Friday, February 15, 2013

Transparency redux

A law professor writes:



I was thinking about asking my Dean to put the 2012 9 month employment numbers up on the school’s website as soon as we have finalized them, which should be any day now (if it hasn’t happened already).  I agree with you that that disclosure is a moral imperative.  I suspect that if the 2012 numbers are worse than the 2011 numbers, what I’ll hear back is something like, “well, if we put our numbers up and our competitors don’t, then (1) the students may be misled into comparing apples and oranges, and (2) it’ll hurt our competitiveness.  (If the 2012 numbers are better, which seems highly unlikely, I suspect the Dean will gladly put them up.)  These problems would be resolved if the vast majority of respectable schools post their 2012 numbers.

So, how about a post suggesting that law professors have a moral obligation to demand that their dean post their 2012 numbers?  
Today is the official reporting date for nine-month employment numbers to NALP  (I believe NALP gives schools a couple of weeks to get their information in.)

I agree with my correspondent that legal academics have an obligation to do what we can, individually and collectively, to ensure that our institutions make the latest employment and salary data available to prospective and current students.  Within the next month, every law school should post information for the class of 2012 which is as transparent as the information regarding the class of 2011 that can be found here.  (Note how the data schools report to NALP are much more granular than the numbers the ABA now makes public regarding individual schools).

A couple of further notes:

(1)  Reform-minded law school employees need to be especially vigilant about schools publishing misleadingly incomplete information, as almost all schools did until very recently.  For example, it would be better for a school to publish nothing at all than to announce on its website that "92% of the 2012 class was employed nine months after graduation, with a reported average salary of X."  Overall "employment" percentages mean next to nothing (especially given the growing trend of schools' employing their own graduates), and "average" salary figures are even more misleading if they exclude salaries, if any, for large percentages of the class, and omit median numbers in favor of means.

This will especially be a problem at lower-ranked schools, where large majorities of each class have no reported salaries, causing the few reported high salaries to skew the data about an already unrepresentative subgroup of graduates.

(2)  I try very hard to force myself to be realistic about what prospective law students can be expected to know, and to resist the "individual responsibility" victim-blaming frame which American culture in general tends to impose on structural injustice.  On the other hand, individual responsibility still exists.  Anyone who enrolls at any law school this fall without first having extracted the relevant employment and salary information for the class of 2012 referenced above is engaging in reckless behavior, given that at this point any school that withholds this information (as large numbers of schools still do) is essentially announcing to prospective students that transparent employment and salary data regarding its graduates will incline reasonable people not to enroll.

In other words, while caveat emptor has been a much-abused principle in the common law tradition, there is a point at which it ought to have some real force.  That point was not the year 2000 or 2005 or even 2011.  But it is or ought to be now.  Of course caveat emptor doesn't excuse active misrepresentation, of which there's still plenty in the law school world, but my sympathies for people who enroll in law school going forward without demanding and obtaining the necessary information about outcomes first is going to be limited.

Update:   On reflection, the phrase caveat emptor, which has a specific legal meaning, was not the best way of conveying what I was trying to express.  What I was trying to express was my own sense of exasperation at the cultural forces which create barriers to acquiring and interpreting information that, in theory, should at this point be easy to acquire.  Example: if you google "should I go to law school" the first three links are to an interview with me in Newsweek about the book Don't Go to Law School (Unless), a link to that book, and a link to this blog. 

But as commenters have noted, my personal exasperation is beside the point, and irrelevant to the cultural fact that, while the law school scam is over from any perspective that assumes rational maximizers of their utility engaging in minimally prudent behavior, that's not actually what human beings, and especially recent college graduates in this culture, are like.



157 comments:

  1. Third (Tier Toilet)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not think schools are given the option under ABA/NALP to post "nothing at all", despite your suggestion that this would be a better course of action.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lawprof even though there is significantly more information available to 0Ls than with prior classes, I still don't think you can limit your sympathies for upcoming 0Ls. These people have been lied to since birth. They have been told that higher education is the key to financial success and that being a lawyer is something smart go getters become. That lawyers are wealthy and live rewarding lives serving client in the pursuit of justice. Turn on your tv this afternoon and look at how many lawyer shows or movies there are on. Go to a party or bar and tell people you are a lawyer and see how the conversation goes. There is still a pervasive gap between the reality of what most lawyers do and are and what society believes lawyers do and are. For an 0L facing the prospects of getting a job they could have gotten without graduating college this perception gap is almost insurmountable. Law schools know this, and they schools like AU that are not embracing reform on banking on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Education macht frei!"

      Delete
    2. that phrase sent a shiver down my spine because it is so accurate.

      Delete
  4. Whoa, easy LawProf. Your sympathy for 1Ls will be limited? Your blog + a few MSM articles do not a mass awakening make.

    But I guess that mindset makes it easier for you to justify cashing those student loan checks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm almost tired of telling you this, BriAnon, but responding to your own posts with "This is true" or "Good point!" makes your trolling ridiculously obvious.

      Besides which, every law school in the country could close except for the one you work at, and you'd still be rambling on about how there has been no mass awakening.

      Delete
  5. Caveat emptor is flat-out NOT ok for law schools. Law schools are not traditional businesses. First, they don't respond to market forces because they make money funneled to them from the government. Second, the government does this ostensibly because there is a public belief that education is an important public service. Law schools are public servants who have a fiduciary duty first to their students and then also to the public generally. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CHICANERY OF ANY KIND HERE. If a law school thinks of itself as a market actor, then it should be treated as one. No more sweetheart student loan moneys. No more tax-exempt status. No more trading on public good will. No more treacly comments about public interest.

    Is that the deal you want, law schools? Fine. Welcome to the thunderdome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
    Rule 8.4 Misconduct

    It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

    . . .

    (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to agree w/ some of the above posters that it's not quite time to say caveat emptor with regards to the law school scam. Wish it were so, but the subject is not quite aware-ready yet.

    This past weekend I went into the library and met a young man who was preparing to submit applications to law schools. I asked if he had heard of 'Inside the Law School Scam' or 'Law School Transparency.' He had not.

    My dad still proudly proclaims to new people we meet that his daughter is a lawyer. I correct him: "No, your daughter is unemployed and has been for the last 7 months." Some fables die hard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eh, you are still a lawyer and your Dad is proud of you. I understand your point , but your Das sounds sweet.

      Delete
    2. Dad! Your Dad sounds sweet!

      Delete
  8. I agree that the applicants, especially this year, have a share in the responsibility for their plight. They are not poor little lambs that have gone astray; they are special snowflakes who choose to ignore the warnings that now appear daily even in the mainstream media.

    One can, and should, condemn the law-school scam without regarding the students of law skules as innocent victims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Some people are desperate and believe that law school gives them a future. Just because we have known about this and discussed it almost daily for a year, doesn't mean that everyone gets it.

