Too many JDs chasing too few jobs Forum

[Anonymous User]

To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

I would agree, but those numbers are too high these days. I was a splitter with higher LSAT and still was in the bottom 25% of my T14 at the time I applied. Now I looked just a few years later and my LSAT is better than the top 75% for the new crop coming in. Ridiculous

[haus]

The government massively subsidizes legal education. Econ 101 tells you that when you subsidize something, you get too much of it.

Let Wells Fargo decide whether to give you $200k to go to Cooley and watch the problem fix itself real quick.

When you subsidize something you are likely to get more of it, but this more may or may not be too much.

If Wells Fargo is given the same backstop where the money cannot be discharged and the governments ability to reach in and take the money from those who took out the loans, I suspect that much of the same problems would exist.

[haus]

160+ or cant apply

Given that Yale dips as low as 160 (although I suspect that this person is likely a prince/princess or some such), one would think that there would be some extra give and take here.

https://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/pro ... ss-profile

[Phil Brooks]

One problem is that the amount of accurate but "unofficial" information on sites like TLS is counterbalanced by the wealth of inaccurate yet "official" information from the law schools themselves and pre-law advisers in undergraduate institutions. My pre-law adviser at Columbia told me that my high GPA would "make up for" my LSAT. He never talked about the economic incentives that law schools have because of US News. He never told me that it was encouraged or even necessary to negotiate for scholarships, and to do so based exclusively on LSAT/GPA (after all, Columbia and the other Ivy League undergraduate schools give only "need based" financial aid). A representative of Columbia Law School discouraged me from retaking, telling me that "The only way you definitely won't get into Columbia is if you don't apply to Columbia." Another representative encouraged me to apply Early Decision, assuring me that "soft factors" are what matter for "merit scholarships." As for the one baby boomer partner I know, he told me that the number one consideration for picking a 2L SA firm was to find one who would offer a 3L job (apparently unaware that almost all firms have an economic incentive to give 100%).

Neither I nor my parents grew up in this country, and we did not realize that success in America involves finding out and gaming the "unwritten rules" of the system, which are directly contrary to what the old guard tells you the written rules are.

So let's please consider different contexts and perspectives before chastising those who just didn't have the instincts to find these underground websites.

[A. Nony Mouse]

To be honest, I really think there are way too many JDs chasing after too few jobs. The ABA should make entering the legal profession more like the medical profession: Make it much more difficult to get into law school so that the vast majority who do go are practically guaranteed a job. They'd have to reduce the number and size of law schools so that you don't have un- and under-employed attorneys. Make the admissions process more rigorous (by having interviews and more detailed essays) so that only the ones who are really serious about law school would apply.

There aren't too many JDs or law schools. There's only JDs from T-14 in the job market. The application process is rigorous- only a limited number of people are admitted to T-14.

Outside T-14? No one tells you to waste your time and money- and most importantly - waste your life.

Lol. Going to a school outside the T14 doesn't necessarily waste your life, nor does going to a T14 guarantee a decent outcome. Much likelier than at many other schools? Sure, but not a guarantee and it's not like outside the T14 all legal jobs are foreclosed.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The government massively subsidizes legal education. Econ 101 tells you that when you subsidize something, you get too much of it.

Let Wells Fargo decide whether to give you $200k to go to Cooley and watch the problem fix itself real quick.

When you subsidize something you are likely to get more of it, but this more may or may not be too much.

If Wells Fargo is given the same backstop where the money cannot be discharged and the governments ability to reach in and take the money from those who took out the loans, I suspect that much of the same problems would exist.

The effect only has to be a manifest loss on a small percentage to take down the entire enterprise. Spending $250k on Cooley is a shitty idea no matter who your lender is, but if you're actually paying the loan back, it's of no concern to Wells Fargo how shitty the idea was. However, those who literally could never pay it back are the ones who kill the profit margin, causing a rate increase at first and, eventually, a full-scale denial of approval, which should be the goal (I think we would agree that there's no lending model that would make that a sound investment, from a lender's point of view). Even SOME consequence for the default rate would torpedo the whole enterprise. Little changes like that can make a big difference--we saw that subprime mortgage default rates going from two percent to three percent could torch the global economy.

[Clemenceau]

To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

I would agree, but those numbers are too high these days. I was a splitter with higher LSAT and still was in the bottom 25% of my T14 at the time I applied. Now I looked just a few years later and my LSAT is better than the top 75% for the new crop coming in. Ridiculous

How did you get in as a splitter with an (lsat?) in the bottom 25%? Furthermore, at what t14 is the 75% lsat currently where the 25% a few years ago?

[wolfie_m.]

.

[ManoftheHour]

To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

This:

160+ or cant apply

I'll also add that that can be waived if you have a 3.7+ GPA.

[Clemenceau]

To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

This:

160+ or cant apply

I'll also add that that can be waived if you have a 3.7+ GPA.

I think 160 is a plenty low minimum no matter what gpa you're working with.

[ggnobbq]

what about strong regionals like UNM, which has a median of like 153 iirc. Schools like these will be unable to fill a class with a 160 lsat minimum.

[haus]

I think 160 is a plenty low minimum no matter what gpa you're working with.

Why is this Anon?

[Phil Brooks]

One problem is that the amount of accurate but "unofficial" information on sites like TLS is counterbalanced by the wealth of inaccurate yet "official" information from the law schools themselves and pre-law advisers in undergraduate institutions. My pre-law adviser at Columbia told me that my high GPA would "make up for" my LSAT. He never talked about the economic incentives that law schools have because of US News. He never told me that it was encouraged or even necessary to negotiate for scholarships, and to do so based exclusively on LSAT/GPA (after all, Columbia and the other Ivy League undergraduate schools give only "need based" financial aid). A representative of Columbia Law School discouraged me from retaking, telling me that "The only way you definitely won't get into Columbia is if you don't apply to Columbia." Another representative encouraged me to apply Early Decision, assuring me that "soft factors" are what matter for "merit scholarships." As for the one baby boomer partner I know, he told me that the number one consideration for picking a 2L SA firm was to find one who would offer a 3L job (apparently unaware that almost all firms have an economic incentive to give 100%).

Neither I nor my parents grew up in this country, and we did not realize that success in America involves finding out and gaming the "unwritten rules" of the system, which are directly contrary to what the old guard tells you the written rules are.

So let's please consider different contexts and perspectives before chastising those who just didn't have the instincts to find these underground websites.

This. It's amazing to me how people automatically assume that because their friends and they are "in the know," everyone else must be, too. Schools may not have an affirmative duty to protect students from bad financial decisions, but they cannot abdicate a duty created by their misleading students in the first damn place.

Damn straight.

[LA Spring]

If anyone is serious about limiting the number of lawyers in the legal workforce it has to begin with the law school applicants. It would be nice if a minimum standard was imposed by the school (which will not happen because they want your money) so it is really in the hands of the prospective student. Keep in mind that if you apply to a tier 2 (or lower) school the odds of getting a good enough job to pay down your six-figure debt is uncertain ― assuming you get a job.

Then there is the bar exam. The increasingly high rate of failures usually transpires at the schools accepting students with low stats. So yes, you need a 165 and a good GPA just for a fighting chance.

The other consideration regards what happens two years after you’re at a firm and then laid off. Chances of lateraling up are slim. And the odds of starting out as a first year at a new firm, is higher than you might think.

[psu2016]

I apologize if this has already been suggested, but what about requiring an interview with an alum? If you can't a) dress yourself, and b) converse appropriately for half an hour about why you want to go to law school, you shouldn't be applying.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I apologize if this has already been suggested, but what about requiring an interview with an alum? If you can't a) dress yourself, and b) converse appropriately for half an hour about why you want to go to law school, you shouldn't be applying.

I really don't think this is going to eliminate any significant number of candidates. There's no evidence people at crappy schools can't do either of the things above. They just can't get a good GPA/LSAT. And there's no evidence the above has anything in particular to do with ability to be a lawyer.

[haus]

I apologize if this has already been suggested, but what about requiring an interview with an alum? If you can't a) dress yourself, and b) converse appropriately for half an hour about why you want to go to law school, you shouldn't be applying.

I really don't think this is going to eliminate any significant number of candidates. There's no evidence people at crappy schools can't do either of the things above. They just can't get a good GPA/LSAT. And there's no evidence the above has anything in particular to do with ability to be a lawyer.

I am guessing that most of the whining has little to do with ensuring that lawyers are better.

[Anonymous User]

To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

I would agree, but those numbers are too high these days. I was a splitter with higher LSAT and still was in the bottom 25% of my T14 at the time I applied. Now I looked just a few years later and my LSAT is better than the top 75% for the new crop coming in. Ridiculous

How did you get in as a splitter with an (lsat?) in the bottom 25%? Furthermore, at what t14 is the 75% lsat currently where the 25% a few years ago?

I assume it was my charm and devilish good looks. And it's probably the one you think it is.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[Anonymous User]

There are two separate issues that law schools should strive harder to figure out: (1) Which applicants are likely to succeed as attorneys? (2) Which applicants really want to be attorneys? Then pick from the intersection of the two sets.

[A. Nony Mouse]

That might still result in more attorneys than positions.

[Clemenceau]

I think 160 is a plenty low minimum no matter what gpa you're working with.

Why is this Anon?

My bad, accidental anon. I'm not the other anon though.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

One problem is that the amount of accurate but "unofficial" information on sites like TLS is counterbalanced by the wealth of inaccurate yet "official" information from the law schools themselves and pre-law advisers in undergraduate institutions. My pre-law adviser at Columbia told me that my high GPA would "make up for" my LSAT. He never talked about the economic incentives that law schools have because of US News. He never told me that it was encouraged or even necessary to negotiate for scholarships, and to do so based exclusively on LSAT/GPA (after all, Columbia and the other Ivy League undergraduate schools give only "need based" financial aid). A representative of Columbia Law School discouraged me from retaking, telling me that "The only way you definitely won't get into Columbia is if you don't apply to Columbia." Another representative encouraged me to apply Early Decision, assuring me that "soft factors" are what matter for "merit scholarships." As for the one baby boomer partner I know, he told me that the number one consideration for picking a 2L SA firm was to find one who would offer a 3L job (apparently unaware that almost all firms have an economic incentive to give 100%).

Neither I nor my parents grew up in this country, and we did not realize that success in America involves finding out and gaming the "unwritten rules" of the system, which are directly contrary to what the old guard tells you the written rules are.

So let's please consider different contexts and perspectives before chastising those who just didn't have the instincts to find these underground websites.

This. It's amazing to me how people automatically assume that because their friends and they are "in the know," everyone else must be, too. Schools may not have an affirmative duty to protect students from bad financial decisions, but they cannot abdicate a duty created by their misleading students in the first damn place.

Damn straight.

Hate to rain on the pity party, but it is simply unreasonable to take 200K+ in non-dischargeable loans (to say nothing of 3 years of opportunity costs) without doing a rudimentary Google search. "Underground websites" is an extreme characterization; there are many forums, non-profits, blogs, and news stories (in major papers no less) that all express concern with the state of legal employment. I was able to ascertain this through internet searches in 2003, and it definitely wasn't difficult or time-consuming.

That said, requiring schools to paint a more accurate employment picture is a worthwhile goal. But does anybody really think that would dissuade the type of person who goes to a non-accredited school now? Or even the type of person who attends a T2? Law students are perennial optimists, and short of depriving them of financing, many (if not most) would still go.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[totesTheGoat]

In light of all of these factors, it's hardly unreasonable to ask the schools to be upfront and honest about their job placement data.

I don't disagree with your conclusion. Schools should not get away with screwing with their numbers. However, I'm having a really hard time garnering sympathy for people who make a quarter million dollar decision half-cocked. The information is out there, but we have a bunch of broke 22 year olds throwing money around in a way that would make billionaires blush. At some point, there has to be some accountability for the high-risk, low-reward decisions that people are making.