Disturbing Slate Article Forum

[McAvoy]

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... rious.html

Well fuck this guy.

[jchiles]

Is he wrong though? I'm not saying the message is good but I can see how the data supported that conclusion.

[Tanicius]

Here is the key number to keep in mind: 36,000. That is roughly the number of new J.D.s we should expect to graduate in 2016. Getting to that figure is pretty straightforward: In the fall of 2013, 39,700 students enrolled in law school. Given that about 10 percent of each law school class generally drops out, we should expect no more than 36,000 to reach commencement. (I’m actually rounding up the number a bit to be conservative.)

What a fucking idiot based on the first paragraph alone.

[McAvoy]

Is he wrong though? I'm not saying the message is good but I can see how the data supported that conclusion.

This bro took it down pretty well in the comments. I'll defer to him.

First, Weissman could have looked at the statistics and forecasts published by the Bureau of Labour Statistics - the BLS. They are easily available online - and one would hope that someone writing on the internet is in fact capable of consulting this data. Had Weissman done so (Slate editors take note too), he would have discovered that the BLS has predicted legal hiring to be a pretty anaemic 19,650 new lawyers law graduates per year over the next decade. So - roughly ½ of the people Weissman recommends go to law school will be unable to find jobs as lawyers.

Second, the proportion of law graduates hired by "BigLaw" is a tiny subset of all graduates - around 3,980 last year - it was only 5,156 in 2009 (peak.) So in reality the coveted BigLaw jobs will be available for no more than 1/10 of the people Weissman suggests go to law school.

Third - and this is a BIG HOWLER that tells every reader familiar with legal hiring that Weissman did no research, but simply took the information from the ABA's law school apologists without question (which makes him a poor journalist as well as a poor economist) is the sentence "For 2013 grads who went to work at law firms, the median salary was just $95,000, compared with $125,000 in 2008." Had Weissman done any research of his own he would have heard the words "bi-modal salary distribution" - which is the way in which competent economists explain that that using a single median salary for legal employment is to present a false picture. Indeed it has been called a fraudulent picture. The reality is that there are two salary peaks - one for BigLaw at around $130-160k and another for the rest at around $50-60k. The lower peak is much much bigger than the higher.

Fourth, to write an article recommending going to law school without mentioning that it costs in tuition between $30-50,000 plus per annum, or that a typical law student spends and borrows vast amounts to attend - $200,000 is typical - is to make this person totally unqualified to write about any economic issue. Where does Weissman mention cost, tuition - anywhere - no - wow!

[M458]

Here is the key number to keep in mind: 36,000. That is roughly the number of new J.D.s we should expect to graduate in 2016. Getting to that figure is pretty straightforward: In the fall of 2013, 39,700 students enrolled in law school. Given that about 10 percent of each law school class generally drops out, we should expect no more than 36,000 to reach commencement. (I’m actually rounding up the number a bit to be conservative.)

What a fucking idiot based on the first paragraph alone.

That's not correct? I'm asking because I literally have no clue, not because I think you're wrong.

I'm at NU, and we had a # of people (I think between 5 and 10) drop out throughout the course of 1L year.

[Tanicius]

Here is the key number to keep in mind: 36,000. That is roughly the number of new J.D.s we should expect to graduate in 2016. Getting to that figure is pretty straightforward: In the fall of 2013, 39,700 students enrolled in law school. Given that about 10 percent of each law school class generally drops out, we should expect no more than 36,000 to reach commencement. (I’m actually rounding up the number a bit to be conservative.)

What a fucking idiot based on the first paragraph alone.

That's not correct? I'm asking because I literally have no clue, not because I think you're wrong.

I'm at NU, and we had a # of people (I think between 5 and 10) drop out throughout the course of 1L year.

He's just throwing numbers at the wall without any confirmation. He reminds me of Homer Simpson filling out his taxes: "Marge, how many kids we have? Never mind I'll estimate! Uh -- nine?!"

The best part is how, as one of the comments said, the Bureau of Labor predicts that only 19,000 entry level legal jobs will be available by then, which isn't even close to satisfying the 36,000 figure he pulled out of a hat.

I really want to know where these dolts get their ideas. Like what was he doing that inspired him to write a shitty 1,000-word article full of numbers he came up with in the shower?

[John Everyman]

I don't know guys, this article might screw us all over...you know it's going to be taken seriously when the More From Slate clicks you over to "Get Drunk With Chipmunks at this Wisconsin Dive Bar"

ETA: but yeah, full of garbage and whatever, don't go to law school.

[redsoxfan1989]

The best part is how, as one of the comments said, the Bureau of Labor predicts that only 19,000 entry level legal jobs will be available by then, which isn't even close to satisfying the 36,000 figure he pulled out of a hat.

BLS statistics are just one projection. Weissman has some basis for his numbers, namely law school enrollment and typical attrition. As for the jobs bit:

Among all graduates who reported their job status, 32,775 found full-time, long-term work, meaning the job lasted at least a year. (Why is a year considered “long-term”? For one, many judicial clerkships run only that long.) Of those jobs, 26,337 required passing the bar, meaning they were typical legal jobs. An additional 4,714 were in fields that technically did not require law degrees, but where employers preferred to hire J.D.s anyway—think congressional staffers, labor organizers, or NGO workers....

Let’s say those numbers hold. In that case, we can expect that about 91 percent of the class of 2016 will find long-term, full-time work, compared with about 72 percent last year. About 73 percent would be in full-time, long-term legal jobs, compared with 58 percent last year. Essentially, employment rates would look similar to those in 2007, when the mid-2000s legal hiring wave crested. That year, about 92 percent of graduates were employed, and 76.9 percent obtained legal jobs. (Both those figures included part-time and short-term positions).

The BLS statistics appear to count on the job market for entry level lawyers getting worse, which it may. But if Weissman predicates his argument explicitly on the assumption that it won't and makes clear that attending law school is still a risk. I agree with that Weissman should have addressed the issue of exploding cost of attendance but the guy should get some credit for making clear that there is still no reason to attend lower-ranked schools.

[M458]

Here is the key number to keep in mind: 36,000. That is roughly the number of new J.D.s we should expect to graduate in 2016. Getting to that figure is pretty straightforward: In the fall of 2013, 39,700 students enrolled in law school. Given that about 10 percent of each law school class generally drops out, we should expect no more than 36,000 to reach commencement. (I’m actually rounding up the number a bit to be conservative.)

What a fucking idiot based on the first paragraph alone.

That's not correct? I'm asking because I literally have no clue, not because I think you're wrong.

I'm at NU, and we had a # of people (I think between 5 and 10) drop out throughout the course of 1L year.

He's just throwing numbers at the wall without any confirmation. He reminds me of Homer Simpson filling out his taxes: "Marge, how many kids we have? Never mind I'll estimate! Uh -- nine?!"

The best part is how, as one of the comments said, the Bureau of Labor predicts that only 19,000 entry level legal jobs will be available by then, which isn't even close to satisfying the 36,000 figure he pulled out of a hat.

I really want to know where these dolts get their ideas. Like what was he doing that inspired him to write a shitty 1,000-word article full of numbers he came up with in the shower?

Ah, okay. Sorry; just got curious about what % of students do actually drop out.

[swampman]

I don't know guys, this article might screw us all over...you know it's going to be taken seriously when the More From Slate clicks you over to "Get Drunk With Chipmunks at this Wisconsin Dive Bar"

ETA: but yeah, full of garbage and whatever, don't go to law school.

The real problem is all the people reading the drunken chipmunks article who click over to this and decide it's a great idea to take out 200k and go to Florida Coastal. You know they will.

[John Everyman]

I don't know guys, this article might screw us all over...you know it's going to be taken seriously when the More From Slate clicks you over to "Get Drunk With Chipmunks at this Wisconsin Dive Bar"

ETA: but yeah, full of garbage and whatever, don't go to law school.

The real problem is all the people reading the drunken chipmunks article who click over to this and decide it's a great idea to take out 200k and go to Florida Coastal. You know they will.

But not before the roadtrip to Hayward, Wisconsin! Who's in?

[09042014]

I don't know guys, this article might screw us all over...you know it's going to be taken seriously when the More From Slate clicks you over to "Get Drunk With Chipmunks at this Wisconsin Dive Bar"

ETA: but yeah, full of garbage and whatever, don't go to law school.

The real problem is all the people reading the drunken chipmunks article who click over to this and decide it's a great idea to take out 200k and go to Florida Coastal. You know they will.

But not before the roadtrip to Hayward, Wisconsin! Who's in?

You vacation in Hayward? What lake?

[McAvoy]

I agree with that Weissman should have addressed the issue of exploding cost of attendance but the guy should get some credit for making clear that there is still no reason to attend lower-ranked schools.

Any credit he gets for that is negated by the headline and his making that qualification in the second-to-last paragraph.

The people who consider going to Cooley might not have the attention span to read the full story.

[John Everyman]

I don't know guys, this article might screw us all over...you know it's going to be taken seriously when the More From Slate clicks you over to "Get Drunk With Chipmunks at this Wisconsin Dive Bar"

ETA: but yeah, full of garbage and whatever, don't go to law school.

