Law schools, however, have not rushed to embrace the request for more detail.
Susan Westerberg Prager, executive director of the Association of American Law Schools, said in an interview Wednesday that she had not studied the proposal of the Law School Transparency group enough to know whether it was a good one.
"It certainly is important that we try to work toward having fairly reported information out there," she said. "I think that one of the big issues here is how do we build frameworks that people can rely on and that are fair ones."
Prager said that much of the anger that is prompting the lawsuits is a result of the bad economy. "We are in a very dramatic and sustained downturn," she said.
While Prager said she can understand the frustration of some recent graduates, she said that she worried that the criticisms being made imply that only full-time work for a law firm was being viewed as an appropriate outcome of a law school education.
"Some people employed part-time may have personal circumstances, such as having a child," she said. Others may find a law degree an asset for careers in government, business or elsewhere, she said. Prager said she objected to the idea that "unless your job is in a law practice, it's not valuable."
Prager stressed that law school leaders want their institutions to be honest with potential applicants about the job market and about all aspects of legal education. "We are very concerned about the need for institutions like ours to reinforce the ethical frameworks that are involved here," she said.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Submitted without comment:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Oh good grief. Nothing but straw men arguments and avoiding the issue. No one is claiming that employment at a business or government isn't a good career. Nor did she make any attempt to reconcile the price of law school with the outcomes it produces for it's students.ReplyDelete
" . . . not studied the proposal of the Law School Transparency group enough to know whether it was a good one"ReplyDelete
And, pray-tell, just how long does that take? I mean, the relevant section of the proposal is about a couple of pages long - but then I guess law school deans aren't used to reading documents and providing comments on them.
"Susan Westerberg Prager, executive director of the Association of American Law Schools"ReplyDelete
IOW, a shill for the law-school industry.
Plus, for anyone wondering about the justification behind high tuition fees, this resignation letter from Dean Closius at the University of Baltimore lays out in graphic detail exactly what happens to the tuition fees paid by law students there:ReplyDelete
Re: Progress and Regress.ReplyDelete
It's all progress in the sense that you are dealing with unconscionable criminals with zero sense of shame, who couldn't give a crap how many petitions, news articles, lawsuits or other paperwork appears against them -- so long as they're getting their money. See e.g. the ABA committee (filled with TTT deans) that recently voted to CHANGE THE RULES TO MAKE THINGS WORSE, by no longer distinguishing between legal/nonlegal and full/parttime jobs when reporting employment data.
How is this progress? Because at some point - hopefully - at some point you people are going to realize what type of person you're dealing with and you will take it to the next level.
Until these Deans are forced to use security guards to physically beat and abuse protesters (and please don't think they'll have any qualms about that) in front of media cameras, this battle isn't going to get real.
@FOARP -- Thanks for the link. That's an amazing letter. I wouldn't have believed how much the university is taking if the info had not come from the dean himself.ReplyDelete
And this is exactly why they need to be sued. Moral suasion is worthless when dealing with people this venal.ReplyDelete
I have hard time understating how it is that if you say something stupid in class, it is likely you will be told you are a fool. But this people are allowed to say bullshit to media, and those responses are treat as a legitimate point.ReplyDelete
the real question to ask Prager is who goes to a professional school to get a side or a temp job? For some reason I feel like it is safe to assume that everyone comes here with the idea that they want full time he required job, with a few exceptions of course. She is trying to make it sound that not getting full time job is a reasonable alternative.
this is a fucking clown show
The reason students are abused in class for saying "something stupid" (that is often not stupid at all) is because a classic scammer's technique is to abuse their victims so as to break their will.ReplyDelete
The Simpsons did a great episode on this (the Camp Krusty episode). You can watch it here.
Of course, you have the power to get these schools back and fix the injustice, but I guess the movement isn't ready for level of physical confrontation yet.
@9:54: The Kamp Krusty episode really wasn't a very good analogy. Now I've just watched an entire Simpson's episode for NOTHING!ReplyDelete
You're supposed to say "worst episode ever."ReplyDelete
BL1Y, see specifically 17:55 when the person who you would analogize to the law school Dean slaps the people you would analogize to the professors and says "I thought you said you broke their spirits!"ReplyDelete
Abusing your victims until, out of fear, they accept a warped sense of fairness is a classic psychological aspect of any scam. See also the Stockholm syndrome. Actual psychologists could probably do a better job of explaining the dynamic than I could.
Stockholm syndrome makes sense when students don't give their crappy professors crappy reviews.ReplyDelete
But, for law schools, it's more of a sunk cost fallacy. We are psychologically programmed to want to justify our actions. If you spend three years and a lot of money doing something, your instinct is to think it was worthwhile. Spend another 5-10 years working in a job you hate, and you'll come up with a reason for why it's a worthwhile, meaningful job.
Ill have to look that one up. Interesting. Could be a mix of both along with other stuff.ReplyDelete
By all means, let's take as much time as necessary to ensure that transparency is fair to law schools.ReplyDelete
I mean, we shouldn't rush into anything, solely because of 25,000+ underemployed or unemployed law graduates being made every year. It would be so unfair if transparency made 90% of law schools look like the most efficient engines possible for creating non-dischargeable unsecured debt with no prospects of repayment. Christ, where would your average law professor find employment suitable to their lifestyle and dignity? Won't someone think of them?
Better quote from that Simpsons ep - gentlemen, to evil.ReplyDelete
heh that was a great scene.ReplyDelete
Perhaps a more appropriate Simpsons line:ReplyDelete
Burns: Smithers, are they booing?
Smithers: No, they're saying boo-urns.