Why 2017-2018 Will Be a Fantastic Time to Graduate from Law School
A few years ago while working at a law school, I accidentally spiked our daily admissions numbers. What did I do? I unthinkingly threw in the word “today” by telling people to apply “today” to receive a fee waiver. I didn’t mean that today was the only day to do it, but that’s what the recipients of the e-mail believed. Which meant we received about 25 responses when we would have normally received only 5 or 6.
Why am I telling you this? Because I want prospective law students to know that this time I mean it. Enroll today or you will miss out on what might be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Namely, the chance to graduate from law school in 2017-2018, which will likely be one of the best times ever to graduate from law school.
Really? Are you serious? Haven’t we heard this before? In 2008, we said “Don’t worry law applicants, by the time you graduate in 2011, everything will have recovered and your employment prospects will be boffo.” The next year in 2009, we said “Don’t worry, in 2012 the economy will be booming and law firms will be beating down your door to hire you.” In retrospect, our advice was lousy as 2011 and 2012 were two of the worst years ever to graduate from law school. 2013 and 2014 have only been marginally better. The truth of the matter is, there was, and continues to be, a significant imbalance between the number of law school graduates and the number of desirable jobs available to those graduates. In a nutshell, the supply of law school graduates is significantly greater than the demand for them.
This reality continues today. Although we’ve seen noticeable improvement since the depths of the recession, that supply/demand gap persists. But it won’t persist. It will change significantly for the better. How do I know this? Because we know that the gap will almost entirely disappear by 2017-2018.
In the next few posts I will review the supply of law school graduates, the employment demand for the graduates, and what the market will look like in 2017-2018.
The present prediction on other threads here is for around 38k enrolling next year. Averaging the BLS line for "Lawyers, judges, and related workers" over the ten year period, it looks like there are 21k expected openings or so for 2017-2018 graduates per year. That seems difficult to reconcile with a rosy outlook. I look forward to your analysis.
Posted by: Former Editor | April 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM
"Although we’ve seen noticeable improvement since the depths of the recession, that supply/demand gap persists. But it won’t persist. It will change significantly for the better. How do I know this? Because we know that the gap will almost entirely disappear by 2017-2018."
How do you know this, Steve? You provide no factual support for your conclusion, so I would grade your first post an F. You cannot know this because you have no idea what will happen between now and 2017-18 that can/will impact the market for attorneys, so any "evidence" you give to support the statements made in this post are speculative, to say the least. We all know how to spin numbers.
As you admitted above, prospective 1Ls have been told the same thing every year since 2008 and how has that worked out for those who bought this pitch??
I was recently at a sales pitch for a vacation time share and we heard the same language -- you have to enroll today or miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Law school admission "deans" are beneath used car salesmen, if this is the pitch they give to prospects. But at least buying a lemon of a car does not ruin your life.....
Posted by: Ellen | April 10, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Steven, you do know April Fools was about a week ago, right?
Posted by: Terri S | April 10, 2014 at 10:46 AM
I'm skeptical too, but he says he'll get into detail in some later posts. Give him a chance at least.
Posted by: Former Editor | April 10, 2014 at 10:47 AM
The problem is not merely that there are 38k applicants for 21k openings.
The real problem is how many of those 21k jobs will pay well enough to justify the $140,616 total educational debt that the average indebted law student incurs, of the 87% of law students who incur debt. (Figures from the New America Foundation.)
The fundamental problem is not the fact that many law school graduates are unemployed - the fundamental problem is that only a fraction of employed law graduates will earn enough money to justify going into that much debt.
For the market for JD's to equilibrate, there has to be a major reduction in the cost of going to law school.
Posted by: Observer | April 10, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Steve,
Please address the apparent contradiction in advice like this. Assuming no substantial change in the legal market (for better or worse), the job outlook for graduates stands to improve precisely because fewer students are enrolling in law school these days. But of course, if significant numbers of people take your advice and "enroll today" (thinking three years hence the oversupply of law grads will be eliminated by falling enrollment), then the job outlook will worsen as a consequence because the oversupply will not go down as much. So your prediction will bear out only if most people thinking about law school do not take your advice.
Brian
Posted by: Brian Tamanaha | April 10, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Observer,
It's a paired problem. Even if the borrowing costs go down, if the number of graduates remains well over the number of jobs there will still be a crisis, although a slightly less catastrophic one for graduates without jobs. To really alleviate it, the number of entering students would have to decline at the same time that the total cost of attendance also goes down. That poses real problems for the industry as a whole (and for independent schools in particular) because tuition revenue is, for many schools, the main source of income. Shrinking class size and cutting tuition is a double whammy on their budgets.
Posted by: Former Editor | April 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Steve,
I assume that you provided full refunds to the students who took your advice in 2008 and 2009? Or that you'd agree that students who relied on such advice were materially misled and should have a cause of action against the law schools? Oh, you don't? Why not?
I liked this article last year when Ted Seto wrote it and when Steve made the same points he makes here in the comments to Ted's sales pitch.
That the substance of this article is "This time is different" one day after some of the worst employment data ever published shows that law faculty are incorrigible. Have some decency and shame!
Posted by: Jojo | April 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM
There was really no reason for this 'teaser' post that provided nothing of substance to the conversation but merely lays the groundwork that the actual arguments may seem outlandish given the last few years. If you have a case to be made, cut to the chase and make it.
Posted by: not right | April 10, 2014 at 11:32 AM
On wall street, we call this 'talking your book.'
Similar to "houses have never been more affordable" coming out of a Realtor in 2009.
Posted by: terry malloy | April 10, 2014 at 01:30 PM
This is like the habitually cheating husband saying "this time no cheat and I mean it!"
Pretty sad what the legal education industry has devolved into. Everything must go! JDs are going fast. This is a limited time offer! Buy buy buy!
Posted by: Law School Going Out of Business Sale! | April 10, 2014 at 01:57 PM
Brian Tamanaha's comment in this thread is absolutely hilarious and completely true. Just crushes the original argument.
Posted by: JM | April 10, 2014 at 02:52 PM
Hi Steve,
Actually, whether or not I hire more lawyers in 2017 and 2018 depends entirely on whether or not the demand from my clients will exceed my ability to serve them with my current staff. I cannot project that far in the future with any degree of confidence, and neither can anyone I know.
How can you know better than me and other attorneys who are able to hire people what our needs will be in 2017 and 2018? How can you encourage these people to pay you vast sums of money in tuition to gamble on the proposition that guys like me will hire them in a few years? I don't remember anyone asking me for input. If you were to ask, I would advise you that my outlook is at best uncertain.
Posted by: San Francisco lawyer | April 10, 2014 at 05:52 PM
Former Editor:
"I'm skeptical too, but he says he'll get into detail in some later posts. Give him a chance at least."
First, he could have done that now. When somebody throws out a grandiose teaser, he/she deserves to get - well, teased.
Second, any law school dean pushing the line that things will get better doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by:
Posted by: Barry | April 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM
If possible, please open comments for "#2." I would like a chance to respond to Lisa's post.
Posted by: Stan | April 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM
"I think we've heard a sufficient variety of views on the first few posts, so comments are closed."
Do you have any idea how patronizing and schoolmarmish this sounds? Reminds me of Nurse Ratched.
Posted by: Bathsheba Boldwood | April 11, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Can you imagine refusing to answer a professor's question, citing the fact that "we've already heard a variety of views, professor. Let's move on."
Posted by: Stan | April 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM
Probably in 2015, we will see one of the top law schools shut down, because the host institution will not want to lower standards to fill that law school with warm bodies.
A parallel would be when Georgetown and Emory shut down their dental schools in the late 80s/early 90s.
Posted by: Ronald Johns | April 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM