Saturday, July 13, 2013

Profiles in Academic Excrement: Victor Fleischer of the University of San Diego School of Law


Thanks to the Law School Truth Center for finding this rat bastard’s drivel.

Ass-Clown is Upset That Seton Hall is Cutting Staff:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/the-unseen-costs-of-cutting-law-school-faculty/

On July 9, 2013, the New York Times Dealbook published Cockroach Victor Fleischer’s piece, entitled
“The Unseen Costs of Cutting Law School Faculty.” Take a look at the following, stench-filled excerpts:

“The situation at Seton Hall is representative of many other non-elite law schools. Firing untenured faculty is a shortsighted approach to managing an academic budget. It encroaches on an important principle of academic freedom, namely that a tenure decision should be based on the merit of the case, not the budget of the department.

As a tax scholar who writes about issues that can hit rich people in the pocketbook, I am sometimes reminded why the institution of tenure, for all its flaws, is worth keeping around.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, where would society be without your invaluable contributions?!?! Later on, the douche-bag wrote:

“Seton Hall’s decision to allow budget considerations to affect tenure outcomes sets a bad precedent. Law professors, economists and other academics are often called to testify in front of Congress, and academic research is often used to shape legal policy. Academic views are respected precisely because they are free from economic pressures; academics are not beholden to clients. If universities tie tenure decisions to department budgets, deans will be tempted to think about pleasing alumni in determining whom to tenure and whom to let go.

Across the country, law school enrollment has declined as prospective students respond to dismal employment prospects. Seton Hall has slashed its tuition by more than half for well-qualified students, to about $22,000 from $47,000, matching the in-state tuition rate at Rutgers. While reducing class size and lowering tuition is the right response to weak employment prospects, it obviously leaves a hole in the budget.

Neither law schools in particular nor universities in general are well designed to deal with fluctuating revenue. Academic budgets have high fixed costs, largely attributable to the salaries of tenured professors. Budgets have exploded with increases in administrative staff, information technology staff, and health care and pension costs.” [Emphasis mine]

Victor Fleischer points out that tenured “professors” account for a large portion of a law school’s budget. Yet, he believes that schools – including the parent univer$itie$ - should keep funneling money on these expendable employees who provide little “work.” Yes, you “educators” are just as disposable as the rest of us.

Other Coverage:

http://lawschoolscam.com/blog/index.php?/archives/114-New-York-Times-Writer-Defends-Unjust-Faculty-Cuts.html

On July 10, 2013, LSTC published an entry entitled “New York Times Writer Defends Unjust Faculty Cuts.” Read his biting summary of Fliescher’s views:

“Clinical legal education: a boondoggle. Junior faculty who publish fluff are important, people. Their right to publish offensively useless fluff must be protected at all costs. Now pay your tuition and leave us alone to bask in our six-figure prestige. MY CV IS TWENTY PAGES LONG AND PROVES I ADD VALUE TO THE HUMAN RACE.” [Emphasis in original]

Scroll down to the first comment, from OTLSS co-author dybbuk. On the same day, at 5:39 am, he posted this remark:

“If Professor Fleischer of the University of San Diego School of Law wants to identify a boondoggle, he could look over at his spouse, Professor Fleischer of the University of San Diego School of Law. Yes, there are two of them, and the boondoggle is called "spousal hiring." 

Apparently, that the sewer rat feels that this is a perk that should be available to “law professors.” Yet, I am sure that the jackass brays whenever corporate boards feature familial relations.

Confirmation That USD Sewer of Law Also Hired Victor’s Wife as a Lecturer:

http://www.sandiego.edu/law/news/news_releases/newslist.php?_focus=44777

Check out this April 10, 2013 press release labeled “Howard Abrams, Miranda Fleischer and Victor Fleischer Join USD School of Law Faculty.” Apparently, this Clay Aiken doppelganger taught at the same ABA-accredited in$titution as Paul Campos, before taking his and his wife asses to the 68th greatest and most pre$TTigiou$ law school in the land, i.e. the University of San Diego Sewer of Law.

“Victor Fleischer joins USD’s tax faculty after teaching or serving as visiting professor at the University of Colorado, UCLA, University of Illinois, New York University and Georgetown University. He teaches in the areas of partnership and corporate taxation, deals, tax policy and private equity.”

Conclusion: Victor Fleischer is a typical hypocrite pig who believes that other business entities – such as oil companies, private equity firms and hedge fund managers – should be held accountable for their actions, while his filthy, vile, trash indu$try is left alone. For $ome rea$on, this “tax scholar” has not pushed the idea of removing the tax-exempt status of highly-profitable U.S. colleges and universities. By the way, if this bitch is such a tax “expert,” he should realize that companies – including supposed “non-profit institutions of higher education” – need to meet payroll. Businesses are not keen on the idea of losing money. In the end, Fleischer is another academic charlatan who wants to keep the gravy train rolling along. Did you notice that the cockroach did not once mention, in his lengthy Dealbook piece, the students’ interests?!?!  This jackal does not give one damn about YOU, the student or recent graduate.

42 comments:

  1. Even 20 years ago many of my law school 'professors' were arrogantly smarmy and sometimes overtly dismissive of the non-elite institution where they were employed .Their attitude was something along the lines of "we brilliant legal minds are slumming down here at this law school that is ranked in the 30's". That didn't stop them from collecting their fat salaries, however.

    ReplyDelete
  2. OMG he looks so young and I thought he was just a student and then I read that he is 35 years old.

    Which is still very young.

    Life goes by so fast.

    As for Mr. Infinity, he is making some erratic videos and strangely enough is ambivalent about the Bar Exam.

    And BTW that racist troll that follows me around is not Knorps or Infinity. But he is a busy little politically minded fellow and does leave comments elsewhere such as here:

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/61749/wsj-columnist-boston-muslim-terrorists-just-like-us-irish-jews-who-were-all-communists/

    And here is his comment from the article:

    "@NF,

    I didn’t say “all” of them. And wow – hope springs eternal with you. When I hear you say that American Jews (the ultra-left ones, anyway) are just “confused,” I have to laugh. A lot of people apply this “hopeful denial” method to Obama. Basically, they are so consumed with white guilt and the desire to worship black booty that they sell THEMSELVES the bill of goods – i.e., “Obama is actually a secret moderate, he really wants to move to the center, his party just won’t let him. Poor Obama!”

    Jews aren’t by any means the only ones; they have plenty of company in America. But if you vote for Obama, you are a communist.

    Please tell me you don’t also think that dingleberry in Boston was an unwilling victim of his older brother?

    St atTusM onkeyy on April 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds more like you are following HIM around - to Dingbat Schlussel's site, apparently.

      Of course, no two people could believe that white Americans have made a habit of worshipping black booty. I'm quite sure that in the once-Catholic Roach household, that picture of Jesus came down five or six years ago, only to be replaced by a tenderly-rendered painting of an enormous black booty - right over the mantle.

      So are you now googling the phrase "worship black booty"? Or did you just want to find some additional pictures of your profane evil buttocks-god?

      Where is the money, Paintroach? Where the FUCK is the $500K? If you've been "painting houses" all these years - AND living expense-free with your parents - then WHERE is the FUCKING MONEY? You owe an answer to that question to every reader on this site.

      You haven't been working at all. Just fess up, you lazy turd. My opinion of you couldn't possibly get any lower - even if you got caught fucking a pig, there would be no change in your status as far as I'm concerned.

      By the way, I'll bet that smelly gigantic roach-head of yours LITERALLY turned into a giant bag of shit and then promptly burst into flames when you heard that verdict last night. You are after all a FIERCE civil rights roach and Al Sharpton-wannabe white race warrior who fights for all African-Americans. Except for the ones who pay taxes, of course. Your lily-white roachpussy must be a disco inferno right now! Justice for Trayvon! The smelly flaming-head-bag-of-shit roachpussy demands it!!!

      Go spend a couple hours sucking on a big black boner tonight, Paintroach - it'll make you feel much better about that verdict, I'm guessing. Consider that an rX.

      Delete
    2. Well Larry Craig's bathroom boyfriend, you having proven once again to fetish for black butts and now sex with barnyard animals. You are projecting your homosexual and bestiality fetish on to everybody else. Honestly, other than trolling the internet 20 hours a day, what do you do? Obviously nothing constructive for society that is for sure.

      Delete
    3. I just think it's sad that two people find some sort of joy in harassing a guy they've never met personally....and they are paying for it because they have IP anonymizers.

      Delete
    4. "I just think it's sad that two people find some sort of joy in harassing a guy they've never met personally....and they are paying for it because they have IP anonymizers."

      If you read the comment made at July 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM, it was clearly directed at the author who made the comment at July 14, 2013 at 3:15 AM. You can defend the author of the comment at July 14, 2013 at 3:15 AM if you wish. Personally I find this creature most loathsome.

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

      Delete
    6. "If you read the comment made at July 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM, it was clearly directed at the author who made the comment at July 14, 2013 at 3:15 AM. You can defend the author of the comment at July 14, 2013 at 3:15 AM if you wish. Personally I find this creature most loathsome."

      I was referring to the two people "Johnny Debtor" mentioned. This is the downfall of everybody being anonymous.

      Delete
  3. USD has a law school? I lived in California and I never knew that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People often confuse USD with UCSD; the former a Catholic private college, the latter a tech school. A lawl skool for USD is just a part of the scene; it makes them look "prestigious" hides the fact that USD's social life is a wet fart and the kids run off to SDSU parties.

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

      Delete
  4. Sounds like a nontenured prof crying because he can see this shit happening to himself once his school has fewer students.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen. There's no way he has tenure yet at his age. He's probably sweating bullets thinking about how he'll have to fight for a job like the rest of us. No one would hire this sanctimonious prick.

      A friend of mine who is still at my old firm is looking to leave (got passed over for partner) and went to a head hunter and they said "I have people from DLA and Skadden fighting over shitty in-house positions so don't even send me your resume." Fleisher wouldn't stand a chance in the job market today.

      And yeah maybe you can make more money in private practice but you have to constantly be out there hustling. I'd rather make $175k/yr. guaranteed income as a law school pig than $200k/yr. as a lawyer working 80 hours a week constantly trying to develop clients and a book of business. Same reason why people become judges. I'd rather have a lifetime appointment making $170k/yr., pension, and benefits working in a courthouse 8am-4pm, Monday-Friday, with a clerk and secretary doing everything for you.

      Fleisher can shove it up his ass.

      Delete
  5. In the comment section of that same NY Times article, Fleischer said this:

    Victor FleischerBoulder, CO..It is nice to be in academia. Of course, you take a pay cut to get the job security.

    Does this idiot really think he is taking a pay cut to be in academia? As if law firms are BEGGING for him to apply. The only alternative to academia for a guy like that is unemployment. Law firms want a book of business or a new graduate. He has (and is) neither. Law firms are not welcoming of these types.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tax scholar = BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only thing the lawprofs care about is their $$$. What makes it so grating are the pretenses. Lawprofs pretend they are participants in a noble undertaking, when really they're just money-grubbing shysters.

    Look, these people know they are a drain on society but they don't care. They just want the gravy train to keep rolling at all costs, students be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, watching the lawprofs and admins frantically defending their jobs these past few years has been hilarious. Law professors were exposed as shallow and insecure dopes. That was the clincher; many of us saw that law faculty aren't very bright.

    Lawprofs shouldn't worry though. They gave up millions to teach remember? Surely they can just lateral into a partner-level position at Davis Polk, or get a job in Nebraska making $300,000 per year.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Surprisingly, McGeorge has not embraced this kind of forward thinking in dealing with its financial crisis. Perhaps Fleischer could meet with Dean Mooch directly in an effort to implement this strategy and ultimately measure it's effectiveness?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your comment was right on the money, 5:03 pm! If these "scholars" are in such high demand, then why should they be worried about potential layoffs?! The real answer, of course, is that these academic hustlers and thieves KNOW that Biglaw is not going to come calling.

    Aside from well-known tenured "professors" teaching at the highest-rated law schools, Biglaw would not even be interested in interviewing someone who "works" 4-6 hours per week, takes paid sabbaticals, and writes useless law review articles. Plus, someone such as Laurence Tribe will remain unaffected by smaller overall enrollment.

    http://lawweb.colorado.edu/files/vitae/fleischer.pdf

    Let's take a look at Fleischer's CV, from his old University of Colorado page. Notice that he was an associate at Davis Polk, from 1998-2001 - after he was a clerk for two separate federal pig judges. If these rats "love the law" so much, then why do they run to the safe confines of academia?!?!

    In the end, law is an ugly business. The managing partners are looking to increase profits, and “educators” DO NOT excel in this area. They also feel that the legal system should be above money-making. Furthermore, who the hell wants to work 70-80 hour weeks - especially when they can “earn” a set salary and teach 1-3 classes per semester?!?! In sum, these guys can’t wait to leave law practice.

    What makes these pigs so disgusting is how they bill themselves as “performing a public service.” During orientation, “professors” and administrators drone on about “the noble profession.” They gush about how “the law can change people’s lives, for the better.” Then again, every student should immediately ask, “If this is such a great and amazing field, then why the hell don’t YOU practice any more?”

    http://www.sandiego.edu/law/financial_aid/cost_of_attendance/jd_tuition_and_fees.php

    By the way, the Univer$iTTy of $an Diego Sewer of Law charged its full-time students $45,600 for the 2012-2013 academic year. Fees added another $260 to the big-ass tab. In fact, the commode estimates that the total cost of attendance last year was $69,076 - for those attending full-time.

    http://www.economicmodeling.com/2011/06/22/new-lawyers-glutting-the-market-in-all-but-3-states/

    As the neutral group, Economic Modeling Specialists Inc., pointed out back on June 22, 2011, California has the nation’s SECOND-MOST GLUTTED attorney job market. The entry was labeled “Data Spotlight: New Lawyers Glutting the Market.” Look at the numbers below, for that state:

    “2010-2015 Estimated Annual Openings: 3,307
    2009 Bar Exam Passers: 6,258
    Surplus: 2,951”

    ReplyDelete
  11. When is BLS going to rename their law school after Christopher Knorps?

    ReplyDelete
  12. As for the false modesty of Uriah Heep or should I say "humble" Mr. Infinity, here is Dickens talking about one of his most malevolent and dangerous characters:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEBW5AEHTSA


    See you next weekend and have a good week everyone. May you never be poor, but if so, may you never be so deep in debt to any government so that you will never break even for the rest of your mortal life.

    If your grades were bad this year, know when to quit:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

    As for the redneck trash and racist troll, here is possibly the greatest bodybuilder and athlete of all time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSMaI63H9hc



    ReplyDelete
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:ABA-accredited_law_schools_in_California

    According to this Wikipedia entry, there are currently 22 ABA-accredited schools located in the state of California.

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

    The following California schools are rated higher than the 68th “best” Univer$iTTy of $an Diego $chool of Law. The specific ranking for each school, from US “News“ & World Report, is also listed:

    Stanford, 2nd
    UC Berkeley, 9th
    UCLA, 17th
    University of Southern California, 18th
    UC Davis, 38th
    UC Hastings, 48th
    Pepperdine, 61st

    Yes, seven in-state law schools have better reputations than the University of San Diego SOL. Plus, Loyola Law School Los Angeles shares the distinction of being the 68th greatest law school in the country, along with SIX other commodes. What a tremendous “in$TTiTTuTTion of higher learning,” huh?!?!

    If you attend USD Sewer of Law, do you think that you stand a chance in hell of competing for jobs against your counterparts from Stanford, USC, UCLA or UC Berkeley?! Perhaps, you feel that hiring partners will cream their pants, when they learn that you took a few tax law courses from ass-hats such as Victor Fleischer.

    Victor Fleischer is upset and scared that Seton Hall University Sewer of Law gave a notice of possible termination to all non-tenured “professors.” The fact that the toilet also made all faculty take a 10& reduction in pay likely gave the weasel indigestion.

    He should have waited to post his tripe in Dealbook, until after the University of the Pacific McGeorge Commode of Law announced that it WILL cut staff and student enrollment by 40 percent. The pigs and cockroaches are starting to feel the effects of their filthy, corrupt actions. Apparently, Fleischer believes that the law school swine should be allowed to publish false and misleading employment placement data - with no consequences!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Schools can get rid of faculty if the money starts running dry. What's this guy think, that professors are not replaceable? Get the fuck outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe the law professor profession will go the way of Biglaw where they hire desperate Biglaw outcasts for 3-4 years and before they get tenure they just fire them. So all these elite cocksuckers clerk for 1 year, do biglaw for 3 years, law school professor for 3-4 years and then.....McDonalds!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really wish they would do this. Lawprofs justify their high salaries by comparing themselves to biglaw. Well, if they want biglaw money, they should get biglaw HR practices. Churn through young HYS grads and replace them with younger ones 4 years later.

      Delete
  16. When law profs and administrators bleat about the great sacrifices they are making by being in academia instead of some big law firm, I think of what Harold Ickes said about Wendell Wilkie: "He's just a simple barefoot Wall Street lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What makes this hilarious is that he talks about tenure and writing tax articles that could "hit rich people in the pocketbook" as if the Koch brothers or any other influential rich people are going to sweat University of San Diego to fire this asswipe instead of just continuing to lobby in Sacramento/Washington D.C. and actually influencing the people WHO WRITE THE TAX LAWS.

    Fleisher is a disingenuous, self-interested frontman for the law school scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get angry when law profs act like humble public servants and criticize "rich people" as if law profs aren't in a higher income bracket than most of America (not to mention the world).

      Delete
  18. Nando please do a profile on USD $ewer of Law!

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/31/does-america-need-202-law-schools/

    On January 31, 2013, Forbes published a piece from contributor Peter Cohan, under the headline “Does America Need 202 Law Schools?” Check out this excellent opening:

    “The U.S. has 202 accredited law schools. Sure law schools are highly profitable for the professors and administrators. But radical changes in the way law is practiced means that the high tuitions imposed on aspiring lawyers to get that law degree are less likely to pay off.

    And this imbalance between the supply of lawyers, the rising cost of adding to that supply and the likely inability of those lawyers to get jobs means that fewer people are willing to sign up to pay tuition. This means law schools will need to shrink or shutter themselves.

    The decline in the number of students heading to law schools is profound. As the New York Times reported, 30,000 people applied to law school for this coming fall — a 20% decline from January 2012 and 38% fewer than in 2010. In 2004, 100,000 people applied to law school and in 2013 the number will likely be about half that – 54,000.

    The number of law schools is likely to decline as a result — perhaps to 192 by 2023.”

    People now realize that the law schools/diploma mills are run for the benefit of the failed lawyers known as “professors.” Two paragraphs later, Cohan notes the following:

    “The reason for the drop in the number of applications to law school seems to be based on simple math. A Spring 2012 American Bar Association study found that only 55% of law school graduates had gotten a job requiring a law license while the average student took on $125,000 in debt to earn the license.

    But the declining job prospects did nothing to tamp down rising tuition. Between 2001 and 2011, the average private law school tuition nearly doubled from $23,000 to $40,500.

    Most law schools are stuck with the idea that law is a dignified profession with elegant theories that should be the principal focus of law school classes. Those law schools do not want to teach students the nuts and bolts of lawyering — assuming that law firms will do that after students graduate.

    But law firms and corporations no longer want to foot the bill for that. Nor, presumably do they see a need to pay enormous bills for doing things like legal research that was formerly the province of law school graduates aspiring to partner in a big firm.

    Now the Internet and cheap telecommunications make it easy for law firms and companies to hire low-wage temps in places like India to do that work. ValueNotes, a research company in India, reported that the number of Indian firms offering legal related services nearly tripled between 2006 and 2011 to 140 and is expected to generate $1.1 billion in revenues next year.”

    Legal research still needs to be performed, but it can now be done cheaply. Automation and outsourcing have taken an extensive toll on the U.S. attorney job market. Hell, you can find Duke and NYU law grads on doc review projects. It’s a brave new world - and these academic pigs will soon discover that they are easily replaceable, as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "People now realize that the law schools/diploma mills are run for the benefit of the failed lawyers known as 'professors.'”

      This is one of the most infuriating aspects of the scam. My "tier 1" school's administration goes on about how great our school is, but when it comes time to hire professors, they almost exclusively hire from Yale and Harvard with the occasional prof from other T14s. They wouldn't touch a graduate of our school (ranked ~30 USNWR) with a 10-foot pole. Even as they take our money for a "fantastic legal education," they show with their hiring practices that they only value JDs from T14 schools. So basically our school exists as a jobs program for graduates of the "good" schools, while its own graduates are left to fight for the few jobs available with their sub-elite JDs.

      Delete
    2. @11:46

      Yep, pretty much. Unless, of course, your school is packed with boomer pigs like mine was who were able to get into the scam with JDs from Minnesota, Florida, and other state non-elite law schools.

      Delete
    3. @ 5:28

      What's really depressing is that those boomers who got a break despite their non-elite pedigrees generally don't hire from their alma maters (or similar schools) but instead turn to the trusty T14. Basically, they climbed the ladder of upward prestige mobility and pulled it up when they got there.

      Delete
  20. You know what I like the most Nando?

    It's that these buffoons fool themselves into thinking they could become partners at a law firm or could even be self-sufficient lawyers, that they are somehow taking the noble path. Hell, most of them are socially awkward and out of touch. That's why they became law professors.

    What's also amusing is that they think they are powerful voices directing policy, like the "puppeteers of society."
    Yeah. Right...
    There are a few guys like Larry Lessig but for every one of those there are 500 self-aggrandizing muppets. I read somewhere once that HALF of all law review articles are not even cited once. half. Most law review articles are regurgitated pap without a single original thought.

    These "professors" are in for a seriously rude awakening:
    "You mean I have to do my own work, not get a 2L to do it for me? You mean I have to put in more than 6-8 hours a week? You mean I have to do what my boss tells me to? I don't get away with bullying some 23 year old in front of a large class anymore, and that same 23 year old is now my client, or worse, an old student who actually knows how to get clients and can tell me where to stick it?"

    I just hope I get to see some of this unfold. If any of you on this site ever see a former law professor in a siuation like this, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE share your stories!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The spousal employment privilege is just another corrupt benefit law faculty extract out of the students in addition to sabbaticals, mystery bonus payments, forgivable loans, and more. Law professors and faculty are DISGUSTING human beings.

    Another privilege they get is that their children and spouses get to go to school for free. When I was in law school one of my professors had a spouse attending law school at the same time. I remember talking to him one time and he told me his cost of attendance was zero. Since, his spouse was a faculty member he paid no tuition.

    While other law students are paying full tuition, racking up six-figure debt in some cases, this freeloader got a full ride. So, I basically partially paid for this pos to go to law school for free.

    Higher Ed is corrupt to the core.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Law school has always been a scam. Now it just costs a whole lot more. The white shoe lawyers didn't like that people could apprentice and then read for the bar exam. So the cocksuckers contrived the idea of three year schools. Then the corporate lawyers and the wealthy were upset that Greeks, Italians and other ethnic whites could attend night school to study law. So they mocked those guys and started adding C&F barriers. You know, because those ethnic whites were all lazy idiots and/or had moral weaknesses. Sucking corporate dick for a living (which is what corporate lawyers have always done) was not a sin though.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fuck the law school shitbird professors.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Great job Nando! Hey, when are you going to place a Twitter option on your page to make it a little easier to share your gospel? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is there one person here who would turn down an opportunity to be a law professor? Can you really blame these people? Decent money for the amount of work and prestigious to boot. In case you guys haven't noticed, its called competition. Nobody promises anybody anything in this society. The professors made it to where they are through their own efforts and intelligence. You don't expect them to voluntarily give it up or take lesser salaries so you folks can save on tuition? Even Campos posted only with the security of his Tenure. They want to keep their jobs and their product is a legal education, so that is what they try to sell to keep their own jobs. As far as they are concerned, they are not the ones who told you to go to law school, Once you are there, their only job is to try to teach you some law. That's it. Whether you choose to go to law school or what you do with your JD is not their problem. And why should it be? Why are they responsible for where you now find yourselves? I don't get it? You bought a product. I didn't turn out like you liked. Is this any different than going to a private undergraduate school and spending 200K for a worthless history degree? Besides, its not like those three years are a total waste. Hopefully you actually learned something in law school. I know I did when I went. And I actually enjoyed law school. It was simply an extension of college which gave me more opportunities to be surrounded by beautiful, young and single coeds.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nonsense. It makes all the difference in the world that these trash pits presented fraudulent placement and salary statistics to mislead naive suckers into attending their "schools."

    ReplyDelete
  27. I really like this post. Very well written.

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics