Just saw this posted today and noted the sizable drop by the law school this year: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/the-official-2017-u-s-news-law-school-rankings-are-here/
I know the USNWR rankings can be highly volatile after the top 30 or so (and the criticisms of the methodology are valid and well documented), but does anyone have a sense for why the law school appears to be struggling in this respect. I was under the impression that the commonly-held view back when the law school fell out of the top 100 was that the new building would bump rankings, but it doesn't seem to have done the trick.
It's only a few years ago that they started putting numerical ranks on #s 101 and lower. We'd be an unranked, tier 3, school if they hadn't made the switch.
Not sure what is causing the drop, but it's probably either due to us not playing the ranking game or playing it poorly.
The ranking, while meaningless, is offensively bad. I want to say they were something like 88 when I started in 2009.
The Marquette Law School had a number of points deducted because of Ken Kratz
Quote from: keefe on March 16, 2016, 02:07:54 PM
The Marquette Law School had a number of points deducted because of Ken Kratz
And Rebecca Bradley... rough year for MULaw alumni.
Quote from: jficke13 on March 16, 2016, 01:44:03 PM
It's only a few years ago that they started putting numerical ranks on #s 101 and lower. We'd be an unranked, tier 3, school if they hadn't made the switch.
Not sure what is causing the drop, but it's probably either due to us not playing the ranking game or playing it poorly.
The ranking, while meaningless, is offensively bad. I want to say they were something like 88 when I started in 2009.
Ya out yet, hey?
USN&WR must not have a Scoop account; otherwise, MU's law school would be ranked somewhere around the University of American Samoa.
Quote from: Benny B on March 16, 2016, 02:42:31 PM
USN&WR must not have a Scoop account; otherwise, MU's law school would be ranked somewhere around the University of American Samoa.
That's a plus at least.
I've said before that either there need to be 50% fewer law schools or each law school needs to admit 50% fewer people.
Unfortunately, with UW ranked nearly 100 spots ahead of MU, it's pretty obvious which should survive in my 50% culling scenario. I find myself advocating for the closure of my alma mater.
Quote from: jficke13 on March 16, 2016, 03:05:13 PM
I've said before that either there need to be 50% fewer law schools or each law school needs to admit 50% fewer people.
Unfortunately, with UW ranked nearly 100 spots ahead of MU, it's pretty obvious which should survive in my 50% culling scenario. I find myself advocating for the closure of my alma mater.
We don't need fewer law schools (there are plenty of low income people who could use legal assistance) -- we need fewer law schools who charge their students 40k+ annually.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 16, 2016, 03:18:05 PM
We don't need fewer law schools (there are plenty of low income people who could use legal assistance) -- we need fewer law schools who charge their students 40k+ annually.
When we graduate twice as many new lawyers into the labor pool than there are jobs for those lawyers, then we need fewer lawyers. The fact that law schools charge an absurd amount is a wholly separate issue.
Quote from: jficke13 on March 16, 2016, 03:26:02 PM
When we graduate twice as many new lawyers into the labor pool than there are jobs for those lawyers, then we need fewer lawyers. The fact that law schools charge an absurd amount is a wholly separate issue.
I'm not a big fan of cartels -- I think the two issues are related. If you had law schools that charged significantly less, different/lower cost legal services models could become viable, thereby increasing job openings.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 16, 2016, 03:34:48 PM
I'm not a big fan of cartels -- I think the two issues are related. If you had law schools that charged significantly less, different/lower cost legal services models could become viable, thereby increasing job openings.
Well the ABA is a cartel and terrible at being one. By controlling the supply of lawyers, and setting the bar so low "checkbook and pulse" is virtually the only bar to entry, they have successfully diluted the economic value of having a law license to "occasionally above a bachelors, but usually below a bachelors."
Entrants to the legal workforce have no leverage because they are a fungible good that is oversupplied. Every new lawyer is equally unqualified to actually be a lawyer because law schools do no training of lawyering skills. So basically any recent graduate is equally useless compared to the next.
Employers can easily just say "you don't want to work for peanuts? Well that sucker will. Pound sand buddy and enjoy your barista job." Until the oversupply is reduced, employers will have little incentive to do anything but race to the bottom.
Furthermore, if each year's graduating class achieves an employment level of 50%, then the problem continues to compound, because the number of unemployed graduates goes up in a non-linear fashion.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 16, 2016, 03:34:48 PM
I'm not a big fan of cartels -- I think the two issues are related. If you had law schools that charged significantly less, different/lower cost legal services models could become viable, thereby increasing job openings.
Regarding the justice gap issue: I'm not sure that cheap tuition is the solution. Debt may price some people out of doing legal aid work, but a $30k legal aid salary with no debt and a $30k legal aid salary with deferred debt that will be forgiven in 10 years is functionally the same. You need a person willing to be a lawyer with a very low salary.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 16, 2016, 02:33:27 PM
And Rebecca Bradley... rough year for MULaw alumni.
You must be a urinalist for the Milwaukee Journal Enquirer.
No one wants to be a lawyer anymore. It is the professional equivalent of being a smoker.
The Downfall of Law School? What Current Enrollment Trends Mean
Nov 12, 2015
https://www.noodle.com/articles/is-law-school-enrollment-still-dropping-the-latest-trends
According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the total number of enrolled law students dropped by around 9,000 between 2013 and 2014 (from 128,710 to 119,775). In 2014, almost two-thirds of the 203 accredited law schools reported that their first-year classes were smaller than they had been in 2013. In fact, 64 of these 203 schools saw their numbers of entering students drop by more than 10 percent. (On the other hand, 69 schools increased the size of their first-year classes between 2013 and 2014.)
About 43,500 students were admitted to accredited schools for the 2014–2015 school year. By contrast, a whopping 60,400 were admitted in fall 2010. That's a drop of 28 percent in these five years.
ABA-accredited schools received more than 604,000 applications for admission for the fall of 2010. That number fell to 355,000 by fall 2014. According to the Law School Admissions Council, prospective students took the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) a record 171,514 times for the 2009–2010 school year. But subsequently, this figure fell each year through 2014–2015, when it was taken only 101,689 times — a decline of more than 40 percent. The drop was continuous in that period, too; each year's figure was smaller than the year before.
Why are these shifts occurring?
Since I get yelled at for posting entire articles here, you have to go to the link to finish, above is less than 10% of the article.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 16, 2016, 09:03:15 PM
No one wants to be a lawyer anymore. It is the professional equivalent of being a smoker.
[...]
What is happening is that two persistent myths about being a lawyer are becoming debunked to people before they go to law school.
Myth 1. A law degree is versatile! You can do anything with one.
Truth 1. A law degree is a professional degree that exists exclusively to enable you to sit for the bar exam/acquire a law license, which is only valuable to practice law. All of those things you can do with a law degree that don't aren't "be a lawyer" you can do without a law degree.
Myth 2. Being a lawyer is a well-paid stable job. It's a ticket to the upper-middle class at worst and the upper class at best.
Truth 2. The payscale for lawyers is bimodal. There are a few extremely (top 10% of MULS' class) well paying jobs in big law firms that have a starting salary of $125k (in Milwaukee, in NYC, DC, and San Fran it starts at $160k). Then the remainder of jobs start at about $50k (or worse). Three years of debt and opportunity cost in lost salary and career advancement all for a $50k/year job is a far cry from what most people think of when they think "lawyer." However, now people know a law degree is a lottery ticket where the winners get the job they imagine, 40% or so get a job that pays about what they could have made had they gone to work for GE or any corporation after their bachelor's, and the remaining 50% get unemployment. Understandably, fewer suckers are lining up for those odds.
Wait just one minute!
I thought a man could get a law degree and start charging people $500 an hour because they don't know how to keep their mouths shut!
Hell, Rocket and 4ever make more getting people to open wide!
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 16, 2016, 02:33:27 PM
And Rebecca Bradley... rough year for MULaw alumni.
Bradley is a UW Law grad...class of '96. Having said that, we'd be honored to consider her one of our own :D
Quote from: jficke13 on March 16, 2016, 10:47:20 PM
What is happening is that two persistent myths about being a lawyer are becoming debunked to people before they go to law school.
Myth 1. A law degree is versatile! You can do anything with one.
Truth 1. A law degree is a professional degree that exists exclusively to enable you to sit for the bar exam/acquire a law license, which is only valuable to practice law. All of those things you can do with a law degree that don't aren't "be a lawyer" you can do without a law degree.
Myth 2. Being a lawyer is a well-paid stable job. It's a ticket to the upper-middle class at worst and the upper class at best.
Truth 2. The payscale for lawyers is bimodal. There are a few extremely (top 10% of MULS' class) well paying jobs in big law firms that have a starting salary of $125k (in Milwaukee, in NYC, DC, and San Fran it starts at $160k). Then the remainder of jobs start at about $50k (or worse). Three years of debt and opportunity cost in lost salary and career advancement all for a $50k/year job is a far cry from what most people think of when they think "lawyer." However, now people know a law degree is a lottery ticket where the winners get the job they imagine, 40% or so get a job that pays about what they could have made had they gone to work for GE or any corporation after their bachelor's, and the remaining 50% get unemployment. Understandably, fewer suckers are lining up for those odds.
Very well said.
To be honest though, you could say the same thing about MBAs, and to a lesser extent, bachelor's degrees. Like a JD, they are often viewed as being some sort of automatic "ticket" to a certain lifestyle. That causes more people to pursue them, more schools to open or expand, and more supply filling the market. Just like many recently-minted lawyers I know who are taking jobs as paralegals and low-level administrators, there are plenty of MBAs and BS/BAs who are finding that their golden ticket isn't so golden.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 17, 2016, 08:22:25 AM
Very well said.
To be honest though, you could say the same thing about MBAs, and to a lesser extent, bachelor's degrees. Like a JD, they are often viewed as being some sort of automatic "ticket" to a certain lifestyle. That causes more people to pursue them, more schools to open or expand, and more supply filling the market. Just like many recently-minted lawyers I know who are taking jobs as paralegals and low-level administrators, there are plenty of MBAs and BS/BAs who are finding that their golden ticket isn't so golden.
Bad example.
Take a cross-section of an MBA class sometime... not every one of them was a "business" major in undergrad or currently works in accounting, finance, marketing, mgmt (i.e. a Bus Ad field). My MBA class was full of engineers, designers, civil servants, etc., as I'm sure is the case in many law schools.
The difference between a JD and MBA is that the engineers plan to go back to engineering after receiving their MBA. The civil servants plan to go back to civil servitude. The accountants plan to go back to accounting. If any of these people go to law school, they're not taking that knowledge back to their old profession, they plan on being lawyers when they enroll in law school.
In other words, a JD is typically sought by those seeking a new career path. An MBA is typically sought by those looking to augment and improve their current career.
And a bachelors is simply a general admission ticket... it gets you in the door, but you don't get a seat anywhere.
Quote from: Benny B on March 17, 2016, 09:37:59 AM
Bad example.
Take a cross-section of an MBA class sometime... not every one of them was a "business" major in undergrad or currently works in accounting, finance, marketing, mgmt (i.e. a Bus Ad field). My MBA class was full of engineers, designers, civil servants, etc., as I'm sure is the case in many law schools.
The difference between a JD and MBA is that the engineers plan to go back to engineering after receiving their MBA. The civil servants plan to go back to civil servitude. The accountants plan to go back to accounting. If any of these people go to law school, they're not taking that knowledge back to their old profession, they plan on being lawyers when they enroll in law school.
In other words, a JD is typically sought by those seeking a new career path. An MBA is typically sought by those looking to augment and improve their current career.
And a bachelors is simply a general admission ticket... it gets you in the door, but you don't get a seat anywhere.
Actually, no. The "typical" JD candidate - to the extent there is one - is doing exactly what you state the typical MBA candidate is doing: Augmenting and improving their current career. The only difference is that the current "career" for many JD candidates is being a student...with lawyer being the end game all along.
