It Can Happen in the Best Families
WC must have heard it a hundred times; some parent confesses in a hushed voice that their child has decided to go to law school. The horror! The shame! And, increasingly, the really, really bad idea.
For some time now, New York Times reporter David Segal has been trashing law schools. They have it coming. At several levels. His best single article - although it is very long – came back in January. It’s worth a read. Among other matters, its explains in lay terms what has been an open secret among lawyers for decades: law school doesn’t teach you anything useful about, you know, being a lawyer.
WC will unhesitatingly pile on.
First, the role of lawyers in the economy is contracting. As a percentage of the gross domestic product. it’s declined from over 2.0% to less than 1.4%:
CHART DELETED – SEE COMMENTS
It’s reflected in employment data as well:
Employment in the Legal Sector
WC can’t find data for employment of only lawyers, but the legal services sector is obviously in the tank.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the U.S. will produce an average of about 24,400 new jobs for lawyers per year over the next decade. ABA-accredited law schools are producing 45,000 new graduates per year, while non-accredited schools produce several thousand more (An estimated 53,000 people pass state bar examinations each year). So, roughy speaking, there are two brand new law school grads chasing every job. Each year, as the surplus law school grads pile up, the numbers will get worse.
And all this is coming at a time when law school tuition is climbing like there’s no problem at all. Check out this spiffy animated GIF:
CHART DELETED – SEE COMMENTS
Law schools seem to believe they are above the fundamental laws of economics. They’ll even lie about it. For example, WC’s law school, until hooted down for it, was claiming that the median starting salary for its graduates was $105,000. Yo can get those kinds of numbers only by ignoring the percentage who can’t get a job at all.
So WC will summarize for the jury:
- Law school curriculums remain out of touch with many of the practical requirements of being a lawyer.
- The supply of lawyers generated by law schools is approximately twice the demand for lawyers.
- The cost of a law school education is increasing at rates that are multiples of inflation, and have no discernible relation to the economic value of that education.
Did WC mention that student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy?
WC wants to be clear about this: a smart, competent, and hard-working attorney, who is willing to bust his or her butt, can make decent money. But don’t enter law school with any illusions it is a meal ticket.
WC made this comment:
“The supply of lawyers generated by law schools is approximately twice the demand for lawyers.”
Any economist would have been able gently to let those greenhorn law school graduate in on an inviolable truth: pricing one’s services in accordance with the market means there is demand for all. It is those who believe that Because They Are Lawyers, they somehow are WORTH $250 per hour, who have become deluded.
What they are worth is what the market decides. And if the growth of lawyers exceeds the growth for their services, then they MUST lower their fees so that a balance reasserts. At the end of the day, it truly is no different from, say, a power plant producer who says “Well, I MUST charge $2.40 for every kilowatthour because otherwise I’m not making enough money.”
Nope.
alaskaranger
December 5, 2011 at 3:55 pm
One would almost think you were unhappy with the fees your lawyer is charging you, alaskaranger.
/WC
Wickersham's Conscience
December 5, 2011 at 4:27 pm
That might be one possible conclusion, I agree. It certainly is no secret I am unhappy with those $2.40/kWh electrons…
alaskaranger
December 6, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Wickersham’s Conscience,
My name is Matt Leichter, and I run the blog The Law School Tuition Bubble, which uses publicly available data to research legal education and the legal profession. I came across your blog today and was surprised to see the first and third graphs you used in your post. Both of these are identical to ones I created and published on my blog in a post titled, “A Profession in Decline BEA Legal Sector Data (1977-).” With my permission the nationally read legal publication, the Am Law Daily, published this post as well under the title, “Media Outlets Claiming ‘Law Is no Longer a Golden Ticket’ Conceal Decades of a Profession in Decline.”
I put a lot of effort–a lot of effort–into gathering the data necessary to make those charts and present them to readers, especially the animated gif. It is clear to me you did not create them yourself as they differ in no way from my own work and their urls are identical to the originals’ on my blog. USING THEM HERE WITHOUT ATTRIBUTING ME IS PLAGIARISM. Cite me as the source, with an apology to your readers and myself, or I will inform my readers that you steal other people’s work and claim it as your own.
Matt Leichter
December 11, 2011 at 8:53 am
Neither graphic was taken from the articles you cite; both linked to the place WC found them. But WC has absolutely no interest in getting in an attribution war. They are deleted.
WC’s photos are all over the web, copied and used elsewhere, usually without attribution. WC puts a lot of work into his photos, too. Generally in a lot less comfortable surroundings than a workstation in a comfortable room. But WC long ago decided there was no profit and little point in tracking down each use and demanding removal or attribution. It’s the nature of the web.
You disagree, which is your right. You obviously spend considerable effort tracking down use, even to very low traffic blogs. That’s your right, too. WC thinks it’s an odd use of your time, but that’s your right, too.
WC thinks perhaps you might even be proving the point of your graphics.
/WC
Wickersham's Conscience
December 11, 2011 at 9:49 am