Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Looking for the bottom line

An annoying feature of both bad scholarship and lazy auto-pilot journalism is to frame controversies in the following manner: Some say that A is the case, while others say Z.  My investigations reveal that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  This is generally pretty useless, because just about any controversy can be framed in such a manner as to make either of two bivalent choices false.  ("Some say the Earth is round, while others say it's flat. The truth lies somewhere in the middle." This is literally true; the Earth is not a perfect sphere).

Current controversies over the value of legal education are often subjected to this kind of framing. ("Some people say that law school is a golden ticket, while others claim it's a scam. The truth lies . . .").  Of course one obvious flaw with this sort of framing is that, at the pragmatic level, there's no such thing as "going to law school." There's the choice of going or not going to this or that law school, at this or that cost.  A better question would be something like this: at what point in the law school hierarchy does law school become, under current conditions, a bad deal?

We can tighten this question up by employing the pseudo-scientific jargon of economics. Examples:

(1) At how many law schools does the total value added for graduates exceed the total value subtracted for graduates (including cost)?

(2) At how many law schools is law school a net benefit to the median student?  (Note this potentially yields a very different answer than #1.  A school could be enormously beneficial to 10% of its graduates, a significant mistake for 60% of them, and so forth).

(3) At how many law schools does law school net out as positive for 90% of graduates?  75%?  50%? Etc.

These aren't easy questions to answer.  It should be possible to provide something like a rigorous answer in regard to pecuniary costs and benefits, i.e., this law school costs this much and adds (or subtracts) this much to its graduates' future income streams.  Things get much trickier when one ventures into the world of psychic costs and benefits.  How do you measure the benefit of prestige/social status and the opportunity to do socially meaningful work (I'm not saying law school provides either of these things routinely or even often of course; merely that people go to law school seeking them, and do not always fail to get them) against the many psychic costs of practicing, or failing to practice, law?

A few things are evident.  First, the answers to these questions will vary drastically between schools. Second, the answers have been shifting rapidly over the course of the last 15-20 years, and may still be changing fast. Third, using Yale and Cooley, respectively, to illustrate the first point is a waste of everyone's time. 

In other words, the question of whether Yale is still a good deal on the whole for its median graduate, or in the Benthamesque aggregate, isn't where the action is.  The much more interesting questions are things like: Does it make sense under current and reasonably foreseeable circumstances for the typical 0L to attend, say,  Georgetown at sticker, or Illinois with a $15K per year scholarship, or Pittsburgh for cost of living plus opportunity cost?  What percentage of grads of third and fourth tier schools are going to come out ahead in such calculations?  What percentage of Michigan's 2014 class is going to end up regretting going to law school?  And so forth.

Ultimately, more ambitious theorists can try to formulate an answer to the grand question of how many of the people currently at ABA law schools would have been better off not enrolling in the first place.

Note that the historical component of all this is crucial.  The 12-word version of the problem is this:  Law school used to be a good deal, and now it isn't.  This of course isn't true for every law school or every law student at any law school: there are people at Cooley right now who are going to make piles of money and become big shots in at least their local legal worlds.

But for a long time now the costs of going to law school have been going up rapidly everywhere, while the benefits have been declining.  (See this WSJ story on life at the very top of the law graduate pyramid. In real terms, per hour compensation for first year associates at top firms is down about 30% from what it was six years ago).  Those two curves have moved far enough in their respective directions that it's becoming impossible to put off the question of how many law schools would improve the net future outcome for their prospective graduates by simply ceasing to exist.

43 comments:

  1. You also need to consider the situation of the "0L" considering attending law school. While going to Illinois on a $15k per year scholarship--to you use your example--might make sense for a graduate with a BA in English from Multidirectional State U with few job prospects. It might not make sense for a graduate with a BS in Checmical Engineering from MIT or a BBA from Wharton.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And I think we can safely say that HYS, Chicago, and peer schools are not in that number.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I apologize, but this calculation strikes me as incorrect:
    "(1) At how many law schools does the total value added for graduates (minus cost) exceed the total value subtracted for graduates (including cost)?"
    Aren't you subtracting cost twice? It seems like the formula your proposing is: value added - cost - cost, which seems wrong. I would think that the right calculation would be:
    (1) At how many law schools does the total value added for graduates exceed the total value subtracted for graduates (including cost)?
    Or am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Herwig Schlunk of Vanderbilt University Law School has noted that law school is a poor financial decision for most law students.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/11/13/mamas-dont-let-your-babies-grow-up-to-be-lawyers/

    ReplyDelete
  5. the BA in English from Multidirectional State U with few job prospects. should develop a useful skill in an industry that has a demand for his or her skill. Preferably one that does not have a 150,000 non-dischargable price tag. Which is not to say that going to a law school outside the top X develops an in demand skill. It is clear at a certain point that law school is just an expensive holding pen between low-wage jobs.

    If you're in a bad situation, the first step to getting out of it is not making it worse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 6:18: That was phrased poorly in the OP. I've edited to incorporate your suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @6:18 - -

    You are a nerd.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its interesting that the ABA controls every aspect of entry to this prestigious field except cost, while the government supplies a source of $$ with no strings attached (except for the students of course). Its a false, subsidized market used only to the benefit of the schools. This is why the cost of tuition goes up while everything else in the economy goes down.

    I love how all of your posts just remind me of my time at law school (appropriately)....always more words, words, words to turn something that is so simple into a verbal diarrhea of what exactly? To show how deep you are?

    Also, I gave you the WSJ link days ago: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/01/ideological-structure-of-legitimated.html?showComment=1327948944495#c4150188195500327348

    ReplyDelete
  9. HYS and Chicago students still suffer from 6 figure debt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As interesting as the Georgetown question is whether it makes sense to go to Colorado or similarly ranked schools.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It makes NO sense to go to Ohio State.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @6:46 - exactly right. But I guess some people believe that extracting wealth from T14 students is OK because they have access to biglaw jobs (even though many do not want that life).

    ReplyDelete
  13. @6:46--but they have a better chance of paying it off. Higher education is never going to be cheap again. Not college, not law school, not med school. The only surefire way for people to avoid debt is to not go to college. Okay,never say never. But it is extremely unlikely that the costs of higher education will ever go down substantially. It is like pining for the days when a Gentleman's C could get people from Saint Grottlesex into Harvard or Yale.

    ReplyDelete
  14. An interesting thought experiment, but one that needs some additional consideration of just how it is that some schools would cease to exist.

    If, for example, the process proceeded in an orderly fashion by killing off Cooley first, presumably the reduction in the oversupply of lawyers would nudge other schools into slightly more favorable numbers, and might push some school above the zero-net-value Mendoza line. With more school closings, more schools would go into positive territory. I'm guessing that Colorado (to choose a not-so-random example) is one of the schools that would move across the line in the course of the orderly process.

    But when the shit hits the fan and schools actually start closing, it's not going to be an orderly process.

    Publius

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think there is another issue that needs to be considered. If one looks at t14 schools, they are all taking students at the top of the education curve, i.e., scoring in the upper 2-5% of LSAT takers, GPA of 3.7 and above, graduate degrees already in some cases. Even in a bad economy it is a pretty safe bet that the typical T14 law student would have done well even without going to law school since they equate roughly to the upper 1/20th of the 1/3 or so who complete a 4-year college in the US - which puts them in the upper 1-3% of 22-25 year olds. like it or not, the T14 are fishing from the very talented pool ... even if a lot of them are English and Poli-Sci majors.

    But there is an issue beyond the near certainty that a T14 law student would have had a successful career without law school, and it is the broader societal harm that is being caused by diverting these 22-25 year olds to law school - the resource allocation issue. To what extent is the US harming itself because it encourages so large a proportion of its best graduates to go to law school? Would the US economy be better without so many talented kids being persuaded to go to law school?

    Since congress and the public are encouraging so many to go to law school through the student loan program - and will be picking up the cost for their unpaid loans in many cases down the road - it is a legitimate question - is this good policy? Is law school not just imposing a cost on the law students but also a net societal cost because it would have been better if fewer kids with LSAT 165+ scores did not go to law school?

    MacK

    ReplyDelete
  16. One key point in the WSJ article cited by Professor Campos - associate attrition is down to 15% from 30% for more. This is what I would expect to be happening and what I have observed - clients want to see associates with 2+ years REAL experience working on their matters - the don't want bills from new graduates. So, whereas in the past new associates were "billing fodder" four firms, to be replaced when they wanted more money or their own office, not firms want to keep the associates 5-9 years, which is creating fewer openings for first year associates.

    The next stage is going to be interesting, because the logical direction that current trends support is that retention/lateraling of experienced associates will in time mean making more partners - and perhaps a better work/life balance as hourly billing declines in favour of value billing and the long hours culture runs into 30-40 years old desire for some personal life impacting retention.

    All of this is to say that for the survivors of the legal crash of 91-94 things were good in the early noughts and probably for the 2008-14 crash survivors things will be good in the post 2015 era, but entry level hiring will never pick up - or at least not until they start graduating with real practice skills.

    Personally, my ideal candidate in DC would be someone who comes to work for me while in an evening program at say Georgetown or Catholic - after 3-4 years they could hit the ground running. That is really the sort of person we have hired lately in London.

    MacK

    ReplyDelete
  17. were "billing fodder" for firms


    As in who cared as long as some sucker would pay $400 an hour for them to do document review (not me when I was a GC)


    MacK

    ReplyDelete
  18. To Law Professor:

    I'm not an attorney - just an average MBA. There's no doubt that a Harvard JD can be very worthwhile for many, but I still think getting the Harvard JD invovles very high systemic risks.

    I wonder that even if one gets a Harvard JD (and borrows 200K to get it), this guy is potentially hanging on for dear life for a while. If Harvard guy joins a big law firm, but gets laid off several years down the line (or gets sick, etc.), what are the odds Harvard guy can find an equivalent job to service his debt? What if Harvard guy hates working for a big law firm - can he find another job to service his debt? Maybe he can, maybe he can't, but the odds are against him.

    In contrast, most other careers if you strike out in your first at bat you're not saddled with a ton of debt that severely limit your choices. Borrowing 200K+ for a career path that requires you to do everything exactly right (and have tons of luck and be at the whims of nasty partners) and really doesn't allow for missteps doesn't make much sense to me from a financial standpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You've given us several possible metrics of failure, but we haven't been observing any law schools closing in response to those metrics. It's therefore obvious by now that law school closures are not going to be triggered by X% falling below a certain threshold, where X% is the percentage of students who benefit from law school. What will be the trigger? When revenues are no longer able to support $250K decanal salaries, will deans march to the provosts' office and demand that their schools be shut down? It would be nice if LP could play out the most likely end game scenario in a future post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Higher education is never going to be cheap again. Not college, not law school, not med school."

    Hand? Meet forehead. This is a perfect example of the large blind spot(s) exhibited by so many here and on other comment boards. There really is no hope for the future when you simply accept something like this so easily. Thankfully the people who pushed for civil rights legislation, gas emissions standards, the woman's vote, etc., etc., didn't think along the same lines. (not that these issues are completely equitable)

    "but they have a better chance of paying it off."

    Oh - so I guess most of Madoff's victims shouldn't complain either because they could afford losing a large chunk of their wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @8:16-- pointless analogy on the Madoff question. I don't think HYS equates to Madoff.

    I sincerely hope it would be possible to rebuild, say, California's system of public education. Maybe I am being too pessimistic, but the voters of this country do not seem inclined to support the kind of social democratic vision that would allow this to happen. Anytime the broader issue is raised on this site, people get impatient,jump in and insist it's off topic. I hope you are right, and that I am wrong.

    As for the Harvard guy, of course it's a cost-benefit analysis. The question whether picking the person who leaves big law and can't get a good job anywhere else in the world is the right way to go. I know people from HYS who have left big law, had loans to pay, and got jobs that are allowing them to make their payments. No school is now or ever has been a guarantor of one path in life. Even when college and law school were less expensive, some people washed out of their big law jobs. The point that has been made here is that people should have the information they need to make the choice, and if they choose to take the risk, then they should do it. It's like fretting over someone marrying a person you know they shouldn't marry. Six years later they find out the person was jerk, and all the years they invested, when they could have been looking for someone more suitable were lost.
    Worrying about people at HYS, trying to figure out whether every single person who enrolled should have gone there is not getting at a real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think this is the reason why law schools have resisted showing their true employment numbers. A quantitative analysis is that much more harder without the real employment numbers. When someone is paying X amount of dollars to make Z amount of money and that person has true, total, and transparent access to Z, then a quantitative analysis becomes the basis for making a sound decision. Law schools know this which is why they hide the ball.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Further, the point seems to be to write as if everyone is at equal risk. Whether you go to Yale or Cooley, you are in the same boat. The profession is changing, no doubt, and everyone will feel the impact. But those changes will not have the same impact on everyone. It makes more sense to me to focus on the people who may be hurt the most.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You've given us several possible metrics of failure, but we haven't been observing any law schools closing in response to those metrics. It's therefore obvious by now that law school closures are not going to be triggered by X% falling below a certain threshold, where X% is the percentage of students who benefit from law school."

    This doesn't seem obvious at all to me. We're not in an Econ 101 world of consumer demand reacting instantly to perfect information.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Only time will answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I've done a few web searches and a bit of reading on the subject of law school closure. Can anyone recommend an article or website that documents the history of such events in the US? Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "pointless analogy on the Madoff question. I don't think HYS equates to Madoff. "

    Madoff engaged in explicitly illegal activity, yes, while schools like Harvard are simply engaging in immoral activity (taking advantage of a false market to the detriment of their students creating perverse results and career choices, etc.). Your argument revolves around "affordability." How does affordability address the original issue? Victims are victims, although I agree that the degree between the two here are vastly different.

    "Maybe I am being too pessimistic, but the voters of this country do not seem inclined to support the kind of social democratic vision that would allow this to happen."

    You are engaging in a false choice fallacy. Surely you can come up with a few more situations between what exists today and what existed 30 years ago.

    "As for the Harvard guy, of course it's a cost-benefit analysis."

    But the costs are artificially inflated and for no good reason as lawprof has pointed out repeatedly. THAT is the real problem.

    "No school is now or ever has been a guarantor of one path in life. "

    That is not the point now is it? (or my argument). See previous point.

    "Even when college and law school were less expensive, some people washed out of their big law jobs. "

    Yep. But not with $100,000 to $200,000 in loans. MBA guy above did a fine job of pointing this out above.

    "The point that has been made here is that people should have the information they need to make the choice, and if they choose to take the risk, then they should do it."

    I would argue, like others here have, that a simple google search reveals the problems and yet people still enroll/apply. Just because people are stupid/ignorant/open to taking a risk doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of. Why? Just because they can? See point 3 above.

    "It's like fretting over someone marrying a person you know they shouldn't marry."

    And yet the state has decided to protect the weaker spouse in case of divorce (and if a prenup wasn't created). The state does fret over marriage. See how that should apply here?

    "Six years later they find out the person was jerk, and all the years they invested, when they could have been looking for someone more suitable were lost."

    And yet the cost of getting married is not controlled by a third party. And again, the state has built up a history of laws to protect both spouses based on equity (not that divorce laws are anything close to perfect - its just that they exist).

    "Worrying about people at HYS, trying to figure out whether every single person who enrolled should have gone there is not getting at a real problem."

    Believe me, the students at HYS are the last people Im worrying about here. But that doesn't mean they are victimized as well by a bullshit market extracting 6 figures from them. Lawyers, in our society, do need to exist and allowing this kind of debt as a cost of entry creates perverse choices, at the very least, that does not serve society as a whole (and these students, specifically) very well. But to does serve HYS very well.

    ReplyDelete
  28. * But IT does serve HYS very well

    ReplyDelete
  29. "It's like Madoff-- except that what he did was illegal" So you fall back on the value laden term "immoral". I don't think that HYS and comparable schools are immoral because their prices are high. Do I wish prices were lower? I wish prices for everything were lower.

    You were the one who admitted that there was a false equivalency between the Civil Rights Movement and what we are talking about today, particularly the situation of people who choose to go to HYS. They are not like folks who were subjected to state enforced unequal justice before the law.

    That is the point, the suggestion is that if everyone does not have a great outcome from going to HYS, then HYS is perpetuating an immorality. Why pick as an example a person who loses a job at Big Law and can't find decent job anywhere else?

    Yes, I know people who have left jobs at BigLaw and gotten other employment that is allowing them to pay their bills.

    Yes, Google law schools and all the information about the problems come up. Students have more information about law schools than at any point in history. How arrogant and patronizing of you to say that people who have read the information and still decide to go to HYS are stupid. You have the answer to what risks and choices they should make in life. That betrays an authoritarian streak a mile wide. "If I were king, people would make only the choices I make. If they don't, they are stupid". The only problem worth worrying about-- the only one we can do anything about--is making sure that the information schools give out adequately informs prospective law students. I just don't see the point of getting mad and agitated because people still decide they want to go to law school.

    So people who go to HYS are victims? I do not agree.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The ROI on a T14 school is going to be far better than a TTT where fewer than 1 out of every 2 graduates ends up in a full-time job
    as a lawyer.

    If less than 50% of a graduating class is ending up as a lawyer (essentially a coin toss) then the 0L should probably forget about that school as an option.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cruxoflaw: I wonder if there exists a history of law school closure at all, let alone one that could inform the present discussion. What's unclear in all of this is what exactly would be necessary to trigger the systematic closing of TTT law schools. Would we need to see a 50% drop in the number of applicants to JD programs? 75%?

    ReplyDelete
  32. 2:17 I think it would be a chain reaction. Even the closure of 10-12 law schools would be such a blow to the reputation of law schools in general that you would see applications plummet even more. I bet a lot of these places are basically ponzi schemes that are pouring almost all their revenue into trying to maintain or advance in the rankings. Therefore they can't cut expenses. A few years of operating in the red and they will have to fold. Then other, slightly higher ranked schools will suffer the same fate, etc.

    Another way it could happen is if the current reduction in applicants is disproportionately concentrated among students who would have been admitted to T1 schools. This isn't a bad assumption since these students are more likely to have other options. If this happens, the T1 schools will have to reach into the T2 to fill their class, and the T2 would have to reach into the T3 applicants and so on. At some point it will become impossible to fill a class that can meet the ABA's accreditation standards for bar passage. This of course assumes the state bars will not raise the bar passage to keep the TTTs accredited or (more likely) the ABA will lower or remove the bar passage standard.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I don't think that HYS and comparable schools are immoral because their prices are high."

    Sigh. This is where I get frustrated. They are immoral because price is based on a government subsidy that their students have to pay off for a large part of their lives with no way of getting out of it if things don't work out (unlike almost every other loan in this country).

    "Do I wish prices were lower? I wish prices for everything were lower. "

    Again....just wow. Do you not understand what is going on? Do you not read? Or do you just have a huge blind spot? Do you really want me to explain (again) how prices are what they are?

    "You were the one who admitted that there was a false equivalency between the Civil Rights Movement and what we are talking about today, particularly the situation of people who choose to go to HYS. They are not like folks who were subjected to state enforced unequal justice before the law. "

    I didn't say false equivalency now did I? It was used to demonstrate that the state addresses a social problem where you stated things will never change. In this case, unlike civil rights, it is the state that is a large part of the problem.

    "That is the point, the suggestion is that if everyone does not have a great outcome from going to HYS, then HYS is perpetuating an immorality. "

    Again you do not understand the argument. The argument is not that everyone needs to succeed only that if people "fail" or choose a different course in their lives they are saddled with enormous debt....caused by free money to law schools with no strings attached (resulting in perverse social outcomes not to mention a lifetime of debt for students). This is now the third time Ive explained this.

    "Yes, I know people who have left jobs at BigLaw and gotten other employment that is allowing them to pay their bills. "

    And Ive known people who have won the lottery.....again, you are ignoring the fact that this enormous debt should not exist in the first place.

    "How arrogant and patronizing of you to say that people who have read the information and still decide to go to HYS are stupid."

    Where did I say that?


    "You have the answer to what risks and choices they should make in life."

    Ummm, what? What are you talking about?

    "The only problem worth worrying about-- the only one we can do anything about--is making sure that the information schools give out adequately informs prospective law students."

    Says the guy who just criticized me for an imaginary authoritarian streak. I am at the point of calling you out as an extremely stupid person. So the problem of tuition based on a false market (and nothing else) shouldn't be worried about? And why is that? Law schools should be able to extract wealth from their students just because unconscionable loans are available?

    "So people who go to HYS are victims?"

    Anyone who is forced to pay tuition based on complete bullshit is a victim. Not a victim to the same degree as TTT students but still victims all the same. Its just about degree.

    Also enjoyed how you ignored:

    "Maybe I am being too pessimistic, but the voters of this country do not seem inclined to support the kind of social democratic vision that would allow this to happen."

    You are engaging in a false choice fallacy. Surely you can come up with a few more situations between what exists today and what existed 30 years ago.

    "As for the Harvard guy, of course it's a cost-benefit analysis."

    But the costs are artificially inflated and for no good reason as lawprof has pointed out repeatedly. THAT is the real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  34. We just disagree, and I'm not going to go point by point on everything. I do not think HYS can be considered immoral.

    You evidently believe something that I do not-- that the American people want to end student loan programs. This is a policy matter that could be changed if there was the political will to do it; to simply go back to the days when only people who could afford to pay for college and law school went. HYS existed then and they will continue to in whatever payment configurations come up. I'm sure some people might argue that the situation in the past, when H and Y at least, took the bulk of their classes from their undergraduate ranks, who tended to be more prosperous, was not a moral state because it shut out huge swaths of talented people who had no way of paying to go to the school.

    I do agree that people who need it should be able to have their debts discharged in bankruptcy, but that is a relief of last resort and does not solve the basic problems caused by the transformation of the legal profession. Again, that is a political problem that must be taken up with legislators-- the people who removed that protection.

    No, don't attempt to explain. I know why prices are high in law school and in college and in other programs of higher education.

    Excuse me, but the state was a HUGE part of the need for the Civil Rights movement. That's why they called it de jure.

    " Just because people are stupid/ignorant/open to taking a risk doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of." Did you write that? Or was that some other Anonymous? What does that mean? I was talking about the decision to go to HYS by people who have surveyed the information and made a choice to go. And that was your response to my point. Didn't you bring up the Civil Rights movement of 30 years ago and other examples where pressure was brought to bear to change society? I didn't come up with that. I would never have dared bring up the fight for Civil Rights in this context.

    "Forced to pay tuition?" People are forced to go to HYS and pay the tuition? No one is forcing anyone to go to a particular law school. There are cheaper alternatives. And there should be even more. People have discussed this on this site before; the decimation of public universities is a scandal. But Americans do not want to pay taxes to support them. Let there be good state supported (with federal funds directly to the institutions) universities and law schools.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just wrote a long comment that was not posted. Here goes again. Apologies if it shows up at some point.

    1. We will have to agree to disagree. I do not think HYS can be considered immoral.

    You evidently believe something I do not believe: that the American people want to do away with student loan programs. That could be done if the political will existed. We could go back to a time when only people who could afford to pay for college and law school went to college and law school. HYS existed then and will continue to exist whatever payment configuration comes up. I am sure there are people who might argue that the system that existed before, when H and Y at least, took the bulk of their classes from their undergraduate programs (comprised of people who were typically very prosperous if not outright rich)was immoral. Whole swaths of talented people who could not afford to pay (and who did not go to Harvard and Yale Colleges) were shut out.

    I agree that graduates should be able to discharge debts in bankruptcy. But that is a relief of last resort that does not solve the problems caused by the transformation of the legal profession. It is a matter that must be taken up with legislators, who took the protection away in the first place.

    No, don't attempt to explain again. I know well why tuition is high in college, law school, and in the rest of higher education.

    "Just because people are stupid/ignorant/open to taking a risk doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of. Why? Just because they can?" Did you write that? Or was that some other Anonymous? I was talking about the situation where a person who had considered all the information about law school decided to go to HYS. You responded to that point with the quoted material. What did that mean?
    And you were the person who brought up 30 years ago by referencing times in the past (the Civil Rights Movement) when people took action to solve a social problem. I would never have brought up the CRM in this context. By the way, the state was a HUGE part of the reason for the CRM-- that is why they called it de jure segregation. Jim Crow was created and maintained by the states.

    People are forced to go to HYS? No one is forced to go to any particular law school and pay its tuition. There are cheaper alternative,and there should be even more. People have posted on this site before about the withdrawal of support for the public university system in this country. It is a scandal. But Americans do not want to pay taxes to support them. Let there be state support (and direct federal support) of public universities and law schools so that people who cannot afford private schools can have viable alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Law Prof,

    I am sure that Jonathan Macey, Yale Law Professor, is an extremely intelligent and resourceful individual and professional. However, after watching this unedited clip of him squirm uncomfortably, with arms folded, rocking back and forth, stammering nonsensical answers, to questions posed by Jon Stewart about the procedure, tactics, and effects of Private Equity firms, I cannot understand how Mr. Macey is employed as a law professor, especially in the "pinnacle" position of legal academia, Yale. What I've come to determine, which maybe even worse, is that Mr. Macey's responses and actions may actually be EXACTLY why he is in the position he is in legal academia. Mr. Macey appears detached from realty, defending Bain Capital and Private Equity firms vigorously as if he were their General Counsel, and seems to never once have analyzed his position from the opposite view point. "When one's livelihood depends upon one NOT understanding something, it is difficult for one to understand it." When presented with concrete analysis and data by Jon Stewart about the illegality (at bare minimum immorality) of certain actions of Private Equity firms, Mr. Macey gave answers that reminded me of the answers given to those calling for law school transparency/tuition reduction/etc. by legal administrators, professors, deans, the ABA, and Senior practicing attorneys. "It's just a recession; people should've known better; it's more good than bad; it has more versatile value than just directly linked to what it is supposed to do; it has always been this way and therefore should continue to be this way." I felt that Mr. Macey's appearance was as much, if not more, a reflection of the unfortunate state that the legal profession has fallen into. Again, I am sure Mr. Macey is a very respectable and smart individual. It just seems appropriate that a "leader" in legal academia would propose an argument akin to a 14 yr old arguing with their parents as they get caught in a lie/bad act on one of the most watched television shows.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/

    ReplyDelete
  37. Are you blocking comments?

    ReplyDelete
  38. @ Anonymous 3:50. I answered, but tried to post three times, but my answer is not being accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 7:12: Your comment was blocked as spam for some reason. It's now posted.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks very much, Law Prof. After I tried the third time I figured there must be something wrong with the filter.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "You evidently believe something that I do not-- that the American people want to end student loan programs."

    Nope...never said that. This is , again, why this type of discussion is so frustrating. You have a set of ideas and just openly ignore what I said and insert a wild mischaracterization of my argument. For the 4th time now, there are many scenarios between a complete free market that shuts out the poor, a wholly tax-subsidized educational system and the current student loan program that sets no limit on tuition rates and almost no regulations on the schools in exchange for this free money. Can you think of a few? Please stop mischaracterizing what I've stated.

    "But that is a relief of last resort that does not solve the problems caused by the transformation of the legal profession"

    And what transformation is that except the wild amount of debt now heaped on its students. While I believe the law profession should be changed (but at what time in history didn't it need to be changed) that is a separate issue.

    "It is a matter that must be taken up with legislators, who took the protection away in the first place. "

    Yeah, so? That doesn't eliminate the responsibility of law schools and faculty who constantly expound on how noble and ethical the profession is. They are the direct benefactors after all.

    ""Just because people are stupid/ignorant/open to taking a risk doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of. Why? Just because they can?" Did you write that? Or was that some other Anonymous? I was talking about the situation where a person who had considered all the information about law school decided to go to HYS."

    Right and "open to taking a risk" is covered there is it not? Why should somebody who really finds a calling to be an attorney or wants to work at the lowest rungs and help society be subjected to prices based on free non-dischargeable money? A false market? Why? You still haven't answered why its ethical or logical to have the prices at what they are or the entire mechanism behind it.


    "And you were the person who brought up 30 years ago by referencing times in the past (the Civil Rights Movement) when people took action to solve a social problem. "


    Right and you tried to mischaracterize the reason I brought it up. You can go back and see the distinction, again, if you like.


    "By the way, the state was a HUGE part of the reason for the CRM-- that is why they called it de jure segregation. Jim Crow was created and maintained by the states. "

    No shit. And so how is that different from the state fucking up the educational system? Again, what was my main point in bringing it up?

    "People are forced to go to HYS? No one is forced to go to any particular law school and pay its tuition. "

    6th time now. That is not the point. The point has been rehashed 6 or 7 times now.


    "There are cheaper alternative,and there should be even more."

    You should look up the price of TTT schools. They price their schools under the same mechanisms. Have you not been reading the posts here?

    "the withdrawal of support for the public university system in this country. It is a scandal. But Americans do not want to pay taxes to support them."

    Yeah...no kidding. So just allow a wholly unregulated false pricing system that creates major, horrible social problems for students instead?

    "Let there be state support (and direct federal support) of public universities and law schools so that people who cannot afford private schools can have viable alternatives."

    OK. Im more than fine with that. And why not regulate the student loan program also. Do you have an understanding of basic economics? Why prices are what they are today? So you demand public support of schools but not regulations (a much easier task) to fix the horrid mess that is currently going on?

    ReplyDelete
  42. umm, lawprof....my long comment was posted so it was not caught in the spam filter. Now its gone? OK...just return to the circle jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Listen, 8:56-- you are the one who says things, but then won't own the meaning of what you say. As I said, we disagree on this. I entered the discussion (to procrastinate for a moment and) to make the point that many of the problems addressed on this blog are not as striking at HYS. LawProf and others keep pointing out that this is really not where the main problems are. But we keep getting drawn back into discussions about schools that still provide enormous opportunities to the people who attend them. Go look at their stats. In down markets everyone suffers. But folks at these places do not suffer as much. Still, you are determined to cast them as victims forced into a situation as if they had not control.

    All of the schools have made a steady move toward enrolling people who are older and have had experiences in the world. They are not weak-minded and/or unthinkingly impulsive children as you try to make them out to be. You tried to fudge with the "stupid/ignorant/open to risk" language. If you just meant "open to risk" you would have just said that, since I was the one who talked about making the decision to go to HYS in terms of having the information and taking a risk. You added in "stupid/ignorant" for a reason. Words mean things.

    If you think what was happening to blacks in the south from slavery,through Reconstruction, up until the end of the CRM (maybe) can be equated with the student loan crisis-- is even remotely like it-- then you have no understanding of what that Movement was about and why it was needed.

    ReplyDelete

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