I tutor many law students and believe I have a good feel for the lay of the land. Prospective law students are seldom (ever?) told that the market for lawyers is dismal. Many law schools, particularly private ones, have no economic incentive (in the form of increased overhead) to raise the black flag. For each additional student entering a law school- backstopped by government loans- a few more desks have to be purchased and associate professors are simply told they will have to accommodate one more student in each of their classes. More profitable yet, adjunct professors can be hired at 2K per semester- per two hour credit [voluntary servitude] and easily ditched. I am sure Warren Buffet would be very pleased if all his businesses had the benefit of this model.
30
Forget law school. Consider nursing school or other health care related/ancillary fields. Consider jobs that would be more difficult to offshore and automate.
24
My lawyer father always wanted me to go to law school even though he knew I never wanted to be a lawyer. He told me his reason for it " You are living in a nation governed by laws. The more you know about them, especially in your career choice the more successful you'll be."
8
Get a degree in a stem field alnog with a law degree. Know a foreign language such as Spanish, Japanese,Chinese, and Russian. Teh point is even if a law job doesn't pan out(and you have a better chance with more to offer) you can get a job in another field where there is demand.
3
STEM yes. Foreign language, Yes. But not a lot of people can do that, and pass the bar. A friend got poor grades in law school and had a degree in a hard science and speaks an Asian language fluently. He does have a job, but it's not really "legal."
I speak Spanish fluently. It's an asset, but it's not necessarily as useful as one might think, especially given the amount of work one must devote to it. I learn new words everyday while reading the newspaper. It took me 15 years to do this, and I'm a lot more gifted than 90% people when it comes to foreign languages.
I speak Spanish fluently. It's an asset, but it's not necessarily as useful as one might think, especially given the amount of work one must devote to it. I learn new words everyday while reading the newspaper. It took me 15 years to do this, and I'm a lot more gifted than 90% people when it comes to foreign languages.
14
Don't worry, they are needed in politics, some of them will be presidents.
2
Solutions include moving toreign countries where there is a need and law is still respected, being willing to work for less in poor and rural areas. helping immigrants and the disadvataged, and generally not being greedy.
9
Excellent article. I had to retire from my law firm 13 years ago for health reasons. But I was a lawyer in what now looks clearly to have been the golden age for private lawyers in America. The trouble today is that technology, a shrinking demand for lawyers at the top, and an overabundance of job seekers has made too many young people take the risk of law school when they should be going for jobs in the health care field, or considering plumbing or electrical work.
Some of this is on the students. They should read enough, and be intelligent enough, to know what they are confronting. But I do not take the attitude that I got mine and it's their own fault if they do not. Because law schools are still proliferating, and actively seek students who take out loans to generate cash. Frankly, I think it is all fraudulent, just as I think for-profit "universities" are. They are Ponzi schemes, really. Designed to steal money from the gullible.
And asking the ABA to police this? Don't make me laugh. The ABA is in cahoots with the law schools. Because the more people with law degrees, the more potential ABA members. Clients rather like it too, because if there are enough hungry lawyers out there, fees will come down. Law, like so many other job sectors today, is a race to the bottom for those who practice. That is what the 1% wants for everyone. Make the rats scramble for crumbs, whatever their fancy degrees might say. It is sad and criminal, and nothing will be done about it.
Some of this is on the students. They should read enough, and be intelligent enough, to know what they are confronting. But I do not take the attitude that I got mine and it's their own fault if they do not. Because law schools are still proliferating, and actively seek students who take out loans to generate cash. Frankly, I think it is all fraudulent, just as I think for-profit "universities" are. They are Ponzi schemes, really. Designed to steal money from the gullible.
And asking the ABA to police this? Don't make me laugh. The ABA is in cahoots with the law schools. Because the more people with law degrees, the more potential ABA members. Clients rather like it too, because if there are enough hungry lawyers out there, fees will come down. Law, like so many other job sectors today, is a race to the bottom for those who practice. That is what the 1% wants for everyone. Make the rats scramble for crumbs, whatever their fancy degrees might say. It is sad and criminal, and nothing will be done about it.
41
The USA has 40x as many lawyers per capita as Japan.
Now you know why Congress doesn’t work either.
Now you know why Congress doesn’t work either.
25
If we halted federal student loans to law schools that have opened in the last 25 years the problem would largely take car of itself. These schools were opened at a time when the supply already exceeded demand. This action is not cruel it only applies a logical review that was absent at the time of inception. It was only the hubris of state legislators and aspiring law school deans that allowed these unnecessary and ultimately worthless institutions to be built.
14
Ego and greed. Lawyers, along with doctors, have been at the top of the perceived hierarchy of the workforce in America. They are “Professionals”. And, historically, joining the rank of Professional as a lawyer has been financially rewarding as well. The perception of exalted social status persists even if the practice of law as portrayed in song and story and cinema no longer exists—if it ever actually existed—and the promise of a lucrative career has become an illusion. Being a lawyer is the brassiest of the brass rings possibly within reach for many. So, why not, roll the dice and get the loans? The law school industry bubble has become much like the real estate bubble of the 2000s. Perceived social status (home ownership) along with perceived wealth gains (the long bull market in US real estate) blinded people to the realities of the risks they were taking in buying overpriced properties in marginal areas. And just as there were lenders and brokers using government backed cash to sell this idea to the starry-eyed homebuyers and rating agencies to bless these deals, we now have for-profit colleges singing the siren song to would-be lawyers and the ABA blessing the toxic tranches. And, in the end, the newly minted homeowner...er, lawyers…will be stuck with the debt; the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill to fix it all; and the corporate execs will relax in the Caymans. The more things change,...
9
I graduated in 2013 from a 2nd tier (50-100) law school in California. I work as a contract attorney, meaning I am not employed full time. I work for three different people. I make about $25,000. I live with my dad. I have an IQ of 140. I recently interviewed for a job at a small firm in LA. I asked for $65,000. I was told the position paid $50,000. This is not why I went to law school. I should have done something different. People who work as bartenders make more money than I do. I have an actual skill that requires 3 years of education and passing a rigorous exam which only 40% pass. Unless you are in the top 10-20% of your class at a top 100 law school, you are probably not going to make as much money as you think. This is reality. I am considering learning computer programming, yet I fear such a job will be outsourced.
40
I agree with Mr. Harper that law school tuition seems disconnected from the reality of the job market. However, it seems to me, the job market is also crowded by the many law students and would-be lawyers who have unrealistic expectations about the profession they are entering.
I have been a lawyer nine years. I am fortunate in that I am in a field of law I enjoy, despite day to day frustrations. The pay is not especially good by the standards of the profession, but I make a decent living compared to most Americans. I am happy to be doing what I am doing.
In this, among the lawyers I know, I am in a small minority. Almost every lawyer I have encountered seem to rather be in another profession: writer, musician, yoga teacher, fitness instructor, game designer, clown (as one lawyer wrote in a recent NYT op piece) . . . anything but a lawyer.
The profession (and law schools) seems to be crowded with people who don't want to be lawyers, but have been lured in (or lured themselves in) with promises of financial rewards. I don't think this is healthy: for the profession or for those people who are leading unhappy careers.
In this, I think law schools and the student loan system contribute to the problem. Students take high loans to the high tuition of even public schools, and by the time they figure out the profession isn't for them, they are already burdened by more debt than they can pay off. They have to push on just to pay off those loans.
I have been a lawyer nine years. I am fortunate in that I am in a field of law I enjoy, despite day to day frustrations. The pay is not especially good by the standards of the profession, but I make a decent living compared to most Americans. I am happy to be doing what I am doing.
In this, among the lawyers I know, I am in a small minority. Almost every lawyer I have encountered seem to rather be in another profession: writer, musician, yoga teacher, fitness instructor, game designer, clown (as one lawyer wrote in a recent NYT op piece) . . . anything but a lawyer.
The profession (and law schools) seems to be crowded with people who don't want to be lawyers, but have been lured in (or lured themselves in) with promises of financial rewards. I don't think this is healthy: for the profession or for those people who are leading unhappy careers.
In this, I think law schools and the student loan system contribute to the problem. Students take high loans to the high tuition of even public schools, and by the time they figure out the profession isn't for them, they are already burdened by more debt than they can pay off. They have to push on just to pay off those loans.
20
Why can't law schools acting like a medical school where students enrollment is limited and training rigorous. In addition, ethic is lacking in law graduates. Just look at the congress members, one knows immediately how much improvement our law schools are needed.
15
I have been a practicing attorney for 9 years. Tuition has gone up at my alma mater (a state school) since when I was there, and it wasn't cheap back then. Meanwhile, the school is still very aggressively fund-raising from alums (with a contracted, outside phone bank, which I don't imagine is cheap.)
I would be very curious about where all this money is going. How much of this money really accounts for education? For an outside observer like me, it seems law schools are more in the business of prestige-mongering than actual education.
I would be very curious about where all this money is going. How much of this money really accounts for education? For an outside observer like me, it seems law schools are more in the business of prestige-mongering than actual education.
16
Prestige-mongering... Now that's what I call a killer phrase. If you don't use that as the title of a book within five years I am coming over to steal it off your porch.
14
Dont underestimate longer life spans in the equation. Many lawyers are small businesses with no pension so to practice at a lower level and make 60k or so is still viable but stymies the inflow of new lawyers. Many years ago I remember reading an article on law schools that mentioned that many went from a dearth of private sector jobs and poor math/science skills. I have always been bothered by the media emphasizing easy to portray jobs(law, ad agency, etc) at the expense of the vast majority of jobs that require math/science/profit making skills. The court system is a job machine immune to technology..if you go to probate or civil court there are armies of secretaries, bailiffs etc who get the jobs as political payoffs who have long been eliminated by the private sector.
6
The only real answer is to have a clinical rotation year- much like medical school. No medical school can create an MD without having seen a patient, attempted a diagnosis or treatment, or even having a foot in the real world of the hospital. A JD from a law school- requires none of that. Students on their own initiative look for internships and clerkships- the law school sits back and may have department that assists in that search- peripherally.
It is up to the law school to create programs with different governmental agencies and public companies- supported with Law School dollars- that train students to become real lawyers- not essay writers and multiple choice question answerers. Real cases with attorneys whether criminal or civil.
Without that- law schools know that 50 students gets them 20 million, 100 students get them 40 million and 200 students will net them 80 million. So why not enroll 200 students.
It is up to the law school to create programs with different governmental agencies and public companies- supported with Law School dollars- that train students to become real lawyers- not essay writers and multiple choice question answerers. Real cases with attorneys whether criminal or civil.
Without that- law schools know that 50 students gets them 20 million, 100 students get them 40 million and 200 students will net them 80 million. So why not enroll 200 students.
13
Shed no crocodile tears. For two decades now the handwriting has been on the wall that the legal profession has become ever increasingly saturated with newly-minted lawyers for whom no suitable employment exists. And, year after year, the newly minted law students made the assumption that they would be the exception and land a fat remunerative position. Well...adult decisions have adult consequences. They guessed wrong. Too bad, so sad but their sense of entitlement is sickening. The law school's mission is to provide a legal education...it is the graduate's job to make use of it, including finding employment. Like it or not, unless you went to one of the top ten schools, graduated at least in the top 25% of your class and were on the Law Review or were admitted into the Order of the Coif, you are not going to practice with Big Law and earn those egregious paychecks.
This "problem" reflects an even larger problem. For several generations now the attitude has been that unless you go to college and earn degree after degree, you are a second-class person. Actually, the real problem is that middle class and upper middle class kids blanche at the idea of a career where you get your hands dirty and, perish the thought, might actually have to do manual labor. My plumber laughs all the way to the bank - and he got his Caribbean timeshare and fishing cruiser years before I could afford such baubles.
This "problem" reflects an even larger problem. For several generations now the attitude has been that unless you go to college and earn degree after degree, you are a second-class person. Actually, the real problem is that middle class and upper middle class kids blanche at the idea of a career where you get your hands dirty and, perish the thought, might actually have to do manual labor. My plumber laughs all the way to the bank - and he got his Caribbean timeshare and fishing cruiser years before I could afford such baubles.
19
For the ABA to act responsibly would require them to speak the truth, something lawyers have great difficulty doing.
6
This is an experiment that should teach us something about federal student loan policy in general.
The way to make higher education affordable isn't to subsidize student loans. That just exacerbates the problem. Perhaps as mentioned in the article the solution is to require that the colleges themselves bear some of the repayment risk so they have an incentive to control costs.
The way to make higher education affordable isn't to subsidize student loans. That just exacerbates the problem. Perhaps as mentioned in the article the solution is to require that the colleges themselves bear some of the repayment risk so they have an incentive to control costs.
11
Was this article intended to invoke an empathetic response? Pathetic! Hey, that's a rhyme!
2
To help employ lawyers, all Justice Centers should begin to do abortions, assisted suicide, and euthanasia (A, AS, & E) as LEGAL procedures and not "medical" procedures except only insofar as there may be a rare complication requiring medical response. As LEGAL, not "medical," procedures, every Justice Center or equivalent should have its "A, AS, & E" section where all these procedures are to be done by those in the legal system employing many. That is, judges, prosecutors, politicians, and attorneys in that Justice Center's sphere of involvement would be required to rotate performing the procedures so that income will be reasonably distributed. Clearly, the procedures have been confirmed as safe, simple, easily done with low probability of complications especially for assisted suicide and euthanasia. Abortion is perhaps the most complicated, but anyone who knows how to have sex, could easily master the machines for early abortions consistent with good legal practice. Easily accessible (almost "drive through") clean, comfortable, warm, quiet, relaxing rooms with good social service workers offering support and assistance while the judges et al demonstrated the acme of their legal ability). All procedures are to be routine courses in all law schools--(only 4 days would likely be required--one day for AS & E; 2 days for Abortion), with one day of observing practice at the Justice Center.
Law school is the triumph of reckless optimism over reality. Everyone thinks they can be the one person who gets the Biglaw job.
The ABA made the mess in the first place by accrediting all the marginal law schools. The only way to fix the problem is to reduce the supply of lawyers or increase the demand. Some - a lot - of these marginal schools need to close.
The ABA made the mess in the first place by accrediting all the marginal law schools. The only way to fix the problem is to reduce the supply of lawyers or increase the demand. Some - a lot - of these marginal schools need to close.
14
Readers may be interested in the analogous situation in Ph.D. school, in every academic subject from philosophy to physics. Second and third rank universities seduce prospective students with the supposed importance of their training and work, and then the new Ph.D.s discover there are no jobs.
One merciful difference: Ph.D. candidates are generally supported as teaching or research assistants, and don't need to borrow. Not so merciful: the average duration of Ph.D. training is 6--7 years, not 3.
One merciful difference: Ph.D. candidates are generally supported as teaching or research assistants, and don't need to borrow. Not so merciful: the average duration of Ph.D. training is 6--7 years, not 3.
9
As long as the government guarantees loans for students that will not be employed after college (or law school, or a PhD, etc.), we will be in this predicament. That is, young people will strive and work hard for entry into a profession they have no chance of gainful employment.
When the government guarantees something, it stops the free market and accountability. There is no rational stabilization or in this case, no need to stop the double digit increases for tuition. The ABA must work to close all 3rd and 4th tier law schools - sorry, but the LSAT is a good predictor of being a capable lawyer and those lower tiered schools accept anyone and everyone in the name of guaranteed monies from DC. It's wrong and just serves as a cash cow for the Universities. Even the higher tiered schools produce too many graduates to be absorbed in a market that is shrinking.
Sad too as there are many that need representation, but cannot afford it.
When the government guarantees something, it stops the free market and accountability. There is no rational stabilization or in this case, no need to stop the double digit increases for tuition. The ABA must work to close all 3rd and 4th tier law schools - sorry, but the LSAT is a good predictor of being a capable lawyer and those lower tiered schools accept anyone and everyone in the name of guaranteed monies from DC. It's wrong and just serves as a cash cow for the Universities. Even the higher tiered schools produce too many graduates to be absorbed in a market that is shrinking.
Sad too as there are many that need representation, but cannot afford it.
10
To keep lawyers employed is why so many laws are passed and why the government is always expanding. Do not worry, the government will just add a new paper-shuffling Democrat-filled bureaucracy. The Affordable Health Care Act should handle a million more lawyers if they add a few more pages. The more the lawyers, the lesser the percentage of real productive workers in America. Whatever, do not cut back on law schools. They are why the law is now an established religion in the US.
3
The reasons laws are enacted are to benefit the public; recall the expressions "to ensure domestic tranquility, to promote the general welfare."
Anti-government nonsense of this sort was shouted by the rabble in Henry IV- "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!" This, you understand, was a joke to the thinking citizens in that audience.
Anti-government nonsense of this sort was shouted by the rabble in Henry IV- "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!" This, you understand, was a joke to the thinking citizens in that audience.
10
Let's change state laws to allow people to work as public defenders with only a passed bar exam, not a law degree. I think lots of law grads would like to be public defenders but can't afford it. If they could skip law school the math would change dramatically. It's not like the quality could get much worse. In fact it might get better.
5
Because of course the poor do not deserve competent representation, or they would not have been born poor and needy.
2
Let's face it, big change is not going to happen. So one small but helpful change could be for the ABA to start funding a required pre-application debt counseling program for law school applicants. The counselor would sit down with the student, review their LSAT score and likely schools, review their financial assets, and explain to them their likely post-graduation debt per month, the average income of graduates from their likely schools, and the likely quality of life that will result. I have done this calculus with several children of friends who hoped to go to law school. It is very eye-opening.
6
People go to law school even though there is a surplus of lawyers in part because there seems to be no appealing alternative--no other field with brighter employment prospects.
People invest in an overvalued stock market in part because there is no appealing alternative--interest rates are very low.
The people are in trouble.
People invest in an overvalued stock market in part because there is no appealing alternative--interest rates are very low.
The people are in trouble.
10
Well, at least the Bard would be pleased.
4
I see two issues, one discussed here, one not. Yes, law schools pump out too many graduates and it costs way too much. Selling the myth of a lucrative, highly regarded profession, it's the full employment act for law professors who probably earn way in excess of what they produce and deserve, and for colleges that used to be service based and now look mostly to how much they can squeeze students, with the for profits taking this to the next level of greed.
Here's the second issue. For what one supposedly got, the high pay and high prestige, the degree itself just doesn't require much time wise compared to other professions. A 3 yr. general practice graduate degree with no required internship before sitting for the bar, and no specializations either in law school or afterwards like medicine, requiring passing specialized board certification testing to get to hang a shingle in that and only that specialization, or like engineering or teaching, where one selects in school one area of specialization and gets certified only in that area. Really rather absurd if you examine it. What does one come out of law school competent to do? Unofficially, the set up was that law firms were to continue to educate and bring along their hirees. But there's no requirement for this and from the comments, this system really only exists for the top tier students from top tier universities selected by top tier firms. It's time that the profession address this. Train better, for less.
Here's the second issue. For what one supposedly got, the high pay and high prestige, the degree itself just doesn't require much time wise compared to other professions. A 3 yr. general practice graduate degree with no required internship before sitting for the bar, and no specializations either in law school or afterwards like medicine, requiring passing specialized board certification testing to get to hang a shingle in that and only that specialization, or like engineering or teaching, where one selects in school one area of specialization and gets certified only in that area. Really rather absurd if you examine it. What does one come out of law school competent to do? Unofficially, the set up was that law firms were to continue to educate and bring along their hirees. But there's no requirement for this and from the comments, this system really only exists for the top tier students from top tier universities selected by top tier firms. It's time that the profession address this. Train better, for less.
6
The writer's not exaggerating about law schools producing TWICE as many graduates as the BLS projects there to be available jobs. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, law schools are currently churning out 385,000 grads annually, yet the BLS only projects an average of 197,000 lawyer job openings each year from 2010 to 2022. This creates a snowball effect where un- or underemployed grads from prior years start competing with new graduates for jobs available, making it even harder for everyone to find work.
A similar issue is happening in counseling, which I cover here: http://invibed.com/career/is-grad-school-worth-the-cost/
A similar issue is happening in counseling, which I cover here: http://invibed.com/career/is-grad-school-worth-the-cost/
4
I do not understand why the NY Times is so fixated on law schools and the legal profession. No one holds a gun to the head of anyone and requires that they go to law school. The article implies that something was done to these students. That info. was kept from them. That they were cheated. Nothing can be further from the true. People choose to go to law school. People choose to take out loans. (And in fact there are some areas of the legal profession where jobs are plentiful - for example patent attorney.)
All of that aside, what I really struggle with is why the focus on the legal profession. I know people who get undergraduate and graduate degrees in English, or anthropology, or philosophy or any one of a number of subjects that lead to no jobs at all. As an employer, I am constantly swamped with resumes of these graduates. Recently, a woman with a Master's degree in English and teaching applied for a job with my company because she could not find a permanent teaching job. Should we abolish all of these majors because they do not lead to certain employment?
It is about choice. My undergraduate degree is in Fine Arts. I never worked a day as an artist. And I do not hold that against the University that awarded me the degree.
All of that aside, what I really struggle with is why the focus on the legal profession. I know people who get undergraduate and graduate degrees in English, or anthropology, or philosophy or any one of a number of subjects that lead to no jobs at all. As an employer, I am constantly swamped with resumes of these graduates. Recently, a woman with a Master's degree in English and teaching applied for a job with my company because she could not find a permanent teaching job. Should we abolish all of these majors because they do not lead to certain employment?
It is about choice. My undergraduate degree is in Fine Arts. I never worked a day as an artist. And I do not hold that against the University that awarded me the degree.
8
The point is that the students were lied to. Law schools were publishing statistics showing high employment rates in order to do well in the rankings. The article shows that those statistics were misleading. Also, the point of the article is to shine light on the fact that going to law school is not a golden ticket, as many people seem to think. By contrast, no one thinks that a liberal arts degree is going to lead to a lucrative job, so there is no need to write an article about that.
2
Yep. Sounds like they should have seen a lawyer.
1
Could be the industry itself is to blame for a shrinking client base - excessive fees, incompetence, dishonesty and the courts seem to be tolerant of all this.
My one experience with attorneys was appalling and left me frustrated, angry and poorer. What seemed to be a fairly straightforward issue was made complex and never did get resolved. I ended up paying what amounted to extortion to a FL firm to avoid an ongoing nightmare.
Never again, If I ever need legal assistance in the future, I'll go pro se.
My one experience with attorneys was appalling and left me frustrated, angry and poorer. What seemed to be a fairly straightforward issue was made complex and never did get resolved. I ended up paying what amounted to extortion to a FL firm to avoid an ongoing nightmare.
Never again, If I ever need legal assistance in the future, I'll go pro se.
1
Lots of comments here about improving the quality of law school graduates, but very few addressing one of the main points of the article: there are TOO MANY lawyers in this country for the number of high-paying jobs available.
That's not to say that there isn't work for the many who are currently unemployed, but they can't afford to take low paying public interest work because they're drowning in debt. Meanwhile, their numbers keep growing.
Say what you will about how crooked or amoral lawyers are, part of the reason people keep going to law school is the status associated with being an attorney. Kids who are raised to think they deserve the best of everything are loath to take 'menial' (aka blue collar) work no matter how well it pays and having a son or daughter who's a lawyer puts you right near the top of the parental bragging rights heap.
Until we stop thinking that the only careers worth having are the ones dependent upon post-graduate study, we're going to be stuck with a lot of overqualified, over-burdened, unhappy people in this country.
That's not to say that there isn't work for the many who are currently unemployed, but they can't afford to take low paying public interest work because they're drowning in debt. Meanwhile, their numbers keep growing.
Say what you will about how crooked or amoral lawyers are, part of the reason people keep going to law school is the status associated with being an attorney. Kids who are raised to think they deserve the best of everything are loath to take 'menial' (aka blue collar) work no matter how well it pays and having a son or daughter who's a lawyer puts you right near the top of the parental bragging rights heap.
Until we stop thinking that the only careers worth having are the ones dependent upon post-graduate study, we're going to be stuck with a lot of overqualified, over-burdened, unhappy people in this country.
5
How is it that after hundreds of thousands of young people saddled with crushing suicidal debt while deans of garbage law schools take home 600k in salaries that we are still talking about this neutrally? We have betrayed our youth and sustained our wealth on their misery. I am a former legal academic that abandoned the field for three reasons (1) most of my colleagues had homeopathic intellects, not detectable with known scientific means, although imputed; (2) this bolstered by a total failure of pedagogy that encouraged this, i.e. nothing that is being done in law schools maps on to effective learning, see bell curve and the fact that teaching capacity PLAYS NO ROLE in hiring(3) no relevance to either society or broader social issues, i.e. the schools neither train effective and circumspect lawyers, nor enable students to understand the deeper workings of this desperately challenged society. Legal education in America is a cruel joke played on an unwitting and hapless youth. Everyone who tolerates this, or is indifferent to it, or apologies for it, is personally culpable for what we are dong to our youth. Talk to a student from a second or third rate law school with 250k plus of debt. What is left for them? Endless misery or emigration at this point. This is the cold hard reality of the apologists and parasites profiting from legal "education".
10
Forty-five years ago, when I was admitted to the California Bar, law jobs were relatively plentiful, largely because public sector employment provided opportunities to build careers in our nation's physical and social infrastructure. Those days are long gone, and in many respects, to our overall detriment. Governments at all levels are under pressure to draw back from regulatory enforcement; courts are poorly funded and under enormous pressure to move cases as rapidly as possible; but mostly, individuals, families, and small businesses of every sort simply cannot afford today's costly legal services. Unless a firm has a stable of well-heeled clients, law firms are under enormous pressures to churn out legal work faster and at less cost than ever before. At the same time, the Internet has expanded the breadth and depth of legal research exponentially. Whereas, in past decades there might be one or two leading cases on particular subject, now there maybe 50 or 60, each with a slightly different holding, and practitioners, looking for the perfect match of law and fact patterns still need to take time to sift through these materials and craft arguments that apply those legal precedents the facts of their case. Litigation discovery now includes email traffic that can run to the millions of pages, all of which devours time.
Nowadays, lesser-paid legal technicians can do much of the journeyman work that Bar-licensed practitioners used to do, and at lesser cost to their clients.
Nowadays, lesser-paid legal technicians can do much of the journeyman work that Bar-licensed practitioners used to do, and at lesser cost to their clients.
6
I wonder,
how much did the author speak out about this growing situation before he had a book to plug?
Would he have considered taking less at the top of his firm to allow investment in younger attorneys working their way up as he did? If not, why not? Does he really need all that and then some?
What do his children do? Is he subsidizing their pursuits with his legal wealth?
Next up, all of the law professors who take the inflated salaries and deliver very little in the way of practical skills... is it time to ask those older professors to pack their bags and wean themselves from the trough? I bet we could replace them with contracted workers too, who know just as much or more, and are willing to work for lesser wages than men like Harper knew and know.
how much did the author speak out about this growing situation before he had a book to plug?
Would he have considered taking less at the top of his firm to allow investment in younger attorneys working their way up as he did? If not, why not? Does he really need all that and then some?
What do his children do? Is he subsidizing their pursuits with his legal wealth?
Next up, all of the law professors who take the inflated salaries and deliver very little in the way of practical skills... is it time to ask those older professors to pack their bags and wean themselves from the trough? I bet we could replace them with contracted workers too, who know just as much or more, and are willing to work for lesser wages than men like Harper knew and know.
3
This is not only a problem of law schools. Universities are also producing too many PhDs who cannot find jobs. They do this because that's the way to make money. They don't care what going to happen to those graduates after completion of their degrees. All law and graduate programs at universities should be evaluated to check how many of these people get job, real jobs, full time long-term jobs, and not some part time or temporary jobs. If they don't, this programs should be revised, the schools should be forced to only produce a number of students that the local market can take. As for now we the demand for law and PhDs are low, so should the # of students the schools are allow to admit. Universities hire high paid administrators and then wine that they are in debt. This must stop!!!!
3
Steven is half right. Yes there are too many law students. But, more importantly, there are already far too many lawyers!
1
My recent shared comment is replete with word changes and misspellings thanks to Apple Spell. I apologize to those who now think I'm an illiterate attorney!
1
There is always a place in The U.S. for a hard working diligent cminnicative analytical trained lawyer. Either fire toy in law, or on a related fired like business, non profit, academia.
Those super lawyer jobs are rare.
But I encourage young people with the right mix of human talent to pursue the law. It can be very rewarding. ( I am a trained lawyer who ended up with a career in business) .
Those super lawyer jobs are rare.
But I encourage young people with the right mix of human talent to pursue the law. It can be very rewarding. ( I am a trained lawyer who ended up with a career in business) .
2
To all the opinions imploring young students to avoid going to law school because it is "a waste of time and money", I respect that. But what about the few of us who are in law school not because of the status, money, or a stable career path? But because of passion. What are we to do if we get in up in the morning striving to change the lives of the voiceless, the marginalized, and the exploited? Should their reaching hands be turned away because markets are inefficient and the economy no longer support community-improving behaviour?
I may be idealistic, as I also have a need to provide for myself and my loved ones. I am paying off student loans with two jobs and little sleep.
But I believe that law school is about a cause, a communal cause, that's bigger than my own. One that gives a voice to the voiceless. Even if it comes at a high price.
I may be idealistic, as I also have a need to provide for myself and my loved ones. I am paying off student loans with two jobs and little sleep.
But I believe that law school is about a cause, a communal cause, that's bigger than my own. One that gives a voice to the voiceless. Even if it comes at a high price.
3
So very true. I have practiced for 31 years, not to make a fortune or be a Big Man on Campus. I just love to help people in need.
While it may be the case that legal education -- and, indeed, most higher education -- is too expensive, the call to reduce the number of lawyers is Shakespearean and would serve only to further privilege the already privileged in this country. How can there be too many lawyers when 80% of low income and 40 to 60% of middle income have unmet legal needs? (http://tinyurl.com/q8lc563) Perhaps we need to rethink how all higher education is financed and create a new understanding of what kinds of work lawyers should -- and should expect -- to do. So long as law schools teach that students should shoot for representation of the wealthy, there will indeed be "too many" lawyers.
9
This problem is not unique to law schools. The proliferation of for profit graduate/professional schools is flooding the market with people who are unlikely to ever earn enough to pay off their loans. In Psychology PsyD programs where an internship is REQUIRED to complete the degree, there are insufficient placements for the number of applicants, and even fewer of the American Psychological Association accredited programs required by some states for licensure. This leaves some students in limbo without the ability to complete their degree while they spot and reapply for internships, and others whose internships will not enable them to practice in the state of their choice. The virtually unlimited availability of federal loan money to finance such marginal educational endeavors is a major contributor to the problem, but so are the agencies which accredit professional schools without looking at the quality of the product they produce.
Sue Antell PhD
Sue Antell PhD
There are a lot of things that make legal education dysfunctional. One is the cost. The emphasis is on making a lot of money, which is now necessary because of high tuition. The other dirty little secret is that even if you go to a great law school, the employers want to hire out of the very top of the class. So that leaves a lot of people looking for work, generally with no help from the school. It is disgraceful that law schools, as well as higher education in general, have become income generators, rather than institutions of higher learning. While this has something to do with the student loan program, I blame the school administration, and, in the case of state schools, the legislature's underfunding so that the schools need to be drumming up the dollars. Graduates are out there looking for dollars rather than opting for public or small firm work which would actually serve the public. Finally, the ABA needs to do something about the for profit schools and those with very low bar passage rates if they want to keep any credibility.
36
Law schools are for professional degrees. When there are not enough jobs, they should not admit new students until the market demands more lawyers. I wonder what areas of law are overcrowded.
1
If these guys were mostly for-profits the government would have attacked them, then again, the government and department of Education are full of lawyers so I guess they would protect their own.......
2
This article is one of a long series of similar ones about law schools..... Many comments are 'right on.' But...pray tell....are law schools the only kinds of schools who graduate lots and lots of students who cannot get jobs or work in the profession they ostensibly prepared for? Ha! The entire 'college' system is dubious in terms of students going ot school.. just because...and coming out and expecting (apparently) good, relevant jobs when they come out. The situation is much broader than law schools, although one would think an older person (law schools enroll mainly people who have already completed a 4 year degree) would have more sense. IMO the whole U.S. society is a bit delusional about 'degrees' and 'college.' We simply have too many potential workers for too few decent jobs. And kids and parents are frantically trying to play musical chairs...what else can they do? In my case...I'm 66....I lived through a 'golden age'...I don't like being so old, but I do feel lucky not to be engaged in the rat race of 2015.
4
Diversity within the InfiLaw group of law schools extends well beyond the students. Leadership positions within InfiLaw have attracted impressive numbers of people from traditional legal education including the first African-American president of the American Bar Association, the second female president of the American Bar Association, and several deans and assistant deans. In terms of credentials, they've been joined by former chairs of the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education (which decides matters of law school accreditation, and deans from highly regarded (including first-tier institutions). They have evidently seen merit and potential where Mr. Harper sees only hopelessness.
What would legal education be under Mr. Harper's paradigm? He implies that there should be far fewer law schools, with far fewer students. Further, he hints that admissions committees should be much more hesitant to accept applicants whose background, LSAT, UGPA, and resources present a considerable statistical probability of post-graduate underemployment. If his vision become reality, most law schools would close, and the ones that remain would roughly equate to the most elite 50 institutions as ranked by the notoriously manipulable U.S. News system. The diversity of students at these remaining schools and of the legal profession as a whole would be impoverished. A higher percentage of graduates would indeed find J.D.-required employment, but at what cost to society?
What would legal education be under Mr. Harper's paradigm? He implies that there should be far fewer law schools, with far fewer students. Further, he hints that admissions committees should be much more hesitant to accept applicants whose background, LSAT, UGPA, and resources present a considerable statistical probability of post-graduate underemployment. If his vision become reality, most law schools would close, and the ones that remain would roughly equate to the most elite 50 institutions as ranked by the notoriously manipulable U.S. News system. The diversity of students at these remaining schools and of the legal profession as a whole would be impoverished. A higher percentage of graduates would indeed find J.D.-required employment, but at what cost to society?
2
Mr. Harper's polemic raises some important issues, but he fails to propose a solution--or at least a cure that wouldn't be worse than the disease. He also ignores the correlation between student diversity, less traditional numerical credentials, and difficulty in finding employment.
The only three law schools he singles out for individualized condemnation are three of the most diverse law schools in the nation. In terms of racial, gender, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity, very few law schools even approach the achievements of Charlotte, Florida Coastal, and Arizona Summit. Yet a great many other law schools--in fact, virtually all but the very most elite/elitist law schools--have experienced real challenges in post-graduation placement since 2008. Numerous law schools have reduced the size of their faculties, expanded the LSAT/UGPA range for admissions, and continued to raise tuition. Mr. Harper ignores these much more endemic problems as he narrowly aims at only the three highly-diverse institutions. Additionally, students at these law schools have a low default rate on student loans, which contradicts Mr. Harper's assumption that they are somehow unfit for the study of law and unable to handle their responsibilities.
The only three law schools he singles out for individualized condemnation are three of the most diverse law schools in the nation. In terms of racial, gender, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity, very few law schools even approach the achievements of Charlotte, Florida Coastal, and Arizona Summit. Yet a great many other law schools--in fact, virtually all but the very most elite/elitist law schools--have experienced real challenges in post-graduation placement since 2008. Numerous law schools have reduced the size of their faculties, expanded the LSAT/UGPA range for admissions, and continued to raise tuition. Mr. Harper ignores these much more endemic problems as he narrowly aims at only the three highly-diverse institutions. Additionally, students at these law schools have a low default rate on student loans, which contradicts Mr. Harper's assumption that they are somehow unfit for the study of law and unable to handle their responsibilities.
3
Let's start with the brass tacks: Dennis W. Archer should not have been chairman of the 2014 A.B.A. task force. And anyone who willing served on the task force under his chairmanship is suspect and highly compromised.
6
What all the unemployed lawyers should do is sue the law schools they graduated from.
That will reduce the unemployment of law graduates but that also would weaken their case against the law schools. Catch 22, i say.
That will reduce the unemployment of law graduates but that also would weaken their case against the law schools. Catch 22, i say.
2
In May of 2015, there were still 57,000 LESS legal jobs than at the peak in 2007. By some estimates, the legal sector has only created 10,000 jobs since bottoming out in 2010.
With had high as 50,000 new law school graduates, is it any wonder their employment prospects are so dim?
Put Law Schools on the hook for all student debt left after a reasonable payback time, maybe 10-20 years, and I guarantee they will work a lot harder finding their graduates good jobs.
With had high as 50,000 new law school graduates, is it any wonder their employment prospects are so dim?
Put Law Schools on the hook for all student debt left after a reasonable payback time, maybe 10-20 years, and I guarantee they will work a lot harder finding their graduates good jobs.
1
In such a sentence you would use the word fewer instead of less.
1
Agree, except that 10-20 years is too long. Make it one year, otherwise the can gets kicked down the road for the next guy.
1
There seems to be a similar problem with teaching degrees. Interesting that colleges seem to forget to explain the job market ramifications of the degrees they offer in many fields. I would like to have them provide salary and employment prospects before students agree to the tuition levels.
It would also be nice if they mentioned that most students do not graduate in the type frame they use when telling you what the cost of a degree may be.
It would also be nice if they mentioned that most students do not graduate in the type frame they use when telling you what the cost of a degree may be.
There is actually a national shortage of teachers.
1
The whole topic is absurd. Who twisted one's arm to apply to law school and borrow to pay the freight? Then graduates who don't get good jobs are indignant? And people like this writer think major "reforms" are needed? Since when is pursuing a graduate or professional degree not a matter of choice?
4
This article shows just how incredibly narcissistic the legal profession is and this author is no exception. Who was it who said that anyone who gets a legal degree or a loan should get a job? Do english PhDs all get jobs? MSWs? How many dozens or even hundreds of degrees are granted with no prospect of employment? Yet the author thinks all sorts of people should pay attention, all sorts of organizations should get involved and all sorts of wheels need to churn because his (sorry to say this) toxic profession is facing issues. When you choose a major or a higher degree you weigh the costs and benefits. If you are smart enough to get into a law school (which is not saying much) then you are certainly smart enough to know that you have nearly a 50-50 chance of getting a job. The fact that so many people still try to be attorneys despite these odds speaks more to the emotional makeup of people who want to be attorneys than to any failure in education. Schools needs money. Schools are not in the business of slashing their cash cows based on employment prospects. This is something no one wants to discuss, much like environmentalists who eat meat and blame the auto industry. If you want to be a lawyer you should probably learn how to bus tables. That is the solution. Now go get me a coffee.
3
Don't need an MSW to see that you have some issues there that need attention.
At the very minimum the ABA should require some type of preregistration debt counseling for every law school. Students should be informed of the average amount of law school debt coming out of that law school, the bar passage rate for the law school, the graduation rate, the average salary one year out of law school (including the percentage of alumni who reported a salary), and very importantly--that student loans are (with very limited exceptions) not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
It would also be great if the bar passage rate and salary were correlated to LSAT scores. So that a student understood that someone with his/her LSAT score of 140 only has a 3% bar passage rate and estimate income of X for instance. It is one thing to say these people made mistakes (and obviously they did), but they will have that debt for the rest of their lives hanging over them.
When I applied to law school I knew I would be taking out student loans and was very concerned about being saddled with debt for the rest of my life. I was fortunate to go to a top law school. I decided when applying that if I didn't get into a top law school then I wouldn't go to law school.
It would also be great if the bar passage rate and salary were correlated to LSAT scores. So that a student understood that someone with his/her LSAT score of 140 only has a 3% bar passage rate and estimate income of X for instance. It is one thing to say these people made mistakes (and obviously they did), but they will have that debt for the rest of their lives hanging over them.
When I applied to law school I knew I would be taking out student loans and was very concerned about being saddled with debt for the rest of my life. I was fortunate to go to a top law school. I decided when applying that if I didn't get into a top law school then I wouldn't go to law school.
5
At the very minimum the ABA should require some type of preregistration debt counseling for every law school.
if the students are this stupid how did they even get accepted to a law school?
if the students are this stupid how did they even get accepted to a law school?
Bring forward the ambulances.... To put it bluntly, if America wasn't so Lawsuit happy there wouldn't be so many students seeking to make their fortune in the industry.
As Will Rogers was quoted as saying, “People are getting smarter nowadays; they are letting lawyers, instead of their conscience, be their guide.”
As Will Rogers was quoted as saying, “People are getting smarter nowadays; they are letting lawyers, instead of their conscience, be their guide.”
When I went to law school in 1975, tuition cost me around $2500 per year. $7500 for 3 years, plus expenses. I graduated with $8700 in debt. My first job, for the City, paid $14,000 to start, even then a pretty paltry sum for a lawyer. Yet, when you compare that salary to my cost and debt, the education (which was excellent at a local school) was a true bargain.
When tuition alone is $150,000 per year at most places (including my alma mater), the relationship between the cost of the education and the ability to earn a normal wage goes out the window. It's a bad deal unless you're going to a top school and willing to take a high pay, high stress job upon graduation. Neither of my children has followed in my footsteps.
When tuition alone is $150,000 per year at most places (including my alma mater), the relationship between the cost of the education and the ability to earn a normal wage goes out the window. It's a bad deal unless you're going to a top school and willing to take a high pay, high stress job upon graduation. Neither of my children has followed in my footsteps.
4
For any professional degrees that have an expected outcome of employment such as law the number of federally backed student loans or the number of granting institutions should be limited by the occupational outlook. I am a librarian, one of the lucky ones. The recession, technological shifts, and changing cultural priorities has radically reduced the possibilities of employment in libraries to the extent that all of the schools of Library and Information Science produce in two years more than enough graduates to fill the expected job growth of the next decade. Unfortunately, students usually don't know how to research career paths effectively and if you ask the school they will tell you, yes, by all means, the profession is fine, even when they know it is not. If you build the school they will come, if you close it, they will not. The nation has a deficit of meaningful employment opportunities, or they are not the same as the ones they grew up dreaming about, students should not be asked to pay for the rest of their lives for being deceived into false dreams. Being an educational institution does not make it an ethical institution and they should be held accountable as any other business that utilizes deceptive business practices.
1
Chasing the American dream starting with enormous debt from law school.
Do readers see a common denominator in the educational problems of youth?
Too many graduates chasing too few jobs, over population with jobs replaced by computers and robots, all resulting in unemployment or under employment.
Some countries in Europe have reduced their fertility rate to adjust down future overpopulation. If the world does not come to terms with these demographic issues, our future will be grim indeed.
Do readers see a common denominator in the educational problems of youth?
Too many graduates chasing too few jobs, over population with jobs replaced by computers and robots, all resulting in unemployment or under employment.
Some countries in Europe have reduced their fertility rate to adjust down future overpopulation. If the world does not come to terms with these demographic issues, our future will be grim indeed.
I attended an Ivy League law school and graduated 12 years ago. The majority of my classmates are no longer working in the law. Even my law school roommate lives in India, surpervising document reviewers whose work was outsourced from American firms. The profession is dying, as demand for attorneys has long been drying up. Who is to blame? It's greedy law schools, easy access student loan money from the federal government, and the ABA which has lowered accreditation standards to the point where almost half of American law schools are effectively open enrollment.
My firms has hired 14 associates during my career, and the results were very hit or miss. We hired some very competent people, and some people who could barely string together words into a sentence. Many people who are entering the profession today are not competent to entrust your legal matter, but the smart people are no longer entering the profession in substantial numbers.
My firms has hired 14 associates during my career, and the results were very hit or miss. We hired some very competent people, and some people who could barely string together words into a sentence. Many people who are entering the profession today are not competent to entrust your legal matter, but the smart people are no longer entering the profession in substantial numbers.
4
This is factually incorrect.
1
Mr. Harper lets the ABA off too lightly. It is a big part of the problem. It effectively rubber stamps accreditation and re-accreditation applications for schools whose primary purpose is to serve as a revenue center for colleges, or private entities. The ABA defends this practice as one to ensure "diversity in the profession". While this is an admirable goal, the process of ensuring that generations of young lawyers will become debt-slaves serves nobody well.
2
The Fifth Amendment has the "due process" clause. As long as we have a Constitution, we will need people as lawyers, and not robots. Look 30 years into the future; how many jobs then will be replaced by a robot. Most likely, most all. Plus lawyers must pass a state bar. A lawyer in India can not practice in a state court, if he is located in India.
It seems that many students go to law because in their opinion (and that of their parents in many cases) the prospect of a legal career holds a certain amount of status. When accepted they are thrilled, thinking that they will land a good paying job and be the exception to the poor employment prospects. However, if they were really good at research and logic, two skills needed in the legal field, they might think twice about their prospects if they are less than a top student going to a top law school.
3
Not all lawyers practice law. A legal education has application in many fields, including teaching, finance, real estate, business management, human resources, IT, publishing, marketing -- any field that requires thinking skills and a basic understanding of the structure of a contract and rules of the game.
I would make law school a two-year program, as President Obama has suggested, followed up by a residency or internship in a field chosen by the student. Those who really want to be lawyers can intern at a law firm or government agency. The others can find jobs in the business community. Once businesses come to understand the new system, they will recruit law students for non-law jobs. Virtually all the recruiters that visited my elite law school were from big law firms. Why not encourage other industries to recruit qualified students?
Some lower-ranked law schools provide shoddy educations, for inflated fees. That problem can be addressed by, for example, withdrawing accreditation from law schools with a significant majority of students failing to pass state bar exams. As the author suggests, capping financial aid to such schools might also be considered.
The real solution, however, lies in recognizing the changing nature of both the legal and business marketplaces. Many managers make dumb mistakes because they don't know the law, while many law school graduates would welcome opportunities in business. We need to do more to facilitate these matches.
I would make law school a two-year program, as President Obama has suggested, followed up by a residency or internship in a field chosen by the student. Those who really want to be lawyers can intern at a law firm or government agency. The others can find jobs in the business community. Once businesses come to understand the new system, they will recruit law students for non-law jobs. Virtually all the recruiters that visited my elite law school were from big law firms. Why not encourage other industries to recruit qualified students?
Some lower-ranked law schools provide shoddy educations, for inflated fees. That problem can be addressed by, for example, withdrawing accreditation from law schools with a significant majority of students failing to pass state bar exams. As the author suggests, capping financial aid to such schools might also be considered.
The real solution, however, lies in recognizing the changing nature of both the legal and business marketplaces. Many managers make dumb mistakes because they don't know the law, while many law school graduates would welcome opportunities in business. We need to do more to facilitate these matches.
5
A law degree is more than just a ticket to a job in a law firm. Look at Washington for example. How many JD's would be in that population?
1
Legal fees are so expensive it is cheaper to avoid them and take the loss. As a small business owner I rarely seek legal advice because of the price.
Back in the early 90's I was admitted into a law school after studying for the LSAT for over a year. I had no academic background- I went to art school. After speaking with a number of lawyers (who universally despised being lawyers) and considering the price tag ($100,000 back then), I decided the ROI was dicey, to say the least. I am eternally grateful I had the sense not to go to law school. I have put together a very satisfying career in legal research in the health care industry. I did eventually get an MPH late in life. I have no idea if that helped my employment, but I can say I have been gainfully employed throughout and since the Great Recession. For those out there who are interested in the law, there are alternatives.
3
Perhaps part of the problem is that very few old/senior people want to retire. There should be a mandatory retirement age (say, 67) in all professions, paving way for younger, healthier, stronger, more productive workers.
1
While there is no arguing with the "younger" thing, there certainly would be a healthy and vigorous discussion as to whether younger lawyers would also be healthier, stronger and more productive than older and definitely more experienced attorneys.
While we're at it, let's turn those past retirement age into Soylent Green.
better not vote for the GOP then; they want all of us working into our 70s.
What, hasn't there been a series of articles on the shortage of public defenders, as well as judges to hold court?
Let's require every court system to provide truly adequate representation for poor defendants by hiring sufficient public defenders and judges. That should put a dent in the number of poor, unemployed law students -- and, incidentally, protect the rights of the underprivileged.
Yes, it will cost money upfront, but we will save money by not imprisoning innocent people who can't post bail and are stuck in jail waiting for their lawyer or their court date.
Let's require every court system to provide truly adequate representation for poor defendants by hiring sufficient public defenders and judges. That should put a dent in the number of poor, unemployed law students -- and, incidentally, protect the rights of the underprivileged.
Yes, it will cost money upfront, but we will save money by not imprisoning innocent people who can't post bail and are stuck in jail waiting for their lawyer or their court date.
4
The concept of “letting markets decide” anything only works if it is completely brutal with no safety net as in evolution. Since we have no system like that in place and have found unsound ways to load up with more debt and still survive the process of elimination is not at work but the process of indentured servitude is expanding with each passing year. We know the system is not working but there is no incentive yet to fix it. We are still printing IOUs.
3
I graduated from law school two summers ago after a 20-year career teaching English to high school students. Entered law school right after the market crash, when firms were shedding jobs. Secured a great job as a corporate attorney in a big firm, making three times what I earned as a teacher. Love what I do, know I made the right decision.
Here are my suggestions for all parents / students considering law school: Love the Word; love researching / writing / revising; love getting the words right; love arguing; love thinking (but be willing to do the work) to demonstrate right-ness. Or don't go to law school (DGTLS). Love silly acronyms like that. Or DGTLS. Know how to write well before applying to law school; have demonstrated skill in writing or publishing something prior to law school (not just blogging and facebook posts and rah-rahs from friends / family). Or DGTLS. Pick a state school and apply only to schools in the top 50 in the country. If your LSAT score / grades aren't good enough for the top 50, DGTLS. Love reading all books your teachers assigned you in college, including intros and footnotes. Love dealing with details that most people in this world ignore / oblivious to / or are indifferent to. Tolerate high stress, complex issues, and long hours. Or DGTLS.
One exception: There were a few scions in my class who didn't have to worry about grades / getting the words right because mummy or daddy owned a firm. Maybe they're hiring.
Here are my suggestions for all parents / students considering law school: Love the Word; love researching / writing / revising; love getting the words right; love arguing; love thinking (but be willing to do the work) to demonstrate right-ness. Or don't go to law school (DGTLS). Love silly acronyms like that. Or DGTLS. Know how to write well before applying to law school; have demonstrated skill in writing or publishing something prior to law school (not just blogging and facebook posts and rah-rahs from friends / family). Or DGTLS. Pick a state school and apply only to schools in the top 50 in the country. If your LSAT score / grades aren't good enough for the top 50, DGTLS. Love reading all books your teachers assigned you in college, including intros and footnotes. Love dealing with details that most people in this world ignore / oblivious to / or are indifferent to. Tolerate high stress, complex issues, and long hours. Or DGTLS.
One exception: There were a few scions in my class who didn't have to worry about grades / getting the words right because mummy or daddy owned a firm. Maybe they're hiring.
7
For someone who loves writing I am confused by your obsessive use of semicolons. Any English teacher would describe it as unintelligible. To me this is precisely what is wrong with attorneys -- an utter lack of self awareness and a world view based on the self referential. The article and this comment prove this point.
1
My bad. You're right. Any English teacher would describe one sentence with a series of semicolons as unintelligible. And probably agree with you that those semicolons precisely lead to the conclusion that all attorneys lack self-awareness and have a world-view based on the self-referential. Whatever that means. This is the kind of fuzzy-heading thinking and writing that leads to many law students not getting good jobs after graduation. Don't take it personally. That's another thing I should have added to my list: attorneys get banged up by judges, other attorneys, and their friends and the general public all the time. If you can't take it, DGTLS.
1
No matter what you say, I'll always have a hard time feeling sorry for lawyers. The oversupply of law school graduates has been going on for many years so had they done any research they would have known this going in. How sweet it is to attribute their failure in finding employment to their own negligence. Yes counselor, someone is always to blame. Now pay up. Hehe.
1
It all circles back to the student loan crisis. There are plenty of lawyers out there who would rather do meaningful, public interest work (of which there is plenty) but simply cannot afford to because their paychecks would be consumed by a student loan payment. Even the loan forgiveness doesn't kick in until 10 years. Ideally, it would be achievement-based (i.e. GPA, pass the bar on the first try, etc...) instead of borrowed-forward.
3
Of course, there are just too many lawyers, but there are not enough public defenders. Hrmmmm. All about the money I guess.
1
What's amazing to me is that there's a huge, unmet demand for legal services. It's just by people who cannot afford them, the poor who are swept up in our criminal and civil justice systems.
Is the problem too many law students? Or too little funding for provide people with the kind of adequate representation necessary to make our legal system fair?
Is the problem too many law students? Or too little funding for provide people with the kind of adequate representation necessary to make our legal system fair?
2
There is a misconception that the field of law is lucrative. It can be. But the vast majority of attorneys who do not graduate in the top 5% of their law school class earn an average to below average income - not suffient to support $167,000 debt service.
The ABA or state bar associations should be required to provide and applicants should be required to attend a counseling session where the data are shown, specific to the applicants' geographic and practice preferences.
Then, the idea of a third year of course study should be reconsidered. Students should be required to undergo a clinical immersion much like medical students.
The glut of lawyers has greatly diminished the chances that an individual without a reference will retain an attorney competent for the services required.
The ABA or state bar associations should be required to provide and applicants should be required to attend a counseling session where the data are shown, specific to the applicants' geographic and practice preferences.
Then, the idea of a third year of course study should be reconsidered. Students should be required to undergo a clinical immersion much like medical students.
The glut of lawyers has greatly diminished the chances that an individual without a reference will retain an attorney competent for the services required.
1
If too many lawyers, then why sky high legal fees?
2
I think that there is a lawsuit in there somewhere: How about price fixing, collusion, ...?
The problem is way too many lawyers. We need a far more efficient way to resolve disputes.
1
Forget law school. Learn a trade: plumber; sparky; chippy. Roofer; concreter; bricky.
Learn something practical where you can help make, build and fix things. Useful things like homes for people to live in.
You can always go to law school, become a journo, or become a pollie when you're too old and decrepit to do something useful.
Learn something practical where you can help make, build and fix things. Useful things like homes for people to live in.
You can always go to law school, become a journo, or become a pollie when you're too old and decrepit to do something useful.
4
For the most part, these are the same arguments that made for-profits a target of public ire in the last two years. Law schools and business schools are profit centers, unlike a lot of other higher ed programs, such as undergrad and PhDs. The more students, the more profits. No university will stick out its neck and restrict the class sizes.
Unfortunately, there will always be naive people who want to go to law school despite the employment statistics and bad press. People are irrational and optimist. They want believe that they can be the top 1% of their class and get that one big law job.
What shut down the for-profits in the last two years was the Department of Education stepping up its regulatory work. ED could temporarily restrict the schools' access to Federal Student Aid (making these undercapitalized schools go up in flames overnight) if the school failed to report stats or failed the gainful employment rule. A lot of for-profits found their business models unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Higher Education Act, which authorizes the student loans, treats for-profits differently than non-profits. ED relied on these statutory differences to get tough on for-profits. It will be difficult to do that for non-profits.
Seems to me like the HEA needs to be amended before anything can be done about this problem. No amount of bad press seems to stem the flow of stupid people going to bad law schools.
Unfortunately, there will always be naive people who want to go to law school despite the employment statistics and bad press. People are irrational and optimist. They want believe that they can be the top 1% of their class and get that one big law job.
What shut down the for-profits in the last two years was the Department of Education stepping up its regulatory work. ED could temporarily restrict the schools' access to Federal Student Aid (making these undercapitalized schools go up in flames overnight) if the school failed to report stats or failed the gainful employment rule. A lot of for-profits found their business models unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Higher Education Act, which authorizes the student loans, treats for-profits differently than non-profits. ED relied on these statutory differences to get tough on for-profits. It will be difficult to do that for non-profits.
Seems to me like the HEA needs to be amended before anything can be done about this problem. No amount of bad press seems to stem the flow of stupid people going to bad law schools.
1
Shocking! Law schools taking tuition dollars, ignoring the job prospects of graduates and then raising tuition. If you think law school is your cub pack run by your mom, you are in for a surprise. If you are "smart" enough to be a lawyer your first case is investigate the social (as in society, not dating)/financial merits of going to law school.
Wish there were greater incentives to make students go into STEM fields. While other fields (especially arts, history, languages) are important, it is in most cases the effortless way for students to get a degree, ultimately diminishing the chances of a good future.
sirius, there was recently an excellent article in the NY Review of books on the poor job market in STEM too. I recommend you read it.
I agree law schools are greedy and unaccountable. However, It's not as if a law grad's failure to immediately land a great job means their endeavor was a failure. Even if it takes years to put a law degree to work, it can be some of the most satisfying work a person can perform. Hang in there, young lawyers!
I have little sympathy for new attorneys burdened with debt and no jobs. These are people who went to school to join a profession where they aspired to have amazing power over other people's lives. (And if you think an attorney has no power, consider that s/he can file a law suit and issue subpoenas without supervision.) It has been well known since at least 2008 that legal jobs that allow an attorney to service six figures in debt are harder and harder to come by. (Google the term "Lathamed" if you don't believe me.) It has been known, again since at least 2008, which schools feed people into those high paying jobs.
If the new attorney could not get himself or herself into a T14 school, or if he or she could not get a significant scholarship (as I did) at a lesser named school, perhaps the prudent thing to do would have been to find another way to make a living? Someone who aspires to be an attorney should have been able to make that calculation without the ABA's help. In other words, lawyer heal thyself.
If the new attorney could not get himself or herself into a T14 school, or if he or she could not get a significant scholarship (as I did) at a lesser named school, perhaps the prudent thing to do would have been to find another way to make a living? Someone who aspires to be an attorney should have been able to make that calculation without the ABA's help. In other words, lawyer heal thyself.
1
Sounds like architecture school, but not med school.
This was true when I graduated in 2002, not sure why this keeps popping up at intervals as new and noteworthy.
I also agree that if you are going to law school, you should understand the consequences of taking on $200,000 in student loans against the low probability of getting a job at a firm that will pay a salary where you won't be crushed under the debt like the rest of us were for the first ten years of practice.
I also agree that if you are going to law school, you should understand the consequences of taking on $200,000 in student loans against the low probability of getting a job at a firm that will pay a salary where you won't be crushed under the debt like the rest of us were for the first ten years of practice.
1
Make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy and, as an added measure, put the schools on the hook when a student loan is discharged in bankruptcy.
3
Oh, poo! It has always been the case that many law students end up in other fields like investment, business management, and insurance. There are so many things one can do with a law degree.
3
A few years ago, the former governor of Massachusetss, Deval Patrick, a not terribly bright person himself, pushed through a sweetheart deal where the state taxpayers are footing the bill for taking over a non-accredited private law school that was put into the state college system. The law school was owned by a Patrick crony. Massachusetts already has numerous law schools but that didn't faze the Governor and pushed the gutless legislature to take over the failing school despite widespread opposition from the legal community which smelled a rotten deal from the outset. The school is still not accredited and enrollment has plummeted but the taxpayers are still paying while Patrick enjoys retirement at his Western Mass mansion.
Why is the measure "full-time long-term jobs that required them to pass the bar exam?" I can think of a few jobs that would benefit from a JD but not require a lawyer. Any business where compliance is an issue could benefit from a JD.
1
it could . but would it not be cheaper to hire a non JD?
Future lawyers should be smart enough to see what the job market is like and make a rational decision for themselves. It is a sorry state of affairs when you have to spoon feed information to a prospective lawyer.
2
The sad part of this story is that there are so many low-income people who need legal services and don't have access to them because of the price. And a new lawyer who is willing to accept lower fees cannot do so with a mountain of debt.
4
That's what happens when some trendy profession gets perceived as the key to wealth. The same thing will happen to software engineering in a decade or so.
Plumbers, on the other hand... We'll always need plumbers. And you can't outsource youir plumbing to some other country.
Plumbers, on the other hand... We'll always need plumbers. And you can't outsource youir plumbing to some other country.
Lawyers are not economists. Economists are not lawyers. Lawyers are politicians and historians. Economists are historians and businessman Neither law nor economics nor politics nor history nor business are science or theology.
2
The driving force behind this perceived problem is not even mentioned in this article: the Law of Supply and Demand. There is a finite percentage of law graduates who will make good attorneys. It is in the best interests of the ABA (read: “law firms”) to have a huge pool of law graduates from which to choose. The larger the pool of recent graduates, the lower the salary law firms must pay to them. Since 1995 the US has experienced a cumulative inflation of 56%. During that same twenty-year-period starting salaries for recent law grads (not adjusted for inflation) at the biggest firms have increased by 93% and by 51% in the small firms. Imagine what the salary demands of recent grads would be had the number of grads been cut in half? Do not look to the ABA to solve the “law graduate employment crisis”. You might as well ask the NRA to promote a reduction in gun sales. Note that the most pressing problem for the legal profession from the ABA’s perspective remains the specter of a decreasing bottom line.
1
Your article does not address the role of the students who want to gain a legal education. Many are later-in-life students, many women whose children are out of the house, who want to challenge their minds. Some are students with no job experience afraid of working in the real-world for a few years, who want to stay in their college towns and keep learning. Some have wealthy parents, bur are "independent" (the inheritance is years down the road) and find the status of a legal education worth investing in. Then there are those, some newcomers to the legal field, the country, and law school itself, who come in with eyes wide open, We understand the market, supply and demand. But, we don't necessarily think working for a corporate firm pulling down a hundred-thousand dollars is why we go to law school...
We go to law school to learn the law.
We go to law school because, if you have not yet noticed at the Times, there is very little "checking" of our growing governments, or people with legal understanding to challenge what is going on.
It would be nice to think that this is all about employment and debt. It's not. It's about having qualified people -- attorneys -- who understand the way laws work and can question those "expert" laypeople and leaders who opine and direct, sometimes at odds with what their own rights are. When they overstep, we challenge them. Maybe there's not a lot of money, but at every level, we're better off with more people understanding laws.
We go to law school to learn the law.
We go to law school because, if you have not yet noticed at the Times, there is very little "checking" of our growing governments, or people with legal understanding to challenge what is going on.
It would be nice to think that this is all about employment and debt. It's not. It's about having qualified people -- attorneys -- who understand the way laws work and can question those "expert" laypeople and leaders who opine and direct, sometimes at odds with what their own rights are. When they overstep, we challenge them. Maybe there's not a lot of money, but at every level, we're better off with more people understanding laws.
3
Education is increasingly under the microscope as everyone wants to go to school, get educated, get a job, find shelter and feed themselves. How much pressure is too much pressure? While Congress and the Courts are tied up with accusatory and sometimes frivolous lawsuits, legal citizens and immigrants alike are being forced to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, parents and teachers alike are affected by the pressure to succeed on tests. Test taking is a skill that should be taught at the elementary level. Debt is a given.
The author declines to mention that most students these days (at least at the lower ranked schools) are receiving significant discounts on the advertised tuition, and that enrollment is the lowest it's been in forty years. There seems to be a lot of data indicating that the correction has already happened, and indeed, as the job market climbs back, that it is an over-correction.
2
What's interestingly left out of Stephen J. Harper's bio at the end of the op-ed is that he is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University Law School.
1
Too often we hear the fix to this problem or that problem is more rules--without any analysis of the downside to those rules. We can't save people from themselves. People need to be smart enough and plan well enough to figure out if it is a good idea, or not, to get a degree from Law School X. In the age of the internet, if you are not careful and smart enough to spend a day researching law schools, rankings, costs and so forth, then you don;t deserve to go to law school in the first place. As to the unintended consequences of rules, if we cap fees, so the lower tiered schools cant get good faculty, it will be a downward spiral for those schools. If we drive out all the lower placement law schools, either throw further weakening the faculty or limiting what they can recover or suing and regulating them out of existence, then what of those students who went to those schools and against all odds, did well and are successful (and there are many). Perhaps we save 50% of students at those schools from debt (at least for law school), but the other 50% may well have no other options and be blocked out of a degree that is useful in nearly any profession. Instead of constantly trying to save people from making poor life choices in their own circumstances, the reality is that there will always be people who fail under whatever system we have, and people need to be encouraged and advised clearly to think hard before they make important life choices.
Count me as one who agrees that law schools are morally culpable for knowing enticing 20-somethings and churning out hordes of JDs with six figure debt and hopeless job prospects.
As someone who graduated with $130,000 in student loan debt in 1998 and whose first job out of law school paid only $30,000 per year and required no bar license, the same person who now works as in-house counsel making multiple six figs, you'd think I would be one of the ones saying "go for it, it'll all pay all in the long run" - but I say unless you've dreamed of being a lawyer since childhood and can't imagine doing anything else, then run away as fast as you can and never look back. And to those who do give it a shot and find themselves with lackluster grades after the first semester or first year, don't be afraid to quit and cut your losses. Even among those who "make" it, I know of very few who really love their work and who actively encourage their kids to follow in their footsteps.
As someone who graduated with $130,000 in student loan debt in 1998 and whose first job out of law school paid only $30,000 per year and required no bar license, the same person who now works as in-house counsel making multiple six figs, you'd think I would be one of the ones saying "go for it, it'll all pay all in the long run" - but I say unless you've dreamed of being a lawyer since childhood and can't imagine doing anything else, then run away as fast as you can and never look back. And to those who do give it a shot and find themselves with lackluster grades after the first semester or first year, don't be afraid to quit and cut your losses. Even among those who "make" it, I know of very few who really love their work and who actively encourage their kids to follow in their footsteps.
1
One of the issues that I see at the forefront of disappointing law school experiences is not only the law school debt burden, but the opportunity cost law school imposes on one's career. I do take issue with those who argue that there is a shortage of good legal jobs. My argument is that what is missing is a career track which includes legal education as part of one's chosen industry, subsidized by one's employer, and leading to a long term career path in which attainment of the JD credential supports the ongoing advancement of the student/employees.
Lest one think that I've been smoking something funny, take a look at the escalating need for those with solid legal training in many industries. Health care, professional sports, real estate, taxation - these are but a few of the areas which are in need of professionals who are both well grounded in the fundamentals of their industry and the law. I don't think it's the well established legal practices that are where the true long term career opportunities are for those who pursue their law degrees strategically within a broader industry context.
Lest one think that I've been smoking something funny, take a look at the escalating need for those with solid legal training in many industries. Health care, professional sports, real estate, taxation - these are but a few of the areas which are in need of professionals who are both well grounded in the fundamentals of their industry and the law. I don't think it's the well established legal practices that are where the true long term career opportunities are for those who pursue their law degrees strategically within a broader industry context.
1
Here is the deal.
There are about 20 law schools that are still worth attending in this country. Just look at the U.S. News and World report list for the top 20 ranked schools. These schools are extremely difficult to get in to, even today. But, they still have very high employment rates after graduation. I would concede that the next 30 ranked schools may not be too bad, but the employment prospects drop off very, very fast.
All other law schools below the top 50 are not worth the debt you have to incur, including the one I graduated from. Go to engineering school instead.
There are about 20 law schools that are still worth attending in this country. Just look at the U.S. News and World report list for the top 20 ranked schools. These schools are extremely difficult to get in to, even today. But, they still have very high employment rates after graduation. I would concede that the next 30 ranked schools may not be too bad, but the employment prospects drop off very, very fast.
All other law schools below the top 50 are not worth the debt you have to incur, including the one I graduated from. Go to engineering school instead.
3
What's the difference between a law degree (& license) & a social work degree (& license)? I got an MSW degree and then the license (in 2008). I've never been able to find a job in the field, though I have done therapy on a private basis. Just as someone with a license to practice law can be self-employed as a lawyer.
1
The problem with this article is the assumption that everyone who goes to law school wants to (or should) practice law. There are hundreds, if not thousands of jobs available in which legal training is, if not always essential, then certainly a huge boost in another career path. Examples include compliance professionals, human resources, insurance and claims management, in-house counsel, etc. On the other hand, these jobs may not fully cover the cost of massive loans.
6
The author might have done well to break down the placement rate between prestigious law schools and the start-ups mentioned in the article. I've never heard of them. I suspect that the placement rate among graduates of say, Columbia, Harvard, and The University of Texas is far greater than lesser named schools. Law firms that are hiring are going to get the pick of the litter, so to speak. So, maybe the problem is really these start-up schools. The market just isn't interested in their products.
6
The government should not support or guarantee student loans for for-profit law schools. It isn't a lot different from the cooking and art school for-profit college scams. That's one concrete step. If a student can't get into a decent law school, the people should not be underwriting the debt. The other thing to note is that law school is a way to put off trying to get a job in a market in which jobs - particularly decently paying jobs are scarce and becoming scarcer. If decent jobs were available with a (non-engineering) undergraduate degree, these for-profit law schools would not be enjoying this surge in applications/enrollment.
3
Are we supposed to feel bad for kids who went to law school with only dollar signs in their eyes?
Lets be frank - the big bucks in law are for representing and protecting evil. There's no money in protecting working class Americans from injustice, but lots of money insuring that people cannot stop fracking on their own land or preventing people from getting just compensation. And don't anybody go telling me how I'll love lawyers when I need one - the only times I need a lawyer is when some other lawyer is abusing the system.
Lets be frank - the big bucks in law are for representing and protecting evil. There's no money in protecting working class Americans from injustice, but lots of money insuring that people cannot stop fracking on their own land or preventing people from getting just compensation. And don't anybody go telling me how I'll love lawyers when I need one - the only times I need a lawyer is when some other lawyer is abusing the system.
4
The simplest first step is to end Federal loans for students at for-profit colleges. Not just law school but in so many areas. Many students are lured into debt for programs that are rather inexpensive at community colleges.
5
After reading all the terrible news stories from around the world, I finally get to read a story that brings a smile to my face. I hope that high school students begin to change their career paths away from law and finance and into something more productive. Looking back over the years, it seems that the decline of this country parallels the rise in the prominence of both law and finance.
3
It must be very disheartening for these graduates, but I have heard from recent graduates of a local small private law school that that number of students applying to/attending that law school has dropped radically. The other thing one person told me, however, is that the quality of student has declined as well. Having been a mediocre law student back in the 80s, Id like to think that lower achievers build into more accomplished professionals, but on the surface, this isn't very encouraging for the legal market. Still, it strikes me that the law market, like others, has had a long-term adjustment; things could eventually go back to the days when large law firms could spend lavishly on summer interns and new associates, but who knows. And, frankly, maybe it's better this way, as long as the law schools stop looking at potential students as their cash cows (and that goes for the large state universities that also siphon money from law school students.
Too few lawyers' jobs have awaited law school graduates for years now. Store-front clinic and Legal Aid jobs can be had, but won't repay education loans.
How long do law-school applicants need to learn the truth?
Law jobs no longer available are jobs with established firms. Established means having been served clients profitably two or more decades, not Cravath, Swain or Sullivan Cromwell. Yet top NY City firms are also trimming back, even cutting out partners.
For seeming eons, law school beckoned to quantitatively-challenged students who never knew what to do with exotic undergraduate degrees. Then in 1965, after Nader's book 'Unsafe at Any Speed' exposed US auto makers' dismissive attitude towards car buyers, the flood of law-school application rose yet higher.
It only began to correct recently.
Lawyers like to keep disagreements among themselves private. OK! But the ABA should encourage some law schools to lighten ship and others to close.
For who knows how long, perhaps even preceding the recent shortage of real jobs in the law, has a majority of Harvard Law graduates left practice after a few years? Law practice itself turns a good many JD's off.
Jobs in store-front clinics or Legal Aid are still
How long do law-school applicants need to learn the truth?
Law jobs no longer available are jobs with established firms. Established means having been served clients profitably two or more decades, not Cravath, Swain or Sullivan Cromwell. Yet top NY City firms are also trimming back, even cutting out partners.
For seeming eons, law school beckoned to quantitatively-challenged students who never knew what to do with exotic undergraduate degrees. Then in 1965, after Nader's book 'Unsafe at Any Speed' exposed US auto makers' dismissive attitude towards car buyers, the flood of law-school application rose yet higher.
It only began to correct recently.
Lawyers like to keep disagreements among themselves private. OK! But the ABA should encourage some law schools to lighten ship and others to close.
For who knows how long, perhaps even preceding the recent shortage of real jobs in the law, has a majority of Harvard Law graduates left practice after a few years? Law practice itself turns a good many JD's off.
Jobs in store-front clinics or Legal Aid are still
I've seen some undergrads say "what should I do if law interests me the most, go into premed?" Maybe herein lies the problem? Too many people are seeking a profession to somehow provide them with an outward validation of their self-worth as an important person of status.
One commenter said law school is a trade school - I believe that's closer to the truth, albeit a more socially glamorous one than plumbing or electirican work. Why is that the case when both are at least of equal, though very different, import? Because law is scary and confusing and people think they're imbued with special power because they have a degree that purports to navigate them through it safely?
I've been a successful attorney for 15 years, yet times were tough even in 2000. I picked law as a tool to better do the kind of work I wanted to do - it was a means to an end, not the end result and I still would've pursued this work without it.
Instead of people plunking down student loans like they're buying some lottery ticket they think will magically erase the unsound financial decision they've just made, they need to seriously ask what they intend to do with that law degree. Adding an esq after your name and using it like some party favor is not a valid reason.
One commenter said law school is a trade school - I believe that's closer to the truth, albeit a more socially glamorous one than plumbing or electirican work. Why is that the case when both are at least of equal, though very different, import? Because law is scary and confusing and people think they're imbued with special power because they have a degree that purports to navigate them through it safely?
I've been a successful attorney for 15 years, yet times were tough even in 2000. I picked law as a tool to better do the kind of work I wanted to do - it was a means to an end, not the end result and I still would've pursued this work without it.
Instead of people plunking down student loans like they're buying some lottery ticket they think will magically erase the unsound financial decision they've just made, they need to seriously ask what they intend to do with that law degree. Adding an esq after your name and using it like some party favor is not a valid reason.
Although the ABA now requires different reporting methods, the law schools, which are selling a product like any other business, actively enticed potential students to take enormous loans to attend their institution by advertising employment and salary averages in potential student brochures. All colleges, not just law schools, should be held accountable to consumer protection laws. The schools purposefully, and falsely, advertised their products to potential buyers. Calling someone a student should not give a business a free pass.
1
The majority of late schools give students an education that provides them with skills and professional opportunities that transforms students from humble backgrounds into white collar professionals. They develop skills that empower their spheres of influence -- entire families, sometimes communities -- and serve as a shield against misbehavior by corporations or government for the lifetime of the law school graduate.
Over a ten year time horizon, most students are well situated in professional positions (including, gasp, non JD required positions in government where lower-half law students are suddenly the top of the applicant pool) with excellent health benefits and stable employment. Articles that scare students and families with tales of what is, to them, unimaginably large debt, scare away lower ses students for whom a law degree is a doorway into a career and the debt is something that can be reasonably paid off over time.
Coming from a low-income, rural background, a legal education changed my professional future and income potential forever; the kind of transformation we are told can no longer occur in the US. It also had profound effects on my personal life. These articles should be required to post a disclaimer: "this article only applies to law schools outside US News and World Reports top 50 (or 100). If you get a chance to attend one of those and are willing to work hard, go for it!"
Over a ten year time horizon, most students are well situated in professional positions (including, gasp, non JD required positions in government where lower-half law students are suddenly the top of the applicant pool) with excellent health benefits and stable employment. Articles that scare students and families with tales of what is, to them, unimaginably large debt, scare away lower ses students for whom a law degree is a doorway into a career and the debt is something that can be reasonably paid off over time.
Coming from a low-income, rural background, a legal education changed my professional future and income potential forever; the kind of transformation we are told can no longer occur in the US. It also had profound effects on my personal life. These articles should be required to post a disclaimer: "this article only applies to law schools outside US News and World Reports top 50 (or 100). If you get a chance to attend one of those and are willing to work hard, go for it!"
1
One of the things that often confused my professors and peers while I was in law school was that I never intended to work in the legal field. I went to law school for a few reasons however the primary reason was for academics. To understand the law and to get more practice with writing. Also, I had the time and money to pay for it. Though I have yet to do my LLM, this was the ultimate goal. To specialize in Food law to apply this to my Food history studies. I still plan on getting my LLM, just it requires me to move.
I note this because I think it's important to understand that not all students are interested in working in the field. I knew a good few who had no interest, their reasons for law school varied. I don't think cutting down on loans or limiting people from entering into law school is a good idea. I value what I learned and know plenty who use that law education to get a job in something else.
One solution though I don't think in the end it would really do all that much is for the ABA to require that new practicing lawyers hold an LLM. If you are to practice tax law, get an LLM in tax law. This may limit the pool some however I think the idealist would just take out the extra debt to get their LLMs. I'm fond of pushing for more SJDs however I think this would increase the cost of lawyers astronomically. I just think it's a problem that needs to be worked out on its own. A JD is still a decent education, use it to get a job somewhere else though.
I note this because I think it's important to understand that not all students are interested in working in the field. I knew a good few who had no interest, their reasons for law school varied. I don't think cutting down on loans or limiting people from entering into law school is a good idea. I value what I learned and know plenty who use that law education to get a job in something else.
One solution though I don't think in the end it would really do all that much is for the ABA to require that new practicing lawyers hold an LLM. If you are to practice tax law, get an LLM in tax law. This may limit the pool some however I think the idealist would just take out the extra debt to get their LLMs. I'm fond of pushing for more SJDs however I think this would increase the cost of lawyers astronomically. I just think it's a problem that needs to be worked out on its own. A JD is still a decent education, use it to get a job somewhere else though.
In brief, the lower range schools are accepting and keeping students who should be weeded out. Perhaps some schools should themselves be weeded out because of predatory policies and terrible results. It sounds as if the for-profits have no reason to turn down money - no tough love for them.
But how many people with college diplomas and no professional education see Law School as a ticket to a high paying profession, paying no attention to the readily available statistics? Having Bachelor's degree suggests that someone should be able to research, read and reason, and take responsibility for himself.
One commentator made the point that there is work available, but there isn't going to be high reward for it: low income people have little access to attorneys.
But how many people with college diplomas and no professional education see Law School as a ticket to a high paying profession, paying no attention to the readily available statistics? Having Bachelor's degree suggests that someone should be able to research, read and reason, and take responsibility for himself.
One commentator made the point that there is work available, but there isn't going to be high reward for it: low income people have little access to attorneys.
1
A law degree is so flexible, marketable, meaningful, useful and deployable is so many, many fields! Law students, their advisors/mentors and schools need to broaden sense of how study of law flexes in to so many, many fields! Think outside the box, focus on skills developed and...voila!
3
The legal profession has an even more urgent problem that the ABA has remained silent about: The Justice Department no longer enforces the law against individual Wall Street executives. Much of the country believes lawyers are nothing but overpaid tools of the plutocracy. The revolving door between the Justice Department and Covington & Burling alone has become scandalous and undermines the belief that Covington clients have to abide by federal law. Has the ABA addressed any of this with a single peep? No. Life inside the bubble is too fat and comfortable.
1
The problem extends to other fields and degrees. The basic social contract in America is work hard and success will follow. A college or graduate degree is hard work, but the success at the end is at best feasible and at worst an illusion. What happens to a society when the contract breaks down? Probably not well.
2
Decades ago, being a Doctor or a Lawyer had equal standing of respect and compensation in the eyes of the public. But unlike medical schools, the law school industry industry began to serve nothing but itself by producing ever more lawyers and ignoring the demand side. They are seeing the disastrous result of this policy with falling wages and unemployed lawyers. In medicine, they do consider the market. The demand for Doctors has never been higher. The legal profession itself needs to be accountable for what it has done to the field.
1
don, the medical profession has done an excellent job at limiting entry. In 1980 there were about 110 accredited med schools. 30 years later, and with a country that has a third more people and with a hgiher median age, there are about 120. That is why there is so little unemployment among doctors.
After writing about my transition from being a lawyer to software developer (primarily iOS), I've received a number of surprising requests to talk and meet from both associates and partners working at firms about the transition.
Law practice is a difficult profession, but it's important to remember that there are other routes out aside from going in-house.
Law practice is a difficult profession, but it's important to remember that there are other routes out aside from going in-house.
I find it interesting that this article targets the law profession. Isn't it the case that there are fewer and fewer decent paying jobs across the board, regardless of the degree? No one is really talking about that reality. Efficiency of economies are being played out in every occupation. With fewer jobs, yet more people, what will they do?
3
Harper is partially correct: there are too many law students. However, he is incorrect when he says there are too few law jobs. Our society could use a significant reduction in the number of lawyers. And as regards the problems of debt for the law students, the problem is the same as for undergraduate; too much money offered to wannabes without consideration of their future ability to repay the borrowings. Make the universities financially responsible for uncollected debts, and you will see a quick change in the financial aid offerings.
Too many lawyer wannabees were attracted to the profession by the big dollars being paid by law firms and investment banks for Wall Street tools. Since 2008, when Wall Street blew up and since Dodd-Frank was designed to make it much harder for Wall Street to go back to its funny-money financial manipulations, lawyers have had a much harder time finding big money jobs. Maybe out of work lawyers should be lobbying Congress to repeal Dodd-Frank and enable Wall Street to get back to its funny money heyday. Or, better yet, go to medical school.
Thank you for the article.
We basically garner no sympathy- lawyers and law school graduates with exorbitant amounts of student loan debt. In my experience, no one wants to know we are drowning. We have a perception problem: endangered insect rather than endangered panda.
I doubt things will change- at least not sufficiently and sufficiently quickly to help me, but I do appreciate the article and the recognition that something is very wrong.
On the plus side, I figure I'll be better able to handle the lifestyle adjustment at retirement-- my loans should be just about paid off by then. Of course, I won't have any assets to fall back on. Home ownership is a dream for other people. Or, at least it is not possible without a spouse or a miracle or both.
We basically garner no sympathy- lawyers and law school graduates with exorbitant amounts of student loan debt. In my experience, no one wants to know we are drowning. We have a perception problem: endangered insect rather than endangered panda.
I doubt things will change- at least not sufficiently and sufficiently quickly to help me, but I do appreciate the article and the recognition that something is very wrong.
On the plus side, I figure I'll be better able to handle the lifestyle adjustment at retirement-- my loans should be just about paid off by then. Of course, I won't have any assets to fall back on. Home ownership is a dream for other people. Or, at least it is not possible without a spouse or a miracle or both.
2
The title of this article hints at the answer. But no one wants to talk about the answer.
The answer is that there are too many lawyers.
Right now, in the state where I practice (semi-retired), there is one licensed attorney for every 339 men, women and children. With this ratio, an attorney has little ability to make a decent living.
When I graduated from law school more than 30 years ago, the ratio was double what it is now -- meaning I had the prospect of representing almost 700 men, women and children.
I started my own firm the day after I was sworn in. The best year my practice ever had my net income was a little over $40,000.00 -- with no retirement benefits, no paid vacation, no health insurance or any of the other benefits I had working in a factory before going to law school.
I don't regret going to law school -- it was a great education and enabled me to think critically.
But if I had known I would have to work a second job for 22 years to supplement my law practice, I probably would not have gone into law.
The answer is that there are too many lawyers.
Right now, in the state where I practice (semi-retired), there is one licensed attorney for every 339 men, women and children. With this ratio, an attorney has little ability to make a decent living.
When I graduated from law school more than 30 years ago, the ratio was double what it is now -- meaning I had the prospect of representing almost 700 men, women and children.
I started my own firm the day after I was sworn in. The best year my practice ever had my net income was a little over $40,000.00 -- with no retirement benefits, no paid vacation, no health insurance or any of the other benefits I had working in a factory before going to law school.
I don't regret going to law school -- it was a great education and enabled me to think critically.
But if I had known I would have to work a second job for 22 years to supplement my law practice, I probably would not have gone into law.
5
What you didn't mention, but probably also felt, as I did, was the constant fear you were going to make a mistake that would end up getting you sued by a client for malpractice. I felt like I helped a lot people over the years, but at the end of the day, I never had a client that actually wanted to hire a lawyer.
"Magical thinking and superficial rhetoric" have become common in the law profession hierarchy to keep their gravy trains rolling. Consider mandatory continuing legal education, a breathtaking scam that requires lawyers to sit through hours of tedious, passive programs every year, with much of the "tuition" money going to state bar associations. The asserted rationale is public protection and improvement of competence. After 45 years, though, not a shred of empirical evidence has emerged that these programs have any educational value at all. This farce costs lawyers (and ultimately, their clients) hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
4
Not the only market failure in the legal profession. If there's such a surplus lawyers, why is it impossible to find decent legal help for under $450 per hour?
Shouldn't some of these bright grads without jobs just be undercutting those absurd rates? I mean, a $250/hr rate is a quarter million dollars revenue per year if you work only 20 hours per week.
Shouldn't some of these bright grads without jobs just be undercutting those absurd rates? I mean, a $250/hr rate is a quarter million dollars revenue per year if you work only 20 hours per week.
4
Not the only market failure in the legal profession. If there's such a surplus lawyers, why is it impossible to find decent legal help for under $450 per hour?
for the same reason that it is difficlut to find a plumber, even though his salary may be only $100 per hour. At that rate it is difficult to make ends meet at the number of billable hours one can generate. Even at $500 per hour, if all you can bill is 1 hour a month the profession will not work out.
for the same reason that it is difficlut to find a plumber, even though his salary may be only $100 per hour. At that rate it is difficult to make ends meet at the number of billable hours one can generate. Even at $500 per hour, if all you can bill is 1 hour a month the profession will not work out.
Lower the salaries of lawyers and the market will correct itself. If there is a opportunity to land a $160K position as your first job, there will be an incentive. Make it $60K and there will automatically be fewer law students.
This has been going on for decades. I entered the Bar in 1973; practicing in a city/county of around 250,000. There were five of us entering the local bar in town; everyone always wanted to meet the new lawyers. Within 10 years, it was a hundred a year just in that local city/county bar.
My own kids were graduating from college in the mid-1980s, and I told them the legal field was overcrowded. If they really wanted to go into law, I'd support it, but I didn't actively encourage it. It's gotten much worse since then-- but it wasn't good 30 years ago. Basically, baby-boomer liberal-arts majors (like me) started jamming the field in the 1970s & '80s and it's gone downhill since.
My own kids were graduating from college in the mid-1980s, and I told them the legal field was overcrowded. If they really wanted to go into law, I'd support it, but I didn't actively encourage it. It's gotten much worse since then-- but it wasn't good 30 years ago. Basically, baby-boomer liberal-arts majors (like me) started jamming the field in the 1970s & '80s and it's gone downhill since.
4
Too many attorneys causes problems beyond admittees getting decent positions; for example, lawsuits get filed on claims that should have been settled or perhaps not filed at all. Stiffening bar exams is a partial solution; there are too many young attorneys who mean well, but simply don't know enough to practice.
I have written about this before, but there is a great deal of legal work out there. The problem is that law students are solely focused on getting a job at any cost instead of making money as an attorney. The internet allows any attorney to market his or her skills and make real money right away. I own a law firm and pay my young attorneys very well. I can do that because we have so many clients that we have to turn many people away. It is sadly apparent that many of the commenters here have no idea what I'm talking about. They are clueless and that's too bad.
By the way, the best attorneys I've hired through the years have come from lower tier schools. They are street smart, hungry and creative. Many of those from more prestigious schools have had entitlement issues.
By the way, the best attorneys I've hired through the years have come from lower tier schools. They are street smart, hungry and creative. Many of those from more prestigious schools have had entitlement issues.
6
mr saukus, when you are trying to bill $500 an hour, attorneys better come from some decent schools. The lower tiers will not count with respect to marketing to high end clients. Your type of work applies to the niche outside of this type of work.
This is compounded by the fact that not only are there not enough jobs for all those saddled with large student debt who pass the bar exam, but more than 20% of the people who take the exam fail to pass and are still saddled with large student debt and even dimmer employment prospects. Perhaps it's time to rethink why we are allowing so many people to progress through the program? Why not move the bar exam to the end of year one and make passing it a requirement to proceed? It's pretty well accepted that the vast majority of what you learn that year is what is tested on the exam. Sure if you don't pass you'll still be saddled with debt but it will be 1/3 of what you would have otherwise had. Of course if you have fewer law students, you'll also need fewer people to teach them. The ABA is a self-serving lot and unlikely to act in the interest of those yet to qualify for membership over the interest of those who pay their fat salaries.
2
Where is the personal responsibility of aspiring law students to research this matter. We are all reading this article, and others like it over the past decade. Why don't they? Isn't there a due diligence requirement before investing six figures?
4
I am married to a lawyer who hated practicing law and left the field after 11 years. As a matter of fact I don't think I have ever met a lawyer who loves what they do. It can be a spring board to other things, politics for one, but reality is a large percentage of lawyers barely make ends meet and don't like what they do. I worked while he attended school so we had little debt, but law school was far more affordable back in the 80's.
My husband has had a far better experience using his business degree making much more money and having better hours, especially getting to work from home. He always cautions prospective law students that the majority of lawyers are not Perry Mason but are far more likely to put in killer hours doing boring contract work for a modest salary.
My husband has had a far better experience using his business degree making much more money and having better hours, especially getting to work from home. He always cautions prospective law students that the majority of lawyers are not Perry Mason but are far more likely to put in killer hours doing boring contract work for a modest salary.
4
The strangest part of legal education is the big firm chase. Let me illustrate how this works. Assume 4 schools are in one job market. School 1 is a top 10 law school. All of its graduates take and pass the bar because all of its attendees have outstanding academic credentials and its professors constantly challenge these high end law students. Of the 200 students in school 1's graduating class, 75 land top 100 law firm jobs and another 75 land really good law jobs. Schools 2 and 3 are lower-end schools. The kids have average credentials and while the vast majority graduate and pass the bar on the first try, the employment situation is much different. Of the 200 in these graduating classes, only 20 in school 2 and 12 in school 3 land really good law jobs ( big firm w/ benefits). And yet, the school chases the big firms by coordinating interviews with law students, giving them false hope and causing them to waste infinite amounts of energy thinking they will land the big law job of their financial dreams. School 4's kids all graduate and most pass the bar. Of the 200 graduates, 2 or 3 land a big law job.
The ABa should be instructing schools 2-4 to get the kids involved in practical legal training by teaching them how to get their own practice off the ground. Get out of the big firm chase.
The ABa should be instructing schools 2-4 to get the kids involved in practical legal training by teaching them how to get their own practice off the ground. Get out of the big firm chase.
1
Until my recent retirement from a quite productive career as a Federal agency lawyer, I was part of my agency's hiring committee. It was quite amazing to see literally thousands of applications for a handful of positions, many from people with highly impressive resumes. A market so heavily tilted toward buyers is bound to be inefficient, as many well qualified people never even received interviews, as the result of the overwhelming numbers involved.
Another inefficiency I saw in hiring, not only in my agency but in other private and public sector law offices, was an unthinking prejudice in favor of people from big-name schools. There are plenty of people who go to so-called third- or fourth-tier schools who are just as capable as graduates from the "top 20," but hiring decision-makers casually disregarded them.
I was fortunate enough to get through law school, at a strong state university in the 1970s, without debt, enabling me to work in a moderate-paying public service job all my career. These days i advise young people to be very careful about placing themselves in the position described in the article.
Another inefficiency I saw in hiring, not only in my agency but in other private and public sector law offices, was an unthinking prejudice in favor of people from big-name schools. There are plenty of people who go to so-called third- or fourth-tier schools who are just as capable as graduates from the "top 20," but hiring decision-makers casually disregarded them.
I was fortunate enough to get through law school, at a strong state university in the 1970s, without debt, enabling me to work in a moderate-paying public service job all my career. These days i advise young people to be very careful about placing themselves in the position described in the article.
2
Perhaps when you ask the wrong question about responsibilitynyou inevitably get a useless answer. Name the onlyprivate self governing profession in America whose professional "union" is given the right to accredit all professional law schools that produce all the nations lawyers . Name the only private guild granted the authority to grant a public liscense to practice law. The very same guild creates and grades the exam that determine who gets to practice. And, finally, only the American Bar Association has the power to investigate,discipline and revoke the public liscense of lawyers they determine to be incompetent. The only force in the universe powerful enough to break this ABA private sector cartel that controls the complete supply chain of attorneys from student selection to production, distribution, licensure, employment and disbarment is the government and its courts both of which are controlled by--you guessed it--the lawyers. Honestly, no one could make this up.
1
I studied engineering (had scholarship so no loan) in the 70ties and got a job in New York 1980 for $40,000. Never looked back. Why engineering? Because I liked it and it sharpened my brain. Too many kids now study law or economics for only reason that they want to make a quick buck. Never works - like marrying a rich woman: no love; no nothing.
2
The whole higher education field has been skewed by Government intervention in the form of guaranteed student loans. The students are not forced to reckon their (or their parents) desire with the economic reality until its much too late. In any field, a thoughtful, capable, determined, and committed student will find a job and a fulfilling career. Those who went for other reasons will be punished either by inability to get a job (lawyers) or highest suicide rate of any profession (dentists). Parents, heed this reality and teach your children to choose a profession they will love. whatever it might be.
4
As a law student in the mid-80s, the story was the same: too many lawyers; not enough jobs. My class was among the first to experience less-than-full employment upon graduation, and the writing was writ large upon the wall that the situation was only going to become a lot worse. I went to a top 20 school, and graduated in the top third of my class. Finding A job was not a problem; finding a job I WANTED was.
After free-lancing and doing overflow work for ten months, I took a position that ended up being primarily legal services and Indian law work. It was perfect for me, but paid about 1/4 of the then going rate for newly hatched attorneys -- and I had trial experience, appellate experience, and knew which end was up thanks to a long stint in a clinical criminal legal aid program during school and a lot of time working for a small boutique firm as their do-it-all clerk.
I practiced law just long enough to pay back my student loans. I wrote the last check and quit my job(s) to teach. By then it meant taking a substantial pay cut, but I learned early t do what I loved, and not to follow the money. Thank heavens for THAT!
After free-lancing and doing overflow work for ten months, I took a position that ended up being primarily legal services and Indian law work. It was perfect for me, but paid about 1/4 of the then going rate for newly hatched attorneys -- and I had trial experience, appellate experience, and knew which end was up thanks to a long stint in a clinical criminal legal aid program during school and a lot of time working for a small boutique firm as their do-it-all clerk.
I practiced law just long enough to pay back my student loans. I wrote the last check and quit my job(s) to teach. By then it meant taking a substantial pay cut, but I learned early t do what I loved, and not to follow the money. Thank heavens for THAT!
My wife works part-time at a well-respected law school in San Francisco. She often tells me stories like this. I sometimes ask her why the students don't "do the math" and choose something other than law school. Judging from her answers and my own nature, I think I know the answer:
People at that age either DON'T do the math, or they think the math will apply only to others. In my case, it was both, but I got lucky (my tuition at Harvard Law School in the early Seventies rose from $2,100 first year to $2.400 third year; starting jobs at top law firms were paying about $15,000, and rent on my first apartment was $325 a month).
The solution seems clear: DO the math and DO assume that math will apply to you. I doubt that government subsidies -- suggested by many commenters here -- will help much. A recent Times article about "Katrina, 10 years later" mentioned government rent subsidies in the hardest-hit areas of New Orleans. Rents had risen from $550 pre-Katrina to as high as $1,900 post-Katrina; undoubtedly the landlords knew about the government rent subsidies, and so they raised the rents to ensure that those subsidies would end up in their pockets.
People at that age either DON'T do the math, or they think the math will apply only to others. In my case, it was both, but I got lucky (my tuition at Harvard Law School in the early Seventies rose from $2,100 first year to $2.400 third year; starting jobs at top law firms were paying about $15,000, and rent on my first apartment was $325 a month).
The solution seems clear: DO the math and DO assume that math will apply to you. I doubt that government subsidies -- suggested by many commenters here -- will help much. A recent Times article about "Katrina, 10 years later" mentioned government rent subsidies in the hardest-hit areas of New Orleans. Rents had risen from $550 pre-Katrina to as high as $1,900 post-Katrina; undoubtedly the landlords knew about the government rent subsidies, and so they raised the rents to ensure that those subsidies would end up in their pockets.
1
but it has been shown in academic studies that the young are alwas over optimistic (relative to reality) in terms of their chances. This is the crux of the problem. Hubris spins its ugly head.
There are a few ways to tackle this problem.
1) The ABA could strip accreditation from all fourth tier law schools: the ones that are so bad that US News doesn't even rank them. Those places (even the public non-profit ones) just prey on students with fake promises and false hopes of employment.
2) The federal government could limit (or eliminate) student loans for law school (or even all higher education). Make students go to private banks who will do risk assessments of students potentially paying back those loans. College and universities would no longer be able to depend on the federal government for subsidies without any accountability for student success. Tuition costs and the incredible amount of wasteful spending at universities would be reined in so fast!
3) Law school professors barely work at all and get paid a lot. Make them teach four or five classes per semester (community college professors do fine with this), thus reducing the number of faculty and funds necessary to staff a law faculty. Stop coddling the professors' cushy jobs and make them work for a change.
1) The ABA could strip accreditation from all fourth tier law schools: the ones that are so bad that US News doesn't even rank them. Those places (even the public non-profit ones) just prey on students with fake promises and false hopes of employment.
2) The federal government could limit (or eliminate) student loans for law school (or even all higher education). Make students go to private banks who will do risk assessments of students potentially paying back those loans. College and universities would no longer be able to depend on the federal government for subsidies without any accountability for student success. Tuition costs and the incredible amount of wasteful spending at universities would be reined in so fast!
3) Law school professors barely work at all and get paid a lot. Make them teach four or five classes per semester (community college professors do fine with this), thus reducing the number of faculty and funds necessary to staff a law faculty. Stop coddling the professors' cushy jobs and make them work for a change.
1
Isn't it interesting that the U. S. has too many men and women graduating from law schools; but, no where near enough from medical schools? The shortage of physicians appears to be compounded by the fact that many new doctors are entering various specialty fields, rather than general practice, and they seem to be avoiding the rural areas.
Are the medical school slots being held down for some reason? Several months ago, the CEO's of the three main public county hospitals, here in South Florida--Miami-Dade, Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) and Palm Beach--wrote a joint Op-Ed in the Miami Herald, in which they pointed-out the considerable shortfall in general practitioners locally.
Now, if you cannot attract people to live and practice in South Florida--weather, beaches, nightlife, many activities--where can you find them? Hence, perhaps there is a purposely-controlled shortage.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Are the medical school slots being held down for some reason? Several months ago, the CEO's of the three main public county hospitals, here in South Florida--Miami-Dade, Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) and Palm Beach--wrote a joint Op-Ed in the Miami Herald, in which they pointed-out the considerable shortfall in general practitioners locally.
Now, if you cannot attract people to live and practice in South Florida--weather, beaches, nightlife, many activities--where can you find them? Hence, perhaps there is a purposely-controlled shortage.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
in 1980 the number of accredited medical schools was about 110. Today about 120. That is with a population that is older and a third larger.
Does this answer your question?
Does this answer your question?
The problem is not limited to law school. The problem is the "easy money" of student loans interfering market forces, and it affects many areas of higher ed.
1
I'm a law school graduate from the Class of 2014, and have work that requires a degree. I went to law school four years after graduating college. I am happy I did because I think that it made life easier to manage in and after law school, but also helped with my debt load.
Indeed, I thought since I started law school in 2011 that there should be a required two-year period between college and law school. The ABA could make this period a necessity for accreditation. While it may not be a solution to lowering costs and debt-loads, at least in my experience, the time to work and live after college increased my maturity, my personal financial management skills, and let me increase my monetary savings--thus letting me borrow less. Borrowing less did not guarantee me a job, but it meant that I could more freely pursue a larger range of legal jobs without feeling hobbled by student loans.
Of course, the government could always also lessen student loan interest rates and origination fees (not sure if the DOE can do this on its own or if Congress is needed), and Congress could pass legislation to cap the rates private lenders may charge, but that would require political will to do something for the masses.
Indeed, I thought since I started law school in 2011 that there should be a required two-year period between college and law school. The ABA could make this period a necessity for accreditation. While it may not be a solution to lowering costs and debt-loads, at least in my experience, the time to work and live after college increased my maturity, my personal financial management skills, and let me increase my monetary savings--thus letting me borrow less. Borrowing less did not guarantee me a job, but it meant that I could more freely pursue a larger range of legal jobs without feeling hobbled by student loans.
Of course, the government could always also lessen student loan interest rates and origination fees (not sure if the DOE can do this on its own or if Congress is needed), and Congress could pass legislation to cap the rates private lenders may charge, but that would require political will to do something for the masses.
32
Yes, letting law schools rake in exponentially increasing profits (not revenues) from tuition all funded by the US taxpayer should be solved by lowering the interest rate charged to the borrowers.
The idea that there are too many graduating JDs and the number isn't going to fall unless free money from Uncle Sam starts flowing to literally anybody who got into law school has clearly never crossed your mind. Cooley by any chance?
The idea that there are too many graduating JDs and the number isn't going to fall unless free money from Uncle Sam starts flowing to literally anybody who got into law school has clearly never crossed your mind. Cooley by any chance?
Some states still allow "reading" for the law, which used to be the way all lawyers learned. These programs usually cost the student nothing other than the cost of books and other study materials. Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and California allow apprenticeships with practicing lawyers. New York, Maine, and Wyoming allow some form of apprenticeship plus some law school training. The hardest part of these apprenticeships is finding your sponsoring attorney. It is a commitment of up to 4 years. This is a lot to ask, but it can be done. I have known a couple people who have taken advantage of the Washington state program and are now practicing. Students need to be creative and look into all the options available to them.
1
what good is 4 years of study (even if relatively cheap) if you can;t find employment afterwards?
The real problem is too many law schools. texas alone has UT, smu, baylor, houston, st marys, south texas, aggy, texas tech and probably a few I missed. Costs are out of sight. the problem is nation wide. Good students from good schools get jobs. The rest should have saved their time and money.
4
I probably speak for many physicians when I say that I am pleased this profession is in crisis.
2
I think you are misreading the situation. An oversupply of lawyers suggests that the economic threshold at which a malpractice case becomes viable, or profitable, for a lawyer is decreasing. In other words, more lawyers equals more lawsuits.
no doubt many attorneys are envious of how the medical profession has so limited entry into its field (thus insuring high renumeration).
Law school is more of a gamble - a crap shoot- than many other professional schools.
If you go to engineering school at Stanford and do well, you future is made. But if, instead of Stanford, you go engineering school at the University of Missouri you will still get a good job as an engineer.
Law school situation is quite different. If you go to law school at Stanford and do well you will prosper in the legal field. If you go to law school at the University of Missouri (or, heaven forefend, to the Mercy School of Law at the University of Detroit) you will probably never enter the comfortable ranks of the profession.
I was asked by someone in my church with a son at American University Law School if I would use my connection with a senior partner at a fancy Washington law firm to get his son an interview.
The law partner, when I raised the subject, gave me a sad but worldly gaze and said that American University was far below his firm's cutoff. "We have never hired from AU and never will". He suggested that I advise my friend's son to apply to local law firms in small cities in the South.
The sad thing is that there really isn't a do-over for most kids. Once you have sunk $200K of borrowed funds into a law degree from a school that is below the salt, you are unlikely to have the cash or the time to get a different professional degree.
If you go to engineering school at Stanford and do well, you future is made. But if, instead of Stanford, you go engineering school at the University of Missouri you will still get a good job as an engineer.
Law school situation is quite different. If you go to law school at Stanford and do well you will prosper in the legal field. If you go to law school at the University of Missouri (or, heaven forefend, to the Mercy School of Law at the University of Detroit) you will probably never enter the comfortable ranks of the profession.
I was asked by someone in my church with a son at American University Law School if I would use my connection with a senior partner at a fancy Washington law firm to get his son an interview.
The law partner, when I raised the subject, gave me a sad but worldly gaze and said that American University was far below his firm's cutoff. "We have never hired from AU and never will". He suggested that I advise my friend's son to apply to local law firms in small cities in the South.
The sad thing is that there really isn't a do-over for most kids. Once you have sunk $200K of borrowed funds into a law degree from a school that is below the salt, you are unlikely to have the cash or the time to get a different professional degree.
4
Actually there's a severe shortage of legal resources in this country as any visit to the courts of law will show you. The surplus exists in the boardrooms and conference rooms of law firms and banks billing at ridiculous rates an hour.
It would be much more accurate too say that there is a severe mismatch of legal resources in this country.
It would be much more accurate too say that there is a severe mismatch of legal resources in this country.
3
i would say there is not as many of the positions you believe have a "shortage" do not pay enough to pay off debts and make a living. That is why there is a shortage of such attorneys.
There is no difference between what is happening at law schools and many other professional schools, as well as most colleges and universities, so why single out the law schools?
2
I cannot think of any profession that has not suffered in our new world where the only thing that really matters is money. Reading the Times on my iPad I am forced to wait until all the ads have downloaded to begin reading. Lawyers can outsource many research and writing tasks to faceless online services, and I assume the same is true of other professions. young people are condemned to just trying to keep up, like hamsters on a wheel, with a world that no longer exists.
If law school is such a bad bargain, why do students keep enrolling?
That question has to be answered before any solution to this "urgent problem" can be suggested.
That question has to be answered before any solution to this "urgent problem" can be suggested.
They did explain it in this article. It's the same reason people buy lottery tickets...everyone thinks they will be the one to get lucky and get the jobs and everyone else will be unlucky. At least with law school it's a 50/50 shot as opposed to millions to one for lottery, but the basic human psychology underneath is the same.
Too many undergraduates in the humanities go to law school because they don't know what else to. They want to be professionals, but they rarely or ever indicate any interest in the law and they aren't especially driven to make money or save the world. It's the default professional school for many.
3
The "task force" recommendations seem extremely modest and hardly aimed at solving the problem of oversupply.
When the ABA and numerous state bar associations looked with approval upon the outsourcing of basic legal work to private companies and foreign sources, we all knew hat the legal profession and jumped some sort of shark as far as new attorneys were concerned. They demonstrated their unconcern for the careers of the newly minted graduates they sought to have as members. The Bar was willing to let market forces shake out the new lawyer population then, just it is unwilling to take law schools themselves to task for enrolling too many students now. Had the Bar not credentialed so many law schools to begin with, we might not have this problem, but f course, it is unwilling to do anything about that.
Given the glut of lawyers, one would expect that the hourly rate for legal work would have dropped significantly. My own limited experience suggests it has not - I spent months trying to find a lawyer to work for less than $200 an hour, a rate that I find staggering given that my own PhD, which took six years of schooling, qualifies me for less than $30 an hour, maybe $40 with benefits. Are there any studies to suggest that hourly costs for legal work are dropping?
1
no but logic dictates that there is basement at which prices can fall. If rates fall below that then it is not possible to make a living. Hence the basement.
I graduated from a top ranked law school in 1980 with $27,000 in debt. My younger sister graduated from the same law school ten years later with $90,000 in debt. We both had the same arrangement with our parents; they paid our living expenses and we took loans to cover tuition costs.
So, what drove the cost of legal education to increase more than twice the rate of inflation in that time? The only thing that changed in legal education during the intervening decade was greater reliance on Lexis/Nexis computer aided research. Otherwise, the Socratic method has been the same since, well, Socrates.
So, what drove the cost of legal education to increase more than twice the rate of inflation in that time? The only thing that changed in legal education during the intervening decade was greater reliance on Lexis/Nexis computer aided research. Otherwise, the Socratic method has been the same since, well, Socrates.
2
Where is the exposé about all the art history graduates without jobs? Or political science PhDs? Or NCAA football players who don't make the NFL or NBA? Or career minor-leaguers in baseball who never step on the field of Yankee Stadium? If people want to attend law school and take a chance, then the market lets them try. For some, it will work. For some, it will not. Would Mr. Harper only allow those with a minimum GPA or LSAT score attend law school? Would Mr. Harper restrict law school to those who might just want a degree to open their own sole practice? Markets are not perfect, but individual choice is still better than restricting law school (and making it cheaper would only encourage more people to attend).
3
Don't you see, the *real* problem being created is that a glut of educated lawyers will lower the salaries in the profession. Protectionism and restricted access to education are always the solutions there. Ask any speech pathologist -- the American Speech and Hearing Assocation has successfully limited the number of schools able to offer degrees in speech pathology so that there is a national shortage of qualified people despite overwhelming demand for admission to the schools. A glut of qualified people "taking their chances", on the other hand, is a recipe for low salaries all over the profession. Ask any English professor how that goes.
Thank you for championing this issue. I could not agree with you more. I graduated from law school back in 2008. My law degree from a “marginal” school has provided me with almost no opportunities. My law degree is proven itself to be a liability, not an asset. I thought it would open doors, instead it has closed many more as I am labeled overqualified for non-legal positions I apply to. Finding work opportunities has been a devastating experience.
4
Maybe you should sue the law school. I'm sure you can figure out how to state a claim that survives summary judgment.
The government should subsidize education where it is needed -- primarily, doctors, nurses, paramedics. We don't have enough of these yet there is a glut of lawyers who can't get jobs. Students need to be encouraged to study what will get them a job rather than get a useless degree in philosophy, folklore and mythology, or history. These majors are for students who want to go to business school for an MBA or who want to be low paid teachers.
berverly, the reason we don't have enough of some of these professionals (i.e., doctors) is because they, themselves, are so successful at limiting entry, not that there is a market failure. there are more students applying to medical school than ever yet many are blocked from entry because the number of medical schools have barely increased in 30 years!
Caveat emptor. I'd like to think any passing the LSAT and otherwise qualifying for law school would be able to do do diligence on his school & job prospects.
The solution to cap student loans would have the net effect of closing law school entirely to the students who don't have other resources to meet the tuition costs.
All in all, I have to say I see this as a shockingly poorly reasoned article.
The solution to cap student loans would have the net effect of closing law school entirely to the students who don't have other resources to meet the tuition costs.
All in all, I have to say I see this as a shockingly poorly reasoned article.
1
Just what this country needs is more lawyers.
Whatever happened to trade schools? Admirable professions and most if not all are generally nicer people too.
Whatever happened to trade schools? Admirable professions and most if not all are generally nicer people too.
2
Why is the legal profession getting so much attention? What about other professions out there that experience the same issues? Why is no one talking about them? It seems to me the only reason is that it use to be when you get your JD you could leave with a 6 figure paying job. A law degree use to guarantee you access into the upper echelons of society. Guess what, not anymore. So shame on the law schools for perpetuating the problem? There are many other professions out there that have the same issues with, too many grads and little employment prospects that give you a salary that can pay off your student loans. I don't feel sorry for these people. This is a larger issue. I encourage the writer to take on a more global perspective.
1
It is not only a tragedy for the students; it is also a tragedy for America. Excessive litigation is killing America, turning every social and economic interaction into a prisoner's dilemma of who can "lawyer up" more. The end effect is we all lose through fear of litigation, real litigation and insurance costs and a general fear of doing anything.
It is not the law schools' fault that their graduates cannot find jobs. It is up to these students who are not finding jobs to consider their choices better. The market has been flooded with law students for several years now, it is not a secret. Those who enter law school and do not do well, or can only gain admission to a marginal school and still do not do well, cannot reasonably expect to land jobs on Wall Street. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Make these students accountable for their choices and failure to rise to the top - not the schools, and not the ABA.
2
Professional school students should have some responsibility for planning a career path and checking to see whether, given the law school they are attending, it is viable, before they take out huge school loans. It's no secret the number of law jobs has been shrinking for several years now. If you go to a for-profit law school because you can't get in anywhere else (the only reason I can think of for doing that), you should be rethinking your career path.
That being said, the law schools also have a responsibility to communicate honestly with students about their job prospects. Law schools are real high margin money-makers for schools. All you need for a law school class, unlike medical school for instance, is a classroom and a teacher--no fancy equipment, no labs, no cadavers--not even teaching assistants. The fact that law schools keep raising tuition is no surprise at all.
That being said, the law schools also have a responsibility to communicate honestly with students about their job prospects. Law schools are real high margin money-makers for schools. All you need for a law school class, unlike medical school for instance, is a classroom and a teacher--no fancy equipment, no labs, no cadavers--not even teaching assistants. The fact that law schools keep raising tuition is no surprise at all.
4
Why are we talking about legal education only? What about art, history, music, anthropology, and all the other areas where a degree practically guarantees you will be teaching second grade at George Washington elementary?
1
I continue to read articles on lower pay and lower perks to being lawyers and doctors and many other of the classical professions. Being an engineer is pretty boring. What's left, tech?
2
The ABA is only part of the problem. Universities are the other part - law schools are big money makers, being relatively cheap to run (unlike, say, medical schools or advanced engineering programs), and allowing big tuition from the students.
The other problem here, though, is that bright young students who want a profession don't get the grounding in math and science to go into medicine or the sciences, so they select the law as a career. We have too many lawyers as it is, per capita (compared with other first world countries), but since our newbie lawyers are burdened with debt, they can't serve the class which really needs them: the poor, the elderly, etc., and pay off their own debts.
The other problem here, though, is that bright young students who want a profession don't get the grounding in math and science to go into medicine or the sciences, so they select the law as a career. We have too many lawyers as it is, per capita (compared with other first world countries), but since our newbie lawyers are burdened with debt, they can't serve the class which really needs them: the poor, the elderly, etc., and pay off their own debts.
1
My son was just encouraged by on elf his political science teachers to become a lawyer. I said, "isn't there a glut of lawyers?" Not according to this Indiana University professor. Thank you for clarifying the situation for me.
2
I wonder if there is any correlation between passing the bar and ability to find a job. Too many lawyers graduate law school and cannot lawyer their way out of a paper bag. Too many people go to law school as a way to defer their entry into the working world and are not committed to being practicing lawyers. Frankly, the legal profession would do everyone a favor if it shut down a quarter of all law schools and just graduated fewer law students.
3
Easy solution. All these law school graduates can sue on behalf of all the other fules who fell for the College Scam and are currently working off their loans serving cappuccinos. False advertising, financial wrongdoing, etc. etc. All the country's universities are in it up to their mortarboards and ripe for a takedown in court.
Note that every law school reports its employment statistics and that these are made public. So those Florida, Carolina, and Arizona students went in with their eyes open.
One remedy presents itself. Make the post-graduation employment rate a key element of ABA accreditation.
One remedy presents itself. Make the post-graduation employment rate a key element of ABA accreditation.
Why does this happen?
Simple.
A legal education is one of the few endeavors, except for a career in science, that offer a good prospect of a high paying job for those students in the top 15% of their class at a good university.
Prospective students are hopeful of being at the top of their class and they know that any other career, except science (preferably computers) also offer a poor job market.
As an example, the following title is also true:
Too many English majors, too few job prospects.
Simple.
A legal education is one of the few endeavors, except for a career in science, that offer a good prospect of a high paying job for those students in the top 15% of their class at a good university.
Prospective students are hopeful of being at the top of their class and they know that any other career, except science (preferably computers) also offer a poor job market.
As an example, the following title is also true:
Too many English majors, too few job prospects.
Of course there are too many law graduates to fill the available legal positions. Same is true for MBAs. But that doesn't mean that these graudates are unemployable. I'd like to know a) the 5 yr post graduation employment rate and b) the median compensation after five years as well. Ironically we do not educate enough physicians and, periodically nurses so in those we have to import docs and RNs. BTW a straightforward solution is to dis-accredit the bottom five law schools in terms of whether their grads get jobs. Do that for a decade and the "problem" is eliminated.
This article misses the point.
The problem is too much money in the hands of people who didn't earn it, get it too easily, and who have no idea about what they should spend it on.
When the government makes loans, or insures lenders, so that no one cares whether the borrower can pay the money back, money will be spent on the wrong things.
No one blamed home builders when buyers spent too much money on homes during the housing bubble. Blaming colleges is like blaming homebuilders.
The problem is too much money in the hands of people who didn't earn it, get it too easily, and who have no idea about what they should spend it on.
When the government makes loans, or insures lenders, so that no one cares whether the borrower can pay the money back, money will be spent on the wrong things.
No one blamed home builders when buyers spent too much money on homes during the housing bubble. Blaming colleges is like blaming homebuilders.
I agree that tuition is too high, debt burden is too high, and there are currently not enough jobs in the market for licensed attorneys. BUT... after navigating our overburdened legal system and administrative hearings system, I think there's a "market" for these licensed attorneys. We just aren't utilizing the market properly.
There's a high demand for more legal work. It's just that this demand is in the public and non-profit sectors. And there's not enough money in the public sector to support a better legal system. For example, prosecutors, state attorneys, and public defenders make terrible money for how hard they work.
It's a misnomer to act like we're churning out too many lawyers. We have an administrative hearings system that will delay your case for YEARS simply because there are not enough government attorneys and hearing officers to handle the case loads. People are stuck in jails because their public defenders don't have enough hours in the day to review all of the cases. Cases languish in the courts because there aren't enough judges or clerks to adequately hear the issues.... It's NOT that there are too many lawyers, it's that we can't or won't put them to use!
There's a high demand for more legal work. It's just that this demand is in the public and non-profit sectors. And there's not enough money in the public sector to support a better legal system. For example, prosecutors, state attorneys, and public defenders make terrible money for how hard they work.
It's a misnomer to act like we're churning out too many lawyers. We have an administrative hearings system that will delay your case for YEARS simply because there are not enough government attorneys and hearing officers to handle the case loads. People are stuck in jails because their public defenders don't have enough hours in the day to review all of the cases. Cases languish in the courts because there aren't enough judges or clerks to adequately hear the issues.... It's NOT that there are too many lawyers, it's that we can't or won't put them to use!
2
Another head-shaking moment when you read who was appointed Chairman of the Task Force. Really? BIG surprise that they come up with Recommendations that are so far off the mark when it comes to providing real solutions. Not exactly the type of critical thinking that would earn you a top grade in any law school exam, even an exam from one of the Chairman's so-called law schools (AKA "profit centers").
Yet another example of how America has mastered the art of making a buck off of virtually every essential aspect of life. You need only look North across the border to see how public legal education works. Law schools in Canada exercise their "control of numbers" at the entry stage. Not every man/woman and their dog can be accepted into a law school. Because law school costs are largely borne by the public, the weeding out process takes place on admission, and not at the bar admission exam stage. (Why else do almost 50% of all students fail the California Bar?)
Instead of marginal students having pursued largely an illusory dream and ending up $200,000 poorer, the public nature of Canadian Law schools requires that government subsidies for higher education only be directed to those that have a realistic likelihood of getting a job after graduation from fewer and more highly accredited law schools. Instead you are left with a so-called "free market" legal education system in which the only true beneficiaries are hedge fund owned law schools.
Yet another example of how America has mastered the art of making a buck off of virtually every essential aspect of life. You need only look North across the border to see how public legal education works. Law schools in Canada exercise their "control of numbers" at the entry stage. Not every man/woman and their dog can be accepted into a law school. Because law school costs are largely borne by the public, the weeding out process takes place on admission, and not at the bar admission exam stage. (Why else do almost 50% of all students fail the California Bar?)
Instead of marginal students having pursued largely an illusory dream and ending up $200,000 poorer, the public nature of Canadian Law schools requires that government subsidies for higher education only be directed to those that have a realistic likelihood of getting a job after graduation from fewer and more highly accredited law schools. Instead you are left with a so-called "free market" legal education system in which the only true beneficiaries are hedge fund owned law schools.
1
Wouldn't this problem disappear if the banks making the student loans were actually at risk for losses if the students they lent money too could not afford to pay them back?
Eliminate the provision in most student loan contracts that makes it virtually impossible to discharge the debt in bankruptcy and treat student debt just like any other unsecured debt. Eliminate any government guarantees or subsidies. The banks will tighten up their student loan lending dramatically and the number of law school attendees would drop dramatically, especially at the marginal schools.
Eliminate the provision in most student loan contracts that makes it virtually impossible to discharge the debt in bankruptcy and treat student debt just like any other unsecured debt. Eliminate any government guarantees or subsidies. The banks will tighten up their student loan lending dramatically and the number of law school attendees would drop dramatically, especially at the marginal schools.
3
I have a law degree (1992). And although I don't do law work, that degree is the most useful (and by far the most interesting) of all my (3) degrees: 1. BSc aerospace engineering, 2. MSc business economics, 3. JD.
A law degree teaches you things you just don't learn in other educational fields. If I had it to do over again...knowing the things I know now...and even knowing that I might not get work in a law field...I'd still pursue an education in law. (I wish I'd been aware of this earlier in my life.)
Learning to "think like a lawyer," IMHO, is a great asset that the world can use to better humankind, notwithstanding the fact that you may not actually work in law.
Maybe some of those law graduates (and law school administration/faculty) today have the same perspective I do on this?
A law degree teaches you things you just don't learn in other educational fields. If I had it to do over again...knowing the things I know now...and even knowing that I might not get work in a law field...I'd still pursue an education in law. (I wish I'd been aware of this earlier in my life.)
Learning to "think like a lawyer," IMHO, is a great asset that the world can use to better humankind, notwithstanding the fact that you may not actually work in law.
Maybe some of those law graduates (and law school administration/faculty) today have the same perspective I do on this?
45
That may be, but I don't think anyone is interested in going a couple of hundred thousand dollars into high-interest, non-dischargeable debt in order to learn to think like a lawyer. I'm always baffled by how low the debt figures are, since the schools are open about the fact that the recommended debt load at many private institutions is between $70,000 and $85,000 per year. In other words, at some expensive schools, a student could borrow only what student financial services advised and go between $210,000 and $255,000 in debt on principal alone. Given that starting salaries even at the most sought-after jobs are $160,000, plus a bonus of typically less than $10,000, it's impossible to fathom how that pricing sustains itself.
I would certainly agree that a law degree is an enormous asset, simply from the standpoint of having awareness and understanding of how things actually work in business, government, and elsewhere. At its best, a law school education fosters clear thinking and a careful use of language. It also teaches a great deal about limitations and constraints, and the consequences that frequently before all those who fail to pay attention to what the rules of society will allow, and those it will not. A law school education will teach students how to advocate, and how to persuade; how to argue a case, and how to make a point. In a very real sense, I found law school to be a finishing school for the active and curious mind.
Making a living from the laws an entirely different matter, and it requires different skills, some of which are not nor could ever be taught in law school. For many, the business of lawyering is a tough way to earn a living. But that's a story for another day.
Making a living from the laws an entirely different matter, and it requires different skills, some of which are not nor could ever be taught in law school. For many, the business of lawyering is a tough way to earn a living. But that's a story for another day.
The law has always attracted young people of limited means seeking to improve their social and economic status because you didn't need to go to school at all - you could read law in a law office and take the bar exam. Similarly, at least in the first half of the last century, you could go to law school without a college degree.
Law school was and still is a trade school, but the profession has so nurtured its image that aspirants can be excused for focusing on the social status of lawyers while ignoring the limited opportunities available in the trade.
Law school was and still is a trade school, but the profession has so nurtured its image that aspirants can be excused for focusing on the social status of lawyers while ignoring the limited opportunities available in the trade.
What is the alternative? Please, tell me. As an undergraduate student looking to pursue law because it is what interests me most, I'm begging you, what else should I do? Go into tech? Medicine? I was good at neither, and those fields are getting increasingly saturated, too.
So while it's nice to be kept in the loop on the job markets and my future prospects, you aren't tell my peers and me anything we haven't heard before. Instead of picking on law school, notice what the "problem" with law school represents in its entirety and start from there.
So while it's nice to be kept in the loop on the job markets and my future prospects, you aren't tell my peers and me anything we haven't heard before. Instead of picking on law school, notice what the "problem" with law school represents in its entirety and start from there.
34
An "alternative" that costs you three working years and saddles you with six figures of debt and no good way to repay it is NOT an alternative. It is a sinkhole. I'm begging you and your peers, do some realistic thinking. If you aren't able to get into one of a small number of top schools, ANYTHING ELSE IS BETTER.
(I don't disagree that the problem here is reflective of much greater problems with our economy, but you won't be able to repay your loans by pointing to the greater problems in the economy.)
(I don't disagree that the problem here is reflective of much greater problems with our economy, but you won't be able to repay your loans by pointing to the greater problems in the economy.)
Only go if you can get into a very good law school. Don't listen when people tell you stories about successful attorneys who went to lower tier local schools, not unless that attorney is less than five years out of school (the 25 year lawyer who went to a bad law school and now makes a ton doing med mal doesn't count). If you insist on going to a lower tier school, consider picking a niche specialty area and connecting with practitioners in that area early.
What about law interests you? Go work in government for a while. You'll learn a lot about public policy and it will make you a better candidate for law school if you ultimately decide to go.
How is this possibly news? Forty years in primary care Internal Medicine, and it has always been clear. Too many of them. Too few of us.
1
The law school debt crisis appears to be another bubble. The government loans taxpayer money to law students, many of whom will not find a job that will pay them enough to allow them to repay their loan without substantial hardship. So they will default. In the end, the law schools make substantial money for providing a diploma of limited value at taxpayer expense. Our political system needs to address this so that it protects the taxpayer by only making loans to law students who are very likely to repay them.
2
This is an interesting report, in light of the specious legal arguments presented yesterday in an Opinionator forum by no less than the dean of a private law school (Eastman at Chapman). The problem is that not only are there too many law school graduates, but also that there are too many weak schools and flabby lawyers. One's LSAT score has become much less important that one's ability to pay tuition. It's time for the law to do what Flexner did one hundred years ago for medical education.
1
A glut in law students may, in due time, find a way to dissuade new applicants; and to look for other, more fertile, grounds to make a living. This is applicable to any other profession, be it in health care, education, engineering (you name it). The only 'profession' that seems inexhaustible in making a buck, irrespective of how little information and knowledge, and wisdom, it may have, is that of a politician. Having mentioned politicians (not politics, the art of the possible) as we know them in our current chaotic environment, I would remiss not bringing George Orwell's essay in the fray: "Political language"..."is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".
Too many law students or not, there is a lot of legal work that needs to get done. Tenants and landlords, indigent people arrested who need representation, employment disputes, disputed between neighbors, defective product claims, and not just against manufacturers. The work is out there, but it's still too expensive for most of us to exercise our rights. There is no surplus of lawyers, just no way of connecting them to what really needs doing.
1
I'm a lawyer who graduated in 2008. And although I have sympathy for these new graduates who can't find jobs, they had it coming. It has been 7 years since the Great Recession and it has been very clear for a long time now that the legal market is over-saturated with new grads.
These new grads went to law school despite that risk. The article states that "law schools have no responsibility for the debt their students have taken on" and that is the way it should be. Law students are college grads and adults. They are responsible for themselves - not their parents, and certainly not the law schools.
These new grads went to law school despite that risk. The article states that "law schools have no responsibility for the debt their students have taken on" and that is the way it should be. Law students are college grads and adults. They are responsible for themselves - not their parents, and certainly not the law schools.
4
Perhaps the law schools should be making clearer to their prospective students the state of the job market, and by extension, the risk of taking on significant debt to finance a law degree.
I once read about a Humanities graduate program that would make all entering students sign a form where the student acknowledges the difficult job market (in this case, the academic market) that they will be entering upon graduation. Maybe law schools should use a similar approach for their applicants. After that, the responsibility would be borne by the student.
I once read about a Humanities graduate program that would make all entering students sign a form where the student acknowledges the difficult job market (in this case, the academic market) that they will be entering upon graduation. Maybe law schools should use a similar approach for their applicants. After that, the responsibility would be borne by the student.
If Honda got paid for every car they produced from the factory, irrespective of the number of cars purchased on the lot, they would be pumping out cars 24/7. But a manufacturer has to attempt to tailor supply to expected demand.
The first sentence is a description of the law school industry. Law schools make money by getting as many "bums on seats" as they can and by graduating as many students as possible - regardless of the demand for their graduates. Law schools could not care less about the excess number of students they are dumping into the legal market place - with enormous debt and low paying jobs for the vast majority (or no job) - which further depresses salaries as well.
The law schools get paid up front by the law students, and the 100% of the risk of not being able to pay back the loan falls on the graduate. The law schools have no skin in the game, and are under no economic pressure to change their conduct.
It's time to start making these law schools eat a decent percentage of their graduates' defaulted loans.
The first sentence is a description of the law school industry. Law schools make money by getting as many "bums on seats" as they can and by graduating as many students as possible - regardless of the demand for their graduates. Law schools could not care less about the excess number of students they are dumping into the legal market place - with enormous debt and low paying jobs for the vast majority (or no job) - which further depresses salaries as well.
The law schools get paid up front by the law students, and the 100% of the risk of not being able to pay back the loan falls on the graduate. The law schools have no skin in the game, and are under no economic pressure to change their conduct.
It's time to start making these law schools eat a decent percentage of their graduates' defaulted loans.
6
"Too many incoming law school students still believe they will be among the lucky few who get decent jobs."
This is the main problem right here. Well, this, coupled with the fact that the job market for non-legal jobs is still bad and prospective students view a law degree as a route to a high-paying job. Not just a good paying job, but a high-paying one. It is viewed by many as a way from the middle class into the upper class, and too many students think that they are the special snowflake who can get the job. It's like playing the lottery.
Sure, there is some deception going on with law schools inflating their job placement rates but any research done by a prospective law student will show just how difficult it is to get a legal job from a middle to lower tier law school. There needs to be more responsibility placed on students taking on law school debt, especially now. Students with law degrees from 2007-2010 might not have known better, but anyone now surely should.
The problem is that no student thinks they will be in the bottom half of their class. When students stop going to law school because they realize that they will not get a good job, then the problem will be solved.
This is the main problem right here. Well, this, coupled with the fact that the job market for non-legal jobs is still bad and prospective students view a law degree as a route to a high-paying job. Not just a good paying job, but a high-paying one. It is viewed by many as a way from the middle class into the upper class, and too many students think that they are the special snowflake who can get the job. It's like playing the lottery.
Sure, there is some deception going on with law schools inflating their job placement rates but any research done by a prospective law student will show just how difficult it is to get a legal job from a middle to lower tier law school. There needs to be more responsibility placed on students taking on law school debt, especially now. Students with law degrees from 2007-2010 might not have known better, but anyone now surely should.
The problem is that no student thinks they will be in the bottom half of their class. When students stop going to law school because they realize that they will not get a good job, then the problem will be solved.
Sadly, there is a great need for legal services. Unfortunately, giving legal services to the underserved doesn't "pay". Government should increase spending on public defenders and indigent legal services. More lawyers employed and less people victimized by all of the various "systems" that work against them. On a separate note, critics have been complaining of too many lawyers with too much debt since the 1990s. Nothing will be done until the ability to borrow money for school tuition payments is limited. Law schools will not put themselves out of business.
There is a huge demand for legal work. Most average people cannot access the basic services of an attorney. Americans probably need as many attorneys as are being minted by law schools.
The real problem is the delivery and distribution mechanisms that have been created to provide "justice" to the wealthy.
The first change that should and could be made is how legal services could be provided by corporations. You could almost create the equivalent of a "legal hospital" for folks that are seeking help.
A friend of mine recently told me that if he won the "powerball lottery" his contribution to humanity would be to open a law firm to "fight the good fights" for the underprivileged. He had no idea that owning a law firm as a non-lawyer was not really an option.
It is this impediment that I believe stifles the legal profession, and eliminates the opportunities for jobs and justice.
The real problem is the delivery and distribution mechanisms that have been created to provide "justice" to the wealthy.
The first change that should and could be made is how legal services could be provided by corporations. You could almost create the equivalent of a "legal hospital" for folks that are seeking help.
A friend of mine recently told me that if he won the "powerball lottery" his contribution to humanity would be to open a law firm to "fight the good fights" for the underprivileged. He had no idea that owning a law firm as a non-lawyer was not really an option.
It is this impediment that I believe stifles the legal profession, and eliminates the opportunities for jobs and justice.
2
Enough with these hopeless opinion articles on the legal practice! Any degree should be evaluated by considering income vs. cost. Typically, a $160,000 education is not going to be worth it, except for those individuals that already have the wealth and are deeply interested in the subject matter.
Everyone is good at different things. Some of us were not cut out to be lawyers. For those who only qualify for a Tier 3 or 4 school, a different vocation should be considered.
Everyone is good at different things. Some of us were not cut out to be lawyers. For those who only qualify for a Tier 3 or 4 school, a different vocation should be considered.
1
Good morning from San Diego, CA. I am a solo attorney in private law practice. I was hired as an attorney with the VA Office of District Counsel in Los Angeles, California, in 1974. I served until 1990, when I left to pursue a private law practice. I have advised numerous parents of college age children with whom I have a friendship not to have their son or daughter pursue a career in the law for most of the reasons set forth in Mr. Harper's article.
My advise has been consistently ignored by these parents.
My advise has been consistently ignored by these parents.
2
Me too- class of 97, former big firm lawyer, now in house. I tell our interns and the parents at work that it's a bad idea. They don't listen. One of those interns went to law school and is now working as basically an errand girl here because she can't get a legal job after graduating middle of the pack from a lower tier school.
2
Recently, attended some college graduations, and in walking around the campuses, observed that both colleges were enlarging or renovating their law schools, while the their liberal arts buildings were crumbling. We are in a era that has now institutionalized neo-liberal belief in the power of the market to determine all outcomes --- if it makes money that is all that matters. The worth or solvency of the outcomes is immaterial --- law schools make money.
1
All the unemployed law grads should initiate a class-action suit against the law schools, big enough to put the schools out of business if they win.
That will solve this problem once and for all. And, in the process, it will liberate our society from having a lawyer class -- a much over-hyped and over-paid profession that is dedicated to its self-perpetuation and makes very marginal, if any, contribution to the common good and common welfare.
That will solve this problem once and for all. And, in the process, it will liberate our society from having a lawyer class -- a much over-hyped and over-paid profession that is dedicated to its self-perpetuation and makes very marginal, if any, contribution to the common good and common welfare.
I went to film school in the 8th and this article could easily have been written about art school. There are way too many people graduating from art schools of all types, based upon the students ability to get a job, what this article fails to mention is that there are just too many people for the economy to provide work for them. The US needs a population reduction to make labor valuable again, Japan is going through this now, hopefully they will succeed.
Why do students take on so much debt? Because jobs that do not require a formal education now pay so little that one is condemned to a life of poverty without credentials in this economy.
Why do students take on so much debt? Because jobs that do not require a formal education now pay so little that one is condemned to a life of poverty without credentials in this economy.
Young lawyers and aspiring lawyers are being sold a bill of goods by unscrupulous law schools that are more interested in a university’s bottom line then they are in any amorphous concepts of justice, societal good or even professionalism. With government backed loans, the schools were free to raise their tuition by many factors above the rate of inflation, and have now wrecked the lives of too many young people. In New York, where the glut of lawyers and graduates is astounding, law schools have conspired with activist judges to increase the number lawyers even further by creating two-year law degree programs. Now burdened with only two thirds the debt of a three year program, these young legal practitioners will find themselves exploited for lower wages and in the same dire straights as three year graduates. And the promise of a crop of young lawyers able to do pro bono or public service work will soon evaporate as the lawyers realize that people need mental health and basic math skills far more than they need inexperienced lawyers. Unfortunately, the legal profession is a dead end for most graduates, and for those who do create a successful practice, life is often nasty, brutish and short as you live and die by the billable hour.
4
Another perfect example of free market and Neoiberalism at work. Get rid or regulations so that private institutions and wealthy individuals get wealthier while everyone else struggles. Are we concerned about law school graduates? wonder how the working poor and the shrinking middle class are faring? wonder how things are boiling over in urban America? wonder what the future holds for most of us when it is obvious that whatever little we have gets funneled to the wealthy. The scariest part is that no political party or politician has the will to fight against the rising inequality. Lets party on!
2
Every one of these critiques that I read heaps scorn upon law schools and the ABA. Yet, it is also incumbent upon undergraduate institutions to offer better advice to students who express a desire to attend law school. No ill-equipped student should attend a lower ranked law school and pay full-freight for tuition. That person is unlikely to find work and will be saddled with debt. Managing the application process as well as receiving an education about the legal market, debt servicing and the like early is key.
3
Mr. Harper employs the narrow thinking and prejudice typical of the law-firm-lawyer. There are many opportunities for law school graduates that can provide interesting and lucrative careers and that don't require passing the bar. There are many lawyers employed in finance and banking, the insurance industry, telecommunications/technology, education, medicine, government and politics and many more. Law school graduates need to broaden their outlook and go beyond the confines of the law firm. Not being a member of the bar does not mean your education was wasted.
38
I think there are flaws in your argument, MsPea.
As I understand matters, within industry there are "law degree required" and "law degree preferred" roles. The "law degree required" roles would, I believe, already be taken into account in the metrics discussed in the article. As such the underemployment of recent law school graduates already takes into account the existence of many of the industry roles for lawyers that I think you have in mind.
And when it comes to "law degree preferred" roles in industry - places where lawyers work in roles that don't technically require a legal education - the issue becomes whether a 3-year law degree was really the most economically efficient way of giving the bright and hard-working individuals who get those roles enough exposure to legal training and thinking in order to succeed in them. I suspect the answer is "no", and that many of those people would have been better served by a shorter and less costly Master of Studies in Law program.
As I understand matters, within industry there are "law degree required" and "law degree preferred" roles. The "law degree required" roles would, I believe, already be taken into account in the metrics discussed in the article. As such the underemployment of recent law school graduates already takes into account the existence of many of the industry roles for lawyers that I think you have in mind.
And when it comes to "law degree preferred" roles in industry - places where lawyers work in roles that don't technically require a legal education - the issue becomes whether a 3-year law degree was really the most economically efficient way of giving the bright and hard-working individuals who get those roles enough exposure to legal training and thinking in order to succeed in them. I suspect the answer is "no", and that many of those people would have been better served by a shorter and less costly Master of Studies in Law program.
Do you mean in house positions? The ones that in almost all cases only want lawyers who received a few years of Big Law sponsored training masquerading as work?
How much do you get paid per comment to shill for failing law schools?
How much do you get paid per comment to shill for failing law schools?
There is an extremely easy solution to this problem. Allow private student loans to be dischargeable via bankruptcy. Then banks won't make ridiculous loans because the risk will be too great. The shady schools will go out of business. Some of the glut of lawyers will dry up. And some of these smart young people might try another career where their skills are more needed -- like medical school.
4
Law students themselves have to accept some of the blame besides the bid, bad law schools. What kind of people are (or should be) lawyers? In addition to bright and motivated, they tend to be careful and mindful of potential problems that may bite them later. The problem is, most law students, having been egged on by popular tv shows about lawyers, have not done their due diligence about the career. At the age of 43, having been accepted to two decent law schools, I did. I interviewed lawyers of every stripe, including former high school and college classmates. I did an internship with the local DA. I ran the numbers. And when the loan papers arrived, I saw that I would be paying back loans into retirement and said said " no thanks."
I am a classical musician with a PhD, and it is a given that fields such as mine have always been lottery professions, with a few making it and vast numbers just getting by. But this is what law has become, while at the same time retaining the illusion of a guaranteed good living. Students today who go into this with their eyes closed have only themselves to blame.
I am a classical musician with a PhD, and it is a given that fields such as mine have always been lottery professions, with a few making it and vast numbers just getting by. But this is what law has become, while at the same time retaining the illusion of a guaranteed good living. Students today who go into this with their eyes closed have only themselves to blame.
38
there is a difference between making a big financial decision at age 43, and at age 21. If I had known then what I know now I wouldn't make the same decision, but at age 21, coming from a poor family, with a top 1 percent LSAT score, and with a good economy, it seemed reasonable.
1
Most people do not, and cannot, wait until they are 43 to pick a career. With maturity brings insight, but that doesn't mean law schools should be cashing in on the naivete of 22 year-olds.
1
I have read dozens of articles much like this one over the last few years. The secret's out - going to law school does not guarantee a six-figure job offer at graduation. While there is much to be improved about legal education, there is also something to be said for students considering law school who fail to do the most minimal of research (i.e. a google search). I attended a public, top-50 (not top-20) law school 15 years ago, and never expected to be recruited by elite NYC firms with that degree. I did, however, graduate with virtually no loans, work my way up to a federal clerkship, and now have a very satisfying and meaningful federal government job that pays a comfortable wage. Without question, law schools and the legal industry have a significant share of the responsibility here, but students considering law school - indeed, a 3 year course in analytical thinking - also need to take some ownership for their choices and make realistic decisions based upon readily available data.
69
The chief problem with editorials and articles like these is that they emphasize the commoditization of education. If everyone does not get the job they want or salary they want, then the education is bad. That is silly. A good education provides so much more. Second, people go to law school for a variety of reasons and always have. It is not just to practice law but also business, politics, non-profit work, etc. Third, the key is to discourage people who don't know what they want to do with their lives from going to law school and accumulating large amounts of debt. There has never been a time (even during the recession) where law schools have not been filled with smart people who are simply avoiding the real world but have no interest in either the legal education or practice. If we focus on these the real problems rather than try to eliminate financial aid, we would get somewhere.
2
Squeezing student loans is not the best solution, either. The lower-tiered schools that you point out as graduating students with huge sums of debt and poor job prospects also do the "best" job of educating a diverse lawyer population. It's by no accident that these schools are some of the most diverse in the nation. So to squeeze student loans and make them unavailable to the students attending these schools only works to bring us back to a profession of (old) white men. We should make law school more inexpensive first and foremost.
1
How times have changed in this regard, and not for the better. In early 1969 at age 29 with a wife and two young children and about $6,000 in savings, I quit my job as manager of a large grocery chain store and entered the University of Tennessee, College of Law. Tuition was $120 a quarter. We lived in a UT married student housing 2-bedroom apartment 2 blocks from the law school for $106 per month. My wife worked as a secretary at a local hospital and made about $65 per week. After the first three quarters, making about $75 per week, I worked about 25 hours per week as a journeyman meat cutter for the same grocery store chain where I was a store manager. [Working full time as a meat cutter is how I put myself through college debt free at the University of Chattanooga.] After 10 quarters I graduated debt free from law school in the spring of 1971. Total law school tuition was $1,200. In those days, no school loans were available.
5
Unlike the medical profession, the lawyers have totally failed to ensure their ranks do not swell to the point of oversupply. The trend line started around 40 years ago when universities without law schools cottoned on to the fact that compared to other professional school, running a law school is relatively cheap. All you really need are some profs, classrooms and a library or the electronic equivalent. No fancy labs or equipment is required. The beauty part for the universities is that you can still charge as much tuition as for the other expensive to operate schools.
New law schools started popping all over. Every university that didn't already have one of these cash cows got one. Students were aplenty. Who cared if it cost a bundle? They were all going to get rich on their 6 figure starting salaries and partnerships in 7 years. Well here we are. Let's hope some undergrads read this article and think twice before sending in that application. The law school that accepts you may not have your best interests at heart.
New law schools started popping all over. Every university that didn't already have one of these cash cows got one. Students were aplenty. Who cared if it cost a bundle? They were all going to get rich on their 6 figure starting salaries and partnerships in 7 years. Well here we are. Let's hope some undergrads read this article and think twice before sending in that application. The law school that accepts you may not have your best interests at heart.
2
This issue is hardly new and has existed for at least three decades. No one seemed to care about it before it began affecting the top 10% of all graduating law students. When it only affected the bottom 30% to 40% it was a non-issue for most. There has been a complete disconnect between the market for law students and the market for law school graduates for that entire time and it was only a question of when, not if, the law school graduate market would become saturated. Two or three years ago, it was still fashionable for universities to add law schools in order to generate more cash flow. This is as much an issue for higher education as it is for the ABA. When does providing more access to education become a form of preying upon naïve students? The law schools should do a much better job of disclosing rates of employment for their graduates, and be accurate about what those jobs were, how much they paid, and where they were located. To many of them just publish an employment percentage without being transparent.
3
This assumes (1) the only reason--justification--for a law degree is a job as a lawyer; (2) all lawyers expect to hit the jackpot.
Hardly true. The more legally educated its citizens, the better off the country will be. Regardless of where they wind up working. Regardless of which aspect of jurisprudence you focus on--rights/duties, due process--civil or criminal.
They are broad, far reaching educations in ethics and logic.
It's like arguing that students should not take and universities should not offer philosophy courses because there are too few jobs for "wisdom lovers."
It's part of a general trend to disparage education in general--except for skills employers can profit from. As though workers were drones. "How many anthropologists do we need? asserted Wisconsin's governor--a flunky for the 1%.
"They electorate gets what it deserves"--is more of a threat than a trivial truth. An ignorant (of law and logic) electorate might "deserve" a Trump. But "god help the rest of human kind"--more of a prayer than a prediction.
Hardly true. The more legally educated its citizens, the better off the country will be. Regardless of where they wind up working. Regardless of which aspect of jurisprudence you focus on--rights/duties, due process--civil or criminal.
They are broad, far reaching educations in ethics and logic.
It's like arguing that students should not take and universities should not offer philosophy courses because there are too few jobs for "wisdom lovers."
It's part of a general trend to disparage education in general--except for skills employers can profit from. As though workers were drones. "How many anthropologists do we need? asserted Wisconsin's governor--a flunky for the 1%.
"They electorate gets what it deserves"--is more of a threat than a trivial truth. An ignorant (of law and logic) electorate might "deserve" a Trump. But "god help the rest of human kind"--more of a prayer than a prediction.
6
Mr. Harper, you are right about only one thing; there are too many law schools and law students. The rest of your whining that it's the law school's fault is both wrong and symptomatic of the real ill that is pervasive in our society today, that is, it's always someone else's fault. Law schools are schools not employment agencies. Finding jobs for their students is not the school's responsibility. And law schools certainly don't control the economy, whose state at any given time dictates the availability of jobs. If the federal government had not gotten into the business of guaranteeing these loans, the laws of supply and demand and a now lost sense of moral responsibility to repay your debts would have quickly brought the number of law students into line with the number of law jobs available.
But what is really ironic here is that the over abundance of lawyers leads many of these men and women to pursue a living as a "personal injury" attorney, because it is a practice that is cheap to set up and can be done on a solo basis, although usually not well. They file hundreds of thousands of small, often meritless claims, that drive up the cost of everything, from insurance premiums to hamburgers, to cover the added expense that all this litigation imposes on us all. And most of these claims are premised of the mistaken but easily held belief that "nothing is my fault, it's always someone else's fault". Just like the lawyer's decision to borrow money and go to law school.
But what is really ironic here is that the over abundance of lawyers leads many of these men and women to pursue a living as a "personal injury" attorney, because it is a practice that is cheap to set up and can be done on a solo basis, although usually not well. They file hundreds of thousands of small, often meritless claims, that drive up the cost of everything, from insurance premiums to hamburgers, to cover the added expense that all this litigation imposes on us all. And most of these claims are premised of the mistaken but easily held belief that "nothing is my fault, it's always someone else's fault". Just like the lawyer's decision to borrow money and go to law school.
3
This is another example of the education market bubble, brought to you by Universities Inc. After amassing huge expenses, thanks to country club campuses and bloated administrative staffs, U. Inc. has got to find someone to pay for all that bling.
Besides levying never ending tuition increases, U. Inc. shamelessly sells degree programs to a public that reaps little value from last decade's degrees they bought. Value is lost because employers, convinced by educators, want to hire people who have the latest, greatest masters or doctorate in whatever, regardless of practical benefit.
Meanwhile, student debt accumulates while post graduate salaries stagnate, if you can get a job in your field. Combine that with the anti-science, anti-intellectual wave promoted by politicians and their uneducated followers, and you've got the perfect storm.
Besides levying never ending tuition increases, U. Inc. shamelessly sells degree programs to a public that reaps little value from last decade's degrees they bought. Value is lost because employers, convinced by educators, want to hire people who have the latest, greatest masters or doctorate in whatever, regardless of practical benefit.
Meanwhile, student debt accumulates while post graduate salaries stagnate, if you can get a job in your field. Combine that with the anti-science, anti-intellectual wave promoted by politicians and their uneducated followers, and you've got the perfect storm.
5
It seems to me the ease with which student loans are obtained is a problem not only for law schools, but for college education in general. The cost of education has skyrocketed relative to inflation and I am convinced that is due, in part, to the student loan program. A student goes into debt to get a degree that can not provide a job that will allow them to pay the debt, so, then, they get loans for a masters degree that adds to the debt burden that is even further beyond their ultimate capacity to pay.
1
This article reveals a contradiction at the heart of higher education in general, not just law schools: there is pressure from one side to take a more market-oriented approach to higher ed (jobs; the bottom line as the measure of an ed institution's worth, etc.) vs. a circumvention of market forces through subsidies such as loans, grants, and scholarships. Thus, the "business" of higher ed is thriving while students pay the long-term costs. No wonder private for-profit schools have multiplied as they "profit" from taxpayers and student loans. Get rid of subsidies, let market forces prevail (in reality, not in theory), and it's likely that tuitions will decline, weak or fraudulent schools will close, and students will make more realistic choices.
5
The Department of Education needs to do more to taxpayers' hard earned funds are not going to fund the lavish lifestyles of law schools and law professors who earn six figures while working about 12 hours a week.
I don't see why the law school farce should be federally funded. In addition, law schools should be held accountable for lying to law students about job placement rates and the average salaries of its students.
As a law school grad who did not find a paying job within 1 year of graduating, I was surprised and dismayed that my alma mater never asked me how much I was making one year out. I came to learn that law schools typically only survey and report on successful grads which inflates, conflates, and distorts their actual employment results.
I don't see why the law school farce should be federally funded. In addition, law schools should be held accountable for lying to law students about job placement rates and the average salaries of its students.
As a law school grad who did not find a paying job within 1 year of graduating, I was surprised and dismayed that my alma mater never asked me how much I was making one year out. I came to learn that law schools typically only survey and report on successful grads which inflates, conflates, and distorts their actual employment results.
6
Increasing numbers of elected office holders - from municipal government on up to the Federal level - are held by persons with law degrees, many of whom would no longer survive in the highly competitive private sector (if they ever did). No surprise we have a public discourse completely missing insights into modern agriculture, science, manufacturing, engineering, and computer-based. technology. Lawyers guns and money rule.
4
Unfortunately you are correct, what Washington and all or most municipalities DON'T need are more lawyers running things, because we all now how that turns out. They haven't a clue.
I generally agree with the sentiments of the article. -- it is wrong for law schools to profit off of students who can't find jobs. However the same point should be made against univesities that profit and burden their students with huge and essentially non-dischargeable loans in other areas such as art history. I beieve that universities generally need to examine their ethics much more closely because many of their practices are harmful to students.
JD
JD
46
The same is true in PhD programs across the humanities and even in the sciences. Currently, most humanities fields produce 10 times the number of PhDs the system can reabsorb. The motivation in PhD programs is not tuition, as most PhDs are funded, but cheap teaching labor - they can pay graduate students 10-20% of what they would pay professors to teach the same courses.
I'm dismayed by the many comments here that boil down to older folks turning up their noses at us for not "evaluating the risks" or telling us smugly "that's life." When I entered graduate school there were four times as many job listings in my field as there were this year, and it gets worse every year as I race to finish. How could I have predicted a 75% fall in opportunities in 5 years' time?
This is happening because the recession began transforming academic labor from tenured jobs with decent wages and health care to adjunct labor, which can pay less than a living wage with no healthcare. That's after 7-8 years of special training and hard-won research performed post-undergrad.
For many of us, THAT'S life. As we are replaced at universities by underpaid, less-skilled workers without the degrees once considered necessary to teach at the college level, what will we do with our skills? What will all those undergrads be paying for - a degree in name only?
I'm dismayed by the many comments here that boil down to older folks turning up their noses at us for not "evaluating the risks" or telling us smugly "that's life." When I entered graduate school there were four times as many job listings in my field as there were this year, and it gets worse every year as I race to finish. How could I have predicted a 75% fall in opportunities in 5 years' time?
This is happening because the recession began transforming academic labor from tenured jobs with decent wages and health care to adjunct labor, which can pay less than a living wage with no healthcare. That's after 7-8 years of special training and hard-won research performed post-undergrad.
For many of us, THAT'S life. As we are replaced at universities by underpaid, less-skilled workers without the degrees once considered necessary to teach at the college level, what will we do with our skills? What will all those undergrads be paying for - a degree in name only?
172
"I'm dismayed by the many comments here that boil down to older folks turning up their noses at us for not "evaluating the risks" or telling us smugly "that's life.""
Completely agree.
I, too, really appreciate the assertions that I should have predicted the collapse of the American economy, as well as the attendant restructuring of the entire legal profession and how long the damage would last, when I was 21 years old. Obviously if I'd just foreseen it, like everyone else did, I wouldn't be in the position I was in when I graduated from law school.
Completely agree.
I, too, really appreciate the assertions that I should have predicted the collapse of the American economy, as well as the attendant restructuring of the entire legal profession and how long the damage would last, when I was 21 years old. Obviously if I'd just foreseen it, like everyone else did, I wouldn't be in the position I was in when I graduated from law school.
2
You should have worked harder and gotten better grades, rather than blaming everyone else for your failure to succeed.
There have never been many jobs in the 'Humanities' or 'Arts' or 'Literature' or '[fill in the blank] Studies' fields, not even 50 years ago.
Never.
Never.
The third and fourth tier schools are a problem - but not the only problem. I graduated from a top 20 program and have seen many of my fellow graduates fail to get jobs in the legal field. When we enrolled, we were told that graduates of that program were easily finding jobs and were making a very high average salary. What they didn't tell us was that there was massive under-reporting by graduates of their lack of employment (the graduates responding to the surveys tended to be the ones that found lucrative jobs - the rest didn't want to admit they were working at Starbucks and defaulting on their loans). Although I was able to find a position as an attorney, it is in state government work and pays just slightly more than I made when I was working as a teacher. Only now, I have a large student loan debt weighing me down. I also feel that law school did not adequately prepare me for many legal jobs. I was never required to write a motion, draft a contract, negotiate a settlement, or do any of the thousands of tasks attorneys do on a daily basis. The third year of law school was a waste of time - we would have been better served with real world experience facilitated by the school. Those types of programs, however, are few and far between.
172
'...When we enrolled, we were told that graduates of that program were easily finding jobs and were making a very high average salary...'
'We were told...'?
You should all have done your homework before choosing your major.
Astoundingly, people did this even 30 and 40 years ago, long before the internet existed, instead of just assuming they were special and it would all somehow 'just work out'.
'We were told...'?
You should all have done your homework before choosing your major.
Astoundingly, people did this even 30 and 40 years ago, long before the internet existed, instead of just assuming they were special and it would all somehow 'just work out'.
One big problem here is that law schools are still, by and large, gatekeepers to the profession. As a result, they can force students to go through an extremely expensive three years of post-graduate education available only at accredited schools.
I'm not saying that we should abandon the requirement for an accredited degree or the bar exam, but law schools are clearly standing in the way of reasonable modifications and evolution. Many very complex fields offer an online MS degree at a small fraction of the cost of even a public law school. If Georgia Tech can offer a quality MS in Engineering… well, I understand that it takes the greatest minds to ponder whether serving someone a summons in an airplane over a region establishes jurisdiction, so we might not be able to apply the educational model used for simpler topics like partial differential equations, computational methods for numerical analysis, compiler design, or aerospace engineering... but is there any chance Law might be accessible through two years of an on-line Masters curriculum at 1/10th the price?
I'm not saying that we should abandon the requirement for an accredited degree or the bar exam, but law schools are clearly standing in the way of reasonable modifications and evolution. Many very complex fields offer an online MS degree at a small fraction of the cost of even a public law school. If Georgia Tech can offer a quality MS in Engineering… well, I understand that it takes the greatest minds to ponder whether serving someone a summons in an airplane over a region establishes jurisdiction, so we might not be able to apply the educational model used for simpler topics like partial differential equations, computational methods for numerical analysis, compiler design, or aerospace engineering... but is there any chance Law might be accessible through two years of an on-line Masters curriculum at 1/10th the price?
3
Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and California don't require law school to take the bar exam. You're right: getting rid of that requirement would have the law schools shaking. In the past, people studied independently or with a tutor.
Of his learning method, Lincoln stated: "I studied with nobody" and I think he turned out to have a pretty sharp legal mind.
Of his learning method, Lincoln stated: "I studied with nobody" and I think he turned out to have a pretty sharp legal mind.
1
One point this essay did not raise directly, is that there is no correlation between the amounts that law schools charge students, and the amount money it costs universities to operate law schools. At many universities, law schools are "cash cows," which are looked upon as a source of revenue to fund other areas of the university. Stopping universities from extracting money from law schools, could act a break on escalating tuition. With respect to for profit law schools, like for profit culinary schools whose students are also suffering under mountains of debt, these predatory entities must be forced to bear the economic consequences of bad outcomes for their students. Of course doing so will likely put these investment-backed entities out of business, which is not a bad result.
One hopes that students read these articles and understand that law school is far more likely than not to be a terrible investment, particularly if you do not attend a Top 20 school and graduate in the top percentiles of your class. Only the few who get Big Law jobs can afford to assume the debt required to attend law school, and there is simply a shrinking need for Big Law associates. Moreover, if you fail to get such a job coming out of law school, you face improbable odds of ever achieving that income level to have made law school attendance worthwhile.
One hopes that students read these articles and understand that law school is far more likely than not to be a terrible investment, particularly if you do not attend a Top 20 school and graduate in the top percentiles of your class. Only the few who get Big Law jobs can afford to assume the debt required to attend law school, and there is simply a shrinking need for Big Law associates. Moreover, if you fail to get such a job coming out of law school, you face improbable odds of ever achieving that income level to have made law school attendance worthwhile.
73
Student debate is outrageous. There is no question about this fact. What is equally amazing is the fact that employment rates of law school graduates at the lower ranked law schools has never been terrific. The best paying jobs, the jobs that most law graduates want, go to the graduates at the top law schools. Elitist systems have a habit of reproducing themselves; no surprise here. But this article fails to hold to account the students themselves and their parents. If there is nary a chance of employment as an attorney or in a legal field, why train for that profession? Try for another. The other point is getting a degree is not a guarantee of employment, regardless of market trends. Nor should it be, and finally the commentary paints with way too broad a brush. I teach at a law school ( Sturm college of law) where our stats on employment do not fit in this commentary because our students do very well in the employment crap shot. Our students are employed public interest law, government, and the white shoe law firm. Succes rate is due to the students, the educational experience they receive and the school's constant networking with the legal community. It does take a village! Times have changed. The answer is not to blame our educational institutions but to work together so that employment is an option...regardless of university degree earned or professional trajectory contemplated. And that means ALL players have a stake and should be held to account.
1
I hope your students are taught to proof-read their work.
1
Let's face it, law school tuition bears no relationship to the actual cost of a legal education. The average law school tuition hovers around $50K per year. The average class size is 67 students, and students generally take around 4 courses a semester. This means students are paying around $418,000 per course. If a Professor taught 4 courses a year, they would be making $1.6 million per year, which of course they aren't. The schools are making huge amounts of money off of law students. The students are in fact supporting all kinds of activities which have nothing to do with their legal education: research by Professors, bloated administrations, athletic programs, and other university expenses. The Law schools charge this much because that is what the market will bear. The federal government abets high tuition because of student loans. If the government would only allow loans for the portion of law school cost directly attributable to student education, and would withhold federal grants for any school charging other costs to students, law school tuitions (also medical school and college tuitions) would quickly decrease. Of course lower tuitions might result in even more lawyers, which is not something we necessarily need!
4
A simple solution might be to require the law schools with the worst debt-to-employment ratio to contribute a percentage of their tuition dollars to fund legal positions to help the under-served. This way the schools have an incentive to improve student outcomes (or reduce enrollment) and the "penalty" goes to help create jobs both where they are needed and for the unemployed graduates who are most likely to take such jobs. Not sure who has the authority to create such a system, but I'm sure an organization filled with ostensibly clever lawyers could come up with something (ahem, ABA).
6
Expand the views expressed in this op-ed and you are on to the real problem in America. Too many college graduates with watered down degrees chasing too few white collar jobs. Meanwhile America lacks carpenters plumbers, welders, electricians and many other skilled blue collar workers. College is over rated when you can make a lot more money working with a wrench or a skill saw.
9
When the plumber gave his rate to this doctor, he exclaimed, "I don't charge nearly that much."
"I know. That's why I quit being a doctor."
"I know. That's why I quit being a doctor."
paul, I have a newsflash for you. Even these blue collar profession have not been doing well. There has been high unemployment there since 2008.
While this piece raises important questions about legal education and the job market for law school grads, it only touches on the most crucial issue here: that law schools are a low cost source of revenue for universities, and have been irresponsibly indulging themselves on student debt for years. They should all be dramatically reducing the size of their entering classes, as some have done. They should also be offering loan forgiveness to lawyers who take jobs in poor and other under served communities.
135
Excellent comment and true. Received a call from a friend whose son now at Columbia will be working for Skadden Arps next summer. How about Legal Aid and get down and dirty with what law is supposed to be all about. Ah yes, to work in the ethereal heights - we've lost something. I was going to recommend Devil's Advocate to see what he's in for - I recommend readers go back in the Times archive for the article on who the happiest lawyers are. Believe it or not- it's not always about the money. Time for law schools to push more public service - rather than highly paid law faculty (supposedly highest of all faculty categories) and make law school affordable. But then that's a general problem nationwide. Maybe being a clown as in last week's Op-Ed would be a better chice than being a lawyer.
As was the case for medical care before Obamacare, the most under-served community where legal services are concerned is actually the lower middle class, which lacks both access to the free legal services provide for the poor and the funds needed to hire even a third-rate lawyer on their own.
"Why hasn’t the market corrected itself? The answer is that, for a given school, the availability of federal loans for law students has no connection to their poor post-graduation employment outcomes."
Keep this in mind as you listen to politicians explain how they are going to "fix" higher education in the US.
The only consequence of government intervention in the marketplace is more government intervention in the marketplace. Ludwig von Mises
Keep this in mind as you listen to politicians explain how they are going to "fix" higher education in the US.
The only consequence of government intervention in the marketplace is more government intervention in the marketplace. Ludwig von Mises
4
Politicians are not talking about higher education, they are talking about high schools and grade schools.
Government intervention in the marketplace attempts to keep the crooks at bay.
Government intervention in the marketplace attempts to keep the crooks at bay.
1
My daughter, an honors student with a B.S. from McGill (because it was cheaper her chosen American schools and the ONLY one who would take transfer credits from Penn State University), cannot find a living-wage job in this economy. She works at a bookstore and is thinking about law school. My son, also with a B.S. in molecular biology ("go into the sciences!") is barely eking out a living in a restaurant. Would someone tell me why my kids got into debt and worked hard to get good grades and I spent thousands of dollars? They don't know what else to do except go back to school. There are no jobs for the vast majority of kids who emerge with college degree. At the very least, let's have an honest dialog about young adults and their futures in this country and for crying out loud, raise the damn minimum wage so they can at least have a shred a dignity and a decent standard of living.
364
Ask the President of the United States why this is the worst economic recovery in history.
Talk to your children before they start college.Lots of debt,and career choice.Your problem,not mine.Wake up parents,start being responsible parents again.
2
It's not just law schools: I was a professor of Biochemistry & Biophysics for 52 years and watched students being recruited to provide cheap labor for researchers, with no concern about future employment. Students weren't told that the department received 250 applications for an advertised position. There are very few jobs at the top and technology is filling in for the jobs in the middle and at the lower levels. I anxiously await a solution.
1
The unintended consequences of the student loans program is not limited to law schools. Students with loan money have spurred outrageous tuition hikes which in turn has financed grandiose building programs at the schools. The student loan programs amount to de facto federal subsidies to the schools with the students being on the hook to pay the money back.
Meanwhile some students are getting degrees that generate jobs that can never pay back the loans. The amount of student debt (much of it in arrears) is a drag on the economy. The federal government is in the unique position to regulate tuition hikes as a condition to allowing a school to receive the proceeds of those loans.
Meanwhile some students are getting degrees that generate jobs that can never pay back the loans. The amount of student debt (much of it in arrears) is a drag on the economy. The federal government is in the unique position to regulate tuition hikes as a condition to allowing a school to receive the proceeds of those loans.
1
while yes, top students probably are all getting jobs, not everyone can be a top student. that is simply not a reasonable solution.
In order to absorb these new law school graduates, we're going to need a lot more laws.
4
I believe there is a much larger market for lawyers but they have priced themselves out of it. Who can afford a lawyer? There are many people who need the assistance of a lawyer but are unable to take advantage of legal expertise at $400 or $500 an hour. If a lawyer were to set up shop in a city or community and charge $100 and hour, there would be plenty of work to do and a decent living. I have been a physician for 35 years and I have never made that much money.
7
Recent grads are MUCH cheaper than that! A firm can pick one up for $35K anywhere outside say NYC. That is why they need restaurant jobs on the side to service their student loans.
I had thoughts like this, although I'm a little ignorant about exactly what lawyers do.
Mostly I hired real estate lawyers who typically charge eight, nine hundred for a closing. I'm not sure what they do for that money. Review a contract the realtor writes (which is standard and issued by the broker) and show up at closing , I think.
What about a young upstart advertising he'll do the same for one fifty? I'm sure it's still pretty high by the hour.
But like I said, I don't know what they do. Buying a house is such a big move and I'm scared to not have a lawyer. And the realtor insists.
Mostly I hired real estate lawyers who typically charge eight, nine hundred for a closing. I'm not sure what they do for that money. Review a contract the realtor writes (which is standard and issued by the broker) and show up at closing , I think.
What about a young upstart advertising he'll do the same for one fifty? I'm sure it's still pretty high by the hour.
But like I said, I don't know what they do. Buying a house is such a big move and I'm scared to not have a lawyer. And the realtor insists.
Are you kidding? The ratio of lawyers to population in the US is 281 to 100K.
In Japan, it's 11 per 100K.
The US is hopelessly overlawyered. You do hit on one point, however: Many of these graduates seem to lack the wherewithal to find a consumer specialty, hang out a shingle and go it alone.
In Japan, it's 11 per 100K.
The US is hopelessly overlawyered. You do hit on one point, however: Many of these graduates seem to lack the wherewithal to find a consumer specialty, hang out a shingle and go it alone.
Simply, there are too many students and too few jobs. Ignore that the article discusses Law Students and Legal Jobs. Many folks are forced into continuing education simply because there are so few jobs, the problem is economic.
The problem is that we have sold-out our manufacturing and related employment to China and others. This may have been good (in the short term) for the globalists but for the overwhelming majority of us the economy is local.
What does it matter that we pay more for goods manufactured in the U.S. when it creates employment, those that U.S. manufacturing employs are also consumers, customers, people who spend! - Unemployment and oversubscribed education leads to less people spending. The money-flow stagnates, has stagnated.
We are all agreed our infrastructure is pathetic. We have the resources to put that right, we have the people and we have the materials we need- We can build new roads, new bridges, get involved in massive civil engineering projects. And, the people we employ to do this don't need a bit of paper from a college or university to lay bricks. All they need is a chance and the experience that comes with it.
And, guess what? The money they earn stays in our economy because they would spend it, not hoard it and invest it and try to build wealth.
We need to focus on creating FULL EMPLOYMENT. Not fabricated FULL EMPLOYMENT either... REAL full employment.
Problems with education are a symptom of our poor economy, NOT the answer to it.
The problem is that we have sold-out our manufacturing and related employment to China and others. This may have been good (in the short term) for the globalists but for the overwhelming majority of us the economy is local.
What does it matter that we pay more for goods manufactured in the U.S. when it creates employment, those that U.S. manufacturing employs are also consumers, customers, people who spend! - Unemployment and oversubscribed education leads to less people spending. The money-flow stagnates, has stagnated.
We are all agreed our infrastructure is pathetic. We have the resources to put that right, we have the people and we have the materials we need- We can build new roads, new bridges, get involved in massive civil engineering projects. And, the people we employ to do this don't need a bit of paper from a college or university to lay bricks. All they need is a chance and the experience that comes with it.
And, guess what? The money they earn stays in our economy because they would spend it, not hoard it and invest it and try to build wealth.
We need to focus on creating FULL EMPLOYMENT. Not fabricated FULL EMPLOYMENT either... REAL full employment.
Problems with education are a symptom of our poor economy, NOT the answer to it.
2
Here's another dirty little secret: the law school grads who are not getting jobs didn't work hard enough in law school. They just got by on their natural intelligence and did not distinguish themselves academically at their law school.
4
Quit foolin' around Justice Ginsberg, and get back to work.
1
The task force, having dodged the issues that should have been the focus of its work, offered four suggestions: law schools should offer students better debt counseling; the Department of Education should develop “plain English” disclosure information about student loans; the A.B.A. should collect and disseminate information about how law schools spend their money; and the A.B.A. should encourage law schools to experiment on curriculums and programs.
NO. The real solution has to be a reduction in admissions and a decrease in student loans (that are feeding tuition increases).
Considering how horrendous the market is for attorneys (even from Ivy League schools, never mind the lower tiers) how can anyone even logically consider law school?
NO. The real solution has to be a reduction in admissions and a decrease in student loans (that are feeding tuition increases).
Considering how horrendous the market is for attorneys (even from Ivy League schools, never mind the lower tiers) how can anyone even logically consider law school?
We want to learn how the law operates.
Why do you want only rich people to practice law, anyway?
Post 9-11, we ought to have trained lawyers on every block!
(Despite what the NYT might tell you as they sell thousand dollar watches and fancy expensive shoes: sometimes knowledge is worth more than $$$. Sometimes what you know can save your life, or get you out of a conviction or jail. LIkely not an arrest though, because you don't want to debate the facts of law on the street with cops. Save it for the courtrooms.)
The point is, not all of us have fathers who are going to welcome us into the newspaper business, or their small-town law practices. What we know will serve us much much better than simply going to school to make connections before we inherit our father or grandfather's business to run.
Again, I wonder why the NYT would be encouraging LESS people study the law, when looking at the street protests today, it should be just the opposite. Get some of those people into seats at the law school, alongside the sons of the wealthy. WE can compete with you on our skills and merits. You might have a job waiting to comfort your life and bring you thousands of dollars annually; the rest of us want to ply our trade honestly and practice independence as we work our way up.
I think the work of the independent ones will trump the inherited sons anyday. Give us a call when you need someone to negotiate the sale of the Times for you?
Why do you want only rich people to practice law, anyway?
Post 9-11, we ought to have trained lawyers on every block!
(Despite what the NYT might tell you as they sell thousand dollar watches and fancy expensive shoes: sometimes knowledge is worth more than $$$. Sometimes what you know can save your life, or get you out of a conviction or jail. LIkely not an arrest though, because you don't want to debate the facts of law on the street with cops. Save it for the courtrooms.)
The point is, not all of us have fathers who are going to welcome us into the newspaper business, or their small-town law practices. What we know will serve us much much better than simply going to school to make connections before we inherit our father or grandfather's business to run.
Again, I wonder why the NYT would be encouraging LESS people study the law, when looking at the street protests today, it should be just the opposite. Get some of those people into seats at the law school, alongside the sons of the wealthy. WE can compete with you on our skills and merits. You might have a job waiting to comfort your life and bring you thousands of dollars annually; the rest of us want to ply our trade honestly and practice independence as we work our way up.
I think the work of the independent ones will trump the inherited sons anyday. Give us a call when you need someone to negotiate the sale of the Times for you?
What is a long term job fpor a lawyer?
I hired a very hungry young graduate back in the early 70's who was esssentially running his own long term business from his wallet. He filled it up as much as he could and made friends. He never "worked" for anyone but himself and he liked it.
I hired a very hungry young graduate back in the early 70's who was esssentially running his own long term business from his wallet. He filled it up as much as he could and made friends. He never "worked" for anyone but himself and he liked it.
Many years ago I remember reading an economist's discussion of why there are no profession enforced limits on the number of new lawyers as there is for new doctors.
He suggested that new and inexperienced lawyers would create more lawsuits against wealthy clients/businesses, who would then hire established and experienced lawyers to defend their interests.
In effect, creating more new lawyers increases the demand for legal services, benefiting the established lawyer class.
This implies there may be little push-back from the legal profession to limit graduates if this "increasing the demand for legal services" effect is true.
He suggested that new and inexperienced lawyers would create more lawsuits against wealthy clients/businesses, who would then hire established and experienced lawyers to defend their interests.
In effect, creating more new lawyers increases the demand for legal services, benefiting the established lawyer class.
This implies there may be little push-back from the legal profession to limit graduates if this "increasing the demand for legal services" effect is true.
The economist is incorrect. The reason that there are no restrictions on the number of lawyers is that the Antitrust Division of the Dept of Justice will pounce on any attempt by the ABA to restrict the number of lawyers as "anti-competitive." Perhaps a generation ago, the dental profession closed down several schools and cut back the number of dental students and new graduates. I would be curious to hear why the Dept of Justice did not take action there.
Mr. Harper's numbers do not account for the significant discount from the face tuition amount that many law schools give students as a recruiting incentive. Stated tuitions are not the same thing as real tuitions.
1
When a student graduates with a six-figure debt load, the distinction between stated and real tuition is purely academic.
14
Totally incorrect. He provided figures for average actual indebtedness; none of the figures involve schools' listed tuitions.
1
Then what accounts for the high debts.
Let's just call this what it is: a Con. A profitable, legal con.
Take gullible young people raised on exciting television shows with sexy lawyers, make sure they can only name 5 occupations: doctor, lawyer, movie star, firefighter, teacher, -- then offer them the possibility of becoming a lawyer! Don't have great grades or awesome study habits? LSAT scores awful? No problem, we'll take you.
So young people who wouldn't have a prayer of making it into a top law school think they're still going to have a career. Presto, lots of money for a for-profit law school that has no concern about what happens after you sign the check. It will make a profit. It's a con.
Take gullible young people raised on exciting television shows with sexy lawyers, make sure they can only name 5 occupations: doctor, lawyer, movie star, firefighter, teacher, -- then offer them the possibility of becoming a lawyer! Don't have great grades or awesome study habits? LSAT scores awful? No problem, we'll take you.
So young people who wouldn't have a prayer of making it into a top law school think they're still going to have a career. Presto, lots of money for a for-profit law school that has no concern about what happens after you sign the check. It will make a profit. It's a con.
5
If a person is capable of passing the LSAT and being admitted to a law school, he or she should know what job prospects are as an attorney.
22
Unfortunately, there is no 'passing' the LSAT. If you get a very low percentage score, it is likely that some school will admit you. And as Steven Harper points out, the schools admitting the least qualified applicants are the schools where students graduate with the most debt and the worst job prospects.
Unlike medical schools, where there are a limited number, anyone who chooses to apply to a school can get in somewhere. Hence the abundance of lawyers with massive debt and no job prospects.
Unlike medical schools, where there are a limited number, anyone who chooses to apply to a school can get in somewhere. Hence the abundance of lawyers with massive debt and no job prospects.
1
Law schools misrepresent post-graduate employment levels, and some take on all comers regardless of qualifications. Plus, the job market has changed immensely in the last 10 years. Contract and other temp work has been replaced by outsourcing to India and the increasing use of software; many medium and big law firms have been reducing hiring, eliminating lower level attorney positions, and sometimes merging or folding; and government employment at all levels has declined significantly. Law ain't what it used to be.
2
Passing the bar is a true test of one's education and ability.
"the Department of Education should develop “plain English” disclosure information about student loans;"----ahh, so the future lawyers need a dumbed down version of a legal document. How appropriate!
34
key words there 'future lawyers', before that they are prospective students. put yourself in the mind of one.
They are 'future lawyers' at this point. The typical college graduate hasn't spent time studying legal documents. That BA in English lit doesn't necessarily provide the skills that requires. Reading Beowulf or Chaucer is easier than translating legalese.
The headline is one bit of good news amidst a gloat of bad news.
Let's hope all these new lawyers find PRODUCTIVE employment outside the legal profession.
Let's hope all these new lawyers find PRODUCTIVE employment outside the legal profession.
6
A recent NYT article stated that 40% of student loans for grad school. The government is subsidizing universities ( whose costs have gone up at rates way in excess of inflation) and creating excesses of various specialties , law being one. The excess also makes it more likely that loans will ultimately not be paid back.
6
But don't put all the blame on the law schools. The students who take out the loans to go to these schools, knowing full well that the legal market is saturated, deserve at least as much blame as the schools.
13
That is not what many news reports have indicated. Law schools tend to provide a very bright and rosy picture of the job market. Also, schools fabricate employment statistics, making it very difficult for students to make an informed decision.
Really, why do the schools bear ANY blame for this? It's not as if they're kidnapping people off the street and forcing them to take out loans to study law.
I say this as a person with a law degree who has (thankfully) avoided practicing law.
I say this as a person with a law degree who has (thankfully) avoided practicing law.
I think the problem has a lot to do with the expansion of mediocre, or worse, law schools. For instance, Texas Tech, ranked number 107, which is not top tier but a well respected law school, reported an 85% employment rate and 91% bar pass rate for 2014.
For UT-Austin, ranked 15, it was a 92% employment rate and 94% bar pass rate. Harvard, ranked 2, reported an employment rate of 96% and a bar pass rate of 96%. So, it seems that things are much better in the "Top 107" than overall.
The least respected public university law school in Texas reports a 74% employment rate and 68% bar pass rate. It is not ranked by U.S. News which only goes to a rank of 146 with many ties at various levels...so maybe 200 schools are ranked 1-146. This law school is ranked lower that the top 200.
For UT-Austin, ranked 15, it was a 92% employment rate and 94% bar pass rate. Harvard, ranked 2, reported an employment rate of 96% and a bar pass rate of 96%. So, it seems that things are much better in the "Top 107" than overall.
The least respected public university law school in Texas reports a 74% employment rate and 68% bar pass rate. It is not ranked by U.S. News which only goes to a rank of 146 with many ties at various levels...so maybe 200 schools are ranked 1-146. This law school is ranked lower that the top 200.
8
Those employment stats (and the salaries reported with them) are exaggerated. After all, the schools have to keep their U.S. News rankings.
" Paradoxically, the task force chairman was Dennis W. Archer, the former mayor of Detroit, who is also head of the national policy board of Infilaw, a private equity-owned consortium of three for-profit law schools — Arizona Summit, Charlotte and Florida Coastal. These schools are examples of the larger problem" - your honor, I present exibit A, as evidence of an existing conflict of interest!
We ask that the good counsel recuse himself from this case.
We ask that the good counsel recuse himself from this case.
20
The problem is not limited to law students. Many with bachelor degrees are sales clerks and coffee shop servers. This is all honorable work, but one does not need to spend $50,000 and four or five years of one's life to learn how to brew coffee. Hip-hip horray for easy government money.
9
It's not 'easy government money' for the student who may be paying down his debt well into middle age.
It is about time this issue was recognized. Too many capable people have been going into law for decades.
Their efforts might have been used building highways, teaching, or cutting hair. America would have been the better for it.
Their efforts might have been used building highways, teaching, or cutting hair. America would have been the better for it.
13
A.I., artificial intelligence, robots are now doing much of the scut work newly hired lawyers once labored 12-hour days to accomplish. With new research tools, lower-paid paralegals can do the same work in less time (see Jerry Kaplan's "Humans Need Not Apply"). On the bright side, some of these underemployed lawyers may drift into law that benefits the poor and underserved.
6
" On the bright side, some of these underemployed lawyers may drift into law that benefits the poor and underserved."
Nah, unlikely. Practice that benefits the poor and underserved doesn't pay anywhere near enough to service those student loans. Do you know how much the monthly payments are for a $100,000 student loan (which basically cannot be discharged, even in bankruptcy)? I can't even imagine the monthly payments for a $187,000 loan. Income based repayment would help some of those students, if they qualify for IBR, but not enough to allow most of them to work in underserved areas.
Nah, unlikely. Practice that benefits the poor and underserved doesn't pay anywhere near enough to service those student loans. Do you know how much the monthly payments are for a $100,000 student loan (which basically cannot be discharged, even in bankruptcy)? I can't even imagine the monthly payments for a $187,000 loan. Income based repayment would help some of those students, if they qualify for IBR, but not enough to allow most of them to work in underserved areas.
1
With a student loan burden of over $100K, it is the lawyers themselves that will become the poor and underserved.
2
They won't drift into law that benefits the poor and underserved if they have $100,000 in student-loan debt. Perhaps the paralegals will help the poor and underserved.
1
The incentives are perverse. Why on earth should we taxpayers be subsidizing student loans for law schools? It's not like the country needs more lawyers! Let the lenders take the risk and be subject to the possibility of the student declaring bankruptcy. Loan interest rates would go up, and marginal students and marginal schools would find something else to do. What we now have here is a moral hazard.
14
Law is the government's reason for being. It wouldn't be surprising if that's the ONLY thing they subsidized.
Whatever makes you think a school of any type has an accountability for its student loans? or their employment? What many of these schools are, in fact, doing, is subsidizing "socially and politically correct" studies (gender studies, black studies, some liberal arts) with the tuitions from law school, while paying for massive building programs.
6
Limiting government loans to $50,000.00 in total would help a lot:
-Universities can provide a quality education for that amount.
-It would not be a crippling burden to students.
-It would not be crippling to taxpayers for those students who default.
As things stand, the system is a massive scam on the taxpayer with students ending up as roadkill while university professors and deans drive laughing to bank after a hard five hour workweek with four months off in the summer.
-Universities can provide a quality education for that amount.
-It would not be a crippling burden to students.
-It would not be crippling to taxpayers for those students who default.
As things stand, the system is a massive scam on the taxpayer with students ending up as roadkill while university professors and deans drive laughing to bank after a hard five hour workweek with four months off in the summer.
4
The same situation occurs with teachers, contrary to popular news articles recently about teacher shortages.
For example, in my home state of NJ, I and many other early career teachers (0-3 years of teaching experience) cannot find jobs because there simply are not enough positions to match the amount of graduates coming out of college/obtaining licensure in the tri-state area (or beyond) with a NJ teaching certification.
You can graduate summa cum laude, with student teaching awards/accolades, be a member in a plethora of honor societies, and have plenty of other non-practicum experiences (ex. RA, Camp Counselor, etc.) and still end up with nothing. Even if you do get a teaching position and it does not work out for whatever reason, having the experiences of having a 1, 2, or even 3 years of teaching still does you no good in finding another position. I and others assume this is like an initiation of sorts into the world of education...if you can survive the struggle to get an interview for a position, then you can survive the struggle of being on the job itself and dealing with antagonistic admins and grade/ego inflation.
Personally, I am now forced to looking into moving down South or out West to find a teaching position...otherwise I'm looking for a totally different occupation to pursue...and it sure won't be something law related!
For example, in my home state of NJ, I and many other early career teachers (0-3 years of teaching experience) cannot find jobs because there simply are not enough positions to match the amount of graduates coming out of college/obtaining licensure in the tri-state area (or beyond) with a NJ teaching certification.
You can graduate summa cum laude, with student teaching awards/accolades, be a member in a plethora of honor societies, and have plenty of other non-practicum experiences (ex. RA, Camp Counselor, etc.) and still end up with nothing. Even if you do get a teaching position and it does not work out for whatever reason, having the experiences of having a 1, 2, or even 3 years of teaching still does you no good in finding another position. I and others assume this is like an initiation of sorts into the world of education...if you can survive the struggle to get an interview for a position, then you can survive the struggle of being on the job itself and dealing with antagonistic admins and grade/ego inflation.
Personally, I am now forced to looking into moving down South or out West to find a teaching position...otherwise I'm looking for a totally different occupation to pursue...and it sure won't be something law related!
7
You have to be pretty smart to get into law school. When I was in law school I raised the same questions with counselors that are asked in this column. They told me that it was up to me to weigh the cost/benefit and calculate my own odds of getting a job upon graduation. The implication was that any student who can't do this shouldn't be in law school in the first place. BTW, I did get a job as a lawyer.
73
Yeah one problem with that. My husband went to law school, he, and many in his class balked at the price and the amount of loans they would have to take out. The law school literally sat them down one on one, wined and dined them and presented them with employment statistics that turned out to be bogus (doubly so since he graduated in 2009 just as the economy collapsed and 10,000 experienced lawyers were laid off), reassuring them that the jobs to pay off the loans would be there. This was done on many fronts (the dean, current students, bringing in graduates and alumni). They spent a full week literally convincing the incoming class to actually sign up. Um yeah. Now less than 50% of that graduating class is employed in the legal field. There has to be accountability for this kind of misleading predatory practice that does nothing but fill the universities pockets.
All law schools are not created equal. I seriously question how smart you have to be to be admitted to a marginal, for-profit law school. The more students they enroll, the more profits they generate. That creates a significant incentive to take anyone who can pay. Also, many students coming out of college are just kids who have never had to make long term career choices. They've marched along pretty much in a straight line from elementary school right up through college on a path laid out for them. Those who don't have professionals in the family or as close friends have no idea how the legal, medical and other professional markets work, so they may not appreciate the importance of rank in choosing a law or medical school. That doesn't mean they aren't smart. It means they're young and inexperienced.
The false premise set forth in your first sentence is the very belief that allows law schools like Florida Coastal to thrive -- its median GPA is a C+, and its median LSAT is 143 (you get a 120 just for writing your name).
All law students aren't "smart," and all lawyers aren't "rich." Thankfully, the public has begun to catch on.
All law students aren't "smart," and all lawyers aren't "rich." Thankfully, the public has begun to catch on.
This is MRS. My husband went through and got his undergrad degree piecemeal. What should have been his seat in law school was awarded to a minority person--his veteran's status was not enough to get him a seat. He accumulated no student loan debt in the process, but was looked upon differently because he did not launch from high school to college to post-grad degree. Somehow, that Vietnam war had a way of diverting his career choices. He is now not disappointed because the economy is as harsh as it is. However, that any school of post-secondary education is now referred to as a business is just a scraping of the truth. Schools are a business and they are in business to sell that piece of paper, no matter how worthless it is to the person who worked to achieve it. A degree not recognized by a current employer is not one worth having achieved. A degree to step from retirement to a new career is worthless if it produces nothing. A wall full of paper achievement which was not a ticket to a job using that wall full of paper achievement is nothing but wallpaper that crumbles with age. Great. You did it! Not so great -- no jobs out there to exercise all that book learning.
6
As a "recovering lawyer, (Retired in 2003)," I concur with this frustrated veteran's spouse. I went to college and law school in the 1970's under the G.I. Bill, after Vietnam (USN, "Yankee Station," 1969-1970) and worked for years in a grossly understaffed Public Defender Office. I graduated without debt, but earned an insufficient salary to finance a debt, if I had one.
Many law school graduates are now employed in unrelated occupations. I remember an old "Blondie" cartoon, which illustrates this point. Blondie looks askance when presented with the plumber's bill for fixing the kitchen sink. In outrage she comments: "Our lawyer doesn't charge us this much per hour." The plumber responds, "Neither did I, when I was a lawyer!"
Many law school graduates are now employed in unrelated occupations. I remember an old "Blondie" cartoon, which illustrates this point. Blondie looks askance when presented with the plumber's bill for fixing the kitchen sink. In outrage she comments: "Our lawyer doesn't charge us this much per hour." The plumber responds, "Neither did I, when I was a lawyer!"
How do you know that your husband had a seat in law school? Are there assigned seats? And, how do you know that his assigned seat was taken by a "minority" person? Did he peek in the window to see who was sitting in his seat?
If your husband did his undergrad work piecemeal, it's perfectly logical that he wasn't accepted to a top law school. The rigor of his undergrad program may not have been compelling enough to win him admission. And, he did not lose his seat to a minority, because it was never your husband's seat to begin with. Under the old affirmative action, all seats were white male. Your husband was understandably upset that old affirmative action rules were no longer in play. But don't blame other people for failing to get what you want.
1
If this article had come out 7 years ago, it might be timely.
23
the real problem are the federal student loans; without the loans these law schools wouldn't have such high enrollment. The Federal Govt. should require that at least 60% of every law school's graduates obtain a law job within a year or two of graduation or federal govt loans are cut off.
there are massive over supply of other graduate students in other fields, mainly liberal arts but often in the sciences. My nephew got his Ph.D. in English from SUNY/Buffalo several years ago along with 15 others and only one of them found a job within 2 years. My nephew finally got an adjunct teaching job paying $20,000 a year and he has $130,000 in student loans.
there are massive over supply of other graduate students in other fields, mainly liberal arts but often in the sciences. My nephew got his Ph.D. in English from SUNY/Buffalo several years ago along with 15 others and only one of them found a job within 2 years. My nephew finally got an adjunct teaching job paying $20,000 a year and he has $130,000 in student loans.
10
Perhaps we should make a distinction between college and vo-tech.
The reason there are too many law students is because law schools are a money maker for colleges. Unlike medical schools or graduate programs in science there is no need for expensive labs or other facilities. So law school is a low cost (to the school), high return investment. Do you really think the schools care about the students, except as a source of revenue?
29
As a faculty member and administrator at a state school, I can tell you that yes, the schools do care about the students, but care even more about revenue. The draconian cuts from state legislatures over the past 30 years has been the impetus for findings revenue any way possible. Until recently, in SUNY that meant regular increases in fees because tuition couldn't be raised.
There may be few job but there is plenty of work. There are many individuals who need help on routine legal matters such as leases, eviction, minor traffic tickets, family law, etc. The challenge is to find a way to earn money by providing low-cost legal services to low-income clients. I think it can be done.
198
I am a paralegal. Allowing paralegals to do more of what lawyers do will solve the problem, especially when the paralegals know almost as much as the lawyers but don't have the expensive law degree.
2
If lawyers didn't charge $300 per hours, I would more routinely use them for probate, real-estate, and other routine work. As a licensed Professional Engineering with a masters degree, I can bill at $125 / hour, and I suspect the overhead for an engineer is higher.
Are lawyers really twice as valuable as engineers? The free market suggests otherwise.
Are lawyers really twice as valuable as engineers? The free market suggests otherwise.
1
yes, if you work yourself to the bone and make less than the guy who flips burgers, it can be done. low income clients mean a low income return; the problems are not quickly dealt with and require time which is money. you can't make money representing traffic ticket violations unless you are running a mill. Want to help special ed children? Well, how much do you think you will make considering that the parents are usually poverty stricken - in a private practice, next to nothing; in a publicly funded organization, less. Most law students don't go to law school expecting to have a career settling minor traffic tickets or arguing lease violations in housing court.
1
Are particular, sexier practices more over-subscribed than others? Is the excess supply limited to corporate as you might expect, or does it extend to environmental, not-for-profit or public employment, for example? Knowing that would help understand students' motivations going in. Similarly, how do the schools least and most effective placing their graduates present their programs to prospective students?
3
One interesting aspect of the market for new law school graduates is how much the identity of the law school affects employment. There is no lack of jobs for new lawyers graduating from Harvard, Stanford, Yale and a handful of other top schools. The opportunities for graduates of places like the Infilaw schools are dismal and the large numbers graduating from law schools generally affect the employment opportunities for graduates of mid-tier schools.
The four suggestions offered by the ABA task force are meaningless. One solution would be to tighten accreditation standards in a way that forces the least effective law schools to shut down, but I think that's highly unlikely to occur.
The four suggestions offered by the ABA task force are meaningless. One solution would be to tighten accreditation standards in a way that forces the least effective law schools to shut down, but I think that's highly unlikely to occur.
20
"Amazingly (and perversely), law schools have been able to continue to raise tuition while producing nearly twice as many graduates as the job market has been able to absorb. How is this possible?"
If you want to sell less of something, like a legal education perhaps, you raise the price. If you want to sell more, you lower the price. Basic economics.
"Excluding positions funded by the law school, only 39.9 percent of Arizona Summit graduates found full-time jobs lasting at least a year and requiring bar passage. Florida Coastal’s rate was 34.5 percent. At Charlotte, it was 34.1 percent."
And yet again, the private sector charges more and delivers less than the government or non-profit sectors, and nobody seems the wiser, calling for more privatization of government services.
And the all out assault on education of any kind continues.
If you want to sell less of something, like a legal education perhaps, you raise the price. If you want to sell more, you lower the price. Basic economics.
"Excluding positions funded by the law school, only 39.9 percent of Arizona Summit graduates found full-time jobs lasting at least a year and requiring bar passage. Florida Coastal’s rate was 34.5 percent. At Charlotte, it was 34.1 percent."
And yet again, the private sector charges more and delivers less than the government or non-profit sectors, and nobody seems the wiser, calling for more privatization of government services.
And the all out assault on education of any kind continues.
8
As the parent of a newly minted lawyer I observed first hand the angst of employment in my son and his peers, all bright and motivated people. Until there are disincentives to stop churning out new JDs, nothing will change. A simple solution would be for the ABA to shut down the schools with the lowest passing rate for the bar exam. Let's start with the bottom 25%. These third and fourth tier schools do nothing other than rip off vulnerable kids and should be gone.
344
Or the students could research the job prospects in their chosen field *before* paying all that money for law school.
Vulnerable? If you score well on the LSAT you are no ones fool. If new lawyers want jobs in the public sector, hard work for sure, it is to be had. If you want to start at Skadd Arps, not happening.
Yeah - the woe of those "kids" in their 20's with a degree already under their belt - poor uneducated naive souls.
When prospective law students need "simple English" versions of their terms for debt agreements that could hover over them for the rest of their lives, the problem is self-apparent: sucker their interest then soak them with interest.
3
It's up to the individual to investigate the career potential /. job market when they choose their career path. If the market for attorneys is poor, then folks might want to choose another degree.
IMHO, the cost of higher education at public schools must be brought under control. Slash the ridiculous salaries that are paid to administrators. Stop wasting money on grand palaces like the SUNY Central building in downtown Albany.
But private schools are another matter. So long as they do not receive public funds, they should be free to charge whatever they wish.
IMHO, the cost of higher education at public schools must be brought under control. Slash the ridiculous salaries that are paid to administrators. Stop wasting money on grand palaces like the SUNY Central building in downtown Albany.
But private schools are another matter. So long as they do not receive public funds, they should be free to charge whatever they wish.
3
But it's those private for-profit schools that are churning out the lawyers who cannot pass the bar and who cannot find jobs. But the government is subsidizing the student loans. The more they charge, the worse drain on the taxpayers. They do indeed receive public funds.
I remember my father, an attorney, advising my sister NOT to go to law school. And this was in the early 80s.
5
I have read this book before only on the paralegal level. After I received my formal education in legal studies and a paralegal certificate back in the early 2000's, I had trouble finding legal related staff work and have not found anything permanent to this day in the field. I was going to attend law school to further my education, but I was unable to pay back my legal education loans on the undergrad level let alone going in debt for a professional education. I ended up in bankruptcy court in the 7th Circuit after the bankruptcy decision in my case to discharge my student loans was appealed to the district court and the the Circuit Court by me where I prevailed and the opponent's, ECMC, petition for a rehearing before a full panel was denied. I feel good about my bankruptcy because it set a new precedent for student loans. I loved learning the law and wanted to go further, but the jobs were not there. I often said, I chose the wrong career, I would most likely have paid off my loans by now had I chose a medical profession instead. A sad reality and one that the ABA MUST address appropriately. Here's my case: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/7th_circuit
3
You may feel good about your bankruptcy, but the taxpayers, who are on the hook for the Federally-guaranteed part of your loans, do not.
There is one issue that is not addressed well in the article, and that is the large unmet legal needs of the middle class and the poor. These groups typically cannot afford a lawyer, and, even when they can, there are not many lawyers who are willing or able to meet their legal needs.
Serving the legal needs of the middle and lower classes is not the high paying, glory work that leads most law students to go to law school. And those who pursue this lesser sort of work find that the work is very pedestrian, the pay is minimal, and the hours are never ending. Yet these needs are real, the impact of inadequate legal representation is sometimes devastating, and the lack of access to justice leads to great dissatisfaction with government and the legal system and leads to social unrest.
We need to be more realistic about what a legal career really means. Only a small handful of the very best can rise to the top of the profession. The rest may just have to eke out an existence if they remain with the law.
Serving the legal needs of the middle and lower classes is not the high paying, glory work that leads most law students to go to law school. And those who pursue this lesser sort of work find that the work is very pedestrian, the pay is minimal, and the hours are never ending. Yet these needs are real, the impact of inadequate legal representation is sometimes devastating, and the lack of access to justice leads to great dissatisfaction with government and the legal system and leads to social unrest.
We need to be more realistic about what a legal career really means. Only a small handful of the very best can rise to the top of the profession. The rest may just have to eke out an existence if they remain with the law.
15
Do you work for someone who can't pay you? How do you expect lawyers to stay in business if they work for people with no money? Unless someone is independently wealthy, I can't think of anyone who could survive with that model.
why don't you go to law school so you can help the indigent then? The needs are real.
There are 92,000 attorneys licensed in Illinois.
Forty five thousand of those attorneys base their practices in Cook County.
( Chicago and its immediate suburbs ).
Young people.
Find some other career.
mgt,esq.
Retired
Forty five thousand of those attorneys base their practices in Cook County.
( Chicago and its immediate suburbs ).
Young people.
Find some other career.
mgt,esq.
Retired
7
The article might be more convincing if it explained what all those non-bar-exam jobs were. Were these folks driving taxis, or doing legal support work where they might have beat out other candidates who didn't have a law degree? In today's economy, almost no degree, except perhaps medicine and nursing, guarantees a job. And many, many millenials are overeducated for what they do. I know people who got jobs as retail clerks, in part because they had a college degree and other applicants didn't.
2
A working knowledge of law is a definite aid to self defense in the US, but it shouldn't cost law school tuition to get it.
2
I have a solution to the problem of too many law school graduates, not enough jobs: require that legal employers pay overtime, something they are not currently required to do under federal law because lawyers are "professional" employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
If you ask any lawyer working in private practice what their primary complaint is, it is the long hours they work. Most of the lawyers I know are miserable because of the never ending work. At the big and mid-size law firms, beginning associates work 60-80 hour work weeks, with little time left for a life, while the partners profit off of this grueling work schedule.
If firms knew they would have to pay overtime, then they would hire more people to avoid paying it, and help reduce the problem of too many lawyers, not enough jobs.
The same should go for any other professions that are currently exempt from paying overtime under federal law: if the profession does not have enough jobs for all of the graduates in the field, yet employers are working their professional employees like they are in the legal field, the government could help solve this problem by creating a financial incentive to hire more people, and work them less grueling hours.
While this would not totally solve the problem, it would help, and make a lot of lawyers happier, I suspect.
If you ask any lawyer working in private practice what their primary complaint is, it is the long hours they work. Most of the lawyers I know are miserable because of the never ending work. At the big and mid-size law firms, beginning associates work 60-80 hour work weeks, with little time left for a life, while the partners profit off of this grueling work schedule.
If firms knew they would have to pay overtime, then they would hire more people to avoid paying it, and help reduce the problem of too many lawyers, not enough jobs.
The same should go for any other professions that are currently exempt from paying overtime under federal law: if the profession does not have enough jobs for all of the graduates in the field, yet employers are working their professional employees like they are in the legal field, the government could help solve this problem by creating a financial incentive to hire more people, and work them less grueling hours.
While this would not totally solve the problem, it would help, and make a lot of lawyers happier, I suspect.
12
Brilliant!
There should be no such thing as "for-profit" law schools. They take anyone who can pay, producing sub-par attorneys with no jobs.
I put myself through a state law school when I was 47. It was in the top 50 tier, and my debt load was $30,000 total (including R&B) I was happily employed for the first few years making not much more than that a year. I could afford to do so,
I could easily pay off the loan now, but at 3%, why should I? After 12 years, I love my salaried job. With bonus I make around 90K a year. But I am 65 -- and most college educated folks at my age are probably making more.
I was accepted into SMU at the same time and turned it down. My debt would have been three times as much. People -- use your brains. If you are going to rack up that kind of debt -- go to med school or be a PA. At least you will have a job, and if you go serve the inner city, maybe get your loan forgiven.
I put myself through a state law school when I was 47. It was in the top 50 tier, and my debt load was $30,000 total (including R&B) I was happily employed for the first few years making not much more than that a year. I could afford to do so,
I could easily pay off the loan now, but at 3%, why should I? After 12 years, I love my salaried job. With bonus I make around 90K a year. But I am 65 -- and most college educated folks at my age are probably making more.
I was accepted into SMU at the same time and turned it down. My debt would have been three times as much. People -- use your brains. If you are going to rack up that kind of debt -- go to med school or be a PA. At least you will have a job, and if you go serve the inner city, maybe get your loan forgiven.
4
Like the AMA, the ABA fights changes that might make lawyers less necessary. These new lawyers could be encouraged to go into public service jobs like defending the poor when they can't afford a lawyer. They could also help out on things that don't require a team of high powered lawyers but the cost of a legal degree makes that impossible. We could set them to reading the credit card, rental, end user, and other agreements that we are required to sign to access various things in America. Maybe they would learn something: how much American corporations, particularly the banks, telecommunications, etc., cheat consumers. Maybe they'd come up with simplified boilerplate agreements that everyone can understand.
6
Picking a former Detroit mayor to head a task force on economics and budgets is in itself an indication of how serious the ABA takes its role.
18
As someone that came to law at the age of 55 years, and who is very happy to do pro bono work, the problems I see here in Australia for law graduates, are as follows;
> the GFC (irreversibly) shrank the economy reducing work and causing companies to be smarter about how, and how much they pay lawyers (who are slowly relinquishing the "billable hours" furphy). Thank you America!
> outsourcing to India and more recently Sth Africa at $10/hr rather than $200/hr in Australia. Thank you greedy partners!
> "free" trade agreements have allowed international companies to come into Australia and gobble up our firms and sack half the existing partners. Thanks government foe helping other countries make money!
> greedy universities printing law degrees like there is no tomorrow, despite knowing that most will never practise as a lawyer! Thank you government for making institutions dependent on the "cash cow" of law teaching to keep afloat.
> greedy LAWYERS who do not want to "send the elevator down" to young people who cause the firm to lose time and money! Good on ya mate!
> thanks greedy lawyers for also employing graduates to work for nothing, oops, sorry, engage in "work experience" and "internships".
> thanks sexist partners for choosing new employees based almost entirely on the appearance of the applicant...or who their dad is.
I could go on but I have to prepare for a court hearing defending a very poor client against a ridiculously steep fine for forgetting their train ticket.
> the GFC (irreversibly) shrank the economy reducing work and causing companies to be smarter about how, and how much they pay lawyers (who are slowly relinquishing the "billable hours" furphy). Thank you America!
> outsourcing to India and more recently Sth Africa at $10/hr rather than $200/hr in Australia. Thank you greedy partners!
> "free" trade agreements have allowed international companies to come into Australia and gobble up our firms and sack half the existing partners. Thanks government foe helping other countries make money!
> greedy universities printing law degrees like there is no tomorrow, despite knowing that most will never practise as a lawyer! Thank you government for making institutions dependent on the "cash cow" of law teaching to keep afloat.
> greedy LAWYERS who do not want to "send the elevator down" to young people who cause the firm to lose time and money! Good on ya mate!
> thanks greedy lawyers for also employing graduates to work for nothing, oops, sorry, engage in "work experience" and "internships".
> thanks sexist partners for choosing new employees based almost entirely on the appearance of the applicant...or who their dad is.
I could go on but I have to prepare for a court hearing defending a very poor client against a ridiculously steep fine for forgetting their train ticket.
13
We need more doctors, not lawyers! Put the law schools out to pasture!
7
The AMA restricts the number of medical school graduates which is why the USA has many foreign born MDs while very bright and talented US citizens who can't gain admission to US medical schools are forced to go the schools in the Caribbean or Mexico. Truly sad.
Having practiced law for over thirty years and supervised numerous attorneys over those years,I am here to tell you that while there may be a glut of lawyers in general,there is a chronic shortage of good lawyers and an acute lack of excellent lawyers.
64
You won't find too many excellent lawyers graduating from for profit law school.
My response to this has to be, "Well, duh!"
Point one: Half of law school (med school, etc.) students finish in the bottom half of their class.
Point two: In any group of skilled personnel - whether law school graduates or artists or welders or car mechanics - most can do the job just fine. Others are pretty darned good. And still others are at the top of the heap.
Point three: None of this negates the point made in the article. Law schools are taking in and pumping out more students than the market can bear. Delusional students are part of the problem. But the schools themselves, and the ABA it seems, are also responsible for continuing to market themselves and the legal profession in the ways they do. That's capitalism for you. But let's not be surprised when the jobs don't materialize and the graduates are stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Point one: Half of law school (med school, etc.) students finish in the bottom half of their class.
Point two: In any group of skilled personnel - whether law school graduates or artists or welders or car mechanics - most can do the job just fine. Others are pretty darned good. And still others are at the top of the heap.
Point three: None of this negates the point made in the article. Law schools are taking in and pumping out more students than the market can bear. Delusional students are part of the problem. But the schools themselves, and the ABA it seems, are also responsible for continuing to market themselves and the legal profession in the ways they do. That's capitalism for you. But let's not be surprised when the jobs don't materialize and the graduates are stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
Indeed. Even on the Supreme Court, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is far above five lawyers' ability to comprehend plain English.
The student loan program MUST be revamped asap. Far too many students borrow absurd amounts to attend law school with little hope of a lucrative job.
2
These are presumably smart people, they took the bet that they could make big bucks with that law degree and borrowed the money. Now you want me the tax payer to bail them out. Sorry not on my dime.
Why can't the law profession force graduates to perform "legal residencies" similar to graduates of medical school? That would provide the specialized postgraduate training to become certified as an IP, Corporate or tax attorney, provide needed low cost or free help to the needy and provide at least some income, albeit low, for new graduates. Using the medical model, might work.
The ABA wants free reign to self regulate and the "more the merrier" mentality when it comes to increasing lawyers in society. They feel that the better graduates will out compete the mediocre ones. However, mediocre or sub par graduates in society can be harmful too.
Meanwhile, the AMA wants to limit numbers as tightly as possible to raise the level of quality. The same is true for residency programs that have to consider highly skilled foreign medical graduates. However, too much belt tightening by the AMA and the onset of Obama care has led to a physician shortage.
The ABA wants free reign to self regulate and the "more the merrier" mentality when it comes to increasing lawyers in society. They feel that the better graduates will out compete the mediocre ones. However, mediocre or sub par graduates in society can be harmful too.
Meanwhile, the AMA wants to limit numbers as tightly as possible to raise the level of quality. The same is true for residency programs that have to consider highly skilled foreign medical graduates. However, too much belt tightening by the AMA and the onset of Obama care has led to a physician shortage.
4
Old joke: If a town has only one lawyer, that man is essentially unemployed. But if a second attorney moves to town, the two of them have more work than twice their number can handle.
The glut of unemployed lawyers is the natural result of the workings of the legal industry itself. The laws of this country, everything from city-level ordinances to the edicts of Congress, are written, vetted, and rewritten in legalese until it is understandable only for those trained in this language. And contract law is this problem in spades
Contracts have evolved from a verbal agreement and handshake to multi-page, fine print, impenetrable word salads with multi-line-long clauses strung comma to semi-colon to comma to, finally, a period two pages later. Case in point: User agreements for any computer operating system, program or app. It apparently never occurred to the legal profession that there is, in all things, a point of 100% saturation. A 5-lb sack of potatoes won't hold 10 lbs of spuds, regardless of the language used in the attempt to make the bag accommodate the load.
The glut of unemployed lawyers is the natural result of the workings of the legal industry itself. The laws of this country, everything from city-level ordinances to the edicts of Congress, are written, vetted, and rewritten in legalese until it is understandable only for those trained in this language. And contract law is this problem in spades
Contracts have evolved from a verbal agreement and handshake to multi-page, fine print, impenetrable word salads with multi-line-long clauses strung comma to semi-colon to comma to, finally, a period two pages later. Case in point: User agreements for any computer operating system, program or app. It apparently never occurred to the legal profession that there is, in all things, a point of 100% saturation. A 5-lb sack of potatoes won't hold 10 lbs of spuds, regardless of the language used in the attempt to make the bag accommodate the load.
10
Law school grad so i thought I'd chime in. Let us not forget the economic cost of funneling ever more money at higher education. These lawyers now have too much debt and must postpone choices that would help the economy; buying a home, car, furniture, etc. This has real consequences for the health of the economy. And, much to a taxpayers dismay, the student loan forgiveness program is growing and being utilized by more and more heavily indebted students. I'm glad public service is performed for 10 years, but nevertheless the taxpayer subsidize the loans, then ensures the payoffs. The professors, middlemen staff, and deans at the universities make the money and the students and the economy suffer. Shame on the ABA for giving tacit approval to the task force's "recommendations" that don't go nearly far enough to fix this broken system.
14
I tell you what, lets take the student loan payments from these young lawyer and buy a car for a poor family. The young lawyers can fend for themselves.
1
I would make another recommendation: Increase the number of evening programs in quality law schools. Here in Boston (a city with no shortage of law schools) there are only two that offer evening programs. On top of that, full time students are not allowed to work more than 20 hours a week as mandated here and in other jurisdictions.
With a full-time position in the legal field, I decided to enter an evening program. By working full time and receiving a substantial scholarship based on class rank, I expect to graduate with about $15K in loans, $10K of which is a loan from my school with a 0% interest rate - A manageable amount of debt, and a wealth of experience and contacts in the profession.
Although some of my peers in the evening program are not on the same footing as me, greater access to evening programs at quality institutions would go a long way in decreasing the debt burden of law students.
With a full-time position in the legal field, I decided to enter an evening program. By working full time and receiving a substantial scholarship based on class rank, I expect to graduate with about $15K in loans, $10K of which is a loan from my school with a 0% interest rate - A manageable amount of debt, and a wealth of experience and contacts in the profession.
Although some of my peers in the evening program are not on the same footing as me, greater access to evening programs at quality institutions would go a long way in decreasing the debt burden of law students.
8
Did you read the article? The debt problem is a problem because there are too many lawyers for the number of jobs available. Your solution adds more lawyers to the market, which is exactly the problem.
The real problem here is much broader than law schools and student debt. The student loan programs have been abused for years by a broad array of private, "for-profit" trade schools, whose business consists of selling a product. That "product" consists of largely worthless degrees, whose "credits" are recognized neither by real, accredited institutions, nor by most employers. It is a sham.
The Obama administration has done what it could to reform this charade. As expected, Republicans have opposed every attempt at reform, in order to protect the private school scam artists, and their business lobby.
The Obama administration has done what it could to reform this charade. As expected, Republicans have opposed every attempt at reform, in order to protect the private school scam artists, and their business lobby.
15
There are two things that lawyers and dentists have in common. Both complain about too many of them, yet those in desperate need of their services cannot in any way afford them. Also, most so-called insurance products supposed to help with the costs are garbage in that limitations, high co-pays for major services make these products useless for those in need.
It is battle for places in the public university legal schools that have spawned most of the attacks against affirmative action admissions policies of prestigious public law schools. It is past time that the Supreme Court realize that institutions are resources for the public good and not a merit based entitlement, and if the poor, needy, and those surviving to stay in the middle class are to be adequately served that admissions diversity represents a wise use of these limited resourses!
It is battle for places in the public university legal schools that have spawned most of the attacks against affirmative action admissions policies of prestigious public law schools. It is past time that the Supreme Court realize that institutions are resources for the public good and not a merit based entitlement, and if the poor, needy, and those surviving to stay in the middle class are to be adequately served that admissions diversity represents a wise use of these limited resourses!
3
What is a "merit-based entitlement"?
Keep in mind, too, that law schools are frequently cash cows for universities, which consequently have no incentive to rein them in. Large lecture classes in first-year courses (and many 2nd- and 3rd-year courses) create huge economies of scope and scale for law-school operation. Unlike Ph.D. programs, law schools don't need low faculty-student ratios as students conduct their graduate research and move toward their dissertations. Law students generally take only one or two seminars with senior faculty. Law schools also don't have huge technical and scientific overhead-requirements like STEM and medical programs. Law schools require seats, terminal-ports, a library ( much of which can be on line), and on- and off-campus housing - much of which can be outside the university real-estate portfolio. The highest faculty-atudent costs come, probably, in clinical prorgams - a small part of the law-school experience for most law students. The structural incentives to continue to milk these cows, therefore, are substantial.
17
Mr. Harper points to a real problem, but he offers no solution except to let the top wealthy schools, that are pipelines to big corporate law firms continue as they are and have the market push smaller schools that produce lawyers for average people out of business.
Law schools need to prepare graduates for the practice of law, not "to get a job." A fact left out of Harper's essay is that most lawyers in America work for themselves as solo practitioners or in very small firms. But most graduates need additional training to actually learn how to practice law even after three very expensive years of law school. This is changing, but not fast enough and not extensively enough.
There are several models that the ABA should explore. The med school model, requiring the equivalent of a residency to gain practice skills. More and better clinics in law school. The Canadian model of post grad internships with a practitioner is an option.
But two things must happen to make these models work. Tuition must get subsidized by law grads doing at least five years of public service work. The Legal Service Corporation, established to provide for the poor turns away four clients for every one they accept.
Finally the bar exam could be waived with these post grad externship models. Graduates could be evaluated by experienced lawyers based on what they can do rather than what they've memorized for a test. Also, pay law prof's the same as other academics and pass on the savings to students.
Law schools need to prepare graduates for the practice of law, not "to get a job." A fact left out of Harper's essay is that most lawyers in America work for themselves as solo practitioners or in very small firms. But most graduates need additional training to actually learn how to practice law even after three very expensive years of law school. This is changing, but not fast enough and not extensively enough.
There are several models that the ABA should explore. The med school model, requiring the equivalent of a residency to gain practice skills. More and better clinics in law school. The Canadian model of post grad internships with a practitioner is an option.
But two things must happen to make these models work. Tuition must get subsidized by law grads doing at least five years of public service work. The Legal Service Corporation, established to provide for the poor turns away four clients for every one they accept.
Finally the bar exam could be waived with these post grad externship models. Graduates could be evaluated by experienced lawyers based on what they can do rather than what they've memorized for a test. Also, pay law prof's the same as other academics and pass on the savings to students.
15
The same thing is happening in veterinary medicine, and a professional economist did a study for a national veterinary group and told us we didn't have an excessive supply of veterinarians, but rather and "underdemand" for services. You can potentially argue similar for about any field, but it really won't change consumer spending when real wages have been stagnant.
The point in fact is that, as states decrease taxpayer funding for professional schools, schools have powerful incentives to admit more students in order to stay financially viable. Given the lackluster job market for college grads, students completing their 4 year degree have a powerful incentive to try to get a professional degree and a chance at a better future income.
I would argue it is borderline delusional to believe markets should rely on the rational behavior of 21 year olds to decrease demand for law school, secondarily resulting in decreased enrollment and a magic market fix. The demand for a legal education is much greater than the supply - many applicants are turned away each year. Kids are taught to chase their dreams.
We have denigrated manual work and destroyed unions. We need to figure out how to create jobs that offer sufficient pay to support a comfortable middle class life even more than we need to argue about how to limit six-figure student debt for oversupplied professions.
The point in fact is that, as states decrease taxpayer funding for professional schools, schools have powerful incentives to admit more students in order to stay financially viable. Given the lackluster job market for college grads, students completing their 4 year degree have a powerful incentive to try to get a professional degree and a chance at a better future income.
I would argue it is borderline delusional to believe markets should rely on the rational behavior of 21 year olds to decrease demand for law school, secondarily resulting in decreased enrollment and a magic market fix. The demand for a legal education is much greater than the supply - many applicants are turned away each year. Kids are taught to chase their dreams.
We have denigrated manual work and destroyed unions. We need to figure out how to create jobs that offer sufficient pay to support a comfortable middle class life even more than we need to argue about how to limit six-figure student debt for oversupplied professions.
10
Law school is not just a trade school.
Traditionally, many law school grad did not become full time lawyers. Many who did, only did that for a few years and moved on into a business, often with a client. I had such offers myself. It comes naturally.
Law school teaches a body of knowledge necessary to do many things, and more important it teaches how to think about that. It is method, as well as substance.
If too many were hoping to use it as a certificate for a trade, they went in with the wrong ideas. Too many make an even bigger mistake, thinking it is a pass to the upper middle class, a level of income as a lawyer that is actually uncommon.
It has never been that. If it is being sold that way, it is a lie.
Traditionally, many law school grad did not become full time lawyers. Many who did, only did that for a few years and moved on into a business, often with a client. I had such offers myself. It comes naturally.
Law school teaches a body of knowledge necessary to do many things, and more important it teaches how to think about that. It is method, as well as substance.
If too many were hoping to use it as a certificate for a trade, they went in with the wrong ideas. Too many make an even bigger mistake, thinking it is a pass to the upper middle class, a level of income as a lawyer that is actually uncommon.
It has never been that. If it is being sold that way, it is a lie.
103
A very good friend of mine back in the 1970's finished at Duke Law in the top 10% of his class (note he is vastly smarter than I am though that is setting a low bar). To the point though my friend is a full time cotton farmer. He passed the NC bar shortly after finishing but to my knowledge has never actually practiced. Those of us from that old circle of friends still tease him that he would have been better off taking Agriculture :-)
1
96 per cent of law graduates take the bar exam immediately after graduation.
This entails thousands of dollars of bar prep fees and administrative fees, a huge amount of cramming, and taking three months off to take the exam.
Why would law grads do this to themselves if they did not intend to practice law?
There are no law schools out there marketing themselves as "the law school to go to when you don't want to practice law." To suggest otherwise is disingenuous, at best.
This entails thousands of dollars of bar prep fees and administrative fees, a huge amount of cramming, and taking three months off to take the exam.
Why would law grads do this to themselves if they did not intend to practice law?
There are no law schools out there marketing themselves as "the law school to go to when you don't want to practice law." To suggest otherwise is disingenuous, at best.
Everything is being sold as a trade now, including engineering, art, science. We don't send kids to college, we send "resources" to "training"....
1
Here is another dirty little secret. Many private schools inflate the tuition of law and business school students to subsidize graduate arts and science students who often pay no tuition.
20
thank god for that. The least Business students can do for partying for four years is pay for students who do in indulge in some serious academic studies.
I'm a science graduate student, albeit at a public university rather than a private one, but it is disingenuous to say science graduate students pay no tuition. I am not writing checks every semester, but the graduate school most assuredly collects my tuition. Most commonly it is paid from external grants supporting the research I am working on, or from fellowships given by my department, the graduate school, or an external agency, all of which are competitive. TAs receive tuition remission as part of their compensation package.
The upshot is the law and business schools do not subsidize science as you suggest.
The upshot is the law and business schools do not subsidize science as you suggest.
the situation in law schools is merely another facet of the crisis in american education in general & higher education in particular the assumption is that everyone has a RIGHT to go to college & professional school regardless of their abilities and preparedness. many law schools are like proprietary (so-called) colleges or lower echelon state schools, particularly junior colleges, which prey on the hopes of underprivileged and poorly prepared students who have been raised on the myth that all people are created equal. the desire to have a better life is understandable, visceral even. the cognitively challenged among the wealthy (& there are plenty--look at the late son of a former president, one or two former presidents & some current presidential aspirants) have the luxury of choosing to obtain a degree for a "career" in which they will never have to succeed monetarily in order to make a highly satisfying life for themselves.
i am a retired lawyer. my father worked in an asbestos factory & my mother was a maid & clerk in a dime store. i went to law school at a time when women were heavily discriminated against. i got in only because i was at the top of my class in a state university & the war in vietnam had taken many men out of the pool for law school entrants. i had a satisfying & interesting career but, frankly, i would have preferred to have been a photographer. but that was not a choice available for me. i wanted to eat..
i am a retired lawyer. my father worked in an asbestos factory & my mother was a maid & clerk in a dime store. i went to law school at a time when women were heavily discriminated against. i got in only because i was at the top of my class in a state university & the war in vietnam had taken many men out of the pool for law school entrants. i had a satisfying & interesting career but, frankly, i would have preferred to have been a photographer. but that was not a choice available for me. i wanted to eat..
6
As someone who only recently graduated and is fortunate to be employed, I would definitely agree. I would be interested to see the employment numbers for those law students in the top 10%-15% of their respective classes at each school. Easy access to student loans may allow more people attend and the grading curve will allow the vast majority of people to graduate, but reality hits home at some point. If someone doesn't have the skill set required to be successful in law school, it will go hard for them later. Mediocrity is not rewarded and in the long term it's not even tolerated. Providing access to law school itself will not change that anymore than providing entry into a world-class chess tournament will transform me into Bobby Fisher.
30
many of the same comments apply to all college and graduate students. Many of the unemployed graduates deserve employment and debt modification or relief. Student loan rates are among the highest of all loans, frequently topping 8%, but students do not have options for funding sources at lower rates. Lenders must be required to link loan repayment obligations to employment, with income based repayment plans. Perhaps if more students defaulted on their loans the market would correct more quickly to this model. Law students, unfortunately for them, tend to be more responsible about their debt obligations than the average student, and they will pay the price longer.
3
Encouraging students to default on their debt only piles the burdens on to other students who are budgeting to pay off their own loans. It sickens me to see co-workers eating out daily, planning their beach vacations on their down time, collecting unemployment between gigs, investing in property (keeping it in the non-defaulting spouse's name) who then moan to the room that they cannot even make the interest payments on their debt, and that they have not made a student loan payment in over a year.
They are banking on the fact that there will be a bailout. They have brass balls, really, risking their own financial futures because they think there is no one who will come and take the "food out of our mouths" today. So they eat out big, they spend it up, and they treat themselves good.
Don't reward these people with a student loan bailout. Just... don't. They are working as lawyers, even if not making as much as they planned, and they would not be getting that work without a legal degree and bar admission. They should be paying something on their debts that helped them achieve the legal job they have today.
We should not let the victim's stories blind us to those who want other people to pay for their student loans, while they will keep earning money as attorneys into the future. And it will pay off over time, compared to non-attorneys. That's not magical thinking, just smart planning and budgeting.
They are banking on the fact that there will be a bailout. They have brass balls, really, risking their own financial futures because they think there is no one who will come and take the "food out of our mouths" today. So they eat out big, they spend it up, and they treat themselves good.
Don't reward these people with a student loan bailout. Just... don't. They are working as lawyers, even if not making as much as they planned, and they would not be getting that work without a legal degree and bar admission. They should be paying something on their debts that helped them achieve the legal job they have today.
We should not let the victim's stories blind us to those who want other people to pay for their student loans, while they will keep earning money as attorneys into the future. And it will pay off over time, compared to non-attorneys. That's not magical thinking, just smart planning and budgeting.
It seems obvious that laws schools ought to lobby for still more asinine laws and regulations to keep their spawn employed.
5
but much of reg work is relatively simple. Much compliance can be filled only by non-attorneys using generic templates and software. Also, not much litigation here. Increasing litigation is not an effective manner to increase legal employment significantly. What is needed is an increase in labor intensive legal work (i.e., divorce, etc.).
First the age of the obsolescence of labor came for the blue collar workers, and I said nothing, because I was going to law school.
Then it came for middle management white collar workers, but I said nothing, because I was going to law school.
Then it came for college graduates, and again I said nothing, because I was going to law school.
Then the age of the obsolescence of labor came for the lawyers, and I spoke up, and wrote an op-ed for the NYT about how we need to better husband the career prospects for JD's.
Then it came for middle management white collar workers, but I said nothing, because I was going to law school.
Then it came for college graduates, and again I said nothing, because I was going to law school.
Then the age of the obsolescence of labor came for the lawyers, and I spoke up, and wrote an op-ed for the NYT about how we need to better husband the career prospects for JD's.
125
This problem has been a long time in the making and should have taken no one by surprise.
I remember reading more than ten years ago about law firms shipping lower-level legal scutwork to India, where lawyers could be paid a fraction of American fees to do such jobs as drafting and reviewing contracts, which were then signed off on by a stateside partner (and billed, usually, at the higher rate). Those entry-level legal jobs were already migrating overseas. A now defunct magazine for lay readers interested in legal matters, Legal Affairs, had an article - and so, I believe, did the New York Times.
I remember reading more than ten years ago about law firms shipping lower-level legal scutwork to India, where lawyers could be paid a fraction of American fees to do such jobs as drafting and reviewing contracts, which were then signed off on by a stateside partner (and billed, usually, at the higher rate). Those entry-level legal jobs were already migrating overseas. A now defunct magazine for lay readers interested in legal matters, Legal Affairs, had an article - and so, I believe, did the New York Times.
70
I am glad to read some acknowledgement of the outsourcing of legal work to cheap Asian sources. It was and is inevitable in this "global" economy with its overpriced US dollar as the international medium of exchange. In this circumstance we export dollars and import everything else on the cheap. I expect that we will see much more of this for medical diagnosis (using internet transmission), engineering, and university teaching. The outsourcing of factory employment was only the first symptom of the epidemic. It will hit home and cause some serious thinking when those in the higher paid professions find themselves disposable. Too bad that elected legislators are immune. The hopeful note is that many of them are lawyers with stakes in a domestic law firm.
1
A radiology practice near me does the same thing with patient Xrays. They are digitial, so easily readable from afar. It's a boon to the doctor who owns the practice, but I'm wondering how many of the patients know that a faceless Indian doctor working for pennies on the dollar, is reading their xrays?
1
Unlike programs in other fields, law school is run as a competition between students to get a small number of excellent jobs. For example, law school students are ranked in obvious competition with each other down to two decimal places. Thus tuition is like the price of a lottery ticket; justified by the size of the unlikely prize. Students, with little means to evaluate their chances jump at the chance. And law schools, like any organization running a lottery, touts the ultimate prize, is silent about probabilities and maximizes its take. That's the business they're in.
8
Actually students do have a very good tool to evaluate their chances of success: their LSAT score. In my experience as a student at a top 5 law school, a lawyer for many years at a top law firm, and now as a law professor, LSAT scores predict VERY well who has at least the raw aptitude to succeed at law school. Perseverance and the choice to put in the hard work are also within students' individual control. Ironically, what I observe as an academic at a middle of the pack school is that the students with the least aptitude (eg, lowest LSAT scores and worst academic preparation) also seem to be the ones who want good grades handed to them with the least amount of effort. No wonder those students do not succeed.
My biggest issue is with the morality of admitting those students to law school in the first place. To me, the kindest thing is simply to deny them admission. Others disagree, saying that these students should be allowed the opportunity to prove us all wrong, but those colleagues are not the ones stuck with huge amounts of debt when the weak students cannot find decent jobs. Of course, we all have a vested interest in keeping the flow of students coming in order to pay our salaries. And if you lay off too many instructors, then a school cannot offer the range of courses necessary in order to attract students. It is a real problem. How do you keep educational quality up if you cut a large chunk of the student body?
My biggest issue is with the morality of admitting those students to law school in the first place. To me, the kindest thing is simply to deny them admission. Others disagree, saying that these students should be allowed the opportunity to prove us all wrong, but those colleagues are not the ones stuck with huge amounts of debt when the weak students cannot find decent jobs. Of course, we all have a vested interest in keeping the flow of students coming in order to pay our salaries. And if you lay off too many instructors, then a school cannot offer the range of courses necessary in order to attract students. It is a real problem. How do you keep educational quality up if you cut a large chunk of the student body?
90
you also forgot to mention that is a normal tendency of the young to overestimate their odds (very unrealistically).
1
Any thought on the issue of low LSAT scores for the disadvantaged. These students generally have not been privileged with the same resources to excel at the LSAT but may be perfectly capable of getting through law school successfully. It's not an accident that the law schools near the lowest rung are some of the most diverse in the country. If we use LSAT as the sole marker or stop the flow of student aid, we will no doubt have deleterious effects on diversity in the profession.
1
Why would anyone want to be a lawyer, these days? What would you do? Not-for=profit? Corporate? Negligence? Family Law? How about representing people charged with crimes? I gave up my license. Replaced by two young lawyers. No retirement. No health care. No replacement if sick or injured or in need of repair. Big time lawyers need to produce 2200 hours to survive. Not much of that is time to think. Think before ruining your mind on the law.
154
One major problem for the law profession is that it thinks it has to "produce 2,200 hours." Every moment on the phone, every second writing one's name becomes "billable." The legal profession's political economy needs a complete overhaul, not just its questionable training programs.
2200 hours a year is a regular full time job with a bit of overtime. Not too unusual for us non-lawyers.
If you watch basic cable, you can see the fine old tradition of the ambulance-chaser in full fig. TV is glutted with ads for law firms coming on like used-car salesmen, yelling, 'has anything bad ever happened to you at any time? You may be entitled to pots of money! Call us to fight for your rights!' Right now asbestos is the big thing, undoubtedly because a class action deadline looms. And drug companies. (Their contingency fee promise - 'no fee unless we win!' - omits that the attorney fee is only one of many costs involved with a lawsuit, for which the client will still be on the hook either way, and that if you lose you could still be on the hook not only for all your own attorney's costs, but those of the opposite side.)
Look hard at this, law students: you may imagine yourself as a high-powered Washington lobbyist or Congressman, or a genteel white-shoe senior partner; but this is your far more likely reality. The legal equivalent of picking up pennies in the gutter.
Look hard at this, law students: you may imagine yourself as a high-powered Washington lobbyist or Congressman, or a genteel white-shoe senior partner; but this is your far more likely reality. The legal equivalent of picking up pennies in the gutter.
In the 50s through much of the 70s the National Defense Student Loan Program worked quite well. WWII ended and the Country invested in educating the workforce for the future. Then greed took over as the Reagan Republicans ascended to power. The combination of big banks looking for large guaranteed profit and loan protection and school administrators recognizing a full proof way of boosting their salaries to enormous levels sucked the Government to back the present student loan program. Losers, the students and their parents. Can we really solve this problem when we are up against banks too big to fail and university presidents with million dollars salaries plus perks? Only when the schools begin to fail for lack of students who will take the risk of permanent indenture.
8
James, a large part of the problem is oversupply of attorneys and tuition that has grown out of control. Almost nothing you say addresses these issues.
"Plain English" loan disclosure forms. For law students.
Pretty funny.
Pretty funny.
23
They aren't lawyers when they sign the forms...
"Law schools have been able to raise tuition while producing twice as many graduates as the job market has been able to absorb."
Transferring America's manufacturing sector to The Peoples Republic of China removed not just the "unskilled" labor jobs Communist China's apologists snidely refer to, but also the engineering, R&D, management, and, of course, legal counsel jobs that were part and parcel of American manufacturing.
Transferring America's manufacturing sector to The Peoples Republic of China removed not just the "unskilled" labor jobs Communist China's apologists snidely refer to, but also the engineering, R&D, management, and, of course, legal counsel jobs that were part and parcel of American manufacturing.
19
And yet there is still a shortage of lawyers for those who can't afford one.
47
This is MRS. The shortage comes from the fact that if a person performs a service, there has to be some recompense. The law has always been funny about something -- if you can't afford representation, you're out to the wolves. I didn't say that you had to have the $2k/hr lawyer to represent your situation; a $250/hr lawyer can be just as unaffordable. Nothing in the law says that a lawyer should work for nothing.
Most likely because the lawyers need to make $ to pay off their 6 figure loans. If we could figure out a way to reward public interest work more, we could solve two problems at once.
There is a shortage of everything for those who can't afford one.
Lawyers. Why? They are no better than the corrupt prosecutors, judges, DA's, cops, bankers and politicians destroying life on this planet.
2
Are you going to law school because you want to 'be a lawyer' (money, status) or because you want to 'do law' or 'practice law' or 'argue before the Supreme Court' or some other variant of an active verb?
The former is a recipe for what we have now - law schools belching out wads of midlevel lawyers who apparently think it's in the Constitution, the Commandments, or the Laws of Thermodynamics, that 'lawyers make a lot of money.'
The applicable law, of course, is Econ 101, law of supply and demand. The value of a commodity is determined in part by its scarcity. My granddad made a lot of money as a lawyer because a hundred years ago, there weren't that many lawyers. (He began as a lay clerk for a law firm, which sent him to law school and took him in as a partner. Yes, children, in those days companies - even lawyers - invested in their human capital.) And because he decided he wanted to 'do law', not just to 'be a lawyer'.
The former is a recipe for what we have now - law schools belching out wads of midlevel lawyers who apparently think it's in the Constitution, the Commandments, or the Laws of Thermodynamics, that 'lawyers make a lot of money.'
The applicable law, of course, is Econ 101, law of supply and demand. The value of a commodity is determined in part by its scarcity. My granddad made a lot of money as a lawyer because a hundred years ago, there weren't that many lawyers. (He began as a lay clerk for a law firm, which sent him to law school and took him in as a partner. Yes, children, in those days companies - even lawyers - invested in their human capital.) And because he decided he wanted to 'do law', not just to 'be a lawyer'.
13
The first step ought to be that state universities get out of the law school business. If there are too many lawyers, why is a state school helping to produce more? Freed up resources could be devoted to improving undergraduate education at these same state universities or to reducing tax burdens on its citizens. (It's never been clear to me why a working person should help pay for the education of a person with a graduate degree.) Private law schools would also benefit as they would no longer be competing against subsidized state schools for students.
3
Why? For one thing, it appears that a lot of the lawyers who come out and take the extremely low paid public interest positions that one could not afford to take after incurring $200,000 in debt for a private school degree come out of public law schools. Society has an interest in their being a supply of lawyers to staff these positions.
the state schools are in it for the revenue generation. Law schools generate plenty of revenue. They do not require labs, grants, professors can be easily hired, buildings are not too expensive and students are readily admited (law school admission at many schools is not as strict as engineering schools at many of these same institutions for example).
This country has a desperate need for immigration lawyers. The majority of people involved in immigration proceedings go unrepresented. Legal aid bureaus and public defenders are universally overburdened. But at the same time, apparently there are lots and lots of lawyers who are either unemployed or not using their qualifications. The problem is not that we have too many lawyers. The problem is that our economic system is not putting them to the best use.
12
The problem is that the available jobs, representing the poor and desperate, don't pay anything - and especially not enough to cover the huge bite of student loans for law school. This, like the way we treat teachers, is another symptom of how sick our society has come: we like to tout 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' for all, but we do not want to do the work or spend the money needed to ensure that everyone actually has a shot at it.
1
it would take state money that the states will not provide---and when they do it is at starvation wages
Law school students know or ought to know what they are facing in terms of employment opportunities long before they start their arduous legal (and expensive) training. I think it is the fact that getting a job in a law firm is so difficult only makes trying all the more desirable. Thousands of people run in the NY Marathon -- only a few get prizes. That's life.
75
But the cost of running in the NY Marathon is what? $50-$100 in fees to participate? So if you lose, all you suffer is aching feet.
If you go to law school and you have no aptitude for the law, and only got into a mediocre state school, and you barely pass the bar exam with a low score -- you have now wasted THREE PRODUCTIVE YEARS of the best part of your life (20s-30s) and you may have NO career at all as a result, and worse, you now owe $100-$200K in student loans...a burden that will last most of your adult life, and without a job, the debt will make the rest of your future pretty grim.
If you go to law school and you have no aptitude for the law, and only got into a mediocre state school, and you barely pass the bar exam with a low score -- you have now wasted THREE PRODUCTIVE YEARS of the best part of your life (20s-30s) and you may have NO career at all as a result, and worse, you now owe $100-$200K in student loans...a burden that will last most of your adult life, and without a job, the debt will make the rest of your future pretty grim.
And yet, take heart: A law degree is so flexible, marketable, meaningful, useful and deployable is so many, many fields! Law students, their advisors/mentors and schools need to broaden sense of how study of law flexes in to so many, many fields! Think outside the box, focus on skills developed and...voila!
Tell us more O wise one. Do you have a Confucius style book out containing more trite wisdom about life that I can refer to? If not please write one, maybe call it "That's Life." I entered law school before the economy crashed in 2008 and the school brochures indicated 99% employment rates post graduation. Most lawyers want a job to pay their bills not because the difficulty of getting one makes it more alluring.
Speaking as a recent law school graduate, I find it disingenuous to blame everyone for the current state of legal-world affairs except students themselves. At what point did the concept of personal responsibility disappear from the conversation? All law students are adults; nearly all have a bachelor's degree. Only the deaf, blind, and dumb could have failed to notice the all-too-obvious reality -- since at least circa 2010 -- of "too many graduates, too few jobs."
The ABA now requires more transparency than ever regarding the post-grad employment data each school provides, and smoke-and-mirrors tricks like the one illuminated a few years back in an article in The Times -- featuring an Ivy League law grad tabulated by his school as "employed," despite working as a Starbucks barista -- have been drastically reduced. And yet thousands of law students each year still willingly take on six-figure debt loads, many of them at the increasingly infamous for-profit schools mentioned herein.
By no means am I arguing that students merit all, or necessarily most, of the blame here. The ABA is far too permissive in allowing the worst schools to remain accredited, in my view, and the federal government needs to fundamentally revisit student loans as they exist now. But still. Law students fresh out of undergrad may be naive, but none of us have been outright "conned" -- and a lot more of us have successfully found fulfilling jobs at great salaries than the media would have one believe.
The ABA now requires more transparency than ever regarding the post-grad employment data each school provides, and smoke-and-mirrors tricks like the one illuminated a few years back in an article in The Times -- featuring an Ivy League law grad tabulated by his school as "employed," despite working as a Starbucks barista -- have been drastically reduced. And yet thousands of law students each year still willingly take on six-figure debt loads, many of them at the increasingly infamous for-profit schools mentioned herein.
By no means am I arguing that students merit all, or necessarily most, of the blame here. The ABA is far too permissive in allowing the worst schools to remain accredited, in my view, and the federal government needs to fundamentally revisit student loans as they exist now. But still. Law students fresh out of undergrad may be naive, but none of us have been outright "conned" -- and a lot more of us have successfully found fulfilling jobs at great salaries than the media would have one believe.
23
'At what point did the concept of personal responsibility disappear from the conversation? All law students are adults; nearly all have a bachelor's degree.'
Oh, haven't you read the NYT? For awhile there, the paper was pushing neurological research that indicates the higher reasoning centres of the brain don't reach full maturity until age 26 - and that therefore we cannot expect rational behaviour from anyone under that age. This was particularly true in the case of adolescents charged with crimes, who were poor widdle kiddies who couldn't be expected to know right from wrong.
So we need to forgive all those loans because the law students were clearly too immature, at age 21 or so, to have sufficient judgement to know what they were getting into.
To be fair, the Times has been awfully quiet about pushing that junk science for some months now, but for awhile there it was quite in vogue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/greg-ousley-is-sorry-for-kill...
Oh, haven't you read the NYT? For awhile there, the paper was pushing neurological research that indicates the higher reasoning centres of the brain don't reach full maturity until age 26 - and that therefore we cannot expect rational behaviour from anyone under that age. This was particularly true in the case of adolescents charged with crimes, who were poor widdle kiddies who couldn't be expected to know right from wrong.
So we need to forgive all those loans because the law students were clearly too immature, at age 21 or so, to have sufficient judgement to know what they were getting into.
To be fair, the Times has been awfully quiet about pushing that junk science for some months now, but for awhile there it was quite in vogue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/greg-ousley-is-sorry-for-kill...
Perhaps earning a degree in law in the United States is emulating the situation in many European countries, in which such the credential has little to do with the U.S. definition of "practicing law," but more with the demonstration of a level of competence in a variety of skills.
6
Some time before the economy tanked in 2008 the NYT ran at least one article claiming law school grads started at $160,000. That was enough to convince my son to borrow close to $250,000 and go to law school. Fortunately he had no undergrad debt. When he graduated in 2012 his school was offering to pay $15.00/hr for 11 months to law grads who could find someone to train them. That is why the employment numbers are as high as they are. My son had trouble even acquiring one of those $11/hr jobs and for awhile worked as a restaurant host and then he continued that job after getting an $11/hr job that quickly turned into a short term $59,000/yr job.
This story is typical. He was at a highly ranked school and only those at the very top of the class got high paying jobs. Now my son has a permanent government job paying around $100K and also he is paying off his school loans through a program that forgives a large amount of the loan after 10 years. In addition, his
yearly payment is prorated according to his salary and isn't very much.
He is very happy with how things turned out and loves his job. Most of his friends from law school now have jobs. It was obvious that employers do not
want to hire and train a new grad. Once a lawyer gets that initial training there are available jobs.
This story is typical. He was at a highly ranked school and only those at the very top of the class got high paying jobs. Now my son has a permanent government job paying around $100K and also he is paying off his school loans through a program that forgives a large amount of the loan after 10 years. In addition, his
yearly payment is prorated according to his salary and isn't very much.
He is very happy with how things turned out and loves his job. Most of his friends from law school now have jobs. It was obvious that employers do not
want to hire and train a new grad. Once a lawyer gets that initial training there are available jobs.
8
I'm happy for your son, but his story is not typical.
Also, he went into law to get $160K a year in 2008 dollars. It is now 2015, and he's earning $100K. That is a very serious shortfall. I am sure he is happy, but would he have borrowed $250K a year for a $100K job?
And most jobs do NOT offer "loan forgiveness" of $250K in college debt!
Also, he went into law to get $160K a year in 2008 dollars. It is now 2015, and he's earning $100K. That is a very serious shortfall. I am sure he is happy, but would he have borrowed $250K a year for a $100K job?
And most jobs do NOT offer "loan forgiveness" of $250K in college debt!
So your son earned a degree that is allowing him to pull down $100 thousand per year, and HE qualifies for the reduced/prorated loan forgiveness programs?
There is something very wrong with this picture.
Where is all his money going if his is making $100k and can not make the loan payments without help? Why can't he pay off $250 in debt in 10 years, or stretch it out longer if needed on that type of elevated salary?
We don't need to subsidize government workers like your son, who are making good money. Encourage him to gain a little pride and independence and take responsibility for his own debts, mama?
There is something very wrong with this picture.
Where is all his money going if his is making $100k and can not make the loan payments without help? Why can't he pay off $250 in debt in 10 years, or stretch it out longer if needed on that type of elevated salary?
We don't need to subsidize government workers like your son, who are making good money. Encourage him to gain a little pride and independence and take responsibility for his own debts, mama?
Mr. Harper, a lawyer, focuses on high student debt for law graduates facing a tough job market, but the issues are much broader.
Taxpayers, via federal government loans, subsidize educational institutions, regardless of these institutions' value to students. It is scandalous that we provide government loans or grants to students at for-profit universities; we must stop. In addition, where the debt-to-income ratio of graduating students reaches a certain level, the universities themselves should be required to repay the government a certain portion of that debt.
Low-performing law schools, like many low-performing educational programs, can remain cash cows as long as the government, the largest paying customer, supports its product without any regard to outcome.
Taxpayers, via federal government loans, subsidize educational institutions, regardless of these institutions' value to students. It is scandalous that we provide government loans or grants to students at for-profit universities; we must stop. In addition, where the debt-to-income ratio of graduating students reaches a certain level, the universities themselves should be required to repay the government a certain portion of that debt.
Low-performing law schools, like many low-performing educational programs, can remain cash cows as long as the government, the largest paying customer, supports its product without any regard to outcome.
30
Hucksters abound, as do dupes. The history of the country is riddled with such folks. Some even run for the highest office in the land. I'll not hold my breath in anticipation of substantive change.
5
The ABA isn't going to solve this problem. The ABA represents large law firms and their corporate clients, as well as well-paid law professors. In fact, the ABA helped create this problem a few years ago, when they gave the go-ahead to large law firms to offshore/outsource large document review projects to attorneys in India. That's right, the "American" Bar Association actually allowed tens of thousands of potential attorney jobs for the very people who graduate from some of the lower-tier schools mentioned in the editorial to go offshore solely in the interest of corporate behemoths and the large law firms that service them, which is really the ABA's primary clientele. They're not about to solve this problem, because another part of their clientele is highly paid law professors. Young attorneys should pay heed, and refuse to join the ABA, even at the lower price they offer for new graduates. Starve the ABA, put it out of business, and you'll see sanity and jobs return to the US legal marketplace.
34
Is the problem too many lawyers paying unreasonably high tuition or the built-in greed of the system? Where are the lawyers for undocumented immigrants? Who is defending the innocent indigents who are caught in a system that requires money to get justice? There is something very wrong about a system that declares an over-supply of a human resource while complaining about injustice that could be alleviated by the talents of that resource.
12
There has to be an income stream for the defenders of immigrants and indigents.
If you have borrowed $200K for law school you can't simple set up a pro bono practice.
If there were abundant salaried jobs (say in the $50K-$80K range) for public service lawyers, many law grads would be interested.
But someone has to fund these jobs - and fund them for the long-term.
If you have borrowed $200K for law school you can't simple set up a pro bono practice.
If there were abundant salaried jobs (say in the $50K-$80K range) for public service lawyers, many law grads would be interested.
But someone has to fund these jobs - and fund them for the long-term.
1
Good for Harper to call out the ABA on its embarrassing failure to respond to the crisis in legal education. Hopefully the Times will continue to cover this story. This is a disaster ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of young students and their families. One obvious remedy, endorsed by no less than President Obama in a speech several years ago, is to reduce the time required for a law school degree from three to two years (as it was until the early 1960s), dramatically reducing law student debt burdens. The ABA could unilaterally implement this change. With the approval of the US Supreme Court, almost all states have given the ABA a monopoly on accrediting and setting standards for law schools. But, as Harper points out, the ABA is the fox guarding the chicken coop. Instead the ABA ignores this and other possible effective reforms while hosting conferences with delicious buffets and interesting cocktail selections.
133
People have been talking about reducing law school from three to two years since at least the 1990's. I personally found the third year to be of little value. My understanding is that universities are reluctant to reduce the number of years required for law school because law schools charge some of the highest rates of tuition and universities use revenues from their law schools to subsidize other less lucrative disciplines, like schools of social work and education. This was fine when law school graduates were almost certain to be hired into high paying jobs. Now, perhaps, it's time for a re-think.
Don't you think "disaster ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of young students and their families" is a bit over-dramatic?
A "crisis" in legal education? Sweet Briar is a crisit, low employment prospects in a particular profession is not. How many other degrees don't offer very good job prospects? Where is your outrage?
Correcting the economic incentives would require the schools to make the loans. It should apply to higher education in general.
Law is also an area where too many have no retirement pension and many work into their 70's. Only public sector attorneys seem to enjoy their golden years.
Law is also an area where too many have no retirement pension and many work into their 70's. Only public sector attorneys seem to enjoy their golden years.
5
I'm sorry, but anyone entering law school should be bright enough to know the job prospects are not great and the debt will be an anchor around his or her neck for decades to come. These debts should not be guaranteed by the government. That will lower the tuition and drive the diploma mills out of business.
4
Too Many Student Football Players, Too Few NFL Jobs
Too Many Arts Students, Too Few Arts Jobs
Too Many Music Students, Too Few Music Jobs
Etc.
Too Many Arts Students, Too Few Arts Jobs
Too Many Music Students, Too Few Music Jobs
Etc.
7
It's most fields. Only a few are immune -- mostly in medicine.
We now live in a hot, flat, crowded world where high technology has made many of us "superfluous". There are now far more people IN THE WORLD (not just the US!) who need jobs, than there are jobs.
We now live in a hot, flat, crowded world where high technology has made many of us "superfluous". There are now far more people IN THE WORLD (not just the US!) who need jobs, than there are jobs.
1
By Mr. Harper's own numbers, law school enrollment has declined almost 30 percent in the last five years. Have law firm partners, like those at his former law firm, accepted an equivalent 30 percent decline in their revenues and used the money to hire and train younger lawyers? If not, what standing do they have to criticize the law schools?
2
There are plenty of jobs for engineers. Grad schools fill positions with foreign students who most often return to their native countries. What will it take to convince American students to follow STEM curriculum and not hope to be NBA and NFL players?
It's all part of the dumbing down of America which serves the strategy of the far right.
It's all part of the dumbing down of America which serves the strategy of the far right.
4
I don't know if you've thought much about this, but a lot of that STEM work can be done overseas and often is. STEM will not save you, because American workers still have American cost of living and need to be paid American wages. You cannot out-cheap India. If you want a job that can't be done over the Internet, be a plumber.
You need to tell the bureau of labor statistics about the "plenty of jobs for engineers".
Goto http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-elect...
and you will see the job outlook for electrical and electronics engineers is a 4% growth in jobs over the 2012-2022 period, this is about 0.4% growth per year and represents 12,600 jobs added in 10 years.
How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics get this so wrong?
Goto http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-elect...
and you will see the job outlook for electrical and electronics engineers is a 4% growth in jobs over the 2012-2022 period, this is about 0.4% growth per year and represents 12,600 jobs added in 10 years.
How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics get this so wrong?
1
"It's all part of the dumbing down of America which serves the strategy of the far right."
Isn't it inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Conservatives favor STEM far more than liberals do, which is why engineers tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. A poll of engineers found 42% of them to be Republican, 33% independent, and only 15% Democrat:
http://machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers
Isn't it inconvenient when facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Conservatives favor STEM far more than liberals do, which is why engineers tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. A poll of engineers found 42% of them to be Republican, 33% independent, and only 15% Democrat:
http://machinedesign.com/news/politics-engineers
If you go to a top-tier law school and do well there, you will be fine. OR, if you have a promise that your uncle's small-town firm will hire you....Otherwise you will likely be doing scut work, supervised by an experienced paralegal.
6
Strengthen public law schools and reduce tuition-- that goes for most other higher education as well. When a private school is offering an education for over $100,000 and a public school can offer an education that is just as good for $10,000 (or heck, why not free?) that would make the economic environment for over the top expensive law schools more challenging.
Also, when a student defaults on a loan the school, as well as the student, should be on the hook. That would seriously encourage schools to invest more in their alumni and work for their success.
Also, when a student defaults on a loan the school, as well as the student, should be on the hook. That would seriously encourage schools to invest more in their alumni and work for their success.
2
We have been hearings for years and years how there are more students in law school than there are active lawyers or some such. Also, that new law grads earn a pittance now because there are so many of them.
Doesn't there come a time when those considering law school should possibly take this into consideration?
Of course tuition is continually raised. Why? Because they can. People still line up at the door ready to sign away and pay. And these are college graduates doing the signing on for insane tuition and few prospects.
Doesn't there come a time when those considering law school should possibly take this into consideration?
Of course tuition is continually raised. Why? Because they can. People still line up at the door ready to sign away and pay. And these are college graduates doing the signing on for insane tuition and few prospects.
3
The ABA is not the "voice" of the profession. It surrendered any legitimacy in representing its members when it endorsed outsourcing of legal work and completely walked away from working seriously on law school debt. I wish reporters would stop going to them as an authority on the profession, the ABA is utterly useless.
20
While these law students may have excellent legal minds, they are likely struggling with Economics 101. One of the first rules of economics is, if you want more of something, subsidize it. Easily available, low interest government loans are subsidies which encourage more law students and more lawyers that we obviously do not need.
In addition, the market for legal services is undergoing structural change. Many things that required a lawyer in the past, such as drafting wills or other legal documents, no longer need the imprimatur of a lawyer. These documents are easily found on-line, and many legal services can be done by the consumer or a paralegal.
In short, we do not need as many lawyers as we have, and many will go without jobs or will be earning much less than in previous years.
In addition, the market for legal services is undergoing structural change. Many things that required a lawyer in the past, such as drafting wills or other legal documents, no longer need the imprimatur of a lawyer. These documents are easily found on-line, and many legal services can be done by the consumer or a paralegal.
In short, we do not need as many lawyers as we have, and many will go without jobs or will be earning much less than in previous years.
4
Judger Lipman, the chief judge in New York state commissioned a study that found that in one year over 3 million people came to court in New York without legal representation. They came for divorces, consumer issues, child custody or payment cases, they came for landlord tenant disputes and a host of regulatory matters ranging from health care to licensing for small businesses.
There aren't too many lawyers, there are too few lawyers that average people can afford. One of the consequences of high student loans at both the undergrad and law school level is that even lawyers who want to pursue a small practice and serve those clients that judge Lipman wrote about cannot afford to do so and pay off their loans.
We have created a two tiered system of justice. One for the wealthy and the large corporations, which works quite well and another dysfunctional one for everyone else. This model works very well for the banks that service these loans but works poorly for our society as a whole.
There is only so much a chief judge can do to remedy this problem. So far he has gotten little support from our governor or the legislature. People need to wake up and realize that they have a right to civil justice and should demand it from our courts, our legal profession and our law schools.
There aren't too many lawyers, there are too few lawyers that average people can afford. One of the consequences of high student loans at both the undergrad and law school level is that even lawyers who want to pursue a small practice and serve those clients that judge Lipman wrote about cannot afford to do so and pay off their loans.
We have created a two tiered system of justice. One for the wealthy and the large corporations, which works quite well and another dysfunctional one for everyone else. This model works very well for the banks that service these loans but works poorly for our society as a whole.
There is only so much a chief judge can do to remedy this problem. So far he has gotten little support from our governor or the legislature. People need to wake up and realize that they have a right to civil justice and should demand it from our courts, our legal profession and our law schools.
1
But...but...how can the market get something so horribly wrong? Are these prospective students being mislead by law schools about debt levels and job prospects? Surely by now the prospective students have perfect information and know better than to waste three years of their lives and tens of thousands of dollars training for jobs which don't exist anymore.
Well, if these students were duped by law schools, it's a good thing our citizens have unfettered access to courts and the ability to seek damages from their wrongdoers. At least in those states where the people still believe in those things.
Well, if these students were duped by law schools, it's a good thing our citizens have unfettered access to courts and the ability to seek damages from their wrongdoers. At least in those states where the people still believe in those things.
4
Students aren't duped. They just think they can make a difference. They don't realize how [c]orrupt the legal system is.
2
I think it has been pretty clear now for 5 plus years that the legal employment market is weak. Who should we blame for all the students without jobs? The schools for providing the education, the federal Government for providing the loans, or the students who couldn't read the handwriting on the wall? All three played a role but it is primarily the students who get the ball rolling. If individuals can't figure out there are no jobs in their chosen field why should I feel bad for them and subsidize their bad choices?
17
Supply and demand model breaks down whenever someone else pays the bill.
It's the reason why educational and medical costs are like a runaway train. The are no breaks.
It's the reason why educational and medical costs are like a runaway train. The are no breaks.
100
Medical costs have risen because of expensive end of life care for a growing population of elderly, because of sky-rocketing insurance costs, and out-size profit margins for private insurers. Physicians and other providers charges are capped by the government and private insurance companies paying the bills. Often the payment does not equal the cost of providing the care. Pharmaceuticals, having a revolving door of top employees in and out of government, rarely have to accept a negotiated payment and they are part of the enormous cost of medical care.
30
The supply and demand model breaks down all the time, even with sophisticated people (like, ostensibly, college graduates), in all industries, every day, throughout history.
The brakes for curbing this are primarily two fold. One, a method to redress civil wrongs, which Republicans routinely oppose and seek to limit. Two, government regulation, which Republicans always oppose and seek to end.
Then they want to blame the victim of the many failures of the "free" market, in this instance, the students, who are mislead frequently by law schools seeking dollars.
It really is something to behold.
The brakes for curbing this are primarily two fold. One, a method to redress civil wrongs, which Republicans routinely oppose and seek to limit. Two, government regulation, which Republicans always oppose and seek to end.
Then they want to blame the victim of the many failures of the "free" market, in this instance, the students, who are mislead frequently by law schools seeking dollars.
It really is something to behold.
4
@Winchestereast: elderly Americans virtually all have Medicare, so their end of life care (while very costly) falls into a different category entirely. In fact, the generous spending on the elderly actually SUBSIDIZES care for others. It is ridiculous to say that payment does not cover "costs" -- you mean "rack rates"? They are totally made up and invented. Look at nation's with single payer to see what the TRUE cost of procedures are! It's shocking. American doctors and hospitals are charging 3 to 5 and sometimes 10-12 times what the true cost is (in part because of greed and part because it is necessary to overstate costs to get the most back from insurance).
1
Meanwhile, ABA site visit teams continue to visit all accredited American law schools year after year, purporting to assess their spending, operations, programs, admissions policies, etc. Even schools that clearly operate on an economic model to serve the faculty at the expense of students get reaccredited, with no consequences to their Deans or other top administrators. While law faculty keep getting high salaries for cushy jobs, light teaching loads and long summers off, they will turn a blind eye to this, while their admissions operations constantly recruit, market, and sell hype to twenty-somethings like used-car salesmen. When schools allocate disproportionate budget and staff to selling, over meeting direct student needs, there is an issue.
Retired from law, I am aghast at what legal education has become. The only thing that is lower in most law faculties' hierarchy of importance than student needs is the public need for capable, effective, public-minded lawyers, including to provide legal services to non-wealthy individuals. There is such a need, but graduates who emerge from law school with heavy debt are so focused on getting the highest pay possible, to pay it off, that few can enter the fields of law where the need continues to be high. And graduates of low-quality programs are more of a hazard to the public than a help.
The ABA needs to do much, much better than this if it wants to keep its position as the accrediting agency for all American law schools.
Retired from law, I am aghast at what legal education has become. The only thing that is lower in most law faculties' hierarchy of importance than student needs is the public need for capable, effective, public-minded lawyers, including to provide legal services to non-wealthy individuals. There is such a need, but graduates who emerge from law school with heavy debt are so focused on getting the highest pay possible, to pay it off, that few can enter the fields of law where the need continues to be high. And graduates of low-quality programs are more of a hazard to the public than a help.
The ABA needs to do much, much better than this if it wants to keep its position as the accrediting agency for all American law schools.
398
Often the newly minted lawyers are the gate-keepers for the more learned and experienced in their firms.
I recently sought legal representation on a real estate matter from a decent-sized firm in a nearby city. As this was the first time I as sought advice from this firm, I was fobbed off to a young, marginally enthusiastic associate in their employ.
The matter was relatively complex, the very reason why I sough out that firm rather than my local practitioner.
It quickly became apparent that the young lawyer hadn't a clue as to what was going on to the point that I had no confidence that he would brief his superior adequately. I was sorely disappointed.
I was even more sorely disappointed when I got the firms bill.
Returning to my local attorney, we muddled through. But I clearly got much better representation from the local shingle holder than I did from the over-priced multi-name regional law firm with the alleged expertise in the matters at hand.
And this was not my first rodeo with a legal newbie. If law schools turned out lawyers that knew the law, I might be much more sympathetic to the issue of the large debt loads that they are carrying.
I recently sought legal representation on a real estate matter from a decent-sized firm in a nearby city. As this was the first time I as sought advice from this firm, I was fobbed off to a young, marginally enthusiastic associate in their employ.
The matter was relatively complex, the very reason why I sough out that firm rather than my local practitioner.
It quickly became apparent that the young lawyer hadn't a clue as to what was going on to the point that I had no confidence that he would brief his superior adequately. I was sorely disappointed.
I was even more sorely disappointed when I got the firms bill.
Returning to my local attorney, we muddled through. But I clearly got much better representation from the local shingle holder than I did from the over-priced multi-name regional law firm with the alleged expertise in the matters at hand.
And this was not my first rodeo with a legal newbie. If law schools turned out lawyers that knew the law, I might be much more sympathetic to the issue of the large debt loads that they are carrying.
2
And, with the debt, they do whatever they are told, keeping records on judges and superiors, not caring about the visions and dreams that brought them in front of the bar, unless of course they just want to make a lot of money.
I saw them in court. They said with their eyes that they wanted to do the right thing, but if they did, they could lose their job. So, they pushed to put people in jail, asked for high bail and were never ready with the cases they couldn't convict someone on.
I saw them in court. They said with their eyes that they wanted to do the right thing, but if they did, they could lose their job. So, they pushed to put people in jail, asked for high bail and were never ready with the cases they couldn't convict someone on.
As a recent graduate (2012), I agree with the assessment of the commenter noting the failure of law schools to teach skills that would allow graduates to provide legal services for communities effectively priced out of justice.
Speaking from personal experience and the experiences of my peers, the vast majority of young attorneys enter the job market with a license, but not the skills, to practice law. My law school had a single semester clinical program that was designed to teach student fundamentals, but enrollment was determined by lottery - if you didn't make the cut, you had to fend for yourself in order to learn "real world" skills. "Hanging a shingle" without skill or the accompanying confidence to perform professionally is not only unlikely but a seeming open invitation for a malpractice suit.
I'm not sure why training (or lack thereof) isn't more of an issue. We have a surfeit of eager young attorneys who, with some mentoring and support, could easily form the basis for programs similar in scope and mission to Teach For America. There are plenty of towns and small cities well beyond the borders of major urban centers that are going to need capable attorneys to handle basic legal services as previous generations of attorneys leave practice.
We should shift focus from how to turn off the frozen tap spewing forth law graduates and identify ways to use the surplus. I'd dig all the ditches you want - with a smile on my face - if it helps pay down my loans.
Speaking from personal experience and the experiences of my peers, the vast majority of young attorneys enter the job market with a license, but not the skills, to practice law. My law school had a single semester clinical program that was designed to teach student fundamentals, but enrollment was determined by lottery - if you didn't make the cut, you had to fend for yourself in order to learn "real world" skills. "Hanging a shingle" without skill or the accompanying confidence to perform professionally is not only unlikely but a seeming open invitation for a malpractice suit.
I'm not sure why training (or lack thereof) isn't more of an issue. We have a surfeit of eager young attorneys who, with some mentoring and support, could easily form the basis for programs similar in scope and mission to Teach For America. There are plenty of towns and small cities well beyond the borders of major urban centers that are going to need capable attorneys to handle basic legal services as previous generations of attorneys leave practice.
We should shift focus from how to turn off the frozen tap spewing forth law graduates and identify ways to use the surplus. I'd dig all the ditches you want - with a smile on my face - if it helps pay down my loans.
So the take-away from all of this is that 1. markets are inefficient, and 2. people make bad decisions, including going to law school. Other than making sure that the word gets out that law schools are, for most, a waste of time and money, there is nothing else to be done about this in a free society where young adults get to make their own choices. EXCEPT that we could speed things along by reducing the flow of student loans for fields where there is too much supply, including law.
255
Any self-respecting fan of markets should therefore argue that there should be no loans, as loans produce distortion. In other words, if you can't afford to go, then you can't afford to go. That fact brakes the tuition spiral and all is well again. For the losers-out, go flip burgers or something, then, and when you are done, read an Ayn Rand book.
"Speeding things along" is not a market-based solution - this is the visible hand approach, much like loans are. I will not hazard a guess as to which is crueler. But a market based approach would permit students to discharge education loans in bankruptcy. Now THERE is a solution.
"Speeding things along" is not a market-based solution - this is the visible hand approach, much like loans are. I will not hazard a guess as to which is crueler. But a market based approach would permit students to discharge education loans in bankruptcy. Now THERE is a solution.
Query how many students, having achieved their undergrad degrees, go on to law school because they don't know what else to do with themselves and, unlike medicine, it doesn't involve blood and guts.
The irony, of course, is that I've heard lawyers complain that the actual boots-on-the-ground skills they need to practice are not taught in law school.
The irony, of course, is that I've heard lawyers complain that the actual boots-on-the-ground skills they need to practice are not taught in law school.
3
@ACW: the typical law student entirely lacks the science background to have gone into medical school -- and medical schools are highly selective and have ALWAYS drastically restricted entrance into the profession. (Of course, our society pays the price for having too few doctors and high medical costs. But it does keep doctors financially secure.)
The typical law student was a liberal arts major, with little or no math & science. The doors to medical school or engineering schools were closed to them. The "alternatives" to law school -- what are they? Frankly, nothing high paying, let alone "high status".
The law students are telling themselves they will luck out, and get hired by a "white shoe firm", and earn $160K or more a year right out of school. A few WILL do this, which is what keeps the dream alive. But most will not.
The typical law student was a liberal arts major, with little or no math & science. The doors to medical school or engineering schools were closed to them. The "alternatives" to law school -- what are they? Frankly, nothing high paying, let alone "high status".
The law students are telling themselves they will luck out, and get hired by a "white shoe firm", and earn $160K or more a year right out of school. A few WILL do this, which is what keeps the dream alive. But most will not.
1
I graduated from law school in 1983. The situation wasn't much better then. That's how long this problem has persisted. The problem described here is not the whole story about how our educational system fails to serve young people. They are just not exposed in any systematic way to the kinds of good employment that our economic system offers them, e.g. jobs in finance, marketing, various other roles in the business world, roles in the non-profit sector, etc. Young people just are not given the picture of what they should think about doing, what the possibilities are and how to prepare for them. Lawyer, doctor, teacher - these are the easily definable job prospects. We need to do a much better job of informing young people about what adults do to earn a decent living in the US today.
63
Because finance and marketing produce so much more tangible value to a society than doctors and teachers? That's the crux of the problem right there: our economy and society now place a higher value on the sizzle than they do on the steak.
3
'...Young people just are not given the picture of what they should think about doing, what the possibilities are and how to prepare for them...'
If they cannot do this for themselves, they should not go to college at all.
After all, they have the internet and can research the job prospects and salaries in any field, which you did not have in the 1980s.
If they cannot do this for themselves, they should not go to college at all.
After all, they have the internet and can research the job prospects and salaries in any field, which you did not have in the 1980s.
I don't consider jobs in finance and marketing to be worthwhile. It is not all about the money.
But yes, making an informed decision is important.
But yes, making an informed decision is important.
The law schools do not go out and drag people into their halls; people choose to apply there. If they do so without an awareness of the job prospects then thats on the students head. Thankfully people want to be lawyers and do continue to apply.
One problem is that both law schools and medical schools have no incentive to get rid of bad students - it looks bad on their graduation rate and its also hard to do without law suits.
And why does not one look at the Government which happily hands out our tax money to any student without determining if they are a good candidate to graduate and be employable. They made it very complicated to get a mortgage and yet they will loan money to anyone, whether law school or non profit schools that they complain about. A little more thought into who you lend money to please.
One problem is that both law schools and medical schools have no incentive to get rid of bad students - it looks bad on their graduation rate and its also hard to do without law suits.
And why does not one look at the Government which happily hands out our tax money to any student without determining if they are a good candidate to graduate and be employable. They made it very complicated to get a mortgage and yet they will loan money to anyone, whether law school or non profit schools that they complain about. A little more thought into who you lend money to please.
4
There really aren't many 'bad students' in accredited US medical schools. These kids are mostly the 800 SAT, studied on week-ends, focused and motivated kids. They didn't apply just because the job market was slack. Unlike law school, medical school has always required that new students have already done well in a rigorous core group of studies called pre-med. Go take organic chemistry and tell me if you think the kids in that class are like the French majors who apply to law school.
50
French majors are bad students?
2
@Tom: not at all. Learning a foreign language is a valuable skill -- but a MAJOR? what kind of job would you get? Teaching French in high school? Not many openings for that.
Hence, the French major ends up enrolling in law school.
Hence, the French major ends up enrolling in law school.
So student loan disclosures should be in "plain English"? I would suspect the current and past student loan disclosures were written by lawyers who have been known to craft such complicated contracts and other legal documents it is impossible for the average person to understand the ins and outs. How does one understand these things? Why hire a lawyer of course to explain it!
I know plenty of nice and intelligent lawyers and I would like to think my friends are ethical in what they do, but I believe legal careers contain some of the most self serving professionals around. It is no coincidence a large number of politicians are lawyers by trade. The world needs fewer lawyers, not more self promoting garbage and regulations to make things appear better than reality.
I know plenty of nice and intelligent lawyers and I would like to think my friends are ethical in what they do, but I believe legal careers contain some of the most self serving professionals around. It is no coincidence a large number of politicians are lawyers by trade. The world needs fewer lawyers, not more self promoting garbage and regulations to make things appear better than reality.
11
It's not just lawyers, Steve. My son has an MS in Aerospace Engineering from a top 5 Engineering School, graduated with a 3.83 GPA and is a member of Tau Beta Pi, the engineering honor society. In other words, he didn't just squeak by, but after applying for countless positions online, he got one phone interview. There is absolutely no feedback from the online job hunt process. What's he doing wrong? What could he do to better himself or his resume. The current process is an online black hole with applications going in and nothing coming out.
117
The job which should have been available for your son is likely being done in Mumbai or some other overseas center. As are many jobs formerly done by first year law associates. Google document centers in India. Even the financial and insurance industries support, in fact have created, an enormous over-seas industry to support their at-home centers. All the giants participate. Our clients include many engineers, CPA's, programmers who travelled to India, China, etc to train their replacements over the past 15 years.
89
In a word - nepotism. Being related or good buddies is far more important than credentials.
2
Most Aerospace jobs are highly unlikely to be offshored for national security reasons. That was one reason why he chose Aerospace. i think you're off the mark here. Much more likely is the sequester is having a deleterious effect on many sectors of the economy, and aerospace is not immune. Just don't let anyone tell you that we have a serious shortage of STEM grads, so the reason the unemployment rate is so high is due to a skills mismatch. That's a load of baloney.
5
Why pick on law schools? The whole higher education orgy has been fueled with student loans that require no accountability from the schools or the students.
241
And so it has been for the past 40+ years. Majoring in anthropology/archaeology was popular then. But there were not enough academic positions for all the PhD archaeologists. What did they do? Most of them did not give up their dream of working as archaeologists. They either went to work for various government agencies or they formed their own companies and contracted with public or private organizations. Of course 40 years ago very few of us left school with any debt at all.
1
There remains a huge unfilled gap in legal services to be provided in general legal services as well as civil and criminal litigation for the poor, elderly, abused, discriminated against, and persons otherwise vulnerable to a legal system not truly committed to serving those without the means to afford lawyers.
Go to any probate or district court and see how many parties appear pro se, representing themselves with no legal training. If a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, then a non-lawyer who represents himself would also be deemed a fool but for the fact that he does so out of desperation.
What is needed is a federally funded program linked to the student loan program whereby newly admitted lawyers could work in these areas and receive credits towards their student loan debt as well as a livable wage, albeit well below entry level at major Wall Street firms. It's not investment banking and it likely is not the font of riches that many aspiring law students imagined would be forthcoming, but it is needed work and it is a valuable service. Helping people is still a good use of a law degree.
Go to any probate or district court and see how many parties appear pro se, representing themselves with no legal training. If a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, then a non-lawyer who represents himself would also be deemed a fool but for the fact that he does so out of desperation.
What is needed is a federally funded program linked to the student loan program whereby newly admitted lawyers could work in these areas and receive credits towards their student loan debt as well as a livable wage, albeit well below entry level at major Wall Street firms. It's not investment banking and it likely is not the font of riches that many aspiring law students imagined would be forthcoming, but it is needed work and it is a valuable service. Helping people is still a good use of a law degree.
221
I heartily agree with doing good with ones law degree. Just one problem. All those tuition loans!
2
Excellent suggestion. Look for it not to happen.
2
Yes, this.
The caseloads of public defenders are obscene. We are failing to provide all citizens with the legal representation they are due -- and which might expose and prevent abuses like the excessive revenue-producing criminal charges, abusive bail policies and others that have been highlighted since Ferguson.
Even in states with a public defender infrastructure, their leaders have to beg for minimal dollars (a fraction of what is spent on sports stadia for example) to run them. Experienced attorneys are being paid not much more than burger flippers to protect the constitutional rights of our fellow citizens. Entry level attorneys and support staff such as legal asssitants and investigators are earning even less.
We can put the glut of young attorneys to good use, if we had the will. But let's focus on the new cast of Dancing with the Stars and the NFL pre-season game and Donald Trump's hair instead.
The caseloads of public defenders are obscene. We are failing to provide all citizens with the legal representation they are due -- and which might expose and prevent abuses like the excessive revenue-producing criminal charges, abusive bail policies and others that have been highlighted since Ferguson.
Even in states with a public defender infrastructure, their leaders have to beg for minimal dollars (a fraction of what is spent on sports stadia for example) to run them. Experienced attorneys are being paid not much more than burger flippers to protect the constitutional rights of our fellow citizens. Entry level attorneys and support staff such as legal asssitants and investigators are earning even less.
We can put the glut of young attorneys to good use, if we had the will. But let's focus on the new cast of Dancing with the Stars and the NFL pre-season game and Donald Trump's hair instead.
8
"TEN months after graduation, only 60 percent of the law school class of 2014 had found full-time long-term jobs "that required them to pass the bar exam".
That means 40% without prospect of bar passage are without decent jobs?
This article is about schools teaching better the ability to pass the bar exam?
Why not just say so without all the gobbledy-gook?
Law schools need to do that or refund the student loan money.
Of course excepting the "Too many incoming law school students who believe they will be among the lucky few who get decent jobs" without doing the real work required in school and before getting the high-faluting salaries of the envied long-term experienced lawyers.
That means 40% without prospect of bar passage are without decent jobs?
This article is about schools teaching better the ability to pass the bar exam?
Why not just say so without all the gobbledy-gook?
Law schools need to do that or refund the student loan money.
Of course excepting the "Too many incoming law school students who believe they will be among the lucky few who get decent jobs" without doing the real work required in school and before getting the high-faluting salaries of the envied long-term experienced lawyers.
4
Read it again. Slowly. A 'job that requires them to pass the bar exam' means, basically, practicing law. Many law school graduates find corporate jobs, or bartending or taxi driving, that don't require the bar exam.
3
Tom-
You say "a job that requires them to pass the bar exam"
means, basically, practicing law.
That's what I meant by gobbledy-gook.
You say "a job that requires them to pass the bar exam"
means, basically, practicing law.
That's what I meant by gobbledy-gook.
1
So Tom-You are saying ""TEN months after graduation, only 60 percent of the law school class of 2014 had found full-time long-term jobs "that required them to practice law???
The government is making arguments against private for-profit schools: that students aren't getting jobs.
When does the NYT do an expose on law schools whose "reputation" leads students to believe that they'll find jobs at the end of their paper chase? When will the government crack down on law schools whose taxpayer-funded students are getting shafted?
When does the NYT do an expose on law schools whose "reputation" leads students to believe that they'll find jobs at the end of their paper chase? When will the government crack down on law schools whose taxpayer-funded students are getting shafted?
17
Much of what is wrong in the USA can be traced to our glut of lawyers. They create an atmosphere of litigation that grinds progress to a halt and costs oodles of money.
10
Ridiculous. 'Much of what's wrong in America' cannot be traced to a 'glut of lawyers'.
Much of what's wrong in America can be traced to the wrongheadedness of the Party of 'NO' .
Nothing stifles progress like politicians who distain facts and science and whose singular goal for the past six plus years has been to thwart progress, lest Democrats be given an opportunity to say that their ideas work.
We did not make it to the moon decades ago by electing people who insisted that the earth is 6,000 years old. THAT'S the problem!
Much of what's wrong in America can be traced to the wrongheadedness of the Party of 'NO' .
Nothing stifles progress like politicians who distain facts and science and whose singular goal for the past six plus years has been to thwart progress, lest Democrats be given an opportunity to say that their ideas work.
We did not make it to the moon decades ago by electing people who insisted that the earth is 6,000 years old. THAT'S the problem!
4
Nahh, the glut of lawyers is a product rather than the cause of the problem. The cause is that we maintain a mythology of restricted government, Mr. Jefferson's yeoman farmers and all that, despite the needs of a complex, mostly urban society. We in fact have shadow governments, most notably the insurance industry, which do what government does in other countries. Thus, we substitute litigation for regulation and for compensation; and to do that we have lots of lawyers.
2
Most folks aren't aware that LexisNexis, best known as the provider of online legal information, maintains this immense building out west in which about 16 million lawyers work at an average annual compensation of about $30,000. The 16 million might be a slight exaggeration for effect, but the thirty grand isn't.
We turn out so many young from our law schools that it's inevitable that markets stratify them by competence, to the point where some compete with wait staff for a living wage. Imagine paying off student loans on what the least incandescent can expect to earn in a field that competitive.
The availability of federally guaranteed loans has been demonstrated to be the primary driver of persistently rising college tuitions for a long time now. Yet the "Bern" and now the Hillster want to make post-secondary education free. The result of making it accessible to everyone, even at the cost of a personal debt-load that Democrats want to write-off anyway, has been to flood the market with immense numbers seeking six-figure incomes who learn, belatedly, that what they're actually fit for is five-figures. Yet we lack for welders in some markets.
This isn't a problem restricted to lawyers, and the A.B.A. isn't the appropriate authority to solve it. We need to evangelize MOOCs, severely restrict availability of student loans, and far better counsel our kids about the TRUE value of advanced education in the teeth of realistic abilities to exploit it.
We turn out so many young from our law schools that it's inevitable that markets stratify them by competence, to the point where some compete with wait staff for a living wage. Imagine paying off student loans on what the least incandescent can expect to earn in a field that competitive.
The availability of federally guaranteed loans has been demonstrated to be the primary driver of persistently rising college tuitions for a long time now. Yet the "Bern" and now the Hillster want to make post-secondary education free. The result of making it accessible to everyone, even at the cost of a personal debt-load that Democrats want to write-off anyway, has been to flood the market with immense numbers seeking six-figure incomes who learn, belatedly, that what they're actually fit for is five-figures. Yet we lack for welders in some markets.
This isn't a problem restricted to lawyers, and the A.B.A. isn't the appropriate authority to solve it. We need to evangelize MOOCs, severely restrict availability of student loans, and far better counsel our kids about the TRUE value of advanced education in the teeth of realistic abilities to exploit it.
5
What is missing from this analysis is the role that prospective law school student themselves play in the oversupply, indebtedness and underemployment of lawyers. How many articles exactly like this one have to be published year in and year out until the message is finally received by those contemplating taking the LSAT that their job prospects can be pretty dim? Regardless of their impressive grade point averages in undergraduate college and their exceptional test scores on entrance exams, just how intelligent can all of these applicants be if they disregard, or worse, are totally oblivious to their future job prospects? The ABA, the law schools, the professors cannot be assigned all of the responsibility for the current level of employment of lawyers. Somewhere in this process those attending law school must accept some personal responsibility for their often-time poor decision to embark on the career path to become professional lawyers. Personal career choices should not be the equivalent of playing blind man's bluff.
12
I know of one recent law school grad who's cackled with glee about paying for his Hawaiian honeymoon with student loans. Now he's in a very low paying entry level job in the public sector and not cackling quite as loudly when the payment date roles round each month.
I wish some journalist would do a deep dig into what students actually are spending their loan dollars ON -- because a lot of the money is going to discretionary lifestyle spending, not basics like tuition and books.
I wish some journalist would do a deep dig into what students actually are spending their loan dollars ON -- because a lot of the money is going to discretionary lifestyle spending, not basics like tuition and books.
Expand that to "too many college students and too few jobs" as well. Our bloated colleges are producing too much product for the market thanks to student loans.
8
As a retired lifelong teacher (humanities, then law school) I like to think students aren't widgets.
1
Of course, it's not just a legal education whose cost outstrips the rewards, it's college. At least it does for many if not most students who pay increasing tuition and incur large debts and find meager job prospects when they graduate. This essay is about legal education, so I will restrict my comment to it. The high cost of a legal education does more than saddle graduates with debt: it creates an incentive for a dysfunctional compensation arrangement for young lawyers. By that I mean young lawyers expect compensation far above the value of their contributions to clients, compensation necessary to repay their loans and provide a decent standard of living. The problem is that the young lawyers aren't worth what they are paid, creating tension between the law firm and clients and discouraging law firms from hiring young lawyers in the first place. In other words, the high cost of legal education provides a perverse disincentive to hiring the graduates. I'd compare law school graduates today with my experience when I graduated from law school almost 40 years ago: I never paid more than $1,000 per year in tuition (at my state's flagship state university), had no debt upon graduation, and neither expected nor received anything like the compensation paid to young lawyers today (I was hired by the best and largest law firm in my state). My firm could afford to train me without the pressure to bill unsuspecting clients. Today's high tuition cheats student, firms, and clients.
32
What kind of person makes an investment like entering law school, when these facts are known about the likely returns?
18
The article fails to disclose the outcome for students after 2 years, 5 years -- or even at 10 months for students who may have jobs where a law degree is a plus factor. This country has been in a recession since 2008 and plenty of graduates from college and other fields -- like the rest of us who work -- struggle to find jobs. Why pick on law?
To AJB,
To answer your question, many young people make that choice because they learn that their undergraduate degree is offering no help in finding a job, so they decide to 'hide out' for three years in law school, delaying the same outcome when they graduate with a law degree.
I'm not defending it but the same is true of many who secure post=graduate degrees.
There simply are not enough jobs to accommodate the population in the US.
To answer your question, many young people make that choice because they learn that their undergraduate degree is offering no help in finding a job, so they decide to 'hide out' for three years in law school, delaying the same outcome when they graduate with a law degree.
I'm not defending it but the same is true of many who secure post=graduate degrees.
There simply are not enough jobs to accommodate the population in the US.
3
Michael Thomas: good point, and no doubt true, but again often a poor financial decision. And the facts the article discusses have been known for several years. Not only are such students paying law/grad school tuition or taking out loans, but there's the opportunity cost of years of lost income (at whatever level) and experience. Law school is a worthwhile financial risk only for those who can get into a top 30-or-so school *and* do well enough to finish at least in the top half.
When CUNY has a law school, you know there is trouble in River City.
I saw 30 years ago there were WAY too many new lawyers. Couple that with the fact that the Bar Exam is much more lenient, everyone passes, and it's an employment disaster.
These kids who have over $100K in law school debt are nuts. They'll be collecting Social Security before that is paid off.
I saw 30 years ago there were WAY too many new lawyers. Couple that with the fact that the Bar Exam is much more lenient, everyone passes, and it's an employment disaster.
These kids who have over $100K in law school debt are nuts. They'll be collecting Social Security before that is paid off.
7
Law school debt funded by federal loans has a 'forgiveness' clause, after a certain number of years, the balance on the loan is forgiven. Then, the real pain begins: the IRS comes in to collect its share, as the forgiven loan amount is taxable as income.
Nothing is safe from the IRS: one's home, one's car, everything can be seized to satisfy what they are owed.
For older students who wanted to work but who were passed over by a competitive market, this amounts to a life shattering event, as home and transportation is lost in life's frailest moments of old age, and the senior is left with nothing.
Perhaps my law school will allow me to sleep on the floor in the library in really bad weather, after I've lost everything in a few years?
Nothing is safe from the IRS: one's home, one's car, everything can be seized to satisfy what they are owed.
For older students who wanted to work but who were passed over by a competitive market, this amounts to a life shattering event, as home and transportation is lost in life's frailest moments of old age, and the senior is left with nothing.
Perhaps my law school will allow me to sleep on the floor in the library in really bad weather, after I've lost everything in a few years?
15
That is theoretical. The Obama "loan forgiveness" (after 20 years) is new, and it does not apply to those who already have loans with different terms. Since it just started, NOBODY could possibly qualify. It is unclear what the IRS will actually do to someone who defaults after 20 years, with (say) $100K left on their law school loans -- undoubtedly by then, we will be facing a crisis of unpaid college loans.
Assuming if you can't pay, you are fairly poor -- it is unlikely the IRS is going to come seize your house or car. And I believe that Social Security is immune from garnishment for such purposes, as are most pensions.
Assuming if you can't pay, you are fairly poor -- it is unlikely the IRS is going to come seize your house or car. And I believe that Social Security is immune from garnishment for such purposes, as are most pensions.
Concerned Citizen:
Previous loans have that same 'loan forgiveness' clause, so no, this is not theoretical.
And relying on the warm fuzzies of the IRS? Really?
Previous loans have that same 'loan forgiveness' clause, so no, this is not theoretical.
And relying on the warm fuzzies of the IRS? Really?
1
Since the out of work lawyers have their law degrees, perhaps they should all sue their law schools.
Make the law schools honestly report hiring statistics and then if you are foolish enough to sign up for a degree with one of the fly by night schools, it's your own problem, although, lawyers do tend to claim that every hiccup in life is someone else's fault.
Make the law schools honestly report hiring statistics and then if you are foolish enough to sign up for a degree with one of the fly by night schools, it's your own problem, although, lawyers do tend to claim that every hiccup in life is someone else's fault.
6
In the classrooms law schools teach and in the admissions office law schools sell hope. There is a really great market for hope.
7
The short answer is that there are too many law schools. The bottom tier should be culled.
147
Great idea. Who's going to do the culling?
5
The people who hand out federally-subsidized government loans. They can defund law schools by not providing any federal loans at underperforming schools.
2
I think 20% of all lawyers should be culled annually.
3
I just talked to a friend's son who is a recent graduate of a solid law school.He reported that many classmates do not have jobs, and those that do are making on average $40,000 per year....exactly what I made as a new attorney in 1986.But I had no loans, thanks to inexpensive,excellent public university legal education.I am grateful for that education which has served me well,first as a practicing attorney and later as a not for profit executive.Notwithstanding, today, with the excessive costs and poor job prospects, I would choose differently.
150
Any person who got themselves $88,000 in debt in a public university, when the average tuition is half that (in New York, it is $7000 a year) is too dumb to be a lawyer.
1
How about putting our education dollars into training Americans to do PRODUCTIVE work. More lawyers equals more wasteful litigation and increased insurance premiums, which means higher costs for nearly everything.
74
30 years ago when I was in law school I asked my advisor if he thought there were too many lawyers. He said no, "there are not enough good lawyers." I think that is true today. The demand and need are there, but much more is going on. I'm not disputing the over-supply of law graduates. I point to other problems such as tort reform or rather deform, anti-justice "deregulation" such as destruction of 7th Amendment rights, and other policies favoring wealthy interests such as bankruptcy "reform" and the unjust drug war that has clogged the courts for over 30 years.
22
This is problem is not unique to law school. It is prevalent in almost every field except perhaps medical school where they have capped admittance. (However you do see it with all of the Caribbean medical schools catering to American students).
Regardless of field, as we significantly ramp enrollment there comes a time when you dilute the brand. 50 years ago only the best if the best could get into law school. Now, fairly average prople get in to all except the elite schools. Same with MBA and other similar degrees.
Nowhere is this worse than undergraduate programs. I've met college graduates who could not read. Literally
But even if the quality of graduate remained the same the simple fact is that we can't all be doctors and lawyers and business executives and STEM whiz kids. We also need teachers and social workers and policy officers and secretaries and janitors and garbage men and so on.
This is one reason why income inequality is so perverse. It makes life all about winning the jackpot or starving, so that everybody chases the same jobs and only a few survive. People go after money only instead of where their interests and talents lie.
Unfortunately as we continue to overpopulate we will see the trend of too many people chasing too few jobs worsen. Especially as automation continues to replace humans
Regardless of field, as we significantly ramp enrollment there comes a time when you dilute the brand. 50 years ago only the best if the best could get into law school. Now, fairly average prople get in to all except the elite schools. Same with MBA and other similar degrees.
Nowhere is this worse than undergraduate programs. I've met college graduates who could not read. Literally
But even if the quality of graduate remained the same the simple fact is that we can't all be doctors and lawyers and business executives and STEM whiz kids. We also need teachers and social workers and policy officers and secretaries and janitors and garbage men and so on.
This is one reason why income inequality is so perverse. It makes life all about winning the jackpot or starving, so that everybody chases the same jobs and only a few survive. People go after money only instead of where their interests and talents lie.
Unfortunately as we continue to overpopulate we will see the trend of too many people chasing too few jobs worsen. Especially as automation continues to replace humans
305
Spot on comment except for the fact that they are increasing medical school enrollment at US schools but not increasing residency spots. The ultimate goal of course is to have only US grads fill all residency slots and none left for foreign medical grads and US citizen grads of foreign schools. Young people...if you cannot get into a US accredited allopathic medical school, do not bother to try to become a doctor. Passion without ability still doesn't pay the bills.
5
"Garbage men" and "janitors" are rather condescending terms to use. I would have preferred to read "sanitation workers" or "maintenance employees." We can't encourage young people to go into these professions if we use the terms you did in your comment.
I disagree that the main issue is overpopulation. Overpopulation can be solved by creating adequate economic opportunity, health security and retirement security. The reason everyone chases the same few opportunities is that the labor-intensive jobs aren't paid properly and don't get proper healthcare or benefits. You can't retire securely after being a garbageman 40 years. Why would anyone want to become one?
Too many incompetent and crooked lawyers. Too many dumb lawyers. Too many lazy lawyers. What I saw decades ago, back when too few women and blacks were allowed into law schools and were able to get jobs. Now that there are many women and blacks in the legal profession, unfortunately some of them fit into the foregoing categories of what used to be 99% white male lawyers. And some of the categories overlap. The worst being a crooked and smart lawyer.
We need more honest and smart and competent lawyers rolled into one.
We need more honest and smart and competent lawyers rolled into one.
2
Read the first paragraph carefully. If it means what it says, you can skip the rest of the article:
"TEN months after graduation, only 60 percent of the law school class of 2014 had found full-time long-term jobs that required them to pass the bar exam."
In California, less than 65% of law school graduates pass the bar within 10 months of graduation. Until they get their bar certificates, they seldom get jobs that require them to pass the bar. Assuming a similar passage rate for all the other states, law school graduates who have passed the bar are pretty much fully employed and everything else that follows here is nonsense.
"TEN months after graduation, only 60 percent of the law school class of 2014 had found full-time long-term jobs that required them to pass the bar exam."
In California, less than 65% of law school graduates pass the bar within 10 months of graduation. Until they get their bar certificates, they seldom get jobs that require them to pass the bar. Assuming a similar passage rate for all the other states, law school graduates who have passed the bar are pretty much fully employed and everything else that follows here is nonsense.
24
Since you are so sure, I wonder--where is the data to support your position?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
3
Michjas misunderstands the situation. The sentence in question simply refers to employment that requires law school grads to gain admission to the bar, whether before of after they are hired. Law school grads hired directly out of law school -- not yet having passed their state bar exam -- are expected to pass the exam within the first two or three tries in order to function as practicing attorneys and keep their jobs. Many others do not find employment, either upon graduation or after having been admitted to the bar. Other practicing attorneys who have law jobs and lose them have difficulty finding new employment. Both employment prospects and law school debt are far worse for new law grads and young lawyers today than when I graduated law school in 1980.
1
That first paragraph does not really clarify the process. Law school graduates are often hired having not passed the bar on condition that they pass the bar by a date certain, usually within a year. The conditional hire gives law graduates about two attempts to pass the bar before they are fired for failure pass the bar. A better analysis would examine the number of recent graduates who have not found work despite having passed a state bar examination. I can tell you from personal experience in New York in the early 1980s that there are more lawyers (not just JDs) who are unemployed or under-employed than you might think. The big difference is that an actual lawyer can always hang out a shingle, as we say, and start her own practice, but someone with only a JD is unlicensed and cannot practice law. Large corporate law firms essentially employ law graduates as highly paid interns until they pass the bar. In plain English, what the author should have said is that there are not enough lucrative internships for recent law graduates who are not yet licensed to practice law.
3
The impulse is strong to say, oh please, stop piling on, not another column unmasking the shell games of legal education. But debunking this Task Force Report is necessary. After the prior ABA Task Force Report, on the "future of legal education," which was quite hard-hitting and candid -- going so far as to speak the unsayable truth that law school faculty need to shift to far more intensive and demanding work than they have been accustomed to -- this Report is a massive disappointment, regurgitating vague generalities that do not at all address the realities described by Prof. Harper. It does seem inexplicable that Dennis Archer's position with Infilaw did not disqualify him from chairing this endeavor, and very troubling that the House of Delegates would approve these essentially cosmetic recommendations.
92
Obama shut down for profits for the same stuff. What's the difference? Oh, they're Democrat constituents
5
The ABA created the task force. Last time I checked, President Obama didn't control the ABA. And how do we know that Mr. Archer is a Democratic constituent? All lawyers are Democrats? I doubt that.
5