Tuesday, February 12, 2013

The function of criticism at the present time

Yesterday there was some discussion of the extent to which it does or doesn't matter that various people within the law school world have or haven't been aware that the cost/benefit ratio of going to law school has gradually been changing for the worse over the course of the last generation, to the point where going to law school is now a bad investment for a very large percentage of law students.

For example Orin Kerr writes:

Every law student learns that mens rea is the foundation of culpability. As Holmes put it, "even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked." Given that, it's misleading to shrug and say "of course" it doesn't matter if you have been wrongfully claiming that acts were intentional when they weren't. It doesn't matter for some purposes, of course. But it does matter for purposes of determining the responsibility of the individuals you are criticizing.
I don't want to start quibbling about exactly how much intentionality I've ascribed to various inside actors over the course of this blog's existence, although I will note that in the very first post 18 months ago I described the situation this way:

For a very large proportion of my students, law school has become something very much like a scam. And who or what is doing the scamming? On the most general level, the American economy in the second decade of the 21st century. On a more specific level, the legal profession as a whole. But on what, for legal academics at least, ought to be the most particular, most important, and most morally and practically compelling level, the scammers are the 200 ABA-accredited law schools.  Yet there is no such thing as a "law school" that scams its students -- law schools are abstract social institutions, not concrete moral agents. When people say "law school is a scam," what that really means, at the level of actual moral responsibility, is that law professors are scamming their students.

We don't mean to, of course. Like my learned colleagues, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good! And anyway it's mostly the dean's fault -- it's not like I was ever consulted about raising tuition 130% etc. etc. . . .

In the end, the fact that law professors don't intend to scam their students is irrelevant. We are scamming them, or many of them, and we know we are -- or we would know if we paid any attention at all to the current relationship between legal academia, legal practice, and the socio-economic system in general, which naturally is why so many of us avoid doing so at all costs.  (Emphasis added)
With the benefit of hindsight this still seems to me correct.  In other words, law professors have been guilty, for the most part, of negligence, rather than of conscious participation in an increasingly unjust structure.  (Law school deans are another matter,  Unlike regular faculty, deans are paid to pay attention to exactly the things faculty have been allowed to ignore).

But the situation today is drastically different than it was two years ago.  Today negligent inattention is no longer possible, and any individual or collective failure to address the economic and social crisis of the American law school can be treated properly as a conscious decision to perpetuate an indefensible status quo.

Here's my own take on a few things anyone on a law faculty should now be considered morally obligated to discover if he or she doesn't already have this information:

(1) The employment outcomes for the school's most recent class at the most granular level available (this means at a minimum the NALP long reporting form which my own school now posts on our web site).

(2) The estimated actual average educational debt for the school's students.  This can be extrapolated by taking the 2012 class's debt numbers (which every school reported to the ABA last fall although this information is not yet public), adding 15% for accrued interest, and between $10K and $30K for average undergraduate debt (the lower the ranking of the school the higher the latter number is likely to be).

(3)  The school's operating budget, at the level of specific sources of revenue and specific expenditures.

This is the absolute minimum faculty members need to know to make responsible decisions.  I'm aware that at some (many?) schools, administrators will balk at making some or all of this information available to the faculty.  Such policies should be considered completely unacceptable by any faculty with a minimum regard for the idea of faculty governance.

I don't want to sound sanctimonious about all this -- I had my head in the sand on these issues until a little more than two years ago.  Like everyone else I had plenty of excuses: This is my 23rd year on the CU faculty, and for the first 14 of those years tuition averaged $5000 per year in nominal dollars (about $7200 in 2012 dollars), and it was considered completely normal for the faculty to have no information at all about employment outcomes or budgetary matters.

That was then, this is now.








228 comments:

  1. Something else that should be addressed is what faculty should do once they've gathered the above data about their school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, although I suspect it won't be a one size fits all approach since governance practices vary by university. At any rate, I would think the post could be broken down by type of governance system.

      Delete
    2. The credited response is first. Please conform future first posts to this standard.

      Delete
    3. I'm always sad when I miss being firsty
      6:54

      Delete
  2. Naturally, Leiter blames the whole situation on the ABA and those dastardly tenured law professors who are egregiously abusing tenure.


    "ADDENDUM: The article does include one dangerous innuendo, namely, that somehow the current difficulties in the job market and the current need for more differentiation in models of legal education can somehow be laid at the doorstep of "tenured" faculty. In fact, the lack of differentiation in models of legal education can be laid at only one doorstep, that of the ABA, and the dismal economy might be blamed on a variety of parties, from the deregulation of banking that began in the Clinton era, to miscreants on Wall Street. Tenure remains an important feature of all serious academic institutions, and it would be a travesty were the current "crisis" mentality to undermine it. That being said, and as we have written before, tenure has never meant lifetime employment, and the ABA, in consultation with AAUP lawyers, might think about drafting post-tenure review standards for law schools, to deal with the sometimes egregious abuse of tenure at many law schools."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you even read the post?

      Delete
    2. LOL no one reads anything Leiter writes.

      Delete
    3. Leave Brittney ALONE!February 12, 2013 at 7:19 PM

      Hey now, take it easy, Fellows.

      Buzz Leitbeer is one of my favorite comediennes.

      Delete
  3. Something that I've been very curious about and having seen discussed other than anecdotally in comments is: how, exactly, are faculty salaries set?

    You say in this post that tuition has risen in the past 23 years - and presumably that's set administratively.

    But it seems, anecdotally anyway, that faculty salaries are set and voted on by faculty themselves.

    Is this in fact the case? If so, it would seem as though that system should be changed...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's stash some heroin and stolen bearer bonds in Prof. Kerr's car, call the cops and see if his lecture about mens rea prevents a trip to the precinct house.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a sign I was up way too much last night, this comment actually had me pretty amused and chuckling...

      Delete
    2. Me too. Please lecture is some more about intent professor Kerr.

      Delete
    3. You are confusing mens rea and probable cause.

      Delete
    4. I believe, sir, that is the point.

      Delete
    5. I love it when other professors comment on this blog.

      Delete
    6. Get UR Dumb Fix Fer The Day HERE:February 12, 2013 at 7:22 PM

      "Let's stash some heroin and stolen bearer bonds in Prof. Kerr's car"

      Delete
  5. My law school's faculty make an obvious point of going out of their way to avoid former students, including turning their backs, going for another drink (with a half-full glass) or just sidling "coincidentally" away when we try to approach them at local practice group events. I am actually employed and was just trying to say hi, but I think they've had some bad experiences with unemployed former students begging them for help or blaming them for their situation. I'd say it's just that I smell or am terrible at cocktail party conversation, but I know I'm far from the only person it's happened to. I think faculty are more aware of the situation than they pretend.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So a committee of ABA folks thinks reducing law school to 2 years and letting college students skip senior year to go to law school is the solution? It seems like that will only increase the supply of lawyers, since the cost to becoming a lawyer will decrease, esp. the opportunity cost (from 7 to as little as 5 years under the 3 years of UG + 2 years of LS possibility.

    Since the problem is the demand side (lack of jobs), the ABA's supply side remedy seems like a poor fit.

    Who wins from the ABA proposal?
    -law schools (more students due to reduced opp cost)
    -law administration (poss. ability to reduce and detenure some faculty, but school stays open)
    -future law students
    -experienced lawyers who think they will somehow segue into a retirement of law teaching, which is tough now

    Who loses?
    -past and current law students (lower cost newbies will compete with you)
    -those tenured law faculty who are axed through post-tenure review or similar (probably a small minority, but enough to put the fear of G*d in the rest)
    -current law faculty, esp. the untenured/clinicians/LRW, who will probably be the first pushed out if 33% of law school is axed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Practising lawyers lose from the ABA proposal. The market will be even more flooded with unemployed and underemployed lawyers. More and more lawyers will fall into unemployment and underemployment.

      Right now the number of new lawyers should equal the number of retirements minus some large number to get the existing unemployed and underemployed lawyers from earlier graduating classes working. If 10,000 to 15,000 lawyers a year are retiring, we still need at least 10,000 slots a year for unemployed lawyers from earlier law school classes to be able work over the next decade or so, with the profession not really growing.

      There is little room for new lawyers in a profession that is not growing. There are in fact well under 20,000 real new jobs for lawyers being created each year counting each retirement as well as any real growth in legal jobs as creating a new job.

      Law school graduating classes in total should be capped at 15,000 a year.

      Delete
    2. How exactly do law schools benefit by losing a third year of tuition? You think this proposal will generate an additional 33% of students or do you think it will allow law schools to increase tuition another 33% to cover the loss (or even a combination of both)?

      Delete
    3. Yes, the proposal may increase the number of law students significantly versus what it would be otherwise in the future.

      The opportunity cost for becoming a lawyer goes from 7 years to 5 years. Those who worry about COA, not just tuition, have to recognize that that's a huge savings.

      Additionally, you could get a BA, or, for one more year of costly university education, you could get a JD. If you see the BA as a sunk cost, then the proposal offers a JD for 1/3 of today's COA. Basic economics predicts that there will be more takers at that price point.

      Delete
    4. Assuming that (a) the cost of a JD doesn't continue to increase without regard to inflation or marketability and (b) the conventional wisdom doesn't have would-be applicants scoffing at law degrees the way they do now for women's studies or art history, it is possible that there would be more applicants based solely on a lower total price.

      Delete
    5. 7:35,
      It's 3 years of college + 2 years of LS so it's not really just one more year of costly education because LS is a lot more expensive than undergrad.

      Delete
    6. Assuming, arguendo, that this five-years-to-JD plan, if adopted, would flood the market with yet more JDs, there is a possible silver lining: the resultant further erosion of the JD and the multiplication of its holders may degrade the degree so much that its holders might be able to get jobs in other fields. The JD might just be seen as merely a pranked-out BA. This new approach might actually help JDs by diluting the stain.

      -- Porsenna

      Delete
  7. 8th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck yeah!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. At this point, only drastic reductions in the huge numbers of new lawyers the law schools are vomiting out each year will provide real relifed. This includes closing all underperforming law schools that do not provide a 75% full time permanent lawyer employment rate in jobs requiring a JD 9 months from graduation. It also includes drastically cutting class sizes at performing law schools. No law school should have a class over the size of 250 J.D. students.

    Even 20,000 law grads a year is too many where there are already hundreds of thousands of unemployed and underemployed law grads in the U.S.desperately seeking work.

    Reducing costs is very important, but only works if fewer unemployed lawyers are flooding the market.

    The prevalence of temp lawyer jobs at $25 an hour are in part the result of the flood of lawyers. It is not even clear that most of these jobs require a J.D. in fact to do the work.

    Clearly if class sizes must be cut, budgets must be cut, at least at the larger law schools.

    The law schools with good placement data and small classes should focus on cost reductions only and should not have to reduce class sizes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This may have been discussed elsewhere in this forum, so forgive me if I'm repeating an old point.

      People have pegged an approximate number of graduates per year the legal market can bare, or effectively employ. But, since we are sitting on a massive surplus of recent grads and under-employed attorneys, how low would the graduation rate of new attorneys need to be, and for how long, until this bottleneck clears?

      Delete
    2. The limit is clearly under 20,000 students a year and likely under 15,000 to clear the backlog of unemployed grads.

      What the ABA fails to understand is that the glut of grads has brought the cost of legal services down below where it makes economic sense to for most people to attend law school.

      Basic rule - too many lawyers - they are going to earn very little. They are a dime a dozen.

      Unless the ABA seriously cuts the supply side of law grads, no amount of other trimming to legal education will be a fix. Two year degrees, 5 years with college in all - you will still have these lawyers bidding to work for free or do $25 an hour doc review if and when they can get it.

      The ABA needs to fix the supply side first to tackle the problems of oversupply of lawyers and low demand relative to the supply. No other fix works.

      Delete
    3. The longitudinal studies of the legal profession are critical to the process of reform.

      In my apartment building in New York City, one in five apartments is occupied by an unemployed woman lawyer that is part of a family. Some went to top schools and some not. Most were formerly employed in good jobs. Problem is that these women are all in their forties through 70s (most on the younger side). All are too old for associate positions in BigLaw. Not clear how hard these women are looking, but I think it is fair to say that at least some (except the oldest of the group) are probably looking as hard as I am - with no results for months and in some cases years.

      Delete
    4. Government regulation is fine when it suits us, no? Regulate jobs? Sure. Regulate oversupply of guns? Hell no. Healthcare? Hands off, evil big government. But gonna give me a job? Regulate all you like.

      Delete
    5. Do you seriously think all regulation is created equally?

      At least in the case of law school/jobs, regulation is a CAUSE of the problems. the solution then is either to change the regulatory scheme or get rid of it altogether. No one with any serious say wants the latter, so...

      Delete
    6. Lawyers who don't get jobs within 1-2 years after graduation have likely moved on to other paths outside of the law.

      So there is not a 10 year backlog that needs to be addressed. You are not going to see a 2004 graduate of Cooley still trying to find a lawyer job in 2013. That person has likely already defaulted on all of the student debt and is working at Walmart or some other retail job.

      Delete
    7. Not true. There is a 10 year backlog of experienced lawyers looking for jobs. Likely it is much greater than a 10 year backlog. The job losses in the legal profession among experienced lawyers are huge. These people will have a hard time finding other jobs if legal jobs do not open for them.

      Delete
    8. A lawyer who practiced for 5, 10 or 20 years and lost a job is not going to give up looking after 1-2 years. We had a post on this blog in the last week by LawProf about such a person who has been out of a job for 18 months.

      If that formerly employed lawyer is stocking shelves at the supermarket, he or she will submit employment applications after working hours. It is crazy to think that a former lawyer is going to stock shelves for a living and leave the legal job market after 1 - 2 years of looking.

      Delete
    9. Just to give you an example, a former senior associate at a reputable law firm is not going to give up a job search 1-2 years after losing the job.

      Delete
    10. I would want to see some data on this, but I am skeptical of the magnitude of this backlog. I think a lot of people do indeed just leave the profession, even T10 grads who spent years in biglaw.

      Delete
    11. Remember, a lot of lawyers in the 40-70 range are solo attorneys who are scraping by on 20-30 hours of work a week. A lot of the "backlog" would be immediately absorbed by them.

      Truth be told, we probably don't even need as many lawyers as we have in the economy right now given the high number of solos who are clinging to being lawyers because there isn't much better elsewhere.

      Delete
    12. 11:07 Sure, my white male colleagues who were grads of HLS and YLS and lost their large firm jobs after age 45 and are now solos or counsel to some unknown law firms have decided to "just leave the profession." They surely try to work full time. Problem is that there is not enough work for them. They have been pushed out of the system by newer law grads.

      That is what oversupply of lawyers does - causes huge job losses for women, minorities and older lawyers with good academic records. The young lawyers with top academic records win this game - they are among the select group that have real jobs as lawyers.

      Delete
    13. 11:07 must be on the faculty or administration of a law school or otherwise ensconced in a BigLaw job where he/she has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

      Delete
    14. Many of the 40 - 70 year old solos are living off savings and scaping by with no income from the practice of law.

      Delete
  9. Why and how underrated schools continue to receive federal funding by way of student loans boggles my mind.

    We should set benchmark requirements that schools must perform at or their federal dollars are slashed and after a to-be-determined period of time without improvement, federal funding is eliminated. Law schools, in fact, all higher education profiteers, have proven that they cannot be self-regulated. The ABA has proven to be a worthless regulating body. It's time for some change, some enforcement and some God damned accountability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolute self-regulation fails absolutely...

      Delete
    2. I said this in response to an earlier post. For-profit schools are subject to a rule that says if a certain percentage of their graduates default on their student loans the government will no longer guarantee loans for students at that school. Let's make the same rule for not-for-profit schools and see what happens.

      Delete
    3. But didn't the ABA get sued by the DOJ at some point for trying to establish stricter rules for accrediting schools? It seems the ABA pretty much has to rubber-stamp any school which meets its criteria, and it can't make those criteria too onerous. It doesn't have the authority to act as a true gatekeeper, even if it wanted to.

      Delete
    4. The ithoo of student loans does not fall under the DOJ/ABA case. That just said that the ABA was trying to create a (much needed) monopoly. The cut off a student loans at schools with hgh default rates is already a strictly enforced reality at for-profit schools, to protect consumers from scams that promise good career outcomes that will never happen.

      Delete
    5. "Why and how underrated schools continue to receive federal funding by way of student loans boggles my mind."


      I do not think that means what you think it means.
      - E. Mentoya.

      Delete
  10. Law Prof your giving the Proffesoriate too much credit. Everyday they don't speak out and preach the scam they are working to perpetuate it. By speaking out I mean telling students who fall below a certain percentile to drop out the first day of class 1L and 2L year. By 3L year it's a lost cause. 1L students often ask profs about jobs, class standing and whether they should drop out. Failing to be frank is criminal when these profs know financial ruin lays ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kerr is disingenuous. He knows that no pig judge, i.e. bagmen for industry, will hold any law school liable - even for outright lies. After all, every single college student should know better than to buy the BS from these supposed "institutions of higher learning."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When advising people who were being sued by their former lawyer for the outrageous bill he or she had run up on them I always included this:

      "Just remember that the judge used to be a lawyer but he didn't used to be you."

      Delete
    2. I think ethical committees will have a different view.

      Delete
    3. And how often do they sanction bigger players, as opposed to Joe Schnoe, Solo?

      Delete
    4. Once in a blue moon would be a gross overestimation.

      Delete
  12. If the real tuition at your school has, what, quadrupled in the last four years, does that mean that your salary has quadrupled as well? Do salaries and tuition necessarily correlate directly like that? Does the Dean and/or faculty at your school decide what the tuition will be, or does the central administration and the state legislature have something to do with it as well? if your faculty and dean took a pay cut back to the real level at which they were paid 9 years ago, could tuition go back to the $7200 level of 9 years ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Math, the Achilles heel of the lawyerFebruary 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM

      Law school tuition has not quadrupled, in real, unreal, surreal, or other dollars, in the last 4 years.

      Or the last 8 years.

      Or the last 12 years... or...

      Delete
  13. In terms of their subjective states of mind, it's a mixed bag.

    Some of the profs actually believe that the movement for honest statistics is itself a political scam (Diamond), some know exactly what's going on but are fighting for the existence of their school and feel justified in ignoring facts and saying whatever helps them (Mitchell), some know what's going on and are fighting for their lives yet have enough a residual respect for truth and feel that they have to make pseudo-factual arguments (Katz), some are clueless (Glater), some have escaped to the top of the market and don't want to talk about the realities (Chemerinsky), some have been scamming so long they don't even know what they're saying anymore (Leduc), some were too hesitant for too long to recognize reality but are finally coming around (Kerr).

    Regardless of specific states of their subjective minds, once the facts are overwhelming and obvious to a reasonable person, we (and the law) can impute the requisite knowledge to the whole lot of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the odious Leiter?

      Delete
    2. Your interest in Leiter is far greater than his interest in you.

      Delete
    3. leiter is a sideshow. ignore him.

      Delete
    4. Leiter is a clown.

      Delete
    5. Buzz Leiter..."to inanity and beyond!"

      Delete
    6. Hey Now!

      I resemble that remark!

      Delete
  14. What is the point of this post? That professors looked while their students suffered and did nothing?

    If so, I agree.

    Except- let's be honest- aren't faculty involved in the admissions process? Aren't faculty emailing and calling applicants to get them to attend their school? Don't faculty sit on the many committees of the school and make decisions/ like whether to add an unnecessary and expensive LLM program? Did they give input on new facilities and technology and expensive things without considering where the money was coming from?

    Professors can not claim they were not an integral part of this scam. And, they benefitted from it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Varies by school. In some schools the central university makes the decision regarding how much tuition will be.

      Delete
    2. Professors may not set tuition. I didn't claim they did. But professors can not claim they are integrally involved on a regular basis on decisions regarding admissions, programs, etc.

      Delete
  15. The revolution will not be led by self-destructive and ignorant law students, nor will it be led by bitter and politically unsavvy recent grads and toilet bloggers.

    The revolution will only succeed when the politically savvy and intelligent vanguard of the law professoriate decides that the time is right to strike.

    Long live P.E. Campos, aka "lawprof" writing posts from afar in exile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet not no far in exile that those massive paychecks don't find their way to his mailbox every month...

      Delete
    2. Rather he get the paychecks than 99% of lawprofs that say nothing or promote the scam.

      Delete
    3. "Yet not no far in exile that those massive paychecks don't find their way to his mailbox "


      Daddy, what's a "mailbox"? And why do paychecks go there?

      Delete
  16. Okay, so Campos is part of the fraud. Great. Now it's time for him to give back a chunk of his bloated CU salary. According to the following chart, you make ~185K: http://www.colorado.edu/pba/facstaff/facsal/2011-2012/displayDall1.htm

    But we all know Campos would never voluntarily cough up a dime. Instead, he continues to spew hackery from an ivory tower. Meanwhile, productive professors in the sciences at CU are somehow paid far less than him. Get a real job Campos!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut up Leiter.

      Delete
    2. Shut up Campos.

      Delete
    3. It's hard to come up with a law professor who's doing more real good for society than Campos is. Maybe some of the profs who get innocent men off death row.

      Delete
    4. How can you honestly defend that salary? Campos is probably living in a 1M+ house in boulder (bought before the bubble crashed), drinks lattes at vic's every morning, and has a massive pension coming his way. He would get eaten alive in a courtroom, and there is no way he'd make professor in today's world with his second rate credentials. Meanwhile his students are starved for jobs. If he truly cared about you, he'd donate his spoils.

      Delete
    5. The better question is does it matter if he cares?

      I'm sure there's a few idiots that idolize LP but at the end of the day it's the substance of the data and proposed solutions that matter.

      Delete
    6. No one's defending his salary. The point is that, unlike 99% of other law professors, he's actually doing something beneficial in return for his pay. Of all the people at law schools who deserve a thrashing, he's probably near the end of the line.

      Delete
    7. Of course it matters. We should be bringing professor salary down to normal wages. This guy shouldn't be making 185k. It should be 100k tops with no pension. Do you honestly think he'd quit his job if CU cut his salary to 100k? Where would he go? The substance of the data? The data is self-evident. This isn't rocket science.

