C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size Forum

[bouleversement]

LSATs administered are the best leading indicator we have and the last 13 administrations have all seen year-on-year declines. This, coupled with the numbers Spivey posted on his blog showing the steepest declines in the 175+ segment, leads me to believe admissions for high scorers are only going to get more favorable at least through c/o 2018. Schools are not going to be able to adjust as quickly as many people might think.

Moreover, the real economy is not showing any signs of improvement. This could be the start of fundamental shift.

[haus]

LSATs administered are the best leading indicator we have and the last 13 administrations have all seen year-on-year declines. This, coupled with the numbers Spivey posted on his blog showing the steepest declines in the 175+ segment, leads me to believe admissions for high scorers are only going to get more favorable at least through c/o 2018. Schools are not going to be able to adjust as quickly as many people might think.

Moreover, the real economy is not showing any signs of improvement. This could be the start of fundamental shift.

While I agree that the real economy failing to improve will be a factor, there does not seem to be many oportunties becoming available that would serve as a strong alternative for most potential law students.

[bouleversement]

LSATs administered are the best leading indicator we have and the last 13 administrations have all seen year-on-year declines. This, coupled with the numbers Spivey posted on his blog showing the steepest declines in the 175+ segment, leads me to believe admissions for high scorers are only going to get more favorable at least through c/o 2018. Schools are not going to be able to adjust as quickly as many people might think.

Moreover, the real economy is not showing any signs of improvement. This could be the start of fundamental shift.

While I agree that the real economy failing to improve will be a factor, there does not seem to be many oportunties becoming available that would serve as a strong alternative for most potential law students.

I agree with you if the potential law student does not have to borrow much (if anything) to attend. There are many opportunities that do not require the assumption of non-dischargeable debt.

[Tiago Splitter]

LSATs administered are the best leading indicator we have and the last 13 administrations have all seen year-on-year declines. This, coupled with the numbers Spivey posted on his blog showing the steepest declines in the 175+ segment, leads me to believe admissions for high scorers are only going to get more favorable at least through c/o 2018. Schools are not going to be able to adjust as quickly as many people might think.

Moreover, the real economy is not showing any signs of improvement. This could be the start of fundamental shift.

Historically improvement in the economy has meant fewer, not more, applications to law school. If the economy picks up law school applications could go down even more which is just crazy to imagine. There are plenty of 20-somethings still in law school primarily to hide from the tough job market.

[fratstar1]

http://law.fordham.edu/614.htm

165-163-162 for the full time day, actual medians could be lower.

[bouleversement]

LSATs administered are the best leading indicator we have and the last 13 administrations have all seen year-on-year declines. This, coupled with the numbers Spivey posted on his blog showing the steepest declines in the 175+ segment, leads me to believe admissions for high scorers are only going to get more favorable at least through c/o 2018. Schools are not going to be able to adjust as quickly as many people might think.

Moreover, the real economy is not showing any signs of improvement. This could be the start of fundamental shift.

Historically improvement in the economy has meant fewer, not more, applications to law school. If the economy picks up law school applications could go down even more which is just crazy to imagine. There are plenty of 20-somethings still in law school primarily to hide from the tough job market.

That's true but I believe it primarily applies to when the economy goes from good to bad. This would be from bad to really bad.

I would guess the majority of non-traditionals who have looked to law school to hide from the job market have already enrolled or graduated. I would imagine the traditional segment of the applicant pool is also declining (as a percentage) as more and more people are made aware of the reality of our economic situation. The absolute numbers have been tempered by demographics; there are more and more people graduating college each year.

The only way I see this turning the other direction anytime soon would be if student debt became dischargeable. I expect that to happen right after porcine flight.

[BruinRegents]

Aren't we most concerned with top tier caliber applicants? The kind who do research before making major life decisions? I'm not saying there will necessarily be a net increase of applicants, I just think the ivy leaguers and grads from other top schools will be most responsive to changes, as evidenced by the steep drop off last cycle in lsats taken. If the likelihood of getting into a top school increases, the opportunity cost goes up.

This may not necessarily offset wider declines, but its worth pointing out that the system is dynamic and will not stay in free fall forever.

I agree that it won't decline forever, but for the studious potential applicant how much has really changed? It's recently become abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that law school employment outcomes are not good and the cost is way too high. While there has been a decline in the number of people going to law school, this decline won't be reflected in the employment numbers for a few more years. Meanwhile, the cost continues to skyrocket. Moreover, the people who do this kind of research quickly figure out that if they're going to go at all they need a high LSAT score, and given that a high LSAT score typically take some work to acquire the people who are most likely to get those high scores are simply backing out before they even get the process started.

