Law School Apps Drop 11.5 Percent, a 10-Year Low Forum

[minnbills]

Is it nonsense? Especially considering companies didn't even know if the tax breaks would continue until a couple weeks before the deadline? There is a lot of uncertainty and that is clearly adding to the unemployment rate.

I highly doubt that we would see such a high level of M&A activity at the end of last year if companies "don't need to expand." They bought companies instead of hiring workers to grow their businesses. Seems that firms that were focusing on financial services, corporations, etc. were doing just fine during that time. Bankruptcy law has also been solid.

If the corporations are making significant profits, why would they need to see if a tax break was going to happen or not in order to hire workers?

They hire in response to increased demand for whatever they're producing or selling.

EDIT: Plus, with high unemployment (possibly structural, which would exacerbate this) they can squeeze current employees that much harder, knowing that those people can't afford to lose their jobs.

[esq]

^beat me to it.

Companies expand when they see a way to collect money from the consumers. They aren't going to pay a cashier, for instance, money to do a job when his/her work isn't profitable. It has nothing to do with taxes, which I would argue might in fact dissuade a company from creating jobs. If big companies are already getting the money for doing nothing in the form of free tax breaks, and this money could have otherwise gone to the consumer, who now has to pay higher taxes because the big company wont, and it is the consumer that big companies make their money off of, than what is the incentive for creating a job? It's called supply and demand son, and right now the demand just isn't there.

[rundoxierun]

Yeah but aren't these the same economists that didn't see the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression coming?

Only Glenn Beck saw it coming. When will there be a Glenn Beck Law School Ranking?

Actually almost every economist saw it coming. I remember one of my textbooks about a year before the recession hit talking about the housing bubble. The real question was when it would burst and how well our financial instruments could handle it. For a very long time it was thought we had the financial instruments to prevent a persistent recession/depression from ever occurring and the fact that we handled the small recession in the early 2000s pretty well just strengthened that mistaken thought in some peoples minds.

[minnbills]

Yeah but aren't these the same economists that didn't see the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression coming?

Only Glenn Beck saw it coming. When will there be a Glenn Beck Law School Ranking?

Actually almost every economist saw it coming. I remember one of my textbooks about a year before the recession hit talking about the housing bubble. The real question was when it would burst and how well our financial instruments could handle it. For a very long time it was thought we had the financial instruments to prevent a persistent recession/depression from ever occurring and the fact that we handled the small recession in the early 2000s pretty well just strengthened that mistaken thought in some peoples minds.

People knew there was a housing bubble but the subprime mortgages and securitized (sp?) mortgages were hidden.

[bigben]

Ironically, every one of the dumbasses (such as yours truly) to continue anyway is going to have better job prospects because of this.

lol no. The number of actual matriculants probably won't drop at all.

[Hannibal]

Ironically, every one of the dumbasses (such as yours truly) to continue anyway is going to have better job prospects because of this.

lol no. The number of actual matriculants probably won't drop at all.

I would place money on the matriculants dropping by a not insignificant amount.

[adonai]

Ironically, every one of the dumbasses (such as yours truly) to continue anyway is going to have better job prospects because of this.

lol no. The number of actual matriculants probably won't drop at all.

I would place money on the matriculants dropping by a not insignificant amount.

Probably not at higher schools which will arguably matter the most in employment competition.

[beachbum]

I think the world's probably gonna end in 2012, so all of your speculation is pointless.

[Hannibal]

Probably not at higher schools which will arguably matter the most in employment competition.

The higher schools have reduced class sizes, so yeah even at higher schools.

[DoubleChecks]

Now if only the ABA would also drop 10% of law schools...

only?

[adonai]

Probably not at higher schools which will arguably matter the most in employment competition.

The higher schools have reduced class sizes, so yeah even at higher schools.

What other schools have reduced their class sizes and by how much? I have only heard about a couple of lower schools doing that but by only around 10 spots.

[beachbum]

Probably not at higher schools which will arguably matter the most in employment competition.

The higher schools have reduced class sizes, so yeah even at higher schools.

What other schools have reduced their class sizes and by how much? I have only heard about a couple of lower schools doing that but by only around 10 spots.

I don't know about the others, but Duke is targeting an incoming class of 200 after enrolling ~235 last year.

[youarereadingthis]

Probably not at higher schools which will arguably matter the most in employment competition.

The higher schools have reduced class sizes, so yeah even at higher schools.

What other schools have reduced their class sizes and by how much? I have only heard about a couple of lower schools doing that but by only around 10 spots.

I don't know about the others, but Duke is targeting an incoming class of 200 after enrolling ~235 last year.

This doesn't necessarily mean they weren't targeting 200 last year as well.

[beachbum]

This doesn't necessarily mean they weren't targeting 200 last year as well.

They were targeting ~220 last year and over-enrolled. This year they've reduced their target and appear to be taking a more conservative approach to admissions.

[youarereadingthis]

This doesn't necessarily mean they weren't targeting 200 last year as well.

They were targeting ~220 last year and over-enrolled. This year they've reduced their target and appear to be taking a more conservative approach to admissions.

Ok, gotcha.

[pppokerface]

This doesn't necessarily mean they weren't targeting 200 last year as well.

They were targeting ~220 last year and over-enrolled. This year they've reduced their target and appear to be taking a more conservative approach to admissions.

Ok, gotcha.

AHHH Im applying this fall...maybe they'll be enrolling like...180 or something by that time ;_;
I'm trying to prepare myself for the worst =/

[sighsigh]

Several things. Applications are going to be down disproportionately among lower ranked schools. Highly ranked schools will remains as competitive (perhaps more so with smaller classes).

This isn't entirely true. Yes, using # of application to gauge competitiveness is not accurate, since the drop in applications only really applies to the lower ranked schools. However, using # of LSAT takers to gauge competitiveness is more accurate. Last cycle the # of LSAT takers jumped to 171k from 151k. This cycle it's at 155k.

You can already see the results on LSN. Last cycle nobody with a ~3.9 got accepted to HLS below a 176 (even the 175'ers all got waitlisted or rejected). There have already been plenty of people accepted with a 173 and even a 172 this cycle.

Of course, this assumes class sizes remain constant. For schools who lowered class sizes, this might not hold.