just trying to limit competition.

These changes are going to spread. Plus, I think biglaw is going to be reducing hiring bit by bit.

It will all just take time. It is easy to fogey that most people don't yet know what TLS takes as common knowledge.

User avatar
suralin
better than you
Posts: 15091
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:52 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby suralin » Wed May 22, 2013 11:52 pm

NYstate wrote:
LRGhost wrote:
NYstate wrote: I give 0Ls credit to understand reality


This is foolish. We have reached, or are very close, to the nadir as far as apps go. People are still applying and that in itself is a negative EV decision. I give 0Ls no credit.

No, I'm not foolish. I understand better than you the slow percolation of truth about legal employment into mainstream America. Even the T14 kids are slowly catching on to the sacrifices required to repay tremendous debt. So far the plan they have is biglaw ( which seems to depend on school and on what you think the hiring market will be in 2 or 3 years and a willingness to live very frugally for a few years), PSLF ( which an even smaller number will get) and IBR or PAYE. As more of them falter as biglaw hiring shrinks , or they realize they can't take 3-5 years of biglaw - not saying they all will, but some definitely wont make it- and government hiring remains a shambles, more of them will get that even the best schools are not good investments for everyone.

This is pretty new stuff to absorb. But the message of cost of education far surpassing employment will become common wisdom. Just look at how much TLS has changed in the past 3 years. Now people are worryingly about debt instead of talking up " models and bottles"; now people are advising people to not go to law school instead of claiming people trying to inform about employment were just trying to limit competition.

These changes are going to spread. Plus, I think biglaw is going to be reducing hiring bit by bit.

It will all just take time. It is easy to fogey that most people don't yet know what TLS takes as common knowledge.


Frankly, I think you're being too optimistic. I mean, I want what you're saying to be the case--i.e., that the message that law school is way overpriced and has negative EV will become common wisdom--but I just don't see the evidence for that actually being the case. Most people generally aren't that rational, particularly w/r/t such a bias-ridden decision as post-college plans. Specifically, it seems that being on TLS may give a mistaken impression as to how the general public thinks about law school. After browsing this forum for months, I realized that I subconsciously expected my peers at a relatively decent school to at least consider the cons of law school; well, many didn't/don't. Even the news articles by mainstream outlets about law school are not as well-known as the TLS bubble (the bolded) can make them out to be.

Just look at the situation with PhDs in humanities. I'd argue that the employment prospects there are much worse, yet people still go for such degrees in droves, whether for prestige, status, "intellectual fulfillment," or just not knowing what else to do after college--these are precisely the same reasons many people have for getting a JD.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Thu May 23, 2013 7:26 am

Suralin wrote:
NYstate wrote:
LRGhost wrote:
NYstate wrote: I give 0Ls credit to understand reality


This is foolish. We have reached, or are very close, to the nadir as far as apps go. People are still applying and that in itself is a negative EV decision. I give 0Ls no credit.

No, I'm not foolish. I understand better than you the slow percolation of truth about legal employment into mainstream America. Even the T14 kids are slowly catching on to the sacrifices required to repay tremendous debt. So far the plan they have is biglaw ( which seems to depend on school and on what you think the hiring market will be in 2 or 3 years and a willingness to live very frugally for a few years), PSLF ( which an even smaller number will get) and IBR or PAYE. As more of them falter as biglaw hiring shrinks , or they realize they can't take 3-5 years of biglaw - not saying they all will, but some definitely wont make it- and government hiring remains a shambles, more of them will get that even the best schools are not good investments for everyone.

This is pretty new stuff to absorb. But the message of cost of education far surpassing employment will become common wisdom. Just look at how much TLS has changed in the past 3 years. Now people are worryingly about debt instead of talking up " models and bottles"; now people are advising people to not go to law school instead of claiming people trying to inform about employment were just trying to limit competition.

These changes are going to spread. Plus, I think biglaw is going to be reducing hiring bit by bit.

It will all just take time. It is easy to fogey that most people don't yet know what TLS takes as common knowledge.


Frankly, I think you're being too optimistic. I mean, I want what you're saying to be the case--i.e., that the message that law school is way overpriced and has negative EV will become common wisdom--but I just don't see the evidence for that actually being the case. Most people generally aren't that rational, particularly w/r/t such a bias-ridden decision as post-college plans. Specifically, it seems that being on TLS may give a mistaken impression as to how the general public thinks about law school. After browsing this forum for months, I realized that I subconsciously expected my peers at a relatively decent school to at least consider the cons of law school; well, many didn't/don't. Even the news articles by mainstream outlets about law school are not as well-known as the TLS bubble (the bolded) can make them out to be.

Just look at the situation with PhDs in humanities. I'd argue that the employment prospects there are much worse, yet people still go for such degrees in droves, whether for prestige, status, "intellectual fulfillment," or just not knowing what else to do after college--these are precisely the same reasons many people have for getting a JD.


I think most people go to law school to make money. I dont know if PhDs in humanities cost as much as law school, don't most people have tuition waivers as part of their admission package?

Also, have there been decades of misrepresentation about employment statistics for
PhDs? Do they report employment statistics that include anyone who has any job at graduation as employed?

Final question: are there schools like Cooley, NYLS and all the others churning out PhD grads? Doesn't a PhD program have to be attached to a university?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dasq5511 and 5 guests