Sunday, December 7, 2014

Early Christmas: Law School Applications are Down 9.5 Percent, with an 8.5 Percent Decrease in the Number of Applicants, So Far


http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/three-year-volume

The Numbers Continue to Drop: Anyone who is not a “law professor”/subhuman piece of trash will rejoice at the following news. According to the Law $chool Admi$$ion Council, applications to ABA-accredited toilets – for Fall 2015 – are down 9.5% from this point last year. In the weasels’ own words: 

“Three-Year ABA Volume Comparison

The following charts report ABA applicants and applications for each of the past three falls. As of 11/28/14, there are 70,009 fall 2015 applications submitted by 11,415 applicants.

Applicants are down 8.5% and applications are down 9.5% from 2014. 

Last year at this time, we had 23% of the preliminary final applicant count.” [Emphasis mine]

You’re welcome, bitches! Of course, even if this rate holds, there is no way in hell that the thieves will see a matching decrease in first year enrollment in Fall 2015. As has been the case for several years, the parasites will merely become even less “selective.” 

http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2014/12/news-flash-applicants-down-85.html

Other Coverage: On December 5, 2014, “dupednontraditional” wrote a hilarious OTLSS piece labeled “News Flash: Applicants Down 8.5%.” Here is the full text:

“We interrupt our regular programming to share the latest numbers from LSAC. 

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/three-year-volume

The LawDeans' popcorn they’ve been eating has been pissed in; film at eleven.”

This is a great tagline, especially since the pigs and cockroaches have collectively defecated over LEGIONS of law students and graduates – for decades! In a just world, these academic swine would be locked into a small pen – and forced into a meat grinder.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/12/endgame.html

Paul Campos Noted the Endgame, Two Years Ago: Back on December 14, 2012, Paul Campos posted an excellent entry, simply entitled “Endgame.” Look at the portion below:

“What are the economic implications for law schools of an admissions cycle that ends up attracting only 53,000 applicants? To answer this question, we have to estimate how many matriculants such a cycle is likely to yield. This is a function of two factors: how many applicants end up getting admitted to at least one school to which they apply, and how many admitted applicants actually end up enrolling. 

As to the first factor, the percentage of applicants being admitted to at least one school has been rising for several years now: 

2004: 55.6% 
2005: 58.6% 
2006: 63.1% 
2007: 66.1% 
2008: 66.5% 
2009: 67.4% 
2010: 68.7% 
2011: 71.1% 

In other words, law school applicants were 27.9% more likely to be admitted to at least one school in 2011 than they had been seven years earlier. We don’t have numbers yet for how many 2012 applicants were admitted to at least one school, but since the number of applicants fell by 13.7%, while the number of new 1Ls fell by only 8.6%, it seems certain that the upward trend in percentage of applicants admitted continued.” [Emphasis mine]

Keep in mind that this was the situation three damn years ago! Hell, there are now SEVERAL ABA-accredited diploma mills that are accepting more than 80 percent of applicants!! Don’t forget that smarter applicants are avoiding law school at a MUCH higher clip than the idiots who score in the 150s or lower. 

Could you imagine if medical schools had such acceptance rates?!?! The spineless public and currently licensed members of the profession wouldn’t stand for that – for one second! Then again, law schools are run for the sole benefit of “professors” and administrators – without any regard to the students, graduates, the general public, the taxpayer or the prevailing job market. In sum, we are dealing with sick bastards and sociopaths.

Conclusion: We are now reaching a point where law school pigs are starting to accept average college grads who are - at best – ideal candidates to work customer service at eBay or filling your popcorn bucket at the local movie theater. This is beyond pathetic. Perhaps the only thing sadder is the fact that so many waterheads are still willing to incur an additional $130K-$200K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a TTT law degree and garbage job prospects. 

If you are still even contemplating law school – and you are not accepted into Harvard, Stanford or Yale or on a guaranteed, three year scholarship to attend another in$titution – then you do not deserve one ounce of sympathy. You KNOW the score by now. If not, then you are too damn dumb, lazy or self-absorbed to perform basic research into the job market for lawyers.

32 comments:

  1. I'm just waiting for these law skool assholes to start enrolling inmates. Give them a scholarship to sweeten the pot. Maybe give them a couple of bitches too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think some of the classier schools--like Brooklyn--would wait until the inmates were out on parole. They might even provide a full-time PO with an office on campus.

      Delete
  2. Great news for taxpayers!

    Fewer loans to subsidize and forgive later; less money spent for no good purpose. More dollars available for necessary services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely great news. I have nothing but respect for those young, bright 8.5 percenters who decided to help their country by helping themselves. See what a little information can do to improve the quality of life for everyone?

      Delete
  3. Nando, I'm not sure about your new criterion for attending law school. Suppose I was offered a guaranteed 3-year half-tuition scholarship to attend Golden Gate or Whittier?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can answer that.

      It's not worth it. Even with a full scholarship, the opportunity cost of a 3-year hiatus from the work force, in addition to adding "JD" to your resume (which serves as a scarlet letter insofar as it makes employers think that you will leave for a FT/LT position at first chance—assuming you could from which shit schools) is not worth going to a TTTT.

      Don't even consider it with half-tuition. Even with full-tuition it will never pay off.

      Delete
  4. If you're thinking of going to law school next fall, just remember this: the best, most complete loan forgiveness is the loan you never take out. Thousands of students have already figured it out. Do some research now. This is the senior project that can make or destroy your life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fuck loan forgiveness. (Personally I see no reason for it to happen. You signed on the dotted line, remember?) I feel the same way about assholes who jump in hot springs, get all fucked up and then expect taxpayers to foot the bill. There should be repercussions for that type of foolishness. You wanted to be a little lawyer. You took out the loans to go to places around here like Touro or Northeastern so you could be a lawyer. Too fucking dumb to pass the bar exam? Tough shit. No firm wants to hire you (because you're a fucking loser with a small brain and a tiny dick)? Fuck you. Pay back the loans. And it's not just how I feel. Banks, members of Congress and everyone else feels the same way. Banks contribute millions each and every year to federal elections. You think they're gonna allow students (young people that don't vote) to walk away from their loans? The only way to do that is to flee the fucking country for good. And the smart deadbeats are doing that. But the majority of idiots will stay here and work in shitty jobs and then complain they're not making enough. One more thing. Think old people are going to allow their massive entitlements that they paid into for decades to be trimmed further just so we can forgive hundreds of billions in unpaid student loans? Old people have a voice in DC and they're not going to keel over for young college deadbeats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You fucking idiot. The banks don't even make the loans now. It's all done by the federal government.

      Quit trying to disrupt this blog. Get your head out of the toilet and show some respect for the smart kids who don't go to law school. That's what the post was all about.

      Delete
    2. And do you think the federal government is going to let student debtors off the hook any time soon? Young people don't vote, and when they do it's not in a bloc like Boomers do. Student loans aren't even allowed to be discharged in bankruptcy. How are we going to go from that to writing off student loans? Not going to happen. And that's a good thing. Why should taxpayers be on the hook because a bunch of morons got law degrees from shit-ass law schools? You've got millions of younger people with worthless college diplomas (mostly with soft shit majors). They better not have their loans discharged.

      Delete
    3. As law schools approach open admissions, the best course for everybody, taxpayer and deluded 0L alike, is for the federal government to stop making the loan in the first place. That would save the Special Snowflakes from themselves, and save the taxpayers a ton of money that's never going to get paid back because the newly-minted JD can't find a job that pays enough to make payments. Under the current system-loans no matter how bad the law school's employment statistic-only one group profits-the law school deans and professors.
      Until the loans stop, the scam will go on; I'll predict that some of the worst schools will have admissions rates approaching 100% this cycle.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. I agree with this. The only thing that should be considered is allowing debtors to file for bankruptcy. Forgiveness allows the scam to keep going and continues to enrich the criminals and simple moves the burden from the students to taxpayers, after the students have suffered for a certain sentence.

      What needs to happen is law schools and lenders have to have actual skin in the game. Just because you're a student borrower doesn't mean you should selfishly look out only for yourself and not consider the repercussions to everyone else, that is what these law school scammers did and if we act the same way we are no better than them.

      I will say I think courts should definitely allow a class action lawsuit by all borrowers against lawschools and the DOE. That way it won't discriminate against those who paid their loans and those who didn't, because certainly the people struggling to get by shouldn't get shafted in favor of people that made no effort at all.

      Anyway I don't know if there will even be forgiveness. There have been proposals to cap PSLF already, and the first ones aren't due for another 3 years. The time to forgive student loans was back in 2008, at the height of the recession, when the government was busy bailing out all the big banks. It seems odd that 10 years after that they would bail out public employees, and then another 10-15 years bail out everyone else. It's more likely nobody gets bailed out, except Wall St. again in this next down cycle which is scheduled within the next 2 years.

      Delete
  6. http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/12/lsac-data-and-predicting-number-of-applicants-for-fall-2015-part-1.html

    On December 4, 2014, Cockroach Alfred Brophy posted a FaculTTTy Lounge post entitled “LSAC Data and Predicting Number of Applicants for Fall 2015, Part 1.” Here is the full text of his entry:

    “The LSAC reports that "As of 11/28/14, there are 70,009 fall 2015 applications submitted by 11,415 applicants. Applicants are down 8.5% and applications are down 9.5% from 2014. Last year at this time, we had 23% of the preliminary final applicant count." If this year's applicants follow last year's pattern, we'll have approximately 49,630 total applicants for the class entering in fall 2015. (You may recall that we had approximately 54,527 applicants for fall 2014.) I expect we'll have the final 2014 first year enrollment data soon. Dan Filler has some historical data on the first year enrollment from 1964 to 2012 here. I link to some more comprehensive data (going back to the 1940s) here.”

    http://profile.typepad.com/6p01156f3605cf970c

    From the sewer rat’s Typepad profile:

    “I teach and write in property, trusts and estates, and legal history. I am completing an extensive book on jurisprudence in the old south, focusing around academics, property, and slavery.”

    Wow! What an ORIGINAL idea, huh?!?! I’m sure that there haven’t been HUNDREDS of academic articles and books written on this subject! You KNOW that no real law firm would now hire this dunce. Hell, they wouldn’t trust this “educator” to file legal documents that others drafted.

    http://www.law.unc.edu/faculty/directory/brophyalfredl/

    Via the parasite's school bio:

    “During the 2013-14 year, he will teach a seminar in southern legal history in the fall and property and trusts and estates in the spring.

    Alfred Brophy has written extensively on race and property law in colonial, antebellum and early Twentieth Century America. His books are Reconstructing the Dreamland: The Tulsa Riot of 1921, Race, Reparations, Reconciliation (Oxford University Press, 2002) and Reparations Pro and Con (Oxford University Press, 2006). He is the lead co-author with Alberto Lopez and Kali Murray of Integrating Spaces: Property Law and Race (Aspen, 2011).”

    Can you believe that these guilty white ass-hats/limousine liberals are paid six figures per year – by the taxpayers – to produce such garbage “scholarship”?!?! Yeah, that seems really productive, right?! Then again, what do you expect from the “Judge John J. Parker “Distinguished” professor of law” at the UNC Sewer of Law?

    ReplyDelete
  7. So much for the "bottoming out" that many people were speculating on. It doesn't even appear that the rate of decline has slowed substantially.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at the drop from 4 or 5 years ago, dumbfuck. There's been a huge dropoff.

      Delete
    2. Um, I don't think you understood what Anon 717 wrote. Anon 717 is saying that predictions by the law school stakeholders, that the decline in applicants had bottomed out, don't seem to have come true as the decline continues.

      If you, Anon 801 are claiming, as you appear to, that the tiny decrease in rate of decrease constitutes a good sign that things have turned around for the law schools, then you are calling the wrong person names....

      Delete
    3. Yes, thank you @ 11:32. Given that I'm posting on this blog and this article, it's astonishing that anyone would interpret what I wrote to mean "law school applications aren't going down".

      Delete
    4. Campos came to the opposite conclusion. The most recent December dropoffs appear to be an astonishing 24.6% (Dec 2012 applications), then 13.6% (*applicants*), now 9.5% (applications), so I was wrong to say the rate of decline is not slowing. Some of the confusion is due to the distinction between applications and applicants.

      A 9% decline is still big.

      Delete
  8. When is the American Bar Association going to get its head out of its collective ass and restructure the Section on legal education now controlled by 3rd and 4th tier dolt deans? The ABA should represent the collective interests of all practicing attorneys in shutting down scam diploma mills, not to mention what should be a duty to the American Citizenry to stop originating Federal law school education loans that will never be repaid. Replace the scam dean parasites with qualified practitioners and respected HYS academics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Many low tiered deans are on ABA committees. The law deans and other faculty are the enemy of the legal profession. They have enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else. Get rid of tenure rules. The law faculty cackled like a group of crows when the ABA thought about not requiring tenure. These hags only want to protect their cushy jobs. Look at the circus going on at bottom tier, Charleston School of Law, founded in 2003, where the four founders withdrew $25 million dollars and left the school in financial shambles. Legal education and the ABA are a crock of shit.

      Delete
    2. They claim they tried but the government stepped in and smacked them down on Constitutional/diversity claims and their hands are tied.

      I think they're full of shit, because med schools restrict entry and that's always been a better, more prestigious job, and somehow Big Law, high level Corporate America and Wall St. are immune from those diversity requirements. It's just somehow all higher education that is subject to that diversity requirement.

      Delete
  9. The law school that defaulted on their debt, Thomas Jefferson School of Law will probably remain open as long as they can pay their dean's salary. And, screw those bastards at Albany Law School that wanted to lower admission requirements, so there would be no faculty cuts.

    Legal education is rotten.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nando,

    Have you seen this? When Chicago (Chicago!) feels the need to create a defacto MBA program/diversify into business, you know the end game has begun:

    The University of Chicago Law School, a national leader in legal academia and the birthplace of law and economics, seeks a director to manage its newly created Doctoroff Business Leadership Program. Graduates of the Law School play an indispensable role in leading business and shaping the economy. As investors, corporate executives, government officials, general counsels and entrepreneurs, our graduates shape the law and are at the vanguard of today's dynamic and global business community. The rigorous analytical training provided by the University of Chicago Law School is a strong preparation for problem solving in any environment and the Doctoroff Business Leadership Program will prepare students to lead in this increasingly complex economy.



    - See more at: https://chroniclevitae.com/jobs/0000862277-01?cid=ja#sthash.jUkmU9RX.dpuf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that too and had the same conclusions 4:24.

      We know the T14 had been hiring their own students for several years now to cook the employment numbers. That's why most of us say HYS or T14 with scholly. And even then it sucks if you're unconnected most of the time, because Big Law sucks and the other, actual good jobs, generally are only for the connected, privileged or protected classes.

      Delete
  11. Why would they do this?

    HYS CCN (old rankings, I grant you..)

    If you're having a problem and yet brandishing a shiny new U.Chicago law degree all the same, what does this mean about the current and future state of the legal market after all?

    Have we truly reached the point where an NYU student (unconnected) vs. his wealthy, connected classmate should not attend absent close to a full free ride?

    Are we at the point where, honestly, the pie at the table is now only large enough for those who are PPC and all the rest are simply gambling, despite the ranking of the degree?

    What about the future?

    What say you all?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Legal education will bottom out at completely open admissions. 100% of applications will be accepted somewhere.
    In fact I would go so far as predict that the lower third of schools will send letters of preacceptance to college juniors with 2.0 GPAs on condition that they take the LSAT and send in a check for the application fee. The middle third of schools will not be so craven but will still accept anyone who bothers to apply.

    If the ABA does nothing as standards become commodified (turned into a commode) firms will be forced to specify explicitly what law schools are acceptable. Job adds will have "Only JD's from [List of acceptable schools] Need Apply"

    ReplyDelete
  13. 4:24 here. I apologize for posting twice. But Nando, did you see this? This seems to say much about the ABA and education industry and the student loan conduit, and none of it good.

    The American Bar Association has granted Lincoln Memorial University’s Duncan School of Law provisional accreditation, after a lengthy dispute concerning the ABA’s approval, the university announced on Monday.

    The bar association and the university had been at odds for years over the school’s accreditation. Three years ago, the ABA denied the school’s bid for provisional accreditation, prompting the school to file a federal antitrust lawsuit against the bar association.

    The school dropped the suit in 2012 and said at the time that the two sides had pledged to move forward cooperatively.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/fewer-than-50000-applicants-predicted-for-2015/

    On December 5, 2014, Matt Leichter wrote a sweet-ass entry entitled “Fewer Than 50,000 Applicants Predicted for 2015.” Here is the full text of that piece:

    “And it came to pass, in the 48th week of 2014, that the LSAC saw its shadow and decreed that the fall 2015 law school application cycle had begun, a week earlier than the previous year.

    11,415 people have submitted 70,009 applications to an ABA law school thus far, down 8.5 percent and 9.5 percent from last year, respectively. By contrast, in week 49 of 2014, 14,171 people had sent 90,032 applications. Arithmetic suggests that fewer than 50,000 applicants will emerge from the depths next fall.

    …But arithmetic can be so imprecise. In week 49 of 2013, the projected number of applicants was varied by several percentage points, implies 2015 will be little different from 2014.

    We’ll see how the horse race develops.”

    Check out the graphs on his page. As I have noted before, Leichter has done some great research in this area. It is nice to see that someone has provided this info to prospective law students – at no charge. Apparently, not all lawyers suck at math – as cockroach “law professors” love to proclaim.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2014/12/lsac-numbers-law-school-closings-and-macabre-wagers.html

    Also on December 5, 2014, MaTTT Bodie – of $ainTTT Loui$ Univer$iTTTy Sewer of Law – posted an entry labeled “LSAC numbers, law school closings, and macabre wagers.” Take a look at the pig’s article:

    “Al Brophy reports that law school applications are down almost 10 percent from last year's numbers, bringing the anticipated number of applicants to under 50,000 for the year. That would be about 5,000 fewer than last year. Over at Slate's Moneybox, Jordan Weissman has announced a bet with Berkeley's Steven Davidoff Solomon that at least one ABA-accredited law school will close in the next four years. He's encouraging side wagers. (I used the word "macabre" in the title because the bet involves the "death" of a law school.)

    So I'm wondering, to the extent that folks are willing to talk about it, what the buzz is on law school closings around the country. If you work at or attend a law school, are there any rumors of closure? Is it a faint rumor, discussed obliquely, or are there actual conversations about staving it off? Who is bringing it up -- other faculty, deans, the university or board? If you are an entry level candidate, is it something you are considering in your search? Please -- no mention of a specific school unless you are willing to put your name down.”

    Enjoy the following comments!

    From an anonymous poster, from the same date on 12:12:07 pm:

    “My private law school is being carried by the university. We'll see how long that lasts. Summer research money has been cut, no new faculty lines but more contract-status faculty, cuts through attrition, older faculty taking phased buyouts, severe cuts to administrative staff, shrinking class sizes -- in short, what I understand to be widely experienced pain.”

    User “anon3” wrote this response at 3:07:42 pm on December 5, 2014:

    “I doubt you are going to get people to mention their own schools, or even other schools, with their names attached to the comment. That is the sort of comment that could get you blacklisted at your school, even if the comment is completely true.

    My private law school has been in the red with the main university for over two years, after being very much in the black for a long while. We have had "voluntary" senior faculty buyouts, no new hires other than adjuncts in three years, and frozen salaries. We have kept our research stipends. I would consider lateraling to a more stable school, if given the opportunity.”

    Accountholder “Me” wrote the following on December 5, 2014 6:42:13 pm:

    “My fourth tier private school is in a similar position to some of the others described above. We have had a hiring and wage freeze for the last three years. Administrative staff have been cut. Senior faculty have been incentivized to leave. Contract faculty have not had their contracts renewed. Research stipends have been cut and travel budgets are basically gone. But we are not in danger of closing our doors. If enrollment were to drop another 30 or 40 percent all bets would be off. But I don't think that is particularly likely. As long as things only get a bit worse we will survive.”

    Lastly, “anonprof” posted these remarks on December 6, 2014 at 12:19:13 pm:

    “I've heard from reliable sources that a couple of schools have laid off tenure-track faculty and at least one school has pushed out a few tenured faculty with buyouts that were presented in a "take this or else" fashion.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. This is going to affect the bottom feeding shitters. The good law schools still have the pick of the litter. The okay schools (including flag ship state schools) will continue to get good enrollment. They might have to accept more people with so so numbers. But they'll make by. The really shitty schools however are going to keep admitting dumber students every year. That's not a winning formula.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For decades, law schools admitted students who were supposed to be "smarter" than those who were rejected, and this was premised on their grades and (after the 1970's) their LSAT scores.

    Well, look at the legal profession right now! It SUCKS a big bag of d*cks, and that's because most of the lawyers suck! Has it ever occurred to you all that, just maybe, grades and LSAT scores are not highly probative of which candidates are best suited for the profession?

    The LSAC has for years trumpeted data showing correlation between LSAT scores and first year performance, but has never actually released the data itself. They have shown graphs and tables purporting to represent that data, but NEVER the actual data.

    Furthermore, any studies supporting the use if the LSAT as a useful admissions tool are nothing more than self-serving, because the only such studies have been conducted by the LSAC.

    The test is really little more than a speed-reading exam with some VERY learnable concepts in logic. It's a skills test, not an intelligence test. Those who have the time, resources and desire to learn the test inside out will do so, but it doesn't make them great prospects for the legal profession.

    Maybe this shift, which will allow supposedly "inferior" candidates into the profession is a good thing. After all, many of the world's most successful people hated school or were disengaged because they weren't challenged; that is, show me five students with lower grades and I'll show you at least three who are simply bored and unchallenged. Hence, law schools may actually be getting the cream of the crop talent, now that all of the overachieving douche bags are doing other things.


    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics