Tuesday, January 22, 2013

He has a dream

Upper class white guy with a six-figure psuedo-job from which he can never be fired says:  If you think law schools shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever cost of attendance they want, while requiring the federal government to loan that entire amount in the form of non-dischargeable high interest loans subject to no actuarial controls to anyone law schools choose to admit, then you are ("objectively" as the Marxists used to say) in favor of the following things:

The revival of Jim Crow.

The destruction of both academic freedom and the Rule of Law.

Racism, sexism, and classism.

Update:  Diamond appears to have password-protected his blog, so that it can't be read without his permission.

184 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. LOL, lovit. That's gotta be the best ever.

      Much better than my "Foist!", "Frist!" "FROST! Robert Frost", etc.

      Delete
  2. LP, I had to go to Diamond's site to read this one. Lawprof is going too far with his criticism this time, I thought. No one is that obtuse, I thought. Sure enough, there's Diamond, writing about the revival of Jim Crow. Please keep goading him to write more. First, he's pure comedic gold. Second, he's writing checks the law school system can't cash.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen. Keep up the great work Campos. You have saved thousands from financial ruin.

      Delete
    2. Lawprof should set up a wiki (just as easy to set up as a blog) in order to memorialize - for all time - the corruption and stupidity of the rear-guarding professoriate.

      Unless a permanent record is kept, worthies like Diamond will try to destroy their tracks when slaughtered in public debate. (See his blog...well, if you could...)

      Also, a wiki has the advantage of summarizing individualized information in a single place - it provides an evergreen source of simplified resource information.

      In contrast, a blog is an ever vanishing stream of transient (if timely) information that tends to vanish - beyond easy searching or referencing.

      Since the point of the law-scam movement is to inform the armies of the misled, we need to make it easier for such casual readers to reference the source material behind our arguments.

      A wiki is a very useful tool in this regard.

      Individual entries could be made for specific schools, professors, law firms, main stream press stories, etc.

      Just a thought.

      Delete
  3. This is starting to sound very much like real estate agents, circa 2007 - as the edifice of the real bubble began collapsing, several prominent agents in my area got ever more frenetic in denouncing anyone who said there was a real estate bubble - announcing that people who thought that there was a bubble were "amateurs", "losers", and "sitting on their mama's couch in the basement", and announcing that real estate was inevitably only going to ever-higher levels.

    Six months later, they were begging for direct government intervention to prop up the collapsing real estate market.

    We already know anecdotally that Santa Clara is handing out multiple scholarships of 25-50% off first year's tuition (which they can reduce or withdraw if you don't stay in the top 25% of your class). Imagine what they will be doing by May.

    And yes, IBR bears an eerie resemblance to traditional sharecropping arrangements...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...although I must confess that none of the real estate agents who were mocking people who thought there was a bubble in 2007 said that you were racist, if you thought that real estate was overvalued.

      Delete
    2. You didn't? I'm pretty sure there was a lot of predatory lending in that direction - disguised as 'bringing homeowning opportunities to minority neighbourhoods' and so on.

      Delete
  4. This isn't that far removed from the concept that the government should encourage banks to lend anyone money to buy a home, because not doing so smacks of all bad things. Wait a second, we tried that and it didn't quite end up working out so well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that at least in some cases, people actually got... homes!

      Not so with a degree from SCU.

      Delete
    2. And they could declare bankruptcy and walk away from the home and the loan.

      Financially injured, but not broken and indebted for life.

      Delete
    3. Um... are you referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, which said banks had to at least *consider* the people who actually live in the bank's area? This is quite different than encouraging lending money to *anyone*.

      The CRA was about preventing banks from arbitrarily denying loans to minorities because they were minorities. It in no way told banks they had to lend to people who were unable to pay the loans. In fact, arguably, the single most important factor to the housing bubble was investors (i.e., non governmental parties) demanding higher and higher returns, with no corresponding demand for underwriting standards.

      Delete
    4. ^ Written by Bill Clinton. And he wasn't even under oath this time!

      Delete
    5. Um is so rude.

      Delete
  5. OK, you're not fooling me any more. It couldn't be more obvious what's going on here: Campos and Tamanaha have recruited Diamond as a mole/double agent for the scam movement. His job is to make arguments defending the status quo that are so outrageous that they'll push fence-sitters over to the side of the critics.

    It's the only explanation that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow. Just....wow. What can you even say to a person like Diamond? The guy is walking proof that you can have all the degrees in the world and yet possess a real understanding of just about nothing.
    To paraphrase Allen Iverson...We're not even talking about a real law school here. We're talking Santa Clara. Not Yale. Not Georgetown. Not a good state school. Santa Clara. Santa Clara law school man. Fucking Santa Clara law professor talking like he's taking on the power structure, like he's training the next Bayard Rustin over there at his useless diploma mill.
    I'd laugh at all these ineffectual little "ivory tower" twats like Diamond and Leiter, if they weren't so active in justifying the ruination of so many naive kids' lives. These people deserve no mercy. They're just horrible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. We're (not) talking about practice!

      Delete
    2. "To paraphrase Allen Iverson...We're not even talking about a real law school here. We're talking Santa Clara. Not Yale. Not Georgetown. Not a good state school. Santa Clara. Santa Clara law school man."

      ROFL

      Delete
    3. Steve Diamond = Balph Eubank

      Delete
  7. Ah, the wonders of identity politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "racialized persons"=new code for some races, but not others.

      Someone below uses the term fluently, as though it means something.

      Delete
  8. LAWPROF!!! PLEASE STOP ENGAGING DIAMOND! He is using you to gain attention and trolling the reform movement for his own publicity. He knows his school is on the chopping block, just wait a few more months when SCU can't fill its class and then bring the axe down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, don't jump the gun: people have to pass through the process of being lambasted before they can safely be ignored.

      Delete
    2. No, keep engaging Diamond, this dialogue is a positive for the law school reform movement.

      Delete
  9. I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of publicity either SCU or law school defenders want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For all the boomers out there.

      In the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest mental institution that is the Law School defenders' ivory tower:
      Diamond is Cheswick, and Leitner is Harding.

      Harding: Cheswick, do me a favor. Take it easy. And stay off my side.


      Delete
  10. Of course Diamond wants to keep the student lending gravy tain rolling (because it directly benefits people like him), and IBR and PAYE do just that.

    Consumer bankruptcy protections for student loans are the only true remedy, and need to be restored.

    But I want all of the future underemployed law professors to know that underemployment is not so bad :)

    Once you lose your pride after the first week or two, and settle down to feed your family and survival mode, you will forget all about your academic titles and not want to tell your co-workers about your education either, lest they haze you mercilessly.

    And you will look with renewed gratitude at the things you do have, such as health, two hands to work with, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Consumer bankruptcy protections for student loans are the only true remedy, and need to be restored."

      Of course, that will kill the market for student loans for law students.

      From the Santa Clara law school web site:

      "Typical Aid Package

      The examples below are based on the student budget for the 2012-2013 academic year.
      First-Year, Full-Time Students:

      $20,500 Unsubsidized Federal Direct Loan
      $45,760 Direct Graduate PLUS Loan
      $66,260 Total"

      I'm amazed that the car companies haven't gotten onto this - "yeah, the car costs $80,000, but we will give you a "financial aid" package where we'll loan you the money, so you don't have to pay it all at once!"

      Of course, if you can't make the payments, you can always give the car back...

      Delete
    2. Why would relaxing bankruptcy rules so that the truly unable to pay affect lending?

      The government is doing the lending, not banks, and the government is going to eat these loans anyway.

      I have done corporate work in debtor side bankruptcy and I find it strange that law firms can leave their janitors unpaid; but unemployed and unemployable lawyers can never discharge their debt, unless they become paralyzed or something dire.

      Delete
    3. Clearly Santa Clara applicants are unable to distinguish between the words "loan" and "grant."

      I'm not seeing "grant" anywhere in the "proposal."

      How on earth does a bucketful of loans qualify as a "scholarship"?

      Delete
    4. A discount on the amount you have to borrow shouldn't really be considered a "scholarship". Scholarships used to be cash grants given to the most promising students.

      I'm guessing most people still think of them that way, so when SCU calls a routine discount on its grossly overinflated fees a "scholarship" this makes the special snowflakes feel extra special.

      Delete
    5. SCU gives very little grant money to students anyway, although Diamond is such a tool that he probably knows nothing about that.

      If you go to the ABA Guide you can see that in 2011-12 more than half their students paid sticker, and almost everyone paid more than half tuition. Of the minority of students who got grants the median grant was $10K, so the effective tuition at the school was around $37K per year on average. And of course it's in a very high cost of living area.

      Delete
  11. Has anybody posted a comment on his site?
    I don't see any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tried, he didn't let it through. This particluar article is closed to comments.

      Delete
  12. In decrying a possible "two tier system of legal education," Diamond ignores that there is already a two- or three-tier system of legal job placement (i.e., HYS, the ten or twelve schools nearest them in terms of NLJ 250 placement, and then everyone else), both in terms of rate of placement in a given graduating class and also starting median salary.

    But unless we keep the federal aid conduit open and pumping to these also-ran schools like Santa Clara, a new age of darkness will descend on America, so shame on all of us for pointing out quibbles like 45% underemployment for people who borrowed $100k+ in the belief that underemployment would not be a problem after gaining this Most Versatile of Degrees.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please stop giving Diamond airtimeJanuary 22, 2013 at 6:23 AM

    He's obviously just trolling for attention but does not want to engage in any rational discussion of issue.

    Please stop advertising for him. If he really wanted fruitful discussion on these issues he'd still be over there arguing with Bernie et al. But it's clear he just wants to spout nonsense unchallenged.

    Ignore him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please stop giving...January 22, 2013 at 6:24 AM

      ^^^ (My apologies; I see someone above already made this request.)

      Delete
  14. Here's the main point of Diamond's post. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow or separate but equal. Those are just straw men:

    "...law school remains grounded by the principles of academic freedom and tenure because it is the tenure track faculty who have a central role in a system of shared governance with the school’s administration as well as the administration and trustees of the university in which the law school is housed.

    The value of this kind of institution can seem minimal to those who must face the reality of searching for a job in a depressed labor market..."

    At least he finally gets to his main point which is "don't fire me, bro," (this is Cali, afterall). Do you think a 2011 SCU grad with six figures of debt who's been unemployed for a year and a half gives a shit about academic freedom?

    More importantly, when the revenues are down and enrollment plummets, do you think the Trustees will care?

    If Diamond's "academic freedom" is dependent on the current status quo of high, non-dischargeable debt (regardless of the "nominal" tuition), that seems like a pretty indefensible position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do shitheels like Diamond do with their vaunted "academic freedom"? Fill the law reviews with garbage that no one cares to read, or (in his case) publish lie after lie calculated to entice people to keep giving borrowed money to the institution that pays him so lavishly.

      Most of the time, however, they just sit on their ass.

      Delete
  15. "In other words, tearing apart the standards built over the last century would encourage a new two tier system of legal education, one where minorities, immigrants, women and other groups with fewer resources and less successful backgrounds would be ghettoized."

    Sounds like biglaw and the basements full of 2nd class heavily indebted contract attorneys. How is pushing a minority into a worthless diploma mill like Santa Clara and loading them up with 150K of non-dischargeable debt providing them with "opportunity"? Professor Diamond, you need to step out of your Ivory Tower, and please pull your head out of your behind.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Diamond is living in a fantasy world. That fantasy would end overnight if the only people who could go to SCU were people who got positive value out of their degrees relative to the cost of those degrees.

    As for the idea that law school faculties provide effect critiques of the American power structure via publishing law review articles, that's just deranged.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Upper class white guy with a six-figure psuedo-job from which he can never be fired"

    Yes, we should not listen to anyone who falls into that category.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but one of the "upper class white guy (s)with a six-figure psuedo-job from which he can never be fired" is advocating a position that could potentially affect his job/livelihood; the other is advocating a position that would perpetuate his current lifestyle and "scholarship." Which position inherently more trustworthy (apart from the fact that one white guy actually uses something that resembles facts and logical reasoning)? If you were a practicing attorney you'd probably know the answer.

      Delete
  18. I agree that Professor Diamond seems to have gone off the deep end and there is little use with engaging with him anymore. Even though the spat with Diamond at Faculty Lounge may have touched this whole thing off, I think his statements stand on their own as evidence of how weak the pro-law school arguments have become. The debate seems to have shifted dramatically in the past few months in a way that is going to be increasingly politically untenable for law schools.

    But I wonder what percentage of academia shares his opinions. How many don't necessarily share them, but aren't inclined to analyze them too deeply?

    ReplyDelete
  19. From Steve Diamond:
    "I think maintaining the law school as a part of the university is important to the ability of society to produce the kinds of lawyers who do things like figure out the research needed to convince the Supreme Court to adopt progressive views on racial discrimination."

    Mr. Diamond I believe that you have missed the whole purpose of Law School. Law School only purpose is to fulfill a requirement to sit for a State Bar!

    Lawyers do not know how to do statistical research, that's why we have expert witnesses!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SCU law students should go 200K into debt with no prospects, so law school professors like Steve Diamond can get paid high salaries to push left-wing legal agendas.

      Got it.

      Delete
    2. Take it to the next level --

      Law students should go 200K into debt with no prospects [which they can discharge by paying 10 cents on the dollar], so law school professors like Steve Diamond can get paid high salaries to push left-wing legal agendas [when retirees are eating cat food and not getting their medicine].

      Do you see why IBR/PAYE is a tenuous option at best? It's only a matter of time before someone takes a stab at this.

      Delete
    3. What's left-wing about Diamond's agenda? He's just a self-centered pig. He doesn't care about racialized people; he merely uses them to pad his own exchequer.

      Delete
    4. Your post illuminates just how difficult the student debt problem (and not just the law student debt problem) has become for so many people. The academic industrial complex is dominated, and I mean absolutely dominated by big government leftists, who have acted in concert with the federal government and federal government policies to distribute wealth with only minimal risks to themselves. The risk is all on their "customers" - meaning hapless student loan conduits who face educational costs which have risen three times the rate of inflation (or more) yet receive arguably less value than ever before, all on loan terms which make the Mafia seem kind and loving. And the policies (similar to subprime mortgage policies) are buttressed by assertions they help minorities, when in fact the policies, as negative as they are for virtually everyone, impose even greater harm on minorities than non-minorities. This is really difficult for the vast majority of younger people to get their arms around, because so many have been raised with the idea that Government and the progressives who support it are acting in their interest. Nothing could be further from the truth - the apparatchiks are in it for themselves, and justify the status quo by making reference to their moral superiority - witness Diamond's screed about the invaluable nature of academic culture. I have had the fortune to experience five major recessions in my lifetime, and, well, being the practical sort, work fairly hard at not being doctrinaire over practical challenges. In this vein, I was struck by the Occupy movement, a movement I had some sympathy for because opportunities in this country are vastly more limited than they once were. But I winced at the Occupiers, too. They of course hit the usual suspects - banks, capitalists, and so on. But they should have been occupying the Capitol Hill steps, because that is the largest driver of our malaise. I think it was beyond the Occupiers' world view - they could not see the progressives and liberals on the Hill as the agents causing them harm, when in fact that is absolutely the case. Don't get me wrong, Republicans are not their salvation and won't help them, but they are not the drivers of the disastrous subsidization polices which have all sorts of unintended consequences. I think debt wracked students face the same problem. They have been indoctrinated to look to Government for a solution, which only has exacerbated the problem. Good luck changing this mindset - indeed, it is a recurring issue on the posts on this site.

      Delete
    5. Paragraph breaks R Ur FriendsJanuary 22, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      ^^^^^^ Just sayin'.

      Delete
  20. For $ome rea$on, Pig Diamond's (ostensible) sympathy and (feigned) concern does not extend to law students - many of whom come from modest backgrounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't understand. The "choice" they have to go to a super-expensive high ranked law school with good job placement or to go to a super-expensive low-ranked law school with crappy job placement is priceless.

      Delete
  21. I think I'm going to try Diamond's argument next time I'm in Court:

    "But Your Honor, if you do not rule in my favor it will inevitably lead to a revival of Jim Crow."

    What a fallacy. When the bubble bursts (not if, but when), good luck in private practice Steve. What an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Law school and the legal "profession" are Jim Crow: they entrench a rich, white quasi-nobility and keep out aspiring racialized people.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually aspiring racialized people - not sure what that means but I guess it means under represented minorities- get significant admission boosts in law school. To say law schools keep out URMs is not quite fair.

      And I know firms have diversity programs as well.

      How well minorities succeed in the profession may be a different question.

      Delete
  23. If you think "research" is the kind of thing that convinces Supreme Court justices to do things like adopt "progressive views on racial discrimination," basically what you're saying about yourself is that you have no understanding of how the US Supreme Court functions and reaches decisions.
    "Research." That's funny. Takes me back to my days of listening to Ann Althouse fumble her way around Con Law. "You just take facts XYZ and plug them into a given justice's (always consistent) legal reasoning mechanism, and voila! There's your SUPREME COURT CASELAW!"
    Christ.
    Look out guys, I got the research here that's gonna turn Scalia around on affirmative action! Everyone out of the way!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Off topic: Dude, it could be worse. I had to endure Roderick "Rick" Hills' (now of NYU) first semester at MI teaching Con Law. Fumbling doesn't even begin to describe what he did.

      Slightly on topic: If I remember correctly, the Warren Court's opinion was unusual because of its reliance on NON-LEGAL precedence for the first time in hundreds of years, and that reliance created a strong back-lash.

      On Topic: this has nothing to do with whether unexperienced twenty-somethings should be allowed to borrow six figures for a degree that they may never use WITHOUT the option of discharging the debt in bancruptcy, which every other debtor, including compulsive gamlers, enjoys

      Delete
  24. Lawprof: Welcome to what it feels like to be a Republican. Every well-meaning position we take is traceable to some sort of latent racism, just ask MSNBC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well-meaning? Lol.

      Delete
    2. Because no Republican positions can be well-meaning, by definition. Or is it, a priori?

      zzzzzzz

      Delete
    3. "Well-meaning? Lol."

      8:15,

      *Try* and transcend your indoctrination at the hands of the higher-education-industrial complex and analyze situations on a case-by-case basis, examining their specific facts - and don't invoke some sneering pose founded upon nothing more than possession of allegedly "correct" beliefs.

      Delete
  25. to 7:12 -- "advocating a position that could potentially affect his job/livelihood"

    How so -- do you expect this to lead to tenured professors at Colorado being fired? It seems the risk is, perhaps to untenured and staff at Colorado, and perhaps tenured profs at schools lower in the pecking order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think Lawprof and DJM aren't being affected by their contributions to this blog you are wrong. I'm sure both of them are being shunned as well as attacked by people with agendas like prof. Diamond.

      Delete
    2. Being shunned is not the same thing as affecting your job/livelihood, which is what I was responding to in 7:12's post. Sure, there may be some shunning, which is more than offset by becoming a press celebrity and a hero to the scambloggers.

      Delete
    3. First, how does being shunned by one's peers and--more likely--his or her employer not qualify as "affecting his or her job/livelihood." Am I saying that they will be fired tomorrow or ever or that either of their schools will go under? No, probably not. But it seems you hypothesis is that both LawProf and DJM (and probably Tamanaha) are doing what they do for the fame and glory among the scambloggers. First, their actions go far beyond appeasing the scambloggers. They are trying to bring transparency into the system and stop the madness for future generations of students. You can't deny--without resorting to Diamond-like rhetoric--that there is a problem with the system.

      And if your assertion is that LawProf does it for the fame and glory, then you forget that he originally began posting anonymously.

      But in any event, whatever their motivations, they have brought FACTS and STATISTICS to the ring (and even these had to be wrestled out of the law schools over time), in addition to whatever hyperbole and comedy that is thrown in for entertainment. If you are not Diamond himself, please go to his post about MLK and Jim Crow and see what that side of the argument inevitably is reduced to. His resort to this sort of argument is sickening.

      Delete
    4. It must be rough to be shunned for a whole six hours per week, which is the time that law profs spend at school.

      Actually, no. That's unfair. To people who actually work for a living. Six hours is the time they spend in class. I would doubt that the actual shunning lasts more than the thirty minutes per month that law professors actually interact with each other in the faculty meeting.

      What a fucking hardship that is. Let's not pretend that blogging is affecting anyone's livelihoods or quality of life, law professor or not. The advantages to this blog far outweigh the possible downsides.

      Delete
    5. 3:05- If this blog is such a career-maker, why aren't there even more law professors jumping on the bandwagon? They aren't because this blog does nothing for Campos's career, and I fail to see all the positives you keep talking about. Having Lee Pacchia's phone number isn't enough to outweigh the obvious negative of disparaging your profession, even if your profession is a complete farce.

      Delete
    6. It wouldn't matter if Campos were the world's worst hypocrite, a publicity hound, the Colorado Casanova, or deserved any of the other personal insults that Leiter and his ilk let drop on here.

      What matters is that his critique is right.

      Delete
  26. Here is the thing I learned in life so far. People accuse others of things that they themselves are thinking.

    I expect that among his many other flaws Diamond is a racist and sexist jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve Diamond’s assault on our call for greater transparency in employment data is completely wrong-headed. He absolutely fails to address the reality of the employment market.

    Increasing access to law school now means a ~20 year stint as a debt serf; at this point, going to law school (for the vast majority of people) is an economically irrational decision.

    Mr. Diamond’s argument is a massive straw-man. He claims that the employment data was not misleading, so LP must be motivated by some other agenda, ostensibly racism. I don’t know Professor Campos, so there’s always a chance that he’s a hidden racist, but I’ll refer back to Occam’s Razor for evaluating his motives. Is Campos motivated by a secret fascist agenda, or perhaps by the absolutely unmitigated economic disaster that is befalling law students?

    No one is asking for a “return of the law school to the era when these schools were not subject to modern regulatory standards and accreditation” – in fact, we are asking for more regulation, either imposed by the ABA to make the market more efficient, or by the government to eliminate supply overhang.

    Fighting an institutional system that creates terrible employment outcomes, with students in $150k+ in debt, at a usurious interest rate, that primarily affects those who are middle and working class, is not an “an attack underway on American law schools that threatens access to legal education for those who lack the resources”. The majority of law schools, as they exist now, are predatory institutions that prey on the very people that Mr. Diamond claims they are trying to help. His failure to constructively address the law school employment/debt disaster, while simultaneously defending the status quo, puts him on the wrong side of history.

    On a slightly more personal note, I completely understand how easy it is to ignore/dismiss the situation when you’re a winner in the status quo system. I’m a student at HLS, I’ll get a good job and I’ll be able to pay off my debt. Mr. Diamond has a fantastic job, which undoubtedly pays well and provides him with intellectual gratification. We are both lucky. But our luck and security creates a duty: we should fight to make sure that the system we have benefited from is not preying on the vulnerable.

    Mr. Diamond, please help or get out of the way. The student loan situation is a slow growing disaster for my generation, a disaster of 2008 proportions, perhaps worse because we don’t have bankruptcy protection. There’s room on the ground to help – bankruptcy reform, transparency initiatives, and grassroots efforts within the ABA by influential persons like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Clearly, deans and profs are the worst salesmen ever. Which explains why they are in academia reather than actual practice.

    Their arguments run to "why the scam is good for me, and why you should learn to stop worrying and love the law school bomb - academic freedom blah blah blah justice blah blah blah my fat salary blah blah blah. Therefore, more students need to enroll."

    Idiots. I deliciously await the crash of the facade, and will stir their tears into my gin and tonic when they actually have to get a real job.

    ReplyDelete
  29. LawProf

    Excellent post. Thank you. Transparency in employment data is not going to bring back Jim Crow. Law schools, like other entities, should be compelled to be truthful. Simple. And today, too many schools inflate employment data as they hike tuition (loved Diamond's comment about how noble law schools were in 2003 for not raising tuition at 10-15%).

    In addition to honest employment data, law schools should provide a truthful financial disclosure (before anyone is bound to anything):

    Our law school costs $xx,000 per year and you can expect it to take three years to graduate.

    If you finance 100% of the tuition, you will pay $yy,000.

    Today's rate is z%.

    If you finance 100% of the tuition at z%, your monthly payment will be $a and this will continue every month for 20 years.

    Keep in mind that this is only the cost of tution and if you finance living expenses, which __% if our students do at some point in their education, you will have to pay this back, too.

    You will not be able to refinance this debt unless you roll it into your mortgage or you otherwise offer collateral that a bank accepts.

    You will not be able to discharge this debt in bankruptcy.

    Going to law schools should be at least as complicated as closing on a mortgage, given the repayment aspects and career limitations associated w/ the approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a great post, that ties into one of Diamond's quibbles, which is that the "nominal" tuition isn't considered.

      The next step in transparency will be to disclose the grants and scholarships handed out to students, and whether they continue throughout the three years.

      Delete
  30. Dimond is a gift to the scam blog movement, we should never encourage him to shut up, because he is such a handy example of the large bubble in which some of these law profs live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely - people sying not to engage him don't seem to understand how douchebags like Diamond actually damage their own side. Diamond is a legal academic, not just some fringe nutcase even if he argues like one. Point out just how egregious the position he's trying to defend is and more intelligent people will have to distance themselves from it, rather than helping to make it sound more reasonable.

      Delete
  31. BTW - posted this comment on his blog and he refused to publish it:

    "Seems Campos is right - Santa Clara reported 263 employed out of 280 in the class of 2007, which is calculated at 97%. See here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100731234501/http:/law.scu.edu/careers/employment-statistics-for-class-of-2007.cfm

    No 44% caveat there - in fact the 44% is only in relation to the reporting rate for salaries, not employment, as it explains when it says "Below is salary information based on starting salaries reported by 44% of SCU law graduates from the class of 2007."

    BTW - comparing Tamanaha, Campos et al to Jim Crow? Classy."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meh. Compared to Nando's reaction to unwanted comments, which is forwarding that person's IP to sites that infect computers with viruses, gay porn popups, and all manner of filth, I think you got off rather lightly!

      Delete
    2. The relevant portion of your comment was published with a response. Thank you for submitting it. As the SCU administration described it to me, the 44% represented 122 students who told SCU their salary and type of employment.

      From that a law school applicant could deduce that not every one in the class responded with that information and draw conclusions from that relevant to employment potential. I think that was (moderately) useful information to potential applicants and it was not an undifferentiated aggregate claim of 99% employment.

      Like many schools, I gather, the school had to use other means than reports from students over time to complete the NALP survey and reach the final conclusion of 97% employed. That data, too, has a detailed breakdown. Of course, since 97% of the class was employed it adds up to 97%. Schools can and do now provide more detailed information. At some point I think that information breakdown loses marginal utility. The cost of providing answers to all permutations of information needed by law school applicants would be prohibitive, indeed, impossible as suggested by Acting Justice Platkin in the Albany Law School case.

      At some point in time and for a limited time SCU used a marketing brochure with the 95% claim. At that same point in time the SCU website provided the more detailed break down of employment statistics. While I have no reason to believe the 95% claim was not true when used I believe that it should have included a link to that information and have been appropriately qualified or else not used at all.

      I remain unconvinced however that that brochure or similar materials at other schools or even the employment stats at USNWR can be blamed for the uptick in law school applications in 2009-10, in 2003, any more than they caused the decline in the period 2004-2008. College grads are not as irrational as many here contend.

      I will only note in closing that I think there should be a debt relief and training program to provide a bridge over the next few years for law school graduates as I described in more detail on my blog.

      Delete
    3. Dread Pirate RobertsJanuary 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM

      "The relevant portion of your comment was published"


      Now there's a slippery slope even a law professor should have been able to recognize and stay away from.

      How far is it from publishing only "the relevant portions" of commenters thoughts before you start selectively editing them, rearranging them to more suit your sensibilities, etc.?

      You should know better. Either admit the comment, or kill it.

      Choose, man. It's your blog.

      Delete
    4. This guy is unbelievable. WHY WON"T HE JUST ADMIT THE SCAM. No one is saying that all law schools are frauds, I for one would have loved to drop federally backed dollars on Harvard. No one is saying that all members of a law school class end up miserable or in financial ruin. But we are saying that for most schools, and for most students, it is a one way ticket to financial ruin. That the schools know that and they masked that fact to induce students to enroll. SCU, like almost every other school lied. The school lied man, 95% it's in the damn brochure your damn school sent out to damn lemmings. Shit was in BOLD. BOLD as if to say to your Brain "look over here, this is important, it's a reason to enroll here, one we know you are curious about."

      Delete
  32. A couple of other people have highlighted something that, while not enough to keep the higher ed going, gives it some steam.

    It is the ideological similarities between the higher ed elite and those that they are educating. The vast majority of people in higher ed, whether administrators or professors, are more left of center than the general populace. The same seems to hold true to the 18-36ish crowd.

    There is the mentality, at least for those who haven't been completely screwed over by higher ed or who have the rose-colored glasses on, that those in higher ed are supporting them/on their side.

    I'm sure you can see where this is going, but I'm going to stop it at there. But it doesn't mean that it is a left wing/progressive problem. Once the progressives on capitol hill wanted to increase home ownership, the right-leaning vultures ate up those subprime mortgages like no tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its amazing the left wing students cant connect the dots that their left wing professors' exorbitant salaries are coming from their borrowed $140,000 tuition payments. Just because your prof is a progressive doesn't mean he's incapable of doing wrong.

      Left wingers should be marching in the streets calling law schools evil corporation running obscene profits.

      Delete
  33. Sounds like the Democrat's playbook to me: don't agree with Obama, and you're a racist, sexist, etc. ... LOL


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right- all those Southern republicans have no sense of racism towards our president.

      It isn't as if they've exhibited hatred to any non white minority in their midst.

      Why would anyone consider a republican from Alabama racist? It is appalling .

      Lol.

      Delete
    2. 1240: unutterably stupid. But this is OT.

      Delete
    3. Sadly, 12:40 is right.

      Southern republicans despise Obama. Why? Because he's black.

      We've got 4 years of clear evidence. What more do you need? If you like, I could record and post some videos on YouTube of some of the pure racist hatred I hear on a daily basis in the southern law firm I work at. Interested?

      And I'm a solid fiscal conservative who would love to see someone like Chris Christie as president. But don't pretend that southern racism isn't still alive and kicking.

      Delete
    4. Bunk. Bunk, I say.January 22, 2013 at 5:19 PM

      "Southern republicans despise Obama [b]ecause he's black."


      Do some? Most likely so. Do the majority? Bunk, I say. Don't paint the majority with the brush tarred from your own smelly little gutter environment.

      Delete
    5. 311, I don't buy it.

      I believe it fits comfortably with a narrative that many people want very much to have--perhaps even including you--to make of opposition to Mr. Obama raw racism. As opposed, say, to the fact that he is an urban liberal, from a highly privileged, elite background, with zero effective executive experience before assuming the Presidency.

      Delete
    6. So, if Obama were white, we conservatives would love him and his policies?

      Uh no, its a policy thing. But many left wingers cant resist the temptation to call people racist and feel morally superior.

      Delete
  34. I keep refreshing the major news websites to see when the breaking news that a tenured law professor is a delusional, intellectually dishonest, stupid, trollish, over-compensated lump of dog shit, but the mainstream media seems blind to this earth-shattering development.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lets see. Over half the African Americans who take the California bar exam the first time fail. Yep, Stevarino. You law schools are doing a bang up job improving opportunities for minorities.

    RPL

    ReplyDelete
  36. Re racist intent: denial is proof!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Re racist intent: denial is proof!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think that some are confusing the issue here.

    The law schools that defend the current system are acting like food conglomerates that resist any new competition or data. Think mega-food producer/seller vs. farmer's market vendor. The mega-food producer objected, for years, to the idea that farmer's markets could restrict entry and/or resist vendors marketing their products in a way that the conglomerate couldn't. They objected, for example, to the term organic.

    The small guys continued to use the term and it caught on with the masses (i.e. that grapes should not have pesticides all over them -- even if they don't alter the taste). Eventually, the conglomerates petitioned Congress and (not surprisingly) they re-defined "organic" in a way that allows synthetics to appear in some products.

    I see the law schools in the same way. There is a bit of an uprising right now, as folks are concerned with 100% financing, job market problems, lack of oversight, exorbitant salaries and etc. Lawsuits have been largely unsuccessful but the public is, finally, starting to push back as the number of applicants is down. The problem is the lack of actual competition. I don't really buy the left/right issue here. It's a stay-the-course vs. "change" debate

    ReplyDelete
  39. The California Bar is fighting tooth and nail to avoid releasing this information. Transparency has its limits.

    Next up: "race conscious" bar admissions. That's a winner for ya.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I had no idea that's what the goals of this blog are/were.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Quit CU, Campos. You are dead weight and always have been. And you know it. You have been only too happy to take your pay check over these decades while contributing nothing to the students, faculty, or the law. Leave so that CU can hire a real teacher and scholar. Don't forget to collect your retirement, though. I am quite sure you have earned it, just like those you vehemently criticize. You don't fool me. Some think you are the pied piper but you are really one of the rats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give it a rest, Leiter.

      Delete
    2. contributing nothing to the students, faculty, or the law


      So . . . what do you call getting the word out about the scam and being one of the catchers in the rye?

      99.9999% of the student reviewed 'scholarship' bilged out of legal academia doesn't hold a candle to Campos making the call on the scam.

      Delete
    3. Law schools deserve criticism when they deserve it, and praise when they earn it. American law schools deserve to be praised for refusing to provide a tenure-track position to Brian Leiter's unqualified chickadee, Michael Sevel.

      Delete
    4. I am 100% into the scam, but this sad fucker shit of silencing people by pretending that it's Leiter posting needs to stop.

      But some sad fucker will claim that I'm Leiter and give himself a pathetic self high five that he posted something so hilarious and clever in response to my post.

      Delete
    5. This is 3:18. You know what, I'll do it myself.

      "Fuck off Leiter."

      I dream of the day when the scam movement actually bothers to have superior integrity than the law schools it so despises. Having been involved for years, I see two distinct camps: those who actually care and really try to address the issues and provide solutions, and the morons who are here because it's a fun place to post comments and stir up trouble.

      Those who claim that Leiter is here 24/7 are clearly part of the latter group.

      Delete
    6. "Leiter" has become synonymous with the professoriate that defends the law school scam just as "Joan King" has come to represent the law school staffs that also profit from said scam.

      Delete
    7. The vast majority of the "Fuck off Leiter" comments are posted in response to Anonymous comments repeating one of three things - Campos is a hypocrite, Campos is a shitty scholar, Campos is a poor teacher - but which NEVER address why any of these things matter. Yet you're bothered by these "Leiter" comments?

      Also, Leiter is not here 24/7. In fact he completely forgets about this blog for months at a time, only to be occasionally reminded of its existence by one of his colleagues.

      Delete
    8. I actually think the Leiter boogieman schtick is pretty funny.

      Delete
    9. "Also, Leiter is not here 24/7. In fact he completely forgets about this blog for months at a time, only to be occasionally reminded of its existence by one of his colleagues."

      Does anyone seriously believe this?

      Delete
    10. Pretty sure that's sarcasm, dude.

      Delete
  42. Professor Diamond is a mark of how deeply the gangrene has set into legal academia.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @12:23 I agree. Seriously - all of the students know that Campos is a horrid teacher -it is a joke. I have no idea about faculty/administration goings-on at CU, but from a student's stand point, his classes are a complete waste of time and money. Any loser can complain and have a blog. He is the pot that called the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how is this blog entry by Camps inaccurate?

      Delete
    2. Please Leiter, don't stop. Post more about this on your blog. It would be great to see you and Diamond lose your minds at the same time.

      Delete
  44. I'm a 2012 CU grad, and Campos was one of the two best teachers I had (I took two of his classes).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh but you misunderstand the point of the great Leiter's post. It isn't the job of a professor to be a good teacher. Crank out slipshod scholarship that the rest of the academy mocks, that's the important thing.

      Delete
    2. Brian Leiter got hired by Chicago because Martha Nussbaum was having an affair with Cass Sunstein at the time. Harvard was trying to hire Sunstein away, and Nussbaum (another fake "philosopher") wanted to hire Leiter. So they hired him to appease her, in the hope that this would indirectly help keep Sunstein. Sunstein went to HLS anyway, and now they're stuck with this epic douche forever.

      Delete
  45. I'm amazed at how thick Diamond is. It is not about some underlying conspiracy to destroy law school. It's about the promise of law school, the fees they charge and the reality of what happens when you get a degree. Law schools are failing their students because they do not prepare them for being attorneys, financially or professionally. UGH... this angers me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I also had Campos - only good thing was that a casebook, notes and participation were not required. I did learn a lot about the SImpsons, so all was not lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how does that make this blog entry by Campos incorrect?

      Delete
    2. I'm sure campos is the only professor you didn't like. Tell me, do you have a job? Are you in Colorado? How much debt do you have?

      These are the questions we care about.

      Delete
    3. Lionel Hutz: Well, I lost your trial, so here's your free pizza.

      Lisa: But Mr. Hutz we won the trial.

      Lionel Hutz: That's OK the box is empty.

      Delete
  47. In an economy subject to normal market forces, the price of a good or service will bear some close relationship to its value. Where the law schools and their profs go wrong is in claiming that, because the government (through naive students) will pay whatever the law schools demand, their service is literally "priceless." And indeed their service is priceless-- as an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

    --Porsenna

    ReplyDelete
  48. Diamond must be taking one for the team. How much do you want to bet Leiter is behind a lot of the drivel he is posting?

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Upper class white guy with a six-figure psuedo-job from which he can never be fired"

    Yes, we should not listen to anyone who falls into that category.

    Except that Campos is Hispanic:

    http://lawweb.colorado.edu/files/vitae/campos.pdf

    Professional Associations
    Colorado Hispanic Bar Association

    ReplyDelete
  50. Diamond is upper-class? I think not. Middle most probably, Upper-middle depending perhaps on his family, but that undergrad degree from Cal. is not helping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Upperclass is defined as a salary of 250k/yr. Diamond definitely qualifies. hth

      Delete
    2. LOL. Defined by who? Class is not just about money, m'boy. . .

      Delete
    3. You are right that money can't buy class.

      Delete
    4. If you read Diamond's resumé it has financial security written all over it - BA - poly-sci Master and PhD in London (Poly-Sci) where as a non-European he would not have received any financial aid, then Yale for his JD in his late 30s. You do not do that unless you come from a well off family.

      Delete
    5. * It does not matter where Diamond came from.

      * It does not matter if Campos is a good teacher or not.

      * It does not matter if Brian Leiter reads this blog or not.

      It only matters that at this point, MOST law graduates will borrow six figures of non-dischargeable student loans and will never practice law OR make enough to repay the money borrowed.

      Anything else is window dressing, or even worse, victim blaming.

      Delete
  51. 3L at a T50. I am in a class full of LLMs right now. We are going around and talking about our future plans. I just want to SCREAM OUT, these LLMs amaze me. None have jobs lined up. Two of them plan on moving out to California. Some people can't be saved. The scam lives on these idiots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was a 1L last year attending various networking receptions and at every single one the foreign LLMs outnumbered the 1Ls. It was strange too, because these firms were looking to recruit 2L SAs, not offer jobs to LLMs without a try before you buy period. I don't know why the LLMs didn't know that.

      Delete
    2. Foreign LLMs will usually go back to a foreign law firm that is the big fish in their market, or are often well connected at home, and will have a lot of ability to recommend counsel - they represent future business.

      Law firms cultivate foreign LLMs for every sensible reasons.

      Delete
    3. these aren't foreign LLMs these are JDs that thought their pig needed more lip stick.

      Delete
    4. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions on this blog, do NOT hire any fuzzy little foreigner LLMs if you are in a hiring position. It's a completely one-sided scam. The law schools get richer, and the LLMs come over here after completing a single year and compete against U.S. students that slaved away for 3 years and are in debt out their butt. Unless there is some reciprocity, e.g., the Netherlands admits me to practice so I can "puff" 'n' "pork" my way to nirvana, this is just another way for the academic elite to continually screw over their U.S. JD students. Enough of this crap already. Say no to hiring LLM students.

      Delete
    5. "these aren't foreign LLMs these are JDs that thought their pig needed more lip stick."

      Jesus, these people didn't figure out after they got a worthless JD?

      Delete
    6. I feel bad for them. LLM is worthless. I actually may ask them there thought process at some point. But I really dont think i need to cause it was probably something like desperation mixed with fear mixed with the SCAM

      Delete
    7. "As I've pointed out on numerous occasions on this blog, do NOT hire any fuzzy little foreigner LLMs if you are in a hiring position. It's a completely one-sided scam. The law schools get richer, and the LLMs come over here after completing a single year and compete against U.S. students that slaved away for 3 years and are in debt out their butt. Unless there is some reciprocity, e.g., the Netherlands admits me to practice so I can "puff" 'n' "pork" my way to nirvana, this is just another way for the academic elite to continually screw over their U.S. JD students. Enough of this crap already. Say no to hiring LLM students."

      I've pointed out before, this is bullshit. The US employs no more foreign lawyers than most developed countries do. Foreign LLMs actually have a very low chance of getting a job in the US after graduation - around about 10-20%. Find someone else to blame.

      Delete
  52. Having read this I believed it was very enlightening.
    I appreciate you taking the time and effort to put this content together.
    I once again find myself personally spending a significant amount
    of time both reading and leaving comments. But so what, it was still worth it!
    My site: http://alohos.com/

    ReplyDelete
  53. SD has now entered the point of no return. Now that his somewhat logical arguments (like blaming the economy) have been discredited, he is now turning to the illogical hoping that something will stick.

    It is sad that he is now timidly playing the race card.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 2:36 -- I stand corrected.

    Upper class white guy (who nevertheless was able to claim URM status as an hispanic) with a six-figure psuedo-job from which he can never be fired"

    ReplyDelete
  55. I've heard it said that the way you know you've won an argument with a liberal when they call you a racist in an argument where race was never an issue.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you're "just saying" that most argument with liberals are won in the first 3 minutes?

      Delete
    2. It doesn't take all of three minutes.

      Delete
    3. Well, that depends. The other day we were discussing how blue the sky was and it took 2:58...

      Delete
    4. You win an argument with a conservative if they bring up either class warfare or Hitler. Usually takes 30 seconds.

      Delete
    5. You win an argument with political standpoint X when they bring up the same irrelevant Y that people of X are apt to lean on when they've lost. As a scientist, I can't help but simplify this to "you've won when you've won".

      If only this were so simple, however, since the people who are apt to bring up Y do so because, in their own minds, Y's a game-winner every time.

      Delete
  56. "Randall H. Hubatch, 49, was charged Friday with armed robbery of a credit union on Jan. 11. Surveillance photos show the suspect wearing a distinctive hat.
    Here's the sad part: Hubatch left the hat on so he would be identified. Upon his arrest three days later, he told police that he owed $250,000 in student loans (he has both a B.A. and a J.D. from the University of Wisconsin). He was last employed as a janitor at the college's new Union South student center.

    According to the criminal complaint, he told the detective who arrested him that if prosecutors promise he'll get a long sentence, he'll plead guilty, but if released, he would repeat his crime."

    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/187740071.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're yesterday'SnoozeJanuary 22, 2013 at 6:07 PM

      .

      Delete
    2. "You're yesterday'Snooze"

      Wut? Wut?

      Delete
  57. Whether Campos is a good or bad teacher or scholar and whether or not he is a "hypocrite" because he hasn't quit and given away all his worldly possessions to the scammed victims is irrelevant.

    His point and all others who raise the same points still stands, namely that for MOST, the lifetime payoff vs cost (in time and money) of attending law school makes it not worthwhile and risky as it stands today.

    This point doesn't become less valid even if Jerry Sandusky or some other true scum makes the point.

    As for Campos being a "hypocrite" because he hasn't quit and given all his worldly possessions gained from the scam, maybe that would be true if he told OTHER profs to do so but refused to do so himself. Being a hypocrite means saying one thing but doing another. When exactly has he done that?

    Even if you want to claim that Campos doesn't deserve "full admiration" because he hasn't quit and hasn't given his worldly possessions, he still deserves a heck of a lot more than all the profs who silently or worse actively defend the scam.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Even Leiter is trying to back away from this clown (from his website):

    Greater diversity in institutions offering legal education...
    ...a subject we've touched on before is, it seems to me, compatible with tenure and academic freedom, contrary to Stephen Diamond (Santa Clara). I think he is also mistaken in his characterization of Brian Tamanaha's critique--Tamanaha is correct, in my view, to view access to education, including legal education, as an issue of social justice, and correct to note that the high cost of legal education has major ramifications for what kind of legal work graduates perform.

    http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/01/greater-diversity-in-institutions-offering-legal-education.html

    ReplyDelete
  59. Steve Dimond, if you are still reading this blog, could you please explain your analogy how dismantling some of the worst elements of the current law school system is the same as enacting laws that are the opposite of race neutral legislation. "African Americans have to sit at the back of the bus" verses law schools have to provide more transparent data, and/or can't charge what they wish to, because of new contraints.

    How about this Steve, if you care, why not lobby for your law school to provide scholarship grants for minority law students so they don't go so badly into debt like most of their peers.

    Here is another idea, have your law school obtain a LSAT training course system, (like Kaplin) and offer LSAT prep for free to indigent pre-law students so they can increase their LSAT scores to be considered by law schools better then Cooley and get better financial deals. Heck you might be able to get your TA's to do the hard work of actual instruction so you can continue to blovate away.

    In the 1950s ago my paternal grandfather was a partner at Sullivan and Cromwell, and as a Harvard grad, he tried to avoid hiring Yalies like Steve, because he thought they were not good at the practical aspects of the law. Nothing like Mr. Dimond to confirm his prejudices. Or as he said to my dad, "Son, Yale is a four letter word!"

    ReplyDelete
  60. Diamond, my mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Here is the main issue. Whichever federal authorities are responsible for most higher education loans apparently place law school in their highest category. They assume that the earnings potential of your average lawyer is potentially so high they place few, if any checks, on how much they will lend people to go to law school.

    This is farcical and something needs to be done. You could argue that they shouldn't be loaning people money for law school at all, but a more realistic idea would be to place a hard cap on how much people can borrow for law school. Say $40k per year, adjusted for inflation, to be generous. But even such a generous limit would put a lot of these lower ranked law schools out of business.

    ReplyDelete
  62. My favorite comment from the most recent entry (scare quotes required):

    I teach a con law class to undergrads every other year. When I heard about these “scam” blogs I asked my students about them. No one spoke in class but the next day a student came by. He explained that a number of pre-law students are trying to trick other students into forgoing law school by posting multiple times every day on various websites frequented by people considering law schools. The horror stories they tell are ridiculous on their face, for example, some of the posters on Prof. Campos’s blog claim that Columbia law school is a scam and a rip off! I asked why students would do such a thing. He explained that the posters were all people who wanted to increase their chances by getting into a top law school. They hope their posts will reduce the number of students they are competing with. I told him this was the most unethical thing I had ever heard of and that it would not work….Professor Diamond, please keep up your great work. I and my peers are grateful. We wish we could you join publicly but fear the backlash you have had to endure from these conspirators who, ironically, know how valuable a legal education is and are only trying to trick others into forgoing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. damn, i got tricked. what am i going to do with the 250k loan proceeds now?

      Delete
    2. just ridiculous. The movement is about preventing lemmings from jumping off the cliff. 90% of the law schools are just utter scams. However, as the Duke Alum pointed out, tuition is a huge issue even at the T14, and employment is far from assured for a significant proportion of the class.

      Delete
  63. This fucko is a walking proof that one can go in Yale and still be a complete idiot.

    He is not only pure golden idiot, he is a crown diamond of all idiots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He obviously comes from big money; else he would not have been able to spend twenty years or so pursuing degrees. Well, money and admission to Yale go hand in hand.

      Delete
  64. What's the difference between a SCU law degree and a jumbo pizza?

    You can feed a family with a jumbo pizza.

    ReplyDelete
  65. How was this dude an editor of the Yale Law Journal? He's an awful writer, and he doesn't know basic grammar.

    ReplyDelete


  66. http://overlawyered.com/2013/01/law-schools-a-remorseless-above-the-law-attitude-enables-all/

    http://www.seethruedu.com/updates/criminal-law-schools

    ReplyDelete
  67. In the big, big picture, and according to this article here:

    http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2013/01/22/ask-stacy-how-can-i-survive-this-crushing-student-load-debt/

    which says that of all the student loan debotrs:

    "3 percent owe more than $100,000; and less than 1 percent, or 167,000 people, owe more than $200,000"

    I am not sure if the writer meant these numbers annually or overall and for all student loan debtors.

    In either case, it seems like the bigger debt burdens are carried by a minority that is so small, it soesn;t seem likely they will have much influence in seeking a remedy.

    I woulod guess that the law schools are the worst offenders when it comes to exploiting the student lending system and maybe they are emboldened because they too realize that the ruined debtors have little influence over their predicaments or a voice.

    And so, when viewing it that way, maybe bankruptcy will never be an option for those already harmed, and whatever bones that are thrwon such as IBR or PAYE etc will be all there is.

    On the other hand, there is no reason why the scam should go on and if enrollments do drop because the word is out, that at least will prevent more lives from being financially ruined.

    But in short, six figure indebted law grads are a comparatively small class of debtors.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think that he took the blog down, as that link doesnt work anymore. Maybe his Dean saw it?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Steve Diamond took his website down a short while ago; it is now behind a username/password screen.

    Hope some content was archived.

    What a buffoon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cached here for now. Also saved the pdf.

      Delete
  70. I think Diamond had a "full frank and complete" chat with his dean.

    Lots of mid-tier law schools are having problems recruiting students- but turning Santa Clara into the poster child of exploitative law schools is probably not good marketing.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yep. I've archived it. And so did Google's cache (for now).

    ReplyDelete
  72. WOW, what a coward. We need to keep looking into SCU and make an example of that school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dread Pirate RobertsJanuary 23, 2013 at 9:17 AM

      This seems like an unreasonable comment. Sure, this one law prof has irritated you and me and many others with his (apparently purposive) obtuseness.

      But the "we need to make an example of that school" because of Diamond's actions came off as a bit, uh, Soprano-like.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I'm sure s/he meant "make an example" in a Soprano-like sense..

      Perhaps s/he meant that we should keep exposing this school for the blatant, taxpayer-funded scam that it is.

      Delete
  73. Dread Pirate RobertsJanuary 23, 2013 at 9:14 AM

    'Steve Diamond ...website ...is now behind a username/password screen."


    Well, it's his `site.

    But I do wonder if he was getting "pressured" to engage in a little less in the way of "academic freedom" by the SCU admins and faculty?

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'm glad I printed out Stephen Diamond's entire blog for January 2013 before he took it down.

    ReplyDelete
  75. And he's back (and the blog, and a new SSRN paper). And slandering LP.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Wow in that SSRN paper he compares law school critics to 9/11 truthers (while using the weasel words "reminds one" so he can say he didn't quite make the comparison while still putting it out there, presumably).

    ReplyDelete
  77. It's a shame you don't have a donate button! I'd certainly donate to this excellent blog! I guess for now i'll settle for
    book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
    I look forward to fresh updates and will talk about this blog
    with my Facebook group. Talk soon!

    Also visit my webpage chapter 7 bankruptcy florida

    ReplyDelete

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