Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Something new

From time to time, commenters ask for concrete proposals to change law schools--especially to reduce tuition costs. Professors and regulators are starting to ask the same question: What should we do about the problems confronting legal education?

On one level, the answers are easy: Lower tuition, reduce JD class size, embrace full transparency, and educate students effectively for the current workplace. But achieving those goals will require both discussion and specifics.

To support that discussion, I'm launching a new website called Law School Cafe. The site is a partner site to Law School Transparency, and Kyle McEntee (LST's Executive Director) is my co-moderator. We hope to have LawProf as a frequent contributor--and you'll have to put up with me continuing to contribute here. There's still a lot to criticize in legal education, even as we try to formulate some solutions.

I've designed the Cafe to be a cumulative resource, much as this blog has become. We're kicking off the site with a few proposals for discussion, and we'll add more on a regular basis. Our initial topics aren't necessarily the most important ones--or even the ones we personally care most about. They're just the sampler menu for the Cafe.

Please join us when you have a chance. I look forward to seeing you both here and in the Cafe.

146 comments:

  1. First in the middle of the night!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bravo good sir!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  2. One suggestion: Get rid of the one-size-fits-all approach. Allow students to demonstrate mastery of the material without taking a course. At the same time, stop passing every student.

    Another: Dump the academic pretensions and force the professors to teach rather than churning out scholarshit. Make each professor teach at least three courses per semester.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congrats on the site. Look forward to reading it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed - but two thoughts:

      1) Allow anonymous posting...as here. The law can be a poisonously self-protecting profession, given to retaliation. Help protect creative insurgents.

      2) Failing that, at least allow posting via OpenId.

      One more thought -

      Mega-kudos on the "Useful Data" page - it is *exactly* the sort of "single-link" reference that makes getting the (convincing) word out about the law school scam much, much easier - and therefore effective.

      A link to BLS lawyer employment stats would be very useful as well.

      As would some links to annotated rulings in the law school scam cases.

      The Cafe is going to be big - big!

      Delete
    2. You do understand it is possible to create a dummy email
      Account and post from that? Gmail is easy. I don't use mine here because it can be anonymous but I have one dummy account that I use when registering for store emails, etc. I just use that for registering at other sites.

      Delete
  4. Nice idea. My concern is still to inform OLs not to go to law school. Until schools are forces into greater transparency and until students truly understand the over saturation of lawyers, I don't care what schools try to do for reform.

    I have lost any faith I once had in law school administrators of all kinds.

    My proposal would be to keep exposing them for the liars they are. We need to require them to disclose more information than they now do- including debt per student and the range of debt, and the number of students on their LRAP programs.

    We need to continue to focus on the unethical behavior that permeates law school.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^^^This^^^

      There is no point discussing window dressing like whether externships should qualify students for lower tuition until the BIG PROBLEM THAT LAW SCHOOLS ARE CHURNING OUT TWICE AS MANY GRADS AS JOBS is dealt with.

      Anyone who does not get this is part of the problem, not the solution.

      Delete
    2. Ideally two thirds of Law Schools should be shut down. Not even half, most of them. You could use the US News rankings for this. They may be stupid and arbitrary, but for this purpose they would be good enough. Just shut down any school outside the top 60.

      Delete
  5. Nice info site..Reading of this give good knowledge...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is the theme song from The Jeffersons running through my mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, the law schools' administrators and professors have long since had their fat piece of the pie.

      Delete
  7. "Moderated? Did you say, 'Moderated'??

    "Nothing is 'Moderated' that's good! Was it'Moderated' when the Germans blew up Pearl Harbor?"

    (Sotto voce asides, Otter-Boon-Otter) ['Moderated'?] [Forget it, he's rolling.]

    ReplyDelete
  8. I DON'T WANT ANOTHER USERNAME AND PASSWORD. HOLY FUCK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can use mine.

      Delete
  9. I have zero confidence in law school administrators to do anything, but why the heck do we need another site to sit on our butts and discuss things in "cafe" form?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because DJM refuses to acknowledge that there are far too many law schools for the number of jobs available for graduates; that any "reforms" that don't include closing approximately half of the existing law schools are meaningless and likely counterproductive; and that the law school cartel has shown it will never willingly undertake meaningful reforms in any case. But dithering over "trying to foumulate some solutions" and "a few proposals for discussion" will make them all feel better while their graduates are still plunged into debt servitude and professional leperdom.

      That said, I find her posts here tiresome and distracting, so if this means she won't be posting here as often I'm all for it.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. And you get extra points for use of the word "dithering."

      Delete
  10. "On one level, the answers are easy: Lower tuition, reduce JD class size, embrace full transparency, and educate students effectively for the current workplace. But achieving those goals will require both discussion and specifics."

    It's a little absurd to read this, as if these concepts are being brought up for the very first time.

    But the only thing that will bring about change is a collapse of the Student Loan Bubble, which will force prices down.

    And the mentally deranged Mr. Infinity will continue to post what he does, and practise law with the blessing of the state bar, and that man of multiple personalities, Epic Fail, alias World Traveling Law Student, will graduate from the Univeristy of (blank)School of Law and get past character and fitness with flying colors.

    That little Darcey Hookhands story was really fucked up. Like nuts.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Paintroach,

      The only thing that'll make YOU happy is if you find a way to get paid to do nothing.

      Can we open a new law school that gives handouts to its graduates for life? That would be made to order for you.

      The bowl games have been full of ads for a contest that awards the winner $5000 per week for LIFE. Why can't your law school follow that model?

      LOL

      Delete
    2. Fall face first into a puddle of AIDS.

      Delete
    3. You have written nothing of value, Painter, in your entire life.

