tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post8362646732225644575..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: Law school politics and the English languageLawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-10480624045874500012011-08-27T23:16:12.144-07:002011-08-27T23:16:12.144-07:00Thank you for the suggestions.Thank you for the suggestions.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10559337725063627254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-16978183338486962982011-08-26T05:00:20.570-07:002011-08-26T05:00:20.570-07:00Also -- for understanding specific provisions of t...Also -- for understanding specific provisions of the Constitution, <i>The Heritage Guide to the Constitution</i> is unbeatable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-19441249170140916582011-08-26T04:58:13.074-07:002011-08-26T04:58:13.074-07:00Michael -- If you're a reader, there are some ...Michael -- If you're a reader, there are some excellent books on law and legal history aimed at the general reader. Lawrence Friedman's <i>History of American Law</i> is great (I read it when considering whether to go to law school). I've heard good things about <i>Law 101</i>.<br /><br />If "auditory" learning is more your style, try checking out adult education courses in your area. Law for the non-lawyer courses (under various names) are fairly common.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-60658112807317233062011-08-26T03:02:13.224-07:002011-08-26T03:02:13.224-07:00Michael - you just gave another basic reason why l...Michael - you just gave another basic reason why law schools are such scams. It is more than just a scam revolving around money...it prevents people from practicing law. In what world is paying $35 thou a year for three years to get an education that barely equips you to practice law while keeping everyone else out a healthy situation for a society?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-52091563318015270982011-08-26T01:33:38.480-07:002011-08-26T01:33:38.480-07:00This is an incredibly impertinent question, but he...This is an incredibly impertinent question, but heregoes. I have come to believe that solid understanding of the law and the history of U.S. law is indispensable for deeply engaged citizenry in our late Republic here (e.g. it concerns all citizens directly that either a) the federal government has the power to mandate we buy health insurance, and has just done so or b) the federal government does not have that power). I would also consider the possibility of a legal career if I thought investment in law school was a sound one. I'm not sure there can be any doubt, after reading this blog however, that it is not. What, then, would those people who have obtained degrees in law suggest for ordinary, college-educated citizens who might in a better world be candidates for law school, as an alternative course to pursue a grounding in American law and the salient questions of its history for contemporary citizenship, given that pursuing law school for only that nonpecuniary reason is rather clearly the errand of a certified fool in the present environment?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10559337725063627254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-15492340844471396682011-08-25T22:10:41.905-07:002011-08-25T22:10:41.905-07:004:36: I don't subscribe to your distinction. ...4:36: I don't subscribe to your distinction. I think that the only meaningful distinction is by whom the complainants feel cheated. Those posting on this blog feel that law school and law professors defrauded them, so their ire and rhetoric is directed against professors. I remember how the ex-BigLaw associates fired in 2009 sounded when (by 2010) the partners who fired them were taking home strong profits, giving out hours/merit bonuses to the remaining associates, and hiring new law students. Those associates felt betrayed/lied to/deceived/cheated by the law firm partners who had recruited them with promises of a certain lifestyle and income when they were in law school, then thrown them under the bus to save their own profit. Their rhetoric was no less seething than the rhetoric of the scambloggers and their sympathizers. And, having observed their tirades "from the outside," I honestly don't think they felt any less scammed than the scambloggers. <br /><br />This is not intended as either defense or indictment of either law firm partners and law professors. (I am neither: I am a government lawyer with a five-figure salary who is still within my first few years out of law school.) It is merely an observation that the newest and/or least credentialed lawyers in the legal profession will always be the most vulnerable; more senior lawyers (whether they are called "professors," "partners," or something else) will not consistently champion the interests of junior lawyers over their own; and those junior lawyers (whether always-unemployed, recently terminated, or even just employed and feeling exploited) will at times resort to the language of betrayal and trickery to describe their experiences. And there will be some degree of accuracy to those descriptions, though not (to my dispassionate/observer's eyes) 100% accuracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-7349647620283748272011-08-25T16:36:49.584-07:002011-08-25T16:36:49.584-07:00"This comparison is insane. I have no problem..."This comparison is insane. I have no problem if you want to get worked up about bankers making millions, or law firm partners firing associates while taking home record profits, or multinational tax cheats. But law profs making 120 or 150K per year?"<br /><br />--------------------<br /><br />Absolutely not. Law firm partners work their asses off. They are destroyed by the stress of their jobs. They have real bosses and clients and demands and deadlines and pressure. Law professors with tenure no longer have any boss, and they live in an idyllic and cush bubble that doesn't exist anywhere else. Say what you want about law firm partners, but no one accuses them of scamming their customers. You think your law firm lied to you about something to trick you into hiring them? That's a very easy lawsuit in court.<br /><br />You're just looking for excuses to feel comfortable about your cush law professor salary. "Oh well I'm not a Rockefeller or, I'm not a trust fund baby who drives a Ferrari or, I'm not the Monopoly Guy . . ." Yes there are real and fictional people who are free loading more than tier 2/3/4 law professors, but that doesn't excuse anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-55575169737605953602011-08-25T15:52:48.886-07:002011-08-25T15:52:48.886-07:00@8:59:
Re: filing for bankruptcy after the debt i...@8:59:<br /><br />Re: filing for bankruptcy after the debt is discharged - I don't know. Good point. I suppose it's possible to discharge a tax bill. That said, I'll be like between 50 and 60 or something, so still pretty much blows.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04034378179943090607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-41109827535812363442011-08-25T15:49:45.810-07:002011-08-25T15:49:45.810-07:00@ David Frazer:
First, I'm happy to hear that...@ David Frazer:<br /><br />First, I'm happy to hear that you're not a recent law graduate but that you're also not entirely blinded by arrogance or ignorance (or both) such that you don't know what's happening or prefer to turn a blind eye to it. I'm also happy you've convinced some potential law school applicants to take a different route.<br /><br />That's all fantastic to hear. Also, though, I just want to raise the possibility (in disagreement with you, I suppose) that one reason the law school professors - at least those who are enlightened - might want to make allies with those of us who have lost lots (it not everything) to law school debt, is that it avoids a greater collapse for them in the future. If I'm being cynical, yes, law professors coming to us and admitting that there is a problem, that they're largely responsible for it and that something needs to be done about it (and what can we do about it?) does sort of short-circuit the rage. But if that were to happen, even if it's so that they can avoid a complete meltdown, say, 5-7 years from now, who am I to complain? What's absolutely assured is that unless something changes and fairly quickly, they're going to find themselves right next to be in the bread line. At that point, yes, I will be one of those who has worked in some minor way very intentionally to drop whatever destruction I can encourage to be dropped on them, and I won't feel bad for it; but if they show up saying, "Let's fix this, and let's get it right", then saying no to it would just run the risk of delegitimizing the very legitimate complaints I (and many of those in my same position) have.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04034378179943090607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-57667276674868132062011-08-25T15:09:40.388-07:002011-08-25T15:09:40.388-07:00Well I did say *minor* aristocrats.
Also, as I su...Well I did say *minor* aristocrats.<br /><br />Also, as I suspect 2:59 knows full well, there are law faculties on which every tenure-track professor makes more than 150K, and some make more than double that.LawProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-47308138955812272742011-08-25T14:59:25.315-07:002011-08-25T14:59:25.315-07:00This comparison is insane. I have no problem if ...This comparison is insane. I have no problem if you want to get worked up about bankers making millions, or law firm partners firing associates while taking home record profits, or multinational tax cheats. But law profs making 120 or 150K per year? <br /><br />You're simply crazy to compare salaries at that level to the thousands of households in the US making millions each year from labor exploitation, environmental devastation, and sweetheart deals. Find the CEOs or million-dollar men at these places: <br /><br />--payday loan companies<br />--too big to fail banks<br />--mortgage scams<br />--toxic chemical plants<br />--oil extractors with sweetheart gov't deals<br />--outsourcers who pay slave wages abroad<br />--cable companies who've captured the FCC<br />--private prison companies<br />--retailers busting unions and forcing overtime off the clock<br /><br />In case you haven't noticed, the US economy has lots of exploitation going on. Some people are making low six figures off it--others are raking in orders of magnitude more money, and buying off politicians to boot.<br /><br />Real law profs are taking on all these things...rather than complaining about how little law professors do. Please, get a sense of priorities. You obviously hate a lot of people you've gotten to know in the legal academy...but the parochialism of these rants is getting embarrassing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-20627401060448000342011-08-25T14:30:22.039-07:002011-08-25T14:30:22.039-07:00I see agree with accrediting super cheap law schoo...I see agree with accrediting super cheap law schools, perhaps of the online variety, if your goal was to screw over law graduates with astronomical debts even more. <br /><br />What about those who have already paid $100,000 for their JDs? The cheap online law schools will churn out more students who have paid a fraction of what others have paid for the degree. Those who paid $100,000 have to charge more for their services than someone who pays 10,000. The graduates who paid more will get slaughtered in competition with those who can charge less. Let's face it, for most consumer legal services, the consumer will go with whoever charges the least amount.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-37438708486781366272011-08-25T13:29:09.684-07:002011-08-25T13:29:09.684-07:00The idea of eliminating the entire third year of l...The idea of eliminating the entire third year of law school makes sense when one views it as a lowered expense. Lessen the investment and the required salary to repay one's student loans also diminishes. I don't know how comfortable I am with where the line of thought necessarily goes - more attorneys doing work for less money all around. Cutting the pie into more pieces. I have seen some interesting arguments (the libertarian concepts, if you will) that suggest lowered regulation, or lowered barriers to enter into the market for providing legal service, creates a better value for the consumer. As the consumer is society itself, is that not a positive outcome worth pursuing?Crux of lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06572986619859564280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-21762096558261672222011-08-25T10:30:43.514-07:002011-08-25T10:30:43.514-07:00I'm a solo practitioner who graduated in the 8...I'm a solo practitioner who graduated in the 80's with manageable debt and am fortunate enough to have a practice niche that allows me to make a good living. So, personally, I have no complaints along those lines [though I do agree with most of the critiques of law school, law school "scholarship", etc.].<br /><br />I did, however, spend several hours recently convincing [I hope] my nephew and his girlfriend, both recent college grads working in entry-level social service jobs, not to apply to law school with the help of some of LawProf's other writings and the scamblogs.<br /><br />As an undergrad sociology major, I wanted to point out the central fallacy of trying to organize an alliance between students and law professors. It is absolutely not in the interest of the professors to do so. As others have pointed out, the profs make the salaries and enjoy the benefits they do only because of the tuition paid by the students. <br /><br />Moreover, it is painfully obvious that the long-term solution to the problems oftoo-many new lawyers and the dubious value of actual law school teaching lies in some combination of eliminating excess capacity [i.e., closing law schools] and re-imagining legal education. Both of these solutions mean that there will be fewer, perhaps many fewer, law school professor jobs and, as the supply of professors relative to demand will increase, salaries will naturally go down [or, at least, not increase as much]. <br /><br />Given this, why the hell is it in the interest of law school professors to ally themselves with students in this crusade? Not gonna happen.David Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02176374648479478183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-49132915176224693412011-08-25T10:01:48.674-07:002011-08-25T10:01:48.674-07:008:57,
The Army does not direct commission acti...8:57,<br /><br /> The Army does not direct commission active duty officers outside of JAG, Chaplains and the Health Professions. The Army Reserve unfortunately had a direct commission program for basic branch (e.g. MP, Engineer, MI) officers but it appears the days of this program are numbered. IMHO, Good Riddance. Given the OPTEMPO over the past decade, USAR Engineer, MP and Transporation officers have deployed and faced the same dangers as their active duty peers. It is unconscionable that the USAR leadership would launch a program out of desperation that would produce officers to lead soldiers in combat with 22 weeks LESS practical training (BCT and OCS) than their Regular Army or USAR peers produced through OCS, ROTC and USMA. To those thinking of a USAR non JAG/Medical/Chaplain direct commission (if it is even still available to civilians), reevaluate your thinking!!! You owe yourself, and more importantly, the soldiers whose lives are placed in your hands, a willingness to get the best training available. This means no short cuts around BCT and OCS. Branch OBC/BOLC will not prepare you sufficiently for service as a platoon leader in a deployed environment.<br /><br /> It is very hard to find an MI LT slot in the Army Reserve right now. There are slots here and there, but they are coveted (for many of the reasons you suggest). The USAR has thousands of LT and Captain vacancies, but very few open MI LT slots. They are coveted by ROTC grads going into the USAR. <br /><br />I hope this helps.Voodoo94http://www.armyocs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-29336618425741856252011-08-25T09:52:19.290-07:002011-08-25T09:52:19.290-07:00"You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, e..."You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."<br /> -Mark Twain<br /><br /> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"<br /> -Upton SinclairAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-48528337693669413672011-08-25T09:28:03.111-07:002011-08-25T09:28:03.111-07:00Do not moderate. Do not sugarcoat. Professors and ...Do not moderate. Do not sugarcoat. Professors and Administrators need to hear the truth, in all of its hideous, venomous, cancerous beauty. They need to understand that the rage and the despair is real. Your comparisons to the French Revolution are apt, because only when the torches and pitchforks were at the door did the aristocracy scream (too late) "reform!" Profs and administrators need to have the blinders ripped - painful though it may be - from their eyes and stare at what they've created: an educated mass of people who are out of the money on the American dream, who consider suicide regularly, and feel like they have absolutely nothing left to lose. An angry young man or woman with nothing left to lose is far more dangerous than any gun or bomb. <br /><br />That, my friends, is a tinderbox, and trying to dismiss such talk as "Virgina Tech-y" simply brings the pitchforks that much closer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-50797699843707698552011-08-25T08:59:11.402-07:002011-08-25T08:59:11.402-07:00On the IBR thing, can't you just file for bank...On the IBR thing, can't you just file for bankruptcy 3 years after the debt is discharged? I know it's hard to get rid of tax debt but I think after a few years you can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-49888950981481978912011-08-25T08:57:00.360-07:002011-08-25T08:57:00.360-07:00Voodoo,
Don't they still do direct commission...Voodoo,<br /><br />Don't they still do direct commissions into the army or did they get rid of that? <br /><br />Also, you forgot to mention MI which is probably one of the fields where it is easiest to transition into govt or contractor work. Once you get the TS you're gold.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-15311224125424047862011-08-25T08:44:46.256-07:002011-08-25T08:44:46.256-07:00"Sure that solution would reduce tuition from...<i>"Sure that solution would reduce tuition from $150,000 to $100,000, but do you think unemployed graduates are going to complain less because they only owe $135,000 instead of owing $200,000? (I added living expenses)."</i><br /><br />They may not complain less, but they'd still be $65k better off (and will have spent one less year out of the work force).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-52946709375113836042011-08-25T08:39:18.846-07:002011-08-25T08:39:18.846-07:008:10 here.
Actually, to be technically correct, ...8:10 here. <br /><br />Actually, to be technically correct, eliminating the third year would increase "capacity" by 50% but not necessarily "production." If there aren't enough additional 0Ls to fill that excess capacity, a number of interesting things could happen including the possibility that some law schools will have to go out of business. Regardless, it wouldn't help the job situation since the number of graduates would not decrease. It wouldn't help with the debt situation either because even 2 years would still be very expensive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-15700648793438972162011-08-25T08:18:54.599-07:002011-08-25T08:18:54.599-07:004. (I don't like this solution) Would be to lo...4. (I don't like this solution) Would be to lower the bar passage rate until the supply of lawyers matches the demand. This is what many other countries do. In other countries, everyone and their uncle gets to study the law, but only 5-10% of bar takers are allowed to pass the bar and call themselves laywers. I don't like this idea for obvious reasons but it's another solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-74479091593508144782011-08-25T08:17:17.069-07:002011-08-25T08:17:17.069-07:00@7:40 a.m.:
"The problem with the transparen...@7:40 a.m.:<br /><br />"The problem with the transparency fight is that it is easily co-opted by technical statistical arguments and it questions the integrity of many decent people by indiscriminately using the "scam" and "fraud" epithets. Yeah, it is a scam and and a fraud, but ground your arguments on facts and reason rather than emotion, and you might effect a real change."<br /><br />As I see it, NALP and the schools already collect most of the information required for the transparency regime that I would like to see in place. The cost of collecting the rest would amount to the extra ink and extra piece of paper necessary for a slightly expanded questionnaire. Likewise, I don't believe that a different sort of spreadsheet for employment reporting will have a non-trivial cost.<br /><br />To convince law schools and the ABA that __ credits aren't necessary to graduate and 3L can just go away, you will have to fight against the fact that 3L represents a massive amount of money to these schools. Transparency is the path of least resistance, although it's not the same as saying that there will be little or none.Morse Code for Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533833808776688455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-91249649048562640332011-08-25T08:16:11.545-07:002011-08-25T08:16:11.545-07:00Continuing, some mathematically correct (i.e. stuf...Continuing, some mathematically correct (i.e. stuff that will actually work) solutions include:<br /><br />1. Reduce enrollment (either by shutting down law schools or across the board cuts) until the supply of lawyers matches the demand for lawyers. Under this scenario, an unemployed lawyer would be an anomily.<br /><br />2. Reduce tuitions to match the earning power of graduates. Here you will still have as many graduates, but those from lower ranked schools will pay much lower tuition to match with their expected earning power. In this case, you wouldn't have TTT graduates complaining of $200,000 of debt because they would only have paid $10,000 of tuition for all three years. <br /><br />3. Eliminate federally guaranteed and federally provided student loans. This will force lenders to seriously assess the worth of a law degree before making the loan, thus causing some schools to have to either go out of business or reduce tuition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-87502201473446827542011-08-25T08:10:16.926-07:002011-08-25T08:10:16.926-07:00I'm sorry, this whole "eliminate the thir...I'm sorry, this whole "eliminate the third year of law school" solution causes me to have to ask - is the entire problem with legal academia due to the fact that lawyers can't do math?<br /><br />Eliminating the third year of law school will allow law schools to increase "production" by 50%. In terms of its effect on the supply and demand for lawyers, it would be like opening 100 more law schools! What is wrong with you people? If grads can't get jobs now, how will the situation be when you're pumping out 50% more grads into the market?<br /><br />Sure that solution would reduce tuition from $150,000 to $100,000, but do you think unemployed graduates are going to complain less because they only owe $135,000 instead of owing $200,000? (I added living expenses).<br /><br />Please, end this "end the third year of law school" idea right now. It has absolutely no merit whatsoever. It will actually make things much worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com