September 2014 LSAT Administrations Down 8%

Thanks for the update Al! The drop in LSAT takers really is staggering. Almost 61,000 students took the October LSAT in 2009/10, nearly double the number from this year. It may be about time for another Moody's credit downgrade for law schools across the country.

Just some further info — you note that the decline in first time takers was larger in June at 14 percent. For September, the first time taker decline was smaller at 3 percent.

I keep thinking that even if things leveled off next year, a huge number of schools have got to be deeply in the red.

Re: Barry's comment. For the law schools, even a leveling off doesn't solve anything for at least three years. Graduating classes (those that entered three years ago) are almost uniformly larger than the entering ones. Consequently, most law schools will continue face significant drops in their tuition revenue every year for the immediate future as those larger classes are replaced with smaller entering ones.

And that's even without considering the increased price discounts that consumers (students) are demanding from the suppliers (law schools).

JPQ, what is your source for that 3% figure?

One can only hope that the AAUP and the ABA will accept the situation and try to make the best of it. Demanding that schools go bankrupt before accepting any change is not right. When the ABA lectures on ethics, they need to look in the mirror. The Committee on Legal Education should have more law school trustees, and fewer representatives from diploma mills.

I wonder if the June and October declines are more a sign of the labor market picking up for young college graduates than students/families become more debt averse.

Wow, students applying to law school now will have their pick of jobs. Good for them but bad for the Judiciary and Law Firms. Which do you think won't be able to fill all its openings? I'm betting law firms are going to have to push salaries well over $200,000 just to fill all their positions. Even then it will be tough with the competition from JD advantage jobs, public interest and government.

One the plus side, it'll be paradise for the students.

"I wonder if the June and October declines are more a sign of the labor market picking up for young college graduates than students/families become more debt averse."

When economic times are hard, enrollment drops because the economy slows down and there are fewer jobs. When economic times "pick up" (what a laugh that is), enrollment drops because the UGs have other options.

In other words, this drop in enrollment has nothing to do with the economy.

However reactionary and stubborn legal academia may be, at some point, reality will force reform or closures in the lower tiers.

Meanwhile, of course, those at the top of the pile will survive. There will always be life boats enough for the first class travelers on the Titanic, who will look down their noses at the drowning and say good riddance.

So sad, because it is the standard set by those at the top of legal academia (just as it was the fault of the designers of that famous ship who thought so highly of themselves) that is destroying the reputation and perceived worth of legal education. Those who know nothing about the practice of law are reaping what they have sown.

Meanwhile, those responsible for this decline debate with one another about how better to abuse the only source of help they've got. Again, it is just so sad because all this was so preventable.

Anon at 8:36, how was this preventable? Not certain what you mean.

Anon,

"Have their pick of jobs?" "$200,000" "paradise?"

I hope this is a sarcastic barb at the law schools. It is about as far divorced from the reality of practice today as you can get. Frankly, the entirety of the ABA accredited law academy could mothball their institutions for the duration of the next Presidential administration before any "shortage" would appear.

There's a glut of law grads. There's a glut in practicing lawyers. There's even a glut of would be lawyers who aren't in the law labor force. The market is saturated.

About 50 schools need to close. Before you recoil and gasp, academic reader, consider this. In the last twelve years, there have been 20 new ABA acredited law schools. When PAYE gets limited or changed, as many as 100 schools could be toast. You are amid what your jurisprudential scholars call an existential crisis caused by what you law and Econ types know as a structural market change.

This is good news. The profession hasn't been stable, professional, or happy since the mid-1980s. This change will mean a smaller but leaner profession.

anon @ 8:36 PM

"When economic times are hard, enrollment drops because the economy slows down and there are fewer jobs."

What on earth are you talking about? ALL fields of graduate study are usually deluged with applications during an economic downturn because people are trying to hide from the recession by going to school. See the uptick in LSATs administered in the early 90s, right after the dotcom crash, and right after the 2008-2009 recession.

As numerous studies have shown, a JD is a valuable degree. Sooner or later students will realize that and return in droves. The current process is just cyclical. What is important is not to lose focus on the long-term. Keeping faculties and scholarship strong for th err time when the pendulum of student applications swings the other way should be of prime importance.

Anon at 9:12

I would love for someone to say exactly that in every law school planning meeting around the country. If law schools do not get leaner right now, they will be in very serious danger of closing in the next five years. The effect of the application decline is going to be very acute, and there will will be no time to adjust later.

JM, I think you're getting trolled.

LSAT statistics are an unfortunate sign of the commoditization of education. Educational institutions, especially law schools, are economic engines for communities. There should be broad support for these even during supposed lean times when values are misconstrued.

Nathan A,

Yeah, I assumed that was sarcasm, but since it is exactly what most faculty actually believe it served the same purpose as a sincere comment.

Nathan A

How do you account for the steady decline in applications since 2010?

Was the economy fully recovered by 2010?

Moreover, correlation, even if there was one, is not proof of causation in any event, and you have a very weak case in showing that applications soar in bad economic times and decline sharply in "good" economic times.

That is just a story some tell themselves to avoid the truth about the law school academy, not a fact. It ranks up there with the junk "S&M" report, which "discovered" the amazing fact that historically a graduate education in the professions has added earning power, but ignored the ongoing changes in the legal profession and academy.

How was all this preventable? Well, I'm sure the Wall Street folks all ask the same question about their debacle: they repeat the same mistakes and learn nothing, because their arrogance, egomania and cushy perches prevent them from seeing the truth about their own culpability.

anon @ 01:17 PM

Not sure where the misdirected anger comes from, but maybe dialing it back a little will help everyone out.

So first, let us go back to what you said …. "When economic times are hard, enrollment drops because the economy slows down and there are fewer jobs. When economic times "pick up" (what a laugh that is), enrollment drops because the UGs have other options."

So enrollment drops irrespective of economic conditions? Clearly, you want this to be so, but it sure doesn't bear out in the data. As far as my assertion that applications for graduate study soar during a recession, let us just say that I am more comfortable assuming causation in that instance than I would be in the assertion that "enrollment drops because the economy slows down and there are fewer jobs." So college graduates prefer unemployment to graduate school?

—

"How do you account for the steady decline in applications since 2010?"

As you might recall, the economy was adding jobs in 2010. Granted job growth wasn't remotely at the level necessary to quickly counteract the effects of the recession, but there was job growth. I wouldn't be surprised if the stories about deferrals, no offers, law school debt, etc …. also played a significant role in the decline in applications to law schools. In fact, I think it was the latter more than the former. Especially since the unemployment rate for young college graduates did not fall as quickly as it did for other groups between 2010 and 2014.

Like a lot of people I assumed that the decline law school applicants was slowing down. That is why I was surprised that the June and October administrations showed larger declines than the previous year. Hence my wondering whether the job outlook for college graduates is improving.

Nathan A, I think you are exactly right that recessions tend to generate more graduate school applications, while economic upturns generate fewer. However, barring extreme economic events, these effects are really at the margins.

What we are seeing now is some completely different than any downturn in history, and is driven by completely different factors: namely, (1) debt and (2) alternative media. Huge levels of student debt is the underlying reason why so many recent graduates are unhappy, and alternative media (social media in particular) gives them a platform to express their discontent in a way that they never had before. If every disgruntled graduate reaches an average of 30 people with the message, it really starts to permeate the general consesus. Even if they don't directly communicate the message, via Facebook everyone they know can easily monitor their failure, which adds exponentially to the number of people who will change their impression of law school and become more aware of the risks.

Transparency is the new order, and law school have to take up the challenge to become places that enhance the lives of their graduates rather than destroy them. Until they do, they can expect declines far deeper than what we have seen to date.

"So first, let us go back to what you said …. "When economic times are hard, enrollment drops because the economy slows down and there are fewer jobs. When economic times "pick up" (what a laugh that is), enrollment drops because the UGs have other options."

I should have been more clear: that was facetious.

Nathan A., you are doubling down, so let's get into the numbers a bit. Lehman Brothers fell on September 15, 2008. You say, "As you might recall, the economy was adding jobs in 2010."

So, according to your theory, apps for law school sharply increased for 2009-2010, because students saw law school as a refuge from a bad economy, but students started staying away in droves, beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, because the alternatives for UGs were then so much better.

Like a lot of people, "I wouldn't be surprised if stories" are the basis for this conclusion; oh, and assumptions.

Nathan A

Let's add a few more facts to the discussion.

According to the BLS,

"In December 2007, the national unemployment rate was 5.0 percent, and it had been at or below that rate for the previous 30 months."

According to the LSAC

2004–2005 -1.6%
2005–2006 -5.4%
2006–2007 1.9%
2007–2008 1.6%

Please apply your theory.

"So, according to your theory, apps for law school sharply increased for 2009-2010, because students saw law school as a refuge from a bad economy, but students started staying away in droves, beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, because the alternatives for UGs were then so much better."

Yes.

anon @ 02:59 PM

You realize you sound like the climate change deniers who say the earth cannot be warming because DC had a very cold spring?

If you really want me to eat crow, you'll use a longer time horizon and plot the change in LSATs administered and the change in unemployment rate (18-29 year olds).

Nathan A

Others have taken issue with your certainty.

But, now you claim that your truth is as certain as the science of climate change, and anyone who says otherwise is a "denier."

The fact that you can't apply your theory to the facts sounds more like "deniers" than those who have simply laid out the facts and asked you to explain further. Especially because you essentially rely on one year, and refuse to consider the years immediately preceding and following that year (cumulatively, a ten year period), one thinks that you are projecting when hurling the accusation that anyone who questions your theory is like a "climate change denier."

Your anger is misplaced! When one resorts to name calling, then it is clear that the argument has run its course.

Nathan A

Oh, and BTW, please factor in the hiring for the census when performing your "climate change" level scientific analysis of law school application trends.

Thanks for posting this news, Al. Ultimately, though, whether more or less students take the exam is immaterial. The education of students and training of future lawyers who will be in front lines of the fight for justice, for theories of law, for the functioning of society I what matters. In that regard, law schools are economic engines. The glee some commentators have over these statistics is palpable. The weakening of law schools will hurt communities.

George

If you've followed the debate, you'd know that the SUPPORTERS of legal education blame the declining numbers on the failure of too many law schools to fulfill the mission you describe: a mission that I, for one, would endorse without reservation.

Because the ABA has no interest in ensuring that law schools comply with its standards, many have spoken out and the market itself is challenging, if not punishing, the worst offenders. The decline is not immaterial. If you think it is, you certainly are not well informed.

Call the sentiment about finally seeing some accountability for the smug and self satisfied "glee" if you like. That is just a name. I would guess you fall into the "defender of the status quo" category. Good luck with that, George.

I agree with George. These numbers are meaningless. Law schools for most part are regional schools. A city is lucky to have one. Most of the professors that I know are selfless, decent, smart individuals. You have the occasional individual who has a political bent, but that's all in a day's work. Law schools are an important part of the economy. I would hate to see our local school close. It would be devastating to businesses.

BNM,

Everything you have said is 100% correct except for the statement "these number are meaningless". No doubt law schools are good for the local economy–they bring in tons of student loan money. Those naïve students spend money on rent, food, entertainment, etc. It would literally kill some towns if the law school moved out.

The problem is that the law schools do nothing for the students themselves, and they are figuring that out. The fact that some local people will be financially injured, and you and a few others will be personally disappointed, by their decision not to attend, means absolutely nothing to them. They are thinking in their own best interest, as well they should.

If you cannot understand that perspective, then how about you lay your life down for someone else benefit and report back on how it made you feel?

"Most of the professors that I know are selfless …"

Oh, please.

BNM and George,

I think you are missing an aspect of the decline that cuts against your point. Aside from the benefits that JM mentioned (which are equally applicable to a local factory or amusement park closing), it doesn't do much to help the community to graduate a host of debt-ridden lawyers every year who can neither pass their state's bar exam nor find legal employment if they do. The growing "justice gap" despite the number of unemployed attorneys should pretty well demonstrate that more lawyers does not equal more access to justice. The situation is much more complicated than that.

It seems to me that what makes these numbers really concerning is that continued application decline places added pressure on the lower ranked schools that have been relatively good actors thus far, many of which are the traditional regional schools to which George refers. While there is no denying some schools have essentially gone to open admission (there are now eleven schools with a median LSAT of 145 or lower), many of those schools are newer or for-profit (all three Infilaw schools and Cooley are in this group, for example). Other regional schools seem to have decided to adjust their overhead (e.g., buy out faculty) and reduce class size rather than accept declines in student quality that get the school (further) into morally questionable territory.

The problem with the continued and increasing scarcity of applicants is that it is going to, unless something changes, reward the bad actors. Those schools will admit enough students to keep the lights on regardless of employment/bar pass. They will continue to perpetuate the practice of buying LSATS for the top quarter of their class because their unscrupulousness with the bottom half of the class gives them the wherewithal to do so.

The good actors don't have this option if they want to remain good actors. Those schools can't lower admission standards and still turn away applicants without a realistic option of passing the bar and finding post-graduate employment. This means that the regional schools that are also stand-alone or part of a less well-heeled university system are going to be placed in increasingly difficult financial positions as application shrink. Higher ranked schools will be plucking the top of their shrinking applicant pool and the bad actors will be buying students at the bottom of the admit pool who might otherwise be paying full tuition.