      Delete
    8. Do you see anyone saying everyone's wages should be cut except LP?

      Delete
    9. Okay then why doesn't he donate a chunk of his salary? Why not donate the proceeds of salary and books sales to law school transparency? Why not volunteer time as lead counsel in class action against the schools? Of course he would never do that! It's pretty easy to write a blog.

      Delete
    10. Let's say he doesn't give a shit. And honestly, maybe he doesn't...maybe he's doing all this for publicity or some other reason.

      Bottom line, what does that change?

      Delete
    11. So easy that no one else is doing it!

      This is a typical misdirection strategy by people who want to keep everything the same. How can you talk about doing X when Y is more important? How can you advocate for reform when you benefit from the status quo?

      It all adds up to shouting "look over there!" to keep people distracted.

      Delete
    12. how do you know he doesn't?

      Delete
    13. What are you talking about? I don't want to keep things the same. I'm drowning in debt, and I'm angry. Campos in contrast is making a killing off this scam. It's infuriating. I want the ABA to cap salaries at 100k with no pension. What would that change? It changes overhead, duh! I'm asking for law professors to voluntarily give up their pay so that we can bring down school overhead and tuition. If Campos donated money, he'd talk about it. He wouldn't be able to stop himself from doing so.

      Delete
    14. Systematically what does it change?

      Delete
    15. It changes overhead. If we cut staff and professor salaries, then we can cut tuition. What do you not get?

      Delete
    16. Your position is that if LP truly cared he would do more (take a pay cut, offer to increase his teaching load, etc.). No argument there, he could do more and it would have a small effect on CU's overhead.

      The question is do you have a broader point beyond the obvious?

      Delete
    17. Campos giving up money or calling to lower his own salary will do next to nothing. Unless there is some agreement where a large number of law profs agree to to this (fat chance), then there is no point, and he might as well enjoy his ill-gotten gains.

      Campos is pushing for true institutional change. It's more about having schools getting on board to lower law professor salaries, and creating a larger pattern of this behavior.

      Delete
    18. Why does he need the full salary to make a point? Why does he need to be a tenured professor with a bloated pension to produce institutional change? Why can't he quit his job and go full time for the cause? Why not use his bloated salary to bail out 5 of his students?

      Delete
    19. Everyone can always do more.

      Delete
    20. As I've said many times.

      Compared to some hypothetical law prof who quits, gives all his worldly gains to the law school victims and lives a life of poverty fighting the scam, let's call him UberAntiScamProf, he pales in comparison.

      But compared to pretty much EVERY OTHER REAL LIFE PROF, they pale in comparison to him in terms of what he has done to contribute to the scamblog movement.

      So yes, he (and he freely admits this) benefits from the scam. But he could just be like 99% of lawprofs and just keep silent or even worse be a LeDuc and actively promote the scam.

      It's just stupid to criticize him when he could simply have done NOTHING. Would that be better????


      Delete
    21. 12:43 P.M. is the credited response to the "LawProf is a greedy hypocrite" strawman argument.

      The perfect should not be the enemy of the (very) good.

      Delete
    22. 12:47, that's part of the scam - somehow, Campos has managed to put this at the end of every post and every comment:

      * Does not apply to me. Don't ask why.

      And the commenters here brush it off as irrelevant. (And I believe that many of the comments that seeded this particular idea came from Campos himself, as do half of the anonymous "Leiter" comments to distract the simple-minded when things get too awkward to explain.)

      It is not irrelevant. Campos is an integral part of the scam, yet defining the conversation. Do you not see how insane that is?

      It's like the recent discussions about women's contraception that included no women. Insane, and well all knew it and called it out. This is the same kind of thing.

      Yes, he's better than 99% of all law professors for bringing this up. But he's still part of the problem, because he's 100% law professor, 100% paid by the scam, and thus 100% invested in the perpetuation of the scam.

      Still no conflict?

      Really?

      "Blogging" cures all ethical issues? Perhaps General Petraus should have started an "Inside the Adultery Scam" blog that would have brushed all of his ethical slips and conflicts of interest under the rug and allowed him to keep his job? Maybe Bill Clinton could have avoided all of his trouble simply by writing an "Inside the Intern-Sucking-My-Dick Scam" blog?

      Trying to expose the scam is not the same as distancing youself from it.

      (And if he's not 100% invested in the perpetuation of the scam, it's because he's so financially comfortable after his 23 years of professoring that it doesn't matter if he is forced out. But still, that financial stability is one massive pile of student loan money, scammed from students.)

      And I think people are starting to question these conflicts, judging by some of the comments here recently.

      I'm not saying Campos should quit his job or anything. But he shouldn't get this blanket pass either.

      Delete
    23. No one is giving Campos a "blanket pass", whatever that means. No one is saying is some martyr or saint of whatever. You are the one that is bringing up this strawman.

      The problem I have is that you are giving Campos, one of the few lawprofs exposing the scam way more criticism, it seems, than the 99% of law profs that are doing nothing or even promoting the scam.

      Okay you are saying he isn't doing enough and whatever. Let's say, that this is true.
      But before I'm going to go after Campos, I'm going to go after the LeDucs and then the 99% of law profs FIRST before I go after him.

      Delete
    24. Who said he does get a blanket pass?

      Delete
    25. @2:20 (the first one) - I see your point. There are 99% of professors who are worse, so they should be the target first. But this blog does not ultimately remove Campos' head from the noose like many people believe. His pay each month ($15K?) is directly linked to a year or two of crippling debt slavery (maybe five when retirement, benefits, and other non-salary faculty costs are considered) to an unemployed law grad. And that, for me, as a believer in this scam, is unforgivable.

      @ 2:20 (the second one) - really? Um, you read this blog, right? Half the commenters think he's the Messiah.

      Delete
    26. @ 3:17PM

      Has Campos himself ever "removed the noose" from his own head in any blog post?

      I don't recall him ever saying he is any more deserving of his high salary than other lawprofs whether b/c of his law prof work or b/c of his scamblogging efforts. Nor IIRC has he said that while other lawprofs should teach more and spend less time and tuition dollars should not be spent writing scholarshit that he himself should be exempted.

      You point might be valid if you can show me ANYWHERE where he has exempted himself from some of the things that he has said will need to happen for the scam to end (less law grads, lower tuition, more class/prof, etc). I've never read anywhere that he has done so.

      As for his pay, do realize that he himself has probably saved 0Ls from becoming debt slaves far more than 99% of other lawprofs.

      If that still makes him "unforgivable" than so be it. But then what does that make the 99% who are silent or actually encourage the lemmings to go into debt slavery?

      Delete
    27. Geeze you idjits, 185k is not a "high salary".

      Delete
  17. 23 years on faculty, realized scam in past 2 years. How convenient to come to such a conclusion after the retirement account is comfortably funded.

    My point, before half the weak minds on this site complain that I'm daring to question the mighty LawProf, is actually the opposite: how many of the younger, smarter, more tech savvy profs are ignoring the scam because they want the gravy train to keep rolling until their coffers are full?

    You can't get someone to understand something that his job depends on him not understanding, as is frequently stated here. And I think few junior faculty members will be happy to join in the scam movement, sacrificing their own seat in the lifeboat for their students.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In some ways yes, in some ways no. Voting for higher teaching loads and not replacing retiring professors isn't necessarily against their interest other than it's a little more work. Increasing productivity will result in some cost savings.

      Delete
    2. It's true that Lawprof, because he has tenure and has been collecting big paychecks for a while now that he hasn't exactly sacrified himself for this cause. I don't think he himself ever claimed to be some kind of martyr either.

      But again, it ignores the point. He didn't need to do this. Other than being on the right side of history and getting attention, it would be far easier if he just stayed silent and quietly rode out the scam rather than actively go anti-scam and in the process become a pariah amongst many other lawprofs.

      So no he is no martyr. Then again, he didn't have to stick his neck out, however little you think he did, AT ALL in the first place.

      Delete
    3. 12:49, you make the rather feeble and unfounded assumption that he is getting nothing out of this for himself, and that this entire blog isn't actually in his favor from a career perspective.

      Delete
    4. Let's say he has some personal gain from this. Let's say it isn't altruistic or whatever. It still doesn't matter because ultimately what he is saying is true and his "motives" ultimately don't detract from it.

      He could be some evil person for all we know but it still doesn't detract from his points because they are factually sound.

      You are making some pointless irrelevant ad hominem attack that since Campos isn't some martyr or saint or might have some "ulterior motive" that his points are invalid. But that is simply misdirection and fallacy.

      We support Campos not because we think he is a martyr or saint BUT BECAUSE HE MAKES VALID POINTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK OF HIM PERSONALLY.


      Delete
    5. I guess these are the "weak minds on this site" that you were referring to, 8:30a?

      Delete
    6. Not 8:30 but there def. are a few nutjobs on here (like the people that see Lieter everywhere) but I guess that's just the internets. Today has been a fairly insightful discussion.

      Delete
    7. Yes, 2:32. It seems that 2:27 is indeed a weak mind, seeing as he didn't read past the first paragraph of that post and fell into the trap of misinterpreting it.

      Delete
  18. It's amusing how "Leiter" has quickly become shorthand for "pompous, prestige whoring, pseudo-profound windbag law professor," just as "Joan King" became shorthand for "callous, uncaring, spinning law school CSO administrator."

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm someone who graduated from law school in the 1970s, and I can say that law school faculty have always been somewhere between utterly indifferent and outright hostile to the fate of the vast majority of their students - only those at or near the top of the class (top 10% .... as they themselves had been) were considered worthy of attention and support.

    But it didn't matter then the way it does now - law school was far far less expensive then, and student loans, to the limited extent they existed, were dischargable in bankruptcy.

    Only a fraction of my class (25%?)went on to make long term careers as lawyers, but no one's life was wrecked as a result of spending 3 years in law school.

    THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE.

    But law school faculty willfully ignore that fact. From their point of view, the large majority of their students who have never made careers as lawyers don't deserve too. As long as their law school produces a small % of winners, they're doing their job correctly. But the hundreds of thousands of lives wrecked that the current set-up has produced should and hopefully will come back to haunt them soon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. None of the law school scam matters anymore ....

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/12/montana-tv-station-warns-of-zombie-apocalypse/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nc60XPCXrh8

      Delete
    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_Eg17rLlQ

      Delete
  21. Great comment, 8:56. In my view, the hierarchical structure of law school would have pernicious effects for lawyers and society even if it were free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8:56 here.

      Thanks. You're correct about the pernicious effects - the ego, arrogance, elitism, all-arching sense of entitlement, greed and outright, albeit rationalized, dishonesty the system engenders is a cultural cancer that this country is lucky to survive.

      Or to put it another way, those who do the best behave the worst. Not all the time, but often enough, and they're always allowed to get away with/rewarded for their misdeeds because of their place in the hierarchy, which starts with class rank.

      Delete
  22. Ensure Yourself Success By Using Printable GED Practice Tests
    printable ged practice test free

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank Goodness You Showed Up!February 12, 2013 at 8:11 PM

      I think the clear majority of commenters here are in need of ged practice books!

      Delete
  23. Take a hypothetical law professor at a lower ranked school making, say, $125K and not getting a generous state pension, and writing on topics relevant for lawyers such as trusts and estates, rather than, say obesity. That prof might look at lawprof's $185K salary and pension and say -- why should this guy make so much more than me? The hypothetical prof might he earns his money, but thinks Lawprof is overpaid for what LawProf does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. <>

      No more 'tu quoque' please.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

      Delete
    2. That prof might look at lawprof's $185K salary and pension and say -- why should this guy make so much more than me?

      Welcome to Life.

      Delete
    3. There was supposed to be a 'yawn' between the < >.

      Delete
  24. @9:01am

    Paul Campos would still get hired today by law schools.

    He's a Hispanic (CO HBA) who was Articles Editor of a law review at a top 10-ish school.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Strange that one person estimated LawProf's salary at 185K based on a table showing the average salary for all full professors at his law school - and then all of a sudden it was taken as gospel that LawProf's actual salary is 185K. If you look at the data, the range of salaries for full professors (without endowed chairs) goes from $145,600 up to $226,125. LawProf could be making any salary between those numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or maybe it wasn't a fact that was meaningful to dispute?

      Delete
  26. 10:42 -- You may be correct that we do not know LawProf's salary because LawProf has not told us. He has told us what other people's salaries are though, in an attempt to discredit them, such as the salary of this admissions dean: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/04/nice-people.html

    Transparency does not begin at home.

    ReplyDelete
  27. As the push for transparency takes hold, such as the long form NALP statistics linked to in LP's blog, it becomes clear that the elephant in the room is unreported salaries. Due to the obvious recognition that those with higher salaries are more likely to report, it seems important that there be a push for all students to report income, no matter how depressing that act may be. It's very possible those 25th percentile categories should be the medium, and it's in the interest of all but the law schools to get those salaries reported.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the same thing with state bar salary reporting. It's all big law salary reporting.

      Delete
    2. The salaries of most people who do not report are highly likely to be zero.

      Delete
    3. Pachydermitous SalariesFebruary 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

      " it becomes clear that the elephant in the room is unreported salaries. "


      So, the unreported salaries are the bigguns?

      Delete
  28. There is MORE to the scam than just law schools. Did anyone consider the types of law people practice these days?

    Lawyers have become "trolls." They file lawsuits knowing full well that there will be NO trial; all they want is to force a defendant to settle for cash (banking on the fact that it's just easier for them).

    And it isn't just small, crappy firms that do this. Biglaw is just as guilty.

    All this is a function of too many lawyers and law schools. The quality of work lawyers do has taken a MASSIVE dive.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm going to make an argument that may get me flamed - but here it is.

    If the number of law students were to be drastically reduced a lot of the hiring would be of experienced women lawyers now on the "mommy track," i.e., women lawyers who at 30-40 decided that it was time to have children while it was still an option and who, as a result, were forced out of legal practice by the vicious competition that now exists. Cut 50,000 JDs a year to say 18,000 and a lot of women might return to the profession and the number of women forced out on the mommy track would also fall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a lot of soft bias against women in the profession.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, but it would be harder to exercise if there were not 40-50,000 JDs a year.

      Delete
    3. You get my vote. My apartment building is full of unemployed women lawyers who had good jobs at one time and now cannot get legal jobs. In fact, many of my contemporaries are women lawyers from top law schools now unemployed.

      The same argument would go for minorities above the age of 40, especially African Americans who have been horrifically DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. They would win from dropping the number of law grads to 15,000 or so. It is not really an argument. I know so.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps there will also be supplemental classes in typing in all caps.

      Delete
    5. The real problem is that degrees from even the top law schools are worthless to many (not all) women lawyers ove the age of 45 because of the glut. The jobs are just not there for them.

      With 5,000 people or more being forced out of the top 250 law firms and only 62,000 in house jobs, these people would have to go to smaller law firms. Problem is that there is almost no market in these firms for lawyers over the age of 45 without a book of business. Hence tons of middle aged women lawyers out of the top law schools are joining the ranks of the unemployed. Men have less of an issue than women because they are not pushed out of thei jobs by childcare responsibilities.

      Delete
  30. What's most damning about the law school scam is how few anecdotal stories (not generic platitudes or unsubstantiated assertions) there are about specific individuals whose lives are substantially better because they obtained a law school education. You used to see these Horatio Alger rags to middle class stories from law schools 15 or 20 years ago, and Horatio Alger was some grey hair who went from being homeless to being a leading figure in his community thanks to law school.

    I bet it's been 15 years since I saw one of those stories.

    Law schools don't tout such "success" stories for good reasons -- they don't exist. Current success stories are all graduates who are in interesting jobs, but whose families were wealthy or connected or both. No more rags to riches via law school.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm willing to stipulate that LawProf is a whited sepulchre. That doesn't change the fact that what he's saying (1) is true, (2) needs to be said, and (3) is not being said by anyone else with the same effectiveness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point exactly!
      10:16

      Delete
    2. Absolutely correct.

      Probably literally everyone who makes personal attacks against LawProf is a direct beneficiary of the scam, i.e. employed by a law school, the LSAT administrators or the companies which provide bar exam and/or LSAT preparation courses.

      Delete
  32. The attacks on Campos for his salary are ridiculous. Yes, he could give his earnings away and yes, he might be a better man for it. But there is such a thing as not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Campos has done more to expose the scam and improve outcomes for students than anybody. If he has raised his profile in the process, good for him and quit being jealous (talking to you Leiter). If he succeeds in creating a rational relationship between law school costs and outcomes, he may end up taking a paycut or losing his job for it. In the meantime, I'm cheering for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is ridiculous about a law professor taking a voluntary pay cut to bail out 5 victims of the fraud he contributes to? Campos doesn't need a full salary, book sales, speaker fees or tenure to make his point.

      Delete
    2. There is nothing wrong with it per se. But it is wrong to ask him to do something that you're not asking other profs to do.

      So if you are saying most or all profs should be taking pay cuts, teaching less, etc, even Campos would agree.

      But you are essentially saying that only Campos should do this. That is what's wrong.

      Ask all profs to do this, okay. Singling out Campos for doing it so that he isn't a "hypocrite" is just asinine. So in effect, people like Campos who are anti-scam need to go all out to not be a "hypocrite" but others don't since they aren't hypocrites is the way I read this which is just ridiculous.

      Delete
    3. Of course I'm asking all professors to do this. I'm asking Campos to go first. I'm asking him to make a statement to his colleagues. It's got to start somewhere. Why not with the "leader" of the movement?

      Delete
    4. You think he could get a pay cut even if he wanted one? This blog has documented the numerous rules strictly governing faculty renumeration. It would probably be easier for him to quit, and what would that achieve?

      Delete
    5. Why should Campos have to do so much more than 99% of law profs who have been silent or even promoted the scam? Why does he have to "go first"? That just doesn't sound right to me.

      So all those law profs who are silent can do nothing but the 1 (okay I know there are a few others like Tamanahana, DJM, etc) have to go even further and "go first"???

      Delete
    6. This blog generates few waves and vitually no broad awareness of the scam.

      "Professor Quits Over Scam", or "Professor Donates Salary to Scam Victims" or Professor Sets Up Non-Profit to Publicize Dangers of Law School, Funded By His Salary" would generate national headlines and focus than Campos could ever hope to receive. And being a rather wealthy law prof, he's probably the best one among us to do something so bold.

      Why not other law professors? Well, this is Campos's baby. It's the battle he picked. So he should be the first over the wall.

      But seeing as the profits from his book are still trickling into his pockets (yes, the book that came from this blog, and that we basically wrote for him), I doubt we'll see Campos parting ways with any dollars heading in his direction.

      You see, the biggest part of this entire scam is that this blog is just a way to boost the profile of Campos and secure his employment by protecting him as some kind of whistleblower. Evidence? Er, the "do as I say, not do as I do" attitude shown by Campos. Everyone else is a scammer, but not him. Everyone else doesn't deserve their salary, but not him. Everyone else's scholarship is trash, but not his. Etc.

      Delete
    7. ^I think the suggestion is that he could donate the money. Anyways, I think someone above made the point that even though LP isn't a martyr that doesn't change the substance of what he says.

      Delete
    8. Like he'd even be willing to try doing it. Also, he could donate a portion of his salary to bail out some of his own students. I think that would make a powerful statement to his colleagues. Also, he's probably taking in a good amount of income from speaking fees and book sales of "don't go to law school." Why not donate those revenues?

      Delete
    9. 2:15,
      We get it, you want LP to do more. We hear you loud and clear.

      Delete
    10. Look we get that unless a lawprof quits, donates all his worldly possessions to the victims and spends all his waking moments fighting the scam that he is unworthy of you.

      So yes in that comparison, Campos falls way short to this UberAntiScamProf.

      But even if UberAntiScamProf >>>> Campos
      Campos >>>>>>>>>> 99% of other real life profs.

      If you want to go after Campos before the other 99% go ahead but it only makes you look like someone who wants to protect that 99% from criticism by going after someone, who, however little, actually is helping to inform 0Ls from making a mistake.

      I'll never call Campos some kind of saint or martyr but he's going to be on the bottom of the list of law profs or deans that I criticize.

      Delete
    11. 2:15,

      What would generate headlines, and which would be actually meaningful would be for a law school to announce:

      1. Tuition is rolled back to what it was in 1980, adjusted for inflation.

      2. All non-dischargeable loans owed by its students, past, present and future are 50% the responsibility of the law school, starting 5 years after graduation.

      Those 2 steps would end the law school scam for that law school right then and there.

      The consequences for the faculty and administration would be in the short term quite serious (and more far-reaching than what you've suggested in your personal assault on LawProf) but the long term future of the law school AND ITS STUDENTS would be assured.

      Delete
    12. Don't overstate my position. I'm asking for him to donate a portion of his income, not his whole livelihood. Why can't you fanboys get on board with that idea? This isn't some poor dude living in the back alley. He's probably clearing 250k after book sales, tuition and speaker fees, not to mention the pension coming his way and his 1M house in Boulder. What would 50K a year matter to him to help out his students? The guy is admitting to participating in a fraud, but isn't willing to change his own ways. How is that acceptable?

      Delete
    13. Slight clarification to my post at 3:06 -

      By assured for students I mean assured from financial ruin, not assured of a successful legal career.

      Delete
    14. 3:09, everybody understands your position now, after about 20 duplicative posts. Any time you want to stop f***ing it to death that would be fantastic.

      Delete
    15. 3:09,

      Your position is both contemptible and absurd. Why don't you go harass some lying, life-destroying Dean making somewhere between 5 and 10 times as much as Campos?

      Delete
    16. 3:09PM

      That's fine. But I'm not going to ask Campos to do this FIRST before I ask other profs to do this. Again, while I 100% agree that tuition needs to be lowered and that ultimately means across the board layoffs, salary cuts, more classes per prof, etc, I see no reason that Campos needs to be singled out to have to do this FIRST.

      Again you are essentially saying that the 99% of lawprofs who are silent or promote the scam, especially Deans like LeDuc, needs to go last while Campos needs to go first. That's just absurd.

      And anyway, unless Campos going first is all that is stopping across the board layoffs, salary cuts, more classes, you are essentially asking the one person that is actually doing SOMETHING (even if it isn't enough in your eyes) to do even more BEFORE the 99% that have done NOTHING.

      Delete
    17. This crap is exactly the reason nothing will change. Even the "leaders" of the transparency movement are on the take. Yet their fanboys persist. Pathetic.

      Delete
    18. 3:15, someone being worse doesn't mean that everyone else is innocent. They are just less bad. And Campos, let us not forget, is still a law professor, and every piece of dislike for law professors over their high salaries, shitty scholarship, low work hours etc applies to him too. He just gets a pass on the "talking about it" part. Congrats. Talk is cheap. Or profitable and good for a flagging career after taking a losing bet on another publicity-whoring issue, that being denying the ill health effects of obesity.

      I don't think that Campos should quit or live in poverty, but he's making bank from the scam as a professor and making bank from leveraging the scam into books, speaking fees, publicity, etc.

      Deans are contempible and disgusting, we get it. Yawny McYawn. Boooooring. You guys have no idea what path you're being led down and for what purpose.

      Delete
    19. 3:34 aka 3:09,

      We do know what path you're trying to lead us down, and that path is to try and destroy the credibility of the single most effective whistle-blower of the law school scam - because you want to continue to wreck people's lives so that you can keep living your soft life somewhere within the law school scam ecosystem.

      Delete
    20. 3:34PM

      Look, we get and have always been "getting it" that Campos is no martyr or saint and probably has "ulterior motives" or whatever or isn't "innocent". Again these are strawmen that only you are raising. Nobody here is proclaiming him to be the next Mother Teresa or whatever.

      Anyway. what does that have to do with whether he has ultimately helped 0Ls avoid the disaster of law school? What does it have to do with whether his points are factually sound or not???

      Its pretty clear to me that between this blog, his book, his interviews and articles that he has helped a "fair number" in making the choice in either not going or going at a steep discount. I can't say how many people he's helped but all in all it has helped people.

      If he benefits from it, then I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. Better him than scum like LeDuc.

      That's all that matters.

      Delete
    21. 2:15/3:09/3:34 is clearly a factotum of the law school industrial complex.

      Delete
    22. How dare you call him a factotum! He's actually a dogsbody, thank you very much.

      Delete
    23. Anon at 3.34 is being way too timid. I demand the LawProf self-immolate outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building. Anything less than than and he's no different than Dean Don LeDuc.

      Delete
    24. Agreed, and there is progress being made in fighting the scam, although not nearly enough at this time.

      Delete
    25. ""Professor Quits Over Scam", or [etc.] ... would generate national headlines and focus than Campos could ever hope to receive. "


      If that weren't just plain stupid, it would still be not more than pure sophistry.

      Delete
    26. " Also, he's probably taking in a good amount of income from speaking fees and book sales of "don't go to law school." "


      What evidence do you have for making such allegations?

      Delete
  33. The question of whether law schools - or the ABA can limit the number of legal graduates per annum raises some interesting antitrust issues. It is not a straightforward question, but rather depends on how they go about it.

    The argument that would be raised against production limits on JDs is that it is an effort by lawyers to skew the supply/demand ratio and thus raise prices - i.e., it is an output restriction and as such constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

    The flip side of this is that the ABA might be able to argue a Noerr Pennington defence based on the US Department of Education having made the ABA the accrediting body. See, variously, Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 107 F.3d 1026, 1034-38 (3d Cir. 1997); Brandt v. Am. Bar Ass’n, No. CIV.A.3:96-cv-2606D, 1997 WL 279762 (N.D. Tex. 1997).

    The 1995 ABA Consent decree (available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0200/0255.htm ) is also important in what it does not prohibit. Under the terms of the consent decree, the ABA agreed not to collect faculty salary data or consider faculty compensation in accreditation, bar accreditation of for-profit schools, or prohibit acceptance of transfer credits from unaccredited schools. United States v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 934 F. Supp. 435, 436 (D.D.C.
    1996). After the consent decree the ABA changes in 1996, including eliminating a teaching load limit and the requirement of periodic sabbaticals, allowing limited counting of adjuncts in the calculation of the faculty/student ratio and a few other changes.

    This raises an interesting question - could the ABA consider employment outcomes as a factor in law school accreditation? Could it consider tuition and debt ratios in the employment catchment are of the law school. Suppose the ABA stopped short of 100% full time employment at 9 months - and picked a number like 90% - or set a criteria for first and second time bar passage.

    Looking at the actual regulations for Accrediting Bodies that apply to the ABA's role is interesting in this regard:

    34 CFR §602.16 provides in part that criteria for accreditation includes

    (a) The agency must demonstrate that it has standards for accreditation, and preaccreditation, if offered, that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The agency meets this requirement if—

    (1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or program in the following areas:

    (i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, including, as appropriate, consideration of course completion, State licensing examination, and job placement rates.

    (ii) Curricula.

    (iii) Faculty.

    (iv) Facilities, equipment, and supplies.

    (v) Fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate to the specified scale of operations.

    (vi) Student support services.

    (vii) Recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising.

    (viii) Measures of program length and the objectives of the degrees or credentials offered.

    (ix) Record of student complaints received by, or available to, the agency

    (emphasis added)

    My view of the foregoing is that the ABA would have a pretty perfect Noerr Pennington defence if it was to argue that the actual regulation that made it the accrediting body requires it to take account of bar passage rates and employment outcomes. Indeed I would go further an suggest that the ABA is in breach of the relevant federal regulations in ignoring employment outcomes. Certainly based on current data there is absolutely no evidence that the ABA has set any criteria at all for employment outcomes and state licensing exams.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need more posts by LawProf and DJM on topics such as this. What can or should the ABA be doing to "fix" accreditation so it helps the current and future law students.

      Delete
  34. the bad job market continues: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202587755601&slreturn=20130112151245

    ReplyDelete
  35. A better example of Tu quoque:

    Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  36. >>long form NALP

    Maybe we can get the Donald to help on this, he claimed to have some shocking information about the long form birth certificate awhile back.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "it becomes clear that the elephant in the room is unreported salaries"

    This is absolutely true. Hopefully any un- or underemployed people reading this blog will realize this and make sure to report their salaries.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The latest application data is updated on LSAC website. Applicants grew a bit last week and are now down 19.1% instead of 21.8% compared to last year.

    Applications are down 22% from last year.

    The next 3 weeks are crunch time for law school admissions with some 3/1 deadlines. However, I'm willing to be those "deadlines" will be quite flexible this cycle.

    http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/three-year-volume.asp

    ReplyDelete
  39. This whole thing about Campos's salary is ridiculous. As if the law school scam would have more success if Campos quit his job and lived like a bum on the streets. Yes, that would definitely help things! After all, we wouldn't want someone from legal academia to talk about these things and give a much-needed perspective to his fellow law professors - that wouldn't help at all! We all know that fellow law professors are much more likely to listen to a homeless person on the street and relate to him than listen to a fellow professor. Yes, Campos should quit his position today and devote himself to living as a homeless person. That would solve a lot!

    There is such clever thinking on this board...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The personal attacks on Campos are made because the scammers have NO arguments on the merits to make.

      Classic lawyer trick.

      End of story.

      Delete
  40. Funny thread over at TLS. A group of "student ambassadors" who happen to be paid by the school were fielding questions from educated 0Ls. A subsequent visit by the admissions dean to clear up some of their lies added to the humor.

    http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=204134

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. What a cock-up.

