Chickens Come Home to Roost: Law School Enrollment Numbers down to 1977 Levels

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that first-year law school enrollment is down to a level not seen since the 1970s as many recent graduates have steered away from a career that leaves you with crushing debt and the slim prospect of full-time work.

The American Bar Association says the number of full- and part-time law students at its 202 accredited law schools fell 11% this year to 39,675 – one short of the 1977 number.

I suppose the market – potential law school students/consumers – is waking up to the pitfalls of law school that I wrote about nearly 2 years ago – “Do you really want to go to law school?”

I recently spoke to a recent Columbia Law School graduate.  He told me how he graduated with $223,000 in debt, and is glad now he has brought it under $200,000 (to $195,000.)  I was shocked, and asked him how that was possible – back when I graduated in 2002, the average cost per year was $50,000 total.  He stated that tuition alone at CLS was over $50,000 now, and recently just went up - it’s now $55,916 for the academic year 2013-2014.  That means your per-year-law school cost at Columbia is currently a cool estimated $82,795 – meaning you’ll graduate with $248,385 in debt.  That’s a breezy quarter-million dollars – not counting the interest that accrued on your non-federally-subsidized loans.

Assuming you don’t have rich parents, law school is becoming an increasingly unsupportable business proposition, unless you go to a top law school, and/or target a lucrative practice area like tax.  Maybe that’s why the WSJ says “students are still vying for places at elite schools like” Harvard, Stanford and Yale.  But unless you’ve always had a lifelong desire to practice the law – as I wrote about previously – or attend the creme de la creme – you might just want to take Nancy Reagan’s advice and “Just Say No” (to law school.)

A Requiem

I returned from a trip earlier this year to get a phone call from a friend regarding a former student who also became a good friend in the process.  She was slated to graduate from law school this spring, and I thought it was regarding the graduation.  Instead, it was to inform me that she’d passed away.

When someone you know well passes in their prime, it gives you pause.  It reminds you: Nothing is guaranteed, and you might be taken tomorrow.  Ergo… carpe diem.  Live your dreams.  Who knows how much time you have?

I miss my friend.  AD - in pace requiescat.  I hope you’re in a better place.

LSAT 62 Management Skills Conference Game 3: Setup Part III

LSAT 62 Management Skills Conference Game 3: Setup Part III

Rule 4: Q attends the first talk T attends.
So now, the rules of the game get a little trickier. How can we depict this visually?
One way is to reverse the order. This is a difficult rule to depict otherwise, but what it is really
saying is: the first showing of T, will trigger Q. We could thus write: T – with a subscript 1,
superscript 1, or 1 in parens – leads to Q.

LSAT 62 lsatwin mgmt skills game rule 4 setup LSAT 62 Management Skills Conference Game 3: Setup Part III

Rule 5:
S attends the first talk R attends.
Again, what this rule really means is: the first showing of R, triggers S. We can depict it
similarly to the last rule

LSAT 62 lsatwin mgmt skills game rule 5 setup LSAT 62 Management Skills Conference Game 3: Setup Part III

Now, let’s take a moment to review for deductions.
It seems that Q and R are the most limited players. The critical rule to remember is that each
agent must show twice. So, we can see that Q is limited to G, I and L, and R is limited to F, I
and L.
Can we deduce anything from the TQ and RS rules?
Remember, whenever we have a conditional (if A, then B) then we also have the contrapositive
(if not B, then not A.) So, you can deduce that, in a situation where you do not have Q, you will
not have the first showing of T. Similarly, in a situation where you do not have S, you will not
have the first showing of R.
Here, we can see that T cannot go in F. Why? Because F is the first talk, and Q is barred.
Since Q is barred, we get the contrapositive – that we cannot see the first showing of T. In other
words, T cannot go in F.

LSAT 62 lsatwin mgmt skills game final deductions setup LSAT 62 Management Skills Conference Game 3: Setup Part III