Search the Lounge


« CFP: Law as Applied to Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed-Reality Environments | Main | Did Pepper Hamilton Really Just Say That? »

May 07, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

Most Law Schools have a parking lot. That space can be turned into a Used Car Dealership. It would serve multiple purposes. It would be a huge revenue generator replacing lost tuition money from plunging admissions. Second, it would teach young students "people" and negotiation skills, ie "how to get money." (Critical for Solo law practice). There is an academic component too: It would give students a real world entre into the law of Sales and Financing. Lastly, when these sales transactions go bad from questionable sales techniques, a Chinese Wall could be set up and your school's Clinic could represent the aggrieved buyers. Give students exposure to real court work. A WIN WIN for everybody. Move Iron, BABY....

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

Enough already. Can't you guys back off a bit on the over production of attorneys? Tell the truth....don't hide the ball. Other blogs are reporting terrible outcomes for attorneys and recent graduates. You guys keep pumping the numbers. See the Tax Prof Blog... Were interconnected here. The better I do as a Solo, the more secure your jobs are. What does that mean? Work. Its a cycle. The better "I" do as an attorney, will attract more students. Success breeds success. Nobody wants to go into a profession where its members struggle. Don't point to BLS statistics that do not include Solos and micro firms, which are 50% of the profession. Nobody graduates from your schools with zero experience and zero connections and thinks, "Gee, I want to be a Solo and get 2 bills for a DUI."


.7% is a rounding error.

One supposes it could be argued that we've reached bottom (following about a 40% decrease in applicants over the past 10 years), and leveled off at this new, strikingly lower number. (Are there 40% fewer law schools, faculty, admin staff members, etc.?)

But, again, one wants to hear from some folks who were so vociferous a few years ago.

Where are the "Best Time in History" folks? Next year is the deadline on those predictions (record numbers for employment, employers seeking but finding insufficient numbers of attorney applicants). When will these folks start in with the specious defenses, after luring so many in with these promises (yes, folks, promises)?

Where are the "law school applications follow the economy" folks? WHere are those who stood there, beating their chests, declaring anyone who disagreed to be idiotic? Let's hear from them, please. Explain what is happening, what has happened, and please don't misuse the term "secular" as that only deepens the sense that you are a rank amateur economist with no training, experience or judgment in that field.

Where are the defenders of slipping admission standards, given the growing crisis in bar passage rates? Please, come forward and tell us again that saddling the unprepared and unqualified with hundreds of thousands of dollars of non dischargable debt is done only out of the goodness of your hearts, to give the disadvantaged a chance in life to earn a MILLION DOLLARS extra because they received a law degree from an unranked law school held in contempt by the legal community!

Yes, come forward. WHere have you been?


There probably ARE 40% fewer faculty, staff, etc. if the hiring freezes and cuts at the schools I am familiar with are any indication.

But the slipping admissions standards are a real problem. The only hope is another economic downturn sending BAs back into law school like in the good ol' days of 2010-12.

As the world turns....


Great, we have a "economic downturn" theorist here, at last.

And, no mention of "secular" ... surprising.

The facts:

Number of applicants, each year, for the last ten years (starting with 2006):

88,700 84,000 83,400 86,600 87,900 78,500 67,900 59,400 55,700 54,500

In "the good ol' days of 2010-12" what exactly was happening in the economy and how did law school applicant numbers respond?



"There probably ARE 40% fewer faculty, staff, etc. if the hiring freezes and cuts at the schools I am familiar with are any indication."

Kindly name those schools.


Steven Freedman, April 10, 2014, in the Faculty Lounge

"#1 - Intro - Enroll Today!

Why 2017-2018 Will Be a Fantastic Time to Graduate from Law School

…. 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."

There will be no oversupply of lawyers next year! we KNOW this. Others wrote, around the same time, that full time, bar required jobs will go unfilled next year, because of a lack of supply of lawyers!

And, of course, let's not forget that MILLION DOLLAR premium!!! We KNOW that's true, as well.

Folks, we KNOW you have no shame.

So, please, come forward again and entertain us with your demonstrations of all those superior intellects and JD educations. Really. You are SOOOOO smart!


Yes, things may still not be ideal but there have been significant changes for the better, including more transparency in employment outcomes, greater emphasis on ensuring students get the types of jobs upon graduation that they want, more focus on legal practice, including hiring faculty with strong practice backgrounds, changes in curriculum resulting in greater focus on core doctrinal classes that more closely relate to the students' career goals, lower tuition and greater financial aid, and a fairly robust legal hiring market, at least relative to recent past. While it's important to continue to insist for further change, I think it's equally important to acknowledge that there have been significant changes over the past five years.



Does listing the issues that were so controversial five years ago (remember all the "miscreant" accusations when folks would raise these issues?), and then implausibly claiming that there have been significant changes with respect to each and every one of these issues, make it so?

You have indeed accurately summed up some of the issues to which the "scammers" addressed themselves (again, to great opprobrium). But you are sadly mistaken about this "significant change."

You have declared, on this thread, over and over again: "mission accomplished." This seems more of a tactic than a comment.


Very little has changed because very little needs to change. The substance that students need to learn remains the same - well with one exception, namely the complexity and sophistication of issues faced by clients - particularly in the business environment but in many other areas as well (like environmental) - has only increased. Schools that only cut and do not keep pace with new issues and problems on the research and teaching front will fall behind. There has been a stratification effect I think with higher ranked schools pulling ahead of others or schools willing to support robust research that translates into sophistication in the classroom moving up while those who cut and then remain more or less as they did in the early aughts are falling behind. Clear examples of this in the western US markets.


Wow, anon, way to completely change course!

Now, all the boasting about "significant changes" (along the lines that the "miscreants" called for) is abandoned, and you concede that " Very little has changed because very little needs to change."

Instead of defending your implausible "mission accomplished" canard, now you have resorted to one of the most risible defenses employed by the advocates of the status quo when the "miscreants" were engaged with them in a fuller debate.

This defense is the "knowledge generation" argument: law schools are incubators of novel, cutting edge theoretical studies that are revolutionizing the practice of law.



You're mixing up your anons, anon.


Maybe so, but the tired old tropes are the same.

Nobody is revolutionizing anything in the law school classroom, anon, unless you are able to delude yourself into thinking this is so.

Sorry. Your postulate "schools willing to support robust research that translates into sophistication in the classroom" are prevailing and thriving is risible.

Think not? Educate us.

Provide some "clear examples" of "research that has translated into sophistication in the classroom, with the host institution "moving up" as a result! What a load!

Cite the research, and then clearly describe how the researcher translated this research into "sophistication in the classroom" by providing concrete and specific examples of this classroom sophistication, and then name the institution and describe just how it has "moved up" as a result.

And then, identify the "clear examples" of law schools in the "Western markets" that are "falling behind" as a result of failure to conduct this " robust research that translates into sophistication in the classroom." Name them, please.


Just check the employment rates of schools that rise on the rankings versus those that fall.



And, that has something to do with your hyperbolic and unrealistic claims?


Yes, anyone. This mission accomplished post appeared here before and I disputed it then, as I do now. Little has changed and those changes were not done quickly or willingly at most schools. Many changes were mandated by universities, which made clear that they were not going to carry their law schools financially for long, if at all.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad