Saturday, January 28, 2017

ABA-Accredited Law Schools Have Experienced 16% Drop in Full-Time Faculty, Since 2010


https://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/which-law-schools-are-shedding-full-time-faculty-2016-edition/

Excellent News!: On January 17, 2017, Matt Leichter posted a Law School Tuition Bubble entry labeled “Which Law Schools Are Shedding Full-Time Faculty?” Take a look at this opening:

“Facing shrinking enrollments, many law schools have responded by cutting their faculties. The phenomenon is worth measuring because faculty reductions aren’t always announced publicly, often appearing in the guises of retirements and quiet buy-outs. Consequently, the ABA’s 509 information reports can shed light on changes in law-school faculties. Here’s the cumulative distribution through 2016. 

As with previous years, I will estimate the decline in fall full-time law-school faculties among the 201 law schools that aren’t in Puerto Rico. Note, however, that it’s unclear whether the term “full-time faculty” used in the 509 information reports includes full-time employees of a law school (as defined by the ABA’s annual questionnaire) who are on leave but have a right to return. Past editions of the Official Guide explicitly excluded full-time faculty who were on leave or sabbatical from their two-page spreads, which now exist as the online 509 information reports. The “Guide to the Data” pdf file accompanying the 509 information reports doesn’t specify either. 

I assume the ABA is continuing to exclude faculty on leave or sabbatical and only counts faculty teaching courses in the fall or spring terms, even though it isn’t clear. Consequently, minor fluctuations might mean even less than I thought before, and although I’m obviously aware more faculty teach in the spring, I choose to track fall full-time faculty because the figures represent more recent developments. Additionally, full-time faculty who have shifted to the category “deans, librarians, and others who teach” are excluded as well. This may explain why there are fewer full-time faculty in the fall than spring as full-timers teach most of their courses then. 

The peak for fall full timers occurred in 2010 (9,093), but that estimate includes the “other full-time faculty” category (clinicians and legal-writing instructors, if I recall), which the ABA no longer tracks independently. Fall full-time faculty fell by 3.3 percent this year (-261). Last year the decline was 3.4 percent (-242), so things are smoothing out. Since 2010, the cumulative decline has been 16.1 percent.” [Emphasis mine]

After the detailed chart provided, Leichter provides the following, abridged synopsis:

“Editorial observations: 

 WMU Cooley retains its crown as number one. 
No. 2, American, appears to have lost 43 percent of its fall full-time faculty this year—half since 2010. This may be a misreporting by the law school.
 The same goes for number three, John Marshall. It’s lost nearly two-thirds of its faculty since 2010. 
Finally, five law schools are running with fewer than ten fall full-time faculty, La Verne (9), Lincoln Memorial (8), Concordia (8), Appalachian (7), and the doomed Indiana Tech (5).” [Emphasis mine] 

TTTThoma$ M. Cooley Law Sewer had 101 full-time pigs in 2010, and are now down to 41 full “professors.” The notorious trash pit used to publish its own set of rankings, and one year rated itself as the 12th greatest, most fantastic, and amazing law school in the entire country. Hell, American University actually had 104 full-time swine in 2010, and have since shed 52 fleas – as of 2016. That’s a nice start.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/01/law-schools-have-shed-1460-full-time-faculty-161-since-2010.html

Other Coverage: On January 18, 2017, Paul Caron covered this development in a piece entitled “Law Schools Have Shed 1,460 Full-Time Faculty (16.1%) Since 2010.” Check out this stub from the article:

“Matt Leichter has published the 2016 edition of his Which Law Schools Are Shedding Full-Time Faculty? Law schools have shed 1,460 full-time faculty (16.1%) since 2010, and 261 full-time faculty (3.3%) since last year. 

149 law schools have shed full-time faculty since 2010, with 20 law schools shedding 20 or more full-time faculty[.]”

How do you like that, law school pigs?!?! It seems pretty clear that the pace is picking up, bitches. Then again, you cockroaches claim that you are performing a “public service.” Have fun earning $600K salaries in Biglaw. Here are some comments from the TaxProf Blog post.