All that seems to be a recipe for good actors becoming bad actors in order to survive or for those schools to close (or be closed by their parent university).

Former editor, while it would be nice to have everyone be great at standardized tests, some people just don't test well. I can imagine there is a bit of disdain for these students among the elites, luckily there are many great law schools in this country willing to give these students a great education.

GeorgeW, the problem is the bar exam is also a standardized test. Also, while people of the same intellectual ability might score differently on the same standardized test because one "doesn't test well," there is a limit to that disparity. If you are scoring well under 150, your problem is likely not one of testing well or not.

GeorgeW

"willing to give these students a great education"

Define "great."

And, no matter what your criteria, is a legal education great if at the conclusion one is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and unemployable as an attorney?

Because, George, whatever YOU think is great, for most, your opinion is not only irrelevant, but worse than irrelevant if you advocate from a pov of apparent obliviousness to the debates that have caused the decline in question.

SOrt of like the student who hasn't attended class, shows up, raises his hand, and provides an "answer" debunked four classes back. The other students simply smirk; the professor is irritated; the class benefits not at all.

GeorgeW,

I went to one of the lower-ranked law schools on a full-scholarship, and the school was "willing to give these students a great education."

The problem is that there are far too many "low-ranked law schools" "willing to give these students a great education," and many of these schools accept students of "low quality."

I agree that the LSAT is not the perfect tool to measure the complete picture of a student. But consider that the test is highly learnable, that a prospective can take it multiple times, and that all students know the LSAT is a very important part of their legal education. The fact that so many thousands or tens of thousands of students do not put enough time in to the test speaks volumes about their judgment, maturity, and yes, quality.

Further, the LSAT has a correlation with bar passage ability, which is strengthened when UGPA is added. Since someone can not be a practicing lawyer without passing the bar, accepting hordes of applicants with very low LSAT scores and low UGPA's (which is doubly concerning because of rampant grade inflation) is tantamount to exploitation, as the students will fail the bar in high rates and fail to secure meaningful employment.

The fact is that many of these schools that accept many students that are ill-equipped for the profession and for passing the bar are charging far too much tuition for what they offer. A "great education" in the law 30 years ago at Harvard Law School is around $15-20,000 inflation adjusted dollars. Now only the most affordable public law schools charge around that amount (and BYU for Mormons).

The expensive law schools which feature poor bar pass rates and poor employment prospects for their graduates do not need defenders, what they need is accountability for their graduates' outcomes.

I'm glad I went to law school and will be starting my full-time, bar passage required job in the field of my choice soon (I graduated this past May). However, many of my classmates who paid for my scholarship did not pass the bar, and even for those who did many will never find employment as lawyers or salaries that will allow them to pay back their loans in a reasonable manner. They are the collateral damage that the poor performing law schools produce by accepting too many low-quality applicants.

They deserve better, even if some of the blame can be placed on their poor judgment.

GeorgeW,

I basically agree with what antiro and twbb said. I'll just add one thing that I think isn't clear based on your reply: my concern with low LSAT scores is not the elitism of the good standardized test taker. It is about only admitting students who have a chance of actually practicing law post-graduation, the first step of which is passing the bar exam. Before you respond, consider bar pass and bottom quarter LSAT rates for five of the eleven schools I mentioned earlier. The 25% LSAT are class of 2016 and pass rate is from the ABA 509 form from 2013, so they don't match up perfectly but, if anything, the disconnect is inflating the bar results.

Inter American University of Puerto Rico: 135/47.44%
Valparasio: 141/71.79%
Texas Southern: 142/62.5%
Phoenix (AKA Arizona Summit): 141/71.88%
Florida Costal: 141/75.38%

Notice anything?

Does anyone know if the state admissions committees have decided how to handle lower and lower bar exam results (that will presumably result from taking students with weaker test scores)? If the states don't become more lenient, shouldn't we expect to see lower passage rates?

I'm not aware of any states that have made statements to this effect and I wouldn't anticipate that state bar examiners would announce that they are becoming more lenient so as not to fail more and more students. They might do it, but I doubt that they would say they were doing it. A part of me wonders if NY's proposal to jettison the NY law essays in favor of the UBE is a covert move in this direction.

It is a poorly kept secret that many, many young lawyers have fared as cannon fodder during the last 15 years. The word is getting out and I wish that law faculty would embrace it. The only way this thing of yours lasts is if the profession is stable and smaller. There will be fewer law profs, but the profession will actually be stable and there will be fewer bright eyed 0Ls who sign up for a home's worth of debt before ever getting a job in the legal profession.