TS, your posts have been excellent vis-a-vis the economy and law school. It's sort of what I'm seeing as well.

From my perspective, the trough may be the new normal.

[Tiago Splitter]

That's true but I believe it primarily applies to when the economy goes from good to bad. This would be from bad to really bad.

I would guess the majority of non-traditionals who have looked to law school to hide from the job market have already enrolled or graduated. I would imagine the traditional segment of the applicant pool is also declining (as a percentage) as more and more people are made aware of the reality of our economic situation. The absolute numbers have been tempered by demographics; there are more and more people graduating college each year.

The only way I see this turning the other direction anytime soon would be if student debt became dischargeable. I expect that to happen right after porcine flight.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. My point was about what usually happens when the economy goes from bad to good. Applications and LSAT takers should go down if history repeats itself. Given that the economy hasn't been very good in a while it's amazing that law school applications have gone down so much.

But if the economy gets worse the incentive for people to hide out in graduate programs will remain and will help to limit future declines, especially as better employment data results from there being fewer graduates a couple years down the line. The fact that there are more and more people graduating, as you say, is why there will always be people looking to hide out. And the people hiding out, far from being non-traditional, are usually recent grads who can't find a real job to their liking.

Ultimately I agree that there won't be a sharp turnaround for a while.

[BruinRegents]

That's true but I believe it primarily applies to when the economy goes from good to bad. This would be from bad to really bad.

I would guess the majority of non-traditionals who have looked to law school to hide from the job market have already enrolled or graduated. I would imagine the traditional segment of the applicant pool is also declining (as a percentage) as more and more people are made aware of the reality of our economic situation. The absolute numbers have been tempered by demographics; there are more and more people graduating college each year.

The only way I see this turning the other direction anytime soon would be if student debt became dischargeable. I expect that to happen right after porcine flight.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. My point was about what usually happens when the economy goes from bad to good. Applications and LSAT takers should go down if history repeats itself. Given that the economy hasn't been very good in a while it's amazing that law school applications have gone down so much.

But if the economy gets worse the incentive for people to hide out in graduate programs will remain and will help to limit future declines, especially as better employment data results from there being fewer graduates a couple years down the line. The fact that there are more and more people graduating, as you say, is why there will always be people looking to hide out. And the people hiding out, far from being non-traditional, are usually recent grads who can't find a real job to their liking.

Ultimately I agree that there won't be a sharp turnaround for a while.

The problem now though is that people can't actually "hide out" in graduate programs. A lot of people are realizing the debt burden they'll carry afterward and the difficulty in paying it off. So plenty of graduates are stuck in economic purgatory.

[Tiago Splitter]

The problem now though is that people can't actually "hide out" in graduate programs. A lot of people are realizing the debt burden they'll carry afterward and the difficulty in paying it off. So plenty of graduates are stuck in economic purgatory.

That's a good point, but people fresh out of college (and people like me who weren't fresh out of college) don't always grasp the reality of paying back these enormous sums. If they did, tuition never would have reached these levels. And for many there is some family pressure to do something "productive," especially with that shiny new college degree. Combine that with a dash of optimism bias and you have a pretty wicked cocktail that law schools continue to serve up. Just 300k of future money to get mom off my back? I'll take two please. But you're probably right that the people who actually research this stuff before committing are, at least more often than they used to, coming to the conclusion that the cost is just too absurd.

[bouleversement]

That's true but I believe it primarily applies to when the economy goes from good to bad. This would be from bad to really bad.

I would guess the majority of non-traditionals who have looked to law school to hide from the job market have already enrolled or graduated. I would imagine the traditional segment of the applicant pool is also declining (as a percentage) as more and more people are made aware of the reality of our economic situation. The absolute numbers have been tempered by demographics; there are more and more people graduating college each year.

The only way I see this turning the other direction anytime soon would be if student debt became dischargeable. I expect that to happen right after porcine flight.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. My point was about what usually happens when the economy goes from bad to good. Applications and LSAT takers should go down if history repeats itself. Given that the economy hasn't been very good in a while it's amazing that law school applications have gone down so much.

But if the economy gets worse the incentive for people to hide out in graduate programs will remain and will help to limit future declines, especially as better employment data results from there being fewer graduates a couple years down the line. The fact that there are more and more people graduating, as you say, is why there will always be people looking to hide out. And the people hiding out, far from being non-traditional, are usually recent grads who can't find a real job to their liking.

Ultimately I agree that there won't be a sharp turnaround for a while.

No, you were clear and you are right: an improving economy generally means fewer applicants. I was saying earlier I see no improvement in sight so we will not see fewer applicants for that reason. We will rather see fewer applicants precisely because the economy is not getting better.

We are in agreement that there will not be a sharp turnaround anytime soon.

[BruinRegents]

The problem now though is that people can't actually "hide out" in graduate programs. A lot of people are realizing the debt burden they'll carry afterward and the difficulty in paying it off. So plenty of graduates are stuck in economic purgatory.

That's a good point, but people fresh out of college (and people like me who weren't fresh out of college) don't always grasp the reality of paying back these enormous sums. If they did, tuition never would have reached these levels. And for many there is some family pressure to do something "productive," especially with that shiny new college degree. Combine that with a dash of optimism bias and you have a pretty wicked cocktail that law schools continue to serve up. Just 300k of future money to get mom off my back? I'll take two please. But you're probably right that the people who actually research this stuff before committing are, at least more often than they used to, coming to the conclusion that the cost is just too absurd.

There are certainly those that don't research stuff and don't mind paying sticker for a TTT. In my lsat class' study group alone, people were naming TTTs as one of their top choices. And I'm always conflicted because I'm not sure whether to tell them, "don't do it" or not. Yet, anecdotally, almost all of the professors I respected during UG tried to talk me out of law school. So we've gotta figure that the anti-law school voices out there coupled with what people can see and hear with regards to law debt and employment, that they are shying away.

[Tiago Splitter]

We will rather see fewer applicants precisely because the economy is not getting better.

Can you explain this a little further? I'm thinking that if the economy gets better we will see even fewer applicants. So how would the economy not getting better also mean fewer applicants?

There are certainly those that don't research stuff and don't mind paying sticker for a TTT. In my lsat class' study group alone, people were naming TTTs as one of their top choices. And I'm always conflicted because I'm not sure whether to tell them, "don't do it" or not. Yet, anecdotally, almost all of the professors I respected during UG tried to talk me out of law school. So we've gotta figure that the anti-law school voices out there coupled with what people can see and hear with regards to law debt and employment, that they are shying away.

No question the message is getting out. There's still work to do but we aren't that far from having around 30-35k people going to law school, some of whom will drop out, competing for 25k jobs. Not a terrible percentage by any means. Next step: lower tuition.

[BruinRegents]

That's true but I believe it primarily applies to when the economy goes from good to bad. This would be from bad to really bad.

I would guess the majority of non-traditionals who have looked to law school to hide from the job market have already enrolled or graduated. I would imagine the traditional segment of the applicant pool is also declining (as a percentage) as more and more people are made aware of the reality of our economic situation. The absolute numbers have been tempered by demographics; there are more and more people graduating college each year.

The only way I see this turning the other direction anytime soon would be if student debt became dischargeable. I expect that to happen right after porcine flight.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. My point was about what usually happens when the economy goes from bad to good. Applications and LSAT takers should go down if history repeats itself. Given that the economy hasn't been very good in a while it's amazing that law school applications have gone down so much.

But if the economy gets worse the incentive for people to hide out in graduate programs will remain and will help to limit future declines, especially as better employment data results from there being fewer graduates a couple years down the line. The fact that there are more and more people graduating, as you say, is why there will always be people looking to hide out. And the people hiding out, far from being non-traditional, are usually recent grads who can't find a real job to their liking.

Ultimately I agree that there won't be a sharp turnaround for a while.

No, you were clear and you are right: an improving economy generally means fewer applicants. I was saying earlier I see no improvement in sight so we will not see fewer applicants for that reason. We will rather see fewer applicants precisely because the economy is not getting better.

We are in agreement that there will not be a sharp turnaround anytime soon.

My prediction from a macro POV, there's no turn around. Not in the short-term because potential applicants are still scared off by the cost of tuition and debt. And that the economy has somewhat stabilized. In the long-term, the structural changes (clients refusing to pay for associates, improved software, legal outsourcing, etc.) will start to bear fruit.

Thus, what we're beginning to see is what I believe will be the new equilibrium with respect to applications.

[BruinRegents]

So how would the economy not getting better also mean fewer applicants?.

I believe it has to do with the "economic purgatory" I mentioned earlier. In the past, people could use graduate school as a buffer against unemployment. The problem now is that they can't because when they rack up debt to pay for graduate school, the likelihood they'll land employment with a salary commensurate with an ability to service their graduate school debt is unknown.

The underlying problem here is that for the most part, middle class salaries are stagnant, whereas they weren't before. Part of the American Dream was that we always assumed that we'd be better off than our parents. The Great Recession showed us that isn't necessarily the case. The evidence is the preponderance of Boomerang Kids.

