Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Nickel and dimed

Recently I've been nominated for a couple of law school dean positions.  I've even toyed with the idea of formally applying.  Although unlike Mitt Romney and Donald Trump I can't claim to enjoy firing people per se, I do think I'd positively relish the opportunity to give the ziggy to the significant percentage of employees at the typical law school who deserve to have their sinecures terminated with extreme prejudice.

Unfortunately there are many key aspects to the job -- staying alert during long administrative meetings, sucking up constantly to rich people, uttering pious nonsense on appropriate public occasions -- that I would be terrible at.  But if (or rather when) some intrepid chancellor decides he or she needs a ruthless hatchet man, who will know how to cut a payroll drastically with little or no loss of educational quality . . .

Also, I wouldn't ever do stuff like this:

From: ELS 2014 Students [LAW2014STUDENTS@LISTSERV.CC.EMORY.EDU] on behalf of Jones, Lindsay [LRJONES@emory.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:17 PM
To: LAW2014STUDENTS@LISTSERV.CC.EMORY.EDU
Subject: Mandatory Registration and Payment for Trial Techniques Program
Class of 2014 and certain members of the Class of 2013:

All Emory Law Students are required to register for the Kessler-Edison Program for Trial Techniques during their second year of study.  Those students in their third year of study who did not register or complete the program during their second year because of a joint-degree waiver during their second year, or due to conflicts or other reasons that prevented them from completing the program during their second year, must also register and complete the program as a prerequiste to graduation. 

In order to complete your registeration for the program, all students will be required to pay a course materials fee on-line via a credit card.  The fee of $135 covers the cost of hard copy and electronic case files and other reading materials, as well as a ditigal video card, which will be distributed to students on the January 7, 2013, at the beginning of the spring semester, and during the week long May session of the program that commences on May 4, 2013, and concludes on May 10, 2013.  In addition, the program provides lunch for students on the weekend and trial dates of the program (four days), as well as two receptions with faculty.

To register and pay for your course materials fee, go to the following link:

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3281

Students must visit register and pay their course materials fee by December 1, 2012.

With Regards,

Hon. Lindsay R.M. Jones,
Associate Director
Center for Advocacy and Dispure Resolution
Emory University School of Law
This missive was sent to me by an understandably exasperated Emory student, who wonders what exactly the $45,000 per year in tuition he and his fellow students are charged is going towards.  Now on one level what's another $135 when you're being billed $135,000 in tuition alone for an opportunity to go try to find a job in Nebraska?  But on quite another, we're talking about a grand total of $37,000 or thereabouts, which the school is passing through to its 2Ls, rather than digging around in the couch cushions of the school's $50 million per year operating budget.

Leaving aside matters of ethics, law school administrators need to understand that the symbolic optics of this sort of thing are terrible.  It's not 2007 any more -- the natives are getting restless, and you should really avoid annoying them unnecessarily.  If you have to, tell your faculty that they'll be taking a couple of fewer trips to Lake Como -- oh the joys of "international law!" -- and cut back on the free booze at the AALS reception, or whatever. 

132 comments:

  1. Law Prof,

    You should definitely apply for the law school dean positions. Interview and be brutally honest about everything. See what happens. It will make for great blog material.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My school charges $70 graduation fee. I went to the office to tell that I want a refund since I will not be attending my graduation. I was politely told that I need to stop nickeling and diming the school.

    The fat fin aid woman looked at me like I was some welfare queen trying to free ride.

    Also, this year I put down exact amount for student loans to just cover tuition (usually i just rounded up to 40K and got a small refund). When I tried to change my schedule after august 1, I found out i had a hold a hold to my account because I did not pay the tuition.

    Turns out there is a 4% origination fee. And because I put down exact amount the origination cut into my tuition. I guess the graduation fee did not help either.

    So I had to call fin aid office to take out more loans on my name because I could not use a single service from the university. The hold works quick, could not even swipe my ID to go to the gym.

    Assholes want money and they want it in full and up-front. And they will not tolerate $400, shortfall for a single moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After you graduate, you'll get a call asking for donations too.

      Delete
    2. Ya, they follow you the rest of your life asking for $.

      Delete
  3. If you were to apply to and accept such a position, the hiring school would then claim to be "on the cutting edge." The school would tell its donors, alumni and students "Look! Our dean has discussed the legal job market in depth. We care about YOU! Apply today!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are the four lunches catered? All you can eat buffet? And if there is free booze at the two receptions at least these kids will get something of value for their 135$.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @7:53,

    Have I profiled your school yet? These pigs have some nerve telling a student that he's "nickeling and diming" the law school - when those bastards have financially ruined small armies of recent JDs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have good sir. In fact a while back you forwarded me some materials which I used to stir up some discontent among the student population. Students were pissed but as we know there is no recourse for a pissed student.

      Delete
  6. Emory Law a.k.a the LS whose CDC offers donuts instead of jobs

    ReplyDelete
  7. Love your blog Prof. Campos, but I just can't work up any outrage today. Your argument is that it's wrong for law schools to a) have required courses and/or b) charge for materials for those courses? Every educational program I'm aware of both has some mandatory classes *and* expects students to pay for books and other materials (photocopies, lab materials, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the argument isn't that this is an "outrage," but rather that it's not a good idea to create a new course requirement and then stick students with a fee that would be trivial for the school to pick up, but which will be a burden to the individual credit cards of many already broke students.

      IOW, don't be so cheap when you're already dealing with an increasingly pissed off student body.

      Delete
    2. Anon @ 8:20, please read the post, starting with the title. Have somebody explain to you what the term means.

      Delete
  8. The real outrage here is that a part-time municipal judge is sending an e-mail to students -- in his teaching rather than judicial capacity -- and signing it
    "Hon. Lindsay R.M. Jones"

    What a prick! You can send judicial correspondence signed "Hon." or appear that way on an official biography, but come on. If you're a teacher, just sign it Professor Jones or Dean Jones or even Judge Jones. What a prick!

    Jones also is a municipal court Judge for the City of Decatur and an associate magistrate judge for DeKalb County.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He don't spell too good either.

      Delete
    2. Please provide list of profs you'd fire at CU, Law Prof, and then judge whether you should be on it.

      Delete
    3. "Please provide list of profs you'd fire at CU, Law Prof, and then judge whether you should be on it."

      Go back to work, Professor Shill!

      You've only worked 4 of your 6 required hours this week!

      And your office computer isn't for porn!

      Delete
    4. Also, it's not "Hon." but "The Hon.". Too bad that his glorious honorableness doesn't know grammar.

      Delete
  9. Am I missing something? The $135 sounds like a book fee. I agree books are insanely overpriced but I'm not sure why this one is particularly egregious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it has something to do with the one hundred thirty-five thousand dollar Emory tuition?

      Delete
    2. That's not really responsive to my question.

      Delete
    3. "That's not really responsive to my question."

      It is pretty difficult to be "responsive" to the brain dead or the intellectually self-castrated.

      To be brief - after charging an *enormous* fortune for a service of increasingly dubious worth - by means of deceptive tactics - schools have the *bottomless* gall to charge incremental fees for any and every additional mandatory "service" they can dream up.

      In legal terms...this is known as being a sh*tbag - modus operandi for the Law School Scam.

      It is possible to make it any clearer?

      I have also auto-debited your checking account (thanks for the IP address) for the incremental education that I have just provided you.

      Think of it as part of your legal education.

      Delete
    4. Still not seeing how it's different than any other course that charges for reading materials. I didn't realize 8:20 had made the same point prior to posting earlier.

      Delete
  10. I think that 99.9% of readers of ITLSS would hope that you do apply. Imagine the changes you could bring in! Imagine the tales of faculty stupidity, waste and incompetence that you could tell!

    And on the subject of the $135 fee, this was hardly a surprise for the school. It is nickel and diming the students.

    What next? On the first day of law school, being invited one by one into the dean's office to be force-sold the "undercoating" for the degree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Imagine the tales of faculty stupidity, waste and incompetence that you could tell!"

      Instead of waiting for others to do "something", for those of us in/alumni of public law schools, closely examining the public financial data of the law schools would be productive.

      All sorts of budgetary data have to be generated and are subjected to public disclosure and/or FOIA-like statutes.

      Sunlight is the best (and fastest) disinfectant.

      Delete
  11. Unlike Romney & Trump, Campos has never had a real job where he was judged on his performance. He would never be considered by any school above TTTT as a dean, much less a "professor." Tenure is a nice thing to hide behind.

    Pay your fees and shut up. You are the one who made the stupid decision to pay 150K for a useless JD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pointless to bring Romney and Trump into this.

      LawProf has said that he worked for a top firm which paid more in his salary than his law school debt for his first year, and then jumped at the chance to lateral into a teaching position.

      Delete
    2. And you, 9:13, will be on permanent record for your involvement in this scam.

      Delete
  12. I would imagine that many Emory law students don't have 135$ of spare change under the sofa cushions, so they have to borrow it or charge it on a credit card. Depending on interest rate, and how long it takes to pay off that amount, they could spend several times the original 135. Kinda like the "$50 pizza" that college students are warned not to charge on their credit cards.

    Then again, if IBR is the financial plan for law school, what's a few more bucks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like $135 would pay for the materials for the entire class. Perhaps the lady who suggested In a commencement speech that graduates might find opportunity in Nebraska could part with a few dollars. Help the Emory grads save for the bus fare.

      Delete
  13. If you voted for 4 more years of this shit, you deserve to get fleeced by the law schools. Keep dreaming of unicorns and trolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, because Romney's agenda included student loan reform...

      ...giving even more out even more freely so his rich friends in the for-profit education industry can continue their criminal transfer of wealth up to the 1%.

      Obama might not give much of a fuck. But he gives more of a fuck than Romney, who could barely mask his disdain towards the middle and working classes.

      That's why he lost. Get over it. The economy was Bush's fault, and it takes more than four years to dig out from under that shitpile. Or was the hole not deep enough for you? You wanted Romney to hand you a fucking shovel?

      Delete
    2. "criminal transfer of wealth up to the 1%."

      A large fraction of the legal professoriate (and coven of law school administrators) are included the 1%.

      For 6 "hours" of classroom teaching per week, for 2/3rds of the year.

      How do you think we got to about $1 trillion in student loan debt?

      Delete
    3. The choice was between the President who is owned by the bankers or the Governor who is one of the bankers - in other words - no choice at all. Romney had the appearance, as one wag suggested, as "the guy who laid off your father". Every time someone asked Romney a question you could see his beady eyes shift while is brain, like a 70s computer, struggled to retrieve the programmed answer. Then there was the matter of his wife's HORSE being in the Olympic dressage competition. A real man of the people.

      Delete
    4. Don't kid yourself that Obama nee Santa Claus was any less of the POS 1% elites destroying the country. On the upside for struggling law students, maybe Santa Claus will forgive all student loan debt while allowing his favorite little elves in the legal faculty to keep their ill gotten gains.

      Delete
  14. Some of this stuff is not so nickle and dime. My alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, charges "tuition" of $49,900 (they learned pricing policy from Woolworths). If you want to attend, however, you must also pay a "general fee" of $2408 and a "technology fee" of $830 making the actual amount you must pay to The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania $53,138. Quoting just the "tuition" figure understates the cost by 6.5%. Is this common elsewhere?

    BTW back in the mid-'70's it charged me $3800 my second year and $4200 my third -- the equivalent of about $16,000 - 17,000 in 2012 dollars. The increase, which sounds very steep, really wasn't; the inflation rate was over 9% in 1975.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's outrageous! Which U. Penn. State campus was this? Happy Valley? I suppose they need a lot of $$ to settle the whole JoPa scandal.

      Delete
    2. You're confusing U. Penn with Pennsylvania State. U. Penn is a private Ivy League school. Pennsylvania State is a state school.

      Delete
    3. Looks Like Successful Troll Again SucceedsNovember 7, 2012 at 5:23 PM

      Doh!

      Delete
    4. Maybe 3:04 is meta-trolling. If he's serious, he needs to get out more.

      Delete
  15. Chemerinsky must be jumping for joy now that Prop. 30 was approved. More funding for the scam. Why on earth would anyone want to live in that cesspool known as California?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sunny Med climate makes the scum grow faster.

      Delete
    2. Another thoughtless post...

      CA has the best University system, public and private, than any other state in the nation. As well, pretty much every invention or technological advancement in the last 60 years has either come entirely from CA, or at least had significant development in CA, including auto, aerospace, space technology, internet, social media, etc.

      So while there are high taxes, there are also high income earners and plenty of educated people that don't mind paying the high taxes.

      There are also mountains and beaches that can be visited both, in the same day. It is a very beautiful state, from an amenity and topography standpoint.

      So please don't post stupid, thoughtless and uninformed statements...

      Delete
    3. I'm not the original poster. Never been to California and don't care if I ever do. You can keep your earthquakes, mudslides, pacific Tsunamis, Smog, brush fires, traffic, immigration problems, bankrupted government, sleazy politicians, vapid and vacuous populus, and let's not forget public schools that charge outrageous tuition prices. If you're from California - stay there!

      /s/ East Coast Yankee /s/

      Delete
    4. Live in Los Angeles. Love the mountains and oceans. But the taxes are outrageous. I'm an entertainment attorney and on a daily basis I'm talking to industry people trying to find a way to not have t pay taxes in CA because they are so high. And we try to avoid filming in LA as much as possible for the same reason.

      Delete
  16. In his acceptance speech last night, President Obama stated that it doesn't matter what race or religion you are. All you have to do is work hard to make it in America. Does that mean that law students and recent law grads are not working hard enough?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's part of the American myth. It worked when you had 40 acres and a mule. It doesn't work when humans are labor widgets.

      Delete
    2. Will Santa Claus loan me $500 million so I can start my own green solar panel company? I'd also like it to be located in the least business friendly environment in America - California - because I love surfing and mountain biking.

      Thanks!

      Delete
    3. Heck, you might get $500 million for starting an online social network linking green solar panel companies, all of which happen to be located on the same street in San Francisco. With Facebook employees cashing out, there are tens of billions floating around out there.

      Delete
  17. @9:29 am--IIRC, in that notorious speech by one Sara Stadler, she admonished the Emory grads to be givers, not takers. Oh the irony, LOL

    ReplyDelete
  18. @9:41 a.m.--the only presidential candidate who would have done anything about the whole corrupt student loan cesspool was Gary Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Hon. Lindsay R.M. Jones,"

    We are well, well past the time when the "Honorable" was appropriate for actions (and actors) of this kind.

    Simply despicable.

    As usual.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Journal - November 6, 2012 - Hon. Lindsay Jones

    "Dear Diary,

    Today I sent out an email to students. Felt good about the days work; don't think the little bastards will cause a dispure. Little bastards. Can't help but think I will somehow get the President re-elected tonight.

    Signed,

    Judge"

    ReplyDelete
  21. By the way, a little unrelated, but NYU dean claiming students are "doing terrifically" in the job market. He also states their employment figures are due to "hard core" public interest folks. He even boasts that NYU has 2-4 times as many public interest lawyers than their competitors. This is all well and good, except the school charges more than $50K in tuition, and these debts will only be repaid for 10 years. http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2012/11/qa-nyu-dean.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Terrifically" in the sense of dreadfully, frightfully.

      Delete
    2. Bull. A ton of their experienced grads are struggling without jobs. Let's just look at a tiny subset of NYU grads and say they are doing "terrifically". All part of the law school scam.