      Delete
    2. The post by the admissions dean demonstrates that law school administrators are well aware of the scam. Whenever a student on work study or a lower-ranking admissions officer misrepresents the data they jump right and direct the audience to the actual employment numbers. We see it here, and we saw it with those 0L emails LP posted a while back. They know the numbers are a misrepresentation. They know the misrepresentation will end up here. They know it provides ammunition for the lawsuits. I bet when five o'clock rolls around they shut off their computers and long for the days they could quote a 95% employment rate and send the student off to the Bursars to sign the promissory note.

      Delete
    3. In theory, this should have worked.

      Delete
  41. So tuition really exploded in the early 2000's. I know there's plenty of graphs in earlier posts but LP's remark about tuition being far more affordable up until 9 years ago bought it home.

    Home prices really went up dramatically in the same period. The issue I think was that in this period banks had more money than they knew what do with, and were under enormous pressure to find safe investment options for it. Houses seemed safe, as did education.

    Banks were throwing loan money at college students, and naturally colleges took advantage of this and cranked up their spending and prices. But even now law students have little trouble getting massive private loans. I think because the government completely underwrites and guarantees them, up to a limit. And law degree loans have no limits apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  42. In the state of the union address Obama suggested availability of loans for school should be tied to the value the schools provide. This sounds good, but I will believe it when I see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't he worried this would lead to the return of the Jim Crow era?

      Delete
    2. And on that note, pay attention GWU, AU, UDC, and GeorgeTown grads.


      D.C. Residents Have Highest Student Loan Debt, Study Says
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/dc-student-loans_n_2670609.html

      Delete
    3. Here is the quote from the speech:

      "Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure they do. Tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. And tomorrow, my Administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck."

      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/state-of-the-union-2013-president-barack-obamas-speech-transcript-text-87550_Page6.html

      I would like to hear deans try to spin this.



      Delete
    4. I hope this "College Scorecard" lists only useful, practical information. I'll be pretty disappointed if something along the lines of "#1 in space law!" is on there.

      Delete
    5. He's only talking about federal aid there. The main problem is loans, especially private ones.

      Delete
    6. Financial Aid includes federal student loans.

      Delete
    7. Oh my god, how do people commenting on a blog about student debt and employment prospects not even know the basics of financial aid? Financial aid is a euphemism because it means the government is going to lend you money to go to school at a high interest rate.

      Please, people, don't comment when you don't even the most basic and simple idea of what financing law school means.

      I realize this means most professors. Professors, have a look at your own schools website. It will list cost and financial aid information. Basic facts like that.

      Delete
    8. You're right there about that act including federal loans. But what about private loans? You can't cover $50k p/a law school tuition with government loans. Stafford loans cap at $22.5k p/a for graduate school last time I looked, and those are the main ones. The rest must be covered by private loans.

      Delete
    9. The rest is covered by federal grad plus loans. People can borrow up to the COA. Did you really not know this?

      Delete
    10. No US citizen gets private loans for law school tuition. International students can't borrow from our government so they have to either get into Harvard, which lends to students, or get a private loan.

      How can anyone on this blog not know this? You have lost all credibility.
      Would you please at least start paying attention?

      Delete
    11. US citizens can borrow whatever the school says the cost of attendance is from the US government.

      I know it has been discussed here before. The school puts out a number and the government sends them the money.

      Delete
  43. Hey here's some job stats from my career:

    2000 Chicago grad (non UC or UN)

    2001 first job 36k
    2005 third job 100k
    2010 fourth job 10k. <--- not a typo

    Awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree more with yesterday's "innocent grifters" post. I think that, even if deans and faculty learn with precision about debt loads and placement outcomes, they will still spin out elaborate justifications for business as usual, or they will make small adjustments in an effort to project an image of responsibility and goodwill. As Twain said: "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."

    So it probably does not matter too much what the majority of faculty know. The scamblog audience is kids on the cusp of deciding whether to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars in borrowed money to enter a profession with collapsing entry-level opportunities and a very, very high level of dissatisfaction and distress.

    dybbuk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. To say this blog hasn't made a huge impact on the audience of students is terribly wrong. I think lawprof has had a huge impact on the students who are not applying, not attending, not paying sticker, not accepting stipulations on scholarships and generally looking very carefully before they take on loans.

      I give LST great credit as well.

      Delete
    2. I greatly prefer the quotation of Twain to the quote of Holmes on the intelligence of dogs knowing when they are being kicked or stumbled over.

      Delete
  45. Effing Trollish Lawsuits...February 12, 2013 at 8:21 PM

    11:29 writes, "Lawyers have become "trolls." They file lawsuits knowing full well that there will be NO trial; all they want is to force a defendant to settle for cash (banking on the fact that it's just easier for them)."


    Patent marking trolls, copyright trolls; so, what's the next cottage lawyer troll industry to come down the pike?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Who benefits from personal attacks on Campos? The answer is pretty obvious.

    That kind of questioning of motive may be unfair, however, to the specific individual above who is troubled by Campos' supposed hypocrisy. I encourage him, then, to identify himself by name and position, as Campos has done, and let the board determine if his attacks are bona fide or merely self-interested.

    Until then, he should stfu.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Who benefits from personal attacks..."?

      - Those with a vested interest in the status quo.

      - Malcontents who just have to beeyotch.

      - Regulation Johnnie types who insist that every would-be saviour must walk upon the waters (i.e., sans peur et sans reproche).

      - Those who are completely clueless and believe that there's "lots" of jobs for lawyers if only the new lawyers were "willing" to take jobs "beneath" them and help out all those "little people" who would pay for the legal services with, I suppose, soda bottle deposit monies gleaned from dumpsters (thinking Marshall here).

      Delete
  47. 11:47 writes, "What's most damning about the law school scam is how few stories... there are about ... those... whose lives are substantially better because they obtained a law school education. You used to see these Horatio Alger rags to middle class stories from law schools ... I bet it's been 15 years since I saw one of those stories."


    That's because such stories aren't welcome in scamblogsville.


    Here's mine. Foster child. Worked 30-40 hpw in my undergrad because my foster family sure couldn't afford to help.

    After UG, worked for 5 years, then decided on a whim to go to LS - not because I "loved the law" or wanted to "save the world", but mainly just because I saw it as a way to get a faster leg up on life. Worked 30-40 hpw during the 3 years of LS ("DADT").

    Been working as a lawyer every since; moved to my current in-house position 6 years ago and it's okay, although it has its share of stresses and frustrations.

    While I'm not a classic Horatio Alger story (not pulling in millions), we are comfortably in the mid-to-upper middle class (not sure exactly where the boundaries lie).

    I'm happily married and have 4 great kids who are all smarter than their mother (but not me).


    Despite all the above, I do very well understand that the LS system has been pumping out approximately twice as many new law grads as are needed, for far too many years. I also agree that the schools have been incredibly and blatantly misleading about employment prospects until very recently. And even now, all schools only provide the ABA-required data, while many if not most withhold the NALP data.

    And meanwhile, many still run an employment numbers spin game on their own websites because they know the majority of their marks still rely on them for info instead of going to Kyle's website.

    I have many contemporaries who have lost several jobs in the last few years, some of whom still don't have new (law) jobs. Some of my contemporaries never (even back when) got good jobs. Some hung shingles after being no-offered after their summer stints and have never really made ends meet.

    Anyway, despite doing well personally (which you really didn't want to learn about anyway), I know for sure that "what matters most" (as Bernie Burk says) is that we have too many new lawyers for too few jobs.

    ReplyDelete

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