Top Law Schools

shifty_eyed wrote:Safe to say this is going to carry over into next cycle? Or will law schools start shrinking their class sizes deliberately?

I can't imagine them willing to give up $$$... They're just going to be more competitive, with each other..

d0rklord wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:Safe to say this is going to carry over into next cycle? Or will law schools start shrinking their class sizes deliberately?

I can't imagine them willing to give up $$$... They're just going to be more competitive, with each other..

I don't understand why they don't reduce the salary of the professors.
Law professors are one of the highest, if not THE highest, paid out of all professors.

senorhosh wrote:

d0rklord wrote:

shifty_eyed wrote:Safe to say this is going to carry over into next cycle? Or will law schools start shrinking their class sizes deliberately?

I can't imagine them willing to give up $$$... They're just going to be more competitive, with each other..

I don't understand why they don't reduce the salary of the professors.
Law professors are one of the highest, if not THE highest, paid out of all professors.

I think business school or management professors are the highest, by far. Its not uncommon to see paychecks as high as 500k for them.

dunno if it's been posted ITT but:


hey look, the legal market is fixing itself!

shocking! who woulda thought?

40,000 people crashing into ~23,000 jobs is some fix. By the way, tuition is going up, not down.

justonemoregame wrote:40,000 people crashing into ~23,000 jobs is some fix. By the way, tuition is going up, not down.

Job market bad

Declining number of qualified employees start entering market


Fixing does not mean fixed. Strong reading comprehension.



Also, inflation. Ever heard of it? Considering a lawschool education is worth more in 2012 than 2011, how surprising is it that school prices went up? I'd say not very.

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:40,000 people crashing into ~23,000 jobs is some fix. By the way, tuition is going up, not down.

Job market bad

Declining number of qualified employees start entering market


Fixing does not mean fixed. Strong reading comprehension.



Also, inflation. Ever heard of it? Considering a lawschool education is worth more in 2012 than 2011, how surprising is it that school prices went up? I'd say not very.

The cost of law school has far outpaced inflation. Law school tuition to median income ratio is now just straight up fucked.

NoodleyOne wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:40,000 people crashing into ~23,000 jobs is some fix. By the way, tuition is going up, not down.

Job market bad

Declining number of qualified employees start entering market


Fixing does not mean fixed. Strong reading comprehension.



Also, inflation. Ever heard of it? Considering a lawschool education is worth more in 2012 than 2011, how surprising is it that school prices went up? I'd say not very.

The cost of law school has far outpaced inflation. Law school tuition to median income ratio is now just straight up fucked.

Historically or as of ~2008?


All college costs have outpaced inflation to a ridiculous extent historically.

But this makes sense as a college education was vastly under priced until the mid 2000's.

A law degree is worth more today, lolok

Whatever tense you prefer, the idea that "the market" is fixing itself is absurd. People jump to credit scamblogs/negative media for declining enrollments and forget that more people applied to law school than anytime in history just two years ago. The declines could be a natural fluctuation, and next year's applicant pool could be equal to or greater than this year's.

And regardless, many schools could lower their admission standards to retain class size, as they have already done this cycle. All while spiking tuition. There is no organic fix, fixing, or will fix. As long as there are 22 year olds with access to infinite loans, there will be 22 year olds signing for them.

justonemoregame wrote:A law degree is worth more today, lolok

Whatever tense you prefer, the idea that "the market" is fixing itself is absurd. People jump to credit scamblogs/negative media for declining enrollments and forget that more people applied to law school than anytime in history just two years ago. The declines could be a natural fluctuation, and next year's applicant pool could be equal to or greater than this year's.

And regardless, many schools could lower their admission standards to retain class size, as they have already done this cycle. All while spiking tuition. There is no organic fix, fixing, or will fix. As long as there are 22 year olds with access to infinite loans, there will be 22 year olds signing for them.

Yes, a law degree is worth more in 2012 than 2011. That, I am almost sure of.

Lol, a market fixing itself is absurd? You can't be serious.

Sure, we have this very logical explanation as to why the number of people applying has decreased once the knowledge of the value of a law school fell had gained widespread traction, or it can all just be "a natural fluctuation".

Now, I would initially agree with you in that a market fixing itself in this manner would be classified as a natural fluctuation because a market fixing itself would be regarded as a natural process and thus this is a natural fluctuation but I think you literally mean it's a complete chance. LOL, wtf is this?

Smaller class sizes, less people applying, etc etc: That is a fix. It's all a fix. It's the market at work. ALL of it is working towards fixing this market. Seriously, I am at a loss for how any rational person can argue against this.

Having access to money isn't what regulates a market. Rational consumers is what regulates a market. Seriously, economics 101, IE: common sense101.

If you believe 22 year olds with access to a loan they know they have to payback regardless of almost any situation, are irrational? then you may have a point.

My point is that we are so far away from a fix that referring to it as such is meaningless in real terms. In economic ones, ok I guess 5,000 fewer matriculants this year means that on the graph: the market is presently fixing itself.

justonemoregame wrote:My point is that we are so far away from a fix that referring to it as such is meaningless in real terms. In economic ones, ok I guess 5,000 fewer matriculants this year means that on the graph: the market is presently fixing itself.

all I care about


everything else is subjective and I don't feel like debating such a point

justonemoregame wrote:A law degree is worth more today, lolok

Whatever tense you prefer, the idea that "the market" is fixing itself is absurd. People jump to credit scamblogs/negative media for declining enrollments and forget that more people applied to law school than anytime in history just two years ago. The declines could be a natural fluctuation, and next year's applicant pool could be equal to or greater than this year's.

And regardless, many schools could lower their admission standards to retain class size, as they have already done this cycle. All while spiking tuition. There is no organic fix, fixing, or will fix. As long as there are 22 year olds with access to infinite loans, there will be 22 year olds signing for them.

I don't think it will go back up until tuition is drastically reduced. Now that employment data is becoming more transparent, people are finally starting to realize what they are getting into.

It's only a matter of time (one, maybe two years? just a guess) before law schools are obliged to release salary data as well.


And I mean, as someone who was going to apply in two different cycles before any real employment data was forced to be released (in 2007 or 2009), I honestly believed that taking on $250k debt would be a bargain since I'd be almost guaranteed $160k biglaw from a T14. This was the prevailing wisdom because that's pretty much all the data there was to go on until last two years ago. I decided against applying then for various reasons, but if I had seen the true employment statistics then, there's no way I'd have even remotely considered making that deal. (To say nothing of how things have imploded in the years since...)

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:
Having access to money isn't what regulates a market. Rational consumers is what regulates a market. Seriously, economics 101, IE: common sense101.

.

Sign up for Econ 102.

Paul Campos wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:
Having access to money isn't what regulates a market. Rational consumers is what regulates a market. Seriously, economics 101, IE: common sense101.

.

Sign up for Econ 102.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

the basis for all theory of self-regulation of a market rests on the basis that consumers in said market are rational.


necessary but not sufficient

i wonder if you'll respond
i bet no

sinfiery wrote:

Paul Campos wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:
Having access to money isn't what regulates a market. Rational consumers is what regulates a market. Seriously, economics 101, IE: common sense101.

.

Sign up for Econ 102.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

the basis for all theory of self-regulation of a market rests on the basis that consumers in said market are rational.


necessary but not sufficient

i wonder if you'll respond
i bet no

Considering I don't think he's arguing from the position that the market *is* self-regulating, I don't think your counterpoint is valid in the context.

sinfiery wrote:
Yes, a law degree is worth more in 2012 than 2011. That, I am almost sure of.

Lol, a market fixing itself is absurd? You can't be serious.

Sure, we have this very logical explanation as to why the number of people applying has decreased once the knowledge of the value of a law school fell had gained widespread traction, or it can all just be "a natural fluctuation".

Now, I would initially agree with you in that a market fixing itself in this manner would be classified as a natural fluctuation because a market fixing itself would be regarded as a natural process and thus this is a natural fluctuation but I think you literally mean it's a complete chance. LOL, wtf is this?

Smaller class sizes, less people applying, etc etc: That is a fix. It's all a fix. It's the market at work. ALL of it is working towards fixing this market. Seriously, I am at a loss for how any rational person can argue against this.

Having access to money isn't what regulates a market. Rational consumers is what regulates a market. Seriously, economics 101, IE: common sense101.

If you believe 22 year olds with access to a loan they know they have to payback regardless of almost any situation, are irrational? then you may have a point.

Man, you sound like a bad parody of a free enterprise shill. What about the law school game makes you think it’s a market that could self-regulate? The fact that any prospective student can get a huge loan without any consideration as to whether they can pay back that loan (yeah, that happens in the private sector often)? Or maybe it’s the massive information asymmetry that exists (albeit to an increasingly lesser degree thanks to new reporting requirements) between law schools and prospective students?

I see.

that would be true.

but I doubt someone with econ experience could take such a stance, only refute what I say in the intricacies of the event


maybe I am wrong

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:My point is that we are so far away from a fix that referring to it as such is meaningless in real terms. In economic ones, ok I guess 5,000 fewer matriculants this year means that on the graph: the market is presently fixing itself.

all I care about


everything else is subjective and I don't feel like debating such a point

Just want to note that the Econ quote wasn't mine.

And all you care about is that things in this particular year happen to be better than the last, even though there are well over 10,000 students studying up on their Crim. law tonight who will never be attorneys? Seems pretty stupid. As for the Econ derp, well this is the problem with applying Econ terms to a faux market. Self-regulating / rational consumers wut

Betharl wrote:
Man, you sound like a bad parody of a free enterprise shill. What about the law school game makes you think it’s a market that could self-regulate? The fact that any prospective student can get a huge loan without any consideration as to whether they can pay back that loan (yeah, that happens in the private sector often)? Or maybe it’s the massive information asymmetry that exists (albeit to an increasingly lesser degree thanks to new reporting requirements) between law schools and prospective students?

Without any consideration?

You have to get into a law school. That requires a college diploma as far as I know. A 120 on the LSAT which you have to consciouslly take the effort to take. A highschool diploma. Years of sacrifice. Experience dealing with Academia and it's costs.

All of which is a far greater requirement than anything needed to go buy a house or truck or diamond ring for your wife.


So don't tell me it takes no consideration, because clearly that is wrong.

Student loans also never go away in bankruptcy unless extreme situations are presetned to a judge and he distinctively agrees that something outside of the norm has occurered causing you to be forgiven your loans.

This isn't the case with a house, car, ring, etc. These loans are actually a far bigger commitment on the individual than any other type of loan.

Value of an education will never be able to properly be put into a dollar figure. You expecting something to have this quality is quite silly.

And these are the strongest points of ignorance surrounding law schools.

The fact remains that unemployment figures are out. Tons of info does exist. Blogs, newspapers, etc. are talking about the road ahead for law graduates.
NLJ250s are published. These forums. Less people taking the LSAT.

There are a million reasons to believe the market is self-regulating.

justonemoregame wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

justonemoregame wrote:My point is that we are so far away from a fix that referring to it as such is meaningless in real terms. In economic ones, ok I guess 5,000 fewer matriculants this year means that on the graph: the market is presently fixing itself.

all I care about


everything else is subjective and I don't feel like debating such a point

Just want to note that the Econ quote wasn't mine.

And all you care about is that things in this particular year happen to be better than the last, even though there are well over 10,000 students studying up on their Crim. law tonight who will never be attorneys? Seems pretty stupid. As for the Econ derp, well this is the problem with applying Econ terms to a faux market. Self-regulating / rational consumers wut

I realize that. Considering he said that, he probably has a background in economics so he probably believes markets are self-regulating or he's about to school me with some neo-liberal economic theory or something.

Life isn't perfect. But people see some negatives and clearly over-exaggerate them. I mean, T-14 or bust is a common thought on this forum. Really?

It's progressing. Nothing fixes itself instantly. Too many moving parts.

Not sure what you mean about econ derp. Yes, it's not a perfect theory because it relies on assumptions that may not be true, but it's a good place to begin and generally holds true.

And a million not to believe it. I don't think you're going to be able to prove that, at least not in absolute terms. You essentially set up a straw man here, and are now trying to justify it as some sort of axiom.

I'm feeling very philosophical today.

GUYS STOP!

We live in America where free markets always work. If you disagree with me on this you're a commy.

NoodleyOne wrote:And a million not to believe it. I don't think you're going to be able to prove that, at least not in absolute terms. You essentially set up a straw man here, and are now trying to justify it as some sort of axiom.

I'm feeling very philosophical today.

If you're referencing my post to Paul Campos


Possibly.


It kind of came from this mindset.

I stated rational consumers was what regulates a market.

He knew that it takes more than just a rational consumer to regulate a market, and so I should learn more. (Also I presume he agrees that the type of loans stated don't ruin a market's ability to self-regulate)

I respond that my statement never specifically stated rational consumers alone would regulate a market, and further states that it is the widely accepeted belief that it is the building block of any self-regulating market.

thus the necessary but not sufficient


so although not really his fault, I found a way out of standing by something I wrote that I probably didn't want to defend

mrizza wrote:GUYS STOP!

We live in America where free markets always work. If you disagree with me on this you're a commy.

No one ever said it wasn't going to be a bumpy ride