tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post8969329028347017102..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: The cost of legal scholarshipLawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-28335055275173574922013-01-20T21:35:56.171-08:002013-01-20T21:35:56.171-08:00I love your blog! Here I find a lot of helpful inf...I love your blog! Here I find a lot of helpful information I need. Thanks you for your work.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ironcomet.com/Medisoft/" rel="nofollow">Medisoft</a><br /><i>Most widely used medical software</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-205269980524756032012-02-14T13:50:31.404-08:002012-02-14T13:50:31.404-08:00That was well written blog. Thanks for sharing..
h...That was well written blog. Thanks for sharing..<br />http://pctechnicalsupports.blogspot.com/<br /><a href="http://rescueme911.com/index.html" rel="nofollow">PC Technical Support</a>System Tech Supporthttp://rescueme911.com/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-24665490144272357822011-11-22T08:08:00.740-08:002011-11-22T08:08:00.740-08:00Protip professor - Toolator will block IP addresse...Protip professor - Toolator will block IP addresses on your blog. http://www.toolator.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-6431992369135795902011-11-22T08:01:24.474-08:002011-11-22T08:01:24.474-08:00So this is a perfect test - will the above two com...So this is a perfect test - will the above two comments be deleted? The obsessive is back....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-34486380938567241942011-11-22T07:45:07.493-08:002011-11-22T07:45:07.493-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-53571798048976004862011-11-22T07:42:41.670-08:002011-11-22T07:42:41.670-08:007:40 = "ban all educational loans" nut. ...7:40 = "ban all educational loans" nut. Be careful Breezy he has a file on you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-69385747858710103012011-11-22T07:40:41.463-08:002011-11-22T07:40:41.463-08:00To be honest BreezyWheeze your posts are a little ...To be honest BreezyWheeze your posts are a little tiresome to read too. We all already know you scored high on your LSATs and got a full ride at Rutgers. Its sad that I know this about somebody I don't know just from this board...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-62952586436317889802011-11-22T06:51:01.027-08:002011-11-22T06:51:01.027-08:00(1) I'm going to start deleting people who eng...<i>(1) I'm going to start deleting people who engage in obsessive arguments that repeat the same points endlessly.</i><br /><br />Thank you. While I'm not exactly a paragon of politeness (it is the intarwebs, after all), there are enough thoughtful interesting commenters that make me want to check the comments here every day or two, but the unhinged folks are making this unreadable.BreezyWheezehttp://www.fark.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-29388001568255690502011-11-22T06:49:05.945-08:002011-11-22T06:49:05.945-08:00So many morons. So little time.So many morons. So little time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-581398274423383842011-11-22T05:39:22.957-08:002011-11-22T05:39:22.957-08:00About time...and its one guy obsessed over transpa...About time...and its one guy obsessed over transparency so that should be easy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-62957179219501390432011-11-22T04:38:38.937-08:002011-11-22T04:38:38.937-08:00(1) I'm going to start deleting people who eng...(1) I'm going to start deleting people who engage in obsessive arguments that repeat the same points endlessly.<br /><br />(2) 8:21: I excluded student notes and pieces authored by lawyers rather than law professors.<br /><br />(3) 8:25: I estimated that 16% of tuition revenues go toward subsidizing scholarship. The numbers quoted above (and in the NYT piece) are based on 16% tuition revenue, not total law school revenue. The actual amount spent subsidizing scholarship is higher, since as you say a significant portion of law school operating budgets are provided by sources other than tuition.LawProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-75660623072851058992011-11-21T22:27:41.192-08:002011-11-21T22:27:41.192-08:008:56 please don't waste your breath on this nu...8:56 please don't waste your breath on this nut. He has no qualms about fraud against private money. His only complaint is fraud involving government loans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-51038672700719291622011-11-21T22:20:57.917-08:002011-11-21T22:20:57.917-08:00Tell us. How do you, a deranged loon, plan to chan...Tell us. How do you, a deranged loon, plan to change the student loan system. We plan to change the lack of transparency with lawsuits and petitions. what's your plan? other than rubbing your fingers up and down your fat lips as you exhale crazy breath?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-76132289161471058122011-11-21T20:56:57.527-08:002011-11-21T20:56:57.527-08:008:50,
It's not the only form of debt that can&...8:50,<br />It's not the only form of debt that can't be discharged.<br />If you don't like the price don't buy the product?fat guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-82210764491499633512011-11-21T20:50:14.005-08:002011-11-21T20:50:14.005-08:00You're OK with student loans as the only form ...You're OK with student loans as the only form of debt that you can't discharge? That schools raise tuition based on the availability of govt backed loans? Well, OK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-49033520078500548192011-11-21T20:44:50.008-08:002011-11-21T20:44:50.008-08:00FWIW, I've always thought it didn't matter...FWIW, I've always thought it didn't matter whether transparency "fixed" things or not. If there's true transparency then people are free to make an informed (even if stupid) choice. It bothers me that law schools are providing incorrect information / lying to prospective students. Once that problem is fixed then I'm mostly ok with how things are.fat guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-66376529722289823172011-11-21T20:38:20.523-08:002011-11-21T20:38:20.523-08:00@8:18 - you engage in sloppy reading comprehension...@8:18 - you engage in sloppy reading comprehension (nobody stated no student loans -- go reread the comments and the Slate article) and black and white thinking. <br /><br />Does being a hysterical annoying clown get tiresome at some point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-27990520701422597412011-11-21T20:25:21.064-08:002011-11-21T20:25:21.064-08:00The calculation is interesting, but it seems to om...The calculation is interesting, but it seems to omit two substantial factors--both of which seem much more than quibbles:<br /><br />1. Technology has greatly enhanced writing/research productivity since 1990. Just as technology has revolutionized journalism, law practice, and other fields, it has had a huge impact on the production of legal scholarship. Think what it was like to produce memos, briefs, client letters, OR law review articles when sources were consulted in hard copy, cites were shepardized in hard copy, people took notes by hand on notecards, lawyers handwrote their drafts or dictated them, secretaries typed on typewriters, and corrections had to be made by cutting and pasting real paper (rather than documents on a screen).<br /><br />Both practicing lawyers and law professors produce much more written work product per hour now than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Productivity gains are enormous with technology--a calculation that omits this factor seems quite naive. With a constant number of faculty devoting a constant number of hours to scholarship, I would expect three times as much scholarship today as in 1970--just based on technological productivity increases.<br /><br />2. Many law schools have sources of income rather than tuition--that's especially true at the top law schools. If scholarship accounts for 16% of the operating budget, it accounts for less than 16% of tuition. The fundraising campaigns--and success of those campaigns--at my T5 alma mater astound me. So what percentage of operating budget is due to tuition at these schools? (As an aside to this, large donors seem to give much more money to chairs supporting research faculty than to classroom teaching initiatives, clinics, or legal writing. The donors may be chasing the same elusive prestige as the law schools themselves, but I don't think one can allocate the private donations particularly to teaching. A lot goes toward scholarships but, somewhat surprisingly, much of it may be designated specifically for scholarship.)<br /><br />I'm all in favor of reducing law school tuition. But I'm troubled by the omissions in these calculations--much more than quibbles, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-7464009679548761942011-11-21T20:21:34.979-08:002011-11-21T20:21:34.979-08:00LawProf,
This point may already have been made ab...LawProf,<br /><br />This point may already have been made above, but your analysis is deeply flawed in one significant respect, namely your assumption that all law review articles are being produced by tenure track law professors. A significant percentage of the articles produced on an annual basis are student authored notes or comments, rather than pieces written by law faculty. I would suspect that the number of student pieces has increased significantly along with the drastic expansion in student-edited journals. Moreover, your analysis also doesn't account for the not insignificant number of law review articles written by professors outside of law schools, or by practicioners. <br /><br />That's not to say that your underlying point is mistaken. To the contrary, I don't doubt that the number of law review articles produced by law school tenure track faculty has increased significantly over the last few decades. But the raw numbers you provide here are clearly erroneous based on some blatantly poor assumptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-45070197809788386402011-11-21T20:18:12.975-08:002011-11-21T20:18:12.975-08:00Let me state it another way, and I really hope you...Let me state it another way, and I really hope you have the bare minimum mental faculties to process this question:<br /><br />Imagine we move to your world. There are no education loans. Law school is now purely a cash game. The only students able to attend are the rich, people who borrow from their parents (against the parents' retirement money), and other people of means. They attend because law schools continue to lie about job placement, and they graduate mostly un and under-employed like current students.<br /><br />Do you not see any problem with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-23129475107040849532011-11-21T20:16:48.300-08:002011-11-21T20:16:48.300-08:00Good one.Good one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-69488562820250502482011-11-21T20:12:49.910-08:002011-11-21T20:12:49.910-08:00"The argument wasn't the cause of the fia..."The argument wasn't the cause of the fiasco but the cure. your argument is that transparency will resolve the main issues. The counter-argument is that, like the SEC and corporate fraud (that YOU brought up), the power players will always find ways around it and are largely ineffective."<br /><br />That's incoherent. Can you please try to articulate your reasoning, step by step. Pretend you're in a logic class? Do rigorous, if-then style analysis like you're taking an LSAT. Do this for your own benefit.<br /><br />Remember. Your thesis is that we should move to a world with no government loans and that transparency doesn't matter. Yet Madoff occured in your ideal world. Why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-52463538462432476922011-11-21T20:07:38.139-08:002011-11-21T20:07:38.139-08:00...just allow others to express different views fr......just allow others to express different views from "transparency is the answer" without hijacking the conversations with your crazy accusations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-6334049258590071242011-11-21T20:06:18.521-08:002011-11-21T20:06:18.521-08:00You're just...I'm speechless. The argumen...You're just...I'm speechless. The argument wasn't the cause of the fiasco but the cure. your argument is that transparency will resolve the main issues. The counter-argument is that, like the SEC and corporate fraud (that YOU brought up), the power players will always find ways around it and are largely ineffective. <br /><br />The real analogy here is separating investment banks from commercial banks and ending TooBig To Fail. If banks aren't bailed out and if they don't have access to normal deposits then the overall economy can't be held hostage to the degree it is. In the same way, student loan reform ends the motivation to commit fraud, etc. and ensures that thousands of students aren't in debt for the rest of their lives. <br /><br />But believe that transparency will cure all that ails you. Nobody cares.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-72006209447507669612011-11-21T19:26:03.582-08:002011-11-21T19:26:03.582-08:00The guy who tried to give loan nut psychotherapy h...The guy who tried to give loan nut psychotherapy here.<br /><br />First of all I'm sorry to see that my prescient warning of 8:10 came true, mainly due to my own fault. I'm sorry but I was only trying to explore an infirmed mind. I was hoping that by breaking down his reasoning errors, step by step, he would rescind and back off. But like all of his type that only made him angrier.<br /><br />However, I think I might have a silver bullet. Loan nut, you keep stating that federal loans are the problem and that transparency does not matter. You also keep pointing to Madoff to prove your point.<br /><br />Let me ask you a question - was Madoff caused by (a) federally guaranteed loans or (b) lack of transparency?<br /><br />As far as I know, Madoff did not receive a penny in federal loans. All of his money came from private funds. Yet he was still able to steal billions. Had he been transparent about his investment returns, however, his scheme would have failed.<br /><br />You want us to believe that transparency doesn't matter, and that if we ban all government educational loans the problem will be fixed (and again you are downright insane for thinking you have such powers). <br /><br />Yet Madoff occured exactly under your ideal world. Do you see your flaw now?<br /><br />Any way, I'm not talking to you any more outside of this thread, so please don't expect this psychotherapy session to be ongoing. What you got today is all you will get from me, and it's more than you've apparently gotten from those who are supposed to care for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com