Friday, November 2, 2012

Signs of progress

(1) The Washington Post Magazine has a good story on the law school crisis, full of statistics which will be familiar to readers of this blog, but remain too-little known or understood by prospective law students.  Among other things the story highlights the mind-boggling absurdity that is UC-Irvine (I would give roughly even odds on this law school existing ten years from now).

There are days when it's easy to feel pessimistic about how much progress has actually been made toward cleaning up the mess that legal education in this country has become, but I will say this:  If people tried to launch a new hyper-expensive law school with "top 20" aspirations in the midst of the tire fire that is the southern California legal market today, they wouldn't be able to get such a project off the ground.

(2)  Speaking of law schools going out of business, I've heard from a reliable source that a certain Midwestern law school that sits -- or at present wobbles -- a considerable distance from the bottom of the ABA-accredited hierarchy has unilaterally slashed its entire faculty's salary by a non-trivial percentage.  (Hopefully not too many of them decide to become partners at Davis Polk in fits of pique).

(3)  In recent days I've seen signs of real progress at the institutional level, as faculty and administrators grapple with the latest debt and employment numbers.  At some point, in a crisis of this type, the numbers become so disturbing that complacency begins to give way to engagement, and there's evidence, both at my school and others, that that inflection point is approaching.

(4)  The movement toward genuine reform will accelerate rapidly as soon as even a handful of ABA law schools go out of business.  This, I believe, is likely to happen over the course of the next few years.  It won't take many such events to bring about a sea change: given the intensely risk averse character of so many people in legal academia, the sight of a couple of hundred suddenly unemployed former law faculty will, I expect, have a most beneficial effect on institutional deliberations all across the land.

183 comments:

  1. F
    I
    R
    S
    T

    !

    Enjoy that, dudes!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Hopefully not too many of them decide to become partners at Davis Polk in fits of pique"

    Awesome comment.

    And your last paragraph says it all. Nothing will change until one school falls and lays off its faculty, and we see the bloodbath and the shame as those faculty scramble for any jobs, many ending up competing with their former and recent students for work.

    Then once every professor at every other school in the nation is peppered with resumes from those laid off faculty members, all desperately trying to scramble for a position, all bullshitting with their five page resumes full of puffed up trash, we will see some change throughout the system.

    Nothing like seeing your co-workers laid off to make you stop staring at the internet all day and do some real work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Right now I suspect that there is already some furious "networking" going on by law professors looking to jump from an increasingly precarious perch in their present law school to one that they see as more stable. It will be amusing to watch the reactions amongst some of the aspiring LawPrawfs on that notorious forum as the odd already tenured professor snaps up an opening they thought was there for the non-tenured.

    So .... any lurking profs ... are you getting those odd "would there be a spot at your school" approaches?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suspect that one mid-tier school cutting salaries or laying off profs is all we will need to open the floodgates. The news will spread like wildfire through the lawprof community and will also give license to other schools to follow suit. And the the big shake out will be underway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Honestly, I don't think all that much will change until the unending spigot of federally backed loans is addressed. Sure a few schools will shut but fools and clueless 21 year-olds desperate in a sagging economy (for 21 year-olds the economy is almost always sagging in one way or another) will always exist in abundance to fill all those other seats to keep the scam going.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are already a number of schools that have put the potential cash cow, a.k.a. law school, on hold until the economy improves. That stalling should have been enough to wake anyone up, but it hasn't. Likewise, if a tier four toilet goes down the sewage pipe, no one is going to bat an eyelash.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Law profs are about to find out that they are as expendable and unemployable as journalists.

    Members of both professions make the mistake of confusing their prestige with that of their organization. Lots of journos have "involuntarily gone freelance" in recent years and learned that sources don't call them back once they are no longer employed by the big famous paper or network.

    Same with profs. Many of the outside services offered by profs -- expert witness testimony, panel lectures, consulting -- actually involve the client renting the prestige of the organization. If I had to hire an expert, I would rather hire the one who is currently on faculty at Prestigious U. than the "independent scholar" who got axed by Third Tier Teapot two years ago, even if the laid-off person knows more.

    Living by prestige means you also die by prestige.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll second that. These clowns truly think that they are in their positions because they personally are that fucking amazing and important. They just do not realize that without their faculty position, they are just like any other well-read truck driver, PhD grad barista, high school teacher, or just about anyone else with half a brain.

      They confuse the value of their school's name brand with their own value. And like you say, they are just whores renting out their brand value, not their individual value.

      Delete
    2. "They confuse the value of their school's name brand with their own value."

      This applies to 99% of the entire profession.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the whole goddamn legal field whores after prestige. And that's why the U.S. News rankings flourish: utter bullshit though they are, they at least constitute an index of prestige.

      Delete
    4. So law professors are special snowflakes too?

      Delete
    5. ^^^^^^^^ They always have been.

      But none so special as Professor Lower Case Himself, the Right Honorable "e.e. andré douglas pond scumming".

      Unless it's that other special snowflake, Law Professor SpearIT of the SLU SOL.

      Delete
  8. "Hopefully not too many of them decide to become partners at Davis Polk in fits of pique"
    Yes, I'm very sure Davis Polk partners want to share their profits with these useless law professors. Thanks for the laugh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You understood that this was a joke, right? That law professors claim their salaries are justified because they are competing against partners at huge law firms, when in reality they are competing against doc reviewers in terms of actual legal skills?

      Delete
  9. Law Prof,

    Is this certain Midwestern law school accomplishing its unilateral professor pay cuts via furlough? If so, you are correct--the cuts are not trivial. If not, then there are now two confirmed Midwestern law schools slashing faculty pay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I understand that you aren't at liberty to name names, I can't wait to find out which ones are cutting salaries.

      Delete
    2. 6:46, are you a "little birdie" or one who listens to it?

      http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/06/battle-of-hastings.html?showComment=1340417493241#c8821430772407206345

      Delete
    3. Can one be Cooley please?

      Delete
    4. Hamline, too, please!

      Delete
  10. “Hopefully not too many of them decide to become partners at Davis Polk in fits of pique.”

    It is worse than that–-they might leave the rigors and indignity of legal Academe for the comparatively good life of a WalMart greeter. And, if they do not leave, they might die in the trenches, like the soldiers at Passchendaele.

    Take Prof. Marcia McCormick of that train wreck of a third tier, St. Louis University School of Law. On her twitter, McCormick posted the following:

    30 Aug Marcia L. McCormick?@marciamccormick

    “I'm about ready to give up & go be greeter at Wal-Mart, so you know things must be bad. Who Needs Tenure? http://bit.ly/“

    https://twitter.com/marciamccormick

    Shortly afterwards, McCormick, a frequent blogger at Workplace Prof Blog, posted a bunch of links to a variety of stories that she thought might be of interest to her audience (including a link to a story that must have pleased her personally, titled “Jerks make more money”). She concluded by noting that her law professor workload is potentially lethal:

    “And if I don't start to get some balance between work and life (or cut down on work), I'm going to end up like this poor woman, who died at her desk, but no one noticed. Whew. To-do list cleared off for the moment. I feel better.”
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog
    (scroll down to Thursday, September 6).

    McCormick’s school may be third tier, but she personally is a scammer of the first rank. In a lengthy whine about the acting dean’s move to eliminate five figure summer research stipends (on top of six-figure salaries, and freedom from the stresses and frustrations of legal practice), McCormick made the following epically scammy statement about how her act of writing law review articles over the summer actually leads to better legal training for her students:

    “Students benefit from the scholar's ability to turn chaos into order and communicate both the chaos and the order to someone who hasn't done the same work. The students have to start with order and see how it is constructed from chaos and how to explain that before they can learn to do the same thing, which really, is what lawyers do for their clients.”

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2012/08/job-security-the-changing-face-of-legal-education-and-the-bigger-picture.html

    In the link above, Marcia McCormick piously disclaims what she calls “the larger scamlaw narrative so popular at the moment -- and no links here either because I don't want to promote that narrative.”

    Fortunately, Marcia McCormick promotes the scamlaw narrative just by being Marcia McCormick.

    dybbuk










    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Holy crap! She deserves a spot in the scammer hall of fame. In due time, of course. John O'Brien, David Sargent and Thomas Brennan all supercede her.

      And props on the Passchendaele reference.

      Delete
    2. Disgusting. The $13,000 "summer research stipend" that touched off this latest battle for the divine rights of professors is more than 50% of a WalMart greeter's annual salary. What a limousine liberal hack.

      Delete
    3. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!

      Some kind soul should forward this thread to her, as an experiment in consciousness raising.

      Delete
    4. What hubris! This McCormick princess is disappearing up her own asshole.

      Take a hint, honey: yours is the cushiest goddamn job in the world. If you feel put out by all of the work that you allegedly do, well, just hope that you'll marry into royalty. In the meantime, shut the fuck up.

      Delete
    5. BordeJD, that's much closer to ALL of a WalMart greeter's takehome pay.

      Delete
  11. Law Professor: "Due to some changing circumstances at the law school, I've decided to re-enter private practice and would be interested in partnership at your firm. You'll notice that I worked at Skadden from 1978-1980 after my clerkship on the 2nd circuit."

    Davis Polk: "That's great. You have a tremendous reputation as the Number 1 Authority on The Rule in Shelly's Case and you'll be a great addition to our team. I can't recall you mentioning it so I have to ask: how has your book of business performed for the last three fiscals?"

    Law Professor: "What?"

    ...


    Davis Polk: "Have a nice day, professor. We're flattered by your interest in our firm and we'll get back to you."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Law Prof "that's the rule in Shelley's case .... think like a lawyer"

      Firm "uhhh right, we'll call you....."

      Delete
  12. I agree, more of the general public is becoming aware of all this. I have had a few relatives/friends ask me about it after they have read something somewhere to the effect that law school is no longer a good idea for most people.

    That said, I wish the WaPo article had taken an ice pick to UC-I's claim that "nearly" 80% of their grads got "full time jobs as attorneys," and actually teased out some more specifics. What is meant by "nearly" 80%? What percentage were in larger firms? Does this figure include temporary positions? Does it include "jobs" created by the school to goose the stats? What salaries are the graduates earning, and how many reported salaries?

    My guess is that once you remove from that figure the solos, temp positions, school-funded jobs, and illusory small firm jobs (e.g. eat what you kill, or 2-3 grads sharing space) you are left with a lot less than 80% full legal employment. And probably not many of the survivors are earning enough to justify 200K+ non dischargeable debt.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “If the federal government applied any actuarial standards, half the law schools would shut down tomorrow,” Campos says. “The whole thing is a basically a giant subsidy machine run for the benefit of legal education.”

    This quote is really the only thing to say when anyone tries counter with any kind of argument. We don't educate lawyers or get them jobs....we pay law profs and admins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on.

      1. The scammers embrace curricular 'reform' assuming that they are competent to teach -- and they are not -- as a crutch. Their product is worthless.

      2. So what are scammers? They are not competent lawyers. They are not competent teachers of future lawyers. No. Instead, they are highly paid thinkers who sit in toll booths. The ABA -- for reasons unknown -- gave academics the toll bridge to the practice of law. They sit and collect their tax. They offer almost no service, but extract taxpayer guaranteed taxes.

      Delete
  14. @7:13 AM--exactly. That quote just says it all. One reason I like reading this blog is because Campos is a great writer, and one sign of a great writer is the ability to say so much with so few words.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CU Law is in the middle of a faculty search for several positions. I guess they are above it all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is the midwestern law school public? If so, the salary numbers are public and we should just get this out in the open.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wayne State University Law School dean steps down.

    During his tenure this school has gone from number two in the state to number three. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it. Also I'm thinking dropping LSAT scores and enrollment didn't help. I wonder if this is the midwest school law prof was talking about.

    http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/11/02/4384598/wayne-state-university-law-school.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Michigan State's been throwing money at the law school since rebranding it from Detroit College of Law a couple years ago; they were clearly trying to win the title of Best Regional Michigan Law School from Wayne (U of M has not been a competitor, historically) and Wayne, being in downtown Detroit, has a hard enough time attracting students as it is. So it's not like there was really a whole lot Ackerman could do.

      Still, the timing of the resignation, a day after the bloodbath that was the July 2012 MI bar results became public knowledge, raises eyebrows.

      Delete
  18. The thing that always struck me about the law faculty was how snobby and pseudo intellectual they are. I know med faculty, many of whom are practicing physicians. I know MBA faculty, many of whom are former or retired CPAs or wall street veterans. I know dentistry faculty, who are retired or part-time dentists.

    Law faculty turn their noses up on practitioners and state court judges, and I don't know why. Frankly, I would have thought the contracts prof would try to give drafting advice at CLEs, or the torts prof would be trying P.I. cases on the side, or the property prof would be doing house closings. For some reason, they do not, and I don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Law faculty turn their noses up on practitioners and state court judges, and I don't know why."

      Insecurity, for the most part.

      Your average law prof is fully aware of kust how much BS he spouts on a daily basis and just how much he is exploiting his "students" (6 classroom hours per week for 60% of the year for a six figure salary).

      But, as in junior high and abusive marriages, insecurity is covered up with aggression.

      Thus the well studied sneer of the legal academic.

      Delete
    2. Don't expect a law professor to demean herself by taking on such work. No, her exalted ass was destined for grander things, such as publishing a neo-Rawlsian exegesis of the law of hip-hop.

      Delete
  19. "Hopefully not too many of them decide to become partners at Davis Polk in fits of pique."

    Epic.

    I laugh whenever "law professors" mention that they could make a lot more money in Biglaw. First of all, most don't have the social skills or sales ability to make partner. Plus, they would be expected to work a hell of a lot more than 4-6 hours per week. Somehow, I doubt that law firms will shell out big bucks so someone can write boring law review articles on Hegel or Nietzsche.

    ReplyDelete
  20. For years law professors have been feeding everyone the line that they have to be paid so much because nobody would be selfless enough to resist the siren song of partnership at a white-shoe firm. Total bullshit. They have the cushiest goddamn job in the world. Plenty of people would take that sinecure at half the salary. And when very few people make partner at all, the idea that a law professor with little or no experience and no portable business would just waltz into one of those positions doesn't even deserve comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly.

      The Aura of the "Elite" is used to defend the Empire of Bullsh*t.

      And vice versa.

      Delete
  21. " a certain Midwestern law school that sits -- or at present wobbles -- a considerable distance from the bottom of the ABA-accredited hierarchy"


    What does "considerable distance" from bottom mean? I.e., is it more or less (barely) in the top 100? Or is it, like, somewhere in the unranked hinterlands but still not Cooley?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fort Wayne Chamber Of CommerceNovember 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM

    Hey, y'all lawprofs are already in the Midwest - come on up to Indiana Tecque Skule de' Laws.

    We'll hire `em, ya betcha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as they have four names written without capital letters.

      Delete
  23. If you're giving even odds on UCI Law School being around 10 years from now, let's all take the under and get rich.

    ReplyDelete
  24. They NEVER get this part correctNovember 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM

    (From the WaPoMag article)
    "Federal tuition-repayment plans adjusted for low-earning lawyers now stretch to 25 years. If the loan is not paid off at the 25-year mark, the balance is forgiven, and the taxpayers eat the loss."


    What's that Reagan said? "There you go again."

    While I appreciate that WaPoMag did a pretty thorough job on the article, I have yet to see even one of these pop press pieces get it completely right when it comes to IBR.

    Why do none of them ever mention that the debtor will have the balance "forgiven", but that the debtor will also owe income taxes on the amount forgiven?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a limited amount of space and no one really gives a shit about the income tax part.

      Delete
  25. It is hard to figure out what the average status is currently in relation to reform or decency. Much like the hiring market that is either looking for paralegals or senior attorneys, I feel like I keep hearing stories that are on opposite ends of the reform spectrum. New law school; maybe a law school closing. Whining about summer stipends cut; across the board faculty salary cuts. Accusations of direct pressure to inflate stats; graduate who actually turned down job is a plaintiff. As with most situations that involve humans, it's very messy. The schools are still getting so many more applicants than seats, it feels very much like an uphill battle.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "the sight of a couple of hundred suddenly unemployed former law faculty will, I expect, have a most beneficial effect on institutional deliberations all across the land."

    Nothing concentrates the mind so wonderfully as the prospect of being hung in the morning...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...Except the prospect of being hung *now*...

      Keep the pressure on.

      Attack! Attack! Bonsai!!!!

      Delete
    2. Ahem..."Banzai" - not Bonsai

      (Unless you intended a super subtle allusion to Macbeth in which Birnham Wood (the LawScammed) shockingly succeed in avenging themselves upon Macbeth (the LawScamming Professoriat, ensconced in the "impenetrable" castle of their arrogant self-regard).

      ...er, probably not...

      Delete
    3. 10:37 obviously another liberal arts major...

      Delete
    4. 10:37 obviously not another liberal arts major, or he/she would have picked up on the fact that it's "hanged", not "hung".

      One involves dangling from a long, thick rope. The other involves something long and thick dangling from you.

      Delete
  27. If you think law school X overpays its professors, then don't attend law school X. CHOICES, people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if the LawScamming schools profit enormously from publicizing fraudulent placement statistics?

      And if the schools receive billions in direct ("non-profit" tax exemptions) and indirect (student loan guarantees) taxpayer subsidies while doing so?

      And if the schools have historically benefited from an (utterly undeserved) public assumption of integrity and honor?

      FACTS, shill.

      This isn't a problem limited to a few isolated schools.

      It is systemic corruption at the core of our legal system, on a nationwide basis.

      CORRUPTION, NYC - You are probably familiar with the concept.

      Delete
  28. On Halloween evening I received a phone call from a close friend of mine who is an adjunct professor at a top 20 law school here in the South (or Southwest depending on your perspective). Last year my friend was upset when I informed her that I had withdrawn all of my applications and declined all acceptance offers from the schools to which I was accepted. Halloween night she informed me that I was right to decline attending law school, and that, indeed, the cost was simply too great vis-a-vis the job market. Moreover, she said that she felt like her students simply were not getting their money's worth when it came to their legal education. I'd like to think I had a hand in changing her mind, but without this blog, and others like it, I doubt I would have been able to enlighten her and alter her perspective on legal education and the practice of law. Maybe she'll contribute here, maybe not, but I thought it might be somewhat uplifting to know that the word is getting out. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, interesting story.

      One question, is "Halloween evening" redundant? (I always have trouble with that one. Also "New Year's Eve evening".)

      ;-)

      Delete
  29. I didn't even know there was a District of Columbia School of Law. There must be tons of unranked dumps out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Replying to myself :)

      Tuition at UDC is 10.6K per year for DC residents and including costs of living it is 41.6K? Am I reading that right?

      Delete
    2. Yeah, stumbled over that one, too. Does it really cost $31K / year (or per 9 mos, not sure how they figure the COL) to live in DC area??

      Delete
  30. The focus on reformation of the legal system itself should sound alarm bells in the minds of recent graduates. The schools may well in self-interest seek to "reform" leaving the swath of victims of their fraud and price-fixed market with ruined lives and no political voice. That's why we need to punish and expose them now, so that the story of what schools have done can be redressed - rather than redress from some unknown, future and potential consumer. As for the legal market itself, I thought we had too many lawyers? Shut the schools down.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A follow up to comments earlier this week. Anyone interested in the vileness of professor Spearit at St. Louis University Law School should log on to the faculty section of their website and check him out. A white guy, he teaches courses in Critical Race Theory and Law and Religion. As the law school(founded in 1843) goes through an existential crisis and attempts to avoid closing, in addition to censuring it's dean and the university president it ought to take a look at the usefulness of members of it's faculty. And why is it that these frauds always have two last names or none.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SpearIt is Marcia McCormick's colleague at SLU. What is it about SLU Law?--it attracts scammers like rotting meat attracts insects.

      SpearIt (formerly known as "Edward Maldanado," "SpearIt Maldanado," and "DJ SpearIt") is arguably the most unqualified law professor in the United States of America. He has a Ph.d. in religion from UC-Santa Barbara, and a law degree, but has never practiced law a day in his life, never held a judicial clerkship, and there is no indication that he has ever held bar membership in any jurisdiction.

      SpearIt writes about radical pedagogy in the recognizably phony-baloney jargon of a comfy academic. See SpearIt, Priorities of Pedagogy: Classroom Justice in the Law School Setting, 48 California Western L.Rev. 467, 469-470(2012) (“But what exactly is classroom justice? As a theoretical endeavor, classroom justice might best be viewed as a subspecies of critical pedagogy.. . . Classroom justice informs the learning ecology, classroom policies, and methods of evaluating students by striving to maximize learning outcomes. Classroom justice may be a matter of self- determinacy and letting students help design the syllabus, determine some of the content of the course, or decide how participation will work. Classroom justice is consciousness of—and wariness of—how logistical decisions can contribute to or guard against pedagogy of the oppressed”).

      However, SpearIt's revolutionary, uh, spirit, fails him when it comes to addressing the suffering of his own students. On the SALT Law blog, SpearIt published a preposterous attack on LawProf, which include the following statements:

      *"Taken wholly, when the hours for scholarship, service and teaching tally, a professor’s workload rivals the hardest working lawyer at any firm."

      * "Among his [Law Prof's] contentions is that law professors are “absurdly overpaid” and do “almost no work.” Such careless statements betray the profession."

      *“Another defect in his [Law Prof's] account is in assuming that law schools are only supposed to produce lawyers. Rather than short-sighting law schools as a manufacturing plant for attorneys, legal education might be encouraged beyond. Whether one aspires to business, politics, public service, or scholarly pursuits, law school may be a worthy investment.”

      http://www.saltlaw.org/blog/2011/08/29/unmasking-anonymity-whos-scamming/#more-2808

      The word "scammer" seems to weak for Mr. SpearIt-- "obsecenity" comes closer to the mark. However, let me assist SpearIt's scholarly quest for “classroom justice” by making one recommendation of my own: Remove unqualified, narcissistic, jargon-spouting poseurs like SpearIt from their cushy gigs as law professors and replace them with professors capable of training law students in the practice of law.

      dybbuk

      Delete
    2. Another scammer on the SLU Law faculty is Professor Aaron Taylor, a Ph.d. in education and career recruitment director, whose post-JD legal practice experience consists of a one and a half year gig investigating bar complaints for the DC bar.

      http://slu.edu/colleges/law/slulaw/sites/default/files/cvs/ataylo65_1.pdf

      Nando took him down last year.

      http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/profiles-in-deliberate-misinformation.html

      According to Taylor,

      * "The last few years have been a boon for critics of legal education and the profession. Some of the criticism has been legitimate, but much of it has been uninformed. Law school is not a path to instant wealth — it never has been. But in terms of providing career and financial stability, few educational pursuits compare. And in an economy where workers are increasingly required to think, adapt and thrive in changing work environments, the flexible nature of legal training arguably makes it a better investment than it was 20 years ago. Don’t believe the hype. Law school is still worth it."

      http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/why-law-school-still-worth-it

      Delete
  32. I understand why profs draw the vitriol, but much of the $ goes to central administration and law school administrators.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the law profs make *a lot* of noise when *anything* affecting them personally is involved...from parking to pay.

      But a multi-billion, multi-decade fraud (essentially in their name and benefiting their paycheck) - what do we hear from 99% of the legal professoriat?

      Crickets - or literally deranged denial.

      That is why the sh*t should stick to them all - central admin, legal admin, legal faculty, incredibly sloppy/lazy/complicit USN&WR...

      Delete
  33. "Hopefully not too many of them decide to become partners at Davis Polk in fits of pique"

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  34. I can't help but wonder once these festering toilets cease their operations, will I be able to sleep at night? Will my job prospects improve? Or will we still be doomed, fighting against a legion of graduates in a mad max style battle royale?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, you're in trouble.

      Delete
    2. You'll be just fine...if you're the Notes Editor of the Yale Law Journal.

      Other than that: kiss your butt goodbye.

      (PS: a client told me that her son graduated last year from Stanford with a degree in mechanical engineering and is doing very well. I guess it's too late to change your major?)

      Delete
  35. I for one do not "hate" the LawProfs that are starting to struggle. If anything, I am hopeful that they will help us.

    I am genuinely curious to see if the first batch of LP casualties continues to preach the value and versatility of a JD. Or will they too become cynical about the system that failed them and join us?

    I think that it is good thing that professorial outcomes begin to match that of their students.

    Either way, I am extra excited for the older, tenured LP's to accuse the younger faculty of having a sense of entitlement for wanting the same things that the generation before them had.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first batch of casualties may be the luckiest. They will be able to find positions in a time where there is no competition. When I was at Citigroup, the first people laid off in January 2007 were the only ones who were able to land safely at other firms. The ones that laid off in the latter rounds are no longer in the industry or doing temp positions.

