Top Law Schools

Original post by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc:

http://www.economicmodeling.com/2011/06 ... -3-states/

And some additional commentary by the NYTimes:

We’ve written before about the tough job market for recent law-school graduates. The climate is hard partly because of the weak economy, but also partly because the nation’s law schools are churning out many more lawyers than the economy needs even in the long run.

Now a few researchers have tried to quantify exactly how big that surplus is.

The numbers were crunched by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (also known as EMSI), a consulting company that focuses on employment data and economic analysis. The company’s calculations were based on the number of people who passed the bar exam in each state in 2009, versus an estimate of annual job openings for lawyers in those states. Estimates for the number of openings is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... -by-state/

Vermont has a surplus of 4 lawyers. Interesting.

REDACTED

this "study" has too many errors to make commenting worthwhile

I am not really sure about the validity of the state to state data because of the different bar reciprocities. However, the scary numbers are the national figures:

2010-15 Est. Annual Openings: 26,239

2009 Bar Exam Passers: 53,508

2009 Completers (IPEDS): 44,159

Whatever way one looks at it, there is a massive overproduction of lawyers.

The DC data is stupid--nobody takes the bar in DC.

does this site take into account people who take multiple bars?

my uncle took bars in 6 states, but only practiced in 1 to be able to do work with companies in other states for his firm. i don't think he's a rarity (maybe for 6 states, but not for extra 1's)

Most TLS'ers are impervious to economic reasoning when it comes to the legal job market.

MTal wrote:Most TLS'ers are impervious to economic reasoning when it comes to the legal job market.

I think most TLSers are already committed to law school; they are past the "research" stage and, hopefully, have informed themselves properly.

Personally, I knew that the labor market for lawyers was pretty bad, but 25K openings for 50K seekers is much, much worse than I had anticipated. It is downright awful!

gwuorbust wrote:REDACTED

this "study" has too many errors to make commenting worthwhile

i have found that putting air quotes around something to discredit it is actually just as good as coming up with a logical rebuttal.

Would it help if we made a couple of new states? Part of Northern California wants to be known as "Jefferson". The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico could be their own states. Some states are so big that they could be split into 2.

robotclubmember, your reply in the other thread inspired my new avatar.

other one was locked but imma repost muh cool story anyway lol.

In 2009, 9,787 people passed the bar exam in the Empire State. The analysts estimated, though, that New York would need only 2,100 new lawyers each year through 2015. That means that if New York keeps minting new lawyers apace, it will continue having an annual surplus of 7,687 lawyers.

the real problem isn't just over-saturation, but cumulative over-saturation as well. consider for NY (assuming that passing the bar exam makes you a job seeker, which it certainly should after three years of lol school:

2009: 9,800 JD job seekers, 2,100 jobs, 7,700 surplus JDs.
2010: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 7,700 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 15,400 surplus JDs.
2011: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 15,400 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 23,100 surplus JDs.
2012: 30,800 surplus JD's etc...

and so it goes.

now let's assume a few things. clearly the surplus JD's who couldn't find legal employment aren't going to be sitting around with their thumb up their ass like a bump on a log, they'll find jobs elsewhere. so that will draw down the surplus of JD's (though is that the ideal way to draw down the surplus?)

let's also assume these numbers from the article might be grossly exaggerated as new grads may take bar in several states, or other statistical unreliabilities may be present (i.e., are contract doc review jobs being counted? prob not). even then we still have a serious problem in the legal market. the overcrowding of the field doesn't just result in a ton of unemployed people, changing the supply demand EQ changes the price. the only thing holding high median salaries in tact is that high wages and billing rates is what makes the top firms lucrative, but even they at some point will start yielding on comp.

the effects of cumulative overcrowding won't be known for a while, but it will reach a point where you aren't competing just against this year's grads, but this plus prior year's grads for limited jobs. the market is bottlenecking.

another thing. 26,239 openings per year, and let's assume that of those 4,000 go to T14 grads (which graduate 4,000 to 4,500 a year). if you aren't T14, you're going to b fighting for table scraps in the next few years. get used to it. now i can't wait to hear the 0L's reply back to tell me how unemployment will never happen to them, how only losers don't get jobs and that the people questioning the stability of the economy (yes we're double dippin') and legal market are just pessimists and chicken littles. the numbers are there. the T14 or bust mantra is in place for a reason, because the reast of you will be fighting for table scraps, and just because everyone knows at least one of those guys who got a table scrap, doesn't mean you'll be that guy.

DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. END OF DISCUSSION.

thesealocust wrote:robotclubmember, your reply in the other thread inspired my new avatar.

oh jeez i really liked the QO one tho lol

robotclubmember wrote:

thesealocust wrote:robotclubmember, your reply in the other thread inspired my new avatar.

oh jeez i really liked the QO one tho lol

I never intended to keep that long term, it was a litttlleee too mean for my taste. Plus this one is more relevant to more people

robotclubmember wrote:

gwuorbust wrote:REDACTED

this "study" has too many errors to make commenting worthwhile

i have found that putting air quotes around something to discredit it is actually just as good as coming up with a logical rebuttal.

i have found that failing to read related threads leads to stupid responses.

gwuorbust wrote:

robotclubmember wrote:

gwuorbust wrote:REDACTED

this "study" has too many errors to make commenting worthwhile

i have found that putting air quotes around something to discredit it is actually just as good as coming up with a logical rebuttal.

i have found that failing to read related threads leads to stupid responses.

this is too vague and generic to mean anything to me.

robotclubmember wrote:other one was locked but imma repost muh cool story anyway lol.

In 2009, 9,787 people passed the bar exam in the Empire State. The analysts estimated, though, that New York would need only 2,100 new lawyers each year through 2015. That means that if New York keeps minting new lawyers apace, it will continue having an annual surplus of 7,687 lawyers.

the real problem isn't just over-saturation, but cumulative over-saturation as well. consider for NY (assuming that passing the bar exam makes you a job seeker, which it certainly should after three years of lol school:

2009: 9,800 JD job seekers, 2,100 jobs, 7,700 surplus JDs.
2010: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 7,700 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 15,400 surplus JDs.
2011: 9,800 JD job seekers plus 15,400 surplus JDs from prior year, 2,100 jobs, 23,100 surplus JDs.
2012: 30,800 surplus JD's etc...

and so it goes.

now let's assume a few things. clearly the surplus JD's who couldn't find legal employment aren't going to be sitting around with their thumb up their ass like a bump on a log, they'll find jobs elsewhere. so that will draw down the surplus of JD's (though is that the ideal way to draw down the surplus?)

let's also assume these numbers from the article might be grossly exaggerated as new grads may take bar in several states, or other statistical unreliabilities may be present (i.e., are contract doc review jobs being counted? prob not). even then we still have a serious problem in the legal market. the overcrowding of the field doesn't just result in a ton of unemployed people, changing the supply demand EQ changes the price. the only thing holding high median salaries in tact is that high wages and billing rates is what makes the top firms lucrative, but even they at some point will start yielding on comp.

the effects of cumulative overcrowding won't be known for a while, but it will reach a point where you aren't competing just against this year's grads, but this plus prior year's grads for limited jobs. the market is bottlenecking.

another thing. 26,239 openings per year, and let's assume that of those 4,000 go to T14 grads (which graduate 4,000 to 4,500 a year). if you aren't T14, you're going to b fighting for table scraps in the next few years. get used to it. now i can't wait to hear the 0L's reply back to tell me how unemployment will never happen to them, how only losers don't get jobs and that the people questioning the stability of the economy (yes we're double dippin') and legal market are just pessimists and chicken littles. the numbers are there. the T14 or bust mantra is in place for a reason, because the reast of you will be fighting for table scraps, and just because everyone knows at least one of those guys who got a table scrap, doesn't mean you'll be that guy.

DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL. END OF DISCUSSION.

Why are we assuming that 100% if T14 grads are getting jobs?

0LNewbie wrote:
Why are we assuming that 100% if T14 grads are getting jobs?

i meant 4,000 of a number between 4,000~4,500. i'd assume at least 95% of T14 get something. it's just a rough assumption.

robotclubmember wrote:

0LNewbie wrote:
Why are we assuming that 100% if T14 grads are getting jobs?

i meant 4,000 of a number between 4,000~4,500. i'd assume at least 95% of T14 get something. it's just a rough assumption.

sorry, bro. it's T14 and bust, not T14 or bust. you're fucked.

AnyRandChangedmylife wrote:Would it help if we made a couple of new states? Part of Northern California wants to be known as "Jefferson". The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico could be their own states. Some states are so big that they could be split into 2.

southern Arizona wants to become "Baja Arizona"... #justsayin

fatduck wrote:you're fucked.

TITCR

fatduck wrote: sorry, bro. it's T14 and bust, not T14 or bust. you're fucked.

fine fine, YLS + SCOTUS clerkship or bust

another thing about the overcrowding i mentioned above... i think it's scary for people just graduating for two reasons.

1) because they'll be competing against a bottleneck of last year's surplus of JD's who are getting hungry and willing to drastically reduce the price of their labor to find work, as well as an over-funded supply of JD's graduating in their own class.

2) because if they strike out in their first year after graduation, they will join that bottleneck the next year, and then they'll be competing against a completely new over-funded herd of fresh JD grads and and ever more swollen surplus of underutilized JDs, which honestly, is a bad place to be.,

DO NOT ATTEND LAW SCHOOL. IT'S REALLY QUITE SIMPLE.

there are three types of people considering law school:
1) T6ers who should be able to get a job and be able to justify the investment at sticker
2) T14ers who have a solid enough chance at getting a good job to justify the investment, if scholarship money included
3) everyone else, i.e., the people who are making a poor life decision but are too deluded to acknowledge this and think they'll "be different"... somehow

if you are 1 or 2, proceed. if you fall into category 3, you need to detach yourself from this idea of "law school," because no matter how committed you are to it, that commitment is based off of your own personal fantasy of models and bottles, and reality tends not to support that fantasy.

Obviously, we need to adopt a 'Logan's Run' system of mandatory retirement for members of each state's bar.

robotclubmember wrote:DO NOT ATTEND LAW SCHOOL. IT'S REALLY QUITE SIMPLE.

there are three types of people considering law school:
1) T6ers who should be able to get a job and be able to justify the investment at sticker
2) T14ers who have a solid enough chance at getting a good job to justify the investment, if scholarship money included
3) everyone else, i.e., the people who are making a poor life decision but are too deluded to acknowledge this and think they'll "be different"... somehow

if you are 1 or 2, proceed. if you fall into category 3, you need to detach yourself from this idea of "law school," because no matter how committed you are to it, that commitment is based off of your own personal fantasy of models and bottles, and reality tends not to support that fantasy.

Wow. When I started fooling around in TLS, going to a Tier T1 was a good call, and Tier 2 or lower was an iffy, proceed-with-caution endeavor. Now, as Robot puts it (and I agree with), the bar has been raised to T14 WITH scholarship. I don't know if this change is because TLSers see the world differently, or if the pain is just creeping up, or both. Whatever the case, going to law school has become a game of Russian roulette.