Law School Bubble (Ivy, career, versus, salaries)

[mindymann]

You're forgetting that, in addition to 8,000 new jobs, around 20,000 of existing lawyers will retire every year.

I think that 20,000 a year is high. People are working longer because they can't afford to retire - especially small solo practitioners. I don't want to bet $150,000 and three years of my life on the hope that I will get a job because someone retired and that person will open up a vacancy for me.

I also think the 45,000 graduates a year will only go up as new law schools open.

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by mindymann

You're forgetting that, in addition to 8,000 new jobs, around 20,000 of existing lawyers will retire every year.

I think that 20,000 a year is high. People are working longer because they can't afford to retire - especially small solo practitioners. I don't want to bet $150,000 and three years of my life on the hope that I will get a job because someone retired and that person will open up a vacancy for me.

I also think the 45,000 graduates a year will only go up as new law schools open.

20,000 is a conservative estimate. More than a third of these 760,000 lawyers are 55 or older. Most of them have worked in this capacity for 30 or more years, their salaries are well into six figures, their student debt is long paid off, and their retirement accounts are fully funded to provide for comfortable living. If they can't afford to retire before 65, no one can.

Also, if your degree is from a top law school, all this arithmetic is fairly irrelevant. I don't have the exact numbers, but I doubt that all T14 law schools, combined, produce more than 4,000 lawyers a year. If you can't get into a T14 and you can't graduate in the top 10% from North Dakota State College, then you have a reason to count retirees and otherwise worry about your prospects.

[mindymann]

Also, if your degree is from a top law school, all this arithmetic is fairly irrelevant. I don't have the exact numbers, but I doubt that all T14 law schools, combined, produce more than 4,000 lawyers a year. If you can't get into a T14 and you can't graduate in the top 10% from North Dakota State College, then you have a reason to count retirees and otherwise worry about your prospects.

Actually, this snobbish attitude that seems pervasive among law students is another reason I decided against law school. You all think that if you have a prestigious degree that you will somehow be immune from economic forces. Never mind that hundreds of law students from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other schools had their job offers revoked before they could start their job or that big law firm recruiting is down. Never mind that most lawyers don't last in their firms for more than a few years.

Go ahead and gamble with your money. Law school loans are not dischargeable.

[elizabethn2009]

New York Times: Downturn Dims Prospects Even at Top Law Schools

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/bu...wyers.html?hpw

[John23]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm not sure what "brainwashing" was occurring for at least top students - big law firms have been paying in excess of $150,000 for first year associates, which is more than what 99% of people in their early 20s could possibly earn. Smart rational people tend to migrate toward higher paying careers and law has typically been the highest paying "traditional" career outside of investment banking and medicine. (When I say "traditional" career, I mean that something that a smart person could reasonably aim for as a goal and achieve. This doesn't count making a gazillion dollars from a start-up that's bought by Google or Microsoft, where the chances of achieving that are more lottery-esque.)

My views are somewhat tilted. I went to an absolutely pathetic highschool (graduated in 1996, from the infamous Los Angeles Unified School District). Looking back on it, it's probably in the bottom 20% of the country nationally. It was a large school, 2,000, 2,300 students. So, I'm judging things based on big schools, and median/average of the road students.

-They don't have shrewd parents on top of things. If you interviewed the average highschool student in america, they're getting their information about college from counselors, advisors, media (us news, business week rankings, etc).

College was becoming a cult in the late 90's (if it wasn't already before). There was little, if any, true analysis done about future job possibilities, risk/reward, or the ability to pay back student loans.

-The average student had *very* little experience in handling debt. Maybe a $1,000 or $2,000 buying a car engine, or modifying their car, or some little expense.

But with law school marketing, you're talking about tens of thousands of students across the country getting into 5 or 6 figure debt. And yet a small top fraction of lawyers make most of the money. What's the average law salary in Pittsburgh, or Cincinnati, or Kansas City?

-Most students are not smart and rational. Most students are in a daze from tv, american idol, stress at home, stress/pressure from school.

-Also the burnout factor, stress, etc that isn't talked about on shiny brochures, or in US News rankings. It's only, "make $100,000 a year", or earn a large income.

How many law students work long enough to be able to pay back all of their student loans?

I think there's going to be mini riots on campuses in a few years when people wake up from this debt bomb. It's a gargantuan scam.

[zoomzoom3]

Makes me kinda glad I wasn't able to get into law school. I had a 3.85gpa as an undergrad, but only a 131 on the LSAT lol.

[DreamingSpires]

Originally Posted by John23

I think there's going to be mini riots on campuses in a few years when people wake up from this debt bomb. It's a gargantuan scam.

I think you are right, and not just for law school (although law students are more adversely effected than most, given the seven years of school.)

This is an incredibly sobering website for anyone thinking about borrowing right now to "go to college." Were I a high school guidance counselor, I would make all my students read these stories:

StudentLoanJustice.Org

The cramdowns being called for on these loans is one "bailout" I can in good conscience actually support. Many colleges and universities need to be shut down, in my view.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

You perceptively answered your own question. There's a very high cost to admitting each additional medical student (lab space, medical equipment, research tools, etc.), so there's no real economic incentive for universities to admit more medical students than necessary. I'd be interested to see if medical schools even make any money off of medical student tuition - med students are more like "loss leaders" where the big dollars come in from research funding and operating hospitals.

In contrast, there's virtually no cost to admitting an additional law student other than ensuring that there's enough classroom space. Law students are the most profitable students for a university (with MBA students close behind) - they get charged tuition commensurate with med students WITHOUT any of the associated costs. If I were running a university, the last place that I'd want to cut is the law school since it's an academic mint.

But I think what he's asking, and it's a good question, is why did the ABA accredit so many law schools as to allow the supply/demand imbalance to grow so wide -- and for that matter, why do they continue to accredit new law schools?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by mindymann

Actually, this snobbish attitude that seems pervasive among law students is another reason I decided against law school. You all think that if you have a prestigious degree that you will somehow be immune from economic forces. Never mind that hundreds of law students from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other schools had their job offers revoked before they could start their job or that big law firm recruiting is down. Never mind that most lawyers don't last in their firms for more than a few years.

Go ahead and gamble with your money. Law school loans are not dischargeable.

You're pointing your indignation about "snobbish attitudes" in the wrong direction. It's the firms that have this snobbish attitude, and the students are simply acknowledging that reality (or the smart ones are anyway) in gauging their prospects of making their law school investment pay off. If law school were free, the "snobbish attitude" would be irrelevant to most students.

[anadyr21]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

That being said, couldn't we say the same about any graduate degree in the liberal arts? In fact, isn't it even more true that, from an economic perspective, universities are robbing students getting MAs and PhDs in philosophy or classics with high tuition degrees that provide very few job opportunities (as at least a JD carries some tangible weight in the marketplace)?

In most cases, the tuition for the PhD student is covered. You'll be living in poverty for the next 5-7 years, but without the loan. But yes, the market for soft sciences with PhD's is just as bad, unless you went to a top school. I don't know which is worse; wasting 7 years of your life to adjunct for $20,000 a year, or wasting 3 and being $200,000 in debt.