sinfiery wrote: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.
People at the top might have more opportunities, but it takes less to pull someone with a 150 LSAT away from law school than it does for someone with a 170. The guy with a 150 might be looking at a third tier school at full price and decide that his 40K job really isn't so bad after all. The guy with the 170 will have better law school choices and therefore a harder time stepping away.
But that's not the real reason why the average matriculant has a higher LSAT than the median LSAT taker. The real reason is that people in the 120s and 130s simply can't get in to law school. People in the 160s and 170s can. Presuming that the median matriculant has a higher LSAT than the median LSAT taker is one of the safest presumptions anyone could make.
sinfiery wrote:But whatever. Let's assume all this crazy statistical data you presumed to be "true".
LOL. Yes, the data from the LSAC Volume Summary is just some crazy statistical numbers I pulled out of my ass. In fairness, I pulled the 160 number out of my ass, but that was to make a point that you can't just look at the median LSAT score and assume the median law student had that score.
sinfiery wrote:37,000 new graduates. 22,000 jobs (As per after the recession). 160 medium LSAT
I thought you were assuming my data? Where do you see that we have only 37,000 grads? Class of 2011
had 44,495 graduates. The class of 2012 started with more people than the class of 2011, and the class of 2013 started with more people than the class of 2012. Fortunately, the trend reversed for the class of 2014 and it appears the class of 2015 will have fewer graduates still. But I don't know that we can simply assume we'll be down to only 37,000 graduates in the near future. It'd be awesome if you're right though.
sinfiery wrote: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.
Again, agree to disagree here.
sinfiery wrote: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.
Both very good points. You might be right that adding a JD to the resume helps some people in non-legal areas. But I'm sure we can agree that the added value isn't worth 200K for most of those people.
Your other point is also important because even if we cut the number of grads down to 20K we'd still have to deal with the cumulative effects of all of the recent unemployed grads.
sinfiery wrote: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.
You are misrepresenting the common wisdom on TLS by saying it's always T-14 or bust. For someone who wants biglaw and wouldn't be happy with much else that is the CW and it is legitimate. But for many people who would be happy working in a small firm or for a government agency, etc. the advice is always to look at T-14 as well as schools in the region one wants to work where debt can be kept to a minimum.