Saturday, September 17, 2011

Angry Law School Admissions Guy

This could get very interesting . . .

A lot of law school staff are, especially comparatively speaking. overworked and underpaid. If they've been around for awhile they also tend to know where the bodies are buried.

H/T to a couple of posters for letting me know about it (I have a feeling it won't be the last of this type . . . )

Update :  Angry Law School Admissions Guy seems to have deleted all his posts. Apparently somebody outed him in the wee hours of the morning, and then posted a comment here to announce his "unintentional" accomplishment, along with a warning to anybody else in ALSAG's position about the inherent dangers of trying to remain anonymous on the internet.

Update II:   I strongly encourage people who work inside law schools who have stories they believe should be told to tell them, ideally by blogging themselves, or in the alternative by sending them along to me.  I will of course keep all such communications in the strictest confidence, both in regard to the correspondent's identity and the substance of the message (in other words I won't post anything you don't want posted).

168 comments:

  1. Staff and non-faculty administrators seem to be at the bottom of the law school hierarchy (setting aside students).

    I recently compared the public salary data from my law school (T1, Public, Midwest) and discovered how true that really is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe the government could give loan debt relief in exchange for public service. Like the Peace Corps.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If they are dissatisfied with their compensation and how much work they must do , why don't they quit and pursue more lucrative and less arduous employment?

    I thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @2:01pm
    There are other factors that motivate employment, aside from how much someone takes home.

    When they get just over half the paycheck their (upper administration) boss does, however, there's something wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Angry Law Admissions Guy:

    Listen, if you're really angry about the situation, then quit your job at the law school, find something more productive and remunerative to do, and then, from the safety of your new perch, write that scathing expose you seem to intimate you're willing to write.

    In other words, stop being part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Leiter and his fellow charlatans just can't stand it when their scam is exposed by knowledgeable and articulate insiders who can't be dismissed as "disgruntled ex-employees" or sad-sack losers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 3:11 = The law professor who trolls this blog with his "all whistleblowers should lose their jobs" line of perverted and unconscionable reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Exactly Ms. Turner. It also shows you their cravenly immoral, downright sociopathic, mentalities when their first reflex is to call for whistleblowers to lose their jobs. And these are the people training society's law enforcement!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Lois:

    The professor-trolls (Have we identified a new species - all exhibiting the same mental defect?) aren't even making sense any more. People working at their law schools on about $25,000 - 30,000/year don't have the luxury of quitting their jobs in an economy with 10% unemployment.

    And why should someone have to quit their job to criticize their employer? That's like saying you should have to quit smoking to have a coffee. Sometimes things just go ever so well together.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Lois and None -- Exactly. A couple of commenters repeatedly post the same irrelevant things in an obvious effort to shut down or discredit the transparency project. Campos should quit teaching, we'll never succeed, law student are nerds, yadda yadda yadda. Never any serious attempt to discuss the substance; just more leaflets dropped from the sky to tell us that our positions are surrounded and we're going to die horrible deaths if we don't surrender.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @PartnerX:

    Yep. And it's not as if any of it makes any sense either. Even assuming the best, which is that the people encouraging LawProf and others to quit are not vested interests, they're still completely anonymous (and not constructive) voices doing far less than LawProf, if they're doing anything at all, and taking no personal risk in doing so. It's just fucking amateur hour from beginning to end. As far as I'm concerned, it would be a shame to censor those kind of comments out. They make the case all in one go.

    The guy actually wrote: "Listen, if you're really angry about the situation, then quit your job at the law school, find something more productive and remunerative to do, and then, from the safety of your new perch, write that scathing expose you seem to intimate you're willing to write. "

    None of that is relevant to anything. What this petition calls for is basically just an honest accounting of employment statistics. In other words, not signing it means you're against honesty. So, why should someone who wants to do the right thing and, if you think about it, really should be there after the dust is settled, have to quit, or otherwise - you know - his entire viewpoint is per se invalid?

    Next thing you know they'll all be jumping on board, railing against the admins and the deans and the banks like it was all their idea, claiming that the most important thing to them is their students, and all scrambling and competing amongst themselves to appear the most enlightened, radical, crude and scambloggish. It's as inevitable as it is amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just want to clarify that I'm not doing this because I feel that I'm underpaid or because I feel bitterness or resentment toward the faculty and upper-level administrators at my school (although some of them are grossly overpaid for what they do). I feel that I am paid fairly for the job I do. I'm doing this because it is next to impossible for prospective law students to make good decisions in this climate. They don't know what or whom to believe. I would really like to see the ABA promulgate a requirement for more accurate and in-depth debt and career/salary figures, and I would also like to see independent auditing of these figures. I think if prospective students had reliable information, they might make better financial decisions regarding law school, or they might think twice about going altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I met two women during my law school experience who were working at the school and taking classes at a reduced tuition rate. Interesting rock and hard place for them, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry, but I think I just prompted this guy to shut his blog down!

    Maybe he'll be back if he can re-secure his identity, but for the time being, he's probably doing the right thing. One must be very very careful what one posts!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I feel that I am paid fairly for the job I do. I'm doing this because it is next to impossible for prospective law students to make good decisions in this climate.

    In other words, you have a healthy conscience that you listen to. Good for you! We need more people on the inside like you and Prof. Campos.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Not signing it means you are against honesty" Not signing can mean different things: lack of support for the concept of petitions themselves...people may want to do other things. It could be a lack of support for some aspects of the petition. You cannot state flatly that people who do not sign petitions do not support whatever the petition is about.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It looks like Angry Law School Admissions Guy's blog is gone...???

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Angry Law School Admissions Guy:

    This system will change only if it's embarrassed into changing, and clearly few law professors or administrators are embarrassed by the status quo.

    Fuck all of the law professors and non-professor interested parties who say that it's unethical for you to continue as an employee of a law school, while pointing out that school's faults. The only way that former law students can win this war for prospective law students is with spies and saboteurs helping them from the inside. Don't give up on this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I hate this kind of bullying of people who are just trying to do the right thing for a change. AASAG hadn't gone out of bounds with anything he said, but there seem to be some people for whom threatening a man's job just for telling the truth about the industry he works in is AOK.

    Campos, I've never thought much of the US system of tenure. However, the fact that it gives you a platform from which you can say what pretty much everyone seems to think about US legal education without being subject to threats against your job shows that it does have some value.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Unbelievable.

    If you ever doubted that you might just not be very cool at all, realize now how very low the bar is set.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And they wonder why Nando has pictures of toilets next to each of the esteemed law schools he profiles. Are you starting to get it now?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Law schools' entire business model now depends on patrolling Blogger. HA!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Brian Leiter ("Avor"),

    Your pseudonym, Avor (4:53 A.M. poster), and Jewish law reference(ya'avor v'al ye'hareg)don't quite get to the core issue.

    I fear a Latin phrase better describes your predicament: sic semper tyrannis. But instead of revolution or violence, you face the far greater threat of your own entrenched arrogance. If you continue down this path, you'll see yourself over the next few decades become infamous, nothing more than a bad joke and shill. You are beginning to self-destruct.

    I urge you to stop behaving like some puerile tyrant. Do you want your work tainted by a reputation as the academy's hatchet man? Many colleagues are asking similar questions about you. Your support is waning.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The support for Leiter is definitely GROWING exponentially!!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I say to all the people reading this blog who would like to silence the insiders: beware. If you terminate their position or jobs, just what do you think those people will then so? That's right. They are going to talk EVEN MORE SO. This is a lose-lose for those that attempt to cover up this scandal.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In re 8:57: This is getting pretty sad and sick. Hopefully somebody in Hyde Park will get this guy some help.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Georgetown Law Center uses Hoya Temp Services to hire unemployed law grads during the critical period for reporting employment numbers about their graduating class to the US News & World Report. They will hire them for $15/hr for a period of 4-6 weeks yet they don't reveal to the graduates that this is the very purpose of their temporary employment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 9:02: Yeah that was in David Segal's January NYT piece, along with the amusing if rather appalling detail that the administration lied about it to him after they got caught.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Many of the professors who tour the Barbri circuit are part of the same committees which come up with the questions for the subsequent bar exam in a given state. They use that insider knowledge to tailor their Barbri course instruction to those that have paid handsomely for the privilege of this insider information. We must destroy this hierarchy and its quietly-condoned system of kickbacks. Not only do they take take from you while in law school, but also through this kickback system following law school.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You folks need to take a few steps back and regain a bit wider perspective.

    I am "Avor," and I am just a simple viewer of this blog who was directed to the Angry Guy's blog from here.

    As I read through his five or six posts, I simply commented to him that based on some of the information he provided in some of his postings that he would be able to be identified by his employer. Seeing as he was anonymous and seeing as he was staying in his job even though he thought it was disreputable, I figured he might not want to get fired sooner because he gave out a bit more information than he may have intended.

    That's all--nothing more. I mentioned it so he could take the necessary steps to protect himself and return, not to muzzle him.

    And "Avor" is simply an acronym for "A voice of reason."

    Relax and compose yourself, people!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Does anyone else find some of the scambloggers and pro-scamblogger commenters a bit delusional?

    Avor says that the he got the ALAG blog shut down.
    [Leap of logic]
    He's being bullied! They threatened his job!
    [Leap of logic]
    Law schools are now monitoring blogger for negative press!
    [Leap of logic]
    Brian Leiter is Avor! He shut down the ALAG blog!

    More likely scenario is the guy accidentally posted something that made it possible to deduce what school he was out, Avor told him, and ALAG pulled the stuff on his own without the school ever knowing.

    Take a break, go for a walk, watch the Saints destroy the Bears, whatever you need to do to remember that there is a whole wide world outside of the scamblogs. Heck, at least 75% of Americans never even attended law school. Decompress, and then maybe rejoin the conversation after the delusions of grandeur and persecution have subsided.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And, if anything, the fact that a subject can be expertly communicated/reviewed/covered within a mere day or so with Barbi is testament to the fact that the law school experience is, indeed, superfluous beyond the 2nd year---if not the first. But, of course, the "system" is quite content in making a profit off of that realization once someone has already committed their $3000 to such a review course.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @BL1Y,

    Yes, you got it exactly. And no, I don't "know" if I prompted the shut-down, but based on what and when I told him and when it went down, I think it is less a leap of logic than what went on here afterwards!

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  34. Or it just means that the bar exam isn't very tough.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thanks for helping out Avor; I'm sure we all appreciate your contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wow, the law school scam movement runs 24 hours a day. I was literally up at 4AM EST reading that dood's blog. Went to sleep. Got up at 12PM and it's gone.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I have noticed that the few people who voice even moderately dissenting views on these threads is presumed to be Brian Leiter. It's like no one else in the world could disagree with all that is being posted here but Brian Leiter.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @9:24 Agreed.

    Actually, I was quite surprised to see LawProf now behaving (at least in this instance)like he's Nando using a different pseudonym.

    Everything started out so reasonable here, but I fear as it goes in it is spiraling down into some sort of paranoid schizophrenic delusion.

    Yes, there are problems. Yes, they are widespread. Yes, this blog got the attention of some people.

    But no, it isn't quite what you've made it out to be in your own head(s), at least not yet.

    Keep up the good work you were doing, but maybe you need to steer clear of Third Tier for a bit as it is bleeding over into your thoughts and posts here!

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  39. stfu "Avor," you douchebag. You got the guy's blog taken down with your threats, and now you're lecturing people? I say you leave the movement and never visit any blogs again.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Not signing it means you are against honesty" Not signing can mean different things: lack of support for the concept of petitions themselves...people may want to do other things. It could be a lack of support for some aspects of the petition. You cannot state flatly that people who do not sign petitions do not support whatever the petition is about.

    I can think of only three honest reasons for refusing to sign: (1) you're afraid of what your employer/colleagues will do to you; (2) you hate Campos so much that you can't see straight; or (3) you actually have no problem with the status quo. Any other reason is just eyewash.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yup 9:40. Professors and administrators may fear that Campos will eventually publish the list, and that they will get fired.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 9:24, 9:32 here. I've said it before. When people get caught up in blogs-- not just this one, any blog-- reading the posts, commenting and so forth, it's easy to get a skewed perception of how important and large the community is. Even thousands of comments-- many of them repeat customers-- represent a tiny fraction of the legal community, and the American public at large. It may become a bigger phenomenon than it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @PartnerX Just because you can't think of the reasons doesn't mean reasons don't exist. i don't sign petitions ever. I give money to causes. I have demonstrated, marched, and volunteered in other ways. I don't sign petitions for any of the causes I support. I do other things. That is my choice.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 9:46: What are you doing to advance law school transparency?

    ReplyDelete
  45. By the way, I see that Wall Street protest went really well. It's all over the news (not). That internet group anonymous really showed them. Internet nerds will never have any impact in real life. That's why they are on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I'd expect the internal scamblog pissing contests to get worse for a while.

    I think it's good that Campos started his blog, but it changes the framework of the conversation. Fewer people will care what Nando has to say when there are tenured professors to talk to instead. The ABA will make a few token gestures, a few professors will discuss the problems (without going to deep, or creating real solutions), and there will be a whole lot of "Shhh, not now. Grownups are talking." in response to the scamblogs.

    The scambloggers have had their 15 minutes of fame. A law review article, a couple nods from the main stream media. If they want to have a voice going forward, they will have to adapt. Name calling and shock value won't continue to work. Taking concrete steps to improve the situation is probably the best way for the scambloggers to remain relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "If they want to have a voice going forward, they will have to adapt."

    Or, they can get off the internet and move into *gasp* *horror* *cries with fear* in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Law Prof-- My own things, in my own way.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This exercise was still a pretty interesting display of the conspiratorial aspects of law school, with the fear such a venture would create in those who try to blow the whistle. Had law school not really been a scam, ALAG wouldn't have feared losing his job over his posts. But it is a scam, a multi billion dollar per year scam, and they would have taken him out had he not stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It is unfortunate that he had to take down his blog. I think he was about to expose a scam concerning part-time students. However anyone who has graduated from a scam part-time program knows how they work.

    About ten years ago several law schools started part-time programs to deal with US News. At that time US News didn't count the LSAT/GPAs of part-time students. These law schools started part-time programs to move up into the rankings. They would admit part-time students who didn't count in the rankings and use their tuition for scholarships to attract students with high LSAT/GPAs. When US News started counting LSAT/GPAs of part-time students the schools were stuck with the scam. If they stopped their part-time programs they wouldn't be able to attract the high LSAT/GPA students that moved them up in US News.

    Not all part-time programs are scams. So how can you tell if you are applying to one? If the program has been around a long time, especially if it dates to the beginning of the law school, it probably isn't a scam. The scam programs were started in the last 10 to 15 years, usually at law schools that had been around since at least the 1980s. The best way to tell if it's a scam is whether the law school forces low LSAT/GPAs into the part-time program. If you applied to the full-time program but were admitted into the part-time program the program is probably a scam. You are paying for the law school to give scholarships to the students they really want.

    ReplyDelete
  51. BL1Y,

    Again, you've nailed it.

    It is terrific that a tenured LawProf is involved now. However, just as with anyone in any area who starts getting too involved with conspiracy theories, it will lead to diminished credibility.

    So yes, what I posted comparing LawProf to Nando might be upsetting, but I think it is important to stay above the name calling (not LawProf) and paranoia if one wants to gain/maintain a wide audience and not end up just preaching to the choir.

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  52. Beware especially of part-time day programs!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Avor, Why don't you start your own blog with your own principles?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Maybe some people don't sign petitions, but other people do, and maybe we could find out exactly which professors do. Maybe I'm imagining things, but didn't there used to be petitions regarding military recruiting on law school during don't ask don't tell? Is there a way to find petitions signed by law school professors?

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ 10:26:

    Why? Am I not permitted to comment here and point out a potential problem? Must I keep up the charade that everything is perfect?

    That is yet another similarity to the paranoia infested "scam blogs."

    Not every comment/suggestion is an attack on the author of the blog, and LawProf is a big boy--he doesn't need you to come to his rescue. In fact, he doesn't need rescuing, as I'm not attacking him.

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  56. @10:30: This may give you a headstart: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/participating_schools.html

    ReplyDelete
  57. @ 10:30, 9:46 here, Whether you find a list or not, the people who want to sign Law Prof's petition will do so, whether they signed previous ones or not. Over the years I just came to believe that signing petitions was not for me. Of course I have no objections to what other people do, and make no judgment about it. How could I?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Avor, You repeatedly use the terms paranoia and schizophrenia, but I'm suspecting that's mere projection. I, personally, see no value in your incoherent critiques or your causing poor ALAG to shut down his blog and your posts are annoying at best and creepy at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  59. 10:39, here is an idea. Why not have people here email, or mail, or hand in person (this is most preferable), the petition to their law professors and demand either a signature or a statement that they will not sign it. Then email these responses to LawProf.

    But again, this requires the internet crowd to supress their fear of the real world and enter said realm.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hey, if you want your precious LawProf's blog to debase itself into "just another scamblog," so be it.

    It was a big step to have LawProf come forward. You folks should do what you can to protect that, not get all frothy and riled at every little comment that upsets your sensitivities.

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  61. BL1Y, that reminds me -- the law faculties of dozens of schools voted this spring to sign on (as a matter of institutional policy no less!) to a petition protesting the fact that the ABA was *considering* giving law schools the option of having non-tenured faculties.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Human beings (not you, Avor, because you're battling your paranoia and schizophrenia that you keep referring to), but human beings get angry at injustices. And again, since we're not paranoid schizophrenics like you, we can show our emotions? Do you understand the difference?

    You = crazy & has to suppress thoughts.

    We = sane & have right to be angry when we've been defrauded out of $200,000.

    Got it, Avor, you creepy bastard?

    ReplyDelete
  63. I graduated from law school in the mid 90’s. I got another master’s degree ten years later. This year I paid the master’s degree off. I am still working on the law loans.

    Since I have been reading this blog, I keep thinking back to this concept from Ronald Heifetz who is a lecturer at Harvard. No, I did not got to Harvard law. Heifetz is known for his work on leadership. Heifetz distinguishes between adaptive solutions to problems and technical solutions to problems.
    He defines technical problems as problems that can be solved with existing know how. Adaptive problems though require at the very least a change in mindset. Technical solutions for law school would include more legal research and writing and greater emphasis on practical skills. Adaptive solutions though are what this blog is getting at, and they can be a lot more challenging.

    Heifetz and his co-author Marty Linksky wrote a great article on this for the Harvard Business Review, “A Survival Guide for Leaders.” The article is included in an HBR collection “On Change” published in 2011 which I downloaded as an e-book.
    I was really struck by this quote especially with regards to the attacks by Brian Leiter:

    “The hazard (adaptive leadership) can take numerous forms. You may be attacked directly in an attempt to shift the debate to your character and style and avoid discussion of your initiative…”

    Lawprof and fellow readers read this article. The article provides a strategy for making radical change.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Interesting Brad. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  65. What happened to Brad's post? That was odd.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Brad can you repost that? I doubt LawProf deleted it since it only lasted 2 seconds. Must have been something with blogspot.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Usual mind games above. You see a hell of a lot of people suddenly appear on this blog, talk about how folk are doing the wrong thing (even though they support Campos's goals) and then disappear. Seems reasonable to doubt that they're all that sincere in their support.

    As for the rest, Campos has said that he'll be emailing the deans at all the ABA accredited schools. Seems reasonable to wait until he has done this before anyone else starts doing this.

    ReplyDelete
  68. FOARP,
    That's a good approach by LawProf, but how about having students approach their professors, offer the petition and ask for a signature? Or perhaps alumni can do it? As someone said, the petition is helpful not only because we see who signed it, but also because we see who did not sign it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @11:06: If you're an alumn, the most powerful message you can send is your complaint about the law school, along with a copy of a cancelled check you made to your undergrad.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'd like to think people lend support in many amounts and forms. For my part, I try to talk to people that I hear are applying to law school about the financial situation. It's a small effort especially compared to what others like Campos are doing but it's something.

    I guess the whole thing isn't cut and dry for me either. Obviously it's bad the schools are lying and that needs to change. At the same time, there's another part of me that says, why would anyone pay the same price for Hofstra that a T-14 charges? I think I said in another post, but it's like paying BMW prices for a Kia (even if you believed the Kia had the same performance features as a BMW).

    ReplyDelete
  71. BL1Y, I see what you did there, although I doubt my law school will care much when their barely employed grad sends a $20 check to the undergrad instead of the law school.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'd say it's more like paying BMW prices for a car that will explode in three years.

    ReplyDelete
  73. BL1Y,
    That's probably less effective at lower tier schools. Part of the reason that third tier schools are as expensive as upper tier schools as I mentioned at 11:13 is because they don't rely on as broad of an alumni donation base as higher ranked schools. Your cost of attendance is amortized mostly over your three years as opposed to longer at upper tier schools which expect future donations. It makes sense, they know few people will be getting high paying jobs so they're not going to count on getting money out of them later (although I'm sure they try).

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'd love to one day have enough money where I could make a huge donation, so that I could make it to my undergrad university (a state commuter school that cost me pocket change; well actually it cost about $4,000 per year but that's essentially pocket change).

    ReplyDelete
  75. 11:15,
    Sort of, but I'm backing up to the mindset of the 22 year old that is making a purchase decision. At that point, the applicant believes the job numbers to be true. So even if they were true it still seems like a poor purchase decision.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @11:15: Perhaps it's more like paying BMW prices for driving lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  77. FOARP @ 11:04:

    LOL!!! Are you implying that responding to my initial comment by blaming Leiter and the vast law school cartel (who must be policing the blogosphere in the middle of the night because they are so frightened) is "doing it right..."?

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  78. Everyone please ignore "Avor."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Okay, you got me. I really am Leiter.

    Damn it. I can't get anything by you.

    -Brian "Avor" Leiter

    ReplyDelete
  80. Perhaps it's like paying BMW prices for a plastic shell designed to look like a BMW with nothing inside.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I know it'll never happen, but I'd bet that even if law schools put on info in their brochures that their grads had a 50% employment rate after 12 months and listed the true (rounded to the nearest thousand) mean, median, and mode salary they'd still have way more applicants than needed to fill all of their seats.

    ReplyDelete
  82. You're probably right 11:53, see the post from ALAG about the unemployed guy with six kids, a $200k mortgage, $80k in prior student loan debt applying to his law school.

    But at least then law schools would only get the bums looking to scam the student loan subsidy. And who knows, maybe there aren't enough such people to fill the seats after all.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Bl1Y and 11:48,
    I'm using the BMW vs. KIA comparison for brand name purposes only. I agree that what was ultimately bought was something designed to look like a BMW with nothing inside. However, when the purchase decision was made it was clearly a Kia being sold (albeit with promises it would perform almost exactly like the BMW). Either way, I wouldn't pay BMW prices for the Kia no matter what they said it would do.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The analogy is a fun one to play with 11:58.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @11:53: That's probably true, and it's going to take a very long time for cultural perceptions of lawyers to change.

    You can try to bring down costs, but it's still going to remain pretty high. I think the biggest room for improvement is in the outcomes. Paying even just $20,000 to get a meaningless job you hate is a terrible investment. Paying $300,000 for a job you love (even if you don't make a lot of money) is a great deal. You'll spend 30-50 years working after graduating from law school, and hopefully some time retired after that.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @11:58: The point I was trying to make was that the difference between what a 0L thinks they're getting and what they end up with is not merely a difference in quality, it's a difference in kind.

    You think you're getting an education that will train you to do all the stuff lawyers do, and even open up doors in a number of other industries. In reality, you learn to just think like a law professor, a talent valued neither in law nor other fields.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Where is "thinking like a law professor" valued? (outside of legal academia). Lunatic asylums perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  88. BL1Y,
    11:58 here, that's a good point. Although I know law school doesn't train you to be a lawyer I haven't given much thought to how to improve it. As such, I usually don't think of it from that angle. I guess I see that as a much smaller issue than the exagerated employment numbers. Although I'm sure there's a lot of ways law schools could add value, I'm not sure any variance in educational quality will impact employment options which I think is the major issue for most people.

    ReplyDelete
  89. @11:58/12:43 (just make a pseudonym!)

    I suggested in another thread that schools could add 1 hour (optional) labs to correspond to regular lecture classes. The labs would be all skills, similar to science labs for college classes.

    You'd have a contracts lab, where you learn to write contracts, analyze them, etc. Wills lab obviously involves writing wills, going through the formalities, learning what to do when a client dies. Corp lab goes through filing incorporation documents, writing bylaws, maybe some employment law things.

    Of course, the current economy makes things especially tough, but if you graduated from law school knowing how to actually do things, there'd be a lot more businesses offering non-law or quasi-law positions to law school grads.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Why would lazy professors ever agree to such a thing? They complain enough as it is about having to teach more than one course each semester.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Why all the consternation about law school loan debt? You chose to borrow the money, spent it on yourself and now you must either repay the loans or endure the consequences. Those who think they were victims of fraud are free to seek legal redress. They may also choose to pursue legislative relief via the political process. See how simple. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  92. For some reason it doesn't always work when I post with a name. Maybe the office has that blocked somehow? I see what you're saying, it could help people get those contract official positions that the govt always seems to be looking for.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Yes 12:53 and a lot of small/midsize firms would see law students as a better investment. Right now the only organizations that see value in hiring entry-level law grads are those with the capacity to spend a year or two training them.

    ReplyDelete
  94. *sigh*

    http://www.pli.edu/Content.aspx?dsNav=Rpp:1,N:4294921479-164

    ReplyDelete
  95. @12:59: The same reason writing professors take their jobs even though they're paid a fraction of other professors and often do a lot more work. The same reason why many professors teach core 1L classes they have no interest in. Professors aren't all powerful.

    The question is why would a law school administration choose to create such classes. If you're a middling school with a lot of competition, it could be a way to move up.

    Also, not every professor is lazy. Some may actually enjoy this type of teaching, instead of just standing at the front of a lecture hall.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Where are the law schools where profs regularly teach only one course per semester?

    ReplyDelete
  97. None of this changes the notorious fact that the employment "data" advertised by law schools is intentionally deceptive before it is published.

    As far as I'm concerned, nothing in this comment thread is relevant to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Relevance isn't the problem. It's simply that threads like this are of extremely low value.

    It's unlikely that any discussion here is going to result in a law professor changing how he teaches his classes or an administrator changing school policies. It's basically as valuable as professors writing law review articles about government policies that are never read by policy makers.

    Unless people in a position to effect change are brought to the table, or the people involved figure out how to effect change themselves, these sorts of discussions are little more than circle jerks.

    ReplyDelete
  99. BL1Y:

    Thanks for sharing, then.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Its one thing to disagree with someone but another to call anyone who disagrees a disgruntled lawprof. And Campos calls out others for having a persecution complex. Just let others disagree. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  101. None, what you have here is a bunch of loser internet nerds who don't have the balls to look their professor or dean in the eye in the real world arguing on the internet as they pass the time in their pathetic, always failing, always defeated lives. Nothing will ever change until the protest leaves the internet and enters in real life, and that won't ever happen because that requires courage that no one here has.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @ Anon. 2:21PM

    "None, what you have here is a bunch of loser internet nerds who don't have the balls to look their professor or dean in the eye in the real world arguing on the internet as they pass the time in their pathetic, always failing, always defeated lives. Nothing will ever change until the protest leaves the internet and enters in real life, and that won't ever happen because that requires courage that no one here has."

    I'm just going to leave that right where you put it, 2:21. I do have to say, though, that it's surprising that the push for transparency has run up against opposition from people who couldn't really be more transparent. You're a goddamned joke.

    ReplyDelete
  103. None, What's stopping you from contacting professors and asking them to either sign the petition or say they won't? Nothing but your own fear. There's a lot of effective things that can be done, but they all require acts in real life. Acts on the internet are like talking to a rock.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hey steroid guy, hyperbole much? Ever hear of black and white thinking? How about nuance? Can you possibly come up with any other reasons for the current situation? Ever read about liar mortgages? This isn't rocket science....if you really concentrate you can figure it out. Just don't hurt yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Here's a black and white line that this crowd will never cross - protesting on the internet vs. protesting in the real world. In the real world, if one dean or professor looked at one of you cross eyed you'd start crying and running as fast as you can to your mother's basement, from where you would post a vitriolic and angry rant.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "None, What's stopping you from contacting professors and asking them to either sign the petition or say they won't?"

    Are you new?

    ReplyDelete
  107. That's also the last attention you going to get, 2:21. Hope you enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  108. 2:50 - you're full retard.

    ReplyDelete
  109. It seems to me that the system is working pretty well as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  110. i don't sign petitions ever. I give money to causes. I have demonstrated, marched, and volunteered in other ways. I don't sign petitions for any of the causes I support. I do other things. That is my choice.

    Of course it's your choice.

    The things you've posted indicate, I think, that you're truly bothered by the bad numbers law schools are giving out in order to boost rankings and attract students. Even if the suits that have been brought against certain schools fail, we can agree that law schools' intentionally misleading prospective students is morally reprehensible.

    I'm assuming from what you've posted that you're a law professor or administrator. I can understand being worried about losing your job. If that's the case, say so. Saying you won't sign because you never sign petitions is simply letting yourself (and others who are looking for reasons to avoid the issue) off the hook too easily. What would your opinion be of a judge who gave as his reason for denying a motion for summary judgment that "I never grant motions for summary judgment"?

    Young peoples' lives are being ruined, with the active assistance of deans and the silent complicity of faculty. This is a moral yea or nay moment. It's your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  111. @ PartnerX The decision not to sign petitions has nothing to do with fears about my losing present job-- or any job I've had in the past. It's a position I came to over the course of time. It has nothing to do with this matter. I made the comment only because I disagree with the notion that anyone who does not sign this petition can only believe the things you stated. This isn't likely to be a problem for this because I expect i'm in the extreme minority on this point.

    I am in a different position from a judge because a judge's job (duty) is to grant motions as appropriate. It is no one's job or duty to sign a petition at someone's request or demand. Nor can anyone specify for another what one act best expresses yay or nay.

    ReplyDelete
  112. 2:58,

    Let me give you lyrics that articulate why you need to go "full retard" (as you pejoratively put it) on people sometimes.

    Dearly beloved, We are gathered here today, 2 get through this thing called life.

    Electric word life, It means forever and that's a mighty long time, But I'm here 2 tell u
    There's something else, The afterworld

    A world of never ending happiness, U can always see the sun, day or night, So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills, U know the one - Dr Everything'll Be Alright, Instead of asking him how much of your time is left, Ask him how much of your mind, baby

    'Cuz in this life, Things are much harder than in the afterworld, In this life, You're on your own

    And if de-elevator tries 2 bring u down, Go crazy - punch a higher floor

    This is the problem with you people. You let me people walk over you and rather than get angry and do something about it, you tell yourself to calm down. HELL NO DON'T CALM DOWN. You grab a sign, a loud noise maker and head down to your law school tomorrow and get in every professor's face until you get a signature or a confirmation that they won't sign it. That's how you go from being a little coward internet nerd into being someone who matters.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I sold a software program to someone on craigslist a few months ago, and he was some street type guy who drove up in a pos car. You know what he told me? "Does this work? Because if it doesn't I'm coming back here."

    He was implicitly threatening me that had I ripped him off I would have a hassle on my hands that wouldn't be worth it. Of course I wasn't ripping him off so there was no problem, but in him you saw a real man. That's why people like him don't get scammed. Not worth it. Only the meek get scammed.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I sold a software program to someone on craigslist a few months ago, and he was some street type guy who drove up in a pos car. You know what he said to me? "Does this work? Because if it doesn't I'm coming back here."

    He was explicitly threatening that if I ripped him off, I would have a hassle on my hands that wouldn't be worth it. I was actually ripping him off, but since cash had already changed hands, it was too late to back out of the deal. It's not like he was just going to leave peacefully if I confessed.

    You know what I said to him? "If it doesn't work, it's because the problem is between your chair and keyboard. And, don't try threatening me, because if I ever see your ugly face back here accusing me of ripping you off, you're going to regret it."

    He started to charge at me, but you don't get into the lemon software racket without being prepared. I picked up the bat I keep just inside the door, and he backed down.

    I don't know if he could have taken me or not, he was a lot bigger. But, because he was MEEK he got scammed.

    ReplyDelete
  115. lol. Actually it was just a copy of window 7 that I didn't need anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Allow me to rephrase: Your point is stupid.

    Confident people are often the easiest to scam. If people thought they'd be in the bottom quarter of their class, they wouldn't apply to third tier law schools. Nope, they think it's a good deal because they are exceptional. They will make law review. They will transfer to a T-14. They will land a Big Law job and make partner in 8 years.

    Do you know what'll happen if you get in a professor's face, make a lot of noise, and demand that he sign your petition or explain why he won't? You won't get him to sign, you won't get an apology for ripping you off, he won't break down and cry, and you won't get a refund.

    Security will be called. If you keep at it, you'll quite likely be expelled.

    ReplyDelete
  117. By the way, how would the Christian ethos of "turn the other cheek" apply to the law school scam? Would Christians be expected to forgive and forget, even though they have all this debt and even though other people will be victimized if they don't do something? Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  118. "Security will be called. If you keep at it, you'll quite likely be expelled."

    ---------------------------

    At least then the law school scammers will have had to ramp up their actions. Right now they're coasting on the scam. All they have to deal with are internet blogs, which again, are ineffective.

    Besides what about alumni going back to the school and doing this? What about recording what happens? Lots of moves once the in real world fight starts.

    ReplyDelete
  119. P.S. BL1Y, I'm pretty sure that any law school app that says, "This thing is going to get me a job right, because if it doesn't I'm coming back here" would get rejected by every TTT school thus preventing that guy from getting scammed.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Go back as an alumn and do the same, and again, you'll just be removed by security, and possibly hit with a trespassing charge.

    Even real world protests have little effect. The most likely outcome is that you'll make yourself look like a loon and the scamblog movement easier to dismiss.

    ReplyDelete
  121. How convenient BL1Y, the only option available is to sit here like a bunch of cowards bullshitting with internet farts. You can't even walk up to a professor and ask him to sign the petition. Not that's not allowed by your meek mind's logic. You've perfectly rationalized the innate fear of every scammed law student. Like I said, the problem with you people is that you wouldn't dare look someone in the eye in the real world, never mind do something in the real world that mattered. That's why you studied hard, that's why you went to law school and that's why you got scammed.

    ReplyDelete
  122. This isn't likely to be a problem for this because I expect i'm in the extreme minority on this point.

    I dearly hope you're right.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I'm not going to walk up to a law professor because the closest one to me is about 100 miles away, and though I could use the exercise, I have better things to do with my time.

    But no, the only option is not to just sit on the internet doing nothing. I spent the last few days doing a lot of edits to my book, and am now making a list of agents to contact. ...So, yeah, I am sitting here on the internet, but I'm also working to improve my situation.

    ReplyDelete
  124. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHgYFtA-OI&feature=player_embedded

    A person who matters.

    ReplyDelete
  125. @PartnerX-- Oh, I'm sure I am.

    ReplyDelete
  126. What's your book about Bl1Y?

    ReplyDelete
  127. LOL - so you're full retard and crazy. Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. How did you get through life being so unbelievably simple and stupid?

    ReplyDelete
  128. ...or do you only preach?

    ReplyDelete
  129. The point is that guy is a billionaire and I don't think he's getting scammed by anyone soon. That guy is ready to kick someone's ass over nothing; can you imagine what he would do to you if you tried to scam him?

    That's the problem with the law school crowd, they are the meekest most unassuming, helpless people on the planet. Literally. And unfortunately in this world the meek lose, badly. Jesus isn't going to help you folks against the law schools who scammed you, so you better develop a backbone and help yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. We're waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  131. As long as someone else does it right? A protest isn't going to have much force if just one person heads to a school with a loud drum and a megaphone. If a bunch of people do it, together, that's a different story.

    However, I should say one person heading down to the school with a sign and a megaphone and getting in the face of every person who walks in and out of that place would be 100x more effective than the electronic farts you people lay in the blogosphere.

    Man, just yesterday I had some a-hole come up to me at Vons and get in my face over some bs petition that didn't even matter. He had more courage than you people, over something completely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  132. 4:48,
    I don't sign petitions either. I signed one once, I think for diversity day or something, and it felt cheap and meaningless. If I care enough about something I try to make a small but meaningful difference.

    ReplyDelete
  133. @4:51: Sex and dating advice. It's satire.

    As for roid rage dude: nut up or shut up.

    Most successful people don't go around making threats. Most people who go around making threats end up busted for meth possession.

    ReplyDelete
  134. How much you wanna bet @5:02 could throw a football over them mountains?

    ReplyDelete
  135. 5:02 - Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. We're waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  136. "Most successful people don't go around making threats."

    Successful people are cut from a cut that doesn't need to make threats. Their prior actions are their implicit threats that, if you fuck with you're going to have to pay. That billionaire (who owns a bunch of prestigious UK newspapers by the way) kicked that ass over a cross stare. Do you think he needs to threaten anyone? Do you think the law school Dean who ripped you off needs to threaten you? No, he's got your spirit and courage beaten down because - as you said yourself - you know that if you dared put together any kind of protest he'd have you arrested and destroy your life.

    And I'd hope your sex/dating book is satire because last I checked the meek don't get any from women either.

    Look, you people have a choice, you can be men with a backbone or you can continue to be internet losers who are too afraid to confront their scammers in the real world. One real protest, and it could even be a protest to get this petition signed, one real protest would change things tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  137. 5:07, I just replied to you above in 5:02. Don't post the exact same message over and over again, while accusing me of doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. We're waiting pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  139. You just repeated the exact same post 3 times. I replied to you in 5:02. You need a group to have an effective protest.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Earlier, BL1Y wrote, "Security will be called. If you keep at it, you'll quite likely be expelled."

    That's power. That's the power the school's administration has over you when they can get you to think such fearful thoughts without making a single threat.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "Don't post the exact same message over and over again, while accusing me of doing that."

    You have got to be the dumbest guy on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Right, and apparently the only way to be a man with a backbone is to go around making explicit or implicit threats about a petition...

    I'm pretty sure that...well, I'll let Sauruman say it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc

    ReplyDelete
  143. What is that the Dungeons and Dragons movie? Wow. You people are so sad. You know what. Never mind. You people will never have the courage to look someone in the eye in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. We're waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Will you go with me to a protest 5:18?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Hell yes!! Lets go! Lets do it for ponyboy!! Give me your name and number and Ill be right over....who do you want to go after first?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Lord of the Rings fan, let me ask you a question, when the crew went on to achieve whatever goal they had, did they (a) Go out into some REAL WORLD quest, or (b) post a bunch of blogs on the internet? I haven't seen the movie, but from what I can tell they're not sitting at their computers. Something tells me that wouldn't have gotten the stolen ring back.

    ReplyDelete
  148. The steroids guy has almost single-handedly ruined the comment threads on this blog as a forum for intelligent discussion. Things are going downhill fast and the Leiters of the world are laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. We're waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  150. @5:24 - who cares? Stop living for someone else....and the Leiters of the world have been laughing for quite some time.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I'm trying to show you that "intelligent discussion" is worth nothing without in real life action. You have a petition, you have right to demand that it be signed, and you have a right to know which professors aren't going to sign it. So why aren't you confronting these professors about it in real life?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Dude, stop sitting online obsessively repeating the same message over and over and go to your nearest law school and go off on everyone. Stop waiting for someone else to do it. We're waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  153. 5:02,

    I want to point out that I understand your anger. I also agree that people have to do more than just write anonymous commentary to effect real change in the system.

    But staging a protest at a law school (presumably one's alma mater) is not going to accomplish anything. The school's administration is doing what it's doing to protect its USNWR ranking and consequently, the value of the law degree it confers.

    Let's say you can stage a protest and the Dean will make some kind of change. Guess what will happen - most likely the school's ranking will drop and a few months later, the dean will resign after getting angry phone calls from his higher ups, alumni and law students.

    One determined person can spark a paradigm shift. However, he must position himself correctly before he can do so. This is why I think that protests, sit-ins, symbolic diploma sales on eBay and hunger strikes (anyone remember this one?) are not going to cut it.

    There are many forces at work here. I suggest focusing on the person who can most easily affect change. Like Bob Morse?

    ReplyDelete
  154. BL1Y:
    If you're an alumn, the most powerful message you can send is your complaint about the law school, along with a copy of a cancelled check you made to your undergrad.

    Could you elaborate on this thought when you get a chance?

    ReplyDelete
  155. Alumni donations are a big chunk of a school's funding.

    If you tell them school "I would have sent you this check, but because of your failure to act on X, Y, Z issues, I have decided this other institution would make better use if the money," it gives the failures a more tangible cost.

    Although, thinking about it now, and how small the amounts would be, it may have the opposite effect. No transparency and all we lose is a measly $1,000? Cost of doing business!

    It may be better to just send a letter saying that you're not donating, and why, and not mention the amount. They may imagine a bigger number than what you had intended.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I know this is wrong article but I wanted to share what I sent Dean Gormley, as I hope he responds to my email eventually.

    Dean Gormley,

    I am a former law student that read your article entitled "The law school numbers game" and felt the urge to address some points you asserted.

    To start, it is imperative that you realize the extent of the situation that law schools have collectively fostered and exacerbated. The problems associated with massive student loan debt and unemployment do not begin and end with law schools obviously, but law schools are certainly among the most significant contributors. The situation is as such Dean Gormley; young men and women of intelligence are being led towards disillusionment with authority, endless despair that sometimes develops into mental disorders for which there is no money to seek medical attention, restructuring of familial and societal choices that will detrimentally reshape this country, and in some cases, suicide. I noted that the comments in your article failed to address any of these extremely serious issues.

    With that said, some of the specific comments you make in your article are nothing short of either shameless misrepresentation or self-serving lies. The mere fact that you believe that the majority of law students are turning down or not pursuing employment as JAG attorneys or any other related legal job that pays within the vicinity of $60,000 per year clearly displays your willful disregard for alleviating the very situation described above and effectively performs the function of insulting the intelligence of law students as a whole. In addition, you mention that a graduate of your law school is employed as the president of the Pittsburgh Steelers while another is an executive at a major corporation, etc. In the process, you neglect to mention their background prior to law school. This is misrepresentation of the legal opportunities that your law school affords it's students and a classic rehash of the "just work hard and you'll get there" mantra that has been quickly evaporating as more student loans are going into default and the economy, especially the legal economy, continues to flatter. (http://www.smartmoney.com/borrow/student-loans/for-student-borrowers-a-hard-truth-1316118955339/?grcc=88888&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_personalfinance).

    It is simply a sad state of affairs when students cannot even trust educational institutions anymore, the supposed bastions of truth and understanding. From what I have been able to discern, you provide little truth and lack even a barebones understanding of the the serious dilemmas facing recent law graduates. I sincerely hope that you understand the weight of your actions and the true extent of the detriment schools, including your own, are sowing upon the future of this country. It is apparent to many, myself included, that somewhere along the vast meandering journey of life, you lost a fragment of your humanity and are now a vessel for the immorality that law schools hypocritically condemn.

    Sincerely,
    [redacted]

    ReplyDelete
  157. RE: Direct action. I've seen a few people refering to the direct action (demos, occupations, etc.) conducted by students, especially those in the UK, as an example of how to address education issues in the US. My advice is that to do so would be foolish.

    Student demonstrations, some of which have turned violent, have been a yearly event at my undergraduate university (Sussex University) since student fees were introduced in 1998. They have done everything from smashing up the administration building, to cream-pieing the Prime Minister's wife when she came to visit campus (something that got the students responsible expelled). They have acheived absolutely nothing in all that time, nor, realistically speaking, could they.

    They never presented reasonable demands that anyone could have met, and were anyway opposing government policy that the voters had voted for in multiple elections.

    Sure, occupying buildings and smashing things up may appeal to a certain kind of person, but as a way of getting things changed, it sucks.

    @BL1Y's suggestion is definitely a runner - why donate to people who misled you?

    ReplyDelete
  158. So in summary FOARP,

    Demonstrations are bad because they "don't work" in England. You know, for something that doesn't work it's been damn effective in getting the politicians' attention over there. The most recent batch gave the country a serious black mark on the world's stage. I'm in America and I know all about the education issues in the UK (I especially recall the protest where the kids attacked Prince Charles's car), and in the UK tuitions are extremely subsidized and nothing compared to the gouging you see here, and as you yourself admitted, UK legal education is a model for American legal education with their apprenticeship model, but oh no the UK student demonstrations are an example of protests "not working."

    However, what does work - according to you - is not donating the money we don't have and telling the school about that. "Hey, my life's been financially ruined as a result of your scam but you just f*cked yourself I'm not going to donate money I don't have to you. You only get that $150,000 you already stole from me." Yeah that will work.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

    Something tells me while the courageous kids demonstrated in the UK you were at home playing world of warcraft, or whatever cowardly and sad activity you use to pass the time as other people do things that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "Although, thinking about it now, and how small the amounts would be, it may have the opposite effect. No transparency and all we lose is a measly $1,000?"

    If you have $1,000 to donate to your undergrad, then you have no idea what the lives of people scammed by law school is like.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Here's a history of the student battles in the UK over tuition.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition_fees_in_the_United_Kingdom#Timeline

    Admittedly the most recent event (an increase in the maximum tuition from 3,000 pounds to 9,000 pounds in 2010) was a serious defeat for the students as they saw their tuitions tripled. But the protests worked in the sense that Brown didn't get the maximum of 21,000 pounds (still less than American tuitions) that he wanted. Further the government created a UK version of IBR that is far more generous than the American one, to quote: "No one will contribute until they can afford to do so – when they are in well paid jobs...The graduate contribution system that we have designed will protect the lowest earning graduates and ensure that their contributions are linked to their ability to pay; indeed, under our new more progressive repayment system, 25%, maybe as many as 30% according to the IFS, of graduates with the lowest lifetime earnings will pay back less than they do now."

    You are correct though, that protests aren't a guaranteed way to win and end the law school scam. However, I'd say they worked in the UK more than they did not. If we had such protests here over the past 30 years you wouldn't see some tier 3 sh*thole charging $50,000 per year (31,000 pounds per year).

    ReplyDelete
  161. Video of Prince Charles's car getting attacked in the UK by students protesting tuitions:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvOJn2LUPy4

    Meanwhile, you people are too scared to confront professors with a petition asking to report honest, non-fraudulent, job placement numbers. Over there the damn Prince is fearing for his life and you guys can't muster the courage to ask for something that's indisputably within your rights!

    ReplyDelete
  162. Right, only getting charged 9,000 quid a year in a country where, less than twenty years ago, the government paid people a living wage to go to university and your main demand was for a return to that situation, is a 'victory'.

    Student loans are also nothing new. They were the original replacement for the grant, and have simply been increased as fees increase - and have never needed to be paid back until earnings exceed a certain level.

    Meanwhile, Charlie Gilmore is going to jail for attacking the UK's main war memorial, and the idiots who went after Prince Charles and smashed up the HQ of the Conservative Party got pretty much the same treatment. The leaders of the student union, ot the other hand, go directly into the ranks of the Labour party on graduation where some how they manage to forget what exactly it was they were in favour of whilst they were at university.

    Epic Direct Action Fail.

    ReplyDelete
  163. I just explained to you why the protests were not a failure. The only failure is your pathetic and frightened blogging life. They completely blocked brown's desire to raise tuitions to 21000 pounds and forced a very generous verdion of ibr. Meanwhile you wrote a dumbblog that no one reads or cares about. Show respect for people who sacrificed.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Protests have their place and non-protest actions also have their place. One does not preclude the other. The petition is just a start but doesn't mean other actions can't be considered as well.

    ReplyDelete
  165. True, it's just that some people here who have clearly never heard of the Goldilocks principle have labelled anything but violent action the behaviour of 'pussies'.

    ReplyDelete

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