Friday, June 7, 2013

First Tier Filth Pit: Boston University School of Law



Tuition: Full-time BU Law students will be charged $44,720 in tuition, for the 2013-2014 school year.  Student fees will add another $1,066 to the cost of admission.  At such ridiculous prices, why are people even considering a “legal education”?!?!  The only possible, valid economic justification for doing so – other than being from a wealthy and connected family - is to land Biglaw.

Total Cost of Attendance: According to this same page, living expenses will amount to $16,240.  For instance, room and board is estimated at $12,070.  Apparently, the school feels that students will reside in a cardboard box, and survive on Ramen noodles and tuna fish sandwiches.  According to current Apartment Guide listings, the lowest-priced apartment in that area is $600 per month, and it is located in Lowell, Massachusetts - which is roughly 38 miles outside Boston.  Pretty much anything else will run you $900 or more, each month.

The school published a total estimate of $63,388.  Keep in mind that ABA-accredited diploma mills low-ball living costs, by basing their figures off of the nine-month academic calendar.  Seeing that actual law students will incur living expenses for the full year, I will prorate the following areas over twelve months: room and board; transportation; and personal expenses.  Doing so, and using the commode’s amounts for books and supplies – as well as Direct Loan fees – we reach a total, estimated COA of $69,101.   


Ranking: Bob Morse and US “News” & World Report have listed Bo$ton Univer$ity $ewer of Law as the 29th greatest, most prestigious and illustrious law school in the entire country.  That must mean that the majority of the student land Biglaw positions upon graduation, right?!?!


Employment Placement Figures: There were 273 members of the Boston University JD Class of 2012.  The first tier toilet claims that 225 grads landed jobs where “bar passage was required.”  Of course, only 175 of these positions were long term.  Seven JDs were pursuing another degree, whereas two people were unemployed and not looking – and 12 were still looking for work.  Using these figures, and seeing that seven law grads did not furnish their employment status to the school, the placement rate was 92.1 percent, i.e. 245/266. 

Boston University School of Law hired 38 of its 2012 graduates in law school or university funded positions.  Had the trash heap not done so, then these students would likely have been unemployed at the nine months after graduation mark.  It’s not as if law grads are choosing such positions over full-time, legal work.  In fact, the placement rate would have stood at 77.8% for the Class of 2012, i.e. 207/266.  Simply put, the school artificially enhanced its employment rate by 14.3 percent. 

Yes, law school pigs truly have no sense of personal ethics.  If you look closer, you will notice that 11 grads were placed in full-time but short term positions.  All 27 part-time workers are listed as short term workers.  That is correct: not a single damn person placed in a school-funded post was a long term employee.  But this is still a marvelous in$titution, huh?!?!

Under Employment Type, you will see that a total of 118 grads from this class ended up working in private law firms.  That represents 43.2% of the entire cohort of 273 students.  In sum, 74 BU Law grads found jobs in firms of more than 101 attorneys.  Even at such a high-ranked school, you are taking on one hell of a gamble.


Average Law Student Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Bo$ton Univer$ity JD Class of 2012 who incurred debt for law school - as $110,437. Fully 82 percent of this school’s 2012 class took on such toxic debt. Remember, this figure does not include undergraduate debt – and it also does not take accrued interest into account.



Administrator Salary Info: No member of the law faculty appears on the list of Highest Compensated Employees, on pages 17-19 of the Form 990 for Employer ID No. 04-2103547, i.e. Trustees of Boston University.  However, you will note that Robert A. Brown, “president,” raked in $1,141,330 in TOTAL COMPENSATION – for the tax year ending June 30, 2011.  Yes, the bastard/academic thief made $830,046 in reportable compensation, plus $311,284 in “estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations.”  Do the world a favor, and shave that walrus mustache, grossly overpaid ass-clown. 

Conclusion: If you are not from a wealthy family - or do not have tremendous business or political connections - then do not contemplate attending this school.  In the event that you land a full tuition scholarship, you may choose to proceed.  However, if you lose those funds due to your class rank, then you should drop out immediately - unless you are fully committed to absorbing such debt.  If your first semester grades are weak, then head to the Registrar's Office and leave school entirely.  In the last analysis, we are talking about your financial future.  The dean and "law professors" will continue to live handsomely - for their minimal "work" - without YOU incurring an additional $120K-$185K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt.  There is no need for you to take on such significant risk, when the chances of a high reward are slim.

49 comments:

  1. I’m hoping The Colonel makes an appearance and gives us some insight into the new KFC “I ate the bones” ad campaign. Was it inspired by his aunt Mildred?

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

      Delete
  2. Is that the airport where Larry Craig was trying to solicit?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So what you're saying is only rich people should go to law school? I don't get it. Who's going to represent the poor or fight for injury victims?
    We need lawyers that are gonna fight for justice. I'm not saying we need more law schools. (The existing ones should be producing more lawyers that fight for the people.) But if you try to limit law school only to the ones that can afford it the whole profession will suffer. And then you'll be criticizing that,.

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

      Delete
    2. "Who's going to represent the poor or fight for injury victims?"

      I know, right? God damn it, no one chases my ambulance anymore! If only law schools admitted po' people!

      (Nando - thanks for reading/your support - I not great with reading comments or replying to them, but I appreciate your kind words when I see them).

      Delete
  4. "So what you're saying is only rich people should go to law school? I don't get it. Who's going to represent the poor or fight for injury victims?"

    If this is the level of analysis you possess, then you certainly should not attend law school. Hopefully the LSAT will weed you out but probably not if you are from a middle or upper class family which is the only thing the scores predict. Your statement presumes that rich students will not work in public interest or on behalf of the poor and that poor students will only want to work in public interest. Not and Not. Try again.

    Also, the author is not saying only the rich should attend law school. The author is pointing out the ridiculous cost to attend versus your ability to land a job that will allow you to pay off such a massage amount of debt while having an apartment that is not shared with 10 people, eating something other than what you find from dumpster diving and wearing something other than trash bags. A car is out of the question. I think anyone thinking of attending law school should first get a job as paralegal at a law firm to witness the practice firsthand. Then decide, after watching those associates work their asses off with no vacations or weekends, if this is the life you want for the foreseeable future. And, your hopes of becoming a partner in big law ... you have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice while dressed as Lady Gaga!

    ReplyDelete
  5. BU Law is overrated for sure. I know a guy that went there that is struggling along as a solo. Paying a college president anywhere near a million dollars is obscene. The president's salary is something like 25 students paying full sticker tuition and going into debt in that amount.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Taxpayer bailouts are out of the question so past graduates are screwed and so be it.

    Let us move on and beyond the class of 2013 and try to figure out how to stop the plunder of the taxpayers that fully fund and service the law school scam.

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

      Delete
  7. That is confusing and not sure wht is meant.

    But corporations do not deserve a bailout any more than private citizens.

    Free market capitalism must be restored and with all the risks of the free market and without government intervention to cover the risks.

    Obamacare is not fre market Insurance and Lending is not free market lending if the government takes away all underwriting risks.

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

      Delete
  8. What's up with the racist piece of shit from earlier? You should've kept that one up so everyone can see that the troll is a sore loser.

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

      Delete
  9. https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance

    Jack Marshall looks like a child molester in his photo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Get this. Earlier today the PrawfsBlawg had a blog about how to increase your risk not to get tenure. No. 4 was "Focus too much on teaching or service." "In terms of teaching, most of us overinvest in teaching based on what the value is for tenure. I did/do, you will as well. I am happy I did it, but in part because I was able to produce enough scholarship at the same time. But you should recognize that every moment spent prepping, sadly, is a moment not spent on your scholarship. Some schools sometimes punish bad teaching during tenure, but far far fewer reward good teaching or at least in the proportion to the time spent to become an excellent teacher. Again, I am being cynical here but a realist; this is not the way I would like tenure to work, but I think it is the way it works right now in many institutions (as with all this advice you should try as much as possible to figure out what the climate is at your institution)." This post has now been removed. For once a professor speaks the truth and it is removed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Who is Jack Marshall anyway and why did he complain about TTR on his blog?

    It is not like Nando is a member of the bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Who is Jack Marshal?"

      Well, he is the guy with an over sized forehead designed for a single reason - so guys like Peter North and Ron Jeremy can jerk off their enormous loads on his forehead. This is the only reason why Jack Marshal exists.

      I appreciate that it would be difficult for us to get in touch with Peter North and/or Ron Jeremy. We have to find regular guys who would like to jerk off on Jack Marshal's forehead. Given the size of his fucking forehead,I think five guys will do the job. With three or five additional guys being on standby. In case we need more jeez. I will volunteer my services. Do we have the other five or so volunteers?

      The video might go viral on YouTube.

      Delete
  12. http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/boston-university-03073

    When you click on the hyperlink for Bo$ton Univer$ity $chool of Law, on the USN&WR rating, you will be directed to the Law School Overview. Look at the figure below:

    "Careers

    Employed at graduation: 44.0%"

    This includes non-law jobs, as well as part-time and short term positions. Yes, more than half of this particular graduating class - from the 29th greatest, most amazing law school in the United States - were unemployed at graduation! Imagine the job outlook for third tier commodes and fourth tier trash cans.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/the-lawyer-surplus-state-by-state/

    On June 27, 2011, Catherine Rampell published a piece in the New York Times Economix Blog, under the headline “The Lawyer Surplus, State by State.” The article was based on the findings of Economic Modeling Specialists Inc.

    You will notice that Massachusetts has the FIFTH-MOST GLUTTED ATTORNEY JOB MARKET, IN THE NATION. Here are the numbers for that state:

    “2010-2015 Estimated Annual Openings: 715
    2009 Bar Exam Passers: 2,165
    Surplus: 1,450”

    Do you comprehend this, lemmings and ball-less shills?!?! There were 3.03 bar exam passers for every estimated job opening, in Massachusetts. I know that “law professors” love to portray all lawyers as idiots with regards to math, but you would need to have the intelligence level of a fruit fly to not see that the lawyer job market is grossly over-saturated.

    @LSTC,

    You are welcome. It is always good to see such strong writing and aggressive tone, in a fellow scam-blogger. Someone has to inform potential law students about the dangers inherent in obtaining an expensive-ass “legal education.”

    To the commenter from 9:58 am,

    Paul Campos, tenured law professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder, also agrees that law school tuition prices out most people from modest backgrounds. By the way, you seem to have a romantic, naïve view of the role lawyers play in society. Read his “Lawyers, Guns & Money” blog entry, from April 9, 2013, entitled “Law school is now for rich kids.”

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/04/law-school-is-now-for-rich-kids

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I predicted all this years (decades actaully...) ago.

      No. I'm not psychic. Nor do I have any special powers. None of that was needed to see the progression of tuition, the accredication of new, unneeded law schools, the expansion of class sizes, and the continual dumping of the oversupply of new JDs into an already saturated market.

      With the decline of the overall economy and particularly the contraction of the legal sector, the current result was inevitable.

      To put it simply: There is no more room at the Bar. Absolutely none. If schools like a BU fail over half their students, then the Game is nearly over.

      Law school is now, more than ever, a Game for rich kids who can't get hurt by the current tuition prices, have solid connections, and bottom-line, really don't need (or care..) to work in law anyway.. Any job for these types is more a hobby than done to make a living. They can do whatever the hell they want anyway, including limosine liberal BS like serving the poor, etc. and then returning to their mansions at night and telling themselves what wonderful people they are.

      We have returned to the Guilded Age at warp speed.

      The rich connected kids are taking any available jobs left at the Bar right now. The rest are clearly SOL.

      Delete
  13. I won't hire someone with a juris doctorate degree.

    I'm an HR manager. We have over 250 employees. We don't hire lawyers for nonlawyer work. We'll be nice and interview some but they don't have a chance at getting the job.

    The gentleman that trained me said he learned his lesson when a JD another HR person hired a lawyer. The lawyer sued us after he was let go. I've also figured out that pretty much all the juris doctorates I've interviewed seem to have personality disorders. They have no people skills. None.

    The accountants and business school types here have no personality. But they're not hostile or impossible to be around.

    Years and years ago we had one applicant that went to Dartmouth. My boss flipped through his application and then said out loud He ruined it all by going to law school. He didn't even get an interview if my memory serves right.

    We'll hire people with humanities degrees. I have nothing against lit majors or people with communications degrees. They're usually decent. And you don;t have to worry about them turning around and suing you for every little thing.

    While I won't hire a lawyer to do a nonlawyer job I don't get any satisfaction seeing so many struggle. It's plain wrong for the law schools to put out too many lawyers. I wish you guys the best. But I won't hire you. Just because I don't want the constant headache.

    Best of luck.

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

      Delete
    2. "I'm an HR manager. We have over 250 employees. We don't hire lawyers for nonlawyer work. We'll be nice and interview some but they don't have a chance at getting the job. . . The lawyer sued us after he was let go. I've also figured out that pretty much all the juris doctorates I've interviewed seem to have personality disorders. They have no people skills. None. . . .The accountants and business school types here have no personality. But they're not hostile or impossible to be around."

      You sound like a real peach of a guy, and some fool put you in charge of HR? Lets see, according to you, only lawyers sue . . because of course it is impossible for a lay person to find a lawyer to sue in a legitimate claim, and only Humanities majors have personalities. WOW, are you a sicko.

      Delete
    3. You must be so proud, Mr. HR manager guy. Let me just ask thee one question: Please, oh please oh please put down where thou worketh. Please, oh please, put down where I should not WASTE my TIME applying for a JAWB if, in the future, I actually need to do so!

      You are perpetrating the LIE of LIES that law school is a bad investment. In the end, by being so darn PICKY, you will find that YOU LOSE.

      Delete
  14. To the ball-less troll who had his 11:54 am comment deleted,

    Get a job, cockroach. You now have six separate comments that have been removed from this one entry. That must make your worthless bitch mother very proud! It's obvious that you have no spouse or kids to keep you busy. I'm sure that is not for a lack of trying, you persistent bitch.

    When women turn him down - and issue restraining orders against his scrawny ass - the tool continues his pursuit, until he "wins their affections." Which in his case, means the women have been drugged and lose consciousness - and are unable to put up any resistance to his sexual assault.

    http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/02/trap-schools.html

    For the adults, we will now focus on “legal education.” In his February 13, 2012 post “Trap schools,” Paul Campos wrote the following:

    “Sports, and particularly college football, feature the concept of a "trap game." A trap game is one that, for a variety of factors, a team is more likely to end up losing than a superficial glance at the team's opponent would suggest (For instance, a classic trap game scenario involves a strong team playing a lightly regarded but actually pretty good opponent on the road the week before a clash with a powerful traditional rival).

    In honor of Wednesday's nine-month NALP reporting deadline, I'd like to introduce the concept of a trap school. A trap school has the following characteristics:

    (1) It's expensive to attend.

    (2) It's located in what the sort of people who go to law school tend to consider a desirable place to live (obviously these first two factors are related).

    (3) It has superficially attractive employment and salary statistics.

    A trap school, in other words, is the kind of place that attracts the kind of highly-qualified, reasonably prudent 0Ls who would never consider attending the vast majority of law schools at anything like sticker price, and yet still ends up generating a very high risk of financial and personal disaster for its students.”

    Remember, tuition for the 2013-2014 academic year will hit $44,720. Plus, the twelve month budget/estimated COA will reach roughly $69,101. Don’t forget that the average law student debt for the Boston University JD Class of 2012 was $110,437 - according to US “News” & World Report. Again, this figure does not include undergrad debt or accrued interest.

    Plenty of students would be happy to live in the Boston area. Regarding the last point, the school hired 38 of its 2012 grads in university or law school-funded positions. None of these jobs were full-time and long term. In short, the 29th “best” law school in the country needed to employ 13.9 percent of this particular, graduating class. The law school overview, from USN&WR, shows that only 44 percent of the cohort was employed at graduation.

    It is CLEAR that Bo$ton Univer$ity Sewer of Law is a trap school. Attending this first tier toilet presents its students/victims with a high risk of financial ruin. Then again, the kids are thrilled about getting into such a pre$tigiou$ school. However, that does not pay the bills or put food in the fridge.

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

      Delete
  15. Check out this article which profiles a BU Law grad who foolishly turned down a Big 4 accounting job to attend BU-Law (look for Abby-Gail Chaffatt's story):

    http://www.businessinsider.com/real-stories-behind-the-law-school-crisis-2012-4?op=1

    Here is a telling quote from this recent BU-Law alum:

    "I’m in this limbo where no one wants me. It’s really difficult and thank god for doc review. That’s how I support myself," she says. "As for starting a career, at this point I have no idea when I’ll start my career and what I’ll be doing once I do."

    A T30 law degree only got this gal doc review jobs. What will happen to her when doc review completely dries up thanks to electronic software programs and LPOs in India? She would have been better off working in a Big 4 accounting firm but her JD is a scarlet letter and they won't hire her. I bet she regrets attending BU-Law.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Nando. I enjoy looking at your comments about schools, but can't help but wonder why you attack every single school. Isn't the title of your blog "Third Tier Reality"? You went to Drake right? Do you have any experience at T1 or T2 schools to judge them or do you just go by websites? Just curious. I think that you should let everyone know that you didn't take the bar exam, because you flaunt that you're employed in a non-legal field. I can't imagine you have a lot of time for a job looking at alll the time you spend bashing schools. I appreciate the thought behind this blog, but really, it's kind of childish. Put on your big boy pants; life's out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1. I agree totally with this.

      Delete
  17. 11:04--do you actually hate people more fortunate than yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Boston metro legal market is so saturated i don't know why you'd even bother. Stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To the tool who posted at 5:40 pm,

    The only people who use terms such as "big boy pants" are pretentious douche-bags. Thanks for identifying yourself as such.

    At any rate, I never took the bar exam. I have mentioned that before, on this site. There is no practical sense in shelling out $3,000 or $4,000 for bar prep materials and the actual test - when I will not be practicing law. Unlike you, I don’t need such a boost to my ego or self-esteem. And I sure as hell am not going to quit my job - or take time away from my child - so that I can adequately prepare for an exam that has NO BEARING on my life.

    My wife occasionally asks me to take the bar exam. I have told her, without hesitation, that I am not going to sign up for the course. I live with her and our young child. She cooks my meals. I have withstood the pressure, with no trouble. Hence, I don't give a damn what an anonymous rodent such as you thinks.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm

    In the preface to his classic work, "Woe Unto You Lawyers," Fred Rodell wrote the following:

    "By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar. If anyone should want, not unreasonably, to know what on earth I am doing – or trying to do – teaching law, he may find a hint of the answer toward the end of Chapter IX."

    At the time, Rodell was a law professor at Yale University. Keep in mind that your tenured "professors" do not practice law, either. Make sure to request that they announce that prominently on their school bios. You should read the entire 63 page PDF. He bashed the entire, crooked “profession” – back in 1939! Of course, you probably don’t read anything that is not assigned to you, in a syllabus.

    By the way, I only mention that I work at a non-law job, because ball-less trolls like to falsely claim that all scambloggers are unemployed. Furthermore, I don’t post entries every single day – while many “law professors” do update their blogs with daily articles. Get on their case, for their lack of “work.” Then again, the academic thieves make no secret about their ample free time.

    Lastly, have you attended all 201 ABA-accredited law schools?! Employing your weak “logic,” if you have not done so, then how can you make a valid choice as to which ones to apply for admission? Did you visit each and every law school that you wish to attend, or did you rely on internet research?

    Grow a brain stem, child. You apparently believe that a title restricts the subject matter. Go write to the editors of the New York Times, and ask them not to cover stories in Alaska, Panama, Guam, the Netherlands, etc. as those areas are outside of New York. Do the same with other publications. Don’t get your lace panties in a bunch, over such concerns.

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

      Delete
    2. The troll's just angry at the world 'cause he has to tongue punch his boyfriend's fart box 5x a day.

      Delete
  20. "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses."

    That should be carved into stone on a monument somewhere.

    Maybe at the base of Mount Rushmore

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ So if law school had paid off for you, then, you'd naturally be giving your salary away, right?

      Of course, it goes without saying that you're opposed to taxpayer bailouts and forgiveness of student debtors.

      I smell hypocrite.

      Delete
    2. ^You're just smelling your boyfriend's asshole.

      Delete
  21. Ultimately the taxpayers suffer, and the needs of the many taxpayers are more important than the needs of the relative few thousands that were allegedly scammed, and that goes for all of the financially ruined casualties of prior law school classes up until 2013.

    The best we can hope for now is damage control for the taxpayers, and to end the systemic tragedy known as the law school scam.

    The free market economy should be restored, and that means cutting off student loan funding with no underwriting, and drastically lowering the number of JD's until the market corrects itself and it might take a decade or more.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just sayin'. For most people who post here, "socializing the losses" is their heart's wish. Discouraging people from attending LS is actually a distant second.

      Delete
    2. Hello, mental deficient.

      No one takes you seriously, because you have no integrity. Hell, you don't even attempt to be honest, cockroach.

      Scamblogs inform students about the hazards of attending law school, the great financial risk involved, and the GLUTTED lawyer job market. In contrast, "law professors" and deans - as well as university administrators - are socializing the risk to the public. The bitches and hags "earn" their salaries, via the federally-backed student loan scheme. And the pigs want as many asses in seats as possible. In short, the taxpayers are ultimately on the hook, in the event of a mass default. Of course, the academic leeches and banksters have no skin in the game, i.e. they bear NONE of the risk.

      http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/CJP102-Macchiarola-Abraham-2.pdf

      The Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy published an article entitled, “Options for Student Borrowers: A Derivatives-Based Proposal to Protect Students and Control Debt-Fueled Inflation in the Higher Education Market.” The authors were Michael C. Macchiarola and Arun Abraham. They even cited to Third Tier Reality, in footnote 260.

      The basic gist of the 72-page PDF file is that the burden should be placed on those who benefit most from the system. Take a look at this quote, from page 49:

      “Just as businesses can reap profits from useful yet abnormally dangerous activities, the higher education enterprise of law schools and student loan lenders invariably profit from successive batches of virgin law students. Law schools and lenders are the sophisticated, well-informed, repeat players in this market.”

      Did that penetrate your tiny gray matter?!?! The law schools and banksters privatize the profits and socialize the losses. Level with me: what is your specific mental disability? There is no way that YOU are this damn dumb, without some affliction or medical condition.

      In the end, the law school scam is a mere part of the larger “higher education” racket. Take a look at this October 20, 2010 piece from the Chronicle of Higher Education, entitled “Why Did 17 Million Students Go to College?” It was authored by Richard Vedder, professor of economics at Ohio University. Presumably, even you can comprehend the situation:

      http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to-college/27634

      “Over 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees (over 8,000 of them have doctoral or professional degrees), along with over 80,000 bartenders, and over 18,000 parking lot attendants. All told, some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.”

      Now, it’s your turn to provide some actual facts and proof to support your claims. Good luck with that simple task, Bitch.

      Delete
    3. ^ Pfft, law professors aren't "socializing the risks" by accepting their salaries. They're privatizing the profits.

      Which is the exact same thing you would be doing right now if the industry hadn't banhammerred you.

      LOL at the long reply to my brief comment. Only a hit dog hollers, apparently.

      Delete
    4. Quit beating up on the defenseless, nando.

      Delete
  22. Out of the overall class of student loan debtors, many of the law school borrowers seemed to have been the hardest hit, and the most financially devastated, and for the rest of their mortal lives. And that is a human tragedy on a scale that rivals any in history.

    For this class of hopeless debtors are a subset of a greater rip off scenario for sure, and yet will be callously overlooked and written off by the larger government.

    The fact that there will never be bankruptcy for the destroyed law school class of debtors is a testament to the idea that the ABA thinks that human lives are expendable.

    The needs of the relative few destroyed debtors that have emerged from the law school scam will have to be overlooked and over ruled and forever and anon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Well, why not? If it was just ONE guy who owed a trillion dollars in student loans, we wouldn't force the taxpayers to give him all that money.

      Delete
  23. I went to BU as an undergrad for two years before wising up and transferring out to a better and much cheaper state school. Take my advice, all this school care about is taking your money to pay for the overpaid professors and administration. They could care less about you. If you want to hang out with a bunch of rich jerks, then this might be the place for you. Granted, there were a lot of hot women back in the day, but not worth it at the price they were (and still are) charging. As far as the legal market goes, BU has always played second or third fiddle to Harvard and BC. It ain't worth the cost. Find a cheaper alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @1:36,

    Apparently, you do suffer from a mild form of mental retardation. To wit:

    "Pfft, law professors aren't "socializing the risks" by accepting their salaries. They're privatizing the profits."

    Privatizing the profits goes hand in hand with socializing the costs or losses, Dumbass. Who knew that smashing a fly with a sledgehammer was so much fun?

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

    "In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting [sic] (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government."

    Pick up a book sometime. Perhaps, you can do so when you are done inhaling your boyfriend's anal fumes.

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

      Delete
  25. The Death Of Humanities Majors (from the WSJ): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-10/death-humanities-majors

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey Nando, check it out. Law school applicants drop for third year in a row:

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law-school_applicants_drop_for_third_year_in_a_row/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

    The hits keep on coming for the law school pigs.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics