Market Conditions: Are Parts of the GreenZone in Bubble 2.0?
Chicago Magazine recently decided to look into the hot West Loop market.
The West Loop is hot with trendy restaurants and new tech offices, and now a shortage of family-size condos is leading to bidding wars and higher prices.
“I’m being contacted repeatedly by brokers on behalf of their buyers wanting to know about any larger units coming to market,” says Berkshire Hathaway KoenigRubloff agent Cindy Wilson. “Interest in three-beds and two-beds with a den is off the charts.” Wilson sold two 2,200-square-foot units at 850 West Adams Street this summer—one for more than $100,000 above its $699,000 asking price, the other before it had even posted to the Multiple Listing Service.
How quickly are prices going up? A three-bedroom loft at 16 North Carpenter Street sold for $548,000 in August 2013 and again for $825,000 in June of this year. Another, at 6 North Throop Street, closed for $473,000 in January 2012 and $715,000 this July.
“We went to see a three-bed at 14 North Peoria on its first day on the market and wrote up an offer that night,” says Baird & Warner’s Clare Zaro. “By the next day five other offers had come in.” They beat the competing offers only by inserting an escalation clause into their offer, pledging to best the top offer by a certain amount—a risky move, but an attention grabber. They ended up closing for $635,000, $40,000 above list price.
“You don’t see as many bidding wars in areas like Lincoln Park, because sellers come right out of the gate with high prices,” Zaro says. In the West Loop, sellers have recently listed for lower prices in hopes of triggering a bidding war.
According to the article, there is just 2 months worth of inventory in the neighborhood.
But are builders building new condos?
There are some new rental buildings going up, and smaller condo projects, but nothing that would alleviate the inventory problem.
How high will prices rise in the West Loop?
Is this a sign of bubble-like conditions again percolating in Chicago, or is it healthy supply and demand?
West Loop can’t keep up with demand for large condos [Chicago Magazine, by Ian Spula, Nov 25, 2015]
if people are buying them to live in, and they can afford it, whats the big deal? its not like speculators are buying these with zero percent down and holding them for a few months to flip again at a profit
if you really like a property and it has everything you want, you’re probably going to pay whatever it takes to get it within reason right?
and LOL at these captchas
There is very little funny financing available, so it has to be healthy demand driven by low rates.
Gah, I remember looking at a giant 3 bed 2 bath loft (actually a 2 bed converted to a 3 – it was huge) on May st in the West Loop Fulton District. It was a short sale, listed for something like $229K back when the market was bad. That amount was the most I could qualify for at the time. I put in an offer at ask, but in the end the place sold for something like $249. Man those buyers are sitting pretty now!
“if people are buying them to live in, and they can afford it, whats the big deal?”
Real Estate Market, just like the stock market, goes up and down due to mainly two reasons: company/specific market news and overall positivity/negativity in the market place. Market/individuals tend to ALWAYS be overly optimistic when the prices are going up and overly pessimistic when they are going down. So to your point, even if today’s buyers are getting conventional mortgages with 10,15 and 20% down, once the market collapses due to whatever reason (just look at the oil market right now – everyone is overreacting), some people will get scared and will want to take their money out instead of just riding the cycle. Once they do, others may follow. This will cause price reductions everywhere.
This was a long answer to saying that bad lending policies are just one of the many forces that affect the prices. What if Russia decides to go to war with the US (or if any other event of a similar magnitude takes place. What do you think happens to prices of everything? They will surely collapse.
It is important to be stay reasonable and objective regardless of what everyone else is doing.
The west loop has a nutty alderman who wants to bring more low income people into the neighborhood. I hope he doesn’t ruin the positive turn and regress the neighborhood.
the demand of the west loop is limited by the demand of 30 something singles and DINKs who choose to live there over other neighborhoods. of note, I saw today that long grove has 125 homes for sale in a town with a population of 8,000. the west loop (defined broadly by Redfin) has about 50,000 people and only 84 units for sale. I think the market has made it clear where the demand is these days. overpriced in the west loop? sure, probably too trendily priced. but on a psf basis it’s 1/3rd the price of desirable long grove. it’s easy to see that demand is driving the west loop
“the west loop (defined broadly by Redfin) has about 50,000 people”
Kinzie to 16th, River to Rockwell as about 50,000 people. *maybe* 1/4 of that area is “west loop”, so *maybe* 15,000 people.
And there are probably 10x the apartment units in the West Loop compared to Long Grove.
Yeah, exactly my point. These west loopers age 30-40 would normally be moving to Long Grove to start families, have kids, etc, but instead, they’re staying in the city, to the detriment of demand in lake county.
The people looking for 3+ bedrooms in the West Loop are not the same people looking to live in Long Grove.
The people looking to buy 3BR in the WL work downtown and want an easy commute and a good school (Skinner West) for their kids. They also don’t want a lot of upkeep – mowing some gigantic lawn, shoveling some gigantic driveway, and cleaning some gigantic house (or paying someone to do these things).
WSJ posted great article over the weekend which supports Sabrina’s positions re sustainability of real estate valuation bubble (“As Commercial Real-Estate Prices Soar, Fed Weighs Consequences” see link in next post). While article focus is commercial RE values, the same issues impact certain residential RE markets imo. The naivety of Fed personnel who are interviewed is appalling
West Town’s inventory is similar. 2.1 months at the end of November vs. Near West Side at 1.8 months. I’ve seen West Town’s prices on a rocket ever since I moved here. I guess I’ve made the neighborhood cool.
Keep in mind that the Near West side is bigger than just West Loop and includes University Village. University Village and University Commons are still struggling. Just saw a townhome close in University Village 100K below it’s 2007 price.
Just an example of how surrounding neighborhoods are not seeing the huge price increases so I really think this is just normal variations in where people want to live – i.e. it’s rational. It’s not like a tulip bulb craze.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-commercial-real-estate-prices-soar-fed-weighs-consequences-1449885225
Was the recent post by ‘Bob’ the return of the former poster?
The demand is healthy especially with how tighter lending restrictions are today compared to early/mid-2000s. The bubblicious taste is from the widening between market values and intrinsic values of these places…which — as aleks so eloquently stated — has a lot of room to equalize per irrational consumer behavior and/or other external influences.
This massive price appreciation unfortunately lifts property values of 2bds/1bd condos to the point where it’s now even more expensive for first time buyers to buy in these areas, and even those surrounding them. Instead they are pushed out as rents increase and we become further entrenched in this new gilded age. A rising tide lifts all boats and drowns those who can’t afford a boat.
“It is important to be stay reasonable and objective regardless of what everyone else is doing.” This is why I’ll be waiting a few more years to buy.
“This massive price appreciation unfortunately lifts property values of 2bds/1bd condos to the point where it’s now even more expensive for first time buyers to buy in these areas, and even those surrounding them.”
No one “needs” to live in the West Loop. Housing is still cheap in University Village. You can get a 3/2 there for around $300K.
My place in UV is worth about 50% more than I paid, but still about $80,000 below peak pricing.
You must have bought in 2012.
I bought at the end of 2011. My parents’ townhouse is finally worth more than they paid in 2003.
I’ve been seeing a lot of new people in the area. I think they are priced out of the West Loop. I prefer UV to the West Loop because there is more greenery.
(The time is exhausted error when submitting comments is really starting to annoy me.)
“The people looking for 3+ bedrooms in the West Loop are not the same people looking to live in Long Grove.”
Yes, they are the same people, the same demographic. Less than a generation ago this same demographic would be moving to long grove, lake county or wherever in the suburbs. But the city has changed and they’ve decided to stay and are having children at later ages, if at all. The west loop was nothing back then, and being priced out of Lincoln Park or Lakeview (even back then!) the suburbs was the next logical option and still is for many.
And my point is that much of the suburban housing stock is paying the price for this change in preference. a working couples want to be close to work downtown and buys a condo in the west loop rather than buying a house in Long Grove and driving to work at Discover on Lake Cook Rd or driving down 53 in the commute to anyone of those office complexes in Schaumburg, Rolling Meadows, Elk Grove, etc.
Lots of families lived in Chicago in the 80s and 90s. My family lived in Chicago as well as almost all of my friends. Families weren’t living in the West or South Loop I suppose, but there were lots of viable neighborhoods in which to raise kids. My family never really considered the suburbs to be an option due to the lack of culture. One of my friend’s families tried Naperville back then, but couldn’t stomach it and moved back to Chicago within 2 years.
Why do companies stay in those weird suburban office complexes? Is anyone really willing to work out there?
“And my point is that much of the suburban housing stock is paying the price for this change in preference.”
not all suburbs – hinsdale and oak brook are ridiculously in demand right now. Its insane – I don’t know where all these people are getting so much money. It’s really crazy. Can there be that many millionaires and multimillionaires in chicago?
“Why do companies stay in those weird suburban office complexes? Is anyone really willing to work out there?”
I work in Deerfield. And I can tell you that 95% of families at my company live in the burbs. People love going to the city but no one wants their kids to go to CPS and they would rather pay higher property taxes and enjoy a backyard (yes, you do get appreciation for that with age) than sending their kids to private schools in the city. In addition, city traffic is unbearable and will continue to get worse.
Suburbs don’t have Instacart!
P.S. I live in the loop for about 4 years. At the beginning, it was exciting. Lasted less than a year. There is just too much crap to deal with. Stupid condo association/management company rules, horrendous traffic, overburdened public transportation.
“no one wants their kids to go to CPS”
Huh. “no one”?
Guess there are several of us here who constitute “no one”.
“(The time is exhausted error when submitting comments is really starting to annoy me.)”
Just hit the refresh circle next to the captcha before entering the number. Every time.
“Lots of families lived in Chicago in the 80s and 90s. ”
and yet the city’s population is the smallest its been in 100 years. The city is about 400,000 people smaller than it was during the 80’s and 90’s. SO sure families stay, but it’s different neighborhoods and different incomed families.
I had friends from all over the city – Peterson Park, Rogers Park, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Hyde Park, Sauganash, Gold Coast, Ravenenswood, Streeterville, Ukrainian Village (family actually was Ukrainian).
The suburbs attract a certain type of person, while the city attracts a wide variety of different types of people.
Sometimes I think it might be nice to live in Wilmette and never have to worry about violence or corruption, but I can’t stomach the commute. I wouldn’t call Long Grove or Deerfield Chicago suburbs. Both are very rural area.
Observe in a few years, if a West Loop kid attends Skinner and doesn’t get into Whitney Young for high school, the family will be heading to the suburbs.
For many people “CPS” means magnet and selective enrollment. If they are not in that “CPS”, they move to the suburbs.
“no one wants their kids to go to CPS”
“Huh. “no one”?”
No one who works in Deerfield apparently. That is, the people jenny doesn’t believe exist don’t believe that you (or I) exist. I am agnostic, though hopeful, about jenny’s existence.
“Deerfield [a] very rural area”
You’ve never been to an actual rural area, nevermind a “very” rural area, if you think Deerfield is remotely “rural”.
“No one who works in Deerfield apparently.”
Well, if I worked in Deerfield, I wouldn’t live in the city, bc I couldn’t handle that much commute. But it wouldn’t be about CPS.
An actual rural area would be in North Dakota, where the daily traffic count on some roads is one car per day.
“if I worked in Deerfield, I wouldn’t live in the city”
and, ergo etc, you wouldn’t want your kid to go to CPS.
q.e.d.
I was in the northwods this summer and there’s some rural
areas out there where there are more Bears and moose than people. I could drive for half an hour and not see a single car.
long grove tries to keep a rural feel, amidst deer park. which is why it’s so so awesome out there. Jenny, you would love it if you just gave it a try. lake county is not suburban tinlley park, it’s so much awesomer.
“Jenny, you would love it if you just gave it a try”
Dude–way too many shrubs for flashers to hang out behind.
I find buyer psychology very interesting. At one time no one wanted to live in the city. You could not pay people to buy places in the west loop, south loop, etc. The only people who lived in Chicago were multi generational Chicagoans and recent immigrants. But once neighborhoods become trendy then everyone wants to get in.
“You could not pay people to buy places in the west loop, south loop, etc.”
so, when was that, exactly?
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1979/11/01/page/236/article/dearborn-park-sales-soar-despite-housing-doldrums
Its very obvious that the majority of people who comment on “how great chicago is” do not have children over the age of 8-9. Very few educated, upper middle class people with children of this age will choose the city over the suburbs. The city is for the ultra poor, ultra rich, and singles and DINKs – it’s very logical and predictable, and….it’s a fact.
“The only people who lived in Chicago were multi generational Chicagoans and recent immigrants. But once neighborhoods become trendy then everyone wants to get in.”
Not really. This has changed over the last 20 years- even before the housing bubble really picked up steam.
Look at any major city, in the United States and around the world. The trend has been towards urbanization for some time with the wealth moving into the urban centers and the suburbs, actually, where the poor and recent immigrants are now living (see Paris as a good example of this.)
There’s little sign that this is going to change any time soon.
“For many people “CPS” means magnet and selective enrollment. If they are not in that “CPS”, they move to the suburbs.”
I’m still waiting for the hoards of parents at the three “Bs” (Blaine, Bell and Burley) to move, en mass, to the suburbs. But it hasn’t happened. There’s no way all of those kids got into the top high schools. And they’ve lived there for 8 to 10 years. So why aren’t there several hundred homes/condos for sale in those school districts every year with those families moving out?
“Can there be that many millionaires and multimillionaires in chicago?”
Is the stock market still near record highs?
Yes.
So that’s all you need to know.
More $3 million+ properties have sold in Chicago this year than any year since the bubble. And we still have 2 more weeks to go.
“Its very obvious that the majority of people who comment on “how great chicago is” do not have children over the age of 8-9. ”
Doesn’t it depend on how many kids people have too? An upper middle class family with one or two kids, could totally afford city living. A 2-3 bed apartment would suffice for them and they can afford to pay for private school. Now make that 4 kids and then suburbs are the only option.
I’m still waiting for the hoards of parents at the three “Bs” (Blaine, Bell and Burley) to move, en mass, to the suburbs.
I used to live in Blaine, and my downstairs neighbors, who had a 3-year old and a newborn, were super-involved in a local parents’ group for Lake View HS. They were CLEARLY planning to stay in the city long-term!
“There’s no way all of those kids got into the top high schools. And they’ve lived there for 8 to 10 years. So why aren’t there several hundred homes/condos for sale in those school districts every year with those families moving out?”
Yeah, it’s almost like people feel like if they have well-educated kids who have been at good elementary schools for 8 years then when they all get to high school together the quality of the school might go up due to the kids and the involved parents. What a bunch of idiots!
“Its very obvious that the majority of people who comment on “how great chicago is” do not have children over the age of 8-9. Very few educated, upper middle class people with children of this age will choose the city over the suburbs. The city is for the ultra poor, ultra rich, and singles and DINKs – it’s very logical and predictable, and…”
…You’re wrong. I love Chicago. I love living in Chicago. My kids are 4 and 7 and they love living in Chicago. We have plenty of friends and acquaintances with kids over the age of 9 and we are all committed to staying in the city. Our kids all attend CPS (and not Bell, Blaine or Burley). We are an educated bunch and none of us are ultra-rich by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, you’ll find lots of families like mine if you venture north of Lincoln Park and Lakeview. Sure, my kids would love a yard but the beach is less than a block away and we can hop on a bus and be downtown in 20 minutes.
“My kids are 4 and 7”
But you didn’t disprove Clio.
I have a kid over the age of 8-9, who is in a CPS neighborhood program. So, I guess I’m one of the “very few”, as we are neither poor nor ‘ultra rich’.
“International investors paid $3.27 billion for properties here through last week, already well above the full-year record of $2.18 billion set in 2013, according to New York-based research firm Real Capital Analytics ”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20151214/CRED02/151219941/chicago-sets-record-for-foreign-investment-in-local-real-estate-real
might have something to do with prices yea?
“Its very obvious that the majority of people who comment on “how great chicago is” do not have children over the age of 8-9. Very few educated, upper middle class people with children of this age will choose the city over the suburbs. The city is for the ultra poor, ultra rich, and singles and DINKs – it’s very logical and predictable, and….it’s a fact.”
How do you explain the difficulty upper middle class people have getting their kids into Lab, Parker, Latin, etc?
“I’m still waiting for the hoards of parents at the three “Bs” (Blaine, Bell and Burley) to move, en mass, to the suburbs. But it hasn’t happened. There’s no way all of those kids got into the top high schools.”
Many of those kids do get into the top high schools. The rest go to Lane (which is still pretty good and huge too), and Lakeview (which is getting better). Some move to the suburbs, but it’s not enough to call a “hoard.”
“How do you explain the difficulty upper middle class people have getting their kids into Lab, Parker, Latin, etc?”
The Ultra Rich just buy up the spots???
I have kids over the age that age. We have no plans to leave the City. Unless we move to Europe, which is not very likely. Suburbs are very creepy.
I would never send my kids to that dump called Lane. no offense but that school sucks.
I had two friends who went to Lane – one in the 70s and one in the 90s. The one in the 70s was happy with it (although he had to join ROTC to avoid gym class). The second thought it was horrible. They had to share lockers and mice lived in the walls and would eat lunches stored in lockers. They also had security guards who would hit on the female students.
” that dump called Lane. no offense but that school sucks.”
For why?
Personally, I think the people that live in the city vs. suburbs may be more similar than we’d like to admit! It’s somewhat of a status thing for people to say “I live in the city” and I get that. I lived in Lakeview for 7 years, and looked to purchase a house in Lincoln Square, Ravenswood, Andersonville, or Evanston. Ended up in Evanston as it honestly is FASTER to get downtown via the Metra than many of the commutes from those neighborhoods. I know people that take the Brown Line who live in the heart of Lincoln Square (which is a walk) and it takes them 50+ minutes door-to-door. I can get door-to-door from Davis in 35. Combine that with not having to worry about schools (kid on the way…) and an environment that certainly is a good mix of urban/suburban with plenty of amenities and restaurants, access to the lake and a world-class university town, and it made the choice easier for us.
But I realize Evanston isn’t a Deerfield, or even a Wilmette. They certainly have different feels and people can have different opinions on what appeals to them. I’ve been in Evanston a month and it has a very similar feel (to me anyway) to a Lincoln Square or Andersonville. It’s more urban than a Sauganash by far. I agree that the trend of living in more urban environments will continue with the millennial generation and don’t see that slowing down, but it’s not like the city of Chicago is the only good choice and people that choose the suburbs are afraid of things, they just found another place that suits their needs better perhaps (or was more affordable).
“not having to worry about schools”
I wouldn’t send HD’s kids to ETHS. They have metal detectors! And a gan problem!!.
“not having to worry about schools”
I can’t think of a school about which a parent will never experience worry. Heck, I think we complained about something at Latin within our first month there (granted, the issue was resolved immediately and beyond our highest expectation). Which isn’t to say that we wouldn’t send our kids to school in Evanston if we were to move back to the area. If not in ELP or the GC, Evanston would be a top choice (though the prices and tax bill would probably put us in Wilmette).
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/illinois
Ended up in Evanston as it honestly is FASTER to get downtown via the Metra than many of the commutes from those neighborhoods. I know people that take the Brown Line who live in the heart of Lincoln Square (which is a walk) and it takes them 50+ minutes door-to-door. I can get door-to-door from Davis in 35.
Feels like Groundhog Day, but I will point out that people who live in Lincoln Square have the option of taking the Metra via the Ravenswood stop at Lawrence. 15 mins from there to Downtown.
” live in Lincoln Square have the option of taking the Metra via the Ravenswood stop”
But from the heart (?? certainly west of Damen) of Lincoln Square that’s probably a half mile walk. Which we all know is too far/takes at least 20 minutes.
” http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/illinois ”
All well, good, and accurate, but none of the CPS programs is guaranteed admission for everyone’s darling little Dustoff-huffer.
“But I realize Evanston isn’t a Deerfield, or even a Wilmette.”
Every couple years my wife and I drive to e’ton and then when we get there we ask ourselves why.
“Ended up in Evanston as it honestly is FASTER to get downtown via the Metra than many of the commutes from those neighborhoods.”
Big difference being on a metra versus el schedule. Also depends where your office is, w somewhat more flexiblity on the el.
“I can’t think of a school about which a parent will never experience worry.”
except for SPS of course. well, except for that whole sexual exploitation of minors business of course.
“beyond our highest expectation”
suggests you were not setting your expectations appropriately. aka not latin material.
“except for SPS of course”
Worst thing is being vaguely bitter about a sibling going there and then not amounting to all that much.
“I would never send my kids to that dump called Lane. no offense but that school sucks.”
Yeah, Lane sucks so bad they only offer 24 (or is it 26?) AP classes, including AP Calc A and B: and AP Physics. Plus stellar sports, theater, band, etc. etc.
“Yeah, Lane sucks so bad they only offer 24 (or is it 26?) AP classes, including AP Calc A and B: and AP Physics. Plus stellar sports, theater, band, etc. etc.”
the dumpy gang high school I attended had all those too, and yet it still produced a bunch of degenerates like myself. I want better than that my kids. no metal detectors, no poor people, no gangs, high college attendance rates and an excellent football and lacrosse teams.
“I can’t think of a school about which a parent will never experience worry.”
Anyone else read the Atlantic Monthly article about all the teen suicides going on in Silicon Valley- specifically at several of the super high achieving high schools?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-silicon-valley-suicides/413140/
Sorry to say it, but it just reminded me of many of the other competitive high schools in many of the inner suburbs of other major cities like Chicago and Washington DC in terms of similar student body, parental expectations and pressures.
I say this every time people are worried about the high school because they are REALLY worried about the college but won’t admit it. All the kids at New Trier can’t and don’t get into Harvard or the Ivy League. It’s not possible to have it happen. Most end up going to U of I the same way if they went to dozens of other high schools around the Chicago area or all over the state.
Repeat after me: your child really isn’t special enough.
If you really want your child to go to the Ivy League, move to the Dakotas or live on a farm in Iowa where they will have a different life experience, be unique, and stand out.
Having upper middle class parents, living in Evanston, Glencoe etc and taking 5 AP classes a year doesn’t make your child unique or interesting.
So why all the angst about the high school? I don’t get it. Libertyville High will be fine. Lane Tech will be fine.
But we argue this every year on this blog.
“Yeah, it’s almost like people feel like if they have well-educated kids who have been at good elementary schools for 8 years then when they all get to high school together the quality of the school might go up due to the kids and the involved parents. What a bunch of idiots!”
But this doesn’t happen. If it did, Lakeview High School would be one of the best in the city and it’s not.
My friends who are educators say it’s because the high schools are too big and the parents don’t play as big of a role in “turning them around.” There are too many classes and teachers to focus on “turning” it the same way you can do to a grade school. Additionally, there’s less time for parents to be invested. It’s really just 3 years (because by the 4th year, your child is graduating and you basically don’t really care what’s happening by that point.)
Nice charts from Bloomberg on interest rates, employment, etc.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-16/here-s-what-7-years-at-zero-rates-have-looked-like
How is the British School? Is it good in terms of academics?
PS If you’re going to send your kid to British School, you better add in the cost of the obligatory white Land Rover LR4 into the cost. That appears to be the car of choice for urban moms’ morning drop off.
TBH a LR4 is cheaper than a Yukon or Escalade and I’m damn sure its a nicer ride and sure looks nicer
What happened to school being a place of learning and developing a curiosity about the world? It shouldn’t be about getting into X college or taking X number of AP courses.
The number of people who aren’t intellectually curious is frustrating.
the people who think college is the only answer for their precious snowflake is frustrating as well
“excellent football and lacrosse teams”
You’re moving to the Mid-Atlantic?
I’d prefer my kids go to a high school without a football team, but sadly that time has not come yet.
“If it did, Lakeview High School would be one of the best in the city and it’s not.”
First, give me the list of the *neighborhood* HS’s that are “better” than LVHS. I doubt you could get to 5 with a straight face.
Second, LVHS is in about year 2 of the serious push to get the neighbors to consider using it. No matter how successful, a HS ‘turnaround’ would take at least 4 years to be fully implemented.
But, yeah, the lack of investment in the 3 years is the issue. Which is why Pawar (and Tunney and O’Connor) are attempting to broaden the effort out to folks like overfriendlyconcierge.
it will be interesting to see what happens with college education over the next 20 years as parents and students figure out the vast majority of schools are not worth their price tag.
I think solid vocational and trade schools will be the wave of the future.
“I think solid vocational and trade schools will be the wave of the future.”
The fricking wave of the future should be (again!!) starting that sorting at 15/16, which (1) might reduce dropouts, and (2) provide an incentive for those who might have options to choose voc/trade, as they can see the prospect of starting a career (that could lead to a business) at 18, instead of 22.
