LSAT June 2014 Administrations

Isn't that good news? I mean it's threatening to the glut of law schools, but to all other observers, there was almost uniform acknowledgement of a glut.

Slowly, we're seeing an increase in hiring for college educated students (ie, law school's applicant pool). If we stabilize at circa 30,000 JD students per year, isn't that long term sustainable? I know it means death to 30 or 40 schools, but we've seen 20 new ones since 2003. Why can't the academy embrace this?

Because the academy desperately does not want to embrace closing 30-40 schools. Particularly since most of the schools that survive will likely have to cut faculty.

Assuming that closing 30-40 schools is at issue, is that "good news" that should be "embraced"? Doubtful.

If LSAT test taking is mindless and tends to exceed the legal employment market, and we believe that market is going to remain supersaturated, a drop in test-taking is an appropriate adjustment and, in that sense, good. Law schools should decrease output, either by cutting class sizes or closing schools. Closing schools is not itself a good thing, unless you regard them as attractive nuisances that mindless applicants, fueled by subsidized tuition, just cannot resist . . . which seems unlikely (see, e.g., the drop in applicants). It is costly, insofar as closing schools results in unemployment, not just of professors, and wastes lots of capital — including, most important in my view, much of the value for recent grads of those schools. This is different from whether founding a new school is a good idea; for many years, in almost every case, it *has* been a bad idea. The fact that many schools should never have been started is different from whether we would like them vaporized.

If we think LSAT test taking is (now) highly correlated with the perceived value of a law degree, a drop is mixed news, even putting closings aside. On the one hand, it seems good for recent grads or current students, in that they will have fewer competitors. On the other hand, it does suggest that people are betting employment will continue to suck; that doesn't strike me as good news.

What is good news? Good news would be soaring test-taking stimulated by employment prospects, reduced class sizes until present excess is absorbed by the market, no new schools, and continued pressure on the expense/value of schools (meaning, inflation-consistent tuition and greater staff productivity). Closing schools that can't make the grade over the longer term, including because they're not producing value even in good times and can't be efficiently improved, is also fine. Settling for much less is like listening to laid off steel workers celebrate a drop in steel production and cheer factory closings.

PO

Wow. Where to begin? what a load.

First, you set up an "either or" argument. Either "LSAT test taking is mindless" or "LSAT test taking is (now) highly correlated with the perceived value of a law degree." What an excellent example of the fallacy of false alternatives!

In any event, you make no real point with respect to either alternative, other than to acknowledge that lower numbers of LSAT takers tends to reflect a perception that the market for new attorneys is saturated.

Then we come to your conclusions, which have little or nothing to do with the preceding "analysis." You say:

"Good news would be soaring test-taking stimulated by employment prospects, [and] reduced class sizes"

Here, you seem to suggest that either LSAT taking should be mindless (i.e., unrelated to employment prospects) or "highly correlated with the perceived value of a law degree" measured by improving job prospects. These alternatives demonstrate the sort of muddled nature of your comment. Which is it?

You then go on to say that, in an environment of increasing LSAT taking (presumably, because the employment market is improving) law schools will "reduce class sizes until present excess is absorbed by the market." Again, where is the evidence, any evidence, that would be the case? Here in the FL many in legal academia argue that there will be a shortage of attorneys in a few years, completely ignoring or discounting to the point of insignificance the overhang of which you speak. Will these faculties reduce classes in the face of increasing applications?

Finally, you suggest waiting until "good times" to determine whether some law schools should be closed. You say: "Closing schools that can't make the grade over the longer term, including because they're not producing value even in good times and can't be efficiently improved is also fine." The illogic of this nonsense is that many of these schools were created during "good times" precisely because the "good times" concealed their faults.

An analogy to steel mills? Really?

LSAC has confirmed these numbers and updated its website accordingly (so it's not just a "rumor" any more).

But this doesn't necessarily mean a decline in application volume for the coming year. The June share of a given year's LSATs has varied over the last 10 years from just under 18% to just under 23%. The drop in June LSATs could presage a continued drop in applications or simply more applicants putting off the LSAT until September (or later).

P.O. to add to anon's comments:
You take the position that closing law schools is bad because it leads to unemployment of non-law faculty and wastes lots of capital including the value of the JDs awarded by those schools. On this last point, OK, I agree, the value of a law degree from a defunct institution likely goes down. But how valuable is the degree from a schools that is in such bad shape it closes. Clearly, Harvard is not going to close. Cooley, Florida Coastal, NYLS, Touro, Western New England, etc. How valuable are their JDs at present??

Should law schools continue to operate just to employ the non-profs, most of whom can likely get employment elsewhere — unlike most of the profs. In terms of other capital — the facilities, technology, etc. — what university could not make use of these assets since at many, the law schools is the nicest building on campus, complete with all the IT bells and whistles many other programs would love to have????? Should universities continue to waste more capital keeping failing law schools afloat and do so, most likely, at the expense of other programs?? I believe that is called, throwing good money after bad….

anon, you make a number of good points, for which thanks. I wish I had been clearer (and yet more concise). Briefly:

1. My primary point was that reduced test-taking is good news, *if* you assume continued bad news re. employment — law schools should not take people who can't get jobs. It seems odd to me to celebrate adaptation that itself likely reflects bad news for present students and past grads, so my celebration is muted. We could debate whether it's like seeing the dampening of any other form of production, but it's probably not fruitful.

2. Closing schools, including those that should not have been opened in the first place, isn't really good news either. As I said, current students and recent grads suffer; probably necessary but not good news. The prior comment suggested the common notion that only greedy faculty would want to keep a school open; I am sure they do, and that they play an outsized role, but there are sounder reasons not to destroy equity. These aren't like boardwalk restaurants that can be shuttered and reopened or closed without consequence beyond the staff; look at the Dickinson/Penn State folks to see how much grads who paid good money care about maintaining its value.

3. I am not sure why what I styled as good news isn't at least better news, or why you try to lure me into the fallacy of false alternatives that you just rescued me from. I agree that in a booming market, law schools will be tempted to relax and return to business as usual, and that this would be very bad. Maybe you or others think that only continuation of the crisis will change things for the better, such that only terrible news can be good news in the long term. Maybe; I don't see why expansion couldn't occur again, if everyone behaves so basely. Moreover, it really can't be the only solution: if 30-40 schools close, does anyone really believe that will force change at the top 50 or 75 schools? Change has to be persuaded, or willed, by subtler means.

Indeed, what of the wasted capital of those who borrowed in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay inflated tuition for a law degree that affords little or no opportunity to obtain gainful employment as an attorney? What of law schools whose median LSAT is near the 15% percentile?

Does anyone believe that a person truly concerned with equity would argue that preserving the employment of the staff at such law schools could possibly justify continuing the status quo? Especially given that a misleading sales job goes on and on, including right here in the FL, it appears to many that the defenders of the status quo aren't principally concerned about staff and recent graduates.

PO

We surely agree that HYS etc. do not need to close, and should not close. After all, the United States needs law schools and lawyers. About that, there is no dispute.

Last year about 16% of ABA accredited US law schools admitted students with a median LSAT of less than 150 and about 5% admitted students with a median LSAT of 145 or less. To put that in context, at 150 on the LSAT, one is at about the 44th percentile, as 140 on the LSAT, one is at about the 14th percentile.

Many of these schools have been plagued for many years with poor bar pass and employment rates. In response to the former issue, when attention to the issue is acute, some of these schools are said to respond by academically disqualifying the bottom rung of the class (after accepting one or two years of tuition); with regard to the latter, we all know the terrible story of efforts (some of which are ongoing) to mislead prospective students.

Closing 20 law schools would eliminate about 10% of the ABA accredited schools.

For those 5% of ABA accredited schools admitting students from the lowest quintile of the LSAT distribution (below 145), whose bar pass rates are and have been sub par, and whose employment numbers are and have been abysmal (especially those schools that can be proved to have historically engaged in the disingenuous practices mentioned above) please: make the case for continuing to allow these schools an ABA accreditation which permits them to induce and accept from young entrants inflated tuition that causes them to borrow and incur indebtedness in the 150K range.

Is hoping for a return to "good times" even a plausible notion in these circumstances?

PO,

I have three modest proposals for the poor faculty, who might style themselves as laid off steelworkers.

First, perhaps they could network some more. This may pay dividends in getting a job. Networking and shoe leather are the key to employment.

Second, the focus on finding other employment in academia alone may be too narrow. Many might be able to find Academia Advantaged employment opportunities in other sectors. Not all academics joined faculties anticipating becoming tenured careerists. I think it shortsighted not to look at the Academia Advantaged jobs.

