second

First duck hunter.

the smoking analogy is gold. well-done.

But this change will require the ABA to do something. Fat chance of that happening!

My 3 point plan:

1. Reduce the number of law schools to 50 to get rid of the hundreds of other craptastic law schools.
2. Reduce law school from 3 yrs to 2 yrs b/c no one gives a shit about Yr 3 anyways.
3. Reduce the goddamn tuition!

I vote for a student loan bailout. After that, I really don't care what happens...

I am pleased to announce the opening of the Affirmative Walrus School of Law.

Elie will teach our Edited Writing course.

Lat will teach Con Law, with a twist. He will spend two semesters on Lawrence v. Texas.

Kash will teach My Adventures with ShaFeef.

Other professorships are still available. Submit your qualifications in the comments below.

BIGLAW SCHOOL SECURE

This is partially credited.

Because the high paying jobs have only ever gone to a relatively small percentage of law school graduates.

Meanwhile, there are thousands of law students paying 30k+ a year to attend schools like New York Law School or Richmond or Villanova... Their willingness to take on massive debt cannot be explained by the BIGLAW subsidy theory, b/c they never had a shot at those jobs to begin with.

The problem starts back in undergrad with degrees in such useful subjects as sociology and political science.

If you don't go the PhD route then law school is usually the viable option for all of these people.

This short-sighted thinking is further perpetuated by all the government loans that are available.

Law schools aren't going to change until the loans dry up and people stop majoring in American Culture.

3

Quack.

1

5 -

4. Let's not forget actually teaching students to take the bar exam.

5. Firing needless employees like Career Services.

and 6. Eliminating textbooks and using cases.

10

Boom. Boom. Now off to play Mario.

3

Law students and lawyers: If you know someone planning to enroll in a law school ranked below T20 - kick them! kick them hard! kick them in the head if you must. You are doing them a world of service. One kick would do the world more good than countless hours of pro bono.

Mystal is the "BigBlog" Model.

Elie FTW:

"At this point, going to law school is like starting to smoke. It’s expensive, it’s probably going to kill you, and it’s a stupid life decision. But some people just don’t care."

You know, there are actually people out there who want to go to law school to become lawyers, and not just biglaw lawyers. I went to college to get my degree in accounting, and as part of the program, was required to take a year of business law. At that point I decided I would finish my accounting degree, work to get my CPA, then go back to law school. That is what I did, and although I still have debt, because I went to a lower tier school, it is not nearly as much as the students now. I like what I do, I like the practice of law, and I am glad I did not go to a top tier school. I ended up in biglaw for a few years, was laid off when they closed my department in my secondary market office, and opened my own small firm. I am doing fine, and am happy with my decisions. Why should the top tier schools be the only ones to survive? Perhaps all prospective law students should be required to take at least 1 year off after college to experience the real world first, rather than go straight to law school as an extension of college?

did you say law school would be "less fun"?

I don't get it.

One law school looking out for its grads. As an American University grad (where they hit us up for money at graduation), it took me about five years to make this kind of money during the 9/11 recession.

Job Title: Attorney Fellow
Company Name: The George Washington University
Location: Washington, DC
Profession: Attorney

Job Description:
I. POSITION INFORMATION
Internal Applicants Only? Yes (University Wide)
Position Type: Administrative/Professional
Posting Number: 0601494
Working Title: Attorney Fellow
Full-Time/Part-Time: Full-Time
Work Schedule: 8:30 am. to 5:30 pm.
Total Hours Per Week: 40
Pay Grade: 0
Recruitment Salary/Range: $63,000.00
If temporary, grant funded or limited term appointment, position funded until: 08-27-2012
Required Licenses/Certifications and other Specific Requirements: This position requires a background, credit, educational and criminal verification check.
This position requires a licensure, certification, or special requirements.
Other
If other was selected above, or there are special requirements, please explain. 2010 GW Law School Graduate
Job Open Date: 10-29-2009
Job Closing Date: Open Until Filled
Applicant Review Will Commence On: 10-29-2009
II. DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
Campus Location: Foggy Bottom
Division: Senior Vice President and General Counsel (GC)
College/School: Not Applicable
Department: GC Office of the Senior VP and General Counsel
III. JOB VACANCY ANOUNCEMENT INFORMATION
Job Summary:
Minimum Qualifications: Juris Doctorate degree.
Desired Qualifications: Position is open for a 2010 graduate of The George Washington University Law School. The successful candidate must graduate no later than May 2010. This position is for two years, beginning September 2010, subject to its at-will employment status.

The position requires class work, relevant experience or demonstrated potential in the following areas, with a willingness to work in any of them: general litigation, employment and labor law, commercial and real estate matters, drafting and reviewing a broad range of legal agreements, and health law. Excellent research and writing ability is also required. Top third of class and journal membership is preferred. Bar membership is not required at start of fellowship, but the successful candidate must be bar-eligible; membership is expected during first year of fellowship.

Individuals in this position take direction from and are supervised by the Senior Vice President and General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel, and other attorneys in the Office of the Senior Vice President and General Counsel, as appropriate. Duties include assisting in the provision of legal services to the University community, as required. This may include assisting attorneys in representing the University in litigation matters and on non-litigation issues relating to students, faculty and staff; in legal research; and in drafting and reviewing University agreements/contracts, including contracts for the procurement of goods and services, leases, research and employment agreements.

Interested candidates should submit a cover letter, resume, list of three references including contact information, official transcript, and short writing sample as soon as possible. All materials should be attached to your online GW application at www.gwu.jobs.

Review of applications will commence October 25, 2009 and will continue until a suitable candidate is selected.

Note that the preferred term of this fellowship is two years, unless the selected candidate wishes to stay only one year. Salary will be roughly similar to that of a federal judicial clerkship.
Working Conditions: The incumbent generally performs job duties in a normal business office environment. This involves working while sitting at a desk for extended periods of time. The job also includes significant event planning and execution, which requires a significant level of physical activity, including standing, walking, and occasionally lifting office supply items that may weigh up to 20 pounds. Additionally, the incumbent may be required to attend meetings in other offices, or deliver and/or retrieve information from other offices around campus.

The ability to operate basic office equipment such as personal computers, duplicating machines, fax machines and standard office telephones may also be required.
Special Instructions to Applicants: Include writing sample and 3 professional/academic references
Job Duties
4 Records
Function:
Assists in representing the University in litigation matters
Provides legal research, and assistance on non-litigation issues relating to students, faculty and staff.
Drafts and reviews University agreements/contracts, including contracts for the provision of procurement of goods and services, leases, research and employment agreements under the supervision of more senior attorneys.
Performs other related duties as assigned. The omission of specific duties does not preclude the supervisor from assigning duties that are logically related to the position.

8: I know people from Villanova and NYLS in biglaw. Newer associates too, classes of '07 and '08. Billing lots of hours, even. Yes, its a lower percentage of them that get a shot, but they exist. Many went to T3/T4 because they got a scholarship. For them, the bet definitely paid off.

Hell, I went to Catholic and I have a job right now. Not the deferred or laid off kind, either. I paid full sticker price because I made the immature mistake of not actually preparing for the LSAT and it was the best school that I got into. Yet I pay my loans and mortgage (on a house that isn't under water).

It's hard to make blanket statements. Everyone needs to evaluate law school within their own financial and academic means, and do so realistically. To me, this is where the disconnect arises, especially with liberal arts majors, and presumably people whose parents were okay with paying for their college education AS liberal arts majors. They don't have financial responsibiliy and were never taught any. If you don't believe me, refer back to the "my stipend is too small" thread.

11, "Firing needless employees like Career Services."

I busted out laughing, but that is true to an extent. The schools should just contract with some resume review service, just like they do with Westlaw or Lexis. I do think they should keep the people who build relationships with employers and alumni, but everyone else is extra verbiage.

"At this point, going to law school is like starting to smoke. It’s expensive, it’s probably going to kill you, and it’s a stupid life decision. But some people just don’t care. "

Elie, I usually give you crap for your errors, omissions, etc. But fair is fair, this is a great analogy.

Well played, Trebek.

Elie, the only reason for the enormous flood of law school students is the easy credit. Turn off the money supply and you eliminate the law schools' ability to charge what they charge. They have an effective monopoly and there is no market force forcing them to keep prices low. This is effectively an education bubble that eventually will come crashing down. This is true for all forms of higher education. These schools have become effective money making machines at the expense of the public.

Here's an idea -- Why not make the LSAT more like the MCAT? If you require more specific legal knowledge from test-takers (just as the MCAT requires extensive knowledge of chemistry, biology, etc), perhaps you'll limit the amount of kids applying to law school. Let's face it, a lot of kids enter college thinking they wanna be doctors, but drop out because the undergrad course work is too difficult, and the process is too involved. Taking the LSAT and getting into law school, on the other hand, is a much easier process (you can pick any major, and the LSAT requires on general logic and reasoning skills). Why not require kids to take specific undergrad course work in order to prepare for the LSAT? Why not encourage undergrad professors to weed out the weak and unintelligent in "pre-law" courses much like they do in pre-med courses? If you limit the number of kids that are prepared to take the LSAT, you limit the number of kids that can apply to law school and later become lawyers.

5 - something about the laws of supply and demand would seem to suggest that having fewer law schools would not lead to lower tuition, unless we get rid of the whole free market thing.

8 - the people at lower tier schools may not have expected 160K jobs, but probably expected 60K+ jobs. Those are now going to be taken by people at higher ranked schools.

Can you go to law school if you have an asslobster?

25 --

yes. it's encouraged, actually.

The higher ranked schools may turn out great theoretical lawyers, but then they get stuck in biglaw doing document review for years unless they are complete tools who don't give a crap about other people whether they are lawyers or clients. The lower ranked schools often turn out better practitioners because the students are taught more how to practice law. And the lower ranked schools often cater to people who want to stay in the area in which the schools are located. The nationally ranked schools turn out the people who want to go to the big cities, but plenty of people want to stay in Kansas, or South Carolina or Minnesota, etc. I realize this site caters to biglaw and the top schools, but there are other reasons than money to go to law school. Perhaps they should cut the toptier school enrollments down because in this economy, most won't get the jobs to support their loan payments. Let the little schools live so that small towns will also have lawyers.

I see a new crusade coming (but I have to admit, it's less annoying than they gay marriage one) Stop people from going to law schools, unless they can get into HLS or Yale.
Well, I wonder what would happen if someone made that point when Mr. Mystal was thinking about going to law school??Judging by his understanding of law (the infamous "good samaritan" claim for example), he would not make the cut of the "truly deserving."

Well, in all fairness it is a simile, but hey, who's counting?

Nice of you to rip this off from the WSJ LB.

22 is correct. When did higher education tuition start spiraling out of control? When our benevolent government decided to make higher education more affordable and available for everyone via massive credit expansion. Note that this is strikingly similar to the history of medical costs spiraling out of control.

Congrats on taking a mere two days to pick this up after it was linked to in a comment to another post. Your turducken is on its way.

I see a new crusade coming (but I have to admit, it's less annoying than they gay marriage one) Stop people from going to law schools, unless they can get into HLS or Yale.
Well, I wonder what would happen if someone made that point when Mr. Mystal was thinking about going to law school??Judging by his understanding of law (the infamous "good samaritan" claim for example), he would not make the cut of the "truly deserving."
Apparently, the world needs more lawyers because some of the current ones have no clue about law, even though they are HLS breed.

How about a mandatory disclosure that must comply with rules and regulations letting the prospective studnets know just how high risk of an invest law school is and how unlikely it is they will be successful in getting a ROI. Right now you just get this sugar coated BS from law schools that makes it look like all their grads make 100k plus starting upon graduation.

"Law schools won’t change unless they have to. And they won’t “have to” unless “fewer people will go to law school.” For reasons passing understanding, that is not happening. The opposite is happening. More people are going to law school."

Fewer people will go to law school once you get rid of the spigot of $120,000 of federally subsidized loans to every TTT liberal arts major who decides to go to law school because he/she has no job prospects after college graduation.
But no, let's make education more "affordable" by subsidizing even more people into the schools and driving up law school tuition even higher. Change we can believe in.

"At this point, going to law school is like starting to smoke. It's expensive, it's probably going to kill you, and it's a stupid life decision. But some people just don't care."

Are you serious? I can not believe that a legal blog would seriously tell its readers that wanting to become a lawyer is "a stupid life decision." Not everyone who goes to law school wants or expects the BigLaw life.

when did pop culture deem it "cool" to be a lawyer?

People will not stop going to lawschool until colleges and universities actually publish accurate information about what the practice of law involves and how much debt an average student actually incurs, and how much money you can realistically be expected to make. With the downturn in the economy, law school and graduate program applications are through the roof. There is no where else to go. However, both markets are horribly saturated. Trying to find a job in academia is more difficult than trying to find a job at a law firm after being laid off.

Because of the number of years it takes to complete a degree, graduate institutions will not begin to experiencing softening demand until large numbers of graduates cannot find employment and word trickles back down to the undergraduate institutions.

36, nevertheless, it's pretty much financial suicide for anyone who's financing their JD these days (especially for those who don't want BigLaw).

Well, if nothing else, perhaps this economy will take some of the arrogance out of the top tier law school graduates. I am still laughing at those who have been "deferred" who are complaining about receiving a stipend that they consider too low. Perhaps those entitled idiots should talk to the people in real jobs who have been laid off with no severance or stipend, and only their savings and unemployment to rely upon.

16: True, people actually want to go to law school to become lawyers, but many undergrads, including myself, have/had no clue what "being a lawyer" actually entails.

27: Stop making gross generalizations about top tier law students. That's your inferiority complex talking. I'm sure you're a good lawyer, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the top tier lawyers I work with are excellent. Yes, some have their heads in the clouds, but most of those people (and there aren't that many) wash out very quickly.
You can make a point about local law schools needing to serve smaller communities without having to resort to stupid generalizations.

Elie -

I'm not at all surprised by this rant. ATL, being based in New York and run by people who can't see past the Vault 100, can't help but think that law is a doomed profession. It's not now, and it never will be.

Equating going to law school with starting to smoke is disingenuous and ignorant. There's obviously too many law schools and too many law students, but people who want to practice law should still go to law school. The ones who go for the money will sift out to other professions and end up selling life insurance or used cars. But it's still perfectly reasonable to attend law school if you want to be an ADA, do criminal defense, or work in small-law. It may come as a surprise to HLS grads, but a lot of lawyers are very content writing wills.

There's a whole layer of the legal profession that's consistently slighted by ATL's coverage and dismissive attitude. It's ludicrous to assume that every starry eyed law school applicant has a short-sighted craving for big paychecks that can be equated to a strung-out nicotine addict.

36,

While not everyone goes to big law they still have to pay the same tuition by and large.

The worst thing about law school is that even the crappy ones are expensive.

More people going to law school isn't too big a mystery. The economy is bad and people are losing jobs so they figure, "Hey, it's a great time to go back to grad school." Then they look and realize med school takes too long, and lawyers are all rich and it only takes 3 years to be one, so they sign up thinking they will become wealthy and successful because of it. I don't think the average non-lawyer has any clue what the legal field's hiring practices and demands are, nor do they realize what the average starting salary is for most lawyers.

How about instead of limiting the number of law schools (although maybe Cali should get rid on those non-ABA approved ones), we limit the number of seats nationwide at law schools? In England there are only a limited number of seats for Barristers each year based upon demand, and they have done a pretty good job of preventing a glut of Barristers and ensuring there is work for everyone.

As a number of comments have pointed out, Mr. Gerding's theory is a load of crap. If big law was truly subsidizing the legal education industry then most US law schools simply would not exist.

It's not that people from non T20 law schools don't have a shot at big law, it's that so few of them get those jobs that the big law salary can't actually be supporting loan repayment for anything more than 5%-10% of their graduates.

Law school needs to cost less, plain and simple, but nothing is going to change until people become unwilling to pay sky high tuition to attend a shitty law school.

Its not incomprehensible at all.

(1) I'm all for easy credit for school as a way of increasing educational mobility. But it does allow prices to rise faster than they otherwise would.

(2) BigLaw is doing better than so many other fields its not funny. $145,000 salaries and people getting $50,000 to wait a year before taking a job, for Chrissakes. Total cuts are probably on the order of 5% of associates.

(3) Recent college graduates are the hardest hit by the recession. Without a WPA or other jobs program, going to grad school is one of their few options. And which grad school lets you in no matter what your major is?

36:

As an undergrad with a major in government and a minors in philosophy and history, I had no realistic career alternatives other than going to law school or getting a PHd. Being the first college graduate in my family and not knowing any privileged folk, I had very little information about what the practice of law was actually like. I had a few professors try to steer me the way of the PHd route, but I was convinced I would be making $150,000 out of law school and be able to pay off my loans faster. Plus 3 vs 8 years of additional schooling seemed the better deal.

I graduated top of my class, got 2 clerkships, and am at my 2nd firm now. I LOVED law school. Law school was what I thought college would be like. It was the first time I was intellectually challenged in my life. I LOVED clerking. Clerking is what I thought practicing law was all about. Spending hours reading cases, treatises, combing through Blackstone's commentaries, and writing beautiful legal analyses.

I HATE practicing law. With every fiber of my being. Each day coming to work is worse than the last. All I do all day is argue over pointless things, get stressed that I am commiting malpratice, deal with complete A-holes and liars, and worry about how badly my employer is trying to eff me over.

It is very clear to me now that I should have pursued a PHd instead of going to law school. However, with 90K in student debt, I am stuck in this hell-hole of a so-called "profession."

I quit smoking when I started law school. I started again when I started "practicing" law.

I hope prospective law students read this blog and realize what they are getting into before they throw their lives and sanity away .

Why do black people always wear big poofy coats?

Best Post on ATL ever.

Best Post on ATL ever.

Best Post on ATL ever.

45 - Barristers in England are very different from lawyers in the US. Barristers argue in court. Solicitors are much more analogous to US lawyers as it is solicitors who actually provide legal counsel, draft documents, develop a case that is then argued by a barrister, etc.

If the UK has limits on the number seats for solicitors, that would be interesting.

47, easy credit for housing was also thought to be a way to increase socioeconomic mobility. How did that turn out?

Smart and capable people will still get scholarships to law schools if there were no subsidized student loans. Or, shocker, people can save money first to afford the tuition (which would be much lower in a world without educational subsidies).

48:

Poignant and sad. Any chance you could be happy at a different firm, in a different market, or in a different practice area? I'm headed down the same path you took (LOVE law school, can't wait to clerk, BigLaw offer after) and I have the same outlook you had at this point. There must be a way to be a happy lawyer when you're as good at research and writing as you seem to be. At least I hope...

I think that in addition to making the LSAT harder, law schools need to require higher GPAs. Grades that would put someone at a lesser medical school will get you into a top 10 law school. Not every 3.0 student from a secondary state school deserves a JD and a $100k starting salary. That would dry up supply quite quickly.

Also, when you tell law school applicants to go to the best school they can get into (and afford) and how unglamorous the law is, and how few people get the pretigious and lucrative jobs, and how the big salary isn't worth it if you never see your spouse, they always glaze over. And you tell them about diminishing job security. They think you're just being a snob. Well, guess what. The chickens are coming home to roost. If you weren't going to listen when your friends and mentors were trying to say gently that you weren't lucky or bright enough to get one of those jobs with one of those salaries that you so desperately wanted, you (or mom and dad) have paid the price.

"Forrester Research, an independent technology and market research company, has projected the offshoring of 29,000 legal jobs by the end of the year and as many as 79,000 by 2015." OK, armed w/ this projection, when are you folks going to stop blaming law schools and start blaming the ABA who has sanctioned outsourcing?

This post applies primarily to schools like UNM law school where there is a very limited market for biglaw associates.

"Social shame doesn’t work on me, but it is maybe the last tool in the shed."

Haha you're on a roll today.

48, your post is exactly my point, not everyone wants BigLaw. Your decision to go to law school was not at all a stupid decision; however, your decision to go to a BigLaw firm may have been.

My two cents: Biglaw is turning away recent graduates in greater numbers because the quality of graduating students is rapidly declining. Too many graduates are socially inept. Too many graduates lack any common sense - like not bombarding partners with questions that, if you had thought about it, you could have answered yourself. Too many graduates are brilliant "thinkers," but can't deliver under pressure.

So what happens is this: law schools prop up a certain kind of student as a top student so biglaw firms will employ that student. But that student is the guy that obsessively studied for 4 months and learned every last nuance of the casebook and successfully regurgitated that information on the final. Does it show drive? Sure. Does it show intelligence? Sure. Does it show an ability to organize your knowledge in writing? Sure. Does that have anything to do with the actual, fast-paced practice of law? Not really.

Close all of the law schools except for the top 5: Yale, Harvard, Stanford, NYU, and Chicago.

if we lessen the number of law school, what are we going to do with all the unemployed lawyers that work there? (career services, professors)

Agree - tuition bubble is symptom of easy money government subsidies. Remove those and tuition will become affordable, salaries will adjust downward, and we'll have lower billable rates for clients. Win-Win-Win.

Goodbye, UC Davis.

48 to 55: I summered at a big law firm and didn't get an offer because I didn't like wine and cheese parties and wasn't "sophisticated."

I worked at a small law firm. The cases were sh!tty, everyone did everything half-assed, and you rarely got paid.

I now work for a medium size firm and am stuck in litigation. Trying to do appellate law (which is what I always wanted to do) is a non-starter. Partners won't give up the billables on a brief, and even if they do, you cannot survive long term eating the scraps partners throw you. Few clients would hire someone at a firm my size just to do an appeal. And, in light of recent events, it seems fairly certain that this career path is a dead end even for the most successful.

So no, there is no hope ...sorry.

Enjoy your clerkship. It will be the best job you will ever have.

41 - perhaps people that choose to go to law school should really try to find out what being a lawyer is all about, rather than just going to law school and figuring it out later. It would seem to make sense that you should want to know what the career you have chosen is all about before you get into it rather than after.

42 - generalities aside, most of the people that I know, especially those in the first years of practice, who went to a top tier law school know less about the actual practice of law than the average paralegal. They have little idea how to actually put a brief or a contract together, because they spent much of their law school education on the theories behind law rather than useful practical application. True, they may make excellent judges or legislators, but the reality of the matter is that they tend to make pretty poor lawyers. There are many biglaw partners from top tier schools who got where they are because they play politics well and/or because they are good at stepping on people, not because they are good at what they do as lawyers. And of course, there are always the contacts made in the top tier schools, which helps to further a career in biglaw. With the biglaw model faltering, however, what will all the new grads of the top tier schools do with their careers? The best will go to Skadden, etc. The ones who really want to be lawyers will probably find some law job eventually, whether in biglaw or not. The ones who went to law school because they expected huge salaries but did not really know what being a lawyer was about and don't really want to be other than biglaw lawyers will either never practice law, or find some other way to use their degree. And then there are some who will just run home to their parents, or perhaps go back to school for another degree with no intention of paying off their loans. I agree with some of the comments above, limit the number of law students in the top tier schools and perhaps even limit the number of people who can get their licenses by raising the required pass rate for the various state bars based on need for lawyers in that particular state. The biggest problem is that there are too many existing lawyers, and too many lawyers coming out of school, and the market just does not need that many lawyers.

nobody tells you this stuff before law school - laypeople think becoming a lawyer is synonymous with big bucks...that's why the lay people go...

If "parents who are not lawyers have no idea what they are talking about" then I guess Elie, since he is not a lawyer, also has no idea what he is talking about?

If we assume for purposes of argument that the old days of Big Law are over, then the model for schools will have to change.

I'm at a T-10 that typically put 60-75% into BigLaw, and if that number is going to be down to 1/3, there's no way people are going to take out 200k in loans. If I knew this would have happened, I would have taken either of my two free rides to T-25 schools since I'd have the same job prospects only without the debt. That is what people like me will start doing, I think.

The juice is simply no longer worth the squeeze at this point...

48, No realistic career alternatives with a government major? Really? You could work for municipalities, state government, the federal government, Congress, consulting firms, lobbyists . . . to name a few. A government major does not mean that your only viable career alternative is law (or a PhD). Admit it, you went to law school because you wanted to make the big bucks and you thought it sounded good, just like so many of us.

-67, you're crazy.

There is no need to restrict the supply of lawyers. That is price manipulation. Let the forces of supply and demand set wages.

The problem here is just the easy government money inflating tuition. Take that away, and lawyers can earn less and still live good lives.

I will start believing what I read on this website when the posts about trips to the art museum and amateur fiction go away.

54,

Yeah, because saving the $75,000 if law school tuition was halved would be completely feasible for the non-rich. You shouldn't be a lawyer until you're 40, right?

Also, the programs that provided easier credit to the poor weren't the problem. It wasn't CRA or FHA loans that caused the crisis. It was banks lending to commercial developers or people with awful credit on their own terms, feeling safe they could turn those loans into AAA bonds through securitization. Shoddy underwriting, shoddy rating, and a willingness to buy products you didn't understand.

Sure, increased access to credit would increase housing prices, but in that respect its dwarfed by the regressive mortgage interest writeoff.

Elie, even though I hate that you are a racist authoritarian (a.k.a. progressive) I must admit that your writing is getting quite good. Your conclusion however needs a bit of refining.

The fact of the matter is that human nature is relatively immutable and "progressive" efforts to change behavior don't work. Let nature take its course and the law schools and their million dollar professors who want to teach everything but how to be a lawyer will inevitably reap what they have sown.

71: Government jobs will be going away en-masse soon. State budgets must be set in July, and the stimulus money ends in December. That is going to mean furloughs and layoffs. Bigtime.

48 to 71:

Partially true. I was involved in politics heavily in college. I got out after spending a summer in D.C. I can't decide which career is more morally bankrupt; law or politics.

Money did play a factor in my decision to go to law school, but wasn't THE factor.However, my main reason for chosing law school was that I loved my con law classes in college. I loved learning about the law and trying to distill it into understandable principles.
I loved researching, writing, had a strong work ethic, and I though the legal profession rewarded those characteristics.

I am probably one of those socially-inept people referred to in previous posts that spent most of my time in law school in the library. I actually used to pull out random law reviews fromt the 1920s just to read the articles for fun. In law school, the law seemed logical, organized, comprehensive, and rational. I thought that by mastering legal formalism and working harder than everyone else, I could be successful. I was wrong.

You forgot to blame it on articles like this:

Why Law School Is for Everyone
--Posted April 22, 2009(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-law-schools/2009/04/22/why-law-school-is-for-everyone.html

74: I guess you never read any Minsky. Time for you to hit the library, you ignorant bastard.

74, if the non-rich people can't afford law school when tuition is set at $75,000, then law schools will have to lower tuition even further to fill their classes.
The 200 or so law schools in this country cannot be all filled by the "rich", even if we define that as people who can save a five digit sum, especially if salaries deflate as well. See how supply and demand works, when demand is not artificially pumped up by easy money?
Why were law schools much cheaper in the 1960s and before? Because it's hard to charge more when people couldn't borrow $50,000 a year.

66:

Look, we all know your type. You had some sort of disillusioned view of how the law should be, you went to law school to help people and be intellectually challenged every day at work. Just because the actual job entails kissing some ass, pretending to like the opera, and sloughing through rooms full of paper doesn't mean it's a bad job or one that you couldn't be proud doing. People who complain about how horrible legal work is have clearly never held another job.

72 - Since I graduated from law school before the easy government money was available, I don't know what the law school loan situation has been in the past few years. But what I do know is that even many years ago when I graduated, many of my classmates were just taking another 3 years to relive college rather than go into the world. If those people had thought that only a limited number of them would actually become lawyers because of the limitation on licenses, then many of them would have found some other way to spend those 3 years and only those who really wanted to be lawyers would have gone to law school. Why did you go to law school?

A couple of points:

1) tuition has massively increased over the past few years. Even though only a handful of fresh grads end up at v250 firms (about the top 50% of the top 25 law schools), there were plenty of other jobs that offered a good income-to-debt ratio 4-7 years ago.

An illustrative example, UCLA law's tution in 2002 was $12,248.50. In 2008 it's $35,028. Roughly a 300% increase in six years.

Prospective students haven't really cought on to how degraded law school has become as an investment, partly because the biglaw boom fo 2005-2007 obscured it.

2) If you want law schools to lower tuition, stop giving every idiot with a federally fiananced Ethnomusicology BA and a 146 LSAT score more federal money for grad school. Pull the plug on federal loans, and allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.

Do those two things, and lenders will give money only to students who show promise of being able to repay. This does not include people who want to take on $100k+ debt so they can get a tier-3 JD.

80 nailed it!

76: That may be true at the state and local level, but it is not true at the federal level. Besides, my comment was applied to the government major who made the decision to attend law school BEFORE the Great Recession. My point was that saying your college degree in government leaves few career options save law school is a little bit ridiculous.

We all know that law is an elitist profession. Before the 1950s, a law degree used to be just another bachelors degree. Look at the degree on some of the older partners' walls, it will say "Bachelor of Law". Sometime in the 1950s, lawyers decided that was not prestigious enough and it was changed to a Juris Doctorate, doctor of law. Yet when a lawyer goes back for another year to get his or her LLM, then that is when you get the Masters in Law. Perhaps if people thought about paying $200K to get another bachelors degree they would thing twice. And I do tend to agree that law school only needs to be 2 years.

81:

Hah! Never had another job....rIIIIght.

Its not the kissing ass, opera (which I actually like), or paperwork. Its the soul-destroying nature of what we do..working like slaves for cases that don't matter shifitng money from company A to company B, spending the entire day being chastized by partners, screamed at by opposing counsel, and critized by clients; worrying yourself sick everynight, etc., etc.

I went to a TTT because they offered me a massive scholarship. I got a solid, practical education and ended up with $120k less debt than I would have had I gone to a T14. Oh, and I still landed Biglaw. I think the real beneficiaries of the shrinking Biglaw model will be lower ranked schools that offer scholarships to top students who are willing to take a gamble. Those students can either graduate at the top of their classes and compete for the few remaining Biglaw jobs, or end up with much less debt and begin careers at smaller firms.

Law School become More Useful...

Can Someone cryogenically freeze me until that happens. I WANT IN ON THAT

To fools arguing that credit shouldn't extend to potential law students:

1) There are many people who aren't as financially fortunate, but make to be great law students and practitioners. Limiting credit is stupid from a utilitarian perspective.

2) Requiring law students to be trust fund babies would be wrong in principle. We shouldn't only reward the financially fortunate rather those with merit. Clients deserve the best, not trust fund babies.

Conclusion: There are MANY better ways to limit law students from the market rather than limit credit. It is called ABA REGULATION. Choosing the worst option out of the bunch shows who the trust fund babies are.

- Fellow trust fund baby

Law school should be 3 years if you go to a fun place (yes, some top schools can actually be fun). It's your last chance to relax before entering the grind, and a good respite if you worked a few years before school.

Elie. Good post. I don't hate you anymore.

Some comments:
The problem is twofold: First, people don't have a realistic concept of what the day-to-day practice of the law entails and instead envision an intellectual-life leading to wealth. Second, stupid liberal arts kids go straight to law school without any realworld experience.

I like the idea suggested earlier of making the LSAT harder and more specific to law school. I took it on a lark and did extremely well. If it hadn't been a test that smart 9th graders could pass, and instead required more effort beforehand, people like me would never have entered law school. I would also suggest requiring some form of legal internship (para-lega) prior to joining school. That would take care of the non-real-world-work experience, and give people a clearer picture of the law. (I have several para-legal friends who had wanted to do law school, then smartly decided against it once they knew the costs/benefits).

The cost of law school is no different than the cost of other professional degrees. That's a generic problem w/ education in the USA and not specific to law school.

Don't make fun of my writing because I don't care.

-Banking Secure.

Can anybody tell me why law professors have to make so much for so little work.

Perhaps they do have to write, but they get students to do their research and then make future students buy the books.

Given how few qualified non-Asian minorities there are even with government sponsored tuition loans, can you imagine how the professional world would look were the market to decide who is worthy?

Getting rid of the Stafford is a nice idea, but not even remotely politically feasible.

20: the use of "extra" to modify "verbiage" is in itself an example of verbiage

@90. Fuck you. I worked my ass off since I was 16 to afford college. Did I take out federal loans? Yes, because I had to, due to the inflationary pressure they placed on tuition rates. All because paternalistic fuckwits like you think us poor kids needed a helping hand.

Why do people like you always assume that people who disagree with you, and actually understand macroeconomics, come from privilege?

Can we at least stop the new law schools that are being proposed or started, many of which are taxpayer funded?

This should be the primary quest of ATL.

Teaching at a second 50 school, it seems to me that many of the students here have well to do parents who are happy to have a child in law school, as opposed to unemployed or working at Starbucks, and cover the cost of their tuition, living expenses, books, and late model vehicle for them.

Some of them will go to work at Mommy or Daddy's small firm. Some of them won't have that option, but at least won't have to pay down any debt.

The systemic effect, of course, is to give a huge edge to those who come from privileged circumstances, but that's not exactly a new thing.

77 - News Flash!

Constitutional law is anything but logical, organized, comprehensive, and rational.

100th!

74 - Anyone with a net worth of -$200,000+ is the definition of "non-rich."

62--Blatant Chicago trolling. Sorry that Columbia is #4

8 here.

I love how someone shows up and says, "I went to [insert T3/T4 school here] and I still got BIGLAW. So.. your argument is wrong."

The fact that, say, 5% of the class at some random T3 school can get BIGLAW is really beside the point. Crappy law schools charge high tuition, with very limited career prospects. The idea of BIGLAW subsidizing law school may be true at the very top, but not beyond that. There aren't just 20 law schools in the country. There are hundreds.

It cannot be said that the promise of BIGLAW is the primary motivating factor for kids deciding to attend Catholic U. If it is their primary motivation, then they're not very good with understanding basic probabilities.

Can someone explain what the ABA's role in accrediting /approving law schools is. I wasn under the impression that the Justice Dept., under threat of antitrust action, has squeezed the ABA into pretty much approving any law school that can slap 2 bricks and a case book together. Is that true? If yes, there will never be an end to the glut.

Elie's just mad because he left law for journalism, the only possible career decision that's dumber than law school. Actually, scratch that. Elie left law to become a blogger on an Internet tabloid. Your parents must be so proud of that you're putting those Harvard degrees to good use.

Elie's just mad because he left law for journalism ... the only possible career decision that's dumber than law school. Actually, scratch that. Elie left law to become a blogger on an Internet tabloid. His parents must be so proud that he's putting those fancy Harvard degrees to good use.

103: If you're addressing me, I think I made the same points you did. Taking a whack at beating the odds, so to speak, must be done so in an informed manner.

Like I said, I paid full price because I F'ed around in college and didn't get into a better school. I also didn't get Biglaw, but I was going for govt from the outset. I went at night precisely as a financial and career hedge, ended up in "big consulting" while I did it, and then went govt.

If I had to point out any mistake I made after starting, its that I did not factor that my tuition would skyrocket WHILE I was in school. That threw the numbers off a bit, but still working out.

Folks, if you don't get into a top school, at least go at night and build some professional skills during the day.

- 19

Every state has one law school with an attendance at some standard ratio to the population.

A limited number of private schools with very high tuition such that it is common knowledge that attendance is likely a bad investment.

Lenders should still be able to extract their blood through outrageous undergrad tuition.

I'm the worst kind of a-hole - I admittedly went to law school for prestige and big bucks, I make big bucks in biglaw and am miserable. My friends who went straight to finance/business make more than me, work less and are much happier. I wish I had thought it through more, but what the hell do you know when you're 21?

Tucker Max in his FAQ really sums up how I feel about the practice:

Should I get my JD? What is your advice for someone thinking about going into law school?

Do you want to waste three years of your life debating stupid and utterly irrelevant minutia? Then yes, get your JD. Do you want to get a degree that allows you work the rest of your life in a tedious, shitty, unrewarding job? Then yes, get your JD. Are you a boring, facile, socially retarded whore, desperate for the illusion of money and success, regardless of the cost to your life and the lives of those you love? Then yes, get your JD. Do you want to squander your existence sitting in a lifeless office, churning out ultimately meaningless paperwork? Then yes, get your JD. Listen to me people: There is a reason that lawyers have the LOWEST job satisfaction of any profession in America. THE JOB SUCKS. It is horrible.

IT'S A PROBLEM THAT ANYONE WHO WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL...CAN...NO MATTER HOW POOR OR HOW DUMB

109, don't worry, when you die and you're buried surrounded by all your money and gold coins, it will be very prestigious.

109 - wow. I guess there is truth to the statement that money does not buy happiness.

By your analogy, those of us already in the profession are the bitter 70 year old smokers you see. We don't want to see others follow in our footsteps, but we've made our choice and are resigned to it. Its too late to quit now, so we'll just be bitter till the end.

Someone just quoted Tucker Max...

and the crowd heads for the exits from this thread.

92:

I would be interested in hearing more about your LSAT experience. Does taking it on a lark mean you didn't study for it at all? Did you take a prep course? Did you just walk into the test with no prep and take it? (Impressive.). How well did you score?

One of the reasons the legal profession is so sh!tty is that the individuals that choose to go into it were used to being the top A-Hole in their previosu existence. The kid who cited the monopoly rules; the undergrad that constantly argued with the professor; the office rat that constantly had to tell their co-workers how everything they were doing violated some policy or rule.

You felt good when you were the only one around and lorded over all the normal people who thought you were an A-hole. Now you are surrounded by know-it-all A-holes who constantly tell you everything you do is wrong and who make your life a miserable existence.

There is a reason flies flock to a pile of sh!t.

I feel very sorry for everyone out there who thought that going to law school would be the goose that laid the golden egg and would make you a happy, wealthy person.

"At this point, going to law school is like starting to smoke. It’s expensive, it’s probably going to kill you, and it’s a stupid life decision. But some people just don’t care."

Yep, that pretty much sums it up!!

And if you did not smoke before you started practicing law, chances are you probably will start after! And drinking! And probably all sorts of other bad habits to dull the pain.

Simple solution proposed by the bard himself. First kill all the lawyers. Then there's plenty of jobs for the newbies.

When I was in New Oreans for Mardi Gras before Katrina, I went to a bar in the French Quarter. By noon, a bunch of men, ranging in age from early 50s to 70s, started to come in. They were dressed well and proceeded to talk on their phones and to each other. I asked the bartender if they were lawyers because they all looked like lawyers. Sure enough, she said they were, and that they all came in starting around noon every day, and proceeded to practice law from the bar. And to drink. And to smoke. And to schmooze. And that to me sounds like a pretty cool way to practice law.

I remember the days 4 years ago when I was mocked for taking the $cholar$hip money to attend a low ranked school. Everyone was talking how I could never get into BIGLAW, and I said I didn't want to. $95k salary, $0 law school debt, small boutique, and 50 hour weeks. No billable requirements, and live in a warm climate close to the beach. And my condo is under $1300.

For a 3 year gamble, I doubled the potential salary offered with my English major, and have found a rewarding career with client interaction. Sorry to all you Northeast BIGLAW prestige mongers, glad I did not listen to the drama and b.s.

TTTold you $o
xoxo HTFH

TTT lawyers can always moonlight as janitors if they need more money on the side.

Remember, a law degree opens up plenty of opportunities.

122 - you sound like you live near me! Lots of small-mid law firms with decent partners and decent salaries, and a beach mentality to the approach to life and work. I too went to a low ranked school (no scholarship but low tuition, many years ago). I was lucky enough to start out in a medium sized firm here, went boutique in my practice area, spent a few years in a biglaw firm here in that practice area, then went out on my own. Doing just fine, thank you, live a few blocks from the beach, and have a nice life, and like what I do. More power to you and those like you. I hope you succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I bet you also still have time for your family and community, which is wonderful, and the way life should be. We need more stories like yours.

124 it turned out to be everything I predicted. I ended up breaking up with my GF during my 1L year, because she was a Main Line princess who knew based upon her daddy's firm that my decision not to go T10 would be a no-no. The clients I have had the pleasure of helping out down here are mostly small to medium companies, and genuinely appreciate the advice and counseling I provide. They will never be in the WSJ, but I see them out socially all the time and am always getting new introductions and recommendations. And $95k with $0 loans (undergrad scholarship too), a 1 y.o. Golden Retriever, a beach, and lots of 20 something southern belles to choose from has made it heaven on earth for a 28 year old ex-Yankee. For all the pre-L's reading, do not get caught up in the hype of going to work for a BIGLAW firm (especially with the "stability" they surely provide ITE). I cannot recall the name of the book that was given to me, but it was the reminiscing of a former biglaw associate who basically issued a warning. Glad that I heeded it.

It was the same reason I bought my dream car, cash, because it was a classic muscle car and I've had a blast restoring it. I never understood why aspiring attorneys would put themselves into a situation that would contractually oblige what they could not afford, but that would offer instant "luxury". Why finance the latest German engineering, when you cannot immediately afford it? BIGLAW school should be for the privileged few who can pay it without skyrocketing debt.

Study hard in college, and take every LSAT practice test you can. Get into the best school that you can afford. And for those of you who mocked myself and others like me, I truly do feel sorry for the situation many of you are in. The economy will turn around, and you will all be fine. But at least have the common courtesy to give an adequate warning to friends and family contemplating law school that maybe a big scholarship at a lesser school is an option to consider, and that slaving away for an AmLaw 250 is not the only path in life for a Bachelor of Arts degree.

124 it turned out to be everything I predicted. I ended up breaking up with my GF during my 1L year, because she was a Main Line princess who knew based upon her daddy's firm that my decision not to go T10 would be a no-no. The clients I have had the pleasure of helping out down here are mostly small to medium companies, and genuinely appreciate the advice and counseling I provide. They will never be in the WSJ, but I see them out socially all the time and am always getting new introductions and recommendations. And $95k with $0 loans (undergrad scholarship too), a 1 y.o. Golden Retriever, a beach, and lots of 20 something southern belles to choose from has made it heaven on earth for a 28 year old ex-Yankee. For all the pre-L's reading, do not get caught up in the hype of going to work for a BIGLAW firm (especially with the "stability" they surely provide ITE). I cannot recall the name of the book that was given to me, but it was the reminiscing of a former biglaw associate who basically issued a warning. Glad that I heeded it.

It was the same reason I bought my dream car, cash, because it was a classic muscle car and I've had a blast restoring it. I never understood why aspiring attorneys would put themselves into a situation that would contractually oblige what they could not afford, but that would offer instant "luxury". Why finance the latest German engineering, when you cannot immediately afford it? BIGLAW school should be for the privileged few who can pay it without skyrocketing debt.

Study hard in college, and take every LSAT practice test you can. Get into the best school that you can afford. And for those of you who mocked myself and others like me, I truly do feel sorry for the situation many of you are in. The economy will turn around, and you will all be fine. But at least have the common courtesy to give an adequate warning to friends and family contemplating law school that maybe a big scholarship at a lesser school is an option to consider, and that slaving away for an AmLaw 250 is not the only path in life for a Bachelor of Arts degree.

123 - TTT lawyers still have jobs in their small and medium law firms. TTT lawyers still serve their clients, communities and families, and many even enjoy what they do. TTT lawyers are the majority of lawyers out there. So, assuming you are not a TTT lawyer, but are a T14 lawyer who has been laid off, deferred or rescinded, perhaps those TTT lawyers should hire you as the janitor. Because you are definitely good at trash (talking).

125/126 - you rock! Very cool about the muscle car. I married a southern redneck and I now drive a 2005 Corvette (ok, not exactly classic, but at least it is reliable). He autocrossesa 2000 Trans Am and is rebuilding a 1967 Camaro RS in the garage. Poor Corvette stuck out in Nor'easter, if that gives you a clue where I am. I am glad you saw the opportunities out there for you and are taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. The practice of law can be very rewarding and profitable, even without biglaw. I feel very sorry for those who are trapped in that model and feel there is no way out. I am guessing that many of those say law and biglaw as only the way to make money, without assessing the risks and costs. You sound like you did your homework and I really hope it works for you. I am very proud of you for making your point of view known. You will be spectacular, I think.

115:

92, here. I took it because several friends did. I studied, but my scores on my practice test were all w/in a 2 point range, so studying didn't help except for calming the nerves.

Test-prep courses are for lazy children of the wealthy and unnecessary if you are self-motivated.

I went to T5, got my JD/MBA. If I could do it again, I'd F the JD and stick w/ the MBA - better return on investment, happier people, and business school hasn't been overtaken by zealots.

The best advice I never took about law school came from the first few pages of Montauk's book on how to get into law school. Instead, he recommended spending a year in mexico, taking language and cooking courses, then spending a year in italy, taking language and cooking courses, then getting a 1-yr masters at LSE. You would have spent a fraction of the money, you would have an interesting life story, and you would have a solid degree and good job prospects.

Did anyone here read the book called "1L" before starting law school? It was required reading for me back in 1991. Would have given everyone a better idea of what they were facing.

The ABA can put downward pressure on the oversupply of applications from mouth-breahters who want to go to law school for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread with one thing: Transparency. Allow a free flow of information and the market will function properly.

First, require law schools to publish ALL employment statistics by student (keep names anonymous). No averages. All students must report (force students to report before the state bar will admit them to practice).

Class of 2012
Student 1 ($94,000/yr, Big Corn Law, Nebraska)
Student 2 ($36,500/yr, Toilet Law, Dallas)
Student 3 ($14.00/hr, Starbucks, Madison Ave)
etc.

Full transparency in employment statistics will ensure that less stududents will try and chase a dream that does not exist and reduce the artificial influx of supply that is created by misstating statistics.

Second, require law schools to publish all relevant factors of admission for every student that enrolls. The list should not disclose every student's profile, but instead list 100% of all factors in separate lists.

Class of 2012, All Majors
Bachelor of Ass in Lobster
Bachelor of Shit in Toilet Studies
Master of Bating in Race Relations
etc

Class of 2012, All LSAT, GPA
155, 3.8
164, 3.3
142, 2.4
etc.

Hold schools accountable for who they accept. The "middle 50%" nonsense and lack of college major transparency is allowing schools to hide some embarrassing realities. Look at BU and BC, two schools who constantly compete to generate higher GPA numbers and therefore accept a high percentage toilet majors. Add transparency, and the admissions committes will think more than twice before they accept Mr. Bachelor of Science in Pee-Walking, 154, 3.99.

Mr. Bachelor of Science in Pee-Walking will not apply to a top law school, because he will see that no one with his degree has ever been accepted, in the same way that if you get a 152 you will not apply to Fordham because you know you will not be admitted.

-Economist Secure, Bachelor of Jobs in Invisible Hand

124 & 128, sounds like we all are doing well for sticking to our principles. And 128, I must admit that being an ex-Yankee has made me somewhat of a curiosity for the local belles, but I will just continue to try to work my charm and ditch my accent! Best of luck to all.

131 - you certainly sound entitled and disgruntled. What, the world not the oyster you thought it was because you graduated in the top of your T3 law school?

124 & 125,

What kind of law do you practice?

What is a "Main Line princess"?

132- 124/128 same person. I agree with you. How far south are you to be a curiosity, and how bad is your accent...LOL! Just remember that a lawyer is WHAT YOU DO, not always WHO YOU ARE. That being said, if you have principles in your personal life, they will carry over to your professional life, and vice versa. Although it is only my opinion, I think many of the people who comment here are short on principles, but long on dreams of big money. At least where I live and my area of practice, principles translate into clients, which translates into income.

@ 134, commercial/litigation, but it is more practically tailored as counseling. And I also carved out a couple of niche areas that I viewed would set me apart while I was in law school. Like my anonymity though, so won't give details there, but there are plenty of opportunities out there. Law review articles and ABA publications actually can be pretty useful if you read between the lines, and can identify trends.

134 - 124 here. I practice in the area of trusts and estates. Not sexy, I admit. And with the estate tax exemption at $3.5M (and looking to stay that way, several bills in Congress to put a bandaid on it while they fix the rest of the world), and real estate and investment portolio values having gone down, much of my practice is focused on family dynamics, from simple wills and trusts for family (as opposed to tax) reasons, and administrations, I am not doing the ever so exciting ILITs and charitable trusts, etc. But I get more satisfaction when a client signs their estate planning documents, and the relief on their faces and in their comments for having completed the process and realizing that I could help them and not make it difficult, than I ever did in my biglaw job with super-wealthy clients. Will I make $1M? Probably not. Do I need $1M? Definitely not. And as far as T & E work goes, every human being should have the basics in place, and therefore every human being is a potential client. Can't say that for M & A work, or PE work or most other kind of corporation or lititation work now, can you?

137 et al. That is what most people in biglaw don't understand. Most law in small/mid law firms and in secondary or smaller markets is counselling. They forget that you are a COUNSELLOR as well as an attorney at law. You are there to guide them, help them make personal or business decsions while taking into account the legal requirements. Doc review is not and never will be practicing law.

Thanks 137 & 138

Commenter 133,

I am not disgruntled but solution-minded. There are problems facing the legal industry, and they start at the law school admissions level.

My concern is not for myself, as I am doing quite well. My concern is for the Bachelor of Arts in Social Work who is unemployed after taking out $150k in debt to go to a T25. And for the lower-middle class, first generation college graduate who takes out $100k in debt to go to a TTT with the dream of making an easy $125k/year-- a dream that is not founded in reality.

Without a free flow of information, people will continue to make poor choices because the government enables them to do so by guaranteeing massive student loans. We could tackle this issue from the government side, but a solution would take much longer. We should start by using the power the ABA is supposed to have.

-Economist Secure

133/141 - I agree with you on your opinions of law school economics. Are you a lawyer? You cite yourself as an economist? Did you seel this "Great Recession" coming? I am definitely not an economist (had a hard time with micro and macro in college, required for my program, struggled for Bs). But, I did see it coming. What goes up, must come down. I got my mother out of most of her investments and into some tax-exempt bonds and CDs before the "crash" because she actually listened to me. She does not have much, but it was all she had. If she had not moved out, she would have lost about 1/2 her value, which she cannot afford to do. What do YOU see as the future for young lawyers? I don't see much of one for the top tier school lawyers, but I see a better future for the lower tier with smaller loans who want to be lawyers in their smaller markets. And yes, I really am interested in your opinion. That is how one learns.

140 - what is your area of practice and current status? I hope all is well.

You know, this dialogue for the last 20 or so comments has been very nice and very enlightening. I appreciate everyone who has commented, and I have new ways to think about this practice of law. I wish more comments threads on ATL were like this.

@96

Your ANGER blinds you. Everything has its benefits and drawbacks. Yea, there will be an oversupply of demand with federal loans, but that accounts only for a little of the problem. They still require accredited law schools, the ABA oversees this. Do I need numbers? No. Its obvious.

The presence of credit for students is incredibly beneficial to those who cannot afford it. It far outweighs the burden posed by a high supply of money. Yea, some kids will be able to work hard. A part-time job isn't going to do it for most of them as it did for you.

Finally, I bring you back to my conclusion. There are far better ways to control law school admission than to run out those who find law tuition out of their reach. I am glad that you found a way though, but don't hold it against the others.
And it is not a handout; it is debt.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hatred. And hatred leads to . . . the dark side!

Pity that this comment thread is running out of steam. Is there another site that has such consistently useful threads as the last several, without all of the damned trolls whose entire purpose is the be "FIRSTY"?

It's just not true that "liberal arts majors" don't have any option but to go to law school. They may not have any immediately lucrative options, but they can work their way up in any number of fields. It's a university education we're talking about here, not a trade school like accounting.
The problem now is that NO graduates have good job prospects. I know engineering majors with decent grades who can't find jobs.
The problem for me was that law school seemed like an easy out. Instead of doing hard work to find a job and start from the bottom with my liberal arts degree, I chose to delay my reckoning with the real world by going to law school. A lot of us did that, and it needs to stop. Agree with previous posters who say you should have to have work experience before going to law school. This is one idea the MBA school got right.

Prepare your angry phasers! Naive class of 2013 student commenting:

Good. Riddance.

I have absolutely no idea why I am facing an impossibly larger applicant pool this year (though its clear that the 67% increase at Iowa is just because of their (nearly) undefeated football team).

Having already worked in big law already, nothing made me more furious as an aspiring legal eagle than the following from a summer associate: "lots of my classmates want to debate legal issues and talk about cases they like, which I can't stand because I just want to get my degree and start getting my paychecks" doing nothing but paper pushing and due diligence. Awesome.

Isn't this the worst type of (pseudo-)attorney? Shouldn't the legal field be filled with those who have an interest that isn't only fiscal? Again, this poster's naivety abounds when it comes to the actual experience of law school, but I've known dozens of big law attorneys and frankly, the ranks could be thinned.

Commenter 142,

You smell like a troll, but I do not mind entertaining your comment. First, I am a practicing lawyer. I have a JD in addition to degrees in economics, finance, and business.

To answer your primary question, the legal profession is under an attack by law schools that is enabled by government loans and is unchallenged by the ABA. The problem is industry-wide, with an oversupply of JDs in the top-tier and in the lower-tier.

Industry consultants and analysts recognize that top tier-law schools are more concerned with USNWR rankings than accepting/producing potential top legal practicioners. They also recognize that TTT law schools are more concerned with profit than accepting/producing top legal practicioners.

If the ABA implemented the proposal I outlined in Comment 131, it would weaken the effect of both of these problems, and the legal industry would benefit.

-Economist Secure

This site is real brutal and depressing. Still, working in pro services on the ICS side is worse...

- Prospective JMLS (LSAT 157, 2.8 GPA, 4 arrests, 2yrs work experience @ Big 4 accounting in M&S)

This site is real brutal and depressing. Still, working in pro services on the ICS side is worse...

- Prospective JMLS (LSAT 157, 2.8 GPA, 4 arrests, 0 convictions, 2yrs work experience @ Big 4 accounting in M&S)

149 - LOL, no troll here. Granted, the perfume I wear is inexpensive (Wild Musk by Coty) but it happens to work well with my body chemistry. And my primary question, to quote a phrase, was "DID YOU SEE THIS GREAT RECESSION COMING?" (poor spelling removed). And I still agree with your comments on the legal profession. Perhaps all Top Tier schools should limit their number of students, all bottom tier schools should face more challenging standards by the ABA to obtain their accreditation, and the middle tier should be allowed to carry on. I just checked and as of June 2008, there was 200 accredited law schools, including JAG, in the US. Say 200 x 150 average number of students per class (guessing there), that is 30,000 (!!!!!!!) new lawyers every year! So say Top Tier (t20) limits their classes to 50, bottom tier wiped out by higher standards (b50), middle tier, to serve middle America not biglaw, limits classes to 100 per class. That is still 13000 new lawyers. But the Top Tier create the 1000 new lawyers needed to feed biglaw, and the remaining 130 schools provide the rest of the US with 13,000 new lawyers per year. Keeping the top tier model promotes those meant to be judges, legislators, whatever, and the rest provide good lawyers to work in the secondary and smaller markets. Oh, and change the LSAT and post-college requirements to require a year between college and law school...of course, I realize how unrealistic this model is in our capitalist society, but hey, it is a thought!

Commenter 152,

Did I see the great recession coming? I am not a macroeconomist, so no. I did, however, see a housing bubble.

There are fundamental problems with your proposal in Comment 152. Regulating the numbers will just create surpluses and shortages. Instead, the ABA can change demand by allowing a free flow of information (admissions and employment transparency).

Currently there is artificial demand for law school because there is bad information out there. What law schools are doing by publishing misleading employment statistics is the EXACT same as giving toilet debt from sub-prime mortgages an AAA rating. And they are selling it to the poor and dumb.

-Economist Secure

153- Sounds on target to me. No model is perfect, it is a new world. But to poorly quote a phrase, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Ever read much about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire? Makes for very poignant (SP?) reading. And we appear to have lost all of the other people commenting. Good luck to you and yours. I wish you the best.

the snobbery of this blog makes me want to vomit, as it just reinforces the "im better than you" mentality of many lawyers.

This is not just a law school problem. So many graduate schools and professions of the same fucking issue. It is the feasibility of borrowing and overcharging monopoly that caused this economic crisis

Use your brain and go to the shittiest law school that gives you the most money. Then go solo or network like crazy Thats the answer in the meantime.

The shortsighted bitterness of this author is just as pathetic as the shortsightedness of law students not fully educated themselves on the profession. They have the excuse of being young. Whats yours?

155 - Geez, get over your bad self and go have a beer!

152, if you reduce the supply of legal education by closing down law schools, take a wild guess as to what will happen to the tuition at the remaining schools.

And guess what the government will do to make legal education more "affordable." Hint: even more loans at 6.8%. Change we can believe in.

156- Just cracked open a cold IPA. Finally some advice I can use!

It is not about reducing the supply of legal education, it is about making it desirable only for those who really want to be lawyers, not those who want to avoid the grown-up world. If you want to be top tier, you should have to REALLY earn it. If you stil want to be a lawyer, but don't have the education credentials or test-taking aptitude to be top tier, then you should have options. Bottom tier should not exist simply because ABA will accredit you if you pay enough money and have enough law books (one requirement, law library should be attached to law school...how irrelevant is that!). There are now, and have been for many years, too many people who simply view legal education as a way of postponing the real world. And that is one reason (among many) that so many lawyers who received their licenses in the past 15 years are unhappy. It simply was not what they thought they were bargaining for, and they feel cheated. Well, so what. Welcome to the real world.

158 - Maybe I am old and out of touch, but what is an IPA? I drink cheap man's beer, Miller Lite.

What good will shutting off the spigot of $20k in federal loans per year if people are borrowing an additional $40k in private loans? No, the only solution to the "easy money" problem is to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. This will force lenders to be more diligent in making loans only to people who will be able to pay them back.

161 - but how can lenders assess who will be able to repay their loans when the loans are for school and the borrowers are currently unemployed? So I guess you would limit loans to trust fund babies? I think that the law school tuition needs to come down (duh) as the salaries come down. But as to how that will happen, for that, I am at a loss.

161, banks are making $40k/year loans to liberal arts majors with no job or credit history only because they're guaranteed by the government from loss.
If you just make the loans dischargeable in bankruptcy, banks will still make the loans since the taxpayers will just make them whole again when the borrower defaults.

Turn off the federal guarantee and banks will do their due diligence, even if the loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Non-dischargeability doesn't mean the bank will ever get their money back.

161- best point Ive read

162, they'll lend to people who can get into good schools or have science/engineering majors, not the theatre major who barely got into Rutgers.

If professional graduate programs were actually controlled by “business models” then you wouldn’t have professional programs in education, public health, public policy, journalism, social welfare, city planning, etc. Most professional degrees cost way more than the value of the salary boost they provide. The down economy will probably have a de minimis effect on how law schools are run.

163, 161 here. Private loans are guaranteed by the federal government as well? I was under the impression that only the Stafford loans (both subsidized and unsubsidized) were backed by government guarantees.

163, it is also true that some banks might never get their money back even if the loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. But if they are made dischargeable, the banks will surely loan much less, which will also drive down the cost of school.

167

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Family_Education_Loan_Program

What law schools are teaching Rawls to their students instead of law?

Where I go to school (top 10), there are a few BS classes here and there, and I suppose it would be possible to focus on those over your three years. But by and large the classes available to us are oriented toward learning...some field of law.

I think law schools should have a greater practical focus -- more clinics and less reading of statutes in a class room -- but to the extent that students are graduating unprepared to practice law, I don't think it's because they've been reading too much philosophy. Instead, I think it's because the nature of law school encourages students to focus on being able to mindlessly regurgitate information on exam day, rather than on actually learning to practice law.

Thank you, 169, I stand corrected. In that case, I agree that the federal government has to stop guaranteeing the dollar amount of the loans it has been guaranteeing. Of course, Congress will never change the bankruptcy status of educational loans as long as the federal government is still indemnifying lenders, as this would lead to huge losses to the federal government. It seems that both changes need to happen.

120 is ignorant of the context in which Shakespeare made the referenced comment.

#22 is right: there is more cash chasing the same amount of schools. What do you think is going to happen!?!

- The Judge

Actual quote from the laziest student I have ever met:

"I can't wait until Obama pays for my law school education."

So, wait, what is the problem?

I don't think the debt is near as big of a deal because of the stupendous hyper-inflation that our government is committed to. Think about it. Has anybody checked gold prices lately?

Why make peanuts and avoid debt when those peanuts are being devalued at historic rates? When the dust settles, and economy goes belly-down, I will have a premium degree for a very long career.

Nice discussion (for a change).

Where the class of 2005 found work (by law school) :

http://www.law.com/pdf/nlj/20080414employment_trends.pdf

The chart would probably be more useful if it differentiated between the larger AmLaw 250's and the remainder because the salaries decline considerably.

131 - I like your idea. The state bar assoc's should require employment information and report it by school.

If I understand the system, however, the ABA turns a blind eye on the employment statistics leaving the NALP (controlled by the law schools and the large firms) to gather the data.

Information will not cure the problems. But, it would probably help many prospective students make more appropriate decisions.

NALP's starting salary data :

http://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib

is based on data for only half of the members of each recent class. Such woefully incomplete data causes me to wonder how many of the graduates who did not report were unemployed or earning at the very low end of the curve (for their school). Under the current set-up, prospective students will never know.

Elie's too extreme! I used to enjoy reading ATL but now it becomes all too pathetic a site to come to. btw i'm a 0L and i'm still going next year!

131 is right.

131 is wrong.

How about idiots who think LLMs are the answer? Those people get what they deserve

Law Schools should be more aligned with actual practice to better preserve the profession, "Prestigious" graduate programs: Medical School, MBA, and Phd have better tailored the Educational/Training portion to actual practice than Law Schools have, to ensure a) supply roughly meets demand b) job expectation before training meets job satisfaction/reward in actual practice.

MDs- those going in knows it's difficult, and one has to be committed for the long-haul. This deters those who do not want to truly commit to the profession. Super-selectivity helps to keep supply with demand.

MBAs- require work experience; those who have already worked know that business is about people and opportunities and will try to use MBA as a tool to further market themselves. There are on-line MBA programs, but many know it is not worth it unless you get it for the heck of getting it. In business, it's about what opportunities you can generate yourself, an MBA is a supplement.

PHDs- those who go in know they either want to be professors or be in academia, and that meets actual practice. Most programs have stipends, no big debt, and no one is deluded enough to go into PHD for the money. They enjoy the field and want to be an expert.

NOW Law- No admission scheme to ensure supply meets demand.

No real distinction among law schools to inform a common person about the worth of a JD program (versus an on-line MBA)

No real link between job expectation before training and actual practice.

Once you get into law school:
The job you want turns out to be: a) document review at a biglaw firm (to pay back your loan).
b) no job/offer to pay back your loan.

The only exception being those lucky to practice law in mid/sm. law firms and with reasonable expectations to begin with, but unfortunately that is only a small percentage.

Is anyone going to do anything to align the profession to other professions or is "too many lawyers out there" always going to be a society evil?

182-

MDs have it made. The AMA rigorously controls the number of seats available so there is selectivity. Thus if you pass your liscensing exams you are guaranteed a decent paying job. The slack is picked up by foreign medical graduates (who only get posistions after the US applicants get jobs). One really wonders if the ABA is looking out for attorneys. A friend still in school mentioned that his 1L class is 500 people (up from 290). The ABA needs to de-accredit the bottom 100 schools and limit the number of seats available elsewhere.

I understand law school is a "business": people want to go to law schools, so let them! as long as the schools make money and have a legit program meeting minimum standards. But the problem is, this is a profession.
It is not a "product" and it impacts people's lives: those who are thinking about going to law school and have decided to go, and those who have graduated law school and entering the practice.
Are we looking out for "schools that can make money" or looking out for people in the profession?

i would like to see this "phenomenon" compared against the overall rise in graduate school enrollment. i have a feeling it is not unique to law school in general.

i think it has more to do with the fact that an undergraduate degree does not hold the same weight that it did 20-30 years ago. it is now equivalent to what a high school diploma once was.

i think this influx in enrollment across the board has to do with the fact that students now realize that an undergraduate degree has little useful application. it's competition at its finest, but we need to learn new ways to adapt.

Only one person so far mentioned one of the simplest explanation for why the demand for JDs remains so high, and that was only half the story.

First: If you ask around, everyone will tell you that "You can do anything with that JD." Fact is, many of my fellow students are planning on working for consulting firms rather than BigLaw, so there may be something to that. That said, I go to a top tier school. I don't know empirically whether a JD is as marketable as folks say, but this perceived marketability certainly leads to more JD students.

Second: we're in a recession or a depression, depending on who you ask. For recent college graduates, or those recently laid off, going back to school now, when jobs are scarce, makes a ton of sense. And if you haven't been in the real world long enough, you cannot get a valuable MBA. Most other graduate programs are specialized or add little value (i.e. Journalism, or a Masters in Government). Once again, the JD is 'flexible' and JD-holders on average earn a lot.

I agree that going to a crappy school, loading up on debt and praying to pay it off with a big job offer isn't the most prudent move. But for many students, they're already in debt and currently lack job prospects, so what else is there to lose?

184:

Law has not been a "profession" for quite some time. Despite all the chest thumping from the ABA and local bar organizations, we are told on a daily basis that we are in a competitive environment providing legal services (note: not professional advise or counsel) and that we need to aggressively market those services. Lawyers and clients jump ship at the earliest opportunity to make more money or pay slightly less in legal fees. In most firms, marketting is valued above legal acumen.

The reality of the practice of law belies any notion that what we do is still a "profession."

William A. Kennedy-Las Vegas lawyer

you would not exactly know what you are getting into until you are out of law school. The real life emerges once you are out of law school and this is when you realize that law school has equipped you with the skills and knowledge that you need to apply as you navigate the treacherous waters of legal practice

149
"They also recognize that TTT law schools are more concerned with profit than accepting/producing top legal practicioners."

I don't agree, but with one caveat.

I agree that anyone who pays $40k a year to go to a school outside of the T14 is making a bad gamble.

But there are dozens of schools (many in T1, some others in T3) that charge very reasonable tuition rates. If you take the time to go "in-state" there are 33 Schools in the USNews Tier 1 that charge $20k or less for tuition. There are a handful (10-15) that charge less than $15k a year for tuition. That's just in the first tier.

If you look at these schools you'll find they turn out a great many highly skilled and highly intelligent lawyers. The big difference is that the T14 offer opportunities to place anywhere nationally, these schools typically place in their region, and the Top 10% or so of graduates have the opportunity to seek it out.