Friday, January 13, 2012

Lie to me

I got an email from a 0L who is applying for admission to various schools this fall.  He'd gotten this solicitation from Drexel to participate in an online chat with current Drexel students:


Dear     
Congratulations once again on your admission to the Earle Mack School of Law!  We hope that you’re as excited as our current students are about joining the Earle Mack family.  In fact, they are so excited to tell you all about what life as an Earle Mack student is like.  So, please join them as they host our first admitted student chat of the season, “Meet the Students.”  The chat will be held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.  Our students can’t wait to share some of their experiences here at Earle Mack and how they are raising the bar.  
To register for the chat, click here.
We hope to see you online!
Sincerely,

Issa
Isabel "Issa" DiSciullo
Assistant Dean for Admissions
 My correspondent asks:    

So, what questions should I (or any other prospective Earle Mack Law student) ask? Also, why would students participate in something like this? Do they know they're damning those they convince to go to a life of debt slavery? I've been offered a $1,000/credit scholarship(approximately $90,000 over the course of three years) but the school still costs a cool $112,000 not taking into account tuition increases.
 Good questions. I followed up with him about his own decision process, and he responded:

I sent in most of my applications in two weeks ago and have only heard back from Drexel so far. My GPA and LSAT are good enough to get into high top 50 school but not T14 (So Iowa and Illinois) but I'm not shelling out well over a hundred thousand dollars for law school. I've mostly applied to Tier II schools like Pitt looking for a full ride or more (Mercer offers a $5000 a year stipend, although it's a TTT). I'm a political science major, so my options are basically law school or enlisting/trying to go officer side in the military. I AM genuinely interested in becoming a lawyer, but I am wary thanks to sites like yours, so I WILL not go to school unless it is cheap or free. As a side note, there is tremendous pressure from my parents(who are fairly well off) to go. Neither of them graduated from college and I believe that they see some sort of prestige in law that they never had despite doing well as high school graduates. They would shell out $150,000 plus for me to go to a top 25 school, but I'm not willing to see them throw their money away.
This seems to me to be both a sensible and commendable attitude -- the temptation to spend other peoples' money heedlessly is often difficult to resist, and obviously many current law students and applicants are being far less scrupulous about doing so.  This correspondence also touches on a couple of other elements that are key to the current structure of American legal education.

First, law schools are becoming increasingly aggressive and sophisticated about marketing.  From glossy brochures, to direct marketing featuring "waived" application fees (seriously at this point requiring application fees at most law schools is equivalent to requiring a cover charge to go inside a McDonald's -- the difference being that you'll actually come out of the latter with exactly what you thought you were paying for), to on-line chats like the one above, to billboards on highways (I was in west Michigan recently and noticed that Cooley has a couple of billboards on the highway between Kalamazoo and their new Grand Rapids branch), law schools are behaving like institutions that realize it's becoming necessary to actually induce people to buy what they're selling.

But the most powerful marketing device law schools have remains that it's still relatively difficult to get into most of them.  Now this is becoming less and less true every day -- some schools are letting in people who scored in the 15th percentile on the LSAT -- but consider Drexel's entrance numbers.  Drexel -- a new law school with what ought to be self-evidently horrible placement figures (nine months after graduation nearly 20% of the 2010 class was completely unemployed, and less than three in five grads had any kind of job that required a law degree, including temp work, part time work etc etc, while only 30% had positions of any sort with a law firm), which costs $110,000 just in tuition to attend, has a median LSAT for its entering class in the 78th percentile and a median GPA of 3.38. Those are modest numbers compared to what you have to have to achieve a more prestigious level of un- and under-employment from many other law schools, but the fact remains that the vast majority of four-year college graduates would not be able to get into Drexel's law school, despite the six-figure cost and the fairly dire outcomes awaiting most of its graduates.

One of the things that makes it extraordinarily difficult for people to grasp, on a psychological level, just how bad the situation really is for so many recent law graduates, is that it seems deeply counter-intuitive that it should be so difficult and expensive to acquire a law degree, if the value of a law degree is actually as questionable as a straightforward analysis of the available information suggests. (Of course it also helps that law schools are usually housed in fancy buildings, are formally attached to prestigious or at least respectable research universities, have lots of "successful" graduates to parade to prospective students etc).

It's true that part of the explanation for this puzzling state of affairs is lack of transparency.  That factor is eroding every day: just within the last couple of months dozens of law schools have put up employment and salary numbers (Drexel provides nothing in regard to the latter which itself should tell prospective students all they need to know) that, while very far from perfect, reveal the clear and present danger of going to law school to anyone who doesn't want to be lied to.

But of course the problem is that people very much do want to be lied to, and, as anyone who has ever run for political office or managed an advertising campaign or conducted an illicit love affair knows, it's far easier to get away with lies when that's what people want to hear.

People want to be lied to for reasons that are reflected in my unusually clear-eyed correspondent's own story: What is his "opportunity cost" for going to law school?  It certainly exists, and isn't by any means trivial, but what sort of job can he actually get right now in our great nation?  Is he supposed to work retail? Wait tables?  Manage a hedge fund for Bain Capital?  These are difficult questions.

They become even more difficult when one factors in the prestige factor.  This, perhaps more than anything else, is what keeps our little multi-billion dollar annual operation in relatively fine fettle, despite everything.  My correspondent's parents would love to see their son do "better" than they have, by acquiring a high status social identity, such as that still ascribed to attorneys by the culture as a whole.  There's no need at this moment to go into all the reasons why that ascription is becoming increasingly absurd. It's enough to note that it is still very much with us -- and with all the 0Ls who at this moment are compulsively refreshing the status checker -- a well-named device -- on the web site of their "reach" law school.

162 comments:

  1. If anything he should join the military, and then use that to pay for law school.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "seriously at this point requiring application fees at most law schools is equivalent to requiring a cover charge to go inside a McDonald's"

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. I admit it. I push "refresh" on this website every 30 minutes every morning eagerly anticipating LawProf's newest sermon.

    Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, what do you do about people who want to what you do not think
    they should do?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If this person can get through law school with less than $30K in debt and is genuinely interested in law, as s/he seems to be, then law school is probably not a bad choice. The economy should be in better shape three years from now, and this person will have a lot more flexibility in "choosing" what to do than other law grads.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My wife is currently enrolled at a first-tier law school in North Carolina. Shortly after she was admitted, I attended an event for spouses and family members of new students. A lot of the attendees were nervous about the employment prospects of their loved ones, and a panel of people from the Placement Office addressed these concerns.
    The Director of Placement trotted out statistics suggesting that over 95% of the previous graduating class was employed, and spoke of emerging new specialties for lawyers in environmental law, international law, non-profit law, etc.
    I graduated from law school 20 years ago. I knew better. But what surprised me was my own reaction. I WANTED to believe what these people were saying. What's that? The average salary for last years graduates was $86K? That doesn't sound so bad. Public interest law? Sounds like a green pasture for a young lawyer! Law schools know what applicants want to hear, and telling them things they don't want to hear will always be difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part of the problem is that, especially to wet-behind-the-ears 0Ls, it's almost impossible to believe that people in these positions of authority -- law school deans and admins -- would be lying. Lying their behinds off. Saying whatever they have to to get kids to keep coming, just like the sleaziest salesperson you can imagine. To the average college kid, it just does not compute.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the economy should be in better shape three years from now

    Oh yeah? I need to get a line on your future-seeing machine.

    S&P is downgrading France and several other sovereigns today. The political system in the united states is fundamentally broken. The US economy doesn't need half the citizens.

    Of course in thee years it'll all be better. They said that in 2007. Five years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I WANTED to believe what these people were saying. "

    Of course...everyone wants to believe in a dream that degree can bring you a great career (especially in this economy). Thats why this game will always work to some extent except that now there is more and more info available online. The word is slowly getting out there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How do you know Drexel's stats for GPA and LSAT are valid? After the Illinois revelation, I don't believe those statistics as reported by most schools are valid.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wasn't Earle Mack a manager of the Philadelphia Phillies?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "If this person can get through law school with less than $30K in debt and is genuinely interested in law, as s/he seems to be, then law school is probably not a bad choice. "

    Since when did $30,000 and three years of your life, NOT TO MENTION THAT LAW SCHOOL IS A MENTAL ILLNESS FACTORY, become negligible costs?

    ReplyDelete
  13. P.S. LawProf,

    I would sincerely recommend that when students speak with you, you mention the mental illness cause-effect relationship. There is a very serious chance that this person will become mentally ill as a result of going to law school. That will cost him or her more than the money and time.

    This is an especially important warning for people who already have inclinations towards depression or stress.

    That would be the first thing I put on any law school warning.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So in other words, no one should go to law school.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 10:07 AM: SURPRISE!! Work is hard. Accountants, factory workers, waiters...whatever...jobs (shockingly) cause stress.

    I don't buy the mental illness cop-out. Part of being an attorney means stressful environments, tight deadlines, and other "illness" causing elements.

    There are plenty of real reasons not to go into the legal profession (see: rate, employment). Whining that your job made you depressed is not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 10:09 Wrong, you should attend law school if:

    1) You get into the top 14 or so schools

    2) You can go to a T1 for free or close to free: 30K in tuition debt sounds like a reasonable ceiling.

    3) You are attending a low-cost school that is the top placing school in it's regional market

    ---------------------------

    4) Your parents are loaded and are willing to pay for the credential WITHOUT TAKING ON MORE DEBT. I would never do this even if I had the option. But if those kids can subsidize tuition for the rest of us I'd have no problem with that. It's basically a luxury good for them, like buying three 50K cars.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Work is hard. Accountants, factory workers, waiters...whatever...jobs (shockingly) cause stress.

    I don't buy the mental illness cop-out. Part of being an attorney means stressful environments, tight deadlines, and other "illness" causing elements. "

    -----------------

    No they do not. 4% of 0Ls are depressed, but 40% of 3Ls are depressed. Law school is no less than a mental illness factory. It manufactures mental illness. No other profession even comes close.

    It's not about stress, it's about mental illness. Stress is actually healthy and does not need to cause depression.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "So in other words, no one should go to law school."

    Due to the fact that it causes mental illness in a shockingly large portion of its entrants, I would very seriously say that you should be paid to go to law school. It should be viewed as this vile thing that society needs, and that a few altruistic souls are willing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Im getting the feeling that transparency boy is mental illness guy. He spams the comments the same way, nonstop, with the same topic over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  20. yeah...not a lotta logic there.

    10:24...not a personal attack, but are you speaking as a practicing attorney, or are you basing your argument on circumstantial evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  21. 10:31,

    Exactly. You sit around on this blog, categorizing the commenters and labelling them as "xxx boy" or "yyy guy."

    Is that mentally healthy? Is that what you wanted to be when you grew up? Did you act like this before you went to law school?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "or are you basing your argument on circumstantial evidence?"

    I'm basing it on scientific studies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Perhaps you're ignoring a crucial fact...most kids shouldn't be going law school in the first place.

    As Prof Campos has pointed out in other posts, many kids go because they don't know what else to do with themselves (compounded by a wide variety of other influences...parents, status, etc.).

    I'm pretty sure I would develop "mentally ill" tendencies if I ended up in a profession that demands long hours, high stress, and buttloads of work AND I didn't truly want to be there in the first place.

    Maybe it's not law that causes your illnesses? Maybe it's the subjects who bring it on themselves by entering a profession they shouldn't be in in the first place...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nick,

    Please stop talking out of your ass. What you're doing now is imagining things, and stating them as true without verifying them. This tendency is prevalent in law professors and I believe it's one of the many reasons why students become depressed - because their "teachers" are completely full of shit.

    The mental illness develops in 2L and 3L BEFORE THE STUDENTS START WORKING. And yes it is law school that causes the mental illness because the rate of mental illness increases by a factor of 10 during law school, and then declines (although not back to 0L levels) after law school.

    Law school is a mental illness factory. Not only are you scumbag professors robbing students financially, but you're destroying their souls and minds.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "No they do not. 4% of 0Ls are depressed, but 40% of 3Ls are depressed. Law school is no less than a mental illness factory. It manufactures mental illness. No other profession even comes close.

    It's not about stress, it's about mental illness. Stress is actually healthy and does not need to cause depression."

    I'm beginning to be skeptical of these numbers. My sense is that for many people, law school is the first time in their lives they've faced true adversity and extreme difficulty.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I'm beginning to be skeptical of these numbers."

    Isn't that lovely. Someone does a study and publishes it, and you're allowed to dismiss it by weight of your own imagination. That right there is the "rigor" of legal academia.

    You see this thought process in so many law review articles, where professors just sling bullshit based on nothing than their own whimsy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 10:43,

    You didn't counter my argument. You just repeated previous contentions.

    If the iron is flawed, then no amount of pounding can make it a sword. That doesn't mean it can't be used for something else.

    I resent that...some of the finest people I know talk out their asses on a regular basis. It's a crucial skill in the professional world.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good god if law school were any easier to get in things would just be worse.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Isn't that lovely. Someone does a study and publishes it, and you're allowed to dismiss it by weight of your own imagination. That right there is the "rigor" of legal academia."

    I suppose I should clarify. I don't doubt the depression numbers. I just think they're high because law school is extremely difficult, particularly if you're just going to law school "because I don't know what else to do." I'm in no way defending legal academia. I suppose you'd probably see similarly-high numbers from medical school students.... if not higher.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That's great Nick, ruin your students' lives financially, give them a terrible mental illness, and then excuse yourself by telling them they were "flawed" to begin with.

    You're a fantastic human being who definitely adds to society.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 10:52...

    Concur. Good pt.

    "extremely difficult" with no assurance/decreased probability of gainful employment afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "I suppose you'd probably see similarly-high numbers from medical school students.... if not higher."

    Rather that "supposing" - why don't you go and fucking look them up? This isn't a law review article where whatever anyone supposes is accepted as credible.

    If you do, you'll see that mental illness in medical schools is about 1/3 of that in law schools, even though med students do not have the job worries that law students have. There the mental illness is more of a type where the person shows a lack of empathy and becomes detached, and not depression.

    Stress, striving - all these things are in no way causes of depression. They're actually invigorating and benefit you mentally. Law school causes depression for entirely other resaons.

    ReplyDelete
  33. hey bro, you're right!

    To get on topic (kinda sorta)...

    Should our Drexel candidate go for it...? I say yes, if he gets the full ride.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The depression numbers for medical students are considerably lower than those for law students.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Exactly LawProf. One of the first things I did after discovering the mental illness problem of law school was to research it in other programs.

    Yes, absolutely, medical school increases the rate of mental illness. I saw a study saying that 10-15% of medical students developed symptoms, but that's no where near as bad as law school.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Correlation or causation? Maybe law school attracts those who are predisposed to depression? Egomaniacs who think that they can just go to school for three years and magically make $150,000 out of the gate afterwards... and it turns out to not be true? At least with med school you're doing something with your hands... you see results of your work. Law school is about reading and writing, and that's it. Do you LOVE reading and writing? If not, why are you in law school?

    ReplyDelete
  37. 10:59,

    How dare you blame the victim of - what I think is the worst illness one can have, depression - without an ounce of evidence, and based only on something you imagined?

    I will never understand legal academia's willingness to equate imagination with reality. You see this everywhere, including in court. People imagine a ***possible*** explanation and then present it as the ***actual*** explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Should our Drexel candidate go for it...? I say yes, if he gets the full ride."

    My only point was that I think he should consider the possibility that law school will make him mentally ill.

    I didn't mean to get into a whole thing, but to me that's more important than the money or time combined.

    That's all. So if you'll allow me to raise that issue I would appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "worst illness"...

    cancer, aids, alzheimer's, lou gehrig's, toolishness and inability to think...

    I can come up with a few that are a bit worse.

    LawProf--thanks. But in your opinion, do you see your students as predisposed towards depression who are more likely to exhibit tendencies after/during the crucible of law school...or are these happy campers who are utterly crushed after 3 years of debt and professional dissatisfaction?

    ReplyDelete
  40. 11:01 - So we take no responsibility for our own state of mind? We're all victims of uncontrollable mental processes?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Of course you do 11:05, and that control starts with understanding your environment and the effect it had on those before you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Having known med students, their path in law school is considerably "harder" than law students by any normal standard. Not only the academic work and studying/passing boards, but the internships, especially if they are in lower-income hospitals. My ex would wake up at 3:30 AM for 36-hour shifts at a hospital in a ghetto where patients came in with all kinds of injuries and would pull all kinds of crazy stuff while they were there. As an upper-middle class person, I'm sure she'd was not used to seeing that kind of thing day-in, day-out.

    Contrast this with a law student who's biggest daily fear is that he might not know the answer when called on.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'd suggest reading Victor Frankl's work "Man's search for meaning," if you think depression is something you can't control and internally address. Can you imagine surviving a CONCENTRATION CAMP and coming out of it with the self-awareness that your own internal choice in terms of your attitude is the ONLY REASON you survived? Law school? Pah.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I had Professor Rosato for "legal ethics." She helped set up Drexel, and then jumped over to a deanship at Northern University College of Law. Young people need to understand that people like this are master manipulators and charlatans of the highest order. The very people teaching ethics and representing themselves as standard-bearers for the profession are nothing more than two bit crooks and snake oil salesmen cooking the books, cashing the GradPlus loan checks, and padding their pensions. They could literally care less that they are causing financial and psychological carnage in the lives of countless young people.

    ReplyDelete
  45. A good friend of mine has a saying... "everyone has a seat on the bus, you just need to find the right seat." For many people, law school isn't the right seat, but they keep sitting there anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nick,

    Studies of the subject indicate that law students as a group have a typical population-wide rate of of depression prior to starting law school. This suggests strongly that law school plays the primary causal role in their subsequently high levels of depression. (Interestingly, while lawyers have very high rates of depression relative to the general population, and to other professionals, they have much lower rates than law students).

    ReplyDelete
  47. One more thing: I really shouldn't refer to her as Professor Rosato. "Professor" is a title that necessitates respect. Frankly, I don't respect the carpetbagging charlatan. How about "cockroach" Rosato, or "the scum that lines the rim of my toilet" Rosato?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Issa DiSciullo? Well, well; small world.

    I'm glad to see she's still (part of the process of) fucking up people's lives.

    ReplyDelete
  49. LawProf,

    Thanks.

    School stress (the thought that you constantly could be doing something else to get a better grade) > Work stress (at least at some point, you get to turn off your brain) ?

    ReplyDelete
  50. One thing that messes with people's heads in law school is that you're never right. You're either totally wrong or partially wrong all the time. And meanwhile no one is telling you what's right, although somehow certain people make law review etc. while the rest don't.

    At least when you start practice (if you do), most of the time you're doing things that are clearly right or not, or right enough or not right enough.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Nick,

    Please stop imagining that it's "stress." Stress exists all over society, most of which does not have the high rates of depression of law school.

    I understand why you would want to excuse and glamorize law school mental illness by painting it as performance induced, but one has nothing to do with the other.

    As bored3L said above, the stress of medical school dwarfes that of law school, and yet they have (according to the study I read) 1/3 the rate of depression as law students.

    Law school depression can't be solely due to "stress." My personal opinion is that it's just a very toxic environment, from the deans, to the professors to the other students, but that's just my thought and I don't know what the real reason is.

    ReplyDelete
  52. While a student, I would give tours/sit on admitted student panels on multiple occasions, I was surprised that they kept inviting me to participate since compared to my kool-aid drinking co-panelists, I gave truthful and less than optimistic answers regarding to employment, etc. In fact, I once told a kid on my tour to run for the hills after he stated to me that he did not like his current job as a paralegal. I told him it was all downhill from there. However, I did not say all was bad. Like an abused wife suffering from battered women syndrome, I raved about how awesome our shiny new building was, how intellectually stimulating the classes were, the caring, versed and personable characteristics of our professors (I actually still believe this to be true...unlike many who hang out at prawfs). Still, I hope I saved one soul...

    Good news though! Just found out yesterday, my seasonal position in retail (making less than I made prior to law school) is keeping me on "full time". . . So yeah OL, your poli sci degree, like mine was, is actually worth more as a fresh undergrad than as a law grad...

    ReplyDelete
  53. "I once told a kid on my tour to run for the hills after he stated to me that he did not like his current job as a paralegal."

    lolol. If you don't like being a paralegal why would you go to law school?

    ReplyDelete
  54. 11:31 here. He had lofty aspirations of practicing "international" law or some other type of bs Law and "blank" field.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Any idea why so many people want to do "international law" when often they don't even know what that is?

    ReplyDelete
  56. LawPrawf, I was wondering if you could provide an update regarding the transparency petition sent out to law school faculties? I'm not going to hold my breath, but are we even close to 100 signatories yet?

    ReplyDelete
  57. The petition died a long time ago, you fool.

    ReplyDelete
  58. In Re: International Law. I think it attracts those 0Ls that have just recently returned from a "life altering" 3-week backpacking trip in Europe where they figure it will allow them to live as a Christopher Walkenesque "Continental" in Bruges,because you know, they have the best beer there.

    ReplyDelete
  59. In Re: International Law. I think it attracts those 0Ls that have just recently returned from a "life altering" 3-week backpacking trip in Europe where they figure it will allow them to live as a Christopher Walkenesque "Continental" in Bruges,because you know, they have the best beer there.

    Or they read an article in a magazine somewhere that said international law is a "growing field." Hohoho.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 11:39: In the end I got the signatures of a few dozen law professors, but I think it's fair to say the petition served a useful purpose in that it played its own small role in the overall process that is successfully putting pressure on law schools to publish far more employment data than they were publishing even a few months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Law schools stick to what they do best, i.e. lie to prospective students.

    When MANY of those students graduate from their commodes - with tons of non-dischargeable debt and anemic job prospects - the pigs who run these schools then blame the former students - for not doing enough research into this field.

    It is deplorable. In fact, this conduct is FAR MORE DISGUSTING than any of the toilet images on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "they figure it will allow them to live as a Christopher Walkenesque "Continental" in Bruges"

    Just got this reference. lol

    ReplyDelete
  63. Listen kid,

    I hope you read all these comments carefully. I chose a full ride at a T2 over T20 admissions. I graduated in the top of my LS class, and I have no debt. I make less than a garbage man, and it will likely not get better. I think about suicide every single day- every day.

    This profession is for those born with money- a lot of money. If your parents can pay for school, support you till you are 35, and provide you with investment capital, go to LS, otherwise do not go. I repeat, do not go.

    The bar for this profession has been reduced so low that not being in debt and making what a police cadet makes is sufficient. People on this board will excoriate me for being ungrateful that I have no debt and a job, but really, that is what I invested 7+ years for? No debt and a low paying job!! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

    Kid, my parents were immigrants too, and they thought that LS would be good for me. They did not have an education of any kind, and they believed that going to LS would improve my life. I will likely lead a far, far worse off life than they did.

    I forewent so many options to go to LS, options that I cannot pursue now. I could have been a cop, a garbage man, a plumber, an electrician, maybe I could have used my UG degree, which was somewhat useful, to do something else. Instead, I HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW FOR MY EFFORTS. NOTHING.

    Do you understand that are so many people in this country working jobs that do not involve education whom if you paid what I make would riot? Do you think it would matter to them that they have no debt if they got paid shit?

    LS is a losing proposition for the overwhelming majority of people outside the top 3 law schools in this country, unless they are 1) rich or 2) are doing LS after they retire from a government job with a pension.

    Please do not throw your life away like I did.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Excellent post by 12:01.

    ReplyDelete
  65. OK, I'm hitting the excoriate button as hard as I can. Is it working?

    ReplyDelete
  66. 12:01, please seek help soon. There are many free sources of therapy. One is Lawyers Helping Lawyers and they have offices in many states. You have not thrown away your life, there are people who care and can help. Please reach out to LHL and I'll be praying for you.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Letter writer here. 12:01, what do you make in a year?

    ReplyDelete
  68. How old are you, and when did you graduate?, 12:01?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I noticed, while reading through the comments today over lunch, a similarity in the Belief Against the Odds exhibited in 0L's across the land (i.e., I will triumph in law school regardless of what the employment data says) and the flat denial of scientific research regarding the occurrence of depression in law school students (result of "stress" or that it was the "first time in their lives they've faced true adversity").

    What is it with this broad denial of fact? It's optimism on steroids. Perhaps even blind optimism.

    Maybe I'm overstating it as, to the best of my knowledge, there was no link in this thread to such a study. But, it still feels like a Sisyphean task to convince people that their eyes ain't lyin' at times.

    ReplyDelete
  70. 12:01: I'd appreciate it if you would email me, either via this site or at paul.campos@colorado.edu

    ReplyDelete
  71. 12:01, You're still a talented and capable person as shown by that brilliant post. You lost seven years of your life but don't let the pernicious effects of law school steal the rest of your life. Try to overcome the illness that law school gave you and restore your former self.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dear Professor:

    Let me help illustrate the absurdity of the law school and so called big law.

    I'm not a lawyer, thankfully. My wife is an MD. After college, she went to med school for four years, than another five years of training. About five years out of training, she was probably earning about as much as a third-to-fourth year big law associate (she's in a lower paying specialty).

    My cousin went to a lower first tier law school in New York City (not NYU, Columbia). He started working in big law in about 2006 when the market was hot and jobs were plentiful. As business dried up he was laid off in 2009. When he was laid off he was earning about $200K. He got lucky and found a city job, although he's taken about a 2/3 salary cut; he's earning about $65K. In the current economy I can't imagine how he could get a big law job again. And he's one of the lucky big law refugees.

    Where did this perverse sense of entitlement come from that you go to law school and think you're entitled to earn $200K a couple years out of law school? In contrast to my cousin, my wife worked hard in med school and in training to learn something very useful.

    It's obvious that the market isn't giving that much credence to my cousin's marketable skills, because there's no one willing to pay him remotely close to his old $200K salary.

    Keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
  73. 12:23, next time just write fordham.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Whatever the critics say, Prof. Campos is actually going out of his way to help recent grads. God bless you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  75. 12:01 here,

    There is no need to worry about me. I have emailed you before Professor Campos, and I post on this site frequently, but I never got into how I feel inside. Sometimes, my writing reflects that my mental stability has gone off the deep end, but other times I manage to keep it under control and I make, what I think are, extremely lucid points.

    You are doing great work, and I thank you for it. I do not want help from anyone; I just do not want to see anymore people throw their life away like I did.

    I am miserable everyday because I recognize the truth: I am fucked. I am too old now to pursue most work that does not require a law degree, and probably overqualified to do so. Despite my academic success in LS (2010 grad), and the fact that I am employed now, I see that this profession will sink more and more into oblivion. There is no other way but down because indebted and desperate people are entering the market annually. I know that politicians will do nothing to fix this problem because students, and particularly law students, are not a class that can swing elections. I do not want to go to school for anything else, even though I think I have the ability to do so, because, frankly, I have lost faith in the system. If they did this to the LS system, I believe in time all professionals will find themselves in deep trouble; (and even if I am wrong, I am too emotionally drained and do not trust society and academia to pursue anything else).

    I do not sleep anymore. I have lost my motivation to do anything because if I could wind up worse off than someone with a GED after working so hard, I feel any effort on my part will end in failure. My personal relationships are deteriorating, and my confidence has been reduced to nothing. My loved ones are becoming increasingly distant to me, and I am becoming more abusive to them. I see the lives of older lawyers and my contemporaries, and it makes my mood worse. I see my friends’ lives who avoided the trap and I cannot help but feel envy. I am gaining weight, and I am sustaining health problems. I am angry, sad, and stressed 24 hours a day. I forgot what being happy feels like.

    Even if things improve, even if I get a “good job” in this filthy field, whatever that is, even if I become a millionaire with a good family, with all the fixins of the American dream, I will never be the same after seeing how close my life came to destruction (and seeing others destroyed; I constantly remember that homeless graduate sleeping on the street outside of my T2, and then getting removed by security). I also have a burning hatred of the people that propagate this system because, allegedly, they claim to be for the greater good and for the people. (This consumes me as well). WHEN YOU ARE IN A FIELD THAT DESTROYS 50% OF THE NON-WEALTHY PERSONS WHO ENTER IT, SEVERELY INJURES A REMAINING 20%, INJURES A REMAINING A 20%, AND REWARDS AT BEST THE REMAINING 10%, YOU WILL NEVER BE THE SAME, EVEN IF “THINGS WORK OUT.”

    I posted this view into my soul not as a cry for help, but I want the 0Ls considering LS to see that, like the poster who keeps referencing mental illness states, LS can produced permanent mental illness. Permanent.

    Kids, LS is like gambling at a casino. There is such a ridiculous over saturation of lawyers that it’s become beyond irrational to pursue it under any circumstances, full ride or not unless you are already financially independent. Wasting your time, labor, youth and energy on such an endeavor is truly catastrophic for your financial, spiritual, emotional, and physical health.

    Do not worry about me, but for the love of God, stop these swindlers from destroying more lives, and stop these reckless lemmings from throwing their lives a way on a pipe dream that died 20 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I truly don't get the attitude of the 0L's parents, here. They became well off without an education but they're okay with their child ending up grindingly poor provided that their child has 'prestige'?

    The prestige myth needs to die, not just regarding law school but regarding all higher education. As an underemployed college grad I'm ashamed I ever believed in it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I don't think his parents realize that he's likely to end up grindingly poor.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "I am too old now to pursue most work that does not require a law degree"

    How old are you? 27?

    ReplyDelete
  79. 12:01/12:42: Your testimony is eloquent, moving, and very valuable. In a sense it's far more valuable than anything I can write on this subject. I'd like to correspond further with you, not to try to save you -- I have no doubt that you are going to save yourself -- but to learn more from you.

    "I am the man, I suffered, I was there." Whitman

    ReplyDelete
  80. "I truly don't get the attitude of the 0L's parents, here. They became well off without an education but they're okay with their child ending up grindingly poor provided that their child has 'prestige'?"

    lol! seriously, how much do they think even the most successful lawyers make?

    ReplyDelete
  81. They prob. think the most successful ones make millions per year...which they do.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The most successful businessmen literally make hundreds of millions, if not billions, per year.

    ReplyDelete
  83. everyone else just walks around with a debt number tramp stamp.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Right on 12:42
    "...There is such a ridiculous over saturation of lawyers that it’s become beyond irrational to pursue it under any circumstances, full ride or not unless you are already financially independent. Wasting your time, labor, youth and energy on such an endeavor is truly catastrophic for your financial, spiritual, emotional, and physical health.

    ...for the love of God, stop these swindlers from destroying more lives, and stop these reckless lemmings from throwing their lives a way on a pipe dream that died 20 years ago."

    You are absolutely correct. I have posted here before, and as I see it after having watched this nasty business destroy people for many years, do not go to law school under any circumstances....not to HYS, not to a top 14, not on a full scholarship....no way...it is too too too risky. I know unemployed HYS grads 15-20 years out and unemployed ex-partners who once hired me. If you are talented and smart, study something where your skills and knowledge might be needed and used.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Man, gambling at a casino would be a lot more fun. And if you were playing conservatively, probably involve better odds. And it wouldn't take three years. And if you lost it all, you could discharge the debt in bankruptcy.

    For many 0Ls, law school's a lot more like having sex with someone you know for a fact has HIV for three straight years and banking on the hope that you're resistant.

    Except, again, that still sounds like more fun.

    ReplyDelete
  86. If I had spent three years in Vegas, at $50,000 per year. Let's see what I could do.

    Rent/utilities, $1,200/month. Car, $400/month. Food/clothing $400/month = total of $2,000/month = $24,000 per year.

    That leaves $26,000 per year, or $500 PER WEEK to party.

    Obviously you would be partied out after a few weeks, but even if you spent the entire three years there. That would be a better use of $150,000, in my opinion. Not being facetious in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Obviously you would be partied out after a few weeks

    As a Vegas resident and practitioner, let me assure you that (1) you cannot "party out" here as there is always something new to do and (2) yes, blowing 150k over three years in Vegas would be 1,000x better than law school.

    Also, your cost of living is extremely overstated. A single person can get a room in Vegas in or near Summerlin for $500 a month. I have a family and we rent a two bedroom for $700 in a nice part of town.

    Kids, don't go to law school. Come to Vegas. Become a valet or a card dealer. You will make 50-70k a year and won't have any student loans.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Professor: so what questions should the 0L ask?

    ReplyDelete
  89. @2:16 Vegas has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country right now. You're a lot more likely to end up just broke and unemployed there.

    ReplyDelete
  90. 0L should ask:

    - What did each of you [students] do last summer?

    - Do you have a job lined up for this summer/after you graduate?

    - What kind of job is it?

    - How many call-back interviews did you get?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Those would be terrible questions because the people on this panel don't represent the student body.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ask if any of their classmates became depressed in law school, and if so why.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "Those would be terrible questions because the people on this panel don't represent the student body."

    And if every one of them doesn't give a glowing report, then he will know that the rest of the student body is seriously effed.

    ReplyDelete
  94. He should have went into the military. Hell, I wish I did.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Great blog TLS (funny that you have the same initials as that moronic board). I especially liked the list of tasks assigned to you at your "legal internship," pasted below:

    * * *

    These tasks were:

    1. "Water the plant once a week. Choose the day, but make sure that plant does not die. I will not water it, so it's up to you."
    2. "Create a filing system and rearrange my files. There are some outside, as well."
    3. "Take this trash (old computer and printer) down to the trash room and/or find out how to dispose of it."
    4. "Make sure these walls are wiped down. You see these coffee stains? I want them gone."
    5. Rearrange the last intern's office area to suit your needs. There is an ancient laptop there with Windows 2000 on it. That will be your workstation."
    6. Go fax this form, make some copies.
    7. Run to the post office, and send these letters!
    8. Go to the UPS store. Now boy, run!

    ReplyDelete
  96. 12:01/12:42: you're not out of options. Four friends have quit their law jobs recently to start businesses (separately) or creative pursuits. To feel like youre desperate and at a dead end - that's them winning. You need to find your way out. Here's how I found mine.

    1. Stop thinking about job-search sites and law school career counselors and talking to friends in fancy-sounding jobs you used to want, and start thinking about what you actually like to do every day. What *activity* you like to do, describe it as the most basic level, and frame it positively. Not "representing X clients" or "avoiding Y work." Is it helping people who need help? Is it an opportunity for speaking roles? Do you care if it's as against a client versus some kind of tribunal? Is that really enough for you or is that just the highlight of a generally unhappy career? If it's enough, go for it and try and get more of it; if it's the latter, only you know whether you are too old to change course and redirect towards a career that offers different rewards. You should be aware that studies show elderly people regret the chances they didn't take when they looked back vastly more than the reverse (David Brooks had a couple columns on this).

    2. If the answer to (1) is you're not blown away by law's rewards and it's not too late to leave law, you have a long think ahead. You need to think the legal realm and figure out what it is about each thing that you like doing. There are probably books on this. The one caveat I would add to a lawyer looking for alternatives is to absolutely disregard prestige when considering alternatives. Figure out what is good for you temperamentally and what you would actually enjoy doing on a daily basis. Then sort out the money and prestige, to the extent that - having hopefully identified what you actually want to do - the prestige still matters.

    ReplyDelete
  97. 4:54 continued...

    I did what I indicated in 4:54 (while employed, a luxury I'm grateful for), spent about a year thinking more broadly about what kind of career I wanted for my life (also while employed, by asking myself all the questions I always cringed when a distant relative asked them at a family gathering).

    Not everyone may like the result: I think I'd be really happy as a law professor. I'm troubled and, frankly, almost straight scared away by the concerns Prof. Campos and others have raised--chiefly, transparency, the loan system, and the indifference of some schools and profs to the major life difficulties of recent alums. (I'm currently in practice and hope to be on the market in the next few years, with or w/o a fellowship.) I just really enjoy both teaching and writing in semi-traditional areas of law - sure, it'd be fun to add a Welsh legal history course or something here or there but otherwise core courses and traditional electives - and believe (naively, perhaps) that it would be fun to try to open kids' minds to what I believe is a way of thinking critically (and productively) about many kinds of important relationships. And, having practiced for a number of years (but not too long to get hired) I'd like to think I could help recent grads on the market a little bit as well.

    My thought is, no matter how this all shakes out, there are going to be law schools, and aging lawprofs are going to retire, leaving space for younger law profs who are still tenure-track and for whom publishing is central, but who in contrast to current junior tenure-track academics (a) will take lower pay and (b) teach along with the doctrinal stuff *more* practice stuff, (c) potentially to more people, either because there are fewer faculty or because there are more required "practical" courses taught by these junior faculty. (I emphasize *more* because some things cannot sensibly be taught in a classroom, like which office you file the certificate of merger to effectuate a merger (with respect to David Segal, no one learning that in law school would remember it when the need arises).)

    I get excited about legal ideas, enjoy writing about them, and want to teach them. If the model is due for major changes in the next, say, 5 years, does that mean I should only persist if I'm sure and prepare to be flexible (as to, say, number of classes taught, salary, "practice" element of teaching, etc.), or that I need to find something else to do altogether?

    ReplyDelete
  98. 507, obviously being a law professor has huge positives. you get paid to work about ten hours a week and prance/bullshit the rest of your time. you get paid a lot.

    but how do expect to cope with all the bitter students whose lives are ruined to butter your bread? it's highly unlikely that you'll wind up anywhere but a ttt as even Mercer law has its pick of Harvard grads. so how will you deal with that?

    ReplyDelete
  99. If this is what he wants to do, he should go for it. Whatever reforms come along, there will still be law schools. It is good you have an idea what you want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  100. As a Harvard Law Grad, you may find yourself working for some TTT dump, but you can take certain measures to mitigate the psychic harm that comes from such a precarious situation. For example, I use my @post.harvard.edu email address for all communications, even those with these punk losers at my TTT. It's my way of reminding myself that I'm better than this.

    -DM

    ReplyDelete
  101. On the depression thing, here are my suggestions for fighting the negative effects of law school:

    1. Comedy and humor - This, in many ways, is the reason why xoxohth and abovethelaw are so popular. There are funny "schticks" on there that mock the absurdities of law school.

    2. Arts - Whether paintings, music, literature . . . especially literature. As much as lawyers like to call their briefs "art" the fact is that no one reads them except if they have to as part of their job, because they are written in a miserable and uninspiring style. If you spend all of your time reading legal crap, you'll forget what real writing and real literature are about.

    3. Exercise.

    4. Aroma therapy. For example, buy yourself a really nice cologne or perfume that you find uplifting, and spray it when you feel down.

    5. Good food (but be careful not to get fat like so so many girls did at my law school, going from solid 8s to 200lb 4s over two years).

    6. Most important of all, awareness. One thing about mental illness is that it's nearly impossible to be mentally ill if you're aware of it. If you get down, admit it to yourself and cope with your feelings rather than hide from them.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Yes, make sure the GIRLS don't get fat. As far as the guys, women totally think your desk-flab is hot hot hot. We totally do. You sound awesome personality-wise as well.

    And it's impossible to be mentally ill if you're aware of it? That's a new one.

    ReplyDelete
  103. ^ Perfect example of hopeless, defeated, law school inspired mental illness.

    ReplyDelete
  104. mental illness boy = transparency boy.

    But now we all know the reason behind your hysterics and incessant comments.

    ReplyDelete
  105. 8:56,

    In all seriousness, can you recall the last time you had a positive thought in your head? If so, what was it? If not, why aren't you seeing a therapist?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Guess that's a no.

    How sad is it that a human mind is so thoroughly eviscerated that it is incapable of manifesting anything but negativity and insults?

    That's what law school does to people. I literally know lawyers who are exactly like that.

    ReplyDelete
  107. 6:25/"DM" - that was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Since I personally am relatively satisfied with practicing law (though the memory of law school fills me with fury), I would tell the OP, with his useless poli-sci bachelor's, that he might as well go to the law school if he meets the following criteria:

    (1) he really wants to practice law;

    (2) he can get a free tuition ride from a school not named Cooley, or a half-tuition ride from a school that charges less than 30K/yr. (i.e. debt levels sufficiently modest that the OP won't be financially ruined if things don't work out).

    (3) he is aware, going in, that law school will not provide him with the skills or training to practice law.

    (4) He is aware that his chances of scoring a law job may be as low as one-in-three, and is willing to boost his odds by volunteering at legal aid during his useless 2nd and 3rd years in order to pick up some practice skills, bolster his resume, and interact with actual practitioners.

    ReplyDelete
  109. A thought on the different levels of depression in medical school and law school. We all know the miseries of law school. But I can imagine medical schools miseries also: incredible work levels, hypercompetition, sadistic badgering professors, long hours and sleep deprivation. Mostly a varient of what law students get. And always there is the special miseries of the people in the lower depths of their class: never quite getting it, everyone else seems to know a lot more that they do. But the difference is that even the worst medical student can treat it like basic training. However bad it is, just endure it, and at the end it's over, life gets good and just keeps getting better. Even at the bottom of the class in a lower tier medical school she knows in 4 to 6 years she's a DOCTOR. She has a $100k plus job, her salary keeps going up and almost everyone she sees merits her services and is better off for them. In addition to the other indignities of law school, the law student is constantly aware of the probability of failure, that he will never practice law. Or if he does it will only be for a short few years. Another anxiety comes to haunt everyone in laws school; seeing that many (most?) of the people he will represent don't deserve his efforts and the world often is worse off for his successes. William Ockham

    ReplyDelete
  110. Good stuff from 12:36 and William Ockham, as well as a bunch of other people in this thread.

    I hope this conversation has been useful to the original letter writer -- thanks for sending along this material.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "But I can imagine medical schools miseries also: incredible work levels, hypercompetition, sadistic badgering professors, long hours and sleep deprivation. Mostly a varient of what law students get."

    I didn't find the "work levels" of law school to be bad at all. I scored the highest grade in the class on numerous occasions, none of which entailed studying more than a few hours per week.

    I always felt the people working hard in law school were either extremely stupid, or doing it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Wait... The figures aren't correct. Drexel only requires 84 credit units to graduate. Per credit fee is 1245. This guy would only have to pay 245 per unit. That's roughly 20 grand in order to graduate.

    ReplyDelete
  113. James,

    84 x $1,245 = $105,000

    84 x $245 = $20,000

    But I can't tell if the per credit rate is $1,245 or $245 because you use both numbers in your post.

    What was that line about lawyers really bad with numbers?

    ReplyDelete
  114. I think the reason law school is so demoralizing is it is not based upon a "criterion based model". In other words:

    1) Law professors do not create specific, concrete, measurable standards in an integrated curriculum framework so that the law student is sure of what he or she should be learning.
    2) Instead of using criterion-referenced tests based on these standards, law schools use norm-based relative rankings (which compare one student with another). As a result, for example, a student can have well-mastered the material, but because their writing style on an issues exam does not meet the subjective standards of an individual law professor, the student receives a life-altering lower grade than the student who may not have superior mastery but meets the law profesor's subjective standards.
    3)Contrary to mountains of research data going back to the 1920s, law schools do not frequently test the student throughout the course. Therefore, the student cannot be sure whether or not he or she is meeting learning criterion before the all-important final exam. Deprived of this information, the student has little control over his or her own learning process.

    Others have touched upon these problems. However, it never ceases to amaze me that so many law professors absolutely refuse to avail themselves of research showing what constitutes effective and ineffective instruction; or ever ask themselves if the issues spotting test is a valid or reliable way to assess what their students are suppose to know; or even ask themselves if they know what it is their students are suppose to know.

    At the end of the day, is there really that much difference between a student who earns a 3.7 on an exam and one that earns a 3.2? Is that difference really objectively measureable? Is it significant? Is it significant enough to be life altering? I hope in the future, Professor Campos addresses these questions as well as other pedagogical issues.

    Tricia Dennis

    ReplyDelete
  115. To 6:38, what kind of law school did you go to? Because anything in the top 14 does require insane levels of work. I knew a handful of people who "didn't study," etc., and still did well (maybe 1-2 people in my section of 100+) but everyone else was extremely busy all the time, and still didn't have time to do all the assigned reading. I know some people who went to third-tier schools who tell stories of classmates sleeping through class, etc., and still passing, but that never would have flown at my school. That person would have been called on immediately and viciously. It just seems like there is a huge disparity in the type and quality of legal education among different schools.

    ReplyDelete
  116. A 3.7 or 3.2 on an exam? Do you mean GPA or is that a form of grading at your school?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Excellent and well articulated post Tricia.

    ReplyDelete
  118. " . . . and still didn't have time to do all the assigned reading."

    If you're doing the "assigned reading" rather than finding shortcuts that will get you the information you need to know in 1/10 of the time (if that) then you're not doing it right. Generally, anyone who does the "assigned reading" in graduate school is a moron. There's a story about how at Harvard Law they give you an absurd amount of reading, precisely to see which students are too dumb to figure the game out.

    ReplyDelete
  119. @8:30--It depends on the person, too. I went to a top ranked school, and knew a guy who spent pretty much an entire year out of state. He graduated at the top of his class and is a powerful partner in a top firm. I had one friend who didn't crack the book in a corporate tax class until the last two weeks, and got an A- in the course. On the other hand, I had to study a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  120. (8:37 here, I meant to say Harvard Business School; I have law on the brain)

    ReplyDelete
  121. Ms. Dennis that was brilliant. Have you thought of becoming a law professor? As much as I hate them, I would rather have someone like you in that role!

    ReplyDelete
  122. @tdennis-- One of the things that is very helpful, I think, is to look at professors' past exams and get sample exam answers from them. You can do that early on in the semester. If you look at a number of past exams, and past "good" answers, you can get a good idea of what a professor is looking for. Especially if you compare them to other prof's exams and answers.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Exactly 8:51, and that sort of gamesmanship will be more effective than doing the "assigned reading" three times over.

    ReplyDelete
  124. OP here. Does anyone have any questions for me to ask? I was thinking of the following: My scholarship goes away if my GPA falls below 2.95. What is the median GPA? How many scholarship students lose it after their first year? Second?

    Any additional help is much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  125. @8:51-- It's best to do both. If you don't know the material in the course, it won't help to have looked at the exams for the course. Although, I don't think it necessarily goes both ways. I would say it's easier to do well by doing the reading and not looking at exams, especially after the first year. And gamesmanship implies that there is something wrong or fake about this. Making past exams and exam answers available is built into the system. You are expected to do this. I didn't do that all the time, but when I did it was helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  126. 8:59,

    Definitely ask something about depression, whether depression in the students you will be speaking with or depression they've noticed in "their friends" (i.e. them but they don't want to admit to it). Mention that you read a study showing that 40% of law students were depressed by 3L.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @8:43 Thank you for your kindness. I don't think any law school would hire me and if one did I believe it is morally wrong to contribute to the over-supply of attorneys (with all due respect to Professor Campos and the excellent work he is doing here). I attended the University of Tennessee, have practiced personal injury litigation for 25 years, barely clung to the top third of my class and did moot court instead of law review. I don't think I fit the law professor model.

    I'm simply reciting what I learned when I was trained to be a teacher at Vanderbilt thirty years ago---that is how long every one but law professors (and all too many public school teachers) have known what works in education.

    @8:51--I'm showing what a dinosaur I am. When I was in law school (1984-1987) at UT, we did not have access to professor's past exams. I suppose I don't have the experience to judge whether that helps dispel the problem of individual professor's subjectivity in evaluating exam answers. However, it still does not address the other problems that I outlined that I believe bedevil legal education.

    @8:32 Again, I am showing my age. When I was in school at UT, we did not receive back graded exams. We simply received a grade for the entire course based upon the one exam.

    As so many on this site have said much better than I, I think the bottom line is this: law schools are not about competency based learning; they are about hierarchial based sorting.

    Tricia Dennis

    ReplyDelete
  128. 8:59, Be prepared for the possibility that they're read this thread and will be annoyed that you're communicating with people who view law school as a "scam."

    ReplyDelete
  129. 8:59: Be prepared for the certainty that going to law school means being exposed to lots of people like 9:25.

    ReplyDelete
  130. @tdennis -- I'm a dinosaur from the eighties, too. At my school, past exams were avaiable and professors gave out model answers. i also went to visit with professors and went over my exams after the fact. In my first year my study group met with the professors in our sections and went over old exams.

    ReplyDelete
  131. @tdennis -- I'm a dinosaur from the eighties, too. At my school, past exams were avaiable and professors gave out model answers. i also went to visit with professors and went over my exams after the fact. In my first year my study group met with the professors in our sections and went over old exams.

    ReplyDelete
  132. @9:48 what school did you attend?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Well, 6;38, aside from calling me dumb for doing the assigned reading (I stated that I didn't do all of it, didn't have time, but whatever), you still haven't mentioned where you went to school. I'm guessing it wasn't Harvard. You say that you scored "top of the class" while studying "only a few hours per week," and then you come back and say that you studied old exams instead of reading. Did you only study them for a few hours per week? Were you taking a full courseload? I'm just saying that studying THAT little would not get you to the "top of the class" at a high-ranked school. I mean, law school is BS generally and I hated it, and there WERE a few brilliant people who didn't need to study at all, but to do well on exams you had to at least know the material. I graduated 10 years ago, so maybe it has changed, but...

    ReplyDelete
  134. @tdennis-- 9:48 and 9:49 here-- Sorry for the double post everyone. I went to HYS.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "you still haven't mentioned where you went to school. I'm guessing it wasn't Harvard."

    I didn't respond to this because it's even more idiotic than doing the "assigned readings." If you need to believe that I went to a "low ranked" law school then so be it. I also teach at a law school.

    It would be hilarious to see the look on your face if you saw how my colleagues determine what goes into the "assigned readings."

    ReplyDelete
  136. You spend time on how colleagues "determine what goes into the 'assigned readings'"

    ReplyDelete
  137. Yes I've worked with a few on it, and seen how others do it.

    Please stop trying to find ways to excuse your ignorance. I know it pains you to have your naivete exposed, but better to be shocked and smarter than to be a comfortable idiot.

    Again, no one in any graduate program, ever, should do the "assigned readings."

    ReplyDelete
  138. How do you know how your colleagues determine assigned readings? Please give some examples.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @9:48 I find it interesting that a school that is already getting top performers(HYS), would take the extra step of educating its students on what a successful exam looks like; while, on the other hand my much lower ranked school, University of Tennessee, with perhaps on the whole, less gifted students could not be bothered to do such a thing. It appears that, at least when I attended, prestige is not the only thing that divided many law schools.

    Tricia Dennsi

    ReplyDelete
  140. "How do you know how your colleagues determine assigned readings? Please give some examples."

    Do you really need detailed elaboration on how such a simple thing occured?

    This is why you're a stupid person. I take time out of my day to try to hand you a gift, and rather than accept it and say thank you, you want to argue with me, in the end grasping at straws like "how do you know your colleagues [who I just told you collaborated with me] assigned readings?"

    You are a dumb fool. Now get busy with your assigned readings, and take comfort in knowing that you did what you were told.

    ReplyDelete
  141. @10:42 You are kidding, right? You are acting the role of law professor and carrying on in this way so readers of this blog can say, "See". But, let's play along. Saying "I've worked with a few on it" gives no information about why your colleagues'(1, 2,3 of them) methods would cause looks that would be hilarious. What's hard about that?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Thank you so much Tricia for your comments. You've said, better than I could have, what I was thinking about the mental illness issue raised in earlier comments. I think that ill-thought, arbitrary education that seems to serve no purpose other than sorting may be a cause of some of the distress. Not stress, not finances, but people being told they are not "smart," not "worthy," for what has yet to be shown has any good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  143. @tdennis,9:48 here. You really did not think you could talk to your professors about your exams or get old exams and answers from them? Was that just against the culture of the place? Do you know if it has changed? I certainly hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  144. If the end result and purpose is sorting, I don't see the relevance of whether or not teachers let students see old exams. The question is whether the system was set up to teach the skills necessary to do well on the exams, which "by definition" are those skills necessary to be a good lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I think that definition needs some work.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Sorting works on multiple levels. If seeing old exams in any way helps a student get a better grade than he or she would have, (maybe it does for some people) it makes it more likely that person will be sorted into a favored bunch. You can get "there" because you intuitively understand how to do this or you can get there because you take extra steps to learn what does not come naturally to you.

    ReplyDelete
  147. lol @ the idea that a law professor knows what sort of exam a good lawyer would write.

    ReplyDelete
  148. lol@that everyone of them would not know.

    ReplyDelete
  149. @12:47. Honestly, I don't think it ever occurred to my fellow students and I to ask. I suppose it was the culture of the place. It seems, looking back, that the professors and deans cloaked the process with such solemnity. The administration and professors stressed the dire consequences that awaited us if any of us had even the appearance of impropriety regarding the exam process. After the exam, the law school required us to turn in the exam itself, along with our "bluebooks" (before the advent of laptops) that contained our answers.

    ReplyDelete
  150. @tdennis, 12:47aka 9:48 here, Yes, the culture of a place matters a great deal. I think the students matter as well. Perhaps my classmates and I had a greater sense of entitlement. We respected and, sometimes, feared professors. But it was understood that past exams were to be available and that you could see old exams, model answers, and talk to the professor about your performance on the exam. You could make an appointment or go to office hours to do that. That was not a big deal at all. Of course people did that more in the first year, or if they were surprised by a grade in the 2nd or 3rd year.

    ReplyDelete
  151. @tdennis, 12:47aka 9:48 here, Yes, the culture of a place matters a great deal. I think the students matter as well. Perhaps my classmates and I had a greater sense of entitlement. We respected and, sometimes, feared professors. But it was understood that past exams were to be available and that you could see old exams, model answers, and talk to the professor about your performance on the exam. You could make an appointment or go to office hours to do that. That was not a big deal at all. Of course people did that more in the first year, or if they were surprised by a grade in the 2nd or 3rd year.

    ReplyDelete
  152. This is the second double post. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  153. @2:59
    One rumor I remember going around law school was that Harvard was pass/ fail, because, after all, being a graduate of Harvard was all an employer needed to know. We were awed by that concept. At UT, we lived and died by clas rank and tenth of a point variations in our grades. I hear that alumni giving is not very robust for UT law . . Probably a connection to how they treated all but the top 10 percent.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Of HYS, only Yale had a system of pass-fail during the 1980s, and that was just for the first semester. Then the system went to honors, pass, low pass, fail. Stanford and Harvard have now gone to a system of high pass, pass, low pass, fail-- or some variation of that, but no letter grades.

    ReplyDelete
  155. To be clear, in the 1980s, after the first semester at Yale, students were graded on the honors, pass, low pass, fail spectrum.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Basically,

    Honors = A
    Pass = A- and B+
    Low Pass = B and B-

    ReplyDelete
  157. Bs are not low passes for those schools. High Passes, Passes and Low Passes. Honors must be the old A+s.

    ReplyDelete
  158. @ 10:01 am - Connie Mack was a Manager of the Phillies. Earle Mack's just some dude.

    ReplyDelete

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