Law school applicants down 17 - 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the problem with trying to make everyone equal. LS became accessible to those who were not wealthy or incredibly bright. So they glutted the market because everyone could become a lawyer. The market recalibrated and only those graduating at the top of their class and/or from top schools were able to get the prized jobs. Just like it used to be. Now the poors have to find something else because the legal industry has had enough.

Isn't this the case for most professions now in this global marketplace? There's a thousand people, including foreigners for every job. So now, you've got to be connected and have the qualifications to get the top jobs.

Yup. Perhaps more people will start pursuing medical and STEM degrees and eventually those markets will become flooded with oversupply. It's just that those professions have a much higher bar up front to get in compared to law school.

medicine will never have an oversupply as long as there are limited residency spots.

the acgme and ama protect doctors unlike the ABA does with lawyers.

stem has a oversupply. don't believe what the immigration shills tell you (i want comp immigration but not because of 'we need more h1bs')

No kidding about oversupply of stem. Worse its like the Nfl. Hey only want young talent; once you hit 30, you are an old engineer and good luck finding a job unless you happened to specialize in the hot field of the day (good luck predicting, right now that is big data but who knows if it will go the way of social networking and grouponing)

[Anonymous]

Agree with 23:51 - for awhile, law school became 17th, 18th and 19th grade. Any excuse to avoid actually working.

I know four fellow college grads who went immediately to law school. None of them are lawyers.

[Anonymous]

stem has a oversupply. don't believe what the immigration shills tell you (i want comp immigration but not because of 'we need more h1bs')

STEM definitely has an oversupply, especially in areas that involve a lot of "wet" benchwork (molecular biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry), because graduate students and post-docs are basically cheap labor for professors (hands). As someone who has been in a PhD program in one of these areas, I will tell you that the first 2-3 years are actually learning/mastering your field. The next 2-3 years are just pumping out results with your hands so that your advisor will let you graduate. Some professors don't even let their students write up their results, they just want them to set up the reactions, purify the molecules, set up the assays, etc.

There is a huge dearth of jobs compared to the number of PhD students that come out. Especially jobs that pay reasonably well with benefits (well enough to merit 9 years of higher education). While we have a comparative advantage of coming out with no educational debt (most STEM PhD programs are paid...albeit you can be in your late 20s/30s making 25K in an expensive area), the earning potential is not great since the market is so saturated. It is a great way if you are from China or India to get a visa as a student or postdoc. And because there are so many people trying to get visas, there are always going to be people willing to work for lower wages for companies that hire molecular biologists, chemists, and biochemists. And since much of the work is manual labor, there is incentives for professors and biotech companies to hire these types. Of course, a few really talented, brilliant people make it through and become the "ideas" person, but those are few and far between.

I think things are a little better in the tech industry for those who do programming/engineering, but only if you are really talented. I know more people who are in CS/software engineering/IT who are in their late 20s/early 30s making six figures. But if you major in CS and are a mediocre programmer, you're not really any better off than anyone else.

I think STEM is really only lucrative if you are really talented. Just as law is only lucrative if you are really talented. There is no ticket to making the big bucks other than being talented and well connected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

stem has a oversupply. don't believe what the immigration shills tell you (i want comp immigration but not because of 'we need more h1bs')

STEM definitely has an oversupply, especially in areas that involve a lot of "wet" benchwork (molecular biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry), because graduate students and post-docs are basically cheap labor for professors (hands). As someone who has been in a PhD program in one of these areas, I will tell you that the first 2-3 years are actually learning/mastering your field. The next 2-3 years are just pumping out results with your hands so that your advisor will let you graduate. Some professors don't even let their students write up their results, they just want them to set up the reactions, purify the molecules, set up the assays, etc.

There is a huge dearth of jobs compared to the number of PhD students that come out. Especially jobs that pay reasonably well with benefits (well enough to merit 9 years of higher education). While we have a comparative advantage of coming out with no educational debt (most STEM PhD programs are paid...albeit you can be in your late 20s/30s making 25K in an expensive area), the earning potential is not great since the market is so saturated. It is a great way if you are from China or India to get a visa as a student or postdoc. And because there are so many people trying to get visas, there are always going to be people willing to work for lower wages for companies that hire molecular biologists, chemists, and biochemists. And since much of the work is manual labor, there is incentives for professors and biotech companies to hire these types. Of course, a few really talented, brilliant people make it through and become the "ideas" person, but those are few and far between.

I think things are a little better in the tech industry for those who do programming/engineering, but only if you are really talented. I know more people who are in CS/software engineering/IT who are in their late 20s/early 30s making six figures. But if you major in CS and are a mediocre programmer, you're not really any better off than anyone else.

I think STEM is really only lucrative if you are really talented. Just as law is only lucrative if you are really talented. There is no ticket to making the big bucks other than being talented and well connected.

"Winner take all" economics is worse in tech than it is in law.

There are really no artificial barriers to tech like there is to law (for instance, various licensing, jurisdiction, etc barriers). Further more marginal cost to produce in law is higher.

What i mean is, as a software or app developer, if you develop a killer app, it can be distributed, replicated to millions of customers for very little marginal cost for every extra unit.

legal services, while becoming more like this, is no where near as cheap as tech in this regard.

This phenomenon is partly what gives rise to massive winner-take-all economics in technology.

I know law has a bimodal market for associates (i.e. those that get 160k starting jobs and then theres a huge glut making 40k) but in tech/IT you have a handful that work in the valley or seattle and then tons doing really mundane work or working in defense.

[Anonymous]

There are really no artificial barriers to tech like there is to law (for instance, various licensing, jurisdiction, etc barriers). Further more marginal cost to produce in law is higher.

I think this is why the all encompassing term "STEM" is misleading. This, perhaps, is the case for tech, but it's certainly not the case for biomedical sciences or chemistry. Perhaps not as many as law, but there are certainly artificial barriers in place (such as needing to do a post-doc to get a job in industry--there's no real reason for it, but it has recently become a de facto requirement).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are too many not that great law schools who can not place their graduates. Why would anyone bother going to law school with the obvious excess of lawyers already out there? Why incur that debt? It would be crazy.

This is true of certain professions. People think a certain profession is "trendy" and they mistakenly equate it with "need". What they should be doing is calibrating what they are truly good at, not so obviously limiting themselves to the "trendy".

If there are too many, there can't possibly be jobs. It is basic economics. It should be obvious. But too many people think they have some sort of "get rich quick scheme". Be realistic for yourselves and your children, people.

Which other professions is this true of?

[Anonymous]

hopefully legalzoom and similar services will replace lawyers

[Anonymous]

Law School is still a good buy. Do you have any idea the number of positions will become available during the next 20 years as the Baby Boomer cycle out of the job market.

[Anonymous]

even obama wants to reform legal education:

"law school education should be cut down to 2 years".

superb sentiment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

stem has a oversupply. don't believe what the immigration shills tell you (i want comp immigration but not because of 'we need more h1bs')

STEM definitely has an oversupply, especially in areas that involve a lot of "wet" benchwork (molecular biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry), because graduate students and post-docs are basically cheap labor for professors (hands). As someone who has been in a PhD program in one of these areas, I will tell you that the first 2-3 years are actually learning/mastering your field. The next 2-3 years are just pumping out results with your hands so that your advisor will let you graduate. Some professors don't even let their students write up their results, they just want them to set up the reactions, purify the molecules, set up the assays, etc.

There is a huge dearth of jobs compared to the number of PhD students that come out. Especially jobs that pay reasonably well with benefits (well enough to merit 9 years of higher education). While we have a comparative advantage of coming out with no educational debt (most STEM PhD programs are paid...albeit you can be in your late 20s/30s making 25K in an expensive area), the earning potential is not great since the market is so saturated. It is a great way if you are from China or India to get a visa as a student or postdoc. And because there are so many people trying to get visas, there are always going to be people willing to work for lower wages for companies that hire molecular biologists, chemists, and biochemists. And since much of the work is manual labor, there is incentives for professors and biotech companies to hire these types. Of course, a few really talented, brilliant people make it through and become the "ideas" person, but those are few and far between.

I think things are a little better in the tech industry for those who do programming/engineering, but only if you are really talented. I know more people who are in CS/software engineering/IT who are in their late 20s/early 30s making six figures. But if you major in CS and are a mediocre programmer, you're not really any better off than anyone else.

I think STEM is really only lucrative if you are really talented. Just as law is only lucrative if you are really talented. There is no ticket to making the big bucks other than being talented and well connected.

I have to wonder if this is because "wet" fields are full of women while programming/engineering are still male dominated. Ladies: please consider programming/engineering.

[Anonymous]

The lesson is simple: Do not go for the "trendy" jobs, there will always be an overabundance of applicants/workers for not so many positions.

[Anonymous]

I have to wonder if this is because "wet" fields are full of women while programming/engineering are still male dominated. Ladies: please consider programming/engineering.

I don't think this is true. Biology is certain becoming more and more female dominated (although you would be surprised at the graduate level...it's pretty much 50:50 for biochem/mol bio, maybe the numbers are a bit different for evolutionary biology). But organic chemistry is still INCREDIBLY male dominated and has a macho streak to it, and it is very much a "wet" area. Both areas suffer from similar problems, except organic chemistry has an even worse culture than most biology labs.

I think it really comes down to the fact that if you are in a field that requires a lot of tedious manual labor, it sets up opportunities to be abused or outsourced. I think it has absolutely nothing to do with gender dynamics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so much emphasis on STEM now,[b] think the bright people go there. [b]And the quicke big money is made in technology and computer apps. Also business school still popular.

Not always the case especially with a lot of those in college or new grads who were all brought up believing they were the smartest, to persevere and all that matters is getting the degree. A fair amount of pretty bad transcripts with GPAs lower than 2.0 even with grade inflation and a lack of basic core concepts. Opportunities still exist for diversity but eventually it will come down to ability and achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so much emphasis on STEM now, think the bright people go there. And the quicke big money is made in technology and computer apps. Also business school still popular.

Not always the case especially with a lot of those in college or new grads who were all brought up believing they were the smartest, to persevere and all that matters is getting the degree. A fair amount of pretty bad transcripts with GPAs lower than 2.0 even with grade inflation and a lack of *understanding of* basic core concepts. Opportunities still exist for diversity but eventually it will come down to ability and achievement.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting. Good for my son considering applying to law school in 2 years though!