Top Law Schools

To be honest, I really think there are way too many JDs chasing after too few jobs. The ABA should make entering the legal profession more like the medical profession: Make it much more difficult to get into law school so that the vast majority who do go are practically guaranteed a job. They'd have to reduce the number and size of law schools so that you don't have un- and under-employed attorneys. Make the admissions process more rigorous (by having interviews and more detailed essays) so that only the ones who are really serious about law school would apply.

Your situation sucks, and I feel for ya dude. But literally no one on this site would have recommended going to a T1 school full-freight with hopes of Biglaw. Maybe 10 years ago you could get away with it but those days are done.

Don't blame the ABA or even the law schools - the fault is that people still sign up for law school that shouldn't, despite half a decade of widely available information showing what a bad idea that is. Neither the schools nor the ABA has a duty to regulate whether people want to go to law school - and your proposed solution doesn't even make sense given that people go to law school for a variety of reasons such that "do interviews so you're sure they're serious" or "regulate the numbers of lawyers to available jobs" would be impractical and functionally useless.

Anonymous User wrote:more rigorous (by having interviews and more detailed essays)

interviews are excuse to show privilege

detailed essays, idk maybe

but really all you need to make law school acceptance more rigorous is to accept less people

The problem is real but your proposal boils down to a policy debate that, frankly, doesn't often come down on your side in this country. It would be incredibly paternalistic, as Capitol Idea suggests, for the government to regulate this problem is such a drastic way. Also, in any jurisdiction you can't expect a bar association or profit-seeking universities to self-regulate to this degree.

The government quite clearly is just going to let market forces work this one out. Unprofitable schools will shut down because they're not profitable. Tuition will continue to rise above inflation for the foreseeable future I assume, but it seems like all you have to do for a scholarship these days is just ask anyway. Plus, the really horrible thing about law school debt is the interest rates on our loans and the government seems kind of motivated to do something about that.

Perhaps I'm bias, but I think I'd actually leave things the way they are, letting the market deal with it. Pulling away the safety nets makes our society more meritocratic. It's harsh, but qualities like good decision-making are very important in lawyers and it is possible to very quickly go from totally ignorant about legal employment and law school admissions to well-informed no matter where you are from. I used the internet and sought advice from the very few lawyers/law students I knew. Now, when I'm on the other side giving advice about going to/choosing a law school, I don't have much sympathy for the people who aren't intelligent enough to heed advice.

Anonymous User wrote:To be honest, I really think there are way too many JDs chasing after too few jobs. The ABA should make entering the legal profession more like the medical profession: Make it much more difficult to get into law school so that the vast majority who do go are practically guaranteed a job. They'd have to reduce the number and size of law schools so that you don't have un- and under-employed attorneys. Make the admissions process more rigorous (by having interviews and more detailed essays) so that only the ones who are really serious about law school would apply.

why do you place all the blame on the schools? why is the problem of "too many JDs chasing after too few jobs" their problem/fault and not the applicants'?


also, reducing the number matriculants "so that the vast majority who do go are practically guaranteed a job" sounds anticomeptitive.


also, retake and get out of the employment forum.

The ABA is made up of law professors who couldn't give less of a fuck how much debt your unemployed ass winds up with, because the system is working out really well for them.

But anyone who went to law school after, like, 2011, has no excuse. The word has long been out, nobody has to put the puzzle together anymore. Guess what? LSAT takers are up 7%, because 22-year-olds are stupid and don't know the value of money. And nothing will change except for the day when some politician promises the government will pay all the student loan debt.

hangingtree wrote: Perhaps I'm bias, but I think I'd actually leave things the way they are, letting the market deal with it. Pulling away the safety nets makes our society more meritocratic. It's harsh, but qualities like good decision-making are very important in lawyers and it is possible to very quickly go from totally ignorant about legal employment and law school admissions to well-informed no matter where you are from. I used the internet and sought advice from the very few lawyers/law students I knew. Now, when I'm on the other side giving advice about going to/choosing a law school, I don't have much sympathy for the people who aren't intelligent enough to heed advice.

I don't agree with the above at all. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about controlling entry to a profession at the pre-degree stage (like med schools) rather than post-degree, and suggesting that ability to figure out law school admissions/employment is the marker of a successful lawyer is kind of silly. A much more rigorous admissions process would still weed out the people you have an issue with; the people who'd make it through that process are the same people who are getting into schools with good prospects now.

The problem is that chances of changing the system we have in place are pretty much nil. There may be some market correction and some of the bottom-ranked schools will fold. But we're not turning into the AMA and the med school admissions process any time soon.

(Also, perhaps you're biased, not bias.)

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

hangingtree wrote: Perhaps I'm bias, but I think I'd actually leave things the way they are, letting the market deal with it. Pulling away the safety nets makes our society more meritocratic. It's harsh, but qualities like good decision-making are very important in lawyers and it is possible to very quickly go from totally ignorant about legal employment and law school admissions to well-informed no matter where you are from. I used the internet and sought advice from the very few lawyers/law students I knew. Now, when I'm on the other side giving advice about going to/choosing a law school, I don't have much sympathy for the people who aren't intelligent enough to heed advice.

I don't agree with the above at all. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about controlling entry to a profession at the pre-degree stage (like med schools) rather than post-degree, and suggesting that ability to figure out law school admissions/employment is the marker of a successful lawyer is kind of silly. A much more rigorous admissions process would still weed out the people you have an issue with; the people who'd make it through that process are the same people who are getting into schools with good prospects now.

The problem is that chances of changing the system we have in place are pretty much nil. There may be some market correction and some of the bottom-ranked schools will fold. But we're not turning into the AMA and the med school admissions process any time soon.

(Also, perhaps you're biased, not bias.) thank you

I don't have an issue with the people who go to law school without thinking much about it, I'm saying the system shouldn't offer a lot of protection to them because it's easy enough to be smarter about the decision. The people who are smart about their decisions should be rewarded, and they're at least indirectly rewarded by competing in a market against these people who don't take these decisions so seriously. Now, of course the ability to make smart/good decisions is not the marker of a successful lawyer. I just said those kinds of skills are important. And I also don't think there's anything inherently bad with strictly regulating entry to a profession. I do think with law it would be a bad idea though. In addition to the point above (which is a relatively weak one I admit), I also think legal education's connection with the legal profession is imperfect enough--i.e., there are quasi-legal as well as wholly non-legal routes available and I do buy the law school dean line of "law school is life-enriching and teaches skills relevant across professions"--that there'd be value lost if we weeded out people who weren't sure exactly what they wanted to do.

Definitely see your view though. If we were at ground zero I'm sure it could be made to work just fine.

Part of this conversation should also be about the unmet need for certain kinds of legal services.

Some suggest that we need more lawyers, not fewer, we just need them to be able to work for non-biglaw wages. I read this occasionally in media reports on law, though I don't fully understand it.

Medicine has responded with nurse practicioner degrees and similar to produces tiers of service and pricing. Law hasn't.

One generic degree for everyone.

Why are high end appellate lawyers, local wills and real estate lawyers, and PI lawyers helping settle refugees all paying the same and going to the same programs?

Too many MCs, not enough mics
Exit your show like I exit the turnpike

hangingtree wrote:The government quite clearly is just going to let market forces work this one out. [Incomplete explanation of market forces.]

The government is the one giving kids too lazy to do basic research hundreds of thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable loans, and is effectively the principal market force supporting facial tuition increases (tuition after scholarships is actually decreasing at many schools) and the inevitable failure of close to 50% of all law students. That said, anybody who refuses to retake the LSAT and consequently pays a non-discounted rate to go to a school outside of the T14 or certain regionals has only herself to blame. It's hard enough to be guaranteed secure, long-term employment from HYS, let alone a "T1," whatever that means.

In addition, limiting the supply of law students, and thus increasing the price of lawyers, is unnecessarily anticompetitive. If anything, there is an (in my opinion appropriate) policy focus on reducing the transaction costs of law.

Abbie Doobie wrote: why do you place all the blame on the schools? why is the problem of "too many JDs chasing after too few jobs" their problem/fault and not the applicants'?

The thing is, these individuals who are making these poor decisions not only bring bad consequences upon themselves but also impose costs on society and become a fiscal liability. Sure, in a perfect world the market should adjust itself in the long run, but a) in the long run we're all dead, and b) before that happens we'll all be picking up the pieces from the student debt bubble finally imploding. Since you can't prevent people from applying to law schools, and since there will always be enough misinformed people around, it's better to control matriculation from the school side. ABA obviously doesn't have the balls or the incentives to do it, but I'd be in favor of shuttering the bottom 50 law schools (i.e. the TTTTs).

Abbie Doobie wrote: also, reducing the number matriculants "so that the vast majority who do go are practically guaranteed a job" sounds anticomeptitive.

No, we'd only be moving competition to a different stage of the legal employment pipeline.

nealric wrote:Too many MCs, not enough mics
Exit your show like I exit the turnpike

This Fugees reference isn't getting nearly enough community praise

The government massively subsidizes legal education. Econ 101 tells you that when you subsidize something, you get too much of it.

Let Wells Fargo decide whether to give you $200k to go to Cooley and watch the problem fix itself real quick.

I think the gov. should put a cap on the amount of gov. grad school loans you can take out, with maybe an exception for med school. I'd cap it at 75K. Schools would either be forced to lower tuition or students would have to come up with private funds.

To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

.

twenty 8 wrote:To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

emkay625 wrote:

twenty 8 wrote:To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:The government massively subsidizes legal education. Econ 101 tells you that when you subsidize something, you get too much of it.

Let Wells Fargo decide whether to give you $200k to go to Cooley and watch the problem fix itself real quick.

This.

twenty 8 wrote:

emkay625 wrote:

twenty 8 wrote:To me the solution has always been simple. Only consider LS if you have good stats, roughly… minimum 3.8 GPA and 169 LSAT. This will assure you the option to choose between a highly ranked LS or a meaty scholarship (in some cases, both). Fewer people would sign up, ultimately leading to a smaller legal workforce, eventually leading to more security. Simultaneously, law schools would have to drop their rates or go bust.

For those brave enough to take the plunge with iffy stats, no one will be surprised when you end up in a situation which is less than good.

Those numbers go too far. That would cut the number of folks going to law school by 95%. It would eliminate nearly half of the folks at most T14 schools.

Then how low should the stats (GPA/LSAT) go to accomplish the goal of reducing the glut of law students?

I don't know, but they should certainly be lower than that. Especially if it's "and" and not "or" in play. My GPA is lower than that and my outcome was just about as good as I could've asked for.

160+ or cant apply

Anonymous User wrote:To be honest, I really think there are way too many JDs chasing after too few jobs. The ABA should make entering the legal profession more like the medical profession: Make it much more difficult to get into law school so that the vast majority who do go are practically guaranteed a job. They'd have to reduce the number and size of law schools so that you don't have un- and under-employed attorneys. Make the admissions process more rigorous (by having interviews and more detailed essays) so that only the ones who are really serious about law school would apply.

There aren't too many JDs or law schools. There's only JDs from T-14 in the job market. The application process is rigorous- only a limited number of people are admitted to T-14.

Outside T-14? No one tells you to waste your time and money- and most importantly - waste your life.

My experience has been that most of the people pulling big law from T1 schools would have pulled it in the bottom 25% from a T-14. They have certain qualities that most people don't. The thing is everyone thinks they have these qualities.