Monday, February 18, 2013

The business of the academy

 Updated

In an example of what could be called the ongoing Dilbertization of academic life, every year CU law school faculty members are required to do a “self-evaluation,” which is supposed to supplement and enlarge upon the formal report of professional activities which all faculty at the university are asked to submit.

This year’s version of what seems vaguely like a hybrid between the rituals concocted by business consultants and Maoist cadres contains the following question:
For the period since January 2011, please discuss your engagement in the life of the law school, focusing on the following:
 Please describe your support for and involvement with the effort to recruit admitted applicants (e.g., making phone calls, meeting with interested students, participating in Admitted Students lunches, etc.).
I suppose it would come as a great surprise to the administrative class that comes up with this stuff to be told that, under current circumstances in particular, this sort of question is extremely inappropriate. For instance, compare it with this hypothetical question:
Please describe your support for and involvement with the effort the convey to the larger community that the American legal system is the best in the world.
Everyone, I imagine, would recognize that evaluating faculty members on the basis of the extent to which they participated in such an effort would be indefensible, given that such an evaluative process would reward and punish faculty on the basis of their willingness to support a controversial intellectual and political position, even though it’s one that law school deans as a pragmatic matter treat as self-evidently true upon certain occasions.

Expecting faculty to uncritically “recruit” admitted applicants could only be a reasonable expectation if, at a minimum, one takes the view that literally everyone the law school’s admissions committee decides to admit would be better off accepting rather than declining that invitation. A significant number of the faculty at my school disagree with that view, although perhaps only one of them would be so tactless as to say so in public. Telling these people that they’re being evaluated on the basis of their willingness to mortify their consciences on this particular point is wrong. Actually doing so is even more indefensible. ( Update: This is not a hypothetical: I know of at least one faculty member who was sanctioned in the evaluation process for giving candid advice to an admitted student who solicited it, and who enrolled subsequently at a top ten law school. For those interested my response to the self-evaluation question was: “I believe this question is framed incorrectly, as I don’t believe faculty members should be ‘recruiting’ admitted applicants. I do believe it’s a faculty member’s proper institutional role to give candid and helpful feedback to admitted or prospective applicants when they ask for such feedback, which I have done on numerous occasions.”).

What I find particularly interesting about this is the extent to which university administrators have now internalized the norms of profit-maximizing businesses. In this evaluative context, recruiting admitted students is thought of as moving product, and apparently it would no more occur to an administrator that a faculty member would object to be asked to participate uncritically in this enterprise than it would occur to the manager of a car dealership that members of his sales force might object to being asked to participate uncritically in the enterprise of selling the dealership’s stock.

Update: And of course this is not only a problem at law schools. As academia gets increasingly indistinguishable from any other business, the tension between the demands of profit maximization (in the context of technical non-profits profit maximization means running the institution for the financial benefit of its most powerful internal stakeholders, i.e., administrators, and to a lesser extent tenure-track faculty) and intellectual honesty become ever-more severe.

In the end, if universities are going to be run like businesses, they should be treated as such — from paying taxes, to being laughed at when they ask alumni for donations. After all, Toyota doesn’t call you up five years after you bought a Corolla, to ask you to give them some money out of sheer gratitude for the “quality” of their “product.”


139 comments:

  1. And what's your response?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a valid question. Update please, LawProf?

      Delete
    2. My response:

      "I believe this question is framed incorrectly, as I don’t believe faculty members should be 'recruiting' admitted applicants. I do believe it’s a faculty member’s proper institutional role to give candid and helpful feedback to admitted or prospective applicants when they ask for such feedback, which I have done on numerous occasions."

      I know of at least one faculty member who has been sanctioned for giving candid feedback to an admitted applicant, who subsequently enrolled at a much higher ranked school.

      Delete
    3. Good for you, Prof. Campos.

      Delete
    4. "Numerous" should be "countless". Other than that, not bad. A little too defensive, nitpicky and corporate for my liking, but whatever; it's a response from a dude who wants to be the bad guy but doesn't want to get fired.

      I have my doubts about a faculty member being sanctioned for giving candid feedback though, unless it was overtly and drunkenly telling someone to go to another school in front of the dean. I call BS on that one, especially considering that the school is so open-minded that it lets Campos write anti-school posts on this blog day in, day out, with no repercussions.

      Delete
    5. What makes you think that he gets no repercussions?

      Delete
  2. Paul:

    Describe your "support for" recruiting as opposition to the whole endeavor.

    Please post your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Universities, like every other organization, are bottom line driven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prior to 1995, the ABA actually told law schools they could not make decisions based on commercial value, profits, etc., and that admins couldn't be compensated for increasing things like yield or revenues.

      You can thank antitrust law for what happened next. Works great when you actually have a free market. When you don't...

      Delete
  4. "Please describe your support for and involvement with the effort the convey to the larger community that the American legal system is the best in the world."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what is the best legal system in the world?

      Serious question. Our system is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed. But aren't they all?

      Delete
  5. "the ongoing Dilbertization of academic life"

    Let us know when you have to meet with Catbert, the Evil HR Director to discuss your continued employment, or the middle manager bans you from using Blogger during working hours.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Law Prof do you know of any faculty at your law school that are aggressively trying to induce lemmings to enroll in law school?




    ReplyDelete
  7. Great 0L question for generic faculty meet and greet:

    "So, are you here because you actually want to meet and get to know the new admitees, or, are you here because the administration forced you to be to help with recruitment?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. It all depends upon what you mean by "recruit". It doesn't need to mean "lie" or "deceive". Even the most cynical salesmen I know talk about the "sales cycle" and "building trust."

    I think you, Law Prof, has been doing this more than anyone out there. Your book about who should or shouldn't go to law school was great. I think that LawProf has been doing more than anyone I know to rebuild trust in the institution and make it possible for the right people to choose a law degree.

    Discouraging the unfit is all part of the recruiting process.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And with a straight face, you’re gonna tell your fellow professors that America is so star-spangled awesome that we’re the only ones in the world who have a functioning legal system? Canada has laws. Japan has laws. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia…Belgium has law! So…207 sovereign states in the world…like 180 of ‘em have laws.

    And, yeah, you… accommodation policy girl. Just in case you wander into a faculty senate meeting one day, there are some things you should know. One of ‘em is there’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that America has the best legal system in the world. We're 20th when it comes to civil litigation affordability and 26th in criminal defense access. Our legal system leads the world in only two aspects, we lock up the highest percentage of our population, and we spend the most amount of money influencing our law makers. Now, none of this is the fault of a 40-year-old law school administrator, but you, nonetheless, are, without a doubt, a member of the worst period generation period ever period, so when you ask what makes us the greatest legal system in the world, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about! Palsgraf?!”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure that LawProf made up that second question to prove a point. I don't think it's actually in the CU questionnaire.

      Delete
    2. Great pop culture parody.

      Delete
    3. Wonderful play on a craptastic Boomer-whoring Sorkin show.

      Delete
    4. If scambloggers are so fucking smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?

      (It's a quote paraphrased from The Newsroom. This is an old ATL schtick, which is appropriate since ATL's readership now consists of about 12 people who meta-troll each other all day long).

      Delete
    5. (Kind of like the five people who post 95% of the comments here.)

      Delete
  10. Does anyone think there will be a psychological change in applicants' perception of law school when the cost of attendance crosses the $300k barrier? That seems to be on track to happen in the next few years at some schools. It seems like there is a qualitative difference, rather than just a quantitative one, in how $300k of debt sounds compared to $200 or $250. Then again, I am probably giving applicants too much credit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, because it will generally be phrased in yearly costs. Also, were there any glitches at $200K? A 'quarter-million'?

      Delete
    2. What makes you think that psychological barrier hasn't been breached already? Down 38% in applicants in two years...

      Delete
  11. In my firm, the attorneys (partners and associates alike) have to answer these sorts of questions every year when the time for compensation/slice-reallocation decisions rolls around. I assume that's pretty common.

    But I can't imagine being asked, "Please describe your efforts to persuade people to commence lawsuits." Because lawyers are supposed to comply with different (higher?) standards than those that apply to the typical businessperson.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Of course, the administrators have internalized the norms of profit-maximizing businesses. They are benefiting greatly from the current scheme. You also see this at undergraduate institutions. Apparently, in the 1970s and 1980s, univer$itie$ and college$ started hiring businessmen in high posts formerly held by academics. Now, "higher education" is merely another commodity.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/08/law_schools_soaking_in_million.html

    On August 4, 2012, Jeff Manning posted an Oregonian piece entitled "Law schools revenues soar as they take in millions from tuition and fees, as supply exceeds demand." Focus on the following portion, which gives you real insight into the law school devils' mindset:

    “John O'Brien, dean of the New England School of Law and chair of the ABA's legal accreditation committee, agreed the new schools are adding to a significant oversupply of lawyers. But the supply-demand imbalance is not a factor the ABA considers.

    "It's not the ABA's job to police the number of law schools," O'Brien said. "Law schools are like other businesses. Ultimately, that's what they are.”

    For $ome rea$on, such “educators” always “forget” to mention that most businesses and industries do not rely on the federal government for 90 percent+ of its operating revenues. If these bitches and hags want to engage in a real business enterprise, then they should enter a different industry. Then again, they see corporate pigs privatize profits and externalize the costs of their operations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is "not the ABA's job to police the number of law schools," then what good is that organization? Why should they accredit anybody?

      This is nonsense. The ABA should be advocating for the American Bar. After all, they are the American Bar Association! Guys, make the profession better. There is a glut of schools and graduates chasing too little work. This is a serious problem. Not only does it drive down wages -- which may or may not be a laudable public goal -- but it drives down professionalism, increases ethics problems, leads to social ills, and misallocates resources.

      Delete
  13. This is such a conflict of interest. Evaluting faculty performance based on their efforts to recruit admitted applicants should be outright banned by federal regulation in this environment.

    Forcing law school faculty to uncategorically recruit 0Ls is very much contrary to the interests of most students. There are first year jobs for at best half of them and long term jobs for a much smaller pecentage, and most of these students cannot get the cost of attendance back in terms of increased salary vs their BAs. On the contrary, most students will be burdened with a lifetime of nondischargeable debt they cannot repay.

    A more appropriate question would be what have you done to assure that most of our grads are employed in jobs that make it worthwhile to spend three years getting a $250,000 degree? Have you encouraged the law school to balance supply and demand? Have you advised admitted students of the imbalance? Have you assisted with other career paths for law students who did not get legal jobs? Have you tried to get your students jobs?

    This sort of conflict of interest perpetuates the law school scam and severely damages students. It should not be allowed to continue.

    Federal regulation needs to take law school enrollment out of the hands of the ABA and to stop the flow of federal dollars to paying for degrees that are not only a complete waste of money, but actually ruin students lives by putting them into massive debt that can never be repaid and giving them a career path which for huge percentage of students will not work out as a career as a lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. More regulation is a poor second choice to getting government out of the student loan business entirely. It doesn't fix the basic financial malincentives and simply causes more time and money to be spent lobbying and searching for loopholes.

      Delete
    2. To be fair, we don't know the rest of the questions on the questionnaire. But it's reasonable to assume that any questions that implied that the school was interested in being responsible would not be the subject of a blog post here.

      Delete
  14. "Prof. Campos, which part of

    ALWAYS BE CLOSING

    don't you understand?"


    -Dean's Office

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol. shit, you beat me to the punch.

      A
      I
      D
      A
      !!!

      Delete
  15. I am still waiting for the naming and shaming of the admissions person who said "what are they going to do, become investment bankers?"

    Because that person is unequivocally a terrible, terrible human being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Please name names.

      Delete
    2. "What else will these thousands of students who have been discouraged from attending law school do? Where will they find a more fulfilling career? They’re not all going to be doctors or investment bankers, nor should they."

      Lawrence E. Mitchell, dean of Case Western Reserve University’s law school

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/law-school-is-worth-the-money.html

      Delete
    3. You'll wait a long time for any names to be named here - it might be called "Inside The Law School Scam", but the amount of insider information given is close to zero. Even when we ask for it.

      Delete
    4. I was talking about this post: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-american-way.html

      "The other day, in the context of an argument about law school budgets, I heard the head of an admissions committee say with perfect complacency that there really wasn't much to worry about, because after all, what were these kids going to do, become investment bankers? This remark elicited an equally complacent chuckle from many of his colleagues."

      That guy - a he, apparently - is a horrible person.

      Delete
    5. I know what post you were talking about. And you'll never find out who is was who said that - from LawProf at least.

      Delete
  16. "Please describe your support for and involvement with the effort the convey to the larger community that the American legal system is the best in the world."

    When did CU hire FOX to draft the faculty self-evaluation?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have a question. I graduated from law school nine months ago this week. My address information is up to date (the bursar has no problem finding me to hound my spouse on a disputed pharmacy charge.) Shouldn't I expect some inquiry into my current job status? Thus far, no inquiry, not a peep. (JD from a T14.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you fill out an employment survey from your career services office at any point before or after graduation?

      Email me if you want to discuss this off line.

      Delete
    2. I graduated in 2010 from a T14 and was never asked about my employment status. I am employed but have never worked a day as a lawyer. I did apply to law jobs for awhile after graduating but have given up on that front for the time being. I have often wondered who they ask. I do receive mailings and emails from the school so they have my contact information.

      Delete
    3. This is interesting. You should have received the nine month employment request around this time in 2011.

      You should call your school and ask them how they listed your employment status for reporting purposes. I wouldn't be too surprised if they listed you as working in "business".

      Delete
    4. I also can't remember receiving a survey, although I may have filled something out at graduation or they could easily have linkedin stalked me. But they need my salary.

      Delete
    5. (Original Anon here) I might have filled out an employment survey prior to graduation, indicating that I had no job lined up. I knew what I wanted to do (and have done,) but since career services had provided no assistance while I was enrolled, I was curious as to whether they would follow up. Obviously, they haven't.

      I, like others in my class, was offered a meager, limited-time stipend if I obtained a full-time volunteer position with a non-profit within six months of graduation. However, knowing it was all part of the scam, I turned it down (it didn't even pay minimum wage in my state.) If you're going to bribe me, at least make me a serious offer.

      Delete
    6. Those that are assumed to be unemployed are conveniently omitted from the survey.

      Delete
  18. I think it is just a matter of time before we start seeing the proliferation of MLM-style practices in law school recruiting, such as big bonuses for each new recruit brought into the "system" and much smaller bonuses based on total asset performance (tuition collected from the recruit).

    The stakes are just too high, and the money to be had is too great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another ingredient to the MLM system, blatant misrepresentation about earning potential, is already in place and has been for some time.

      Delete
  19. Get Uncle Sugar out of the student loan business and this whole scam collapses.

    ReplyDelete
  20. come on, paul.

    What can you do to put these kids in a law school seat today?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is a non-story.

    Only the most obtuse and foolish among us believe that all law schools are scams and that everyone should stay away. But for the reasonable majority of us, the general belief is that we need some lawyers, there are some good law schools, and there are some people who should go to law school if they've done their homework and chosen their school wisely.

    And sure some of those students will end up at Campos's law school?

    If so - and I don't think he'll disagree that his school has some benefits for some students - then he, as a member of the faculty, should damn well be out there encouraging those students to attend his school, and not other schools that might not be as suitable. Or does he think that his duties as an academic lie solely within the classroom and library?

    One can recruit without deceiving. One can recruit ethically. One can recruit from a pool of students who would benefit from attending law school.

    So I think it's a fair question about a fair duty of law professors. It's fair to ask what they have done to get out there and find a student body that is in the right place, and what they have done to publicize the real benefits that the school offers to appropriate students.

    No ethical issues there.

    And to be honest, perhaps all these concerned professors would do well to get out there and take control of recruiting, instead of leaving it to bean counters and career administrators who really bring no value to the school and who are there simply to milk easy money from the system.

    If professors want to cut down on overhead, then fire half the admin staff. How? Take on these recruiting duties.

    I see no problem here. I doubt the administration expects professors to go out there and lie and cheat people into attending the school, only to be miserable and drop out after 1L or transfer elsewhere.

    Again, this is a fair responsibility to place on professors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not convinced that Prof. Campos's law school should be left standing. It cannot be considered a good law school. Among the sixty or seventy law schools that should be kept open, Colorado is mediocre at best.

      Delete
    2. the ranking is not what you should be looking at to determine who should stay or go. You should purely look at employment stats and price.

      Delete
    3. Who said anything about "the ranking"?

      Delete
    4. Most flagship state schools should remain - especially those away from the over-saturated I95 corridor. On the other hand, we could do without half (3/4ths?) of the private schools.

      Delete
    5. One public law school per state would be appropriate in most cases. A few of the largest states (and states with flagship public schools that are truly national) could use two - maybe three for California. Public law schools should be the only ones that get federal student loan funding. There can be as many private law schools as can survive without federal student loan eligibility. For the public schools, loans should be limited to about 20K per year - they'll find ways to bring their costs in line when they're forced to.

      Delete
    6. "One can recruit without deceiving. One can recruit ethically. One can recruit from a pool of students who would benefit from attending law school."

      As Paul Campos has proven, the majority of students in that pool should simply not go to law school.

      Delete
    7. I agree Barry, but seeing as most are too stubborn to change their minds, it is incumbent on LawProf (and others) to get his ass out there to these publicity gigs and do his best to minimize the damage. The decision is made. They are getting the JD. So the issue is which JD will cause the least damage, and professors have some influence in that.

      These kids are going to law school, period. So why not try to give them the best start possible, rather than tossing them in the trashcan before they've even started?

      Delete
  22. Well since public law schools have undeniably become big business (albeit one operating under the guise of a non-profit), this question seems reasonable to me. By accepting a position on the law faculty, you are implicitly agreeing that your institution provides a valuable service to your customers (the students). So it should really come as no surprise to you of all people (i.e. the person who has explained in great detail the ways in which public law schools have ceased to operate as a non-profit in any meaningful sense) that the law school would expect you actively participate in business development. Corporations everywhere expect their salespeople to sell their product as "the best". This isn't really a shocking development in the law school scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree.

      Colorado's questionnaire is a bit like the casino asking the cocktail waitresses and card dealers what they're doing to make the gaming experience more pleasant for gamblers. There's really no difference.

      You're part of the scam, albeit a low-level player in the scam. Scam Master wants to know what can be done to make the scam more appealing to the marks and thus more profitable to the House.

      Delete
    2. In fact, it's a development that has nothing to do with the scam, and everything to do with having an engaged faculty that gets out of the office once in a while and isn't there just to collect a paycheck, and'it has everything to do with finding a appropriate student body by the very people who will have the most contact with the student body.

      It's not an indication that schools are now expecting faculty to act as salespeople. Just that they act as faculty. As one of the main selling points of many schools, with do much emphasis being put on what great professors the schools have, that asset should be placed in front of the students as much as possible, not hidden away and exposed only after the first year tuition has been paid.

      Delete
    3. As long as the faculty doesn't later come back and claim they had nothing to do with admissions or convincing people to attend, I don't care.

      I am fed up with the professors who act as if the scam goes on without their input and they are pure as the driven snow in this whole debacle.

      Delete
  23. The words "uncritically recruit" appear a number of times in the original post, yet in the question quoted, I don't see that it even implies that the faculty need to be uncritical in their recruitment efforts. The faculty could be as critical and discerning as they like, and responsible faculty members would be out there making sure that they most suitable class for the school is admitted. Surely the faculty should have some interest in picking the students they teach?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're supposed to be recruiting admitted applicants. The word admitted implies that recruitment does not extend to weeding people out.

      Delete
    2. Huh? So every admitted student is essentially equal, and the professors have no interest whatsoever in selecting, say, someone local who has strong community connections and wants to attend that school over, say, someone who applied from halfway across the country and is using the school as an obvious safety?

      Delete
    3. Yup. Once the admissions office has accepted them, they're all equal. The professors are not empowered to countervail the admissions office.

      Delete
    4. But since most will have in hand multiple acceptances, the professor can and should point them to the school that will offer the cheapest, best JD.

      Or tell them offline that the whole thing is a scam and they should do something else with their lives.

      Being accepted is not the same as unequivocably and irrevocably committed to attend for three years.

      Delete
    5. Or they could just refer them to LST and this blog at the same time as telling students what their own research is about.

      Delete
    6. And a shout out to TLS as well.

      Delete
    7. The U of Colorado's administration doesn't want the professors to guide those admitted applicants to the best school for them; it wants them to guide the admitted applicants to the U of Colorado.

      Delete
  24. Prof. Campos, I had to fill out similar forms when I worked for a corporation. "What have you done to promote the company, improve its image, attract customers?" No one asked or cared what I thought of the (rotten) company; advancing its interests was considered part of my job.

    So why do you bristle at similar demands from your employer? Because of your—and my—quaint old belief that law school should not be a mere commercial enterprise. Perhaps it wasn't so crudely plutocratic a few decades ago, but today it's just another business venture dressed up in threadbare quasi-intellectual garb.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. It's basically asking, "Have you got any interest in the future of this company and making it better for all of us, or are you just picking up a check each week?"

      Everybody fills out these surveys, full of corporate-speak like this. It's called having a job.

      Delete
    2. Except (and I'm 10:49) that there was a time when "corporate-speak" wasn't found within ivy-covered halls. Now the ivy is gone and the corporate-speak is in.

      Delete
    3. As it should be, 11:01. The time for profs, especially law profs, to hide behind tenure and claim that they have no duty to do anything other than "teach" and "write" has long gone.

      This is a step in the right direction for accountability of what professors actually do all day,

      And it could be the best news we've had in a while. For all we know, the school could be using an outside consultant to figure out which professors are deadweight and to be laid off, and which professors are earning their keep.

      Delete
  25. Well, at least they didn't ask Law Prof to appear in a recruitment video! Although several faculty members at the Whittier Law School, a place with a freaking 17% nine-month out, full-time, bar-required job placement record (2nd worst among ABA approved schools) and a projected $240,000 nondiscounted cost per student, seemingly had no problem doing so.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZD5i57Nks&list=UU3vtKmN-6evqnRsyXyh516A&index=1&feature=plcp

    There are quotes from 11 faculty members on the video, a symphony in scam. Here are my six favorites:

    1. Penelope Bryan, Dean and Vice President: “Any student, no matter what you’re trying to accomplish or what you’re trying to become, is very well served by this law school.”

    2. Patricia Leary, Distinguished Professor of Law: “This is an experience that changes them, makes them completely who they are in terms of intellect, emotions, conscience, values. When a student really fully engages in this experience, it is a joy to see.”

    3. Robert M.C. Webster, Director, International Development: “Globalization is one of the hallmarks of legal practice today. So I think it is enormously important that our students gain some cultural sensitivity by studying abroad, studying with other nationalities.”

    4. Jennifer Mertus, Director, Center for Children’s Rights: “I think I feel such a connection to this area of the law because children don’t have a voice if we don’t act as their voice. And training lawyers that will ultimately be the voice of the children is very unique and special.”

    5. Peter I. Reich, Professor of Law: “Environmental law is one of the fastest growing areas of legal practice in California. And so, at Whittier Law School, what we try to do is surf on that wave. We try to give students the kinds of courses, the kinds of tools, the kinds of experiences, the placement advice that they need to enter right into the market after they get their law degree.’

    6. Lakshmi Paranthaman, Assistant Dean, Career Development: “By far, the most rewarding moments are when students come into my office who’ve just gotten their dream job, and to see the excitement on their faces, to end up where they wanted to be, and know that all that hard work was worth it.”

    Can people with high IQs and liberal sensibilities really say such things and maintain clear consciences and self-respect? I like to think that these academics burst into tears after reciting their lines. Or got plastered. Or went to a shrink. Or ran five miles. Or begged their God for forgiveness. Or went to a dominatrix for a severe spanking. Or gazed miserably at pictures of their kids and reminded themselves that in 2013 USA, integrity and dignity do not pay the bills, but scamming often does.

    dybbuk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Valvoline Dean: Hot damn! Enrollments are up! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?!

      Dean Matasar: The open road, a fast car, a chick on your dick, and the wind in your hair.

      Valvoline Dean: Wrong! Joan King! What is best in life?!

      Joan King: To crush your lemmings, see them admitted before you, and to hear the lamentations of the graduates!

      Valvoline Dean: That is good! That is good.

      Delete
  26. Are schools trolling the Science/Eng departments seeking applications while promising "Suits" style jobs in The Apple-Samsung litigation sagas?? I discouraged one Snr engineering u/g who was visiting some classes from applying by ensouraging her to work as an engineer for a few years at least.....perhaps I saved her life.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In my experience faculty at my t75 toilet treated students with outright arrogance and contempt. Students who work and borrow to cover the insane tuition costs are met with insults or indifference by some of these ivory tower make-work swine. i will never donate a cent back to this rotten dump and the treatment i received will always leave a poisonous taste for me. It's harder ti remember the goodbatured profs (there were some of course) due to the rage felt due to treatment by the other arrogant pigs. Id never recommend this school to anyone i cared about. Thank you Prof Campos for all you are doing to expose this nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To the anonymous professor (10:41) who argued that one can recruit ethically--sure you can, as long as you define "ethically" as, "any activity that furthers my interest in maintaining my salary and benefits."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be a retard. A professor can legitimately help a qualified and suitable student choose between competing law schools.

      What should not happen is professors being asked to help recruit unqualified or unsuitable applicants. No professor should do this.

      But the vast majority of sane, sensible, rational people here would agree that there are some students for whom law school is a reasonable idea. And there is nothing wrong with professors actively helping those students choose the most appropriate venue for their studies.

      Remember, these admitted students probably have applied to ten other schools and hold five acceptances in their hands. They are going to law school no matter what. So the professor should do what he or she can to minimize the harm or maximize the benefit.

      An unethical professor would wash his or her hands of this situation and just collect a paycheck. A concerned and ethical professor would take whatever opportunities he or she was given to dissuade those who were unsuitable, attract those who would be in ideal fit, and do what they could to make sure the students made the right choices.

      But of course a scam-blind cunt like you wouldn't understand a nuanced argument like that, because you don't believe anything other than "LAW SCHOOL IS A SCAM FOR EVERYONE", which is clearly not true. Sorry you failed at law school and life.

      Pwned. Now fuck off back to Third Tier Reality where the extremists congregate.

      Delete
    2. I agree that it is possible to be "ethical" in recruiting students if a law prof isn't trying to "sell" the school a-la used car salesman style but is acting like a "fiduciary" agent for the admitted student, making sure it is a fit for the student and that the student understands the risk/rewards of going based on her particular circumstances.

      But the question reads:
      "Please describe your support for and involvement with the effort to recruit admitted applicants (e.g., making phone calls, meeting with interested students, participating in Admitted Students lunches, etc.)."

      That sounds a like more like asking lawprofs whether they've done enough to act as law school salesman than anything else (i.e have you, lawprof, done enough to entice admitted students to enroll at CU?)

      There's no other way to read this question.

      Delete
    3. "Sorry you failed at law school and life."

      ...Why don't you tell folks what you really think?

      Whether or not law school is a scam, it aggressively sorts out its students. Look to your left, look to your right. One of you (or more likely, two out the three) will be branded "Losers" and everything will be all. your. fault.

      Delete
    4. No, it can be read in many ways, the simplest (and thus the most probable) of which is: "What have you done - if anything - to bring in the most qualified and appropriate students?"

      Not: "What have you done to bring in the scammiest class possible?"

      Get a grip. It's a fairly standard question with no sinister motives. Profs should not be stuck in their offices doing fuck all each day. For that price, the school has a legitimate right to ask that they do more than five hours of work each week and get their asses out there to earn their keep.

      Delete
    5. Only a lawyer (or more likely a law professor) could read the word "recruit" to mean "impartially advise." The simplest and thus the most probable meaning of the question is, what did you do to get people to sign on the line that is dotted?

      Delete
    6. You have completely missed the point. Law schools is good for some people at the balance of cost and employment. There are a number of law schools that are not good for anyone, as the full ride students could get in anywhere and the rest shouldn't be in law school.

      Delete
    7. @ 4:13PM

      I do not see how the question can be read in that way based solely on the wording of the question.

      It specifically ask what effort you have made "TO RECRUIT ADMITTED APPLICANTS". Only the most contorted logic can that therefore mean "bring in the most qualified and appropriate students".

      There is nothing in that question about impartially advising students or going after only "the most qualified and appropriate students".

      No the simplest and the more probable reading IS THE PLAIN READING OF THE QUESTION AS STATED AND NOT ADDING NOTHING IMPLIED. That would again be, "what are you doing to get the admitted applicants to attend CU, such as making phone calls, meeting students, etc".

      The only way the question could be read your way is it is actually explicitly stated so, such as:

      "What effort have you made to ensure to encourage only the most qualified and appropriate students enroll at CU while discouraging the rest by talking to students, meeting them in person, etc?"

      Delete
    8. @ 4:16 and again at 4:39:

      I never used the word "impartial".

      Only someone completely lost to the scam can claim that the question is an effort to influence professors to scam their students as hard as possible by greedily bringing in as many as possible like used car salespeople.

      Remember, at most schools - LawProf's included - there's many more applicants (and accepted applicants) than there are places. Law professors don't have to be salespeople. The class fills itself. Salesmanship is not necessary. But the school has a legitimate interest - as do the professors - in bringing in the most qualified of the admitted students.

      The question simply asked what the professors have been doing to bring in those students. It's idiotic for someone like you to suggest that professors should be isolated from all recruitment and marketing efforts. After all, the professors are the school. And if you're happy with them being so isolated, I suppose you also agree that they should not be practicing lawyers, should not teach current law, should not teach to the bar exam, nor help students obtain jobs. After all, they're sacred academics, right, and should never interfere with their students?

      You need to get a grip and realize that law schools are not the wholesale organized megascam that you believe they are. Some are worse than others. Cooley and company are scams. Anything in the top 100 is not, although some are dangerous. And anything in the top 10 still provides world class education and some damn good opportunities considering the shitty state of the economy.

      Your post should be crying out in anger that professors are not doing more to advise their prospective students, rather than pretending that professors should take a hands-off role.

      You've bought into the extremes of the scam too much. Professors are not evil. Law schools are not evil. Some are worthless pieces of shit, but in reality, most are merely passively harmful, and some are actually very good for your career.

      Delete
    9. And once again, we see the scamblog commenters grasping at straws.

      "Recruit???? Recruit???? That definitely means press into slavery!!!! What an evil word!!!! More proof that this is all a scam!!!"

      Dictionary definition of "recruit":

      - to fill up the number of with new members

      Harmless. Stop giving words meanings that they don't have, just to try and bolster your weak arguments.

      Delete
    10. I guess "recruit" is better than "jumped in" - how many students have you jumped into our gang professor?

      You are right. Filling up numbers means all you care about is meeting the numbers, not at all about the people you are recruiting.

      Why should a professor care about them? It isn't as if they have ethical obligations to their students.

      As long as the Dean is happy with the number of admits(especially now thanks in part to law prof the applicants are getting wise to the lack of jobs for lawyers), why should the professor care if he or she helped recruit someone into 20 years of debt and depression? That isn't their problem.

      Delete
    11. "And once again, we see the scamblog commenters grasping at straws...Harmless. Stop giving words meanings that they don't have, just to try and bolster your weak arguments."

      This is what makes you scammer lawprofs so pathetic. You guys get ripped to shreds on a daily basis on sites like this, often while also exposing your evil nature in the process. But the minute you think you might actually have one, tiny little argument (which you don't) you try to pretend that scambloggers are always "grasping at straws." You deserve the world of hurt that is waiting for you.

      Delete
  29. You can reply on your evaluation, "I told prospective applicants to watch 'the Good Wife' on CBS. In the latest installment, a law firm drowning in debt and faced with receivership, asset liquidation, etc. suddenly becomes solvent because they were able to bill their way out of a massive hole, paying off all debts and clearing $125MM of profits in one quarter."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And then they screwed over the associates who they had asked to be equity partners because they thought they would need the capital contribution.

      LOL that was awesome.

      Delete
  30. Confucius says: there is always free cheese in a mousetrap.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Dilbertization"

    For those of us who have actually worked real life jobs before, Dilbert is funny because it's true. We get it.

    For those of us who have been stuck in easy ivory tower jobs for two decades, Dilbert is an insult. They don't get it.

    Let's play "spot the blogger who has never had a real job before"...

    ReplyDelete
  32. To the 'tard @ 3:38

    Based on ABA stats, 55% of recent students found full-time law jobs. As Lawprof has argued before on this blog, even a "biglaw" law career lasts ten years or less for a significant number of attorneys. So, overall, we're talking fewer than half of law school applicants "are some students for whom law school is a reasonable idea." If you're dealing with T14 then you may be talking much more than half; dealing with lower tiers, then way, way less than half. In any event, I guess an ethical and discerning professor might be able to flip a coin before deciding whether to recruit a particular student. Law school is not a scam for everyone who goes. But apparently these days it is a scam for about 60% of those who go.

    When did you graduate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a scam if there's no winner. No one would go to Vegas if the odds were 100 percent certain loss.

      Delete
    2. 3:55, what an extraordinarily dumb response.

      Kids are going to law school no matter what. End of story. We can't save everybody. So do we stop giving a fuck once someone decides to attend law school? Is that where we stop caring? Do we just say, "Oh well, he's too dumb. Let's have his money."

      Or should professors be out there actively trying to pick the most suitable class, making the best of a shitty situation? The battle does not end at the acceptance letter. It ends at the start of 3L, which is just about the last reasonable point someone could drop out and be better off than graduating.

      I know that most kids in law school are fucked. But some aren't. And some will be fucked no matter what. So what's wrong with professors trying to make the fucking less painful?

      Delete
    3. A professor of law was irate,
      So he went online to debate.
      Yet his sad little dick
      Made him act like a prick
      In an effort to compensate.

      Delete
    4. Please study meter. I'm sick of all the failed haikus and failed limericks.

      Delete
    5. The meter is rock solid on my limerick, douche. I'd bet your pension you're the prick in question. Don't you have stuff to fake grade or something? Oops, not finals time yet, is it?

      Delete
    6. Do you not know what a metrical foot is, or are you unable to count to three?

      Never mind; you're too stupid to deserve my attention.

      Delete
    7. So I was right. You are the prick in question. Glad my limerick bothered you, you pompous windbag. The meter in the limerick is air-tight. No snobbish appeals to "metrical feet" will change that fact. I see you're thin skinned, too. Probably why academia provided you with a refuge for the real practice of law. Loser.

      Delete
    8. We do not have data on how many T14 grads end up badly - unemployed or underemployed. My view is that law is a very risky proposition even for T14. I see a some people happily employed for a career and many failures from the T14. You do not know how it will end up, but there is a high risk of failure from the T14. Failure in this context means years of no job or underemployment and over the long term poor income. Over the last 10 years most of the women from my Columbia Law School class would have earned more as school teachers in the NY metro area than they did as lawyers. They made more early in their careers, but that was before many monumental changes in the legal profession. A few women did very well, but many more badly from my class.

      Delete
    9. Meter is more or less irrelevant in a limerick.

      Even where meter is essential, like the sonnet, poetry's greatest practitioners often disregarded meter rules for creativity or emphasis. In the limerick, there's certainly license to do so for humorous effect, as there's no other purpose for a limerick.

      Delete
  33. "Our slots pay out 99%"--in reality they pay out 40%. Scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not when for the past three years, there's been clear information that it's a 40% payout.

      Delete
    2. ^^^^
      4:19, that is a blatant lie.

      Delete
    3. "Not when for the past three years, there's been clear information that it's a 40% payout."

      Clear information- LOL

      Delete
  34. Even other, undergraduate departments are in on it (possibly the law school sends money to the mothership, and presumably a department of philosophy is not raising much on its own):

    West Virginia University’s Department of Philosophy is presenting a lecture for students thinking of attending law school and wanting to get into the minds of lawyers ... The lecture is titled, “The Nature of the Law of the Workplace: Reflections on Concerted Activity.”

    http://wvrecord.com/news/257928-wvu-to-present-lecture-for-students-interested-in-law-school

    ReplyDelete
  35. Not that he'd have any stake in the process:

    http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/2013/02/18/3-sources-of-law-school-admissions-advice

    ReplyDelete
  36. COFFEE IS FOR CLOSERS.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The key objection here is the phrase "the effort to recruit admitted applicants".

    Sure it can be read, as many apologists claim, to mean something more than or other than exactly that, which is convince admitted applicants enroll at CU (such as making sure it is a right fit, they are qualified and "appropriate" students who understand the risk/rewards, true nature of the legal job market, etc).

    But the question as worded doesn't say that in its "plain reading". Otherwise it could simply be worded that way.

    Its somewhat naive to think that the CU dean (or most LS deans anyway) are going to want a scamprof to be attending admitted 0L luncheons or calling up said 0Ls to give them the low down on the reality of law school dangers and risks and thus discouraging them from attending.

    No the plain reading is correct which is "what are you doing to always be closing".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the plain meaning will be the harmless definition of the word "recruit": to bring in new members.

      You may associate it with deception, but that isn't what it means.

      Delete
    2. A poem may hurt, no doubt.
      May make a professor pout.
      But don't despair,
      Nature's not fair,
      You miserable, small-dicked lout.

      Delete
    3. 6:00, you need an additional syllable in your last line.

      Suggest substituting the word, "pinkie" for "small".

      Flows better.

      Delete
  38. "For the period since January 2011..."

    Is this an annual or bi-annual?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Remember, at most schools - LawProf's included - there's many more applicants (and accepted applicants) than there are places. Law professors don't have to be salespeople. The class fills itself. Salesmanship is not necessary. But the school has a legitimate interest - as do the professors - in bringing in the most qualified of the admitted students.

    The question simply asked what the professors have been doing to bring in those students"

    -----

    The question does NOT say anything about bringing in the "most qualified of the admitted students" at all. It simply says "recruit admitted students" PERIOD, not "recruit the most qualified and appropriate of the admitted students".

    Stop adding words to the question just to downplay what is being asked which is "what are you doing to ALWAYS BE CLOSING"?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why do all the embedded links in the OP go to "lawyersgunsmoney/#"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is because he originally wrote this post on his LGM site and copied the text to this blogspot website.

      Unfortunately, his cunning plan did not turn out the way he hoped. Bad LawProf.

      Delete
  41. Second Amendment LawyerFebruary 18, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    I am a Second Amendment Lawyer. Always, ALWAYS keep in mind that we have a Constitutional Right To Arm Bears!

    Always!

    Viva la Second Amendment!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous professor @ 10:41 and 3:38 wrote:

    "...But of course a scam-blind cunt like you wouldn't understand a nuanced argument like that, because you don't believe anything other than "LAW SCHOOL IS A SCAM FOR EVERYONE", which is clearly not true. Sorry you failed at law school and life."

    Classy guy, our anonymous professor. Anyone who disagrees with him must be a "cunt" (interesting example of the "nuanced" argument that he so cherishes! ) who "clearly failed at law school and life." (Actually, I'm a graduate of HLS, and have been successfully practicing law for 20+ years, but never mind...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably the same tough guy prof who was raging all over the comments last week, calling people "mental defectives" and so forth. He probably thinks that's how real-life big boy lawyers get things done, so that's how he's gonna do it down here in the comments.

      Delete
  43. Look in the final analysis, I think we can all agree that it is possible to "recruit ethically". But while the original question doesn't exactly rule out "recruiting ethically" it doesn't exactly say anything to that affect at all.

    I'm not saying that the CU dean is asking its lawprofs to be sleazy used-car salesman scammers. He probably would say he doesn't expect the lawprofs to be deceptive or lying to entice admitted to attend.

    But it seems clear that he is expecting lawprofs to be "closing the deal" as it were rather than acting with any kind if fiduciary duty to the students to make sure it makes sense for them to go.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This post needs to show up in the inbox of every poli sci undergrad:
    http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/education/law-school-worth-cost/nWQNx/

    ReplyDelete
  45. Lawprof, can you describe the process the financial aid office uses to transmit the financial AIDS to the lemmings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rough lubeless anal penetration of student loan dollars.

      The best law students are power bottoms.

      Delete
  46. "Recruit???? Recruit???? That definitely means press into slavery!!!! What an evil word!!!! More proof that this is all a scam!!!

    Dictionary definition of "recruit":

    - to fill up the number of with new members

    Harmless. Stop giving words meanings that they don't have, just to try and bolster your weak arguments."

    -----

    In the context of law schools, the very act of merely "filling all the law school seats" is far from harmless when there are like 2-3x the number of JD grads as jobs!

    So if recruit means nothing more than filling all the seats without regard to the likely outcome for its graduates, then the very act of recruitment is part and parcel of the scam.

    Of course you can continue to make tortuous arguments about how "recruiting" actually has some bizarre meaning of "making sure only the more qualified and appropriate admitted 0Ls enroll". But that definition is nowhere to be found in any dictionary I know.

    ReplyDelete
  47. hen I spoke to a mental health lawyer a few years back, at a time I was looking to challenge the local authority, he stated I had as much knowledge of the MCA as him- I had managed to get a good grasp by reading it and cases. This was all the more telling as I had documentation which highlighted that no one in adult services in the local authority, especially the social workers, had any grasp at all. The younger clinicians in the NHS did however I noted.

    DUI Attorneys in Wichita KS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC love using spambots run by non-English speakers. Classy operation, guys.

      Delete
  48. RE: Toyota doesn’t call you up five years after you bought a Corolla, to ask you to give them some money out of sheer gratitude for the “quality” of their “product.”

    Having attended both law school and b-school, I much prefer the b-school model (least with my b-school). Loved b-school. On the other hand, I ignore calls and snail-mail from my law school (they were just aweful at the business of catering to students -- "you should be so lucky to be here" while I was in school; and now they want me to stroke a check). My b-school, atmosphere was better, team-centric environment, much energy to get you networked and connected (and thus a job), and other things (like not having law review, BigLaw interviews for top 5%, etc). The difference shows in the comparative endowment funds ("business is business" wins by hundred miles).

    ReplyDelete
  49. As a resident of the State of Colorado, I do not want to see the state's public universities to be a profit maximizing operation; I want to see them providing a good education, primarily to other Colorado residents.

    I do not want to see a public institution, supported by my taxes engaging in hucksterism or slick business practices.

    I do not want to see a publicly supported school engaging in aggressive competition with private schools. It needs to be an alternative for those who cannot afford private school tuition.

    Most importantly, I do not want to see the State of Colorado, through its universities lying to or otherwise misleading young people. The thought that a school supported by my tax dollars and existing on public land would lure youngsters into a lifetime of debt peonage is patently offensive.

    A public university is fundamentally a socialist institution -- and one which has existed for over 150 years. It is NOT a free market enterprise. This its why it is built on public property using public money. Its employees are employees of the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very very well said. thank you for this addition.

      Delete
  50. I agree with 7:26 about the public nature of state law schools, and want to add a consideration that also applies to private law schools. Law schools are accredited (through the ABA) by state supreme courts to train functionaries for the public judicial system - "officers of the court." Thus, they can be seen as quasi-governmental bodies.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.