Thursday, December 12, 2013

First Tier Pile of Bear Feces: University of California, Los Angeles School of Law

Tuition: California residents attending this commode on a full-time basis will be charged $45,225.75 in tuition - for the 2013-2014 school year.  Out of state, full-time law students at UCLA will be pistol-whipped with a big-ass tuition bill of $51,719.75 - for 2013-2014.  Yes, that is one hell of a bargain for the students, right?!?!

Ranking: According to Vagina Bob Morse of US “News” & World Report, UCLA Sewer of Law is the 17th greatest, most spectacular and amazing law school in the United States.  Don’t be fooled by this rating.  You need to focus on the job outlook facing the toilet’s graduates.

Employment Placement Statistics: The Employment Summary for the Class of 2012 shows that there were 333 total members in this cohort.  Employment status was unknown for one graduate.  As such, the pigs published a nine-month rate of 91 percent, i.e. 302/332.  Of course, this figure includes non-law jobs, part-time work, and temporary assignments.

UCLA $chool of Law hired 40 grads from this class in university or law school-funded positions!  Of that amount, only nine of those jobs were long-term and full-time.  Furthermore, 28 of those jobs were garbage posts, i.e. short-term and part-time, designed to bump up the trash can’s placement rate.  Without these 40 BS jobs, the placement rate for the UCLA JD Class of 2012 would have been 78.9%, i.e. 262/332.  What a “prestigious” in$titution, huh?!?!

Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the UCLA Law Class of 2012 who incurred debt for law school - as $109,539. Hell, 82 percent of this school’s 2012 class took on such toxic debt. Remember that this figure does not include undergraduate debt – and it also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

Administrator and Faculty Pay: Let’s see how well the pigs are doing, in contrast to their debt-strapped recent graduates.  For this info, I cite to the figures - for 2011 - compiled by David Lat in his May 30, 2013 entry, “How Much Does Your Law Professor Make? UCLA Law Edition.”  He states that he received the data from the Sacramento Bee.

“Here are the ten highest-paid faculty members at UCLA Law:

1. Rachel Moran (dean) – $427,825.01
2. Seana Shiffrin$369,024.00
3. Kirk J. Stark$358,346.61
4. Steven A. Bank$358,183.13
5. Stephen M. Bainbridge$356,619.39
6. Jennifer L. Mnookin – $348,490.82
7. Kal Raustiala – $344,069.04
8. Sharon Dolovich – $336,199.01
9. Devon W. Carbado – $323,208.49
10. Mark Greenberg – $320,519.51” [Emphasis mine]

TTTT Law Journals: Take a look at the numerous offerings of politically correct academic journals at this public dump.  Here are just a few examples: Asian Pacific American Law Journal; Dukeminier Awards Journal for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law; Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law; and the Women’s Law Journal.

Now, take a look at the following description:

“The National Black Law Journal has been committed to scholarly discourse exploring the intersection of race and the law for thirty-five years. The NBLJ was started in 1970 by 5 African-American law students and 2 African-American law professors. The Journal was the first of its kind in the country. The Journal has aimed to build on this tradition by publishing articles that make a substantive contribution to current dialogue taking place around issues such as affirmative action, employment law, the criminal justice system, community development and labor issues. The Journal has a commitment to publish articles that inspire new thought, explore new alternatives and contribute to current jurisprudential stances.”

Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature believe that being a student editor on any of these fifth-rate law journals will help anyone land a decent legal job?!?!  Academics love to espouse liberal ideas, but in the end they don’t really care about anything other than keeping their grossly overpaid positions.

Conclusion: The Univer$ity of California, Lo$ Angele$ $chool of Law is a gamble - for the students.  ABA-accredited diploma mills are run for the benefit of the  “professors.”  Based on this chart from Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc., California has the SECOND MOST GLUTTED lawyer job market in the entire damn country.  Good luck trying to eke out a living, while paying back your massive student loan, on a $40K annual salary in pricey Southern California, Bitch.


  1. I went to UCLA School of law, graduated in 2012, have $200,000+ in non-dischargeable debt, and horrific job opportunities. Some of my classmates made out well but I'd say at least half the class didn't have jobs at graduation and many of the jobs students had were very load paid. I currently make $42,000, live at home with my parents, and have given up on the dreams of owning a home, a car, and having a family. I can't afford paying rent. I can't afford to buy food. I can't afford to go out with my friends. I can't afford to go out on dates. I won't be able to have a family or afford children. I think about suicide and moving overseas constantly to escape my UCLA law school debt.

    My UCLA JD degree is worthless. If you go to law school, you're a fool at this point.

    1. Why aren't you enrolled in the IBR program . . paying only 10% or less towards your debt?

    2. First, it's 15% of your income. Second, I am. Third, the amount "forgiven" is taxable after 25 years - at which point I will have to declare bankruptcy during my 50s.

      So thanks to UCLA School of Law, I will be broke and destitute when I am 30 years from a likely death in my 80s (revolutionary, but highly unlikely, scientific advances notwithstanding).

    3. Why can't you get married or have children off of an income of $42k a year?

    4. $42k is quite enough for a family. I think this poster is the same guy who wrote the article, lol....

    5. To the piece of trash who commented on October 17, 2015 at 9:27 pm,

      I did not post the remarks in question. Thankfully, I graduated with about 1/3 of that amount of student debt. However, you are a waterhead for other reasons. First of all, making $42K is not enough to do much, especially when one also owes more than $200K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. That appears to be gross income, by the way, Bitch.

      Secondly, YOU should try to support a family in California, on $42K annually - before you EVER open your mouth and tell another person that this is "quite enough for a family." Try living in Los Angeles, on that paltry sum, cockroach.

      Third, if the first commenter on this thread lives in California, you should walk up to him and tell him how he should easily be able to take care of the following items, while making $42K per year: rent or mortgage, food, diapers, baby formula, clothes for everyone, health and life insurance, auto coverage, gas, car repairs and maintenance, state income and sales taxes, entertainment, etc. Otherwise, keep your stupid mouth shut, you pathetic piece of garbage.

  2. I am really worried about the state of the legal profession. I spent an hour on the Law School Lemmings website that you have on your blogroll and I am absolutely stunned at the stupidity and unrealistic level of expectations of 0Ls applying to law school. There is no point to warning these idiots. They will continue to take the plunge and believe the false reports (such as the one commissioned by the ABA cartel in NYC). Law school deans will continue to lower standards and the public will suffer when they have morons showing up to court to "fight" for justice.

    1. Yep. Forget it.. These morons are unreachable. Between the LSAC propaganda, their teachers telling them more education is better since Grade 1, the glossy law school brochures, and the media also promoting the BS with lawyer shows, it's an uphill battle.

      Teachers have a vested interest in the scam, so of course they all parrot the Education mantra, guidance counselors, etc. So many people making money on students. And its not about the students, it's about the money. Everything in this country is.

      Half of college kids can't find jobs but the Education Gravy Train must roll on. Computer Science? Fuck you.. Didn't anyone tell you that IBM, Apple, and Micro$oft want cheap H1-B's?

      It's a scam.

      Colleges are training people for jobs which do not exist. Beyond that, people with connections and backing always win. The system is more rigged against the average student Lemming.

      But like I said, it's all about the money.

      The debt is what matters. Both to those who will be saddled with it in the final analysis and those who benefit from it. And that's the ultimate goal. Not the education BS. Get 'em in, brand,em with debt, move 'em out. Students are now little better than marks for the System. Everything is predatory.

    2. I saw LSAC's latest propaganda campaign involving pictures of netted dolphins and displaced hurricane victims. This campaign reminds me of Sally Struthers and the "Save the Children" commercials from the '80s. I believe the "Save the Children" organization was exposed as a scam where for every dollar they received in contributions, 99 cents was going into the pockets of the fraudsters. It is interesting how LSAC, the ABA and the law school cabal have sunken to such low and desperate measures. America is not short on idiots. PT Barnum's quote about a sucker being born every minute is a true axiom. There are hordes of morons who still believe law school is a ticket to riches. Just look at the law school lemmings website. I read two tweets which are telling. The first was from a girl (Elle Woods fanatic) who can't wait to buy a $200K Audi when she graduates law school. Another laments about having to wait 3 years in law school to start making $200K per year. Where are kids getting these ideas? When did millennials become a social engineering experiment?

  3. The only people keeping the schools open at this point are the special snowflakes and rich kids. I'm sure nearly every law school applicant has looked around online and found the scamblogs and has seen the media coverage about law school grad prospects. But the special snowflakes think this doesn't apply to them and the rich kids know this doesn't apply to them given their financial situation and family connections. They are the two main groups keeping the pigs' gravy train rolling. Maybe there are some totally clueless, idiotic people out there who apply and aren't attuned to reality at all. I've heard that law schools are now marketing to returning veterans bc they get GI Bill money and because those folks have been overseas and are unaware of the job market back home. Vets might see law as a viable way of getting into the white collar economy. They are also looking to disabled people (physically and mentally). I was at my old TTT over the summer for an alumni thing and saw a student who was clearly developmentally disabled. This person doesn't have a prayer of being hired by a law firm yet the pigs feel content to let him commit financial suicide for their own gain. Oh wait, sorry, they're "empowering" him.

    What does it say about the legal profession when UCLA law grads are in the predicament of 9:26am? What do you think your prospects are coming out of a lower ranked (or unranked) school in California? The market saturation out there is terrible.

    Special snowflakes and kids like Knorps keep the pigs in business.

  4. Wow! Those are some king-size salaries...over $3.5 million total. What were the salaries of the top ten highest paid 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago?

  5. What a scam. Faculty feasts on student loan money, teaches 2-4 hours a week, with summers off, and sabbaticals. Law grads get to gamble on a glutted job market, and possible economic misery for the rest of their lives.

    Being a law professor is a part-time job. None of them are worth anywhere near 300K a year. Total rip-off.

  6. So in three years the Dean Rachel Moran makes one million and two hundred eighty three thousand and four hundred and seventy five dollars.

    And after three years the students end up with six figure toxic and non-dischargeable debt.

  7. I would call the monster, Rachel Moran, who is here:

    I would call Rachel Moran an inhumane and hypocritically, crazy and lazy lady that turns a blind eye to the financial suffering that is going on all around her. Because it benefits her of course:

  8. It's all about the fuckin' money. Get them in so you can get your hands on that student loan money. Send 'em off. And when they can't find a job (because the job market is oversaturated) blame it on their lack of work ethic.

  9. My brother in law has a cousin who graduated from this stench pit back in 2009. He went back to teaching middle school. He ended up incurring more than $150K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for his decision. Yes, law school really paid off for him, huh?!?!

    Under Degree Programs, you will see the following:

    "The Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) Degree Program is designed for those seeking to pursue careers as teachers and scholars of law. This highly selective program is open only to applicants who possess a distinguished prior academic record in law, show promise of outstanding scholarship, and demonstrate a high potential for completing a scholarly dissertation of required quality. Applicants must hold a J.D. degree or foreign equivalent and an LL.M. degree (or be enrolled in a program leading to an LL.M. degree). Applications must include or be accompanied by, inter alia, a detailed statement of research purpose and a letter from a UCLA faculty member attesting to the importance of the applicant’s proposed research and agreeing to assume full responsibility for supervising the program of study."

    This douche-bag language is comical and pathetic. If someone has a law degree from a top school - and lands a federal court clerkship - then why in the hell would they even need to consider an SJD from this commode?!?! Conversely, if one does not reach this echelon, then their chances of ever becoming a tenured “law professor” are nearly non-existent.

    Now check out this description of the public toilet’s LLM programs:

    “The Master of Laws (LL.M.) Program is a one-year program for domestic and foreign students seeking a year of advanced legal studies. The program offers specializations in Business Law, Entertainment and Media Law and Policy, and International and Comparative Law, as well as design-it-yourself specializations in a range of fields.”

    Just because the school is located in LA does not mean that you have a shot at practicing “entertainment and media law.” Hell, perhaps you can “specialize” in sports law, since there are so many professional teams in the city. After all, NBA and MLB players are just waiting for someone with academic credentials from the UCLA Sewer of Law to represent them as their agent, right?!?!

  10. $45K a year in state? For a public school? This is getting out of hand.

    1. Tuition for California public law schools was in the 5-7 thousand area in the mid-'90s. Ok, inflation would make that equivalent to $10-15k now - but $45k? That's totally ridiculous.

  11. Is there a resource on the internet that has actual statistics or numbers, such as:

    1. How many past JD holders have outstanding student loan debt.

    2. How much that debt is on average.

    3. How many years has the debt been outstanding?

    One would think that if (as so many comment about on TTR) the debt is from Federal lending, then the information should be Public knowledge.

    Also, and given the IBR overlay, there ought to be a publicly accessible resource that will at least enable the reader to find out how many JD degree holders are now on IBR or PAYE.

    I say publicly available since the taxpayers are picking up the tab and ought to know where their money is going by now, other than into the pockets of the personnel of the Higher Educational Title IV institutions.

    One conservative commenter in the past said that anything the Federal Government gets involved in turns to shit sooner or later.

    Such as higher ed. and I believe the commenter held the Colleges and Universities responsible and felt they ought to all be sued by the US populace for selling a pipe dream or a fraudulent bill of goods.

  12. Hey asshole. Who know who this is.

    Did you fuck my wife? I went through Jessica's jewelry box the other day and I saw a picture of you guys together. I confronted her but she's not talking. So now I'm asking you fucker.

  13. 333 grads in the last class just shows you it's about the money. They don't care about the students. Or taxpayers.

    1. Bingo. Clearly they don't care about how they are graduating too many people into an over-saturated market. Even if that class size was cut in half they'd still be graduating too many. But the bastards need to make six figures somehow.

      There is no explaining the insane tuition. How in the hell can you justify $45k-$51k in tuition given the current economic climate for lawyers? It's just absolutely insane.

  14. The WVU College of Law Cabbie here! Just found out the company I work for as an "independent contractor," just lost a major account with a resort. Now, I'm working part-time retail and full-time at a call center. Let's see .... in light of my other bills I need to pay to live (as well as a rather sizable student loan debt to service), do I even bother to renew both of my (inactive) bar memberships? Hmmmmm .......

  15. This is your classic trap school. Why people are still applying to law school is beyond me.

    1. I would apply again if I had to do it over. :)

  16. From the Law Lemmings site -

    Eric Thomas @EphillyT
    I've decided on choosing which law school I go to based on whoever wins the national championship LOL
    3:15 PM - 12 Dec 2013

  17. Check out this May 27, 2010 blog entry from attorney Jay DeVoy, entitled “California Bar President pwns law schools in lengthy screed.” In this piece, the author covers the epic blast from then-president of the California State Bar.

    “Howard B. Miller, President of the State Bar of California, had harsh words for California’s law schools in May 2010′s California Bar Journal. Acknowledging the bleak outcomes for graduates in the classes of 2008, 2009 and 2010, Miller calls the economic cocktail of few jobs, high competition and massive debt “devastating.”

    The exact numbers at the margins are not as clear as we would like, because so much involves small firms and personal circumstance, and many of the changes are too recent for complete accuracy. The average debt of law graduates now approaches or exceeds $100,000, and because of recent increases in tuition, especially at public institutions which historically have been more affordable, debt burdens will be even greater in a couple of years…

    There is notoriously unreliable self-reporting by law schools and their graduates of employment statistics. They are unreliable in only one direction, since the self-reporting by law schools of “employment” of graduates at graduation and then nine months after graduation are, together, a significant factor in the U.S. News rankings — which are obsessed over, despite denials, by law schools and their constituencies.”

    Here is DeVoy’s conclusion:

    “Eventually, Miller brings the piece back home:

    Finally, we need to be transparent with potential lawyers about the cost and benefits of studying law. All law schools need to gather, verify and report, in consistent and specified ways, the employment record of their graduates, as well report on those who may have started, paid tuition, but never graduated. A good place to start is with our own California-accredited and registered law schools, over which the State Bar and the Committee of Bar Examiners have jurisdiction.

    For a state with 44 law schools, that would be an excellent start.”

    I remember when Miller posted his indictment of the law schools. It was a big moment for the scam-bloggers and other critics of “legal education.” Unfortunately, it did not receive the press coverage that it deserved.

  18. I had to dig a little to find this gem, but here is the link Howard B. Miller’s article, “Truth in lending and in careers.” Take a look at the following passages:

    “Those of us in leadership positions in bar organizations need to look closely at the lives of those seeking to begin the practice of law, and where changes in the economy and the profession are leading them.

    The economic impact of the great recession has been acute. For graduates in 2008, 2009 and this year, the combination of the number entering practice, the lack of jobs and the levels of debt are devastating personally to those involved and should be to all of us who care about our profession.”

    Unfortunately, the parasites running the law schools don’t give one damn about the students or recent graduates. In their view, the pupils are a mere means to an end. The pigs simply want to get their hooves on all of those federally-backed student loans.

    “For the foreseeable future the starter jobs that provided traditional training for those lawyers are not coming back (See Miller, Structural or Cyclical?, President’s Column, February 2010 California Bar Journal). Out of necessity, and without any practical experience, many unemployed lawyers are or will be setting up their own solo, usually community-based, practices. Those practices can be enormously satisfying, and when done well are needed by clients. Given the current state of legal education and what the bar exam tests, however, it is far from clear those lawyers are qualified to do so, and will not just be a risk to themselves but to their potential clients.

    Do we in the profession have an obligation to deal with all this — especially the State Bar of California? I think we do.”

    The law school swine don’t share that sentiment. They have every economic incentive to accept as many students as they possibly can.

    Miller ends his rant against the very system that he represents, with this parting shot:

    “People are and should be free to make their own choices, based on full information and transparency. Fortunately there will always be those who choose to become lawyers. I would, regardless of the cost and risks. But those cost and risks must be made known. And clients are and should be free to choose their own lawyers. We are talking here about the basic integrity of the profession as a whole. Those who are deciding whether to study law should have full information and transparency on what they are facing. Clients should have confidence that the lawyer they consult has actually been taught, trained and is qualified to practice law. Who would argue to do anything less?”

    In the final analysis, Miller’s letter should have been front page news on major media outlets. The scam-bloggers had mentioned that the law school cockroaches were publishing misleading or false employment placement numbers, well before Miller made his statement. He confirmed our case. Lastly, how in the hell could such a provocative article from the head of a major state bar go unnoticed or unreported by big name newspapers?!?!

  19. Here are the student loan debt statistics from 2011:

    If you care to look, you will see that only a very small slice of the pie has 200K or more of debt.

    And then there are the others who owe lesser amounts.

    But as you can see the law grads fit into the pie slices with the higher numbers and are really screwed.

    Their numbers are comparatively so small that it is doubtful they will ever have a remedy other than IBR or simply leaving the US.

    Canaries in the coal mine indeed.

  20. @823,

    LOL, oo forgot SUICIDE!!! Why don't you threaten to commit it yet again? It doesn't look liek Americans are ready to start worshipping that sweet, sweet r0ach-b00ty anytime soon. Let sympathy be your bread and butter chirp.

  21. Nando, do us a favor and write about TJSL. I am hoping this will be the first school to close. I pray judiciously. Here's an email from their dean: This is the first in a series of short, periodic letters I will write to keep you abreast of what is happening at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. First, let me say that since Kathe’s and my arrival on July 1, we have been overwhelmed with the support and encouragement given by the alumni and friends of the law school.

    The law school, as you know, is facing a number of serious challenges. Many of them are systemic--the result of the disproportionate impact on the legal profession of the recent economic downturn. We have all seen and lived through this and I won’t bore you with a recap.

    Some of the issues, such as the Alaburda litigation, are inexplicable to me. I do not know how Thomas Jefferson became the whipping boy for critics of legal education. We must, however, be honest with ourselves; many of our troubles are the result of our own missteps, our own failure to plan, and our own failure to address problems in a timely fashion. My immediate plan and promise to you is that we will take aggressive and transparent action to confront these challenges. Since July 1, we have taken what I think are positive, though at times painful, steps to address the most critical challenges, whether self-imposed or systemic. Let me give you three examples.

    First, while a general decline in enrollment is a systemic problem, we did not help the situation by allowing an unsustainable growth in the administrative structure of the school or building a facility as grand as ours. But, as you may have seen in press reports, the law school made severe cuts to its budget in response to the nationwide decline in applications. The reports did not paint the full nature of those cuts. For fiscal year 2014, the law school made cuts, totaling $4,798,081. Among other things, we layed-off 12 staff members, eliminated many more unfilled open positions, cut staff salaries by a minimum of 5%, cut faculty salaries by a minimum of 8%. In spite of these cuts, I am proud to say that 100% of the faculty contributed to this year’s annual fund....
    Third, students have had a legitimate complaint about our often indecipherable scholarship policy. In an effort to be both more transparent and fair, we have dramatically changed our scholarship program for incoming students. If you are interested in more details, click here.

    Of course, more work must be done on these fronts, as well as a multitude of others. In the coming months, I will keep you informed, through letters like this, about these issues and how Thomas Jefferson is responding.

    When I took the job as President and Dean, my eyes were open to the difficult challenges ahead. I also saw incredible strengths and opportunities among a committed group of alumni, faculty, students, staff and Board of Trustees. Nothing I have learned about since my arrival has changed the belief that, with your help, we will meet these challenges and Thomas Jefferson will become stronger as a result. I appreciate your support, welcome your comments and look forward to meeting more of you in the months ahead.

    1. Haha yes! This made my day! The subtext of that e-mail is sheer panic from TJLS' pig-in-chief.

      The whole joke of it is that the school could probably survive if they cut tuition and salaries. But the pigs are so greedy and desperate they just fire untenured and non-professor staff instead of thinking long-range by taking stiff salary reductions and cutting tuition. Would you rather make $100k knowing the school will stay open for another 20 years or $200k not knowing if the school will be open in 2 years? They are just blinded by their greed and quest for more money.

    2. Exactly, 11:51 AM.

      The Dean, btw, came from Albany Law School. He's making over $500k per year in his new position. I would suggest that any cuts start with him and cascade on down. But like you said, the pigs are so greedy and short-sighted that this will not happen.

      I kinda also think, you know this is how America works though. The Trump Touch, or the look and feel of success, matters a lot psychologically to people. Let's say TJSL made serious cuts, consolidated, lowered tuition, even moved to a smaller facility. In other words, became more modest, would that mean less enrollments? It seems like they'd rather flame out and just make a mad grab for whatever money is left for them out there vs. any sort of real reform. And that goes for the other toilets as well.

  22. A must read:

  23. Hi Nando,

    I normally love your articles but I disagree with this one. I have several friends who have attended and some who are attending UCLA now. They're all setup with jobs post graduation. A certain percentage of students will inevitably be at the bottom of their class for one reason or another. Employers will hate you if you're below median regardless of your school.

    The trend of education as a business is also prevalent in other areas. Getting a MBA is just as risky as going to law-school. Majoring in something non-STEM will also be increasingly risky going forward.

    Disclaimer: I never attended nor will I attend UCLA for law.

    1. Totally agree with you on the MBA front. You'd be just as fucked getting an MBA from any of these schools too. Although the MBA would probably only cost you 1-2 years of tuition instead of 3 years like law school.

      This country is so saturated with higher education that it doesn't matter anymore where a person goes to school (outside of the ivy league). The important question for all of them is: "who do you know?" Most of these trap school employment rates are kept artificially high with 1 year federal/state judicial clerkships and 3 year biglaw job contracts. An unconnected t1 lemming who gets his judicial clerkship and 3 years in biglaw is an up-and-coming law school pig. The stats show that 1 out of 6 biglaw associates make partner. The rest become law school pigs or are forced to open their own shops. Keep in mind most biglaw associates went to top schools at full sticker price. So unless you were able to pay down $200k in your 3-4 biglaw years (which is impossible even at a high starting salary unless you lived in a park and didn't eat) you are just as fucked as the TTT grad, except you delayed the pain a few years by numbing yourself with 80 hour work weeks. Plus, with law school applications down, there are less professor openings.

      The ABA recently released data showing that 90% of attorneys work in firms of 1-10 attorneys with 1/3 of all practicing attorneys being solos. Just think about that, 9/10 attorneys are doing shitlaw. Maybe the upper crust of some of these boutique firms might be scratching the surface of midlaw work but all are doing pure shitlaw.

      Also, the biglaw model is failing. Those firms are contracting worse than shit/midlaw firms because they overextended themselves crazily. Most shit/midlaw firms tightened their belts right away. Biglaw pushed it off thinking they were all going to get rich on big bankruptcies and the bailouts. Wrong.

      There was an article about Dewey Lebouf's collapse where they interviewed Thomas Dewey's (the "Dewey") grandson who is a lawyer at a firm of 15 lawyers and he openly said the biglaw model is dead and that he'd much rather be at a smaller firm like the one he's currently at. And this is a guy who could have used his family name in NY to get in anywhere. This is his firm:

  24. I remember when UCLA Law School cost under $10K a year not too long ago. Now it is closing in at $50K a year. It is obscene to expect the CA taxpayer to fund the obscene salaries of these parasites masquerading as law "professors." None of these professors would be making this kind of money in private practice, especially Devon Carbado, who peddles that Critical Race theory bullshit. The UC system should go private at this point. At this juncture there is no reason to attend UCLA when you can attend a comparable private school for less.

  25. USURY

    With usury has no man a good house
    made of stone, no paradise on his church wall
    With usury the stone cutter is kept from his stone
    the weaver is kept from his loom by usura
    Wool does not come into market
    the peasant does not eat his own grain
    the girl’s needle goes blunt in her hand
    The looms are hushed one after another
    then thousand after ten thousand
    Duccio was not by usura
    Nor was ‘Calunnia’ painted.
    Neither Ambrogio Praedis nor Angelico
    had their skill by usura
    Nor St. Trophime its cloisters;
    Nor St. Hilaire its proportion.
    Usury rusts the man and his chisel
    It destroys the craftsman, destroying craft;
    Azure is caught with cancer. Emerald comes to no Memling
    Usury kills the child in the womb
    And breaks short the young man’s courting
    Usury brings age into youth; it lies between the bride
    and the bridegroom
    Usury is against Nature’s increase
    Under usury no stone is cut smooth
    Peasant has no grain from his sheep herd.

    (Ezra Pound, from Canto LI)

  26. Here is a link to a story that shows the possible consequences of going to law school aka turn your life into a big, messy train wreck:

  27. Check out the February 13, 2012 from Paul Campos, which was simply entitled “Trap schools.” Look at this opening, and ask yourself if UCLA Sewer of Law fit’s the definition:

    “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. (Of course as long as law schools can get away with publishing misleading employment and salary statistics there are going to be a lot more trap schools than there would be otherwise, since it will be much easier for schools to make those statistics appear superficially attractive even to the reasonably prudent future victim of institutional malfeasance).

    Under current conditions, some good examples of trap schools include USC, George Washington, and Fordham.”

    First, the pigs are charging California residents $45,225.75 in full-time tuition, while out-of-state, full-time law students are being ass-raped to the tune of $51,719.75 in tuition - for 2013-2014.

    Next, many lemmings would love to live in Los Angeles - even if they attend a commode that features powder blue and gold as the school colors. Good luck paying rent while you are a broke-ass student.

    Lastly, the Univer$ity of California, Lo$ Angele$ $chool of Law features artificially high employment placement statistics - as shown above in the main entry. Remember, the bitches and hags hired FORTY of their graduates - from the JD Class of 2012 - in university or law school-funded positions! Yes, what a prestigious in$titution, huh?!?!

  28. Great job Nando. TTR is THE #1 scamblog!

  29. 7 corporate ripoffs, including student loans:

  30. The scamblogs did it Nando!

    Thank you for TTR and your dedication:


Web Analytics