16.9% Decrease In October Test Takers(Detailed Stats Inside) Forum

[Betharl]

In a truly self regulating market student loans would be made by the private sector and WOULD be allowed to go into bankruptcy. You keep talking about rationality in a self regulating market. Making a 150k loan so someone with 0 assets can go to Cooley and graduate without a job isn't rational. Private lenders wouldn't make these loans, or if they did, they would suffer from it and go out of business/stop making those loans (in this way, the market would self regulate). Instead, we are all going to be left on the hook when the student debt bubble bursts.

Information asymmetry did/does exist between schools and students. Schools game their employment statistics, admissions statistics, basically anything they can possibly game to make themselves look better. This leads to IRRATIONAL decisions on the part of prospective students.

These are just a couple big examples. There are lots of other examples of pressures that lead students to make irrational decisions in this market, including movie/tv glamorization, parental pressure, confirmation bias, overconfidence/special snowflake syndrome, societal (everyone else is doing it) bias, etc.

This. is. not. a. rational. self. regulating. market.

EDIT: I don't mean to say there is absolutely NO self regulation. Obviously, the drop in applicants signifies regulation, but intervention of some sort beyond what the market itself provides is needed.

[sinfiery]

In a truly self regulating market student loans would be made by the private sector and WOULD be allowed to go into bankruptcy. You keep talking about rationality in a self regulating market. Making a 150k loan so someone with 0 assets can go to Cooley and graduate without a job isn't rational. Private lenders wouldn't make these loans, or if they did, they would suffer from it and go out of business/stop making those loans (in this way, the market would self regulate). Instead, we are all going to be left on the hook when the student debt bubble bursts.

Information asymmetry did/does exist between schools and students. Schools game their employment statistics, admissions statistics, basically anything they can possibly game to make themselves look better. This leads to IRRATIONAL decisions on the part of prospective students.

These are just a couple big examples. There are lots of other examples of pressures that lead students to make irrational decisions in this market, including movie/tv glamorization, parental pressure, confirmation bias, overconfidence/special snowflake syndrome, societal (everyone else is doing it) bias, etc.

This. is. not. a. rational. self. regulating. market.

EDIT: I don't mean to say there is absolutely NO self regulation. Obviously, the drop in applicants signifies regulation, but intervention of some sort beyond what the market itself provides is needed.

But it does self-regulate.
Sure, it isn't the perfect market. And there are valid points out there that a lack of information/ability to buy are empirically present. For instance, parental pressures, movie/tv, etc.

Finally, I will indeed have to give up ground.

There are definitely problems with the market. For one, someone with no assets can go to Cooley. But at the same time, it's worth the risk of not having this fail-safe allowance.

If banks could decide who goes to schools based on collatoral available, this would create a huge problem as far as social mobility is considered.

So that takes away from the self-regulation bit, but not drastically as student loans, albeit infamous, actually preform quite well in general. Graduate school rates of default fair even better than undergraduate, generally significantly.

Old: http://p2p.fynanz.com/help/tutorial/loa ... s/defaults
Newer: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/educa ... .html?_r=0


Then you have the social problems with parents, TV, glamour, saying at a bar "I'm a lawyer, ), etc. I agree, all present and they all take away from a consumer being rational on the subject.

It isn't a perfectly self-regulated market.

But at the end of it all, these are generally better than average applicants, knowing they are going to have to pay all the money they loan back, regardless of almost any circumstance, with most having at least some real world job experience, being the consumers within this market.

Albeit far from the ideal rational consumer who is free of any and all bias used to justify a purely libertarian market, it is still self-regulating.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at LSAT test takers. Class sizes. Increases in information available. Media infamy for law schools. These forums.
Something is happening. Still.



Edit: And I just read your edit. lol. I think a expedition of increased transparency of graduate job data should occur by some sort of out-side force, albeit I don't think it is necessary by any means. Only beneficial.

[shntn]

Y'all sound mad.

[sinfiery]

Y'all sound mad.

hahahhahhaha








hehe

[Mr. Pancakes]

tards

[sinfiery]

tards

You seem angry.

[vegso]

cool to watch discussions about this stuff

[Tiago Splitter]

If banks could decide who goes to schools based on collatoral available, this would create a huge problem as far as social mobility is considered.

So that takes away from the self-regulation bit, but not drastically as student loans, albeit infamous, actually preform quite well in general. Graduate school rates of default fair even better than undergraduate, generally significantly.

You can't have it both ways, saying that loans for higher education are profitable on the one hand while on the other saying banks would severely limit loans were it not for the government's involvement. If there is money to be made banks are happy to make loans. If an orphan with no money needs 100K because he got into Harvard Law banks would be falling all over themselves to make that loan.

As for social mobility, it is never advanced when we pay to put a kid through three years at Cooley.

[Theopliske8711]

It would be reasonable to try and get the number of law schools down by a good bunch. There is no real reason why Cooley exists, other than to suck money out of naive young people (particularly minorities, whose aspirations matched together with the horrendous socio-economic conditions they live in, make them more likely to fall prey to the schemes that more knowledgeable people are able to avoid (although the housing bubble shows the limits of that). Unfortunately, since the number of lower LSAT scores have not declined, while the upper ones have, it means that those most vulnerable are still falling for the illusion. Sad. People with high LSAT scores are probably choosing business school, perhaps, over becoming an attorney; or they are lured into the massive world of finance. In either case, it seems those on the lower end are still getting sucked in...

[sinfiery]

If banks could decide who goes to schools based on collatoral available, this would create a huge problem as far as social mobility is considered.

So that takes away from the self-regulation bit, but not drastically as student loans, albeit infamous, actually preform quite well in general. Graduate school rates of default fair even better than undergraduate, generally significantly.

You can't have it both ways, saying that loans for higher education are profitable on the one hand while on the other saying banks would severely limit loans were it not for the government's involvement. If there is money to be made banks are happy to make loans. If an orphan with no money needs 100K because he got into Harvard Law banks would be falling all over themselves to make that loan.

As for social mobility, it is never advanced when we pay to put a kid through three years at Cooley.

That's generally the argument against any sort of government intervention. But this relies much on absolute scenarios. IE: harvard or cooley where no advancement of social mobility occurs with a government market.

But then you have scenarios where, say identical applicant's that got into a T40ish. UAlabama or something.

With one, he has collateral. With another, he doesn't. The one with the collateral is deemed by the algorithm, that although the success rate is the same for both, the profitability is only worth the risk if the bank is able to seize his assets if/when the loan fails.

In such a case, the bank would only approve a loan to the applicant with collateral, thus minimizing social mobility.

How much of a "major" problem this is, I'm not sure. I haven't given it too much thought.


Of course, one could argue social mobility in such a case is equalized because the person with the assets in question has the ability to fail and fall to a position lower than he once was, thus attempting to create some sort of equilibrium.

Instead of both failing, one fails. Bank doesn't lose all of it's cash. Can make future loans. Etc. The difference in social hierarchy between the 2 applicants is minmized.

Hmm.

[Mr. Pancakes]

Where's the link showing the schools with the highest percentage in drop of attendance? I know it's in this thread but I can't find it. Could someone help a brother out?

[HarlandBassett]

Where's the link showing the schools with the highest percentage in drop of attendance? I know it's in this thread but I can't find it. Could someone help a brother out?

you mean the yield rate?

[Sheffield]

Even though the economy was in the tank my mindset was to take the LSAT and see if I could make it to a highly ranked school. I would have settled for a school in the top 30, but certainly nothing outside Tier 1. I do not understand why this is not the overwhelming strategy/viewpoint of today’s wannabe Law Student. Even though an 18% drop is a substantial decrease, it seems that we are looking at +32,000 newbies competing for roughly 20,000 jobs.

Even though ’12 is a bit better than what we have seen in the last few years, I know of some outside Tier 1 (all very smart and likeable) with LR grades and facing disappointment. How hard is it not to line up behind the lambs heading for the slaughter house?

[sinfiery]

Even though the economy was in the tank my mindset was to take the LSAT and see if I could make it to a highly ranked school. I would have settled for a school in the top 30, but certainly nothing outside Tier 1. I do not understand why this is not the overwhelming strategy/viewpoint of today’s wannabe Law Student. Even though an 18% drop is a substantial decrease, it seems that we are looking at +32,000 newbies competing for roughly 20,000 jobs.

Even though ’12 is a bit better than what we have seen in the last few years, I know of some outside Tier 1 (all very smart and likeable) with LR grades and facing disappointment. How hard is it not to line up behind the lambs heading for the slaughter house?

Are there 20,000 legal jobs opening up and 32,000 law school graduates coming out? (All the way from Cooley to Yale?)

[Sheffield]

Are there 20,000 legal jobs opening up and 32,000 law school graduates coming out? (All the way from Cooley to Yale?)

Although you might need to fact check me, I think Yale has first dibs over Cooley.

[sinfiery]

Are there 20,000 legal jobs opening up and 32,000 law school graduates coming out? (All the way from Cooley to Yale?)

Although you might need to fact check me, I think Yale has first dibs over Cooley.

Honestly not too bad.

Considering the medium LSAT for law schools is about a 152, and 63% of students get jobs in a legal profession.

Not even the top 63% of students, as I'm sure there are a decent amount of students graduating that only went to law school to help them in their personal business endevears. A good amount probably are doing things that aren't considered related to a legal profession even though the had the available choice.


I'd say if you aren't in the bottom 20%, it seems there is a legal job, albeit possibly terrible, available for you.

All things considered, I am not at all terrified.

Makes the T14 or don't go mentality even more laughable.


I also believe a law degree holds merit in the job market outside of just the legal market. But that may just be my ignorance. (Although I do mean a marginal extent, but still an extent.)

[Tiago Splitter]

Considering the medium LSAT for law schools is about a 152, and 63% of students get jobs in a legal profession.

The median of all LSATs taken is a bit over 150, yes. The median of people actually attending is far higher. There were more than 155,000 LSATs administered in 2010-2011, but only 78,500 applicants and 48,700 matriculants. All info from here:

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ummary.asp

I think it's safe to say that the people taking the LSAT and not attending are disproportionately likely to score low, meaning that the median LSAT of matriculants is probably much closer to 160.

it seems that we are looking at +32,000 newbies competing for roughly 20,000 jobs.

The bureau of labor statistics, prior to the recession, projected 25000 new jobs per year through 2018. The volume summary linked above shows that there are way more than 32,000 graduates each year. The class of 2013 started with nearly 50,000 people. Assuming the typical 10% attrition rate somewhere around 45,000 will graduate this May. Given that, it's hard to say:

All things considered, I am not at all terrified.

Not even the top 63% of students, as I'm sure there are a decent amount of students graduating that only went to law school to help them in their personal business endevears. A good amount probably are doing things that aren't considered related to a legal profession even though the had the available choice.

You're in the minority here, although I'm not sure there's any point in debating this. If you really do believe a substantial portion of law graduates have the ability to pursue other lucrative options outside of law then yes, law school really isn't a bad choice.

[Sheffield]

it seems that we are looking at +32,000 newbies competing for roughly 20,000 jobs.

The bureau of labor statistics, prior to the recession, projected 25000 new jobs per year through 2018. The volume summary linked above shows that there are way more than 32,000 graduates each year. The class of 2013 started with nearly 50,000 people. Assuming the typical 10% attrition rate somewhere around 45,000 will graduate this May. Given that, it's hard to say:

My understanding also was 45,000 grads. If you apply an 18% deduction in new applications the number falls to 36,900. However, I have never learned if this is calculated as one application per person since some people apply to multiple schools.

[dissonance1848]

There are projected to be 218000 clerkship and lawyer postions created from 2010-2020, by the BLS. There are roughly 45000 graduates a year. With the recent fall in enrollments, the number of graduates is probably going to be closer to 40000 for the most recent class, and classes coming after it. So, roughly 2 graduates for each lawyer job, including temp and contract lawyers.

[thelawyler]

In a truly self regulating market student loans would be made by the private sector and WOULD be allowed to go into bankruptcy. You keep talking about rationality in a self regulating market. Making a 150k loan so someone with 0 assets can go to Cooley and graduate without a job isn't rational. Private lenders wouldn't make these loans, or if they did, they would suffer from it and go out of business/stop making those loans (in this way, the market would self regulate). Instead, we are all going to be left on the hook when the student debt bubble bursts.

Information asymmetry did/does exist between schools and students. Schools game their employment statistics, admissions statistics, basically anything they can possibly game to make themselves look better. This leads to IRRATIONAL decisions on the part of prospective students.

These are just a couple big examples. There are lots of other examples of pressures that lead students to make irrational decisions in this market, including movie/tv glamorization, parental pressure, confirmation bias, overconfidence/special snowflake syndrome, societal (everyone else is doing it) bias, etc.

This. is. not. a. rational. self. regulating. market.

EDIT: I don't mean to say there is absolutely NO self regulation. Obviously, the drop in applicants signifies regulation, but intervention of some sort beyond what the market itself provides is needed.

But it does self-regulate.
Sure, it isn't the perfect market. And there are valid points out there that a lack of information/ability to buy are empirically present. For instance, parental pressures, movie/tv, etc.

Finally, I will indeed have to give up ground.

There are definitely problems with the market. For one, someone with no assets can go to Cooley. But at the same time, it's worth the risk of not having this fail-safe allowance.

If banks could decide who goes to schools based on collatoral available, this would create a huge problem as far as social mobility is considered.

So that takes away from the self-regulation bit, but not drastically as student loans, albeit infamous, actually preform quite well in general. Graduate school rates of default fair even better than undergraduate, generally significantly.

Old: http://p2p.fynanz.com/help/tutorial/loa ... s/defaults
Newer: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/educa ... .html?_r=0


Then you have the social problems with parents, TV, glamour, saying at a bar "I'm a lawyer, ), etc. I agree, all present and they all take away from a consumer being rational on the subject.

It isn't a perfectly self-regulated market.

But at the end of it all, these are generally better than average applicants, knowing they are going to have to pay all the money they loan back, regardless of almost any circumstance, with most having at least some real world job experience, being the consumers within this market.

Albeit far from the ideal rational consumer who is free of any and all bias used to justify a purely libertarian market, it is still self-regulating.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at LSAT test takers. Class sizes. Increases in information available. Media infamy for law schools. These forums.
Something is happening. Still.



Edit: And I just read your edit. lol. I think a expedition of increased transparency of graduate job data should occur by some sort of out-side force, albeit I don't think it is necessary by any means. Only beneficial.

I'm not going to jump into this debate, but you clearly sound like a 0L. I think your perspective and bias will change the more you learn about this job market, because even if much of your "logic" might be right in principle, I think you are misinterpreting or have wrong premises.

[sinfiery]

The median of all LSATs taken is a bit over 150, yes. The median of people actually attending is far higher. There were more than 155,000 LSATs administered in 2010-2011, but only 78,500 applicants and 48,700 matriculants. All info from here:

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ummary.asp

I think it's safe to say that the people taking the LSAT and not attending are disproportionately likely to score low, meaning that the median LSAT of matriculants is probably much closer to 160.

it seems that we are looking at +32,000 newbies competing for roughly 20,000 jobs.

The bureau of labor statistics, prior to the recession, projected 25000 new jobs per year through 2018. The volume summary linked above shows that there are way more than 32,000 graduates each year. The class of 2013 started with nearly 50,000 people. Assuming the typical 10% attrition rate somewhere around 45,000 will graduate this May. Given that, it's hard to say:

My understanding also was 45,000 grads. If you apply an 18% deduction in new applications the number falls to 36,900. However, I have never learned if this is calculated as one application per person since some people apply to multiple schools.

I believe it is 1 per person as there is a category for overall applications nearing hundreds of thousands.


So if we have 37,000 possible new entries. 22,000 new jobs.
The only real way to find the medium LSAT would be to have reliable data that shows class size per law school and medium GPA for FT students.

Considering that higher LSAT applicants probably have more opportunities, it isn't a safe presumption to make that the avg LSAT taker is now a 160.

BUT even then, for arguments sake since I sure as hell don't want to do that leg work, let's say a 160 is the medium. As per TLS rankings, around the ranking of #~50 we have a medium LSAT of 160.
37,000 new grads. 370 per each school at the top 50 schools. Definitely....favoring a negative approach to this entire setup, especially considering the vastly fewer amount of applicants this year + the lowering of incoming class sizes + that this average is still pretty much below the average of the top 50 graduating JDs in 2011 muchless 2016. (Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 0915160620) - Most aren't near 370. Some are over, most are far below.

But whatever. Let's assume all this crazy statistical data you presumed to be "true".

37,000 new graduates. 22,000 jobs (As per after the recession). 160 medium LSAT

The bureau of labor statistics, prior to the recession, projected 25000 new jobs per year through 2018. The volume summary linked above shows that there are way more than 32,000 graduates each year. The class of 2013 started with nearly 50,000 people. Assuming the typical 10% attrition rate somewhere around 45,000 will graduate this May. Given that, it's hard to say:


You're in the minority here, although I'm not sure there's any point in debating this. If you really do believe a substantial portion of law graduates have the ability to pursue other lucrative options outside of law then yes, law school really isn't a bad choice.

Substantial is not a term based on percentages. That's why I used it. Yes, I believe a substantial amount of law graduates would be better off working in a market not related to law as far as income is concerned. I would say as much as 5% would be better off.

Then I would say 5% would be worse off, but not significantly, and would bolster their resumes to obtain said jobs by a noticeable amount because of their completion of law school.

So that add's 10% of people not related to the legal market at all that would benefit from entering law school. 5% of which would ideally be greater applicants than the 160 medium LSAT.

So to start. There are legal jobs for ~60% of applicants who will graduate in 3 years. Add on 10% for other opportunities available because of the J.D. completion, and you have 70% of people benefiting from such action.

But let's say only 65% did and the bottom 5% of that non-lawschool addition weren't included.

160 is the medium LSAT.
1 would have to score roughly a 152, GPA/other qualities being equal, to leave law school with a sound perspective of accepting to not be hired for a position.
Not to mention, from your article.

. In fact, Tamanaha reports, large populations are underserved. The paradox is easily explained: the kind of lawyering poor and disadvantaged communities require does not bring in enough money to attract newly minted lawyers trailing clouds of debt. “Law schools have created a systemic mismatch between graduates and jobs.”

And at this point, we're arguing about the 30th percentile of applicants. I don't give a sh*t about them.

But when I hear T-14 or bust, it seems quite ridiculous if job opportunities are available for the 40th %, and class sizes are shrinking whilst demand for lawyers is still available to be taken advantage of.

I will give you 2 things I have left unaccounted for:
Previous J.D.s unemployed/underemployed competing with graduating J.D.s and the debt one takes on when entering law school. Neither a laughing matter.

I'm not going to jump into this debate, but you clearly sound like a 0L. I think your perspective and bias will change the more you learn about this job market, because even if much of your "logic" might be right in principle, I think you are misinterpreting or have wrong premises.

Most definitely. I am a 0L. I am more or less posting only because there is too strong of a majority that I feel are overextending their grounds with respect to these statistics. I know they are bad. I understand the job market isn't even close to how it is glamorized. But people here take it way too far.

[Mr. Pancakes]

Where's the link showing the schools with the highest percentage in drop of attendance? I know it's in this thread but I can't find it. Could someone help a brother out?

you mean the yield rate?

no, the drop in enrollment rate.

[sinfiery]

Where's the link showing the schools with the highest percentage in drop of attendance? I know it's in this thread but I can't find it. Could someone help a brother out?

you mean the yield rate?

no, the drop in enrollment rate.

Curious, off memory do you remember if the trend was more higher or lower ranked schools? or chaotic?

[Mr. Pancakes]

Where's the link showing the schools with the highest percentage in drop of attendance? I know it's in this thread but I can't find it. Could someone help a brother out?

you mean the yield rate?

no, the drop in enrollment rate.

Curious, off memory do you remember if the trend was more higher or lower ranked schools? or chaotic?

the link to this is in this thread, but it was mostly lower ranked.

[WokeUpInACar]

FFS it's MEDIAN not "medium"