The problem with MBAs now is that every college has one so there is little value if you have the degree from 90% of them. I mean...
http://www.alverno.edu/mba/
http://www.mtmary.edu/majors-programs/graduate/mba/
http://www.carrollu.edu/gradprograms/mba/
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 17, 2016, 10:16:39 AM
The problem with MBAs now is that every college has one so there is little value if you have the degree from 90% of them. I mean...
http://www.alverno.edu/mba/
http://www.mtmary.edu/majors-programs/graduate/mba/
http://www.carrollu.edu/gradprograms/mba/
Those often still have value for people looking to climb at their own company (certain places only, obviously). It's also a degree more likely to be paid for by someone other than the student.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 17, 2016, 10:04:59 AM
Actually, no. The "typical" JD candidate - to the extent there is one - is doing exactly what you state the typical MBA candidate is doing: Augmenting and improving their current career. The only difference is that the current "career" for many JD candidates is being a student...with lawyer being the end game all along.
Being a student isn't a career, but even if it was, "student" and "lawyer" are not synonymous and you can't be a lawyer until you graduate law school (and pass the bar); you can run a business whether you have a college degree or not.
In any event, a student who is going to law school is doing exactly what I said earlier: seeking a new career.
The other difference, as you said, is that the vast majority (perhaps >90%) of JD candidates go straight from undergrad into law school... undergrads who go straight to MBA - unless on a PhD track - are extremely rare; in fact, most top MBA programs now require two years of working experience before they'll allow you to enroll.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 17, 2016, 10:16:39 AM
The problem with MBAs now is that every college has one so there is little value if you have the degree from 90% of them. I mean...
http://www.alverno.edu/mba/
http://www.mtmary.edu/majors-programs/graduate/mba/
http://www.carrollu.edu/gradprograms/mba/
Isn't this true of bachelor's degrees as well? No degree is a ticket to anything. Heck, you can get a ticket without a degree, but it sure is a lot more simple with one.
In the 25-45 age cohort, less than 19% hold a bachelor's degree, just over 7% have a master's degree and under 3% have a doctoral or professional degree. Moving up the scale makes you a rarer commodity among the general population but not necessarily in your profession. A JD is good for one thing: being a lawyer; an MBA is way more versatile and sought for much different reasons than a JD. I'm not saying one is better than the other, because value is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that if you're a schmo to begin with, it doesn't matter what letters are behind that dusty picture frame (it just so happens that schmoes have a natural tendency to seek JD's for some reason).
Quote from: Benny B on March 17, 2016, 11:20:47 AM
Being a student isn't a career, but even if it was, "student" and "lawyer" are not synonymous and you can't be a lawyer until you graduate law school (and pass the bar); you can run a business whether you have a college degree or not.
In any event, a student who is going to law school is doing exactly what I said earlier: seeking a new career.
The other difference, as you said, is that the vast majority (perhaps >90%) of JD candidates go straight from undergrad into law school... undergrads who go straight to MBA - unless on a PhD track - are extremely rare; in fact, most top MBA programs now require two years of working experience before they'll allow you to enroll.
Isn't this true of bachelor's degrees as well? No degree is a ticket to anything. Heck, you can get a ticket without a degree, but it sure is a lot more simple with one.
In the 25-45 age cohort, less than 19% hold a bachelor's degree, just over 7% have a master's degree and under 3% have a doctoral or professional degree. Moving up the scale makes you a rarer commodity among the general population but not necessarily in your profession. A JD is good for one thing: being a lawyer; an MBA is way more versatile and sought for much different reasons than a JD. I'm not saying one is better than the other, because value is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that if you're a schmo to begin with, it doesn't matter what letters are behind that dusty picture frame (it just so happens that schmoes have a natural tendency to seek JD's for some reason).
Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
My belief is simple: There are too many JD programs/slots and too many people who erroneously think a JD is a magical path to riches. There are too many MBA programs/slots and too may people who erroneously think an MBA is a magical path to riches. And many on both pathways are on their way to disappointment.
The minor differences you raise, IMO, are just background noise.
Bear in mind that the better the law school you go to, the better the odds on your lottery ticket become. While less than 10% of my graduating class at MULS got "biglaw" jobs, that percentage is much much higher in Yale's graduating class. When I talk to people considering law school I tell them to take the LSAT and apply; if they get into Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, I say go. If not, then you either better know for sure that you want to be a lawyer and have the inside track on getting a job as one (dad's a partner or some such), or you better not be the one paying for the degree.
Weirdly enough, MULS is nowhere near the price of some schools that are objectively far worse. I guess that's one thing that it has going for it?
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 17, 2016, 11:31:51 AM
Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.
My belief is simple: There are too many JD programs/slots and too many people who erroneously think a JD is a magical path to riches. There are too many MBA programs/slots and too may people who erroneously think an MBA is a magical path to riches. And many on both pathways are on their way to disappointment.
The minor differences you raise, IMO, are just background noise.
Welcome to the world of degree creep. Undergraduate degrees no longer differentiate candidates so now advanced degrees are required. There are too many JDs in the world so what job a JD is willing to do(floor) has decreased, which devalues the degree over all as well.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on March 17, 2016, 10:16:39 AM
The problem with MBAs now is that every college has one so there is little value if you have the degree from 90% of them. I mean...
http://www.alverno.edu/mba/
http://www.mtmary.edu/majors-programs/graduate/mba/
http://www.carrollu.edu/gradprograms/mba/
Thank God my MBA from University of Phoenix has escaped your scorn and ridicule!
Quote from: mu03eng on March 17, 2016, 12:29:29 PM
[...]
There are too many JDs in the world so what job a JD is willing to do(floor) has decreased, which devalues the degree over all as well.
We haven't even discussed the secular changes to the way legal work is being performed and the seismic post-2008 change in what clients are willing to pay for.
The days of clients paying $250+/hr for 1st year associates to review documents is over... so now firms can support fewer 1st year associate positions. Plus, with doc review outsourcing firms, the firm can get the work done for cheaper. Not to mention the fact that computer-assisted review (think IBM's Watson) stands a decent chance of completely taking over all the grunt doc review/due diligence work, which will eliminate even more young associate jobs.
The industry is getting more lean, which is a good thing for everyone not trying to be a lawyer.
People are getting into the 2L year and realizing that the corporate law jobs are simply not available to them, and then before they know it, they're in the deathmatch race to the bottom for a job working for a bankruptcy mill like Geraci, or coming on as some solo or two-man-shop's indentured servant.
True story, shortly after graduating, I interviewed with a two-attorney firm in Waukesha. The starting salary they offered was $29k. I didn't take that job, but someone from my class did. Somehow, I doubt it was what they had in mind when they went to MULS.
Quote from: jficke13 on March 17, 2016, 12:25:37 PM
Bear in mind that the better the law school you go to, the better the odds on your lottery ticket become. While less than 10% of my graduating class at MULS got "biglaw" jobs, that percentage is much much higher in Yale's graduating class. When I talk to people considering law school I tell them to take the LSAT and apply; if they get into Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, I say go. If not, then you either better know for sure that you want to be a lawyer and have the inside track on getting a job as one (dad's a partner or some such), or you better not be the one paying for the degree.
Weirdly enough, MULS is nowhere near the price of some schools that are objectively far worse. I guess that's one thing that it has going for it?
This is a critical point to remember. It isn't a blind lottery: the information is out there if you are a smart law school applicant. If you can go to a T-14 or alternatively, a T-50 with substantial scholarship, then law school can still be a sound financial proposition.
Problem most law school applicants are not realistic enough to look at it through an objective lens. And with many of the middle of the law school applicant pool deciding to forego law school, we are seeing more and more schools preying on the naive.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 17, 2016, 01:08:38 PM
This is a critical point to remember. It isn't a blind lottery: the information is out there if you are a smart law school applicant. If you can go to a T-14 or alternatively, a T-50 with substantial scholarship, then law school can still be a sound financial proposition.
Problem most law school applicants are not realistic enough to look at it through an objective lens. And with many of the middle of the law school applicant pool deciding to forego law school, we are seeing more and more schools preying on the naive.
Hence my belief that we should close 50% of the existing law schools. Besides, there are plenty of T50 grads thrust into the same middle-class-if-they're-lucky race because of the incredible oversupply of competition.
The ABA's role really should be to protect the value of the license for its members. They have abdicated that duty in the worst way to the life-ruining detriment of many of those it claims to represent.
Muttman said that he chose "The Law" because he has been able to save money on gym memberships...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gxSlzjACVCU/TUztYiG4BCI/AAAAAAAAAEU/D-mLWkXMr3A/s1600/Ambulance-Chaser-6934.jpg)
Quote from: jficke13 on March 17, 2016, 12:25:37 PM
Bear in mind that the better the law school you go to, the better the odds on your lottery ticket become. While less than 10% of my graduating class at MULS got "biglaw" jobs, that percentage is much much higher in Yale's graduating class. When I talk to people considering law school I tell them to take the LSAT and apply; if they get into Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, I say go. If not, then you either better know for sure that you want to be a lawyer and have the inside track on getting a job as one (dad's a partner or some such), or you better not be the one paying for the degree.
I'm not sure I'd limit it just to Harvard, Yale and Stanford, but the point is correct. My oldest daughter is considering law school, and has already decided that she won't apply to anything outside the top 20 or so.
The practical line is the top 14 law schools (usually Georgetown and better). If you go to one of those schools, you will be marketable to big firms even as an average or below-average student. Moving down to other schools in the top 20 (like Iowa), that's not true at all. I think your daughter's chances of getting a job at a big firm are much better going to Marquette than to Iowa. Yeah, Iowa is better, but it's much easier to be in the top 10% at Marquette than at Iowa. I'd much rather be job hunting as a Marquette student in the top 10% and on law review than an Iowa student in the top 25% and not on law review.
Quote from: Mug Rack on March 17, 2016, 06:30:44 PM
The practical line is the top 14 law schools (usually Georgetown and better). If you go to one of those schools, you will be marketable to big firms even as an average or below-average student. Moving down to other schools in the top 20 (like Iowa), that's not true at all. I think your daughter's chances of getting a job at a big firm are much better going to Marquette than to Iowa. Yeah, Iowa is better, but it's much easier to be in the top 10% at Marquette than at Iowa. I'd much rather be job hunting as a Marquette student in the top 10% and on law review than an Iowa student in the top 25% and not on law review.
Not so sure about that. From what I hear, even MULS law reviewers can have trouble finding gigs these days.
Quote from: Mug Rack on March 17, 2016, 06:30:44 PM
The practical line is the top 14 law schools (usually Georgetown and better). If you go to one of those schools, you will be marketable to big firms even as an average or below-average student. Moving down to other schools in the top 20 (like Iowa), that's not true at all. I think your daughter's chances of getting a job at a big firm are much better going to Marquette than to Iowa. Yeah, Iowa is better, but it's much easier to be in the top 10% at Marquette than at Iowa. I'd much rather be job hunting as a Marquette student in the top 10% and on law review than an Iowa student in the top 25% and not on law review.
If you're entire play is "where is it easier to be in the top 10%" you're thinking right, but aiming wrong. Law school is a set of rules you need to exploit, not an environment in which to learn. You absolutely should be thinking "what's the easiest A" and "what class won't have a mandatory curve," not "what will teach me the most," because no class will teach you anything useful anyway. You should be exploiting the system to give yourself the best shot at the top 10%, but I wouldn't drop 100 spots in the rankings just to be the smart kid in school. You might as well go to Cooley if you want to do that.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 17, 2016, 07:48:36 PM
Not so sure about that. From what I hear, even MULS law reviewers can have trouble finding gigs these days.
Agree with that, but also think the kid at Iowa in the top 25% and not on law review is having much trouble finding a big law gig. Pretty sure the Iowa kid is in worse shape. (Although if the Iowa kid is paying way less, that helps.)
Quote from: jficke13 on March 17, 2016, 09:54:21 PM
If you're entire play is "where is it easier to be in the top 10%" you're thinking right, but aiming wrong. Law school is a set of rules you need to exploit, not an environment in which to learn. You absolutely should be thinking "what's the easiest A" and "what class won't have a mandatory curve," not "what will teach me the most," because no class will teach you anything useful anyway. You should be exploiting the system to give yourself the best shot at the top 10%, but I wouldn't drop 100 spots in the rankings just to be the smart kid in school. You might as well go to Cooley if you want to do that.
Crafted as only an attorney could!
What is Cooley, by the way? The University of Phoenix of law schools?
So far I have read and steered clear of this, with reason. My experience was of another era and not relevant to an MU Law discussion. In the late 70s, I applied to 4 law schools...3 "top tier", ie.. in the top 50 (UW, UT, and UH)...and MU law, as it was my undergrad alma mater. All 4 quickly accepted me, ...I chose UH ( the UH choice was almost totally due to family and money issues—I paid for my own college and law school).... as even back then ....MU was sadly just a safety school.
Grading onto Law review (which was a simple matter of top 5%, after year one)...my job choices were easy, Houston was booming, and we were actually wined and dined to make our job picks. Big Firms would salary outbid each other and you could choose your practice area. Those were the days, my friend; we'd thought they'd never end... (good song- lol). I rode a very nice wave; but, that was anachronistic then, even more so today.
That era and world will never return, and so I'll set aside my historical reference....trying to instead stay hip to todays circumstances...which are brutal/impossible in comparison. By current example, my client's daughter was Cornell undergrad, NYU law top 10% JD...then, she came home to LLM in Energy (Oil & Gas) program at UH law ..the best ...and after completing all this , there were few job options...she is simply in house for the family's oil company. The same resume... in my time ....would have you on partner track at a big firm, big clients and very well paid. Let me then turn to todays climate, and the postings here.
I do agree with those saying you get a JD to be a lawyer. The rigorous study, the "thinking/analysis" methods learned are helpful elsewhere...but a JD is to lawyer...which is a fine profession. MBAs can be valued added in a huge range of fields, bringing better training, analysis and decision making to business. Both are worth getting, as any educational self-improvement will enrich your mind, which is far more valuable than the money.
Lawyering , however, is only a fine profession... if you have the right perspective and reasons, going in. There are tons of easier ways to make money, ...so money should never be key, or ever a major reason to become an attorney. Likewise... Those putting down the money of lawyering, are on the outside, often insistent they not be criticized for what they do or think , but plenty willing to put down other moccasins in which they have never trod. If you can't stand the Lawyer jokes/ insults, go choose a job based on others opinions and favorable view of you...even if you hate that work...at least people will like you...but wow,...that's pretty shallow....your self- respect can never come from the opinions of others .
Posters considering/about to become lawyers...just take that stuff in stride...its them not you...because.... At its essence it's a hard working service business ...you must first want to do this because you really like helping people. Very complex, intellectually challenging Problems/fights will be brought to you that regular folks haven't/cant solve...you are in a unique position of trust and responsibility to help steer them through our courts, or other systems, to follow the rules and to resolve the most difficult issues many face. It's a real high to learn to do this well. Any poster here that want to/are considering do this...should be encouraged....but mainly and only if they go into it with this view.
I haven't a clue on the MU Law situation. One could note an easy Scooper parallel...Great professors (who get the big $$, tenure, publishing etc), and great law programs are built with lots of tradition and vast resources. MU law is kind of a mid major, at best. That's Ok but the new economic brutalities of law have rendered school rank more key than before...but yes a TRUE excellent top grad can excel and succeed from many beginnings, including MU Law. MU Law serves a valuable role..it merits support and improvement...and its grads should get access to join the profession.
When you are first out ....make certain you get the best experience, mentoring, exposure you can ....learn from the best....if the posting on the 28k job offer included great lawyers and all these pluses...it was worth taking. A 2-10K better offer lacking these ingredients is a worse job...in the long run for your skills/career. Learn you craft...the money will follow your dedication, skill, and hard work...Its not easy money, ever. Dont think it will be.
I capped TRUE in the ppf above to note something. At top 10 law schools recruiters aren't given rank or transcripts; the "presumption" being that if you are here you are automatically skilled/hard working and capable of handling the work offered. The further down the tiers...the opposite becomes true. Law review, class rank, grade transcripts are more key as the admissions, reputation, and competition are becoming diluted. Therefore ...I have a huge problem with the poster seeking to scam class rank with easy A's/ manipulation of rank....thats BS. Character revealed. You should try the hardest work, the most competition and most challenging things in school...as lawyering will be even harder. Cutting a corner now means you may cut one as a lawyer. Don't do it. You do realize recruiters want your transcript and any suspicion of easy A's is far worse than a C in an uber difficult upper level course. At UH law we had an enforced 75 median grade point average....it prevented easy A's and possible BS in our rankings. Recruiters knew my 93 really meant something....no such thing as an easy A or B....this school rose in the national rankings due, in part, to its take no prisoners grading policy (...even if it destroyed many of our egos who had been used to straight A's-lol).
I agree with those posting of the overpopulation and over production of JDs....but would never revert to the AMA system of high control of numbers of students and doctors, which almost artificially drives up doctor income and the costs to consumers..heck lawyers WISH there was insurance, like doctors, to pay fees. Lol . One of the reasons you like doctors better than lawyers is someone else pays them... we have to go straight for your own income pocketbook for our fees...ouch...damn lawyers. Lol
I don't think we need to intentionally act to reduce JD production....the market and competition takes care of only the best succeeding, and always will. However, I wouldn't mind a bunch of the bottom schools shuttering forever...almost like online colleges...they are increasingly selling a pipe dream of graduation success. A starting point is closing every unranked school on the list.
Yes, I agree the industry is generally leaner than ever before ( I still remember the inefficiency of carbon paper....a full day to get out one pleading). Our courts are leaner...we file pdfs by email....rows of filing cabinets and paper are gone. Because of our process, formalities and fairness rules, the system will always be too complex and not easily or cheaply accessed by most regular people...but its getting better..not worse...something most industry here in the USA cant say. We need service committed youth to keep replenishing and improving our profession.
PS Oh yes...also....Get a great secretary...my personal typing and proofing of posts here is not of the perfect standards expected of lawyers/judges.
