Thursday, May 16, 2013

Brian Tamanaha Calls Out Liberal “Law Professors” for Their Complicity in the Law School Scam


Tamanaha’s Latest Work:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2256725

On May 1st, a reader brought the following piece to my attention. Brian Tamanaha, at Washington University of St. Louis, wrote an article entitled “The Failure of Crits and Leftist Law Professors to Defend Progressive Causes.” It appears in the 24th volume of the Stanford Law & Policy Review. Under the section Cost of Attending Law School, page 5 of this PDF, Tamanaha stated:

“Increasing tuition immediately results in rising debt levels for law students, about 90% of whom borrow to finance their legal education. The average debt of private law school graduates went from $70,147 in 2001 to $124,950 in 2011; at public law schools over the same period, average debt increased from $46,499 to $75,728. Debt has been increasing annually by alarming amounts in recent years—at private law schools jumping up from $91,506 (2009), to $106,249 (2010), to $124,950 (2011). And keep in mind that these figures exclude undergraduate debt, which averages around $25,000, and they do not count the interest accrued on debt while in school. On the day they depart law school, the full educational debt carried by law graduates, on average, is greater than the numbers cited above.” [Emphasis mine, and internal citations removed]

Apparently, the quality of “legal education” has improved dramatically from 2001 to 2011, huh?!?! On the 17th page of this file, the author reveals the following about the pigs who comprise the disgusting, vile Society of American Law Teachers:

“More questionably, SALT has taken a strong and unbending stance against a set of initiatives aimed at slowing the rise of tuition. For the past several years, the ABA Standards Review Committee has been considering a number of proposals that would eliminate from accreditation standards any rules requiring tenure and long-term job protection for law professors. The proposals would allow law schools to fill teaching positions more cheaply and with greater flexibility by hiring greater numbers of adjuncts and professors on contract. 

SALT has been at the forefront of the fight against these changes.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, these “educators” are truly looking out for their students’ best interests, right?!?!

Public and Private Law School Tuition, 1985-2011: 

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/statistics/ls_tuition.authcheckdam.pdf

Tamanaha also cites to this chart, in his law review piece. Take a look at the following figures, from this graph:

Back in 1995, full-time yearly tuition at private law school diploma mills averaged $16,798. In 2000, it had increased to an amount of $21,790. By 2011, this figure had reached $39,184.

In 1995, average in-state, annual full-time tuition at public law schools/toilets was $5,530. Five years later, this number reached $7,790. $omehow, this figure hit $22,116 - by 2011. Now, look at the respective charges for full-time, non-residents: $11,683; $15,683; and $34,865.

Does anyone with an IQ above 70 honestly believe that the “law professor” pigs and cockroaches give a single, solitary droplet of excrement about the students?! The bitches and hags simply want to keep the gravy train running, for as long as possible. 

The Weak-Ass Lawyer Job Market:

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummChart_Classof2011.pdf

According to the NALP Class of 2011 National Summary Report, there were 44,495 grads competing for 27,224 jobs “requiring bar passage.” Keep in mind that not all of these were traditional attorney positions. On page 2 of this PDF, you will note that only 17,666 members of this cohort ended up in private law firms; this includes the 1,059 desperate souls who opened solo practices.

Furthermore, at the end of this report - under Job Characteristics by Employer Type - you will see that the lawyer employment outlook is even more pathetic. For instance, 13.1% of all reported jobs were listed as short-term. Plus, 11.8 percent of all positions were part-time. Who wouldn’t want to incur an additional $110K-$180K for such job prospects?!?!

Conclusion: As I have mentioned several times on this blog, “law professors” do not give one damn about the students or recent grads. They are merely a means to an end, i.e. a big-ass paycheck for minimal “work.” The faux liberals simply need to justify their sabbaticals, by promoting their pet political causes. The bastards ostensibly care about “public service” and “providing justice for the disenfranchised.” Yet, for $ome rea$on, the cockroaches do not give a second thought to FINANCIALLY RAPING their students, many of whom come from modest backgrounds. In the final analysis, if the “educator” pigs must continue to scam their students - in order to rake in handsome salaries - then they will GLADLY do so. Remember, we are dealing with “men” and “women” who have no integrity and no conscience.  These are the same Boomer pigs who protested the Vietnam War and sometimes left the country, when they were of draft age - but now remain silent on - or support - current conflicts.

51 comments:

  1. Everyone wants more money. But what gets people upset is when lazy asshole professors pretend like they're public servants. When you charge $40K in annual tuition, we know what it's about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In law school you get what you pay for. I love law school!

      Delete
    2. This meassage brought to you by the Valvoline Dean.

      Delete
  2. Of all the law school professors who uphold this system, every single one is a hypocrite. The liberals are hypocrites because they're violating the principles they supposedly hold by helping to create a new underclass of overeducated unemployed, and the conservatives are hypocrites because they're getting fat off of the backs of hardworking taxpayers who end up having to deal with the effects of unpaid student loans. Conservative and liberal both, they should all be fucking ashamed of themselves for letting this situation get out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With all the scandals and ass-covering going on at this very moment, do you honestly find liberal hypocrisy a stunning revelation?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This article describes my dean at Hofstra Nora Demleitner perfectly. According to her wikipedia profile she is a self-described liberal democrat. Yet at Hofstra Demleitner lured in hundreds of students knowing they would graduate with huge debts and poor job prospects. Even worse Hofstra gave merit scholarships to students with high gpa's and lsat scores [those who had life's advantages to begin with]using the tuition money of poor students who had no scholarships and poor job prospects. She took from the poor and gave to the rich and made the poor poorer, all in the name of raising Hofstra's rank in u.s. news.

    Liberal Democrat Nora Demleitner did not care at all about the poor students at Hofstra. All she cared about was her high salary and how she could use Hofstra to move up. She accomplished the latter by becoming dean at W & L but she left Hofstra in shambles.

    Many of Demleitner's former students will never get out of debt. They will never be able to buy a house or a raise a family. How long will the ABA or the government wait to stop the Demleitners of this world?

    ReplyDelete
  5. All FT law faculty are hypocrites. You have the libertarian fools who have no problem making a nice living off the taxpayers for teaching rubbish.

    You can always count on the conservatives to support the system. But the avowed libs make all the noise about civil rights, lack of access, and all that. They are just as greedy as everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The professors have to have something to talk and write about. I mean, no one believes that some prof making $200K gives a shit about urban blight or rampant poverty. Or female circumcision.

    But they can write law review artiles about Schopenhauer. Or the Hegelian dialectic. Or the effect of Chinese foot binding on women.

    And that justifies a $200K salary, doesn't it? Who else would speak out about these abuses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do care. Why? Because I would if I were in their shoes. I will always care!

      Delete
    2. Lenny Bruce once said that if a man proclaims himself a man of God, and he has two suits while another man doesn't even have one, then he is a hustler.

      Delete
  7. Nando,
    I have been a faithful follower of your fight for years and support your efforts. Now I need your advice. I am a class of '08 Toileteer First Class currently underpaid and in a dead-end "JD Advantage" job. My sister is married to a T14 tenured law professor. They have 4 kids (two nice ones and two dickish ones) and lead a VERY comfortable lifestyle (private schools, large boat, expensive foreign cars, long foreign vacations, etc). Her husband is a major douchebag, as you would expect. I would like nothing better than to tell him what a cockroach he is, but I don't want to anger or alienate my sister. What can I do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try to be civil and be a loving human being. It's not that hard and it's very rewarding. Don't try to be a Nando. You'll be miserable always. Take it from me -- a guy who loves his life!

      Delete
  8. The picture ought to show a fat man eating money and shitting out law grads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be stupid.

      Delete
  9. I finished with my exit survey for my law school and was able to say "Employed." I took your advice and filled it out! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool. You got a job sucking dicks. I hope it pays well, cocksucker. (Although it not's about the money for you, is it?)

      Delete
    2. Mr. Infinity sucks dick for free...to infinity and beyond!

      Delete
    3. At least I'm not being smothered by Cryn Johannsen's pussy. Maybe she'll do the world a favor and press down with all her weight and snap your neck. :)

      Delete
    4. Please lay off Cryn and Nando. They're at least trying to do some good and necessary work.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. NALP data in the chart treats permanent and temporary jobs as one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I learn some new stuff from it too, thanks for sharing your information. well basically im a travel agent and we offers Cheap umrah Packages. I have bookmark this page and after work I read interesting things to update myself and to refresh my mind Please update it more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do pre-martyrdom virgins come with your cheap-ass travel package? Because I don't see myself visiting a backwards shat hole like Saudi Arabia unless I get me some pre-martyrdom virgins.

      Delete
  13. Scroll down to page 11 of this PDF. Here is another great passage, from Tamanaha's article:

    "What [Mark] Tushnet is saying, in a roundabout manner, is that if the hiring decision was made solely "on the merits," the white male Crit should have landed the job in these head-to-head situations against minority and female scholars, but often will not; systematically passed over in this way, "a substantial group" of otherwise deserving white males "are likely to have positions lower in the status hierarchy of law schools than their merits entitle them to."

    These are strange assertions to find in an article about a movement of radical law professors. Only faint-hearted revolutionaries, SCHOLARS MORE FOCUSED ON ADVANCING THEIR CAREERS THAN THE CAUSE, would be dissuaded from becoming a Crit [for] this reason. But what makes Tushnet’s argument odd, and revealing, is something else. A major Crit theme, per [Duncan] Kenney’s article, was to overturn illegitimate, elitist hierarchies within legal education, law, and society. The standards that uphold and legitimate the hierarchy must be rejected. Tushnet’s argument that white male Crits land at law schools lower in the pecking order than they should, however, presupposes the validity of the standards used in the legal academy to determine merit.

    I raise this not to dispute whether the standards have merit, but to point out that, as Tushnet’s comments project, Crits cared about and judged their own achievements in relation to the standards. THEY STROVE TO SUCCEED IN THE LAW SCHOOL HIERARCHY, NOT TO UPEND IT. Many had attended elite law schools themselves, before pursuing the coveted prestige and perks that came with teaching at highly ranked law schools. There is nothing untoward about seeking what everyone else in the academy does, but this is not a radical path.

    SCHOLARS HIGHLY CRITICAL OF LAW IN THEIR PRONOUNCEMENTS WERE ENTIRELY CONFORMIST IN THEIR DAY JOBS AS PROFESSORS. [Emphasis mine]

    In the end, the pigs are FAR MORE CONCERNED with attaining “prestige” and status – and maintaining their perks – than with YOUR future. After all, you – the student – are a mere means to an end. These academic ass-wipes are part of the $y$tem. They are not going to fight or work to change things, especially since they are so handsomely rewarded for their role.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Law schools should be trade schools. But the profs can't over their inferiority complex with guys who teach med school.

    Listen, insecure professor fuck. Writing in shitty law reviews (non peer-reviewed) that are edited by law s-t-u-d-e-n-t-s is not prestigious. Try getting your shit published in medical, math or scientific journals that are peer reviewed to death. Now fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nando, how kinky is Cryn Johannsen in the bedroom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm betting Cryn likes to get pounded from behind while listening to Hegel audiobooks. She's a humanities major.

      Delete
  16. Dodge Truck For Sale:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4QBRbUMXHw&feature=youtu.be


    http://snakecharmer2.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  17. Can the Tamanaha piece be summed up with the old phrase: Charity begins at home?

    ReplyDelete
  18. On May 6, 2013, Matt Leichter posted a LSTB entry entitled “Liberal Law Professors Shielded by Hostility Towards Lawyers.” Look at this opening:

    http://lawschooltuitionbubble.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/liberal-law-professors-shielded-by-hostility-towards-lawyers/

    “I read Brian Tamanaha’s “The Failure of Crits and Leftist Law Professors to Defend Progressive Causes,” which castigates politically liberal law professors for participating in institutions that encourage both the class schism in the legal profession and law students to borrow unpayable debts. How could they not know what was going on? Tamanaha writes:

    Seduced by the allure of prestige of material comforts, Crits and progressive law professors have become a part of the system they set out to reform. Watching market-thinking become pervasive and the gap between rich and poor in America steadily increase, knowing that on broader economic issues we had lost, we succumbed to the temptation to grab what we could for ourselves and our families.

    Ouch. It occurred to me while reading this passage that of all the topics I think or write about, legal education is the one where I think we need more “market-thinking,” so I end up sounding like a perfidious neoliberal. I’m not. Instead I think that what passes for “market-thinking” has largely shielded liberal law professors: Lawyers are regularly perceived as playing outside market rules. They chronically overcharge their clients—a belief that’s readily reinforced by actual instances of file-churning, etc.—and they don’t do enough for the poor given their awesome privilege. For the more conspiratorially minded, they file frivolous lawsuits against one another to drive up business, or they use their dominance in legislatures to enact laws that create yet more work for themselves.” [Internal citation removed]

    Now, head to the final two paragraphs:

    “It takes the ideological equivalent of a spontaneous reversal in the earth’s magnetic field to recognize that law schools have more in common with Bain Capital than they do with Legal Services NYC, which has been working without a contract since July 2012 and might go on strike soon. The dominant liberal story over the last thirty years is that rich conservatives and neoliberals (including cheating thieving lawyers) captured the government to crush labor and redirect incomes from the poor to themselves. Thus, liberal law professors are the types of people we’d least expect to support too-big-to-failist institutions. The fact that conservatives tend to hold anti-higher education and anti-student lending views further warps the discussion along ideological lines.

    That law schools were caught fighting on the wrong side of the class war at the same time the banksters wrecked the economy is only a coincidence, but it doesn’t appear that way to the students, who are increasingly seeing a generational war between entrenched, entitled boomers and themselves. Law schools’ legacy will be a severely cynical generation—not something supposedly labor-loving liberal academics see themselves as promoting.”

    The pigs make a great living, while “teaching” 4-6 hours per week. Apparently, these turds see nothing wrong with raking in large salaries - on the backs of their debt-strapped victims - while actively encouraging law students to “pursue justice” and “represent the interests of the disenfranchised.”

    ReplyDelete
  19. The IP address for Mr. Infinity shows up at NY Presbyterian Hospital.

    He might work there, or lives in a psych ward. Who knows?

    108.182.40.117

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People, don't go to Painters blog. The IP addresses of all the visitors confuse him and he thinks that Mr. Infinity is all over the country.

      Delete
    2. ^ Just imagine if you spent this much time trying to find a JOB.

      Delete
    3. No. The IP addresses of the identifiable commenters are given by Wordpress.

      And then there is a large number of IP locator sites and you would be surprised to see the variations in what comes up when searching for an IP.

      Michael Lavrik of Interserve in Secaucus NJ makes a living by providing fake IP's for porn and other purposes, but for sure Lavrik or someone in his network will know which one of their customers are making regular visits to TTR.

      As for Mr. Infinity, what can I say? he is posting from NY Presbyterian Hospital it seems, and I have been to that hospital many times over the years and I find that ironic.

      But if a visitor is friendly (and not some SOB in the debt collection business, or someone that thinks usury is fair and that has a warped view that also assumes the US citizen and taxpayer also thinks that the age old concept of the evils of usury and trading in SL debt bonds is fair) then what do I care about just another IP address?

      He said, parenthetically.

      Mr. Infinity is not bothered in the least by his massive debt, and I told him that he akin to Gunga Din and is a better man than I am

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. "I have been to that hospital many times over the years and I find that ironic."

      Is that how you knew it had a psych ward?

      Delete
    6. Muhammad Ali and a lot of other people have been to NY/Columbia Presbyterian Hospital as patients.

      It is a world renowned hospital.

      Dr. Oz is also affiliated with the hospital and/or works out of it, and so does Mr. Infinity it seems.

      Does the hospital have a psych ward? I don't know and I never said I did and no I have never been to a psych ward or have ever been a patient of any kind of a psychotherapist.

      I did have outpatient sinus surgery at NY Presbyterian in 2006.

      Dear God, why can't Mr. Infinity just say who he is and what his motives are instead of trying to publish my address and the phone numbers of my parents on some of these interlinked blogs?

      All I have to do I think is write to the head administrator at NY Presbyterian and ask him to interdepartmenatally query if any of his EE's wear a ring that has a snake swallowing its tail.

      Delete
    7. @May 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM

      You ever stop to think that it might have a free WiFi hotspot?

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  20. Good stuff Nando. As others (Scott, JDU folks, Loyola 2L, Law Prof, and on and on and on) dropped out you're still at it.

    You are the most persevering and consistent scamblogger out there.

    ReplyDelete
  21. WNEC Top 18% shitbag is posting from NY Presbyterian Hospital? Now it all makes sense. Which padded room is that fool in.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thank you, 9:48 am. I will continue to shed a light on the law school cockroaches, and to stomp a mudhole in their ass. The ball-less trolls/pieces of trash should understand this by now. These blogs have already help affect law school enrollments.

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/wake-up-fellow-law-professors-to.html

    On June 13, 2010, Brian Tamanaha wrote a Balkin entry entitled "Wake Up, Fellow Law Professors, to the Casualties of Our Enterprise." Check out this opening:

    "It’s grim reading. The observations are raw, bitter, and filled with despair. It is easier to avert our eyes and carry on with our pursuits. But please, take a few moments and force yourself to look at Third Tier Reality, Esq. Never, Exposing the Law School Scam, Jobless Juris Doctor, Temporary Attorney: The Sweatshop Edition, and linked sites. Read the posts and the comments. These sites are proliferating, with thousands of hits.

    Look past the occasional vulgarity and disgusting pictures. Don’t dismiss the posters as whiners. To a person they accept responsibility for their poor decisions. But they make a strong case that something is deeply wrong with law schools.

    Their complaint is that non-elite law schools are selling a fraudulent bill of goods. Law schools advertise deceptively high rates of employment and misleading income figures. Many graduates can’t get jobs. Many graduates end up as temp attorneys working for $15 to $20 dollars an hour on two week gigs, with no benefits. The luckier graduates land jobs in government or small firms for maybe $45,000, with limited prospects for improvement. A handful of lottery winners score big firm jobs.

    And for the opportunity to enter a saturated legal market with long odds against them, the tens of thousands newly minted lawyers who graduate each year from non-elite schools will have paid around $150,000 in tuition and living expenses, and given up three years of income. Many leave law school with well over $100,000 in non-dischargeable debt, obligated to pay $1,000 a month for thirty years.

    This dismal situation was not created by the current recession—which merely spread the pain up the chain into the lower reaches of elite schools. This has been going on for years."

    It is good to see that Tamanaha is still documenting this scam. His recent article also focuses on class, and the impact of expensive-ass “legal education” on minorities and those of modest backgrounds. I am certain that his colleagues do not want to even think about these realities. The bitches and hags would rather pretend that they are “educating future leaders who will serve the public interest.” I suppose that they need to come up with some justification for their gluttony and greed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Off topic, but here is an older post by Brian Tannebaum which gives the old razzies to Jack Marshall, and but good.

    I would have thought the two would be more friendly towards each other, given their similar, past expressions about the scamblogs:

    http://mylawlicense.blogspot.com/2010/04/ethics-alarms-go-off-its-jack-marshall.html

    After all, we all know about how OLSS figuratively grabbed Tannebaum by the scruff of the neck and threw him out on the curb;

    Bounced out in other words, and for disagreeing with OLSS and with his true identity. (which I thought was pretty brave of Tannebaum to do :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  24. You can read more about Jack Marshall here:

    http://www.ozonebilliards.com/cueballs.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^Jack Marshall is a piece of shit.

      Delete
  25. Jack Marshall is an unethical, uglier, fatter version of Mike Meyers "Dr. Evil" with Mini Me's chilito.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am really surprised that on-line education has not done more to ruin the gleeful parade of tuition raising at law schools. The whole law school experience can be done on-line. Most of what law schools do is provide lectures in large halls. Eventually, the semester ends and there is one written test. What value is being added by the law school to justify the cost in this scenario?

    The whole class could be recorded and used over and over again. I had classes where a professor would read out of the book he had written. In the majority of classes there were outlines that covered verbatim what the professor would say, the material never changed for years. I knew a student that lived out of state and he would fly into town for the exam period, having not attended any classes.

    Law schools teach nothing essential that is hands on. There is no great push to have grads with practical legal skills. That would require a lot of work, and much smaller class sizes. Professors that function in the lecture format of working 2-3 hours a week, don't want to put the effort into really training lawyers. Also, most full time law faculty know very little about practicing law. They belong it a political science department, not law school.

    The way law school is currently designed makes it vulnerable to technology wiping out the current model. Law students are disciplined enough to study on their own. They don't need
    to subsidize full time faculty in an inefficient model for delivery of services. Law school is wasteful and obsolete.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Albert Lord's Poem

    Lazy Bones
    Lazy Bones!
    You Can't pay off those
    Student Loans!

    Lazy Bones,
    You are dead in the water,
    and you will never get married
    or have a son,
    or a daughter.

    You know what Lazy Bones:

    "You are a Prick! And I'm SICK.....of you!

    And as a matter of fact,
    YOU STINK LIKE POO!

    So go and watch a dirty flick
    and deadbeat your debtor's
    big
    thick
    dick

    Your Constitution
    is filthy and dirty,
    and your life was all over
    before you were thirty :)

    I planned all of that
    you stupid, educated, indebted, lazy
    college
    brat.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ That's more like it.

      Actually, I thank God that you don't have a "son or daughter." The taxpayers are caring for enough little Paintroachies as it is.

      And I actually think that you did plan it. You just assumed that the taxpayers would pay off your loans for you after a few years. Gosh, those taxpayer bums had better hurry up and give you "your" money soon. Chop-chop!

      Delete

 
Web Analytics