Third, perhaps pursuing an LLM or PhD would open some more doors with the additional specialization. Any debt they incurred could qualify for PAYE.

See, the glass is half full.

JoJo

Brilliant!

AA jobs would include a corporate contracts administrator, government regulatory analyst, FBI agent, and accountant. Also included might be jobs in personnel or human resources, jobs with consulting firms, jobs doing compliance work for business and industry, jobs in law firm professional development, and jobs in law school career services offices, admissions offices, or other law school administrative offices.

JoJo/anon: that's good stuff . . . funny and well played. You realize, I'm sure, that I had law grads cast as my laid-off steelworkers and law profs in their accustomed role as the management — with the already suffering workers either getting the "good news" of factory closings or, perhaps, seeing the closings as troubling harbingers of further troubles in the market — but let nothing get in the way of the material.

Interesting – it has not been this low since the height of the dot com boom – in other words BA's now have readily available jobs as they did then. This suggests law school is inversely related to the macroeconomy.

Anon

Did you click the link posted by Alfred above?

Not sure what your comment means. It employs bad reading of data, ignorance or disregard of the actual facts that might bear on the embedded assumptions, poor grammar, a muddy and illogical conclusion, and the ultimate mark of a great teacher: gratuitous use of jargon to make a "big point" that has no relevance or even any coherent meaning in context.

Your classes must be great!

PO

C'mon. You have a good argument here. Let's hear it!

For those 5% of ABA accredited schools admitting students with a median LSAT score that falls in the lowest quintile of the LSAT distribution (below 145), whose bar pass rates are and have been sub par, and whose employment numbers are and have been abysmal (especially those schools that can be proved to have historically engaged in the disingenuous practices mentioned above) please: make the case for continuing to allow these schools an ABA accreditation which permits them to induce and accept from young entrants inflated tuition that causes these entrants to borrow and incur indebtedness in the 150K range.

So far, you seem to say that: protecting the jobs of "non faculty staff" and "capital investments in buildings" and persevering the "value" of the JD degrees already obtained from these institutions and hoping for a return to "good times" are the plausible reasons to retain ABA accreditation for such law schools.

Correct?

Jojo & anon

Don't forget that some law professors would probably be able to find employment as managers of major league baseball teams or CEOs of NFL teams. "Former law professor" is a versatile qualification, after all.

The June numbers do not mean the numbers for the year will be down (and certainly not down by 9%), however in the past when the June numbers were down by anywhere near this percentage, the annual numbers were down too. I realize law school applications are in a new world, but it is unrealistic to expect that the there will be more applications than last year. I do think any increase from 2013 and 2014 applications will be relatively small, but at least for the time being this is the new normal.

Senator Warren is a former law professor.
Justice Kagan is a former law professor and dean.
Justice scalia is a former law professor.
President obama is a former law professor.

The interesting data point is that the number of first time takers is down 14 percent, That is a large decline. For the overall data to be down only 9 percent given that 14 figure, means a lot of June re-takers.

I interpret that to mean that many applicants for the fall '14 semester retook the test and are considering delaying to '15 in the hopes of a better school or better price.

I agree with one of the prior posters that the "overhang" of unemployed law school grads is a problem, but unless the person has a JD advantaged job of some value to a law firm (say tax department in a big 4 accounting firm, possibly of value to a law firm to do tax work), most of those will likely get passed over for new grads in later years. The person who has been traveling or waiting tables is not that attractive.

What you are seeing in the second-time takers is a better informed consumer.

This would scare me if I were a law school admin attempting to stench the bleeding.

Sticker price? Yeah . . . that's not going to work. Let's talk about how low you'll go to get those rear ends in the seats.

(N.B. Apparently, no-one has listened to Admissions Dean Freedman.)

What a blow to law schools! After two years of slowing down, the decline actually accelerates!

I've said it for a while, the driving force behind the decline in applications is the increase in tuition. It is not the economy or the curriculum.

Profs, until you address cost, this trend will continue at a fast pace.

The economy has been picking up some recently. It wouldn't surprise me if the drop in test takers tracks with a rise in the employment prospects of recent college graduates.

At the end of the day, the drop in test takers doesn't really matter. All that will happen is that more law schools in the bottom rung will move toward a defacto open admissions policy.

As much as people want to berate law professors at second rate institutions, its worth remembering that it is the students who attend lousy law schools that are ultimately making the decision to ruin their lives. Even if you stapled a copy each school's LST Report to everyone's loan paperwork, a lot of these students (who couldn't be bothered to study for the LSAT or get good grades in college) will no doubt believe they can "work hard" and graduate as one of the handful of success stories these institutions churn out each year. Optimism bias is a bi$#h.

"At the end of the day, the drop in test takers doesn't really matter. All that will happen is that more law schools in the bottom rung will move toward a defacto open admissions policy."

I'm not sure that even a de facto open admission policy will save some of these schools. Optimism bias only goes so far. Look at Indiana Tech.

anon: You say "So far, you seem to say that: protecting the jobs of "non faculty staff" and "capital investments in buildings" and persevering the "value" of the JD degrees already obtained from these institutions and hoping for a return to "good times" are the plausible reasons to retain ABA accreditation for such law schools."

I was commenting on what constitutes good news, which to me isn't the prospect of closing 30-40 schools; good news to me would constitute things turning around for students and grads and, at the same time, reform. If times continue to be bad — as they are likely to be — reducing new JDs is sound, and I also hope students won't select your 5% schools and get 150k in debt. So we generally agree as to what's appropriate, given what I regard as bad news and some others seem to regard as (reflected) good news. I do separately stress the costs associated with closures, including turning degrees into scrip. Since you've taken me to task, sometimes fairly, I'd only note that your 5% is not quite the same as the 30-40 closures others were anticipating. I'm also not sure that the first to go will be the worst . . . informational issues and financial asymmetries play an outsized role in the survival game.

You come close to attributing to me the view that the ABA should stay the course because closure costs are so prohibitive that everyone should just hope for improvement. I see where you got this, from what I styled as genuinely good news, but I don't favor this based on the bad news that seems to keep coming. ABA accreditation is a mystery, save that I doubt it will ever be good at policing schools, and probably cannot take on the broader task of managing the supply side. Anyway, I don't think the concerns I mention are more important than how the worst schools are performing in real time — they're just collateral costs that should be considered, and leave me down when others (perhaps not you) simply crow "good riddance." I do hope that closures happen to schools that can't adjust, and less based on short-term exigencies, because of these collateral costs. Maybe if you gave me a wand, I would immediately close some and reform others dramatically, but to state the obvious, I'd first use that wand to improve employment.

Can't respond any more until Monday, at earliest, when attentions will have wondered. Appreciate how you have pressed this issue, even if we don't see it the same way.

I do not think the problem is with students who didn't bother to prepare for LSAT or study undergrad. It is possible for those students to improve in Law School. The more difficult problem is with respect to those students who did prep for LSAT and did study in college. Those students have done all they can, and yet may not be able to succeed in law school or on bar.

Nathan A,

You're wrong. The application drop is having a huge impact on the schools ranked 15-100. So much that it is the predominate focus on most legal blogs these days. Increasingly, these schools have to pay huge scholarships to attract students of average talent. It is killing their revenue.

You are right in a way that the schools at the bottom are the last to be affected. They don't care about admissions standards, so it doesn't matter if they decline.

Finally, the bottom 20% of applicants are unlikely to pass the bar exam, so, for those interested in the # of people entering the profession, it is effectively as though they were never admitted.

"You're wrong. The application drop is having a huge impact on the schools ranked 15-100. So much that it is the predominate focus on most legal blogs these days."

Most definitely not true. Schools ranked 15-100 had no problem letting their median LSAT slip about two points over the last three years. Letting them slip another 1-2 points doesn't really matter as long as most of your competitors are doing the same (which they are). If you pit solvency against enrolling a class with a median 1pt higher, solvency wins. All the time.

(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuH-BqWULdrxdGRLd2hBdm5NVHlMY3VqN2Y0QXdXZnc#gid=0)

Like I said, for T15-100. Letting medians drop ain't no big deal when faced with a drop in applicants.

Of note is the drop in June takers (2,195) overall is greater than in the past two years. Even more telling is the decline in first time test takers. Given that many schools towards the bottom are nearing 100% acceptance rates, at some point they will not be able to gain more applicants unless the LSAT is eliminated for admissions. Even if they do fill their classes they will not be at sticker. Many schools are offering "scholarships" to lower students than in the past. Additionally unlike in past years the big classes have graduated, so fewer students will be covering costs in general. This academic year will likely see more downgrades by Moodys etc.

My question at this point is how small can schools go before they are forced to close? The set costs of the schools now being spread among fewer students can make matters worse. The actions of DOE towards Corinthian are a sign, that the gigs up.

Nathan A – Most of the T15-100 schools dropped class sizes in 2011 and 2012, then dropped their LSATs in 2013. I think if you compare the most recent class to the classes the recent height of the applicant pool (say 2007,2008,2009 or 2010), you would see a drop in class size of 20% or more on average for T15-100. And probably more drops this year.

"Most definitely not true. Schools ranked 15-100 had no problem letting their median LSAT slip about two points over the last three years. Letting them slip another 1-2 points doesn't really matter as long as most of your competitors are doing the same (which they are). If you pit solvency against enrolling a class with a median 1pt higher, solvency wins. All the time."

I agree 100% that they are willing to drop standards. I still think that takes a negative toll.

Anyway, the big issue for schools is merit scholarships. It is a big time buyers market right now, and schools have to really fight over the same dwindling pool of applicants. Thus, even if a 156 is the "new normal" median LSAT, schools like Davis and Hasting still engage in a price war to attract these students. They are forced to offer more money to a 156 now than they would offer to a 163 five years ago.

This is causing some pain, believe me.

"Anyway, the big issue for schools is merit scholarships. It is a big time buyers market right now, and schools have to really fight over the same dwindling pool of applicants. Thus, even if a 156 is the "new normal" median LSAT, schools like Davis and Hasting still engage in a price war to attract these students. They are forced to offer more money to a 156 now than they would offer to a 163 five years ago."

Again, I am not seeing how the basic dynamic changes. If schools target a lower median LSAT, scholarship offers simply target candidates with lower credentials than in years past. Its possible that the yield on scholarship offers has risen, thereby cutting into schools' coffers. But that's it.

But sure, the drop in Applicants has taken a toll on some school outside the T50. Not every law school is as unscrupulous as the Factory of Sadness (American University).

Seems to me that there is a huge difference between school 15 and school 100; schools in this broad range are not all in the same boat. Also have to factor in market, state v. private v. independent status. I know of several private schools in the closer-to-100 range in competitive markets are in big trouble. Stealth layoffs/buyouts of non-faculty have let some with a skeleton admin staff. Of those I am most familiar with, they are just waiting until the semester begins to see how the reductions affect students and faculty.

P.S. Even with these reductions, they are not likely to be in the black.

The very bottom tier schools are somewhat constrained in who they can accept by the ABA's bar passage standards, but there are plenty of loopholes and strategies that can hold off the reckoning. As for willing applicants, these schools target the students who are the least likely to stumble across counterarguments to law school.

I do not think closing those schools would really have any concrete effects on the recent alumni, since pretty much everyone who cares already knows about their reputations. What it would really hurt is the egos of the older, successful alumni, and of course successful people in America cannot ever be made to feel bad about themselves.

PO

Thank you for your comments. I do think we agree that, at least at the very extreme, there are some law schools that do not merit ABA accreditation: remembering that accreditation is the key to inducing and obtaining federal student loan revenue (using students as conduits).

A track record of unusually poor bar pass rates that have not budged in material ways for years except when addressed sporadically by academic disqualification of second and third year students, abysmal employment stats (and a history of demonstrably misleading conduct to disguise these facts), and shockingly low admission standards (e.g., median at or below the 20% percentile on the LSAT) should all be strong indicia of failure. Combine these indicia with tuition greater than 20,000 per year and one could reasonably conclude that enough is enough and that this law school should lose its ABA accreditation.

If these are not the right criteria: What criteria are the ABA employing, and from how many law schools has it withdrawn accreditation in the last 20 years?

Has the ABA EVER withdrawn its accreditation (as opposed to not accrediting)? Has the federal government EVER imposed a serious penalty for not complying with rules other accrediting bodies must comply with, such as consideration of student loan default rates, job placement?

Anyone want a good laugh on this lovely Friday?

Add the usual prefix for an internet address to this, and have a look at the ABA standards:

americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2013_2014_final_aba_standards_and_rules_of_procedure_for_approval_of_law_schools_body.authcheckdam.pdf

In particular, these:

Standard 501. ADMISSIONS, Interpretation 501-3, Interpretation 501-4, Interpretation 501-4

Standard 503. ADMISSION TEST

Standard 509. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES, Interpretation 509-2

Standard 510. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS, Interpretation 510-1, Interpretation 510-2

I ask again, What criteria does the ABA find meaningful? Surely, not those set forth by its rules.

BTW, the fonts in these rules are truly impressive.

Good work, ABA!

Add

For an even more hilarious read, see

Rule 16. Sanctions

Same document.

Perhaps these days, only the minions of legal academia are members of the ABA.

As others have pointed out, the ABA Section on Legal Ed is controlled by profs and admins from mediocre law schools, who have no intention of raising Standards in any meaningful way.

Cooley's Ann Arbor campus was only accredited by the ABA in the past year or so, and now it is likely to close. Shows you the close scrutiny the ABA accreditation folks give to the schools that come before it.

I do believe that LaVerne in CA lost accreditation a few years ago and is not trying to get it back. It was a CA accredited law school for many years. I think the reason for the lost accreditation was poor bar pass rate over a period of years.

Anon123,

The lost generation of law grads.

Never got a job as a lawyer, have several thousand dollars of student loan debt.

I am pretty certain LaVerne did not lose accreditation, rather it had provisional accreditation and did not obtain full status.

LaVerne was denied full approval in 2011, but given provisional approval all over again in 2012.

You can see all the documents on it here: americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accreditation/accreditation_archives.html

The students who unsuccessfully sued some of the third tier schools should have added the ABA to the suit (not saying it would go anywhere, but at least bring them to the table). Some are saying that the accreditation bodies are enablers of student loan debt the same way financial rating agencies facilitated other bubbles.

Why would the ABA give LaVerne provisional accreditation? It had trouble with bar passage standards when there were many more law students. How can it do better now?

Anon123

Is your question rhetorical?

If I am reading the obfuscating disclosures the ABA approves correctly (I'll stand corrected if not), we find:

For Fall 13, LaVerne students' incoming median LSAT score was 147.

For the class of 13, of 90 LaVerne students who took the California Bar Exam for the first time, 50 passed; that's a pass rate of 55.56, or only -15.87% lower than the state average of 71.43!

For the class of '13, employment data was likewise truly impressive (though, as usual, it is somewhat hard to discern, as disclosures are in the ABA approved format, which requires a specialized degree in bs to discern): 86 grads, 54 employed, 30 employed in LT, FT, bar required positions, or a whopping 34%!

Best of all: La Verne charges only 39,900 per year in tuition! Thanks to generous student loan programs, a prospective student can handle that tuition, and the ABA disclosed cost of living of $27,649 (not sure if this annual or per semester) with ease!

NOW IS THE BEST TIME IN HISTORY TO APPLY!

Now, why would anyone wonder about the reasons the ABA approved provisional accreditation? The ABA is doing in this instance what it seems to do best.

Add

Remember a 147 on the LSAT is about the 33-34th percentile!

That's a good score, because that means that a whopping 33% of LSAT takers did worse!

The ABA is very good at figuring!

It is a shock to read this blog after spending time on TLS. Some people are saying that Harvard isn't worth sticker now, because other T14 schools can get you almost all of the same jobs. A scholarship to another T14 is better because debt is so hard to repay.

You need to understand that people are negotiating, deferring and retaking for more money and admissions of the wait list.

I don't think you grasp the sea change that has begun in the past few years as better employment stats are available, big law salaries remain stagnant and tuition keeps increasing. This will just continue over time.

You should read the discussions and advice 0Ls are getting on TLS. "Retake" is the most common refrain now, though not so long ago it was "retake and ED UVa." No one recommends EDing anywhere now, other than to get the NU scholarship.

People are shown job stats and intricate spreadsheets of hiring and underemployment from the top schools have been prepared.

Additionally, a cohort of respected long time members who have graduated with massive debt and big law jobs have been explaining the pressure of debt, the difficulty of repayment, even on big law salary (which is around $96,000 take home in NYC) with budgets thrown into the mix. Most importantly big law associates are posting reality checks about the demands of big law.
As the advice of this experienced cohort continues to be accepted and respected, you will continue to see increased intelligence from 0Ls in decision-making.

Law isn't the career it was decades ago. That truth is sinking in to 0 Ls and law faculty need to accept it as well.

RE the earlier discussion on dropping medians, please note that medians have been dropping at T14 schools as well. NYUs class of 2016 medians mirror stats that were only good enough for Duke 3 years ago in the class of 2013.

This isn't an issue isolated to lower their schools.