Thursday, April 2, 2015

Financial Hell: Average Law School Indebtedness for the Class of 2014

The List: According to US “News” & World Report, here are the schools with the highest average law school indebtedness, for those members of the JD class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school. Keep in mind that these figures do not take interest that accrues while the student is enrolled into account. The second number on each line represents the percentage of each diploma mill’s class who took on such debt:

1. Thomas Jefferson School of Law: $172,445; 91%
2. New York Law School: $166,622; 83%
3. Northwestern University: $163,065; 80%
4. Florida Coastal School of Law: $162,785; 93%
5. American University (Washington): $159,316; 83%
6. Vermont Law School: $156,713; 84%
7. Touro College (Fuchsberg): $154,855; 85%
8. University of San Francisco: $154,321; 88%
9. Columbia University: $154,076; 76%
10. Whittier College: $151,602; 91%
11. California Western School of Law: $151,197; 91%
12. Georgetown University: $150,529; 79%
13. Barry University: $149,175; 95%
14. Chapman University (Fowler): $148,429; 79%
15. Stetson University: $148,394; 83%

Imagine the type of money you would need to make upon graduation, in order to repay those amounts – and feed yourself, acquire health coverage, have reliable transportation, purchase life insurance, and keep a roof over your head. Here is another problem: of the top 15 offenders, only Northwestern, Columbia, and Georgetown are rated in the first tier. This means that they at least place many JDs in Biglaw positions.

Trail of Tiers: Here is a breakdown of these 15 schools, by tiers – courtesy of US “News. TTTT: Barry, Cal Western, Florida Coastal, TJSL, Touro, Whittier. TTT: Chapman, 127; NYLS, 127; Stetson, 105; USF, 138; Vermont, 122. Second: American, 71. First: Columbia, 4; Georgetown 14; and Northwestern; 12. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think that the average graduate – of the second to fourth commodes listed above – has any expectation of landing federal jobs or Biglaw posts?!?!

Now Including the 13 Cesspools That Didn’t Report to USN&WR: Matt Leichter posted an entry labeled “13 Law Schools Didn’t Report 2014 Graduate Debt to U.S. News, Again” – on March 10, 2015. From his piece:

“Each year U.S. News ranks law schools based on how much debt their graduates take on. The figure excludes accrued interest, but it’s probably the best estimate of the cost of attendance at a particular law school. It’s also, unfortunately, the only source for this information as the ABA does not publicize it in the 509 Information Reports. Here’s this year’s list of absentees and their debt levels in their last reported year: 

Arizona Summit – $190,471 (2015, can be found on the school’s Web site [Interestingly, no one took out private loans…]) 
New England – $132,246 (2014) Faulkner – $122,187 (2014) 
Missouri (Kansas City) – $103,038 (2014) 
Southern Illinois – $67,966 (2014) 
Appalachian – $114,740 (2013) 
Atlanta’s John Marshall – $142,515 (2013)
Florida A&M – $96,934 (2012) 
La Verne – $112,628 (2013) 
Rutgers-Camden – $93,990 (2013) 
Southwestern – $147,976 (2013) 
Texas Southern – $99,992 (2013) 
WMU Cooley – $122,395 (2013)” [Emphasis mine]

Via USN&WR, the following NINE toilets on the list above are rated in the fourth tier: Appalachian, Atlanta’s John Marshall Law Sewer, Arizona Summitt, Faulkner, Florida A&M, New England Law Boston, Southwestern, Texas Southern, WMU Cooley. There are three in the illusTTTrious third tier: Rutgers-Camden, 102; UMKC, 127; SIU, 149. I almost forgot to mention that this table includes one school that is labeled Fifth Tier/Unranked: the University of La Verne. Yes, what “elite” law schools. And what a coincidence that all of these “principled” in$TTTiTTTuTTTions are all in the third tier or lower, huh?!?! What are the odds?

These schools are not refusing to provide these figures to this magazine, out of some sense of integrity. They do so because they want to keep this data from prospective students. Hopefully, those young men and women will view this suspiciously – and decide to avoid these schools/trash pits.

