National Statistics

Ratio of lawyers per capita
Ratio of law students per capita
Ratio of lawyers per state GSP
Ratio of law students per GSP

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.

(more…)

Office of Management and Budget: +$1.1 Trillion in Direct Loans by 2026

…Which is down from $1.4 trillion by 2025 as predicted last year.

Every year in July the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes its Mid-Session Review of the budget, which includes the Federal Direct Loan Program, and projects its future. The federal government’s direct loans consist primarily of student loans, but there are a few other programs in there. However, federal direct loans do not include private student loans, but these are a small percentage of all student loans. Thus, the OMB’s measure is both over- and under-inclusive of all student debt, but it covers most of it.

The OMB classifies direct loan accounts as financial assets totaling $1.144 trillion in 2015. According to the office’s projections, by 2026 this figure will grow to $2.213 trillion—93 percent.

Projected Direct Loan Balances (OMB, Billions Current $)

(Source: OMB FY2017 Mid-Session Review (pdf))

As with previous years, the current direct loan balance is below the OMB’s past projections. For FY2012, it predicted the balance would be $1.363 trillion by 2015, $219 billion (19 percent) higher than what actually occurred. Even last year, the OMB’s estimate for 2015 was still high by 4 percent. Here are the OMB’s direct loan projections going back to FY2010.

Direct Loan Balance Projections (OMB Billions Current $)

Because the OMB expects GDP to grow as well over this time period (we’d have bigger problems than student loans if it didn’t), the ratio of direct loans to GDP will level off below 8 percent over the next decade.

The OMB’s measure of direct loans is the net amount owed to the government, and the annual changes to that amount are not the same as the amount lent out each year to students. The Department of Education tracks its lending, and I last discussed it here. As of 2015, fewer students were borrowing from the federal government, so lending appears to be declining. The newly implemented gainful employment rule might further reduce student lending as well. These factors may explain why the OMB’s projections keep falling short. Consequently, I don’t believe student debt will exceed $2 trillion.

CLASS OF 2015 EMPLOYMENT REPORT

[UPDATE: As with last year, it appears the ABA took down the employment spreadsheet by late Friday afternoon, making this post … an exclusive. There may be substantial revisions to come.]

At last, something to write about! (And time to do it too!)

On Friday, the ABA updated its Employment Summary Report Web site, which provides employment data for each law school class going back to 2010. Many if not all law schools have uploaded their individual reports, and some intrepid researchers have already dug into them, but I prefer to wait until the easy-to-use spreadsheet comes out. Note: There may be revisions to these data, but this first, preliminary cut gives a good sense of the class of 2015’s employment outcomes. Also, I diligently account for all accredited law schools, so researchers should recognize that Concordia Law School must be inserted manually. Indiana Tech has no data.

39,423 people graduated from 204 ABA-accredited law schools outside of Puerto Rico roughly between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2015. The employment information is good as of about March 15, 2016.

Here’s the employment status distribution.

Class of 2015 Employment Status Distribution

Surprisingly, many of the employment status categories’ percentages are identical to last year, even though the absolute numbers have fallen. I almost thought I was looking at the 2014 data by mistake. Notably, the employment status tables added a section for “Employed – Law School/University Funded” jobs. It’s probable that a good chunk of these jobs were classified as “JD Advantage” until now, further clouding the validity of that category.

The display tables appear below the fold to conserve blog space.

**********

(more…)

Wage-and-Salary Lawyer Employment Slows in 2015, Incomes Flat

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) usually completes its updates of its many measures of occupational employment for the previous year by April. Data for 2015 are now available, allowing a comprehensive summary of lawyer employment for the year. For detailed discussion of what the BLS datasets are and how they address lawyer employment, I recommend the lawyer overproduction page [updated!].

For context, according to the Current Population Survey (CPS), the number of people who reported working as lawyers in 2015 grew 2.5 percent to 1,160,000. The employment projections program (EP program) placed the number of lawyer positions at 778,700 in 2014. The discrepancy between these two measures has existed for a long time and has yet to be explained. Although the CPS is considered more reliable, the EP program estimate is appropriate for discussing future lawyer employment. The CPS measures the number of people in an occupation, but the EP program estimates the number of positions in that occupation, including people holding multiple jobs. Both measures include part-time lawyers and self-employed lawyers in all industries.

The CPS also estimated 803,000 people working as lawyers on a wage or salary basis, an implausible 9.0 percent growth from the previous year (+66,000 lawyers). By contrast, the more accurate Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program found that the number of wage-and-salary lawyers grew by 1.1 percent last year to 609,930. The number of employee lawyers in the legal sector grew only a negligible 0.4 percent to 380,180.

Lawyer Employment by BLS Measure

Employee lawyers’ incomes were flat in 2015. The OES estimated a scant 0.6 percent median hourly wage growth, although the CPS registered a 4.2 percent median weekly wage increase. Going by the OES, the last peak for lawyers’ earnings was 2009; incomes are about $10,000 lower in real dollars since then. Here is an annualized dispersion.

 

10th to 90th Percentile Dispersion of Annualized OES Lawyer IncomesThese lawyer employment measures are not strong bellwethers for the value of legal education because they include many established lawyers and don’t measure recent graduate outcomes particularly well, especially those of graduates who do not promptly start careers in law. Readers are instead advised to look at my criteria for predicting improvements in law graduate outcomes for insight.

Anthony Carnevale Has Two Years to Reemploy 15.8 Million College Grads

Two years ago I made fun of President Obama’s ludicrous claim that “more than 60 percent of jobs in the next decade will require more than a high school diploma.” It appeared Obama appropriated the statistic from Anthony P. Carnevale’s paper for the Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce (GCEW), entitled, “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018.” It shrieks on page 22 that 63 percent of jobs created by 2018 would require a college education: 33 percent bachelor’s degrees, and 30 percent associate’s degrees or just some college.

As I wrote in January 2014, Carnevale and his colleagues reasoned that the BLS was holding occupational credential requirements constant when they should drift with times. As non-college jobs go increasingly to college-educated workers, we should consider those jobs as requiring college education.

If you’re scratching your head wondering if Carnevale is rationalizing credential inflation, then you have no hope of employment in a D.C. think tank. (Maybe you didn’t go to college?) In the fourth appendix, the authors merely counter-argue, “BLS’ educational and training requirement data undercount postsecondary degrees by 22 million in 2008. This implies that 22 million workers are overeducated. The overwhelming consensus in the literature contradicts this.”

Thanks to the most recent publication of the BLS’s employment projections (tables 1.7 and 1.11), I get 15.8 million people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in jobs requiring a high-school education or less. On the bright side, that’s down 100,000 jobs from two years ago. That backlog won’t clear until the mid-22nd century.

It’s true that occupations can change and benefit from productivity advances, and many occupations do not require a single credential to enter them. However, the question GCEW should be asking is what jobs overqualified workers are taking. The answer isn’t too compelling.

Percent BA's in HS & Less Jobs

These twenty occupations account for half of the 12.9 million bachelor’s-degree holders working in high school or less jobs. These occupations dominate among master’s-degree and doctorate holders as well. Maybe some of these folks over 25 are in these jobs temporarily (they’d have to be for many), but at that age it’s pretty implausible that they’re on track for college-premium-magic careers.

Overall, 19.3 million college-and-higher people are qualified or underqualified for their work, and 27.4 million workers are at least somewhat overqualified, which includes PhDs working in bachelor’s jobs.

In contrast to the GCEW’s forecast, the BLS essentially says that 27.7 percent of the jobs to be created by growth and replacement over the next decade will require an associate’s degree or higher. (BA’s are at 20.5 percent.) High-school and less will account for 64.2 percent. Of the 46.5 million jobs that will be created, here’s a table of the top twenty, accounting for 16 million jobs.