      Except this: "It's a little absurd to read this, as if these concepts are being brought up for the very first time."

      You are correct. We know what the problems are, and we know the solutions. We knew this two years ago. We don't need a cafe to go and discuss this stuff as if it's fucking news.

      It's dividing the movement. ITLSS is the heart of the scamblogs. Law School Cafe is pointless.

      Delete
  11. We need to get US News to create a column on their first page, demonstrating what percentage of students are enrolled in the IBR program.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Calling it a "Cafe" is apropos.

    One of my earliest resentments about this blog was that it seemed remote and detatched from the suffering and harm caused. In other words, clinical and like a parlor or drawing room discussion amongst affable and unaffected people who are not all that much genuinely concerned.

    It is a place where pouting upper tier law grads can find a sympathetic ear and shoulder to cry on, and complain about what a mean bully Leiter is.

    That seems really strange to me, especially when I believe the law school scamblogs really started out talking about 3rd or 4th tier reality.

    Hell, even Elie Mystal went to a top school, and so when he rides a grouch he will always be viewed in that light.

    But yeah, the cafe. How nice.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Call me élitist, but my sympathies are mostly with those upper-tier graduates who can't find work. Borrowing $200k to attend Bumblefuck U was always a bad idea.

      Delete
    2. But where do we draw the line? ( joking)

      It might have always been a bad idea but unsophisticated people don't know better. The locals from Dayton Ohio think Dayton is a good school and think it must be worth it. They have no idea about the legal market and have never even heard of biglaw .

      Until the message is solidly out there, I still understand how people have been duped by the scam.

      Delete
  13. Clowns like Leiter spewing Nietzsche don't belong in a law program. Kids in law schools had 4 years in their undergraduate liberal arts utopias to absorb all that philosophical nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Law school should not be "public intellectual" school. It should be law school. Medical school is not scientific intellectual school.

      Law is a practical trade discipline and should be taught as those other trades taught at ITT or DeVry but with neckties. This is radical to the academicians, but it is not to anyone who has argued in court or drafted a contract or appealed a zoning decision in the last decade.

      To the academicians who disagree, query this: imagine you were arrested and charged with some horrible crime. would you hire the prof at your school who teaches criminal law to defend you? imagine that you had a bad car accident, would you hire the torts professor to represent you? imagine that you needed to draft a will, would you hire the estates lawyer to draft it for you?

      Odds are the answers are "no." And at the end of the day, that is why law school is a complete sham and scam. It is taught by toll collectors who lack the chops to do the work of the profession.

      Delete
    2. The inabilities of law professors to do the work is crazy. I used to post on TLS to remind people that partners are not like professors. They can draft every document themselves. Associates need to always remember that the job can be done without them.

      Delete
  14. It's actually kind of amusing: Leiter is like the boogeyman for the petty, complaining, petulant children that get out of an upper tier school.

    Oh they throw temper tantrums, pout and whimper about Leiter, but deep down they know that Leiter, like the Umpa Lumpas, has their number and knows how to deal with brats :)

    Me, I went to a trap school; a bottom feeder mill, so I don't know a Leiter from nuthin'

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Lower tuition, reduce JD class size, embrace full transparency, and educate students effectively for the current workplace."

    I agree with the first three proposals, but the fourth would be addressing a problem that does not exist. Law school does a very good job of preparing students to practice as lawyers. I've heard the trope about it not doing so, but it's patently false. Just because law school doesn't train you in the mundane machinations of finding the court-house, filing a 10K, drawing up a will, doesn't mean it Civil Procedure, Securities, or Trusts and Estates have somehow "failed you" by teaching broader concepts. Professors rightly assume that a properly trained lawyer who has learned the broader concepts can fill in the interstital details of practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong.

      As a general rule, the "broader concepts" taught in law school classes do not aid the new attorney in trying to resolve day-to-day practice issues, not just the application of state law (often different or more nuanced than the black letter taught in law school) but also in dealing with clients and the litigation/transactional process. Law school doesn't even come close to teaching the latter because 3/4 the faculty simply isn't qualified. So no, learning broad family law concepts does not help you at all in figuring out how to effectively represent a divorce client.

      The only people I've ever met who honestly believe law school prepares anyone for practice are either out-of-touch 70+ year old big firm partners or law professors.

      So...let me guess...Florida Coastal?

      Delete
    2. That must be why clients refuse to have junior associates work on their cases: they just haven't learned the broader concepts fully enough to fill in those meaningless details. Obviously, we should blame these junior associates and not their schools, professors or the efficiency of the quasi-Socratic instruction model.

      Delete
    3. John,
      While I agree the teaching model can be improved, that article doesn't support that proposition. That article addresses the price points of billable hour rates rather than adequate training of law students.

      Delete
    4. I doubt anyone but a law professor could consider the tedious, grinding, repetitive work that make up about 95% of day-to-day law practice as "interstitial details."

      "Oh, you students want to focus on the things you'll actually be doing all day that comprise the only tasks that clients are willing to pay you to get done? Pish-posh, mere interstitial details! Instead we'll be focusing on the important things here in class, starting with 3 full class hours of Socratic hide-the-ball regarding Palsgraf v. LI Railroad."

      Delete
    5. Clearly they are willing to pay those rates for senior associates and partners, but not freshly graduated junior associates. What could possibly be the difference, when all law graduates have mastered these broader principles which provide all you need to practice as an attorney from the get-go?

      Delete
    6. There's a lot that you learn just by being on deals and seeing what goes on. There's no way you could teach that in the classroom.
      8:19

      Delete
    7. I'm sorry. I thought that a properly trained lawyer who has learned the broader concepts could fill in the interstital details of practice. It would seem that the proposition could use some caveats, like "but not with any client who pays a lot of money to see something done correctly the first time."

      Delete
    8. That's why, like I said above, it's more of an issue of the price point being charged for juniors vs. midlevels (and by the way, clients do not happily pay senior associate and partner rates for junior/midlevel work). The rate difference between a first and a third year is only about $100 per hour and the increased experience makes a third year much more efficient than a first year.

      Delete
  16. DJM, do we really need another web site that is "starting from scratch" with posts about some very clear, well-known problems with law school, along with discussions on how to solve them?

    You seem perpetually a few yards behind this movement. I tolerated your posts here because they were few and far between, but they were generally rehashing things we already know, or dealing with boring viewpoints that only a law professor would bring up.

    And now the Law School Cafe? Your initial posts show that there is nothing new there, just more rehashing and ignoring the big problem.

    But that is the problem with law professors (sometimes even Campos) "leading" this movement: they are vested in the status quo. Perhaps not Campos so much, as I feel that if he was canned from his job, he'd survive. But you seem to be constantly dancing around the main issues, refusing to address the idea that academia is the problem, not the solution. There are too many law schools, too many law grads, and too many law professors taking too large a piece of the pie. And I know that it stings, but the reality is that when push comes to shove, reform means that you, or professors like you, will be fired, have their salaries slashes, or be turned into non-tenured amateurs like most professors really are.

    So perhaps the first post on your cafe should have been "Why my job is important", or "Why my law school should not be closed down." Because those are the solutions, not some bullshit about incubators and innovation.

    You just don't get the problem. Campos does. You don't. You think that you're not part of it, when the opposite is true.

    Law School Cafe? Meh. Another mediocre, weak site that I can avoid. But I'm sure your tenure reveiw committee will love you distancing yourself from the ITLSS and scamblog hot potato, and you can add your Law School Cafe site to your lengthy and irrelevant CV to show what a good law professor you are.

    It's nothing but a way of avoiding the big issues, which are uncomfortable to deal with. Like what Congress just did with the fiscal cliff - a bunch of people who don't really get it, kicking the can down the road until they have their pensions and don't have to care anymore.

    So how about it? How about a posts and discussions about:

    1 - Why you deserve your salary, and how much of a cut you would take

    2 - Why your law school is important and needs only superficial reform

    I somehow think that you will avoid these topics, and instead deal change the debate into something which fails to address the real problems. I predict posts about dogs in law school libraries, co-teaching courses with practicing lawyers, and other fluff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! Well put.

      Delete
    2. Your trolling would be far more believable if you didn't follow it up, EVERY DAMN TIME, with a comment like "Exactly! Well put!"

      Delete
    3. Not trolling. See my comment at 7:27. 8:01 puts it better.

      Delete
    4. Okay calm down @8:01. While I agree with a lot of what you said, DJM posts on this blog for free. Feel free to skip her posts if you hate them so much. LawProf can change who writes for the site when and if he feels that's appropriate.

      There are really two problems 1. law schools produce more than two JD's for every legal job each year, and 2. law schools use an outdated 3-year socratic method education system.

      The former is a much bigger problem than the latter. A site like law school cafe will probably only address the outdated socratic method, not the huge oversupply of graduates.

      Delete
    5. Tolerate, SchmolerateJanuary 3, 2013 at 9:07 AM

      "...I tolerated your posts here because they were few and far between, but ..."


      No, you (whoever you are) "tolerated" her posts because you have no option in the matter.

      Delete
    6. Incendiary, but I agree. Law Profs will have to make sacrifices in Law School reform, thus having them lead the reform charge is not likely to yield much ground.

      Stepping down as a professor and giving up the spoils of the scam would be much more moving and profound than starting another blog. That said, I hope the new blog is a smashing success.

      Delete
  17. We have more than enough evidence that the system is broken (and why!) and more than enough proposals for reform. What we don't have is how to get anyone to give a shit

    The issue I hope the cafe can address is "who has the power to change things and how can we make people who otherwise do not care about the price of legal education and too many law students suddenly care." If academia is the problem, then academia is not going to reform itself- or it wouldn't have gotten us into this mess in the first place. So how do you convince the other organizations who may have the power to change things to step up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plummeting attendance and revenue is the only way to force law schools to reform.

      Delete
    2. They might change, but that could mean they look for ways to broaden their revenue base (such as dumping the LSAT), market PAYE more aggressively, push more costs on to students, and generally do anything but have to cut costs.

      Delete
  18. This blog is just getting redundant now, and it is time to finally pronounce it as ineffective.

    Restoring Consumer Bankruptcy protections for surreal SL debt is the only fix.

    Other than that, get out of the country.

    And if the above two are not options, just kill yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hereby finally pronounce you as ineffective.

      Delete
  19. How about requiring Professors to teach more? The ABA makes a clear distinction between full-time and part-time faculty; what if the definition of full-time faculty meant, you know, that they actually taught more of the time like they used to. More teaching out of fewer professors should equal lower costs because you're getting more from less, aka efficiency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my thought too as a really simple way to cut costs. It's possible you wouldn't even have to lay people off or cut salaries that way either if you just don't replace profs that are retiring.

      Delete
    2. This happened at my undergrad state school. During the budget crises, adjuncts were fired and professors had to teach 4 classes. This hasn't changed, though where there is demand they will hire adjuncts.

      Delete
  20. The significant problems facing law graduates have been exacerbated in the last decade or so by two significant factors:

    1) the lack of accurate information involving the risks of attending law school, including but not limited to the real costs of borrowed money, the poor job prospects, and the realities of the profession once having secured a job; and

    2) the significant number of students who financially and economically illiterate, a not so surprising fact given that our education system indoctrinates more than it educates, especially on so-called "greedy" topics like finance and accounting.

