The Aging Demographic Supporting College Athletics

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

https://view.email.sportico.com/?qs=432ca9d7ba7382a98fddaf447823dc859c5f4d79be49dffc3ae81dc977ce814248fa2be7b3217c174855ea0a00af441b4257e608dba8657eab70f91fe741c1ee2be0e7da4f74a090

"Historically speaking, athletic departments have relied heavily on fundraising revenue to cover the costs of their various sports programs (including scholarship aid for student athletes). But as alumni of the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s begin to age out, concerns are beginning to mount about the shortfall they will leave in budgets and whether it can be replaced. “The fact that most donors are in an older age bracket is very scary,” said Jay Judge (Senior Associate Athletics Director, Development and External Affairs, Seton Hall University).

It wouldn’t be so scary if there were another generation of boosters ready to assume the responsibility. The problem is graduates of the ’90s and ’00s are significantly underrepresented among current donors, and it very much remains a question whether they will ever give back to athletic programs in the same way their predecessors did."


My (anecdotal) take.  With all of the money in college athletics, I think many aren't viewing their support of college athletics as a particular worthwhile charitable endeavor.  Younger donors aren't necessarily supportive of *institutions* but more supportive of *projects* those institutions sponsor that have a more direct charitable element.

[Dr. Blackheart]

There is no question C19 has disrupted the sports world as well. Coupled with this, does this send it off the cliff? Or will fans flock back? Ultimately if you look at strike seasons, interest will slowly return, but for MU in an urban city, I think the younger generations and business interest will remain on the business side. With MU being a one trick pony, l think this helps.

[jesmu84]

Probably doesn't help that we're all behind the 8-ball thanks to 2 of the worst economic times of existence coupled with a student debt catastrophe. I'm not sure how many millennials have the money to spare for college sports donations when they can't afford a house.

[tower912]

So, scoopers are the hope for the future?  Uh oh.

[Galway Eagle]

Probably doesn't help that we're all behind the 8-ball thanks to 2 of the worst economic times of existence coupled with a student debt catastrophe. I'm not sure how many millennials have the money to spare for college sports donations when they can't afford a house.

Not if you ask Fluffy. Millennials and the subsequent generation  are just mismanaging money, their entry level wages are fine to pay all bills, loans, live independently, etc and should still have money left over for things like donations and season tickets. And if you can't then the response "that's your fault get a better job"

(Call back to an argument like 3yrs ago)

[The Big East]

https://view.email.sportico.com/?qs=432ca9d7ba7382a98fddaf447823dc859c5f4d79be49dffc3ae81dc977ce814248fa2be7b3217c174855ea0a00af441b4257e608dba8657eab70f91fe741c1ee2be0e7da4f74a090

"Historically speaking, athletic departments have relied heavily on fundraising revenue to cover the costs of their various sports programs (including scholarship aid for student athletes). But as alumni of the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s begin to age out, concerns are beginning to mount about the shortfall they will leave in budgets and whether it can be replaced. “The fact that most donors are in an older age bracket is very scary,” said Jay Judge (Senior Associate Athletics Director, Development and External Affairs, Seton Hall University).

It wouldn’t be so scary if there were another generation of boosters ready to assume the responsibility. The problem is graduates of the ’90s and ’00s are significantly underrepresented among current donors, and it very much remains a question whether they will ever give back to athletic programs in the same way their predecessors did."


My (anecdotal) take.  With all of the money in college athletics, I think many aren't viewing their support of college athletics as a particular worthwhile charitable endeavor.  Younger donors aren't necessarily supportive of *institutions* but more supportive of *projects* those institutions sponsor that have a more direct charitable element.

I think if you look around the landscape of college sports, you will find many of the larger donors are successful alumni, men and women, who played on an athletic team at their college. A lot will point to their collegiate athletic experience, whether star or scout team,   as foundational to their own development. I don't see changing.

As to the general base of donors , you are making a good point. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Not if you ask Fluffy. Millennials and the subsequent generation  are just mismanaging money, their entry level wages are fine to pay all bills, loans, live independently, etc and should still have money left over for things like donations and season tickets. And if you can't then the response "that's your fault get a better job"

(Call back to an argument like 3yrs ago)

Millennials won't be the issue it's Gen X. Millennials are at far more games than us Boomers were at their lifestage. Bringing kids to games was taboo actually, BITD. And yes, "Milkennials" have more debt but at much lower interest rates.

But the Gen Xers attend with work or their parents' legacy seats. They don't dole out the cash.

This is all kidding, btw. Sports will be fine after a reset. People want to get out and socialize.

[CTWarrior]

Probably doesn't help that we're all behind the 8-ball thanks to 2 of the worst economic times of existence coupled with a student debt catastrophe. I'm not sure how many millennials have the money to spare for college sports donations when they can't afford a house.

I think the relatively large tuitions paid by the more recent graduates definitely has a hand in it.  More of a "I gave plenty already" mentality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqKK4ysI7g

[jficke13]

I think the relatively large tuitions paid by the more recent graduates definitely has a hand in it.  More of a "I gave plenty already" mentality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqKK4ysI7g

Anecdotally, almost all of my cohort have that attitude to some extent.

Tuition inflation attained ludicrous speed for my generation (Undergrad class '09) and forward to the point that people are skeptical to say the least when the begging calls/letters come in.

[brewcity77]

Probably doesn't help that we're all behind the 8-ball thanks to 2 of the worst economic times of existence coupled with a student debt catastrophe. I'm not sure how many millennials have the money to spare for college sports donations when they can't afford a house.

I think the shifting of wealth has absolutely impacted this. Younger grads are under a much heavier debt burden and coming into a less robust job market. They simply don't have the disposable income past generations have had.

[Galway Eagle]

I think the shifting of wealth has absolutely impacted this. Younger grads are under a much heavier debt burden and coming into a less robust job market. They simply don't have the disposable income past generations have had.

But lower interest rates!
They should just not have those low paying jobs! Those who do have those aren't doing it for the money!

[Hards Alumni]

Anecdotally, almost all of my cohort have that attitude to some extent.

Tuition inflation attained ludicrous speed for my generation (Undergrad class '09) and forward to the point that people are skeptical to say the least when the begging calls/letters come in.

Absolutely, and the calls started even before I walked across the stage.  I laughed and replied that I'd consider donating when my loans are paid off in 16 years.

[Skatastrophy]

There is no way for young people to watch sports. Without an engaged fanbase it's going to be hard to capture the imagination of the future donor-class. People don't pay for television or sports streaming services unless they are older.

The Big East needs to open up streaming on Twitch/Youtube. Lead the charge, monetize it via subs (to view and chat), and we will slaughter all other conferences with the younger audience.

As long as sports are on ESPN, FS1, CBSSN or whatever there will be dwindling young people watching. Fewer young people, a smaller chance at capturing future donors.

[vogue65]

As we age getting to the Garden, St. John's, or Newark becomes more difficult.
There may be a new model in the making.
Pay per view, Division-3, major sports only, a lot of change around the corner.
My crystal ball is broken.

[MU82]

There is no way for young people to watch sports. Without an engaged fanbase it's going to be hard to capture the imagination of the future donor-class. People don't pay for television or sports streaming services unless they are older.

The Big East needs to open up streaming on Twitch/Youtube. Lead the charge, monetize it via subs (to view and chat), and we will slaughter all other conferences with the younger audience.

As long as sports are on ESPN, FS1, CBSSN or whatever there will be dwindling young people watching. Fewer young people, a smaller chance at capturing future donors.

I don't think I understand what you are saying.

Young people are so poor that most of them don't even have basic streaming services? Or they have to work so much that they don't have the time/energy?

[GooooMarquette]

There is no way for young people to watch sports. Without an engaged fanbase it's going to be hard to capture the imagination of the future donor-class. People don't pay for television or sports streaming services unless they are older.

The Big East needs to open up streaming on Twitch/Youtube. Lead the charge, monetize it via subs (to view and chat), and we will slaughter all other conferences with the younger audience.

As long as sports are on ESPN, FS1, CBSSN or whatever there will be dwindling young people watching. Fewer young people, a smaller chance at capturing future donors.

This survey from May disagrees.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/742452/media-streaming-services-penetration-rate-age/

Percentage of people by age group who currently subscribe to a streaming service:

18-34: 70%
35-44: 72%
45-64: 58%
65+: 49%

It doesn't break it down by specific streaming provider, but younger people certainly do pay for their TV service.

[cheebs09]

This survey from May disagrees.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/742452/media-streaming-services-penetration-rate-age/

Percentage of people by age group who currently subscribe to a streaming service:

18-34: 70%
35-44: 72%
45-64: 58%
65+: 49%

It doesn't break it down by specific streaming provider, but younger people certainly do pay for their TV service.

Yea, I think it’s less about the ability to watch and more about making it a priority to watch. People aren’t shifting around plans to watch the games. I think that spans most ages based on some of the posts on here.

[muwarrior69]

I think the shifting of wealth has absolutely impacted this. Younger grads are under a much heavier debt burden and coming into a less robust job market. They simply don't have the disposable income past generations have had.

Not to mention a BS or BA no longer has the value it once did. I gradated with a BS in Chemistry and Biology. I was offered 9500/year salary back in '69 for my first job. That is equivalent to about 90K today. How many graduates today are offered 90K to start right out of school with just a BA or BS?

[GooooMarquette]

Not to mention a BS or BA no longer has the value it once did. I gradated with a BS in Chemistry and Biology. I was offered 9500/year salary back in '69 for my first job. That is equivalent to about 90K today. How many graduates today are offered 90K to start right out of school with just a BA or BS?

Yep. In many fields, a bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. And even for those where a bachelor's can get you into a good career, you won't be starting near that income level unless it's in something like Chemical Engineering or Computer Science from Stanford or MIT.

[Skatastrophy]

I don't think I understand what you are saying.

Young people are so poor that most of them don't even have basic streaming services? Or they have to work so much that they don't have the time/energy?

Young people love streaming services paid or not. They drop major $$ on Twitch. People just don't pay for live television streaming searching out FS1.

This survey from May disagrees.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/742452/media-streaming-services-penetration-rate-age/

Percentage of people by age group who currently subscribe to a streaming service:

18-34: 70%
35-44: 72%
45-64: 58%
65+: 49%

It doesn't break it down by specific streaming provider, but younger people certainly do pay for their TV service.

Good data, but you're misusing it a bit. The SVoD market is huge, and dominated by Netflix, Amazon, & Disney+. None of those have live TV. Hulu has about 60% of the subscriber base of Dis+ (Dis+ has about 20% the subs of Netflix), so people just aren't coming across Marquette or Big East games on their SVoD platform of choice... because most SVoD platforms don't have live TV.

Sports has to get onto the platforms where young people live in order to capture more eyes. Hulu ain't it, and relying on Fox Sports to solve this problem is going to take too long.

This all comes with a big caveat: Our game streaming rights get locked up with our TV rights. My whole point might be moot unless we can free up our streaming rights.

In conclusion - Pirated streams are super popular right now, and the first major sport/conference to "come to where the users are" is going to cash in bigly by grabbing the eyes (and hearts) of young people.

[jesmu84]

Good news though, somewhere in the new stimulus bill is an attachment that makes pirating a felony with jail time.

[Skatastrophy]

Good news though, somewhere in the new stimulus bill is an attachment that makes pirating a felony with jail time.

That language is specifically for companies profiting from streaming. I guess it's going to be used to harass Youtube, Pornhub, et al? It won't dent piracy at all.

[MU82]

Young people love streaming services paid or not. They drop major $$ on Twitch. People just don't pay for live television streaming searching out FS1.

Most streaming services don’t include at least some basic sports channels? I ask because I seriously don’t know.

[Skatastrophy]

Most streaming services don’t include at least some basic sports channels? I ask because I seriously don’t know.

The major players don't.
Netflix doesn't.
Amazon Prime had 20 NFL games this year (Thursday night football), replays of old NBA and MLB games
Disney+ doesn't.

"Channels" are an artifact of television, so they should be a thing of the past but it's a paradigm that major sports leagues are still locked into because of the way deals are done. For example, the Big East sold their TV+streaming rights to Fox. Fox wants people to pay for their TV channel because that's how they produce content, and that's the end of that.

If you want live major sports via streaming you have to pirate it, or you basically have to pay for cable but on the internet via a service like Hulu or Sling or Fubo costing you ~$50/month. The subscriber base of those platforms is minuscule compared to other streaming platforms). It's also missing the point of cutting the cable cord since you're getting a full cable package just on the internet. Part of "the point" of cutting cable is only paying for content you want. The major television companies (who own Hulu) are opposed to switching things up though. It's too profitable the way it has always been.

The NFL dipping their toes into streaming is a good sign, hopefully the Big East follows suit!

You know who's avant guarde is the G-league:
1. They live stream games on their Twitch channel - https://www.twitch.tv/nbagleague
2. They allow any content creator on the platform to simulcast the game. For example, I could stream a Wisconsin Herd game for everyone here so that we could have our own chat room while we watch the game. Or if I were one of the podcast teams that posts here I could announce the game how I'd want. (Highlight example of a dude doing a G-league simulcast on twitch - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/211684975)

That's the North Star here for me. Get away from traditional broadcasts, and get the content out there into modern media delivery mechanisms.

I know this derailed the thread, so to bring it back around I think that this will get a much younger audience reengaged with the sport. Capturing more eyes will capture hearts. Captured hearts are more likely to donate.

[Hards Alumni]

Not to mention a BS or BA no longer has the value it once did. I gradated with a BS in Chemistry and Biology. I was offered 9500/year salary back in '69 for my first job. That is equivalent to about 90K today. How many graduates today are offered 90K to start right out of school with just a BA or BS?

My BS in Biomedical Science got me a job in a lab at under 40k in '06.  Sure the benes were good, but that was the pay.

[MU82]

The major players don't.
Netflix doesn't.
Amazon Prime had 20 NFL games this year (Thursday night football), replays of old NBA and MLB games
Disney+ doesn't.

"Channels" are an artifact of television, so they should be a thing of the past but it's a paradigm that major sports leagues are still locked into because of the way deals are done. For example, the Big East sold their TV+streaming rights to Fox. Fox wants people to pay for their TV channel because that's how they produce content, and that's the end of that.

If you want live major sports via streaming you have to pirate it, or you basically have to pay for cable but on the internet via a service like Hulu or Sling or Fubo costing you ~$50/month. The subscriber base of those platforms is minuscule compared to other streaming platforms). It's also missing the point of cutting the cable cord since you're getting a full cable package just on the internet. Part of "the point" of cutting cable is only paying for content you want. The major television companies (who own Hulu) are opposed to switching things up though. It's too profitable the way it has always been.

The NFL dipping their toes into streaming is a good sign, hopefully the Big East follows suit!

You know who's avant guarde is the G-league:
1. They live stream games on their Twitch channel - https://www.twitch.tv/nbagleague
2. They allow any content creator on the platform to simulcast the game. For example, I could stream a Wisconsin Herd game for everyone here so that we could have our own chat room while we watch the game. Or if I were one of the podcast teams that posts here I could announce the game how I'd want. (Highlight example of a dude doing a G-league simulcast on twitch - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/211684975)

That's the North Star here for me. Get away from traditional broadcasts, and get the content out there into modern media delivery mechanisms.

I know this derailed the thread, so to bring it back around I think that this will get a much younger audience reengaged with the sport. Capturing more eyes will capture hearts. Captured hearts are more likely to donate.

Thanks for the informative answer. I obviously knew about Prime, Netflix, but didn't know some of the rest. I appreciate it.

Things will change. They always do. I don't really have a doom and gloom outlook on this subject (or on most things).

[JWags85]

My BS in Biomedical Science got me a job in a lab at under 40k in '06.  Sure the benes were good, but that was the pay.

My best friend graduated cum laude in ‘09 with a BS in Biomedical Engineering. Being told all his HS and college years that “there are always jobs for engineers” and “engineers almost always have the best starting pay”.  His options, short of moving to either coast, were either a group at GE Medical that was notorious for high layoffs and instability or a lab gig that payed similar to you.  He ended up going back to school within 2 years and is now a perfusionist.

[forgetful]

My best friend graduated cum laude in ‘09 with a BS in Biomedical Engineering. Being told all his HS and college years that “there are always jobs for engineers” and “engineers almost always have the best starting pay”.  His options, short of moving to either coast, were either a group at GE Medical that was notorious for high layoffs and instability or a lab gig that payed similar to you.  He ended up going back to school within 2 years and is now a perfusionist.

Yeah, there are still jobs out there that will pay 70k to a starting person in some of these fields, but they are also in the Bay Area, or east cost, where that type of income gets you nowhere.

I remember being asked by a friend to recommend people for a job in biotech, PhD level. I asked what it paid, and lets simply say it was what seemed like a lot. Then they told me what their rent was like for a 1-bedroom apartment in the Bay Area, and it did the math...turns out you need a massive salary out there to have a decent quality of life.

[GooooMarquette]

Yeah, there are still jobs out there that will pay 70k to a starting person in some of these fields, but they are also in the Bay Area, or east cost, where that type of income gets you nowhere.

I remember being asked by a friend to recommend people for a job in biotech, PhD level. I asked what it paid, and lets simply say it was what seemed like a lot. Then they told me what their rent was like for a 1-bedroom apartment in the Bay Area, and it did the math...turns out you need a massive salary out there to have a decent quality of life.

Yup. My daughter's BFF has a Master's in Computer Science from Stanford and works for Google in the Bay Area. She makes great money, but most of it goes for rent on her tiny apartment in SF...which she got because places in Silicon Valley were even more expensive.

My other daughter has a friend who works for Amazon in Seattle. She also pays a surprisingly high rent for a modest place, but it isn't as bad as the Bay Area.

[jficke13]

My BS in Biomedical Science got me a job in a lab at under 40k in '06.  Sure the benes were good, but that was the pay.

Coming out of (law)school I was offered $29k/yr... as an attorney. One of the partners at that firm is now a judge. Needless to say, I did not accept that offer.

[Hards Alumni]

Coming out of (law)school I was offered $29k/yr... as an attorney. One of the partners at that firm is now a judge. Needless to say, I did not accept that offer.

Public sector I assume?  Public defender?

[vogue65]

The major players don't.
Netflix doesn't.
Amazon Prime had 20 NFL games this year (Thursday night football), replays of old NBA and MLB games
Disney+ doesn't.

"Channels" are an artifact of television, so they should be a thing of the past but it's a paradigm that major sports leagues are still locked into because of the way deals are done. For example, the Big East sold their TV+streaming rights to Fox. Fox wants people to pay for their TV channel because that's how they produce content, and that's the end of that.

If you want live major sports via streaming you have to pirate it, or you basically have to pay for cable but on the internet via a service like Hulu or Sling or Fubo costing you ~$50/month. The subscriber base of those platforms is minuscule compared to other streaming platforms). It's also missing the point of cutting the cable cord since you're getting a full cable package just on the internet. Part of "the point" of cutting cable is only paying for content you want. The major television companies (who own Hulu) are opposed to switching things up though. It's too profitable the way it has always been.

The NFL dipping their toes into streaming is a good sign, hopefully the Big East follows suit!

You know who's avant guarde is the G-league:
1. They live stream games on their Twitch channel - https://www.twitch.tv/nbagleague
2. They allow any content creator on the platform to simulcast the game. For example, I could stream a Wisconsin Herd game for everyone here so that we could have our own chat room while we watch the game. Or if I were one of the podcast teams that posts here I could announce the game how I'd want. (Highlight example of a dude doing a G-league simulcast on twitch - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/211684975)

That's the North Star here for me. Get away from traditional broadcasts, and get the content out there into modern media delivery mechanisms.

I know this derailed the thread, so to bring it back around I think that this will get a much younger audience reengaged with the sport. Capturing more eyes will capture hearts. Captured hearts are more likely to donate.

It gives me a headache, what difference does it make?
Next year there will be a new list of in things.
Greatful I'm timing out.

[mu_hilltopper]

Not to mention a BS or BA no longer has the value it once did. I gradated with a BS in Chemistry and Biology. I was offered 9500/year salary back in '69 for my first job. That is equivalent to about 90K today. How many graduates today are offered 90K to start right out of school with just a BA or BS?

I was curious, so I checked the math on that.  $9500/year in 1969 is worth $68,900 today.

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/1969-to-present-value?amount=9500

[SaveOD238]

I think the relatively large tuitions paid by the more recent graduates definitely has a hand in it.  More of a "I gave plenty already" mentality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqKK4ysI7g

My wife and I throw away every fundraising mailing from Marquette and say "when student loans are done, THEN I'll think about this."  And even then, we're way more likely to donate to PT (her) or Educ (me) scholarships than to Athletics.

[vogue65]

My wife and I throw away every fundraising mailing from Marquette and say "when student loans are done, THEN I'll think about this."  And even then, we're way more likely to donate to PT (her) or Educ (me) scholarships than to Athletics.

In a few years, perhaps next year, you won't recognise higher education.   The realignment is coming.  The population has been awakened on many fronts. 

[jficke13]

Public sector I assume?  Public defender?

Nope. Private small firm. Joke of an offer. I know the person who took the job, though for the life of me I have no idea why she did. She was independently wealthy, so I guess she just really wanted to spend time as exploited labor. <shrug>

[Billy Hoyle]

My wife and I throw away every fundraising mailing from Marquette and say "when student loans are done, THEN I'll think about this."  And even then, we're way more likely to donate to PT (her) or Educ (me) scholarships than to Athletics.

I know MU's and my law school's fundraising number memorized so I never answer. Last week MU sent me texts asking for money. Immediate delete.

My wife and I donated to MU on Giving Day (the program supporting DACA students) but that's it. Loans come first and then donations to organizations that are in high demand right now (for Christmas we gave money to my niece who was sponsoring kids transitioning out of foster care, which allowed her to sponsor five more kids, a local food bank, and an organization that provides vet care to people who cannot afford emergency care for their pets). Orgs like have much greater needs than colleges.

[vogue65]

Nope. Private small firm. Joke of an offer. I know the person who took the job, though for the life of me I have no idea why she did. She was independently wealthy, so I guess she just really wanted to spend time as exploited labor. <shrug>

Exploited labor, don't get me started.
Volunteerism is the most exploited labor. 
When labor is free it is wasted.  Pay the people who work at soup kitchens, the "clients" need the money and the self esteem they would get from the work.
The Christmas time volunteers are just trying to assuage their guilt.

[warriorchick]

Exploited labor, don't get me started.
Volunteerism is the most exploited labor. 
When labor is free it is wasted.  Pay the people who work at soup kitchens, the "clients" need the money and the self esteem they would get from the work.
The Christmas time volunteers are just trying to assuage their guilt.

Wisely used volunteer labor is fine.  The problem is the volunteer work that is just for show.

A former employer of mine sponsored a day where all 70 of us went to the Ronald McDonald house.  We spent a couple of hours working (we painted a couple of bathrooms, made lunch for the residents, and did some vacuuming) , then ate a catered lunch and went home. Our organization got a ton of pictures for our website so we could brag about how awesome and generous we were.  The amount of money the company paid us to go perform this "volunteer" project was in the mid-five figures.  We could have given the Ronald McDonald house that money and they could have paid people to do the same work for under $1,000.

[GooooMarquette]

Wisely used volunteer labor is fine.  The problem is the volunteer work that is just for show.

A former employer of mine sponsored a day where all 70 of us went to the Ronald McDonald house.  We spent a couple of hours working (we painted a couple of bathrooms, made lunch for the residents, and did some vacuuming) , then ate a catered lunch and went home. Our organization got a ton of pictures for our website so we could brag about how awesome and generous we were.  The amount of money the company paid us to go perform this "volunteer" project was in the mid-five figures.  We could have given the Ronald McDonald house that money and they could have paid people to do the same work for under $1,000.

Agree. I don't do any giving or volunteering through employers; I go directly to the organization closest to those in need and ask what is most important for them and the need they serve. Maximize the benefit.

[jficke13]

This is a bit of a weird diversion. Some volunteerism is good. Some is exploitative. None of that has anything to do with the core of what I was conveying: There was a law firm willing to pay the equivalent of sub-$15/hr (assuming $15/hr = aprx $30k/yr) wages for an attorney. If starting salaries (to say nothing of starting salaries for people carrying a JD* on top of their undergrad) are paying less than a decent retail wage, well, the world shouldn't be too terribly surprised when those graduates don't shake out any additional coins for their alma mater.

Don't get me started on the completely borked labor market for attorneys. $29k/yr is an outlier, but still that it was on offer (and accepted by someone) is less than ideal.

[GooooMarquette]

Don't get me started on the completely borked labor market for attorneys. $29k/yr is an outlier, but still that it was on offer (and accepted by someone) is less than ideal.

Totally agree on that. Get into a large firm or top company, and you will be making $150k+ before long. But there are a ton of people who go on their own, join a small firm, do public interest or nonprofit law, and are probably making less than my daughter who has a bachelors degree in journalism.

I also know a ton of lawyers who are currently doing paralegal or contract management work (no JD required) because there aren’t any suitable attorney jobs available. And this is not a Covid-related thing; it has been going on for years.

A very feast-or-famine market....

[jficke13]

Totally agree on that. Get into a large firm or top company, and you will be making $150k+ before long. But there are a ton of people who go on their own, join a small firm, do public interest or nonprofit law, and are probably making less than my daughter who has a bachelors degree in journalism.

I also know a ton of lawyers who are currently doing paralegal or contract management work (no JD required) because there aren’t any suitable attorney jobs available. And this is not a Covid-related thing; it has been going on for years.

A very feast-or-famine market....

It's a purely bi-modal salary distribution. Huge spike at like $40-50k starting --- virtually no jobs at starting salaries in this portion of the distribution --- smaller tighter spike around $115k ($160k in NYC). The idea that "lawyer" is a ticket to an upper middle class or upper class life is... uh... shall we say outdated?

[Eldon]

It's a purely bi-modal salary distribution. Huge spike at like $40-50k starting --- virtually no jobs at starting salaries in this portion of the distribution --- smaller tighter spike around $115k ($160k in NYC). The idea that "lawyer" is a ticket to an upper middle class or upper class life is... uh... shall we say outdated?

Do you think that's true for pretty much all law schools?

[vogue65]

Wisely used volunteer labor is fine.  The problem is the volunteer work that is just for show.

A former employer of mine sponsored a day where all 70 of us went to the Ronald McDonald house.  We spent a couple of hours working (we painted a couple of bathrooms, made lunch for the residents, and did some vacuuming) , then ate a catered lunch and went home. Our organization got a ton of pictures for our website so we could brag about how awesome and generous we were.  The amount of money the company paid us to go perform this "volunteer" project was in the mid-five figures.  We could have given the Ronald McDonald house that money and they could have paid people to do the same work for under $1,000.

Well said, my point and experience exactly.
Non-profits have turned into business opportunities.
Now there are hundreds of thousands of them. 
Local churches fly to Africa or Central America to "work on" building a church.  It has to do with congregation building at home, a photo op., and feel good bonding.   
A far cry from the French Jesuits on the St. Lawrence in the 1600's.

[jficke13]

Do you think that's true for pretty much all law schools?

Yes. The amplitude of the spikes may change a bit though. Harvard will have a higher spike on the high end and Marquette will have a higher spike on the low end.

For example something like the top 10% of my class at MU got into those high paying jobs. The proportion of a class at Harvard that go to the high paying jobs is probably greater than 10%.

Harvard will also have non-attorney jobs cluttering the data, but for practicing lawyers there’s a bimodal distribution and a few outliers, period.

[muwarrior69]

I was curious, so I checked the math on that.  $9500/year in 1969 is worth $68,900 today.

https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/1969-to-present-value?amount=9500

Well, I'm not so scientific just anecdotal. Back in '69 here in New Jersey gasoline was between 24 and 32 cents per gallon, today between 2.25 and 2.50 per gallon. You could purchase a nice home between 20 and 60 K, today 200 to 600k and a new car between 2 to 5k and today between 20 and 50K. All about 10x difference. That aside how many grads with just a BS or BA are making 70k right out of school?

[GooooMarquette]

Yes. The amplitude of the spikes may change a bit though. Harvard will have a higher spike on the high end and Marquette will have a higher spike on the low end.

For example something like the top 10% of my class at MU got into those high paying jobs. The proportion of a class at Harvard that go to the high paying jobs is probably greater than 10%.

Harvard will also have non-attorney jobs cluttering the data, but for practicing lawyers there’s a bimodal distribution and a few outliers, period.

Agreed.

I went to a law school ranked in the top 15-20 per most rankings, so the percentage who got 'top-tier' jobs was high...but certainly not 100%. If I had to guess, I'd say it was ~66%, with the other ~33% spread between mid-level jobs, and people struggling to get a footing in a legal career. Harvard or Yale probably would have 80%+ with top-tier jobs.

Once you get beyond the top 25 or 30 schools, the number of grads who get into the top jobs goes down pretty quickly, but it rarely goes to zero. I know people from William Mitchell Law School who are highly successful.

[muwarrior69]

My BS in Biomedical Science got me a job in a lab at under 40k in '06.  Sure the benes were good, but that was the pay.

It is just really sad that alums like you fork out so much for an education and don't see the return upon graduation. I am sure your fortunes have improved since your first job and wish you the best in your career. The problem I found with lab jobs is that they kind of peg you into a particular discipline and it becomes difficult to find another position with that skill set and work experience which is why I really worked hard to find an opportunity in human clinical trials. I started out in data management and then was offered a job as a manager conducting clinical trials. I eventually landed a position in pharmacovigilence monitoring the safety of both research and marketed products. I am 74 and i still get emails from recruiters looking at my 12 year old CV asking if I would be interested in a six month consulting job as my skills are still relevant. I was also lucky that my home state of New Jersey is headquarters for J&J and Merck. Pfizer and Bristol Myer Squibb also have a big foot print in the state.

[4everwarriors]

Not all law schools are created equal. Ya gotta graduate from a top 20 school, (rankin's due matta) to score the initial big paycheck. That also translates to having a high undergrad gpa and high LSAT scores. Truth be told, MU's law school dropped into Tier 3 for a while. Might be ok when looking for a job in WI, But, that won't cut it when competing with graduates from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or Northwestern. Spoiler alert:  UW Law>MU Law, just a fact.
On the contrary, while medical and dental schools differ also, residency programs and career jobs, don't really care where your degree is from, hey?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It is just really sad that alums like you fork out so much for an education and don't see the return upon graduation. I am sure your fortunes have improved since your first job and wish you the best in your career. The problem I found with lab jobs is that they kind of peg you into a particular discipline and it becomes difficult to find another position with that skill set and work experience which is why I really worked hard to find an opportunity in human clinical trials. I started out in data management and then was offered a job as a manager conducting clinical trials. I eventually landed a position in pharmacovigilence monitoring the safety of both research and marketed products. I am 74 and i still get emails from recruiters looking at my 12 year old CV asking if I would be interested in a six month consulting job as my skills are still relevant. I was also lucky that my home state of New Jersey is headquarters for J&J and Merck. Pfizer and Bristol Myer Squibb also have a big foot print in the state.

The problem is that those jobs are still better on average than what you will earn without a bachelor's degree.  The lifetime earning level between those with and without degrees continues to increase, which is why the cost of education continues to rise.  Sure you CAN earn more without a degree, but those are the exception rather than the rule.

The fact is that while entry level incomes may have fallen, lifetime incomes have increased relatively. 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/psdt_01-10-20_economic-inequality_1-0/

But what is also happening, is that those at the top end are increasingly earning more on a relative basis. 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/screen-shot-2020-01-08-at-5-06-47-pm/

So what does this mean?  Even though people are earning more, it doesn't SEEM like they are earning more.  Also, costs have increased as well.  69 you mentioned the cost of a house, but most people aren't buying the same type of house they were 50 years ago.  They are larger and nicer.  Same with entertainment...communications, etc.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Not all law schools are created equal. Ya gotta graduate from a top 20 school, (rankin's due matta) to score the initial big paycheck. That also translates to having a high undergrad gpa and high LSAT scores. Truth be told, MU's law school dropped into Tier 3 for a while. Might be ok when looking for a job in WI, But, that won't cut it when competing with graduates from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or Northwestern. Spoiler alert:  UW Law>MU Law, just a fact.
On the contrary, while medical and dental schools differ also, residency programs and career jobs, don't really care where your degree is from, hey?

But you can make a fine living, doing what you love to do, going to Marquette law school.  Not every lawyer need to have a "top job" in corporate law to live well.  I know plenty of MU law grads doing the small business, estate planning, real estate stuff that are doing just fine.

[4everwarriors]

Yes certainly in WI. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, the top firms nationally, are looking to hire lawyers from top tier schools, hey?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yes certainly in WI. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, the top firms nationally, are looking to hire lawyers from top tier schools, hey?

Right.  But that's also the same with MBA programs.  Good luck getting into the top consulting firms without a degree from a top 20 B-school.  But that doesn't mean that getting a law degree or MBA from the likes of Marquette isn't worth the time and cost.

[GooooMarquette]

Not all law schools are created equal. Ya gotta graduate from a top 20 school, (rankin's due matta) to score the initial big paycheck. That also translates to having a high undergrad gpa and high LSAT scores. Truth be told, MU's law school dropped into Tier 3 for a while. Might be ok when looking for a job in WI, But, that won't cut it when competing with graduates from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or Northwestern. Spoiler alert:  UW Law>MU Law, just a fact.

The underlined is true...but UW has dropped significantly over the past 20 for 30 years.

According to US News, UW was in the top 20 back in the 1990s. A few years ago when my daughter was looking at law schools, it had dropped to about 30. And now, it's in a tie for 38th.

It's just one ranking system, but that is not a good trajectory.

[muwarrior69]

The problem is that those jobs are still better on average than what you will earn without a bachelor's degree.  The lifetime earning level between those with and without degrees continues to increase, which is why the cost of education continues to rise.  Sure you CAN earn more without a degree, but those are the exception rather than the rule.

The fact is that while entry level incomes may have fallen, lifetime incomes have increased relatively. 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/psdt_01-10-20_economic-inequality_1-0/

But what is also happening, is that those at the top end are increasingly earning more on a relative basis. 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/screen-shot-2020-01-08-at-5-06-47-pm/

So what does this mean?  Even though people are earning more, it doesn't SEEM like they are earning more.  Also, costs have increased as well.  69 you mentioned the cost of a house, but most people aren't buying the same type of house they were 50 years ago.  They are larger and nicer.  Same with entertainment...communications, etc.

The purchase price to build our new house was 58K in '77. In 2017 I sold it for 450K. The house had 2500 sqft of living space with 2.5 baths. I sold my parents 9k house, 3 bedroom cape cod built in '48, despite the recession for 300K in 2011 and my in-laws 2200 sqft bi-level built in '66 for 35k and sold it for 380k in 2014. The reason my parents house sold for that much during the recession is that it was only a mile from the train station to Manhattan. I guess according to Rocky's link I'm keeping pace or just slightly ahead of inflation, but people are no different now than then. They just want a house to meet their needs not just an investment.

Here are a list of high paying jobs that don't require a 4 year degree:


https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/high-paying-jobs-without-a-degree

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The purchase price to build our new house was 58K in '77. In 2017 I sold it for 450K. The house had 2500 sqft of living space with 2.5 baths. I sold my parents 9k house, 3 bedroom cape cod built in '48, despite the recession for 300K in 2011 and my in-laws 2200 sqft bi-level built in '66 for 35k and sold it for 380k in 2014. The reason my parents house sold for that much during the recession is that it was only a mile from the train station to Manhattan. I guess according to Rocky's link I'm keeping pace or just slightly ahead of inflation, but people are no different now than then. They just want a house to meet their needs not just an investment.

Here are a list of high paying jobs that don't require a 4 year degree:


https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/high-paying-jobs-without-a-degree

Your anecdotal evidence aside, the average new home size has grown nearly 2/3 since 1970.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

[muwarrior69]

Your anecdotal evidence aside, the average new home size has grown nearly 2/3 since 1970.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

More due to building codes set by the municipality than anything else. The minimum size home in the development I'm living in now is 3000 sqft. set by the township. There are at least 3 low income housing sites under construction in the township now. Most condo units are under 1500 sqft. One is a 55 and over community. Also back in 60s and 70s more people were moving out of the towns and cities and into the suburbs and outer suburbs with more building space. So you could buy a lot more house for less; and remember the interstate highway system was still being built and well into 80s and early 90s. My first year at MU the Marquette exchange was only a map on a piece of paper and was not complete until my Senior year.

...but I concede home sizes have increased.