Top Law Schools

WSJ Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/17/fir ... 77-levels/

I guess the law school market does respond to reason and market forces.

Interesting....Not a bad thing at all for any applicant

I'd like to see a year by year chart for perhaps the last 5 years. I'm wondering if the drop in applications is accelerating or whether it's starting to bottom out. I'm always a sucker for numbers and statistics.

Tyr wrote:I'd like to see a year by year chart for perhaps the last 5 years. I'm wondering if the drop in applications is accelerating or whether it's starting to bottom out. I'm always a sucker for numbers and statistics.

Here it is. Hasn't been updated with enrollment yet, but it's at 39,675 (-10.8%).

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... me-summary

cotiger wrote:

Tyr wrote:I'd like to see a year by year chart for perhaps the last 5 years. I'm wondering if the drop in applications is accelerating or whether it's starting to bottom out. I'm always a sucker for numbers and statistics.

Here it is. Hasn't been updated with enrollment yet, but it's at 39,675 (-10.8%).

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... me-summary

Graphed it:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

cotiger wrote:

Tyr wrote:I'd like to see a year by year chart for perhaps the last 5 years. I'm wondering if the drop in applications is accelerating or whether it's starting to bottom out. I'm always a sucker for numbers and statistics.

Here it is. Hasn't been updated with enrollment yet, but it's at 39,675 (-10.8%).

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... me-summary

Graphed it:

You guys are amazing. That is awesome info.

Could you plot the number of LSATs administered on the same graph? I'm interested to see how well it predicts number of applicants.

Sacred Cow wrote:Could you plot the number of LSATs administered on the same graph? I'm interested to see how well it predicts number of applicants.

I'm seriously procrastinating today.

can you limit the results to "high scoring" applicants? I think last year the drop was more pronounced within that group.

These are some pretty graphs

Bajam wrote:These are some pretty graphs

I think it could be fun to have Mr. Monopoly sliding down one of them. Why not?

Bajam wrote:These are some pretty graphs

+1. Thanks for your work! Really enjoying the graphs and what they entail.

Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Br3v wrote:Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Only problem is that it's all a delayed reaction and so the classes graduating now are just barely off from the peak. Add on to that when the supply of lawyers actually does lower as far as the graduating class, there will be the surplus of lawyers who didn't get graduates from the previous overstocked years in line as well as new graduates so we still have a long time before we are anywhere near a healthy baseline.

But yeah, it is a great thing. Hopefully it lasts.

Br3v wrote:Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Between 1998 and 2008, the employment percentage in full-time legal jobs hovered around 75%. If you consider that the historical equilibrium, then we'll probably get back to it with C/O 2016.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/articl ... ign=Buffer

sinfiery wrote:

Br3v wrote:Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Only problem is that it's all a delayed reaction and so the classes graduating now are just barely off from the peak. Add on to that when the supply of lawyers actually does lower as far as the graduating class, there will be the surplus of lawyers who didn't get graduates from the previous overstocked years in line as well as new graduates so we still have a long time before we are anywhere near a healthy baseline.

But yeah, it is a great thing. Hopefully it lasts.

Me thinks many firms will view those candidates who graduated in years prior without a legal job as damaged goods, and that many of these JDs will have found gainful employment in other fields and set down roots by the time the law market swings back in our favor.

sinfiery wrote:

Br3v wrote:Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Only problem is that it's all a delayed reaction and so the classes graduating now are just barely off from the peak. Add on to that when the supply of lawyers actually does lower as far as the graduating class, there will be the surplus of lawyers who didn't get graduates from the previous overstocked years in line as well as new graduates so we still have a long time before we are anywhere near a healthy baseline.

But yeah, it is a great thing. Hopefully it lasts.

Assuming that C/O 2016 has a normal attrition rate (~11%), then you guys should only be graduating around 35,300. That would be the lowest since 1983. The class ahead of you guys should graduate about 39,600, which is still the lowest since 2004. Sure, the classes before that were substantially larger, but are recent grads and those 2+ years out generally competing for the same entry-level positions?

Assuming enrollments drop about 8% this cycle, C/O 2017 should graduate around 32,500, which is the lowest since 1976. Combine that with the smaller classes of '16 and '15, and I like how it looks

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

daryldixon wrote:WSJ Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/17/fir ... 77-levels/

I guess the law school market does respond to reason and market forces.

Funny how important accurate information is to a properly functioning market.

.

Regulus wrote:I've posted this elsewhere before, but it is fun to look at how America compares to someplace like Japan, which is also starting to have issues with an oversupply of lawyers thanks to a change in 2006 that increased the passage rate of their bar exam (from ~3% to ~30%). Unfortunately, even after this change, the American per capita mintage rate of lawyers is still 11x that of Japan's.

Go 'Murica!!!

Counterpoint: We have 13x the prisoner per capita rate of Japan

notalobbyist wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

Br3v wrote:Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Only problem is that it's all a delayed reaction and so the classes graduating now are just barely off from the peak. Add on to that when the supply of lawyers actually does lower as far as the graduating class, there will be the surplus of lawyers who didn't get graduates from the previous overstocked years in line as well as new graduates so we still have a long time before we are anywhere near a healthy baseline.

But yeah, it is a great thing. Hopefully it lasts.

Me thinks many firms will view those candidates who graduated in years prior without a legal job as damaged goods, and that many of these JDs will have found gainful employment in other fields and set down roots by the time the law market swings back in our favor.

I've only read this for applying to biglaw and even that is up in the air because why ignore market factors. T14 unemployed grads from the boom are likely statistically better than CO2016 applicants.

.

sinfiery wrote:

Regulus wrote:I've posted this elsewhere before, but it is fun to look at how America compares to someplace like Japan, which is also starting to have issues with an oversupply of lawyers thanks to a change in 2006 that increased the passage rate of their bar exam (from ~3% to ~30%). Unfortunately, even after this change, the American per capita mintage rate of lawyers is still 11x that of Japan's.

Go 'Murica!!!

Counterpoint: We have 13x the prisoner per capita rate of Japan

notalobbyist wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

Br3v wrote:Good news. I know ATL and others like to talk like this isnt a good thing because there is still oversupply, but less oversupply is a good thing imo

Only problem is that it's all a delayed reaction and so the classes graduating now are just barely off from the peak. Add on to that when the supply of lawyers actually does lower as far as the graduating class, there will be the surplus of lawyers who didn't get graduates from the previous overstocked years in line as well as new graduates so we still have a long time before we are anywhere near a healthy baseline.

But yeah, it is a great thing. Hopefully it lasts.

Me thinks many firms will view those candidates who graduated in years prior without a legal job as damaged goods, and that many of these JDs will have found gainful employment in other fields and set down roots by the time the law market swings back in our favor.

I've only read this for applying to biglaw and even that is up in the air because why ignore market factors. T14 unemployed grads from the boom are likely statistically better than CO2016 applicants.

True, but T14 grads should have a leg up on the entry level positions. Now may not be the comparatively worst time to go to law school if one is sure that's what they want to do.

sinfiery wrote:

Regulus wrote:I've posted this elsewhere before, but it is fun to look at how America compares to someplace like Japan, which is also starting to have issues with an oversupply of lawyers thanks to a change in 2006 that increased the passage rate of their bar exam (from ~3% to ~30%). Unfortunately, even after this change, the American per capita mintage rate of lawyers is still 11x that of Japan's.

Go 'Murica!!!

Counterpoint: We have 13x the prisoner per capita rate of Japan

Go 'Murica!!!