Front page NY times: massive app drop; schools in trouble; Forum

[NYstate]

I had to post this link to the times article- front page bombshell tommorrow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/educ ... t.html?hpw

Massive layoffs and school closing are expected.

Everyone shornuld read this. The drop in applications means we are at 1977 levels. Schools are in trouble. The cost is now universally recognized as too high with jobs too few.

Anyone thinking of going this year might want to defer and get a better deal next year, it isn't as if the market will pick up. Or, at least negotiate hard for scholarships a d refuse any scholarship with a stip beyond good standing.

Maybe this is the wrong forum? If so, mods please move.


Also, I used to post here under sunynp when I was living upstate while recovering from an illness. I closed that account- perm ban requested by me- when I went back to work. So I'm not technically new. I couldn't post in the mod section to request reactivation without making a new account. But this is a one-time only deal. I thought this was important, but I don't want to get sucked back into TLS.

I would love to read your cotmments though!

[ksllaw]

sunynp, I actually remember you well.

You were one of the first people to steer me towards Paul Campos' work on this site when I was a newbie (August 2012) and very ignorant of the law school and legal economy crisis.

I had always wanted to say thank you to you for your posts, warnings and perspective on this site. I believe you genuinely had 0Ls' best interests at heart and never played games or acted negatively.

Hope you're doing well (I know you're working in biglaw now from previous posts) and I am glad that the public is starting to finally recognize the truth about much of law school and the profession of law.

Thank you for the time you took in the past to help so many others here better understand the dangers of law school. Very best wishes!

[NYstate]

Thanks. I guess you can tell I want people to read this article a lot! I had to make a new account and everything! I wish you well too!

[ksllaw]

Thanks. I guess you can tell I want people to read this article a lot! I had to make a new account and everything! I wish you well too!

lol. If there had to be someone on this entire site who would do that I'd have guessed most likely you!

I'm still reading, btw.

[Br3v]

Man front page. Glad to see the message is starting to really make it into the mainstream.

[holmesboy]

Wow, great article. Thanks for coming back to post it.

Makes me wish I had put off law school for another year or two

[ksllaw]

Also, I hope you still check this site for another week or two...I was going to PM you something regarding a former possible "misunderstanding." lol. Can't do it atm due to some stuff I'm working on that is due tomorrow.

But hopefully more comments flow in re: the NY Times piece.

Segal's 2011 scathing and eye-opening NYT article "Is Law School a Losing Game" was the very first that I know of from the mainstream media to hit on the subject. But since then I hadn't seen too much follow-up. Glad to see more.

[Br3v]

Research is faster and easier, requiring fewer lawyers, and is being outsourced to less expensive locales, including West Virginia and overseas.

[bizzybone1313]

I always wanted to be a K-JD. I was going to apply in 2009. I have been miserable for years wishing I had already gone through law school. It is a blessing to get to apply when apps are so down. I guess everything works out in the end.

I cannot wait to see the median hits the T-14 take and the final number of apps nationwide. I bet they are soiling themselves at many schools. The gig is up: No more overpriced education in the land of opportunity without severe consequences. Quite frankly, it really pisses me at a very intimate level. I am the son of immigrant parents and have always felt very blessed to be in America. We have a bunch of douche bags in higher education who are ruining the American Dream by overpricing education. They are about to get what has been a long time coming to them in the next couple of years, and they fucking deserve it.

[manofjustice]

Man front page. Glad to see the message is starting to really make it into the mainstream.

The NYT, in response to the groundswell caused by Paul Campos's ITLSS and Kyle McIntyre's LST, has been responsive to the crisis for for a good two years now.

Three pointers, however, with respect to that NYT's article. Overall, it's a bit too conservative.

a) The average debt loads are extraordinarily low-balled. They are self-reported from law schools and usually rely on near-dishonest distortions. For instance, most schools don't report average debt upon graduation, including interest and origination fees, but only average debt principal. For the average bloke going to law school on his own, he'll owe out about a quarter of a million dollars in loans upon graduation, excluding undergraduate debt.

See here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... state.html

b) The statement of Professor Hadfield of USC quoted in the article that "actually, we have an exploding demand for both ordinary folk lawyers and big corporate ones" is laughable on its face. It is simply flat wrong. Just flat wrong. But it was unchallenged in the article, despite being exposed as flatly impossible by the author quoted earlier, Professor Tamanaha, who in his book "Failing Law Schools" reviewed actual statistics that indicate demand for legal services. Professor Hatfield is likely adopting a line common among law school defenders that demand should be greater which, as a reassurance to prospective law school students is, again, laughable on its face.

And it's not even likely true. The article itself references plenty of reasons why demand should be lower: technology, information availability, and outsourcing.

c) The article suggests law schools are experimenting with "ways to cut cost" and suggest that such ways include eliminating the third year of law school. The article totally ignores the possibility that the best way for law schools to cut cost is simply to do so: it doesn't question the cause that law school tuition has risen 4 times the pace of inflation for the last decade, even when quoting Professor Tamanaha that it is because law schools are trying to "maximize revenue."

Overall, the article was rather kind to law schools.

[bowser]

How does the NYTimes know that 38,000 will enroll this year?

[NYstate]

Man front page. Glad to see the message is starting to really make it into the mainstream.

The NYT, in response to the groundswell caused by Paul Campos's ITLSS and Kyle McIntyre's LST, has been responsive to the crisis for for a good two years now.

