Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Slate Burns the “Versatile JD” Argument to the Ground


Setting the Corpse on Fire: On May 14, 2014, Jim Saksa’s ass-kicking piece, “You Can Do Anything With a Law Degree,” appeared in Slate. Check out this epic opening:

“When I was considering going to law school, I asked my dad for some advice. What if I don’t like being an attorney? What if I don’t end up like The West Wing’s Sam Seaborn, jumping between a lucrative private practice and rewarding government work? “Don’t worry,” said my usually sagacious father, “you can do anything with a law degree.”

My dad isn’t an attorney. But now I am, and let me assure you: My dad didn’t know what he was talking about.” [Emphasis mine]

Two paragraphs later, Saksa delivers a one-two combo to the law school pigs’ snouts:

“Getting a J.D. means you can call yourself a lawyer. That’s it. Besides the approval of Jewish mothers (who prefer doctors anyway) and a drinking problem, it won’t give you anything else. And it sure as hell won’t help you get a nonlegal job.

Last year, 11.2 percent of law school graduates were still unemployed nine months after graduation. If you really could do anything with a law degree, then those unemployed graduates would probably be doing something. Meanwhile, the national unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 10.9 percent. So, compared with other recent students, law school grads appear to have a leg down on the competition.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you still want to go to law school, Dumbass?!?! If so, then you likely need a brain stent. There is a now a mountain range of evidence showing conclusively that law school is a terrible bet for the vast majority of students. Later on, the author drops the hammer:

“[H]uman resource managers outside the legal world treat a J.D. as the scarlet acronym. “Generally, I imagine they’re going to be too expensive with not enough relevant experience to justify the salary,” says Maureen Chu, an HR and operations manager in D.C. She believes that law school gives candidates a competitive disadvantage. “It’s lost time. Whatever you learned in law school is not useful to what we need. So every other candidate has three years on you.”

In the last few months, I’ve interviewed for jobs at a nonprofit, a think tank, and a PR firm among other places of business. I know from personal experience that the first question a lawyer will hear in a nonlegal job interview is, “Why don’t you want to practice law?” My answer to that question always elicits, “Well, you know we don’t pay as much as a law firm, right?” A law degree makes an otherwise qualified candidate look expensive, and often carries a rotten whiff of failure.” [Emphasis mine]

Did you read that, Lemming?!?! Now, do you understand how non-legal HR managers view law grads applying for non-law positions? Here’s another thing to ponder, waterhead: when these men and women see a bunch of internships on your resume, they immediately think “Loser.” After all, if you worth a damn, then you would have been getting paid to do legal work – instead of shelling out tuition for garbage placements.


The Lie Was Laid to Rest Years Ago: Former Biglaw associate, and current psychotherapist, Will Meyerhofer posted an article entitled “Extremely Versatile Crockery,” on his blog back on November 3, 2010. Check out his opening statement:

"For the record, a law degree is not “versatile.” Being a lawyer amounts to a strike against you if you ever decide to pursue another career.

So why do people keep insisting it’s an “extremely versatile degree”?

A bunch of reasons.
Law schools are in it for the money. Teaching law doesn’t cost much, but they charge a fortune – made possible by not-dischargable-in-bankruptcy loans. That makes each law school a massive cash cow for the rest of the university. Money flowing from the law school pays the heating bill for the not-so-profitable Department of Neo-Structuralist Linguistics.

Law students play along with the “extremely versatile degree” farce to justify the three years of their life and the ungodly pile of cash they’re blowing on a degree they’re not interested in and know nothing about. This myth is also intended to calm down parents. You need a story to explain why you don’t have a job, but that it’s somehow okay.

No one else cares. And that’s chiefly why this old canard still has some life left in it.

Time to put it out of its misery.” [Emphasis mine]

Meyerhofer put this rubbish “argument” to rest back in November 2010. Saksa set fire to the remains of this detritus-covered filth, nearly three and a half years later.


Average Law Student Indebtedness: Do you want to take out $180,665 in additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, in order to receive a JD from Fourth Tier Trash Pit TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on Sewer of Law?! Perhaps, you want to incur another $145,893 in student loans for a law degree from Pepperdine University, the 54th “greatest” commode in the country – as listed by US “News” & World Report. Remember, these figures do not take interest that accrues while you are enrolled into account.

Conclusion: Seeing that there is a plethora of information out there, regarding the law school scam, this choice is simple: don’t even consider a “legal education.” If you still believe that YOU are going to somehow beat the immense odds, then you should be declared mentally unfit to enter into a contract. Hell, you should not be permitted to make a decision that has the potential to affect another person.


  1. The truth is out there. If you spend 5 minutes on Google, you'll see articles about law school being a scam or a piss poor choice.

    Anyone going to law school now has ignored the warnings. They deserve what they get.

    1. Law school is all about building conflict and not much else - there are such better options for your life. This is a great resource to share with friends and family as well as artisan and foodie partners. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

  2. You can do anything as a double amputee, but that doesn't mean that I'd recommend you losing your limbs to do it. And make no mistake, starting a legal career six figures in non-dis-chargeable debt is a SERIOUS handicap.

    The writing is on the wall, kids. If you choose to ignore sound advice and the sad personal experience shared by numerous attorneys and non attorneys alike, then you do so at your own peril.

  3. I saw what you wrote about my school. I graduated from Oregon Law in 2008 motherfucker.

    Bill Clinton's dick
    Bill Clinton's dick
    Bill Clinton's dick
    Bill Clinton's dick

    1. Yeah, you're a real breadwinner.

    2. The Oregon Trashpit of Law must be having to dive much deeper in the shit lagoons now for applicants if 11:22 AM was admitted.

  4. I work in government contracting. I consider myself lucky to be employed and make a decent living. Law school was the stupidest decision I ever made. The debt is soul-crushing. Last year when the government furlough scare hit us...I applied to over 100 jobs nationwide. I have my JD, bar license, NCMA certification, and 8 years of government contracting experience. Not one job responded positively to me. I got the "your over-qualified" nonsense statement over and over.

    When I was in law school, they perpetuated the versatile myth. They still do.

    This degree isn't versatile and most certainly isn't desireable. I want to pimp slap anyone who thinks otherwise.

  5. The only thing that saved me after a prolonged period of unemployment was my accounting degree. The law degree from a tier 2 school led to nothing. Run from law school. Start a business. That debt is dischargable. Hell go to europe and blow the money. Its dischargable. And the feds and their buddies are making a ton of money off of law school dreams. F law school. Don't go. Don't go. Don't go.

  6. I really wish a law degree was versatile. It's not. Anyone who wants to be a lawyer but later wants to leave the profession will find this out. Why put yourself in a position where if you don't want law, or law doesn't want you, you will be severely handicapped to do anything else with that so-called versatile, almost magical, law degree.

  7. http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/02/versatile-degree.html

    Back on February 15, 2012, Paul Campos posted an ITLSS entry entitled “A versatile degree.” After posting a link to a Craigslist ad for a legal file clerk in the Boulder, Colorado area – along with the description - Campos states:

    “How many applications is this firm getting from attorneys, given that the lawyers in it are going out of their way to plead with their fellow Members of the Bar not to apply for part-time temporary secretarial work that pays between $100 and $200 per week?

    In addition to the level of sheer desperation of which this ad is evidence, consider for a moment the marvelous versatility of a law degree, which besides fully qualifying you to become president of the Pittsburgh Steelers and/or the United States, disqualifies you from an almost endless array of jobs for which you were perfectly well qualified before you became an official member of a Learned Profession.

    This is perhaps the dirtiest of our many dirty little secrets: if it should turn out you can't use your law degree to have a real legal career, then it's far from clear that going to law school will end up being a net positive for you even if we don't take into account either the direct or the opportunity costs you incurred in getting that degree. This is because, far from being "versatile," a law degree can easily end up being career poison on a resume. Although of course there are always exceptions, non-legal employers don't like to hire lawyers, and indeed legal employers don't like to hire lawyers for non-lawyer jobs. (A total of 278 out of more than 44,000 2010 law graduates were working in non-attorney positions for law firms nine months after graduation, while nearly 20 times that number remained completely unemployed).”

    You read that correctly, lemming: a law degree often DISQUALIFIES you from many jobs or positions for which you qualified before you wasted three years of your life and incurred an assload of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt on the “credential.” Employers like to toss around the label “overqualified.” In HR terms, it simply means that the bastards see you as a flight risk the moment something better comes along. Plus, they feel that you will expect higher pay or to move up quickly within the organization.

    Now, scroll down to the dead on conclusion from Campos:

    “Why do employers, both non-legal and legal, dislike hiring lawyers for non-lawyer jobs? Several explanations have been put forward by some of the countless numbers of recent and not-so-recent law grads who have encountered the JD stigma effect. Some employers are under the misapprehension that a lawyer applying for a non-lawyer job is likely to leave that job very soon, because surely he or she will leap back into the exciting and high-paying world of legal practice at the first opportunity. Others make the under the circumstances understandable mistake of thinking that lawyers who can't get jobs as lawyers must have something wrong with them (would you hire a doctor who couldn't get a job as a doctor?) Still others, oddly enough, consider lawyers to be, relative to the average worker, argumentative people who are unusually attuned to their putative rights as employees. There are no doubt additional explanations as well.

    Few if any aspects of the ongoing collapse of the current model of American legal education are more disturbing than this: It's not just that the direct cost of becoming a lawyer have skyrocketed at the same time that the benefits (in the form of actual legal employment) have declined. It's that the indirect cost of getting a JD, in the remarkably perverse form of rendering many people who were previously employable much less employable, has become enormous.”

  8. You know, I used to say that you were too harsh with your imagery on the law schools, but I think I now know what you are trying to get across. Every day that I think about it, I see the level of corruption not only in law schools, but in higher education as a whole.

    When the baby boomers were going to college, it was less about making money and more about getting an education. The baby boomers lashed out against communism and they still hate the idea of equality. They have changed college from being attainable if you wanted to work for it into a way to dry out the unearned income of young people.

    Now we have some young people (myself who could have been included into the category) who wore rose colored glasses and thought that higher education was somehow noble. Maybe it used to be, but now they are selling an overpriced piece of paper that does not give much of a benefit.

    There are many people who are qualified to do a certain job, but they are held back because it requires a "degree." A piece of paper that says that they have done enough. A piece of paper that says that they took a course on religion, philosophy, art, etc. Each of these classes costs $4000 at some schools, yet you can not get a degree at many schools unless you take these courses. It's not that they are useless courses, but it is asinine to charge $4000 for a professor to read a textbook for you. Is it really worth spending $20,000 on a few classes that have NOTHING at all to do with your profession? Is it worth spending $20,000+ for courses that you could teach yourself for free?

    As for law school, is a third year of learning "Law and Practice of the Hollywood Guilds" (a real course offered at UCLA) or "Terrorism and the Law" (how many of you are going to represent terrorists?) or College Athletics (taught at University of Alabama school of law) worth spending an extra $60,000+ for?

    The day college turned into being about making obscene amounts of money instead of educating people to go out and be productive individuals for society is the day it lost a lot of its worth.

    I cringe when I see people walk into these schools now and think that they are going to have a great life. Last night I had my new hire orientation at a grocery store, after 4 years of undergrad and 3 years of law school, combined with legal internships and a pretty good fellowship. I was told how you can move up in the company if you want it.

    Why did I pay $250,000 go to college and law school again?

    1. boomers were red baiting, hedonists. Communism, after all, would have meant making sacrifices for the common good in the face of oppression; so they became hippies instead, a safe, harmless trend with a feel-good component.

  9. Nobody has to attend an undergraduate university charging $1000 or more per credit hour. There are community colleges where you can get many of your credits out of the way for $100 per hour or so, there are public Universities where tuition is still very reasonable. My daughter is attending a State University, which with a prepaid tuition plan, is costing me effectively $75.00 per credit hour. The problem is the "prestige" factor that so many of your generation are interested in. Its not good enough to go to a community college or a state school. You needed to go to an expensive private school and then you needed to be a "lawyer" and now its anybody but your fault for doing so.

  10. I have to disagree somewhat. The law degree is versatile, BUT only for a tiny number of people. It is NOT versatile for the vast majority of us.

    Category 1: If your law degree is from Harvard, Yale, NYU, Columbia and maybe 5 or so other schools, YES it is versatile.

    Category 2: If you have another post-graduate degree AND several years of work experience in some other industry, YES the law degree can be versatile.

    Category 3: If you're very, very, very lucky and somehow manage to get some non-law job (typically via connections), then YES the law degree is versatile provided you work said job (or a similar job) for 10+ years.

    Note that these 3 categories only comprise a tiny number of JD holders. There is an insignificantly small number of people with both a JD and MD, or a JD and PHD. Hell, a JD with a Masters degree is also rare. Most people have just the JD.

    There are also some other factors that must apply as well. The economy has to be good, AND one of the other schools you went to has usually got to be a "top" school (ivy league, MIT, but not lower ranked than NYU).

    So yes it can be versatile, but only for a very small number of people.

    1. So, if you're a Kennedy.....

  11. 10:47, you make a good point, but at the same time you are (1) attributing a lot of negative intent to people for wanting to go to a "prestigious" school, and (2) self-aggrandizing yourself for your "brilliance" at the same time.

    If your daughter is getting a good education and decent job prospects at directional-state-U, then fantastic. But you have to remember that people are paying for an alumni network, also, along with that prestigious education. People aren't stupid for wanting a good brand-name behind them, especially in these over-credentialed times.

  12. 10:17 is missing the point completely; Nando's blog warns against attend the LESS prestigious law schools, where the only thing notable is the tuition. As he's pointed out, it's a colossal risk at best, as the only thing you're guaranteed is a lousy degree and a mountain of debt.
    And while your daughter's thrift is commendable, if she's studying liberal arts, she too will find job hunting difficult if not impossible-but will have a much smaller pile of debt. A good risk?-well that's up to you.
    Years ago, a college degree in just about anything was the entry point to an actual career, as these degrees were relatively rare. Not any more; there are far too many liberal arts BAs for jobs, let alone careers. The idea of pushing higher ed for all was a good idea-with the attendant debt-economically ended at least 10 years ago; now, it's just the idea of keeping colleges funded. Frankly, there are a lot of honorable jobs-electrician, etc-which require years of training but not mountains of debt-but these jobs often go unfilled because of a lack of trained workers. Why? Well everyone HAS to got to college, and what college grad is qualified to work as an electrician?.
    The system's gotta change, but law school won't until a couple of ABA approved schools fail. Until then, the funds will keep flowing, lining the pockets of professors, deans, etc etc.
    And college-forget it; the whole idea that a college education is best for all is simply hard-wired into the American psyche. There's no real way to alter that particular piece of CW, which is why this blog is so important. It gives those who bother to look to hear what others outside the law school industrial complex have to say. The worry is that not enough are listening.

  13. 1017 thinks this is 1970. $50 says the asshole majored in some lib arts bullshit from a state skool and landed a career.

    1. Education Arms Race.

      4:56 am and 7:34 pm: This is the thing. The college degree, like the law degree, has been so devalued by the Higher Ed. Industry that prestige is all that differentiates today.

      Yes, college can be a good thing. So can law school. If both degrees are from elite institutions, Why? Because it's not 1970 and their are too many college and law school degrees and the only way to be truly selective is based on prestige.

      Also, the Profit Motive is indeed rife in the Higher Ed. Industry. Everyone is compelled to attend college. And employers demand the degrees as entry for jobs. The entire System is thus Pay to Play.