OCCUPATION EDUCATION REQUIRED NO. EMPLOYED (2014) (1,000s) NO. EMPLOYED (2024) (1,000s) NEW JOBS (GROWTH + REPLACEMENT) (1,000s)
TOTAL 150,539.9 160,328.8 46,506.9
Retail salespersons No formal educational credential 4,624.9 4,939.1 1,917.2
Cashiers No formal educational credential 3,424.2 3,491.1 1,523.8
Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food No formal educational credential 3,159.7 3,503.2 1,364.6
Waiters and waitresses No formal educational credential 2,465.1 2,534.0 1,255.0
Registered nurses Bachelor’s degree 2,751.0 3,190.3 1,088.4
Customer service representatives High school diploma or equivalent 2,581.8 2,834.8 888.7
Laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, hand No formal educational credential 2,441.3 2,566.4 851.7
Office clerks, general High school diploma or equivalent 3,062.5 3,158.2 756.2
Stock clerks and order fillers No formal educational credential 1,878.1 1,971.1 689.0
General and operations managers Bachelor’s degree 2,124.1 2,275.2 688.8
Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners No formal educational credential 2,360.6 2,496.9 605.2
Personal care aides No formal educational credential 1,768.4 2,226.5 601.1
Nursing assistants Postsecondary nondegree award 1,492.1 1,754.1 599.0
Home health aides No formal educational credential 913.5 1,261.9 554.8
Accountants and auditors Bachelor’s degree 1,332.7 1,475.1 498.0
Maids and housekeeping cleaners No formal educational credential 1,457.7 1,569.4 459.4
Cooks, restaurant No formal educational credential 1,109.7 1,268.7 452.5
Maintenance and repair workers, general High school diploma or equivalent 1,374.7 1,458.1 443.7
Childcare workers High school diploma or equivalent 1,260.6 1,329.9 441.3
First-line supervisors of retail sales workers High school diploma or equivalent 1,537.8 1,605.4 411.3

Most of these jobs don’t look like they benefit from more education, but hey, maybe Carnevale will reemploy all 15.8 million college grads into jobs that fully utilize their credentials. He only has two years to make it happen.

Which Law Schools Are Shedding Full-Time Faculty? (2015 Edition)

Facing shrinking law-school enrollments, many law schools have responded by reducing their faculties. The phenomenon is worth measuring because faculty reductions aren’t always announced publicly, often appearing in the guises of retirements and quiet buy-outs. Consequently, the ABA’s 509 information reports can shed light on changes in law-school faculties. Here’s the cumulative distribution up until 2015.

No. Law-School Faculty by Type

As with last year, I will estimate the decline in fall full-time law-school faculties among the 202 law schools that aren’t in Puerto Rico. The peak for full timers occurred in 2010 (9,093), but that estimate includes the “other full-time faculty” category (clinicians and legal-writing instructors, if I recall), which the ABA no longer tracks independently. The ABA removed that category last year, so at least the 2015-to-2014 comparison will be consistent.

Fall full-time faculty fell by only 3.1 percent this year (-249). Last year the decline was 7.8 percent (-690), indicating a remarkable improvement. Since 2010, the cumulative decline has been 13.3 percent.

Here is a table of law schools ranked by net change in full-time faculty since 2010 and smallest faculty size in 2010. Trivial annual changes may not represent staff reductions and might be attributable to other factors.

FULL-TIME FACULTY (FALL)
RANK SCHOOL ’10 ’14 ’15 ANNUAL CHANGE NET CHANGE
1. WMU Cooley 101 49 44 -5 -57
2. Penn State (Dickinson Law) 57 47 19 -28 -38
3. George Washington 106 72 70 -2 -36
4. Florida Coastal 69 36 37 1 -32
5. SUNY Buffalo 54 48 24 -24 -30
6. John Marshall (Chicago) 75 56 45 -11 -30
7. Pacific, McGeorge 63 36 34 -2 -29
8. Vermont 55 26 27 1 -28
9. Hofstra 60 42 34 -8 -26
10. Arizona Summit [Phoenix] 32 15 7 -8 -25
11. Hamline 34 14 10 -4 -24
12. Catholic 56 38 32 -6 -24
13. DePaul 56 39 32 -7 -24
14. Syracuse 60 51 37 -14 -23
15. New York Law School 71 57 48 -9 -23
16. Texas 103 80 80 0 -23
17. Seton Hall 59 38 37 -1 -22
18. California-Berkeley 90 72 68 -4 -22
19. Cleveland State 39 23 19 -4 -20
20. Santa Clara 65 54 45 -9 -20
21. St. Louis 65 46 45 -1 -20
22. Widener 50 32 31 -1 -19
23. Seattle 66 47 47 0 -19
24. Suffolk 80 78 61 -17 -19
25. Western New England 36 22 18 -4 -18
26. Albany 46 26 28 2 -18
27. Villanova 49 29 31 2 -18
28. Rutgers-Camden 54 42 36 -6 -18
29. Detroit Mercy 42 23 25 2 -17
30. Golden Gate 42 25 25 0 -17
31. Pace 47 34 30 -4 -17
32. Boston University 67 48 50 2 -17
33. Fordham 81 65 65 0 -16
34. Regent 25 14 10 -4 -15
35. Charleston 31 23 16 -7 -15
36. Florida A&M 35 19 20 1 -15
37. Houston 76 70 61 -9 -15
38. New England 40 26 26 0 -14
39. Stetson 59 44 45 1 -14
40. Maryland 63 51 49 -2 -14
41. Roger Williams 27 17 14 -3 -13
42. Atlanta’s John Marshall 35 35 22 -13 -13
43. St. John’s 50 38 37 -1 -13
44. Lewis and Clark 53 47 40 -7 -13
45. Tulane 53 50 40 -10 -13
46. San Diego 66 54 53 -1 -13
47. American 104 90 91 1 -13
48. Quinnipiac 32 19 20 1 -12
49. Oklahoma City 34 24 22 -2 -12
50. William Mitchell 34 26 22 -4 -12
51. Capital 35 17 23 6 -12
52. Marquette 39 34 27 -7 -12
53. Arizona 44 36 32 -4 -12
54. Iowa 46 40 34 -6 -12
55. Nova Southeastern 60 49 48 -1 -12
56. California-Hastings 71 64 59 -5 -12
57. Faulkner 23 15 12 -3 -11
58. Widener (Commonwealth) 25 18 14 -4 -11
59. Dayton 27 18 16 -2 -11
60. Akron 33 30 22 -8 -11
61. Louisiana State 41 35 30 -5 -11
62. North Carolina Central 42 37 31 -6 -11
63. Touro 42 29 31 2 -11
64. Chapman 51 41 40 -1 -11
65. Georgia 51 48 40 -8 -11
66. Ohio Northern 22 13 12 -1 -10
67. Southern University 35 20 25 5 -10
68. California Western 45 37 35 -2 -10
69. Wake Forest 48 36 38 2 -10
70. Wisconsin 65 62 55 -7 -10
71. Miami 82 77 72 -5 -10
72. Appalachian 16 8 7 -1 -9
73. La Verne 19 8 10 2 -9
74. Arkansas (Little Rock) 30 23 21 -2 -9
75. Washington and Lee 35 36 26 -10 -9
76. Southern Methodist 46 31 37 6 -9
77. Loyola (IL) 60 56 51 -5 -9
78. Loyola (CA) 66 58 57 -1 -9
79. Gonzaga 29 21 21 0 -8
80. Florida State 47 40 39 -1 -8
81. Loyola (LA) 50 46 42 -4 -8
82. Connecticut 52 46 44 -2 -8
83. Brooklyn 68 59 60 1 -8
84. St. Mary’s 36 32 29 -3 -7
85. Indiana (Indianapolis) 41 39 34 -5 -7
86. Thomas Jefferson 42 33 35 2 -7
87. Alabama 47 40 40 0 -7
88. Indiana (Bloomington) 59 55 52 -3 -7
89. Montana 19 12 13 1 -6
90. Campbell 23 22 17 -5 -6
91. Ave Maria 26 20 20 0 -6
92. Toledo 26 25 20 -5 -6
93. Tulsa 28 24 22 -2 -6
94. Mississippi 31 30 25 -5 -6
95. Oregon 35 27 29 2 -6
96. Case Western Reserve 47 33 41 8 -6
97. Illinois 49 44 43 -1 -6
98. Louisville 26 24 21 -3 -5
99. Southern Illinois 27 24 22 -2 -5
100. St. Thomas (MN) 29 23 24 1 -5
101. New Hampshire 33 27 28 1 -5
102. Hawaii 35 25 30 5 -5
103. Kansas 35 33 30 -3 -5
104. Texas Tech 35 37 30 -7 -5
105. Valparaiso 35 31 30 -1 -5
106. Washington University 68 62 63 1 -5
107. Yale 76 75 71 -4 -5
108. Northern Kentucky 28 23 24 1 -4
109. Washburn 31 28 27 -1 -4
110. San Francisco 37 31 33 2 -4
111. George Mason 38 31 34 3 -4
112. Southern California 43 42 39 -3 -4
113. Pittsburgh 47 37 43 6 -4
114. Arizona State 53 51 49 -2 -4
115. Chicago 71 67 67 0 -4
116. South Dakota 14 13 11 -2 -3
117. District of Columbia 21 20 18 -2 -3
118. Florida International 32 35 29 -6 -3
119. Oklahoma 34 39 31 -8 -3
120. Rutgers-Newark 40 37 37 0 -3
121. South Texas 44 47 41 -6 -3
122. Temple 63 58 60 2 -3
123. Samford 23 19 21 2 -2
124. Kentucky 25 24 23 -1 -2
125. Mississippi College 26 23 24 1 -2
126. Baylor 27 23 25 2 -2
127. Drake 28 25 26 1 -2
128. Willamette 28 27 26 -1 -2
129. Cincinnati 29 29 27 -2 -2
130. Tennessee 30 27 28 1 -2
131. Michigan State 52 58 50 -8 -2
132. Michigan 92 82 90 8 -2
133. Howard 26 19 25 6 -1
134. Mercer 27 27 26 -1 -1
135. Texas Southern 30 27 29 2 -1
136. Missouri (Kansas City) 34 30 33 3 -1
137. Richmond 36 35 35 0 -1
138. Boston College 51 54 50 -4 -1
139. Southwestern 57 57 56 -1 -1
140. Minnesota 58 55 57 2 -1
141. Chicago-Kent, IIT 66 64 65 1 -1
142. Georgetown 129 124 128 4 -1
143. Duquesne 26 25 26 1 0
144. Drexel 27 27 27 0 0
145. Arkansas (Fayetteville) 29 26 29 3 0
146. Texas A&M [Wesleyan] 30 26 30 4 0
147. Whittier 31 21 31 10 0
148. Pepperdine 35 39 35 -4 0
149. South Carolina 36 38 36 -2 0
150. California-Davis 43 46 43 -3 0
151. Baltimore 58 59 58 -1 0
152. Pennsylvania 75 71 75 4 0
153. California-Los Angeles 86 98 86 -12 0
154. Western State 16 20 17 -3 1
155. Liberty 19 22 20 -2 1
156. Wyoming 21 21 22 1 1
157. Nebraska 26 29 27 -2 1
158. Nevada 26 28 27 -1 1
159. New Mexico 28 33 29 -4 1
160. Barry 33 35 34 -1 1
161. West Virginia 33 38 34 -4 1
162. Utah 34 33 35 2 1
163. City University 36 37 37 0 1
164. Wayne State 38 33 39 6 1
165. Notre Dame 46 44 47 3 1
166. Virginia 79 77 80 3 1
167. Northern Illinois 19 19 21 2 2
168. Elon 20 20 22 2 2
169. Creighton 23 24 25 1 2
170. Missouri (Columbia) 28 31 30 -1 2
171. St. Thomas (FL) 28 32 30 -2 2
172. Vanderbilt 36 34 38 4 2
173. Georgia State 57 55 59 4 2
174. New York University 151 154 153 -1 2
175. North Dakota 12 14 15 1 3
176. Maine 16 13 19 6 3
177. Memphis 18 22 22 0 4
178. Idaho 21 25 25 0 4
179. Ohio State 42 52 46 -6 4
180. Northeastern 36 40 41 1 5
181. William and Mary 39 49 44 -5 5
182. Colorado 43 50 48 -2 5
183. Northwestern 99 103 104 1 5
184. Duke 70 74 76 2 6
185. North Carolina 42 52 49 -3 7
186. Denver 62 73 69 -4 7
187. Brigham Young 19 26 27 1 8
188. Cardozo, Yeshiva 61 61 69 8 8
189. Lincoln Memorial 8 9 1 9
190. Emory 58 61 68 7 10
191. Concordia 10 10 10
192. Washington 54 59 65 6 11
193. Cornell 51 47 63 16 12
194. Florida 56 59 68 9 12
195. Charlotte 35 64 48 -16 13
196. Harvard 141 139 154 15 13
197. Belmont 14 13 -1 13
198. Massachusetts — Dartmouth 17 15 -2 15
199. Stanford 68 90 91 1 23
200. California-Irvine 32 35 3 35
201. Penn State (Penn State Law) 35 35 35
202. Columbia 107 167 161 -6 54
10TH PERCENTILE 23 19 17 -7 -20
25TH PERCENTILE 30 25 24 -4 -12
MEDIAN 42 35 34 -1 -5
75TH PERCENTILE 58 51 48 1 0
90TH PERCENTILE 75 67 68 4 5
MEAN 46.4 40.7 39.0 -1.2 -6.0
GROSS GAIN (^_^) 279 368
GROSS LOSS -528 -1,574
CUMULATIVE 9,093 8,136 7,887 -249 -1,206

Editorial observations:

  • Our No. 1, WMU Cooley, shouldn’t surprise anyone. The next two not so much.
  • As of 2015, Penn State is now two law schools, which is why the new “Penn State Law” campus gained 35 faculty this year from nil. Arguably, Penn State (Dickinson) “shed” these instructors in some sense—just to a different school. Regardless, I don’t think it’s problematic.
  • No. 3, George Washington, raised a stir last year because, as some commenters insisted, the law school reclassified a number of full-time faculty to a designation none could identify. It’s possible that the elimination of the “other full-time faculty” category last year somehow disserved GWU, but I don’t really see why because similar problems didn’t plague other law schools at the time. As it is, until someone can identify which bucket GWU put those 20 or so persons, I consider them “shed.”
  • William Mitchell and Hamline are still separate law schools at this point in 509-land. Mitchell | Hamline does not have a report of its own (a decision I agree with).
  • I’m a bit surprised that Whittier added 10 full-time faculty and that UCLA lost 12.
  • Suffolk lost 17 full-time faculty, and SUNY Buffalo cut its full timers in half (-24). These are plausible if high numbers.
  • Arizona Summit, Appalachian, and Lincoln Memorial have fewer than 10 full-time fall faculty. The latter two aren’t news, but Arizona Summit is the standout because these 7 souls are responsible for 587 students. Arizona Summit reported 0 part-time faculty this year, which is a misreporting (unless its Web site is lying or grossly out of date).
  • La Verne bounced back from 8 full-time faculty last year.
  • Did Harvard really add 15 people? It wouldn’t surprise me, but still.

I believe this is the last topic I regularly cover based on the annual release of the 509 information reports. You can read my past posts for the 2015-16 academic year here:

 

Full-Time Students Paying Full Tuition Fell ~5 Percentage Points in 2014

Once upon a time, more than half of law students at the typical law school paid full tuition.

But that fairy tale is now over. Behold:

Percent Full-Time Law Students Paying Full Tuition

I’m astonished. Now, only about a third of law students at the average law school pay full tuition. These schools must be hemorrhaging money given how much they’re fighting over applicants.

At the average private law school in 2014, there were more students who received less-than-half tuition grants than there were students given a full bill. It appears that in a couple years, even the half-to-full-tuition crowd will outnumber the full freighters—and this is last year’s data!

No. Full-Time Private Law School Students Per School by Grant Received

Speaking of hemorrhaging money, in 2014, full-time law students paying full tuition only contributed $1 billion to private law schools. This year, it’s probably less.

Aggregate Revenue From Full-Time Private Law School Students Paying Full-Tuition

Finally, here’s what tuition discounted by the median grant looks like at private law schools by the mean of their full tuition quintiles. The idea here is to set full tuition as the independent variable and let the discounted tuition float.

Full-Time Private Law School Tuition and Median Discounted Tuition by Tuition Quintile Mean

Percent Private Law School Students Receiving Median Grant by Full Tuition Quintile Mean

Last year, the mean discounted tuition among law schools in the second full-tuition quintile was lower than the third’s, meaning second-quintile schools are discounting much more than schools that nominally charge less. I think it’s trivial, but it indicates pricing competition.

That’s all for now.