Thursday, January 1, 2015

Way to Ring in the New Year: LSAT Scores Dropping Sharply Among Recent Law School Matriculants!



Excellent News: On December 29, 2014, Jerry Organ posted a Legal WhiTTTeboard entry labeled “The Composition of Graduating Classes of Law Students – 2013-2016 – Part I.”  He teaches at the Univer$iTTTy of $TTT. TTThoma$ Sewer of Law, located in Minneapolis, MN. Look at this portion:

“In the fall of 2013, I had a series of blog posting about the changing demographics of law students.  In the first, I noted that fewer students were coming to law school from elite colleges and universities.  In the second, I noted that between 2010 and 2013 there had been a decline in the number of matriculants with high LSATs and an increase in the number of matriculants with low LSATs such that the “composition” of the class that entered law school in the fall of 2013 was demonstrably less robust (in terms of LSAT profile) than the “composition” of the class that entered law school in the fall of 2010.  In describing this phenomenon, I noted that when the entering class in fall 2013 graduates in 2016, it might encounter greater problems with bar passage than previous classes.

In light of the significant decline in the median MBE scaled score in July, which Derek Muller has discussed here and here, and which I have discussed here, and a significant decline in first-time bar passage rates in many jurisdictions this year, it seems like an appropriate time to look more closely at changing class profiles and the likely impact on bar passage in the next few years.” [Emphasis mine]

Under the section entitled “Changes in LSAT Distributions of Matriculants – 2010-2013,” Organ wrote the following:

“Note that in terms of percentage change in the number of matriculants in each LSAT category, the five highest LSAT categories are all down at least 20%, with 160-164 down nearly 40% and 170+ down over 40%, while the two lowest LSAT categories are up, with <145 being up over 50%. [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that is a great trend for the law school pigs, right?!?!  Plus, it shows once again that “law professors” and administrator scum do not give one damn about applicants, current students and recent graduates.  Could you imagine if accredited U.S. medical, dental or veterinary schools WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY padded their employment stats and admitted legions of people who they felt would not be able to become licensed upon graduation?! 

The author then sums up his piece nicely with this segment:

"Conclusion

If one focuses on the LSAT scores as one measure of "quality" of the entering class of law students each year, then the period from 2010-2014 not only has seen a significant decline in enrollment, it has also seen a significant decline in quality.  On the axis with high LSATs to the left and low LSATs to the right, the "composition" of the entering class of law students between 2010 and 2014 has shifted markedly to the right, as shown in the graph below.  Moreover, he shape of the curve has changed somewhat, thinning among high LSAT ranges and growing among low LSAT ranges." [Emphasis mine]

Remember, the law school pigs are paid up front, in full – while YOU, the student and graduate, are left to carry the bag.  The cockroaches’ bloated, unjustified salaries are not tied – in any way – to the job outcomes or prospects of their students.  Have fun trying to repay $100K-$185K or more in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, while earning $35K-$50K per year.  The sociopathic academic swine will not lose one single wink of sleep over your situation.  After all, they supplied you with a largely meaningless “education.”

At parties and family events, who wouldn’t be thrilled with your limited, abstract knowledge of trivialities such as M’Naghten’s Rule, contributory negligence, minimum contacts, Rule Against Perpetuities, commerce clause, parol evidence rule, etc.?!?!  I’m sure others will not tell you to pack Pennoyer v. Neff or Wickard v. Filburn up your ass.  If you are not practicing law, i.e. getting paid to provide legal advice to actual clients – and therefore not using your “education” to feed yourself or your kids – then these concepts are useless.


Other Coverage: On December 31, 2014, Paul Caron covered this article in a TaxProf blog post entitled “Organ: The Declining LSAT Scores of Law School Matriculants.”  Take a look at the following comment from Brian Tamanaha – published on December 31, 2014 at 11:34:12 am:

“From Organ's post:

"Perhaps most significantly, in 2010, the <150 group, with 7,000 students, was over 2,400 students smaller than the next smallest category (165+ with 9.477) and more than 4,500 students smaller than the largest category (155-159 with 11,570). By 2013, however, the <150 category had become the largest category, with 8,471, just surpassing the 155-159 category, with 8,459, and now 2,300 larger than the smallest category, 165+ with only 6,154."

This is terrible. Admission to law school used to be reserved for students with demonstrated ability. Now, in Organ's groupings, the largest chunk of students scored below 150 on the LSAT.” [Emphasis mine]

Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature – and a functioning spinal cord – want to argue that the law schools are concerned about their students, graduates, potential clients or the legal “profession”?!?!

Conclusion: In the final analysis, it is immoral to accept students with such weak-ass numbers.  These same students are the least likely to: (a) pass the bar exam; and (b) to find gainful, full-time employement as attorneys.  Then again, the pieces of trash who “work” as “law professors” do not have their overpaid salary tied to the overall placement rate of their graduates.  With the federal government financing student loans, and handing them out to anyone with a pulse, the law school pigs have been able to hijack tuition to ridulous levels - gorging themselves in the process. 

It is great to see that our collective efforts have resulted in fewer applicants.  However, now the ABA-accredited toilets are KNOWINGLY taking in legions of people who have no shot to practice law.  At what point do certain commodes start enrolling people who can complete a coloring book and stack up Legos at least ten pieces high?!?!  For those of you who have helped expose the scam, I hope that you and your family have a great New Year.  Conversely, if you are one of the “educators” responsible for ruining the lives of young people, do the world a favor and die in a car fire, bitch.

66 comments:

  1. Where is the federal government? At some point the DOE can no longer just turn a blind eye and pretend these tuition rates, debt loads, and poor job prospects are justified. They have to either cut student loans or forcibly close schools out.

    Law is the only program that I know of with such high costs and such poor prospects. The costs are similar to medical and dental, but those are good fields because they are so tightly restricted and regulated. You don't see the same for law. And there really is no demand for law either.

    There are plenty of other postgrad professions out there, but the cost of those schools are low. Things like PT, or nursing, or a number of other things. People are still out years of their lives, but since the debt is low and they get actual decent jobs it's actually still not a bad idea to get that schooling.

    For the vast majority law is a waste. That is why so many leave the legal field entirely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dentistry and law are good fields because the asshole quotient is a 10th of what one sees in law. And mental stability 10 times higher.

      Delete
  2. I looked up the LSAT scores for my skidmark law school: 156/152/148 was the spread. That means the 25th percentile score was 10 points below my personal score 7 years ago!

    I don't think the LSAT is a very good test all in all, but a score below 150 likely indicates a candidate that can't read well enough to answer medium-strength questions....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those 'other fields', nursing, pt, pharmacy...are well past the point of saturation, with ever more schools opening. Its about where law was 20 years ago, but, because there are less overall employment numbers for these professions, saturation will be where law is in only 5-8 years...

      Delete
  3. First ... Happy New Years to ALL !

    Second - the LSAT is an artificial barrier to keep people out of law and has no true baring on success at law school or the Bar pass rate.

    In life... you get out of it, what you put into it!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Other than Happy New Year, this post is utter nonsense.
      First, as Nando's post shows, the LSAT isn't a barrier to anyone getting into law school. In fact, some of the worst scam factories are approaching 100% admissions.
      Second, any admissions process needs to have some arguable objective standards. While using the LSAT is not a perfect tool, it does give law schools an opportunity to use a single factor not influenced by GPA related problems(e.g. grade inflation or deflation at a given school).
      Third-please save your nonsense fortune cookie advice for other forums. Because of this scam, there are thousands of kids who will never have a chance due to massive education debt.
      Nando's post shows that these scam schools are interested in only one thing: money. They will soon accept 100% of applicants just to keep the cash flowing. It's unconscionable-but it is happening now and shows no sign of stopping.

      Delete
    2. your wrong on this one.... there was AAMPLE and all kind of alternative law school admissions programs which have multiplied over the years. Hence LSAT = BS !

      Plenty of people who are not good standardized test takers have gone this route and have successfully passed law school (requires the art of spotting issues and writing exams -IRAC )....and passing the bar ( can anyone say Bar Bri).

      The only reason now these type of programs are not needed as much is because of the "natural shifting" of the legal field and hence law school admissions.

      Thus, if the LSAT was such a great tool, the admissions standards would most likely have stayed at a high standard.

      Delete
    3. This MUST be a troll, there's no other explanation.

      Delete
  4. Talk about dropping sharply. Washington and Lee went from 164 to 161 in one year while taking 10% fewer students. Don't be surprised if W & L drops out of the US News top 50 this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. US News should be great fun again this year. I think the new rankings come out in March.

      It's always a hoot to see some pretentious dean take a fall in the rankings for neglecting the basics, especially employment.

      Delete
    2. ^^^ I actually don't think so. US News ranks are by definition ordering schools in relation to each other. So many schools have abandoned even the pretense of having admissions standards that the relative positions of each school probably will not change that much....

      Delete
  5. Makes perfect sense. Smart kids with lsat score not quite good enough to get into the top 10 schools (maybe even fewer than that) realize law is a losing bet. The dumbshits scoring 140-150 think they'll be the exception. They don't realize the grading curve in law school is the opposite of the grade inflation at State U they went to for undergrad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MY law school, graduating in 1977, a top 20 or so, then, virtually every 1L had at least an A- undergrad average, yet only 4 to 8, or so, got A's. The bulk got C's. That is quite a come-down for very successful folks.I was admitted on the waiting list on the Friday before classes started on Monday. I moved to town on the weekend before classes started. I figured that I was the last student admitted to my law school and therefore probably "scheduled" by my law school to graduate LAST, based on predictors and statistics. That, actually, made me very determined. I graduated right inside the top 25%.
      AND THE BIG LESSON? It made no difference. It took me 2.5 years to find a job, my first job paid about 1/8th the salary of the top student. But I had no benefits. I made more teaching percussion and drum set part time than I made practicing law full time.
      So, work hard, study hard, be determined, and you will have 35 years of it, or more.
      My son's girlfriend's father, I just learned, retired at 52. I will have to work until 67, a year more than my dad's lifespan, and will have no pension.
      So, my three sons will not be lawyers. Period.