Quote from: jficke13 on March 16, 2016, 03:05:13 PM
I've said before that either there need to be 50% fewer law schools or each law school needs to admit 50% fewer people.
Unfortunately, with UW ranked nearly 100 spots ahead of MU, it's pretty obvious which should survive in my 50% culling scenario. I find myself advocating for the closure of my alma mater.
There probably need to be fewer law schools in the United States. I agree with you there.
But looking at Wisconsin, I think its about right. 2 law schools for a state our size seems right. Compare with the number law schools in Illinois (9) or Michigan (6) or Indiana (4), especially ones ranked outside of the Top 100.
Looking at it by state is especially important, given the tie-in MU and UW Law Schools have with the Wisconsin Bar.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 04:54:25 AM
By current example, my client's daughter was Cornell undergrad, NYU law top 10% JD...then, she came home to LLM in Energy (Oil & Gas) program at UH law ..the best ...and after completing all this , there were few job options...she is simply in house for the family's oil company. The same resume... in my time ....would have you on partner track at a big firm, big clients and very well paid. Let me then turn to todays climate, and the postings here.
Okay... no offense, but your client is feeding you a steaming pile of sh*t. The market is bad, but it isn't that bad. An honors NYU grad with connections in the oil and gas industry is not going to be struggling for job options at big firms. You sure she didn't go to New York Law School? Was she capable of stringing together words into complete sentences during OCI?
Quote from: Coleman on March 18, 2016, 09:45:10 AM
There probably need to be fewer law schools in the United States. I agree with you there.
But looking at Wisconsin, I think its about right. 2 law schools for a state our size seems right. Compare with the number law schools in Illinois (9) or Michigan (6) or Indiana (4), especially ones ranked outside of the Top 100.
Looking at it by state is especially important, given the tie-in MU and UW Law Schools have with the Wisconsin Bar.
The idea that MU and UW are both good schools is the sales pitch that makes diploma privilege work. I buy the idea that a state of Wisconsin's size benefits from having two law schools. In reality, however, when the graduating classes of those schools are double the number of entry level lawyer jobs, then we have too much educational capacity for the size of our market.
The fact that Wisconsin is closer to having the right amount of educational capacity compared to a state like Michigan doesn't make Wisconsin good, it just illustrates how much worse it could be.
Also, if the cut off is "schools outside the top 100," well... MULS would have a distinct pot/kettle problem.
Quote from: jficke13 on March 18, 2016, 10:34:41 AM
The idea that MU and UW are both good schools is the sales pitch that makes diploma privilege work. I buy the idea that a state of Wisconsin's size benefits from having two law schools. In reality, however, when the graduating classes of those schools are double the number of entry level lawyer jobs, then we have too much educational capacity for the size of our market.
The fact that Wisconsin is closer to having the right amount of educational capacity compared to a state like Michigan doesn't make Wisconsin good, it just illustrates how much worse it could be.
Also, if the cut off is "schools outside the top 100," well... MULS would have a distinct pot/kettle problem.
Perhaps the problem is not only that there are too many schools (which there admittedly are), but also that schools are admitting too many applicants.
If MU and UW decreased class sizes by 25-50%, that would relieve the pressure of new applicants on the job market, and also remove the lowest-qualified folks, who are most likely to remain unemployed or underemployed (and probably boost MULS's rankings as well).
Of course, how do you force a school to do this, when it basically means giving up free revenue? Perhaps additional rules by State Bar associations are needed for law school class sizes which can be adjusted by demand within the legal job market. I'm not sure.
Quote from: Coleman on March 18, 2016, 10:50:00 AM
Perhaps the problem is not only that there are too many schools (which there admittedly are), but also that schools are admitting too many applicants.
If MU and UW decreased class sizes by 25-50%, that would relieve the pressure of new applicants on the job market, and also remove the lowest-qualified folks, who are most likely to remain unemployed or underemployed (and probably boost MULS's rankings as well).
Of course, how do you force a school to do this, when it basically means giving up free revenue? Perhaps additional rules by State Bar associations are needed for law school class sizes which can be adjusted by demand within the legal job market. I'm not sure.
Agreed re class size. That's why I started my rant about the culling as either 50% of law schools or 50% of the admitted classes.
You are also dead on that there is absolutely no incentive to reduce class size or to charge less money, because with a checkbook and a pulse you can get all the federally guaranteed loans necessary to pay any amount to any school. When you default on those loans, the schools are paid so they don't really care anymore.
As for what reducing class size would do to ranking? Honestly, not sure. MULS should hire a consultant whose sole job is to game the rankings. Northeastern did so for its undergrad:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
Okay... no offense, but your client is feeding you a steaming pile of sh*t. The market is bad, but it isn't that bad. An honors NYU grad with connections in the oil and gas industry is not going to be struggling for job options at big firms. You sure she didn't go to New York Law School? Was she capable of stringing together words into complete sentences during OCI?
What's her cup size?
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
Okay... no offense, but your client is feeding you a steaming pile of sh*t. The market is bad, but it isn't that bad. An honors NYU grad with connections in the oil and gas industry is not going to be struggling for job options at big firms. You sure she didn't go to New York Law School? Was she capable of stringing together words into complete sentences during OCI?
Do you presume to know more of this situation than I? Over 20 years, I have grown very close to this family. I have known her since she was in high school. I speak with her directly about once a month. I visited her at NYU. I helped her LLM work. I know every firm she has applied to and their response.
When the O&G business shuts down acquisitions, and most production and development (which is what has occurred with this glut) outside lawyers are only used for downstream services, lease renewal and pipeline/refinery regulatory work. So Yes O&G law sections are not hiring....the existing lawyers/staff is more than enough to handle the reduced workloads. During the Bankruptcy boom of the mid 80s our 250 person firm froze O&G, Real Estate section hiring. Partners stay, but associates and new hires are where adjustments downward can most easily be made, in response to law business downturns. But you know better lol
Please dont impugn someone you dont know with cracks about stringing sentences together....this person is very articulate, smart and gifted...not that you deserve to know.
Private firms are not expanding their O&G sections during times of billion plus paper losses at the majors, massive industry layoffs, etc Its not surprising.
Clearly This young lady could find employment out of her chosen field...the resume would get her into a practice in other areas...but her chosen field is currently dry. It happens. Her choice to "stay in the Biz", by working at the family oil company was her only and best option.
Please knock off the conclusory, insulting stuff on something as here which you know nothing of.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Clearly This young lady could find employment out of her chosen field...the resume would get her into a practice in other areas...but her chosen field is currently dry. It happens. Her choice to "stay in the Biz", by working at the family oil company was her only and best option.
No one that I know whose family runs a business
wanted to go into their family business when they finished school. They all worked some other place or tried to land a job at some other place and then, all of sudden, working for ma and pa didn't seem too bad.
I am by no means attempting to criticize this young lady. Just pointing out that working for your family's company is typically a pretty good gig even when it wasn't the first option.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
Okay... no offense, but your client is feeding you a steaming pile of sh*t. The market is bad, but it isn't that bad. An honors NYU grad with connections in the oil and gas industry is not going to be struggling for job options at big firms. You sure she didn't go to New York Law School? Was she capable of stringing together words into complete sentences during OCI?
Nobody is hiring oil & gas right now. Even if you were the top of your class at Yale and didn't rape anyone, if you're at a big firm working oil & gas, you better hope you have seniority.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
[...]
Clearly This young lady could find employment out of her chosen field...the resume would get her into a practice in other areas...but her chosen field is currently dry. [..]
Yes. Her T14 pedigree gives her the ability to choose options in other fields. 90% of the non T14 people don't have that option.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 12:43:55 PM
Do you presume to know more of this situation than I? Over 20 years, I have grown very close to this family. I have known her since she was in high school. I speak with her directly about once a month. I visited her at NYU. I helped her LLM work. I know every firm she has applied to and their response.
When the O&G business shuts down acquisitions, and most production and development (which is what has occurred with this glut) outside lawyers are only used for downstream services, lease renewal and pipeline/refinery regulatory work. So Yes O&G law sections are not hiring....the existing lawyers/staff is more than enough to handle the reduced workloads. During the Bankruptcy boom of the mid 80s our 250 person firm froze O&G, Real Estate section hiring. Partners stay, but associates and new hires are where adjustments downward can most easily be made, in response to law business downturns. But you know better lol
Please dont impugn someone you dont know with cracks about stringing sentences together....this person is very articulate, smart and gifted...not that you deserve to know.
Private firms are not expanding their O&G sections during times of billion plus paper losses at the majors, massive industry layoffs, etc Its not surprising.
Clearly This young lady could find employment out of her chosen field...the resume would get her into a practice in other areas...but her chosen field is currently dry. It happens. Her choice to "stay in the Biz", by working at the family oil company was her only and best option.
Please knock off the conclusory, insulting stuff on something as here which you know nothing of.
Saying she can't get a legal job in her preferred niche practice area is completely different than implying that she can't get a biglaw job period. The fact that the energy industry is down says nothing about legal hiring generally.
I stand by my implication that an honors NYU grad whose daddy is an executive at an oil company must have severe social disabilities if they can't land a biglaw job at all.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2016, 12:52:43 PM
Nobody is hiring oil & gas right now. Even if you were the top of your class at Yale and didn't rape anyone, if you're at a big firm working oil & gas, you better hope you have seniority.
Agree. I think it's misleading to draw general conclusions about law graduates' marketability by looking at an example in one industry that is way down.
The market is way softer than it used to be...but someone in the top 10% at NYU would likely be able to get a pretty good job at many places if she didn't restrict her focus to a (currently) very weak sector of the economy.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 01:38:51 PM
Saying she can't get a legal job in her preferred niche practice area is completely different than implying that she can't get a biglaw job period. The fact that the energy industry is down says nothing about legal hiring generally.
I stand by my implication that an honors NYU grad whose daddy is an executive at an oil company must have severe social disabilities if they can't land a biglaw job at all.
You are not as aware of even big firm general hirings, as you think. In the 2008 crash many froze all hirings. 2-3 years of grad classes, including top percenters were way underhired, while JD production continued. This created a backlog glut that has still not been completely reabsorbed.
Further Big firms : 1) started keeping experienced non partner attorneys, as salaried "senior attorneys" (at about the cost of a 1-2 year attorney) instead of asking them to leave when not making partners.(more experience, better bill rate, lower net cost) 2) outsourced documents crunching, researching and briefing--- the staples of young associate work. 3) have learned that the clients will no longer underwrite the first year attorney (at 150-175k) to be an extra body at deposition, court hearings, or simply attend for training...they insist on cheaper paralegals for support work.and 4) in lieu of mergers, firms pursue laterals with portables. The openings for a typical new associate to a traditional partner track job...is a fraction of what it used to be.
Your severe social disabilities crack simply indicates you cant resist being unnecessarily insulting...thats just sad, for you.
PS Here is a quick link to "Biglaw ads" ...notice the high amount of IP, litigation, some finance and real estate....O&G is nowhere to be seen.
Would you hire a O&G LLM to work in these other fields...no ...they already have plenty Top Tier ten percenters looking for the same jobs with direct training in the field. Her specialization choice works against her...including in prospective category shifts, too:
http://www.gobiglaw.com/
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 02:10:46 PM
You are not as aware of even big firm general hirings, as you think. In the 2008 crash many froze all hirings. 2-3 years of grad classes, including top percenters were way underhired, while JD production continued. This created a backlog glut that has still not been completely reabsorbed.
Further Big firms : 1) started keeping experienced non partner attorneys, as salaried "senior attorneys" (at about the cost of a 1-2 year attorney) instead of asking them to leave when not making partners.(more experience, better bill rate, lower net cost) 2) outsourced documents crunching, researching and briefing--- the staples of young associate work. and 3) have learned that the clients will no longer underwrite the first year attorney (at 150-175k) to be an extra body at deposition, court hearings, or simply attend for training...they insist on cheaper paralegals for support work. The openings for a typical new associate to a traditional partner track job...is a fraction of what it used to be.
Your severe social disabilities crack simply indicates you can resist being unnecessarily insulting...thats just sad, for you.
Listen, I get it: this girl was highly motivated to pursue a particular type of law and that field is in the dumpster right now. She's fortunate to have other options. However, the fact remains that if she wanted to pursue a big law job, she could, it just might not be her top choice in terms of practice area. I wasn't trying to insult this anonymous person I know nothing about who will never read this forum; I was just pointing out that there had to be more to the story.
I may not be knowledgeable about many things in this world, but post-recession biglaw hiring from T-14 law schools is one of them.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 02:10:46 PM
You are not as aware of even big firm general hirings, as you think. In the 2008 crash many froze all hirings. 2-3 years of grad classes, including top percenters were way underhired, while JD production continued. This created a backlog glut that has still not been completely reabsorbed.
Further Big firms : 1) started keeping experienced non partner attorneys, as salaried "senior attorneys" (at about the cost of a 1-2 year attorney) instead of asking them to leave when not making partners.(more experience, better bill rate, lower net cost) 2) outsourced documents crunching, researching and briefing--- the staples of young associate work. and 3) have learned that the clients will no longer underwrite the first year attorney (at 150-175k) to be an extra body at deposition, court hearings, or simply attend for training...they insist on cheaper paralegals for support work. The openings for a typical new associate to a traditional partner track job...is a fraction of what it used to be.
Your severe social disabilities crack simply indicates you can resist being unnecessarily insulting...thats just sad, for you.
That just goes to support my contention that there is a vast oversupply of new JDs. "The openings for a typical new associate to a traditional partner track job... is a fraction of what it used to be" means that the number of JDs entering the market should be a proportional fraction of what it used to be as well.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 02:18:29 PM
Listen, I get it: this girl was highly motivated to pursue a particular type of law and that field is in the dumpster right now. She's fortunate to have other options. However, the fact remains that if she wanted to pursue a big law job, she could, it just might not be her top choice in terms of practice area. I wasn't trying to insult this anonymous person I know nothing about who will never read this forum; I was just pointing out that there had to be more to the story.
I may not be knowledgeable about many things in this world, but post-recession biglaw hiring from T-14 law schools is one of them.
Thats not in your control. I will show/link her to this. Your words will hurt but you will think twice next time
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 02:28:05 PM
Thats not in your control. I will show/link her to this. Your words will hurt but you will think twice next time
What kind of insane response is that?
A) It doesn't respond to my point that you initially left out a key detail of her hiring process (a detail that puts my statement in context and that should make it non-offensive to any reasonable person).
B) Why would you show something (purportedly) hurtful to someone you care about to make some anonymous internet poster "think twice next time"?
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 02:28:05 PM
Thats not in your control. I will show/link her to this. Your words will hurt but you will think twice next time
(tangent warning) Why will you show her? What good will that serve?
"This idiot on the internet insulted you. I figured you'd want to know. I know your feeling will be hurt, but we'll show that guy, amirite?"
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 02:34:05 PM
What kind of insane response is that?
A) It doesn't respond to my point that you initially left out a key detail of her hiring process (a detail that puts my statement in context and that should make it non-offensive to any reasonable person).
B) Why would you show something (purportedly) hurtful to someone you care about to make some anonymous internet poster "think twice next time"?
Of course I am not going to share something so hurtful. In light of the repetitive insulting, lack of any apology and your belief in the consequent-less nature of your postings....I wanted to ensure you at least one moment of stomach drop with the feigned threat . Anything we post here should be on the standard that the whole world may see or that you would say it again right to their face. Anonymous insulting is cowardly
Just for my own clarification, I feel like law school rankings are a catch 22 which is why it's hard to move up. If you don't get good positions, you can't move up but if you don't go to a high ranking school you can't get a good position for work. Or am I just completely off base?
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 02:44:58 PM
Of course I am not going to share something so hurtful. In light of the repetitive insulting, lack of any apology and your belief in the consequent-less nature of your postings....I wanted to ensure you at least one moment of stomach drop with the feigned threat . Anything we post here should be on the standard that the whole world may see or that you would say it again right to their face. Anonymous insulting is cowardly
Apologies for invading the "safe zone" of some unidentified, not present person with my harassing "trigger" posts. Fact remains, if you're top 10% at NYU and can't find a job, you need to do some personal reflection.
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 12:46:17 PM
An officer and a gentlemen?
Not sure what your issue is? I was wondering if she drank her coffee tall, grande, or vente?
What's wrong with that?
(http://armystrongstories.com/blog-assets/thomas-harper/images/jester.jpeg)
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on March 18, 2016, 03:13:52 PM
Just for my own clarification, I feel like law school rankings are a catch 22 which is why it's hard to move up. If you don't get good positions, you can't move up but if you don't go to a high ranking school you can't get a good position for work. Or am I just completely off base?
While you are reasonable to assume that law school rankings would be based on employment outcomes for students, you are incorrect in that assumption. Law school rankings are based on a rather bizarre formula that accounts for some relevant things (e.g. admissions profile of students), some impossibly subjective criteria (e.g. peer/lawyer assessments), and some ridiculous elements (e.g. expenditures per student, library resources, etc).
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on March 18, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
Okay... no offense, but your client is feeding you a steaming pile of sh*t. The market is bad, but it isn't that bad. An honors NYU grad with connections in the oil and gas industry is not going to be struggling for job options at big firms. You sure she didn't go to New York Law School? Was she capable of stringing together words into complete sentences during OCI?
Maybe the law student is feeding her dad a steaming pile of crap about her grades. With FERPA and all, you never know.
Quote from: keefe on March 18, 2016, 04:28:13 PM
Not sure what your issue is? I was wondering if she drank her coffee tall, grande, or vente?
What's wrong with that?
(http://armystrongstories.com/blog-assets/thomas-harper/images/jester.jpeg)
lol
Officer, gentlemen And ...quick "spin doctor" politician, too...you are the total package...you should run for something. lol
Quote from: houwarrior on March 18, 2016, 05:24:03 PM
lol
Officer, gentlemen And ...quick "spin doctor" politician, too...you are the total package...you should run for something. lol
Combat tested, Houston!