Law Schools’ Applications Fall as Costs Rise and Jobs Are Cut

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31....html?_r=0

As of this month, there were 30,000 applicants to law schools for the fall, a 20 percent decrease from the same time last year and a 38 percent decline from 2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. Of some 200 law schools nationwide, only 4 have seen increases in applications this year. In 2004 there were 100,000 applicants to law schools; this year there are likely to be 54,000.

Mr. Tamanaha of Washington University said the rise in tuition and debt was central to the decrease in applications. In 2001, he said, the average tuition for private law school was $23,000; in 2012 it was $40,500 (for public law schools the figures were $8,500 and $23,600). He said that 90 percent of law students finance their education by taking on debt. And among private law school graduates, the average debt in 2001 was $70,000; in 2011 it was $125,000.






Supply and Demand at its finest. The government education industry complex has spent a great deal of time suckling on government.

About F'ing time. I for one am glad these kids are realizing they don't need a law degree to wait tables as realistically that's the only type of job many of them will be able to get when they get out.

With the huge glut of lawyers currently not practicing it's going to be a number of years before there is demand for them again.

Quote from Krazen1211 : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31....html?_r=0 As of this month, there were 30,000 applicants to law schools for the fall, a 20 percent decrease from the same time last year and a 38 percent decline from 2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. Of some 200 law schools nationwide, only 4 have seen increases in applications this year. In 2004 there were 100,000 applicants to law schools; this year there are likely to be 54,000. Mr. Tamanaha of Washington University said the rise in tuition and debt was central to the decrease in applications. In 2001, he said, the average tuition for private law school was $23,000; in 2012 it was $40,500 (for public law schools the figures were $8,500 and $23,600). He said that 90 percent of law students finance their education by taking on debt. And among private law school graduates, the average debt in 2001 was $70,000; in 2011 it was $125,000. Supply and Demand at its finest. The government education industry complex has spent a great deal of time suckling on government.

Cool--Professor Tamanaha was my Torts professor in law school. Nice guy, great prof. and his exam was a bitch (I STILL remember it pretty well---2-3 legal pages single spaced fact pattern of the craziest clusterfuk of a situation i've ever read with one question at the end).

I do my part in dissuading any one from entering the practice of law. There are FAR too many lawyers and for many, the pay isn't anywhere near what the public thinks.

I know you guys all like to rip on lawyers and often for good reason. But most only know about the prick ambulance chasers. That is such a small part of the practice of law. There are just as many pricks on the business side.

This country won't rebound until people start going to school to learn a needed skill and not simply to earn a credential. Students that get bullshit poli sci, psychology, philosophy, etc degrees should not be surprised when they cannot differentiate themselves in the job market. Even general management degrees are largely worthless. Engineering, technology, healthcare are where all the jobs are...

what about stuff like plumbers, roofers, electricians, heating and air, etc, etc? this stuff is always needed and i see a lot of those guys making more than people with college degrees. however, i never had anyone steer me in that direction. if that was your plan, it was kinda like you were a redneck failure whereas the kid planning on going to university to major in psycholog or english (while racking up a lot of debt) was "going places". imo, college gets way overrated and is needlessly considered a necessity by teachers and parents.

Quote from eddiehaskell : what about stuff like plumbers, roofers, electricians, heating and air, etc, etc? this stuff is always needed and i see a lot of those guys making more than people with college degrees. however, i never had anyone steer me in that direction. if that was your plan, it was kinda like you were a redneck failure whereas the kid planning on going to university to major in psycholog or english (while racking up a lot of debt) was "going places". imo, college gets way overrated and is needlessly considered a necessity by teachers and parents.

Most people are followers by nature, and tech school is fine for them. Some people are born to lead, and those people go to college.

Quote from gunnerusa : Most people are followers by nature, and tech school is fine for them. Some people are born to lead, and those people go to college.

This is the biggest crock I think I've seen you write on the podium.

Quote from Danman114 : This is the biggest crock I think I've seen you write on the podium.

How many plumbers become CEOs?

Quote from gunnerusa : How many plumbers become CEOs?

