Waning ranks at law schools

Perhaps it's also a pride and expectations issue? I know that in TN there is a lack of available lawyers for certain court case work, especially juvenile court and family cases. The pay isn't stellar for a lawyer but it's a solid 40 out/50 in-court. You go down and sign up for dates and the cases are assigned as they come in to the lawyers signed up for those days. I think there have recently been some changes in one court in one county to limit but mostly, it's sign up, get work. I know a few years ago you could get a degree from a capable, long term in-state institution for ~40k tuition (3 years). You weren't "allowed" to work first year so that could cause an increase.

To compound the problem, every South Middle Tennessee State -type school opened a law school during the glut because it was a huge cash cow for the parent university... so other than a complete collapse of admissions, there is no impetus for these T-3/4 schools to close. It's not uncommon for students to come out of these schools with 200+K in student loan debt and no job prospects to speak of.

It's unfortunate, but the Legal Academy was all to happy to get drenched from the firehose of unemployable vague humanities majors that US Higher ed produces - now, at least, some of the students are starting to get a more realistic picture of what that undischargeable debt means for their future - but the damage is done.

This, this, a thousand times this. I graduated from a T25 school in 2011. I was one of about 15% of my graduating class that had a job lined up going into their third year, a time when strong candidates were typically choosing between several competing offers.

The proportion of people in my cohort not working in the law (including myself) is small only in comparison to the proportion who regret their career decision now that they've experienced the reality of legal practice.

For anyone considering law school, take a hard look at the criteria above and give yourself honest answers. Appeasing family members isn't worth committing yourself to a career you despise or ruining your finances indefinitely.

I would add a number 8: If you're interested in public service and would like to be either a lawmaker or a government official--but the above passion/connections still hold. (That's the value-neutral version compared to 'power-hungry pol' or 'ambitious bureaucrat'.)

If you want to run in those circles, you need to know how to keep yourself and your employer/patron out of court, and be able to squeeze the opposition--legally, of course.

The trick remains managing the school debt during the apprentice/ladder-climbing years--but at least you can still think of yourself as a lawyer. Because you are. Until you take the fall. But if you don't see it coming, you aren't much of a lawyer.

Good advice but I'd quibble with a few points.

#2 should be based on actual knowledge of what lawyers, that work in jobs similar to the one you are likely to end up in, do. Your colleague that's sold his last start-up for eight figures has a lawyer spouse that works at a small not-profit for 35 hours a week working on issues of internet freedom. That's not a relevant data point for you unless you too have such a spouse. More explicitly, if you fall into category #3 (outside the HT) you should know what BigLaw is like and want to do that. Because that's where you are going to go if you want to pay off that debt.

Speaking of category #3 T14, which always manages to be 16-17 schools, it is a too broad in my opinion. Yale is in a class by itself and opens doors that are difficult or impossible to open otherwise. Harvard Law has the most generous loan forgiveness program I've ever seen. To be honest I don't know much about Stanford Law, but that's usually included in the Holy Trinity. Beyond that, if you get no money, you really should consider the schools on an individual basis based on where you want to practice and what you want to do. Many should really be put into the #4 (scholarship) or #5 (regional powerhouse) rule.

Regarding #4, a full ride only covers around 2/3rds of the financial cost and none of the opportunity costs. I'd restrict this category quite dramatically (though keeping in mind #5) to maybe 30 or 40 schools including the t-14, and exclude schools that have several higher ranked competitors in the same city (sorry Fordham).

Finally, I'd add one more category -- people with a fair amount of experience in a particular industry that know exactly how a law degree will help them advance in that industry and can easily slot back in. Some people I went to law school with that would qualify along those lines were real estate developers and talent agents.

Why is that number ridiculous? At ~1% of the workforce, this means that the average American laborer needs 2.5 days/year of lawyer time to keep them fully occupied, which honestly doesn't feel like such a stretch to me, given that they need to be involved in hiring/firing, expansion, policy changes, deals closing, etc.

Also - note that not all licensed attorneys are practicing, so it may even be more like 1 lawyer-day/year per worker.

That number seems ridiculous, but without comparing it to other countries it's more or less meaningless.

The idea of just cutting all those social programs and handing out the cash instead seems like a huge vision for a new, freer, society. I really like that.

OTOH especially the health sector does not work as a market, as demand is for health services for sick people is simple infinite (e.g. they pay every price).

For the rest, I agree.

>Also, a Maserati dealer has just opened in Arlington, Virginia.

I have a hard time imagining the mind of someone who sees this as related to civil servants rather than lobbyists.

That $1 trillion figure deserves some color: http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/12/no-...

Note that it includes programs like Medicaid, which are more efficient than private sector insurance: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4023. It also includes things like the earned income tax credit. Is there an army of federal lawyers involved in distributing that money? Probably more like some code in some program. It also includes programs like TANF, where only 12% of grants can be allocated to overhead.

> And law school is the gate to a federal job. That's a powerful expansionary force supporting legal education.

Except federal and state government legal hiring is trending down massively (except in immigration enforcement).

Rather than redistribution, why not have a basic universal income for all?

"...to tens of thousands of members of the New Class"

Well, I mean, they are citizens too. And they are doing work, automatized as it may be. Though their phones may be more useful and cheaper in this function, the way things are currently, they do deserve to be paid more. They do have the responsibility to hand out the checks, and as such, deserve more than those just getting them. With responsibilities must come privileges. How much? I mean, really, in many cases your phone will work just as well. So, what, a dollar more then?

I remember, though I cannot find the citation, a quip about that old Larry Page saying: "The next sexy job in 10 years will be statisticians." He said that in 2003, and sure enough, Nate Silver, for a little while, was the darling of jocks and nerds. The quip was about the next sexy job: Mayors. It boiled down to : "Mayors are the next statisticians. They control the tiny pieces of public codes, regulations, or forms that will be the biggest block to many hit new things getting passed. If you can control some portion of that system, you'll have it made." Though it speaks openly of bribery, it rings a bit true. You can block some new subway tunnel with an environmental impact report, you can control the speed of licenses with long lunches, you can take apart some new start-up or mom and pop deli with a crappy stenographer's report.

Yes, lobbying, I know. But this is more personal. It's not an uber powerful deal maker thing. It's a thing poli-sci majors could do, easily. Just work as a clerk or whatever for a year, and blammo, elected to the dog-catcher's bench with 50 votes and you are the guy we all have to go through to clear a parade or scout meeting in a park. You know, just to make sure the city isn't sued.

You are correct, the long view here is ever increasing bureaucracy, and the key into that kingdom is the law degree.