LSAC Data and Predicting Number of Applicants for fall 2015, Part 2

The LSAC is reporting that "As of 12/12/14, there are 88,926 fall 2015 applications submitted by 13,816 applicants. Applicants are down 9.1% and applications are down 10.5% from 2014. Last year at this time, we had 28% of the preliminary final applicant count." If this year's applicants follow last year's pattern, we'll have approximately 49,342 total applicants for the class entering in fall 2015.  The first post in this series is here.

Comments

[JM]

Early returns indicate another strong decline. Last week was not a fluke. We will have a much better idea in mid-January when the Dec. 2014 LSAT numbers are out.

[terry malloy]

Still too many poor souls duped into debt serfdom.

The difference between 40K in debt for a law dergee and 200K in soul crushing, never ending debt is the difference between a youthful mistake from which you can recover, and the darkened vengeful heart of madame Defarge.

Law Schools, especially the diploma mills, are still producing the latter.

[Plucknstuck]

Preliminary unofficial figures for December LSATs were down about 1.5 percent, per rumor.

[Just saying...]

Terry: How many are few still paying full price? At non-elite schools, my guess is that there are very few. I am personally familiar with one private school discounting, on average, more than 50%. A student getting a good discount from a state school would be in even better shape and could possible wind up in the 40K range.

For years, even before the current steep downturn in apps, most admitted students knew to play one school against the other for the best terms.

That does not mean that many are still not making a mistake going to law school, but the financial burden for the majority is not 200K in life-changing debt.

[terry malloy]

"the financial burden for the majority is not 200K in life-changing debt."

Still too many. Further, due to the open admission standards at terrible law schools, those paying the most are least qualified to pay back the money.

You may find moral comfort in the discount offered to qualified students. I don't. I know the horror visited on the 'just under the wire' student paying full freight.

The steep discounts are "reverse robin hood" discounts. The dumb kids pay full freight so the school can hand out discounts to defend their LSAT / GPA stats.

I only use a few child solders. Most of them are orphans.

[Just saying...]

Terry: I do not find "moral comfort in the discounts."

Personally, I would love to see a lot of law schools close, for the sake of the profession, as well as the students.

Unfortunately, from my conversations with current law students at a variety of schools, they know full well what they are getting into. I found that amazing during a recent visit to a school I think should be a candidate for closure. It is low ranked and in a highly competitive market. The students know the state of the profession, but want to be lawyers, and most were at this school because it offered them the best financial deal.

I think we are beyond the point of students being tricked or misled by law schools (and I no longer work at one, so don't accuse me of defending the source of my paycheck).

[Anon123]

1. Plunkstrunck, even a 1% decline in December LSAT takers could easily result in a year of 5% fewer annual LSAT takers, given the declines in earlier tests. Also, December 2013 had 30 test centers closed for inclement weather, and while some takers took make-up exams, some ended up deferring to February.

2. Terry - not certain if is is "reverse Robin Hood." Students at the lower end of the admit group may be well off but not smart. I realize that anecdotes do not equal data, but a friend who teaches at a non-T14 in NYC tells me he is amazed at the money some of the students have. Some own coops, never take a subway, etc. If their parents are deciding that they would rather pay law school tuition than buy a 4th home, not a reverse Robin Hood issue.

[terry malloy]

T+14 in NYC are two variables that destroy your anecdotes.

That's basically a rich person paying for a credential.

what about the other 200 schools.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[anon123]

Terry, I said NON-T14. Not certain why that destroys anecdote. That covers a range of schools (even more if you consider NYC metro area).

[John Carter]

What's scary is that I have met students who were near the top of the class in regional law schools who can't get a decent job. That is a sobering thought that should make anyone think hard before going to law school today. I have always enjoyed reading your post. Keep up the good work and happy holidays!

[John Thompson]

"If their parents are deciding that they would rather pay law school tuition than buy a 4th home, not a reverse Robin Hood issue."

Should we imagine this situation applies to more than a handful of underemployed law graduates in any of the last seven years? And even if it were true, why should we feel good about law schools bilking students because some of them have parents who can afford to shield them from their mistakes?

[terry malloy]

sorry I read too quickly.

Here is my story to balance your sugarcoat:

I went to a non-T-14 in NYC. I paid full freight, putting myself 140K in debt.