The real problem is all the people reading the drunken chipmunks article who click over to this and decide it's a great idea to take out 200k and go to Florida Coastal. You know they will.

But not before the roadtrip to Hayward, Wisconsin! Who's in?

You vacation in Hayward? What lake?

no lake, part of the article and running joke. I do vacation near Mercer over in Iron county though. You a wisco guy DF?

[redsoxfan1989]

The people who consider going to Cooley might not have the attention span to read the full story.

Easy on the Cooley students there; the TLS hivemind couldn't be bothered to read the entire thing either.

[09042014]

The real problem is all the people reading the drunken chipmunks article who click over to this and decide it's a great idea to take out 200k and go to Florida Coastal. You know they will.

But not before the roadtrip to Hayward, Wisconsin! Who's in?

You vacation in Hayward? What lake?

no lake, part of the article and running joke. I do vacation near Mercer over in Iron county though. You a wisco guy DF?

Illinoisian who vacations in Hayward every year.

[Tanicius]

The people who consider going to Cooley might not have the attention span to read the full story.

Easy on the Cooley students there; the TLS hivemind couldn't be bothered to read the entire thing either.

We read it. Journalism can nevertheless be harmful when it is negligent of the consequences of its words and presentation.

[McAvoy]

Woah. I vacation not two hours from DF.

[John Everyman]

But not before the roadtrip to Hayward, Wisconsin! Who's in?

You vacation in Hayward? What lake?

no lake, part of the article and running joke. I do vacation near Mercer over in Iron county though. You a wisco guy DF?

Illinoisian who vacations in Hayward every year.

Beautiful country up there.

[rad lulz]

.

[jingosaur]

First and most importantly, just because law school might generally look like a better decision doesn’t meant that all programs are worthwhile. Some lower-ranked schools will continue to deliver miserable job prospects for their students, just as they have for years. Rather than hire from notoriously problematic institutions like Golden Gate University or Thomas M. Cooley Law School, some employers might choose to hire underemployed attorneys who graduated into rougher job markets over the past couple of years.

At least he says this. But the fact that there are droves of unemployed law grads over the past few years who are still trying to enter the legal market is still kind of scary for the classes of 2016 to 2018.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

People cite this bi model thing like religion. Please explain how a MEDIAN salary of X is misleading due to "but uhm bi model."

[cotiger]

Here is the key number to keep in mind: 36,000. That is roughly the number of new J.D.s we should expect to graduate in 2016. Getting to that figure is pretty straightforward: In the fall of 2013, 39,700 students enrolled in law school. Given that about 10 percent of each law school class generally drops out, we should expect no more than 36,000 to reach commencement. (I’m actually rounding up the number a bit to be conservative.)

What a fucking idiot based on the first paragraph alone.

That's not correct? I'm asking because I literally have no clue, not because I think you're wrong.

I'm at NU, and we had a # of people (I think between 5 and 10) drop out throughout the course of 1L year.

He's just throwing numbers at the wall without any confirmation. He reminds me of Homer Simpson filling out his taxes: "Marge, how many kids we have? Never mind I'll estimate! Uh -- nine?!"

The best part is how, as one of the comments said, the Bureau of Labor predicts that only 19,000 entry level legal jobs will be available by then, which isn't even close to satisfying the 36,000 figure he pulled out of a hat.

I really want to know where these dolts get their ideas. Like what was he doing that inspired him to write a shitty 1,000-word article full of numbers he came up with in the shower?

I know you wanna be MAF about this article, but the drop out rate is not a random number. The attrition rate over the last 10 years has averaged 12%.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

[jbagelboy]

The real reason it's a "good time" to apply is because if you're a decent candidate you can get a top degree on the cheap now like never before. UG grades continue to wildly inflate, LSAT 170+ scorers plummet, and standards at even the top schools decline year by year. For an uninspired grad from an unknown college with at least an A- avg, take the LSAT and hit over 171 and you can take home a huge scholarship from schools with more than two-thirds of the class going to prestigious firms. Just three years ago a 170/3.6 couldn't crack the T14, now they can make it rain.

And if your parents are loaded, there was never a better time to snag a Harvard law degree with minimal effort. They let in a surprising critical mass of crackheads with 173 lsat this yr, whereas in the past it actually really impressive to gain admission (before anyone gets offended, its still really impressive, just different from 2011).

If you want the life of biglaw and someone else is paying tuition/scholarship, it's not a bad time to apply.

[rad lulz]

.