Ken Gormley, the dean of Duquesne Law School, has published an opinion piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the current employment situation for law students. Here is a summary of his assertions (people should click through to the article itself to evaluate whether I'm being fair to Dean Gormley):
(1) Given the overall state of the economy, it is inappropriate to be particularly concerned about the inability of new law graduates to secure six-figure starting salaries.
(2) Few new law graduates are securing such jobs.
(3) News stories bemoaning (2) are misguided, because it is in fact desirable that few graduates are securing such jobs.
(4) It would be bad for lots of law grads to immediately start making big money, because this would send people the wrong message about why they should go to law school. Practicing law should not be primarily about making money: "The best reason for a young man or woman to attend law school is the same as it was a century ago: to ably represent fellow citizens and to help the justice system work effectively."
(5) The source of current misunderstandings is the USNWR rankings, which "have encouraged many law schools to fudge numbers to keep up with their 'competitors,' by artificially inflating their statistics." Indeed, according to Dean Gormley, "several law schools have faced lawsuits and sanctions from the American Bar Association recently for playing fast-and-loose in reporting their statistics."
(6) Several Duquesne graduates have excellent jobs.
(7) These people would never have gotten these jobs if they had chased non-existent pots of gold instead of going to law school.
(8) $60,000 isn't a bad starting salary at all if you're doing socially important work like helping kids and minorities.
(9) One of the best ways to acquire vast riches in the practice of law is to start off making little money at a small firm, gain valuable experience, start one's own firm, and then rake in profits that dwarf the salaries of Ivy League swells.
(10) The key to success in law is to love what you do and work hard at it. However success should not be measured in monetary terms (although lots of lawyers do in fact make big bucks). It should be measured by the extent to which graduates contribute to "the effective functioning of the legal system."
(11) Dean Gormley notes at the end of the piece that "we are acutely aware of the onus of student loans in light of the current economic situation. Duquesne Law School has recently increased scholarship funds available to entering law students, so that those who wish to serve others through the practice of law will not be deterred from doing so due to economic barriers."
He concludes with an inspiring observation: "One can call a legal education many things: difficult, costly, rigorous. However, as long as lawyers use their talents to serve others and to bring fairness to our democratic system, obtaining a law degree will never be a bad investment."
A syllabus of the argument: Feel free to ignore specious complaints about law grads not making enough money to drive a BMW convertible a month after passing the bar. People shouldn't go to law school to make money, but keep in mind that many people who go to law school at non-Ivy League schools like Duquesne do make big money, sometimes at very sexy jobs like being president of the Pittsburgh Steelers [those of a skeptical disposition might want to check out the biography of this eminent graduate], although probably not right away. The reason why there's a problem with misleading placement statistics is because some schools fudge their numbers, but they're being punished by the judicial system and the ever-vigilant ABA. A starting salary of $60,000 is pretty good for socially important work. For some unspecified reason law school debt has become a problem, but Duquesne is addressing this by offering scholarships, which will allow people to take lower-paying but socially valuable jobs. Law school is hard and costs a lot but produces so much social goodness that it's literally impossible for it to ever be a bad investment.
A lot of things could be said about this, but I'll mention just a couple. First, Dean Gormley's argument is fantastically dishonest from beginning to end. Almost every single substantive assertion in it is either a flat-out lie or at best a grotesque distortion or oversimplification. What can one say about a law school dean at a lower-tier school who, at this particular moment, has the sheer chutzpah to argue that there's nothing wrong at all with a $60,000 starting salary for doing public interest work? Let me spell it out: THERE ARE NO JOBS LIKE THAT FOR ALMOST ANYONE NOW --and certainly not for Duquesne graduates. (The $60K figure was of course taken from a reporter's story, which in turn was lifted from the phony NALP numbers, which claim, absurdly, that the median starting salary for 2010 law grads was $63K.)
I was asked by a Wall Street Journal reporter yesterday if there's still a problem, given that prospective law students are surely aware that the real employment numbers don't look anything like what law school's advertise them as being. This question reflects the characteristic blindness of the elites (Scads of law professors are rationalizing the current situation by saying exactly the same thing right now, and they probably believe it too. This is what's going on every time some law professor points out that "The students are not blameless"). What this misses is that the average 21-year-old considering law school isn't reading the WSJ law blog, or this blog, or even Above the Law. He or she is looking at USNWR and the ABA guide, and the kid's parents are reading this kind of outrageous nonsense in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and how in the hell are they supposed to figure out this is nothing but a pack of egregious lies? Am I being "uncivil"? Do my learned colleagues think that's an "unfair" characterization of this op-ed? Then let just one of them defend one word of what this sinverguenza (look it up, it's le mot juste) is saying.
Second, how can words in any language convey adequately the sheer shamelessness of the argument that the problem with law school employment statistics is that a few bad apples out there are fudging the numbers? That is almost the precise opposite of the truth: The problem is that the official ABA-certified numbers bear no relation to reality. Has Dean Gormley read the complaints in the current suits against three law schools for advertising fraudulent employment stats? I have, and they say nothing about how these schools doing anything differently than any other ABA-accredited school in regard to how they report the employment status of their graduates. In fact I guarantee you that's going to be their primary defense: they can't have committed fraud, because if they had, that would mean every single law school in the country has committed fraud and that can't be the case because . . .
I could go on and on, but instead I'm just going to post a comment that was put on this blog a couple days ago, in an older thread, which most readers probably missed. I would pay a lot of money to watch this person cross-exam Dean Gormley under oath. I sincerely hope she (or someone) gets the chance to do so soon.
No matter how much the word gets out, apparently, it's still not enough. I have to think that, or else I don't understand the comments that deride the professor for 'assuming' that the horrible job market, the massive debt, the hopelessness of not being able to succeed in his profession and the destruction of his dreams [contributed] to Alex's death.
For those that think the professor is presumptuous for suggesting that such factors contributed to his death, you must lead a comfortable, little life, safely insulated from the recession and failure. You obviously do not know what it's like to have invested 10 years of your life to a goal that you now find out you will never reach.
You obviously don't know what it's like to have spent $150,000 to reach that goal, knowing now that you will never reach it. Note that that's not the costs of starting up your own business - it's the cost of starting up FIVE businesses - and failing, with nothing, not even experience to show for it.
You obviously don't know what it's like to painstakingly learn and stay up night after night, learning how, under enormous pressure to read, write, think, and conduct trials like a lawyer, when all that ended up being a waste of time, because you can never be one. Remembering the times when you were tired, wanted to quit - to give in, and you didn't, but that you still ended up losing anyway.
You must not know what it's like to have gone to great lengths to make something better of yourself ($150,000!) only to now realize that your day is comprised of "would you like to try that on in the dressing room?" You must not know what it's like to have a 22 year old manage you and look down on you - a 22 year old who never got an education - because she thinks you must be really stupid to have to work a $7.50 an hour retail job at your age.
And dammit, you did everything - everything you could - on a national team, on the Dean's List, an Honor's Scholar, graduated cum laude, sacrificed every last penny ($150,000!), spent months, hours every day to study for the bar (You gave EVERYTHING to take that bar - it took you half a year to come up with the money!), you worked while studying - to avoid that Wall-Mart but it was all in vain, because you will be working there the rest of your life. And asking yourself every night, "Why did I do it?" And having society look down upon you: those in the legal profession because you couldn't get in, and those not in the profession because they think education is a waste of time (and they are right.)
I envy those people who cannot see or even wonder whether those factors influenced Alex's life and death. I envy you, because you do not have to live with what so many of us have to face every day.
I, too, like Alex wanted to work in public interest. And I too, like Alex, wasted my whole life trying to do so. And now, I have to look forward to Wall-Mart every day ("Would you like to try that on in the dressing room, ma'am?")and cater to my customers, most who didn't get an education but who are much better off economically than I am and will ever be. Customers who look down on me and think I'm stupid for not getting an education or think I'm stupid for getting one, or just plain think I'm stupid for working as a sales girl at Wall-Mart.
In another life, I was something else. Every day, I try to remember what it was like when people actually asked my opinion - asked me to think. Now, they don't want me to think. My days are comprised of "would you like to try that on in a dressing room, Ma'am?" said with a phony smile while I cry on the inside at the lost opportunity.) And why all this? Because I got a legal education - the worst mistake of my life. And worst of all, knowing that my dream - to be a public interest attorney - the reason I did it all, sacrificed - is dead. Maybe it never existed.
Sign the Law School Transparency Petition.
Friday, September 16, 2011
And now a word from our sponsors
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is making me angry. Had I not logged in here, I wouldn't have read Gormley's attempt to defraud applicants (his "opinion piece" is blatant false advertising intended to mislead applicants into paying his school $130,000 of their borrowed money). I wouldn't have to get angry about the fact that this sort of fraud is allowed to go on completely unchecked. But here I am, reading this and pissed.ReplyDelete
The unapologetic attitude of law professors and administrators is down right sociopathic and psychotic. It's amazing that these people have absolutely no shame. I would die of guilt if I stole $130,000 from ONE person. I'd spend my life trying to pay it back and making up for the harm of the crime, which can never be fixed. But this guy's response is to publish advocacy pieces so he can get more victims!ReplyDelete
Thank you for posting the comment from the grad working at Wal-Mart. I missed it originally, and it's worth reading.ReplyDelete
I've emailed a couple of high-profile law bloggers to ask that they mention the petition. I will send out more such emails today.
That comment, when I first read it, almost made me cry. I posted a lengthy reply to it, and I am very glad you chose to specifically identify it in your most recent post. It captures, precisely, the nature and extent of the scam.
You are a good man.
Here is the truth about the value of a Duquesne law degree:ReplyDelete
Duquesne graduated 206 people. ONLY 27.2%, TWENTY SEVEN POINT TWO PERCENT reported a non-zero salary. 25.7% + 1.5% = 27.2%. And this is assuming the 27.2%'s numbers weren't fudged.
I hope and pray for the day that someone in a level of influence-a Dean, a Career Placement Officer at a Top Five, an Admissions Coordinator, somebody, anybody-can address this issue with something other than glibness or outright disdain.ReplyDelete
Until then, there is literally no future in the legal profession for most people who pursue a law degree.
Question: what would stop anybody on hear from just emailing Gormley and asking him (politely) to address the very real flaws in every single point he raised? Not Prof. Campos, but just John/Jane Q. Lawyer/Law Student.ReplyDelete
I get the feeling a lot of these folks in the Achiever Caste of the Legal Profession operate in an epistemically closed loop where they get almost zero negative feedback.
"what would stop anybody on hear from just emailing Gormley and asking him (politely) to address the very real flaws in every single point he raised?"ReplyDelete
Because the law school scam crowd is too meek and cowardly to do anything in the real world. You would have to find an anonymous email system.
That story is heartbreaking, particularly because it represents such a complete inversion of my experience. I was an aimless college grad working at Walmart-like jobs, then decided to go to law school and was able to turn things around; I graduated in 2004, currently make (barely) six figures and can manage my current $55K or so in debt.ReplyDelete
I didn't go to an elite school and never worked in BigLaw (thank God - I've billed enough hours doing document review to know I'd never, ever want those "prestigious" jobs), but I had some clear advantages that the commenter clearly didn't:
1. I went to law school about five years earlier, so tuition was merely expensive, not utterly beyond belief;
2. Because I came out of law school in 2004 and not 2009, I had a few years of practice under my belt before the economy cratered;
3. I didn't go to the top-tier schools I could get into, because I would have had to pay MSRP for tuition. Even back then, when tuition for most schools was $30K rather than $40K-50K, I vaguely knew that $125-150K (what it would have cost at the time to get a retail law degree) was a lot to take on;
4. I was lucky enough to have a very successful first year and retain my 100% scholarship at the third tier school I settled on, so for three years of law school my net cost in tuition was around $10,000 (100% scholarship + $5,000 stipend as a 1L, 100% scholarship as a 2L, 50% scholarship as a 3L).
Certainly the seeds of this problem were there a decade ago; although jobs weren't as hard to come by in 2004, jobs that could service the loan payments on $100-150K sometimes were, especially coming from a lower-tier school. I suspect that the only reason we didn't hear about this back then was that someone (grads, their parents, etc.) would refinance everything out of the home equity if the loan payments became unmanageable. (Remember those good old days? I know that in 2005, my main regret about going to law school was that I missed my opportunity to buy a house in Southern California before the prices doubled from 2000 to 2005. It turned out I bet right even when I thought I'd bet wrong.)
At any rate, Gormley is completely full of shit. The only question there is "stupid or evil?" and I find it extremely difficult to believe that a law school dean could be as clueless as he presents himself in his piece. Believe me - I work at a lower-tier school. Administrators know there's a tuition bubble. Gormley is simply trying to postpone the day of reckoning by saying "let them eat [$60K public interest jobs]."
Tuition and fees at Duquesne are about $33,500 per year. I'd say Gormley can buy himself a lot of BMWs with that kind of money.ReplyDelete
The comment you shared describes how many in my generation feel. I am not a law school student or graduate, though I do have a professional master degree. We worked hard, we educated ourselves, we have debt, and we find there is no place for us in society today, in America. No jobs. No respect. If we are lucky enough to have a job there's a good chance it is low wage, and demeaning, and does not challenge us or make use of our education. We look at our parents, the baby boomer generation, and feel outrage, because we know we'll never have it as good as they did. They had no student loans. Their bachelor degrees were enough to obtain fulfilling, meaningful, well-compensated employment. They will be able to retire soon. We will have none of these things.ReplyDelete
Thank you for posting this comment. Please continue to do what you have been doing. I've noticed an influx of people (or perhaps just one person) posting comments that aren't the most constructive in fostering dialogue about these issues. Though such people will inevitably exist on the periphery of most any discussions (especially the online discussions), I am encouraged by the fact that the comment count continues to grow higher. This may be a mere "comment count," but the naysayers are inevitably contributing to this blog's increasing popularity and dispersal. Their mere presence here is clear indication that you have their attention, too.ReplyDelete
What's stopping you form contacting him yourself? Unless your of the mind that he's correct. In which case . . .
"Gormley is simply trying to postpone the day of reckoning by saying "let them eat [$60K public interest jobs].""ReplyDelete
That is a potentially effective slogan.
@7:50 I sent him an email calling him dishonest. Felt good.ReplyDelete
Does someone who works at Walmart every day spell it Wall-Mart?ReplyDelete
I just sent him an email as well.ReplyDelete
Pennsylvania Consumer Protection ActReplyDelete
73 PS section 201-1-201-9.2
Deceptive practices prohibited:
Representing that . . . services have . . . characteristic, . . . uses, benefits . . . that they do not have . . . .
Representing that . . . services are of a particular standard, quality or grade . . ., if they are of another;
Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.
Sue the Bastards! Take their money! It is the only thing Deans and their minions understand . . . loss of money. I really believe plaintiffs can win many of these cases---show that the student relied upon false employment numbers to go into $150K debt and I think that student will win.
Corporations (and that is what these "non-profit" institutions are) understand and care about one thing and one thing only: the loss of money. If the cost of business as usual becomes too high, they will stop doing the thing that is costing them money.
Look, I'm not some consumer affairs specialist, but I know how to interpret a statute and most of you folks do too. Look at these statutes---there is hope found within them.
Good for you! You know what else would feel good to send? A civil complaint listing about ten students as plaintiffs and his name as defendant with a summons attached to it suing for damages under the PA consumer protection act.
It was spelled Wal-Mart until a few years ago.ReplyDelete
@8:43 True, but it was never spelled Wall-MartReplyDelete
Would you be willing to share the contents of your email? (Identity redacted, of course).
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think everybody is missing the point here. We just need to relax, and go out and get these socially important sixty thousand dollar a year jobs. Why is everybody stressing? It couldn't be any easier.ReplyDelete
Why would a PI org pay 60K to hire a law student when they could take on a deferred BIGLAW associate for free?ReplyDelete
Where in the country can a median Duquesne student get a 60K PI job? Not everyone at a T14 school wants to do biglaw.
We need to have some sort of listserv where whenever one of these admins or profs writes some stupid op-ed their inbox will be flooded with emails responding point-by-point to their rhetoric.
@ 8:46. No, it was never spelled that. Most likely just s typo. God knows there are plenty of them on this and other Internet threads.ReplyDelete
"Lawyers should seek justice, not riches"ReplyDelete
How much do you make in a year, Dean Gormley?
@9:00. Embrace the obvious. The post was a fake. It was misspelled several times.ReplyDelete
9:05: Did it occur to you that someone in the poster's position is probably using Wal-Mart as a shorthand for the kind of job she actually works? After all I'm sure she doesn't want to get fired -- she can't afford to.ReplyDelete
Yeah Walmart doesn't have dressing rooms. She probably works at Macy's or something. P.S. 9:05 = Brian Leiter.ReplyDelete
Wouldn't it be great if the law school scam community was such that the Duquesne dean had 1,000 emails, some threatening lawsuits using the law that TDennis found above? Alas we're no such thing.
I find myself torn. I absolutely agree that law schools should be brought to task for their dishonesty and price-gouging. On the other hand, the amount of self-pity on this blog is grating. I'll buy that a 21-year-old isn't entirely to blame for being bamboozled by the law school scam. But a 31 year old who decides his/her life is over because she's in debt and her lawyer dreams haven't worked out so far is to blame for that attitude. Read something by Elie Wiesel and then tell me how terrible your life is. For god's sake, take some responsibility for your own life and try to turn it around. Start a solo practice or a business. Write a book. Go back to school for something you love and put those student loans in abeyance. Figure out something you like, something you're good at, and do it. I'm not diminishing the impact of the debt millstone (as a recent law grad I certainly have one), but last time I checked we don't have debtor's prisons. That debt will make things harder, true, but your life is not over until you say it is.ReplyDelete
@ 9:05. Sorry, I hadn't noticed it was spelled that way twice.ReplyDelete
9:17: "Law School: Not as Bad as Auschwitz"ReplyDelete
Now there's a snappy recruiting slogan.
"Start a solo practice or a business. Write a book. Go back to school for something you love and put those student loans in abeyance. Figure out something you like, something you're good at, and do it."ReplyDelete
You're an idiot 9:17, a damn idiot. What part of no money DON'T you understand?
In my opinion, a Wall-Mart working, indebted, no chance of a legal career law school grad should not go back to school (need I say why?), and they should not try to get a loan to start a business (lol!), nor should they write a book (most books don't get published).ReplyDelete
What they should do is pick up a picket sign, and a drum set, head down to their law school and harass those bastards with all the noise and shame they can muster.
Be careful with your language 9:23, tdennis doesn't like it and LawProf may censor you for it.ReplyDelete
9:27 = law professor trying to derail the discussion.ReplyDelete
Hilariously, pathetically predictable. All you needed to tell me is that a Dean from a law school was commenting on the current situation and I could have written down word for word what he/she would say. Its like talking points from a political campaign.ReplyDelete
There was a story in the NY Times or WSJ last year about the govt removing the banks as useless middle men for federal loans and the guy in charge of managing financial aid at Yale was quoted as saying that they needed to keep banks involved because they offered more variety in the services they provide (?!?!?!)...something to that effect. I decided to email and tell him how clueless he was and bad the situation was. He just got hysterical and threatened me to inform me to the authorities. I gave him my bar number and told him to go ahead. These people are useless hypocrites who need to be confronted on a daily basis.
Somebody needs to compile a list of everybody who graduated in certain years--2007, 2008, 2009, etc. Get all the names of the graduates and then start contacting them all and seeing where they are, how much debt they have, and where they work. Even if you couldn't reach or receive responses for everybody you would still probably get a lot of meaningful statistics.ReplyDelete
My guess is that you would have the OPPOSITE of what law schools report. E.g. you would maybe hear from 30-40% of the graduating class, and 95% of those 30-40% who report would be employed in non-legal jobs and/or would be drowning in debt with part-time legal work or their own solo shop.
No 9:32, calling out derailers =/ derailing. And calling me a law professor is the nastiest thing you can say to me so Im truly offended. The only thing worse is if you called me a middle aged school-marm atty who likes to tell people how to behave/talk based on middlebrow values.ReplyDelete
Apparently the Duquesne dean has been sued by three women over sexual harassment. The cases all settled or were dismissed, but where there's smoke . . .ReplyDelete
stfu already 9:40, damn.ReplyDelete
"Somebody needs to compile a list of everybody who graduated in certain years--2007, 2008, 2009, etc. Get all the names of the graduates and then start contacting them all and seeing where they are, "ReplyDelete
That's what I wrote, and publish it on a website. The problem is the law school scam community is always asking Mr. or Ms. Somebody to do it. But who will actually do it?
For Student Borrowers, a Hard TruthReplyDelete
More people are defaulting on their student loans -- and discovering the consequences are far-reaching.
The consequences of a default are disastrous. There may not be debtor's prison, but you won't be able to rent an apartment, have a credit card or even have a checking account (they can put a lien on any account you open to get 100% of the non-wage money that is deposited into it). Not to mention the illegal harassment by debt collectors.ReplyDelete
"stfu"?? How dare you use such language? Don;t you know we have outsiders reading? We need their help too?!?!? tdennis time to get on this guy pronto with a stern lecture.ReplyDelete
I may have missed this in earlier posts, but what is the reason for the 300-plus % increase in law school tuition over the past 10-15 years?ReplyDelete
9:46 you have problems. go away.ReplyDelete
9:43 - damn. A slimy weasel all the way around.ReplyDelete
Here we go again . . . @9.40 - Are you the same BIGLAW guy as on the other thread? If you are, please tell me, why do you post here when you cannot even take a view on whether law schools should release the data Campos was demanding that they should?ReplyDelete
@9.38 - Yeah, it would be the opposite in many ways. When people receive an email from the alma mater's careers department they're likely to give a rosey take on their present circumstances. When they get an email from a friend directed to gathering evidence to warn others, the bias is, if there is any, likely to be the other way.
"I may have missed this in earlier posts, but what is the reason for the 300-plus % increase in law school tuition over the past 10-15 years?"ReplyDelete
Deans who want to be paid like big company CEOs, hugely expensive new buildings and amenities, law professors who want to make biglaw salaries for working a few hours a week, undergrad affiliate universities who demand 25% of the tuition, easy student loans + lack of options other than getting more degrees (see offshored economy) . . . I could go on.
9:48 - please stfu and distracting from the discussion.ReplyDelete
9:40/9:46 is a person who wants to derail the discussion onto his trolling. Please ignore him.ReplyDelete
No FOARP biglaw is me at 9:37. Get a life.ReplyDelete
9:51 - stop derailing the discussion. you won't stop will you? You need to learn how to ignore.ReplyDelete
This is the problem with internet activism, one troll can completely take over the discussion. Do you think 9:27/9:40/9:46/9:51 could do this if you were protesting in real life? No, that coward wouldn't dare show his face. But sadly the law school scam community itself is too cowardly to fight in the real world. That's why we sit here having flame wars with this person, and that's why this movement will never get anywhere.ReplyDelete
I e-mailed the Dean:ReplyDelete
Dear Dean Gormley,
I am a recent law school graduate for whom obtaining a law degree was without a doubt a bad investment.
I graduated from NYU in 2008, landed a $160k job at an AmLaw 200 firm, and in 2009 I was laid off after just 14 months on the job. I have now been unemployed for 22 months, having only been able to find a few freelance writing positions from time to time.
Despite my academic pedigree, I am unable to find work at even a midsized or small law firm, or at consulting firms, or in contract administration, or as a compliance officer, or in procurement, or with non-profits, or even with the JAG. The $60,000 jobs where you get to make a meaningful contribution to society seem like a pipe dream when one is routinely rejected from jobs paying less than half that amount.
Even though I have made a significant dent in my law school debt, I still owe $149,000, and when my car finally dies (not a BMW, but a Mazda I started driving as a junior in high school) I suspect my employment opportunities may become much worse.
It's easy to look at your successful alumni, the judges, and law firm partners, and business leaders, and see how a law school education can pay off. But, to assert that "obtaining a law degree will never be a bad investment" requires looking at the losers, not the winners. Can you honestly look at the people who are using their legal education to work as a paralegal, or to code documents in a windowless e-discovery firm, or to fold shirts at The Gap, and tell them that their six-figure debt was not a bad investment?
Good for you BL1Y. Good email. It's true, even an HYS degree is near worthless once the biglaw gig is over.ReplyDelete
You know, halfway through my master's in IP, a prominent partner at a major firm came to speak to us. He flat-out told us that the majority of us would not - statistically could not - land a job in the field that we were studying because there simply weren't that many places open.ReplyDelete
A lot of my classmates were in deep shock, as we felt we had been talked down to. Afterwards, however, everyone discovered that he had in fact been telling the truth, the only person who really did during that time. Were I to see him again I would not hesitate to shake his hand, even though I managed to be relatively successful despite the odds.
Perhaps it is asking too much to expect Ken Gormley to show that kind of honesty, but at least he could refrain from throwing out misleading statistics like the ones quoted.
I find myself torn. I absolutely agree that law schools should be brought to task for their dishonesty and price-gouging. On the other hand, the amount of self-pity on this blog is grating.ReplyDelete
You're going to get slammed for this post, but I can't help but agree with you. There's a difference, though, between the folks advocating for some meaningful action and those who just come here to piss and moan anonymously.
There's something wonderfully cathartic about just letting rip with complaints, but in the end it does you no good. Nobody likes whining, and so it takes a deft hand to directly and clearly present your criticisms without sounding like a whiner. [I should note that Professor Campos clearly has such a "deft hand" although many commenters here do not]
What they should do is pick up a picket sign, and a drum set, head down to their law school and harass those bastards with all the noise and shame they can muster.
I don't know about the drum set, but I'd love to see someone in a "hobo" outfit, or wearing a barrel-with-shoulder-straps standing in front of the law school holding a sign that says, "I went to Duquesne Law School and all I got was this worthless JD".
9:17: "Law School: Not as Bad as Auschwitz"
Now there's a snappy recruiting slogan.
There's a sort of reverse-Godwins-law wherein sooner or later someone in any online discussion will say "well its not as bad as Somalia" or "well compared to Anne Frank you're doing great". It's an unfortunate choice of metaphor because it encourages the readers to immediately dismiss the content of a post that might otherwise be making an entirely valid point: your circumstances may be miserable, but they can only make you miserable if you let them.
"It's easy to look at your successful alumni"ReplyDelete
FYI his comment about the head of the Steelers is a laugh. The owner, Art Rooney II, is the grandson of Art Rooney who was the original owner, who handed the team to his son Dan Rooney, who handed it to his son Art Rooney II. The Duquesne JD had nothing to do with getting that job.
"A lot of my classmates were in deep shock, as we felt we had been talked down to. Afterwards, however, everyone discovered that he had in fact been telling the truth, the only person who really did during that time. Were I to see him again I would not hesitate to shake his hand, even though I managed to be relatively successful despite the odds."ReplyDelete
Fair, but to quote Adam Sandler, "SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION YESTERDAY (yesterday being during 0L)"
@10:00: I remember seeing one of those "what you can do with a law degree" articles that cited someone becoming the manager of an MLB team.ReplyDelete
I didn't disclose that he had previously been a pro ball player. I looked further in to it and in fact every single MLB manager who'd been to law school also had previously been a pro ball player. For that position, the law degree probably did give them a leg up. After all, most retired ball players don't become managers. But, law schools really to fetishize the education and think that any success you have afterwards is because of the law degree - to the exclusion of other influences.
But, law schools really to fetishize the education and think that any success you have afterwards is because of the law degree - to the exclusion of other influences.ReplyDelete
You know, that's probably one of the most apt ways I've ever heard that described.
When you look at the pieces of what you actually do in law school, there is quite literally NOTHING there you couldn't get somewhere else.
Discussion in crim law class? Take an undergraduate criminal justice class or an upper level undergraduate Ethic in the Law class.
Seminar on "Law and"? Go get a Master's degree.
Clinic work? Go do paralegal work or get a job working for the courts.
Off the top of my head I can think of quite literally nothing that law school provides (aside from the required credential to sit for the bar) which is truly unique to law school.
BL1Y, don't forget that UCLA head football coach Rick Neuheisal also has a law degree (from USC IIRC). Clearly law graduates need to think a little more outside the box.ReplyDelete
Yeah. To be fair a law degree isn't a terrible thing to get if you are about to be given a great management job. You don't really need one because you can hire a good lawyer to advise you, but it's good to know the law too.ReplyDelete
BL1Y you are a fortunate addition to the law school scam movement. I wonder if there are other bright and talented top school grads who now, due to having their expected 5 year to partnership biglaw career cut short, find themselves in the shoes of a low school grad who could help too.
9:17, that's probably the most worthless comment I've ever seen on this blog. Worse than the bench press guy.ReplyDelete
"Figure out something you like, something you're good at, and do it."
What worthless, obnoxious drivel. You can't give any examples of good areas for young people to enter into that will provide middle class lives, so you just say "figure it out." Thanks, that's helpful. You're basically telling people who have been defrauded to "just get over it, man!" Why should they? Why shouldn't they "get over it" only after the hucksters and scam artists are broken and/or in prison?
"Fair, but to quote Adam Sandler, "SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION YESTERDAY""ReplyDelete
Yup. When we took what the senior partner had said up with our administrators, they simply stuck to their guns as to the figures as they saw them (figures which we latter found out included those who took further higher education, and those in jobs that had nothing to do with law). I somehow doubt he was ever called back to speak again.
Guys like Gormley have said the variation of the same thing for years....thats what blood sucking vampire squids do (shout out to Taibbi). And while sending him emails pointing out what a slimy, lying, heartless guy he is feels good and I really hope to read some sort of response for entertainment's sake well, slimy, lying, heartless guys tend not to give a shit.ReplyDelete
Sadly I don't even think the press shedding light on the situation would change things all that much (there were a bunch of exposes on the for profit universities and last time I checked the University of Phoenix was still in business).
It really does look like there needs to be some sort of violent protest, a la London, to get people to do the right thing. Getting an intractable, immovable power base that feeds so many people is not an easy thing to do.
"slimy, lying, heartless guys tend not to give a shit."ReplyDelete
What's Gromley's academic work about? He wrote an attention whoring book about Bill Clinton. That's a great way to get your name into the media and such, again great way to flame on the national stage. But the problem is who is going to pay you $350,000 per year to write that book? Poor kids who borrowed tuition money that they will have to pay back via Wall-Mart salaries, that's who.ReplyDelete
LawProf, I hope you write a book..Please write a book that will be required reading for anyone thinking of Law School... Please use the post from the struggling young lady who works at Wal-Mart. Please do not stop bringing to everyone's attention the bombastic, unthinking article by Prof Gormley...ReplyDelete
There are quite a few working young Lawyers who believe that the situation is not as bad as some are making it to be...
As I stated ALL of the students who graduated in 2008 & 2009 from the University of Michigan are all employed and most of them are working long hard hours for "Big Law"...They talk about the "stress".. "Billable Hours" & such and they have no idea of the many graduates who are REALLY suffering!.. One just told me that she is so busy that she has not been on Facebook in months...
I have sent this Blog to many and asked them to be Standard Bearers for the Movement and as soon as they start with the "I am so busy" line, I remind them of the thousands of Lawyers who were relieved from there jobs these 5 years and
some of them are still hunting for jobs... I remind them that could be them if this problem is not rectified... It is now making them scared... I know what is going on is not our fault, but I hope our conscious is bothered enough that we all do something about this...
Got a response from Gormley:ReplyDelete
"I am sorry to hear about your plight. I understand there are situations like yours, and that there are pitfalls involved with joining every profession. I suppose my principal point was this: It is unfair and inaccurate to suggest (as the original PG story did) that if one does not attend a “top ten” law school it is a waste of time. I appreciate your taking the time to write, and I hope positive opportunities come your way soon. Ken"
I suppose the malls will be hiring more people as the holiday season approaches...
"It is unfair and inaccurate to suggest (as the original PG story did) that if one does not attend a “top ten” law school it is a waste of time."ReplyDelete
No one said it was a waste of time. They said it was an imprudent, a highly reckless actually, risk that should and would be avoided if schools did not put out false advertising such as that oped.
Lets see if he sends the same response to Bryan.
Excellent letter Bryan, "Panglossian boosterism" was the highlight for me.ReplyDelete
No Gormley, the real "waste of time" was that response. Reply and ask him about the 27% employment numbers cited above for his school and just how many students have scholarships and what the average amount of loans his students take out. I'm willing to bet that a 60 grand a year job does not cover the monthly payment on a standard student loan repayment schedule.ReplyDelete
Come on people, you have email addresses and can send your own communiques, rather than asking BL1Y to be your courier.ReplyDelete
Bryan: Didn't know we were acquainted.ReplyDelete
10:42 - but he has such a lovely little relationship growing. And please post the email you sent.ReplyDelete
The blog Edububble did some preliminary work on studying Duke's stellar 100% stat. Naturally a quick scan of LinkedIn shows that it wasn't true:
@10:42: If someone asked me to be their courier, I missed it. If you're responding to Bryan, I think he meant that I inspired him to write in. I think quoting me in his letter was probably a mistake though. Easier to blow off what looks like a concerted effort, looks like astro turfing.ReplyDelete
LawProf, I am curious to know how the petition signatures are coming along. I commend you for your blog and am weighing whether or not to sign your petition. I work at a law school and see so many things that anger me and that are related to the issues you bring to light. But my position at the law school is a lowly one (basically glorified staff position) and I fear recrimination. I can't afford to lose my job in this economy. What else could I do besides sign the petition?? (Btw, I earn less than 35K, which is still a lot more than the admin assistants here - who work extremely hard, five days a week, 8 hours a day, for maybe 25K. Meanwhile, the salaries of rock star law professors who are often never even here make me want to throw up.)ReplyDelete
@11:02 can you give us some insight on some of the worst things you see/have to deal with when it comes to the issues raised here? Would love it of you did a guest post about what you experience from the inside.ReplyDelete
11:02, are you at a public university? How do you know the salaries of others who work at your school?ReplyDelete
11:02, I'm getting a big response from lawyers and law students, plus a few signatures from law school faculty. Next week I'm going to email the administrations of all the ABA schools and ask them to distribute the petition to their faculties. Those that decline to do so will have their faculty solicited directly.ReplyDelete
BL1Y: Easier to blow off what looks like a concerted effort, looks like astro turfing.ReplyDelete
Fair point. I was giving you a nod because the ¶ was so perfectly written I couldn't help but use it.
Also, 11:02 if you want to do a guest post email me.ReplyDelete
Critical mass is approaching. Momentum is building.ReplyDelete
@ Anonymous 9:49:ReplyDelete
I think a lot of people are missing the real reason for the tuition bubble, and I believe the "blame it on the evil people" meme is contributing to this.
There are two problems with blaming the individuals propping up an unjust system: (a) it seems unlikely that all the deans/administrators are drastically worse people now than they were, say, 20 to 30 years ago, and (b) even if it's true, it's not helpful. See, e.g., the response to the financial crisis on Wall Street - most Americans just bought into the "Wall Street is full of bad and greedy people" meme, which allows the system to move forward without major change, while everyone focuses on getting the "bad apples." (See also: Abu Ghraib and the American torture policy during the Bush administration.)
Instead of saying the tuition bubble came about because deans and professors are greedy,* let's look at the root causes. Not to get all "law and economics" on everyone, but people respond to incentives. What are the incentives that have caused this? As I see it, there are two big ones:
1. The uber-importance of the U.S. News rankings, and schools' realization that it was possible to game the system. There's blame to go around on this one, from the 0Ls who think there's a huge difference between the #40 and the #50 schools (or the #25 and #100 for that matter), to the hiring partners who for some reason think that a mediocre student from a top-tier school is preferable to a superstar from a low-ranked school, to the schools who made a deal with the devil to get their numbers up.
One of the most effective ways for schools to rise in the rankings is to start throwing money around. There are so many areas where this matters; take a look at the rankings and their methodology sometime, and think to yourself "if I had unlimited money, would it be possible to change this factor to favor my school?" The answer is yes in so many instances; as a result, a lot of deans decided to raise their schools in the rankings and pass the cost along to the incoming 0Ls.
This, in my view, is the main reason for the tuition bubble.
2. The 2005 law preventing (in most cases) student loans from being discharged in bankruptcy. Normally, the upward pressure on tuition created by #1 above would be counteracted by private lenders' unwillingness to loan money that would obviously never be repaid.
However, when the Bush administration pushed through this incredibly lender-friendly law, the lenders realized that student loans basically constituted a license to print free money. Notice that, starting in 2005, there was an enormous uptick in everything student loan-related, including the rise of the for-profit institution. (You think law schools are bad? Those for-profit schools raping combat veterans are even worse, although usually somewhat less expensive.)
Thus, there are systemic upward pressures on tuition and no countervailing force to limit them. Hence: the tuition bubble. It's really pretty simple.
Now, as for how to burst the bubble with a minimal amount of upheaval - well, if I could solve that, I'd have a law review article of my own. :-)
* - That's not to say they aren't greedy. I'm a contract faculty member at a lower-tier school, so believe me - I'm hardly one to defend tenured professors as a group, many of whom are horrible people. It's just that it's not particularly helpful to the reform movement to focus on individuals.
@ 11:07: I also work at a public law school as staff and I make $23k. I have a master's degree. The janitors at this law school make more than I do. In my state, salaries of public employees are public information, and are available online through a searchable database. Universities also publish, in hard copy, their operating budgets and salaries are also included in these. At the university where I work, anyone can view this material in the main campus library.ReplyDelete
"The janitors at this law school make more than I do."ReplyDelete
Once again reaffirming the "manual labor union types get well paying jobs because they have the balls to demand it where as bookish nerds do not" hypothesis.
@ 11:34 That is what I figured. You must be at a public university to know this information with any degree of certainty.ReplyDelete
Oh I know because all those bookish nerd quants on wall street and the bookish nerds in silicone valley get paid so poorly. Your constant theme is tiresome....go out, get some fresh air, think up new thoughts.ReplyDelete
@ 11:38, I apologize to the group, I did not mean to feed this troll. Janitors at this school do not belong to unions. I am in a right to work state, and I can assure you, there are no "manual labor union types" with "balls" out on the streets demanding anything. Not in this state.ReplyDelete
Thanks for your reply, LawProf, and also 11:05 and 11:07. Yes, I am at a public university, and I have not tried to delve into salary figures (though I'm sure they are public record); it's just that you pick up info from talking to people, etc. LawProf, I'm thrilled to hear you are going to send the petition to the administrations of all ABA schools for distribution to faculties. Will you email just the dean of the law school, or maybe all of the deans/administrators at each school? I think if you email all of them (though much more work on your part), it will surely come up at one of the dean meetings. I would guess that at the law school where I work, there are at least one or two deans who are very sympathetic to the issues you raise and would like a chance to discuss them. If all of the deans have heard from you, there is a much better chance that it *will* be discussed, whereas if you just email THE dean, she/he could easily ignore it.ReplyDelete
Yes, I would like to describe a few of the things that I have seen/experienced. But I need to think on it a bit, so as not to shoot from the hip too much (some things are just really disgusting, but I need to filter my reaction through the lens of what this blog, and LawProf's petition, are trying to accomplish.)
Can it be argued that Academia is the modern day Religion? In old times people used to pay indulgences to the church in order to ensure a better after life. The church would do this with no accountability nor any tangible product (other than a "you are going to heaven" card), and essentially was taking advantage of people's faith and desires. Meanwhile Academia seems to have developed a similar business model, only instead of promising a fantastic after life, academia instead promises a more successfully, fulfilling, and meaningful existence during your time on Earth. Yet Academia similarly preys on people's hopes and dreams, without any accountability nor tangible property (other than coincidentally a piece of paper as well). I believe that Academia could serve a valuable service towards society. However, (speaking directly to law school) I feel it is a complete waste of time to read cases, outline, regurgitate every 3 months on a random fact pattern, get zero feedback from professors, and then take a bar exam and magically I am now a lawyer. I feel that if i had just studied the Barbri materials for 6 months after high school that I could have passed a bar exam. The only thing law school taught me (other than my legal writing and trial advocacy classes) was how to outline and memorize random material that I won't use 99% of.ReplyDelete
"It is difficult for a man to understand that which his salary depends upon him not understanding."ReplyDelete
I think that describes the law school deans perfectly.
Hey, imagine one of us is handed a $350k per year job to be the Dean of a TTT. Would we not take it? I'd have a hard time turnind it down. I wouldn't publish op-eds and would try to keep my eye off the employment numbers fraud, but hey that's a lot of moolah.ReplyDelete
"Your article singing the praises of a law school education ranged between disingenuousness and bald-faced lies. Were I to make representations to the court or to opposing counsel at the level of factual distortion in your article, I would rightly be censured."
No, you would be disbarred. I had lunch day before yesterday with a state court of appeals judge who told me about an attorney appearing before his panel who knowingly lied about the facts of the case. The panel turned the matter over to the TN Board of Professional Responsibility. They disbarred him.
Therefore, it is possible that if Dean Gorley made the statements he made in the Pittsburgh Gazette under oath, and the opposing lawyer proved he knowingly fabricated them (not hard to imagine), he too, could be referred for disbarment proceedings . . . that is if he is actually licensed to practice law.
@Count of Monte Cristo (assuming I got the reference right):ReplyDelete
I'm going to be really disappointed if I die and find that the Koran was publishing inflated virgin numbers.
"there are pitfalls involved with joining every profession"ReplyDelete
Tell me Dean Gorley, when you tout your 90%+ employment statistics in your shiny brochures and web page is there an asterisk by them that says "there are pitfalls involved with joining every profession, but you probably need not worry because if your degree is from this institution there is only a 2.5 in 10 chance that you will ever join the law or any other profession"?
Just asking . . no, I didn't think so.
I would love to hear a law school dean say this in court, when he is named in a lawsuit for fraudulent and deceptive practices:
"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, its really not my fault that I took advantage of all these naive, young people willing to mortgage their soul for a shot at the American Dream---US News and World Report made me do it. Besides, I think you should hold us law school deans to the same ethical standards exercised by the people that run the University of Phoenix."
If I represented the plaintiff law students, that explanation would make me really happy.
Ya actually it's more like an old divorcee who is in credit card debt and is upside down on her mortgage and she has 3 younger kids = virgins; just like 99% employment after 9 months median salary $60k = living at home in the parents basement working as a clerk at Ralph's and doing "doc review" for free during the evenings
Please e-mail Gormley your thoughts on his article and encourage others to do the sameReplyDelete
Once there are enough graduates who are either 1) solo lawyers or members of firms that don't give a fuck, 2) out of law and who realize they will never get in, then a lot of people will write letters like the above. And once we get a critical mass of letters it will be impossible for the administrators and deans to coem down against everyone. So you'll see more current students, biglaw attorneys, and people who think they have something to lose joining in.ReplyDelete
Sorry but nothing is going to make them stop until the money goes away or laws are changed. Simple as that. Years after our economy almost imploded thanks to unregulated bank gambling they are back to the same old same old. This story is as old as the history of the world.ReplyDelete
A real protest would get them to change, but a real protest will never happen.ReplyDelete
Ow! Stop beating me!ReplyDelete
11:29 here. Yeah, certainly I agree that the deans are a really long way from blameless - particularly deans such as Gormley who are flat-out lying in op-eds. (I suppose he might be able to argue that he actually has no clue what things are like outside his office, but of course if that's so he is woefully unqualified for his job.)
It's more that I don't want to see "blame it on the deans" as the overwhelming narrative, because that inhibits real reform - if the deans are the problem then maybe new, better deans will allow the system to avoid major changes. Thus, blaming a few low-level idiots at Abu Ghraib allowed us to keep on torturing people, and blaming a few Bernie Madoffs have allowed Wall Street to continue operating with basically no oversight.
The deans may be bad people - Gromley almost certainly is, for one - but that's ultimately irrelevant.
I think you make an excellent point. There is rotteness about the whole system. For instance, the ABA. Could this system perpetuate itself without the aid and comfort of the ABA and their accreditation practices? I think not.
Thank you for helping me think of the problem in a more expansive way.
I doubt Bloomberg is talking about the 20 something educated crowd, though.
It's comforting yet still very discerning to hear other licensed lawyers going through the grind like me. I haven't been able to find an attorney job in almost a year now. I've been working the night shift at a shipping warehouse to supplant whatever earnings I thought I'd be making as a law school graduate. The hours are flexible and gives me the opportunity to search and interview for jobs during the day. Plus, it's less likely people who know me will see me doing this kind of work. Only very few of my closest friends and family know I'm there. When I hear stories of Alex, it's hard to ignore in the back of my mind that the many tribulations he faced are similar to mine.ReplyDelete
In my opinion, new and "better" deans will not help the situation. I am guessing that in most places, the buck does not stop with the dean. The dean most likely answers to the university president and/or the board of trustees(directors).
Professor William Henderson on a past article wrote about someone who accepted a deanship at a law school. The dean entered the position determined to change the system and stop the gaming. However, the dean soon found out that there was a harsh cost for his principles. He will have to deal with angry students, faculty and alumni who don't give two shits about morality while the rankings slide. The good faculty will leave and so will the smart students. The rule is basically: play the game or die.
I think any law school dean should honestly tell starry-eyed 1Ls at orientation that it is very likely that unless the students are in law school for the right reasons, they should leave immediately.
The rule is basically: play the game or die.ReplyDelete
Exactly. This is why it's crucial (as The Petition demands) that new, full disclosure rules come from the ABA. Every school needs to be compelled to make the same changes at the same time. Otherwise, the honest ones (if any) will be unfairly punished by a rankings drop while the dishonest ones will reap a windfall of a rankings boost.
2:21, what does a shipping warehouse night job pay?ReplyDelete
Prof. Campos -- One suggestion: Maybe you should give The Petition a title, so that people can refer to it by name rather than as "Prof. Campos's petition" or the like. In addition to increasing convenience, this might help in overcoming the resistance of some people (such as Prof. Horwitz) who seem to have objections to other things you've posted but not to The Petition itself.ReplyDelete
A possible title: "The Law School Disclosure Petition"
Here's a man who mattersReplyDelete
(not saying anyone should repeat exactly his form of protest)
Partner X: Good suggestion.ReplyDelete
Gormley's cluelessness and/or arrogance is astounding. I just looked at Duquesne's recruiting materials for prospective students (called, amusingly enough, their "prospectus"). There are pages and pages of photos and bios of their most successful alumni--with no mention of how they had to work for years at low wages (if that was true in their day). The clear message of the prospectus is: 90% of our grads are employed within 6 months of graduation, and these are the kind of jobs they get.ReplyDelete
"called, amusingly enough, their "prospectus""ReplyDelete
Dear Professor. If you really want to help those hit hard by the law school scam who are drowning in hundreds of thousands in student loan debt with no hope for legal employment (or any employment) in the foreseeable future, then enlist in the fight to change the BK laws. Afterall, both federal and private student loan debt was dischargeable in BK prior to the late 1990s and 2005. If ever there was a time to enable student loan debt dischargability is is now.ReplyDelete
10:20, moveon is handling that. There's a petition. Don't be an ingrate.ReplyDelete
I came across the blog linked below that pointed out the dismal job prospects for lawyers back in January 2008. People starting law school in 2007/2008 probably thought the economy would have bounced back by now.ReplyDelete
"called, amusingly enough, their "prospectus""ReplyDelete
This sounds as stupid as the Cooley ranking system and should definitely be used against them when the lawyers eventually go after DU.
This is what I sent earlier today.ReplyDelete
I am a former law student that read your article entitled "The law school numbers game" and felt the urge to address some points you asserted.
To start, it is imperative that you realize the extent of the situation that law schools have collectively fostered and exacerbated. The problems associated with massive student loan debt and unemployment do not begin and end with law schools obviously, but law schools are certainly among the most significant contributors. The situation is as such Dean Gormley; young men and women of intelligence are being led towards disillusionment with authority, endless despair that sometimes develops into mental disorders for which there is no money to seek medical attention, restructuring of familial and societal choices that will detrimentally reshape this country, and in some cases, suicide. I noted that the comments in your article failed to address any of these extremely serious issues.
With that said, some of the specific comments you make in your article are nothing short of either shameless misrepresentation or self-serving lies. The mere fact that you believe that the majority of law students are turning down or not pursuing employment as JAG attorneys or any other related legal job that pays within the vicinity of $60,000 per year clearly displays your willful disregard for alleviating the very situation described above and effectively performs the function of insulting the intelligence of law students as a whole. In addition, you mention that a graduate of your law school is employed as the president of the Pittsburgh Steelers while another is an executive at a major corporation, etc. In the process, you neglect to mention their background prior to law school. This is misrepresentation of the legal opportunities that your law school affords it's students and a classic rehash of the "just work hard and you'll get there" mantra that has been quickly evaporating as more student loans are going into default and the economy, especially the legal economy, continues to flatter. (http://www.smartmoney.com/borrow/student-loans/for-student-borrowers-a-hard-truth-1316118955339/?grcc=88888&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_personalfinance).
It is simply a sad state of affairs when students cannot even trust educational institutions anymore, the supposed bastions of truth and understanding. From what I have been able to discern, you provide little truth and lack even a barebones understanding of the the serious dilemmas facing recent law graduates. I sincerely hope that you understand the weight of your actions and the true extent of the detriment schools, including your own, are sowing upon the future of this country. It is apparent to many, myself included, that somewhere along the vast meandering journey of life, you lost a fragment of your humanity and are now a vessel for the immorality that law schools hypocritically condemn.