My 2025-26 LL.M. 3.0 series is focused on how law schools in the United States have evolved and can continue to evolve their programs for foreign-educated LL.M. students.
Were LL.M. programs ever just “empty seats in the back of J.D. classes?” I regularly highlight that this has not been true for my entire career, since at least 2013. But I think this may have been the case before that time; it costs money to run strong LL.M. programs.
A big thank you to Diana Ramirez (herself a former LL.M. graduate) and Paula Marques Merlin for a strong start to the series.
In 2026, I will interview a couple more thought leaders in the LL.M. space on topics of interest to LL.M. prospects and LL.M. students.
But as 2025 ends in Bali (13 hours before the U.S. East Coast), what is my wish list for LL.M. programs in 2026? And how has 2025 played into so much of my work and advocacy over the past 13 years?
Are LL.M. programs cash cows?
LL.M. programs are sometimes labeled as “cash cows.” This is due in part to how J.D. and Non-J.D. programs are divided, demand for law degrees that qualify for bar exams and F-1 visas (and unlocking OPT) without the need for a 3-year (or 2-year) J.D. degree and the unfortunate perception that LL.M.s are “rich kids of Instagram.”
Whatever may have been true in the past, I do not believe the residential LL.M. for foreign-educated students is the best vehicle these days for scaling up Non-J.D. revenue. These students, whom I refer to as “IRLs,” have been the focus of my career.
IRLs are often seeking deeper tuition discounts and more resources for their programs. They often define the success of their experiences by proxies U.S. law schools don’t control: law hiring in the U.S. and successful bar passage. Their residential status means they’re often sitting side-by-side with J.D. students, comparing and contrasting their experiences. And being compared by the faculty who teach both sets of students.
The deeper you need to dig into your LL.M. class to hit revenue targets, the more obvious those gaps will be. Schools that do not need to rely as heavily on IRL revenue have an advantage in that regard.
2025: A turbulent year?
From student loans to ABA accreditation to securing F-1 visas and post-degree employment, I’d classify 2025 as a turbulent year for U.S. higher education, U.S. legal education and international students.
So it should be no surprise that 2025 created even more challenges for LL.M. students, especially those on F-1 visas.
If you’re defining your LL.M. experience based on post-LL.M. outcomes, you were already facing an uphill battle in 2024 and before. 2025 brought with it a much bigger spotlight on OPT, H-1B visas and paths to permanent residency in the U.S.
Would enough F-1 IRLs attend U.S. law school LL.M. programs at costs that make sense if these were seen as one-year programs to return home? I don’t think so.
My 2026 wish list for the LL.M. 3.0 era?
What am I looking at for U.S. law schools in 2026 when it comes to IRLs?
- Looking elsewhere for Non-J.D. revenue generation. Residential LL.M. programs come with a $30,000-$50,000 USD (and up) addition to spend a year in the U.S., not to mention the lost income from not working. Residential LL.M.s can define success in a package with bar exams and post-LL.M. job outcomes. Seeing more law schools enter the online LL.M. market, the M.S.L. market and the certificates/executive education market is a positive development in my book. Less pressure on IRLs to “deliver” will hopefully mean more discounts, more resources and less pressure to enroll more students into these programs.
- Doubling down on CPT.S. law schools don’t control visa policies. But if paths to remain in the U.S. after a degree narrow, I hope schools will double down on Curricular Practical Training (CPT). These work experience opportunities during LL.M. degrees may help LL.M.s stand out in more competitive hiring markets for F-1s. But they may also provide real value, experience and networks for LL.M. graduates who return home to practice or seek job opportunities in third jurisdiction hubs that welcome foreign-educated students.
- More social media content highlighting positive LL.M. experiences. I have enjoyed seeing schools like Georgia, Minnesota and USC highlight their LL.M. programs on social media. Whether on Instagram, LinkedIn or RedNote, highlighting the positive experiences and stories of LL.M. students is inspirational for so many, including me. And I believe it helps LL.M. prospects without established and “insider” networks know what to think about, what questions to ask and start to build their own U.S. LL.M. communities across schools.
- More advocacy from LL.M. students and graduates. In a J.D. v. Non-J.D. world, I truly believe the easiest way to move the needle is via students. The “customer model” of higher education certainly has its issues, but especially in revenue-generating programs like LL.M. programs, prospective students have the most power before they deposit. I have been inspired by the LL.M. students and graduates who share their experiences, both positive and negative.
Wishing you all a great 2026!
