WSJ Has No Idea Who Benefits From IBR/PAYE/REPAYE/ETC

A hypothetical: Jill and Jack live in the same town. Jill has many healthy habits but is a nurse who spends time around infected people, Jack less so. The town is hit with a case of spectrox toxaemia, a dangerous disease. The government offers to immunize people. Jill decides to be immunized; Jack does not. Jill does not get sick; Jack does. So, epidemiologists, did Jill not contract spectrox toxaemia because she was immunized or because of her healthy habits (or luck)?

If you’re The Wall Street Journal, the answer is her habits. Most of us would believe otherwise, given how dangerous spectrox toxaemia is and Jill’s contact with its victims.

Likewise, this line of reasoning animates the WSJ’s opinion of the government’s income-sensitive repayment programs for student debtors, which it claims benefit higher-debt people with better credit scores than lower-debt people who don’t. It’s unintuitive, if you’re the WSJ apparently, but it makes more sense to those of us familiar with the student debt system.

Here’s how it works: People who take out lots of debt might not in fact have the incomes to repay them, so they choose an income-sensitive repayment because the alternative is … Default! Thus, looking at how much they borrow is less important than looking at how much they’re paid.

Last year, in fact, the Government Accountability Office explored this topic and found that most people in income-sensitive repayment programs were earning less than $20,000 annually. So the Jills aren’t so different from the Jacks after all.

Sure, if there were no IBRs/PAYEs/REPAYEs/ETCs, then these Jills with good borrowing habits would be more likely to take deferments and forbearances, but their debts would still not be repaid. That’s because debts that can’t be repaid will not be repaid, no matter what someone’s credit score or how much they borrowed. What matters is what they earn, and college graduates don’t earn much these days.

And if you think the Jills have too much debt, then the problem isn’t IBR/ICR/REPAYE/ETC, it’s that the government lends too much money to people for degrees they don’t need.

High School Grads Get a Big Raise, College Grads? Not So Much

Last week, the Census Bureau published the 2015 edition of its Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance tables. This information is my favorite source for understanding the value of higher education: More young people are getting college credentials, but their aggregate income isn’t rising much, which means they’re not much better off.


Indeed, in the mean-average year since 1991, people who didn’t start high school have received bigger raises than any other category. College graduates barely do better than high school grads. Meanwhile, many more people have gone to college and fewer just stop at high school.


As for 2015, the high-schoolers got a much bigger raise than the college grads.


(The data are highly erratic, but it’s still fun to do the horse-racing.)

That’s all, folks.


Past coverage:

Class of 2015 NALP Data: The Mid-Law Crunch

A few weeks ago, the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) published the national summary report for its Employment Report and Salary Survey (ERSS) (pdf). Unlike last year, the chart lists the total number of graduates and the number who reported employment information, and the NALP updated its ERSS national summary chart for the class of 2014 to include that as well. I chided the NALP for omitting these last year, but that’s not a problem now. Good.

My goal today is to quickly glance at the ERSS for information the NALP might not have reported or missed, and to add to the time-series displays of graduate employment outcomes I provided last year. The NALP’s data are far easier to work with than the ABA’s when it comes to longitudinal trends, so this is where to get it. Nevertheless, I don’t have much to say.

The NALP’s selected findings (pdf) focused on the number of graduates finding private practice jobs, the lowest since 1996. There were undoubtedly fewer than 40,000 graduates that year, so compared to 39,984 this year, this is understandable. What is new, as I discussed in May, is that even though the number of graduates fell, the proportion of them finding better work didn’t improve. Large percentages are still working in “JD-advantage” jobs and nearly 11 percent reported being unemployed. This is not what a law-graduate recovery would look like.



Last year, at least, there was some rise in the proportion of employed grads. This year nothing’s changed. Blame all the grads who failed the bar, I guess.

As for the kinds of jobs grads are getting, I’m seeing a mid-law crunch since 2007 that I don’t believe the NALP has discussed.



(Sorry this one’s a little unclear.)

In fact, hiring at firms with 51-250 lawyers shrank the most since 2007, more than 30 percent in each category. Smaller firms have grown—but are now shrinking—and the biggest firms are making a comeback.

I’m not a biglawologist, nor a midlawologist, but if the big firms aren’t annexing the middle ones, then this is a chunk of the profession that’s shrinking. Looking at the After the JD II data, which I know is dated, middle-sized practices tended to have low outflow rates compared to other practice areas. Aside from government work, maybe these were among the best long-term jobs one could get out of law school?

2016-09-06 Site Update

Good morning, and happy September! If you like state-level employment projections and employed-lawyer-per-capita counts, then this post is for you! The powers that be have collected states’ employment projections, allowing us to peer into the future of lawyer employment. Find out what that means for law grads below…

Law Graduate Overproduction

Lawyers Per Capita By State

So Just How Far Off Were My Tuition Projections?

Back in February 2011 I made a bold prediction: Full-time tuition costs at private ABA law schools would increase.

Talk about sticking to your guns and throwing conventional wisdom out the window!

But enough self-congratulations and I-told-you-sos. I offered projections for each law school, which proved so popular that a handful of Web sites even reported on them, motivating me to update them annually. Although I’m always pleased to receive positive press, I ceased making new projections when it became clear that tuition growth was going to slow down due to the applicant crash. (Also, the methodology posts were mind-numbing to write.) No tweaks to the methodology would create accurate results, so that was that. Nevertheless, time has passed; we’ve caught up to the first projections, and I’m curious how far off (or on?) they were. Maybe we’ll learn a lesson.

My original projection methodology estimated that mean-average private-law-school tuition (excluding the two private Puerto Rico schools, as always) would rise from $38,097 in 2010 to $47,598 (25 percent) by the 2015-16 academic year. Later, I believed that methodology produced results that were too inaccurate, so I revised it, giving a mean-average tuition of $46,341 (22 percent) by 2015.

These growth rates are impressive, and when I offered them I chose not to adjust them to inflation because I didn’t want to predict inflation and I was convinced that consumer-price inflation wasn’t really playing much of a role in law-school tuition anyway. In fact, the consumer price index has only risen by 8.7 percent in this five-year time period. In hindsight it may’ve been appropriate to compare tuition to the CPI’s higher-education cost index, but I think no one is worse off.

So how did I do? Thanks to the ABA’s 509 information reports, I get $44,413 mean-average tuition at the private law schools that were around in 2010—and were private law schools in 2010, for some have been socialized, e.g. Texas A&M, which used to be Texas Wesleyan. On average, tuition is 17 percent higher than 2010, so my average was high by 4 percent. Yikes, but at least the savings went to law students.

But as we learned once again recently, the mean average isn’t useful without the dispersion. Yeah, that damn average is made up of real observations that may indicate patterns of their own. So here’s the variance.

Percent Variance of Projected Private-Law-School Tuition (2015)

You can see there are a few outliers, which I’ll go into, but overall, the horizontal zero line cuts fairly closely through the body of the points. In fact, the median projection was off by less than 3 percent. Variances below the zero line, however, tend to clump together more.

So who are these outliers?

No. 1 is La Verne (82.5%), which gave up on merit scholarships a few years back in favor of flat costs for all. I figured it’d charge $48,027 in 2015, but in fact it cost $26,323. You can take this as evidence that tuition can’t go up forever.

No. 2 is the school I thought would’ve been number 1, Faulkner (45.6%), which doubled its price tag within a few years of receiving ABA accreditation. This was certain to throw off my methodology, so no one believed it would cost $51,045 today. Still, I didn’t expect it to go up by only 13 percent since 2010 ($35,050). That barely beats inflation.

No. 3 is a school I didn’t expect to see on the list, Ohio Northern (41.5%), which cut its tuition from $31,264 in 2010 to $26,030. I thought it’d charge only $36,820.

No. 4 is another unexpected tuition reducer, Roger Williams (33.3%), which costs $34,596 now rather than the $46,128 I expected.

Nos. 5 and 6, Elon (24.8%) and New Hampshire (23.2%), barely raised their tuition at all, so it’s no wonder their projections were off.

No. 7 is another tuition reducer on the list, Brooklyn (23.1%), now $46,176 when I thought it’d be $56,862. It charges only 1 percent less than in 2010, and that’s nominal dollars.

I’m not going through the rest, but the one law school I expected to see further up was New England (11.5%) because like Faulkner it raised its costs by quite a bit in the mid-2000s. I guess it just kept going. Finally, among the for-profits, Arizona Summit, Atlanta’s John Marshall, Charleston, and Charlotte all came in below their projections by at least 10 percent. Florida Coastal and Western State overshot theirs by about 5 percent.

The bottom-end variances aren’t as noteworthy, but congratulations are in order to the most expensive law school in the land, Columbia (-3.7%), for raising its costs more than I thought. A bunch of other expensive, well-regarded law schools also outdid my methodology. Good job. Not.

However, that lone dot way below the zero line at $47,980 is … WMU Cooley (-23.4%). I thought it would charge only $36,680. I’m not in the mood to research why it jacked its price tag so much, but it probably has to do with the school’s large part-time program. Maybe it’s trying to deter people from the full-time program?

Overall, I would’ve guessed the median variance would’ve been over 3 percent, but in general the projections tended to skew higher rather than find their marks. Meanwhile, I count 28 law schools (about one-fourth of them) that varied from their projection within the -2-to-2 percent band. That’s about $900 at the median law school.

In all, there was a nugget of accuracy to the initial projections, but I don’t take credit for predicting that; rather, I was right that the projections would overshoot reality. Private law schools slowed their tuition increases over the last five years. That’s small potatoes for the students though.

Below the fold, here’s a list of private law schools by cumulative cost increase between 2010 and 2015, along with information on their projected 2015 tuition.


‘Law Deans Are Running Bait and Switch Operation’

…In Australia.

Yes folks, y’all can add Down Under to the list of countries with too many law students chasing too few legal jobs, according to a surprisingly scathing opinion piece in The Australian Financial Review by a law instructor at Macquarie University.

A few quotes:

“Law student numbers are out of hand. Nearly 15,000 finish their degree each year, and enter a market where there are only 66,000 solicitors.” Yikes.

“Law deans are running a bait and switch operation. They hold out the promise of a legal career, while adding to the unemployment queue.”


“[The deans’] claim that the legal problems undertaken in law tutorials are a platform for a generalist degree – that will see students who miss out on a job as a lawyer well placed to enter other high-paid spheres of the economy – is a self-serving myth.”

All this is just more evidence that American legal education does a better job of training law deans to advocate their positions than other countries do. The best they can offer here is the versatile-law-degree argument, but if they want to avoid a government crackdown, they’ll have to lean on increasing diversity in the profession or at least gussy up what they have with some kind of human-capital analysis. Otherwise, these Southern Hemispherians will end up like their Japanese counterparts.

LSAT Tea-Leaf Reading: June 2016 Edition

Whoo-ey! Took long enough. As with February, the LSAC took its sweet time posting the number of people who sat for the most recent LSAT. In June 23,051 people took the test, down 0.8 percent from last year (23,238).

No. LSAT Takers, 4-Testing Period Moving Sum

The four-period moving sum fell trivially again by 0.2 percent to 105,696. My December speculation that LSATs are trending downward again appears to be holding, but these numbers are really, really flat.

Meanwhile LSAC data indicate that 1 percent more people are applying to law school this year. I can see this number falling next year because of the latest round of New York Times coverage on law school, but until then, I’m still curious what the application distribution will be for this year. September/October will probably be more insightful.

Anyway, a year ago I joked that law school was becoming a thing again, but that trend appears blunted. That’s where we are.