Saturday, January 5, 2013

Various matters

I've been tied up this week by the latest flare-up in the fat wars (people who want to look at the data can find a long analysis here, a shorter, more technical one here, and the tl;dr version here), so this post is a quick round-up of some interesting developments over the last few days.

(1)  Recent law graduate Chris Fletcher has a very useful summation of the law school crisis in the Wall Street Journal.  Keep in mind that, as familiar as the statistics he's quoting are to regular readers of this blog, they remain only tenuously understood or largely invisible to many if not most prospective law students, so this sort of high-profile media exposure is crucial.

(2) This post by Bernie Burk at the Faculty Lounge generated a fascinating comment thread, in which regular ITLSS commenter Bored JD attempted to engage in consciousness-raising with a recalcitrant law professor.  I'm hardly a disinterested observer, but it seems to me the professor question could have benefited from an internet argument version of the mercy rule.

(In regard to Burk's OP I'm curious regarding his assertion that "there is no empirical evidence, and no coherent argument, that whatever you think law schools are doing wrong today made one-third or more of all entry-level law jobs suddenly disappear between 2008 and 2010."  NALP reports 28,890 graduates getting full-time jobs requiring bar admission in the class of 2008 and 25,654 graduates in the class of 2010.   Perhaps he means one third of big firm entry level jobs. Such jobs have always been a small minority of all entry level legal jobs, and the focus on that sector of the market tends to obscure that no more than two-thirds of all law graduates have been getting legal jobs of any kind -- and this number counts a significant number of what could more properly be termed "legal jobs" -- for at least a decade now.)

(3)  Also at the Faculty Lounge, Dan Filler says that the number of first-time takers of the December was down 16% from last year.  I don't know from where he's getting this number (LSAC makes total LSAT taker numbers public by month of administration, but doesn't to the best of my knowledge publish stratified data on first time takers versus repeaters per administration).  He also says October first-time takers were down 16.9% year over year (total administrations were down 16.4%).

(4)  I'd like to endorse to this comment from the always-insightful Dybbuk. 

111 comments:

  1. FIRST!!!!!

    This is all happening so fast, I don't know what to say...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did your mama not give you enough attention when you were a kid? Grow up idiot.

      Delete
    2. Haha, better luck next time. Thanks for playing!

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. We were waiting for you, shit-for-brains.

      And you didn't disappoint.

      Delete
    2. Jealousy will get you nowhere.

      Delete
  3. Number (2)'s comment board is definitely worth a read. The most absurd part is how Steve Diamond speaks as though he has no practical self-interest in regard to the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the meantime, a very intriguing article in the Money magazine’s December issue (unfortunately not available online) titled (gasp) “How to Be a Money Hero”:

    “Take a lesson from beauty shop manager Helen Karr, who earned a law degree at age 64 to aid her battle against scam artists. Just because you’ve spent years on one career (magazine journalism, say), it’s never too late to get your heroism on.”

    Any thoughts on the article? ; )

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dean Mitchell also returned to the scene to argue that there is not a oversupply of lawyers and that it was not his job to get his students jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dean-theres-no-oversupply-of-lawyers-89657/

      Delete
  6. I think Bernie meant...January 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM

    LawProf: "(In regard to Burk's OP I'm curious regarding his assertion that "there is no empirical evidence, and no coherent argument..."

    LawProf - without addressing exactly when it was that "the jobs went away", here's how I understood the part of Bernie's post that you quoted above, when I initially read it the other day.

    I thought what he meant was that whatever all things schools are doing wrong today they've been doing wrong for 40 years (with one exception).

    Therefore, whatever all things schools have been doing wrong are not (with one exception) responsible for the fact that (at least) 1/3 kids can't get lawjobs.

    The one exception: too many butts in seats. That's the one thing that law schools HAVE been doing that is responsible for the fact that we're 1/3 short of the number of lawjobs we need for our newgrads.

    So basically Bernie was shilling for his post back in November called "What Matters Most (in legal ed)". In that post (which is actually worth a read, and in particular the comments once Chapman's Larry Rosenthal shows up and starts spouting nonsense and got his butt handed to him by a number of commenters), Burk's argument is yeah, LS costs too much and yeah, we don't do a good job of making grads practice ready. What he says matters most: too many butts in seats compared to jobs available.

    He's also got a follow-on post from that one but I never got round to reading it. Guess I should check it just to see if Chapman's Champion Rosenthal showed up with more of his hilarity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think Bernie meant...January 5, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    Wow, Kyle's comment replying to Steve Diamond (the above-referenced professor in #2 above), is a great read. Very professional and comprehensive, not snide at all, yet still shows what a buttwipe Diamond's making of himself.

    So what does Diamond do? Comes back and repeats his insinuation that Kyle / LST are still really "just in it" for the money.

    BoredJD also really handed Diamond's butt to him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. People are starting to realize that law school is a scam, designed to benefit "law professors" and deans. I am enjoying this immensely!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet cleverly ignoring the fact that two of them are now leading the discussion and direction of the scam.

      How wonderful it must be to be able to create such nice, convenient compartments for your moral standards, Nando.

      Delete
    2. You sound defensive, 510. PC and DJM are outliers. No cognitive dissonance here.

      Delete
    3. Outliers? Or just liars?

      Their true colors are starting to show, and they are rather less different than those of most law professors, whether you like it or not.

      Delete
  9. LP, the WSJ cite you linked requires a subscription. Use this link to get around it.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578213223967518096.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This link also hits the paywall. Goggle "chris fletcher wall street journal" and you'll get the article.

      I'd recommend the reading through the comments. You'll get a good laugh at all the Baby-Boomers pretending they didn't walk out of high school/college into middle class jobs.

      Delete
    2. Wow--those comments to Fletcher's WSJ article are disheartening. Oh, yes, Boomers--the problem is that this "generation" thinks that work is "beneath them." Total freaking morons.

      Delete
    3. Check out this gem:

      "Newsflash: law schools are businesses like any other (I know your professors would disagree but I wonder how many of them have turned down a raise). They will charge what the market will bear. That is as it should be. If students are dumb enough to pay high tuition for a poorly performing product, as the headline states, Caveat Emptor. It's not as though the information on hiring prospects is not there for them to see."

      Delete
    4. Most of those commentors would have believed until very recently that law school, any law school, was a sure bet and there was no need for "due diligence". If their kids had announced 3-4 years ago they were headed to a lower-ranked law school they would have had nothing but praise for their decision.

      Delete
  10. That link doesn't work either. You need to search for the op/ed through Google or another search engine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The further I read into the comment history the more enraged I became. Steve Diamond is a filthy human being. Is the culturally enforced timidity and suppression of honest opinion while in Law School what insulates these unscrupulous narcissists from the pain and suffering they cause law students? When they hear the truth on the internet or anonymously - a must to avoid blacklisting or disbarment - do they excuse it as a minority of malcontents?

    American law school professors; your best students revile your cowardice and self serving.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Something I find fascinating: in their scholarship and teaching, Professor Diamond and Dean Mitchell fancy themselves to be slayers of those greedy organizations without conscience (i.e., corporations).

    When it comes to the organizations that butter their bread, however, they see nothing wrong. Dean Mitchell, in particular, could be hired tomorrow by Big Tobacco. They way he evaded every question was no small feat. He's got mad skillz at the art of obfuscation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Professor Diamond's response: http://stephen-diamond.com/?p=4290

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds so important when you say it like that.

      Delete
    2. I think it's best that all rebuttals to Professor Diamond's latest post be posted on The Faculty Lounge rather than on his blog. This way, everything isn't scattered across the internet.

      Delete
  14. http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/010713platkin.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. As a follow-up to Dybbuk's comment: his insight is why I didn't respond to any of the comments to my post about the law school cafe. I was tempted to remind commenters about my posts detailing the oversupply of JDs, need for loan reform, etc. I was also tempted to point out that the cafe site was already starting to disseminate the ideas in the McEntee-Lynch-Tokaz paper (which I'm breaking into distinct pieces); I think we will get much more play and discussion there than Burk has gotten at the Faculty Lounge.

    But then I thought: Why fight? My argument is not with the commenters on this site. I largely agree with you. My argument is with law school deans and faculty, and I'm sticking to that. It's really not important whether commenters here perceive me as a reformer, radical, or something else. It's the fight against the status quo that matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, your reason for not responding is because you (rightly) didn't want to enter into an internet pissing match, which always ends up in tears.

      Why don't you "remind" people at Law School Cafe (a name which in and of itself suggests that law school is still a safe, smart place to be) that you hold such strong positions on oversupply, loan reform, etc? Because for readers over there, there's really no hard information whatsoever about what the real issues are.

      It gives the wrong impression about law school.

      But then again, I think that Law School Cafe represents your real life position on law school: you think that it can be saved in much the same form as it is now, and that you don't think there is much of a scam whatsoever. Because that's what I detect from your posts here.

      And if you think that it's not important that people here see you as a hardline reformer, think again. Because that's the ONLY reason you're permitted - yes, permitted, by us, the victims, the students, the ones paying your vast salary from our crippling student loans - to stay atop your little perch on this blog. Because we need to see you as someone who is with us against the law schools, someone who wants to smash the current system, break the status quo, stop the raping of this generation for the benefit of your generation. Without that, you're just one of the enemy: a law professor.

      If we don't see you 100% with us, then leave. Go to the law Law School Cafe and discuss the pathetic little topics you've posted there, none of which are of any importance whatsoever until the big issues are sorted out: reduce the production of JDs by 50%. Until that happens, nothing else matters.

      So DJM, are you a reformer of the scamblog type or not? Tell us, so we can then tell you whether or not you're any use to us whatsoever. Because the last thing this movement needs is any form of watering down by a law professor looking for a little side project.

      In our cases, the soldiers, it's the fight that matters. But as a leader, DJM, it's not the fight in you that matters to outside observers. You carry our standard, and when that standard bears the message that all law schools need is a little tweaking here and there, you're damaging our message.

      If you want to fight, then join us and fight. If you want to lead - and by taking an authorship role in this blog, you're leading - then you need to get your priorities straight and align your message with that of the movement.

      And the message of the movement is clearly to cut JD production by 50%.

      Once that message is out there, and once that solution arrives, every other problem will disappear.

      Delete
    2. 457 sounds distressingly like all the radicals I encountered entering college in 1969. If you're not with us, as we define "with us", you're against us, and an enemy of the Revolution to boot. They actually pronounced that liberals, not conservatives, were the True Enemies of the Rev because they gave the appearance of change without the reality.

      It's not necessary to eat our own, Robespierre.

      Delete
    3. 704 above, you are a boomer. You had your chance and blew it.

      When we're talking about our leaders, then we can be more "radical". We need leaders who believe in the scam, not those who are just using it as a little side project (like Campos who is taking a deliberately contrary position on obseity to generate "buzz", and who I increasingly suspect is using this scam as a means to generate more "buzz" about Paul Campos.)

      We are not eating our own. Just making sure that those with the loudest voices (DJM and Campos - not Nando because he's on the right track) are taking the scam in the right direction, and a direction that benefits us, not them.

      Appearance of change without the reality would be a good slogan for this blog right now.

      So go away. You had your thirty or forty years in the voting booth and the workplace to make things right, but you blew it. Now it's our turn.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Anonymous January 5, 2013 7:04 PM.

      Delete
  16. oh man sometimes the infighting in this blog is nauseating

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a profession, the law (almost by definition) attracts a disproportionate number of "squabblers" - people inclined to argue, disinclined to compromise.

      Ironically, this tends to make it a rather miserable profession and an unnecessarily unwise/inefficient one at that.

      Delete
    2. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=201404&p=6260859#p6260859


      Here is someone advising a person who wants to take a few years off that they should go now because " hitting might cool off in a few years."

      See the word about employment has not begun to penetrate into the consciousness of society at large.

      This is also why people see the high scorers fleeing law for other pursuits as an opportunity rather than the warning it truly represents.

      Delete
    3. I believe the nauseating aspect of this blog is the fact that it is run by two law professors, one of whom is more interested in generating false controversy over obesity (it's bad for many reasons) and who treats this law school scam as just another "look at me I'm different!" project, the other of whom is intent on avoiding the hard issues and pretending that all is well from her comfortable, cash-stuffed chair in the ivory tower.

      That's nauseating.

      Delete
    4. Then spend your time on a blog that you don't find nauseating. I suspect you might find one of Leiter's blogs more to your taste.

      Delete
    5. You know what I like best?

      The fact that we're playing second fiddle to LawProf's concern with proving that obese people are not a health problem.

      How special we all feel right now.

      Delete
    6. Lois, it's people like you who continue to hold this movement back by perpetuating the idea that two law professors dictating the discussion about law school reform is beneficial.

      Especially when this blog is clearly a side project for both of them.

      DJM has her cute little law school cafe to play with, and which she is trying to syphon reader off to.

      And Lawprof has his obesity myth to bust.

      And we're left in the middle, looking like a bunch of chumps who are mindlessly letting the scam be turned into a source of law review articles and line items on law professor resumes.

      For the sake of scamblogging, I'd suggest that you find the exit and use it.

      Delete
  17. The comment at 2:45PM shows what is wrong with everything right now.

    http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/010713platkin.htm

    Read it.

    No, seriously. Stop what you are doing and read it.

    It's another law school fraud case being dismissed in New York.

    Yet it's ignored by this blog's authors (really guys, what are you doing if you miss this stuff?), blog commenters aren't bothered by it, and it's getting pathetic how apathetic you've all become about this scam.

    So go and read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we've read it. What is your point?

      Delete
    2. 5:34, either that was a very subtle, clever response to his post, or you just proved his point.

      I can't figure out which.

      Delete
    3. " Further, to the extent that the claim is based upon ALS's alleged concealment of information, it fails due to the absence of a special relationship. "

      So know this: the professors and administrators of law schools who serve as gatekeepers to the legal profession, and presumably higher educators in general, have no more a fiduciary duty to their clients than a fast food franchisee to someone ordered a hamburger.

      Is it just me, or does this fail to completely jive with the idea that a consumer fails to be reasonable if he doesn't root out (largely unattainable at the time) information before making an lamentably irrevocable career choice? That is, the prospective student is held to a higher standard because they're putting their lives and livelihoods in the hands of Albany Law School, but the Albany Law School in whose hands their lives and livelihoods lay owe no duty other than not to literally lie to them?

      Hey, that's cool.

      Delete
  18. I'm going to throw out a suggestion here.

    Blogging is now crippling this movement.

    We have enough participants, and the comments sections of the blogs are where the true discussion lies.

    So is there an online discussion board that would make a better forum for these ideas at this point? One where the control is decentralized - at least to the point where it's not controlled solely by LawProf and Nando - and where we can all really start to gain more traction?

    With each new blog post, we lose visibility for all prior discussions. It's a useless forum for organizing, discussing, and debating these issues.

    And more blogs isn't the answer. Law School Cafe is just another place where the discussion is moderated and lost.

    We need an xoxohth style forum, a discussion board, somewhere these conversations can be properly preserved, archived, retrieved, and progressed.

    I'd do it myself, were it not for the fact that I don't know how.

    For an enterprising computer-savvy individual, I imagine that it would be an easy project, perhaps even a profitable one.

    But the blogs are now pointless. They did a fine job in the past, but now are hindering discussion, and when the discussion is "owned" by a law professor (and he can delete this blog at any time, destroying everything here), and Nando (who is an untrustworthy moderator, keen to punish those who disagree with him), it's a problem.

    If we want a solid, successful law school scam movement, it's time to migrate away from the blogs. And I think the time is right for a discussion board. I think it would be vibrant, busy, and it would really help take the movement to the next level.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There used to be a message board like the one suggest. It was called JDUnderground. That was before JDU's Admin started banning many of the board's veteran posters and drove most of the pro-scamblog contributors.

      Delete
    2. There used to be a message board like the one suggested. It was called JDUnderground. That was before JDU's Admin started banning many of the board's veteran posters and drove most of the pro-scamblog contributors.

      Delete
    3. JDU Admin can go blow a goat (or go iron his brown shirts).

      Delete
  19. There used to be a message board like the one suggest. It was called JDUnderground. That was before JDU's Admin started banning many of the board's veteran posters and drove most of the pro-scamblog contributors out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There used to be a message board like the one suggested. It was called JDUnderground. That was before JDU's Admin started banning many of the board's veteran posters and drove most of the pro-scamblog contributors out.

      Delete
    2. So why don't we have our own board? These blogs are shitty places to gather.

      Delete
    3. Paki JDU Admin is a joke.

      Delete
  20. I just read Steve Diamond's rebuttal to Con Daily.

    The guy is convinced that there is some issue of academic freedom with Con Daily quipping that students shouldn't enroll in his classes. As support, he mentions the AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles. If you actually read said statement, it's clear that academic freedom protects professors against *institutional* retaliation for professorial views in research and in the classroom in their subject area while leaving institutions an avenue to fire professors for grievous breaches of contract or public trust.

    It also stresses the university and professorial role as existing for the common good and not for personal enrichment, and clearly places academic freedom in that context. In other words, academic freedom coexists with various obligations to the public, including a duty of honesty.

    Yet, somehow, it's an exercise of "academic freedom" for Steve Diamond to go sniping at LST and making bogus claims about Santa Clara. And in advocating that law schools reduce tenured professorships for a career/professional school, Campos/Tamanaha are somehow repudiating academic freedom for existing tenured professors.

    This is a Yale JD and a man with a PhD who either doesn't understand these basic concepts or is going out of his way to BS people in a flagrant violation of said duties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hadn't heard of this Santa Clara school. Its ranked 96 on US News rankings. These rankings are arbitrary and stupid of course, but still useful because they are so highly respected. I question the need for another rankings system, which is what Law School Transparency is trying to do apparently.

      But anyhow does Steve Diamond even realize his school is a worthless diploma mill? He seems completely delusional, comparing a degree from Stanford with one from Santa Clara. Then he talks about local shortages. America is a highly mobile society, there is no such thing. His school is completely unnecessary and should be shut down.

      Delete
  21. Personally I think the only true, "market" based solution is to reform student loans. Make them only 50% guaranteed and non-dischargeable. the other 50% is non-guaranteed, can be discharged in bankruptcy and the money clawed back from law schools.

    Both sides have risk and both sides have skin in the game. Students would still bear substantial risk but now the law schools (and any other school for that matter) can't just admit any students without regard to the outcomes of their graduates.

    A school therefore that admits tons of marginal students who don't do well will then have to do two things to make it:
    - Charge a tuition PREMIUM to make up for all the future losses from money that will be clawed back in the future.
    - Be much more selective in how many people and who they admit

    Anything wrong with this idea?





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or you make student loans entirely dischargable and leave lending to the private sector. Can't find someone to lend you $50k to go to law school? Tough. Find something else to do.

      Problem is that we bought the "special snowflake" myth so much that we didn't want real finances to cripple anyone's unicorn dream, so we let them have whatever money they needed to get whatever junk degree they wanted, which lead to rampant tuition and credential inflation.

      Schools would very much have skin in that game in that they would have to turn out a profitable, marketable product in order to have lenders sign off on making the tuition payments and extending the financing.

      Places like Cooley and the TTTTs would go under immediately. The private TTs and TTTs would have to fight for their survival by drastically cutting costs and taking smaller classes that can guarantee placement somewhere.

      You want accountability? Give a private bank skin in the game. Heck, if private banks were on the plaintiff's side of the fraud suits, they'd have a lot more credibility.

      Delete
  22. Also, it could only require a little over three years
    to complete. Some schools even require gaining experience first as a prerequisite in your application to the university.
    A recovering therapist would be more capable of role modeling how to stay
    clean and sober.
    Also visit my web page : mild depression and anxiety

    ReplyDelete
  23. Here's a topic:

    Having a JD and no health insurance.

    The flu has been going around and I caught it and was sick for the last week and a half.

    I figured I could tough it out without going to the Dr. and every passing day I kept getting worse.

    Initially I had a fever and woke up in the middle of the night to discover the bed completely drenched in ice cold sweat. I woke up shivering like I was naked in the arctic and threw off all the bed linens and blankets and my clothes as well and changed everything.

    It is absolutely amazing how much liquid can be sweated out of the body.

    After that the flu settled down as a sinus and chest infection, and I could not sleep for more than one or two hours every night thereafter because the tickle in my lower espohagus was indescribably nonstop and the only way to "scratch it" so to speak was by sitting up and coughing ferociously.

    I developed terrible asthma and headaches from the coughing and lost my voice from it and finally after 8 or so days I was able to borrow some cash and see a Dr.

    The office visit and the Amoxicillin (antibiotic) as well as prescribed cough medicine and an asthma inhaler all cost about $215.00.

    Today I am much, much improved and I slept all night last night.

    THANK GOD for good health, and in the big picture that is all that matters.

    So how does this relate to the Lw School scam?

    Well, it has often been said that the JD is an oddity and overqualifies a person in the non legsal job marketplace.

    It has also been said that ruined credit (debt to income ratio or default) from student loan debt hampers a job search in which a background and crdit check is required.

    Believe it or not, I know another JD who is without health insurance and has a large amount of hospital bills from a prior emergency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is why Obamacare is important. What else is important is a flu shot -- $25 at CVS, even if you do not have health insurance.

      Delete
    2. So kill yourself if life is so irreparably bad Painter. You are the reason this scam movement is laughed at because people think we are all losers like you.

      Delete
    3. The scam should have two main goals.

      1. Kill Painter.

      2. Then reduce the production of JDs by 50%.

      #1 is by far the most important.

      Delete
    4. @Paintroach,

      If you're really THAT hard-up for free health care, why don't you take my advice and get a job for the government? Perhaps because the health care isn't "free" when you actually have to work for it?

      Oh, and anyone who is dumb enough to "loan" YOU 215 bones deserves to be bankrupt forever.

      Delete
    5. @836,

      Paintroach would rather get sick than spend $25 of its OWN money.

      As long as someone else will pay for it, he's an eager beaver. Tell me, would YOU lend money to this deadbeat?

      Delete
  24. @8:51AM

    Now you have gone too far. I take your comment as a threat and a clear matter for the police now.

    Painter

    ReplyDelete
  25. Scamming for money on online forex website and also create malwre tool such as crypter to make virus undetect from antivirus.User(Sikandar Niraj Nandwani) is involved in credit card fraud on carders.ws and other websites.

    hackforums.net profile:-
    http://www.hackforums.net/member.php?action=profile&uid=56752

    Myspace account :- http://www.myspace.com/495606568/comments

    Website of his shitty copy/paste stuffs :- http://sicksourcecodes.blogspot.com

    His sister in law(Sony nandwani):-http://www.facebook.com/SoniieBaby

    His sister in law(Mukesh nandwani):-http://www.facebook.com/nandwanimukesh

    His sister in law(Naveen nandwani):-http://www.facebook.com/naveen.nandwani.16

    His whole money scammer family photo:-https://www.dropbox.com/s/33ctmypzvgitzuw/Money%20Scammwe%20family.bmp

    His Real Photo:-
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6ra7c97z9uaaeo/383609_343998415615640_169590550_n%5B1%5D.jpg
    and
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0r95kewx4fgmpdc/548002_599686526713493_1179575536_n%5B1%5D.jpg

    Real Origin:- India( Madras )

    Current stay :-philippines,
    Bacolod City,
    PhilippinesBacolod, Philippines,
    age 24

    Hometown — Makati.

    Facebook profile page:-
    http://www.facebook.com/nandwaninathu

    Real Name:- Mudumbai Kiran

    Full name on net:- Nathu Sikandar Nandwani (Nathu Sikandar Niraj Nandwani)

    yahoo mail id:- mudumbaikiran@yahoo.com

    gmail id:- sikandarindustries@gmail.com

    LR id:- U9061931

    Paypal id:- sicklabs@gmail.com

    Youtube Real channel:- http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSherry0987

    Qualification:-
    2010

    Graduated from Megumi Academy
    Started School at University of St. La Salle

    2006

    Graduated from Don Bosco Technical Institute, Makati
    Started School at Megumi Academy

    1999

    Graduated from Think and Try Learning Center
    Started School at Don Bosco Technical Institute, Makati

    1997

    Started School at Think and Try Learning Center

    ReplyDelete
  26. @10:24AM -- What is all that supposed to be?

    2. Obamacare is troubling and hardly a godsend, and may well turn out badly. Only time will tell.

    3. And Flu shots do not always work and can even give a person the flu.

    One year I got a flu shot and came down with the worst flu of my life! I had near pneumonia and the nerve endings all across my upper back were raw and I broke out in hives. Kind of like I had the shingles, but it wasn't the shingles and was related to the flu virus.

    That was the last flu shot I ever got.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "3. And Flu shots do not always work and can even give a person the flu."

      Or worse.

      Delete
  27. And the melt down of Stephen F. Diamond, Santa Clara law prof, continues:

    http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/12/law-school-transparency-jumps-the-rails-or-why-im-still-disappointed-with-lsts-latest-contribution-t/comments/page/4/#comment-form

    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

    He's been getting beaten up so badly, in fact, that he has taken the argument to his own blog where he can censor the negative feedback.

    www.stephen-diamond.com

    ReplyDelete
  28. @12:52PM Is an mean person and an anonymous coward. A coward that dares not say who he is.

    Probably Mr. Infinity, who will not be able to hide forever. Will not be able to hide from the Bar Association and or Character and Fitness.

    All it takes is a letter on my part, with copies of his comments, and then an investigation will follow.

    He claims to want to destroy the scamblogs yet hangs around here tenaciously.

    Claims to be a lawyer too.

    Someday we will find out who it is.

    Someday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, talk is cheap, little Paintroach. I think you have delusions of grandeur.

      Just make sure your mommy buys you a stamp to put on it.

      Will you stop draining your parents dry "someday?"

      And will you "someday" keep your promise and STOP POSTING HERE?

      Delete
  29. Public Service Loan Forgiveness came about in 2009, which was 13 years after I was into loan repayment and right about the time I defaulted on my loans and was hit with a fifty thousand dollar financial penalty and collection cost.

    If a single payment is missed under PSLF the whole deal is off. That includes a lay off etc.

    Not all qualify for PSLF.

    The anon coward that claims to be a lawyer and likes to live under a rock and verbally attack me and my family and from a safe and anon place is not telling the whole story about PSLF.

    Look, why don't you just say your name?

    And the same with you Epic Fail? Just say who you are?

    I am not anon. You can't just attack me the way you do and not stand behind your words.

    Why is that so hard for you to do? What are you afraid of?

    One person wrote that I should be "killed" tonight.

    How can I just let that stand or shrug that off?

    Whatever joking around I have done, I have never threatened anyone.

    I'm sorry Lawprof, but I have to at least file a police report about this. Wouldn't you?

    Unchecked, this kind of rhetoric will continue to heat up and maybe the anon commenter really is dangerous.

    Painter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever, dude. You just don't want to do any work for the PSLF. Nothing could be clearer.

      Go ahead and file your little report, Paintroach. Maybe the police or - snicker - the FBI will tell you to just stop visiting this site.

      Hey LawProf, we have a scared little weasel hiding under his mommy's bed. Would you be willing to block the prefix from his IP address? Maybe then he wouldn't be so "terrified."

      Delete
    2. RAAAAARRRGH!

      GIVE ME YOUR PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER RIGHT NOW YOU MOTHERF**KER!!!!

      AAAAAAAAA!!!!!

      Delete
  30. @3:18PM

    We'll find out who you are.

    Coward

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. January 6, 1993 3:21 PM

      I'll pay back all that money that I just borrowed to attend law school.

      Yours truly,

      Paintroach

      LOL

      Delete
    2. I am glad that you two are back. The board just wasn't the same without 80% of the comments being by, for, or about Painter.

      Delete
    3. Well I for one won't be here much longer. Sounds like the internet police will be coming to get me any day now. In fact, BRB, someone is knocking on my door right now. Are those sirens I hear?

      Delete
  31. Good article and comments on zerohedge.com concerning the bursting of the student tuition bubble. Zero hedge s a financial news article website. Just scroll down to the story and comments.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Crisis?

    Ummm, I know you morons don't actually have the ability to read cases, but law schools DOMINATED you in the courts. Maybe, maybe, you could characterize law school as "in crisis" when the lawsuits were files, but after that ass raping they handed you incompetent morons I think they're riding high. It's the golden age of law school. If you don't believe me look at the tuition increases last year. Unlimited IBR = schools should open more law schools if they're smart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Contract AIDS immediately, Mr. Infinity/Epic Fail.

      Delete
    2. He probably already has from hanging out at the bath houses.

      Delete
    3. Oh, give it UP, Paintroach. LOL at your "Greek chorus" of comments (all within a minute of each other). NOBODY on this site agrees with your goldbricking lifestyle. You should demand that EACH of your notes to yourself include a distinct identity kit. Honesty begins at home.

      Delete
  33. God that would be really sick if Mr. Infinity is Epic Fail.

    I have heard he is, but still I am not sure.

    If so, this person should never pass Character and Fitness.

    But with no comment moderation he can continue his abuse.

    After all, he did threaten to "destroy the scamblogs" in an insane youtube video that he posted last summer.

    Keep in mind that Epic Fail assumed a number of identities, and later bragged about how he had in a way infiltrated the scamblogs and gained their trust before revealing how he was really in truth the World Traveling Law Student.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If so, this person should never pass Character and Fitness."

      John, you have repeated this particular thing about 10 times.

      Please explain why, if Epic Fail indeed is Infinitwit, why you think this will cause him to fail C&F?

      Delete
    2. You = loser.

      Law schools = winners rolling in IBR, lawsuit victories and money.

      Why can't you see this?

      They owned you. Now please stfu and accept your place.

      Delete
  34. Actually I have made comments at FL all along. I use my blog because I was told my tone was not appropriate for FL. Apparently I was viewed as uncivil. I gather that is not a requirement here.

    In any case, I think it is pretty clear that this "scam" idea of yours has now spent itself. Students rationally are cutting back on law school applications and one court after another has thrown out the scam cases. Maybe now you can let law schools get back to doing their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, this is really suspicious!January 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM

      Gee, Professor Diamond, your website appears to be unavailable at the moment.

      By extension from your accusations against LST, this problem with your website probably means you're hiding something?

      Delete
    2. Wow, yes, still waiting for you to answer Bernie...January 6, 2013 at 6:25 PM

      Any chance you'll ever give Bernie a substantive response to his comments below? Instead of what you have been doing, I mean, which is essentially doing no more than dodging and weaving like a 13 year old blogging flame artist.

      "You have been outspokenly critical of Law School Transparency, claiming “my guess is that LST is really interested in making money not in any serious change, hence its interest in brand recognition.” (Jan. 3 at 11:15 p.m.; Jan 5 at 9:14 a.m.) Similar views came from a Commenter who has identified him- or herself only as “critic.” (See Jan. 1 at 10:02 p.m.) You mistakenly suggest that it was I who first impugned LST’s motives with suggestions of greed and vanity. (Jan. 4 at 4:27 p.m.) Just to be clear, that was “critic,” whose views on this subject I don’t share (though from my post it should be obvious that I'm not an uncritical fan of all things LST either). Worse, when Deborah Merritt called you on the ad hominem attack (see Jan. 4 at 2:56 p.m.), you attempted to disclaim your original intentions by asking “why is it malicious to suggest someone is starting a business?” (Jan. 4 at 4:27 p.m.) There is no fair reading of your comment limiting it to “suggest[ing],” with some purported admiration for their entrepreneurial zeal, that LST is merely “starting a business.” It will be easier for you to defend your positions if you decide what you mean at the outset and stick to it. More of the same came when you insisted LST seemed to be violating federal tax reporting requirements, and when that turned out to be incorrect insinuating they were being obstructionist by not voluntarily incurring the inconvenience and expense.

      Stop and think for a second: What difference would it make? We can discuss whether LST’s ideas are good or bad without speculating about what motivates them. You do neither yourself nor our readers any favors by attacking the people rather than the problem. I can’t make you stop, but I wish you would.

      Similarly, once Kyle McEntee convincingly disclaimed any profit motive, you seemed to ridicule LST for serving their view of the public interest rather than their own economic self-interest: “I think you could build a pretty interesting business with this kind of material. I certainly wouldn’t give it away to plaintiff’s attorneys unless I was trying to build up a potential future base of customers. But if you have chosen to do this then I applaud you for being a model of how a law school graduate leads a thoughtful life without earning any income from your hard work!” (Jan. 4 at 9:34 p.m.) Seriously? Do you think that every law-school graduate who works for legal aid or a nonprofit, or attempts to start a public-interest practice as LST did, is equally stupid and feckless? How does this square with the pride with which you described SCU’s (to my knowledge, quite real and genuine) commitment to public interest practice in your earlier comments?

      Delete
    3. Actually, we do like to keep things civil. It's Nando's blog where all civility is thrown out the window. If you check it, say hello to Colonel Sanders for me.

      Delete
  35. Replies
    1. That's MY spelling you stole there.

      Delete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LawProf, PLEASE delete this idiot's poo etchings. ALL of them. They have nothing to do with the topic, and nobody wants to read them!

      Paintroach, you suck as a house painter for the same reason that you suck as an attorney: pure laziness. I'm sure the people in your little story realized this immediately, only you were too stupid to notice them noticing.

      I bet that guy wanted to smack the "wry expression" right off your ugly wrinkled face. And it's hard to blame him.

      Delete
    2. PC

      Agree w 840. Get rid of this shit now. Please.

      Delete
  38. More Steve Diamond action at JD Underground.

    http://www.jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=39271

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow .... I wonder if PatentEsq will "come to the rescue" of Steve Diamond? LOL

      Delete
    2. OMG ... Prof. Steve Diamond has accused Law School Transparency of only being in it for the money. ROFL

      Delete
  39. Of Interest: A Law School Dropout is selling his name on ebay to pay off his student loans. By bidding the minimum of $75k, he will change his full name to anything the highest bidder wants. Is this the desperation that the high cost of higher education creates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257893/Jason-Madsen-Failed-law-student-puts-legal-rights-NAME-eBay-desperate-bid-pay-100-000.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

      Delete
  40. I appreciate that Diamond is willing to engage anonymous commenters in this way. I regularly see ITLSS commenters appear in comments sections on other blogs and the law professors either ignore or dismiss them.

    That is the smarter move, clearly, as Diamond is proving how hard it is for his side to win this debate (or even make much sense). But be participating at all, he's proving himself to be better than most of them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Diamond repeatedly makes the point that because demand for law school is apparantly declining, the market is correcting itself.

    While he doesn't say so explicitly, the implication here is that because the market will eventually correct the problem, the law schools have no particular responsibility to try to hasten that process. Further implied is the idea that so long as statements made by a law school remain technically accurate, it is ok for law schools to slow the market correction by making it harder for 0Ls to obtain clear information about their legal employment prospects. That is what accurate but misleading information does. It makes it harder, not easier, to learn the truth and act on it.

    What professors like Diamond don't seem to understand is just how destructive this market correction is to people's lives. The message is only getting out now because so many people are suffering so badly. Failing at law school means a lot more than just being unemployed in a bad economy. It means the stink of failure, it means humiliation, it means DEBT. And before the correction is complete, many more will suffer.

    Diamond and others who want to talk about the market correcting need to be asking themselves what they and their schools can be doing to help, not hinder, this process.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Recently on his blog, Leiter asked the question without answering it: should law schools be under an obligation to present employment information in the least flattering light?

    I think the answer to this is obviously yes. Or at least, I think there should be no excuse for witholding details. That is ultimately how the "accurate but misleading" statistics work, they withhold details, they are incomplete information. Law schools should be compelled (and feel complelled) to offer the maximum number of accurate details regarding their graduates employment.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Jan. 6th, 8:40PM

    Nando got rid of you because you are an anon COWARD!

    Don't worry, we will find out who you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And whoever you are at 8:40 PM, once Painter gets a hold of you, you'll be very sorry. They banned his stories at Gitmo because that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment for the detainees.

      Delete
  44. @4:11AM says it all, and yet most people will not listen.

    A ife of surreal and usurious debt with no bankruptcy 2nd chance is a life of humiliation and failure and psychologically devastating.

    ______________________

    @ Jan 6, 6:13PM

    Wherein the commenter falsely accused two commenters of being Painter.

    Now, last summer Mr. Infinity threatened to defame me and my family on the internet and I have a copy of that.

    He also, in a crazy youtube video, stated his intention to "destroy" the scamblogs, including ILSS, and seems to be working very hard as anon to do it.

    Just my opinion, but if not admitted to the bar already, Mr. Infinity should never pass character and fitness. And if admitted to the Bar a complaint should be filed with his state Bar Association.

    Eventually we will find out who Mr Infinity is. He has made some really mentally sick comments and should NEVER work in the legal profession.

    What would really be especially and outrageously mentally ill is if Mr. Infinity is also Epic Fail/World Traveling Law Student/Terrified Law Student/Hopeful Law Student and maybe even the anal vapors guy from some time back.

    Lawprof, since someone has posted a comment here that amounts to a possible threat to kill me, I think it really is time for me to stop visiting this blog altogether.

    I woke up and decided that going to the police at this point is not a good idea because: 1. It will be very hard to make them understand what a scamblog is. 2. You did tell me to stop commenting and I did not listen.

    I may, and for posterity, start a last blog and repaste my tales of underemployment after law school, and post my law school transcript for all to see as a warning to drop out if the grades are bad after the first semester or year of law school.

    (Did I mention that I did not have all of my first semesters grades until two weeks into the second semester?)

    The best hope for ILSS and it's message is to get media coverage, and that is about the most influence you and DJM will have, for it seems that most of your opposing colleagues will never be swayed to your view.

    Lastly:

    Mr. Infinity is telling lies about me. I have always worked.

    I have pleaded with him to stop making cracks about my elderly and sick parents, but he persists.

    I have repeatedly asked him to stand up to his insults and say who he is, and he refuses.

    I would not be surprised if it is Infinity that has commented that I should be "killed".



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will be missed.

      LOL

      Delete
    2. If you have always worked then what is the problem? Then you can pay the student loans of which you are responsible for.

      Delete
  45. I am surprised at Steve Diamond's comments on the Faculty Lounge. The surprise is due to the fact that frankly he appears to be a very knowledgeable transactional/business lawyer, yet makes statements which are really difficult to absorb (surely he knows better). I was struck by the following:

    a) His comment that law schools are not to "blame" for what he believes is a 100 year market event. (I don't think he is correct as I think we now have a permanent negative structural change in employment, but reasonable minds can disagree on this point). But really, who cares who is to blame? The fact is the vast majority of law schools are a very poor value. Assigning "blame" does absolutely nothing to fix this state of affairs. Even if we were to absolve the law schools of "blame", the problems are real and substantial, which leads me to:

    b) if one "must" assign blame, then the foremost culprit should be the federal government, which permits students to take on loans with no underwriting and yet with terms that would make a loan shark blush, which in turn of course has allowed law schools to raise tuition to levels which have far outstripped inflation. Diamond blames "capitalism", i.e., presumably the business cycles inherent in capitalism, with times of boom and bust. But the law school market doesn't reflect a well functioning capitalist market. Until recently, the market has been inefficient, with lots of inaccurate data reported in an opaque and often meaningless way. The purchasers in the market, i.e., students, mostly do not spend their own funds, as the funds are advanced by the government under terms which leave borrowers subject to both the whims of the market and government policy, a recipe for a Hunger Games type existence for all too many. And the ABA (as regulator) imposes requirements and drives up costs (and in so doing, inflates law school employment) which in many cases have only a correlation to prestige and not educational quality. And yet Diamond claims the law school predicament is one of the externalities of capitalism? Oh, would it be that a true functioning capitalist marketplace existed. Oh yes, such a marketplace would be difficult and challenging for many. But it would keep out the rent seekers, a better result for all.


    ReplyDelete
  46. The only thing missing from Chris Fletcher's article was to mention the percentage of graduating classes that are hired by their own schools just to reach that 56% full-time legal-job employed figure

    ReplyDelete

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