I've never practiced a day. I won't own a home. I won't have children (responsibly; I mean, humans had children in the ice age), as my partner has significant debt from another scam graduate program.

When the gravity of my millstone became apparent, I developed a panic disorder, and have been on anti-depressents ever since.

I'll never forgive those that profit from the misery of the unwise.

I believe my story is far more typical. If I had the time, I'd prove it out with the debt data.

Someone is taking out that debt. The rich kids pay cash and the smart kids get scholarships.

Who does that leave to take out the debt?

[B]

Terry,

My heart goes out to you, and I'd hate to think that your decision to go to law school was caused by falsely reported law school employment scores. Thankfully, folks like you have made a positive difference to law school transparency. It appears that vast majority of schools are posting honest numbers, finally.

I write only to note that law schools, like all industries, are a moving target. There was a time when far too many people were going to law school--this peaked in 2008--and doing so was, for a substantial number of people, a tragically unwise decision. Today, however, there are about half the number of people going to law school. Moreover, tuition has gone down overall. The number of jd-required jobs has not gone up since 2008, but the odds of getting one are about twice as good as they were in 2008 for graduating law students. It is time to acknowledge these numbers. Law schools were peddling lies when they told people that everyone should go to law school in 2008, but we ought to be careful not to make the same mistake in 2015 by assuming that it's bad for everyone to go (even if we limit it to the non-elite).

[anon]

B

You are advocating for telling the truth.

Is it valid reasoning to contend that because "there are about half the number of people going to law school" therefore " the odds of getting [a jd required job] are about twice as good as they were in 2008 for graduating law students"? Do you believe that is even remotely accurate?

Isn't that EXACTLY the kind of peddling and sales talk based on false premises and promises that your comment decries? Burying a come on in a paragraph of seeming concessions about past misrepresentations seems a bit, well, what would be the word?

[MacK]

B,

I think you are overstating the decline in law school attendance. Peak enrolment was 52,488 in the fall of 2010 - 2014 is 36,954 so this year is 70% - a considerable difference from half or about 33,000 (say down 10.5% on 2014) or 63%

36,954 enrolees will yield about 32,889 graduates in 2017 assuming typical rates of attrition (11%) – of those a slightly smaller number will take the bar exam – with typically 70-80% passing a bar somewhere, so that is circa 26,000 to 23,000 new lawyers. In theory that will come close to matching the BLS projections for new legal jobs of around 22,000 - so it may be fair to say that 2017 graduates will have a much better time than when there were 45,000 or more chasing the same number of jobs.

Of course the attrition rate may be a lot higher, given that law schools are diving way down into the applicant pool - perhaps a higher proportion will not complete their JD and a lot fewer will pass the bar (and those with 1L scholarships may quit at higher rates if they lose the scholarship in their second year, find they have poor grades, or find out more about how tough it is to make it in the profession.)

Will this solve the problems the huge number of unemployed graduates and underemployed graduates have? It is an interesting question. Historically, someone who has not secured a permanent legal job by 1-2 years (excluding clerks) after graduation was unlikely to get such a job faced with competition from new graduates. However, it is fair to say that from the 70s until 2010 many law schools were becoming steadily more competitive to enter, so their graduates were more attractive. However, the legal profession has looked on with increasing shock at how low law schools will go into the barrel to find new loan/tuition-conduits. I am not sure what the effect will be on hiring in 2016 and onwards, as a generation of students graduate that are widely perceived to be, well, not bright. Hiring lawyers may be much more inclined to look at graduates from 2004-13 before looking at the classes of 2014 onwards.

[JillyfromPhilly]

B,

In 2008, 49,100 1Ls enrolled in law schools according to LSAC. The ABA recently reported that 1st year enrollment in 2014 is 37,924.

Can you explain the methodology behind your theory that a graduating law student is twice as likely to obtain a jd-required job today versus 2008? I am also interested in any information you have on the number of jd-required jobs that pay well enough to service the amount of debt that current law students carry at graduation. Thanks!

[terry malloy]

"I'd hate to think that your decision to go to law school was caused by falsely reported law school employment scores."

Tobacco Executive:

"We're certainly sorry to hear about your medical problem. However, without knowing more of your medical history, we can't comment further."

The scam isn't over; the law schools are just scamming fewer, dumber kids.

[anon]

How about something like this for a legitimate pitch (presuming the first paragraph could be truthfully stated):

"We are striving to provide a quality legal education. Our goal is to strengthen and improve the system of law that affects our society, as that system affects and influences the lives of the persons that it exists to serve.

Not everyone is suited for a legal education. We seek those who have excelled in their educational opportunities and those who have demonstrated, through life experiences and motivation, a determination to succeed and an aptitude for the life of the law.

Should you be admitted, there is no guarantee that we will prepare you for any particular type of employment. The opportunities for new attorneys have been for the past few years particularly challenging and no one can predict what will happen in the near or short term. Moreover, law school can be very expensive, and you may be giving up years of productive work to attend.

Therefore, we advise you to think carefully before you decide to attend law school. Consider your alternatives and, if you decide to apply, be advised that we will only consider applicants whose qualifications are indicative of success in law school."

Some might want to add: "If 80% of those who took the LSAT did better than you did, and if you went to an uncompetitive undergraduate school but barely managed to maintain a C+ GPA, you will not be admitted to this law school absent exceptional circumstances."

Believe it or not, students might get interested again in attending law school if it actually meant something to do so. As of late, law faculties are simply cheapening the law school education to the point of being available to anyone, but perceived as so worthless that no one wants it at any price.

[MacK]

On my earlier post, there was an editing problem (trackpads):

I think you are overstating the decline in law school attendance. Peak enrolment was 52,488 in the fall of 2010 - 2014 is 36,954 i.e., 70% of peak a considerable difference from half 2015 looks to be about 33,000 (say down 10.5% on 2014) or 63%, closer to down ⅓ rather than half.

Further to the point I was making earlier - not all law students qualify as lawyers. The drop-out rate is around 11% - final bar passage rates (after resetting) would seem to be between 70-80% (it is pretty hard to work this out from ABA data), so about 71/72% of enrolees a given year emerge as lawyers - possibly more.

That said, the market seems to be capable of absorbing 18,000 to 22,000 new lawyers per year - and that number is under pressure for multiple reasons. First, at the high end, corporate clients are very very unwilling to pay fees for junior lawyers (I have had clients say no 1st and 2nd years), which means that increasingly a junior lawyers salary is a straight expense for a law firm - one they don't know that they can recover. (Then there are the technology trends in document review, etc., which is reducing the work that junior lawyers traditionally did.) Second, in the mid-market and main street lawyering end the reality is that the middle class cannot afford much in the way of legal services - legal academics perhaps need to ask themselves, on their salaries how much of a lawyer's time billing at say $150-200 per hour could they afford? Third, government budgets continue to be squeezed (federal and state), so that there is very little new hiring, while existing government lawyers are, for the most part, clinging to their jobs hard, seeing few private sector opportunities. In house jobs are similarly the subject of tough budgeting. None of these trends are likely to reverse, even in a stronger economy.

Those who argue supply and demand in this simply misunderstand how it works. Demand is not a constant, if can fall if costs rise and it can be influenced by substitution - except for air to breath, demand is not a constant - in most instances potential clients will choose to go without legal services or look for a substitute if it will save them money. It only takes a small excess in supply market prices to plunge - witness oil prices right now - global liquid fuels supply to average 92.8 million bbl/d in 2015 - global demand to average of 92.3 million bbl/d - in that ½% or 0.5 million bbl/d excess out of 92.8 million is the mismatch that has caused oil prices to plunge from around $120-130 a barrel to around $60. Law schools have been producing DOUBLE the number of law graduates than there is demand for - think about it.

[Barry]

Just sayin': "Terry: How many are few still paying full price? At non-elite schools, my guess is that there are very few. I am personally familiar with one private school discounting, on average, more than 50%. A student getting a good discount from a state school would be in even better shape and could possible wind up in the 40K range."

$40K (tuition + CoL) * 3 years + interest is still pushing $140 by the time that one has a chance at starting to pay it back.

As has been repeatedly mentioned in many places, the higher end estimate for the maximum safe level of educational debt vs. starting salary is 150%. Therefore this grad would have to start at $90K, which nobody from such a school does (for all practical purposes).