      Delete
  36. "If you're giving even odds on UCI Law School being around 10 years from now, let's all take the under and get rich."

    Seriously, we should actually do this on www.intrade.com. If a number of people suggest it and will do the trade, they'll put it up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What happens to a tenured professor when a LS closes down? Is s/he a viable candidate for tenure at another LS? Does s/he go through the process all over again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't count your chickens before they're hatched. law schools continue to *open* not close (in spite of LawProfs great work).

      Delete
    2. Yup. And hot damn but were houses selling in 2005 and CDOs trading hands faster than Colombian hookers on the secret service tip! All the schools - law, undergrad, grad - are scrambling to create watered-down, fake credentialing programs to try and siphon some more federal dollars before this mofo collapses. Even Wharton Biz School has strip mall outlet locations! hahahaha! Fuck 'em all.

      Delete
  38. LawProf: "Among other things the story highlights the mind-boggling absurdity that is UC-Irvine (I would give roughly even odds on this law school existing ten years from now)."

    I really do hope this is a true (or even optimistic) assessment. UC-Irvine is really such a wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time mix of hubris and outright stupidity -- California already has four overpriced public schools in the Top 50 (Berkeley, UCLA, Davis, Hastings) and another three overpriced private schools in the Top 50 (Stanford, USC, Pepperdine). The need for lawyers that can fill the types of jobs that allow you to pay off a $40-50,000/year legal education is clearly being met already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a bit lower down the prestige scale, Chapman, Southwestern and Loyola all within a few miles. And then there's San Diego an hour to the south . . .

      Delete
  39. A law school near me hired a law professor as part of a package deal for hiring his wife as president of the university. Not only did they pay them both outlandish salaries, since she was a professor (in one of the majors that crank out unemployable undergraduates) they also gave her a tenured professor 's salary in addition to her president's salary. Three very high incomes for a two-person family, all paid by the taxpayers. There was the usual BS about what a great legal mind and scholar the hubby is and how lucky the law school was to get him. The greed and waste of taxpayer dollars is sickening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it isn't "real money" if you listen to pro-government liberals...

      Sure, the state might be broke but the friendly co-conspirator Feds can print magic money at will...

      Which of course has *zero* consequences, right?

      Even though we now have *3 times* the paper monetary base (QE 1-3) representing roughly the same *real world* national asset base that it did in 2008.

      Libs think that because national financial ruin hasn't been visited upon us *yet* - by definition it *can't*.

      Regardless of the financial recklessness with which the government behaves.

      Food commodity riots around the world (hello Arab Spring) and soaring worldwide real commodity prices since 2000 apparently don't strike too many statist libs as what they are - the direct result of dollar printing - which dilutes the dollar savings of everyone around the world and spikes the "dollar price" of internationally traded goods.

      (The post 2008 collapse in overall economic demand has partially offset "dollar dilution" inflation but it is evident if you examine *quantities* consumed - as well as prices - of goods pre and post 2008)

      One can only hope the coming collapse destroys the most deserving first.

      Delete
    2. My smallish law school has FOUR husband-and-wife couples, not to mention a father-and-son pair (although the father died last year). And one of the professors tried to get her little sweetheart hired, but his "scholarship" was so obviously lousy that even this über-nepotistic institution couldn't take him.

      Delete
    3. It seems like the concept of "enough" is totally foreign. The school president above could have said "The president's salary is more than enough, I don't need or want the professor salary. My husband thinks working for the law school would be inappropriate; he looks forward to doing pro-bono work in the community while we are here."

      Instead it is greed, greed, greed. Reminds me of the ancient Romans who feasted until they were so full they vomited and then ate more.

      Delete
    4. Law school as vomitorium...actually not a bad metaphor *at all*.

      Pretty spot on with regards to both pedagogy and recruiting/placement practices...

      ...how is that for "prestige"?

      Delete
  40. OT: Does anyone else have problems using the "Reply" feature under someone else's comment? I always have to use the "Add Comment" feature at the very bottom, and then either cut-and-paste or make some reference to the original post (which may be at or near the top of the page). Anyway, not that important, but still frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have exactly the same problem on my PC at work. No problem on my Mac at home.

      Delete
    2. With all due respect to 5:36, I have no problem with my PC (lenovo thinkpad), home (1 dell PC, 2 toshiba PC, and iPads), whether using Mozilla, Chrome, or IE etc.

      Delete
    3. I have the same issue when using my computer at work using IE. if I switch to Mozilla, works fine.

      Delete
  41. Re: UC Irvine

    Why anyone would go there over any of the other first tier schools in California is beyond me. The school is so new that your alumni network is going to consist entirely of junior level associates at local firms. Good luck leveraging that into a job.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Irvine will survive but not as a top 20 which they claim they will be when the rankings come out. Just another hastings or davis at best. Their median was only 165 for the 2014 class and its probably one points less at least for 2015 which they have not released yet.

    The dean stated that they charge this much because there is no subsidy.. NONSENSE. Berkeley and LA and hastings still get quite millions and they charge 50 a year. As as long as the federal goverment is backing the loans, the free market is taken out of the euqation and the universities can keep jacking up the tution as much as they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a disconnect somewhere. The LSs will not decrease tuition but the LS will probably go out of business?

      Delete
  43. "Davis Polk": good

    "tire fire: metaphor for So Cal legal market-- great!

    What California obviously needs is a few more marginal law schools.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Their median was only 165 for the 2014 class and its probably one points less at least for 2015"

    And this overstates the strength of their students as they seem to be LSAT focused. They are 163/165/167 for the 25/50/75 numbers for the LSAT, but are only 3.25/3.49/3.69 for the 25/50/75 numbers for GPA.

    The have LSAT numbers that would place the school around top 30, but GPA numbers that would place the school well outside of the top 50. I don't know enough about the rankings to know how that will average out, but it seems obvious it won't average to top 20.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Interesting part of the WaPo article:

    "[Chemerinsky] highlights the success of his first class of 56 students, which graduated in May. Nearly 80 percent have already found full-time jobs as lawyers. Excellence costs, he says, and, by implication, excellence pays."

    80 percent of 56 students were fully employed? Does he have an explanation for the other 20%? I would expect everyone to be fully employed with a class size that small.

    ReplyDelete
  46. According to the latest US News, UCI now has a total enrollment of only 235. I would assume they will have to bump that up to somewhere in the 600-1,200 range of the other UC law schools in order to generate enough income. If they do, things could get real ugly real fast -- LSAT and GPA will have to drop to increase class size, and this will lead to even worse placement stats, which will further push down the stats of incoming students, and so on...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That dump bought LSAT scores by offering zero tuition to the entire first class, and substantial discounts for the next couple of years.

      Now its dean is bitching about not having subsidies with which to buy more LSAT scores. Pffffffft.

      Delete
  47. I knew about the no-tuition deal for the first class, but I wasn't aware they had been continuing to offer big discounts to subsequent classes. If that's the case, UCI is toast -- how long can you keep enrollment under a 100 while offering scholarships to most students? And what happens to your admission stats when you bump enrollment and cut aid?

    I predict a debut somewhere near the bottom of the top 50, and quick descent into obscurity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tuition 1/2 off for 2nd class, 1/3 off for 3rd class, none afterwards.

      Delete
  48. Don't Go To Law School (Unless): A Law Professor's Inside Guide to Maximizing Opportunity and Minimizing Risk [Paperback]

    Out of Print--Limited Availability.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "tuition 1/2 off for 2nd class, 1/3 off for 3rd class, none afterwards."

    Found admission stats on the school site:
    http://www.law.uci.edu/prospective/consumer_info.html#admission

    They are holding the line better than I would have expected -- 25% students are only down two points on the LSAT (from 164 to 162) and .11 on GPA (from 3.4 to 3.29). However, they are only up to 119 students in the last class. They probably need to at least double that over the next few years, and do so without the sizable scholarships.

    ReplyDelete
  50. LawProf: Don't you think more broadly that what's happening in higher education is an indictment of the liberal arts curriculum? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Stop ragging on the liberal arts.

    A liberal arts education is wonderful, provided it does not cost too much. Many European universities cost one or two thousand dollars per year in tuition, and, at that price, read all of the Latvian poetry you want.

    The problems with the liberal arts in the U.S. are that:

    1. The degrees cost too much, and

    2. Employers have generally stopped selecting for potential and instead want people who are pre-trained at several narrow skills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And (2) means that people aren't actually getting education at all: what they're getting is vocational training of a very limited kind.

      Also, once changes in technology, social conditions, or whatever render those narrow skills unnecessary, people become all but unemployable, and the best way forward is to go back for even more of that narrow training in some other field, with the hope of being able to find work.

      Time was when university was open only to the wealthy and to a handful of ambitious lads o' pairts. A degree in Latvian poetry would have landed one a job at a bank or similar, with plenty of potential for advancement. Nowadays everyone, however unsuited, has to attend university. As a result, the quality of degrees has declined sharply (a bachelor's degree is little more than a receipt for fees paid), and there's a glut of people with degrees in underwater basketweaving for whom no work requiring a degree is available.

      Of course, many of those people think that they should press on to law school....

      Delete
  52. Glad that comment at 12:23 on professor Spearit incited such interest. But for a true voyage to the vile one must consider Dean Chemerinsky and UC Irvine Law School. Here, unlike SLU, the predatory and the scrofulous aren't just limited to a few outliers. They run uninterrupted from the dean, through the "founding faculty" to the ordinary administrative factotums and regular faculty. To remember, before it opened, Dean Chemerinsky's founding justification was a school put the public interest and the training of public interest lawyers over private interests. It was to subordinate the routine interests of legal practice to the needs of the under represented, ethnic minorities and the poor. And oh by the way, when U.S. News ranks us we'll be in the top ten. But the cost of this; tuition,fees and cost of living is $77,129 a year, the second highest in the nation. So no graduate can afford to be a public interest lawyer, a prosecutor, public defender or serve in legal aid. Dean Chemerinsky is now silent on this subject. To further complicate his dilemma he hired his wife as one of the founding professors, endowed and highly paid. For a full feel of this squalor, log on to their website and click faculty. Pay particular attention to the courses that they teach and their academic and work backgrounds. Is this place actually a law school? But maybe I'm wrong. Brian Leiter ranked UCI as the #7 law school in the country based on scholarly output. William Ockham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The shit about serving the downtrodden is just niche marketing. Ditto the flatus about opening the legal profession to racialized people that is currently reeking forth from the Indiana Institute of Technology and Underwater Basketweaving.

      Note how often these dumps insist that "we're not just another law school". Oh, no, we're a special snowflake. Unlike those two hundred identically grasping law schools driven by nothing but filthy lucre, we're here to fulfill a noble, progressive mission. (Namely, grotesquely overpaid employment for a bunch of twats with aggressively special-snowflake names such as "SpearIt" and "andré dipshit pond scum"—and the spouses of same.) Again, it's niche marketing. There's no particular reason for a romantic save-the-world pseudo-leftist 0L to favor UC Irvine Law School over any other Cooleyite institution, so UC Irvine frames itself as a progressive law school in order to capture more than its share of this market.

      The same goes for all of the risible specialties in international environmental law and the like. If there actually were any potential for a putative specialty of that kind, it would be met by a Harvard or at least a Michigan, not by a Vermont Law School.

      Delete
    2. hahaha! zing! i know a guy who did environmental law at Vermont - worthless, couldn't think his way out of paper bag. 32 and he'd never had a real job.

      Delete
    3. VLS is, however, a pretty place to spend three years.

      Delete
    4. Three years and how much money?

      Delete
  53. He hired his buddies too and payed them well but the money will run out. They got 20 million from a rich guy in the OC and that's it. Are they getting no subisdy at all? I think they must be getting some, I'm not saying they should, but they must be getting some. if they are not than, they are screwed. UCI has no endowment to speak of.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "To remember, before it opened, Dean Chemerinsky's founding justification was a school put the public interest and the training of public interest lawyers over private interests. It was to subordinate the routine interests of legal practice to the needs of the under represented, ethnic minorities and the poor. And oh by the way, when U.S. News ranks us we'll be in the top ten. But the cost of this; tuition,fees and cost of living is $77,129 a year, the second highest in the nation."

    What an A-hole. Any links to articles where Chemerinsky talked about this PI focus at his Ivy priced law school?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Chemerinsky: But there is a need for attorneys who graduate better trained in how to practice law. There is a need for more attorneys who will use some or all of their talents to serve the public service.

    Valot: Chemerinksy says he hopes his law students will do that.

    Chemerinsky: I went to law school because I believe that law is the most powerful tool for social change. Some of our students, I hope when they graduate, will go into government or go into public interest or go into legal services.

    But even for those students who go to law firms, my hope is that more from our school than is generally true will use a good deal of time to do pro bono work, to help serve the community.
    _______________________________

    From a 2009 interview with Chemerinsky. What an asshole!!!

    UC-I is what's wrong with legal academia. I hope that turd sinks and embarrasses the clueless lefty academics who are about as useful as tits on a bull.

    ReplyDelete
  56. The Washington Post article is exactly what is needed as a sign of progress. There needs to be an emphasis on the numbers(the cost of law school, the interest rates on loans, the employment figures, the salaries, etc.)!

    ReplyDelete
  57. To everybody who has large Student Loan balances, check this out:

    The most indebted man in the world owes former employer $6.3 billion
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/most-indebted-man-world-owes-former-employer-6-221741121.html

    ReplyDelete
  58. So the new Dean of Illinois is posting on TLS. He recently had the nerve to tell people not to retake because few people improve and because time is of the essence in applying to his school.

    I no longer post on TLS as I have moved on ( into the hurricane emergency but that is a different problem.)

    If I still posted there I would ask this Dean where he gets the nerve to not tell people to retake. The LSAT is so crucial that his school lied about scores just to improve their ranking ( and no one believes it was just Pless)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's actually relatively sound advice. Scores don't improve much - even if they do, the good schools will still consider the old score. If you are still hell-bent on attending law school (even after all the warnings), the LSAT is a one shot, one kill proposition.

      Delete
    2. No. You are very wrong. The LSAT is a very learnable test. Most people don't study correctly the first time. There are plenty of people who studied and improved.

      Also. In the world of admissions even a few points can make a huge difference. A 171 is much better than a 169 or 168. I think that it is worth the effort to study correctly and improve.

      The LSAT should be retaken until you get the score you need or you shouldn't go. I think that people shouldn't go anyway. Butd they must go, thy should retake.

      Delete
    3. Also- schools DO NOT look at the old score. They only have to report the highest score and that is all they care about.

      Please understand admissions before you give out bad advice. Schools like Yale and Stanford may care but they are possibly the only two.

      Delete
    4. I improved 12 points my second time around. I would have had zero chance at my current school if I hadn't retaken. Even if they averaged the score, an improvement of this size is a game changer. If I could do it, anyone could, all you need to do is put in the hours and learn the test.

      Delete
    5. A 171 is actually indistinguishable from a 168: whatever the test supposedly measures, it doesn't measure more accurately than ±3 points. But a 171 means a hell of a lot more than a 168 at the admissions office, where a single point may be imbued with great significance.

      Delete
    6. Right. That is why if you improve even a few points it can make a huge difference.

      My point about the dean was that he was advising people to apply with the scores they had, saying a retake wouldn't help and that time is of the essence.

      Everyone who watched admissions last year knows that the argument that time is of the essence is false. I recall the ever perky Dean Z.complaining about the very late scholarship offers people were getting because it caused the students so much stress.

      The point is that admissions are almost solely LSAT and GPA based. The timing is important to the admission officers, this is true. Some people benefit from early applications, but it is much more important to have the highest LSAT you can get. THe Dean conveniently left out the benefits of retaking. Luckily, retake is the theme of TLS so I doubt all the Dean accomplished was to lose credibility.

      Delete
    7. should be "think" instead of "doubt"
      Sorry.

      Delete
    8. SPEAKING of bad advice, it sounds like you need to do a little bit of research yourself. Pretty much every school that isn't Cooley or Nova DOES average in the inferior score - and there is no way to hide it from them (unlike the GRE). Glad to hear that you gained "12 points," but for every person who improves his score, there are at least three who break even or do even worse. Tell me, what is your sage advice for someone whose score goes down on the retest? Probably to double down and ace the LSAT several times in a row. Effin' brilliant.

      Delete
    9. Fuck that retaking shit. I applied long before they made this "we'll look at your latest score only" bullshit. I was !!!fucked!!! out of a T10 school because of averaging.

      Yeas, stupid fucking me for taking the test cold and fucking my average forever. But even more, fucking stupid me for not realizing there and then that law school is a bullshit numbers game/scam.

      Fuck law school. Fuck my debt. My hatred for law school, lawyers, and the US legal scam system will never cease. I will take this bitterness to my grave, and I vow to fucking destroy this system if it's the last thing I do.

      Delete
    10. No, they do not average scores. Look on LSN (law school numbers - and see the admissions of people who retake) or ask people on TLS if you don't believe me. TLS is filled with people who have retaken and reapplied and been accepted to better schools. If the schools were averaging, they would not admit these retakers with their higher scores.

      They may see the lower score, but they don't care about it. They only care about the score they report.

      If your score goes down, it doesn't hurt you. Seriously.

      You need to spend some time with current law school admission practices. People post their numbers on LSN and discuss this at length on TLS. It is easy to see that retakes can only improve your admission chances.

      As for the number of times you can take the LSAT - you can only take it 3 times (including cancelled score,etc.) in a 2 year period. (You use to be able to take it 4 times with permission from a school, but that was so abuses that LSAC dropped it as an option.)

      I have spent a good deal of time looking at admissions and numbers over the past two years, this is what I have seen happening.

      Delete
    11. You are right with my comment on retaking, no one should be going to law school.

      But we don't be able to seem to stop everyone.

      I started this comment because I was outraged at the Illinois Dean scamming people into thinking that they must get their apps in now instead of retaking for a better score.

      Illinois is one of the top scam schools. They scammed their own students into attending instead of going to better schools. I think they should have had a much harsher penalty.
      Looks like they are still at it.

      Delete
    12. "No, they do not average scores." If by "they" you mean Cooley, Nova, and Touro, then your comment is correct. I guess it is high stakes for some applicants (by the way, is Touro>Nova?), but most people facing such a dilemma should probably avoid law school altogether.

      Good job dodging the question, BTW. What IS your sage advice for people who retake the test and (in the majority of cases) break even, or do even worse?

      One shot, one kill. Deal with it.

      Delete
    13. And hey bitter guy who bombed the LSAT the first time,

      Please provide a list of the "Top 10" law schools that "look at your latest score only." Links or it didn't happen. Unless you mean the top ten campuses of Cooley (hard to keep track of the number, isn't it).

      You can chime in on this one too, Mr. Pretend Admissions Expert. Shut my big mouth. Preparing to be amazed in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

      Delete
    14. I already told you how to find this information that is already widely known regarding retakes. Just about any TLS thread will get you there.

      I can't help you if you don't want to understand reality.

      Many people retake this test. To suggest that people must only try one time is grossly incorrect.


      Delete
    15. Just to reiterate this point, LSN doesn't even have a box to check if a score is a retake or not, it is that unimportant.

      Delete
    16. Chicago specifically says they do not average. They may want an explanation of why your score improved dramatically.

      Duke specifically says they will take the higher score only- you just have to explain why it represents you.

      NYU does average - forgot them-

      Columbia- says they "consider" all scores.


      A anyone who saw these schools throwing admissions and scholarships to buy LSAT scores last spring and summer knows that only the highest score really matters at the end of the day. A lower score will not hurt you.




      Delete
    17. Penn - will only consider the higher score if you explain why it represents you

      Michigan- gives higher score the most weight, will consider average, if more than 6 points difference please write an explanation.

      Virginia- most weight on highest score - pretty much like Michigan.

      Really all you need to do is read the FAQs for admission for each school. They all consider the higher score - only a few average scores.

      Delete
    18. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=107648

      Lists and discusses
      Posters point out that because the ABA wants the schools to use the highest scores, for the most part they do. Any other discussion of how they look at all scores, without specifically mentioning averaging, is just more fluff along the lines of how they have a holistic process.

      So there guy, lots of evidence for you to look at. And none of these schools are Cooley.

      As I said, learn what you are talking about. The highest score is what matters and it doesnt matter if your highest score is your first, second or third - so doing worse doesn't hurt you.

      Delete
    19. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you? You're just running on stubborn pride at this point.

      If you scroll back up past all of your blather (sooo much blather), you will see that my original comment was that even if you are one of the lucky few who improves his score, "the good schools will still consider the old score."

      Without so much as a single exception, every one of the schools you mentioned does precisely that: they consider the older score. I didn't see any links to the schools' pages (the only one I did see was to a TSL discussion thread, LOL), and I suspect that you've put a fair amount of spin on those policies, even while ceding that they DO consider ALL of the scores - which, again, was my original comment.

      I sure hope you aren't giving any of your "valuable" advice to people on other websites. It goes without saying that all of the schools you mentioned (except for Cooley) are utterly beyond your reach, right?

      Delete
    20. @ November 4, 2012 9:37 PM

      That thread is 2 years old. The LSAT policies at each school may have been relaxed (i.e. almost all take highest score) due to the falling LSAT scores

      Delete
    21. Dude, give it up. You don't know how law school admissions work at all.

      No one is not getting admitted because they take the LSAT twice and do better the next time.

      Each of these schools says, in their own way, we only care about the highest score and we don't average. The rest is just fluff. The same way they say that admissions is a holistic process which we all know is completely untrue. The focus is keeping their means. (which is why Illinois lied about their means in the first place.)

      I don't know why you think that TLS is a bad resource for admissions. I wouldn't laugh at the people who have the most immediate experience with acceptances to the best schools in the country. TLS exists to help people get admitted into schools and they have great advice. If you don't want to take them seriously, you are losing a valuable resource. Ask Lawprof, he is on the site all the time.


      I don't really care if you don't believe me. Post your own thread on TLS and see what the reaction is. What I care about is people being convinced that the LSAT is a one and done deal. Each school has policies on retakes - no one tells you to only take the LSAT once. That is absurd.

      I also don't know why you are being so rude to me. You are just plain wrong. How many people have you seen not admitted because they took the LSAT again? It just DOES NOT happen that people with a high enough score do not get in to a school because they took the LSAT twice.

      Where are your links showing all the people who suffered because they took the test more than once? There isn't one. Have you seen anyone in the past two years with a higher second score claim they didn't get admitted to a school where that score should have gotten them in? NO, you haven't.

      People should take the LSAT and retake the LSAT to get the best score that they can. To tell people to take it only once is absurd.

      You have no sense how admission really works. The high score that gets reported is the only score schools care about.

      Delete
    22. If you read the statements from the schools it is clear that almost all of them place the greatest weight on the highest score. So, what was the argument again?

      Delete
    23. Haha, I KNOW you think the "top ten" schools (ALL of whom actually DO consider the lower score, per your own "info") are tottering on the brink of complete collapse, and are ready to take anything with a pulse that won't harm their USNWR "credentials." Hope springs eternal - for you, at least.

      Is your TLS *discussion thread* actually from TLS itself (as you seem to imply)? Or is it just comments from ignoramuses like you who would be lucky to get accepted at ANY law school? If your comments here are any clue, I'd say that half the posts on that thread were authored BY you.

      Hm, can I give you the names of all the students who were rejected at a law school "because" they got a higher score on the retest? Congratulations, you win that one, I guess. Of course, I never made any such claim. Haha, "well, we were prepared to admit Mr. Dingleberry Know-It-All to our prestigious law school because of his utter MASTERY of the ins and outs of our admissions process, but SAY WHAT? He got a HIGHER SCORE on the latest LSAT? Whew, I'm glad we caught that before we sent him that acceptance letter!" LOL.

      My point (*yawn* yet AGAIN, for the intentionally obtuse) is that few will significantly improve their score on a retest, most will get the same score or an even worse one, and law schools consider (and in many cases, indeed do average in) the inferior score. That last sentence of mine has three main assertions. Which one(s) are you in complete denial about, again? It's hard to tell.

      Still waiting on your sage advice for the people (i.e., the majority) whose second score is worse. What do THEY do, Mr. Pretend Admissions Expert Who Prepares for his High-Power Pretend Admissions Consulting Job by Posting on Blogs at 3:38 in the Morning? LOL.

      And I AM "giving it up," time now. I refuse to argue with idiots, because after a while, observers might not be able to tell which one IS the idiot - clearly it is you. I don't care what you think, either. Hopefully people who are semi-comatose or better will be able to see through your mountain of BS and take all your statements with a grain of salt. Or a bag of it.

      Delete
    24. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=197198

      Delete
    25. Jesus, 7:18. You really don't know anything. I took the test twice. 164, then 176. I got offers like a 176 person, not a 164. I never submitted ANY addenda of any kind, to any school, related to my LSAT disparity. The only t-10 schools that said no were Yale and NYU. NYU explicitly says they average, and Yale probably wouldn't have taken a 176 my application year, even without the lower score. The other 8 were ready to sign me up, no questions asked. So tell me, genius, what was going on?

      Delete
    26. If what you say is actually true (credulity...straining!!!), then I smell affirmative action. You DO have a whiny, entitled mentality.

      So! Did you choose Harvard or Stanford? How strange that YOU would be commenting on the stupidity of attending law school. It's clearly served you well - you must be making at LEAST 200K at Biglaw by now. Tell me, do they by any chance pay you in magic beans at your firm? Or is it in dingleberries? LOL

      Delete
    27. And P.S. For someone who got a "176" on the LSAT, you certainly seem to have major difficulty following simple arguments. Clearly reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I understand that affirmative action can have the effect of adding up to 30 points to an applicant's LSAT score. Are you SURE that the law schools treated your 134/146 like a 164/176? I think you are making quite a big assumption there.

      Delete
    28. Law schools don't average multiple LSAT scores from matriculants, for the simple reason that any school that did so would be putting itself at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to schools that don't, since schools are only required to report a matriculant's highest score. Assertions by schools that multiple scores are "taken into account" are meaningless. Schools need high scores, so the only score they care about is the highest score they can report.

      Delete
    29. Haha, whatever, dude. The dingleberry who posted above (and posted ... and posted ...) has already cited at least one school that explicitly averages the scores.

      Unlike that fool, you at least know first-hand how law schools are run. But are you seriously contending that the T6 is hurting for applicants that badly? Even in this fierce new age of slightly fewer applicants, the best law schools can still - even now - afford to be picky.

      Delete
  59. EVERYBODY IN CALI, VOTE NO ON PROP 30 (law schools are sending e-mails urging a "yes" vote), BUT not even Gavin Newsom will back it:

    Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom two weeks ago criticized Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative approach, suggesting to KGO Radio in San Francisco that the governor was slow to hit the campaign trail and that he was telling college students ‘something that’s not true.’”

    “Newsom, who sits on the University of California Board of Regents and the California State University Board of Trustees, emphasized several times in a four-minute interview that Brown was misleading college students by suggesting Prop. 30 would avert tuition increases. That has since become a central part of Brown’s campaign message.

    “‘My big concern is, we went down yesterday and said there will be no tuition increase if you support this,’ Newsom said. ‘That’s just not true. You can’t say things like this.’

    “He went on to explain that Brown is relying on a ‘technical point’ that tuition would not increase this 2012-13 school year at UC and CSU if Prop. 30 passes. But Newsom said that even if it does, UC would still likely raise tuition in 2013-14 and students may feel ‘lied to.’ Newsom suggested that UC would consider a 2013-14 tuition hike as soon as its next meeting in November regardless of what voters decide.”

    ReplyDelete
  60. Prop 30 = higher taxes, higher cost of living, more jobs leaving, more higher taxes on high income meaning high income people going elsewhere meaning less tax revenue in the long run.. so yeah but as long as the overpaid deans and administrators get their way it's all good. and dont make this a republican vs democrat issue. Both parties are crooks and equally responsible for this mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed...the "two parties" are really just two mafias fighting over the protection racket money.

      There is *one* political class - the one that lives off tax revenue and printing press dollar dilution.

      Delete
    2. While at a national level that is probably true, this sort of attempt to blame both sides equally makes little sense in California, where every layer of government and industry is dominated by liberal democrats. California is, for better or worse, the near-perfect realization of the left's vision for governance, since they are essentially unopposed in all matters involving public policy.

      For example, the recent debate over taxes has been a 'blue on blue' battle over which proposal adequately 'sticks it to the rich' and best secures perpetual employment for unionized public school teachers and 'higher education' employees:

      http://www.examiner.com/article/tax-proposals-are-gearing-up-for-2012-ballot

      Delete
    3. I agree that California is a basket case beyond that of most states - and that Democratic domination lies behind much/most of it, but...

      ...Any party/individual put in control of the Governmental money machine (literally and figuratively) seems to be very rapidly corrupted and absorbed into the political class/courtier economy of DC and the state capitals.

      We will *never* find angels to rule over men.

      How did the Republican insurgents of 1994 turn into the Medicare drug entitlers of 2004?

      Putting too much faith in a simple change of parties is a mistake (although the apparently simplest and quickest "fix").

      The only lasting reform will be Constitutional reform at Federal and State levels (and a partial castration of judicial review - which has itself undemocratically castrated state and Federal Constitutions).

      America is pretty far down the road of being a failed state (despite superficial illusions...once the diluted dollar goes into hyperinflation, everything else in this society will go) so fairly dramatic changes are required.

      Delete
  61. Chemerinsky taught the con law part of my bar review course. I recall him as being extremely intelligent, charismatic, and willing to spend lots of time answering everyone's questions.

    It is a shame he has embarked on this plan to produce purported public interest lawyers who will as impoverished as (or more so than) the people they are supposed to serve.

    ReplyDelete
  62. On another topic - did Lawprof discuss the new LST score reports on schools? They are quite good and show why US News and their national ranking system is all wrong.

    I know we care about ending the scam here. I think a good part of the scam begins with these USNews rankings.

    Here is what LST has to say about them:

    http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=guides&show=13

    here are the reports:
    http://www.lstscorereports.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for posting this! I don't know why anyone would ever use U.S. News again.

      Delete
  63. Listen to Nando's "misfortune" - yes, the horrors that led him to go nuts on the internet:

    "[To attend law school] I left a low-wage job that offered monthly bonuses. We often met that mark. At that point, I was recently married and living in an affordable condo. I had saved roughly $7,000 up to that point. With my wife working - and having received a full tuition scholarship to attend Third Tier Drake - that money went pretty quick. At least, I did not take out any student loans for my first semester.

    Now, I work in a $40K per year job. At least, the benefits are pretty good. I ended up taking out $37K in student loans, for living expenses, over the course of three years. Thanks to my kind sister-in-law, and the luck of finding a job immediately after moving back, I was able to save a little money for a down payment. My wife is now 37 weeks pregnant.

    In my view, I simply delayed purchasing a home and starting a family for five years. I know plenty of people who have kids at age 24. Hell, my dad became a father at 24, and he only had a H.S. diploma. He didn't need to worry about student loans. My wife is slightly older than me, and I am now 33 years old. I also incurred additional debt. Prior to law school, I only owed $40K in loans, at 4.2% interest. My law school loans are at 6.8 percent."

    Wow! That's awful! A whole $37K in law school loans? And you had family to help out? And you're happily married, having kids, buying houses, and generally living like most of us only DREAM of?

    Your background makes "Third Tier Toilet" look like a whiny little bitch of a site. Come back and play when you're carrying $200K in student loans.

    Law school cost you $37K. And you're ANGRY about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Nando is allowed to be outraged at circumstances beyond his own.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps. But let's look at the foundations of "scamblogging". We have Nando, who is doing rather well and evidently never was a victim. We had Painter, who was mentally ill and never intended to pay his loans anyway. And we had a few real scambloggers who were true victims, but they've all gone - one suspects to respectable jobs of the kind where throwing insults around on the internet is not professionally prudent.

      Scamblogging should stop, or at least this blog should distance itself from that term. Campos should rename this blog, because the biggest victims of the scam are one by one turning out not to be victims at all!

      Instead, start afresh with this blog being a law school reform blog. That is a subject worth pursuing. The "scam" part of the whole affair looks increasingly silly, and distracts us from really engaging in real and needed reform.

      I wish I had a mere $37,000 in law student debt! Are we sure this is not a typo and he really has $137,000?

      Delete
    3. This does not make sense. If true it appears that nando is the one doing the scamming. He got a free law degree and is now doing his best to destroy law schools. There are deeper issues there that need explaining. Is he mad at a professor? Is his only complaint that he spent three years in school for free?

      From his blog I thought he was hopelessly in debt and has his life ruined.

      Care to explain, nando? Or will you try and dismiss this issue in a flurry of insults and diversions?

      Why are you so angry about law school when it treated you very well?

      Delete
    4. Nando's doing fine, and that's great for him. Law school is still a scam and he should still blog about it.

      Delete
    5. The point is Nando was >>always<< doing fine, and keeping very quiet about it too!

      Delete
    6. Wait until he gets here and starts calling all of you cucarachas, then you'll see.

      Delete
    7. So let me get this right: you guys are mad because someone else is madder than you, at the same scam, and you owe more than he does.

      Delete
  64. I just discovered this blog and find it intriguing and ironic, Prof. Campos. I am a CU alum and your classes epitomized what you are criticizing on this blog. The lectures were self-absorbed masterbations that were simply platforms for your attempts to sell yourself as some intellectual superhero. Talk about a waste of time and money. You criticze the LLM program as lacking economic statstics that justify its continuance, but frankly your classes lacked the same justification. They did nothing to prepare students for actual practice upon graduation, and bore no relationship to the real world in which most lawyers operate. The lectures consisted of you espousing your latest post-modern, deconstructionist theory in preparation for your next law review article, or whatever theoretical approach was trendy at the moment in legal academic circles. Curious what your opinion is of your own career, in light of your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's the whole point of this blog. Last year Campos had a come to jesus moment. The real question is whether he is still doing this today. Any current students got the info?

      Delete
    2. First, why did it take him so long to realize this? If he is really on the forefront of intellectualism, how could he have missed what was and is still so obvious? Second, I view this blog as an example of continuing to engage in meaningless/ineffective teaching and intellectual dyspesia. Do his lectures at CU now consist of espousing THIS trendy topic, and still lack practical substance? If so, he is still perpetuating the "crisis" he vehemently criticizes. It is in fact more meaningless legal "scholarship" that depends upon a dysfunctional instutional for survival. No offense, Prof. Campos. I applaud critical thinking. Just not to the point of it being in the business of keeping itself in business.

      Delete
    3. Haha, so the sun total of this supposed "irony" is your claim that Campos' class "didn't prepare you" for the actual practice of law?

      When has Campos actually focused on that? In fact, he specifically blew that issue off, saying that it was ancillary to the far more significant overproduction of JDs and shrinking number of law jobs.

      Delete
  65. "The lectures consisted of you espousing your latest post-modern, deconstructionist theory in preparation for your next law review article"

    Oh, trolling troll that trolls too hard, we are on to you. Everyone knows Prof. Campos hasn't written a law review article since he got tenure. And you would, too, if you were really a recent CU alum.

    Move along now, let the adults get back to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't he write a law review article about the scam? I thought it was / is being published in one of Michigan's secondary journals.

      Delete
    2. I did not say he was tentured when I was at CU. I did not say I was a "recent" CU alum. Sorry, no trolls or unemployed juvenilles here.

      But taking pot shots at me personally does not diminish the substance of my criticism that this blog itself is a shining but ironic example of legal scholarship not doing what it should: teach; and displaying what it actually is: psuedo-intellectualism.

      Delete
    3. what a money misdirection move. ad hominem attack on campos. don't worry, he's used to it.

      you can't change the math.

      Delete
    4. No one cares.

      Delete
  66. NPR piece airing today, "Is A Law Degree Still Worth It." Basically an interview with the author of the WaPo article. http://www.npr.org/2012/11/05/164335493/is-a-law-degree-still-worth-it

    ReplyDelete
  67. Leave Campos alone. He is doing his part to expose these rotten festering tttoilets and their oleaginious Valvoline Deans.

    ReplyDelete
  68. What a week! Tropical Storm Sandy knocked out our power for two days, and our internet and cable for 7 days, and some people are still out of power and the gas lines on Long Island are absolutely crazy.

    It kind of puts things in perspective. The last thing on my mind was the law school scam.

    I was inspired to reread the novel "Deliverance" by candlelight, wherein Lewis Medlock, the city boy makes a clean arrow "center shot" through the back of a hillbilly, and then Ed Gentry, (normally an Advertising VP) makes a harrowing 100 foot or so rock climb in the dark so as to wait in a tree to shoot and also kill the second hillbilly through the neck.

    As for the power outage, I really don't know what to say. When the power goes out, all of the supposedly smart people have generators, which use up huge amounts of fuel, and they all end up on the gas lines a few days later anyway.

    The alternative to avoiding the gas lines is to keep 50 or more gallons on the property beforehand.

    I heard that some people had carbon monoxide poisioning from the generators too. Not sure if there were any fatalities.

    May all of our problems be only money problems :)

    ReplyDelete
  69. Think the song was called You`re UnbelievableNovember 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    "I did not say he was tentured when I was at CU. I did not say I was a "recent" CU alum. Sorry, no trolls or unemployed juvenilles here. "

    LOL. So you graduated 15+ years ago and still remember with incredible detail the type, content and value of his lectures even today.

    Sorry, your recitation has a bit of problem passing the straight-face test.

    Simply put, "You're Unbelievable".

    ReplyDelete
  70. Are you serious? You had a natural disaster that you survived and you are now giddily dismissing the serious problems of people whose entire life has been ruined by lying schools and their scam employment stats?

    Sorry you suffered for a week. That sure makes the struggle of indebted students look small . No cable or net- what a horror!

    And, before you find me unsympathetic, we lost our entire upstate house last year due to Irene and no one cared. I'm currently writing from there because we still have no electricity or water.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @9:39 - I agree with you. Not sure why all the people who comment on this blog believe Campos is some kind of a hero. He continues to "teach" at CU and collect a paycheck financed by the very scam he speaks out against. Nice work "professor."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can say that Campos isn't enough of a "hero" because he hasn't quit and donated all his worldly possessions to all the law school scam victims. Okay.

      But he is much more of a "hero" compared to all the profs who simply silently profit from the scam and say nothing. And he is MUCH MUCH MUCH more of a "hero" than those who actually defend the scam.

      It's all a matter of perspective. That Campos isn't as much of a "hero" as he could be still means that he is much more of a "hero" than almost all other profs. Only people I know who I can place alongside him are DJM, Tanamahana, maybe a handful of others.

      Its beyond stupid to imply that he is not better than all the other profs when he has done so much more and has helped many from being future victims.

      Delete
    2. Agree w 3:15.

      I'm not in the slightest upset about the fact that PC remains a prof. It doesn't undermine the accuracy of what he writes, and I don't believe one is required to forfeit position in order to advance a critique.

      Delete
  72. Well, if law professor did resign I can see the comments in a few (very few) months: "Yes there was a slight problem with law school employment immediately after graduation but the schools have corrected that. Campos is not in the profession any more and his comments and ideas are hopelessly outdated. Let me tell you about our new law school we are opening in the middle of nowhere Illinois. You can plan on at least $200,000 in salary immediately after graduation. Just sign these loan papers and write me, i mean the school, a check."

    ReplyDelete
  73. The law school scam is a problem for sure, but when the entire immediate world is in chaos, and when the hospitals have no power, and when people are on the verge of panic, and many are dead from falling trees, and sewage is flowing all over, there are other problems besides civilized ephemeral debt and the ruination of a "second home" upstate? And who should in the name of humanity care about your fucking second home? Henry David Thoreau?

    God what an inhumane asshole

    What kind of amimals read and comment on this blog anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Way over the top. Whatever else might be said about us "amimals", we don't hyperventilate.

      Delete
  74. And yeah it is giddy because the entire US financial system is crumbling and there is no way the debt will ever be repaid.

    A major world event, and I want my schandenfreude as much as I wanted my old MTV.

    I hope to meet some one time law school professors digging ditches someday, and I will give them the same cold shoulder they gave me for so many years :)

    All Satire of course/

    All Satire :) And written from a second home in upstate NY :)

    ReplyDelete
  75. @3:40PM

    Ahh. Hit a nerve ey?

    OY!

    ReplyDelete
  76. An addendum on Dean Chimerinsky and his young law school. UC-Irvine Law did get a $20 million founding endowment. It funded the recruitment and hiring of the "founding faculty", various deans and administative fac totums and of courses the dean himself. Also provided for were full tuition scholarships for the initial entering class and 66% and 33% tuition grants the the next two classes. But this is where it gets interesting. The money came from Donald Bren, an immensely wealthy ($13 billion estimated net worth) Orange county real estate developer previously known for endowing right-wing Republicans. The arrangement was that the new school would be named the University of California at Irvine Donald L. Bren Law School. But once the check was cashed, Chemerinsky, alert to the possibilities of embarassment and with his heightened awareness of the undeserved privileges of the rich, stiffed Bren on the naming rights and thus retaining his progressive bona fides. Slick work.

    ReplyDelete

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