    In this vein sites like the Cafe are welcome because in one way or another it will question the poor value proposition that law school has become. This drumbeat must continue if there is any change of the law schools reducing their collective capacity of 12-15,000 law graduates a year. I agree with the above poster that the driver of any such result will be plummeting attendance and revenue, but that will not happen without an efficient market and steady stream of accurate information, things which the professional progressive rent seekers who run law schools will be loathe to provide.

    ReplyDelete
  21. FWIW, the ABA Young Lawyers Division is currently staffing up a new (volunteer) Truth in Law School Education Committee, seeking a chair as well as general members. Don't know more than that, my guess is this could be what you make of it. Apply by 2/15/13, full application info and position descriptions at:

    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/about_us/Appointments_2012-2013.html

    Truth in Law School Education Committee Chair and Member

    The Young Lawyers Division has established a Truth in Law School Education Committee to study the section’s work and ongoing efforts to increase law school transparency.

    Expectations:
     Oversee and assist in the implementation of the initiatives, goals, and tasks set forth in the YLD Truth in Law School Education Resolution
     Work with all ABA entities, committees, taskforce, division, and sections related to the initiatives, goals, and tasks set forth in the YLD Truth in Law School Education Resolution
     Provide the ABA YLD Council with quarterly reports
     Train your successor

    ReplyDelete
  22. "We know what the problems are, and we know the solutions. We knew this two years ago."

    Yeah yeah. So that puts you in the clear.

    "ITLSS is the heart of the movement"

    It seems to be now, and Campos and DJM are doing the best they can I know given the limitations of their positions.

    Well, once upon a time when this blog started, Prof. Campos emailed me and some of the other scambloggers and told me about this blog.

    But here is a trip down memory lane:

    http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2011/08/welcome-to-my-nightmare.html

    The very first of the first commenters on ILSS was? Guess who?

    Cryn Johannsen :)

    "The scam blogs, with some exceptions, have tended to focus on the plight of graduates of lower-tier law schools, where, in terms of return on investment, the scam-like qualities of contemporary legal education are most evident. But the current crisis in legal education reaches to the very top of the legal hierarchy"

    LawProf
    August 13, 2011

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't even see a Painter post on there. I guess we've come a long way now that 80% of the posts are by, for, or about Painter.

      Delete
  23. Oh and the guy that calls me paintroach is a coward. Says he is a lawyer but won't say who he is.

    Says he is in favor of usury and debtor's prison.

    What a chicken, can't face me and say who he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why, is he afraid of work too?

      LOL

      Delete
    2. Because you seem to have quite a bit in common with the Connecticut school shooter, that's why.

      Delete
    3. Did he live in his parents' house, too? Maybe he should've gotten a job. Sounds more like a Paintroach to me.

      Delete
    4. Hopefully, Mr. Infinity/Epic Fail/World Travelling Law Student turns the gun on himself before he hurts anyone else.

      Delete
    5. Painter why are you always complaining about usury? You are on ICR, which is a form in concept of Chapter 13 bankruptcy. You are just mad that the tax payers are not bailing you out fast enough.

      Delete
    6. Painter should move out of his parent's house, like this guy.

      "My name is Matt Foley, I am a motivational speaker, and I live in a van down by the river"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoM0FyLmGY

      Delete
  24. As I said months ago, discussing any law school reform other than closing most of the law schools is like sitting around discussing treating a hang nail with a patient suffering from a malignant brain tumor who refuses to acknowledge that he has a malignant brain tumor. I for one refuse to discuss any issue other than the critical one....stopping the flow of federal student loans that will never be repaid to completely unneeded parasite law schools (MORE than half of them in view of the number of unemployed and underemployed experienced lawyers).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More or less agree.

      So the next question is - specific tactics.

      Some thoughts.

      1) Initiate groundwork for qui tam suits against schools for false statements to the federal government made pursuant to the ongoing requirements needed to qualify as institutional recipients of federally guaranteed student loans.

      Given the likely extent of these requirements and the schools' penchant for deception and dishonesty, it is quite likely that many schools have fatally f*cked up *somewhere* along the path of regulatory compliance.

      2) Ditto with regard to schools' non-profit tax status. The requirements to maintain ongoing qualification are extensive and not "fraud-adjacent" friendly.

      And, again, this avenue allies the scam-busters with the biggest swing-d*ck around - the federal government.

      Which is having money troubles - and looking for loose change in sofa cushions and isn't above rolling con-men for their ill-gotten billfolds.

      And it is a *vast and varied* federal government, with many camps, each with dissimilar interests and objectives.

      For every loan and IBR trolling trollop at the Dept of Ed, there is a prosecutor at Justice or the IRS looking for scalps.

      Delete
    2. You would have thought with all the unemployed and underemployed lawyers crying here, that this would be a project that would suffer no shortage of willing and able volunteers.

      But the reality is that nobody is willing to go any further than posting on this blog. Everyone hopes that someone else will do the work.

      Indicative of why the commenters on this blog are unemployed in the first place?

      Delete
    3. Well, there is a free rider problem.

      But perhaps even more important,

      1) The long and exceptionally winding road that litigation (especially original litigation) is - many a small plaintiff side firm has starved to death along that road and

      2) The quality of actual, practical litigation training in almost all law schools is sh*t. And a *lot* of students who wanted/hoped to pay back their loans focused on transactional work rather than litigation (which historically has attracted the Type A, raw meat, aggressive ego-obsessives - which, despite law school mythos, have never been anywhere near a majority in the practice of law).

      Most of us are in it for the money - not to engage in insane, angry, endless jihads.

      *Unless we are given no choice*.

      Which is precisely the corner the corrupt schools have placed us in.

      So, I think, law-scam lawsuits *will* build one upon another - as causes of action are tried, modified, and refined.

      The plaintiff's bar *does learn* from one another (and implicitly conspires more than is talked about...) - take a look at the history of a *lot* of widespread tort litigation and I think you will discover a similar pattern of a few gambling legal entrepreneurs - shortly accompanied by a pack of work-alike firms.

      Once *some* blood is drawn, darkness will shortly fall for the Deans.

      I wouldn't be surprised if law school administration turnover hasn't already increased.

      Delete
  25. @10:03AM

    That is the whole problem in a nutshell, and yeah what is the sense of discussing anything else?

    But as long as enormous federal funds are available, prices will get jacked up and the lower schools will thrive and all interested parties will continue to line up at the SL trough.

    But perhaps because of the lobbying of the media by financial interests, the student lending problem will never really get the coverage it needs.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Speaking of media coverage, there is good Op Ed in today's Wall Street Journal by a recent law school grad named Chris Fletcher discussing the law school crisis. Fletcher cuts right to the chase and doesn't pull any punches - 21,800 jobs for 44,000 grads with average debt load exceeding 150K. The WSJ has done a pretty good job covering this issue - certainly better than the NYT. Sorry no link for the piece and it may be behind a pay wall.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Actually, I just checked. The Chris Fletcher WSJ piece is not behind a pay wall. Its worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm getting a paywall...

      Delete
    2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578213223967518096.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

      Delete
  28. 10:03 - you are absolutely correct in identifying the flow of federal funds as the culprit.

    I just don't think sufficient numbers of people will quickly come to agree with us without attacking the problem from any number of directions. Remember, many in this generation equate "government" with "good", even though this is often far from the case. I can't disagree with those who drum against the status quo, although I concur that those who do often miss the most crucial issue at hand.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There is not one governing group that can mandate changes. The ABA doesn't appear to have the mandate to enforce any change from above. So the only real resolution to this crisis is for change to come from below.

    When the number of applicants is less than the number of law school seats, then change will happen.

    When law schools simply cannot meet their current budgets because the number of students keeps dropping 10% to 15% each year, then change will happen.

    This is all just chit chat in the echo chamber. Our ideas may be reasonable and thoughtful, but they do not address the core problem.

    There are not enough law jobs. Also most of the law jobs that do exist don't provide enough income to justify the debt required to get a law degree.

    It is that simple.

    Minor or major changes to what is taught at law school is irrelevant. We need about 50% of the law school seats to just disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 11:37 - google chris fletcher and caveat emptor and you will get the op ed piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got it. Weird that it works off google links but not from the WSJ main page.

      Delete
    2. That's how you get around paywalls (works with NYT as well)...

      Delete
  31. This just in:

    http://m.gawker.com/5972884/there-are-two-law-school-grads-for-every-lawyer-job

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it so hard to get this message out? I see absolutely no sense of acceptance of these numbers on the TLS forums or other places.

      People try to hedge their chances at employment , but I don't think they truly understand the over saturation,

      I know I posted this before but there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be in law school next year. Every single applicant should push themselves to find any other career for one or two years.

      There is no harder career to be sucessful in than law. There are many other jobs. Law school is not going anywhere.. Applications will only get easier as people finally finally grasp the reality of the law school lie.

      The disconnect between the people who understand the truth and those OLs that still don't get it remains vast.

      Delete
  32. Let's see:

    An adult who lives with Mommie?.......... Check
    No paid job or even charity work giver?.. Check
    Excessive time on the computer?.......... Check
    No known social skills?.................. Check
    No concept of personal responsibility?... Check
    No evidence of ever being influenced by a responsible male figure?................. Check

    All that's is missing are a few psychotrophic drugs and a fetish for AR-15s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^+ another 1.

      Delete
    2. Paintroach is a sociopath. He would gladly transfer his debt to each and every person on this board if he could. He'd even transfer it to his looooong-suffering parents.

      Such ingratitude.

      Delete
    3. Actually it gets worse than that. He posted on Nando's blog that he thinks that everybody on Earth should bail out the student loan debt. That would include starving people in third world countries.

      Delete
    4. LOL, he doesn't even care about that. He just wants the bailout for HIS debt.

      Delete
  33. ^^12:42PM is a coward. Posts all kinds of vile stuff about me and I have asked this person to not be anon and to have the courage to stand up to the insults and false accusations.

    We have all heard from Mr. Infinity, and we all know that Epic Fail goes to the U of San Francisco School of law and transferred there from Western New England School of law.

    My guess is that @12:42 is Epic Fail alias World traveling law student alias Mr. Infinity are all the same person.

    God I sure hope Character and Fitness doesn;t admit this person to the bar, and I have a hard copy of a vile post he wrote to me from last summer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paintroach is justvangry because 1242 got his number. Boy, did he nail it. Only a hit dog hollers.

      And correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't *Paintroach* the one who brought up comparisons to the CT shooter?

      Delete
    2. For all we know, JD Painterguy, Epic Fail, and the World Traveling Law Student are all the same person.

      Delete
  34. Here is what Epic Fail/Terrified Law Student/Hopeful law Student posted on this blog last summer. This was before he publicly admitted on his blog that he had gained the confidence of the scamblogs and infiltrated them and was really the World Traveling Law Student:

    " Anonymous July 22, 2012 2:37 PM

    I think Cooley should have had to answer a bit more for it's fudging with the numbers. That said, I still think that the majority of the people on this forum are the kind of entitled crowd that was so prevalent at Occupy Wall (Fail) Street. Did you honestly think you were going to go to law school for three years and come out starting at $160k? There is something to be said about realistic expectations.

    Again, that being said, I think that if a law school fudges its numbers by a huge margin, it should have to answer for that. However, that gives no person an excuse to whine for the next decade or threaten suicide on the internet. Life is not about money, status symbols, or developing an already inflated ego. Consider this a life lesson. One that seriously needed to be learned. In fact, I would say those with the huge egos that thought they were going to be big shots have received a blessing. Some of you I'd cringe to see rich. Cringe Cringe Cringe.

    The World Traveling Law Student | 18%

    ReplyDelete
  35. What an absolute clown:

    http://www.lawschoolfail.com

    Aw Gee, I miss the crazy story about darcey hookhands.

    And here is a LOL !! :) :) :)

    Maybe Character and Fitness would be interested in this kindle book, as well as Mr. Infinity--or I mean Mr. Terrified or rather hopeful law student, or WTLS?

    LOLOLOLOL!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't visit that site. Ignore him. You're just egging him on and possibly making him money.

      Delete
    2. How can Mr.Duplicity make any money? He never leaves his shitty blogs up any longer than a few weeks at a time.

      Delete
  36. ^^^^
    http://www.amazon.com/Derailed-Law-School-Terror-Stricken-ebook/dp/B00AN1JUVG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1357249118&sr=1-1

    Oh that story about the Dean with the golf club was sooooooooooooo gooooooooood!

    ReplyDelete
  37. LOL!!! Here is what one reviewer wrote about Epic Fail's kindle book:

    "This booklet - it's far too short to even be considered a novella - is poorly written, poorly edited, and should have stayed as a series of throwaway blog posts on a throwaway blog rather than being self-elevated to the status of "published material" (albeit fake published material, which the overwhelming majority of self-published books are). Notwithstanding the fact that the same (or largely the same) content is available on the blog for free, this booklet is a waste of money and adds nothing, and is a mentally painful experience to read. Not because it is a harrowing story of law school hardship, but because it's extraordinarily bad writing.

    Examples. Second sentence, first page, awkward mistake - words poorly arranged, something that a real book with a read editor would have avoided. The reader has to pause to decipher the awkwardness. Third sentence, capitalization error, again a novice mistake. Rest of the second paragraph, terrible writing, like a middle school kid wrote it. And it goes downhill from there, with its childish style, awful storyline, etc.

    But what a fine example of what happens when somebody mistakes polite praise for an endorsement of quality. "Special snowflake" perhaps, a phrase closely associated with the law school scam? Just because an anonymous commenter on your blog tells you that you should publish a couple of posts as a book, it doesn't mean that you should actually go-out-and-publish-it-as-a-book. It's like the coach telling the fat kid on the soccer team that he or she did a really good job too. Or your mom telling you that your artwork is really pretty. Or the college student who has been told that he's smart enough to make it big in law school. It's all a lie. It makes "special snowflakes" who mistakenly think they are really awesome, who think they can be soccer players or artists or lawyers when they grow up - or authors.

    I'm sorry you rushed this project and ended up with a feeble vanity project rather than a book. Long term effort is what is needed to write well, not a week between "you should publish this" and "I've published a book!" Good writing is 99% rewriting. First drafts, second drafts, third drafts are always bad. When you get to the tenth draft, the one that looks nothing like the original, you know you might have something worth reading. And if your idea survives that long, you know it might be a good idea.

    I feel embarrassed for you. The only saving grace is that your real name isn't attached to this poor decision."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No wonder that loser took his wretched blog down. What an embarrassment.

      Delete
    2. JD Painterguy did say that he was working on a book.

      Delete
  38. Why do we need another website like Law School Cafe? Wouldn't it be better to have one big, well-known website where all the forces are joined?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Change the name. "Cafe" sounds elitist and obnoxious, like a bunch of out of touch snobs, sipping lattes, and discussing things they cannot possibly understand without experiencing it first hand.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @2:26PM

    Nope. Guessed wrong.

    Look, everyone knows who I am.

    And the reason this anon person keeps harping on my parents is probably becuse the person is Mr. Infinity, who wrote to me:

    "And every time I see you post ANYWHERE, I will trash what you hold dear. I love my law degree and I value my education. You seem to love your parents and your grandparents."

    And, as promised, every time I do post I get an anon insult about my parents in reply.

    But let me guess something now: The exiles that used to support Epic Fail and Mr. Infinity's blog are half ass readers of this blog as well.

    And they are kind of miffed that Epic Fail is gone. So might 2:26PM be Jack Marshall? The self described ethics guy that did an anti TTR post on his own blog, and who also got so upset when someone asked who he was after he posted as anon on the Epic Fail Blog?

    But here is my suggestion: Maybe after all this time there should be a new and final scamblog. The last of all scamblogs in other words. Call it the "Cafe" or whatever.

    Registration should be required, and then it would put an end to anon comments and the guessing. I think it is time.

    For example, the wonder about Leiter appearing as anon would end and, at least, if someone like Mr. Infinity wants to tell me that he wants to drive me to suicide in a post, and to also write that my "grandfather worked sucking cocks in the toilets of a construction site, and that the only steel he erected was the cocks of the sex-starved construction workers when he stuck his licked finger up their assholes to make them cum quicker."

    ...at least the blog owner, through the registration records, will know who it is that wrote the comment.

    And let me leave you with a few more words from Mr. Infinity from last summer. (August 24th, 3:37PM)

    "Post again, ANYWHERE, Painter, and I'll repost another "Painter's Family" story for us all to share. Next time his(my Grandfather's) name gets attached to the story, so it's archived by google for all to see when they search for his achievements."

    ".....you and Nando fucked yourselves for thinking that your real identities added to your legitimacy. Campos made that mistake too. So don't try to draw anyone into the shitmarsh of internet infamy and permanent unemployability you have caused for yourself."

    Mr. Infinity, just more people in your neighborhood.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2bbnlZwlGQ

    I wonder if Jack Marshall ever contemplated the ethics of usury and the removal of bankruptcy protections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, why don't YOU start this ultimate blog, Paintroach?

      I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in visiting it and registering with you.

      Delete
    2. If Painter wants to move out of his parent's house, he could always go live in a van down by the river, like this guy.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaoM0FyLmGY

      Delete
    3. No, not really. Is there a YouTube video of a guy sucking all the blood out of his mother until she dries up, her skin breaks open, and she turns to dust?

      That might do.

      Delete
  41. One, United Scamblog.

    Can you dig it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUrWYv2vtU

    ReplyDelete
  42. why hasnt anyone posted this gem?

    http://www.novus.edu/

    ReplyDelete
  43. Maybe DJM has hit on the perfect idea to solve the JD employment crisis.

    Rather than working in Starbucks, where many of her students end up, they can go and work in her Law School Cafe instead.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Maybe if they cross post law profs blog posts, we could discuss there without having to deal with the posts from painter guy and then the inevitable responses by those who feel compelled to egg him on.

    That would be an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It just wouldn't be the same if 80% of the responses weren't by, for, or about Painter.

      Delete
  45. Painter is so good at posting hilarious and relevant youtube videos! Sometimes I even click on the actual link!

    - Nobody ever

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Painter should volunteer for medical experiments, like this guy.

      The Legend of Mokiki and the Sloppy Swish
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBzG0CCAx4U

      Delete
    2. Maybe he should just keep his promise and stop posting here - forever.

      Delete
  46. That was good, 530

    ReplyDelete
  47. Back to the topic....
    See I still think a massive effort needs to be made to inform oLs of the employment realities.

    They don't get it. Until they do, the rest just doesn't matter.

    Maybe we need more people willing to take on TLS regarding the reality of the legal market- if they can do it without losing their cool and berating people.

    Just today there was a post by someone to the effect that employment is improving, 2011 was an anomaly , Harvard guarantees biglaw and the top 50% of T14s get biglaw.

    Even though the data contradicts this- they want to live in denial

    Another post yesterday questioned LSACs data about the drastic drop in the smartest kids- the 170s and above, applying to law school. Instead of seeing that as the harbinger of the smart money getting out, they see it as meaning now they have a shot at school.

    I think we must keep hammering home this idea of no jobs, over saturation and the BLS data. Couple that with increased pressure for transparency in all matters and some sort if oversight as to the way numbers are reported. The ABA needs to hire a few people to audit the books or supervise the data collection.

    I am really sick of this. The message has to keep hitting employment realities. Arguing about better legal writing programs is not going to make a difference when there are NO JOBS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Another post yesterday questioned LSACs data about the drastic drop in the smartest kids- the 170s and above, applying to law school. Instead of seeing that as the harbinger of the smart money getting out, they see it as meaning now they have a shot at school."

      link?

      Delete
  48. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=201112

    And no one has posted any of the recent articles about law school on TLS

    ReplyDelete
  49. One of the latest posts on Law School Cafe showes exactly why it is part of the problem, not part of the solution:

    An article suggesting that law professors should have to perform 10 to 15 hours of practice per year.

    Wow. That's one day of legal work. Per year. And that's supposed to be a real life, discussion-worthy part of the solution.

    What a fucking waste of time.

    The article itself was written by Emily Zimmerman, who is a Yale-educated, Third Circuit appeals clerk turned law professor who now "conducts empirical research to assess strengths and weaknesses in legal pedagogy and methods for promoting student enthusiasm."

    Could this be any more detatched from reality?

    DJM, get a grip. Do you not see the insanity? You are ignoring the main issues of the scam and trying to promote "law professor" solutions that will ensure that you keep your job and your school stays full of cash that you can cream off as a six figure salary for teaching one or two courses per semester.

    Do you just not get it?

    Campos - you might want to get her in line. She's clearly not cut out for this.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @7:09 - Campos is just like DJM. Teaches 1-3 classes per year and they all suck. No real "scholarship." He wouldn't know where the courthouse is located in Boulder and he uses the law school to find wives (I believe he is up to three ex-student wives by now). Real credibility there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn, all those wives must have cost a fortune.

      Delete
    2. That's bananas if true. Campos does produce better data and a more streamlined analysis than DJM though.

      Delete
    3. Things are really desperate if you start attacking Campos personal life.

      Did you read the story about the Columbia law professor who married a girl who had been his student? That is one of the stories of the year on ATL.

      Delete
    4. Lat's slant on that creepy ass marriage was so ...... obvious.

      Delete
    5. 800: you're really scraping the bottom. You are desperate to think that this line of attack will persuade anyone. It's time to get back to preparing your lecture.

      Delete
  51. I think a lot of law profs marry their students, I can name a few offhand from my alma mater that did so. The students are always at least 10 years younger than the profs, of course...

    Although I don't know of any female profs who married male students, it pretty much seems to only go the one way. Blech.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Why does everyone here hate me so much?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:14 - Exactly. And who cares?

      Delete
  53. @ 7:09 AM, "The article itself was written by Emily Zimmerman, who is a Yale-educated, Third Circuit appeals clerk turned law professor... "


    This gives a certain mistaken impression that Zimmerman is yet another cookie-cutter YLS-Clerk-LawProf type.

    That's only true if you ignore the 9 years she spent in the Philly DA's office.

    Just sayin', keep it real.

    (Yes, do I agree with you that her paper proposing law profs get 12 hours of "continuing practice" per year is pretty lame.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder what they can do in 12 whole hours? Maybe some filing?

      Delete
  54. I don't know if LawProf will talk about this, but you guys missed some great comments today.

    BoredJD is my new favorite person.

    http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/12/law-school-transparency-jumps-the-rails-or-why-im-still-disappointed-with-lsts-latest-contribution-t/comments/page/3/#comments

    ReplyDelete
  55. Also good:

    http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1901:santa-clara-prof-steve-diamond-approaches-escape-velocity&catid=42:news&Itemid=71

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you are bored, I recommend spending a little time over at thefacultylounge.org -- Steve Diamond, a prof at Santa Clara, is getting ass handed to him as he tries to defend SCU's high tuition/shitty job prospects. And as a bonus, celebrity cameos by DJM and LST.

    http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/12/law-school-transparency-jumps-the-rails-or-why-im-still-disappointed-with-lsts-latest-contribution-t.html

    ReplyDelete
  57. Forgot to add that the good folks over at constitutionaldaily.com are also in on the act: http://constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1901:santa-clara-prof-steve-diamond-approaches-escape-velocity&catid=42:news&Itemid=71

    This Diamond character should really quit while he is ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  58. What the hell, my doppelganger?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Case Western Dean: There's No Oversupply of Lawyers

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects there will be 74,000 new lawyer jobs this decade, while American law schools will produce more than 400,000 graduates. Despite those numbers, "it's not clear to me there's an oversupply problem at all," says Case Western Reserve Law School Dean Lawrence Mitchell. With so many legal needs of the poor going unmet, "finding different paths for people who truly want to be lawyers opens up all sorts of possibilities" for law graduates to find jobs, he maintains.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/01/case-western.html#comments

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at that jackass when he tries to argue that "nine months out" is a bad standard to use for determining employment outcomes, and that things would be drastically different if we were to look at employment one year out, and especially different if we were to look at it a year and half out. You can actually see his snake lips tighten as he lies through them.

      IF THAT INFO IS SO DIFFERENT THEN WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU PUBLICLY REPORT IT, "DEAN"?

      Delete
  60. I'm a Painter-wanna-be. I'M WASTED!! Too much sangria muchacho. It's "MY" time to be a drunkin' loozer. I hopes youze all have a good nite and had a goote new year. Hey gotta go - my mom's making me a Hot Pocket in the microwave. Ham n' cheeze. Slurp slurp.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You people got pwned in court. Destroyed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean by the cases that are continuing in California and by the court of appeals questioning the ethics of the deans involved? You mean those cases were destroyed because the lies were so obvious that no one should have been fooled by them? Even though hundreds of people were fooled?

      Don't think that this is over. If it makes you feel good to know that a case was won but the numbers were proven to be false misrepresentations and the deans are lying liars who lie- then great, feel wonderful about yourself.

      Delete
  62. One of the most dismal things in activism is when the reformers and the radicals start tearing each other apart. It always happens. And this image pops into my mind: a civil war breaking out on the brink of the enemy's citadel, while the defenders of privilege look down and smirk.

    There are plenty of reform goals that are worthy. Tuition reduction, practical skills training, and local mentorship can make a big difference to a lot of law students. Also, they keep talking about unmet needs for legal services, so there should be proposals for public subsidies to newbie private lawyers handling certain kinds of cases (such as foreclosure defense) on behalf of nonindigent but financially-stressed clients.

    These goals should be pursued and should not be mocked. That said, all changes will be insufficient without the big needed change: way, way fewer law school graduates. The BLS estimate of 22,000 entry-level jobs per year in this decade may even be optimistic given that it is premised on a 2.2% annual GDP growth, double the growth experienced in the decade of 2000-2010.

    dybbuk

    ReplyDelete
  63. Public subsidies to employ lawyers?

    Fresh tax dollars for the most despised "professionals" in a country drowning in red ink?

    Now there's an idea that will draw tons of political support!

    ReplyDelete
  64. A great deal of professions are subsidized by taxpayers so why not lawyers for a number of consumer needs?

    For example, every day the driving pubic enjoys roads and bridges designed by engineers. Do engineers have to ask the public for payment? Well, yes. But not by hanging out a shingle and requiring payment before they build a bridge.

    The above may be imprecise, but if thats how engineers get paid why is it sacrelige to say the same for attorneys? Doctors get paid by Medicare for seniors. Why not let lawyers get paid for elderly law services by Medicare?

    Im not talking about government funding legal aid clinics. Im talking about fee for service. That would let a lot of lawyers, new and experienced, help a lot more ordinary folks who need help in life important decisions and planning.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "why not let Lawyers get paid for elderly law services by Medicare?"

    Well, um, because Medicare is under extreme financial pressure? Because the federal government is for all practical purposes, bankrupt? Because there is no money?

    Can you even imagine the graft, corruption, over-billing, self-dealing, fraud, unchained ambulance-chasing that would ensue. The mind reels.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The federal is not government bankrupt "for all practical purposes."

    The US still, I believe, has the world's reserve currency. Capital flows are into, rather than out of, the USA, driving interest rates ever lower. Debt-to-GDP is far from its historic high. The federal government manages to shell out half a trillion per year to maintain its military commitments.

    The deficit hysteria is manufactured by interest groups that want to destroy social security and medicare.


    ReplyDelete

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