Conclusion: These are backbreaking totals. Also, you still have to pass something called the bar exam – in order to become a lawyer. Plus, you also need people to hire you to represent them on legal issues before you are an actual attorney. For $ome rea$on, the law school swine “forget” to mention this to young people. Otherwise, you merely purchased a graduate degree, for the sake of having a big-ass diploma. 

It simply does not make financial sense to incur an additional $150K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a law degree from a low-ranked school. While the ratings may be foolish in many ways, they do reflect hiring practices. Simply put, Biglaw may hire one single graduate from a third tier commode. Do you still want to sign on the dotted line?!


  1. And these are just averages. Imagine debt financing 5 years of private undergrad, then fully debt financing full freight at TJSL. Some of these kids must have $400,000+ in student loans.

  2. Those numbers can inflict serious damage to one's financial and non-financial well-being just by themselves. When you take into account accruing interest while in law school, add another $25-35k. Then when you graduate, expect to pay $800-1,000+ a month for the ongoing interest and not even touch the principal. You had better find a really big shovel to get out of that hole.

    1. And remember, this doesn't include undergrad debt or living expenses for 3 years!!

    2. These law grads can essentally forget forget federal employment, this debt will destroy their chances. Even law enforcement agencies are strict on excessive debt.

  3. Sorry but anyone that was dumb enough to enroll after 2010 deserves what they get. It is one thing to be scammed by a sophisticated multi-layered and marketed con that leaves you with a significant knowledge and information gap, and it's another to get scammed by the Nigerian Prince.

    At some point personal responsibility and life choices have to come into play. This is also why I am against loan forgiveness. There are options, we shouldn't bail people who make stupid decisions out at the expense of others and just make things easy.

    If you think you got scammed, just default and deal with it. If enough people default, the scam falls apart. Asking for forgiveness doesn't bail out the student debtors, it bails out the schools who would otherwise lose access to that student loan money. I know people that just defaulted and nothing happened to them, because the school don't want to admit to defaults. Others just fled the country, then got a deal to pay 10% of their student loan balances for full satisfaction. These are the choices savvy people made.

    I myself just paid the things off, and then quit law and have never been happier. But I would like to see the law schools collapse, and the only way that can happen is with mass default for those that just really can't pay them back and don't want to.

    1. This is, you know, how I also feel at this point. Like with the idgit on JD Blunderground who asked for advice after graduating in 2011. As if the Internet and the existing scamblogs and other forums about the law school scam weren't findable via some diligent Google searching.

      Were a few minutes of their time, on balance, worth so much more than the current situation they now find themselves in?

      The WSJ article came out in 2007. It's been almost a decade now. The facts are out there to be found and are quite findable. Comes a point where it's obviously pure belief in what the scamsters are selling coupled with the expected ignorance of a 22-23, unconnected, yr. old about the legal employment market and how hundreds of people apply for each one job, etc.

    2. The loans should be able to be discharged in bankruptcy.

    3. @4:14 PM again.

      Oh gribble.. The post sounded familiar in its tone. I should have guessed. Yes, in a fair world, the schools would have some skin in the game. But as we know, it's not a fair world. The loans will never again, IMO, be dischargeable in bankruptcy. That was the entire point of IBR/PAYE. To keep the Scam going for as long as possible whilst not relieving responsibility for the debt off the shoulders of the student loan debtor. Privatize gains, socialize losses, as always.

      Just more reasons (non-dischargeability / fairness, or lack thereof) that people - idiot Lemmings - need to do their damn research. No one is going to do it for them and the world at large loves to take advantage and will do so every time.

    4. Also, reading the last few lines of Nando's write-up brought back a few things. You really are only purchasing an expensive degree. Nothing more. I know, for a fact, that Biglaw firms send people to local area schools to "do the rounds", with zero intentions of hiring anyone from there. It's all to promote the illusion of fairness and public image for the firm. If, by chance, they do hire 1 or 2 people from the school, you can bet that they are either #1 or #2 in the class or very connected. That's it. The 99% Lemmings really do have no chance when those with better grades and especially those with strong connections literally can simply make a phone call to secure a good job. 90%++ have no chance.

      These fools are going into 6-figure debt to subsidize the top 10% and those who are already connected. And that's just plain stupid.

    5. "At some point personal responsibility and life choices have to come into play."

      NOOOOO!!!! Santa and the Easter Bunny (i.e., the taxpayers) should be absolutely forced to make me whole again! (No matter what I do to myself.) I WANT MY DISCHARGE! WAAAH!!!

      OK, sarcasm off.

      Incidentally, 414/429,

      How was it "socializing the losses" for the gubmint to make its student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy?

      Wouldn't discharging those student loans in bankruptcy be a CLASSIC example of socializing the losses? Isn't bankruptcy in general socializing the losses?

    6. You are right because the loans are federal, and therefore public debt. There are a number of public policy ways to fix this crisis and restoring bankruptcy protection is one of them. Student loans need to be regulated properly so this bubble doesn't get even bigger and the problem grows like a cancer. Right now it's increasing about $100 billion a year at least. In terms of law schools, many need to be shut down and the ABA won't do it. Law professor salaries need to be similar to other humanities. 80k-120k is a reasonable expectation for teaching law. 200k+ is not sustainable for teaching 2 classes a semester with scammer deans making 300k+ with some as high as 500-600k. The true market value of legal education would probably be in the 5k-20k range depending on where you went and paid cash. Right now the market is being distorted by the guarantees of loans and the fact that student loans cannot be gotten rid of through bankruptcy, unlike every other kind of debt. If I borrowed 100k for a small business and it failed completely, I would be able to file for bankruptcy. It happens every day and is a basic part of the creative process of capitalism and is how new goods/services are developed. Fixing legal education isn't rocket science, the model needs to be more like medicine with a restricted supply. Having scammer law administration tell lemmings that a JD is "versatile" is fucking idiotic and borderline criminal. You go to law school to learn how to practice law. The reason for consumer protection laws is because there are bad people in the world that hurt others and some people just can't help being taken advantage of (i.e. seniors, children).

    7. @657,

      Dude, who are you? I try not to be overly political, but it would never even occur to me that *I* had enough knowledge to compute the exact amount of money that someone else (whom I didn't employ) "should" earn. I can only assume that you have a SUPERB knowledge of economics - one that borders on the supernatural.

      See, here's the thing: if the Federales would just leave the lending to the banks and stop guaranteeing the loans, the prices, salaries, etc would return to rational levels on their own.

      But if you actually think that any system would ever make a discretionless, zero-oversight loan of $300K *AND* allow the borrower to immediately turn sideways and disappear, then you are surely out of your gourd.

      "If I borrowed 100k for a small business and it failed completely, I would be able to file for bankruptcy."

      Sure - but a bank WOULDN'T give you an unsecured loan for $100K (let alone $300K) unless you could show them that you already had half a million dollars or so in assets.

      So your hypothetical is not applicable here.

      Student loans are like a deal with the devil - the lenders will suspend the ordinary rules of borrowing so that you can obtain larger amounts of money - but YOU agree to give up your right to turn sideways and disappear on such a huge loan. If you don't like that deal, don't sign the papers!

    8. As the market has become more saturated, even Top 10 law schools have significant full unemployment in their graduating classes.

      "Personal responsibility" isn't going to solve the problem of involuntary insolvency. I.e. preach if you must, but that does not get the government repaid.

      Continuing to discriminate against student loan debt in the bankruptcy code is ineffective for repayment. There's nothing special about federal loans - in making them the government is indistinguishable from a bank, except that she does 'collateralize' the loans by taking back public benefits - like SSDI, SSI, tax refunds, etc.

      When the federal government lent money to corporate entities as fiscal stimulus, and those loans were not secured because the businesses did not have assets to cover the loan, the government lost in bankruptcy. Think, Solyndra.

      Student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. The federal government should not be in the lending game in the first place. She blew up price, period. She uncapped GradPLUS, etc.

      The "taxpayer" lost the second the taxpayer paid federal income taxes. Once that money was lent, even if repaid, it was not given back to the taxpayer, it was spent by Congress.

      To continue to screw up the entire economy refusing to (1) actually regulate the market the fed controls and (2) discriminate under the law to cover of a system designed to blow up is just going to piss off a lot of people and become increasingly impossible to maintain politically or socially.

    9. @ 6:57 PM

      Don't sign the papers and don't go to college. Let's stop and take a minute to appreciate that the feds to screwed up an essential marketplace that the 'choice' to the poor is now do not go to school or give us your life.

      When did the latter generations have the opportunity to participate in a market that was not fundamentally warped by governmental intervention? They did not.

      You are right, the only way to win is not to play, but a kid with a high school diploma from whatever crap school district he lives in is getting screwed being kept out of the market for higher education by monopoly pricing.

      It really does not matter at all whether the feds restore bankruptcy in regards to whether they get repaid. They can keep bankruptcy off the table, but if you look at the NY Fed's recent study on student loan repayment, you will realize how F'ed all those loans are...then what?

    10. @152,

      "There's nothing special about federal loans."

      Um, no, they are different - the borrower is able to access an unusually large amount of money without putting anything down; the trade-off is that they can't immediately turn sideways and disappear by filing for bankruptcy. It's a unique exception to the rules. Try to keep up.

      "When the federal government lent money to corporate entities as fiscal stimulus, and those loans were not secured because the businesses did not have assets to cover the loan, the government lost in bankruptcy. Think, Solyndra."

      False. Solyndra had MILLIONS of dollars in assets - factories, raw materials, accounts receivable, etc. The one thing they didn't have was a lot of cash on hand. The government decided that they should not have to sell those factories to raise cash - because the cash wouldn't do them much good if they had to get rid of their factories, get it? *I* wouldn't have approved the loan, but let's not pretend that "Solyndra" was some dude living in his mom's basement with no assets, yes?

      "The 'taxpayer' lost the second the taxpayer paid federal income taxes. Once that money was lent, even if repaid, it was not given back to the taxpayer, it was spent by Congress."

      So let me get this straight. The taxpayers DON'T lose when their tax money is wasted? That's your claim? If the money is wasted on student loan bailouts, then of COURSE the taxpayers lose, because the gubmint will still need to skin them for money to pay its LEGIT expenses - you know, like giving money to lazy assholes who hate to work.

      I realize there is a significant overlap between those two categories, by the way.

    11. Wrong. The Department of Energy loans were not in fact collateralized, which is precisely why the government lost money and not just on Solyndra.

      The Energy Dept. gave 30 billion in green energy loan guarantees, and anticipated losing 10 billion in defaults - a 30% rate of total loss, because they are lending to start-ups who do not have assets to cover the damn loss.

      Again, did the federal government pierce the corporate veil as a condition of giving these loan guarantees? Did the fed say shareholders would be held personally responsible for losses and could never declare bankruptcy on them if shifted to individuals?

      Haha, of course the fed didn't, because the federal government is economically discriminating against real, natural persons versus her treatment of corporations...par for the course in modern America.

      If the federal government wants to act like a credit card company, or a bank, and make unsecured loans in unlimited amounts, then not only should she lose in bankruptcy, but she's going to lose regardless of bankruptcy.

      And, of course, this is after the federal government destroyed the marketplace for a college degree - warped it, and destroyed it.

      No apologies, equal economic rights. Bankruptcy was important enough to make the Constitution. It's a foundational, economic right. I want my right back. There will be no economic equilibrium in price and risk without the lender bearing the risk it creates.

      Like most of this country, I see full well how governmental intervention in marketplaces has wreaked havoc on the global economy. It's hallmark for the last 20 years has been to try and stick the little guy with the loss, and the corporate entity with the profit. That strategy has massively failed. Time to fix it.

    12. @959,

      Trying to change the subject, aren't you?

      I never said anything about the loans to Solyndra being "collateralized."

      I said that Solyndra, unlike a student loan borrower, had MILLIONS of dollars in assets. You incorrectly stated that they had NO assets, remember?

      Did they formally attach the factories, real estate, etc, as "collateral?" IRRELEVANT.

      Do you even know what happens in bankruptcy? Most of the time, all nonexempt assets are sold, and the proceeds from that sale are then divided among the creditors on a pro rata basis - which, by the way, is PRECISELY what happened when Solyndra went bankrupt. Go ahead, look it up - I'll wait.

      See the difference? Or are you going to keep hemming and hawing and splitting hairs about "collateralization?"

      Incidentally, what IS your point? It sounds like you disapprove of the Solyndra deal (so do I, incidentally) - but you also seem to be claiming that it's a model the Government should double down on. I guess you must be a strong believer in that whole "in for a penny, in for a pound" thing, right?

      No, you're probably just a lazy selfish asshole who doesn't want to pay back the money that you borrowed.

    13. P.S. Bankruptcy ****IS**** "governmental intervention in the marketplace."

      P.P.S. Bankruptcy didn't "make" the Constitution - the Constitution simply permits Congress to establish UNIFORM laws on that subject so that one shitbag states could not cancel lawful debts that had been racked up elsewhere. The Founders were very concerned about that possibility, thus the requirement of a national rule-book.

  4. Sadly funny how Rutgers-Camden does not want to release figures. Former dean leaves law school position for campus administration, has 300k salary, fancy Bryn Mawr community to live in (median income $100k, includes the college students at Bryn Mawr, think about that). Interim dean has been "interim" for years! Admissions Dean is wife of congressional misspending ex-Congressman Rob Andrews. Admissions Dean also part of very large controversey that brought in law students despite ABA law school regulations to the contrary. Eventually both of Rutgers' law schools will be formally merged, reflecting the so-called legal "profession's" larger, and New Jersey, difficulties. Take that Raptor bitches and hags! And take this!

  5. Word to any lemmings reading this: The ONLY school on that list that you should even THINK about going into debt for is Columbia. Northwestern and GULC were historically good, yes, but good isn't a reliable bet in this market. Even they have numbers that suggest that a large portion of their classes never get jobs with which they can service that kind of debt. Sure, they are vastly better than most other schools, but they are by no means reliable tickets to a successful career in law. Going to them is like playing Russian Roulette with a couple chambers loaded, while going to TTTTrash like Thomas Jefferson is like playing it with all the chambers loaded with hollowpoints.

  6. If you take out $150K for law school and it's not Harvard, Yale or Stanford you are a matter of law.

    1. ^^^^^^^^^^ Winner. ^^^^^^^^^^

      HYS indeed.




      Party time! Someone pass the champagne.

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

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  10. Compounded interest can more than double those balances. Too bad.

  11. 6.21% interest rate for subsidized loans. 7.21% interest rate for unsubsidized loans. For law or graduate school.



    1. This is the "magic" of compound interest.

      Uh.. Except from the other side where that same "magic" is now working against you as a borrower and not a saver.


    2. As a non-connected saver, I'd like to know how *I* could get in on some of that "magic" (i.e., a federally-guaranteed 6-to-7 percent return on my investment, year after year).

      Hell, back the early 1980s, you could still buy a 30-year bond and get an 18 percent return on your money for each of those 30 years.

      On the other hand, borrowers today have it pretty good - all things considered.


    Back on December 15, 2014, Forbes contributor Robert Farrington published an article entitled “Law School and Student Loan Debt: Be Careful.” Check out this opening:

    “For many students in political science, history, or other liberal arts majors, law school always seemed like a smart choice after college. Being a lawyer, at least as depicted on television, meant wearing nice suits, earning a good salary, and having a life you enjoy.

    However, the reality for many law school graduates is much different. Over the last few years, there has been a deluge of law school graduates, which has pushed down starting wages, increased competition for the few positions available, and left a lot of graduates buried in private student loan debt with not enough income to repay it.

    The Costs Of A Law Degree

    According to the American Bar Association, the average debt taken on by a law school graduate was $84,000 if you attend public schools and $122,158 if you attend private schools. This is just for going to law school and doesn’t include the cost of undergraduate education.”

    Again, this is a GLUTTED field. Anyone with a brain stem can recognize this reality. Now, why in the hell would any sane person want to take on such outrageous levels of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - for *a chance* to enter this garbage "profession"?!?!

    Do you think that you'll be wearing three piece suits from Brooks Brothers - rolling around town in a Jaguar or Mercedes Benz - while helping poor, broke-ass, wronged people attain "justice"?! Are you going to take on the $y$tem, and win million dollar cases for your clients? If you believe that, then you are an easy mark for the law schools.

  13. Just to inform any potential law students, financial hell also includes harassment by collectors. Some of the worst trolls here are the alcoholic, hate-filled, porn-addicted, and unemployed collectors. How would you like someone like that calling you every day for the next 20 years? Decide right now not to sign the loan documents, and those subhumans will remain unemployed, just as they should be.

    1. ^^

      It looks like the Painter Rescue Team at 1249 is a little bit, um, FIXATED.

      In equally startling news, the sun went down last night!

      I'm with the bossy Vaginal Discipline Troll on one thing, at least: if you don't want the debt, don't sign the fucking loan papers!

    2. Well, most solo practitioners are alcoholic, hate-filled, porn-adicted and grossly underemployed…

      So, your choice is to be one of them, a debt collector, or a solo practitioner…

      The result is nearly the same, but the debt collector, has an income…..

    3. That must be one of those JD-Advantage jobs I always heard about.

    4. By definition debt collectors are employed. They are subhuman in many way. But if there weren't any fucking deadbeats, there'd be no need for collectors and they'd be out of a job.

    5. By definition, if there weren't any $200,000 debts incurred due to fraudulent misrepresentation by law schools, then a lot of deadbeat collectors would stay unemployed.

  14. I don't always take on $200,000 in non-dischargeable debt to buy something worthless, but when I do, I make it law school debt.


    The Least Interesting Person in the World

  15. Look at the shit heaps on that list. NYLS, TJLS, Touro, Barry, Vermont, Whittier. If you're taking out serious loans to attend these shit piles you really are retarded. That's like spending $8,000 on a fucking toaster.

  16. This whole situation is so sad, demented, and slathered in blood.

    The lemmings have no idea how DANGEROUS going to law school is.


    So let's talk about "life."


    Your whole life, as far as you can see and then much more, your children's children, until the CUBS win anything, until you die.

    I have 3 sons. NONE of them will be lawyers. Why? Because practicing law is DEATH.

    Financially, because you will have no benefits, your income will be pathetic, and you will daily consider the benefits and detriments of suicide on your family. I do, every day, and many times during the day.

    Suicide would benefit my family financially, but I am concerned it would emotionally upset them too much.

    I do have many friends. That is the difference for me between life and death.

    So things have sat in my mind for 6 years or so, but I have 6 more years to go to quit. I have no retirement income other than Social Security.

    Now, at 61, I realize that there was NEVER a future for me.

    It is hard to consider your future when self-destruction to support your family is one of the best options.


    Back on September 25, 2014, Gary M. Stern wrote an Observer piece labeled “Mounting Debt Makes Law School a Gamble But Students Continue to Enroll.” Take a moment to read this hard-hitting portion:

    “It is a risky proposition getting a graduate degree in the humanities these days, what with the prospect of crippling debt and high unemployment rates. But enrolling in a law program is among the riskiest of all.

    “Law school is a major gamble,” said Daniel A. Hochheiser, a criminal attorney and managing partner at New York-based Hochheiser & Hochheiser. “It works only for a minute number of students, leaving the majority of students holding the bag, entering a saturated market struggling with debt.”

    In 2013, the average public law school graduate carried a debt of $84,600, while graduates of private colleges incurred $122,158 in debt. At the same time, legal firms are cutting back on hiring, causing a glut of attorneys and rising unemployment.

    In 2012, only 56.2 percent of all law school graduates found full-time employment in their chosen field, and nearly 28 percent were unemployed or underemployed, according to Law School Transparency, a reform group.

    When the end result, it seems, is likely to be high debt and little to no employment, one has to wonder why more wannabe lawyers aren’t screaming “Objection!” before they apply.

    And yet, while law school enrollment has dipped—total enrollment at law schools from 2011-2013 fell, by 6,000 students, to 150,111—would-be attorneys keep coming in droves, despite the mountain of evidence that suggests they should pursue another career path.

    While there will always be those for which law school is a fallback, there are some who choose law out of a sense of moral duty, the path to lawyerhood a quixotic endeavor in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.”

    Scroll down to the most poignant quote in the whole damn article:

    “Going to a $40,000-a-year legal aid job won’t pay the $100,000 in debt,” [McGeorge Sewer of Law graduate] Mr. [Hanni] Fakhoury said.”

    Did that penetrate your little brain, Lemming?!?! Or do you need me to draw you a diagram with Crayola on posterboard? You will still need to pay rent, eat, put gas in your car, etc. If you have children, they will need items such as clothing and shoes. And good luck making your wife or girlfriend happy, once she figures out that you can hardly ever afford to go out. In fact, she will resent you for being a highly-educated loser who makes $15 an hour. Don't be surprised if she ditches your sorry ass the minute something better comes along. These things will not go away, simply because you need to repay your student loans.

    1. Preach it, Nando!

      Those lemmings need to hear the whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

  18. Nando, I have been following your blog for sometime now. It is somewhat therapeutic for me to read your articles and the comments since my life has been fraught with failure, thanks to my unwise decision to attend law school.

    By way of background, I have an engineering degree from a top 10 program. After I graduated with my BSEE, I landed a job making $80K a year with benefits. I was happy at my job. I was respected and appreciated. After 3 years at the job, I foolishly began yearning for a challenge. A friend suggested law school. I met with several area law school deans who guaranteed that if I went to law school, I would become a highly in demand patent attorney at one of the top patent law firms. I enrolled in law school and quit my nice job.

    During my first year of law school, I got all As except one class where the douchebag professor gave me a B- because he docked one full grade for missing 3 classes. I had gotten sick and provided a doctor's note. All my other professors were ok with it and this one ASSHOLE professor said he didn't care and docked me a full grade. Despite the bad grade, I got many interviews and was a finalist to obtain a Summer Associate position at Fish & Neave. I lost out to a classmate who had edged my GPA by 2/10 of a decimal point. That was the beginning of the end for me. I interned at several places and when I graduated, only boutique firms were interested in me. Most offered me jobs in the $30K-40K range. So to recap, I went from making $90K (my last year before enrolling in law school) to being offered $30K-40K and incurring $105K in law school debt. I used to think it was that one fucking professor that ruined my career but the reality is that it was law school that ruined my life. I really hope kids think long and hard before chasing the lawyer dream before it's too late and they realize the nightmare scenario that they have created for their entire natural life.

    1. I find it so disgusting that an angry, bitter, miserable failure like that law professor could have any effect whatsoever on your future career. He deserves to get his fat ass laid off tomorrow.

    2. From where you're kneeling it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck.

      Truth is...the game was rigged from the start.

    3. ^^^^^^^^^^

  19. Two professors are suing to stop the loss of their tenured jobs as a part of the William Mitchell-Hamline merger:

    1. AND... the ACLU fired 7% of its lawyers on March 26, but the stupid bastard crusader lemmings who want to "fix society" with their law degrees are still somehow going to make it work out because they are so friggin special.

    2. It all boils down to $$$. All those speeches about "serving the greater good," "striving for higher ideals" and "giving something back" mean nothing once a professor's paycheck is threatened.


    Back on April 12, 2011, Fastweb published a great piece from Mark Kantrowitz, which was entitled “How to Minimize Student Loan Debt.” Read the entire article when you have a chance, but focus on these two paragraphs for a moment:

    “Try to avoid overborrowing for your college education. Do not treat loan limits as targets. A good rule of thumb is that your total education debt for your entire college education should be less than your expected starting salary after you graduate. Ideally your student loan debt should be less than half your expected starting salary. Other signs of over-borrowing include borrowing more than $10,000 for each year in school or needing to borrow private student loans.

    If you borrow more than your expected starting salary, you’ll have to repay your loans with an alternate repayment plan like extended repayment or income-based repayment instead of standard 10-year repayment. These repayment plans reduce the monthly payments to more affordable levels by increasing the term of the loan, but this also significantly increases the cost of the loan. For example, switching a Federal Unsubsidized Stafford loan from a 10-year term to a 20-year term will cut the monthly payments by about a third, but it will also increase the total interest paid over the life of the loan by a factor of 2.2. That’s more than double the total interest. A longer repayment term will reduce the monthly payments, but do you really want to still be repaying your own student loans when your children enroll in college?”

    There you go, morons. This son of a bitch has testified in front of a congressional committee, specifically with regard to the impact of student loans. Do you believe that YOU will be earning more than $200K per year coming out of dung pits such as TTTTouro, Arizona Summit, Florida Coa$tal, VermonTTT, or TTTThoma$ Jeffer$on Sewer of Law?!?!

    Not only did you attend the worst toilets, but you also took out soul-crushing sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for the “privilege.” Hell, YOU shouldn’t be permitted to make your own selection at McDonald’s or to pick the show to see at the movie theater – as you have shown that you don’t have the intellectual fortitude to make such decisions. Mental midgets are keeping the low-ranked cesspools in business.


    On March 25, 2015, Law School Lemmings – which is an excellent website featuring a treasure trove of research – posted this question from someone who regrets attending the University of Michigan Law $chool:


    Anonymous asked:

    I'm an idiot who decided to go to law school in 2011. I got into University of Michigan and thought that since they were a Top 10 school they were somehow an exception to everything I was reading about people graduating without jobs. I know there are lots of other reasons that people regret going to law school (like hating the jobs that they do get), but are there any law schools that are still doing well just in terms of employed grads? Do Yale and Harvard have any unemployed grads?


    Really sorry to hear about your situation. You have no excuses going to law school in 2011 though. The stats were known. The scamblogs were out there. The message was abundantly clear in 2011 that law school is a horrible decision. Granted, Michigan still had a reputation as a solid bet in 2011. Not so now.

    Harvard has unemployed grads, no question. I’ve run across some HLS grads trying to land unpaid internships. It’s sad but not surprising. I haven’t heard, read, or seen any unemployed Yale grads. But who knows? Let’s give the total degradation and destruction of the legal profession some time. Ten years ago, it would be unthinkable to think of University of Virginia, Cornell, Michigan, NYU, and Duke hiring their own law school graduates in order to pad the percentage-employed statistics they report to U.S. News. Now, you’d have to be a fool not to know that.

    Even at the very top-ranked schools, these institutions are hiring their own graduates. It’s sad. It’s pathetic. You can’t help people when you can’t afford basic life necessities. IBR is not an answer and will mean financial devastation during your mid-life.”

    Now, if you are enrolled in certified trash heaps such as Crooklyn, CreighTTTon, Nova Southeastern, Cooley, etc., do you believe that YOU will end up doing great things with a law degree – when many JDs from NYU, Michigan, UVA and Georgetown are struggling to find decent work?!?! Hell, those graduates are MUCH smarter than you – and the ones who are not incredibly intelligent are connected. The name of the school or university on their degree still carries some weight with employers, while your TTT diploma has the lingering stench of foul excrement mixed with rotting meat. Do you still like your odds, Dumbass?

  22. The Federal government needs to get out of the business of lending money for students to "earn" higher education degrees. If people want to enroll at the Cooley's and John Marshall's of the world, fine, but don't put the taxpayer's money on the line. It will never be paid back.


Web Analytics