Three pointers, however, with respect to that NYT's article. Overall, it's a bit too conservative.

a) The average debt loads are extraordinarily low-balled. They are self-reported from law schools and usually rely on near-dishonest distortions. For instance, most schools don't report average debt upon graduation, including interest and origination fees, but only average debt principal. For the average bloke going to law school on his own, he'll owe out about a quarter of a million dollars in loans upon graduation, excluding undergraduate debt.

See here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... state.html

b) The statement of Professor Hadfield of USC quoted in the article that "actually, we have an exploding demand for both ordinary folk lawyers and big corporate ones" is laughable on its face. It is simply flat wrong. Just flat wrong. But it was unchallenged in the article, despite being exposed as flatly impossible by the author quoted earlier, Professor Tamanaha, who in his book "Failing Law Schools" reviewed actual statistics that indicate demand for legal services. Professor Hatfield is likely adopting a line common among law school defenders that demand should be greater which, as a reassurance to prospective law school students is, again, laughable on its face.

And it's not even likely true. The article itself references plenty of reasons why demand should be lower: technology, information availability, and outsourcing.

c) The article suggests law schools are experimenting with "ways to cut cost" and suggest that such ways include eliminating the third year of law school. The article totally ignores the possibility that the best way for law schools to cut cost is simply to do so: it doesn't question the cause that law school tuition has risen 4 times the pace of inflation for the last decade, even when quoting Professor Tamanaha that it is because law schools are trying to "maximize revenue."

Overall, the article was rather kind to law schools.

I agree with this assessment completely. I know it is much worse than this article explains. But this is a dramatic shift , with law schools blatantly in trouble due to the drop.
To me it shows what enrollment would have been like but for the schools lyingfor decades about employment and salaries for grads. I'm espicially happy because there have been a few op-Ed pieces promoting law schools. I wasn't sure the times would consider this a major story, or if they would support the schools' views instead. This pretty well puts people on notice that there is a crises in legal education and that it isn't going away.

Also they do point out the obscene increases in tuition in a non- inflationary environment.

So yes, the schools could have looked worse based on the facts we know, but this is still good press about the reality of law school that most 0Ls and their parents and advisors might not know. There are still many applicants who don't understand the truth of the job market ( or even the mandatory curve) so this national front page story should bring some needed attention.

( did you notice that only law is experiencing this decline?)

[NYstate]

How does the NYTimes know that 38,000 will enroll this year?

I saw this calculation somewhere. It is based on the number of applicants and the typical number of people who are admitted and then the number who typically decide not to attend. I may have seen this estimate in something from LSAC the other day.

[togepi]

I wish they could show how many applications each school has received thus far compared to previous years.

[dingbat]

If I remember my stats correctly (it's easy to look up, but I'm on a bus) this year there are less new LSAT takers (people, not tests) than there are law school seats

[rad lulz]

But a law school education is literally priceless.

[dingbat]

But a law school education is literally priceless.

(because you'll never pay it off)

[BlaqBella]

I hope this translates into closing down hundreds of law schools that are nothing but bottom feeders. We need to limit the number of JDs graduating. Adopt the medical school approach to admissions: if you don't have the numbers, don't bother applying. Close any and everything outside the T100.

[dingbat]

closing down hundreds of law schools

How many law school do you think there are?

Close any and everything outside the T100.

didn't you defend some TTTs previously?
I know you defended UCI the other day, so I'm really surprised to see you post this

[Tiago Splitter]

"There's never been a better time to apply!"

[BlaqBella]

closing down hundreds of law schools

How many law school do you think there are?

Close any and everything outside the T100.

didn't you defend some TTTs previously?
I know you defended UCI the other day, so I'm really surprised to see you post this

UCI is yet to be ranked! It need not apply...yet.

As for how many law schools I think exist...if there are T2, T3s and T4s, then too much if you ask me. Close them all.

[dingbat]

closing down hundreds of law schools

How many law school do you think there are?

Close any and everything outside the T100.

didn't you defend some TTTs previously?
I know you defended UCI the other day, so I'm really surprised to see you post this

UCI is yet to be ranked! It need not apply...yet.

As for how many law schools I think exist...if there are T2, T3s and T4s, then too much if you ask me. Close them all.

Such a simplistic attitude. There are untangled schools that are more deserving of existing than some T1s ranked in the 40s.

However, I will unequivocally add UCI to the list of schools that should shut down

[manofjustice]

But a law school education is literally priceless.

(because you'll never pay it off)

Ha. 173.

[BlaqBella]

Such a simplistic attitude. There are untangled schools that are more deserving of existing than some T1s ranked in the 40s.

More deserving? LOL.

Who cares if one is more deserving than the other to be ranked in a T1! Fact of the matter is legal employers hire on the basis of ranking. Corporate elitism FTW. If you do not have what it takes to be in a T1 despite, perhaps, "being deserving of" such, you need to be shut down.

[20130312]

closing down hundreds of law schools

How many law school do you think there are?

Close any and everything outside the T100.

didn't you defend some TTTs previously?
I know you defended UCI the other day, so I'm really surprised to see you post this

UCI is yet to be ranked! It need not apply...yet.

As for how many law schools I think exist...if there are T2, T3s and T4s, then too much if you ask me. Close them all.

So UCI is fine, in the already ridiculously over saturated Cali market, but everything outside of the top 50 schools needs to be closed down? lolok