There is no good reason for the future HVAC guy/girl to (a) take the rest of the ‘college prep’ HS requirements, and (b) not start learning trade-related skills as a HS Junior.
you don’t learn any ‘skills’ in college
Seriously these kids these days have a hard time putting Ikea furniture together
Starting your own ‘skilled’ business can be a great opportunity for younger folks but its hard work at the start, but hey little debt and financial freedom from being your own business person sounds pretty good right?
I met someone the other day that has 200,000 in student loan debt and doesnt even have a degree!
I mean… unless you’re a doctor that is insanity, and why the hell would a bank lend more money to this person? Its quite sickening
“TBH a LR4 is cheaper than a Yukon or Escalade and I’m damn sure its a nicer ride and sure looks nicer”
Until the first visit to the shop
The LR4’s give the Trixies a fighting chance to avoid playing bumpercars in the city
“why the hell would a bank lend more money to this person?”
Because it’s non-dischargeable debt.
The problem with vocational and trades is that a large segment of society turns their nose up at anything that is non-college track. Too many have been duped into believing you need to go to college to be successful.
“the people who think college is the only answer for their precious snowflake is frustrating as well”
“The fricking wave of the future should be (again!!) starting that sorting at 15/16, which (1) might reduce dropouts, and (2) provide an incentive for those who might have options to choose voc/trade, as they can see the prospect of starting a career (that could lead to a business) at 18, instead of 22.”
“The problem with vocational and trades is that a large segment of society turns their nose up at anything that is non-college track. Too many have been duped into believing you need to go to college to be successful.”
We’re all umc here, right? We’re talking about for other people’s kids? Don’t disagree, just checking.
“I’d prefer my kids go to a high school without a football team, but sadly that time has not come yet.”
The time for your kids to go to HS or for an acceptable football-less HS to exist? northside?
Loving the discussion on trade schools. Couldn’t agree more. I personally would send my kids to community college for at least a year if not two in order to get the “101” and “201” level BS courses out of the way (and to do a little growing up). Those courses are the same in an Ivy league as they are in a community college so why pay through the nose? The other thing that bugs me is that undergrad degrees cost the same. The world needs more social workers but there is no reason why a future social worker should be taking on as much debt as an engineering major. Unless that engineering major is a total dolt they are pretty much guaranteed a starting salary that is more than double their counterpart who majored in social work or education or a similarly low-paying but indispensable field.
Now, back to real estate….
“Too many have been duped into believing you need to go to college to be successful.”
Too many HS’s are so substandard that grads need post-secondary education to be adequately efficient office drones.
WAY too many “degrees” aren’t really college course of study, and should be returned unto trade schools and 2-year degree programs–Athletic Training, Interior Design, Office Admin and Automotive Technology (yes, real BAs offered at some schools). If so many HS weren’t so deficient in providing a basic level of general knowledge to the ‘typical’ graduate, then there would be little need for “Office Admin” to be attached to college distribution requirements.
“an acceptable football-less HS to exist? ”
Enough options of no-football schools. Yeah NSCP qualifies.
“We’re talking about for other people’s kids? Don’t disagree, just checking.”
If my kids were fully meh about “school” and more interested in being an electrician or plumber, or something, I’d be all for it, as opposed to sinking $300k into a degree in avoiding-Friday-classes.
“Those courses are the same in an Ivy league as they are in a community college so why pay through the nose?”
No, they aren’t. Not even the math/science courses (tho the CC route for ‘core’ classes for a pre-med kid is often a good idea).
Are they ‘close enough’ for the future electrical engineer? Especially the fuzzy distribution requirements? Yeah, probably. But they aren’t “the same”. Which, still, isn’t saying that that isn’t a good idea, but it’s fooling yourself in the other direction.
“the dumpy gang high school I attended had all those too, and yet it still produced a bunch of degenerates like myself. I want better than that my kids.”
It’s a good thing you bought in District 125, HD, since that’s one of 6 non-CPS HS’s that are better than that dump Hersey (per US News).
“I think solid vocational and trade schools will be the wave of the future.”
No offense, but this is a complete myth that is repeated everywhere as if it’s true. First of all, sending inordinate numbers of students into the trades would destroy wages. The ‘pie’ in trades is only so big; there isn’t much ‘new’ market to develop in the trades. So flooding the market with new workers without increasing the number of jobs is going to destroy wages. Construction trades fluctuate with the market, so sending 100,000 new carpenters into the market in 2008 would make a disaster into a radioactive mess.
Second, Wages in the trade aren’t all that high to begin with. Yes we know of the guy who makes $100k a year plumbing or the $80k electrician but that’s not typical. Starting welding, HVAC, carpentry, concrete jobs are in the high teens or low 20’s an hour, at best.
Thirdly, the reason your tradesmen charges so much money per hour is overhead. An HVAC business needs to make upwards of $200 per hour to profit from having a 24 hours all season HVAC business. Plumbers are the same way. There’s insurance, rent, worker’s comp ins. per employee hour is upwards of 1/3rd or more of a worker’s hourly wage, it’s insane, because tradesmen are injured so frequently. There’s a fixed cost that companies can’t charge below and if they do they’ll lose money, so flooding the market with cheap tradesman isn’t suddenly going to make hiring the trades cheaper.
And finally, the ‘best’ job tradesman, other than owning a business, is a unionized 40 hour a week government job, where they have time to do side jobs for cash. The various municipalities are filled with unionized plumbers, electricians, all earning union wages at 40 hours a week. Working for a private corporation is tough, back breaking work with far fewer benefits. So increasing the trades means more tradesmen looking to get on the government job list.
Long story short, trades are not the answer to the problem of college.
“No, they aren’t. Not even the math/science courses (tho the CC route for ‘core’ classes for a pre-med kid is often a good idea).”
Yeah, in theory it works well, but in practice, how many medical students did their core classes at community college? I’m not talking about foreign medical schools. I mean US schools.
Doctors are an arrogant, prestigious lot, and Oakton CC or USP (University of Southern Palatine) on a resume doesn’t go over well for admissions in med school.
I knew plenty of premed students – something like half my freshmen class in college was ‘premed’ – but then O chem separates the wheat from the chaff. and O chem is not easy. the common knowledge at the time at least was that anything less than a B+ in O chem from a decent school would pretty much kill anyone’s chances at ever beign accept to med school…
now law school and the TTT’s is a completely different story….but it is a great example of how flooding the market with attorneys doesn’t lower rates for the consumer, it just makes for a lot of unemployed lawyers..
HD, I don’t think the trades are the sole answer, but certainly they would help a large number of people. The problem we have now is we have entire classes of people who are basically worthless in our economy. They have zero skills beyond ringing a cash register at a fast food joint. It isn’t like before where you could be a screw up and still get a job driving bolts at the Ford plant an have a middle class life with a house and a boat.
We also have a large number of students going into massive debt getting utterly worthless degrees and no chance of ever finding a job to pay it off.
We need to accept that not everyone is cut out for college but also offer reasonable alternatives that can lead to productive careers.
It is absolutely insane that people have to go into debt to the tune of $100k or more and waste four years just so they can even get a shot at an entry level position if they are lucky.
“Because it’s non-dischargeable debt.’
Sorry anon, another myth. first of all, banks aren’t lending a whole lot of money these days to students, it’s almost entirely the US treasury lending the money, often with schools making up the difference in loans. For profit schools are notorious for ‘lending’ their students money, and we all know what an unmitigated disaster that is.
Secondly, student loans were nondischargable for many, many years until the industry lobbied for nondischargability. The lending industry doesn’t that to lend money, they just liked having it to stick it to the co-borrowers.
“The problem we have now is we have entire classes of people who are basically worthless in our economy.”
This has been a problem all throughout history. The ‘bread and circuses’ of Rome existed to give the citizen population something to do during the day because they had no means or skills to support themselves basically because slaves did most of the work. Landowners were all displaced by larger owners who used slaves to work the fields. So the displaced people moved to the city and lived off free bread and games.
That entire system broke down and then feudalism, where subsistence farmers basically had to grow their own food, and a little more as a tax, to feed the lord, his court and the small number of townspeople who did the trades.
Today it’s basically third world cheap labor and technology that is causing problems in our economy. What’s the solution? More and more people are thinking it’s guaranteed income. I think it is too, paid for by the oligarchs.
“O chem separates the wheat from the chaff”
Um, that’s why you take O Chem at the community college. So that you have taken it, to satisfy the requirement, but don’t have the rapacious hoard of your classmates.
“It is absolutely insane that people have to go into debt to the tune of $100k or more and waste four years just so they can even get a shot at an entry level position if they are lucky.”
…which pays less than the “Starting welding, HVAC, carpentry, concrete jobs are in the high teens or low 20’s an hour, at best” and has barely better chances of turning into a “good” job.
““It is absolutely insane that people have to go into debt to the tune of $100k or more and waste four years just so they can even get a shot at an entry level position if they are lucky.””
YMMV for entry level college jobs. Yeah, for profit colleges, surely there are no jobs, but for regular 4 year colleges, job are out there.
Interesting article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/10/turns-out-having-a-college-degree-was-worth-something-after-the-recession/
This isn’t a new phenomenon: The proportion of people within five years of graduating from college working in jobs that didn’t require a college degree actually peaked in the early 1990s, at above 47 percent. It fell dramatically thereafter, rose sharply in the mid-2000s, dropped again, rose in the recession, and has been mostly dropping since 2014.
“jobs that didn’t require a college degree”
Whether it’s really ‘required’ can be argued:
“We use the following question from the O*NET Education and Training Questionnaire to determine whether an occupation requires a college degree: “If someone were being hired to perform this job, indicate the level of education that would be required?” (emphasis added). Respondents then select from twelve detailed education levels, ranging from less than a high school diploma to post-doctoral training. We consider a college education to be a requirement for a given occupation if more than 50 percent of the respondents working in that occupation indicated that at least a bachelor’s degree was necessary to perform the job.”
It’s easy enough to “require” a college degree to write Groupon copy, but it’s not necessarily true that it’s a “college required to do the work” kind of job.
If anyone is curious, mortgage rates didn’t bat an eye with the Fed decision.
College degree is not about enabling someone to do a job. It is about polishing public speaking, work in groups, dealing with people, enjoying success and failure, balancing studying, having a part time job, and being involved in extracurricular activities, and having other wonder experiences, successes and failures. It is about making a person into a well-versed person who can distinguish and ass from an elbow. There are plenty of state schools available that do not charge an arm and a leg.
If I am hiring, and I have two candidates: one that did go to college and succeeded and another one that did not even try. I understand that everyone has different opportunities, but for the most part it is about hard work that some people simply shy away from.
aleks :
That’s consultant/HR department speak for hiring only upper middle class grads from Big Ten schools.
Plenty of people to go college to learn things. I can’t code or engineer for the life of me. But for your average liberal arts candidate, you better be from an upper middle class background and talk, walk and look a certain way, and be from certain schools, or else you’re not getting the job.
There’s a reason why the offices in downtown Chicago are filled grads from prestigious schools and similar backgrounds, and the ‘state’ school are relegated to far flung suburbs and smaller markets.
And state schools these days cost just an arm, not the leg, yet, until you include room/board/other fees. Its just not astronomical like private schools.
Very few entry level positions truly require a college degree. Most companies teach you everything you need to know on the job. They just need someone who as Aleks said is well spoken, can learn quickly, etc.
Degrees are just useful for whittling down the applicant pool. An easy way for HR to take a relatively risk-less gamble in hiring unproven talent. All things being equal, you go with the kid that went to college and then the kid that went to the better school and then the kid that got better grades at the better school and so forth…
This is why everyone obsesses over college and more specifically getting into certain colleges as they know how the game is played.
“until you include room/board/other fees”
Room & board (9 months):
ChampBana: $11,010
Harvard: $15,381
Chicago HCV (studio) + food stamp (max for single): $8,856 (or $11,808/yr)
Books + Personal (as used for cost of attendance):
ChampBana: $3,700
Harvard: $3,741
The difference is all in the tuition.
I’ve long thought that about 85% of the jobs done by developers don’t really require a college degree. If we taught programming languages in middle and high school, these “code monkey” jobs could be the 21st century equivalent of the much lamented “decent manufacturing job” that pre-1980s non-college grads worked at to support a middle class lifestyle.
Would probably also lessen our reliance on H1B visa holders.
“Would probably also lessen our reliance on H1B visa holders.”
Oh, such wishful thinking! Why pay an american to do a job when you can pay a foreigner only 2/3rds as such? Or why not just offshore the job entirely!
“The difference is all in the tuition.”
I said that state schools only cost an arm, not the leg, until the fees. Then I said that private schools were astronomical. So I’m in agreement w/ you, it is the tuition
Also, don’t forget that many private schools give generous tuition breaks from the sticker price, while state schools do the same only for merit based, at least 20 years ago when I went to school. Our local Big 10 school and my private school were basically the same price after all the breaks, solely because the state school offered me $0 off sticker price, and Loyola cut my effective tuition in half.
“I said that state schools only cost an arm, not the leg, until the fees.”
It’s $60 a week more than *welfare* for the ‘fees’, which is less than the difference bt the 1000 calories a day of food stamps, and 19 all you care to eat meals prepared for you.
And I think Harvard supplies a higher quality of food, and generally nicer dorms, than UIUC for that difference in cost. I’m really positing that the cost of room and board is *almost* reasonable.
“And I think Harvard supplies a higher quality of food, and generally nicer dorms, than UIUC for that difference in cost. I’m really positing that the cost of room and board is *almost* reasonable.”
Until you realize that the dorms dump, shared bathrooms, god I hated the dorms. I have no idea why colleges do that other than to milk students out of $.
“We’re all umc here, right? We’re talking about for other people’s kids? Don’t disagree, just checking.”
DZ hit the nail on the head here. When faced with this exact decision I just wrote the checks because there is no way you are going to tell your kid that they’re not going to college. You just hope that they learn something useful that pays off down the road.
Gary, but didn’t your daughter go to an Ivy? I think most would just pony up the check book under those circumstances. If my son is bright enough to go to an ivy, I’ll figure out how to pay for it if he really wants to attend. However, would you have paid the same to go to Third Tier U for a degree in social justice?
I sent one to Brown and one to Vassar – all on my own dime. One of the degrees was highly marketable.
HD, I don’t think the trades are the sole answer, but certainly they would help a large number of people.
So we should go euro german mittelstand style?
“I sent one to Brown ”
Brown, seriously Brown? that’s worse than the fake ivy U Penn…
/sarcasm tag
anon (tfo) on December 14th, 2015 at 6:37 pm
“You could not pay people to buy places in the west loop, south loop, etc.”
so, when was that, exactly?
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1979/11/01/page/236/article/dearborn-park-sales-soar-despite-housing-doldrums
Wrong! The above link is a press clipping disguised as a news article. These days, a similar piece would be labelled as an “advertorial”. A simple census search based on zip codes from 1970, 1980, 1990 will show that the population of the south loop and west loop was scant. Then in the mid 1990’s to now the population and the residential development started increasing. I live by the police academy. That neighborhood did not have all of those brand new condos, townhouses and new houses 30 years ago.
“Brown, seriously Brown? that’s worse than the fake ivy U Penn…”
Not sure what part of that is sarcasm but with her job in SF as a software developer the ROI on that degree has been enormous.
“If anyone is curious, mortgage rates didn’t bat an eye with the Fed decision.”
Why would they?
“Not sure what part of that is sarcasm but with her job in SF as a software developer the ROI on that degree has been enormous.”
How about that Dartmouth grad who couldn’t get a job and instead went back to a coding bootcamp for $11,500 so that she could actually get some skills.
I wonder how it all worked out for her? She would have graduated from the coding bootcamp by now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-07/coding-classes-attract-college-grads-who-want-better-jobs
Where you go to school is really meaningless. We’re rapidly approaching the point where all of this is re-examined. Parents, and their kids, will just start saying “no” to the cost.
I just answered my own question. Looks like she is now a Web developer in NYC. So the coding bootcamp DID work out.
Seriously? “The 22-year-old graduated last year with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and studio art…” That was the problem. My daughter’s degree was in computer science. And the top tech firms in California only recruit at the top schools. It makes their life easier.
On the other hand I do believe that the labor market is highly inefficient. In fact, I think it’s broken. Hiring managers pay less attention to skills than they should and way more attention to specific functional and industry specific experience than they should.
Brown, seriously Brown? that’s worse than the fake ivy U Penn…
Lisa, you’re saying “Brown” an awful lot.
/Simpsons reference
“psychology and studio art”
Sorry but art and psychology degrees are for people who don’t want to put energy in actually learning something useful. It is ok for not so bright rich kids so that they can claim they are college educated. But for someone middle class who wants to make a living with their degree, then they must have been living under a stone to think they can make money with such majors.
“Oh, such wishful thinking! Why pay an american to do a job when you can pay a foreigner only 2/3rds as such?”
Nonsense, it is very difficult to find enough qualified Americans in STEM. If companies were not hiring foreigners, they would be in trouble. Go check the graduate programs in math, science, and engineering and see how many of the students are American.
“art and psychology degrees are for people who don’t want to put energy in actually learning something useful”
Well, no.
BUT, unless one actually wants to work in art (no money) or in a psych/counseling field (mostly no money), any complaining about “my education didn’t prepare me for a job” is just annoying.
there is no stem shortage, that’s another talking point myth the industry throws around to increase the numbers of H1B visas.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/
All this talk about job skills and ROI on one’s undergrad degree is depressing. If a kid can go to Dartmouth or Brown or whatever, and majors in art history or phil or whatever, great! And they should follow that with a few adventurous and unlucrative years before grad school or starting a business. As long as they graduate without debt, they’re already richer than the STEM grad from some big football school by which they’ve “landed a great job making $85k the day after graduation,” or the like. Some people need to visit the Mike Rowe Facebook page little less often.
“All this talk about job skills and ROI on one’s undergrad degree is depressing. If a kid can go to Dartmouth or Brown or whatever, and majors in art history or phil or whatever, great! And they should follow that with a few adventurous and unlucrative years before grad school or starting a business. As long as they graduate without debt, they’re already richer than the STEM grad from some big football school by which they’ve “landed a great job making $85k the day after graduation,” or the like.”
It’s the quarter million, or whatev it ends up being, that it costs a umc family these days that gives one pause. We can’t all take teh nonny path to life happiness, nor can the lil nonnies these days really, at least not in the same way (wo their parents or someone writing some huge checks for dartmouth or brown).
“All this talk about job skills and ROI on one’s undergrad degree is depressing. If a kid can go to Dartmouth or Brown or whatever, and majors in art history or phil or whatever, great! And they should follow that with a few adventurous and unlucrative years before grad school or starting a business.”
