Too many JDs chasing too few jobs Forum

[84651846190]

In light of all of these factors, it's hardly unreasonable to ask the schools to be upfront and honest about their job placement data.

I don't disagree with your conclusion. Schools should not get away with screwing with their numbers. However, I'm having a really hard time garnering sympathy for people who make a quarter million dollar decision half-cocked. The information is out there, but we have a bunch of broke 22 year olds throwing money around in a way that would make billionaires blush. At some point, there has to be some accountability for the high-risk, low-reward decisions that people are making.

everyone knows that doing cocaine is dangerous/unhealthy but we still throw people in jail for selling it

not as many people know that taking out 250k+ in debt is just as (if not more) dangerous and yet we do nothing to punish law schools for doing it

explain

[Phil Brooks]

Hate to rain on the pity party, but it is simply unreasonable to take 200K+ in non-dischargeable loans (to say nothing of 3 years of opportunity costs) without doing a rudimentary Google search. "Underground sites" is an extreme characterization; there are many forums, non-profits, blogs, and news stories (in major papers no less) that all express concern with the state of legal employment. I was able to ascertain this through internet searches in 2003, and it definitely wasn't difficult or time-consuming.

That said, requiring schools to paint a more accurate employment picture is a worthwhile goal. But does anybody really think that would dissuade the type of person who goes to a non-accredited school now? Or even the type of person who attends a T2? Law students are perennial optimists, and short of depriving them of financing, many (if not most) would still go.

Your first paragraph makes several assumptions. Specifically, you're ignoring:
1. The counteracting influence of real people at schools over randos on the internet.
2. The informational noise on the internet. (TLS can't even agree on several points, and TLS doesn't even agree with law folks over at Something Awful.)
3. The cultural "wisdom" that drives people to think certain regional schools are good (even when they aren't) or to think all lawyers make a lot of money.
4. That you may be from a socioeconomic level sophisticated enough to determine whether attending Arizona Summit or John Marshall is a good idea. A lot of the people those TTTTs cater to are from lower socioeconomic statuses and may not be savvy enough to think that the schools aren't being entirely honest about their "spin."
5. The piecemeal and anecdotal nature of the data even TLS has. I still can't accurately tell you what my school's job placement power is.

In light of all of these factors, it's hardly unreasonable to ask the schools to be upfront and honest about their job placement data.

These two points are underappreciated. Someone will generally credit a human being who is supposed to be in a position of trust over an anonymous stranger on the Internet. And not everyone is as well-versed in the way "things work" in this industry and in this country. Perhaps you are hardened because you grew up in the United States or because you grew up in a privileged background and therefore have a level of social and cultural literacy that the rest of us don't have. But at least try to see beyond your own perspective. Look at how many LLMs get suckered in every year to paying full tuition for a mythical chance at jobs in the "land of opportunity."

(And by the way, I spent over 100 hours applying to outside scholarships over the past three years while working two jobs, and as such will be able to comfortably pay off my manageable debt load with a big law job post graduation. So this is not an exercise in self-pity. But just because I was able to rectify an unfair situation--after having received a lot of help which is a result of my own privilege--doesn't mean that others can, or should be forced to).

[jchiles]

Yeah i think its mostly on the prospective student to figure this stuff out but its pretty fair to blame the ABA for accrediting way more schools than we need.

[totesTheGoat]

everyone knows that doing cocaine is dangerous/unhealthy but we still throw people in jail for selling it

not as many people know that taking out 250k+ in debt is just as (if not more) dangerous and yet we do nothing to punish law schools for doing it

explain

I do think that's stupid, but i'm one of those radicals who thinks that the people shouldn't be sitting in jail for selling it.

Also, it's not the law schools that are selling the loans to the students. All of my loans are provided by Uncle Sam.

[haus]

Yeah i think its mostly on the prospective student to figure this stuff out but its pretty fair to blame the ABA for accrediting way more schools than we need.

But what is need at this point?

Equal to the number of jobs that come with 160k starting salaries? Equal to the number of jobs that come with really cool business cards? Equal to the number of people needed to provide representation to those facing criminal charges?

I would argue that the problem is not the number of people who are admitted and then opt to attend law schools. Instead the problem is the ridiculous amount of money that is charged by some schools in relation to what someone is likely to earn having received the education the school provides. Given that teaching law requires little in the line of special accommodations and/or expensive labs, it should be possible to receive a quality legal education, which can be of use to many people, at a very reasonable cost.

[Phil Brooks]

I agree. The problem is not with the interest, it's the principal. The federal government should simply refuse to provide loans for the attendance of any school that continues to raise tuition in such excess of inflation.

[A. Nony Mouse]

1. The counteracting influence of real people at schools over randos on the internet.

These two points are underappreciated.

I want to agree with this one in particular. TLS has frequently bemoaned how bad undergrad law school advisors are. They often give terrible advice. But if you're a K-JD considering law school and you know nothing about it, what's one of the prime resources available to you? Your UG LS advisor. It's true that applicants should do more research that that, but is it really unreasonable to rely on the person your school pays to tell you about the law school admissions process etc.? Especially if (going back to the other bolded point I didn't quote) you don't have any connections to law/don't know anyone currently in law school, and your family thinks becoming a lawyer has got to be a path to professional stability/success.

I applied pre-Law School Transparency. Law school websites really did make it sound like the average law grad was making ~$70k. Obviously now we do have LST and a lot more info, but it still takes a while for the message to reach a lot of people.

Ideally people would make good choices, but lots of people don't, and I have a lot more sympathy for people who get stuck in a $250k hole for being naive than the law schools who take advantage of it.

[FutureLitigator]

0l

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is reasonable to spend 50K/year (again, plus opportunity costs and COL) by blindly relying on the advice of (uninformed) undergrad advisors and the (potentially biased) law schools themselves, how can it possibly be reasonable to continue that reliance after 1L? After 2L? Surely a reasonable person would appreciate the outcomes their peers at the same school obtain, and would drop out instead of doubling down due to sunk costs.

I don't deny that schools are exploiting unsophisticated and socioeconomically-disadvantaged students, but there has to be some level of personal responsibility when taking out loans that, in the case of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, eclipse the value of their parents' homes. If their parents never even owned homes (which is likely), this should especially reinforce the importance of caution when making such financially-significant decisions.

[FutureLitigator]

I don't deny that schools are exploiting unsophisticated and socioeconomically-disadvantaged students, but there has to be some level of personal responsibility when taking out loans that, in the case of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, eclipse the value of their parents homes. If their parents never even owned homes (which is likely), this should especially reinforce the importance of caution when making such financially-significant decisions.

No one is there to regulate car loans/mortgages, every business in America or anything that relies on money to run has exploited someone, when you sell someone a meal at a fast food joint, and they only have 10$ to their name and the meal is 8$ that is exploiting them, because they could've bought a weeks worth of food. (Their stomachs are still full though!)
Back to the topic at hand, if there is someone to blame, blame the system that provides the loans, if people couldn't take out the loans, they wouldn't be going to LS in the first place, or at least the ones that never wanted to go; someone like me on the other hand would have to come up with the money somehow to go! (Not saying loans are a bad idea, just a thought) The law schools are not even the ones providing the loans, so how can they be to blame when someone went to UG, tested, applied, got accepted, prepared to take out a loan-see the price of the loan(s)! and then finally matriculated (That is a lot of time to premeditate the situation so it seems to me people are just poor sports and are used to getting everything handed to them and I wish the world can do that for them but only they can)

[Phil Brooks]

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is reasonable to spend 50K/year (again, plus opportunity costs and COL) by blindly relying on the advice of (uninformed) undergrad advisors ...

How is someone supposed to know that the pre-law undergrad advisors are uninformed? For goodness sake, it is their JOB to be informed, and they hold themselves out as such. As Anonymouse said, they are paid to know this stuff.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is reasonable to spend 50K/year (again, plus opportunity costs and COL) by blindly relying on the advice of (uninformed) undergrad advisors ...

How is someone supposed to know that the pre-law undergrad advisors are uninformed? For goodness sake, it is their JOB to be informed, and they hold themselves out as such. As Anonymouse said, they are paid to know this stuff.

I suppose that relates to my previous point that a cursory internet search would quickly expose inconsistencies between what undergrad advisers and law schools claim, and what unbiased, non-affiliated commentators have to say on the subject. In any case, even if its reasonable to rely on that alone, there is clearly more information after 1L/2L to make a more-informed decision.

[Johann]

more lawyers is probably a good thing. apparently there weren't enough lawyers last generation to tell everyone how much the profession sucked. once everyone knows a lawyer (thank god applications are back up) everyone will be sufficiently warned about the profession.

[PMan99]

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is reasonable to spend 50K/year (again, plus opportunity costs and COL) by blindly relying on the advice of (uninformed) undergrad advisors and the (potentially biased) law schools themselves, how can it possibly be reasonable to continue that reliance after 1L? After 2L? Surely a reasonable person would appreciate the outcomes their peers at the same school obtain, and would drop out instead of doubling down due to sunk costs.

I don't deny that schools are exploiting unsophisticated and socioeconomically-disadvantaged students, but there has to be some level of personal responsibility when taking out loans that, in the case of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, eclipse the value of their parents' homes. If their parents never even owned homes (which is likely), this should especially reinforce the importance of caution when making such financially-significant decisions.

Well, your first mistake is assuming that someone who takes out 200k to go to Cooley is a rational actor.

[Anonymous User]

I don't understand the distinction with both Med and Law school...there is approximately the same number of schools and class sizes for both.

I think the issue more so lies on the fact that law has not undergrad pre-req courses, which in Medicine weeds out a bunch people. We should have the same thing.......with a heavy courseload and a required law internship/externship of two years. Many people choose law, b/c they think "What the hell else am I supposed to do with my life?" People should show more commitment to the career.

A minimum GPA/LSAT is dumb....although people below 160 and 3.5 GPA should really not be considering Law School. Nonetheless I believe that the market will take care of itself, as people educate themselves and realize that dipping below the T30 will not be a good descision (even with full-rides) and there will be a drop in enrollment and subsequent losing of shitty trap law schools.

[A. Nony Mouse]

When people say, it's the loans, not the schools - sure, but the schools are the ones who jacked up tuition.

And I just think it's unkind to think it's better that people should have to suffer the $250k consequences of a bad decision, than that something should be done about tuition and admission standards. It just comes across as "I was smart enough to figure it out, so screw everyone who wasn't" (from people who haven't even made it to law school yet, or don't realize that "there but for the grace of God...").

I think there are some cutoffs proposed here that are too stark. Not everyone is aiming for biglaw, nor should they be. Something like UNM is a good example - it's not very big, it's not that expensive, and it does supply lawyers for a region that has no other law schools (people from Duke or Cornell sure aren't going to flock to NM after graduation). Saying it should be axed based on GPA/LSAT is simplistic. But closing some schools would be a good start.

[fauxpsych]

Anyways, I would be glad I went to LS even if it provides me with no job, because that is up to me to make happen! They only give me my degree that I will need in order to sit for the bar!!

Why is an 0L posting here?

[wolfie_m.]

.

[LA Spring]

160+ or cant apply

Unfortunately even if your LSAT was 150 there are schools that will grant you admission ― they want your $$$$$$$. I would love to back up how bad an idea it is to enter LS with low stats by stating the percentage of grads who find themselves unemployed. My guess is 60%...perhaps someone here knows the real percentage.

[totesTheGoat]

Well, it's not really about sympathy to me. But I do think you're oversimplifying people's decision-making processes, even if those processes aren't rational.

I would agree to an extent, but I also think that people legitimately don't think hard enough about what they're getting themselves into. Wading through the Chances and FYI forums for an hour gives the impression that most 0Ls HAVE to go to law school, HAVE to go this year, HAVE to go to their dream schools (at sticker), and HAVE to make 6-figures. If that's the level of analysis here on TLS, what level is there at large?

Some of that is obviously because they are not furnished with the information about their true prospects, and schools should be punished for giving such a biased and unrealistic view of reality. However, pretty much every 0L has a flawed picture in their mind of what law school is, and on some level it simply doesn't matter what information you put in front of them, they just KNOW that they'll be sitting in that downtown corner office making $200k.

That's where my lack of sympathy comes from. When somebody takes a quarter million in loans to follow a pipe dream --- a complete delusion --- I have a hard time saying that law schools should be punished for the law student's bad choices. Yeah, punish the law schools for being misleading. Don't punish them for offering an inferior product.

and restrictions on federal funding to schools with abnormally low bar passage/employment stats would be a healthy start.

I would bet that there are massive civil rights issues lurking under the surface on that one. What happens if these schools you're cutting off are disproportionately populated with URMs?

Besides, let's say we're drawing a line at 40% employment as a minimum for a school to receive public funding. What happens to those 40% when you effectively shut down their law school? They're not like the T1 law students who can jet across the country to go to the next better opportunity. You're legitimately taking away their opportunity to get a job using their (admittedly sub-par) JD.

I just don't understand the knee-jerk "legislate it away" reaction. We have a bunch of people paternalistically trying to protect the "informationally disadvantaged" when they themselves don't have all of the information. These people are agitating for changes that may or may not solve the problems at hand (which we haven't really defined) and will certainly take opportunities (albeit, not great opportunities) away from some of the poor and the "informationally disadvantaged."

EDIT: Shortening things up a bit.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[haus]

And if the government is making money off student loans, the whole process seems more and more like an elaborate reverse income tax. There are better ways to promote diversity--e.g., grants, scholarships, etc.

As I understand it, the government budget states that student loans will bring a profit, but I am not sure that will be the case.

When you take into consideration that some of the loans will default, and even with all of the enforcement tools the government has to get their money back, they will not get everything. And then when you consider the cost of loan forgiveness through programs such as PAYE and PSLF the gov may not end up making money on student loans.

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

if the government is making money off student loans

the government budget states that student loans will bring a profit, but I am not sure that will be the case.

El-Erian: Student loan debt is over "$1.2 trillion, more than 60% of which is held by the bottom quartile of households (those with a net worth of less than $8,500)[, and] student loans constitute 45% of federally owned financial assets."

It's only a matter of time before the market renders unsustainable the present system of federally-guaranteed student loans.