      People still think of law schools of having integrity.

      Delete
  9. I think we all agree that at some point people cannot claim they did not know about the scam. I just think we are a long way from that day. The scam still is just engrained at too many levels of a 0L's life for me to damn them. Only a truly cynical 0L could get close to comprehending the amount of bullshit they have been fed since elementary school. Go to a high school and listen in to the teachers. They are telling the students that college is what they need to pursue. What professions do they hold up as what the students should shoot for. We all know the list, engineer, doctor, lawyer, business person.

    Though Prof Campos is raising our banner, for a prospective 0L they come across this blog and many will discount it for reasons lawprof has talked about. One thing he hasn't addressed is appearance. APPEARANCE DOES MATTER. 0Ls look at this blog's appearance and sites like Nando's and say it doesn't look professional. In fact it looks shitty (does that count as a pun for Nando?). They go to the law school's website and it is professionally done. Little things like this matter, especially when we are trying to persuade 0Ls of the truth of our arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. Why come down on the 0Ls so hard?

      Delete
  10. LawProf's blog is not the only source of information about law schools. The problems of law grads have been all over the news, all over the country. These stories have affected applications. The folks who are choosing not to apply are in the same schools as the people who are applying, not in some alternate universe where this information is not bring published.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what about all the other information that has been out there for decade? The information coming out in the past year it two is tiny compared to the massive amount of information to the contrary.


      I really believe that law schools greed brought this apocalypse upon themselves. If they had kept tuition reasonable and increased with inflation or even a little amount more, no one would be dissuaded from attending.

      It is only the huge cost and the high risk of being unemployed that stops people .

      This generation is learning to fear debt ( I hope!!)

      Delete
  11. @ February 15, 2013 at 6:38 AM

    Education macht schuld sklaverei!

    ReplyDelete
  12. 7:32 here--got it turned around. I was saying that the people who are applying are in the same cohort as those who have decided not to. There is no reason to think the information reached one group and not the other. It is just as likely that they are making different choices armed with the same information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is one hell of an assumption. You do realize the vast differences in our society and culture, don't you? You realize that many people are influenced by a variety of factors and they might believe their pre-law advisor over a blog

      There is huge information asymmetry out there.

      Don't assume that because we know this, everyone must know it.

      Delete
  13. Many lawyers I know don't know about this blog or the particular details of the fraud law schools have engaged in. If they don't know, how can we expect prospective law students to know?

    We still have a long way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is something that surprised me. The lawyers I work with, I am 3L clerking at a small firm, don't know about the scam. I got lunch with one of the attorneys the other day, he actually graduated from Cooley about a decade ago and was 2nd or 3rd in his class, and yet had no idea that Cooley had recently been sued fraud by the students. He also had no idea that it was looked at as this horrible scam school. Sure he has gotten shit from the other lawyers for attending Cooley. Like when the lawyers asked me if he had any bookends and I said no he said he had several and was told "well yea but you went to Cooley." But he had no idea about the scam or how bad things have become.

      Delete
    2. *asked me if I had any bookends*

      Delete
  14. I agree, it is not quite time for caveat emptor. I get close to that point, but then something happens to make me realize just how extensively young people are brainwashed. People who play a part in the whole higher education/student loan scam have a great deal of cultural prestige and credibility with young people--e.g. President Obama, who in his SOTU speech went on about how great it is to get further education, and how government needs to make it "more affordable." That's funny because before the government even got involved with student loans, I don't recall anyone having to go into huge debt to get a college degree. And since the advent of taxpayer backed student loans, tuition has skyrocketed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They cannot be let off the hook for their own naïveté. There's plenty of information about the law-school scam. Many special snowflakes are well aware of it but are confident that things will work out well for them, because they, of course, are special snowflakes (unlike everyone else).

      Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but signing up for a couple of hundred thousand dollars' worth of non-dischargeable debt without a realistic chance at a damn good job is utter folly.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. I started to get cynical and place blame on the 0Ls till I talked to a buddy of mine. He graduated from UVa with a liberal arts degree in 2010. He had been hopping from temp job to temp job and said he was considering law school. I literally shat a brick, I've talked to him about the scam and he of all people should know it. But even with his knowledge of the hole I'm in, it was a battle to talk him out of law school. That struggle is the power of the scam, and for those who have tried to save a 0L it is a punch in the gut. He said he had always assumed he would go to law school at some point, and that he just didn't know what to do now.

      Delete
    3. When you play with your own money, you are smart about it. When you play with someone else's money, not so much. This truism explains:

      - The law school scam

      - Education price and debt

      - Wall Street excesses

      - Congressional appropriations

      - Mortgage lending, borrowing, and the housing bubble

      - Credit card debt

      - Enron.

      Delete
    4. 100% correct, great examples.

      Subsidies for higher education are subject to the law of unintended consequences, and stifle the ability of better alternatives from hitting the market.

      Matt Leichter has been nailing this for a while now: http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleALD.jsp?id=1202588045076&How_Grad_PLUS_Loans_Sustain_Zombie_Law_Schools&slreturn=20130115122157

      Delete
    5. Can we also remember please that these 0Ls are for the most part high achiever a who are willing to work hard. I don't like seeing them characterized in a demeaning manner. Most of them just want a career and a better life.

      Delete
    6. @754,

      You probably won't even believe this, but health care used to be affordable right up until the moment that Medicare was signed into law (and for 5-10 years afterward).

      Delete
    7. Actually, affordable healthcare is socialized healthcare. France, which has the best healthcare in the world, spends about 12% of GDP on healthcare. The U.S., which ranks between Costa Rica and Slovenia, between 18 and 20% of GDP.

      Ever since the work of Kenneth Arrow in the early 1960s, we have known that free market theory does not work in healthcare.

      It also does not work in education. The whole student loan fiasco is the product of right wing economists like Milton Friedman.

      Our system of public universities worked just fine for nearly a century. State sponsored universities offered and affordable and good education. Those who wanted to gild the lily at private schools did so on their own nickle

      Delete
    8. Yeah, the UK has the same - much better outcomes than the US for about half the out-lay.

      Delete
    9. You have gotta be kidding meFebruary 18, 2013 at 7:42 PM

      "UK has ...much better outcomes than the US for about half the out-lay"


      Everyone I know in the UK who can afford to do so buys private medical care.

      Same answer France.

      The only difference in my anecdotes is that I know some 25 or so folks in UK (most near London, colleagues), but only about 5 in France (also colleagues).

      Delete
  15. The graduate school I went to decades ago had a department that sent out a letter to accepted students warning that there were almost no jobs for the department's graduates.

    Of course, that department didn't put its graduates $100,000 into debt, either...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hope springs eternal, and hope is the firewood that fuels the scam.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Even SSS is not their fault, it is a product of their being raised to believe in it. Still, personal responsbility has to start somewhere.

    My favorite blogger, Lion of the Blogosphere, not only was the first ever law school scamblogger, but he developed a pretty good theory to explain how and why people believe things to be true.

    Basically, it has nothing at all to do with facts or figures, but everything to do with the social status of other people who believe it to be true.

    You're not going to convince 0Ls with facts and figures. They will only be convinced when high status people start to believe (and say) that law school is a rip-off. That's why Campos and Tamanaha and other law professors are so crucial to this movement, and hopefully more will get on board soon. That's why the NYT is so important as a vehicle for delivering the message.

    And that's why the professors and politicians who speak lies to perpetuate the scam are so dangerous, and such villians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that this problem is related to status and prestige.

      Information about cost and job is not erasingthe status of lawyers.

      Delete
    2. It's a form of arguing from/to authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

      Delete
  18. This is an example of how far awareness really goes: ABCNews.com's article on Wednesday.

    It's mainstream media, and it talks about issues such as a lack of competence in basic matters imparted to graduates, or schools employing several dozen graduates because they cannot find other work. It mentions debt, and the role salaries for law school employees have in driving costs upward. But it's an inch deep and an inch wide, and has that irritating Coke-vs.-Pepsi dynamic at the end where two opposing opinions are presented without context - who is to say that there is a real problem with law schools? We report, you decide. Christ.

    We are not even at a stage where this anonymous professor feels that a request to post NALP statistics in a readily seen location on his school's website will get an okay from the dean, because they don't want to risk comparison with schools that refuse to provide even this much data to prospective students. And that's just the bare NALP statistics, let alone the context that helps them understand their importance (e.g., bimodal salary distribution with underreporting of salaries endemic to the lower mode, graduating debt loads and the monthly payments associated with them, the arc of a lawyer's career in most circumstances not leading to a steadily improving lifestyle).

    Someone who has exposure to TLS and this place has enough to make a good decision about attending law school for more than a fraction of the sticker price. Everywhere else, though, the information is still incomplete in its presentation and gives no one any idea that the dearth of jobs for lawyers runs deeper than the present recession. Meanwhile, the schools are at war with Eurasia and allies with Eastasia and everyone can make good money in the law if they work hard. We are not at a point where we can call transparency an event, much less a failure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree.

      And often advice on TLS is not enough to convince someone not to go.

      I'm hoping to raise the respectability of the dropout option.

      Delete
  19. Further to your update, and as I'm sure others have already pointed out, exasperation with law school applicants' naïveté and dishonest conduct by law schools are not mutually exclusive. There are many businesses which seek their profits from the least scrutinizing amount us. Post-enlightenment (say, the rise of scamblogs), this has been precisely the law school model.

    ReplyDelete
  20. While I'm all for personal responsibility etc., I don't think we're quite there to limit our sympathies yet. As a senior (PoliSci major) at a small liberal arts college and former pre-law student, I see no real discussions among my peers about the scam, and my professors have mixed approach towards this issue. Some will do their part persuading people away from applying to law school, while others simply don't realize/talk about in public how much risk students are taking by going to law school these days.
    And we're the undergrad institution type that's supposed to be all about personal attention and support....how about everyone else...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point. At a public state school, how much individual attention can a student get?

      Delete
  21. A student thought he was smart,
    Thought he'd give law school a start,
    But now that he's through
    No job to do,
    Save buffing the floors at Wal Mart.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous@ 8:14 AM--exactly. I was watching a news story about the housing collapse the other day and it suddenly hit me how insane it is to force taxpayers to guarantee a loan, any loan, for someone else--be it for a mortgage, education, a business (e.g. green crony capitalism) etc. When someone can loan money without having to worry about whether it will be paid back, bad things ensue.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If law students were playing with real money (read: their own money) they would be far more skeptical and critical.

    Buy now pay later with government money and the promise of a chance at prosperity is a siren's song to a poli sci/english major with a crappy retail job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact is that the unavailability of bankruptcy in almost all cases makes this money real enough sooner or later. It is true that students, for a long time, weren't skeptical, critical or practical enough. I'll take that criticism. You're right. What is also true, however, is that for the same length of time law schools took knowing advantage of the cultural belief that educational debt is "good debt" and even lied to the public about their students' likelihood of making a good life post-law school. Two points, then: First is that law schools' stoking of this culture did a pretty effective job of greasing prospective law students' decision making. Many of us slid right past the awareness that we needed to be skeptical or critical of what supposedly ethics-driven institutions of higher learning were telling us, which just seemed to line up with what a supposedly-independent publication like U.S. News and World Report was telling us, which just seemed to play so nicely with what our own families were telling us, based on their own personal experiences with educational debt in the last 50 years. Second is that whatever you think about the argument I have just set out, and regardless of how much fault you want to put on law students' shoulders (I'll take as much as you like.) there is still an independent, free-standing wrong done by law schools. Even if their business practices hadn't been successful, a lie is a lie is a lie, and that's what's happened here. You can't just say that because applicants to law school didn't do their homework that we have to accept everything the law schools did. That's a false choice.

      Delete
  24. Some of the posters above have already highlightged a key point: we need perspective when putting ourselves in the shoes of a prospective law student. we're not dealing with a kid who has had just one year of indoctrination (for the sake of argument, start that one year clock at the beginning of their senior year of college) - we're dealing with kids who have been told since preschool that more and more education is always better and guarantees certain outcomes. this ethos has been reinforced by Boomer parents who came up in a very different time, especially when it came to job opportunities for college grads. We have a cultural mindset that goes way beyond law school. Take a look at suburban high schools - their number one measuring stick is college acceptance rates. Forget that even in a class of 200 middle/upper class suburban kids, probably only half really belong in college. Heaven forbid that Jane or Johnny get a certificate from the local county college or an associates degree in something useful - our kids have to go to college for the sake of higher education. If only 50% of our kids go to college, our high school ranking goes down and and so will our property values. I read somewhere years ago that one of the underlying reasons for the explosion of underemployed or unemployed college grads is real estate agents: one of the biggest selling points for homes is the "quality" of the local schools. that quality is judged almost solely by college acceptance - the better the school district, the higher the home sale prices

    aside from the cultural indoctrination is the simple fact that there are so few opportunities for the average K-BA liberal artist to make a decent living, especially if they have any undergrad debt. The Fortune 500 seems to have largely eliminated the "management training' programs that allowed boomer liberal artists to get a decent entry level job and work their way into management.

    kids with no aptitude for STEM, medicine or accounting/finance often use law as a default proposition

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:58,

      Frankly, what else is out there that promises a shot at any sort of middle class life? This is really the law school scam. Law school is the Plan B shot at the middle class.

      People joining the labor force from 1965 to 1985 (read boomers) entered at a point of America's economic zenith. Jobs, good jobs, were plentiful. WWII and its immediate aftermath built a golden egg laying economic goose that cranked out high quality of life beginning in about 1946. Europe couldn't compete as it was blown to hell. Asia and South America were post-colonial, politically unstable, semi-agricultural jerkwaters. Eastern Europe was communist.

      In 1968, if you were smart enough to get through college and not a hippie and a man, you could get a high paying middle class job.

      How many middle class jobs exist now? Plan B used to be government. Not anymore -- layoffs not hiring. The Fortune 500 pays a few oligarchs a fortune, and cuts salaries, benefits, and assistance for everyone else.

      You you have STEM, healthcare, and finance left. Those sectors still have some semblance of wealth left in them. If you grew up in the golden goose's nest, where else do you go? What else is there for you? It's tough to compete with national retailers, so most small businesses are out. Real estate still stinks. What else?

      It's the realization that America's middle class is shrinking that is both scary and driving desperate marks into law schools.

      Delete

    2. All I know is, every sheet metal roofer in my area wants something like $120 per hour to install box gutter linings. That might be a clue about a possible path to a middle class lifestyle.

      Delete
    3. @ 9:26,

      TITCR. Moreover, the answer isn't merely to assess what gives you a "shot" at the middle class, as 9:14 suggests,but what does so with the least amount of risk.

      Lets say the odds of getting a high paying blue collar job, i.e. NYPD and NASSAU PD, are as low as the odds of getting a high paying white collar job, i.e. BL or I banking. If you try to get a high paying blue collar job and you fail, you can go work at Starbucks with no debt. If you try to get that high paying white collar job and fail, you go work at Starbucks with alot of debt.

      Although some people will say there are myriad of opportunities between I-Banking and Starbucks for the white collar path, the same can be said about the blue collar path, i.e. see the roofing example provided above. The point is though that at all times the penalties for failing by going down the white collar-education route are vastly higher than the blue collar path, even though the odds of success are about the same.

      Additionally, the blue collar path is politically protected to some extent, whereas the white collar path is totally unprotected. When a union plumber with a GED is laid off, people are sad; when a lawyer is laid off, people get happy.

      Delete
    4. "All I know is, every sheet metal roofer in my area wants something like $120 per hour to install box gutter linings. That might be a clue about a possible path to a middle class lifestyle."

      Two comments - first, that is not a salary, but an hourly shop rate (i.e., it covers business costs). Second, that's the gross that the business brings in *when* there's work.

      Delete
    5. "People joining the labor force from 1965 to 1985 (read boomers) entered at a point of America's economic zenith. Jobs, good jobs, were plentiful."

      That is not really quite true. The baby boom generation -- being a huge crowd -- came out into very crowded labor markets. Competition for good jobs was very keen (and before that, competition for college admission as well).

      People now coming out of school seem to assume that it was all blue skies for the boom generation, we just walked out of college and into fabulous careers.

      When you talk about the disruption to middle class jobs, that's also affected plenty of boomers, often in mid-career. Offshoring, automation, vanishing factory jobs ... that's all hit the boom generation.

      Sure, many boomers have good jobs ... now at nearly the end of their careers. It's the culmination of a lifetime of work, not something that miraculously happened a year after graduation.

      I also invite people to go back and look at some of the steep recessions during the late 70s, early 80s, which boomers went through.

      Every generation has its problems, and I'm sure those of you now coming out of school have yours.

      But there seems to be this collective fantasy among 20-somethings that the baby boom generation had a trouble-free existence and career path from Day One, and that is simply not true, any more than it's true that (for example) it was all Father Knows Best families in the 50s.

      Delete
    6. Yes, the law school scam is an ingenues one. All these lemmings that are ending up enrolling to skoolz would be otherwise bouncing from one Wall-Mart job to another making meager wages and paying little or no tax. Here comes a law skool enrollment and bingo - the cocksucker and his fucking ass are nailed right to the end of their useless natural lives. Brilliant. These idiots cannot even reproduce after graduation because who the fuck is going to date this kind of unless piece of shit with no future and humongous debt ? Which solves a host of other problems too. In my humble opinion, people like LeDuck at Skooley are national heroes and they have to get annually a merit badge or something during the Oscar awards or President's inauguration speech. Fuck the drug trafficking bullshit, law skool enrollment is the new drug trafficking. And it is completely legal.

      Delete
    7. @8:58: be careful. You're writing as as if the law school scam goes right back to elementary school. It doesn't. The law school scam is limited to law school.

      Those other problems you're describing? They're general problems with our society, our education systems, and our values. Not law school.

      Now you're right in that law school takes advantage of all those hopes and fears that people are indoctrinated with from an early age.

      You place too much responsibility on the "System" or the "Man", or some other pretend evil force that doesn't actually exist. There really is, like Campos suggests, no reason that anyone going to school for the class of 2016 deserves much sympathy. The facts are out there, and these facts will overcome these decades of indoctrination you think has brainwashed people.

      I'm with Campos. Class of 2016 - you're not blameless. In fact, I'd say that the pendulum has swung and you're actually more to blame than law schools.

      The debate needs to take a step back. The victims of the scam are those who graduated from 2000 until 2012, peaking from 2004 until 2009. These are the people who are suffering, not some idiot who ignores clear facts in the future. Let's work on helping the current victims before we worry about future "victims" who go to law school despite having full access to info about the scam.

      Delete
  25. On an unrelated note I received this e-mail from UIowa yesterday:

    The Office of Admissions has decided to extend the application deadline to June 1, 2013. Our standard deadline for application is March 1. However, we want to give law school prospects who take the February Law School Admission Test enough time to submit applications for admission, if desired. Also, there may be some individuals who have decided, late in the admission cycle, to consider attending law school. So, the College of Law has decided to extend the application deadline to June 1.

    We're about one year away from "apply now and receive a second legal education absolutely free...just pay shipping and handling"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How fucking magnanimous of the U of Iowa. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're desperate for anyone with a trust fund or a pen with which to sign the papers for student loans from Uncle Sugar.

      Delete
    2. Jesus, they're like poor people licking crumbs off the floor.

      And Iowa is a fairly prestigious public school. I can only imagine what's going on at places further down the food chain.

      Delete
  26. Thanks for the info on the University of Iowa Commode of Law, Unknown.

    "We're about one year away from "apply now and receive a second legal education absolutely free...just pay shipping and handling"

    Actually, at many commodes, we are about one year away from "Apply now and get in, guaranteed!! If you do so in the next 30 minutes, we'll throw in the Magic Blender - a value of over $90 - ABSOLUTELY FREE!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But wait...there's even more, if you call now!"

      Delete
    2. I actually would not be shocked to see free textbooks, free bar study materials, free "advanced" job hunting/resume prep, free cafeteria drinks, etc. advertised as perks for "APPLYING NOW."

      Delete
    3. Drexel is already doing the free textbooks thing

      Delete
    4. Operators Are Standing - -February 18, 2013 at 7:51 PM

      - - `BYE!


      As for 1:42, Drexel ALSO has The Cookie Truck.

      Wowie.

      Delete
  27. I agree with LP. At this point, 0Ls have no one to blame but themselves if they go to law school without open eyes. I will have have no sympathy for the Class of 2016 and beyond if they graduate with no jobs and over $200,000 in debt. The information is now available in the mainstream media and on google searches.

    Back in the day, it was acceptable to attend a 2nd tier law school because presumably post grad job opportunities were better. The gamble was still there but it wasn't as bad as it is now.

    Now, it's almost common knowledge that law school is a bad investment for most people. For those who say that people are not yet aware of the scam, stop kidding yourselves. They know. They just don't talk about it. They're not going to admit that they are knowingly attending a school that will likely result in unemployment hell. I cannot imagine a college senior announcing on facebook: "YAY! I GOT ACCEPTED TO COOLEY!"

    I realize every 0L's story is different. But if I hear a Class of 2016 graduate complaining about his $300,000 student loan debt with a minimum wage job, I will have nothing but contempt for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmm, maybe for a TTT, but it was never acceptable to attend such schools even in the boom days. Those in the scam know that schools all the way up to GW are scams. Can you really say you don't feel sympathy for a 0L who goes into a t20 and then exclaims they didn't understand the scam crept all the way to schools in the T20? I don't think you can when you consider all the bullshit they have been served throughout their lives and all the voices telling them that GW is a great school that will guarantee them $$$$.

      Delete
    2. I think what FA (and perhaps LP) was trying to say is that it is now understood that going to law school IN GENERAL is a bad investment, even if you go to a top 20.

      Also, can a 0L really blame GW for what appears to be hearsay? Especially now?

      Delete
    3. I strongly disagree.

      The information just started to be available. The scam had decades to build up false realities and expectations of law school.

      Don't give up on 0Ls yet. Obviously many are getting the message as seen by the drop in applications. But we still have to keep pushing back forcefully against the decades of false public opinion.

      Delete
  28. The limited opportunities for law school graduates are beginning to reflect those faced by creative writing MFA graduates forever. The difference is that most MFA programs warn potential students up front that the degree very likely won't lead to full-time employment teaching (these programs burst the special snowflake bubble, to mix metaphors). Can you imagine if MFA programs suddenly began boasting a 90+% employment rate and $160,000 average starting salary, simply because a very few successful novelists were the only ones to report on salary?

    I found the following comment from a 2012 story in The Chronicle rather illuminating:

    "Please keep doing these students and your colleagues this favor. As an undergrad 30 years ago, I got rejected by a couple of MFA programs, forcing me to go out in the world and figure out my life in another way. I discovered that I didn't write for fun or out of a deep need - in other words, I didn't really have the passion to pursue a writing career. That was a good thing to learn at 22.

    Years later, when I was considering an MA in English so that I could teach at a community college, one of my sisters asked, "So, you're thinking about going into debt and taking classes for three years or so in order to be qualified for a part-time job?" At that point, I stepped back and took a long, hard look at my life and realized that I didn't have a passion for teaching.

    It wasn't fun to learn these things or to have them said so bluntly; but I'm glad that I listened."

    "MFA Fever": http://chronicle.com/article/MFA-Fever/134790/


    ReplyDelete
  29. How about this? They offer the incoming student 1/2 off of tuition if he convinces another student to attend?

    --Porsenna

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hi, Charles Ponzi, Esq.!"

      Delete
  30. What are people to do who have gotten very expensive, but economically useless, undergraduate degrees in Liberal Arts if not go to law school?

    I think many people know it is going to end badly in the future but can not face their present situation. Being a "law student" is still prestigious with many of their family and friends; working at Walmart is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is just stupid. Jobs I know people have gotten: bartender at exclusive club, assistant producer at NBC
      ( not sure exact title), record producer ( again low level not sure the title), salesperson at an IT company, etc.

      There are more. Maybe the problem is living in a small town.

      This is a false dichotomy.

      Delete
    2. An expensive four-year Liberal Arts degree to become
      "a bartender at an exclusive club".

      And you call my post 'stupid '?

      Delete
  31. LawProf, not unreasonably, argues that there is now sufficient information out there for most potential law school applicants to make an informed decision NOT to go to law school.

    But he overlooks the fact that that same information is available to law schools also, and not just available, but available in concrete detailed form - because they know just how bad the actual outcomes are for the great majority of their graduates while the OLs pretty much know only know what they read on the web.

    He also overlooks the fact that the law schools got the money and the students got the debt. Or to put it another way, that law schools won while the overwhelming majority of their students lost.

    He also most importantly overlooks the fact that law schools could make structural changes which would greatly mitigate, if not completely eliminate, the scam aspect of law school today.

    These structural changes could include, but are not necessarily limited to:

    1. Rolling back tuition to the level it was in 1980, adjusted for inflation.

    2. Emphasis the fact that student loans are not dischargable in bankruptcy, and explain (i) what that means in layman terms and (ii) how much $$ a student will need to make (and live a basic but normal life) and for how long they will need to make that amount in order to repay their loans.

    3. Allow students in the bottom 50% of their class the option of dropping out at the end of the 1st semester and receiving say 80% of their tuition back (direct loan repayment would be fine). Allow the same at the end of the 2nd semester.

    4. Start providing detailed information about long term employment outcomes (10 years) for their graduates.

    So, if anyone has read this far, in conclusion, it is correct to say that buyers (i.e. OLs) should do research before making a purchase, but sellers of defective products (i.e. laws schools today) also have an obligation to remedy those defects.



    ReplyDelete
  32. 11:39 - you're proposed structural changes would be the ruin of half the law schools in the country. A good and necessary thing from our perspective. But I won't hold my breath waiting for a bunch of turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:46 - Sellers of defective products should go out of business.

      11:39

      Delete
  33. If the Dept of Education ever writes the blunt and bare facts of law school (or even higher ed in general for that matter), detailing the stark risk and average or median outcomes, non-dischargeable debt and makes each and every 0L sign it, MAYBE caveat emptor could apply.


    I was thinking something like:

    The Sec of Ed has determined that attending law school is extremely risky and very likely hazardous to your financial health.

    - Only about 50% of LS grads get legal jobs.
    - Of those that obtain them, most jobs don't pay enough to service the LS debt
    - Even if one obtains a legal job, there is a very high likelihood that one will not have a lifelong career in law.
    - Rather than being "versatile", a JD holder may actually have decreased chances of non-legal employment vs a non-JD holder
    - Most JD holders graduate with $150k in debt

    (initial each item)

    Also please note that these SL are non-dischargeable even in bankruptcy! (initial here ____)

    And while IBR might help, there is NO GUARANTEE it will always exist and can be eliminated AT ANY TIME. (initial here ____)

    I am signing this document with full knowledge of the risks involved.

    _____
    Signed 0L

    -----

    Until then though, its somewhat naive to think that word is getting out to the extent that most of the blame can be blamed on 0Ls. Word is getting out but not to the extent that it is truly common knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Florida A&M University's law school is getting a warning that it is not meeting standards needed to maintain its accreditation."

    At least the ABA is doing something.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/15/3236527/famu-law-school-warned-it-is-not.html


    ReplyDelete
  35. Your google is personalized to your results, so your statement is misleading. My first three are a business insider article, a daily beast interview with you, and a Girl's Guide to Law School.

    Obviously my results are similarly biased, but an account free search provides different results than either of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. Lawprof needs to google from another computer or two. I got three random articles.

      I don't think most 0Ls would search for a sentence. Aren't they more likely to look for keywords.

      Delete
    2. Yes. I googled that same sentence and came up with similar results. I scrolled through the first ten, then twenty, then thirty, and still no mention of this blog or any scamblog for that matter. Not sure where LawProf is getting his results, but they're not accurate. I would have scrolled through more pages of results, but I got bored. Nobody realistically looks at Google results that are that far buried.

      Delete
    3. If y'all countree bumperkins would run chrome with in-cog-knee-tow mode on, y'allsall wouldna git these disper it googling results.

      Delete
  36. Yippy's search results for "should I go to law school":

    http://search.yippy.com/search?query=+%22should+I+go+to+law+school%22&tb=sitesearch-all&v%3Aproject=clusty

    No link to any of LawProf's results in the top 5.

    Clearly LawProf's results were personalized. But in fairness to him, when you put several words in quotation marks, the search engine is going to look for those exact words 1st. And the phrase he chose is not one that has appeared numerous times on this site.

    When you search for 'law school scam', this web site is the top result:

    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus-ns-aaf&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=law+school+scam

    But how many aspiring OLs think to do a search using the word scam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try a search for law school job market or job market lawyers. You will get nothing but bad, really bad, news. Anyone who goes to law school without checking on the job market for lawyers is pretty stupid.

      Delete
  37. I was trying to think what information could have stopped me in 2009, when I was applying for law school, from walking off the cliff into my current school, AU, which I would give my right testicle to go back in time and never enroll in. The answer I came up with, if you had given me a simple stat like 2/3 don't get jobs as lawyers I would have never came to AU. I honestly think I would have said fuck the rankings if a stat like that was avaible cause when I was researching law schools I remember being really concerned about job prospects.

    I remember doing a lot of what I considered at the time was research on the different schools. I looked over the law schools websites and information available there. I went on top law schools and look at the forums there for the different schools. No red flags. I used US News as a resource and compared the different numbers there. I also talked to my pre-law advisers about different schools, all assured me AU was a good school often with reference to US News. In hindsight I realize now how stupid I was. But at the time US News was my resource. But why wouldn't it be? They had compiled all these numbers on the law schools. I remember being concerned about job outcomes, but all the schools I was looking at had great numbers. I remember thinking that there must be a correlation between the ranking and the job outcomes. It never crossed my mind that the numbers could be complete bullshit and that some sort of collusion was going on between all the schools. Should I have looked more into it? I think I should have. But at the time I thought I had researched the schools pretty well.

    Had I had a simple number that told me upfront my prospects at getting a job as a lawyer I think I can honestly tell you I would have chosen a school on that basis. Obviously once I didn't get into a t 14 my priorities changed. Getting a job became my priority. It's a sick joke that the rankings don't correlate to job prospects beyond the t 14.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meh, not sure that the facts weren't fairly clear for you in 2009. For some of us in the early 2000s, the facts really were not there.

      Plus you had the luxury of dropping out after 1L in 2010, when the scam was clear. You stayed. Then again in 2011 after 2L, when the scam was clear. You stayed.

      So at least 2/3 of your debt and wasted time is all on you.

      Delete
    2. Maybe "AU" means something to you, but to me there's not a single school by those initials that deserves an acronym.

      Delete
    3. American University has been discussed on this blog frequently as one of the scammiest school.

      Delete
    4. There are other toilets that "AU" could stand for.

      Delete
    5. Actually, if people had looked at the flashing neon light on the wall, the problem would have been obvious. Law school has been a bad choice for decades.

      People continue to apply to law school out of mistaken beliefs that lawyers make a lot of money, are involved in interesting work, and spend more time out of their briefs than writing them.

      These beliefs are fostered by the boob tube and clueless school counselors. However, anyone who decides to invest $100+ and three years of their life from watching Boston Legal is fool. It demonstrates a certain lack of seriousness in making major life decisions.

      And now these guys want clients to pay them for helping their clients in making major life decisions? I don't think so.

      Delete
  38. I am trying a new experiment with the prospective leamings. I have bought, and will be sending to the student newspapers at two colleges I attended, copies of Campos's new book FYI and suggesting that they consider reviewing it. I don't know if this will work, but I'd like to save the present students of Bates and Trinity much future sorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for doing this. I try to spread things around my campus, but as an average current student I simply don't have enough status and/or social capital to be effective. Alumni/Professors/Career Service staff etc. will do a lot more than I can ever hope for...

      Delete
    2. Well done. I'm going to send a copy to the pre-law organization at my alma mater.

      Delete
    3. More pieces in college newspapers (like these) help, too. Possibly contacting publications at your undergrad school could result in some such articles:

      Brown

      http://www.browndailyherald.com/2013/02/07/editorial-law-school-doesnt-pass-the-bar/

      Rutgers

      http://www.dailytargum.com/opinion/columnists/ben_gold/law-school-lacks-economic-payoff/article_906d9050-66ae-11e2-ae7d-0019bb30f31a.html

      Delete
  39. Shouldn't 2012 numbers be the same or slightly better at most schools ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the class of 2011 did OCI in fall 2009 for SAs in summer 2010. They were close to the bottom of the recession level hiring and deferrals were rampant.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      Delete
    2. Has there been any systematic study of what happened to all the deferrals?

      I believe some people were deferred more than once. Some got stipends while some didn't ... how many of all these people, actually ever took up the jobs they were originally offered?

      Delete
    3. This is a good question. I don't think there is any information on that. I know some deferrals definitely did eventually take their jobs a year or a little more later. Class of 2011 was affected by the deferrals from the two classes ahead of it as well as law firm fear of no recovery. (I don't think structural change was being discussed in 2009.)

      Some people found some pro bono work to do during their defferals.

      I don't know how many people were fired as deferrals without ever getting a chance to work for their firm.

      Delete
    4. You're forgetting how much larger class of 2012 was than 2011.

      Delete
    5. Was it? How much larger ?

      Delete
  40. TO 3:30 pm - I CAN NEVER GET THE REPLY FEATURE TO WORK....

    I SUGGEST YOU - AND EVERY OTHER AGGRIEVED LAW STUDENT - WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN, AND SIMPLY SAY, IN EFFECT, "WHY SHOULD THE U.S. SUBSIDIZE STUDENT LOANS FOR LAW SCHOOL WHEN THE LAW SCHOOLS FAIL TO PROVIDE APPLICANTS WITH MEANINGFUL EMPLOYMENT DATA, AND OFTEN TIMES, MISLEADING DATA?"

    IF EVERY PISSED OFF, BEGUILED-BY-BULLSHIT-NUMBERS LAW STUDENT MADE A STINK, CONGRESS WOULD ACT. RANTING HERE HELPS SOME, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE HAVE TO GO CONGRESS AND ENSURE TRANSPARENCY. THAT WILL RESULT IN SOME SCHOOLS SHUTTING DOWN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or the caps lock feature...

      Delete
  41. P.S. AU WAS CONSIDERED AN OVERPRICED LAW SCHOOL 20 YEARS AGO. THATS WHY I WENT TO MARYLAND.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Contact editors of educational supplements at newspapers (though as they often depend on ads from schools, they may not be too keen on your input); spread the word at linkedin or facebook; take part in career blogs on local newspapers; through alumni events, associations and possibly going by law school recruitment events and mingling (if open to the public).

    Don't limit your efforts to graduating seniors or even college. Plenty of people leaving high school have their hearts set on pre-law and even choose colleges accordingly.

    The message, IMO, shouldn't be "no one" should "ever" attend law school.

    Some people do still get jobs, so it's clearly not a mistake for everyone, especially those from top schools.

    Second, being 100% negative is likely to turn a lot of people off who might listen otherwise.

    There won't be any time when nobody applies to law school. We can't save everyone from making mistakes. The surgeon-general's warning has been on cigarette packages since the 60s and "everyone knows" about tobacco and nicotine but millions of people still smoke and new ones take it up every year.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I set up a dummy email account that I'm going to use to pretend to be a 0L and I'm going to email my old school asking them to put up the 2012 numbers

    ReplyDelete
  44. It is good article. I like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, is good, we get internets in mother russia too

      Delete
  45. Comment O' The Day On Prawfsblog on a post gently suggesting that some law professors might want to teach subjects that are a bit more -er- relevant:

    "As long as they [law students] are willing to pay for it, fine, but right now they are getting law professor time at well below market rates. And the scholarship is free. The average prof devotes between 1000 and 1500 hours a year to teaching, administrative and committee work. That's about $125 an hour. Peanuts in light of the rates available for consulting."

    Posted anonymously, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arrogance, beyond belief.

      Delete
    2. Then go start a consulting firm!

      These jackwads have some gall talking about "market rates." THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE MARKET FOR YOUR SERVICES.

      No prof that I know devotes 28 hours a week, year round, to teaching. Not one.

      Delete
    3. I'm pretty certain that comment came from the anonymous commenter who goes by "Anon" or "Anon-X" (with a capital A) on Taxprof blog and elsewhere. The guy is a notorious troll.

      Delete
    4. Try converting the credit hour price of between $1300-1800 to a per hour billing rate with average class/section sizes and a 13 week semester and it is not $125 per hour

      Delete
  46. saw this post in the GULC TLS thread. lol

    "Group interview invite tonight."

    http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=191564&start=2225

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You got me interested in reading their website. As to Lawprof's last post, which I was incensed about, I couldn't find any mention of merit scholarships being offered.

      I searched every term I could think of.
      So these tuition discounts paid for by other students don't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

      So if you didn't get an email asking for you to apply, you wouldn't know it existed. You wouldn't know that other students were getting aid.

      I didn't look at other schools.

      Also: their website makes me want to do my project of lies schools continue to tell on their website...

      Under admissons is this is huge letters:

      In the Office of Admissions, we take great pride in dispelling the myth that the admissions process is strictly a numbers game.

      And below that:
      We offer a welcoming, vibrant community, an accessible and talented faculty, and the most comprehensive legal curriculum in the nation: more than 400 courses and seminars in disciplines ranging from constitutional law to intellectual property to international and comparative law. The Fall 2012 J.D. entering class has students from 46 states and 12 foreign countries, representing 222 different colleges and universities worldwide. Our diverse class is comprised of 46% women, 28% that self-identify as minority and an extraordinary variety of backgrounds.


      How does this dispel that admissions is a numbers game?

      How does offering selected students a chance to apply for merit aid by reporting how much they want to attend dispel that admissions is a numbers game?


      Delete
    2. It's a numbers game. They're lying.

      Delete
    3. Of course they are lying. Read the Georgetown wait list thread on TLS. It is solely a numbers game .

      Delete
  47. More evidence that Georgetown admissions are a numbers game:

    They have 3 waitlist designations

    Special section of priority reserve
    Priority reserve waitlist
    Regular waitlist

    Not too surprisingly, status on these waitlists can be classified by number.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I would have thought it was common knowledge by now that Google search results are heavily influenced by a user's browsing history, but that fact can elude even computer savvy law professors. Likewise, the fact that law school is a scam can elude even diligent, computer-savvy college seniors -- especially since they probably do not personally know any unemployed attorneys and, for their entire lives, teachers, college professors, and parents have been telling them that law school is a golden ticket. It is so easy to succumb to the bias that other people surely know, or ought to know, what you know.

    As for me, my sympathies for the mugging victim will not be "limited" because he should have known not to walk alone in that part of town at that time of night. My sympathies for the rape victim will not be "limited" because she should have known not to put herself in such a perilous situation wearing such skimpy attire. My sympathies for the victims of Bernie Madoff are not "limited" because the prospectus all but called it a Ponzi scheme. And my sympathies for the future victims of the law school scam will not be "limited" because they either didn't know about the scam blogs or they credited their parents, teachers, college professors, and the law schools themselves over the scam blogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Let's not forget that the asshole deans are still putting out all kinds of nonsense about why law school is a good investment. And most law school website that I go to check their numbers preface their numbers section with statements like this one from Tulsa:

      "The University of Tulsa College of Law is pleased to report that 92.3% of its Class of 2011 graduates obtained employment, a higher rate than the national average. NALP reports that 85.6% of the Class of 2011 graduates were employed nationwide. Please see the documents and charts below containing more detailed information about TU College of Law and national employment information for the Class of 2011."

      Now, a lot of OL's are not versed in the way that law schools present and manipulate this data. Nor do they have the context that, even of the people who get full time, long term jobs, their salaries don't really justify the debt. The 92.3% above might technically be true, but obviously it is meant to mislead people into thinking that 92.3% got legal jobs, and presumably full time legal jobs.

      So if I am a 0L, then I google "should I go to law school." I see a couple of blogs--many of which are from anonymous sources, and not exactly brimming with credibility (I love Nando, but not exactly high brow material there). Then I go check one of my possible school choices, and I see something like the shit above. It is still easy for a 0L to think, "well, these are 'nonprofit' education institutions, they wouldn't lie or mislead me." That, in combination with the confirmation bias induced by the desperate desire to want law school to get them to the middle class, makes them still very vulnerable. Frankly, though there is much more info out there, I still think we have a long way to go.

      And to support this--though anecdotal--my alma mater shithole (michigan state) just boasted the highest applicant class ever. My class's (2011) employment rate was under 50%. So many 0L's are still not getting the message. I am trying to get my hands on the email lists of prospective students, because I am horrified that this school is going to pump out this many unemployed attorneys into an already terribly saturated market. These kids are getting ripped off, and I really feel like I have a duty to warn them all.

      Delete
  49. http://abovethelaw.com/career-files/what-to-expect-if-youre-planning-on-applying-to-law-school/

    ReplyDelete
  50. Same thing next door: "The University of Ottawa’s Law faculty has steadily increased the number of applicants it accepts over the past decade. In 2002, 220 first-year law students were registered at the university. In 2012, the number was 377."

    http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/insight/canada-grad-students-overeducated-underemployed-214613448.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The U of O is known as the U of Zero.

      Delete
  51. If you want a non-tracking browser, try Duckduckgo.com Sounds funny, but it is genuine.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The whole discussion of moral responsibility is immaterial, isn't it. The truth of the matter is that he people paying an exorbitant price for a largely worthless degree will ultimately be the ones to suffer from making a bad decision.

    The taxpayers really have not interest in bailing out a bunch of whiny lawyers or freeing them from their financial obligations. Lawyers are largely despised, so one should not expect much sympathy.

    Similarly, lawsuits against law schools seem to be going nowhere.

    An academic conversation about moral culpability is not going anywhere.

    We warn the special snowflakes about the mistake they are going to make out of kindness, just as we would want a pedestrian crossing a street about an oncoming car. If they choose to disregard the warnings, they will be the ones to pay the piper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Professors don't get a pass by claiming they had nothing to do with it and knew nothing about it.

      They are the chief beneficiaries of the law school scam.

      Delete
    2. Blame whomever you want. You are the one with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and no job to show for it. You are the one who wasted three years in law school training for a profession which does not want you.

      And those law professors are laughing all the way to the bank at your foolishness!

      Delete
  53. FUUUUUCK!

    Why are we blaming the victims?

    If you want an unsympathetic victim, look at the Bernie Madoff scandal:

    1. Sophisticated consumers -- you had to be among the uber-wealthy to even get the chance to invest in the scam.

    2. Full disclosure -- SEC filings clearly showed the fraud for anyone interested in checking.

    3. Good alternatives -- anyone with a Series 7 and a decent investment track record would have been hounding these whales on a daily basis.

    But no one said, "Oh Opie (Ron Howard), you are an idiot and deserve to lose it all." Instead, we felt sympathy and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, sent Madoff to prison.

    ReplyDelete
  54. >>The taxpayers really have not interest in bailing out a bunch of whiny lawyers or freeing them from their financial obligations. Lawyers are largely despised, so one should not expect much sympathy.

    You obviously aren't very familiar with IBR.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Quick note: it's hard to get transparency when the institutions are covered with shit. The recent cruise fiasco might be considered a literal embodiment of the figurative problem with law schools: http://www.jdjournal.com/2013/02/15/feces-covered-cruise-ship-triumph-limps-into-port/
    There may be a method to Nando's madness after all...

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you really want to talk about the appalling lack of transparency: here is an article from GWs own student paper. They explain that only one student was hired short term by the school, while neglecting to mention the many students paid on " long- term" one year basis.

    Yes the law school misleads critically their own undergrads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heard the same crap about how UVA's fellowships are actually just tide overs from when you take the bar until bar results come out in October/November bc DA's officers, etc won't hire until after bar results....sounds all nice and good except that it's totally bogus. The school-funded fellowships counted are the ones that PEOPLE ARE STILL IN IN FEBRUARY, NINE MONTHS AFTER THEY GRADUATE. If they were simple tide overs until Oct/Nov, they wouldn't be counted.

      Delete
  57. http://www.gwhatchet.com/2012/03/22/law-school-posts-job-rates-for-graduates/


    There is the link. How many lies can you find in that story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More of the same: "Stetson Law had 322 graduates in the class of 2011, and the school’s numbers show 13% are still looking for work."

      Maybe 87% of their graduates have "work" ... but what kind of work?

      http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2013/2/17/fewer_students_has_l.html

      Delete
  58. You know, there was something that should be said, ought to be said. But no proxy server allowed someone to hide their identity enough, because no proxy server allows a message to be posted on this forum. You need to fix that.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Check out Steve Diamond's review of Tamanaha's book. It's a good one.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2207749

    ReplyDelete
  60. "At Pitt, tuition for its law school in the 2012-13 academic year was $28,728 for residents and $35,704 for nonresidents and international students ... [Dean William] Carter declined to disclose statistics about applications to Pitt, saying they "fluctuate from week to week."

    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/legal/uncertain-job-prospects-growing-student-debt-suppressing-applications-to-law-schools-675832/#ixzz2LIOoXIok



    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/legal/uncertain-job-prospects-growing-student-debt-suppressing-applications-to-law-schools-675832/

    ReplyDelete
  61. You could dеfinitely ѕеe your expertise іn
    the work уou write. The aгena hopes fοr evеn more passionаte writeгs such as you whο arе not afraiԁ to mentіon how they beliеνе.
    All the tіme go after youг heаrt.


    My webpage: www.abbelio-wines.com.hk

    ReplyDelete
  62. Fгom the glass blowing fаctοry that is
    continue to іn procеdure, to a dωell bakerу in which you can bаke уour personal goоdies, οpeгating faгmѕ that you cаn pay a vіsit to and feeԁ the anіmalѕ, and operating ρottеrу mills.

    These elements arе гegulaгly seen in
    all sorts οf pгоpeгtіes, еvеn thοse peoρlе thаt uѕuаlly are nοt іntеnded to be 'green'.

    The ωall panels can bе bгought in hallwаyѕ, dooгways, and shining strаight as а dance floοr.



    Feel free to surf to my web site - old stone oven

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blowing? Fuck off, Leiter.

      Delete
  63. Seems like Government. So much in fact; that there will be no--or little--consequences.

    DUI Attorneys in Topeka KS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to thank Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC and their spambot for a "real-world" example of desperation.

      Delete
  64. There are so many pissed off people here ....who are highly educated ...I would think some constructive mass action is coming soon to a court house or legislature near you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Best online earning system in the world, Online Data entry jobs, Form Filling Jobs, Copy Pasting Jobs
    Join the best online system from home, Best Investment Plans without any work
    www.jobzcorner.com

    ReplyDelete

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