Courtesy of “mike livingston” on January 18, 2017 at 4:12:26 am:

“Shed? It sounds like a dog.”

Followed up by user “Davod” on January 18, 2017 5:22:15 am:

“Shed 1,460 full-time faculty to pay for the employment of 200 administrators (Semi-pun).”

It’s great to see that the law school pigs have shed a few pounds. Then again, it’s only fair that the bitches and hags feel the effects of their own greed and lust for federal student loan money. I suppose it was inevitable.

Conclusion: It’s about damn time that ABA-accredited cesspits reduce the number of full-time parasites. Collectively, they have lowered their “standards” and admitted more cretins. Of course, the pigs prefer to lay off non-faculty staff first. How “honorable,” huh?!?!

30 comments:

  1. Glad to see the law schools are shedding shit-covered fleas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 28, 2017 at 11:29 AM

    Welcome Prawfs and Deans to solo practice. You too can represent underserved traffic court defendants for $49.00. If you can't beat 'em, join the Ticket Clinic....Remember, "Don't Pay that Ticket".....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now watch what happens. The lazy, entitled parasites and their greasy job market pimps like Brian Leiter will moan and sniffle that so many "promising scholars" don't have 50 hours of paid time off every week to do their priceless and irreplaceable "research." lol

    In reality, those fraudulent gasbags should be grateful they aren't all going to prison for receiving billions of dollars in federal loan money. What a loathsome scheme to pay for all their juvenile fantasies: vacations, cars, houses, and tuition for their spoiled, uneducable children. One day they will seriously regret their moral indifference and especially their calculated lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They probably won't regret anything.

      They've made far more money and had steady employment for a far longer period than the vast majority of their students will their entire legal careers, if they even have legal careers.

      These people have destroyed countless lives, and they will never face any type of repercussion for it. They won't even acknowledge it, and society will never force them to.

      That's just the way things are. It's kind of sad, but that's just how things go.

      Delete
    2. Most law profe$$ors come from very well-heeled backgrounds. During our years in scam-blogging, we've seen plenty of examples, from the profe$$or whose CV includes mention of a tony boarding school in New England to the princess whose wedding was featured in the society pages of the New York Times.

      We've also seen plenty of profe$$ors flash money, such as the one that never failed to drop the name of the firm that organized luxurious package tours (think in particular of the one to Kenya, complete with a swimming pool in the room and an invitation to an "authentic" Maasai wedding).

      All in all, I don't expect many law profe$$ors to hurt for money when they lose their jobs. More's the pity.

      Delete
  4. On the last post someone posted a link where the people at Charlotte Law were ripping into the students. Calling the dumbasses and making fun of them and such.

    But here's what's funny. I remember 4 years ago when my neighbor got a little tipsy and he went off about how 'fucking stupid' the kids were at his school. He still teaches at Brooklyn Law School.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I discussed that, with references, here:

      https://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.ca/2017/01/2000000-page-views.html#comment-form

      I believe that the "students" at Harlotte are indeed lazy-assed dipshits. But the scamsters who admitted them have no right to mock them.

      You know, I went to an élite school, yet a few professors confided in me their dim view—which I shared—of the quality of the student body. The élite schools have more than their share of rich fucks who may or may not be worth a damn.

      Delete
    2. How does one run a law school with only a few full-time professors? We all know that law professors are far too goddamn high and mighty to teach more than one or two courses per semester, and that's when they're not on sabbatical. The obligatory courses (contracts, torts, and so on) would occupy a few professors, and there are still loads of electives to offer.

      The easy, and cheap, solution of hiring a bunch of adjuncts for a few thousand dollars each may not work in a remote place such as Grundy, Virginia, where Appalachian pretends to operate a law school.

      And doesn't the ABA heavily promote full-time professors over adjuncts in its rules?

      A school, especially a rural one, that cuts down to only seven or eight professors is probably on the verge of closing. That level of staff doesn't seem sustainable.

      Delete
  5. TWELFTH? Cooley once rated itself the SECOND best law school, after Harvard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the evidence:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20110816172843/http://www.cooley.edu/newsevents/2011/020411_judging_the_law_schools.html

      Delete
  6. The law schools at the top of this list must've seen a fucking huge drop in applicants over the last several years. We all know law school is an employment placement system for Aspies with elite law degrees who can't practice law for shit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Make sure to write your resumes in formats that are easy for Applicant Screening Software to read!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey unemployed law “professors,”

    Here is some helpful advice from one of your peers (excuse me, former peers, since you are now an unemployed law prof) on the faculty lounge to unemployed law graduates. While the advice was for law grads, not for the brilliant legal minds with all your experience lecturing on Blackacre and other legal concepts, surely you can gain something from this advice:

    1) “Assuming that you are diligent and industrious, you will find a legal job.”

    2) “I think that we as a society...have lost our appreciation for failing...You can learn a lot from failing...pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and give it your best again, [because it] adds a valuable set of skills to your toolbox.”

    3) “While large firms and most government jobs post their salary levels, many small and medium firms often do not. They typically ask you how much you are looking for in compensation...say something along the lines of ‘a salary that [is] commensurate with the responsibilities of the position.’”

    Not sure how the salary works out if you interview with the traffic ticket defense firm in Chicago, charging clients $49.99.

    I wouldn’t worry about being unemployed too long. Several law professors have written law review articles about how this is the year that employers will see a shortage of law graduates. If it was published in a law review, it must be true. And given the shortage, I don’t think you need to consider the advice of one of your peers that unemployed lawyers should move to Nebraska.

    If you are looking to expand your job search beyond the legal field and put your versatile JD to use, you should read law professor Deborah Jones Merritt’s study. Your former students are working in lucrative jobs as part-time substitute teachers, firefighters, party planners, lingerie sales people, pest control techs, and tennis instructors. Perhaps this is a good time to reconnect and network with former students!

    Good luck on the job search!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingJanuary 29, 2017 at 6:18 PM

      Excuse me, Son. You got that wrong. It is not $49.99. It is $49.00 for Chicago Traffic Ticket defense. Who taught you how to read billboards? You are $.99 off. Next time, get it right.

      Delete
    2. Well, with the senior citizen discount (junior citizen penalty), it's $38.50.

      Delete
  9. http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=123524

    On January 18, 2017 at 3:57 pm, JDU accountholder “passportfan3” posted a thread labeled “Law Schools Have Shed 1,460 Full-Time Faculty since 2010.”

    Here is the original post:

    “So there must have been 1,460 million-dollar-a-year partners added to the ranks of Biglaw over the same time period.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/01/law-schools-have-shed-1460-full-time-faculty-161-since-2010.html”

    On January 19, 2017 11:16 am, user “triplesix” provided this comment:

    “I will drink a beer for those poor suckers tonight.”

    ________________________________________
    JDU denizen “kretan182” wrote the following on January 19, 2017 at 11:45 am:

    “Life is hard now for a law professor.”

    ________________________________________
    User “turde” – one of the best contributors on that forum – furnished this gem, on January 22, 2017 10:18 am:

    “The professors will be fine they just need to network. Law partners will be beside themselves when they see someone wrote an article on hip-hop and the law, that's partner material.”

    ________________________________________
    On January 22, 2017 at 8:29 pm, “inho2solo” delivered this punch to the law school pigs’ snouts:

    “All of them will easily fall back into ++ $1 mio per year biglaw jobs.

    It's a given. They all have somewhere between 6 and 18 months experience in biglaw, after all, and all of them, based on that, were heading for biglaw partnerships.”

    Since “law professors” claim that they are performing a “public service” by teaching drivel, and foregoing HUGE salaries in the process, now they can go out and prove their baseless assertion. Does anyone think – for one damn second – that Biglaw firms and hiring partners will want to hire bitches and hags who refuse to work more than 4-6 hours per week?!?! Good luck getting approval from a managing partner, for a sabbatical so that you can publish another useless law review article, cockroach!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite a few law profe$$ors have never studied law. They don't even have a million-dollar JD, although they are supposedly qualified to teach in JD programs.

      Delete
  10. Hopefully, we'll start hearing stories of law professors becoming more cutthroat and duplicitous among their own ranks. I can only imagine what nontenured and adjunct faculty must be doing right now to make themselves more marketable in the legal education market. Still probably not as bad as some of the gunners in a PI sweatshop, but I wouldn't mind learning of a law school's faculty totally ripping itself apart.

    ReplyDelete
  11. With automation altering whole job sectors, when is someone gonna put law school lectures on DVD? That would cut down the cost by about 90 something percent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean they aren't already?

      Delete
    2. They'd be so goddamn boring that they'd probably qualify as toxic waste.

      Delete
  12. Last October on PrawfsBlawg, law professor applicants commented on callback interviews, offers, and the hiring process. Here are some delightful comments:

    “I had around 15 interviews, and I still have no call backs. Is it time to find a new career path?”

    “I have had the experience of doing lateral screening interviews via Skype. I must say, one thing that stunned me from my prior experience with lateral screening (non-AALS) interviews is that some schools simply never get back in touch with you. Given that lateral applications take more work and involve some amount of risk on the applicant's part (e.g. risk that their current colleagues will hear about their application), it seems like the least a committee can do is tell a lateral where they stand after an interview. Failure to get back in touch after a lateral screening interview is alienating and can have a negative impact on a school's reputation in the mind of the lateral candidate. It is worth keeping in mind that many of these lateral applicants may be voting in US News and World Report surveys at some point.”

    “Well, the callback rate is a disaster. It's a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at the meat market. It is so sad when you see what's happened. And a lot of this is because of....”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor babies! How many fucking notices of rejection do you think I have received over the past year?

      Delete
  13. In reply to Old Guy's comment at 7:26 pm:

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/11/after-indiana-tech-how-many-more-law-schools-will-close-20-80-will-a-top-25-school-be-among-them.html

    Back on November 3, 2016, Paul Caron published an entry entitled "After Indiana Tech, How Many More Law Schools Will Close? 20? 80? Will A Top 25 School Be Among Them?" Here is the full text below:

    "Indiana Tech Law School’s future seemed doomed from the time it opened in 2013.

    It was the state’s fifth law school and the 26th in the Midwest region, and critics said there was no need for another law school, especially in a time of declining enrollment numbers and fewer legal jobs.

    And now, after losing nearly $20 million and graduating one class of students — just two of whom passed this year’s bar exam — the school announced it’s closing at the end of the school year [Faculty, Students To Sue Indiana Tech For Fraud In Law School's Closure]. ...

    The likelihood of law school closures has been a hot topic among law school professors and bloggers for the past two years.

    Jerry Organ, of University of St. Thomas, compared today’s law school environment to what happened to dental schools in the 1980s. Ten percent closed due to a significant decline in the number of applicants. Could 10 percent of law schools shut down, he asked?

    Dorothy Brown, of Emory University School of Law, believes a top law school will shut down in the next two to four years. “Primarily, the law school would have to be hemorrhaging a lot of money over a sustained period of time with no end in sight,” she wrote. “Not just a one-time deficit, but millions of dollars in deficits over a sustained period.”

    And David Barnhizer, of Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said 80 law schools are at risk of closing. “Just as the legal employment market is over-saturated due to the surplus numbers of graduates law schools pumped into the system over the past twenty years, the productive capacity of the law school ‘industry’ is entirely out of balance with all foreseeable need for law graduates,” he wrote. “Given the direction the traditional employment markets for lawyers are heading no more than 80-100 law schools could easily serve America’s need for new law graduates.”

    In a Kaplan Test Prep survey, 65 percent of law school admissions officers thought it would be a good idea if at least a few law schools closed."

    Now look again at the chart from Matt Leichter. There are several commodes with fewer than 20 full-time faculty pigs. Arkansas Little Rock went from 30 in 2010 to 17 in 2016. RegenTTTT had 25 such leeches in 2010, and are now down to 12. For-profit trash pit Arizona $ummiTTTT went from 32 to 17 in that same time frame. Hell, La Verne had 19 full-timers and now only has nine of them. Appalachian Sewer of Law had seven full "professors" in 2016, but had 16 in 2010. There are plenty of other examples on this graph. If this keeps up, then it seems that several more ABA-accredited outhouses are in danger of closing their TTTT doors.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here are the ugly realities of the legal industry.

    According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the real GDP of the legal services sector has declined from $191,860,000,000 in 1997 to $189,738,000,000 in 2015 (in 2009 dollars). That is a decline of 1.1%. The lack of growth in an industry for a period of almost two decades is incredible. Despite the problems in the legal industry, the number of licensed attorneys increased from 953,260 in 1997 to 1,300,705 in 2015. That is an increase of 36%! The attorney data is from the ABA.

    In 1997, real GDP per licensed attorney was $201,267. In 2015, real GDP per licensed attorney fell to $145,873. That is a decline of 27.5%! Keep in mind, the legal industry does not behave like a perfect market with a homogenous product and freedom of entry. The output of the legal services industry is not equally distributed because you have a small fraction of attorneys from elite law schools providing high priced legal services to corporate clients. The majority of lawyers however, have to compete among themselves and with companies like legal zoom to provide low cost legal services.

    Also worth noting, the decline in GDP per licensed attorney did not occur because of the Great Recession. The overproduction of attorneys by law schools caused a decline in GDP per licensed attorney in 2004 (-1.4%), 2005 (-3.3%), 2006 (-0.7%), and 2007 (-1.5%). The Great Recession officially ended in 2009. Nevertheless, law schools continued to churn out more lawyers than the economy needed. As a result, GDP per licensed attorney declined in 2010 (-9.1%), 2011 (-1.1%), 2012 (-4.2%), 2013 (-5.1%), and 2014 (-2.0%).

    ReplyDelete
  15. The pigs are getting desperate. They know they risk losing their jobs. Check out the post “California’s New Bar Exam Format and ABA’s Proposed 75% Bar Passage Requirement Will Adversely Impact Diversity, Women, And Access to the Legal Profession” on TaxProf Blog.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/01/californias-new-bar-exam-format-and-abas-proposed-75-bar-passage-requirement-will-adversely-impact-d.html#more

    Pigs Dennis Saccuzzo and Nancy Johnson write:

    “An important justification for lower tier law schools is that they increase access to the profession.”

    “LSAT scores for schools in the top half...(the schools with the highest pass rates) have declined less than those for schools in the lower half. Therefore, a...consequence...will be a widening gap between top tier schools and the so-called access schools. Bar pass rates will go down at a much faster pace for the schools in the lower third.

    As a consequence of falling bar pass rates, many of the so-called access schools, already in trouble with ABA standards of accreditation as it relates to bar pass, will fall hopelessly below ABA criteria. Several ABA schools will simply be unable to meet ABA’s bar pass standards for accreditation.”

    Ha! Low ranked scam law schools are now referred to as “access schools” by the pigs.

    How the hell are these “access schools” when a substantial number of their victims fail the bar and the majority fail to obtain legal employment?

    It is amazing that the law school scam bloggers brought us to this point. A few simple blogs and facts has brought a powerful scam industry to the brink.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

      Delete
  16. To all the prawfs who've been let go since 2010.

    ....................../´¯/)
    ....................,/¯../
    .................../..../
    ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
    ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
    ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
    .........\.................'...../
    ..........''...\.......... _.·´
    ............\..............(
    ..............\.............\...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kellyanne Conway went to George Washington. From what she says, apparently they don't teach the constitution there.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics