Sunday, September 19, 2010

Suffocating, Smoldering, Stifling Stench Pit: Suffolk University Law School



Tuition: For the 2010-2011 school year, a full-time law student at Suffolk will be charged $41,100 in tuition! Those in the “evening division” will only be charged $30,824.

Total Cost of Attendance: In the worst-case scenario, i.e. a full-time student living on his own, the school estimates the total COA to be $66,333. Yes, SBA fees, health insurance, books, average loan fees, and living expenses for such a student add another $25,233 to the annual tab.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/rankings/page+5

Ranking: The cost to attend the school is prohibitive, and living expenses in Boston are high. Well, certainly the law school’s sterling reputation justifies such costs, right?! Well, some publication called U.S. News & World Report had the audacity to list this school in the third tier of American law schools.

http://www.law.suffolk.edu/offices/career/service.cfm

Career Prospects: Apparently, paying $41,100 in tuition does not entitle one to employment or starting salary figures of recent graduates. But that’s okay. After all, the school provides links to online job databases. Yay! And students at this school have exclusive access to Simplicity! Wait a minute – so do law students at any other commode.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/grad_debt

Average Student Indebtedness: According to USN&WR, the average indebtedness of 2009 Suffolk Law grads who incurred law school debt was $108,557. This publication also reports that 87 percent of this commode’s 2009 graduating class incurred law school debt.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/042/133/2009-042133255-05f8bf12-9.pdf

Faculty and Administrator Salary Info: Go to page 43 and 45 of Suffolk University’s 2009 IRS Form 990. On page 43, you will see that university president and “professor of law” David J. Sargent made $832,782 in TOTAL COMPENSATION for 2008. Yes, the president and “law professor” of a truly decrepit TTT institution made EIGHT HUNDRED, THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO DOLLARS in his role as an "educator"!!

But that’s not all.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/11/17/suffolks_sargent_tops_pay_scale_for_college_presidents/

The Boston Globe reported the following on November 17, 2008:

“College presidents' earnings continue to climb, and a new survey put Suffolk University's David J. Sargent at the top, as the most lavishly paid leader at any US institution.

Sargent's compensation in 2006-2007 totaled $2.8 million, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education's annual survey, released today.” [Emphasis mine]

Going back to the Form 990, on page 45, we can see how many other “law professors” at this in$TTTiTTTuTTTion were paid lavishly. The following figures are total compensation for Suffolk “law professors” in 2008: Barry Brown, $266,697; Marc Perlin, $255,870; Bernard V. Keenan, $254,235; and Robert Smith, $236,956. These people are essentially paid these large sums for teaching “legal theory” to students who are being asked to compete against law students and graduates from much higher ranked schools such as Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, this school is a sweltering, stifling, stink-hole that charges Ivy League prices for a TTT product. If you are not prepared to take out $130K in loans and face putrid job prospects, then DO NOT ATTEND this commode. If you are shooting for Biglaw, you are at the wrong place.

http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/transnat/homepage.html

I will remind you that legal and non-law employers do not give a damn about your “incredible writing experience” at the Suffolk Transactional Law Review. In fact, it is best to leave this off your resume entirely. The same applies to those of you who were “fortunate” to land on The Journal of High Technology Law. In lieu of listing these activities, post your hobbies.

http://www.jhtl.org/about/index.html

Again, avoid this over-priced sewer pit as if your life depended on it. Unless, of course, you think that you will be better off with $110K-$190K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a degree that qualifies you to wait tables at the Battery Park Bar and Lounge.

131 comments:

  1. http://www.law.suffolk.edu/faculty/directories/faculty.cfm?InstructorID=942

    Let me tell you about Mary Szto. While spending 6 weeks at SCU law talking about the rule against perpetuities and the Rule in Shelley's case, she once handed out toy musical instruments like little plastic drums to about a third of the classroom. While reading hypotheticals, she would yell RAP ALERT! RAP ALERT! where the rule against perpetuities as defined in the 1700's) was pertinent, and a student was told to... sigh... flash the lights on and off while students made noise with the toy instruments, while the rest of us repeated yelling "rap alert!"

    This actually happened. She came to SCU as a visiting professor from China, after 2 years went to another TTT or even TTTT, now she's ruining educations at Suffolk. She's basically a grifter who goes from one jesuit law school to another (she's a major jeezus freak) to collect a paycheck. discraceful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Billing Affecting Private Educational Loans

    Bankruptcy

    Since 2005, for any qualified education loan to be discharged in bankruptcy, the debtor must prove that failure to discharge would impose an undue hardship

    Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act (HR 5043) would make all educational loans –other than those made or insured by a governmental unit, made under a program funded in whole or part by a governmental unit, or under any program where substantially all the funds are provided by a non-profit institution –dischargeable like any consumer loan.

    Fairness for Struggling Students Act (S 3219) –The undue hardship exception is limited to loans made or insured by a governmental unit or made under a program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit.

    Swamp your Congressmen with calls supporting these bills.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Support the Franken/Dodd bill (Fairness for Struggling Students Act (S 3219)) and the house version (Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act (HR 5043)) which will stop the discrimination and allow student loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. HR 5043 has been voted out of subcommittee and is now in the house judiciary committee. Call your Congressmen, Senators Franken and Dodd and members of the house judiciary committee to show your support.

    Americans should not have to live in indentured servitude because the economy cannot provide a job for them at a living wage, often because the banks and corporations use their undue influence in the political process to shape the economy for their own purposes, not for the good of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Franken/Dodd bill is a Democrat pre mid-term elections ploy to "show" that politicians in power "hear" and "care" about the plight of the struggling college and grad students. I guarantee it will not pass as too many members of Congress have bank money in their pockets from the student loan lobby. Franken and Dodd know it won't pass but insist on putting on the old "dog and pony" trick show on the Hill.

    Now on to the more relevant subject of this school. I haven't really heard too much about this school except that I did know that university professor is one of the most handsomely compensated "educators" in the world. If this is the most standout fact about this school, I really feel terrible for its current student body and immediate past graduates. It would not surprise me that a majority of the grads of this place practice traditional shitlaw areas such as personal injury, insurance defense, traffic law, etc. Why would someone incur six figure debt to attend such a lowly regarded school in order to practice shitlaw? I don't know what would possess someone to do that. I do know that the schools name is prophetic of the fate of its grads because in precise terms, they are "So Fucked."

    ReplyDelete
  5. They will attempt to pass a version of the bill before November because the democrats know they need the student and college educated vote to have any chance of preserving a majority in Congress. Obama relied heavily on this segment for his victory. The democrats know they are losing this vote and will need to show something tangible prior to the election to regain it. That's why it is paramount for any party interested in seeing this bill pass to exert any and all influence to make it happen because it is on the table and can pass with enough support from students and former students who are levereged to the hilt and cannot find a job to pay their bills. In the current and foreseeable economy this includes a lot of suffering people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, we get it. The legal job market is shit, yadda yadda yadda. Relax. Eat a piece of the Colonel's grilled chicken. Wash it down with a good ol' 32-oz Pepsi product.

    Try one of our plated meals. Make the family happy wit some southern style biscuits, lovely sweet corn, corn meal. Try a good ole’ 2 piece all-white meat breast and wing meal. (You a breast man, like the Colonel? Good boy. I likes me some wings though too.) This sumbitch also comes wit 2 side orders. Personalize it. It even includes the heavenly,flaky biscuits.

    http://kids.kfc.com/

    Look at this fucking thing. Does we know how t’ take care o’ yo little ones o what? What other fast food chain offers string cheese or an Extra Crispy Strip to its young customers? Can ya name me one. Thought not.

    Try one of our sandwiches. You’ve heard me drool over the snacker. Well, we’s also gots a Doublicious and Honey BBQ that is smothered in our famous sauce. (This one will make you smack your lips faster than a lovely young woman’s thigh will.)

    Dessert anybody? Who on God’s Green Earth can forget our heavenly bliss called Chocolarte Chip Cake. The truly fabulous news? This thing is a family-size chocolate treat. Please overlook the fact that you may not be able to get off the couch, let alone stuff your wife’s turkey later on. Catch my drift? Thought so. For the dummies out there, that means you pound your wife or gf before you dig into this lovely treat. Then let the Colonel know which one tastes better. JK, except unless you think I’s serious in which case feel free to turn in one o’ those customer evaluation forms and mail it to Colonel. I jus’ wanna improve yer dinin’ experience. Tha’s all.

    Get the idea, TTT grads? Diversify. Diversify. Diversify! You are now at the Alter of the Colonel. Bow you head and say, “Yes, Colonel.” Diversify your law practice. And don’t be a pig-headed fool and beat a clients ass in court, like I did in a Little Rock courtroom. Chalk it up to a bad day in the office. Then again, had my shitlaw practice made me a nice livin’ I may nevuh had bless-ed the world wit’ my 11 herbs and spices.

    When the job market goes to shit, simply develop another area of practice. And watch as the customers come linin’ in to see a attorney on the cutting’ edge. Watch the profits come in. Forgetful me. Sorry, I am describing opening up a franchise. But you can add a law practice in the back. Ya jus’ hafta remember that it is harder to get a food protection certificate than it is to get a TTTT degree from shitholes like the one mentioned above. Good luck to ya!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anyone curious to see the high caliber of attorney/human being that Suffolk Law School produces? One name: Gary Zerola.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/_gary_zerola.html

    Enjoy

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is a privilege to follow you into battle, Colonel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nando, it looks like law professors may soon taste the unsavory flavor of unemployment. After reading this story, I had no sympathy for the fired law professor or what it will mean to tenured facutly. I hope they outsource these jobs too.

    http://www.lawjobs.com/newsandviews/LawArticle.jsp?id=1202472218705&Fired_Law_Professor_Gets_Hearing_but_Still_Loses_Job&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only way the student loan forgiveness act(s) even have a sniff of a prayer is if the banks get something in return. My suggestion? Give the bankruptcy judge broad discretion to declare any debt non-dischargable if there is compelling evidence the debtor never had any intention of repaying the debt (e.g., charge-offs after 6 months, abusive home equity lines, admissions to debt collectors, etc.)

    Right now, all over the country, there are countless people maxing out their credit cards with no intention to pay the money back because they basically are going to pull their chips before the casino burns down. There are countless people who took out third, fourth, etc. mortgages who plainly from their credit reports had no way of paying the money back.

    I know very few people who do not fully intend to pay their student loans. They converted them to non-dischargable over fear that people would go to college and then declare bankruptcy immediately, so they made an absolutist decision where I think moderation and discretion would have been achieved. Absolute non-dischargable debt is the modern equivalent of a debtor's prison, but at least in debtor's prison they gave you gruel.

    If you're going to take such extreme steps as making debts non-dischargable, it needs to apply to everyone who abuses the credit system, students or renegade 40-year housewives who play HSBC and Capital One like toys to fund a remodeling of their underwater home.

    As to Suffolk, I'm downright flabbergasted that any law school would pay law professors 200k+ to make up hypos from a black-letter outline and write papers that most law review students in the country could write. The students in the audience for these guys pay about 6k per class. If you're in a class for 5 hours a week, that's 80 hours total. That's $75 an hour. And this isn't a doctor you're paying for, it's a lecturer to whom you're a face in a crowd. At $75 an hour you could see the best music acts in the world. You could see every show on Broadway. You could pay nice, STD-free hookers to blow you silly. Instead, the room is full of people eager to hear black-letter law.

    If nothing else, that should tell you that the free market economy is broken beyond repair.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @6:20:

    Getting arrested: the newest way of NETWORKING your way to a better legal job!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "For more than 100 years, Suffolk Law has provided a superior legal education."

    As an attorney, if I put out an ad I have to specify that my services are no greater than the services provided by other attorneys, even if my ad makes absolutely no reference to other attorneys, and even if my services are in fact better.

    But, Suffolk can claim they offer a superior education? I'd sooner believe the claims on a generic "fancy ketchup" packet.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You should dedicate an entire post to David Sargent and other overpaid parasites. Name 'em and shame 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with 2:07. Time to single out the highest paid leeches.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/07/chronicle-are-law-schools.html

    “At a time when law-school graduates are facing greater debt and fewer job opportunities, the University of Miami School of Law has offered to pay accepted students to stay away—at least for a year. The school's unusual offer, which followed an unexpectedly high number of acceptances for this fall's entering class, comes during a period of soul searching in legal education about just how many lawyers the nation needs and whether educators have an obligation to paint a realistic picture of students' prospects for landing jobs that would justify taking out loans of $70,000 or more.”

    You can see from the quote above that the law schools are aware of the lawyer overproduction situation. The University of Miami Sewer of Law offered to pay accepted students to defer for one year! Might that be an indicator that the schools are FULLY AWARE of the situation?!?!

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0202/060_print.html

    “Not only are college numbers spun. Some are patently spurious, says Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA. Law schools lure in minority students to improve diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar. Schools goose employment statistics by temporarily hiring new grads and spotlighting kids who land top-paying jobs, while glossing over far-lower average incomes. The one certainty: The average law grad owes $100,000 in student debt.

    “There are a lot of aspects of selling education that are tinged with consumer fraud," Sander says. "There is a definite conspiracy to lead students down a primrose path.”

    Perhaps, this statement provides more clear evidence that the “professors” KNOW what is going on. Is that clear enough for the lemmings and trolls out there?!?!

    http://kowalskiandassociates.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/what-if-they-built-a-law-school-and-nobody-came-jd.pdf

    Lastly, check out this PDF from Kowalski and Associates, a law firm management consultant firm. They are calling out the law schools for their sick conduct. Read this six page document, which stands as yet another STINGING INDICTMENT against the law school cartel.

    Their conclusion:

    “And, indeed, if you have reached this point in this note, in the unlikely event you haven’t already come to other obvious conclusions, here they are: (a) law schools must stop behaving like the beauty schools of 1990 and (b) law schools should make full, fair and candid disclosure to every law school applicant (before they even remit the application fee) and have each applicant sign a document that he or she has read the disclosures and understands them.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Law schools lure in minority students to improve diversity rankings without disclosing that less than half of African-Americans who enter these programs ever pass the bar."

    At least they're used to being slaves! It's complete culture shock to use white folks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Col. Sanders, I can go to BK and have it my way. So get out of here. I almost forget to mention that Suffolk Law is a rotten piece of shit. Those kids are dicked.

    ReplyDelete
  18. suffulk law = chimp diarrheaSeptember 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM

    That toilet in the photo may have a permanent shit stain on it. However, the tenant or home owner can simply install a new one for about $100.

    A law degree from Suffolk...on the other hand. Let's just say you will have a permanent shit stain on your resume. You can try and hide the JD, but it will come out eventually. You cannot replace the word Suffolk for Boston U. and you surely can't do so for a modest cost.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think Suffuck gets a raw deal when it comes to the USNWR and reputation. Nando, did you know that Suffuck is the only law school that has a Workplace Bullying Institute?

    http://www.law.suffolk.edu/faculty/directories/faculty.cfm?InstructorID=59

    Surely this lucrative yet highly specialized niche area of law will reap fortunes for future graduating classes of Suffuck. Perhaps Suffuck can be more cutting edge if it created the Law School Swindle Institute where it can teach students to sue TTT law schools for fraud and misrepresenting salary stats and such.

    PS: Props to President Sargent, the only Sargent that I know who makes more than a 5 star general.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'd take Suffuck over Western New England College of Law (WNECL) or New England School of Law (NESL), but that's not saying much. Keep BU, BC, Harvard, Northeastern and Suffuck for Mass law schools. The rest can die, including that Univ. of Mass. College of Law Non-ABA accredited POS.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And when that commode overflows, the sewage trickles onto Tremont St. and runs downhill, past the Common, past Chinatown and onto Stuart St. into a lesser-known latrine, NESL.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Please do Northeastern next. This piece of shit charges as much as Sufflolk without the financial aid that Suffolk can offer. NUSL markets itself as a public interest law school without any thought to how a lawyer making 35k will pay back 150k in non-dischargeable loans

    ReplyDelete
  23. The JD--the ONLY degree I am aware of that people actively try to eradicate from their resumes in order to survive. Eve Art History majors don't have to do that.

    Bizarre. Law is a seriously ill "profession".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would anyone want to eliminate a JD from their resume?

      Delete
  24. I surmise the NYC Legal Employer's response as follows:

    1) Receives cover letter and resume;
    2) Scans resume until he sees Suffolk Law School;
    3) Stops reading;
    4) Laughs;
    5) Crumples cover letter and resume into a ball;
    6) Aims for wastebasket;
    7) Shoots ...scores; and,
    8) Is thankful for not wasting any more time with TTT resumes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey 1:47, don't knock art history majors. My fiance was an art history major (works as a paralegal - yeah I raided the staff) and still makes the same as me (contract attorney). Go figure. Hey at least someone in my household has a stable job . . . and she didn't have to go $200K in debt either.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey Nando. I think you did the Florida TTT and TTTT shitlaw survey already, but did you do Barry University? Seriously, anyone that goes to "Barry" University should not be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  27. LOL @ 12:54 --

    The only Massachusetts law schools that should not immediately be torn down are Harvard, BU, and BC. Harvard is obviously a top national school. BU and BC are strong regional schools. The rest are garbage.

    NU, Suffolk, NESL, and WNEC are for-profit diploma mills. The only people who try to differentiate these shitholes are losers who attended one. No one else--especially employers--see any difference. A toilet is a toilet. Graduates of these schools will have zero opportunities at graduation. Sorry bro, but your $150k Suffolk diploma will be worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ^TITCR. Harvard, BU and BC are the only real law schools in Massachusetts. The rest are shit-covered rat holes. I seriously would not even stop at these schools to take a dump. The stench might rub off. If you need to relieve yourself and you are near any of Massachusetts' TTTs, hold it in til you hit a gas station of convenience store. That's right. It is better to hold it in and risk a bladder infection than to stepp foot any of these dump sites.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why the flying fuck does Massachusetts have *seven* accredited law schools? In population, it's between Arizona (3 law schools) and Indiana (4 law schools). I know California and Illinois supply a lot of lawyers in Arizona and Indiana, but the love of God, SEVEN?

    God, I hate the ABA.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am the NYC legal employer that commented in the prior entry on WNE.

    It brings me no pleasure to see kids suffer when they graduate with lofty career expectations from places such as Suffolk. Peer firms ignore these places like the plague as they are a waste of recruitment time and effort. Would Hugh Heffner send a scout to a Jenny Craig camp to find the next playmate of the month? Exactly, so why would students of places such as the one featured here expect any employment consideration from a top notch law firm?

    As I mentioned before, law firms are results oriented as clients are demanding as ever. While a HLS student may use the same Glandon casebook on civil procedure as a Suffolk student, I can assure you that the HLS student will understand and apply the material quicker than the Suffolk student (that is the difference between a 178 and a 156 on the LSAT). That is a reality. While Suffolk may have a handful of bright students that will make it, let's not kid ourselves by expecting the next Ronald Dworkin to come out of Suffolk.

    President Obama has stated that he is pushing for more federal loan money to be available for higher education. I am sure that is sweet music to the educators at Suffolk, who are sitting high and mighty on a mountain of cash, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Take away the federal loan teat and folks like Sargent will be forced back to practice law and actually work for a living.

    This blog is a great service to prospective law students. Those that are already in law school are doomed as too many have myopia to see that dropping out after the first semester/year would be the smartest move of their life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glannon* and he teaches at Suffolk.

      Delete
  31. 7:28: well put re: the availability of federal student loan money. Reinstating student loan discharges in bankruptcy will have the effect of tightening credit in the private loan market and forcing the banks and prospective students to think twice before taking the plunge. Now if they would only make federal loans dischargeable. . .

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.rappaportcenter.org/

    “The Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service at Suffolk University Law School fosters innovative thinking on law and public policy and promotes emerging leaders who are deeply committed to public service and pro bono work.”

    This is actually a laudable goal and program at Suffolk Law School. However, it is very difficult for recent attorneys and JDs to land jobs as public policy analysts. Too often, young people are told that a law degree will help them in the field of politics. Frankly, most reasonable people do not have the stomach to deal in this arena. And the world of policy analysts is rather small. Most of these people know each other – and not from some lame law school “mixer.” They have known the right people for years. Many of them had STRONG family, political or business connections to land these positions.

    Law students may be under the impression that people land these openings due to their brilliance, hard work, credentials, i.e. JD, and writing abilities. The reality is that non-profits and non-governmental organizations prefer that an academic meet with legislators and city council members. Ideally, they want someone who has interned for a legislator AND has the “right” name. They also want someone who has the “right” credentials. “This will open up some doors, so we can be heard on this issue. He knows Senator Smith, and his dad works for Shell Oil. He also plays golf with several local judges.”

    Again, I am simply pointing out that many law students - and those considering law school – are told that there are many such openings. The reality is much different. If you do not have strong-to-excellent family or business connections, this avenue is largely closed to you.

    Many TTTs try to bill themselves as being located in the center of industry and government. Third Tier Drake made a big deal out of being located in the state capital/heart of the insurance industry. What they fail to mention is that you are more likely to take your TTT law degree and end up working as an insurance adjuster, than working as a corporate attorney.

    Seriously, how can $uffolk Univer$iTTTy Law $chool bill this program as “promot[ing] emerging leaders who are deeply committed to public service and pro bono work”?! Perhaps some wealthy kids at this school can enter the program and go on to become leaders in this area. However, if you are a person of modest means, you likely DO NOT have connections to those with influence or access to those in power.

    As such, you will be facing a true uphill battle even breaking into this field. You will then need to CONSTANTLY show that you belong. You must blend in, and prove yourself – as I suppose a poor kid who breaks into Biglaw must do. And, you could easily end up $150K in the hole for a job that pays $35K-$45K. Does that really strike you as a winning proposition?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  33. About two weeks ago, I applied for a loan with Wells Fargo Financial.
    I was rejected over the telephone immediately,and today I received the letter from Wells Fargo tht explains why.

    It says: the Principal Reason(s) for adverse action concerning credit is:
    "Excessive Obligations in Relation to Income"

    Of course the "Excessive Obligation" is the massive student loan I am carrying. I have no other obligations. No mortgage. No assets.

    It looks I will never be able to get credit again. Unless I pay the loan off. But that is highly unlikely, if not impossible because the loan has grown to become so incredibly huge by now.

    I can send a copy of this letter to be posted for all the world to see if you like.
    This is your future kids, if you take out student loans and they end up getting out of control. Not unlikely to happen too in today's job market.
    It can take less than ten years for your law schoool debt to become virtually beyond all hope of ever paying off.
    And ten years is not a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://law.com/jsp/law/article.jsp?id=1202472036425&law_schools_flamed_in_growing_number_of_graduates_scam_blogs

    Nice job. the media is starting to take notice.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Don't get me wrong, NYC. I think you are doing a PUBLIC SERVICE here. However, I do believe superior connections trumps educational elitism evry time. Even in a prestige-driven "profession" like law. That's why Andrew Cuomo-types get gigs in the AG's office, or wherever, despite a TTT or TT background.

    Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 12:45PM poster:

    I agree that connections will trump educational elitism 90% of the time. There are a few attorneys that graduated from deplorable law schools that are scattered around the NYC legal landscape. Those "TTT" grads as you call them, are often "poster children" for their respective alma maters as they are plastered all over glossy admissions brochures and CSO webpages. These fortunate grads have a moral obligation to clarify that their astronomical odds beating is not the norm and to prevent their stories from being boasted as the rule rather than the exception to prospective and unsuspecting college grads.

    Andy Cuomo would not be where he is on the basis of him graduating from that cesspool law school upstate that is part of the SUNY system. And kids, to be clear, the connections we are talking about here have many times been formed at birth or pre-law school. If you are in law school without having any prior connections and are now seeking to form said connections, well all I can say is please accept my sincere condolences to your legal career. Let it rest in peace. Long live your dreams of becoming a lawyer.

    NYC

    ReplyDelete
  37. You said it NYC.

    Frankly, I found it a rare pleasure to even meet a few Ivy league lawyers over the years.

    They simply seemed natively more intelligent.
    I don't know if all of them are, but the ones I met seemed so.

    Just look at Ann Coulter. People may hate her political views, but she is incredibly smart, and quick. A little high strung maybe, but that goes along with a high IQ, if not genius.

    I sure wouldn't want to debate her.

    ReplyDelete
  38. AM I "Judgement Proof"?

    I have a ton of student loans.
    No assets, and a low-paying job. Does that make me "Judgement Proof?"

    If I was found to be at fault in a civil suit, and a Judgement Lien was placed against me, what would happen?

    I would assume a wage garnishment.

    But who would be first in line or have the superior claim to the wage lien? The Plaintiff in the suit, or the Student Loan Collectors? Or both?

    Because it seems like a sincerely wronged Plaintiff in a Civil Suit trying to sue someone with an incredibly high amount of Student Loans seems like going after the shallowest pocket of all.

    So isn't the society at large negatively, though indirectly, affected as well by the whole Student Loan situation?

    ReplyDelete
  39. @4:14PM

    Which gives impetus to potential creditors and banks to look into the credit history of college and graduate students. If I were a bank executive, there is no way in hell I would give a snot nosed kid out of college or law school a loan for anything, especially if they are leveraged to the hilt.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I have a question. It might be somewhat naive as I am neither lawyer nor law school student, and have no intention of ever becoming one.

    But Nando said this about Suffolk

    "I will remind you that legal and non-law employers do not give a damn about your “incredible writing experience” at the Suffolk Transactional Law Review. In fact, it is best to leave this off your resume entirely. The same applies to those of you who were “fortunate” to land on The Journal of High Technology Law. In lieu of listing these activities, post your hobbies."

    And my question is, does anyone important read Third Tier published Law Review Journals? I mean other than the students who edit them? If so, Who? and If not, why are they published in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  41. 4:33: I am 4:14

    Your comment sounds good, but might need editing in order to clarify.

    I will have to break down what you have said into your two sentences:

    In reply to the first, most college kids and graduate students in school have very low borrowing limits, and relatively little credit history to speak of.

    So is the lending bank negligent in giving out the student loan?

    Negligent by what applicable standard I don't know.

    Id so, does the clearly wronged plaintiff in my hypo (who had nothing to do with the student loan situation by the way )have recourse to go after the negligent bank executive?

    That is a big stretch.

    An even bigger and huger stretch would be to talk about piercing the corporate veil. (like Al Lord's)

    Your second sentence talks about students out of school. I agree with that, but the banks still in reality do give credit up to a point.
    Such as a low limit credit card.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 4:58PM

    Kid, they call it the "House Organ"

    Damn good question from a sharp kid, but God! Youth is wasted on the young!

    ReplyDelete
  43. The hiring attorney in New York nailed it. Andrew Cuomo had his ticket punched when his father became the eloquent governor of New York. REAL connections are those that are derive from family and accumulated wealth. Old money connections are ideal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Register

    In my earlier comment, I was referring to state lobbying and policy positions. When dealing with “elite” public interest groups, i.e. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, old money trumps elite credentials in the hiring process. This makes sense, as these legacy children have access to the right social circles, i.e. those with money, connections, access, property and power.

    We are all aware that real connections count in Biglaw and corporate hiring. A lot of this is due to cultural nuances. Corporations and Biglaw firms want to hire people who look, act, talk, think, and believe like they do. They prefer to hire those who are from the same social and economic class that they belong to. Even those who EXCEL at law school struggle to find work if they are: (a) non-traditional - firms do not want a 35 year old, first year associate; or (b) from a lower-class background - absent a complete transformation and total acceptance of the “correct” language and gestures of the upper classes.

    Such people MUST shed their former selves, in order to have a shot at gaining admission to “the club.” This is also true of the NGO world. Most of the kids hired at elite public interest groups are from families that belong to the Social Register.

    People, if you DO NOT have strong to excellent connections before going to law school, you should prepare to end up with significant student debt AND no realistic shot at paying back your student loans, buying a home or having children. Is it worth taking out $150K in non-dischargeable debt so that you can say, “Look at me. I’m a lawyer.”?

    ReplyDelete
  44. I have a friend that went to Suffolk Law. Really nice girl, extremely bright, and her only chance to go to law school was to take out over $150K in loans as she did not come from money.

    She wanted to represent children.

    She now has $200K in debt and is discouraged beyond belief.

    Is she stupid for taking out these loans? Not if you consider that believing in the american dream and that you cannot put a price on education is instilled in us from day one.

    Was she naive in believing that it would improve her ability to get a job? I don't think so.

    Law schools have a social and moral responsibility to educate pre-laws on the saturated market. They ignore this because it is to their financial detriment.

    The ABA or Dept of Ed could make a rule that said a law school can only accept 50% of tuition money through loans. They could make so many rules but they don't.

    The ABA, Dept of Ed, and schools should look out for students. Successful lawyers and law firms do not need their help.

    We do.

    ReplyDelete
  45. To 5:54:

    Dear God! Where is all of this going?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The "Andy Cuomo Exception" should be incorporated into the law school scam lexicon. The "Andy Cuomo Exception" should be defined as follows:

    Anyone who is:

    1) Born into a wealthy or powerful political family (or like in Cuomo's case, marries into the Kennedy Clan)
    2)Attends a TTT
    3) Has world handed to him/her on silver platter.


    Kids, listen up. If you meet the Andy Cuomo Exception, by all means be my guest and go to law school. If you not, don't expect sympathy when your life is all about "killself" or being "Sallie Mae's Bitch."

    ReplyDelete
  47. In all fairness, I don't know that much about Andrew Cuomo.

    But I do remember that his father, Mario, was and is a very outstanding and brilliant Man.

    And a Good man.

    The author of "Why Lincoln Matters".

    You will just have to take my word for it. Maybe I have lived a little longer than a lot of you out there.
    Just a feeling I have from having seen Mario for so many years.

    In spite of my support for Law School Reform, which, obviously by now, is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 5:04 pm:

    Beautifully put.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 4:58 pm:

    Good Question.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @ 1:31: Ann Coulter is so stupid she doesn't know that evolution is true:
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200607070010

    ReplyDelete
  51. You guys will like this story:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/pizza-soda-and-legal-advi_n_731927.html

    ReplyDelete
  52. ^^^

    I read the story about the pizza lawyer. That is some sad sickening shit. And he is lucky that he could move back with his parents and have his mommy cook him 3 squares a day. He incurred $170K in student loans to get a JD from, of all places, the New England School of Law.

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/george-sotiropoulos/6/43/a88

    Apparently, this kid did not meet the "Andy Cuomo exception."

    ReplyDelete
  53. If every unemployed law grad came forward I would guess real employment in law is around 40 percent

    For now were stuck with these anecdotal stories that are really the norm for TTT and TTTT schools

    ReplyDelete
  54. Nando, can you answer me one question? If President Obama said the recession ended in June 2009, how come the classes of 2009 and 2010 got fucked over? How come NALP declared the legal market to be "anemic?" Over at TLS the lemmings are celebrating Obama's "Mission Accomplished."

    ReplyDelete
  55. The pizza guy's debt, or the average 150 grand figure will quickly increase as the debtor is severely punished by the lender for late payments, deferments, or default.
    These penaltys can almost be said to be ievitable.

    Well.....given the job situation, they ARE inevitable. so 150 thousand grows to 200, 250,300 and beyond. In a matter of several years, or less than ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  56. But on the bright side, a lot of debt makes a person: "Judgement Proof"

    No one can sue you.

    A little perk leftover from Law School

    ReplyDelete
  57. @NY Hiring Dude: "While a HLS student may use the same Glandon (sic) casebook on civil procedure as a Suffolk student, I can assure you that the HLS student will understand and apply the material quicker than the Suffolk student (that is the difference between a 178 and a 156 on the LSAT)"

    Your assurance is wrong - what about ringers? A lot of kids who are perfectly qualified to go to Harvard or Stanford (e.g., 165+ LSAT, high GPA, good other creds) wind up going 2T because the school pays them to inflate their LSAT numbers. If they go there and finish top 5%, they're probably better and faster in their application than the bottom half from Harvard. The fact that you, your firm, and your clients refuse to see this (or that you refuse to hire 2T for cheaper and explain it to them) is part of the grand Ponzi scheme at work here. It's a tautology: Harvard students are good 'cuz they're Harvard students, with no other basis. If you actually worked under the rules of Capitalism and started hiring equally-qualified 2T and - gasp - 3T grads, pretty soon the number of Harvard, Duke, Cal, Yale, etc. grads who can't find good employment would jump. And then the scheme would have more exposure because any Yale grad struggling to find work would garner attention; a Syracuse grad just doesn't have the same effect, even if it's a law review member.

    Thanks for helping to keep the scam alive.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @1:24

    What law school told you that?!

    There's no such thing as "judgment-proof." Anyone with a right can still get a judgment, they just won't be able to collect on the judgment, hence the term "collection-proof." They absolutely can and will sue you in order to effect liens on any real property, stake claims in bankruptcy court, and have their interest protected if in some event the debtor suddenly makes money.

    And someone isn't collection proof merely because they have a lot of debt. It's having a lot of liabilities AND not having garnishable employment or substantial assets. So even if you have 100k in credit card debts, you're not collection proof if you make 40k a year, and you're not collection proof if mommy and daddy are floating your bank account.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I love picking a lawyers brains.
    OK, correction, the term is "Collection Proof"

    So two hundred grand in Student loan debt. No job except one that pays a minimum wage. No hope of ever getting a job that pays more because the credit score is destroyed because of student loans.
    No assets, and no probability of ever obtaining any. Parents do not float the bank account.

    I call that Collection Proof.

    But suppose a 40 grand job is found? Who is first in line for the wage garnishment?
    The judgement creditor the Student Loan people, or both?

    ReplyDelete
  60. 4:28 AM

    NYC: What are we going to do with these people?

    Ivy is Ivy. They are and we are not. That is just the way it is.

    The ringers will just have to stick to playing horeshoes.

    ReplyDelete
  61. 5:28 again:

    And.......And......Let me finish......LET ME FINISH!

    The ringers will have to stick to playing horeshoes, and the rest of the peanut gallery ends up in NYC's trash bin.

    The T3's might be lucky enough to get a bank shot.
    The T4's get a slam dunk.
    Frankly I would consider it an honor if NYC even touched my resume en route to the trash.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I really wish someone had the ability to track down grads of 3t and 4t law schools to find out how many of them have legal jobs 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs etc post graduation and how that compares to the better schools.

    The economy is bad for everyone who you have to wonder why people who take even just 100k in loans over 3 years do so to not even be able to work in a job that helps pay back the loan and live decently atleast early on with potential for big pay days down the road.

    As a 4th tier grad from 15 yrs ago, I feel lucky to have a job and I was at the bottom of my shithole class. I wouldnt dare go to the same school today and probably would not go to law school if i could not go to a top school.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Thank you to those who see this blog as performing "a great service to prospective law students." The law schools distort their employment and starting salary statistics - for the primary purpose of luring in more lemmings.

    9:56, I will answer your facetious question. Obama said the recession ended last year, because he is a figurehead of the power structure. He - and every other dolt to occupy the Oval Office in the last 47 years or so - is not truly in charge of anything. His main public role is to provide "leadership" and keep up the faith of the populace.

    What is so sad is that people were literally crying tears of joy when this idiot was elected in November 2008. Here is the article you are referencing, 9:56.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092005999.html

    “The determination that the U.S. recession ended in June 2009, made by a panel of private economists who are the arbiters of business cycles, confirms that the 18-month downturn was the longest recession of the post-World War II era.”

    Well, I am glad to hear that this panel of private economists, i.e. economic cheerleaders, has reached/confirmed this conclusion. Now, let’s all get back to work and head to happy hour afterward. In this country, so much of we see and hear, on a daily basis, is smoke and mirrors – nothing more.

    “Professors” and education administrators serve as the gatekeepers. They must keep up the faith of the masses of young people who enter college and graduate/professional schools each year. Ostensibly, they identify their role as “educating the next generation of leaders and business owners, who will need to compete against their counterparts in a competitive global economy. We will come out on top, as we will produce an entire class of highly-educated, highly-motivated individuals. Employers want a smart workforce. The “jobs of the future” will require such people.”

    Of course, these pinheads cannot describe what the “jobs of the future” will entail. Nor can these clowns explain how the hell we are supposed to compete with low-wage, high population nations – especially when the United States has a service-based economy.

    In sum, the pigs simply want to hold onto tenure – and to justify their big-ass paychecks, pension, benefits, perks, etc. This is how people such as David Sargent are able to take home $832K, or $2.8 million, depending on how you look at his total compensation – for running a third tier, third-rate university.

    ReplyDelete
  64. If I had been the assclown that had an opportunity to ask Barry Obama a question, it would have been this: Barry, you say that our country is the envy of the entire world. Can you explain how people, who possess a highly prestigious JD degree, can feel envious of Indian lawyers that have taken our jobs in Mumbai?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Suffolk sucks. It is expensive and they pack the students to the rafters to get that tuition money. Suffolk tried to stop the UMASS's new public law school at half the price. Why would you go to Suffolk, or New England School of Law when you can go to UMASS for half the price. They are all shit law schools, but I would rather pay half for shit if I am paying for shit. UMASS does have extremely low standards. All of this to support a self interested class of law professors and administrators. Educated on educated crime is a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  66. September 22, 2010 1:37 PM

    Ah, see, but that's the whole point: Barry's degree IS a prestigious degree.

    MINE is a useless piece of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mine is too. That's why I'm collection proof today.
    I feel sorry for any sincerely harmed plaintiff in a Civil Suit that tries to sue a former law student rendered poor by crushing student loan debt.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I'm assuming everybody if familiar with Alan Collinges site, and the Student Loan Horror storys.

    But just in case, make yourself a cup of coffee or tea and spend some time reading the storys here:

    http://www.studentloanjustice.org/victims.htm

    It kind of puts law school debt in the greaer context of overall student loan debt.
    But by far the biggest numbers that are racked up are by the law students.

    Some of the storys are at least a couple of years old by now, but the situation hasn't changed much.

    ReplyDelete
  69. To Sept 21, 8:42PM

    Right or wrong, she is Ivy Ann, from Cornell, and a T1, top 10 Law School.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Suffolk is a genuine piece of shit. You go here for law school and yoiur legal career never gets started. Why pay $200K for a worthless product? It doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Call me Ishmael:

    Colonel Sanders is a grand, ungodly, God-like man. He is all-knowing and all understanding. His bounty is boundless. His generosity spans generations. His arms are wide.

    He does not judge, and, most importantly (He offered me a job)

    Am I,a completely abject and worthless T4 JD Jonah to refuse a gift from God?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Now Hear This: The Colonel's got some special empoloyment opportunities for females amongst the student contingent.

    http://business.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978538440

    ReplyDelete
  73. Read it. Not impressed.
    The Colonel is Purely Petrarchian.
    The Colonel is a refined Southern Gentleman.
    The Colonel is only thinking about money, and will always treat a lady like a lady.

    Green grow the rashes OH!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Nando, I have a suggestion for your next post: The worthless LL.M. Apparently LL.M enrollment has outpaced JD enrollment in the past 9 years. The easiest way a Nigerian can become a lawyer? Get a 2 year bachelors in Lagos and then get a one year LL.M and voila, he can sit for the NY and CA bar. Some schools are marketing the LL.M as the "difference" factor to set you apart from the other losers that only have a JD. Of course, many folks are falling for the ploy, plunking down another $50K down the drain. You also have to love the TTT JDs who think an LL.M from NYU or Harvard will wash away the TTT JD stain.

    ReplyDelete
  75. 8:42am: Regarding Anne Coulter, I don't understand your point:
    "Right or wrong, she is Ivy Ann, from Cornell, and a T1, top 10 Law School."
    And she has blatantly false beliefs about evolution not being true. Disbelieving evolution, to a sane person with a high school education or greater, is like disbelieving that the Earth is round. This shows that learning how to solve logic games on the LSAT and then learning how to issue spot on law school exams doesn't really correspond to any real knowledge or critical thinking skills in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I enjoy this blog and I like what you are doing. However is it reallynecessary to point out that Suffolk Law School is a piece of fucking garbage? I'm surprised this is not in the fourth tier. I wonder who Sargent had to blow or buy to get this place listed as a TTT. I know about this dump. My cousin graduated from this shithole in 2004. He has never had steady employment since getting his diploma from this shit factory.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Following up on my last post about Ann Coulter. The level of pseudo-intellectualism of law school and many new lawyers is comical. I have both a legal and scientific background. In science and engineering, one gains prestige (and money) from creating knowledge. If you don't have a fancy degree but make a significant discovery you'll get prestige and even a Nobel. It's the research that matters, not the fancy credentials.
    People get into a good law school based on the ability to solve puzzles under time pressure(the LSAT Logic Games) and then graduate with honors based on the ability to spot legal rules in fact patterns (issue spotting on the exam) under time pressure. This isn't sophisticated intellectual activity.
    I gave the example of Anne Coulter being an elite lawyer so buffoonish, she disbelieves in a pillar of basic science as fundamental as evolutionary biology. The other poster wrote "Right or wrong, she is Ivy Ann, from Cornell, and a T1, top 10 Law School", showing that he weighs posessing these paper academic credentials above posessing actual substantive knowledge and rationality.

    Guys: you need to get out of this silly snobbish cult, and just focus on making money. In the real world, you'll find that the litigator who wins is the one who's most prepared; and that facts win far more cases than lawyers (despite our bragging).

    ReplyDelete
  78. To 8:37:

    Now you're blinding me with Science.

    I have no background. Just a lot of Student Loan debt and bleak future.

    I remember those Logic Games.
    They were incredibly tough, at least for me.
    And I always struggled to spot issues in a fact pattern. I mean really, really struggled.
    If it isn't sophisticated intellectual activity for you, I salute you.

    And Ivy Ann and others like her deserve all the grandeur and pomp that follows in the wake of their high LSAT scores. I will gladly volunteer my time to fan the troubled brow of an Ivy with peacock feathers.

    If they would even condescend to favor me with a glance, I would account it a high honor.

    But the real question here is: if we all evolved from Apes, how come there are still Apes?

    ReplyDelete
  79. This is an oldie but a goodie.

    A must see for every Law School Dean (Except the Ivys of course)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir_QNLJiZoc

    ReplyDelete
  80. @ 1:02 am: How am I blinding you with science? Anne Coulter was foolish enough to write a ridiculous book about a subject she doesn't understand and didn't take the time to teach herself. Part of rationality is the ability to know your limitations, recognize your own biases, and know how to differentiate reliable information to rely up from bullshit. She didn't do any of this. (It is possible that the book was complete political cynicism; though there are limits to how stupid I would make myself look for political advantage)

    Success at LSAT games and issue spotting is essentially an IQ test combined with the ability to work hard. Top law schools filter hardworking high IQ people and give them a credential that opens the doors to important positions. But don't tell me that they learn substantive knowledge at these schools that is different than what are called "TTT" schools in this blog.

    Peoples work ethics and character can change through out their lives. Intelligence is less mutable, but can also improve. Capability, such as being a good lawyer, can improve enormously over a lifetime based on effort and dedication. Lawyers who didn't attend elite schools shouldn't feel that they lack something intellectually; they lack only a credential and the opportunities associated with it.

    You have a great question in "if we all evolved from Apes, how come there are still Apes?" I'm not an expert in this area, but the short answer is:
    This is like asking if apples evolved from fruits, how come there are still fruits around. Humans ARE apes the way apples are fruits. Different groups of the same type of animal, over time, respond to selection pressures differently, some apes grew big muscles, some long arms, some evolved high intelligence. When the differences are so big that the animals can no longer mate, the different subgroups are called "species". This all a made up semantic/classification game. A German Shepard and a poodle are classified as different "breeds" because they can mate while a cat and a dog are classified as different "species" because they cannot mate. If you back far enough, all have a common ancestor. Nearly every species that has ever existed has eventually gone extinct. The ones that are around now are simply the ones that have (yet) to go extinct. The existing species of Great Apes are gorillas, humans, bonobos, chimpanzees and orangatangs. An excellent book on this, if you're interested, is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  81. 8:37, you have cut through all the nonsense.

    Scientists must submit their findings to peer-reviewed academic journals. Their findings must withstand the scrutiny of other scientists. Researchers must archive their data and methods so that other researchers can access them, test the methods and data, and then build on the research, i.e. the results must be confirmed by other scientists.

    Harvard's Christopher Columbus Langdell tried to bill "law as science" - as natural science. (This tool also instituted the "case method" of "legal education".) The main purpose was to legitimate the law - as perhaps many citizens realized that this institution was very arbitrary and results often based on political considerations, i.e. who has more wealth, status and power.

    In contrast to actual scientists, legal practitioners, analysts and "law professors" conversely submit their "findings," i.e. political thoughts and ramblings, to student-run law reviews. The findings need not be scientific, in the slightest. Citations are checked, and perhaps some editing is required.

    While scientists often reach findings that help us to better understand the world and universe around us - and sometimes lead to breakthroughs that improve people's lives - "law professors" do no such thing. Do we really need another academic feminist perspective on the death of the Equal Rights Amendment? Will these political findings be confirmed by the rest of the academic community? And will this lead to an improvement in our lives - or help us gain a better understanding of the scientific world?

    In sum, law = politics. Only a damn fool would argue otherwise. For example, take a look at the archaic concepts of property law that are still applied in the law. The commenter at 8:37 pm is also correct that facts win more cases than lawyers arguing them.

    This industry is still prestige-driven. Those with money can still buy their way out of legal trouble. I knew a trust fund kid who pulled over for his third DUI and then punched the cop in the face. His punishment was a four month jail sentence and probation. Hell, the DUI alone was a felony. And how many people do you know who get away with punching a cop? When corporate executives steal millions of dollars from their investors and shareholders, they receive a big fine - usually for much less than the amount of stolen funds. When some 18 year old kid robs a 7-11 for $30, he is going to jail and his accompanying fine and probation will be much more than the initial theft.

    Doesn't sound very scientific, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Finally. You guys are starting to point out the class and racial issues involved in this shitty profession. Big dollar clients want lawyers that effortlessly look, think and act like them. They don't want some black guy from the projects representing them in court, and it doesn't matter how smart and articulate he might be. They also don't want a short Hispanic woman attorney handling their importatn case. They barely want white female lawyers in the office, other than to serve as eye candy, make coffee and to serve as highly edumacated paralegals. Remember too that many wealthy people in this country are extremely racist. We had all white country clubs well into the 1990s. Anyone recall seeing the story of the racist Harvard Law School 3L email? Believe me, this is not the exception. Many state and federal judges are also hostile to minority and female attorneys in their courtrooms. These females and racial minorities must prove themselves on a daily basis. They are under the microscope and constant scrutiny from judges. If you have a typo or one missed pinpoint citation (could be off by one page of a 65 page opinion), well it must be due to the attorney's 'background.' If a white guy and NYU graduate makes the same mistake, it is overlooked or attributed to his heavy workload or is the fault of the firm's clerks.

    ReplyDelete
  83. to 6:09AM
    I am 1:02Am Up at those hours worried sick to death about my student Loans.

    The question: "How come there are still apes" was actually on Saturday Night live some time back. They had a segment called "Deep Thoughts"

    And that was one of them. But thanks for the reply.

    But while on the topic, there is a fish called a Snakehead I think, that can walk acrosss the land. it is originally from China, and is a real menace to native species in American Lakes and Rivers.
    It can live outside of water for a long time.

    Now, apes aside, I always thought that the snakehead is the missing link.
    But I am no scientist.

    Just a dummy that graduated at the bottom of the class at a T4, and that was blown away by the Bar Exam. Never passsed it.
    "Hard Work" took me so far. Aptitude, if you will,is analogous to talent in my opinion.

    So that is why I am so awestruck by my Lady Anne, and the Ivys maybe.

    But I would add to your good philosophy this:

    Talents are not often discovered by people early in life. Sometimes a talent is discovered much later.

    So that is why it is important to expose a kid to as many things as possible when growing up.
    They may just go down a road that will make them successful and happy. Having a natural aptitude for what they do that is.

    ReplyDelete
  84. What's worse is that the legal system as a whole actively PREVENTS creative innovation, no matter how just or objectively proper such innovation would be. Judges and BigLaw have no interest in justice if it comes at the expense of efficiency or the established legal order. Both have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

    At if you want any proof that law is all politics, semantics, and doublespeak, look no further than the prevalence of 5-4 decisions and the way they're taught in Law School. Half the time, the dissent is written off as inadequate while the majority is praised as it's incorporated into outlines and horn books, even though a one-person difference would change the entire field and have the majority and dissent reverse decisions. Every now and then, I've had professors who call out the S.C. justices for being politically-minded idiots who don't really think certain opinions through, but it's rare compared to the reverence granted them and their surface-researching clerks.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Law School Reform Must happen!

    ReplyDelete
  86. To 3:09:

    I hope you stay around and continue to post your thoughts.
    Law School reform Must happen!

    ReplyDelete
  87. To all of you out there whose lives have been destyroyed by Student Loans:

    Consider the Lilies of the Field.

    Blessed are the Poor in spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 5-4 decisions provide the best proof that law is politics, nothing more. How the hell can 9 of the supposed brightest legal minds in the country be equally divided on keystone issues such as the death penalty, gun owner rights, religious freedom, school prayer, the meaning of marriage, property rights, what constitutes eminent domain. Oh, that's right! Law equals politics, that's how. And no I don't want to hear from some halfwit pre-law students about how the law is about fairness, justice and equality. If you believe that, your IQ is lower than that of the shitty toilet pictured above.

    ReplyDelete
  89. A few years ago, I had a bright paralegal who graduated from Dartmouth. One morning he asked if he could have lunch with me to discuss a sensitive matter. The subject was law school. The paralegal proceeded to tell me how he was inspired by the Innocence Project at Cardozo to go into law and help the innocent get off of death row. As soon as he mentioned Cardozo, I knew the kid had bombed on his LSAT. I then told him that justice is a myth and that society had accepted executing violent criminals and if one or two fell through the cracks that were actually innocent, then this was the price society had accepted to pay. Convinced he could make a difference, he enrolled in law school. About 2 years ago, this kid tried to meet with me to inquire about working at the firm. I asked him "what happened to the Innocence Project?" He replied by saying I was right and he wanted to inquire about working as an associate with the firm. Since he had attended a lower ranked law school, I told him that there were no openings and politely said goodbye.

    6:03PM reminded me about this kid and the naivety that exists in the mindset of gullible kids that want to attend law school or need to become a lawyer at any cost.

    Well kids today that cost is prohibitive. Don't expect any handouts or bailouts on your student loans. You thought you could beat the odds but you didn't so now pay the piper.

    NYC

    ReplyDelete
  90. Up again and worried sick. It is almost 4AM here on the East coast.

    NYC is right kids, so take heed of what he says.

    It reminds me of an old saying of my grandpas:

    "When the money is in your pocket, you are the boss. When you hand the money over, and it is in the other guy's pocket, he is now the boss."

    An 18 year old comes onto the stage in America with virgin credit, and is subject to so many financial pitfalls and traps before his or her life can even get started.

    He or she is lucky if someone like NYC can give them a little guidance.

    I used to work for a company that sold extended warrantys for used cars all around the country. It was and is a very lucrative business, though somewhat shady.
    As a Columbia Law School grad once told me about the extended warranty business, it is :"The ugly cousin of the Insurance Industry"

    It was my job to basically tell the consumer that their claim for an auto repair under the warranty is "Not Covered" And then I would write a letter explaining why, referring to the relevant section of the service contract and/or warranty. (For instance: Your engine siezed up, and now you need a new one. But it was discovered that your engine had sludge in the oil pan, and so it is not covered under section such and such.)

    Some people we (the Co) never heard from again.
    Some would protest and write back. 7,8,10 page single spaced typewritten letters. Hopping mad and deservedly so in some cases.

    Some would go even further and hire a lawyer.
    Or, they had a few other options:
    For instance, they could file a complaint with: their respective state's Insurance Office, dept of Consumer Affairs, Attorney General's office.
    Or the Better Business Bureau.

    Sometimes the lawyers they hired were very good, and in some cases we would settle and have the consumer sign a release.
    In other cases it would be a many months long drawn out process of letters going back and forth, sometimes ending up in a settlement, sometimes not.

    Sometimes, I would read a consumers 10 page protest letter over a denied claim, and muse:
    "How could this consumer have avoided all of this shit in the first place?"

    And my conclusion was and is that it all goes back to the very first day that person sat in the closing booth at the used car dealership. The money was still in his pocket and he was the boss. But he handed to money over to the salesman who pressured him into buying the warranty, and so the warranty company then became the boss.

    So kids, NYC is right. The money is still in your pocket. You are the boss. Hand it over to the Law School, and that money is gone, and you too will be writing long letters until you are blue in the face.

    By the way, I could go on and on about that business. The extended warranty business for cars and appliances. I used to work in the field.

    My advice is to not buy one, unless it is actually from the auto manufacurer. The reason why a car dealership places so much pressure on a person to buy one is because as much if not more profit is made on teh sale of the warranty than on the sale of the car.

    And the markup on these warranties is 6 to 800 percent.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Support the Franken/Dodd bill (Fairness for Struggling Students Act (S 3219)) and the house version (Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act (HR 5043)) which will stop the discrimination against private student loans and allow private student loans to once again be dischargeable in bankruptcy. HR 5043 has been voted out of subcommittee and is now in the House judiciary committee. S 3219 has also been voted out of subcommittee and is in the Senate judiciary committee. Call your Congressmen, Senators Franken and Dodd and members of the House and Senate judiciary committee to show your support. Time is of the essence.



    STATEMENT OF LAUREN ASHER, CONTACT: Edie Irons
    President, the Institute for College Access & Success 510/ 318-7902
    Gretchen Wright
    September 15, 2010 202/371-1999
    Bankruptcy Relief for Private Student Loan Borrowers Advances
    “Today the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
    Law took a stand for students and consumers by passing the Private Student Loan Bankruptcy
    Fairness Act of 2010 (H.R. 5043). The bill reverses the unfair and unjustified special protections
    for lenders of private student loans enacted in 2005.
    “While banks that knowingly make unaffordable loans can simply write off these debts, the 2005
    bankruptcy law made it nearly impossible for distressed borrowers to discharge a private student
    loan, even after meeting the strict criteria for bankruptcy. Under the legislation sponsored by
    Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen and reported today, private student loans would once
    again be treated like other consumer debt in bankruptcy, rather than like unpaid criminal fines.
    “Private student loans are one of the riskiest ways to pay for college. Like credit cards, private
    loans typically have uncapped, variable interest rates that are highest for those who can least
    afford them. They also lack the basic consumer protections and flexible repayment options of
    federal student loans. Yet, under current law, private student loans are treated so harshly in
    bankruptcy that borrowers are left at the mercy of their lender.
    “We applaud the subcommittee members who voted for this bill and urge the full Judiciary
    Committee to act promptly to restore fairness to the treatment of private student loan debt in
    bankruptcy. People who borrowed for college and played by the rules deserve basic consumer
    protections and fair treatment when they hit hard times.”

    ReplyDelete
  92. Law IS a sham profession. It's not a profession at all. Real professions self-regulate. They cannot afford to squander the talents of their clinical faculty on people who won't actually end up out there practicing. Can one imagine a busy physician, whom they have to BEG in the first place to take kids around on morning rounds at the Detroit Medical Center, spending his very valuable time quizzing kids bedside who will not be practicing physicians? Who will end up serving espresso for a career because their school isn't a "name brand?" Of course not. It doesn't happen, because the study of medicine requires the spending of actual, rare, valuable resources. The marketplace will not allow for the squandering of this value. Law schools give NOTHING of value to their students except the fiat piece of paper they need to sit for the bar, which, of course, the students have to pay extra for in review courses just to pass. the huge lawyer surplus is tolerable economically because there are NO economically valuable resources expended on this future mass of non-practitioners. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  93. My friend got a full scholarship and graduated from Pepperdine here in LA in 2008. He said the employment statistics were a sham, Most grads were making 50-70k in small firms. The 100k+ salaries simply do not exist. He took the bar and didn't pass. Luckily he had a full ride so it was free for him, but he is now working in sales. He said in the so cal area you should not go to law school unless you go to USC, UCLA, or you graduate in top 1/3 of your class at Loyola Law School. Other than that, mostly all other graduates are screwed.

    If you have 150k in debt and make 50k a year starting...think about this..
    Can you imagine making 1400 every 2 weeks after taxes, or just $2800 a month and having a 1000-1200 loan payment?

    You are better off going to trade school and becoming an electrician or plumber!


    My friend said he doesn't regret law school since he had a full scholarship, but that you should not attend unless you get go to a top 20 school or you get a full scholarship. Otherwise its just not worth it

    ReplyDelete
  94. We are all screwed. But there is still hope for the future.

    The Law Schools are a big monster. But even Monsters have to eat.

    I think that the people that are absolutely in the most powerful position to effect Law School reform--the people that feed the monster-- are the class of 2014, or at least those that will enroll within the next few years.

    They are the people in the best position to demand change, and can refuse to enroll if their demands are not met. Kind of like going on strike.

    Demands as I say. A number of demands from the many, many Law Schools. (I'm not talking about the top 10 IVYS of course)

    If those demands are not met, the potential students will refuse to enroll.

    Nando and the other bloggers might have better ideas than me for these demands,but I will suggest a few to a candid world:

    1. Lower tuition.
    2. Real Bar exam preparedness. And three failed attempts means a refund in tuition dollars from the school
    3. A tuition refund from the school if, after two years, employment is not found after a reasonable and diligent and documented search.
    Such search to be monitored by an independant entity every 2 months.
    4. Compensation for three years of lost income if the student wins #3.

    Getting in touch with all the potential enrollees in this movement for Law School reform is easy. Just get a list of every LSAT taker.

    Most schools without a large endowment and capital base will be forced to capitulate to the demands, because without the tuition dollars they won't be able to survive.

    Taken to the extreme, if people just decided to put off going to LAw school for two years, it would be quite a hit to the Law School industry.

    Now I know, I know what you are going to say: It will never happen"
    But isn't that the way the Magna Carta was signed? King John had no choice but to give in.

    But are you so sure a movement such at the one I am suggesting wouldn't work with blogs like these out there?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Still more idiots are applying to law school. At some point tuitions will stablize. This cannot go on forever. The question is how many more people between now and then will get eaten up by this shit-encrusted industry?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Keep enrolling in Law School kids. A Ringer is a terrible thing to waste.

    Ayn Rand once asked Ernest Hemingway if he wrote with his penis.

    That seems kind of hard to do, but I do know that any hanging organ can write for the House Organ.

    Sleep well all you Magnificent Bastards.
    East Coast signing off.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "The Law Schools are a big monster. But even Monsters have to eat."

    Send 'em t' the Colonel. I'll feed 'em well. Wit some lovely, heavenly, flaky biscuits, the ones with the crispy edges and soft insides. God damn! Then we can slap on some gravy with some other trimmins. Sweet corn, we got that too. Wanna eat some cole slaw? Bring yer ass to my nearest location and bring along da wife 'n kids.

    Can we all let go of this legal martket thing? It ain't nobody no good around here. Misery, bitterness, depression, sadness, blind rage, hostility. What good is dat serving? Why relive the past? Should I bring up the time I beat up a client in court when I was a practicing lawyer? What good would that serve?

    I say t' hell with this high-fallutin' bullcorn. Eat a damn biscuit. Have a chicken wing. Shit, go out and buy a 20 piece family bucket of celestial bliss. Get a cholocate cake while yer at it. Go all out. Get your eat on! Let go of this stuff. Sink your teeth in the Doublicious sandwich, courtesy o' da Colonel. For God's sakes man. Count your blessings. Eat some original chicken and then go out and get a hooker. Tell 'er the Colonel sent ya. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Colonel that has to be one of the funniest rejoinders on this blog yet.

    I'll try not to dwell on the negativity.
    But it is kind of like like telling Roger Waters to "Think Man, Pink Man"

    ReplyDelete
  99. Next toilet please. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Wow - Over 100 comments. What an epic shithole.

    ReplyDelete
  101. to 2:49

    So funny.

    Yes, but you are the 100th customer, so you get a free lifetime membership in the whatever of the month club....

    ReplyDelete
  102. I concur with 2:49PM. At this point any further publicity and commentary, even negative, would be a boost in the spotight and street "reputation" for this outhouse institttution.

    ReplyDelete
  103. But this is positive. Jelly of the month club. It is the gift that keeps on giving all year long. Marmalade. Orange Chutney.
    But anyway, I'm done. The End.

    ReplyDelete
  104. to the intellectual who tries to say science is different then law and its about production and creating or whatever complicated thesis you were trying to defend..two words for you..Al Gore.

    Law, science, medicine...its all a scam and may the best bull shitters get rich.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @6:41: Tell me more about your sophisticated skepticism next time you're in an airplane 40,000 feet in the air or you trust a surgeon to save your life by cutting you open.

    ReplyDelete
  106. This blog is absurd. Primarily, the authors of this site are upset because they're unemployed ass hats. Suffolk has a fantastic reputation in Massachusetts, so if you want to practice in or around Boston, Suffolk is fine.

    It's unfortunate that Suffolk has been compared to BU and Harvard. Unlike these schools, Suffolk graduates are actually prepared to practice law, unlike the BU and Harvard kids who can't draft a G-D memo when asked. Seriously, they don't know their hands from their asses.

    Unlike the author of this blog, I don't have any more time to waste lambasting something due to sheer bitterness.

    Until next time.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thank you, kind Suffolk professor/administrator/shareholder, for your input.

    Now if you'll excuse me, as a hardworking Suffolk grad, I've got tables to wait on.

    ReplyDelete
  108. P.S. : IT DOESN"T MATTER to employers what you know how to do, at least in the legal world, it doesn't. It is all about possessing prestige and connections. I have had the experience of seeing University of Michigan law grads not know how to EXECUTE A WILL properly, yet, they have the nice job, and I do the cleanup work. Where you are getting it from that this is some sort of meritocracy, I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  109. School Admissions - OSA -online school admissions is an online directory of schools, online schools portal with schools admissions form availability. filling Admission Forms

    ReplyDelete
  110. nice post , I hope that everyone who will read your entry will pursue their work also. Likewise to the Latino Business they have to be included on the ranking of paginas amarillas so that their business will be successful and more services they need to provide.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Life is what you make of it. Stop complaining. It is annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @ December 15, 2010 9:39 pm,

    I have a novel concept for you, dumbass: stop visiting and reading the blog, you ignorant bitch. It is obvious that you cannot accept reality. So quit exposing yourself to it. Keep your head in the sand. It makes no difference to me.

    ReplyDelete
  113. What a bunch of pathetic, elitist snobs who comment on here. It is what you put into it; nothing in life is a guarantee. It's always easier to blame something or someone on a person's outcome than it is take responsibility for oneself. And tell the throngs of people who do not get admitted to Suffolk how they feel while you preach about this "shitstain" of a school--something you surely would not be saying if things had turned out differently for you. Wah wah wah. I am sure they will not write you off as some disgruntled d-bag.

    ReplyDelete
  114. To the moron who posted on 3-4-11 at 10:30 am,

    I am not the one charging $41,100 for annual tuition at a third tier law school. Maybe you can get mad at the correct source, Dumbass.

    http://nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummaryChartClassof09.pdf

    The law school Class of 2009 had 44,000 graduates - for a mere 28,901 jobs requiring bar passage. There are too many law schools producing FAR TOO MANY lawyers. Do...you...understand...that?!!?

    The job prospects are abysmal, for most TTT grads. Those who were not accepted to any law school are actually better off than many of those who enrolled in third tier commodes. At least, they did not piss away three years of their lives - and incur mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.

    To quote a dense troll:

    “Wah wah wah.”

    Everybody with an IQ above 80 KNOWS that nothing in life is a guarantee. That is not what we are asking for, shill. However, the schools provide their students with false hope and misinformation. The student bears the entire burden of this decision. The schools are asking students to invest three years of time and energy - in addition to taking on significant student debt - for an increasingly slimmer chance to enter the legal “profession.” The law schools know the score, yet they continue to pretend that the industry is secure.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=1

    "In January, for example, Blackstone Discovery of Palo Alto, Calif., helped analyze 1.5 million documents for less than $100,000.

    Some programs go beyond just finding documents with relevant terms at computer speeds. They can extract relevant concepts — like documents relevant to social protest in the Middle East — even in the absence of specific terms, and deduce patterns of behavior that would have eluded lawyers examining millions of documents."

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Anonymous said...
    Get a life.

    March 9, 2011 7:07 PM"

    Yes, you should 7:07.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Princeton Review just sent me an automated email:

    Suffolk Law is the only law school in the country to combine three U.S. News and World Report skills area national rankings with a separate national ranking in Intellectual Property Law.

    · Legal Writing 13th in the Nation
    · Trial Advocacy 14th in the Nation
    · Clinical Training 21st in the Nation
    · Intellectual Property 26th in the Nation

    lol, almost like saying a morbidly obese woman has nice eyebrows.

    ReplyDelete
  117. So did u go to Suffolk Law? (This question aimed at the author of this page) Also, what was your GPA at Suffolk?

    ReplyDelete
  118. The Western New England School is such a cesspool; every person I have ever encountered who went to that place is incompetent. New England School of Law is even worse; what a scary latrine that place is. Yuck.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dear God. My future daughter in law is planning to go to Suffolk Law. I feel sick to my stomach after reading these posts. Does anybody have anything positive to say?

    ReplyDelete
  120. How about this: In addition to charging close to 1st tier prices Suffolk Law also does its students (past and present) another favor! It grades on a VERY strict curve that mathematically guarantees that a certain percentage of each class will end up with grades of C or worse, no matter how hard you work! Yeah, they really care about their students. 1996 sucker, err, graduate.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I was one of those students who was awarded full tuition scholarship to Suffolk Law School after getting great grades as an undergraduate at Suffolk University. I went to college at Suffolk as I needed to commute to class while caring for my disabled parents. I never should have gone to Suffolk Law School after graduating from college in 1977. Attending law school back in those days was horrible: from the ugly physical facility to the incompetent and often incoherent professors, the experience was a three year sentence of misery. Topping off the whole debacle, my widowed mother died from medical malpractice during the Christmas recess my first year and I was distracted by the ugly malpractice suit I had to quarterback for the duration of school. I had always been a good, dedicated student, but the poor quality of instruction resulted in skipping class and mediocre grades. My intent was always to engage in public service after law school, but even those less than golden opportunities passed me by. I did scut work for other lawyers and had my own penny ante cases, but it was never a living. I left the field over 25 years ago, but I shall always regret going to Suffolk Law School; and I still owe on the loans I took out to pay for my living expenses after my mother died/

    ReplyDelete
  122. I work as a tutor/teacher/sub at two different schools right now. Just a few days ago, I was talking to one of my students about post-grad opportunities, and he mentioned that his sister was going to law school. I asked which, and he said Suffolk. He also said her classes were "really hard" and the grading was insane. I immediately understood that this just-barely TTT was using typical shit-tier law school tactics to weed out students. Sadly this girl is a second-semester 2L, so it seems she's stuck there.

    I actually got emails and a postcard from this Boston-based shitpile. Why someone would attend a TTT in Boston is beyond me. It's literally the worst law school decision you can make. At least TTTs in small cities in remote parts of the country have local recognition. A JD from Mercer, near where I live, has some weight in Macon and central GA (for what that's worth. I'd rather be stuck in Hell than Macon, GA.) But Suffolk truly has no market at all. The scammy admin and faculty of this dump should be paraded around town and put in stocks for a day.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I graduated from Suffolk U Law School in 1968. Attended nights because I had two children and had to work during the day. I got a good, basic legal education, moved out of state, passed the Bar and have had a successful practice for 46 years

    ReplyDelete
  124. Like so many law school commentators, this blogger, "Nando", seems totally obsessed with the meaningless annual rankings from that tabloid rag called US News & World Report. If he'd ever actually been in the legal profession, "Nando" would understand that such childish rankings amount to little more than water cooler fodder at law firms and companies.

    I agree that law school is overpriced, and has a bloated administration, but it annoys me to no end that that so many law school commentators seem to take as a nearly unassailable premise that the vast majority of prospective law students MUST have both the desire and the unfettered ability to (1) attend law school full time, (2) attend law school right after graduating from undergrad, with little or no work experience, (3) seek employment after law school in any region of the country, regardless of where their school was, (4) seek employment at one of the large private law firms collectively referred to as "Biglaw". Lastly, (5) the only way to get a decent legal job is to go to the "best" (i.e. most popular/well-known) law school they can get into, according to the tabloids. If any prospective law student doesn't buy into this dogmatic screed, then the likes of "Nando" assume they are unenlightened trogs who shouldn't bother even going to law school.

    Well, I am one of those law students who {GASP} have matured beyond the mindset of a high school popularity contest. I graduated from undergrad college in Worcester, MA, in 2004, cum laude, and went to work as a corporate paralegal at a financial company in Boston. Last year, I took the LSAT and scored a 164 out of 180, which I believe is in the 90th percentile. I'm sure I could've been admitted to BC or BU with these credentials, but I CHOSE SUFFOLK, because they have a PART-TIME JD/MBA PROGRAM. and THEY ARE THE ONLY SCHOOL IN BOSTON THAT DOES.

    Now I'm in my second year of that program, and my company is helping me foot the bill. I now work in the Legal Department at State Street Corporation, a major financial services company whose world HQ (my workplace) is a few blocks' walk from Suffolk. I make almost $100 grand a year at State Street, and I'm happy that Suffolk lets me keep my day job and study at night, so WHY WOULD I CARE whether some huge law firm on the other side of the damn country have ever heard of Suffolk.

    As I've said, most law schools in Boston, like Harvard, BC, BU and Northeastern, don't have part-time JD programs. They all did at one time though. You wanna know WHY they DROPPED those programs? It's because they wanted to LOOK BETTER in the TABLOIDS LIKE US NEWS!!

    You think law schools are scamming students? Well, there is no bigger scam in law school today than the absurd fact that US NEWS and other such RAGS are taken so seriously in their crazy, pseudo-scientific attempt to RANK law schools!!

    Yet, year after year, everyone from prospective students, to currents students, and even professors, deans, and alumni, continue to perpetuate the MYTH that the apples-to-oranges comparisons among schools have ANY BARING AT ALL upon the quality of law schools.

    Nick from Boston
    Vice President / Compliance Manager at State Street Corporation, and Part-Time JD/MBA Student at Suffolk University Law School and Suffolk University Business School

    ReplyDelete
  125. Like so many law school commentators, this blogger, "Nando", seems totally obsessed with the meaningless annual rankings from that tabloid rag called US News & World Report. If he'd ever actually been in the legal profession, "Nando" would understand that such childish rankings amount to little more than water cooler fodder at real-world, reputable law firms and companies.

    I agree that law school is overpriced, and has a bloated administration (former Suffolk President David Sargent is a case-in-point), but it annoys me to no end that that so many law school commentators seem to take it as a nearly unassailable premise that the vast majority of prospective law students MUST have both the desire and the unfettered ability to (1) attend law school full time, (2) attend law school right after graduating from undergrad, with little or no work experience, (3) seek employment after law school in any region of the country, regardless of where their school was, (4) seek employment at one of the large private law firms collectively referred to as "Biglaw, or as a federal or SCOTUS clerk. Lastly, (5) they assume that the only way to get a decent legal job is to go to the "best" (i.e. most popular/well-known) law school they can get into, according to the tabloids. If any prospective law student doesn't buy into this dogmatic screed, then the likes of "Nando" assume that they are unenlightened trogs who shouldn't even bother going to law school.

    Well, I am one of those law students who {GASP} have matured beyond the mindset of a high school popularity contest. I graduated from undergrad college in Worcester, MA, in 2004, cum laude, and went to work as a corporate paralegal at a mid-sized financial company in Boston. Last year, I changed jobs, and also took the LSAT. I scored a 164 out of 180, which I believe is in the 90th percentile. I'm sure I could've been admitted to BC or BU with these credentials, but I CHOSE SUFFOLK, because they have a PART-TIME JD/MBA PROGRAM. and THEY ARE THE ONLY SCHOOL IN BOSTON THAT DOES.

    Now I'm in my second year of that program, and my company is helping me foot the bill. I now work in the Legal Department at State Street Corporation, a major financial services company whose world HQ (my workplace) is a few blocks' walk from Suffolk. I make almost $100 grand a year at State Street, and I'm happy that Suffolk lets me keep my day job and study at night, so WHY WOULD I CARE whether some huge law firm on the other side of the damn country have ever heard of Suffolk.

    As I've said, most law schools in Boston, like Harvard, BC, BU and Northeastern, don't have part-time JD programs. They all did at one time though. You wanna know WHY they DROPPED those programs? It's because they wanted to LOOK BETTER in the TABLOIDS LIKE US NEWS!! You think law schools are scamming students, Nando? Well, I know there's no bigger scam in law school today than the absurd fact that US NEWS and other such RAGS are taken so seriously in their crazy, pseudo-scientific attempt to RANK law schools!!

    Yet, year after year, everyone from prospective students, to currents students, and even professors, deans, and alumni, continue to perpetuate the MYTH that the apples-to-oranges comparisons among schools have ANY BARING AT ALL upon the quality of law schools.

    Nick from Boston
    Vice President and Compliance Manager at State Street Corporation, and Part-Time JD/MBA Student at Suffolk University Law School and Suffolk University Business School

    ReplyDelete
  126. This law school produces unethical attonies who will commit perjury to protect guilty clients. No honesty. Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics