Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Interview with Megan McArdle

I did an interview with Newsweek's Megan McArdle regarding Don't Go to Law School (Unless).

(Some of you may remember us from such interviews as Stop Trying to Hate Yourself Thin).

BTW, anybody with an .edu email address can read DGTLSU for free by signing up for Amazon Prime at no charge, which among other things allows you to borrow one Amazon Select book per month.  So if you don't want to skip that large latte one morning but still want to read the book, sign on up.

Regarding the need for ongoing educational efforts, here's an email from a recent graduate of one of New York's better law schools:

I wanted to inform you about another example of a lawyer at the top of the profession who is either totally clueless or actively lying about the state of the job market for recent grads.  In the September/October 2012 edition of the New York State Bar Association's State Bar News, there is an article entitled "Moving ahead on legal education reform: NYSBA looks to raise the bar for the profession's next generation."  In it, the past President of the NYSBA, Stephen B. Younger (who is a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler), is described as saying that "he does not believe the problem is that there are too many attorneys on the market, but that they are seeking positions in a limited number of areas.  For example, [Younger] said, as a result of law school costs rising faster than salaries, young lawyers are eschewing jobs in lower-paying, high-need areas and seeking high-paying jobs to pay off their law school loans."  This isn't a direct quote, so it's possible something could have been lost when Younger was paraphrased by the writer, but as written, the article certainly gives the impression that Younger is, at best, so clueless about the state of the market for entry-level attorneys that he thinks people are actually turning down paying jobs because they don't pay enough to allow them to service their loans, and at worst, knowingly peddling the lie that there are lower-paying attorney jobs available to keep the scam going.  
 (I wasn't able to find the referenced article on line so I can't link to it).   It never ceases to amaze me how people in this business simply make up whatever story suits their purpose of the moment. It's even more amazing that somebody like Younger probably believes what he's saying, even though he can't possibly have any evidence for the existence of a non-existent trend.

Speaking of evidence, a lawyer informs me that right here in the little town of Boulder this ad (salary: $32,000 [!] for a full-time litigation associate, experience preferred) generated more than 40 applications in less than a week, several from graduates of top law schools.

143 comments:

  1. This interview should be required reading for all prospectives.

    Although somehow I think NESL will be able to find enough mouthbreathing incorrigibles to fill its seats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fact that the main crisis we discuss here is incredibly difficult to solve doesn't also mean we shouldn't solve the problems that are genuinely very easy to solve.

    For example, I just e-mailed Stephen B. Younger at his firm (spyounger@pbwt.com) to ask him to connect me with someone who has one of these lower-paying job openings he talked about recently.

    You can too: spyounger@pbwt.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Love the comparison of law professors in denial to the French aristocracy. I also like to imagine the deans as the Iraq Information Minister doing his best to deflect reality.

    "No, you guys, the city isn't burning! That's just the kids having a barbecue! "

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I'm of the old fashioned opinion that there's a difference between being an academic and a salesman."

    Haha . . . . Great.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reform student debt now. It enriches the faculty and impoverishes the students.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make the debtors pay their debts. Down with deadbeats.

      Delete
  6. Perhaps My Younger would care to open a law office in a strip mall in Syracuse and make a living doing real estate closings and simple wills to demonstrate to these lazy ingrates how it's done.

    RPL

    ReplyDelete
  7. 32k a year! Talk about a dead end job. Have fun being a lackey. ABA that to have a proper standard of living with student loan debt, one would have to make roughly 65k a year.

    You get what you pay for.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a facilities maintenance job that pays as much, depending on experience.
    http://boulder.craigslist.org/mnu/3295316196.html

    And in yet another illustration that the only people who make money in a gold rush are the suppliers, and the only ones who profit from war are arms dealers, see this:
    http://boulder.craigslist.org/lgl/3265405138.html

    That's right. LSAT instructor wanted in Boulder.

    Just plain crazy.

    It's a cultural and status thing, not an economic problem. Middle class boomers want their kids to pursue the "education is good" path. President Obama told an unemployed grad last week that education is a way to employment. The fact of the matter is that this is no longer true, and baby boomers are incapable of appreciating it.

    So, the dentists, and insurance agents, and middle managers, and government bureaucrats tell young Cameron that law school is a good path forward. What they mean is, "when I was your age, law school was a good path forward," though evidence suggests that this hasn't been true since 1985.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The ABA is shameful. It has no respect or sympathy for the future of this profession. If it did, it would regulate the profession.

    Why would our government enable students to enter a saturated profession, with taxpayer money, so that they can be saddled with debt for decades, and so that law schools can avoid reforms or difficult choices?

    It just makes no damn sense, except that it allows a politician to say, "the government is making education accessible to all, regardless of their financial circumstance." The just hope you ignore what their system does to the poor bastards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As soon as you turn off the student loan spigot, there will be a hue and a cry from every minority corner about being denied access to higher education.

      So the government will continue to enable.

      Delete
    2. I'm just waiting for student loan debt to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. For the past four years, the only way I've been able to make a living is by doing bankruptcy work. The housing market has bottomed, the unemployment rate is flat and consumers are no longer charging up their credit cards. I need bankruptcy reform to keep the bankruptcy bubble going...so I can pay off my student loans from law school. Only $25,000 more to go :)

      Delete
  10. I've heard stories from old timers of depression-era law graduates who worked in factories or as night security guards for years as their primary job, until the market rebounded.

    The market was far less saturated then (like 20 percent as many lawyers as today). I fear that there is a long way to fall still. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if a decade's worth of law graduates find no real employment as attorneys.

    There is something really wrong with a system that allows that to happen. Frankly, it's far better to restructure and tell seventy-five percent of would-be lawyers "no, you can't enter" as the med schools do, than to take all comers with nothing for them to do and no way to pay back the debt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the market will suck for about another ten years. I graduated in 2002 and have classmates that are still not employed- either at all or in a legal profession. Many of those are no longer licensed. The number of new graduates peaked a couple of years ago and many of those are unable to find work. However, you've got a lot of practicing attorneys in their 50s and 60s who are closing in on retirement. Once they retire the herd will be culled and balance will be restored.

      Delete
  11. Sooner or later this whole house of cards is going to fall, the question is...When?

    ReplyDelete
  12. More evidence: I ran into a friend yesterday who just moved back to Colo from NY. She can't find a job and is doing doc review for $20/hr. There are over 500 JD's working with her for between 20-30 per hour. After following this blog for the past several months, I am not surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just to clarify, you can only get the book for free if you have both a Prime account (free trial with .edu email address) AND a Kindle (actual Kindle, not just the Kindle App).

    Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000739811

    If I'm wrong, and there is a way to get this for free, please correct me so I can feel bad about spending the $5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can send Kindle books to the Kindle Cloud Reader instead of a Kindle. You read it on your PC via an internet browser:
      http://read.amazon.com/about

      Delete
  14. Read some of the TLS threads about 3Ls from T6 schools who don't have jobs. There was a thread by a girl who moved back to Texas and is going to waitress to make money. She doesn't yet realize that she was scanned because she went to a great school. But still no job.

    I think a person who is waitressing will take a low paying law job or anything that will help her with her schools LRAP.


    I want to tell all the people studying so hard for the LSAT - stop now. There is still a huge information disconnect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because everyone can't find a job doesn't mean that everyone was scammed.

      Delete
    2. When I was looking into law school (1999), the amount of disinformation out there was incredible. Every school was claiming their graduates had 90% employment within 6 months of graduation. The entry-level incomes for attorneys were advertised by the schools to be $65k per year. Student loan debt was encouraged as an "investment". Ten years after graduation, half of my classmates are not employed in legal jobs. It took me a year to find a job- I was lucky because I was willing to move to the end of the Earth and work as a public defender in a county three hours away from any major (population of more than 30,000) city. My starting pay was $32,000 without benefits (about $10,000 more per year than I made as a stock clerk working forty hours a week before law school). My average work week was 80 hours. After two years I was able to lateral to a private firm making $36,000 a year (again, working 70-80 hours/week). Two years there and I moved to a third firm making $42,000/year.After seven years of practicing law I made it to the imaginary $65000 starting income that was advertised by my school- I consider myself very, very lucky to have a job. Everything I learned at law school was worthless- the adjuncts were the only ones with real-world experience. The tenured faculty were a joke. My criminal law professor taught us Pennsylvania common law (despite my school being in Washington state) and had not practiced law for 20+ years. My bankruptcy professor spent two weeks teaching us about how airline terminal slots are treated in bankruptcy- needless to say, I have yet to meet a bankruptcy client who has an airline terminal as an asset. My evidence professor had gone to trial four times in her career (I went to trial four times in my first month in practice).

      Delete
  15. Oh, LawProf, Megan McArdle is one of the stupidest people on the entire planet!!! How can you stand to spend even 15 min. with her?

    For a true portrait, go over to TBogg's blog at FireDogLake. He gives her the description she deserves.

    Shaking head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So that must mean this interview has no value whatever.

      Chuckling (at you).

      Delete
    2. I give LawProf credit for being able to finesse an interview. I just sympathize re having to sit down with Megan McArdle, an entitled, foolish woman.

      [Go research some of her cooking entries, her "wish list" re her wedding, and her paen to Himalayan pink salt.]

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I know all about Megan McArdle, and my point stands. What is yours?

      Delete
    4. HueyLewis writes, "I know all about Megan McArdle, and my point stands. "

      What point was that?

      Just askin' b/c I don't see any other posts by you here today - did you get censored or something?

      Delete
    5. I was 10:25 but I forgot to sign in.

      My point is that the message trumps the medium in this case. Not a McArdle fan in the least, but I think this is a good, informative piece and I would gladly direct it to someone considering LS as a good overview of why that may not be such a good idea.

      Delete
    6. 11:44 here - gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

      Delete
  16. That $32k a year in Boulder, Colorado, is particularly jarring when one considers what it costs to actually reside in Boulder. Of course, one could just commute from Arvada or Broomfeild...

    ReplyDelete
  17. At my law school I'm pretty sure that every single 1L from last year returned for 2L.

    Given that very, very many of these students had shitty 1L years, and given that it's a second rate (ranked 70 something I think?) school, what does that say?

    Also, the new 1L class just seems so damn cheery and optimistic. What hope actually is there OTHER than reforming the loan side? The demand side is always going to be too high relative the need.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody is forcing anyone to attend law school. There is a ton of information available about the down market for attorneys. People are free to make poor choices.

      Delete
    2. This information is relatively new (past couple of years)- thanks in large part to Campos. I don't have much sympathy for newer attendees of law school since there is a lot more info out there- still, these schools continue to lie and misrepresent job prospects and salaries to incoming students while handing out debt like it is crack. When I showed up for orientation, we were sent to financial aid and told that the monthly repayment plans we'd have if we took out $60-$75k in loans were really manageable considering we'd be making that much per year right out of law school. We were encouraged to take on more debt by the school and they produced charts showing 90% of us would be employed in the field within six months of graduation- "Career services has a great record of placement- the best in the state" was one line that was fed to us. I feel really bad for those who entered school in 2003-2008. Most of these graduates will never find a job in their profession and be stuck with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for life- while administrators, hack professors, and faculty go laughing to the bank.

      Delete
    3. We had 165 students my first year. About 15 were gone by the second year. Two or three because they just couldn't hack it, the rest transferred to other schools. About ten students were gone after the second year- 8 or 9 of those were called up for military service after 9/11 (they were national guard/reserves). We ended up with 137 graduating. I can only think of one student who "failed" out. The beauty of grading on a curve.

      Delete
  18. The worst thing about the $32k a year job in Boulder, Colorado is that at least 45% of law school graduates can't even get a crummy low-paying law job like this one. Only the lucky 55%ers even practice law after graduating law school.

    ReplyDelete
  19. LawProf

    Be careful with Megan McArdle, who is a "journalist" with vested interests. Just be aware that some type of spin might be coming from your interview.

    Please read the following:

    Project S.H.A.M.E: Megan Mcardle

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/project-s-h-a-m-e-on-megan-mcardle-portrait-of-a-taxpayer-subsidized-libertarian.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Given that very, very many of these students had shitty 1L years, and given that it's a second rate (ranked 70 something I think?) school, what does that say?"


    I do know one person from my law school class (similar mediocre school ranking) who almost flunked out (I think he had a 1.7 after 1L year) and now has a "good" law job making six figures. So that's one decent outcome out of the 100 or so individuals in the bottom quarter of my class.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not to start a political flame here, but this is the end result of the belief that it is the place of government to help people (e.g. interfere with a free market place) with every challenge or problem of life. Power corrupts, money and power always find each other, etc. etc. Any time government spends a pot of money on something, the process is inevitably corrupted because those who want to feed at the public trough will find a way to curry favor with those who man the trough. We saw what resulted when the fed. govt. decided everyone needed to own a home, and decided to "help" those who could not get a mortgage on their own. Same thing with "helping" anyone who wants a college education, law degree, etc to finance it at public expense.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 32K in Boulder? WTF? Isn't Boulder about like NYC in terms of COL? If that is all I could find coming out of law school I would just give up being a lawyer and try to find another gig while I was still young enough.

    That job ad should be plastered on every bulletin board in all the law schools in CO. Esp. when OL's visit the campus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If that was all I could find coming out of law school..."

      Au contraire. They actually want an EXPERIENCED litigator for their $32K.

      Delete
  23. Duzzit pay by the point?September 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    9:23, "That's right. LSAT instructor wanted in Boulder. "

    Interesting. They don't mention pay but do state up front that a qualification for applying to this job is to have an official LSAT yourself of 164 or greater.

    So, do you get to argue for higher hourly pay for each point you're above the minimum 164?

    ReplyDelete
  24. all you Megan McArdle hatersSeptember 25, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    All you Megan McArdle haters may or may not have a point about her being a double-secret right wing neocon ultraconservative, BUT:

    This is at least two interviews now (counting the obesity interview also linked) where McArdle has done nothing but lob easy softballs for Prof_C to hit out of the park.

    So maybe he's also an incognito double-secret right wing neocon ultraconservative and they're just birds of a feather.

    (j/k)

    ReplyDelete
  25. @11:19
    So the "free market" would only allow rich people to go to law school. Talented people who have no money could go find wok else where. Just because someone's parents have money does not mean that is a solution to the higher education crisis.

    A real solution would be bankruptcy with the catch that if you bankrupt your law school loans you cannot be licensed as an attorney, or you have to wait 10 years to sit for the bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could go find a Wok on every corner in SFSeptember 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM

      "So the "free market" would only allow rich people to go to law school. "

      No, if there was an actual free market in LS education, very very few would be charging 15X what they were charging 25 years ago (using today's dollars).

      Delete
    2. Exactly. Effectively it is now the government that is paying for law school. The wonder, therefore, is not that it costs three times as much as it did, but that it doesn't cost ten time as much as it did.

      And who knows how many more times than it is worth.

      -- Porsenna

      Delete
    3. In a free market if you do not have MONEY you cannot go to college or law school.

      The tuition could be 10k a year. If you and your family cant afford to pay you can't go.

      So a free market only allows for rich people to go to college.

      There are schools that are ABA accredited that cost less than 12k a year!

      Delete
  26. "Student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy after a few years"

    anyone foolish enough to go to law school now should be straddled with the consequences of their actions for a long time. in fact, discharging student loan debt for new students would not nothing to stem the flow of new law students. if anything, more would go knowing that they would not be held accountable if they did not win the lotto and were able to pay bacl their loans.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Let's face it -- the American standard of living is going DOWN DOWN DOWN. Everyone in this country is going to have to make do with less.

    The pain is just going to hit people at different times. Right now the public sector is still flying high from overinflated salaries & pension benefits. This is because they have unions with enormous political capital which can broker corrupt deals w/ corrupt politicians.

    Unfortunately the legal field doesn't have unions. And it was a bit of a scam in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not everyone's standard of living is going down. Mine continues to spiral ever upward.

      Delete
    2. Oh thank God for you, Anonymous 5:46, thank God for you, for coming to let us know that your SOL is spiraling ever upward.

      Just - thank God for you.

      Delete
    3. The legal field does have a union- it is called the state bar association.

      Delete
  28. @11:45--Talented people with no money have always been able to qualify for scholarships.

    And once upon a time, when there was a "free market" in higher education, before the govt. got into the education financing business, people who were not rich and did not get scholarships could actually put themselves through law school by working an extra/part time job and saving up to pay for tuition. With the astronomical tuition today, that is just not possible, unless you make so much money you don't need to get another degree anyway. And the tuition is astronomical today because law schools know they can charge whatever they want, and the government will hand it over with no questions asked. End the federal student loan scheme and tuition will drop like a brick thrown into the water--to the point where one would not have to be rich to pay for law school out-of-pocket.

    BTW I agree completely regarding bankruptcy--I would even go along with the Canadian approach (after 7 yrs). The lenders at this point have no skin in the game--BK would force them to evaluate whether a loan would actually stand a chance of being paid back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There will be no reform of bankruptcy laws to address student loans. Give up the pipe dream.

      Delete
    2. Where are there need-based scholarships for law school?

      Delete
  29. I think the Boulder ad is a prank. That's such a ridiculuous salary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen many others like it.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I've come to believe it. Crazy.
      I can expand my pracice at that rate, that is less than I pay my non-professional employees! But it seems wrong to me.

      Delete
  30. LP, you're not understanding the problem with charging for DGLTSU on Amazon. Even if some people can read the book for free via Amazon, the bottom line is that you are documenting the existence of what you agree is a "scam." You are continuing to profit from that scam by receiving a salary paid for by unemployable students who suffer any number of personal and professional consequences (again, as documented on this blog.) The argument has been made here - and I'll accept it - that you should still continue to remain in your tenured job, because it allows you to publicize the scam with the credibility you have as a law professor at a T1 school. But your receiving funds in addition to your salary based on the existence of the scam is reprehensible.

    Brian Tamanaha recognizes this: as he posted on your blog with respect to the publication of his book, "To the skeptics who ask, I have donated to LST (they read this blog and can confirm it if they want to), and I created a scholarship fund (in my wife's name) for our students in the amount of what I expect to earn on the book. I get that this will not be enough to make up for my sins in the eyes of many readers of this blog." (See comments section here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/and-new-york-times-said-law-is-dead.html)

    And in fact, you were on the right track before, when you wrote here (http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/01/law-school-transparencys-2012-index.html): "In the five months of this blog's existence, a few generous souls have suggested in comments that I take donations for writing it. Those suggestions misunderstand the nature of the work being done here. The 150 entries I've published over that time represent an integral part of the job I'm paid to do as a member of an academic enterprise.
    By contrast, the creators of Law School Transparency aren't being paid by anyone to do the genuinely invaluable work they've been doing for more than two years now. PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO THEIR SITE."

    To maintain any credibility, you need to emulate Tamanaha with any funds received from your e-book. I honestly had expected you would automatically do as much; apparently I had a higher opinion of you than was warranted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You fail at ethics and logic. Leave LP alone, freak.

      Delete
    2. I bet the fact this criticism comes from you in particular, Anonymous, makes it particularly compelling to LP.

      Delete
    3. @ SmallTown Boy(freak): so did Tamanaha also fail at ethics and logic?

      Delete
    4. Holy shit you're boring Anonymous @ 12:08PM.

      Delete
    5. Leave Brittney ALONESeptember 25, 2012 at 1:00 PM

      "I honestly had expected you would automatically do as much; apparently I had a higher opinion of you than was warranted."


      I honestly think that you have a higher opinion of yourself than does anyone else. Much higher than is warranted.

      Who are you (seriously) to demand answers? From LP or from anyone else? Yet you childishly seem to believe you deserve answers. You don't.

      Heck, if I was LP, I would donate whatever pittance comes of the e-book sales to LST (e.g.), but email to YOU a jpeg of a shiny new $100K roadster and tell you that book sales were so smashing I was able to go buy this car, cash in hand.

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous freak
      Brian T. can do what he likes. If he donated the $$ to the Red Cross, that wouldn 't obligate LP to do the same, mm'kay?

      Delete
    7. "Who are you (seriously) to demand answers? From LP or from anyone else? Yet you childishly seem to believe you deserve answers. You don't."

      This blog is about holding law school employees (professors and administrators) who profit in any way from the "scam" responsible. My comments are consistent with that. I don't personally need any answers from LP. I'm just pointing out his ridiculous hypocrisy.

      Delete
    8. Leave Brittney ALONESeptember 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

      "My comments are consistent with that. I don't personally need any answers from LP."

      Now that, neighbor, is a pure bunk answer.

      If you didn't "personally need any answers", why are you going on and on with the "more in sorrow than in anger" type guilt trip?

      You're either not very introspective (and thus fooling yourself), or you're just plain dishonest about your feelings, but either way, y'ain't a-foolin' this peanut gallery.

      P.S. What kind of shiny new roadster do you think LP should get with his book proceeds?

      Delete
    9. "you're just plain dishonest about your feelings"

      I've been very clear about my feelings: I've lost respect for LP as a result of his failing to make clear that he will not profit from his e-book, and I think he is a hypocrite. However, I don't think he's obligated to provide me or anyone else with an explanation of his hypocrisy, and he has not.

      Delete
    10. I plump for the electric Tesla roadster, he's earned it!

      Delete
    11. anonymous freak,
      i bet you have a sackcloth and ashes fetish, too

      Delete
    12. I'm going to have an Oktoberfest. Anyone want one?

      Delete
    13. Leave Brittney ALONESeptember 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM

      "I've lost respect for LP as a result "

      - See, it is about you.



      "However, I don't think he's obligated to provide me or anyone else with an explanation of his hypocrisy"

      - Two things here.
      - First, you have no clue whether there's any hypocrisy involved, even by your definition. For all you know, he may already be donating proceeds to LST or the Scholly For Homeless Calicos Fund. You simply assume that he is not, because he hasn't reported anything here. And of course, you have repetitively proved the old adage about "assume", but that's another topic.
      - Second, I now hope fervently that LP never bothers to tell us what he's doing with the cool $1000 he will make (my estimate) on this e-book, just so you can continue to simmer and stew in your envy-driven unrighteous indignation.


      Have a Nice Day!

      Delete
    14. Leave Brittney ALONESeptember 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

      "I'm going to have an Oktoberfest. Anyone want one?"


      Dude, if you've figured out that email matter-transmission deal, I want more than an Oktoberfest. I want marketing rights.

      Delete
    15. While I agree with your general points that LawProf could have gone the Tamanaha route to generate goodwill off the bat, I would point out that the book is meant for and really only valuable for 0Ls who have not yet been scammed. It would be very different if the book was targeted for law school grads (they can of course still buy it but it obviously can't help them at this point).

      That book did require time and effort to write. For the tremendous value it may have for an 0L, asking him/her to spend $5 for it, I don't think is unreasonable at all, even if LawProf gets all $5/book as personal profit.

      So you can look at it as Lawprof "profiting off the existence of the scam" I guess. But I think its more fair to say that Lawprof spent effort and time helping 0Ls make a life changing decision and if he gets compensated for that, I don't see it as unreasonable.

      Also the 0L isn't exactly forced to buy it or can't get the same info by just reading old blog posts here for free.

      Delete
  31. 32K in Boulder is no prank. I know several solos who would love to make that much in BoCo. Too bad he/she will not be able to live here unless he/she wants to share a room with a college student for $500/mo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's incredible. I guess I can knock some $$$ off what I pay my guys. But, I'm afraid theyd leave. Hmmmm.

      Delete
  32. @11:02 AM - Former college athlete, very socially adept, and great at networking.

    ReplyDelete
  33. LawProf
    Please please please read this column and destroy it piece by piece - this guy Steven Davidoff makes so many absurd claims you may not know where to start - he accepts at face value school reported "employment statistics", he cites Obama and Romney for the versatility of the JD and he cites BLS average salary without considering that BLS only includes those who are employed or were employed as lawyers in the labor market - he completely ignores the never employed - and of course he justifies the ridiculous salaries paid to lawprofs by comparing them to biglaw partners who work ten times harder and longer -

    just go get 'em.

    http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-economics-of-law-school/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an atrocious article.

      Delete
    2. I got through 1/3 of it, threw up in mouth, cussed at computer screen...and went back to billing hours. :(.

      Delete
    3. I attempted to post a comment to that piece of crap article and it was censored. It just disappeared into the Internet ether. I didn't even use any curse words!! WTF is that about?

      I really hope that Mr. Davidoff is not breeding.

      Delete
    4. "I really hope that Mr. Davidoff is not breeding."


      Not breeding what?

      Delete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ^^^^^Dammit the typos and the beer!

    But anyways, it's no fun without me. Right youse guys?

    But I said I would not comment any more, and so I won't comment any....more :)

    It is kind of like the difference between a bird with one wing and a bird with two wings.

    "It is alls a matter of a pinion."

    Oscar Wilde
    The Importance of Being Earnest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glug glug glug...

      Reposted JD Painter's comment for posterity:

      >>>>>>>>>>

      "^^^^^Dammit the typos and the beer!

      But anyways, it's no fun without me. Right youse guys?

      But I said I would not comment any more, and so I won't comment any....more :)

      It is kind of like the difference between a bird with one wing and a bird with two wings.

      "It is alls a matter of a pinion."

      Oscar Wilde
      The Importance of Being Earnest"

      <<<<<<<<<<

      Delete
  36. Why are you consuming beer so early?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ??

      It was after noon, after all.

      Delete
  37. @5:51PM My rendition of a Goy or rather mule celebrating Yom Kippur Eve?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are the oil fields of North Dakota?

      Delete
  38. You lasted all of five days since you claimed to be quitting.

    What a surprise.

    Go back to your own blog and repost your grades for the twentieth time.

    It looks like this commenter called you 100% correctly:

    http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/09/when-levee-breaks.html?showComment=1348163078309#c2750098429773360142

    This is your MO. Leave in a public flurry of self-pity, then return when you think we've all forgotten.

    Just go. You attract the wrong sort of attention. This place was nice and peaceful and focused since you left. Now it will turn into a shithole of comments again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. why do you get off on people calling you an asshole in public? Do you think it somehow helps your situation?

      Delete
  39. "This blog is about holding law school employees (professors and administrators) who profit in any way from the "scam" responsible. My comments are consistent with that. I don't personally need any answers from LP. I'm just pointing out his ridiculous hypocrisy."

    Exactly what is the "hypocrisy" here? It seems somewhat ridiculous to say that he is now profiting from the scam by writing a book attacking the scam. Using this logic, a person connected to law schools but chooses to keep quiet is morally superior than LawProf writing a book helping 0L avoid being scammed???

    The book is meant for prospective law students. While it would be a good gesture if he donated all the proceeds, I don't see how it is unreasonable for an 0L to compensate LawProf for helping him choose wisely on a life-altering decision.

    How many here who have been "scammed" would have gladly paid, $50, $100 for this same book, never mind the price for fast food lunch?

    If he helps a lot of 0Ls out and can convince their clueless Boomer parents as well, he deserves every penny of profit he gets.

    ReplyDelete
  40. OMG who cares if he is selling the book? $5? Big whoop. You people are so naive if you think everything in life is free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. This. Campos is 100x classier than some of the riff-raff that will inevitably attach themselves to his legitimate and just cause.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, such as that nincompoop who keeps posting photos of excrement in a toilet bowl.

      Delete
    3. His parents must be so proud.

      - "What does your son do? A lawyer, right?"
      - "Er, yes."
      - "What practice area?"
      - "Er . . . victim advocacy."
      - "You must be very proud."
      - (Goes red) "Yes, he's done so well for himself."
      - "Where does he work?"
      - (Goes redder) "Online."
      - "Oh, that's interesting. Can I have his web address?"
      - (Sweats) "No, that's not really necessary."
      - "Ok, I'll look up his name."
      - (Eyes wide) "No, no, please."
      - "What's wrong?"
      - "I'm ashamed. He posts pictures of shit in toilets."
      - "Excuse me? We're talking about Nando?"
      - "Yes. He went nuts. I don't know where we went wrong. He was such a nice boy. Now all he does is post pictures of shit online. He's such a disgrace. But he won't stop. He thinks he's actually helping."
      - (Walks away, laughing at the biggest story of failure since she spoke to Painter's parents the day before.)

      Delete
    4. And imagine his résumé. "Self-employed essayist for the legal profession. Articles highlight my fecal fetish."

      Delete
    5. 8:56AM and 9:05AM, thanks for giving me a much-needed laugh. I have always wondered why Nando thinks it is appropriate to be fixated on excrement. What a weirdo.

      Delete
  41. 9:54 - The T6 graduate who returned to Texas to waitress isn't stupid. She was admitted to Columbia or wherever after all. But she made a very stupid decision in law schools. She should have gone to the University of Texas. Texas only places half as many of it's graduates in biglaw. But with the higher LSAT she needed to gain admission to a T6 school (it averages 4-5 points) she probably would have graduated further up in her class and had a chance at law review. But the big thing is $30,000/year in in-state tuition rather than $50,000. And with the cost of living at $12,000 a year rather than $27,000, she would have a $100,000 less in debt and a job. Probably left the Dallas suburbs at 17 to attend a plummy liberal arts college or the Ivy League never to come back. In the words of the old country western song "happiness is Texas in the rear view mirror." Sort of.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The most amazing thing about the ad included at the end of this post: it requires at least one year experience. So in addition to the cost of law school ($100,000) and bar fees (couple grand), the applicant will have had to have worked in unpaid internships (since no one hires any recent grads anymore - they all have to have a couple years of experience) for at least a year or so.

    All I can say to recent grads (as a recent grad myself), grads: unless mom and dad can support you for a few years while you take unpaid internship after internship to get those years of experience, you might as well hang a noose around your neck and jump. The legal field doesn't want you. They wish you would get rid of yourself. The sooner the better. Because there aint no way in hell, without a rich parent, that you will ever be practicing the law. And trust me, every night you will lie awake at night wondering why you paid that $100,000 for your ill-fated 'adventure.'

    What a waste of a life.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @12:08
    "noncom.......POOP..."?

    As a pun that's pretty bad.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Not that it matters or that anyone besides me should care, but I'm the anonymous commenter who originally floated the e-book idea a few months back. I'm delighted to see that the book is now a reality! (Even if I had zero to do with it.) I will gladly pay the list price, by way of supporting LawProf's good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm the anonymous commenter who originally floated the e-book idea a few months back."

      - Oh Goodie! Wonder when PC started writing his e-book. Think it took more than a few months? (Dunno)


      "Not that it matters or that anyone besides me should care, but..."

      - (My son's favorite line from the movie "Cars"):
      "Then why'd ya bring it up, ya Lemon?!?"

      Delete
    2. "Think it took more than a few months?"

      Fifty thousand words (a short book) of derivative material?

      Probably took a month or two at most. Rather thrifty when it came to editing, too. (One of the perils of self publishing).

      Delete
  45. The $5 book debate is getting silly. Here's how to look at it.

    Assume the book was written by any other law professor. Any one of them. Pick at random. Now imagine the outcry on this blog that a law professor was making money from a book about the scam. There would be universal cries to have him or her donate every penny to LST, to quit teaching, and to generally go to hell for commercializing the scam, even by a token amount.

    But somehow, it's different because it's our fearless leader?

    The real lapse of ethics is not Campos charging for his book. It's the inability of the readers of this blog to apply their own standards consistently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err . . Tamanaha has a book out, and there's a total abscence of controversy over the fact that he's charging for it. So no, the controversy is preposterous, and you should go find some other thread to troll.

      Delete
    2. "The real lapse of ethics is not Campos charging for his book. It's the inability of the readers of this blog to apply their own standards consistently."

      Hark! Do I hear the fraudsters themselves yelling about the immorality of scammed law graduates knowing what side their bread is buttered on? Oh dear.

      Delete
    3. Leave Brittney ALONE!September 26, 2012 at 8:28 AM

      @ 6:39, look up the word monomaniacal. Also, if some other, as-yet unconnected prof wrote a scam-e-book, you don't know what the hue and cry would be. But even if as you posit, so? Apples. Oranges. They'll never quite taste the same.


      @ 6:43, FOARP, this is not analogous actually because although BT is charging for his book, he also has already donated an advance toward his guesstimated proceeds. Not to give (kool) aid and comfort to the foolish Miss 6:39, but I does likes to keeps the facts straight, yes I does.

      Delete
    4. @Brittney - Fair enough, but as rough guesstimate, Campos will be lucky to break even at 5 dollars a pop. Profits from this will be zero.

      And jeez guys, it's not like he's:

      1) Telling people they stand a 95% chance of not messing up their lives and will make a 160K median salary after reading the book.

      2) Paying people to give positive reviews.

      3) Getting Amazon to 'lose' negative reviews.

      4) Get the government to loan his readers the money to buy his book by spamming the media with BS about 'access'.

      That would be the kind of shiat that the likely employers of the CamposCritics we see here pull on impressionable youngsters every day of the week.

      Delete
  46. What is silly is the assumption that at a cover price of $5 Campos does anything more than break even. I have written a least a couple of law books and $5 per would not even cover the expenses related to getting many of them set up.

    Most law books sell for somewhere in the $50+ range, even thin ones

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not about the money that's made or lost. It's about the appearance of making money.

      Delete
    2. Also, what are the expenses related to getting many of them set up? It sounds as though he has recast many of the arguments from this blog in e-book format. As someone posted upthread, he said that writing this blog was a part of his academic job that he got paid to do. This e-book should be the same.

      Delete
    3. Guys, stop talking this nonsense about Campos. The guy took the time to write the book, get it edited, put online so you can download it. You don't think there's some cost to him in doing that?

      Delete
  47. Article written by Dean of UC Hastings Law.

    Not really sure what he's trying to say but I loved when he talked about how at law schools which are part of a larger university, professors from other disciplines look down on law professors up for tenure given their lack of scholarship, young age, and high salaries...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-h-wu/law-school-dean-_b_1905103.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I respect the academic tradition of shared governance; this feature is distinctive to higher education, and does not appear in business contexts. Functioning as a true democracy, the faculty as a whole makes academic decisions ranging from who is hired as a colleague to what courses will be offered to how to set the grading curve."

      In light of this statement, I've tried to post several comments asking Dean Wu why he chose to raise tuition 15% in one year and 5% in subsequent years to make up for his class size. I have asked why he left this out of his press releases and editorials discussing how he is responding to the law school crisis. I also wonder whether the idea of faculty pay, perk, benefit cuts, or higher teaching loads was considered before increased burden on the students.

      I've had my comments deleted twice.

      Delete
    2. "I've had my comments deleted twice."

      HuffPo has in the last few years become increasingly over-moderated.

      My ID there has thousands of posts running back a number of years, but I can barely get one in edgewise so I've pretty much given up on the place.

      For a while a person's ID profile stats would show how many comments had been deleted by the mods. I was running several hundred deletions at the time they reconfigured the profiles and quit showing that particular stat.

      Hundreds of deletions. And I never, ever post foul language or engage in ad hominem attacks or do anything else in violation of the terms.

      Hundreds of deletions.

      Delete
    3. Dean Wu's article is pretty much a rambling pointless exercise, by the way.

      Delete
  48. OT -- Has anyone ever explored the idea of transferring down as a way to save money? For example, say Timmy 0L gets accepted by a T14 school, which offers him no scholarship money, and various lesser schools that offer him various amounts of aid. His choice is typically framed as one between paying full freight to get the brand recognition associated with the T14 and forgoing the strong brand in order to save money on tuition.

    What if this 0L instead went to the T14 for only one year, so that (1) his resume will show that he was accepted there and (2) he'll be able to take advantage of the brand in 1L and 2L recruiting, and transferring to a TTTT for his second and third years, where, one hopes, he would get substantial aid?

    The only potential downside I can think of is the risk that TTTTs wouldn't be willing to give any significant aid to someone who pursues this strategy, and that screeners looking at his resume would just assume that he flunked or was kicked out of the T14, without bothering to look at his transcript.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the money would still be there/offered by the TTT/TTTT for the 2L transfer who was offered same for the 1L year.

      Getting a "prize" (high gpa/lsat) student only helps the school's stats with respect to the entering 1L class.

      No one looks (or even reports) student stats in other years. So there's no incentive for the school to re-offer the scholly just because the kid decides to return from HYSCCN to (e.g.) Touro or NESL or Drake.

      Delete
    2. I'd like to see obligatory posting of median LSAT and such for every year, not just the first. I'm curious to know how far the bottom-end dumps drop once people at the top transfer up the ladder.

      Mind you, Cooley may well show a higher median LSAT score for its upper years, since letting a large number of lemmings fail out (lemmings that never should have been admitted in the first place) is part of its business model.

      Delete
  49. You should all check out the linked interview Campos did regarding the obesity panic. Very interesting stuff. I cringe whenever I see Michelle Obama telling us all what we should eat, or that fat kids are a threat to national security because they arent fit for military duty, and thus won't be cannon fodder for our various overseas adventures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I generally agree with campos' criticism of the obesity panic, I think the fitness for military duty discussion is close to the mark. Eventually, the Chinese are going to figure out that the american citizens of fighting age can't rouse their soft flesh from the xbox to defend the Homefront.

      Delete
    2. As someone who has served in the military, I can say without a doubt that there are so many recruits who show up absolutely unfit for duty simply because of fatness. As Americans, we have a very upward-skewed opinion of what is normal when it comes to weight.

      Please don't try to comment on this issue when you haven't seen first hand the pathetic physical abilities of plump people. Not even the fatties. Just being plump fucks you up as far as fighting fitness goes.

      Michelle is on the right track at least. Why do you cringe? Are you fat and offended?

      Delete
  50. "Why Are Business School Applications Declining?"

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/09/26/why-are-business-school-applications-declining/

    Maybe the name of this site should be changed from law school scam to higher education scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Business school applications decline for fourth consecutive year"

      http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/morning_call/2012/09/business-school-applications-decline.html

      Law school has always been slow to change. I suppose an MBA from TTT is even more worthless than a JD from TTT.

      Delete
  51. Off topic, but look at a post headed "How Much Taxpayer Money for Legal Education and Scholarship?" at Prawfsblawg today, and the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Assume the book was written by any other law professor. Any one of them. Pick at random. Now imagine the outcry on this blog that a law professor was making money from a book about the scam. There would be universal cries to have him or her donate every penny to LST, to quit teaching, and to generally go to hell for commercializing the scam, even by a token amount."


    It would depend on what the book was about. If it were a book trying to help struggling grads, then yes I think there would be an outcry about trying to exploit the scammed victims a second time. But if it were a Tamahana or Campos type book, then no I don't think there would be any outcry at all. Why would there be outcry against anyone who is speaking out against the scam?


    ReplyDelete
  53. Bam Bam, Malloy:

    China actually has the same problem with overweight recruits

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/battle-of-the-bulge/

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'm going to have a Pumpkin Ale. Anyone want one?

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Off topic, but look at a post headed "How Much Taxpayer Money for Legal Education and Scholarship?" at Prawfsblawg today, and the comments."

    -----

    Here is one "interesting" comment there:

    "...there's no imbalance between the supply of law graduates and the demand for them. The demand for law graduates is much larger than the number of legal jobs available. Many people go to law school intending to enter business, government, or the non-profit world rather than practice law. There have always been more law graduates than law jobs, just as there have always been more math graduates than math jobs. Degrees are versatile and valuable outside of the profession of law."

    -----

    Very good trolling if that's what it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesterday someone at law school told me that I can do anything (other than practicing law, apparently) with a law degree. I asked what exactly. She evaded the question. I repeated it. She said "I don't know".

      Delete
    2. Yeah now quite confident that "Anon" is Leiter.

      Delete
    3. What the fuck is a "math job"?

      Delete
  56. @2:39 PM--I certainly agree military recruits have to be fit to do their job. But if someone does not want to join the military, what they eat or the size of their ass is just none of the government's business.

    I also object to stigmatizing fat kids on the grounds that they are unpatriotic because they are too flabby for the motherland to use in the latest nation-building boondoggle or unconstitutional war (e.g. Libya).

    BTW Im 5'9 and 160 lbs--30 inch waist.

    ReplyDelete
  57. No post today? Law professors are such a lazy lot . . . ;-))

    ReplyDelete
  58. Fat people are not only unpatriotic, they are gross looking (and usually smelling).

    Individually, maybe none of the government's concern. But collectively, when so many out of shape turds are out there that it becomes a national security concern, then it is what it is.

    Lazy capitalist pigs.

    ReplyDelete
  59. According to the Inside the Law School Scam blog, “Clearly, the fact that law schools have produced an enormous oversupply of people with law degrees over the course of the last generation has an extremely significant gender component.”
    phlebotomy training colorado

    ReplyDelete

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