Wednesday, May 6, 2015
According to Steven J. Harper, 89 ABA-Accredited Law Schools Offer Problematic Submarket Employment Prospects
Your Commode “Serves” Which SubmarkeTTT?: On May 5, 2015, ATL published an article entitled “We Would Be Better Off If 30 Law Schools Close.” The author is Brian Dalton. Starting from the second paragraph:
“In Steven J. Harper’s recent article, The Real Moral Hazard: Law Schools Exploiting Market Dysfunction (also discussed on ATL here), he details how misguided bankruptcy policy and unlimited, indiscriminate federal student loans have isolated schools from any accountability. In laying out his case, Harper describes how law schools actually operate in distinct submarkets. He identifies three of these submarkets, each offering drastically different employment prospects for their graduates:
1. National schools
2. Regional schools
3. The “Problematic Submarket”
By Harper’s reckoning, there are 89 law schools in that third category. Generally speaking, most graduates of the Problematics are simply not finding work as lawyers. Thirty-four of these schools place fewer than 40% of graduates in full-time, long-term jobs requiring a J.D.; 13 have placed less than one-third of their grads in FTLT-JD positions. “The differing employment prospects for new graduates should be producing different economic consequences across the law school submarkets,” Harper drily notes. Should, but don’t. The law school market defies basic principles of economics, both macro- (e.g., price and supply have increased in the face of falling demand) and micro- (e.g., the cost of a legal degree is roughly the same across all submarkets).
Almost wistfully, Harper imagines what an “unimpeded market response” would look like: the Problematics would be forced to “innovate dramatically, slash tuition, and/or close their doors.” Alas, none of that has happened. Instead the weakest schools have opened their gates ever wider and continued to jack up tuition. Harper’s prescription for this market dysfunction includes linking a law school’s eligibility for the 100% federal guarantee for its students’ loans to employment outcomes. If a school meets a fixed minimum threshold (he suggests 55%) for placing its graduates in FTLT-JD positions, then it would qualify for the full federal guarantee. Below that threshold, the percentage of the guarantee would adjust downward on a sliding scale.” [Emphasis mine]
This is essentially common knowledge. However, tens of thousands of morons each year continue to delude themselves into thinking that THEY will overcome the odds and make it in the shrinking legal field. We are talking about college graduates, people. That speaks volumes about “higher education,” does it not?
Who in the hell would willingly, knowingly incur an additional $130K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, for a chance to practice toiletlaw?! People this damn dumb cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of going to the grocery store to pick up eggs and milk. Hell, these dolts are more likely to go out and piss away $500 on comic books and forget the food items.
From the Abstract: On April 1, 2015, Mr. Harper’s research paper, “Bankruptcy and Bad Behavior – the Real Moral Hazard: Law Schools Exploiting Market Dysfunction,” appeared in the American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review. The full article is 19 pages long. However, you can gain some insight from this portion of the abstract alone:
“The widespread discussion about the market for law graduates ignores an essential fact: it's not a single market at all. Employment opportunities vary dramatically across schools, yet tuition prices fail to reflect those differences. As a consequence, many schools with the worst placement rates burden their students with the highest levels of educational debt. How is that possible?
The answer is market dysfunction. Current federal student loan and bankruptcy policies encourage all law school deans to maximize tuition and fill classrooms, regardless of their students' job prospects upon graduation. This law school moral hazard combines with prelaw students' unrealistic expectations about their legal careers to produce enormous debt for a JD degree that, for many graduates, does not even lead to a JD-required job.” [Emphasis mine]
The garbage pits can essentially charge what they want, since mental midgets with a pulse can take out the full amount in student loans – without any regard to their job outlook. I suppose you can’t blame the pigs for taking advantage of taxpayers and law students. It’s not as if they ever gave a damn about those people anyway.
Conclusion: If you are still considering law school today, and you are not: (a) wealthy; or (b) attending a top 3-5 law school, then you are taking a ridiculous gamble with YOUR financial future. By the way, if you cannot look out for your own best interest, then who else is going to do that for you, Dumbass? Simply put, you will not be served well by taking out outrageous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE loans, for a law degree from a second tier sewer or third tier commode.
In the event that you are enrolling in a fourth tier trash heap, your best hope is toiletlaw or legal aid. Try paying back your MASSIVE student loans on those miniscule salaries. If you take this route, then you may end up fighting off skid row bums for their day-old newspaper – so that you can wipe your ass with the damn thing. In all seriousness, when you attend low-ranked cesspools, your future is LIMITED to pathetic jobs the moment you enter law school. You will see the occasional dumb rich kid – who couldn’t get into a real school – walking the halls of these toilets. However, you are not in their shoes, i.e. your judge or successful businessman father cannot make a few phone calls and get you a nice position.
Posted by Nando at 4:46 AM