February 7, 2017

"Applicants who are interested in admission to UW Law School this year but who have not yet taken the LSAT are in luck."

"UW Law School announced Friday that scores from the June LSAT will be considered for admissions this fall. Applicants must turn in all other materials by April 1, 2017, the Law School’s original application deadline."
According to Dean Margaret Raymond, the decision came in response to a spike in applicants’ requests. “We’re making this offer to accommodate an increase in demand from prospective students who tell us they missed the February LSAT deadlines, but who are interested in starting start law school next fall. Many prospective students feel now is a good time to start law school, and we affirmatively invite these students to apply,” she says.

The LSAT, an admissions requirement for most U.S. law schools, is offered four times each year: December, February, June and September. June test takers are encouraged to register now, especially if they want a seat at a popular test center. The last day to register is May 3, 2017.
I read this out loud to Meade and he was sarcastic: "That's a good way to start your legal career, missing a deadline." But this isn't the kind of "missing a deadline" where you've taken on responsibility and you're screwing it up. This is a matter of wanting to jump into a new activity and seeing it's an inopportune time. There's a long cycle and you'll have to wait for the opportunity to come around again.

I'm wondering if there's a special reason why "now is a good time to start law school." Something Trump-related? I'm thinking:

1. During the Obama administration, people were lulled into feeling that law was a bunch of boring, phony blabber trumped up to obstruct the flow of governmental goodness. Now that Trump's in power, the law suddenly feels like a repository of timeless truths, a glorious bulwark against governmental abuse. It's not only worth studying, you can feel good about being one of the lawyer-warriors who fight off hell.

2. Government employees are looking for a career change.

53 comments:

John Bragg said...

"Now is a good time to start law school" I may have read too much Campos, but my first thought was that this is a law school flailing to keep up enrollment using any stopgaps that come to hand. That seems much more likely than some change in the zeitgeist between now and whenever the deadline to register for the last LSAT was.

PB said...

So apply and pay the application fee without having the filter of an LSAT score to determine what your chances are to get accepted? Good and bad for the student. Only good for the school as it'll drive up fees and applications while reducing the acceptance rate which is a measure of school rankings.

Kevin said...

"this is a law school flailing to keep up enrollment using any stopgaps that come to hand."

Bingo! Even if they have more than enough to fill the seats, they need the right number of applicants to maintain their selectivity metrics.

Sharc said...

Sounds more like the school just doesn't have enough applicants.

damikesc said...

Aren't several law schools having problems with enrollment declining? Could that be impacting UW now?

Eleanor said...

I believe it's the school needing more applicants as well. Maybe to fill seats and maybe to improve the metrics of the entering class. From a student's perspective, it's never good to choose a career based on the current situation. That's like saying "I like rain. It's raining today in Tucson so I'm going to move to Arizona."

Bob Ellison said...

'Cause you can get in now with a 130 LSAT.

rehajm said...

An uptick in enrollment interest runs counter to a the downtrend seen everywhere else. It's either puffing from the Dean or massaging the application data as previously speculated.

MadisonMan said...

I also think this means the UW Law School is trying to get more applications to offset some kind of decline. A decline that may or may not be linked to your retirement :)

rehajm said...

A Trump related trend amongst potential law students would be curling into the fetal position and rocking back and forth on the floor until you can take the next clonazepam.

Chris N said...

As for number 2, it may be possible we don't need this many lawyers and/or government employees (the ones squealing the loudest and attacking the others most are often the most superfluous).

When a model is failing in important ways, the most common reaction is to bang the side of it (Im guessing law professors offer their opinions on how to bang it, and how hard during 2 hour faculty meetings).

Curious George said...

They should just put a flashing blue light on the law school.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

3. Law school applications are down, so they are looking for ways to allow more applicant to enter the pool.

Chris N said...

From a few spots in the quadrangle, you can see all the way to the horizon.

David said...

3. Shortage of qualified applicants?

Owen said...

"This way to the egress!"

David said...

Sorry for the snark. My guess is that there is a large cadre of the "I'm with Her" crowd that was pretty sure they were going to have some nice gov job or a certain foundation and suddenly found these prospects gone. Clinton spent a lot of those billions of campaign funds on salaries, for a lot of people who had titles that made them believe they were important. Poor things.

campy said...

Golly, what recent event could have reduced UW Law's attractiveness? A loss of some asset?

MaxedOutMama said...

I'd say it means UW Law is experiencing a shortage of applicants....

Tank said...

As with immigrants, we really don't need any more lawyers just right now.

===========================

Maybe applications are down as a result of the hostile environment created by former law prof Althouse with her cruel neutrality. UW is no longer a safe space.

Bob Ellison said...

There's this thing about law school...

People with law degrees have a Professor Kingsfield complex. You come here with a brain full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

I've known many lawyers who seem to subscribe to that notion. It seems to dominate in the JD crowd, and certainly it helps in the lawprof field.

But it's not wise. You took two years (third year is a joke) to learn how to think? How did that happen? You got to the age of 21 or so not knowing how to think, and then suddenly Kingsfield taught you how to do it?

traditionalguy said...

If the horrible Dodd Frank Banking rules are amended, and Trump just ordered a study of doing that, then the dead Banking industry in the USA will be ressurrected. Both the few surviving regional Banks and the now extinct Community banks will become viable again. Then Bank loans can be made again to start new businesses and expand existing businesses.

That means Transactional Law will become a mega Industry again. And they will need to hire local American Lawyers.

The Trump effect is making an American legal career Great Again.







Trumpit said...

I've met one good lawyer out of one hundred bad ones. I always felt like I was talking to an idiot, sort of like most of the right-wing commenters on this blog. They have an axe to grind, and grind away they will accomplishing nothing but seeing their stupidity immortalized on a blog. They coat their big egos in grease. The same attribute of poor quality applies to doctors as well: 98% bad. To make matters worse both doctors and lawyers can kill you faster than cigarettes ever could.

Removing the LSAT or MCAT requirement to whittle down the applicant field is a very bad idea. Quality is far preferable to quantity. I also believe in socialized law and not just for indigent criminally-charged defendants. Why should rich bullies, like Trump, be the only one's who can afford a lawyer. The law in this country is a very bad system of injustice, and idiot and unethical judges and lawyers are a big part of the problem.

Static Ping said...

It sounds like relaxing standards due to lack of applicants.

Did the school lower tuition by any chance? That could explain a rush of new applicants trying to get a deal.

tcrosse said...

I wonder what percentage of Law School applicants have a realistic idea of what lawyers actually do for a living, rather than what they do on TV and in movies ?

Bob Ellison said...

Trumpit said, "I also believe in socialized law and not just for indigent criminally-charged defendants."

So the governments should be 100% in control of all legal decisions?

damikesc said...

I always felt like I was talking to an idiot, sort of like most of the right-wing commenters on this blog.

Yes. You are a special genius.

I also believe in socialized law and not just for indigent criminally-charged defendants. Why should rich bullies, like Trump, be the only one's who can afford a lawyer.

Because the Dems will do whatever trial lawyers want and trial lawyers want to make a lot of money.

So the governments should be 100% in control of all legal decisions?

You'd think somebody who hates Trump so much would prefer to avoid that, wouldn't you?

But he is clearly far smarter than we.

Michael K said...

To make matters worse both doctors and lawyers can kill you faster than cigarettes ever could.

Don't tempt me.

Jupiter said...

Trumpit said...
"... both doctors and lawyers can kill you faster than cigarettes ever could."

Glad to see you're considering all your options, but don't be too quick to give up on cigarettes. They work for a lot of people, and work well.

Bob Ellison said...

damikesc quoted me: "So the governments should be 100% in control of all legal decisions?"

...and damikesc said, "You'd think somebody who hates Trump so much would prefer to avoid that, wouldn't you?"

It's fascism, autocracy, dictatorship, rule by man, not by law.

I don't know what Trumpit thinks. He/She doesn't seem to think very well. Might love Trump for some reasons, if he/she thinks carefully.

Socialized law is fascism.

Ann Althouse said...

The dean said "Many prospective students feel now is a good time to start law school," and my 2 ideas about this being a special (and Trump-related) time are limited to the applicant's perspective.

Of course, it is also possible to reject the presentation of the reason for the changed policy, and the school is simply hankering for a bigger pool of applicants.

I did not attend the relevant faculty meeting. I retired. That was the first faculty meeting I wasn't under obligation to attend.

Ann Althouse said...

"Golly, what recent event could have reduced UW Law's attractiveness? A loss of some asset?"

I think I can assure you that close to no one was choosing Wisconsin to take classes with me.

Ann Althouse said...

"My guess is that there is a large cadre of the "I'm with Her" crowd that was pretty sure they were going to have some nice gov job or a certain foundation and suddenly found these prospects gone. Clinton spent a lot of those billions of campaign funds on salaries, for a lot of people who had titles that made them believe they were important. Poor things."

Or people think it's a good bet now that there will be new openings 4 years from now, so this is a great time to withdraw and get more education, specifically in law.

Sam said...

A Facebook friend of mine from college — I don't know her so well, but I see her posts — is a non-tenured academic in the humanities. She posted about doing LSAT prep recently. Turned out she was impressed by the lawyers who went to the airport protests and made their services available to people / families who were caught up in the EO. Not a careerist play but an idealist one, in her words.

I think lawyers are becoming a very specific kind of culture hero on the anti-Trump side.

tcrosse said...

My stepson, a self-defined Bleeding Heart, went into the law in order to fight for truth, justice, and the American way, to seek justice for the downtrodden, and generally sock it to the Man. He was disappointed to find that there was no money in it. Now he does divorces. For a while he did Public Defender work, and found that he met a much better class of client in criminal law than in family law.

tcrosse said...

Law school had a certain vogue during the Nixon Administration, as the Great Society, a jobs program for MAs, was dismantled.

Trumpit said...

"Socialized law is fascism."


Can you substantiate that idiotic statement of yours? No you can't because it is a form of Godwin's law or Reductio ad Hitlerum. It is not an argument, rather a smear tactic.

Trumpit said...

From the expression "socialized law," it is fair to assume that it belongs to socialism.

Bob Ellison said...

Here, Trumpit, let me give you a primer. When the government controls all law, it's fascist. The government tells you what to do, and you have no recourse.

You can have a dictator if you want it. That's one way to go. You can go Stalin. It's not a good way to go, but you can do it.

Peter said...

Is "Now is a good time to start law school" anything like the car salesperson's opinion that "Now is a good time to buy a car," or, the real estate agent's opinion that "Now is a good time to buy a house," or, the barber's opinion "Now is a good time to get a haircut"?


When was the last time UW Law School (or any law school) offered the opinion, "Now is a really bad time to start law school"?

Trumpit said...

My mother taught in Lithuania before she died. George Soros granted her money for housing as I recall. My mother thought he was a great guy.

If Bill Gate's, for example, put up a billion dollars to pay for legal expenses for civil and criminal plaintiffs or defendants who can not afford to pay the exorbitant fees attorneys charge that would be a great thing. Until then, I want the government to do it to insure more justice in this country where it is woefully lacking unless your are rich.

Bob Ellison said...

Socialized law is fascism. That's what it is. If you think the government should control your rights, your values, and the way you think, then you're a fascist. A person who believes the government should control all of your actions.

It's tough to come up to that realization, and lefties are really having trouble with it these days.

Bob Ellison said...

Oh, so it's a money problem?

Ryan McLaughlin said...

I have been thinking about law school for myself lately. Given my current job, I was hoping to find something online, or partially online. Does anyone have any recommendations? Or maybe, Ann, if you read this, I'd love to know whether you think something distinctly valuable is lost by not attending law school in class.

Stephen said...

The "changing view of the value of law" interpretation seems to miss the obvious point. Obama's election followed on a recession that resulted in a drastic collapse in demand for newly minted lawyers. For various economic and demographic reasons, demand has improved, though times are still relatively tough for graduates of lower ranking schools. Also, perhaps UW is suffering a bit from reduced demand, particularly from higher LSAT applicants, and sees an opportunity to skim them by offering a unique admissions window--which would tend to help the School's US News ranking.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Trumpit said...
From the expression "socialized law," it is fair to assume that it belongs to socialism.

2/7/17, 9:54 AM


Far be it from me to defend Trumpie, our house right-wing moby, but I think all he means is that lawyers should all be paid the same and paid low. I have often thought this, it's a tempting prospect to decree that all lawyers be paid $50,000 a year, but not practical and probably not wise.

But still tempting. Perhaps robots and telecommuting and H1-Bs will drive it down to that level, a man can dream.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Or maybe, Ann, if you read this, I'd love to know whether you think something distinctly valuable is lost by not attending law school in class.


You mean, now that she's retired?

Mark said...

What's the point of law school these days. School implies something to teach, some body of knowledge that applies to a given area.

The problem is that "law" today is largely made up as people go along. The "law" is now whatever people want it to be regardless of prior legal tests and precedents that were once binding.

Mark said...

I always felt like I was talking to an idiot, sort of like most of the right-wing commenters on this blog. They have an axe to grind, and grind away they will accomplishing nothing but seeing their stupidity immortalized on a blog.

HA! Of course, most lawyers these days are not conservative, but lean heavily to the left. And, yes, to talk to them is to talk to an idiot.

Jon Ericson said...

Mark ≠ Mark.

Jon Ericson said...

Original Mark
vs.
Mark

or

Bad Mark
vs
Good Mark

harryo said...

If you want to have institutional racism, the LSAT is the best way to limit blacks from enrolling. They could have a 4.0 GPA as an undergraduate, and still not get in, because the LSAT was designed to keep them out.

Jon Ericson said...

Wow harryo, What's up with that?
Is this true or is it true to some extent, or is it true all the time?