There is no way that our economy can continue to spend trillions of dollars on an activity without factoring in the ROI – as depressing as that may be. The universe doesn’t work that way. The money has to come from somewhere and it has to be paid back WITH INTEREST. Ultimately, the lenders are going to look at the school and the major and determine whether or not they will make the money available and at what rate.
“As long as they graduate without debt”
OK, nonny–you make too much $$ for your kids to go for free(ish) like you (and I, and others here) did, so are you really prepared for the $350k+ each for them to go to school (for whatever–I think it’s relatively immaterial if it’s EE at MIT, or Film and Media Studies (with double minors in skiing and bong hitting) from Colorado College) and then bounce back home intermittently when they are broke and don’t feel like working for $$?
“$350k+ each”
should be covered by the savings from not sending the lil nonnies to latin, no?
Not at all saying I wouldn’t want my kids to go to college for close to free, even if it’s at a big public university. I’d love it if they both got tennis scholorships, etc. But if for some reason (1) they’re inclined to attend an Ivy or Ivy type school (or a RISD, or a surf board painting co-op school in Bali) and (2) they can get in, we’ll figure out a way to pay for it (be it a mix of my borrowing, driving Uber or whatever thing exists like that in 10 years, etc.). I certainly want them to have the educations and skills that will equip them to provide (well) for themselves eventually (I plan to die a very old man with $300k in student loans, fully leveraged home(s), etc.). I just won’t be at all disappointed if they spend their late teens and 20’s on intellectually and recreationally indulgent pursuits. Why else work so hard to be UMC?
“Why else work so hard to be UMC?”
So you can have a nice home in a nice neighborhood, and visit nice places?
Or is a trailer in a swamp in southern Indiana ok, so long as you don’t have to work hard?
“Or is a trailer in a swamp in southern Indiana ok, so long as you don’t have to work hard?””
It doesn’t matter as long as you are happy.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WE-AA766B_HAPPY_16U_20141107152410.jpg
yeah happy about what though? I call bullshit on that chart
“I call bullshit on that chart”
It’s all about the actual question asked. Can I imagine a question that would get those answers? Sure. Is it a fair question, that gets *accurate* responses? I don’t think so.
“It doesn’t matter as long as you are happy.”
I was positing it in response to:
“Why else work so hard to be UMC?”
There are a lot of reasons that don’t relate to one’s children’s education.
A person can do a lot with $300,000. Is spending that on college the best choice for middle class people? I’m not sure. If you were given the choice between $300,000 cash or a college education, which would you choose?
If parents bought their (responsible) kids a house and a car after graduating from high school, those kids could work almost any job and still be able to pay for upkeep and taxes.
I have an old uncle who became very wealthy because his in-laws bought him and his wife a house (they were married very young). He never had to worry about housing expenses. He was able to invest a lot of money that other people would put into a home.
300k could kickstart one hell of an internet business I know that much…
You can never been too rich or too skinny…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8NMtSDwd24
Stand Up Comedy by Taylor Tomlinson – Community College
I remember when the nickname for Oakton CC was “toke-ton” because that’s where all the pot-smoker losers ended up.
Yes $300K can kick start some great business, but far more businesses go bust that you can think. On the other hand a good education (albeit in a relevant field) would have a much better likelihood of providing a good living.
“All this talk about job skills and ROI on one’s undergrad degree is depressing. If a kid can go to Dartmouth or Brown or whatever, and majors in art history or phil or whatever, great! And they should follow that with a few adventurous and unlucrative years before grad school or starting a business. As long as they graduate without debt, they’re already richer than the STEM grad from some big football school by which they’ve “landed a great job making $85k the day after graduation,” or the like. Some people need to visit the Mike Rowe Facebook page little less often.”
What percentage of kids with art and phil degrees go to grad school and start a successful business debt free?
It is like saying: This whole talk about smoking and cancer is depressing. It is great to enjoy a pack of cigarets a day if one manages to also live to be 90 without getting cancer or other problems from smoking. Yes, it would be great for those who enjoy smoking, but what percentage actually manage to prevent the harms it causes?
“It doesn’t matter as long as you are happy.”
I call BS on living poor and being happy. Truly poor people have a lot of challenges. Constantly worrying about whether you can make your next payments, being afraid of having to go to doctor because it would break a delicate balance of finances, seeing ones kids go hungry is a terrible feeling.
I don’t say one has to be wealthy to be happy, but being very poor is also quite sad.
Except of anon, Gary, Russ, and a few others, I sometimes think you guys are bunch of teenagers who have never experienced anything except your mum and dad’s home.
“What percentage of kids with art and phil degrees go to grad school and start a successful business debt free?”
what percentage of rust belt, working class, drop out, itinerant ski bums transform themselves into a biglawer at a top 5 chicago biglaw firm and, w some in law assistance, live in the finest subhood of the finest hood of the most east coast like midwest city and send his kid to the (second) most finest junior kindergarten. hard to believe, right? and then he throws it all away to go who knows where but def not somewhere more elite.
also, if you think you have things hard, consider:
http://www.mysteries-of-life.com/2015/12/sahd-shower-awakens.html
DZ – I knew your kid was Parker bound!
“As long as they graduate without debt,”
Who does that? Only the truly middle class who go to Harvard on the full ride scholarship would. If their parents make $60,000 a year, they’ll get it paid for. The upper middle class can’t afford the $80,000 a year costs anymore so their kids are bound to have loans of some sort.
“There is no way that our economy can continue to spend trillions of dollars on an activity without factoring in the ROI”
This is why law schools are shrinking and/or closing down. The number of law school applications continues to plummet. It’s at multi-decade lows now. They are letting in less qualified candidates to maintain the class sizes but fewer are now passing the bar.
People have figured out that taking out $250,000 to go to law school is a waste of time and money. So they simply are no longer going.
I believe the same thing will eventually happen with undergraduate education as well. People will finally figure out that taking on that kind of debt, with little return, isn’t worth it.
“And the top tech firms in California only recruit at the top schools. It makes their life easier.”
This is true. They churn them so quickly it’s like the NFL. They last 3 to 5 years and then quit and they need to bring in the new recruits to fill those jobs.
“This is why law schools are shrinking and/or closing down.”
Not fast enough! The nation *needs* about two dozen of them to close. In addition to all of the unaccredited ones. Lawyers would be better off if 50 of them closed.