Why is the Law School Falling in USWNR?

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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. 

[jficke13]

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.

[keefe]

The Marquette Law School had a number of points deducted because of Ken Kratz

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The Marquette Law School had a number of points deducted because of Ken Kratz

And Rebecca Bradley... rough year for MULaw alumni.

[4everwarriors]

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?

[Benny B]

USN&WR must not have a Scoop account; otherwise, MU's law school would be ranked somewhere around the University of American Samoa.

[jficke13]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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. 

[jficke13]

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.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[mu-rara]

And Rebecca Bradley... rough year for MULaw alumni.

You must be a urinalist for the Milwaukee Journal Enquirer. 

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[jficke13]

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.

[keefe]

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!

[Warrior of Law]

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

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[GGGG]

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/

[drewm88]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

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).

[GooooMarquette]

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.