      Delete
  22. Do consider those positions, Prof. Campos. You have the chance to lead a much-needed reform, at least if you get into a good school (top 25 or so). Too far down the list, the answer will simply be to shut the toilet down, which will also mean putting yourself out of work.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ah yes - it was stuff like this back in the early 90s that at Georgetown caused graduating classes to wear NOPE (Not A Penny Ever) pins on their robes and acute embarrassment for the unfortunate form each section designated to try to shake his classmates down for more money - at that time GULC was the most expensive law school in the country by all accounts.

    Incidentally someone needs to tell RM Jones that you do not actually use Hon in your own correspondence. It is an honorific - it is a bit like signing your own letters

    Mr. Bill Jones, Esq.

    applying the Mr. and the Esq. is considered gauche and redundant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, courtesy titles are for other people, not for oneself.

      Delete
  24. I fired two (out of five of my associates). Looking at villas in Medellin so the other three should start sending out cv's. RIP Amerika!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're reacting against your blood-thirst for latinos by going to Spain?

      Delete
    2. Medellin is in Colombia!

      Delete
    3. Agree with @8:36 and @9:13, not about the Trump and Romney thing, but about the fact that Campos has never been truly judged on his job performance. What has he done constructively to contribute to the betterment of law, lawyers and law student? Part of being a Dean is being a leader and visionary, not a complainer. Anyone can do that.

      I venture to guess Campos does not even read these replies but only posts -- a narcisisstic exercise much like all law professor lectures. If he replies, then I am proven wrong.

      If folks voluntarily applied, accepted, and graduated from law school and then suddenly realized life was not as rosey as they wanted, then, welcome to the real world. Seems like a bunch of whiners who feel self-entitled. Law professors and law schools suck in general...how you did not know that before attending is amazing. Attending law school simply gives you credentials and then you have to find your own way in the world.

      Delete
    4. LawProf was out in the front in terms of exposing the scam. Since then, applications are down and transparency has improved. I'd call that quite a contribution, frankly.

      Delete
    5. "Seems like a bunch of whiners who feel self-entitled. Law professors and law schools suck in general...how you did not know that before attending is amazing."

      You studiously ignore the the element of fraud and calculated deception the schools have engaged in for decades.

      Until the coming of blogs (circa 2006 or so) or, less so, until the rise of the internet (circa 1996), the law schools used their "monopoly of the megaphone" (their ill-won wealth and their undeserved reputation for integrity) to widely publicize utterly misleading placement/employment statistics.

      That is how we end up with a "profession" where 16% of the law grads from the last 40 years (approx. 250k out of 1.5 million) have vanished from the state Bars.

      (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/statistics.html).

      And perhaps 100k out of the remaining 1.2 million licensed lawyers work for Biglaw (per NLJ 250), earning the kind of salaries that the Schools lied about being the common income of lawyers.

      Now, at last, 15+ *years* into the internet era the NALP and ABA have been shamed into publicizing more complete placement statistics.

      And it is a litany of ruin revealed.

      But it has only been exposed over the last year or two.

      So your "amazement" is extremely ill-founded and likely made in bad faith (do I sense a legal academic?).

      The applicant public is extremely misinformed because legal academia has been profitably lying for a very, very long time.

      The civil war within the law only began yesterday, relatively speaking.

      Delete
    6. Most people have understood the ridiculous cost and crapiness of the system for many decades. They just entered it with their eyes wide open, did not blame others for their choices, and then lived their lives in the most productive way they could.

      You can change the system meaningfully or you can sit on the computer and spew resentment. Is putting law schools out of business good? Maybe, as long as you are not a family affected by it and as long as you do not truly believe in your mission or calling as a teacher. Are less applications good? Maybe, as long as you don't mind the quality of practicing lawyers correspondingly go down, too. Or maybe they all suck anyway. Who knows.

      The criticisms of law schools are not markedly diffrent from the cricisms of higher edication in general. It is not revolutionary.


      Some poeple go to law school so they actually can be practicing lawyers. Lawprof practiced from 1989-90 so apparently he could not swing it. Many of his students thought his classes were horrid and ineffetive. Now he bites the hand that feeds him.
      Why doesn't he quit and stop draining the CU budget? Practice what you preach. Lead by example. Perhaps be a professional blogger and make money from pop up ads. I would not want a Dean who was not passionate about his mission as an educator and leader.

      Delete
    7. I guess I'll stop commenting on this massive scam. I would hate for the law prof above, and his/her family, to be negatively affected by the closure of law schools that are destroying thousands of lives at the taxpayers' expense.

      Delete
    8. 12:47, you can't be serious with this "everybody has always known it's a scam" defense.
      There's no "maybe" about any of it at this point -- putting law schools out of business is a clear net good for the entirety of American society not employed at the law schools in question. If you could make an argument to the contrary you would make it, instead of whatever the hell it is that you're doing here. Drunk posting, judging by your spelling acumen.

      Delete
    9. Part of being a Dean is being a visionary? Who wrote that?

      The role of the Dean is to keep the school going and to keep the money rolling in. Failure to do that will cost any Dean their job.

      I think schools really are clueless about the scam if they are looking to make Lawprof their Dean. Do they understand what he is all about? (No, they don't.)

      Delete
    10. "The criticisms of law schools are not markedly diffrent from the cricisms of higher edication in general. It is not revolutionary."

      Nor is your "criticism" of Lawprof. You've been mindlessly repeating this same shit ad nauseam since he embarrassed you more than a year ago. Move on, Assclown.

      Delete
  25. This makes no sense. Don't you understand that a legal education costs double what these law schools are charging? They are only able to keep tuition at current levels through generous support of alumni and their endowment. Its a fundamental rule of higher education. The cost is always double tuition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't tell if you were being ironic.

      If not, let me point out that law school "costs" are entirely the product of laughably corrupt law professor/administration compensation and work conditions.

      Almost *everyone* in on the law school scam is making near or above six figure compensation (salary plus benefits) for working a f*cking six "hour" per week lecture schedule for about 60% of the year.

      In a *year*, the professing profiteers of the law school scam might work in a classroom for a massive 180 to 200 hours.

      Average Americans work 10 times more hours annually for one-half to one-third the pay.

      That is the utterly corrupt core of the law school "cost crisis" - the one that legal academia wants to use IBR to further gut the American taxpayer to pay for.

      For the untenured, there are also "publication" obligations that are as infinitely flexible as they are existentially useless for 90%+ of the output.

      Now you know why so many academic shills fly around the scamblogs, trying to discredit them.

      Delete
    2. Successful Troll Again SucceedsNovember 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

      !Doh!

      Delete
  26. SmallTownBoy - lemme guess, you only fired the associates sporting "Obama 2012" bumper stickers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LoL-nope fired the worst 2 performers. And put the other three on notice that I may be shutting up shop. Glad to see my portfolio is down 2% today. Sigh.

      Delete
    2. Dude.

      You are supposed to *short* the market when it's at a high.

      My portfolio is up 2% today.

      Back to cash.

      Delete
    3. 12:36

      You fired two associates because Obama won? You are a jerk. Please do leave the country.

      Delete
    4. What, now I have an obligation to employ people? Business has been slow. I've been hanging on, hoping for a turn-around. It 's not coming. My reaction is the same as that of the market today. Deal with it.

      Delete
    5. Why don't you start a for profit law school? Not only will you cash in, you'll be a job creator.

      As far associates, you should fire them all and replace them with law school students or recent grads that their schools will pay you to take on.

      The scam is making a lot of people rich. Why should you miss out?

      Delete
    6. Well, HEY, STB, YOU didna built that!November 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM

      "What, now I have an obligation to employ people? Business has been slow. "

      Well, you didn't build it anyway.

      "Other people did".

      (I am 12:26/All fired up - reason I asked about the Obama bumper snickers is Boortz lead out this a.m. with a story about a Naples area business dude who figured he couldn't stay in business as-was if ObamaCare remains in force, so he fired the 5 employees with Obama bumper stickers to get his business under the "magic 50" employee number.)

      Delete
    7. Hehe-yah, I disn't build it, but I sure as hell am tearing it down-burn, baby, burn!
      I don't really care anymore. I've got enough to go live in Medellin and pull some dime pieces. Screw trying to run a business here when you are only vilified for it.

      Delete
  27. Law schools have not fully exploited the potential of nickel and dime assessments. Why not lower "tuition," while quietly making it up in mandatory "general student fees," "registration fees," "course material fees," ect.?

    dybbuk





    ReplyDelete
  28. STB - just move out here to Colorado and set up a pot shop. The position doesn't require a JD, but the pay is good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually looked into this. The regs won't be finished until July 2013 and permits probably won't be issued until January 2013.

      Delete
  29. @ 12:37PM says as anon:

    "You studiously ignore the the element of fraud and calculated deception the schools have engaged in for decades."

    Oh how I wish, several decades ago, that the scamblogs were technologically viable, and then I would have been warned, instead of being suckered as a perfect lemming with only a destroyed financial life to show for my having been born in the USA, as per the wealthy USA pop shit sham commercial capitalistic musicians might say and grow unfairly wealthy from.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has a whiff of JD Painter...please stay away...

      Delete
  30. In defense of Lance Armstrong:

    "Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (autrefois means "previously" in French), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence.[1]

    If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right; these include Canada, Mexico and the United States. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute law."

    In my humble opinion and hunch Lance was finallky done in by the black widow spider, Sheryl Crow, who should not go unpunished or not be forced to give up all of her wordly assets as long as Lance is subjected to 10X double jeopardy.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Luck Fance ArmstrongNovember 7, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      No way he's not a cheater.

      Sorry, no historic pedestal for you, pedal man Lance.

      The only remaining issue is whether the somewhat-worthy charity bearing the latter half of his surname can survive the scandal he should have avoided.

      Delete
  31. Freak Went Comm EnterNovember 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

    Well, this post is pretty weak.

    Sorry, it is.

    Maybe LawProf/Deej should go to a twice-weekly post format so as to be able to focus on more Scamitologically(TM) weighty issues.

    $135 to pay for course materials for a particular course? Heck, the cheapest class I had (Kinko's copies of a copyright-infringement sense impaired Law Professor's bad wet dream of "the best" of property lawbooks from which he could steal) had course materials exceeding $135.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Double Jeopardy does not apply when there is a double sovereignty. If you have been acquitted in a state court that does not prevent the federal government(or vice versa)from pursuing prosecution for the same crime.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So Leiter is back on it with the Campos bashing:

    http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2012/11/blogging-a-faculty-meeting.html

    What's the deal with him anyway? It's not like he is at one of the TTT schools this blog mostly targets, he's at Chicago. His continual hate most have a more personal backstory that I don't know about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leiter's the ultimate example of somebody who doesn't know jack about being a lawyer, and who got a job at a law school because he couldn't get a job in a philosophy department. So he's pretty insecure.

      Delete
    2. I think he got really upset about the first few posts that suggested professors barely work at all (as compared to say, professors working hard as some apparently do even if that hard work produces no value).

      Delete
  34. 10:39 - I'm not sure if that is correct. If you are acquitted in state court on a homocide or assault rap, the Feds can still charge you with criminal civil rights violations. That's what happened in the Rodney King beating case and a bunch of other cases too. But I don't think the Feds could charge with with assault or murder. The underlying criminal conduct is the same, but the crimes are different.

    ReplyDelete
  35. AND THE “SCAM” CONTINUES TO CRUMBLE?

    This blog makes a big deal about a couple of vague emails and a few handwritten notes from a disgraced and disgruntled secretary at TJSL as being a “smoking gun” in the Alaburda case, but then when TJSL fires back with a solid, well-crafted, and strong memo with some damning revelations about the plaintiff, no coverage whatsoever?

    For anyone who isn’t interested in sweeping every scrap of unfavorable evidence under the rug, the memo can be found here:

    http://www.abajournal.com/files/Alaburda_MJS.pdf

    Let me summarize one part of it for you:

    1. Alaburda submitted between two and four applications for summer employment during 2L. Yes, you read that right. Between two and four. Not twenty and forty. Not two hundred and four hundred. Two and four.

    2. But in 3L, she left no employment stone unturned, submitting a massive total of just one job application. Yes, you read that right too. One. Not one hundred. One.

    3. And even more amazingly, after graduation and passing the bar exam, and despite her absolute reluctance to even bother searching for a job, she was offered a $60,000 full time lawyer position, plus benefits, but rescinded her acceptance because the firm did not offer to pay her bar dues and she would have had to undergo one month of training.

    This deserves – at the very least! – coverage on this blog. One suspects, however, that it will be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is really important news. Unemployed law grads aren't getting jobs as lawyers only because they're not trying! There are plenty of high-paying jobs with good benefits for grads of even the worst law schools, but they don't want to work.

      Delete
    2. As expected, the first response follows the typical format for anything "unscammy" on this blog:

      1 - Ridicule.
      2 - Extend point made to a ridiculous extreme and pretend that this false point is the original point.
      3 - Highlight how ridiculous the false point is by drawing a deliberatly ridiculous conclusion.
      4 - Congratulate self on how cleverly these unfavorable facts were covered up.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    3. The number of apps refers to her submissions through OCI, and I would imagine this "full-time lawyer position" is an "e-discovery associate" job for one of the document review mills in the area. (For everybody playing at home, that's full-time, JD-required employment in NALP's mind.)

      I'm sure Campos will give it full coverage once this case settles out of court for an undisclosed amount, despite all these rock-solid defenses employed by the defendant's counsel.

      Delete
    4. Hmmm, not sure where you're getting that info from, MCfJ. It's not in the document, and the document itself specifies that Alaburda's testimony has been sealed, so it's not public either.

      We can "imagine" as much as we like. But it appears, if you actually read the doc, that this was a real life lawyer job. It also appears that she was not interested in looking for legal jobs during law school, and actually wanted to be a teacher!

      When her overall case is based on the idea that her degree had "no value", all of this information is absolutely vital. Her degree did have value, especially when her job before law school was a "production assistant" in film (i.e. unpaid dead end job), and she had little hope of ever rising above that with her film degree.

      I'm seeing a very disturbing shift in the nature of the scam, according to commenters on this blog (which is the only place the scam seems to exist). It's gone from "there are no jobs!" to "there are no enjoyable jobs!"

      Who gives a F what she was being paid $60,000 plus full benefits for. Her law degree got her a job, just not "Ally McBeal" or "Suits" job she really wanted.

      I'm sure Campos will give this full coverage too, when Alaburda loses!

      It's just a shame that he doesn't give it fair coverage.

      If the scam exists, it exists whether favorable or unfavorable facts come to light. It starts to fall to pieces when it is built on a foundation of not covering developments that don't fit into the scheme.

      And that, friends, is religion. And we need science.

      Delete
    5. Reread the memorandum accompanying the defendant's MSJ. It's obvious that he refers to OCI regarding his apps during 2L and 3L.

      If we are not to "give a F" what its graduates are doing, then the school should change its name to the Thomas Jefferson Fast Track Pipeline to Document Review. Truth in advertising.

      I'm sorry that you don't feel that Campos has been fair to your poor disadvantaged law schools, yearning to breathe free and increase tuition by several multiples of inflation every year, but the rest of us are surprisingly okay with it. If you want a more flattering view of law schools, well...read ABAJournal.com. Or NLJ. Or pretty much everyone else's blog on legal education.

      Delete
    6. I think 8:26 is referring to your comment that it was a doc review job.

      Delete
    7. Either she falsified data or she didn't. I don't see how the diligence with which she searched for legal work is relevant. Is it supposed to impeach her credibility somehow? It makes me suspect that she was not particularly diligent in searching for legal jobs, and maybe it even suggests she's not terribly wise, or feels unrealistically entitled, but that doesn't bear on her credibility in any way, to my mind.
      Whether or not she had trouble finding a job has literally zero bearing on whether or not she was pressured by the administration to falsify evidence regarding employment outcomes for others.

      Delete
    8. 2:38, you trolling or what?November 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM

      You purposefully conflating the plaintiff and the CSO Asst.Director?

      Delete
  36. This blog only exists for a bunch of losers, led by a "professor" who can't teach. If you went to any school (law or otherwise) and took out massive loans with the expectation of making 150K+ you are (were) a fool. No degree, JD included, is a ticket to a high dollar job. You have to earn that. Quit crying and get out there and find a job so you can pay back your loans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm inclined to agree. I went to law school before most people here and I knew that it was a risk. How? Can I point to any "stats"? No. I can point to my common sense, my talks with attorneys, my talks with attorneys who told me that it was a profession in decline, my basic due diligence.

      I am tired of all these claims of scams and stuff like that. Law schools deliver on their raison d'etre - awarding JD degrees in return for three years of work. That is the overriding deal, and every law school delivers on it. Fussing about the stats for employment being "false" is bullshit. We know they are false, but they are not entirely false.

      If you went to law school for a law degree, YOU WERE NOT SCAMMED. You got a law degree!

      If you went to law school for the promise of a job paying $160K per year, then you were a fool.

      And I know it's hard to deal with. I know that after being told all your lives that you are smart and special that ending up being a fool is a long way to fall. And it hurts. But that's life.

      Life is not fair. Life, at every turn, is a scam. Some of us will die at age 50 after living healthy lifestyles, and some will die at age 80 after living like pigs. Why not start a "Inside the Heart Scam" when you are diagnosed with early onset heart failure? Or if you go into a restaurant and the 8oz steak you ordered is only 7.8oz, why not start a "Inside the Steakhouse Scam" blog?

      There comes a point when you grow up, you realize that life has some shitty times, and that we can either sit here and complain, or we can move forward.

      Which is what I intend to do.

      I have come to realize that wasting my time here is exactly that - a waste of time. The discourse is flawed and silly, the straws being grasped at are ever thinner, and nothing that this blog does will ever affect me. Unless it will get my student loans discharged (which is a fucking ridiculous hope), none of this matters. Closing law schools doesn't matter. Firing professors doesn't matter. None of it affects me at all.

      It only affects those who are bitter and looking for revenge. Because restitution won't come from here.

      What bothers me perhaps at an even deeper level is the waste of talent that this blog encourages. The comments section is full of complainers saying there are no opportunities. Imagine if those same complainers, instead of spending their time here, spent their time actually using their law degrees? Volunteer. Start a non-profit. Do something else with your free time and your law degree that doesn't degrade it, but builds upon it.

      No, it won't make money for you. But neither does the time spent here whining in anonymous comments on the internet. What a waste of your time and education.

      But that's the key. People here seem lazy. They wanted a top paying job handed to them with only three years of easy work. They want results with no effort. They are destined to be disappointed with life no matter what.

      And perhaps most telling of the silliness behind this scam, well beyond its insane leaders, well beyond its logical flaws, well beyond everything, is the fact that out of all these claimed tens of thousands of scammed grads each year - which must make up an army of millions right now - the comments this blog receives are less than 100 on most posts, at least 25% of which are me, and I suspect that the actual number of commenters could be counted on two hands, one finger of which would be allocated to Campos, who almost certainly contributes to his own comments.

      Out of these millions of debt-laden, scammed, depressed, and angry failed JDs, you can only rustle up ten or so who actually believe that they were scammed?

      That alone should tell you that this is an extreme fringe belief.

      I'm done here. I'll come back once in a while to read - blogs like this are addicting - but not to contribute. I have better things to do with my time.

      You should too, or you end up becoming a bitter, depressed, failure of a human being.

      Get over it.

      Delete
    2. Apparently this blog also exists for a bunch of loser law professor trolls, led by an obsessive "philosopher" who can't argue for shit. If you made the mistake of becoming a law professor with the expectation that you could make 150K+/year forever to do nothing, while lives were destroyed and taxpayers ripped off so that you could do so, you are (were) a fool. Quit crying because you've realized that you will be remembered as a hack, not an academic, and go find a real job.

      Delete
    3. "I'm done here. I'll come back once in a while to read - blogs like this are addicting - but not to contribute. I have better things to do with my time."

      *slow clap*

      Delete
    4. "the comments this blog receives are less than 100 on most posts, at least 25% of which are me..."

      Did Prof. X just admit that he obsessively trolls this blog?

      BTW how many comments do his blog posts usually get?

      Delete
    5. You must be a boomer. You have no understanding of what law students and young lawyers are looking for nor do you understand how hard people are willing to work.

      Sorry you have become bitter in your old age.

      Maybe you could take up meditating or golf instead of doing things that make you frustrated and unhappy?

      Delete
    6. 9:01,

      Even if your bullshit about there being only ten law students/grads talking about the scam were true, where are all of the students/grads defending law school or praising their legal educations?

      Scamblog commenters are "whiny" and "lazy" and should "get over it" and "move on." So you can keep profiting off of this scam .

      Delete
    7. "I'm inclined to agree."

      You're inclined to talk to yourself. Many law professors are. Random example:

      http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2012/08/the-world-according-to-scam-bloggers.html

      Delete
  37. Piss-poor trolling, 9:01.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 9:01 smacks of desperation, perhaps realizing that Campos is having an effect and that 9:01s days as a law professor are coming to an end. Apparently he thinks it's quite OK to financially destroy the new law graduates and then dump what remains of their unpaid loans on the taxpayer.

    As for no school offering a job at $160,000 a year, medical school comes close, especially in useful specialities like surgery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't we already discuss how few graduates actually manage to obtain biglaw jobs? I thought it was something around 5,000 nationwide?

      And didn't we also discuss how hard the biglaw associates work for that money? And how it is for most people the highest salary they will ever make?

      If many people go to law school expecting to make $160,000, then it is solely because of the number of schools lying about the salaries their grads make.

      Delete
  39. A kid in college or a nontraditional student looking to go to law school knows only what he/she knows about the practice of law from parents, peers, teachers, maybe TV, and then his own research through talking to people in the profession and now the interweb.. this blog just gets out one aspect of the truth about the costs/benefit of law school. (The other truth about law being that working as a lawyer is much more boring and stressful than can be imagined before trying it and that lots of the working lawyers you'll be spending time with are REALLY UNHAPPY and you may become that way as well.) It's simple. We demand accuracy from all kinds of other institutions - the issue as I see it is just that the law schools need to present accurate data. And lawyers need to talk about these issues (the cost vs. benefit of law school plus the job dissatisfaction issue) honestly and openly. There is a growing-up process in all areas of life.. but don't we all want to help others out? Isn't that also a big part of being a lawyer - the whole ethical, truth thing? Anyway, great blog, thanks Prof. Campos.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @9:01AM

    A quote for you from Errol Flynn as Captain Blood (1935):


    Dr. Peter Blood:

    Nutall, my lad, just one other little thing. Do you think you can find me a good stout piece of timber? About so thick and so long?

    Honesty Nuttall:

    Yes. I think so.

    Dr. Peter Blood:

    Then do so and lance it to your spine. It needs stiffening. Courage. We'll join you at midnight.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @9:01AM

    A quote for you from Errol Flynn as Captain Blood (1935):


    Dr. Peter Blood: Nutall, my lad, just one other little thing. Do you think you can find me a good stout piece of timber? About so thick and so long?

    Honesty Nuttall: Yes. I think so.

    Dr. Peter Blood: Then do so and lance it to your spine. It needs stiffening. Courage. We'll join you at midnight.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Save the Straw Men! Save Them! OH! The Humanity!November 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM

    {e.o.m.}

    ReplyDelete
  43. Above the Law with a nice uppercut to the jaw of the Indian Tech dean that tangled with LP.

    http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/quote-of-the-day-way-to-broadcast-this-girls-lack-of-judgment-to-the-entire-world/

    ReplyDelete
  44. The Tilted View From Brian's WorldNovember 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

    http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2012/10/the-law-professors-have-spoken.html

    This one was interesting. Prof. Leiter ran a poll of law profs on the (then) upcoming presidential election, and it came out about 70%/20% Obama over Romney.

    Here's Prof. Leiter's thoughts on that split:

    "I'm impressed (or distressed) by the strong showing for the Republican" and he views it as being "evidence that legal academics lean to the right".

    Lean to the right? Pres.O whomped Gov.R by 3.5X in that poll. Doesn't look like a right leaning bunch of LawProfs to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's pretty obvious he's talking about legal professors as compared to professors in other disciplines.

      Delete
  45. LSAT score aside, what is the lowest Undergrad GPA that any of the 200 or so US law schools will admit? Regardless of Major (Science or Liberal Arts for example)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guy Dance Council OrNovember 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM

      Y'know, it'd be easier if you just tell us how bad your UGGPA is, then we can try to see if we can fit you into someplace like IN Tech SOL.

      Delete
  46. @1:49PM
    The answer is: 2.0 or a C average from Undergrad.

    Or else how could a law school in good conscience graduate someone with a C average from law school and blessing to sit for the bar exam and go on to practice law in a society?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Here is where the tier structure of Undergrad schools and the law schools collide, and things become blurry.

    As in: One can go to Yale as an undergrad and get a full scholarship to a 4th tier law school as I witnessed.

    Or one can go to a lower ranked college or U and with a high GPA in a hard major and move up to a higher tiered law school.

    Now, add the LSAT into the mix.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guy Dance Council OrNovember 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

      Do you think they pay any attention to how "hard" one's UG major was?

      Why would they bother to take the time? They get plenty of applicants. Someone either fits the prescribed minimum or they don't.

      I doubt many law schools think, hey, a 3.2 GPA in (e.g.) chemical engineering is as good as a 3.6 GPA in (e.g.) EngLit.

      Delete
  48. @1:58PM

    A 3.4 Liberal Arts GPA and with a 155 LSAT aftoer one and only one try on the LSAT.

    What is your story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3.6 GPA chemical engineering and 176 LSAT 1-shot with less than 2 weeks to prep (took it on a whim/paid "late application" fees).

      Delete
    2. And yet, here you are, wasting your incomparable genius on anonymous blog comments bragging about your unverifiable intellectual prowess.

      Pity.

      Delete
    3. @2:28, "And yet, here you are, wasting your..."


      Sorry, envious much? Anyway, I was asked, and so I answered. So what? I've been commenting here for a year and this is the first time I've mentioned anything of the sort. Again, because I was asked.


      Would it also make you feel bad to heaR my comp is ca. 350, give or take?


      Can't do much about that, either.


      Have a Nice Day.

      Delete

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