[cotiger]

We will rather see fewer applicants precisely because the economy is not getting better.

Can you explain this a little further? I'm thinking that if the economy gets better we will see even fewer applicants. So how would the economy not getting better also mean fewer applicants?

I think he means that there are two forces:

(1) bad economy = more people in law school to hide, good economy = less students
(2) bad economy -> bad legal economy = fewer people in law school, good economy -> good legal economy = more students

We have a bad economy but decreasing law students. So even though effect (1) is propping up the numbers in law school to some extent, effect (2) is overpowering it. The countervailing forces in a bad economy usually have a stronger effect from (1) and therefore on net increase law students, but THIS bad economy has had a particularly strong effect on legal employment and so has a stronger effect from (2). Therefore, the reduction in law students is still a result of a bad economy, even if that is the opposite of what we typically see.

[BruinRegents]

I think he means that there are two forces:

(1) bad economy = more people in law school to hide, good economy = less students
(2) bad economy -> bad legal economy = fewer people in law school, good economy -> good legal economy = more students

We have a bad economy but decreasing law students. So even though effect (1) is propping up the numbers in law school to some extent, effect (2) is overpowering it. The countervailing forces in a bad economy usually have a stronger effect from (1) and therefore on net increase law students, but THIS bad economy has had a particularly strong effect on legal employment and so has a stronger effect from (2). Therefore, the reduction in law students is still a result of a bad economy, even if that is the opposite of what we typically see.

^Yeah what he said.

[bouleversement]

We will rather see fewer applicants precisely because the economy is not getting better.

Can you explain this a little further? I'm thinking that if the economy gets better we will see even fewer applicants. So how would the economy not getting better also mean fewer applicants?

I think he means that there are two forces:

(1) bad economy = more people in law school to hide, good economy = less students
(2) bad economy -> bad legal economy = fewer people in law school, good economy -> good legal economy = more students

We have a bad economy but decreasing law students. So even though effect (1) is propping up the numbers in law school to some extent, effect (2) is overpowering it. The countervailing forces in a bad economy usually have a stronger effect from (1) and therefore on net increase law students, but THIS bad economy has had a particularly strong effect on legal employment and so has a stronger effect from (2). Therefore, the reduction in law students is still a result of a bad economy, even if that is the opposite of what we typically see.

Exactly. This time is different.

[bouleversement]

Thus, what we're beginning to see is what I believe will be the new equilibrium with respect to applications.

LSATs administered are going to first have to stabilize.

[longlivetheking]

Thus, what we're beginning to see is what I believe will be the new equilibrium with respect to applications.

LSATs administered are going to first have to stabilize.

This. i can't see stabilizing of application no.s when there's 13% drop in oct 2013 administration.

[FKASunny]

Law schools should not be increasing in size,” says UF’s Dean Jerry. “This is not a world that needs more lawyers right now.”

(Increases class size)

Also,

Oddly enough, UF saw a slight uptick in enrollment this year over last, from 284 to 315 first-year students. The University of Miami, however, significantly slashed enrollment for its incoming class. According to Dean Patricia D. White, UM enrolled roughly a third less first-year students than it did last year. New students fell from 463 in 2012 to 310 in the fall incoming class.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Law schools should not be increasing in size,” says UF’s Dean Jerry. “This is not a world that needs more lawyers right now.”

(Increases class size)

(FLOLrida)

[cotiger]

Thus, what we're beginning to see is what I believe will be the new equilibrium with respect to applications.

LSATs administered are going to first have to stabilize.

This. i can't see stabilizing of application no.s when there's 13% drop in oct 2013 administration.

I don't think anyone doubts that total applicants will continue to fall for this cycle. It's more of what will happen in the next 3-5 years that will be interesting.

[BigZuck]

Law schools should not be increasing in size,” says UF’s Dean Jerry. “This is not a world that needs more lawyers right now.”

(Increases class size)

Also,

Oddly enough, UF saw a slight uptick in enrollment this year over last, from 284 to 315 first-year students. The University of Miami, however, significantly slashed enrollment for its incoming class. According to Dean Patricia D. White, UM enrolled roughly a third less first-year students than it did last year. New students fell from 463 in 2012 to 310 in the fall incoming class.

463? Even 310 is a crazy amount for a TTT located in Miami. That's almost as many first year students as UT has, and that's a state flagship in a large state with a couple of decent (not to mention relatively healthy) legal markets.

I'm convinced, lets nuke Florida and just get that whole state out of our misery.

[sublime]

..