LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
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 8:39 pm

Task Force I made the recommendation. Board of Governors already approved. Task Force II is finalizing implementation by this summer. Goes out to public comment and then to the Board of Governors for final approval. Regulations are currently scheduled to go into effect 2017.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MikeSpivey » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:24 pm

MCL Law Dean wrote:Task Force I made the recommendation. Board of Governors already approved. Task Force II is finalizing implementation by this summer. Goes out to public comment and then to the Board of Governors for final approval. Regulations are currently scheduled to go into effect 2017.


I'm a Task Force and Board approval behind the times.

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby BillsFan9907 » Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:32 am

MCL Law Dean wrote:Task Force I made the recommendation. Board of Governors already approved. Task Force II is finalizing implementation by this summer. Goes out to public comment and then to the Board of Governors for final approval. Regulations are currently scheduled to go into effect 2017.


This applies to ALL schools in California? UCLA? I'm assuming not private schools like USC.

I sure hope not. MANDATED Pro-Bono work? What is this, the Soviet Union?

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MCL Law Dean » Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:32 am

The rules are licensure requirements, so they will apply to all applicants and new licensees in California, with some type of accommodation for out of state and foreign-educated.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Rahviveh » Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:16 am

MCL Law Dean wrote:The rules are licensure requirements, so they will apply to all applicants and new licensees in California, with some type of accommodation for out of state and foreign-educated.


Will this apply to Class of 2016? What are the accommodations for out-of-state?

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby NYstate » Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:22 am

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.


Here is another point that law schools won't face. This entire problem can be directly traced to their lies and misrepresentations that 0Ls believed based on their trust in the integrity of law school deans and officials.

This drop in enrollment is directly correlated with LST and prof Campos getting the truth out. Even now many students are clueless about employment. Just look at the stat that Prof Campos posted about the number of lawyers making below the minimum salary that people expected to make.

Law deans can try to spin this anyway they want. The truth is they created this mess and are victims of their own egos and greed. at least university presidents will do what law schools are unable and unwilling to do for themselves.

BillsFan9907
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:28 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby BillsFan9907 » Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:29 am

MCL Law Dean wrote:The rules are licensure requirements, so they will apply to all applicants and new licensees in California, with some type of accommodation for out of state and foreign-educated.


Do you have some links about this? I'm curious to read up on it.

On a side note, when will you have some employment stats on non-accredited regional schools? I think it would add tremendous weight to this debate if you could show that your schools and schools like it are far outperforming the accredited regional schools, and then propose your hypothesis as to why that is.

Given the horrendous employment stats for accredited regional schools, I am getting that what you are suggesting that it's not regionality that determines the effectiveness of a school (and by default employment stats) but rather teaching style.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MCL Law Dean » Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:47 pm

Glad to be of help. The link to the Task Force is here:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/BoardofTrustees/TaskForceonAdmissionsRegulationReform.aspx

P.S. Since I serve on the Task Force as a representative of the California accredited law schools, I would be glad to answer any questions. It is a public commission, so there are no hidden agendas. Anyone can attend the working sessions to listen to the deliberations and are welcome to speak during the public comment period.

Regarding your side note: Few of the California accredited (non-ABA) law schools conduct alumni employment surveys since we are are not allowed to participate in LSAC or NALP and therefore there has never been a motivation to go through the process. However, with the strong nudge from LST, Monterey College of Law conducted our first employment survey at the end of last year. With 100% reporting from the classes of 2009-2012, we had 88% employment as of 9 months after graduation and 91% current employment. Remember, we are VERY small (120 law students) and serve a non-urban, regional market where we are the only law school. Our experience does not necessarily extrapolate to other communities, but it is an example of small-market economics where there continue to be good jobs available for local law graduates.

The reasons are relatively straight-forward. We are well connected to the local bench and bar. They serve as our adjunct faculty and Board of Trustees and get an opportunity to see our students in action during law school. Our clinical program provides opportunities for apx. 40 law students per year, is supervised by local lawyers, and provides service to over 1,700 clients a year. We support and collaborate with the small-claims and self-help center at the Superior Court and facilitate the court-directed mediation program.

Although we are small, in contrast to the national trend, we had a 20% increase in enrollment last year. I think that this is because we are perceived to be an integral part of the community justice system that believes our community needs additional lawyers. Of course, there is no BigLaw here . . . but we do coordinate the judicial clerkship program for the local Superior Court.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MCL Law Dean » Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:51 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:Will this apply to Class of 2016? What are the accommodations for out-of-state?


Under the current discussion, it will apply to the "entering" class of 2017. Accommodations for graduates of out-of-state law schools are still under discussion, but may include additional CLE requirements after licensure in lieu of the in-school course requirements.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby MCL Law Dean » Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:53 pm

NYstate wrote: at least university presidents will do what law schools are unable and unwilling to do for themselves.


I agree.

zman
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby zman » Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:13 pm


User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby jk148706 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:39 am

zman wrote:http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/lsats-administered

Up in february.


Lsat test takers are up (still down 6% for the year), not applications.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby spleenworship » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:40 am

zman wrote:http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/lsats-administered

Up in february.


By 1.1%. Without several more data points its not a trend, it's a minor anomaly.

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby cotiger » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:28 am

Total number of applicants is down 9.9% compared to this time last year.

There has been an increase in applicants over the last month, relative to last year. All of those extensions, I imagine. Might not get another 10% drop, after all.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume

moralsentiments
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:11 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby moralsentiments » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:50 am

The federal government is dominated by conservatives.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby patogordo » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:55 am

moralsentiments wrote:
The federal government is dominated by conservatives.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:?:

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby prezidentv8 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:35 pm

Paul Campos wrote: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.


Paul, granting that you're right re: the price that clients are willing to pay, I think you're missing a small supply side issue at play here. It isn't crazy to suggest that unemployed JDs are, by necessity, looking for better-paying work than they can find as lawyers so that they can meet their loan obligations. That would actually decrease the "supply" of legal services, to some degree. Effect on price/quantity of services demanded? Probably minimal if anything, since the market is so saturated. But I don't think it's nuts to suggest that people who would prefer to work as lawyers are leaving the field due to their debt.

User avatar
paully
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:25 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby paully » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:13 pm

Paul Campos wrote: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.

Thank you. This post should, theoretically, shut that dean up. Mr. Campos, I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you say. If if weren't for you,and TLS, I'd be deluded into attending a T4. Guys like the MCL Dean are a disease.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby northwood » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:47 pm

NY already has a 50 hour pro-bono requirement for recent law graduates who want to be admitted to the NY bar that must be met before they can be admitted... starting with those sitting for the July 2014 bar exam.. So I would not be surprised if other states followed

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby prezidentv8 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:37 pm

northwood wrote:NY already has a 50 hour pro-bono requirement for recent law graduates who want to be admitted to the NY bar that must be met before they can be admitted... starting with those sitting for the July 2014 bar exam.. So I would not be surprised if other states followed


grumble grumble

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

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby cotiger » Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:48 am

Dunno if this has been posted before, but here's the updated breakdown of applicant changes by LSAT score: http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/high-l ... last-year/

Looks like it's going to end up being a slight increase in 170+ this year. Up 1.2% for 170-174, and up 6.0% for 175-180.

User avatar
Mack.Hambleton
Posts: 5417
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby Mack.Hambleton » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:15 pm

Interesting, also worth noting that as of 3/14 applications are still down over ten percent.

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume

zman
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 am

Re: LSAC: Applicants: -15.9%

Postby zman » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:03 pm

"As of 4/4/14, there are 324,781 fall 2014 applications submitted by 47,176 applicants. Applicants are down 8.0% and applications are down 9.3% from 2013."

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ear-volume




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Monday and 3 guests