Sunday, November 6, 2011

Pile of Badger Dung: University of Wisconsin Law School

Tuition: In-state students attending the University of Wisconsin Law Sewer - on a full-time basis - will be charged $19,684, in tuition, for the 2011-2012 academic year. Non-resident, full-time law students at this public toilet will pay $38,811 in tuition, for 2011-2012. Under Minnesota “reciprocity,” full-time students will only need to come up with $33,048 in tuition, for the current school year.

Total Cost of Attendance: According to the school, books and supplies; room and board; miscellaneous expenses; computer; and travel will add another $17,750 to the tab. Keep in mind that ABA law schools only consider nine-month living costs. Actual law students will require twelve-month living expenses.

Books and supplies will hold steady at $2,300 and computer costs of $1,000 should remain unchanged. As such , we can determine that these total expenses will amount to $22,566. As such, here are the respective total estimated COA figures - for 2011-2012 - for Wisconsin residents; out-of-state students; and those entering via Minnesota reciprocity: $42,250; $61,377; and $55,614. Who says that “higher education” doesn’t pay off?!

Ranking: According to U.S. “News” & World Report, the University of Wisconsin Law School is the 35th greatest, most magnificent law school in the land. It shares this truly prestigious honor with three other schools, I.e. Ohio State, Alabama and Georgia. Apparently, Bob Morse felt that this is a good place for four public schools to share a rating.

Employment Placement: For $ome rea$on, the sewer did not provide any job placement figures. According to Law School Numbers, 95.9% of the Wisconsin-Madison JD Class of 2005 was employed - within nine months of graduation.

Average Law Student Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average law student indebtedness - for those member of the Wisconsin Law Class of 2010 who incurred debt for law school - as $76,845. Fully 84 percent of this commode’s particular class took on such debt. Remember, this total does not include debt from undergrad.

Faculty and Administrator Salaries: Thanks to JDU’s BigSal, for posting this info.

As you can see, then-dean Kenneth B. Davis, Jr. made $304,436 - in 2009. Walter J. Dickey, as “George H. Young Chair“ and “Faculty Director of Frank J. Remington Center,” made $208,003, for the same year. Plus, Howard S. Erlanger, in his role as something called “Voss-Bascom Professor of Law,” raked in $183,904. Do you see how these swine are enriched - at the expense of the debt-strapped students and U.S. taxpayers?!?!

“UW Law Students: Volunteer to Cite-Check for the Journal

What cite-checkers do:
The Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society is the only journal at the University of Wisconsin Law School that allows first-year students to participate. First-year students can participate in the Journal’s cite-checking program, getting articles ready for publication in the Journal. Students are assigned approximately ten footnotes from an article and are given ten days to check the citations.”
[Emphasis in original]

As a student at this commode, you will have the unique opportunity to write onto the "world-famous" Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society. In fact, you can serve as a cite-checker, as a first year law student!! Try not to wet your pants, over this news.

Check out this September 13, 2011 piece, by a group calling itself Center for Equal Opportunity:

"For law school admissions, the racial discrimination found was also severe, with the weight given to ethnicity much greater than given to, for example, Wisconsin residency. Thus, an out-of-state black applicant with grades and LSAT scores at the median for that group would have had a 7 out 10 chance of admission and an out-of-state Hispanic a 1 out of 3 chance—but an in-state Asian with those grades and scores had a 1 out of 6 chance and an in-state white only a 1 out of 10 chance."

Keep in mind that this is a group of intellectually dishonest ass-hats, based out of Falls Church, Virginia. Hell, the organization’s chairman is Linda Chavez. The morons are outraged that in-state Wisconsin white students “are being discriminated against.” If these cretins and political hacks had one shred of honesty among them, they would be cheering this news. Remember that the U.S. legal job market is shrinking. Furthermore, out-of-state law students will pay $38,811 in tuition - rather than the amount charged for Wisconsin residents, i.e. $19,684. Even if some of these students are awarded scholarship money, they are looking at taking on more student debt. In addition, racial minorities are often not connected. Certainly, such admissions policies do not benefit the average racial minority, in the long run.

On page 7 of this organization’s Form 990, you can see that Roger Clegg, as president, makes a nice salary from this group. He raked in $196,936, in TOTAL COMPENSATION - for 2008. Rudy Gerston, executive director and CFO of this outfit, made $157,061 in TOTAL COMPENSATION, for the same tax year.

Conclusion: As a graduate of this first tier public sewage pit, at least you will not be required to shell out money to sit for a bar exam - so long as you remain in the state, after graduation. Then again, a law license does not necessarily equal legal employment. If you have a decent job, do not leave that position for the opportunity to incur an additional $80K-$100K in student debt - which will merely provide you with the possibility of practicing law.


  1. wisconsin lw '07November 6, 2011 at 8:29 AM

    Badger dung, for a flagship law school in the top tier? Right. What's next. Yale's law school as bulldog shit?

  2. These are numbers that 95% of the students will never crawl out from under. They will, literally, be buried under a mountain of non-dischargeable debt.

    The Gravy Train keeps on rolling for the law schools. The lowest figure of ~$125k for in-state residents is simply... ridiculous.

    Run away, Lemmings. Far, far away. And quickly.

  3. @ 8:29 am:

    You are joking, right jackass? Owing 125K in non-dischargeable debt is the same at ANY school, regardless of rank. Furthermore, if a school like Stanford is having a hard time placing graduates, where do you think this shit heap stands in cheesehead land? Are you insane?

    There is no top tier at number 35 despite what the price of tuition may tell/show you. There are the top six schools (who overcharge) and everyone else. When the top six is having trouble finding graduates jobs, you have a real problem. Get your head out of the sand.

  4. Flagship law school in the top tier??? LOL!!! I'm assuming you were joking. Thanks for the laugh.


    Look at 'em 'n weep, boys. I's gotsa plenteh a gen'ra manager jobs fo' yas in da Madison area. How you like Da Colonel now mu'fuckas? Goin' t' dis shithole 'n can't find a fuckin' job t'save yer life? Well, what's ya waitin' fo'? Git off yer dead ass 'n walk on over t' one o' mah menny chickin 'stablishments. I jus' mightsa gotsa a job fo' ya. Don't say Da Colonel never did ennything fo' ya. I don't even give a flyin' fuck 'bouts yer class rank. Alls ya's gots'ta do is man da fuckin' grease traps 'n work dat headset like a rock star.

  6. I remember in the early 90s, the ABA almost put Wisconsin on probation over some administrative/library fiasco. Back then, Wisconsin was considered a good deal if you could not get into a T20 school. The idea of spending 3 years in a cold frozen tundra and in a state known for "cheeseheads" was enough to for me turn them down. The idea that the state of Wisconsin allows Wisconsin grads a bar exam waiver is a tesatment to the joke of a jurisdiction it is. Although unrelated to this school, I met a Minnesota law grad this past summer at a job fair. She gave me her resume. She was top 10%, law review and had been looking for employment since 2010. If this grad and NYU law grads are scrounging for public interest low paying jobs, this should tell you a JD is just plainly a HORRIBLE investment.

  7. @ 12:59 AM:

    So true. Speaking of "investment": these shills who state that a law degree helps people to critically think, and should be more than just a quest for a higher paying job are full of shit. If I am taking on non-dischargeable debt at these amounts and giving up three years, you damn well better believe that I expect to get some sort of job out of the deal.

  8. I heard Wisconsin places well in BIGRURALDAIRYLAW. I guess they're full of shit.

  9. When the lasw schools claim '96% of our graduates are employed within 9 months' they are making an implicit promise that you too will find employment within 9 months of graduating from their institution. But the cocksuckers want it both ways. When you are looking at law school they make all these promises. Once you are enrolled and you can't find a job, all of a sudden it's your fault, the student.

    I've even seen some of these shitbags come right out and say One shouldn't be so naive and believe the figures we put out there. I'm surprised no students have gone off the deep end at one of these schools.







  11. Congrats, Nando. Another first-tier shithole bites the dust!

    My initial reaction is that Wisconsin would be one of maybe 50-80 law schools that I would not immediately shutter, torch, or exorcise. It is a high-ranked state school that has been around for a long time, and has a comparatively reasonable tuition for in-staters.

    However, my meager goodwill towards the place is dissipated by the fact it employs Linda Green as a law professor. Green is the author of an epically idiotic New York Times op-ed, defending the law school scam ("A Priceless Degree"). Her defense of law school consists of stringing together pompous and deceptive phrases in a way that make any corporate shill, affirmative action compliance officer, or pyramid scheme promoter gasp in admiration:

    Forgive an extended quotation, but Green's prose needs to be savored. She says:

    "A fine legal education may indeed be costly, but I reject the idea that its worth should be determined by the number of jobs available in the lucrative realms of the legal profession.

    The value of a legal education has more to do with access and justice...a legal education provides an unparalleled opportunity to understand the intersection of private and public power, to explore the rationale for the organization of human society and to participate more knowledgeably and effectively in every aspect of human endeavor. A fine legal education provides an opportunity both to grasp the current arrangement of our legal order and to understand laws’ limitations and shortcomings.

    That education also deals with the relationship between law and society as well as the manner in which law is both used and transformed in action.... It is true that the cost of this quality education, all in, may exceed $200,000. The value of a new generation of law graduates prepared to take on these challenges: Priceless."

  12. This blog is right. The law schools obviosuly don't give a fuck about the students. It all comes down to money and the cocksuckers will do and say anything to keep the gravy train running.

  13. Nando - do your docs show how much money Ann Althouse gets paid for spending all of her time blogging instead of teaching law?

  14. @5:01 am,

    Thank you for the tip.

    Here is the commode’s bio for Ann Althouse, the “Robert W. & Irma Arthur-Bascom Professor of Law.”

    Here is the link to her blog.

    According to her Blog Archive, this "educator" has been extremely busy with her blog. Here are the numbers of entries she has posted, by year, as of this writing:

    ▼ 2011 (3831)
    ► 2010 (3841)
    ► 2009 (3742)
    ► 2008 (3422)
    ► 2007 (2906)
    ► 2006 (2699)
    ► 2005 (2930)
    ► 2004 (2026)

    Ann is pumping out more than 12 blog entries per day, over the course of this year! That shows you how dedicated she is to “teaching” her students. In the time it took me to write this comment, Ann's total amount of 2011 blog entries went from 3829 to 3831. And you wonder why U.S. law students are not prepared to practice law, after spending a small fortune - and three years of their lives - on this endeavor.

    As you can see from the link above, Ann Althouse made $158,542 - as a faculty member of the University of Wisconsin Law Sewer - in 2009! Why shouldn't the first tier toilet throw such money at this famously "productive" employee, right?!?!

    She is CLEARLY blogging during “business hours.” For instance, on Friday, November 4, 2011, Althouse posted entries at the following times: 8:35 am; 9:43 am; 10:09 am; 10:51 am; 11:30 am; and 2:30 pm. She also posted entries at 7:16 pm; 7:26 pm; 8:11 pm; 8:16 pm; and 8:58pm.

    The school is obviously aware of her blog activity. Apparently, the pigs don’t give a damn that they are essentially paying a “law professor” to blog about fashion, politics, “South Park” and various other tripe.

  15. Another overrated, overpriced pile of crap flushed down the shitter. Glad to see you're still doing the lord's work.

  16. Jesus...around 3000 posts a year, on average?

    Hell, Deans/administrators over at U of Wisconsin, I will do the same thing for you for around 25% off! Heck, maybe 50%. I'll just post random bull#$%^ all year, and you pay me. It's a bargain! Kthxbye.

    By the way, this could be construded as "an invitaton to negotiate " as opposed to a strict offer per se. See?! I remember the nuances of my 1L contracts class, like TOTALLY. Y'all should hire me!

  17. Thanks for the data on Althouse. From the current course schedule, she teaches two courses: "constitutional law II" and "religion and the constitution". That is a documented total of 4 hours 40 minutes of class time per week. For over $150K per year. And one of those courses is a bullshit course, so it's really only 2 hours 20 minutes of teaching, and even that is from regurgitated constitutional law notes.

    I would suggest that Althouse is a prime subject for your next dissection of a person living high on the legal education hog at our expense. Rarely does a law professor give us so much insight into her activities outside the classroom. It's easy to look into her blog and see how much time she wastes on shit that is totally unrelated to teaching law. This is the kind of shit law professors do all day when they are not in the classroom. They fuck around on the internet like everyone else!

    Her blog even boasts that she has just one law-related post, so it's not even as if she can claim that her blog is related to law school and thus a legitimate work activity.

    Her blog gives us a hour by hour look at what she's reading, what she's thinking about, and what she's doing. And none of it is anything to do with law school. And she's selling advertising on her site for hundreds of dollars a pop too. I guess she's very poor from her meagre salary and needs the extra income.

    $150,000 per year!!!!!!!

    Please flush this prime example of what a waste of time law professors are!

  18. Roast this Shove an apple in her mouth, too.

  19. figures-that bitch is living high on the hog while her students can't get jobs

  20. 3000 posts in a year while working as a law professor. That's deriliction of duty. Nando's abrasive but he's right about the schools. They don't give a shit if their students end up on the streets or in financial hell.


    “Linda Greene is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. From 1999 to 2004, she was the associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at the university.

    A fine legal education may indeed be costly, but I reject the idea that its worth should be determined by the number of jobs available in the lucrative realms of the legal profession.

    My own decision to attend law school was based in part upon my perception, still shared by those who rush our doors, that a legal education provides an unparalleled opportunity to understand the intersection of private and public power, to explore the rationale for the organization of human society and to participate more knowledgeably and effectively in every aspect of human endeavor. A fine legal education provides an opportunity both to grasp the current arrangement of our legal order and to understand laws’ limitations and shortcomings.

    That education also deals with the relationship between law and society as well as the manner in which law is both used and transformed in action. Whether the questions involve constitutional protection for undocumented children or cloning or climate measures or the parameters of humanitarian intervention or the ownership of the resources beyond our gravitational field, the best in legal education prepares its graduates to participate in the discourse and arrangements necessary to such complex concerns. It is true that the cost of this quality education, all in, may exceed $200,000. The value of a new generation of law graduates prepared to take on these challenges: Priceless.

    The important question may not be cost but, rather, access. What will we do to insure that talented people from all groups in our society, especially those historically excluded, have access to this course of study about the arrangements of power? And how do we insure that all groups in society, including our public and governmental institutions, enjoy the services of our brightest and best prepared?

    When the history of legal education is written, the important question is unlikely to be, "What was the cost of a legal education?" Rather, it will be, "Did our legal education system deliver equal justice under law?"

    This ass-hat is CLEARLY out of touch with her students. Linda Greene is divorced from reality, if she truly believes that “the law” is concerned with “justice.” (It serves those with wealth and power, Water Head.) Furthermore, U.S. “legal education” is certainly not worth an additional $90K-$120K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt! When this rat attended law school, it was nowhere near this expensive.

    Here is her faculty bio. I wonder if she approves of the law school’s alleged admissions preferences for OUT-OF-STATE racial minorities. Perhaps she does not understand that these students will likely incur MUCH more student debt than in-state law students.

  22. From Greene’s faculty bio, at the University of Wisconsin Law Sewer:

    “Linda S. Greene is Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Her teaching and academic scholarship are concentrated in the areas of Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Legislation, Civil Rights and Sports Law. Professor Greene has also held administrative positions at the University including, from 1999 to 2004, serving as Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

    Following graduation from the University of California at Berkeley Law School in 1974, Professor Greene began her career as a civil rights attorney on the staff of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in New York City. There she litigated employment discrimination and housing discrimination class actions. She was also involved in capital punishment litigation. She began law teaching in 1978, first at Assistant Professor at Temple University and later a tenured Associate Professor at University of Oregon. Professor Greene has been a visiting professor at Harvard and Georgetown law schools, and also has taught abroad in Germany, Ghana, and Japan.”

    As you can see, this "educator" graduated from law school in 1974. For those of you who are bad at math, she left law school 37 years ago. Simply put, this woman is a fraud - intellectually dishonest - when she attempts to equate her experience with today’s student. For instance, she earned a BA from California State University - Long Beach. How many students would end up at Cal-Berkeley’s law school, after graduating from Cal State Long Beach today?!?! Furthermore, when she attend law school, tuition was a fraction of its current cost - in raw and constant dollars.

    For the 2011-2012 school year, full-time, in-state students at Berkeley Law will pay $50,164 in tuition and fees. Non-residents attending this school on a full-time basis, will only be charged slightly more in tuition in fees, i.e. $54,372. Someone should email Greene, and ask her for the tuition rates at this school, in the early 1970s.

    By the way, Linda S. Greene, who "reject[s] the idea that ["a fine legal education's"] worth should be determined by the number of jobs available in the lucrative realms of the legal profession" - made $155,469 as a "professor" at this public toilet - in 2009.

    When someone says something so stupid, it is hard to take them seriously. If law schools should keep admitting and graduating excessive numbers of students - without regard to the prevailing job market - then why not pump out more JDs and lawyers?! After all, if you ass-clowns feel that learning about “justice” is worth the cost to the individual student, wouldn’t society benefit by having additional legions of citizens learned in the shortcomings of “the law”?

  23. "Linda S. Greene, who reject[s] the idea that ["a fine legal education's"] worth should be determined by the number of jobs available in the lucrative realms of the legal profession"

    I love how these types always condition their statements by referring to "lucrative" jobs--as if everyone complaining is just mad because they aren't--wait for it--living a models and bottles Biglaw lifestyle. People can't get JOBS, period--lucrative or otherwise. Does she feel the worth of a "fine legal education" (pretty presumptuous of her to presume that's what she's providing, huh?) should be measured by whether graduates can find ANY kind of legal employment? How about ANY employment whatsoever?

  24. Remember when that one prof from Emory told her graduating students not to be 'takers'? That bitch was scolding them for being greedy. From a lazy fuckin' law professor, that's something else. That's like a rapist blaming his vic for wearing revealing clothing.

  25. Cal-Berkeley tuition in 1974 was $300/yr. Of course it was a no brainer for this Linda Greenbacks shill.

  26. When older professors mention they paid a lot for law degrees and didn't go to school to make a bunch of money, it shows you what these pigs think of their students.

  27. Nando,

    This professor is why my generation ("X") and probably a fair bit of the "Y"'s and Millennials hate Boomers.

    She spent 4 - count 'em - FOUR years practicing law (civil rights BS, no less...) and has been "teaching" since 1978. That's going on 35 years now of leeching off the academic teet and doing very, very little and getting paid for it.

    Classic Boomerism.

    These people, including the Sara K. Stadler bovines of the world, are hypocrites and frauds. They do NOT care if their students are indebted and their futures ruined for life. As long as that paycheck is rolling in, everything is fine.

    And I cannot believe that A.Althouse hasn't been disciplined. Students pay money so she can blog all day. In the Old Days, when I went to law school, they would simply go home or hang out in their offices. Now, with the advent of the Internet, I can see that its the Good Old Days all over again for them.

    What a joke..

    Wake up Lemmings and anyone attending or thinking of attending law school. This is only the smallest taste of the bullshit that's out there. It only gets worse when you are working a legal job in some chopshop hellehole.

  28. Are you gonna profile Penn State next?

  29. On November 7, 2011, this piece, entitled "Hundreds of Retirees at U. of Wisconsin at Madison Never Really Retired," appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

    "A longtime trend of rehiring retired employees at the University of Wisconsin at Madison has resulted in more than half of the 447 post-retirement hires—who include top administrators and faculty members—sticking around for more than a year while earning both a paycheck and a pension, reports the Wisconsin State Journal. An analysis by the newspaper found that 38 of those hires have worked for more than a decade. A new university policy limits such hires to a one-year stint, but at least one state lawmaker has gone a step further, introducing a bill that would require public employees to suspend their pensions if they return to work half time or more. The Journal said that faculty members were often rehired to teach specialized courses or to fill last-minute openings caused by illnesses, sabbaticals, or, ironically, retirements."

    As you can see, these "educators" simply DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about the students, graduates or taxpayers. They merely want to keep the gravy train running. This mentality is rampant throughout "higher education."

    You can see that with the recent decision by Penn State University to flush Joseph Vincent Paterno's old, wrinkled, corroded ass down the commode. The bastard did not report the incident to police, allowing Gerald Sandusky continued access to Penn State facilities, including an office and phone. The school finally fired this pig, but only did so as a business decision/public relations maneuver.

  30. And yet when the Walker administration tries to take a swipe at this rampant abuse of the system, people shit the bed with righteous indignation.

    Yes, I just opened Pandora's box.

  31. top 1/3; law review and editor of a secondary journal; great 1L clerk gig; work as an RA and extern for WI SC and DOJ and I interview very well. Got 10 screeners at OCI, 2 callbacks..... NO offers..... commenced hustling-- in the last two months i have contacted/inquired/interviewed/applied for 86 positions ranging from small/mid/Big law firms to government/in-house/public interest.....NADA

    I'm a native but i must agree, as of 2014...this place is SHIT HOLE unless you are top 15%. Professional Dev office are liars.

    1. What is your GPA? And of the 86 positions, how many did you actually have in-person interviews for?

  32. In 2006 the first year class at U WIS law school had 270 students. In the fall of 2017 the entering class totaled 151 students. Given the fact that Madison is one of the best college towns in the U.S., this is a real shock.

    The graduates, aside from the law review types, of this law school no longer have credibility with the big firms in Chicago and the Twin Cities. Employment prospects are lousy.

    One of the big problems with this law school is that the full time faculty is devoted to teaching those courses that will not qualify its graduates for full time employment. Almost all of the courses related to tax, the UCC, bankruptcy, securities law, etc are taught by adjuncts. Full time tenure track faculty are all about family law, civil rights, criminal law, and other esoteric nonsense that no law firm could bill for.


Web Analytics