Friday, August 10, 2012


I spoke recently to a senior law professor at an unnamed law school. We discussed the financial problems facing law students and graduates:  the rising tuition, the mounting debt load, and the difficulty finding legal jobs--let alone jobs that will sustain debt repayments.  We also touched upon the pressure that law schools are now facing, as declining enrollments squeeze budgets.  I commented that we were starting to see the consequences of our own greed.  "We haven't been greedy!" he replied indignantly.

This professor earns more than $200,000 per year. His law school falls outside the Tluxe, but it enjoys a healthy endowment.  The school has raised tuition by 130% since 2002--a period during which other prices increased only 25%.  Like most law schools, this school raised tuition during the Great Recession, as job prospects for law graduates plunged, as median starting salaries for those graduates plummeted, and as graduate debtloads soared.  After our talk, I checked the website for this professor's school:  The school will raise tuition and fees by another 6% during the coming year.  Inflation, meanwhile, is just 1.7%--and trending downward.

If this isn't greed, I don't know what is.  This particular school isn't unusual; its figures parallel numbers at schools around the country--including the salary for one of its most senior, valued members. Yet this professor, like so many others, doesn't believe that law schools have been greedy.  Why not?

One reason is the very human tendency to believe that we are worth the money and perks given to us.  If salaries and research support have gone up over the last ten years, while teaching loads have gone down, that must be because we are such terrific scholars.  Or maybe it is because we offer such a wonderful education that students are willing to pay more for our classes.  If we're paid what we're worth, that's not greed.  Self-interest stops faculty from asking whether some other factor could lie behind this shower of tuition money.

The other reason is that, with a slight amendment, the ideology LawProf suggested earlier today is one that a majority (most?) Americans vigorously endorse:  "Grab, within the outer limits of the law, everything that isn't nailed down for as long as you can get away with it." 

That's what Wall Street traders said to one another when they created technically legal deals that would eventually sink the economy:  "Ibg, ybg."  Or, in other words, "when this deal tanks, I'll be gone and you'll be gone.  Someone else will have to clean up the mess."

Politicians embrace the same ideology:  Do whatever we have to do today, and say whatever we have to say tonight, to win the next election.  The long term be damned.

Higher education has enthusiastically joined the chorus.  As long as the federal government will allow us to charge whatever we want, let's do it.  Students will take out the loans, no matter how high we raise tuition, because they need a degree to have a shot at a decent job and standard of living.  There's nothing illegal about what we're doing:  Somebody arranged this gravy train and we'd be pretty stupid to refuse the gravy.  In fact, we'd fall behind all of those other schools eagerly loading up!  And that, of course, would cause our rankings to fall. 

Whether we are traders, politicians, used car dealers, or law faculty, we further justify these positions by drawing upon an even deeper American ideology:  the free market.  In a free market, greed is good.  The desire for more money, power, or fame motivates entrepreneurs to create new products, pare prices, and seek new markets.  The sentiment that people should "grab, within the outer limits of the law, everything that isn't nailed down for as long as they can get away with it" is simply a blunt expression of the free market ethos--complete with the notion of caveat emptor.  Grab as much as you can from the consumer, until the consumer discovers that someone else has a better price or product. That's the free market, and I can personally endorse a fair amount of greed in that context.

But law schools do not operate in a free market.  Neither does any other part of higher education.  We sell our services in a market that is deeply distorted by the availability of federal loans.  (Accreditation standards and professional licensing further distort the market, but those are subjects for other posts.)  

We certainly have the legal right to take advantage of these market distortions; the government itself created the programs.  But when we take those steps, we have to recognize what we are doing to students, their families, the taxpayers, and the future legal profession.  We certainly have to acknowledge that we are being greedy--and not in the good way that feeds a free market.    

Note:  I edited this post to lower the salary named in the "This professor earns more than . . . " sentence. The focus here isn't on the particular professor, but on law professors and schools generally.  The best information we have on law faculty salaries appears in a TaxProf Blog entry. Note that none of the top 27 schools participated in that survey; their median salaries almost surely are higher than the ones reported there. It may also be true that law professors deserve the salaries they currently earn. If we could keep those salaries without raising tuition repeatedly on the back of government loans, I would be the first to endorse our salaries.  If it's a free market, it's not greed.  If it's a government subsidized market with other people (students and taxpayers) paying the price, then it's greed.


  1. Before the inevitable stoning ensues, I would like to stress that this exemplar of "greed" does not draw a typical salary. It is above a recent mean estimate for law school deans (, and considerably above the numbers reported for professor salaries at a good chunk of schools ( A number of top institutions are excluded from both, but you can get data for many of those that are public ( Many morals can be extracted from this data, including attacks on extravagant salaries for particular professors. But in my experience, students are sometimes surprised to find that at least some tenured faculty earn less than the starting salary for first years at big firms, including when perks and bonuses are included.

  2. Greed is relative, I guess, and it's esay for anyone to point to someone greedier to use an example of what "real" greed is. Students point to professors. Professors point to Biglaw partners. Biglaw partners point to Wall Street brokers. And Wall Street Brokers point to...

    You get the picture.

    Bottom line on greed, folks: if you would not accept a pay cut from a six figure salary, you are greedy. End of story. You don't NEED six figures to live a comfortable lifestyle. You WANT it.

  3. Oh, before I forget. A big "fuck you" to Nando for his baseless attack in his comment to the prior post directed towards the good people at Law School Transparency, who seem to be able to make progress (like Campos) - real progress, not sensationalist trash that is largely ridiculed or ignored - without resorting to antics that make us all look like fools.

    Campos and LST are proving, time and time again, that real progress is made in an intelligent, critical, but cooperative manner.

    "Choirboys" don't need to be an asshole to get stuff done, Nando. In fact, as your languishing, floundering blog is proving, being an asshole generates fifteen minutes of fame, then excludes you from the real debate.

    It might be time for you to grow up.

  4. Maybe, and on a macro level, Student Lending is not so much about greed as a matter of survival?

    Did the foreign wars over the last 20 years drain the federal coffers so much that there is no other way to replenish them than with student lending interest?

    Does anyone know where all the interest money collected on SL debt goes, or how it gets reinvested?

    And so, if a relative handful of academics (law academics included) do well as all of this is going on, that is just a minor problem in terms of the USA's overall problem of huge indebtedness to whatever or wherever. (China being one entity that comes to mind.)

    I heard that the Chinese are or are going to start banking in the US.

  5. @2:59PM

    Don't get above your raising.

    You would not have been able to post your treacherous comment were it not for the backbreaking work of Nando that has made, in my opinion, the whole scamblog movement even possible, and I am sure the authors of this blog will agree.

    It is a matter of form and function. The tiolets and shit are the form to describe the far more disgusting violation of basic human rights function of the law school scam.

    You need to rethink your statements and apologize.

  6. @3:07 - I would bet good money that you are JD Painter!

  7. "I spoke recently to a senior law professor at an unnamed law school."

    Must be a pretty odd law school if it doesn't have a name.

  8. This is the best post on this blog yet. If there is any articulation of the ethos of the next generation, it is this. THIS IS IT. Surly there will be some who don't care or some who get it wrong, but the next generation's ideological contribution to human history is articulated in this post. It is on par in its import with "The Great Society" or "Universal Human Rights." The author of this post should consider running for office. I am dead serious. I just hope he sees, from his perspective, what I see from mine.

  9. "The sentiment that people should "grab, within the outer limits of the law, everything that isn't nailed down for as long as they can get away with it"

    Also known as "Flying under the Radar"

    The British finally came up with better "radar" and were able to sink U-boats. But a lot of lives were lost in the process.

  10. Oscar Wilde said:

    "The only thing worse than being a "Law Professor" at am unnamed law school, is being a "Law Professor" at a named Law School.

    In either case, the wallpaper has to go!

  11. 3:25, don't speak for me. Greed may be a vice, but I am all for having the chance, the opportunity to build wealth in any legitimate way I can. Like it or not, not all millenials see free enterprise, privatization, and wealth maximization as things that need to be bound up.

  12. @Oscar Wilde:

    It may be unnamed, but I'll bet it's accredited and charges $40k per year in tuition.

  13. Time and time again I run into college student social activists who complain about "corporate greed" and argue that the solution is more regulation (that is, more government). They want me to sign petitions. The implication, of course, is that somehow government isn't greedy and therefore it's wise to increase the ambit and depth of its power. Most law schools are organs of government and their faculties are de facto if not de jure government functionaries. And they're greedy! What a shock! More greedy, in fact, than corporations and their shills. And what is more, they don't produce any wealth-- they merely consume.

    Many here suggest that we correct this problem, caused by government, with more government regulation instead of by cutting off the money supply. Is it wrong to deride this solution?

  14. @ AUGUST 10, 2012 2:59 PM,

    even though TTR is full of crude language, the reality of lifetime debt shackle is exponentially harsher. i read TTR every now and then and Nando filters out some good stuff.

    i dont know what the beef is btwn TTR and LST, but both are fighting against the scam - on the same side. it's when they join the other side that it becomes egregious (like Shilling Me Softly's author).

  15. @3:33PM

    Tickled your funny bone did I?

    And you even have a self-identity of some sort. So cute :) But, thanks to you, and until now I thought the "Millenial" label was more or less a myth.

    But I am glad to see that the youngsters call themselves "Millenials".

    So let me see....there was the greatest generation, the boomers, the x generation and maybe one or two more?

    And then the Millenials.

    But I bethinkin that @3:33 sounds like (and I could be wrong) a Regan Conservative that would be welcome on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity shows any time :)

    In fact, there seems to be a lot of blame placed upon Boomer academic "Liberals" around here these days for failed fiscal policies and failure as a generation in general?

    The boomer hippies started out so promising, and ended up so bad. Oh well...shave and a haircut, 10 cents. Maybe the Millenials will save the world and stop the incessant, wall street, corporate monopolized residual earning 40 year old boomer music on the radio.


  16. "t may also be true that law professors deserve the salaries they currently earn."

    Deserving ain't got nothing to do with it. Period.

  17. Very good, Anon 3:29.

    Are you by any chance a graduate of Wittier Law School?

  18. sorry DJM, this post added little value. IBGYBG is old news. all systems/games involving (vast sums of) money are rigged/distorted. the smart ones make as much money and then cash out. always will be that way.

  19. "This is getting old."

    Yes, the crooks will always be with us I'm afraid. Guess we should shut-up and be quiet.

    1. I could be wrong, but I think the "getting old" comment was directed at the "first" comment, not the original post.

  20. This is the story of one more greedy law school pig.

  21. "If it's a free market, it's not greed. If it's a government subsidized market with other people (students and taxpayers) paying the price, then it's greed."

    I don't think this correlates with the ordinary understanding of greed -- maybe desert?

    On this view, however, what would one make of students, directly subsidized by these loan policies, or taking huge merit awards that are subsidized by them, and pursuing the top salary they can find? Another quite recent generation of students, facing more fortunate economic conditions, was quite willing to describe itself as greedy -- at least when comparing associate salaries and pillorying firms that were slow to react to spiraling salary demands, which have now contributed to a reduction in demand for the next crop.

    Law schools deserve searching criticism now, including from taxpayers. But a greed-based critique strikes me as quite awkward for other constituencies. I think performance-based critiques, and those based on deception or a lack of transparency, are much sounder.

  22. @AUGUST 10, 2012 3:51 PM

    nice The Wire/Unforgiven quote.

  23. And @ 3:48 - you are either Nando or 3:07 (who is JD Painter). Your post just has too many misspellings, mispunctuations, deliberate decoys (like "text speak"), and a giveaway jab at Kimber - it's a clear attempt to pretend to be someone else. I have never seen a comment so poorly written on this blog, which has a rather intelligent and literate readership, and yours sticks out a mile!

    Nice try!

  24. I think that if I listen to one more 40 plus year old Rolling Stones tune on the radio on a white guy construction site I will just hang myself.

    The Rolling Stones: In the grand scheme of things, they are not that good.

    Mick Jagger is not a creator of culture.

    Music is infinate and Wall street wants to limit music for the masses to so little, and for the profit of so few, and maybe that is symptomatic of an overall trend to take every little thing in life and try to turn it into a mass production capitalistic enterprise, which in a basic human sense must be very wrong?

    Tomorrow I will have the radio on and I will hear the same old limited music. The same old 30 to 40 year old pop and rock tunes with not much else. And 40 year old Rolling Stones songs are painful and well nigh torture, except to the boomers.


    summary of a WSJ article discussing the student debtacle

  26. The American Baby Boomers (Freaking me out and wearing a mask) are pretty much bad in general. They started out in life and disrespected their parents and did not invent the world, and have harmed so many financially that were born after them.

    I am glad that the kids at Woodstock '99 were smart enough to know the difference between Baby Boomer phony counterfeit shit, and what is real, and about how the boomers made monkeys out of all that came after.

    Wake up and smell the concrete. To all the pathetic bob dylan and john lennon worshipping lame Boomers: I'm SICK OF YOU TOO! WE FIGURED YOU OUT!

    All Satire BTW :)

  27. Never underestimate a person's ability to lookout for their own self interest. That's why ITLSS resonates, because LawProf and DJM could potentially be harmed by the reforms they advocate.

    "If it's a free market, it's not greed. If it's a government subsidized market with other people (students and taxpayers) paying the price, then it's greed."

    I agree with this.



  28. University (not just law) Professors can make a lot at the top schools

    But the real money is made by administrators....check out these numbers!

    Total compensation 1-year change
    1. Constantine N. Papadakis
    Drexel University (1995–2009)
    Full profile → $4,912,127 +202%
    2. William R. Brody
    Johns Hopkins University (1996–2009)
    Full profile → $3,821,886 +349%
    3. Donald V. DeRosa
    University of the Pacific (1995–2009)
    Full profile → $2,357,540 +118%
    4. Henry S. Bienen
    Northwestern University (1995–2009)
    Full profile → $2,240,775 +78%
    5. Nicholas S. Zeppos
    Vanderbilt University (2007–Present)
    Full profile → $1,890,274 –21%
    6. Charles H. Polk
    Mountain State University (1990–Present)
    Full profile → $1,843,746 NA
    7. Shirley Ann Jackson
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1999–Present)
    Full profile → $1,771,877 +7%
    8. Alfred H. Bloom
    Swarthmore College (1991–2009)
    Full profile → $1,756,293 +128%
    9. Richard C. Levin
    Yale University (1993–Present)
    Full profile → $1,627,649 +6%
    10. James L. Doti
    Chapman University (1991–Present)
    Full profile → $1,542,270 +23%

  29. DJM,

    Excellent post. Your best, yet.

    @ manofjustice--DJM is a woman. I agree with you that she demonstrates the qualities that we hope for in our public servants (honesty, integrity, idealism) but so rarely see in practice.

  30. Can I just tell you about the shithole that is ACS and Access Group.

    Somehow, on two successive calls to these fucking lumps of coal I was misled materially twice. Not only did they inform me, over my skepticism and follow up questioning, that I was eligible for a modified payment plan, only to then have it rejected by Access Group, but when I called back after the fact to say, "Hey, what the fuck?", they said, "Oh! Sorry! Turns out the customer service rep was wrong about that."

    I was so happy to finally get someone who actually knows what he is talking about, and he sent in an application for another plan that his computer was informing him I was eligible for.

    Hysterically, THIS customer service rep was completely wrong, too. It turns out that even though an application for this plan was sent to Access Group, since ACS got my loans, they don't even offer this plan. Yes. ACS applied for a plan that doesn't exist.

    What the fuck is going on? It's complex enough without people calling audibles because their lunchtime shit came out sideways. And how is it that Access Group unilaterally, uh, "transitions" everyone's loans to ACS and all of a sudden you don't get the same modified payment plan options you did before. I didn't agree to that!

    Fuck me.

  31. Suze Orman is a woman too, and mainly talking about private loans here, but in light of the last 4 or 5 posts here, I really do not think there is much difference between private and public lending and a bank is a bank is a bank:

  32. best DJM post yet.

  33. Have the salaries for law school proffers increased at the same rate as tuition? Or are the schools just hiring more people?

    Where is all that money GOING?

  34. Please read the 4:42 comment along with the 3:02pm comment.

    IMHO, there is no longer any way for industry or financial institutions (especially higher ed institutions) to make money on a large financial scale in the US except by student lending it seems, and even Suze seems to say the same.

    Have a great weekend.

  35. The salaries have not increased anywhere near the rate of the increase in tuition. That's just one reason why the whole exercise the other day about billable hours and law professors salaries made no sense.

  36. How can lawyers who can't solve their own problems be expected to solve the problems of others?

  37. @ AUGUST 10, 2012 4:00 PM

    no i am not any of those ppl. i dont care whether u believe me. if LP/DJM shows you the IP address, you're going to feel stupid.

    regarding SMS/Kimber, i read enough of the LS scamblogs to know that

  38. Newser reporting owe student loans in default and Social Security will be levied (or your parents if they consign).

    How many people out there have parents who consigned student loans in default? Is it causing family problems for you?

  39. To the piece of trash who posted at 2:59 pm,

    Get a life, moron. LST has accomplished little on its own. Did you notice that Derek Tokaz and the others at LST did not bother to respond to my reply on the other thread?! When you back up your case with actual facts, it goes MUCH further than saying "You know what of you speak."

    If you want to keep licking LST's feet, then be a good dog and do so. Don't expect others to be impressed with your fawning.

  40. AUGUST 10, 2012 4:00 PM,

    The post above was my second of this entry. I am proud of my work, and I can sign my name to the things I say. It is likely that 2:59 is Derek Tokaz or someone else at LST.

    The fact remains that Bullock, Tom the Temp, and then the scamblogs made the initial waves. This attracted the attention of mainstream media. In LST's first year of timid requests, only one school agreed to provide better numbers. That school - which I recall as Ave Maria - later reneged on its word. That was a rousing success, huh?!?!

    In the end, it is of paramount importance that college grads are becoming better-informed PRIOR to applying to or enrolling in law school. That is the main objective. However, when the kids at LST act as though they paved the way, they WILL be corrected by someone who came before them.

  41. It is pretty apparent that the mental and emotional deficient at 2:59 pm badly needs to get some action. Maybe if we all pitch in a few bucks, we can help him in this task.

  42. Excellent, excellent post, DJM.

    I think "Grab, within the outer limits of the law, everything that isn't nailed down for as long as you can get away with it" accurately sums up the ideology that is a huge cause of why we are having these problems (in legal education, the housing bubble, etc.)

    Thanks to both you and LP for doing such an excellent job at digging at the underlying attitudes of these issues.

  43. You seem to be confusing greed with corruption. Our society is more than greedy. Its corrupt. Greed is "I want a million bucks, but can live on 50,000." Corruption is "I want a million dollars, and I'm going to screw you over either with the rules or without them to do it." Greed is a state of mind. Corruption is a state of society. Societies can survive with greedy men and women around so long as their are rules to keep them in check. Societies can not survive if faced with corruption because the rules are broken down and destroyed and greed flourishes without any checks.

  44. One other point: when you enter into the stage of corruption, into plutocracy, the corruption becomes legitimized, and then becomes a virtue. Think of the aristocracy. They weren't just in control of the feudal system. They were there as a result of divine design. What you are saying about these law professors can be said about anyone at the top right now. I see that amongst business people at the top. They act and sound exactly like what you are describing about the law professors. What does that say? That law professors are bad? Or that the top is all bad at this point because corruption is now the new normal.

  45. @259: Nando is and was a pioneer in this movement that helped spread awareness about the problems in legal education. Both prospective law students and law school deans and administrators were finding and reading his blog prior to matriculating. His blog was a key reason why the NY Times published its original piece before LST had done anything and about six months before Campos even started this blog.

    Of course it's not intellectual or decorous to post feces pictures, but it got attention. Of course, Nando and other scambloggers were basically saying identical things to LawProf's main shtick before he even began (go back and read lawschooltuitionbubble from the beginning, for example; your failure to find and read is hardly Nando's or their problem.

    I don't disparage LST or LawProf, but they are basically amplifiers for what a lot of people (not just Nando, but also L4L, Tom thet Temp, Tamanaha et al) have been saying for quite some time. There's no need to tell a pioneer to fuck off because you're disgruntled with how he blazed the trail.

  46. @3:25PM

    "Also known as "Flying under the Radar"

    The British finally came up with better "radar" and were able to sink U-boats. But a lot of lives were lost in the process."

    OK this will sound tedious, but physics requires me to correct this. The british came up with the cavity magnetron - or centimetric radar because it could use wavelengths of the order of 5cm. This meant that objects such as a U-Boat periscope or snorkel (with diameters of the order of 20cm) could be detected by the radar - which also was more easily installed in ships and aircraft.

    Radar then and even now is fundamentally a line-of-sight technology. This means that because the earth is round, the earths surface curves curves at approximately 8 inches per mile - so at say 100 miles radar cannot detect things some 60 feet below the radar antenna even at sea. Moreover, on land there are numerous obstacles that are 20+ fee high. Since the aircraft are flying in WW II at about 300 mph - or 5 miles per minute, flying low, below say 80-100 feet would mean that unless one flew very close to a radar station, you were below it's detection level.

  47. With respect to Nando - I have to say that his site did serve a useful purpose - it's shock value and bluntness did get peoples' attention. While acknowledging the good that Nando did, I think it is also to fair to say that his site, toilet bowls, etc. now may be undermining a case which has gone mainstream.

    I think Nando has a lot to contribute - he is highly knowledgeable and courageous when compared to anonymous cowards like, oh me for example. I would like him though to try to use that knowledge and skill to make his points in a less scatological way, or at least in parallel in a less scatological way.

  48. With respect to the baby boomers, I know that everyone would like to describe them as a uniquely awful, selfish, self-absorbed bunch of fuckwits - who as soon as they could screwed their parents and their children out of shear malevolence. And on that front, yes, they did screw their parents, children and grandchildren, and collectively they were fuckwits who did not even contribute what they think they contributed (segregation was resolved before they even got the right to vote, ditto all the great civil rights battles - which were fought mostly by people born between 1918 and 1945.

    But that they screwed people out of malevolence is actually unfair. They screwed everyone else out of self absorbed indifference and because as such a huge demographic group they could and did vote their narrow short term demographic interests. They were like any bulge demographic group, distorting everything in terms of their generational interests because they could. It never really occurred to them that they were screwing the others, and they resent deeply finding out that they did, because they thought all the "right on" things they promoted were for a broader society and not just themselves.

  49. DJM, it's really not nice to report conversations with your former colleagues on the blog. How do you think Jim feels about this? And the cost of living in NYC is high, so the fact that he earns 300K+ is hardly surprising, considering what you get paid in Ohio.

  50. 8:11, This post does not refer to a former colleague.

  51. I should also note that I only report comments from (or stories about) individuals when I consider them typical. I have heard several professors from a variety of schools deny any "greed" on the part of law schools or law faculty. In fact, if there are any professors out there who would like to confess to greed, please speak up in these comments or elsewhere!

  52. DJM

    This post is so well written and beautifully encapsulates what is wrong with American society.

  53. Second 8:41. Sometimes I just can't understand how our moral fabric can continue to unravel without any objection from anyone. This post from DJM is spot on.

    Thank you.

    - CA PI Attorney. "Salary" for First Job Out of Law School: $10/hr.

  54. "How do you think Jim feels about this?"

    This is how Jim feels:

    "Fuck you -- I got mine."

  55. The gross avarice displayed by law "professors" and "educators" is not shocking. A decade ago, while I was an adjunct, I recall how some tenured professors would pat themselves on the back for engaging in the noble calling of teaching rather than earn million dollar partner profits in Biglaw. I recall telling one professor to save that speech for the students since I doubt he could lateral into a practice which would require the ability to attract clients and build a book of business.

    On the subject of Nando, TTR, LST and Derek Tokaz aka BL1Y. Initially, Nando came off as very unpolished and brusque. I was not a fan of him or his site. However, I gave him credit for putting his name out there and for burning any chance in this profession in order to rail against it. His writing has improved and some of his entries are first rate. On the other hand, you have Derek Tokaz, who probably looks down at Nando because of his inflated pedigree. Aside from being amusing and comical at times, he has not contributed much to the movement. Derek is recovering from having discovered that he was afflicted with the "Special Snowflake" syndrome. As for LST, I give these guys some credit. However, they too look down on Nando, probably because they attended a T20 school while Nando graduated from a school I thought only existed on a matchbook. The LST guys were not cited in the David Seagal NY Times article. They were not cited in the 2007 WSJ article in which Scott Bullock put his balls on the line. LST are late party crashers and they can't and will not convinced this old-timer that they trailblazed this movement with Prof. Campos. Prof. Campos deserves credit for stepping up as an insider against the law school scam. He gets a B for joining the party late as well. That being said, I like Prof. Campos's blog. The issues discussed on these pages were all too known 20 years ago. Amazing what the internet and cojones can do to pull back the curtain on this "smoke and mirrors" operation.

    J. Stern

  56. The beneficiaries of the law school scam are a small group of law school administrators and educators. The federal government has control of the money supply for student loans. Almost everyone else has the about the same power to address the law school scam as the bloggers- that means they are helpless. To suggest that "baby boomers" are at fault here is like saying "death" to those over a certain age. Furthermore the scam has affected the entire legal profession. It is not just entry level attorneys who are suffering. Attorneys of all age groups are suffering. Anecdotally it is worse not better the more experienced an attorney gets.

  57. Both nando/TTR and LST have done a lot for the anti-law school scam movement. This movement is a big tent. Room for all sorts of approaches. LST has done a lot of good lately, and LST offers a mainstream, high visibility site that the media can go to for a quote. Invaluable service provided by LST. Great work, LST!

    -unperson (former proprietor of Exposing the Law School Scam and Law School Death Watch (now shut because of security/employment-related concerns)).

  58. @6:47PM (MacK)

    Wow! You sure do know how to spit out an explanation! Are you sure you are not the professor from Gilligan's Island posting as Anon?

    As for this blog and the many topics discussed, I think the time is nigh for it's authors to publish a nice, great big, plump, lip smacking and delicious, hard copy book.

    I would buy an extra copy for my parents to read.

    An online book is a good idea for hip and groovy, tech-savvy young millenial kids to read, but it might be too hard for fumbling, older, boomer generation semi-senile folks to access.

    And I think Nando should publish a large, hardbound book as well with full page color illustrations.

    I bet Nando's book would sell more copies.

    BTW, the baby boomer bashing is just a goof and satire. But honestly, on a typical construction site, "classic" 40 year old rock is all one hears and it is the same old residual earning songs over and over and over, and the older white guys on the site think that is fine.

    And 8/10 3:48PM was not me. I had always hoped Kimber and Nando would reconcile and was never critical of her.



  59. BTW, when young children misbehave today, their parents tell them that they had better be good or that a Boomer Monster called David Crosby will come for their livers.

    Which is similar to what the convict Magwich told young Pip in "Great Expectations"

  60. "You don't NEED six figures to live a comfortable lifestyle. You WANT it." Perhaps the person making this quote was not aware of how uncomfortable my lifestyle in my then hovel was until I stared making six figures. In my case having all that student debt on a lower income in a high standard of living city was not so comfortable lifestyle wise. I also agree with some earlier poster that there is corruption going on (way beyond greed) with the law schools, the different Bar Associations, and with all the bottom feeders (i.e. bar prep classes, text providers, testing services, etc.), that adds additional costs and obstacles to the legal education and certification process. Finally, glad to read Nando is getting his recognition. I note too that the Professors writing on this blog have also earned recognition in their own right for their work and when Nando started he was not alone as there were many other bloggers that equally deserve credit for raising awareness.

  61. @3:49
    "The beneficiaries of the law school scam are a small group of law school administrators and educators."

    Lending institutions might benefit even more. Borrowers must pay back their loans at interest, and over 15, 20+ years, they pay much, much more than the initial loan amount (and that doesn't even factor in fees and extra charges in cases of default).

    Law Schools make hay, but lenders are the true rainmakers in this set-up. The student lending system is designed to enrich the monied interests first and foremost.

  62. As a relatively new law professor, I wanted to weigh in here. I currently make less than half (105K) of what I made in my last year of private practice (260K, if you include bonus). Of course, there are many perks that come with my relatively new job, but those perks are to compensate me for the 155K pay cut I took. I agree that law professor salaries are much too high for those in "soft subjects" like ConLaw. Those professors would probably make less in practice, if they could find a job at all. Those with experience in high stakes litigation, bankruptcy, corporate finance, M&A, however, took significant pay cuts (even if they left after one or two years). I would take maybe an additional 15-20% pay cut - because I absolutely love my job and care about my students - but any more than that and I would return to practice (need to pay my mortgage, etc). Supposedly my old firm said they would welcome me back. Given those facts, I think I am making pretty close to market. For the majority of my colleagues, you are right, they never had a realistic shot of making much more than they current make and most don't have the emotional and personal skills you need to thrive in practice. Maybe we need bimodal distribution in law professor salaries. I assume students want to learn from professors that have at least some experience in the lucrative areas of law. If so, law schools will have to continue to pay those professors a competitive salary.

  63. Hearing about the glut of lawyers is one thing, but seeing it is another.

    If a person went to the Jacob Javitt center in NY city on one of the two bar exam days, and looked around... the number or rather sea of people taking the test is astonishing.

    In fact, filming that would a great addition to a documentary film on the law school scam if someone were to make such a film.

    Re: Nando. He came so far. If one reads his very first posts, one will get an idea of how much opposition he had and how he persevered and overcame that opposition and the existence of this blog is proof of that.

    Like Cool Hand Luke, Nando is a natural born world shaker.

  64. DJM and/or LawProf have you offered to take a significant pay cut?

    Again, I would take 15-20% if I could be assured that the saving would go straight to tuition cuts.

    Also, can you two write more about possible solutions instead of just naysaying? I agree that we need significant change. Better disclosure is probably the first order of business. Tuition cuts are another (though they are already effectively happening with all of the new scholarships). We also need to think of ways to make our education more valuable to students.

  65. Wow. So much to respond to.

    First, I'm not 2:59. I always sign my comments, and 2:59 is more liberal with F-bomb usage than I am.

    Next, I didn't respond to the comment on the other thread because I didn't even know it existed until reading the first comment on this thread. I don't comment that frequently here, and I read the comments even less.

    Now having read it, first I can admit that I have not read your private e-mails with Henderson, and I don't really know his positions on labor protection issues. Nor do I really care. How successful was LST in its first year? I don't know, I wasn't part of the organization then, and I don't really know what they were doing then. But, since joining about a year ago, I can say that we've made big strides in getting information out there. Before LST started asking schools to release their NALP reports, only 3-4 had them on their websites. After, more than 50 schools released the data. This year we've collected even more (we're still entering all the data). Then of course there's the actual data analysis, such as creating the Employment and Under-Employment Scores. I think they're great tools, and I'm pretty proud of it.

    As to J. Stern's "special snowflake" comment, I understand the term to mean someone who thinks that they're not only going to beat the odds, but that they're so certain to beat the odds that it makes sense to take out a ton of debt and go to a crap school. Is that about right? I went to a top 5 school at a time when to get into BigLaw all you needed to do was be at a top school and not fail any classes. I had decent grades, and landed in BigLaw. Not really sure how that fits into special snowflake syndrome. I had cookie-cutter BigLaw syndrome.

    To the comments generally about Nando and other early scambloggers paving the way, I started writing my Reasons not to Go to Law School series only a few months after Nando started TTR. I'd never heard of TTR, was just writing on my own, and was doing just fine traffic wise. Philadelphia Lawyer wrote his blog entry "No, Entering Law School Is Not a Smart Way to Deal with the Terrible Job Market" a year before Nando started his site. Heck, he wrote that before the Lathaming even started.

    Did Nando raise awareness about how bad of an idea law school is? Sure. Was he the prime mover without whom nothing else in the reform movement would have happened? I find that a little hard to believe.

  66. 7:10: I may respond to what you have to say in a post. As for recommendations I make quite a few in this article:

  67. Law professor? Just like the "adjunct" above.

    I think people have too exalted a view of those who practice law. "Law professor" at 7:10 admits to not having been in practice long, and probably does not know this, but there are lots of people out there practicing law who are, at best, serviceable. Hang around any court, and you will see this. Clients do not even know whether they're getting the best service or not. Arguments about law profs not being able to practice law need to invoke the superior members of the bar as the standard for everyone. It's not the standard. And there are so many ways to practice law, that a blanket statement that law professors could not do it is just silly. There are law professors who could not practice law very well, and there are people who practice law who are not doing it very well.

    Referencing "the emotional skills and personality needed" to practice law does not cut it, either. The percentage of professors who could practice law if they wanted to is probably about the same as the people who did not go into the academy. The percentage of truly excellent lawyer is limited, but there is no reason to believe that some law professors-- had they stuck with it-- could not have become excellent lawyers. Actually some of them were and are good practicing lawyers, much to the concern of administrators.There are tenured law professors who are partners in firms. I have a friend who right now is being courted to work at a firm while he keeps his teaching job. The school is not happy.

    Of course, if someone hasn't been practicing for 20 years, it's a different story.That is not the comparison to make. It is hard for anyone in any profession to change course after having been in one type of job a long time. Only if you hold to a caricature of professors, don't know how varied the practice of law can be, and do not really know how mediocre many, many lawyers are, would you think that many law professors could not have become practicing lawyers. If school closures and cutbacks in faculty prevent people from going into academia, they will go into other legal jobs. Some will continue in the field. Others will not.

  68. @7:10: "Those with experience in high stakes litigation, bankruptcy, corporate finance, M&A, however, took significant pay cuts (even if they left after one or two years)."

    I'm not sure that's true. Someone who was a BigLaw M&A partner definitely took a paycut. Though, he's probably also banked enough money that he's not going to see a decrease in quality of life; quite the opposite, the law prof lifestyle will be a huge boost, letting him finally enjoy his wealth.

    But as to someone who's only in their second year or so, yes $105k is significantly less than the $160-180k BigLaw bucks they were making. What we have to remember though is what the average BigLaw lifespan is like. There's a very good chance that this same person, in a year or two, would be burned/pushed out, and land somewhere making 80k, and that new job might only last a couple years. I wouldn't view the move as taking a paycut so much as it is risk management. Also, the person looking to move into academia after just a couple years in practice is probably first to have their heads on the chopping block. If you want out, you're going to have a hard time finding the motivation to bill 2,200-2,500 hours a year.

  69. ^Not to mention that you're not terribly marketable after one or two years.

    I think the apt comparison for going into academia is what one could get at the federal government.

  70. @7:10 Here's the thing (and you should know this if you have the background you say you do): There is no freaking way to know whether your or any other prof's compensation is appropriate, because the market is distorted, massively so.

  71. DJM -- Sterling post! Make sure this one goes in the book. ;-)

  72. Is the housing market distorted because practically everyone borrows money to buy a house?

  73. I ask only because a school of thought is emerging that more people are buying houses than should be buying houses. We should change the expectation that everyone should strive to be homeowners.

  74. 9:01 and 9:10, I assume these are satirical posts? Government-backed loans are exactly what drove up housing prices--along with a deep cultural belief that housing debt is always "good debt." That's what caused the bubble and crash. Of course, any economic event is always more complicated that a single cause, but you've nailed this one (either satirically or unknowingly).

  75. MacK---People born between 1918 and 1945 are called what? Do we have a name?

    1. I believe that is the greatest generation.

  76. Post hoc, propter hoc.
    Law profs may be greedy but that doesn't account for the fact that tuition for higher ed generally has outpaced inflation. There must be other factors at work here.

  77. There must be other factors at work here.

    Yes, there are other factors. They're called "administrators."

  78. All I know is that at my law school a couple of years ago there was a dramatic increase in tuition and the entire amount was allocated to faculty salaries.

  79. 7:10: No offense, dude, but you sound like the insularity of law firm life has driven you past the brink of sociopathy.

  80. Don't believe it, 10:44. Unless you are the Dean or the finance person you do not know this. And none of the money went for ANYTHING else?

  81. Oh, maybe to hire new faculty?

  82. ^^. That is the way it was presented to the faculty. I could dig out the memo but I don't care that much about it. I did read it at that time and my statement is correct.

  83. 10:44/11:52. Fine. I am aware that not all law schools operate in the same fashion. And don't dig out the memo. There should be no expectation that you would share that kind of information on a blog.

  84. DJM: "In fact, if there are any professors out there who would like to confess to greed, please speak up in these comments or elsewhere!"

    I thought, and perhaps I am misremembering, that there was a point in this thread when you left it to others to judge your own publicly reported salary. Regardless, I am at a loss to explain how, by your own standard, your wages do not evidence "greed." Are they not inflated by the taxpayer? Has your school not raised tuition at all since 2008?

    I'm sorry if this seems confrontational or rude, and perhaps you want to delete it. Personally, I don't think you are greedy, or worth less than your salary, but you seem to be pushing a critique here that is so broad you can't but succumb to it yourself . . . and assume, I would hope, the obligation to do something about it, either to acknowledge your own greediness, renounce salary increases, or the like.

  85. As to 7:10's comment, I agree that the next best market option for faculty is varied, but it's not nearly as simple as she or he makes out. Precisely because schools do not hire many experienced attorneys (a mistake, I think), a con law type in academia is not cast as such in private practice, and is very likely able to have been fully able to make a go as a litigator. A school can only land a balanced faculty by signaling that it will treat them reasonably over the course of their career; otherwise it will have a much harder time hiring professors to teach subjects that will guide them away from fields on which they could fall back or use as markers for current salaries. I imagine some critics don't think those fields should be covered, but consider, e.g., persuading a young AUSA to become an academic . . . her marketability will go away pretty quickly after 5 or more years away from practice, but it is hard to see why she should always be tethered to a government salary, when she just as easily might have lateraled into something else initially. Notwithstanding, there is increasingly a field-skewed tilt to salaries, I have been told.

    Some faculty really are useless for anything other than academics, and iffy even at that, just like lawyers or officeworkers you find anywhere. But the vast majority I have met would be earning more elsewhere, maybe double on average. You can't just look at what they do now, and what they could land based on their present CVs, but also at how they might have developed under different institutional conditions. Whether we have the right institutional conditions is an entirely fair question.

  86. @2:25-- that's right. As I said earlier, the fallacy is looking at a person who is off into his/her career and saying that because it would be difficult to switch gears at that point, those people would never have been able to practice law or do anything else. This is not peculiar to the legal academy; going down one path often makes it difficult, if not impossible, to go down another. That's why it is so important to be as sure as one can reasonably be before setting out.

  87. 2:21, I thought my OP here included the admission that I and my school are as greedy as anyone else. The statement from the other professor came in response to my suggestion that "we [as professors and schools] were starting to see the consequences of our own greed." The "our" included me and I willingly confirm that.

    I would happily accept a lower salary, if other professors of my rank do the same. As someone who has never asked personally for a raise (indeed, when I was an administrator, I argued every year for a freeze to my own salary--although often without success), I'm a bit reluctant to volunteer unilaterally for a cut. If there are cuts, there should be cuts for everyone--not just those who are willing to acknowledge the problem.

    If others do step forward, by the way, I would not lower the salaries of junior faculty as much as those of senior faculty. The junior faculty paid more for their educations and earn much less per unit of work and value. I think I may have given a formula for this in comments to another post.

    Meanwhile, I've taken these steps, which others might want to follow; I got most of the ideas from early comments here. I give 2% of my salary to the PILF at my law school and additional amounts to LST and a career-start program for new lawyers. (My largest charitable contributions are to non-law-related groups, but those don't compensate specifically for a too-high salary in legal education.) PILF is the best organization I have found so far to give back to law students, because it gives money directly to the students and also supports them while gaining job experience. But I'm open to other suggestions.

  88. This is very strange, DJM. You say you are as greedy as everyone else, but then you say you have never asked for a raise and have argued to have your salary frozen. In what way, then, are you greedy? Because you have a job that pays well? Maybe there is a problem with the definition of greed. You cannot know that you are singular. There are, probably, many others in your position. Is it so important to call others greedy that you are willing to take on the mantle yourself, when the facts as you present them about yourself do not indicate that you are greedy?

  89. DJM, thanks for the reply. I will look for your other post. The only place I might lose you is where you say that you would be reluctant to accept a salary cut until others of your rank did so. I'm not sure why that is, if you think the salary you retain is wrongful, particularly if you admit the possibility that the others might retain theirs based on a good-faith commitment to a different ethical standard. Still, perhaps you transfer that wrongful amount back by the donations you describe; in any case, this same question arises every time someone wealthy says that they will gladly give more money to the federal government . . . when the tax rate is raised for everyone. Thanks again for your engagement on these issues, even if I disagree with some of your diagnosis.

  90. "But as to someone who's only in their second year or so, yes $105k is significantly less than the $160-180k BigLaw bucks they were making. What we have to remember though is what the average BigLaw lifespan is like. There's a very good chance that this same person, in a year or two, would be burned/pushed out, and land somewhere making 80k, and that new job might only last a couple years. I wouldn't view the move as taking a paycut so much as it is risk management."


    Put another way, if you had a son, and were told you could either guarantee that he'd grow up to be an NFL football player or be a surgeon, you'd more likely choose surgeon right? (Assume you are also assured your son will never suffer a major injury in the NFL).

    Now, if he's a star in the NFL, he might make money the surgeon never could. But if he's like most players, he'll play for four to six years, and make great money. Anywhere from 100 grand on the practice squad to 500 to 600 grand per year if he's an average player. But short of being a coach or a true star that can live off of autographs and endorsement deals, he'll make all the money he'll ever make by the age of 30. Also no student loans after a full-ride scholarship in college.

    Contrast that with the surgeon, who won't make very much money at all by the time he's thirty, he may have hundreds of thousands of student loans, at that time, but time is on his side. He'll make a six figure salary for thirty or forty years.

    Not Peyton Manning money, but he'll outpace many, many NFL football players in terms of lifetime earnings.

    Assuming he had the option to do both, going to med school and taking on debts would've been a major "pay cut" if he could be making 400 grand in the NFL, but as a long term financial strategy, it would be quite sound to skip the NFL draft and head to med school.

  91. 3:23, I do not think I am greedy in my personal life. But I think that my profession (legal education), including my particular school (among all others I know of--nothing especially greedy about us), is greedy. As a member of that profession and as someone with a little share of faculty governance at my school, I accept responsibility for any institutional or professional greed.

    I was shocked when law schools started raising tuition so dramatically to "get ahead in US News." I was even more shocked when schools continued raising tuition in recent years. But I didn't say too much about it at first. That wasn't because of personal greed; I like the extra money and invest it against possible rainy days in the future, but my family didn't change its standard of living. My personal motives for keeping quiet had more to do with faith in higher education, which I think was founded at some point in the past, as well as a desire for other people to like me.

    But the fact that my personal motives were different from greed doesn't stop the fact that the institutional motive was greed--and I'm part of that. I think individuals have to accept some responsibility for their institutions, even when they're not in charge.

    Of course, now that I'm speaking out, I'm not sure what that makes me. Institutionally greedy, personally less confident in the omni-goodness of higher education, and personally less worried about other people liking me?

  92. What a hypocrite. Prof Merritt, you make $240,610 per year as of 2010.

    Are you taking a pay cut?

    Or is it okay to take the big, state-subsidized salary once you start blogging about how overpaid everyone else is?

  93. Here is what I think, DJM. Yours is the not uncommon situation in which a person wants to have his/her cake and eat it to. You feel compelled to impugn others’ honor in service of a cause that you think worthy. But because you are a decent and intelligent person, you understand that you can’t really divine the motivations of 17,000 people; that you have no intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the over 200 law faculties in existence. So, the way around the problem of making the sweeping judgment is to sacrifice part of your own honor by calling yourself greedy. But you can’t quite bear being thought of in a bad way--to take on the full meaning of greediness—you do still want people to like you. There is nothing wrong that, actually. So, you are careful to let people know that you have never asked for a raise and have insisted that your salary be frozen- acts that are in complete contravention of greediness. The problem is you have no way of knowing how many of your colleagues across the nation are in a similar position. The “it’s the institution” argument absolves individuals of their power and responsibility

  94. Looking at the list, lots of your colleagues make way less than you do.

  95. Don't waver in the face of attacks like this DJM. They did the same to Campos when he started. These people are everything that you say they are, and they prove it when they attack you like this. You are not a hypocrite, you are not the bad guy in all this, they are. They are complete fucking assholes and I am so glad that people such as yourself and Paul Campos work to expose them. You are exposed fuckers! And it's only going to get worse from here for you.

  96. 5:42, the OP is about institutional greed, for which I think all faculty should take responsibility--regardless of their personal characters. I didn't post about a conversation in which two professors discussed their personal greed (or lack thereof). I posted about a conversation in which two of us discussed trends affecting legal education, I suggested that "we were starting to see the consequences of our own greed," and the other professor replied that "we haven't been greedy." I can assure you that neither I nor the other professor earn enough that our individual salaries could account for any crisis in legal education. We were talking about legal education as a whole.

    I deliberately used the word "greed" in this post because it evokes personal responsibility. We talk about "tuition rising" or "schools raising tuition," and that sounds very impersonal. The tuition seems to rise on its own, without any people involved.

    But when I say that institutions or a profession have been greedy, that makes clear that individuals are behind those decisions. You write that the "it's the institution" argument absolves individuals; I don't agree with that. Your reaction to the word "greed" suggests that, underneath, you don't think the argument works either.

    So let's cut to the chase. You can retain your mask of anonymity but: (1) What is your professional status (law professor, student, practitioner, ...)? (2) Do you have any concerns about the extent to which law schools have raised tuition during the last decade? (3) Why or why not? (4) Do individual law faculty bear any responsibility for tuition rises? That responsibility could be positive or negative. E.g., if you believe the rises were appropriate (for whatever reason, including that the government loans were there and schools would have been foolish not to take advantage of them), do faculty share the credit?

  97. 5:32, this comment about hypocrites appears almost as often as "first's." The short answer is: The only reason you can call me a hypocrite is that I speak out and I reveal my identity. If I were a hypocrite, I would take my salary while keeping silent about my views.

    And I have a question: Are you one of the people who said that students couldn't possibly join a group called "professionals for financial responsibility" because it would be so dangerous for them to speak out in any way? If students can't speak up, and professors can't speak up (without renouncing their jobs or salaries), who do you think will advocate for change? Or is that your point--to stop advocates for change?

  98. I have my own version of the chase I want to cut to. Yes, I do have concerns about the rise in tuition in law schools and in higher education in general. I believe that state schools like yours should be affordable, and that state withdrawal of funds from public education is a national tragedy. There should be in each state, depending upon size, an affordable public law school(s). I think it is time to think about different types of schools for different types of students, which may help cut costs. I do not think that individual faculty members at law schools attached to a university could unilaterally set tuition. Could your faculty vote to cut tuition at Ohio State, and push that through on your own?

  99. 7:12, it's curious that you are not willing to reveal your professional status. That makes it harder to judge your knowledge and potential biases--while you, obviously, can feel free to judge mine. But anyway: What would you do about the high tuition costs at private schools? Is that ok? Does it matter that the schools are relying on a significant market distortion (the blank-check government loans)?

    I have an idea for differentiating schools that is different from what others have proposed, and I think it could be quite effective. I'm working on that proposal right now.

    I don't know if Ohio State's law faculty could push through a tuition cut on its own. But I suspect the faculty here--and at almost any law school--could have some *effect* on tuition if they spoke up. I'm also very confident that faculties will have *no effect* on tuition if they don't say anything. So, if faculty members think that tuition is too high, why not say something?

    I'm not sure, by the way, how much of the escalation in public school tuition reflects lower state aid. Yes, aid has been cut. But schools have raised tuition and alumni giving much more than those cuts: Our overall budgets (including salaries) are much higher than they were in the days of greatest state support. How much of increased tuition replaces state aid, and how much increases the overall budget? It's hard to find figures addressing that question.

  100. I've never understood why people feel the need to categorize LP and DJM as "good" or "bad" when in all likelihood they're somewhere in between, doing more than others to help but still collecting their check.

    Then again, if their message is sound who fucking cares?

  101. No, my refusal to state my professional status just means that you can't craft a pre-set backstory for me. "If you are a professor taking issue with me it's because...if you're a dean taking issue with me it's because..., if you're a student... instead of dealing with what I've said.

    I think you should know whether your faculty could push through a tuition cut, if you really think tuition at your school should be cut. Figuring out who sets tuition at your school ought to be step one. Only when you know that, and know what the relevant interests are, can you have any idea what effect speaking up might have. Why not figure out who has the real power to make changes, and direct energy toward making them change?

    I am less concerned about private schools, whose budget are not all equally tuition-driven. Some of them provide great value to their students. The move toward greater transparency means that from now on, prospective students will have the opportunity to make informed choices about attending law school. I do not want to see the end of loans to attend law school. But they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

  102. 8:59, people create backstories for others based on whatever information is available. You have already revealed lots of information in your posts, and I have a backstory based on them. Your reluctance to reveal more about yourself contributes to my sense of you.

    I do actually know who sets tuition at Ohio State and what the relevant interests are. The question of what a faculty "can" do is more complicated than you suggest in your question. At some schools, for example, a faculty might be able to push through a tuition reduction but only at a significant price; the university might continue to collect revenue from the unit based on the previous tuition level. At other universities, a faculty might not be able to lower tuition unilaterally, but would be in a very good position to persuade the central university to do so without any penalty to the school. At still others, a faculty might be able to reduce tuition overall by adopting the differentiation idea I have in mind. The particular situation at Ohio State isn't relevant to this blog.

    Don't worry on my behalf, I know a fair amount about how to maneuver at universities and what information is necessary to effect change. Creating an independent School of Public Affairs, reporting directly to the Provost rather than the College of Arts and Sciences, was no picnic either.

  103. Why doesn't DJM name names?

  104. That is fine-- that you have developed a sense about me, I mean.

    I think "the particular situation at Ohio State [is] relevant to this blog" because that is your school, and you are offering advice about taking action to lower tuition. I do think it would be useful to know how you would go about doing it in the place you know best, since you have suggested that other people should take action. The various scenarios you outline-- some schools might do this, some schools might do that-- are not as helpful as being able to say, "I (we) tried this and it did (did not) work because of this(that).

    On the scenarios-- the second one-- a law school can't "lower tuition unilaterally, but would be in a very good position to persuade the central university to do so without any penalty to the school".... How would that work? What position could the school be in that would give it the power to persuade "central university" -- which may well be charging an arm and leg for its undergraduate program-- to lower tuition enough to make a real difference? What would be the pitch? What words would they use to persuade?

    I am not at all worried about you. You are obviously an accomplished person. I am sure you can take care of yourself.

  105. DJM and LawProf are both in a position of criticizing a flawed system while simultaneously reaping major benefits from that system. At some point relatively soon, say a couple of years, they will have to make the choice to divorce themselves from that system, or lose their credibility.

    For instance, I cannot advocate for sustainable local food systems while continuing to buy Guatemalan-grown bananas. I'm not saying these transitions are easy, but the right choice is often the most difficult.

  106. On the contrary, a large measure of their credibility derives precisely from their insider status. That's why other insider-parasites like you -- who have never had any credibility in the first place -- are so determined to shut them up or force them out.

    Guatemalan bananas indeed . . .

  107. The obvious solution is for everyone to get blog and start speaking out.

  108. "Note: I edited this post to lower the salary named in the "This professor earns more than . . . " sentence."

    Google cache is a wonderful thing at times. Wowie, is that guy doing well for himself.

  109. AUGUST 10, 2012 2:51 PM says, "You don't NEED six figures to live a comfortable lifestyle. You WANT it."

    Where do you live? What are your state, and/or county, and and/or municipal income taxes like?

    How many dependents do you have?

    How much LS debt do you have left to repay?

    Point it, $100K in NYC or Boston doesn't go far to support a family of 4 or 5, even if one is not still paying back LS debt.

    OTOH, for a single guy living in a lower COL area like ATL, sure, 100K can go pretty darn far.

  110. August 10, 3:48, "...i dont know what the beef is btwn TTR and LST, but both are "

    Wouldn't say it's a beef "between" them. For whatever reason, Nando decided to needlessly attack LST gratis.

    So people started picking sides in the comments under that post and this one...

  111. @Chiquita
    I'm 26 years old and have never attended a day of law school in my life- hardly an insider. Trust me, I'm as big a fan of LawProf and DJM as most readers here.

    But when you recognize that a system is exploitative, you must attempt to transition away from it, no matter how hard that may be. See John Taylor Gatto, who famously quit as the three-time reigning NYC Teacher of the Year because he felt he could no longer participate in a system that he disagreed with. "Do as I say, not as I do," won't fly.

  112. How about a comment from a pedestrian. THERE ARE TOO MANY OF YOU-PERIOD. We are experiencing a war in this nation, between liberal lawyers and conservative doctors. Tragically, the doctors are losing this war. If an indigent, I would receive the bottom-of-the-barrel service from your profession. But in the emergency room, I would benefit from the best, most recently trained and most modern equipped who are on their way to future success in private practice, or are in attendance as senior practitioners or teachers. And yet you congratulate yourselves on your "pro-bono" which is of vastly less quality and backed by vacant resources in comparison to what is marshalled by the medical profession for the benefit of me, the less fortunate and unable to pay. You should look at yourselves in the mirror and say, "how dare me take these superior professionals to task in court for anything less than the most aggregious offense?"
    But with all of that said, I think it is high time the put-upon consumers (students, parents) band together in some sort of union-fashion and COLLECTIVELY (you love that concept, why bother to deny it) threaten, at a bargaining table, to keep the checkbook closed-at the opportune moment, like on registration day! For it is high time that the goverment-inspired, entitled professor-fueled bastardization of this system (and all of criminally inflated, price-fixed academia, for that matter) receive a long-time-coming upbraid. Spoiled, entitled children, alas, should not continue to be conditioned in such a manner as to expect to receive a trophy for just showing up!

  113. At a faculty meeting this past spring, our dean opened by announcing that the University was significantly cutting the law school budget for the then-in-progress fiscal year.

    The first question from one of the faculty members?

    "How will these budget cuts affect our summer research stipends?" (Some of our faculty are paid $10,000 over the summer - in addition to their regular salaries and any income they get from holding an endowed chair - to do academic research.)

    This seems like a fairly greedy attitude to me.

    (In case you were wondering, the dean then went on to assure the faculty that their summer research stipends - with an aggregate value of around $150,000 - would not be touched.)

    Oh, and I also recently overheard two full-time, tenured law professors who were teaching bar review courses over the summer discussing - without irony - which color Acuras they were going to buy with their part-time income. (This is not a joke.)

  114. Your contents are more then sufficient for me.
    loan website

  115. I'm planar for your article writings and contents fortunately.50connect

  116. Despite the fact that planning a event, make sure
    you take your partner's tastes into account. We paid a great idea for this site and made up to look like the airlines pass. A kids birthday party games party at the park can be a blast on a very low budget.

    Feel free to surf to my blog - 1st Birthday Party Ideas

  117. The only hurdle to aсcessing this іs of course human limitationѕ anԁ the fact that the brain
    ԁoes not function sоlely as a leагning tool for the human being.

    At the end of еach round reаԁ out the cumulative scores.
    Aѕk your loсal club to run this for you.

    Here is mу wеbpаge; pub quiz amsterdam
    Also see my web page > pub quiz archives

  118. This plan of yours is a plan of action, and that means you take action every single
    day. You are going to begin your Internet Marketing Plan by publishing your articles to
    the following sites. I recommend this online marketing formula to beginner's.
    Also see my website :: Internet Marketing Plan

  119. It is particularly helpful as you fight off this yeast infection in mouth.
    Because of its anti-fungal properties, it is also sometimes recommended for vaginal yeast infections.
    Seek medical or professional help.

    Review my homepage: mild yeast infection after period

  120. Douching and unique scented bathroom items can upset the pure
    stability of bacteria in the vagina and make yeast infections much more possible.
    This will ensure that you treat the right disease when you take the medication.

    Thick, white discharge from the penis.

    Here is my blog post what is a yeast infection and symptoms

  121. Depending on what type of business you have you should build
    a fan base that consists of your target audience. Buy facebook fans are actually referred
    to now as Facebook, but often are used interchangeably.
    There are many ways of doing this and this article take a look at some of them.

    Feel free to visit my page get facebook fans
    my page: increase facebook fans

  122. Only 1 address, while. This will help make navigating the weaving poles a habit for you dog.

    --LINK REMOVED Dog training Advice

  123. For this firstly you must make your own fan page on Facebook.
    Buying fans to their popularity quickly build strategic.
    The most frequently asked question in this regard is how you can easily buy You - Tube Views.

    Here is my website; get Youtube Views

  124. Search for professional Internet Marketing Companies
    India and let an experienced copy writer craft eye-grabbing ad content for your business.

    Checkout his article on Ambit and on Nu Skin Review.
    If this kind of business you are looking for or planning to go into just for the reason that you wanted to consult
    or even handle those promotions for other businesses, well then, make sure that don’t fail to notice the opportunity to point out those costumers or
    clients of yours who are potentials in which you grow your own business with the very techniques you
    wanted to provide to them.

    Visit my website - Internet Marketing Techniques
    My web site - internet Marketing tips

  125. The only hurdle to accessing this is of course human limitations and the fact
    that the brain does not function solely as a learning tool for the human being.
    *Rounds table format. Theme Format: It is almost like standard format of the pub quiz.

    Also visit my site :: Funny Pub Quiz Names
    my page: free pub Quiz Answers

  126. Search for professional Internet Marketing Companies
    India and let an experienced copy writer craft eye-grabbing ad content
    for your business. You are now familiar with the advanced search feature of Yahoo Answers, once
    you do a. And you need to take action and start right now.

    Also visit my site - Internet Marketing Techniques

  127. Then, cells that destroy bacteria and cell debris wipe out the yeast.
    A man can develop a yeast infection in various ways.
    Candida bacteria feed on other weakened friendly bacteria in the human body.

    Also visit my page - how to treat yeast infection after hysterectomy

  128. Hi, just wanted to tell you, I loved this post. It was practical.

    Keep on posting!

    Check out my page - 13th birthday party ideas
    Also see my website - 5th birthday party ideas

  129. In looking for the proper collar for the pets, things that
    you need to consider are safety, the training process as well as your convenience.
    Bond With Your Dog Through Play. 435-896-1737 Annabella, Utah Trainers:
    Chris and Julie Holt.

    Feel free to visit my page ... dog training aids uk

  130. With the increasing fan base your product sale will also considerably increase and your marketing objectives will be easily achieved.

    This company sends out invites from the page to innumerable people and gets the invitations accepted.
    Like anything else in this world, you get what you
    pay for.

    Take a look at my web-site ... Buy Google Plus One Votes Cheap
    Also see my webpage: get Google Plus One Votes

  131. Keep the sacrifices they've made in mind, and take the time to embrace the understanding of how much these people must love you to have traveled so far for your wedding. (US). An increasing number of marrying couples (particularly those entering second or later marriages) will request that guests refrain from giving gifts.

    Here is my web page - wedding website about me

  132. Since marriage is a permanent bond between two love ones, roses are very much preferred
    for dcor of wedding place. Fortunately, our minister has neither, and he's asked very little of us as well. 4.

    Also visit my web-site ... wedding website affiliate programs

  133. Keep the sacrifices they've made in mind, and take the time to embrace the understanding of how much these people must love you to have traveled so far for your wedding. What is even more exciting is that you will be able to keep this wedding website for one year, at no cost to you. If necessary, place a polite reminder on your sign-in page that this is not an informal website, and that distasteful comments will be removed.

    Also visit my homepage - wedding website announcements

  134. Will they be fed, watered, and cared for properly.
    In the event you employ strategies that may
    be employed in agreement together with your dog's normal urge and instincts, you'll be able to improve its character and provide restrictions that can maintain
    your dog satisfied. We turn off the TV.

    Here is my web site :: bird dog training aids
    Also see my web page - dog training aids uk


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