      Delete
  6. what about the asshole from Crooklyn Law School that was complaining that the bar exam was to blame for low bar pass rates in 2014?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well after failing the NY bar, he was going to live in India or Thailand with his wife, then as of August he was looking at being a truck driver, and then as of December on JDJunkyard, he was looking at going to Asia (not Thailand, he has another country in mind).

      Delete
  7. Could you imagine if the Federal government guaranteed a loan for everybody who wanted to buy a car? All these new car companies would pop up and be producing cars with just a Briggs and Stratton engine and bicycle brakes foisted on the public as a great vehicle for driving on the road. They would claim they are an alternative to Mercedes and Lexus just like these law schools claim they are an alternative to Harvard and Yale. That is what happens when the Federal government opens the money spigot for easy loans, you get all these snake oil salesmen and low quality cottage industries sprouting the landscape. Make no mistake about it, these law schools are nothing but ABA approved cottage industries.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You write : "If you are not practicing law, i.e. getting paid to provide legal advice to actual clients – and therefore not using your “education” to feed yourself or your kids – then these concepts are useless."

    I beg to disagree. I have an LL.B. myself (I'm Canadian). Thankfully, because of Canada's low tuition, my school debt is only CA$9k. I didn't pursue employment in law because the market is at least as saturated here than the US, and because - let's face it - most lawyers have atrociously flawed personalities. Once I finished law school, I knew that I would not like to have my fellow law students as colleagues.

    However, I enrolled myself in a graduate program in translation (ah! The joys of knowing more than one language!) Legal translation is a thing, you know. The atmosphere here is 1000x better than it was in law school. Not only that, but I find that my LL.B. is very desirable in the translation market and I'm scoring interviews for my mandatory apprenticeship left and right...I don't really have to try, honestly. There aren't a lot of legal translators, and there are even fewer with a law school diploma. Translators tend to be generalists and those with specialized knowledge like yours truly are prized.

    The crux of my comment being that I don't find my knowledge of these concepts useless. To be able to translate something, you gotta know what it is. Since I know what these things are and can translate them, I'm getting opportunities up the wazoo. Translators are mostly freelancers...but there are quite decent in-house gigs. You just have to be specialized to get them, which I am.

    I would recommend to disgruntled law school students to find another way to use their diploma, even if it means working in a different field altogether. A legal education isn't really useless if you're not a lawyer, but you do have to be something that could make use of it. I'm quite happy with the choice I made.

    Let's see...competent freelancers charge about $0.20/$0.25 per word for legal translation. Multiply that by 2000 words per day (a quite conservative estimate due to CAT tools), 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month, 12 months per year, and you get around $100k. Not a bad gig if you can get it. It's actually not too hard to...as long as you're demonstrably specialized in the domain (ie with credentials). That's where the LL.B. comes in.

    The best specialized translators with a great reputation can rake in $0.50 per word. We're talking about some serious bank now.

    Translation also gets a bad rep from some people because of the influx of wannabe translators without degrees or skills accepting chump work on elance or ProZ for $0.03 cents per word or lower (much like 4th tier law school graduates), which drives down the prices, but only for the generalist professional translators that have to compete with them. Specialists are over the brawl and charge more, much more.

    Seriously, I disagree that legal skills are useless outside of the legal world. You can work it in when doing other employment, but it's true that a law school degree isn't a degree with which you can do everything and anything. It has to be quite closely relevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I admire what tou have done and also agrees lawyers are absolute whackjobs. I do not know a more despicable group of people.

      Delete
    2. You sound like someone who has drunk the "translation school" Kool-Aid. You haven't even started working yet and already you're seeing $100,000/year.

      Delete
    3. Already got job offers (after graduation) for smaller amounts, but not by much, as an in-house translator, not a freelancer. I used the example because it is more striking than my situation.

      It's definitely some kool-aid to believe you can rake in the dough by being a freelance translator these days if you're not specialized. There's been a huge influx of unskilled, unqualified wannabe translators in the market (much like law graduates from TTTT schools) who will take jobs for ridiculously shitty rates like 1-3 cents per word. Given that it's an unregulated field of work, it hurts the market a lot. It's like competing against Third World workers, but right at home. It doesn't help that you also have to compete with truly Third World, but similarly unskilled and unqualified "translators".

      Some translation agencies have also started fixing prices by offering these low rates to every translator. This profession is about the only one I know of where the client fixes the price, and not the worker.

      However, my position is supported by the statistics, unlike law school which just makes them up.

      Delete
    4. Well, at age 62, what is a "translator?" (At least regarding a legal connection?)

      Delete
  9. Considering the sudden crop of pro-law school comments here, it wouldn't surprise me if the law school pigs are paying their victims to visit sites about the law school scam and write positive comments (aka lies) about attending law school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe that's directed at me (the Canadian guy).

      I don't actually recommend that anybody go to law school. I never wrote that. If you read between the lines, it should be obvious that I didn't enjoy my experience there.

      Perhaps I should be more direct. Law school was a waste of time. First, the people were terrible. I always wondered why most of my classmates were stereotypical upper-class brats. It's because you can forget getting a legal job unless you're a genius or unless you have connections. These people weren't geniuses. Not only were they not geniuses, but they were annoying, entitled, rude, hypocritical and with an ego the size of fucking Jupiter. I'm a working class fellow, and obviously there were some other working class fellows attending class with me. We became friends because no rich kid would hang out with us (yes, it sounds a lot like high school). However, no matter how good we were (I graduated in the top 20% of a good law school), we were ignored by firms when came the time to apply for summer positions and stuff like that. We were even ignored by the student legal aid clinic or the university's law review. Semester after semester, it was often the same bunch of people in both, the same bunch of upper class twats, of course. Obviously, their friends were elected to the student council, so they decided who gets in and out...and obviously, friends get in, unknowns get out.

      None of my friends or I are studying or working in the strictly legal field (ie. as a lawyer). One went into journalism. I went into translation. Another's working a non-legal job like Nando. In fact, I won't even bother passing the bar. Fuck law and fuck its crony capitalist atmosphere. Look at politicians receiving bribes and accepting them, hiring friends for public contracts, stealing the taxpayers' money and so on. Most politicians are lawyers, so no wonder.

      But is it a wonder that people like that will try and abuse the concept of law education for money? Of course not. I feel for you guys, I really do. I'm lucky to have so little debt. I agree with the law school scam angle, the numbers back it up. I've been reading on it for a bit now.

      But...if you already have the J.D. or if you've spent too much time and money on law school to back out...you might as well find a way to use your degree at least a bit. All I disagreed with was that legal education is worthless outside of being a lawyer. I found good opportunities that may not be present to Americans due to the bilingual nature of Canada. That doesn't mean a law degree is worth it, especially with $150k debt.

      Delete
    2. My experiences reflect yours but I disagree with the end. Stay in law long enough to pay off your debt if it all possible, or ignore that debt if you want.

      But get the heck out of law as soon as you can and don't worry about actually using it or anything. You'll only be alive so long on this Earth, there is no use chasing sunk costs to do something to make you miserable. Work is generally miserable as is, you don't needed the added psychosis of the practitioners of law and the type of work done in the legal field.

      Prestige is a trap. Some of the happiest families I know of, and one of the men I respected most growing up, are in fields like driving cabs for a living. Driving cabs isn't a good field, but people that are grounded and have high character can make virtually anything work. However probably not in law, because your character will get assaulted and changed.

      Delete
    3. I would NEVER attend law school given the chance to roll back the clock, knowing what I know now...

      BUT, I do believe that having people who are educated in the law is a benefit to society, even if you become a stay-at-home parent and attend PTA meetings.

      BUT, it only works if it is economically possible to study law without surrendering your entire future. Currently, in the USA, this is not possible. Therefore, stay away from law school.

      Delete
    4. You don't learn anything about the law in law school, what little you learn could easily be taught in a survey course in undergrad. In fact, law is nothing more than an undergrad major in most nations.

      Delete
  10. I was enjoying myself tonight at dinner, eating a nice tender pork chop, perfectly cooked with lemon and capers.

    Then I felt a surge of guilt and nausea when I realized that the tender pig had been fattened on government loan dollars.

    Not to mention that thousands of young people had their lives ruined by wallowing in the mud with pigs like the one I had been happily eating.

    In the end, I decided to forget about the law school scam long enough to enjoy my delicious pork dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Happy 2015. According to Back to the Future Part II, all lawyers have been abolished.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If anybody tries to.make an argument that a $150,000 legal education might incidently help them in non-member lawyer jobs, I would advise them to instead tell people to get a paralegal degree at the local community college or the most get a bachelors degree in legal studies. Even then I would consider it a waste of time and money. But if you do follow that line of reasoning that a legal background might be beneficial, at least if you are proven wrong you did not incur $250,000 in student loan debts driving back and forth to your local community college. Maybe $20,000 instead. In the end though, both a paralegal and unemployed lawyer would be better off keeping the degrees off their resume when applying for a job at Walmart or driving a garbage truck for Waste Management Corporation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2015/01/01/dean-drake-law-school-challenges/21170421/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the link above, 3:32 pm. On January 1, 2015, the Des Moines RegisTTTer published a piece from an idiot named Grant Rodgers. The piece was entitled "Dean Ullem has true-blue passion for Drake law school." Here is the opening sequence from that thinly-veiled advertisement:

      "Drake University Law School is a family affair for Benjamin Ullem, a longtime Des Moines attorney who returned in July to lead the school for a two-year stint as dean.

      His father earned his undergraduate and law degrees at Drake. Then, Ullem, now 70, graduated from Drake in 1966 with a liberal arts degree before going on to law school himself. His daughter got her law degree from Drake in 1997.

      It's those deep ties to Drake, combined with business savvy, that make Ullem the right fit to lead the school at an uneasy time for law schools across the country, said former Iowa State Bar Association president Guy Cook, also a Drake law alumnus.

      "Dean Ullem, he's true-blue Drake," he said. "He's been a longtime supporter of the school. ... He's sort of a bridge-builder, someone who works well with others to sort of deal with these challenges that law schools across the country have."

      Job No. 1 in 2015: working to reverse a six-year decline in applications. But 2015 also will be a year of celebration: The start of the fall semester will mark the law school's 150th year.

      During his tenure as dean, Ullem hopes to help sustain and grow the law school by focusing on efforts to attract students, while also building on the school's long tradition of supporting clinical and real-world experiences for its students.

      "We think completing 150 years is a good stepping stone to looking forward to the next 150, and we truly are doing that," he said."

      What does that tell you about Third Tier Drake? The damn place is one of the oldest law schools in the United $tate$, and yet it is currently ranked as the 113th “greatest” law school in the country. Benjamin Ullem must be very proud to be the head of such a turd. By the way, isn’t it funny how “journalists” heap praise when someone with lengthy experience in private practice goes into academia – but fail to rip into lifelong “educators” for their lack of practical knowledge?!?!

      http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+5

      After reading the rest of the article, it seems that it is time for me to flush Third Tier Drake down the commode once again. In the end, this is a certified toilet that straps its graduates down with outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for weak-ass job prospects. The “professors” and administrators there – as with all the other ABA-accredited diploma mills – do not give one damn about prospective and current students or recent graduates. The pigs simply want more asses in seats, in order to keep themselves fat and happy.

      Delete
    2. Tuition and fees: $38, 106. Unless you're born with the silver spoon, that's well over 100K in debt NOT counting room/board/books, etc. Can the good dean say that much debt is a good idea?

      Delete
    3. Drake law school tries to equate 150 years with the concept that tradition somehow means a noble purpose. Atlantic City's oldest Casino is fighting foreclosure, does that mean because it is an old institution I should prop it up by spending $250,000 there? General Motors went bankrupt in 2008 despite being an old car manufacturer. They made crappy cars and the market made it clear. The claim of tradition or heritage is nothing bit slick marketing ploy. Then they brag about the Alumni.base you join. Go meet with a random alumnus and see how much they give a shit about you. You'll get more comraderie and support if you joined your local outlaw biker gang

      Delete
    4. Going to law school in a shitty economy without connections or wealth is like walking into a Hells Angels bar in assless chaps.

      Delete
    5. 4:56-as degrading as the whole scam was, the worst part was my cold-calling random alumni, at the direction of the placement office, for "advice"...probably the worst experience of my life. It's not that they didn't just not care-most were indignant that I called, but the really scary ones were the alums who asked me if I had any advice on how to find a job! As a 3L with no prospects it's almost impossible to describe the feeling of gloom when supposedly "established" alumni were also desperate. At the time I was putting together a JAG application, and a couple of them asked me for the contact information so they could apply, too.

      Delete
    6. @January 2, 2015 5:56 PM
      Did you give them the contact information? If so, was it correct?

      Delete
    7. I did; these were established lawyers who were supposed to give me guidance. The few who would actually speak with me all asked where I was looking for work. For several of them to ask for the JAG contact info-I guess the polite way to phrase it was that I was "nonplussed". Can't say if any actually applied.

      Delete
    8. I am a 1977 law school graduate and have spoken with every law student or new lawyer who has come to my door. Most lawyers I know would be very receptive to discuss a young lawyer's future. Keep "pushing buttons" until you find folks who are willing to spend a few minutes with you.

      Delete
  14. I went to the crappiest law school and have an insane amount of debt. I love practicing law and wouldn't change a thing. While trying to pass the bar, I have worked in marketing and walmart. Life is what you make of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Applied for a mortgage lately?

      Delete
  15. Or a car loan? Or a credit card? It's Special Snowflakes like this who give terrible advice to lemmings who help perpetuate the scam. In ten years he'll be wondering why he's still living in his parents' basement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So now mortgages and car loans are some kind of delectable treat for the already-indebted assholes who frequent this site?

      LOL, they WOULD want more debt. It's almost as though the student loan debtors have learned nothing from their past experiences.

      Of course, they like mortgages because they can just flake out of them ("discharge" them). I know a certain bank president, and let me tell you, he says that he went into banking because he had an overpowering desire to transfer his investors' money to people, and then never have them repay the loans (let alone the interest on them). That's why society created banks and lending in the first place, right? So that banks could act as free-money and free health care distribution depots?

      Right?

      Delete
    2. So, 1977 law grad. I had a pathetic job 2.5 years out of law school. After about 2 years with a firm, I was on my own, solo. I have had 4 loans in my life. A tuition loan of $1,500 (Yep, it was that cheap then.) A car loan for a Nissan 300-lovely car. An installment loan for the purchase of my first house. I paid it off in about 5.5 years, as I had no confidence that I could make any money, so I paid all I could spare on it so I could eliminate that risk to my financial future. My second house I paid cash. About 3 times the value of my first house. I had settled the ONLY BIG CASE of my practice. And, 25 years later, borrowed money to buy a car for my wife. Zero interest. Why not? (Also, having paid 9 years of college tuition for 2 of my 3 sons, I am largely broke.)
      This is not a statement of the "money I have made." It is a warning. At 37 years of practice, I have had about 28 weeks of vacation. Half of those have been at Scout camp, so low cost, but at least nominal work.
      At 62, I worry about paying the bills every day. I have about $6,000 in cash in my firm account. Frankly, that is pathetic. Like everybody, I am trying to get something out of this life. The second house is now far too big, so it has to go. I was very lucky to have a single case which allowed me to buy my second house.
      My point? A good deal of practicing law is LUCK. You are not a doctor making $300,000 year in and year out. You might make $95,000 for 3 years, then $470,000 for one year and $82,000 the next. Average it out, and you are still far behind the physician.
      NOBODY should go to law school. My 3 sons will not be lawyers.

      Delete
    3. @10:13: My favorite part is that these asshats piling on more debt see nothing wrong with flaking on it. And are busy babbling something about "parasite that don't work" in all of their posts.

      It is absolutely unreal.

      Please end PSLF and loan forgiveness, and cut down on government jobs as well as government salaries. Enough is enough, this country can no longer afford to punish the productive classes for the benefit of the lazy and psychotic.

      Delete
  16. 10:13-Huh? You seem to have missed the point; scam apologists like 9:14 won't ever qualify for a mortgage or a credit card or a car loan b/c of their mountain of debt. The rest of your response..."free health care distribution depots" suggests you have issues with banking and the Affordable Care Act. There are plenty of blogs addressing those topics, although you may have to start your own blog if you want to address both at the same time. Addressing the law school scam is what this blog's all about-review Nando's credo in the upper right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey look everybody, it's TTR's resident "message discipline" troll at 1:05! He's the site's uninvited "little helper."

      Hey message discipline troll, why don't you write something against the law schools yourself (for once)? You keep insisting that everyone else do so. What's good for the goose, right? As much as you care about message discipline, I'll bet your two cents would be AMAZING.

      Also, why don't you roll up your sweet sweet magical mortgage and stuff it right up your fat fat magical ass? People who owe a lot of money shouldn't even be TRYING to borrow more. Right, message discipline troll?

      For someone whose highest aspiration in life is to police comments on a blog, maybe *****YOU***** should start one. I'll bet you'd get a LOT of readers, what with your own many writings about the law school scam.

      LOL

      Delete
    2. The dumb fuck at 1:05 pm doesn't realize that ALL debt is harmful. A lot of jobless wonders out there are fetishizing and going gaga over one type of debt (mortgages) at the expense of another (student loans) - when the only smart thing to do would be to avoid all forms of debt.

      Delete
    3. "Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt.”

      — Benjamin Franklin

      Delete
    4. That's the moral hazard to forgiving loans, including student loans. Now every jackass thinks he can just borrow and just never pay anything back, and he's "smart" for doing so.

      PSLF is an awful idea. Loan forgiveness in general is a bad idea.

      Bankruptcy exists for a reason, and lenders as well as borrowers are both supposed to feel pain for bad loans. The federal government got rid of the market forces and rules for student loans, and it's causing problems, and of course it'll bleed right back into the mortgages again. This isn't sustainable.

      The reason Wall St. has been making so much money the past decade or two is because they've been openly cheating. But if you look through history, they crash repeatedly because they get in trouble for that. It'll happen again, it'll probably be bloody.

      When everyone thinks they can get a free lunch, nobody gets one.

      Delete
    5. @226,

      I don't view PSLF as being on quite the same level of moral bankruptcy as an unconditional, immediate bailout (which some people have been relentlessly advocating for). The latter is far worse. At least with PSLF, the person is actually working; in that sense, PSLF is fairly similar to any other gubmint job benefit (such as dental coverage or whatever else). To be perfectly honest, I have friends who are hopelessly in debt, and who are going the PSLF route themselves - so maybe I'm biased.

      The ultimate parasites are the people who refuse to work at all - the ones who think they deserve a big-ass gift just for breathing air and maintaining a 98.6. This also includes the willfully jobless assholes who are incredibly, ahem, PICKY about what jobs they will and will not take. Assholes like that make the Message Discipline Troll cry - because they are actively discrediting the scamblogs.

      Delete
    6. Oh it's you again. Figures you want a bailout. You are like the Boomers with one hand out demanding SS and Medicare while at the same time complaining about government employees. The irony is delicious with this PSLF.

      Why hasn't Nando banned you yet?

      PSLF and government workers are giant parasites. As a taxpayer I don't want to fund any of you. At least the kid sitting at home isn't actively sucking my taxpayer money.

      Do you even pay taxes?

      Delete
    7. @Message Discipline Troll,

      "At least the kid sitting at home isn't actively sucking my [sic] taxpayer money."

      Um, yes he is.

      Nando, why TTR's Message Discipline Troll spending his time engaging in flame wars and asking for a commenter to be banned?

      Shouldn't he be writing about the law school scam instead?

      Delete
    8. P.S. for 1231,

      As I said earlier, talk is cheap, Lazybones. Get back with us when you are about to turn 65; by then, you'll probably have "Mr. Social Security" tattooed right across your fucking forehead, you socio-anarchist libertarian, you.

      Delete
  17. Great post, Nando. At 150 you've already scored in the bottom-half of test takers and at 145 you're officially a moron. See this. The only thing separating these mouth breathers from the public is the bar. My fear is that as the bar pass rate plummets, graduates squall, and MSM takes note, they'll either dumb down the exam or grant diploma privilege to in-state schools.

    Actually, I don't care what happens. I never mention I have a JD — I'm embarrassed — and this "profession" can scarcely sink lower.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The bad bar passage rates that just came out was the Class of 2012.

    Look at how much worse 2013 and 2014 LSAT scores on.

    Lookin' at some 30% bar passage rates in July 2015. Should get interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As always, Nando, thanks for holding the scammers' feet to the fire. At this point, it's safe to say that the bottom tier schools will admit anyone with a pulse now while the feds continue to insure insane amounts of toxic student debt which simply cannot be repaid.

    There is now ample evidence to support the conclusion that a significant number of American law schools are engaged in outright fraud. Bottom tier law schools are now admitting greater and greater numbers of students with aptitude criteria that has been statistically shown to lead to bar exam failure. These schools are knowingly inducing students to take on unsustainable debt levels to attend their programs. Significant numbers of schools have published misleading job numbers for years. These law schools know of the dismal job prospects that await their graduates, yet continue to market their product as a means to a successful career that is capable of paying back debts incurred. Is this not clear and convincing evidence to prove scienter?

    It's sad that it's most likely going to take a subprime mortgage style meltdown in student loans for any sort of reform in student lending to come about. I can only hope that the coming meltdown doesn't spill over into other areas of the economy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is really pathetic is that even if you are dumber than a bag of hammers, you could be taught to pass the bar - especially if a school 'taught to the test' for 3 damn years. Three.years.

      The low bar passage rates are an expression of how truly, truly worthless those JD's are. Focus on this part: they are GRADUATING students who fail the bar. Graduating them. Seal o' approval from the institution on their legal learnin'.

      So, obviously whatever is being offered in terms of "education" is so pathetically derelict as to be more worthless than a sociology degree from a junior college. In fact, in terms of getting jobs, it is worth than worthless. It is a Scarlet Letter.

      J.D. = junk degree
      J.D. = just don't...hire

      Delete
  20. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/interviews/much-ventured-much-gained

    Check out this interview with venture capitalist Michael Moritz. It is entitled “Much Ventured, Much Gained” – and appeared in the January/February 2015 issue of Foreign Affairs. In fact, you can listen to the entire 23 minute and 10 second clip by clicking on the tab. I have subscribed to this magazine on and off for about the last decade. It’s important to see where the overlords are taking us. Anyway, I have copied a few excerpts from this piece.

    “Is creative destruction always a net plus for the economy and society?

    It’s very easy from our sanctimonious perch here [in Silicon Valley] to say yes. I think it’s much more difficult for the toll taker on the Golden Gate Bridge who’s been replaced by a laser scanner, the fellow on the assembly line who’s been displaced by a robot, the paralegals who have been replaced by software, the person that used to do typesetting on newspapers and learned the craft for six or seven years. It is extremely painful and distressing for people who are unfortunate enough not to have the education or the skills or be of an age where they can retool themselves for a new endeavor. I actually had a meeting just before this that was about a factory automation company. Boy, I wouldn’t want a future as a forklift truck operator, because they will be extinct.”

    We are well aware that advances in technology have resulted in entire industries being wiped out and in millions of job losses. You know – with certainty – that the cockroaches are not going to stop now. Hell, Moritz specifically mentioned “the need” for more foreign-born professionals and technology workers. For $ome rea$on, he believes that the U.S. needs to import more Ph.D candidates and scientists – and to no longer “summarily” deport them when their visas expire - in order for this country to remain “competitive” with the rest of the world. I wonder why this pig feel this way.

    “So are you becoming a Luddite in your old age?

    No, not at all. But it places a huge onus on government to provide a fantastic educational system so that people have the skills and wherewithal to be able to make a living for themselves in a world where manual endeavor is no longer valued and where increasingly [even] forms of intellectual endeavor that have previously been considered impregnable are now being taken over by machines. It’s cold and brutal.”

    The legal industry has been hit hard by outsourcing, LPOs, vendors such as Legal Zoom, and ABA “Ethics” Opinion 08-451. Wait until predictive coding makes further advances. While it will not result in robots engaging in arguing motions in court, it will lead to further losses of attorney jobs. Moritz “forgot” to mention the toll that these advances have taken on lawyers – yet he noted that paralegals have been replaced by software. Do you still want to attend law school – and incur $110K-$180K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, Dumbass?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am a 53 year old lawyer at a firm with 80+ attorneys. I am of counsel (as a lateral hire) and am paid the same as partners, but not equity partners. The equity partners are the old guard (mid 60s to mid 70s) who take the lion's share of the firm's profits. They attended law school when it was practically free and don't understand what post-Reagan students go through. Equity partners work much less than the junior partners because they get credit for work done for clients that they brought in years ago (or got after someone died).They spend time with the clients (often socializing) because they don't want junior partners getting too close to the firm's clients. Despite the poor legal economy, the equity partners have kept their earnings high by (1) not allowing anyone else to buy in, and (2) heavy staffing reductions with more load put on junior partners, of counsel and associates (fewer of them, too, and most don't last 2 years). After 5 years, a senior associate gets too expensive since the firm must pay their benefits as employees. They are either fired or pushed out or made a junior partner. They then earn less (not more) money because junior partners and of counsel pay their own benefits in after tax money (health insurance is $700 a month for my family which eats up about $20K pre-tax money). I went to a top 20 school, but like most everyone my age did not become an equity partner. It took me the first 15 years of my career (until I was 45) to pay off my school loans. I own my own home, with a mortgage, and it likely won't be paid off before I am retirement age. After 25 years of experience, the hours are killing me - 150 billables a month, month after month, year after year. And, you can't bill all that you work (clients won't pay for the time it really takes to do their work) and it is the junior partners that supervise associates and can't bill for it. Clients hate double-billing and so the time gets written off. The legal market is in the toilet with many clients scrutinizing every bill, moving work in house and doing the grunt work with their own paralegals. I still work 6 days a week, most evenings and arrive early every day. The need to pay for law school debt, coupled with the poor legal market has kept me working at relatively low wages with less and less each year to go towards bills. Saving are nonexistent on what I earn after tax. I did everything "right" but I am by far worse off financially that a friend who graduated high school and started a business (multi-millionaire), another who after college started a business and invested in real estate (multi-millionaire) and a friend that worked for the feds for 30 years since college (retired with savings and a pension). I don't have any of these things. (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  22. My advice to students thinking about law school - don't do it. Your life will not be rich or glamourous. You will not have vacations. You will not be able to send your kids to college. You are far more likely to crash and burn or worse get suspended from practice or disbarred due to depression, alcohol or drug addiction, get divorced because your spouse never sees you (or at least when you are not tired or in a bad mood) and get sick due to unhealthy sleep and eating habits. The stress of perpetual work and being trapped in a career that is boring, mind-numbing and tedious will do that to you. You cannot relax at work because your partners will stab you in the back, steal your clients and kick you out on the street without a moment's hesitation or thought. You cannot trust that your clients will pay your bills, won't turn around and complain to the bar when things don't go their way, or will treat you with any respect or decency. Big law is brutal and unkind and your rich clients see you as their servant. Anyone that tells you differently is lying. Private law practice is a system stacked in favor of those that didn't need law school in the first place to succeed because they already had connections to bring in cients or their daddies owned law firms. If you are a regular, middle class kid like me, being smart is not enough to win at this game because you can't win. There is no prize or pot of gold at the end. There is no need for new lawyers - the baby boomers are not retiring, the legal market is shrinking and the law schools are pumping out new lawyers just as always. All areas of law are down. The internet killed transactional business. The high cost of litigation has made mediation and arbitration more attractive than lawsuits. Sure, there are the successful ambulance chasers, but you need a ton of cash or a hefty line of credit to bank roll PI cases. Everything is paid on the back end and you are out of pocket for the work and expense of litigation for 1, 2 + years before you see a dime and there is no guaranty of that. And what about your law professors who earn high salaries because they could have made millions as practicing lawyers? Hogwash. Most are too quirky, too intellectual and too lazy to have made it at a large firm. Check their CVs. Some might have been an associate for a year or two at a firm. Most had a clerkship and some luck that led to their cushy law professor gigs. A law prof that makes $200K or more and works a few hours a week is infinitely better off than nearly all junior partners and of counsel who earn less than that and toil 60 to 70 hours a week for years. Law professors who have no marketable legal skills don't have the experience to teach you the skills you need to succeed in private practice. I realize this is long and more than most of you want to know, but if you are thinking about law schools, please don't do it. It's a terrible deal and a terrible life. I am not being negative just matter of fact. Scam blogs like this one may be new, but the scam is years old. I am evidence that the scam has been around since at least 1990. Whatever prestige, money or altruism there is (or was) to be gained from being a lawyer is not worth your life -- and I do mean your LIFE - because minute by minute, day by day, year by year, that is what a career lawyer gives up. I've thought about commenting on a blog like this many times, but now that law schools are letting in students with NO likelihood of success to fill their seats, I felt that I should tell my story. Hopefully, some of you will listen and just walk away. Law schools, professors, admissions staff and friendly alumni are not your friends. They want to sell you a bill of goods and an expensive one at that. Turn around and don't look back. They are much better and happier ways to spend your life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Curious, if law is so bad . . . why are the boomers not retiring to get out of it as soon as possible? Why are they holding on until the bitter end?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're broke.

      Delete
    2. If you're at the top it's not so bad. That's kind of the problem though, they don't retire off the top so nobody moves up, and even entry is hard.

      They're certainly not clinging to shit law, that's for sure.

      Delete
  24. Congratulations! You have been accepted to Piece of Shit Law School. With your heartbeat and ability to fog a mirror, you have the ability to be in our next entering class. Please fill out these student loan forms. Again, Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous @ 9:51 AM. Trophy wives, vacation homes, expensive cars and lazy kids . . .

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics