LSAT June 2014 Administrations

We've been waiting for the June LSAT administration numbers for a while.  There is a rumor afloat that there were 21,802 LSAT test takers for the June 2014 administration. This is down 9.1% from June 2013.  Moreover, the volume of first-time test takers in June 2014 was down approximately 14% from June 2013.

Update: As Diane Curtis of U. Mass Amherst notes in the comments, this is now confirmed on the LSAC website.

Comments

[Jojo]

Isn't that good news? I mean it's threatening to the glut of law schools, but to all other observers, there was almost uniform acknowledgement of a glut.

Slowly, we're seeing an increase in hiring for college educated students (ie, law school's applicant pool). If we stabilize at circa 30,000 JD students per year, isn't that long term sustainable? I know it means death to 30 or 40 schools, but we've seen 20 new ones since 2003. Why can't the academy embrace this?

[twbb]

Because the academy desperately does not want to embrace closing 30-40 schools. Particularly since most of the schools that survive will likely have to cut faculty.

[Partisan Observer]

Assuming that closing 30-40 schools is at issue, is that "good news" that should be "embraced"? Doubtful.

If LSAT test taking is mindless and tends to exceed the legal employment market, and we believe that market is going to remain supersaturated, a drop in test-taking is an appropriate adjustment and, in that sense, good. Law schools should decrease output, either by cutting class sizes or closing schools. Closing schools is not itself a good thing, unless you regard them as attractive nuisances that mindless applicants, fueled by subsidized tuition, just cannot resist . . . which seems unlikely (see, e.g., the drop in applicants). It is costly, insofar as closing schools results in unemployment, not just of professors, and wastes lots of capital -- including, most important in my view, much of the value for recent grads of those schools. This is different from whether founding a new school is a good idea; for many years, in almost every case, it *has* been a bad idea. The fact that many schools should never have been started is different from whether we would like them vaporized.

If we think LSAT test taking is (now) highly correlated with the perceived value of a law degree, a drop is mixed news, even putting closings aside. On the one hand, it seems good for recent grads or current students, in that they will have fewer competitors. On the other hand, it does suggest that people are betting employment will continue to suck; that doesn't strike me as good news.

What is good news? Good news would be soaring test-taking stimulated by employment prospects, reduced class sizes until present excess is absorbed by the market, no new schools, and continued pressure on the expense/value of schools (meaning, inflation-consistent tuition and greater staff productivity). Closing schools that can't make the grade over the longer term, including because they're not producing value even in good times and can't be efficiently improved, is also fine. Settling for much less is like listening to laid off steel workers celebrate a drop in steel production and cheer factory closings.

[anon]

PO

Wow. Where to begin? what a load.

First, you set up an "either or" argument. Either "LSAT test taking is mindless" or "LSAT test taking is (now) highly correlated with the perceived value of a law degree." What an excellent example of the fallacy of false alternatives!

In any event, you make no real point with respect to either alternative, other than to acknowledge that lower numbers of LSAT takers tends to reflect a perception that the market for new attorneys is saturated.

Then we come to your conclusions, which have little or nothing to do with the preceding "analysis." You say:

"Good news would be soaring test-taking stimulated by employment prospects, [and] reduced class sizes"

Here, you seem to suggest that either LSAT taking should be mindless (i.e., unrelated to employment prospects) or "highly correlated with the perceived value of a law degree" measured by improving job prospects. These alternatives demonstrate the sort of muddled nature of your comment. Which is it?

You then go on to say that, in an environment of increasing LSAT taking (presumably, because the employment market is improving) law schools will "reduce class sizes until present excess is absorbed by the market." Again, where is the evidence, any evidence, that would be the case? Here in the FL many in legal academia argue that there will be a shortage of attorneys in a few years, completely ignoring or discounting to the point of insignificance the overhang of which you speak. Will these faculties reduce classes in the face of increasing applications?

Finally, you suggest waiting until "good times" to determine whether some law schools should be closed. You say: "Closing schools that can't make the grade over the longer term, including because they're not producing value even in good times and can't be efficiently improved is also fine." The illogic of this nonsense is that many of these schools were created during "good times" precisely because the "good times" concealed their faults.

An analogy to steel mills? Really?

[Diane Curtis]

LSAC has confirmed these numbers and updated its website accordingly (so it's not just a "rumor" any more).

But this doesn't necessarily mean a decline in application volume for the coming year. The June share of a given year's LSATs has varied over the last 10 years from just under 18% to just under 23%. The drop in June LSATs could presage a continued drop in applications or simply more applicants putting off the LSAT until September (or later).

[Just saying...]

P.O. to add to anon's comments:
You take the position that closing law schools is bad because it leads to unemployment of non-law faculty and wastes lots of capital including the value of the JDs awarded by those schools. On this last point, OK, I agree, the value of a law degree from a defunct institution likely goes down. But how valuable is the degree from a schools that is in such bad shape it closes. Clearly, Harvard is not going to close. Cooley, Florida Coastal, NYLS, Touro, Western New England, etc. How valuable are their JDs at present??

Should law schools continue to operate just to employ the non-profs, most of whom can likely get employment elsewhere -- unlike most of the profs. In terms of other capital -- the facilities, technology, etc. -- what university could not make use of these assets since at many, the law schools is the nicest building on campus, complete with all the IT bells and whistles many other programs would love to have????? Should universities continue to waste more capital keeping failing law schools afloat and do so, most likely, at the expense of other programs?? I believe that is called, throwing good money after bad....

[PO]

anon, you make a number of good points, for which thanks. I wish I had been clearer (and yet more concise). Briefly:

1. My primary point was that reduced test-taking is good news, *if* you assume continued bad news re. employment -- law schools should not take people who can't get jobs. It seems odd to me to celebrate adaptation that itself likely reflects bad news for present students and past grads, so my celebration is muted. We could debate whether it's like seeing the dampening of any other form of production, but it's probably not fruitful.

2. Closing schools, including those that should not have been opened in the first place, isn't really good news either. As I said, current students and recent grads suffer; probably necessary but not good news. The prior comment suggested the common notion that only greedy faculty would want to keep a school open; I am sure they do, and that they play an outsized role, but there are sounder reasons not to destroy equity. These aren't like boardwalk restaurants that can be shuttered and reopened or closed without consequence beyond the staff; look at the Dickinson/Penn State folks to see how much grads who paid good money care about maintaining its value.

3. I am not sure why what I styled as good news isn't at least better news, or why you try to lure me into the fallacy of false alternatives that you just rescued me from. I agree that in a booming market, law schools will be tempted to relax and return to business as usual, and that this would be very bad. Maybe you or others think that only continuation of the crisis will change things for the better, such that only terrible news can be good news in the long term. Maybe; I don't see why expansion couldn't occur again, if everyone behaves so basely. Moreover, it really can't be the only solution: if 30-40 schools close, does anyone really believe that will force change at the top 50 or 75 schools? Change has to be persuaded, or willed, by subtler means.

[anon]

Indeed, what of the wasted capital of those who borrowed in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay inflated tuition for a law degree that affords little or no opportunity to obtain gainful employment as an attorney? What of law schools whose median LSAT is near the 15% percentile?

Does anyone believe that a person truly concerned with equity would argue that preserving the employment of the staff at such law schools could possibly justify continuing the status quo? Especially given that a misleading sales job goes on and on, including right here in the FL, it appears to many that the defenders of the status quo aren't principally concerned about staff and recent graduates.

[anon]

PO

We surely agree that HYS etc. do not need to close, and should not close. After all, the United States needs law schools and lawyers. About that, there is no dispute.

Last year about 16% of ABA accredited US law schools admitted students with a median LSAT of less than 150 and about 5% admitted students with a median LSAT of 145 or less. To put that in context, at 150 on the LSAT, one is at about the 44th percentile, as 140 on the LSAT, one is at about the 14th percentile.

Many of these schools have been plagued for many years with poor bar pass and employment rates. In response to the former issue, when attention to the issue is acute, some of these schools are said to respond by academically disqualifying the bottom rung of the class (after accepting one or two years of tuition); with regard to the latter, we all know the terrible story of efforts (some of which are ongoing) to mislead prospective students.

Closing 20 law schools would eliminate about 10% of the ABA accredited schools.

For those 5% of ABA accredited schools admitting students from the lowest quintile of the LSAT distribution (below 145), whose bar pass rates are and have been sub par, and whose employment numbers are and have been abysmal (especially those schools that can be proved to have historically engaged in the disingenuous practices mentioned above) please: make the case for continuing to allow these schools an ABA accreditation which permits them to induce and accept from young entrants inflated tuition that causes them to borrow and incur indebtedness in the 150K range.

Is hoping for a return to "good times" even a plausible notion in these circumstances?

[Jojo]

PO,

I have three modest proposals for the poor faculty, who might style themselves as laid off steelworkers.

First, perhaps they could network some more. This may pay dividends in getting a job. Networking and shoe leather are the key to employment.

Second, the focus on finding other employment in academia alone may be too narrow. Many might be able to find Academia Advantaged employment opportunities in other sectors. Not all academics joined faculties anticipating becoming tenured careerists. I think it shortsighted not to look at the Academia Advantaged jobs.

Third, perhaps pursuing an LLM or PhD would open some more doors with the additional specialization. Any debt they incurred could qualify for PAYE.

See, the glass is half full.

[anon]

JoJo

Brilliant!

AA jobs would include a corporate contracts administrator, government regulatory analyst, FBI agent, and accountant. Also included might be jobs in personnel or human resources, jobs with consulting firms, jobs doing compliance work for business and industry, jobs in law firm professional development, and jobs in law school career services offices, admissions offices, or other law school administrative offices.

[PO]

JoJo/anon: that's good stuff . . . funny and well played. You realize, I'm sure, that I had law grads cast as my laid-off steelworkers and law profs in their accustomed role as the management -- with the already suffering workers either getting the "good news" of factory closings or, perhaps, seeing the closings as troubling harbingers of further troubles in the market -- but let nothing get in the way of the material.

[Anon]

Interesting - it has not been this low since the height of the dot com boom - in other words BA's now have readily available jobs as they did then. This suggests law school is inversely related to the macroeconomy.

[anon]

Anon

Did you click the link posted by Alfred above?

Not sure what your comment means. It employs bad reading of data, ignorance or disregard of the actual facts that might bear on the embedded assumptions, poor grammar, a muddy and illogical conclusion, and the ultimate mark of a great teacher: gratuitous use of jargon to make a "big point" that has no relevance or even any coherent meaning in context.

Your classes must be great!

[anon]

PO

C'mon. You have a good argument here. Let's hear it!

For those 5% of ABA accredited schools admitting students with a median LSAT score that falls in the lowest quintile of the LSAT distribution (below 145), whose bar pass rates are and have been sub par, and whose employment numbers are and have been abysmal (especially those schools that can be proved to have historically engaged in the disingenuous practices mentioned above) please: make the case for continuing to allow these schools an ABA accreditation which permits them to induce and accept from young entrants inflated tuition that causes these entrants to borrow and incur indebtedness in the 150K range.

So far, you seem to say that: protecting the jobs of "non faculty staff" and "capital investments in buildings" and persevering the "value" of the JD degrees already obtained from these institutions and hoping for a return to "good times" are the plausible reasons to retain ABA accreditation for such law schools.

Correct?

[Camilla Highwater]

Jojo & anon

Don't forget that some law professors would probably be able to find employment as managers of major league baseball teams or CEOs of NFL teams. "Former law professor" is a versatile qualification, after all.

[Anon123]

The June numbers do not mean the numbers for the year will be down (and certainly not down by 9%), however in the past when the June numbers were down by anywhere near this percentage, the annual numbers were down too. I realize law school applications are in a new world, but it is unrealistic to expect that the there will be more applications than last year. I do think any increase from 2013 and 2014 applications will be relatively small, but at least for the time being this is the new normal.

[Spenny]

Senator Warren is a former law professor.
Justice Kagan is a former law professor and dean.
Justice scalia is a former law professor.
President obama is a former law professor.

[Jojo]

The interesting data point is that the number of first time takers is down 14 percent, That is a large decline. For the overall data to be down only 9 percent given that 14 figure, means a lot of June re-takers.

I interpret that to mean that many applicants for the fall '14 semester retook the test and are considering delaying to '15 in the hopes of a better school or better price.

[Anon123]

I agree with one of the prior posters that the "overhang" of unemployed law school grads is a problem, but unless the person has a JD advantaged job of some value to a law firm (say tax department in a big 4 accounting firm, possibly of value to a law firm to do tax work), most of those will likely get passed over for new grads in later years. The person who has been traveling or waiting tables is not that attractive.