FYI

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Paul Campos
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

FYI

Postby Paul Campos » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:20 pm

I've been told by someone in a position to know that total registrations for today's LSAT are down 13% from last year's October administration.

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: FYI

Postby dr123 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:21 pm

Campos, you should start posting in the lounge.

Mavraides87
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:19 am

Re: FYI

Postby Mavraides87 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:22 pm

Thank you Prof Campos, was wondering if the trend would continue.

Think fewer than 100,000 LSATs administered this cycle maybe?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: FYI

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:37 pm

Mavraides87 wrote:Thank you Prof Campos, was wondering if the trend would continue.

Think fewer than 100,000 LSATs administered this cycle maybe?

Doubtful since the June numbers weren't as positive. Still great news though. Could be the fewest number of October test takers since they started collecting this data in 1987.

Mavraides87
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:19 am

Re: FYI

Postby Mavraides87 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:46 pm

Columbia and Chicago can still retain 171, but I'm guessing many schools will lose 1/2 points again on LSAT median if this holds

User avatar
052220151
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:58 am

Re: FYI

Postby 052220151 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Thanks for the info, Campos.

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: FYI

Postby bizzybone1313 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:17 pm

I ordered your book on Amazon. Hopefully it comes in this week, so I can read it.

linkx13
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: FYI

Postby linkx13 » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:00 pm

Mavraides87 wrote:Columbia and Chicago can still retain 171, but I'm guessing many schools will lose 1/2 points again on LSAT median if this holds


chicago has a 170

User avatar
justonemoregame
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: FYI

Postby justonemoregame » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:31 pm

Professor Campos, next e-book: And if You Must Go to Law School, Refuse to Pay Sticker

User avatar
banjo
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: FYI

Postby banjo » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:27 pm

I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: FYI

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:32 pm

banjo wrote:I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

It won't. Drop in apllicants doesn't mean drop in enrolled. They're just accepting shittier applicants than ever before.

User avatar
BruinRegents
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:11 am

Re: FYI

Postby BruinRegents » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:33 pm

dowu wrote:
banjo wrote:I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

It won't. Drop in apllicants doesn't mean drop in enrolled. They're just accepting shittier applicants than ever before.

And fewer jobs.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: FYI

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:34 pm

dowu wrote:
banjo wrote:I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

It won't. Drop in apllicants doesn't mean drop in enrolled. They're just accepting shittier applicants than ever before.

There actually are a lot fewer enrolling as well.

Also, why fewer jobs BR?

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: FYI

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:35 pm

BruinRegents wrote:
dowu wrote:
banjo wrote:I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

It won't. Drop in apllicants doesn't mean drop in enrolled. They're just accepting shittier applicants than ever before.

And fewer jobs.

One positive implication is that you should no longer be paying that nice little sticker price they're advertising.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: FYI

Postby dowu » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:36 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
dowu wrote:
banjo wrote:I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

It won't. Drop in apllicants doesn't mean drop in enrolled. They're just accepting shittier applicants than ever before.

There actually are a lot fewer enrolling as well.

Also, why fewer jobs BR?

You're right. Just remembered seeing the stats. Theyre accepting a little less at some schools.

Still over powering the job market though.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: FYI

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:40 pm

dowu wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
dowu wrote:
banjo wrote:I hope the drop in applicants translates into better employment outcomes.

It won't. Drop in apllicants doesn't mean drop in enrolled. They're just accepting shittier applicants than ever before.

There actually are a lot fewer enrolling as well.

Also, why fewer jobs BR?

You're right. Just remembered seeing the stats. Theyre accepting a little less at some schools.

Still over powering the job market though.

It went from 52,500 in the fall of 2010 to 44,500 last fall. Should be quite a bit lower this year, perhaps under 40k. But yeah still work to do. Hopefully the dropout rate, which is usually about ten percent, goes up.

User avatar
BruinRegents
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:11 am

Re: FYI

Postby BruinRegents » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:46 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:Also, why fewer jobs BR?

By fewer I meant that I do not believe we will return to the amount of JD-required jobs pre-Great Recession.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: FYI

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:55 pm

BruinRegents wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Also, why fewer jobs BR?

By fewer I meant that I do not believe we will return to the amount of JD-required jobs pre-Great Recession.

Maybe not, but as I said in another thread the differences between the employment prospects pre and post-recession are greatly overstated. The number of bar passage required jobs declined about 8% from 2007-2012, coming in at about 28,500 for class of 2012. Get the number of people starting law school down around 35k and we'll be pretty close to full employment for law grads. Not the kind of employment that pays back debt, sure, but getting most people into actual lawyer jobs is a big upgrade.

User avatar
BruinRegents
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:11 am

Re: FYI

Postby BruinRegents » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:32 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
BruinRegents wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Also, why fewer jobs BR?

By fewer I meant that I do not believe we will return to the amount of JD-required jobs pre-Great Recession.

Maybe not, but as I said in another thread the differences between the employment prospects pre and post-recession are greatly overstated. The number of bar passage required jobs declined about 8% from 2007-2012, coming in at about 28,500 for class of 2012. Get the number of people starting law school down around 35k and we'll be pretty close to full employment for law grads. Not the kind of employment that pays back debt, sure, but getting most people into actual lawyer jobs is a big upgrade.


And that's fine. But there are two factors that those statistics couldn't have accounted for. I've been saying that this time it is different. That the changes we've seen and will continue to see are structural unemployment and not cyclical or frictional. First, technology, especially with the advances being made in legal informatics will eventually place downward pressure in legal hiring. Secondly, the longer the hiring trough lasts, firms and companies are learning they can do more with less.

So while the statistics you've cited as accurate, my contention is that we should throw them out because there's been a paradigm shift and this new world needs new metrics to account for that shift.

Finally, even if we get down to 35k, that's still 15k jobs we lost and we never get back post-Great Recession.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: FYI

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:38 pm

BruinRegents wrote:Finally, even if we get down to 35k, that's still 15k jobs we lost and we never get back post-Great Recession.

I have no idea what this means. The rest of your post is just speculation. Fair points to be sure, but speculation that isn't backed up by any of the data we can get our hands on regarding hiring over the last couple of decades. There's no reason to throw out all the data because of some hunch.

EDIT: The number of bar passage required jobs for class of 2012 was actually higher than the number in 2005. The total number of those jobs has held fairly steady between 26,000 and 31,000 from 2001 through 2012. Technology has been rapidly improving during that time. We're five years out from the beginning of ITE. It's pretty clear that where we've been is where we're going to continue to be. These "changes" people keep talking about don't really need to be described as structural or cyclical because not a whole lot has changed.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hwwong and 5 guests