Lots. I would think there are more plumber entrepreneurs that start their own business than what you find from the typical undergrad 'business' programs.

Quote from Danman114 : Lots. I would think there are more plumber entrepreneurs that start their own business than what you find from the typical undergrad 'business' programs.

An entrepreneur is not a CEO.

If a guy owns and operates his own hot dog wagon, can he call himself a CEO?

Quote from gunnerusa : Most people are followers by nature, and tech school is fine for them. Some people are born to lead, and those people go to college.

Meh

Society tells everyone that they must go to college. High school counselors tell students they must go to college, and parents reinforce it. Hence, college has become more about the "life experience" than an education, and schools are more than happy to use gushing financial aid money to bulk up campuses with stuff that's inconsequential to academics (bowling alleys, super gym facilities, food courts that rival shopping malls, etc). These students aren't up to par with those that can truly gain from a solid education, so they wind up getting degrees (in 5-6 years rather than 4, btw, which increases their costs by 25-50%) in various hollow fields like "business" "arts" or my favorite, "continuing education".

Of course, now that this has been going on for so long, there are lots of people with a credential (degree) working in jobs that don't need or use the degree skills. So, employers have the option to become pickier about who they accept - do you want someone with a degree (even if it has zero to do with what you're hiring them for) or someone without? Thus the reinforcement cycle begins. Since getting a loan (mind you, most freshmen don't have a job, zero credit history, nothing for collateral, and no prospectus for a job for at least 4 years) is like falling off a log, a willing "student" can always find a college willing to take their money in return for a piece of paper.

College should be a cogent choice, not an assumed "continuing" of high school, e.g. grade 13. There is nothing wrong with going in the military or a trade school.

Quote from Dr. J : College should be a cogent choice, not an assumed "continuing" of high school, e.g. grade 13. There is nothing wrong with going in the military or a trade school.

Agreed, but that vision has been gutted under the guise of "fiscal discipline." The whole idea of the California Master Plan for Higher Education was to have a tiered system based on a person's interest in advanced education:

1. University of California: The top tier, which educated the best and the brightest--those who wanted to become leaders and had the brain power to make it happen.

2. California State University: Middle tier, educating those who needed some abstract education but who weren't going to lead the world. Teachers, accountants, loan officers, etc...

3. California Community Colleges: Lowest tier, educating those who wanted to learn specific trades while building them into good citizens with a very basic liberal arts education.

The whole thing was supposed to be tuition-free, so that students would choose based on their particular skills and desires. But then Reagan began a 40 year long process of gutting college budgets, so people began making choices based on the education they could afford to pay for or the job they thought would pay them the most on graduation, rather than on their own skill sets.

Lets just make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy cases.

That would make tuition drop like its hot.

Or inflated....

Quote from gunnerusa : Agreed, but that vision has been gutted under the guise of "fiscal discipline." The whole idea of the California Master Plan for Higher Education was to have a tiered system based on a person's interest in advanced education: 1. University of California: The top tier, which educated the best and the brightest--those who wanted to become leaders and had the brain power to make it happen. 2. California State University: Middle tier, educating those who needed some abstract education but who weren't going to lead the world. Teachers, accountants, loan officers, etc... 3. California Community Colleges: Lowest tier, educating those who wanted to learn specific trades while building them into good citizens with a very basic liberal arts education. The whole thing was supposed to be tuition-free, so that students would choose based on their particular skills and desires. But then Reagan began a 40 year long process of gutting college budgets, so people began making choices based on the education they could afford to pay for or the job they thought would pay them the most on graduation, rather than on their own skill sets.

many foreign countries have a tiered system. Problem is, if you don't do well on that single day when the standardized test is given, the rest of your life is in the toilet.

Main problem I see is that many kids want to go to college (and are prodded by their parents, HS teachers, etc) mainly because they don't know what they want to do, and are attracted by the independence. They will either just motor along.... 5 or 6 years later and get a worthless degree (but tons of $$ in loans), or drop out after a year or 2 and having nothing to show for the venture except loans.

We'd be much better served by, as I said, a cogent approach to life after HS - will one be served well by college? do your interests align with getting a degree - or something more manual? In the end it requires some personal responsibility.