LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Nelson » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:54 am

MCL Law Dean wrote:Ask anyone who works in legal services for pro bono or limited means clients, legal services for seniors, child advocacy, domestic violence, or immigrant rights. There is a shortage of lawyers and a dire need for additional legal services for these clients. There are jobs in these fields. There will need to be new lawyers in these fields.

This is such bullshit. There are no jobs in these fields. Who is going to pay lawyers to work in them? The clients are by definition indigent. The federal government is dominated by conservatives. State and local governments are broke. Just because the ABA and the local bars think everyone should have a lawyer doesn't mean anyone is going to pay that lawyer.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:57 am

Nelson wrote:
MCL Law Dean wrote:Ask anyone who works in legal services for pro bono or limited means clients, legal services for seniors, child advocacy, domestic violence, or immigrant rights. There is a shortage of lawyers and a dire need for additional legal services for these clients. There are jobs in these fields. There will need to be new lawyers in these fields.

This is such bullshit. There are no jobs in these fields. Who is going to pay lawyers to work in them? The clients are by definition indigent. The federal government is dominated by conservatives. State and local governments are broke. Just because the ABA and the local bars think everyone should have a lawyer doesn't mean anyone is going to pay that lawyer.


There is never a shortage of people who want lawyers to work for them for free. How those lawyers are going to support themselves is never really discussed in these conversations. Just evidence that there is demand for legal services.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby ScottRiqui » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:08 pm

Nelson wrote:
MCL Law Dean wrote:Ask anyone who works in legal services for pro bono or limited means clients, legal services for seniors, child advocacy, domestic violence, or immigrant rights. There is a shortage of lawyers and a dire need for additional legal services for these clients. There are jobs in these fields. There will need to be new lawyers in these fields.

This is such bullshit. There are no jobs in these fields. Who is going to pay lawyers to work in them? The clients are by definition indigent. The federal government is dominated by conservatives. State and local governments are broke. Just because the ABA and the local bars think everyone should have a lawyer doesn't mean anyone is going to pay that lawyer.


Exactly. If "there are jobs in those fields", and "there will need to be new lawyers in those fields", then why are the full-time/long-term employment numbers for the lower (and even not-so-lower)-ranked schools so abysmal? If there were jobs out there, that would mean that graduates are remaining unemployed, or leaving law entirely, rather than take them.

It's not that there's a shortage of newly-minted lawyers on tap capable of servicing pro bono/limited means clients. Rather, it's that there's no infrastructure in place to provide legal services to people who can't pay for it. And you can't blame the students and schools for that.

User avatar
MCL Law Dean
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MCL Law Dean » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:17 pm

You are missing the point. There are not newly minted law students fresh out of $150K law degrees that will work in these practice areas. But there could be more (not all) lawyers who could start at available $50-60K law jobs that do serve a limited means clientele. If you want to pretend that the world ends beyond BigLaw, go right ahead. That does not reflect the reality in mid-sized and smaller communities that make up much of the US. I an NOT saying this is for everyone or for every law school . . . likewise you might consider that your viewpoint is limited if the entire "universe" is T14 and BigLaw. P.S. The ABA does not think this is BS . . . read the recent Task Force reports and argue on the merits.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:24 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:You are missing the point. There are not newly minted law students fresh out of $150K law degrees that will work in these practice areas. But there could be more (not all) lawyers who could start at available $50-60K law jobs that do serve a limited means clientele. If you want to pretend that the world ends beyond BigLaw, go right ahead. That does not reflect the reality in mid-sized and smaller communities that make up much of the US. I an NOT saying this is for everyone or for every law school . . . likewise you might consider that your viewpoint is limited if the entire "universe" is T14 and BigLaw. P.S. The ABA does not think this is BS . . . read the recent Task Force reports and argue on the merits.


No you are missing the point. I have never seen positions for unfilled $50,000 to $60,000 law jobs serving the poor or disadvantaged.

Maybe you could help us find some of these organizations that have jobs begging to be filled but that no one will take? With PAYE and PSLF a student who has $150,000 in loans can manage to live in these jobs. They will have minimal payments and in 10 years their debt will be discharged.

I just don't think it is realistic to say that there are jobs that aren't being filled because no one will take them. I would love to see a list of these employers. I think the unemployed law grads in the Vale of Tears thread would love to see this list as well because they would all apply for them.

I have no trust of the ABA or its task force either. But if I have time next week I will read their report. The ABA is not in the business of explaining why law is a terrible profession
Last edited by NYstate on Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Nelson » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:25 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:You are missing the point. There are not newly minted law students fresh out of $150K law degrees that will work in these practice areas. But there could be more (not all) lawyers who could start at available $50-60K law jobs that do serve a limited means clientele. If you want to pretend that the world ends beyond BigLaw, go right ahead. That does not reflect the reality in mid-sized and smaller communities that make up much of the US. I an NOT saying this is for everyone or for every law school . . . likewise you might consider that your viewpoint is limited if the entire "universe" is T14 and BigLaw. P.S. The ABA does not think this is BS . . . read the recent Task Force reports and argue on the merits.

What 50k to 60k jobs are you talking about? I know people who are scrambling desperately to get any paying job in civil legal aid (and guess what, the starting salaries, even in big cities, are a hell of a lot lower than 50k). There's a reason why almost everyone working in civil legal aid is on a fellowship from a school or a private organization. Legal aid has no freaking money to hire recent grads. You're deluded.

Of course there's "need". Poor people need lots of things. Guess what? Nobody is willing to pay higher taxes to make sure people have adequate housing and schools, let alone that everyone gets free legal counsel. The last thing poor people want to spend their limited resources on is a fucking lawyer.

I've read the ABA reports. They focus on a supposed market that's out there but never talk about where the money is going to come from.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Nelson » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:29 pm

NYstate wrote:No you are missing the point. I have never seen positions for unfilled $50,000 to $60,000 law jobs serving the poor or disadvantaged.

Maybe you could help us find some of these organizations that have jobs begging to be filled but that no one will take? With PAYE and PSLF a student who has $150,000 in loans can manage to live in these jobs. They will have minimal payments and in 10 years their debt will be discharged.

TCR. If there were legal aid jobs lying around, we wouldn't be in this mess because of PSLF. The truth of the matter is that there are no jobs in this field despite the massive need because there's no freaking money.

If you want some real evidence of the facts on the ground as opposed to ABA's theories, check out the LSC's budget over the last 30 years: http://www.lsc.gov/congress/funding/funding-history

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:29 pm

Nelson wrote:
MCL Law Dean wrote:You are missing the point. There are not newly minted law students fresh out of $150K law degrees that will work in these practice areas. But there could be more (not all) lawyers who could start at available $50-60K law jobs that do serve a limited means clientele. If you want to pretend that the world ends beyond BigLaw, go right ahead. That does not reflect the reality in mid-sized and smaller communities that make up much of the US. I an NOT saying this is for everyone or for every law school . . . likewise you might consider that your viewpoint is limited if the entire "universe" is T14 and BigLaw. P.S. The ABA does not think this is BS . . . read the recent Task Force reports and argue on the merits.

What 50k to 60k jobs are you talking about? I know people who are scrambling desperately to get any paying job in civil legal aid (and guess what, the starting salaries, even in big cities, are a hell of a lot lower than 50k). There's a reason why almost everyone working in civil legal aid is on a fellowship from a school or a private organization. Legal aid has no freaking money to hire recent grads. You're deluded.

Of course there's "need". Poor people need lots of things. Guess what? Nobody is willing to pay higher taxes to make sure people have adequate housing and schools, let alone that everyone gets free legal counsel. The last thing poor people want to spend their limited resources on is a fucking lawyer.

I've read the ABA reports. They focus on a supposed market that's out there but never talk about where the money is going to come from.


Yes, this is what I was getting at as well. Like I said, there is no end for the need for legal services for people who can't pay for it. I include middle class people, not just the poor, who are unable to get lawyers to help them with basic services like landlord tenant because it is too expensive. I've done pro bono immigration work and the need is staggering. But I was only able to do that because my firm pays me to do it as part of their pro bono commitment.

The problem is not the need, the problem is that there is no money to pay the lawyers.

Edit: need doesnt equal demand.
Last edited by NYstate on Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby cotiger » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:31 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:You are missing the point. There are not newly minted law students fresh out of $150K law degrees that will work in these practice areas. But there could be more (not all) lawyers who could start at available $50-60K law jobs that do serve a limited means clientele. If you want to pretend that the world ends beyond BigLaw, go right ahead. That does not reflect the reality in mid-sized and smaller communities that make up much of the US. I an NOT saying this is for everyone or for every law school . . . likewise you might consider that your viewpoint is limited if the entire "universe" is T14 and BigLaw. P.S. The ABA does not think this is BS . . . read the recent Task Force reports and argue on the merits.


I'm highly skeptical. CUNY, for example, only costs $12k/year for residents. However, only 52.5% of the C/O 2012 found LTFT legal jobs. 35.5% were in short-term or part-time work or were unemployed. This is not a school where people are looking for biglaw jobs (only 1 solitary grad was employed in a firm with more than 50 lawyers), and the tuition is low enough that grads can and do serve very comfortably in those $50-$60k jobs you mention. If, as you claim, there are more of those jobs available than there currently are lawyers willing/able to fill them, then why don't more CUNY grads get them?
Last edited by cotiger on Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ScottRiqui
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby ScottRiqui » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:33 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:You are missing the point. There are not newly minted law students fresh out of $150K law degrees that will work in these practice areas. But there could be more (not all) lawyers who could start at available $50-60K law jobs that do serve a limited means clientele.


Even if a particular student wanted biglaw and struck out, at the time of graduation, the law school debt is a sunk cost - the money's already been spent. If there were legal jobs waiting for them like the ones you're describing, even at $50-60k, it would be better than nothing at all, so why are there so many graduates who end up unemployed, underemployed, or working outside the law entirely?

I doubt there are many recent graduates who are in a position to say "$60K? Screw that; I'll go take non-legal job 'X' instead for $80k", or who will turn up their noses at $60k in favor of not working at all for very long with crushing debt hanging over their head.
Last edited by ScottRiqui on Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Nelson » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:44 pm

No guys, you see, it's just that all of the unemployed JDs are lazy millennials who are holding out for cushy jobs in biglaw and won't buckle down and take a 60k a year job doing legal aid. That's why we need more unaccredited law schools in California that offer clinical experience to teach you how to practice in landlord tenant court so you can go hang a shingle and serve the massive unmet legal need in this country by fighting eviction actions. Don't worry that your clients can't afford to pay rent, they'll definitely be able to pay you.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby spleenworship » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:48 pm

If you have me a gun and asked me to kill some stranger for a guaranteed $60k a year job, I'd seriously consider it for a while before turning you down. If the AF doesn't work out, as I fear it won't, my best bets are competing with literally hundreds of applicants for PD jobs. Hell, I'm at the lower end of the debt spectrum here, but unless you somehow cut more than half my debt there is no way I could afford to move to a small or medium sized town to provide services to the lower middle class in my own firm.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:59 pm

spleenworship wrote:If you have me a gun and asked me to kill some stranger for a guaranteed $60k a year job, I'd seriously consider it for a while before turning you down. If the AF doesn't work out, as I fear it won't, my best bets are competing with literally hundreds of applicants for PD jobs. Hell, I'm at the lower end of the debt spectrum here, but unless you somehow cut more than half my debt there is no way I could afford to move to a small or medium sized town to provide services to the lower middle class in my own firm.


I think most small and medium size towns have plenty of lawyers already. Remember when the Emory Professr told students at graduation that maybe they need to move to Nebraska to find jobs and to quit complaining. Then lawyers in Nebraska said, no we have plenty of people here already who can't find jobs.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/possibly ... eech-ever/

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby spleenworship » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:12 pm

NYstate wrote:
spleenworship wrote:If you have me a gun and asked me to kill some stranger for a guaranteed $60k a year job, I'd seriously consider it for a while before turning you down. If the AF doesn't work out, as I fear it won't, my best bets are competing with literally hundreds of applicants for PD jobs. Hell, I'm at the lower end of the debt spectrum here, but unless you somehow cut more than half my debt there is no way I could afford to move to a small or medium sized town to provide services to the lower middle class in my own firm.


I think most small and medium size towns have plenty of lawyers already. Remember when the Emory Professr told students at graduation that maybe they need to move to Nebraska to find jobs and to quit complaining. Then lawyers in Nebraska said, no we have plenty of people here already who can't find jobs.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/possibly ... eech-ever/

Good point.

I think a better way to say what I wanted to say is: even with no debt I don't think working a small town could happen unless they provided socialized legal insurance.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:21 pm

spleenworship wrote:
NYstate wrote:
spleenworship wrote:If you have me a gun and asked me to kill some stranger for a guaranteed $60k a year job, I'd seriously consider it for a while before turning you down. If the AF doesn't work out, as I fear it won't, my best bets are competing with literally hundreds of applicants for PD jobs. Hell, I'm at the lower end of the debt spectrum here, but unless you somehow cut more than half my debt there is no way I could afford to move to a small or medium sized town to provide services to the lower middle class in my own firm.


I think most small and medium size towns have plenty of lawyers already. Remember when the Emory Professr told students at graduation that maybe they need to move to Nebraska to find jobs and to quit complaining. Then lawyers in Nebraska said, no we have plenty of people here already who can't find jobs.

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/possibly ... eech-ever/

Good point.

I think a better way to say what I wanted to say is: even with no debt I don't think working a small town could happen unless they provided socialized legal insurance.


Yes, why didn't the ABA think about how these lawyers are going to eat? Why isn't the ABA pressuring for much more funding for low income clients? Instead they are making it sound like there are jobs just because there is demand.
Last edited by NYstate on Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
patogordo
Posts: 4827
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:33 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby patogordo » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:26 pm

NYstate wrote:Yes, why didn't the ABA think about how these lawyers are going to eat? Why isn't the ABA pressuring for much more funding for low income clients? Instead they are making it sound like there are jobs just because there is demand.

calling it demand gives too much credit. demand implies willingness/ability to pay. if there was demand for low-income legal services there would be jobs. right now there's no demand, only need.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby JCougar » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:30 pm

NYstate wrote:Yes, why didn't the ABA think about how these lawyers are going to eat? Why isn't the ABA pressuring for much more funding for low income clients? Instead they are making it sound like there are jobs just because there is demand.


It's really just elementary economics. People have to have money in order to demand something from a market.

Otherwise, it's just a need.

You could probably triple legal aid funding in this country and still have unmet needs. Our country just doesn't care about this. We'd rather spend the money invading people halfway around the globe.

Edit: looks like I was pre-empted. :D

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby spleenworship » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:58 pm

I read something the other day about basic legal services (like divorce and landlord/tenant) being covered in the UK for the bottom 80% of the population. The solicitor does the work and then submits his or her bill to the government for payment.

That would be sweet here. I mean, seriously, you'd probably not get very rich, but there are a shitload of people who want divorces and have problems with their landlords who either can't pay or will retain and then refuse to pay above the retainer fee (and bar bitch you when you try to collect).

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:00 pm

patogordo wrote:
NYstate wrote:Yes, why didn't the ABA think about how these lawyers are going to eat? Why isn't the ABA pressuring for much more funding for low income clients? Instead they are making it sound like there are jobs just because there is demand.

calling it demand gives too much credit. demand implies willingness/ability to pay. if there was demand for low-income legal services there would be jobs. right now there's no demand, only need.


I feel like that detail gets left out in every single discussion of the issue.

Paul Campos
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Paul Campos » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Here's another idea the legal academic establishment loves to push: if young lawyers had less debt, they could afford to take lower fees from people of modest means in need of legal services.

This idea is intuitively plausible, and remains so unless you think about it for five seconds, which is apparently why people don't.

The economic circumstances of the provider of a service has no relevance to what buyers of that service are willing to pay for it. Are you willing to pay more for a meal, all else being equal, at a struggling, heavily leveraged restaurant than you would for the same meal at a flourishing enterprise with no debt? Clients don't care how much debt a lawyer does or doesn't have -- that fact has literally no relevance to either their ability or their willingness to pay for legal services.

Speaking of Econ 101, there are literally hundreds of thousands of law graduates in this country with no educational debt (there are about 1.5 million people with law degrees, most of whom went to law school when law school was much cheaper, and who in many cases have had decades to pay off whatever debt they did incur).

Even if it were somehow true that clients were willing to pay more for legal services from lawyers with debt, there is hardly a shortage of law graduates with no debt. As others have pointed out, what there is is a shortage of clients who are able and willing to pay for legal services, which means there's a shortage of jobs.

That a law school dean would claim that there are $50,000 and $60,000 (!) lawyer jobs of any kind, let alone entry level jobs of this sort, going unfilled because of a shortage of law graduates willing to fill them is both astounding and predictable at the same time.

Note: Only slightly more than 10,000 of the 46,364 class of 2012 graduates of ABA accredited schools were reported to be making $61,325 or more nine months after graduation.

User avatar
MCL Law Dean
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MCL Law Dean » Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:20 pm

OK, so I admit to stirring the pot a bit on purpose . . . and many of the points regarding the current and most recent graduating classes are well made. However, what no one wants to seriously discuss is how to realistically move ahead. You are fighting last year's battle which is already won/lost depending on your perspective. The ABA is seriously considering how to modify legal education, but it isn't focused on closing underperforming schools. University presidents ARE looking at how to trim the financial losses from their law schools. So how about about applying some of the creativity and thinking of TLS to how we can actually improve legal education, possibly lower the cost to students, AND better serve the middle class and limited means clients. For example, the CA Task Force is about to require a minimum of 15 practical/experiential units in law school including clinics and internships, 50 hours of pro-bono service as a condition for licensure, and 10 specified practice-oriented CLE courses within the first year of practice. The Task Force, which is made up of lawyers, judges, law professors, and bar trustees is also looking at how to better use adjuncts and practitioners in the law school curriculum. It may be a small start, but it is a definite message that changes in the typical law school curriculum are coming . . . and it will be led by the practitioners, not the faculty.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15471
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:25 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:So how about about applying some of the creativity and thinking of TLS to how we can actually improve legal education, possibly lower the cost to students, AND better serve the middle class and limited means clients. For example, the CA Task Force is about to require a minimum of 15 practical/experiential units in law school including clinics and internships, 50 hours of pro-bono service as a condition for licensure, and 10 specified practice-oriented CLE courses within the first year of practice. The Task Force, which is made up of lawyers, judges, law professors, and bar trustees is also looking at how to better use adjuncts and practitioners in the law school curriculum. It may be a small start, but it is a definite message that changes in the typical law school curriculum are coming . . . and it will be led by the practitioners, not the faculty.

This sends just one message, which one might metaphorically compare to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Two problems exist in legal education right now: Law school is too expensive, and there are too few jobs relative to the number of graduates.

Requiring pro bono experience, providing "practical" training, and switching up the curriculum do nothing to deal with those problems. The longer we pretend that these phony proposals can fix the real problems the longer the problems will persist.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Nelson » Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:38 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:OK, so I admit to stirring the pot a bit on purpose . . . and many of the points regarding the current and most recent graduating classes are well made. However, what no one wants to seriously discuss is how to realistically move ahead. You are fighting last year's battle which is already won/lost depending on your perspective. The ABA is seriously considering how to modify legal education, but it isn't focused on closing underperforming schools. University presidents ARE looking at how to trim the financial losses from their law schools. So how about about applying some of the creativity and thinking of TLS to how we can actually improve legal education, possibly lower the cost to students, AND better serve the middle class and limited means clients. For example, the CA Task Force is about to require a minimum of 15 practical/experiential units in law school including clinics and internships, 50 hours of pro-bono service as a condition for licensure, and 10 specified practice-oriented CLE courses within the first year of practice. The Task Force, which is made up of lawyers, judges, law professors, and bar trustees is also looking at how to better use adjuncts and practitioners in the law school curriculum. It may be a small start, but it is a definite message that changes in the typical law school curriculum are coming . . . and it will be led by the practitioners, not the faculty.
This is all a huge waste of time that obscures the real issue: too many lawyers and not enough money to pay them all. Requiring law students to take more clinical credits is pointless. At top schools, clinical experience is worthless (for many) because you can't get experience in big firm practice in a clinic or externship (all that clinic experience really helps you when you show up at your firm to do M&A). You're better off taking more substantive classes, not less. At the rest of the schools, it's already a big part of the curriculum and at most you're preparing people for jobs that don't exist.

Changing the curriculum doesn't actually help middle- and lower-class clients. Law schools can't do anything to change the structural problems with the profession, unless you're going to convince Harvard to donate its endowment to the LSC.

ETA: exactly what Tiago said.

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Rahviveh » Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:22 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:OK, so I admit to stirring the pot a bit on purpose . . . and many of the points regarding the current and most recent graduating classes are well made. However, what no one wants to seriously discuss is how to realistically move ahead. You are fighting last year's battle which is already won/lost depending on your perspective. The ABA is seriously considering how to modify legal education, but it isn't focused on closing underperforming schools. University presidents ARE looking at how to trim the financial losses from their law schools. So how about about applying some of the creativity and thinking of TLS to how we can actually improve legal education, possibly lower the cost to students, AND better serve the middle class and limited means clients. For example, the CA Task Force is about to require a minimum of 15 practical/experiential units in law school including clinics and internships, 50 hours of pro-bono service as a condition for licensure, and 10 specified practice-oriented CLE courses within the first year of practice. The Task Force, which is made up of lawyers, judges, law professors, and bar trustees is also looking at how to better use adjuncts and practitioners in the law school curriculum. It may be a small start, but it is a definite message that changes in the typical law school curriculum are coming . . . and it will be led by the practitioners, not the faculty.


PLEASE, please don't do this. Or at least, make an exemption for T4 schools.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:40 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:
MCL Law Dean wrote:OK, so I admit to stirring the pot a bit on purpose . . . and many of the points regarding the current and most recent graduating classes are well made. However, what no one wants to seriously discuss is how to realistically move ahead. You are fighting last year's battle which is already won/lost depending on your perspective. The ABA is seriously considering how to modify legal education, but it isn't focused on closing underperforming schools. University presidents ARE looking at how to trim the financial losses from their law schools. So how about about applying some of the creativity and thinking of TLS to how we can actually improve legal education, possibly lower the cost to students, AND better serve the middle class and limited means clients. For example, the CA Task Force is about to require a minimum of 15 practical/experiential units in law school including clinics and internships, 50 hours of pro-bono service as a condition for licensure, and 10 specified practice-oriented CLE courses within the first year of practice. The Task Force, which is made up of lawyers, judges, law professors, and bar trustees is also looking at how to better use adjuncts and practitioners in the law school curriculum. It may be a small start, but it is a definite message that changes in the typical law school curriculum are coming . . . and it will be led by the practitioners, not the faculty.


PLEASE, please don't do this. Or at least, make an exemption for T4 schools.


I thought this was a recommendation and not a requirement?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 01panm, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Tazewell and 8 guests