      My own theory in light of the above is thus: If you are paying full fare, cannot get into an elite college or law school, have no connections, etc. no family wealth, times have changed and college, much less law school, is not for you.

      Better to train in the trades and start working early. Avoid the needless time and debt.

      All this means is that stratification between the Haves and Have-Not's is increasing year after year. Those who can play the "A Game" for college and law school (attend elite) win. The rest generally lose. State schools are fine for a percentage but will not really open doors. State U. on a resume isn't really what the corp. world wants.

      In the meantime, as the above comments note, no one really cares as the objective is to line pockets of those in the education industry. Students are simply walking dollar signs. Employers love the current System because it is a Buyer's Market for them, etc.

    2. You are dead wrong 9:57. Studies have shown elite colleges offer few advantages over non-elite except in jobs like wallstreet, where prestige, like in law, is all important. If somebody wants to go into the trades great, but even there a college degree will help. College is a place to learn about yourself and the world, and to grow a little. A quality state school will get you just as far as an elite school. It all depends on the students abilities and ambition.

    3. " A quality state school will get you just as far as an elite school. It all depends on the students abilities and ambition."


      "Hard work" will help you succeed in law school too. (cough!)

      I'm not wrong. Not by a long-shot.


      Grooming plays a huge role in life and prestige matters. Corporations want brand names on brand-name resumes that they can sell on their roster.

      The so-called studies are wrong. Because they are sp completely are at odds with empirical evidence.

      They are simply propaganda for the myth of the meritocracy which must be kept alive in America in order to feed the Education Industry Complex.

      The only guaranteed winners are those in the Complex. The students, as with law school, put down their money up front and spin the wheel.

    4. Money goes to money. And there is a caste system in America and it starts early:



      But don't worry, kids. Hard work and ambition will win the Game for you! (cough!)

    5. NO. You will learn the same things at StateU as you will at Harvard. You will not, however, get the chance to nurse the hangovers of billionaire spawn-turned-drunken frat boys, thus taking that first step towards becoming the consigliere of mostly helpless but wealthy clods who will dole out some patronage here and there.

    6. I suppose 12:54 you can buy that claptrap, but you are still 100% wrong. Do some research on the issue. But if you are looking for an excuse to avoid college I suppose this one is good as any other. Funny what studies have proven, among other things, that smart kids who could have gone to obeys but don't, do just as well as those who went to ivies. It's the person not the school. Some of you will simply buy into anything that makes you Feel better about the decisions you have made. The information is out there for those who open their minds.

  14. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191546

    On August 15, 2012, TLS accountholder “sunynp” started a thread labeled “Debunking law degree as “versatile”. It isn’t.” Look at his the following reply from user “Samara” – which was posted on August 15, 2012 at 10:46 am:

    “Where did the versatility flame start? With Boomers, I suspect. I don't really understand why people think that learning how highly specific and idiosyncratic system works would be useful for other fields. Like the author says, graduate degrees aren't designed to broaden or generalize your skill set.


    But the graduate-level degree argument contradicts the versatility trope because post-college degrees are supposed to be specialized, not generalized, and trades like plumbing don't require any higher education. Thus, if the legal knowledge, along with everything else law schools instill, is a set of general knowledge then it should be taught at the college level, and if law is a trade, then bachelor's degrees aren't necessary.”

    Learning about archaic theories such as the Rule AgainsTTT PerpeTTTuiTTTies will not help you with non-legal employers. You are not gaining useful knowledge in law school, and these companies will want to know why YOU “chose” not to practice law – as if this was of your own volition. Also, during interviews, you can’t blame your situation on the job market. Even though this is a valid reason, non-law HR people and those on interview panels will see it as a weak excuse. They will also likely view you as a “loser” or an idiot, for turning down the supposed big dollars as an attorney.

    One denizen using the handle “Borg” wrote the following on August 15, 2012 at 11:00 am:

    “I think you are right that the boomers started it. A bunch of boomers with law degrees went into a ton of different things because the economy was generally great, there were fewer entrenched major players in many industries, and everyone was riding a wave of constantly appreciating assets. It was easy at the time to switch from law to real estate development or banking or whatever else and make a ton of money, so they assumed that the law degree was versatile when it was all really the result of macroeconomic trends. Turns out, legal education is extremely narrow in subject matter and won't really help you out in business unless you get the opportunity to practice for a few years in a good corporate department and really take it upon yourself to learn the ins and outs of business itself thoroughly. This is why I chose to do the JD/MBA in the first place, and I think the idea of a law degree as conferring some generalized advantage should be crushed.”

    Those who attempt to keep this myth alive should have their heads crushed. At a minimum, they should be kicked in the face and balls – and then tossed into a small cage. Perpetrating this nonsense is pernicious to young people, and the pigs who do so should be dealt with accordingly. Perhaps, beating them with a rubber hose would be too lenient.

  15. Law school debt is a preventable disease. Law deans are worse than drug dealers. Do not believe their bullshit. They have zero regard for you if you crash and burn. It is your life, don't ruin it so these pigs can perpetuate their comfortable lifestyle at your expense.

  16. Dear old guy,

    If smart people can do just as well going to Shit U. as they can at an Ivy, then why do all the rich cocksuckers send their kids to elite prep schools and then get them into elite colleges?

    1. Dear young, naive, ignorant and misinformed, because "rich people" are sometimes about Prestige and it doesn't necessarily hurt to send your kids to an ivy, but MOST people are not uber rich. Only a very small percentage of kids go to the Ivies, some on merit scholarships . .Most reasonable affluent but not rich people who have done the research will not fork out 70K per year for an Ivy if they need only fork out 20K per year for an education at a State's flagship, especially in the honors program. Regardless, where the rich send their kids has nothing to do with whether those graduates are at a competitive advantage. In the end, kids with ability and ambition will do just as well with a State Undergraduate education . . . that is beyond dispute and a proven fact. Grad school is a little more important for MBAs and for Law . . but even there, only for the first job. C students from low ranked law schools can still end up as wildly successful lawyers, especially trial lawyers, because they are not hampered by the "system". They go out, start their own practices . . and do it, rather than taking the less risky position of an associate in a law firm.

    2. Don't really care about the college argument, but ...seriously, why are you serving as an apologist for law schools? Lots of grads "go out, start their own practices.." and fail miserably. There are 2X JD grads for each JD required job-that is beyond dispute. Very very few are "wildly successful"; to claim otherwise ignores both reality and the facts.

    3. I went to directional state u type schools and I have no debt. I have years of experience in a niche area in the law. I was top in my class both in law school and college. I get rejections from law firms and similarly situated entities, (you know, the ones that pay a person with 7 years of education more than a NYC sanitation worker), DESPITE my experience, solely because of where I went to school. I have done multiple rounds of interviews at a whole host of places, and with a handful exceptions, the topic of where I went to school has fucked me every time (I have been explicitly been told so more than once: "your great, but we had to go to with candidate X because he/she went to ABC 'elite' school").

      Your premise is total bullshit. If you can't go to an elite school, either because you can't cut it or can't afford it (like me), college is not for you, unless you want to be a doctor or dentist.

      My buddies with no/minimal education who are cops and tradesmen are making more than all of my college buddies, whether said buddies are liberal arts majors, accountants, engineers, or lawyers. Debt or no debt. A minority of the NYPD has a college degree and/or military experience. Those guys make infinitely more than all of my buddies (and many people will tell you, possibly correctly, that cops don't make much; so in perspective, my college buddies, and myself included, make less than people who don't even make that much).

      College is a scam. Higher ed is a scam. Law school is just the biggest scam in higher ed because it isn't just a waste of time, it will ruin your life and make you hated so that you can't even escape and get something else.

      The only schools that are potentially worth it are the elite schools, precisely for the reasons stated herein. It is true though that, for people without money, going to schools like that presents a big gamble. As such, unless you want to gamble your life a way, get out of school, including college, and definitely law school. If the best you can do is directional state you, for whatever reason, get a GED, get 60 college credits at a CC, and take as many big city government tests as you can. Get a job where the politicians have your fucking bad. DROP THE FUCK OUT. Go watch Pulp Fiction and listen to what Ving Raimes has to say on pride. Retire at 44. I'm serious. Don't listen to people with agendas and boomers from a long gone era pushing higher education at toilets, college toilets and especially LS toilets.

    4. What a load of crap. First I don't believe anybody would tell you they can't hire you because of where you went to undergrad . . Second, you can go to elite grad schools or law schools from directional U. If you are not being hired, did it ever occur to you that it is YOU and not where you went to school. You sound very bitter and resentful and if this shows through in an interview you are toast. I know tons of kids getting good jobs out of directional state, and I know tons of kids going on for their MBAs or going to Med School from directional U. In fact, I know a few who went to Community College to save money, finished up their four year degress at directional State U and are now in Med School. Its tough out there, but you don't need to got to an elite school to crack the nut. Many kids who go to elite schools are accomplished and smart . . . . THAT'S WHY THEY ARE AT ELITE SCHOOLS TO BEGIN WITH. And yes, these kids will often get good jobs, just as their smart and accomplished peers from non-elite schools. You want to be a plumber fine . . . not everybody wants that.

    5. I don't give a shit if you think it's crap or not. I have had three hiring partners at three different firms tell me they were going with someone else because of a combination of UG and LS school rep (I went to directional state U type places for both LS AND UG). It wasnt just UG , but also the LS rep. The candidates they hired also had less experience than I did. (One partner called me to apologize and expressly state I was his first choice but the committee couldn't pass up one someone from X UG and Y LS. When I asked if it was just my LS that was the problem, he said "it also doesn't help your UG is not on par with what we are used to.")

      Now, it might be my attitude, but I doubt it. When there is a personality defect or clash in an interview, my experience is that additional rounds of interviews aren't granted. I usually do multiple rounds when I interview on account of my excellent grades and decent experience. (If I came off as bitter or resentful, odds are the firms would not waste time interviewing me for multiple times).I also am currently employed, and I make decent money, but given how the market is trending, I am not sure how long that is going to last.

      I also expressly stated that if you want to become a doctor, directional state u and/or higher ed might not be a bad move; however, that doesn't apply to practically anything else.

      Good for you for not wanting to be a plumber or tradesmen dude/dudette. I don't really give a fuck what you want to do, but you clearly have an agenda in pushing higher ed. My objective is to save as many people from the higher ed scam as I can. People who have the adequate humility to comprehend the realities of the modern economy will do the right thing and have a bright future. The trouble is that many young kids don't have access to reality. They only hear the voices of egotistical idiots, boomers from a bygone era, or people who have a vested interest in the scam (sometimes these categories overlap).

      You can go to directional state you and major in whatever the Fuck you want, including accounting and engineering, but odds are that a combination of automation and/or outsourcing will result in you not having a decent paying job for long. With an elite UG degree, you have a realistic chance of entering an area of the economy that is part of the capitalistic/political managerial class, not because of what you learn there, but because of the contacts you will make. It's a big risk, and I don't recommend it, that's why I went to a normal college and a normal LS and I have no debt. However, my friends who are plumbers, tradesmen, cops, etc. Are blowing me (and 99 percent of my peers from college and work) out of the water. More job security. More money. Less hours at work. Better retirement benefits. Etc. Therefore, in my opinion, education is no longer worth it for the vast swath of people out there because for those who can't go to an elite school, it isnt worth it, and for those who can go to an elite school, the risk is too high. (This only applies to the members of the lower classes ofcourse).

      People like you driven by one or more ego, greed, or ignorance can keep harping the same old tune. The message is getting out there. People can see who is winning and losing, and the blame can only be attached to individuals for so long when structural changes are happening. People are going to see people entering the trades and joining big city unions enjoy the fruits of success, and they are going to see the awful future awaiting the vast majority of higher education recipients, especially lawyers. People in my circle are seeing it, and people that I speak to throughout the country are seeing it too. The agenda people like you push will eventually be understood for what it is by the majority of the country soon enough.

    6. There is iron in your words and there is feces in the words of the law scam apologists. Especially for unconnected males. If they don't have those elite degrees they have no chance against the tide of white and jewish women and their white and jewish gay allies who are taking over the professions. I forgot his name but there was a great poster who said "Go Prestigous, Go Cheap or don't go at all". For most unconnected males its best not to go at all. God bless!- The Infamous John J. Bungsolaphagus...The Great Lawland Prophet since 2006.

    7. @3:24,

      I appreciate your endorsement, but let's not bring sex or race into it. The unconnected and non-rich, whatever their sex or race, should steer clear from higher ed, especially Law school. The scam destroys the lives of men and women alike, and it does not care about the color of your skin or your religion. It just cares about ripping people, all different kinds, off.

    8. All of my Jewish college friends either went into big money as a settler in the occupied territories of Israel or have cush NGO jobs or law jobs, all from jewish buddies.
      This scam effects everybody, but it must be nice to live in a tolerant color-blind society, encapsulating a self-serving tribe...

  17. http://abovethelaw.com/2012/08/your-j-d-didnt-build-that/

    On August 15, 2012, Elie Mystal wrote a great entry entitled “Your J.D. Didn’t Build That.” From his opening:

    “As we mentioned in Morning Docket, there was a brilliant piece in Am Law Daily the other day about the “versatility” of a J.D. — or lack thereof. Matt Leichter argues that if you believe your J.D. is a utilitarian degree, you are living in an illogical dreamworld.

    Of course, nobody ever accused prospective law students of being logical. Many people justify time and treasure expended on going to law school on the supposed versatility of the J.D., and like most things involving the decision to go to law school, the students have done little research to back up the claim.

    That thought about the degree is so ingrained that you regularly see vast numbers of students heading off to law school who say they don’t want to be lawyers. Think about that. You don’t hear med students say, “I don’t want to be a doctor, I just thought it would be good to know how to save a life.” Heck, you don’t hear plumbers say, “I didn’t really want to be a plumber, but you never know when being able to make raw sewage flow freely will come in handy.”

    Make no mistake, going to law school in order to do non-law stuff is stupid….”

    Towards the end of the article, Mystal – quoting Leichter – shreds the “versatile law degree” argument into a thousand pieces:

    "For most people, the reality of not getting a law job with their law degree doesn’t involve people using their J.D. to do something even more awesome:

    Many forces cause law graduates to enter “nontraditional” work, but the two most significant factors today are the sputtering economic recovery and law school overenrollment. …

    [M]any of those who miss the opportunity to use their law degree as lawyers now won’t be able to use them for much else ever, and they will be flung into the gutted, paycheck economy with little hope of using their degrees as professionals. In short, the “bottleneck” of underemployed graduates today is significantly less likely to be cleared than the one from the early 1990s was, but until then it isn’t accurate to say that their law degrees helped them land the positions they are in.

    Yes, there are people who don’t get legal jobs, yet still manage to find gainful employment elsewhere — but that’s not an argument for the strength of the degree. It’s an argument that poverty is a bitch and people will fight against it to the last."

    This is correct. People adapt to situations. If you have a ton of student debt and other obligations, then you will take a job that is below your educational and skill level – even if the pay is also lower than expected. In the end, we need to put food in the fridge and a roof over our heads. Some of us need to take care of children and make damn certain that their needs are met. Why else do you think employees put up with abusive bosses and insane workloads?!

    1. This is correct. People adapt to situations. If you have a ton of student debt and other obligations, then you will take a job that is below your educational and skill level – even if the pay is also lower than expected.

      True dat.

    2. And this from a former law scam apologist and uncle tom. God bless!

  18. As per the movie, Beating up on the Elephant Man was wrong, and beating up on mental patients or latent mental patients is also wrong, and allowances must be made for the prattle of children and mental incompetents.

    But here anyway is a post that I feel sorry about, and especially because I found a troll, and figured out who Mr. Infinity is.

    The poor guy is in a bad situation with his debt and all, and the people that should make allowances for him are instead abusing him, just as they have abused me, another inmate in the debtor's prison.

    But BIDER keeps Adams on her blogroll through it all.


    I used to work in a telemarketing boiler room and I once overheard the manager of the boiler room discussing the purchasing of URLs and the registration of domain names with another employee that ws in charge of internet marketing.

    And that is how I finally found Mr. Infinity. I googled the owner of the www.thirdtierreality.com site and there was the name of Josh Adams and his phone number and lots and lots of other trails to a huge internet presence by both Adams and his even his wife in a limited degree.

    I am really sorry that this Adams business has gone on as long as it has and as Paul Campos emailed me:

    "you outed this guy to Nando and now you are responsible for the consequences"

    Which begs the question of how Campos regards Nando in attitude or degree.

    Again I am very sorry to Beverly and hope that TTR can put the offense, or rather the small injustice of a troll aside and realize that the larger injustice will always have small voices and apologists such as Campos and Tamanaha, so as to relieve their collective consciences...........perhaps.

    But the larger injustice will live on and go on.

    One troll or two or a few with Stockholm whatever etc are not the problem.

    Isn't it all awful? And geez, what a miserable state of things and affairs.

    1. "See you tomorrow!"

    2. What up Painterguy?

      Seems that Touro's bar passage rate has sunk to such abysmal lows that they're offering even more free bar advice.


      I have to wonder, as a fellow alum, if this November's results will be the final nail in this shit pit's coffin. Even the limpdick ABA is going to have to put some of the fourth tier schools on the chopping block if it's going to keep the scam going in more presTTTigious in$tiTTTuTTTion$.

  19. @522,

    Shut the fuck up Paintroach. You're STILL blubbering about Adams and his wife? LOL, clearly your pretend job kissing black booties is not keeping you very busy.

    Earth to stupid Paintroach! Joshua Adams says he LIKES being featured on this site! So why are YOU complaining and making your feeble-minded comments about it?

    P.S. Quit pestering Campos for favors. Better yet, quit using your Mom's computer to browse the internet altogether.

    1. Adams is the perfect case study in the versatility of a law degree. Intelligent and upwardly mobile, he was able to transfer to Brooklyn Law and graduate with $200,000 in debt. Undeterred by the lack of legal jobs, he started his very own blog. Although he recently shut down his blog, he's currently networking his way to an even better job. Nando, of course, is helping him network by displaying his picture on this site.

      All this brings me to the point of asking Nando: do you realize how disgusting that picture is? It's actually hurting Adams on the job market. Any employer who Googles Adams' name, comes to this site, and loses her lunch is going to toss his resume in the trash. Please, Nando, take that picture down immediately, and then scrub your site thoroughly with bleach.

    2. ^ Actually, Nando should probably fucking ADD a picture of Adams every time the Sock Puppet Express asks for it to be taken down. My my my, Joshua Adams certainly gets ***DISGUSTED*** by seeing his own picture, doesn't he? If you're that "disgusted" by seeing Adams profiled on this site, why don't you just stop coming here? Don't even risk coming back, dude - you might accidentally see that pile of shit Adams and get "disgusted" again. Go! Go now!


  20. http://jdemployed.com/jd-law-degree-is-versatile

    Check out this brilliant JD Employed piece entitled ‘The JD Law Degree: Dispelling the Common Myth of Versatility.” The entire article is excellent, but focus on the following excerpt:

    “Why Isn’t the JD Really That Versatile?

    1. You’re overqualified – with a law degree, you’re no longer just a college graduate seeking an entry-level position. You’re viewed by employers as an individual with an advanced degree that won’t settle for any old job at the company. After all, why the extra 3 years if you expect to still start at the bottom? It smells fishy and immediately draws negatives. For example, it isn’t unreasonable to draw the conclusion that the low level start will bring you unhappiness and resentment, resulting in you being unproductive. Worse, even if you’re potentially being interviewed for a mid-level position, there’s a chance the person interviewing you doesn’t have your educational credentials. You make them fear for their own job. Yes, the JD degree shows you’re driven, driven enough to potentially displace them. Why pick you over someone who can equally get the job done without that threat?

    2. You’re not qualified – you went to law school, law school! Everybody knows lawyers make bank, just check out the myriad of TV shows and those celebrity cases on the news. Why in the world would you want to escape this type of financial freedom? There must be something wrong with you. If you couldn’t hack it in law school, the employer doesn’t want you either. Again, in this economy there’s a slew of candidates without this theoretical blemish.

    3. Negative views of lawyers – lawyers always argue, they worry about trivial things, and have no problem suing. These are all advantageous traits when representing a client, but how exactly are these characteristics supposed to impress at a non-legal workplace? Most employers are looking for people that can come in, get the job done, and not cause any problems. There’s always the fear a law graduate will try to outsmart others, and will not be a pushover at work, causing problems for management. Even worse, what if the law graduate is hired and starts trying to act like a lawyer instead of focusing on his or her position? Even if one can argue some of this stuff is far from the truth in practice, do you see how “theory” itself does the damage?

    4. Temporary positions – because you’re a law graduate, you’re presumably interested in the law. Even if it is accepted that some things aren’t going too well in the legal field to avoid many of the theoretical assumptions above, this one is an unshakeable dagger: the employer will think you’ll probably leave as soon as a solid legal job opens up. After all, a law degree spells success. Why wouldn’t you want to go back as soon as you get the chance?

    5. Expect more pay – even if the position is offering 50K to start, the employer will have a hard time believing a law graduate will want to settle for the salary a college graduate will take. It just doesn’t seem right. It’s not hard to imagine the employer examining the JD degree candidate and believing they will be forced to pay him or her more to compensate for those extra years of education. Again, why deal with this at all in the first place? They can just hire a college graduate and not worry about this salary issue.”

    I would only correct the offer of $50K to start, in the last paragraph. In many – if not most - markets across the nation, law grads would be willing to settle for $43K per year, since they can’t find anything better. Hell, in today’s garbage wage economy, most young college graduates would strangle someone for a chance to make $50K annually. Other than that high figure, the list above is right on the money when it comes to JDs trying to find non-legal employment.

    1. This is so completely true.

      Doors will slam in your face.

      There will be no way out of the poverty save for suicide.

    2. The "Doors of Perception" will slam in your face.

  21. From the opening of the JD Employed entry cited above:

    "A very common reason among prospective law students for enrolling in law school is the belief that obtaining the JD law degree can never hurt. After all, this is law school, more or less the lay-prestige equivalent of medical school. How can pursuing three extra years of higher education in a relatively prestigious field such as the law not be beneficial for someone’s career prospects? Even in a worst case scenario, in the off chance the law does not work out, simply obtaining a JD degree will show prospective employers how well-rounded and capable the student is, increasing the student’s marketability and potential career alternatives.

    Couple this thinking with the constant mantra that pursuing as much education as possible is always the right choice, and even students that are not really sure what they want to do in life can quickly find enrolling in law school is the perfect solution. How can it not be? The JD law degree opens doors, in and outside the legal field. Another notch on the education belt of this caliber is just unlikely to ever be an impediment. Unfortunately, this type of thinking makes perfect sense in theory, but in practice the truth leads to quite the opposite result for most law graduates.

    What Drives the JD Versatility Myth?

    If you ask anybody why a law degree is useful to obtain, the most common answer will point to all the famous people out there that hold the JD and are successful in many other fields outside the law. Most often, you’ll hear how this and that CEO of a Fortunate 500 company holds a JD and how at least half of the politicians have a law degree as well. Ironically (for LSAT takers), this is just a really bad correlation/causation assumption error. Just because someone has a JD law degree and is successful does not mean that it is the law degree that made them successful. On top of this, this is just a very common form of selection bias."

    In the end, pursuing more education pretty much guarantees that you will: (a) incur larger sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt; and (b) be removed from the full-time work force longer than your counterparts. As the article mentions several times, a law degree is nothing more than the cost of admission to sit for a bar exam.

    Scroll down to near the conclusion, and you will find this gem:

    "Another reason why the JD versatility claims have been taken out of context can often be explained by situations that exist at the very best law schools. If you go to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or almost any of the Top 14 law schools, these schools have the deadly combination of high prestige and an amazing alumni network. When both those features are triggered, some students, particularly those at the top of their classes, have options that 95+% of law students do not. This includes potential employment opportunities at places you would not expect a law graduate to obtain, including positions outside of the legal field. This phenomenon has somehow spiraled out of control and created this notion that the JD law degree itself has been the cause of this success, as opposed to the combination of the prestigious school, alumni network and the individual student’s academic strength. Again, this is faulty logic."

    In sum, if your law degree is not from an elite school with a great network - or you did not crush first year exams or do not have family wealth and connections - then your JD is not versatile. Hell, even in the circumstances just listed, the degree's supposed "versatility" is due to the individual applicant's drive, intelligence, network, background and/or connections. You can be damn certain that THE VAST MAJORITY of TTT grads are not landing great non-legal positions. They are not even finding decent work in the legal field. So why would lemmings think that they can be expected to land good non-law jobs, upon graduation?!?!

    1. I work in a factory for under 13 dollars an hour. I got the job because they were desperate for people who could understand basic arithmetic, but it still took some convincing. The other places I applied to were only "in need of" people with basic math and reading skills. The JD really does have the effect of negating your other qualifications. "Here's a candidate! Advanced math and accounting, has published written work, oh, wait. Law degree. Throw it away."

  22. Why would an HR person take someone with a JD that is not practicing law over someone with roughly the same qualifications?

    The other candidate has three years on you and HR fucks are known for being conservative. Everything being equal, they're not gonna take the applicant that might sue them.

  23. WOW! that quote from the HR lady is damning x10. Who are you going to believe kids? The blowhard academic who hasn't job-hunted for the last 30 years? Or an industry professional, someone on the "front lines" so to speak.

    Nando is right - the JD is a major resume-killer. When HR staff see it they probably think the applicant is a lawsuit risk, argumentative, not a team player, no quantitative skills, and just an overall asshole who isn't worth the trouble.


Web Analytics