Monday, October 26, 2015

The New York Times Editorial Board Further Documents the Law School Scam


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/the-law-school-debt-crisis.html?_r=0

Law School Pigs Get Kicked in the Snout: On October 24, 2015, the Editorial Board of the New York Times posted an op-ed that was entitled “The Law School Debt Crisis.” The language and tone are monumental. Take a look at this devastating opening:

“In 2013, the median LSAT score of students admitted to Florida Coastal School of Law was in the bottom quarter of all test-takers nationwide. According to the test’s administrators, students with scores this low are unlikely to ever pass the bar exam. 

Despite this bleak outlook, Florida Coastal charges nearly $45,000 a year in tuition, which, with living expenses, can lead to crushing amounts of debt for its students. Ninety-three percent of the school’s 2014 graduating class of 484 had debts and the average was almost $163,000 — a higher average than all but three law schools in the country. In short, most of Florida Coastal’s students are leaving law school with a degree they can’t use, bought with a debt they can’t repay. 

If this sounds like a scam, that’s because it is. Florida Coastal, in Jacksonville, is one of six for-profit law schools in the country that have been vacuuming up hordes of young people, charging them outrageously high tuition and, after many of the students fail to become lawyers, sticking taxpayers with the tab for their loan defaults. 

Yet for-profit schools are not the only offenders. A majority of American law schools, which have nonprofit status, are increasingly engaging in such behavior, and in the process threatening the future of legal education. 

Why? The most significant explanation is also the simplest — free money.” [Emphasis mine]

At this point in time, if there is any doubt in your mind that the law school pigs have perpetrated a scam – on applicants, students, and the taxpayers – then you are a prime candidate for a brain shunt. Then again, you may be a “law professor,” administrator or mindless shill.

It always comes down to money, people. That is the motive for the scamming pigs. They want to keep “earning” $180K annually, for rehashing some old notes and “working” 4-6 hours per week. I laugh whenever the sick bitches and hags say that they could make much higher salaries in Biglaw, instead of as “educators” performing a “public service.” They conveniently “forget” to mention that they would be expected to work long hours and bring in business. Plus, they would also be required to do something productive.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/law-school-scam-getting-worse/412159/

Campos Stomps on Their Throats: On October 23, 2015, the Atlantic featured a piece from Paul Campos, under the headline “The Law School Scam Continues.” Check out the following portion:

“The InfiLaw schools’ bar-passage numbers are almost certain to get even worse. Although the schools reduced their admissions standards drastically in 2012, they have since cut them further, to the point where they are now admitting huge numbers of students with credentials including lower LSAT scores and GPAs that would have barred them from getting into these schools three years ago. The admissions process at the InfiLaw schools is now close to a fully open-enrollment system, that inevitably matriculates many people who have little chance of ever passing a bar exam.

InfiLaw is not only exploiting these students, but also taxpayers who will foot the bill when these students cannot repay the hundreds of millions of dollars they borrow. Because the schools are ABA-accredited (via a lax process epitomizing the dangers of regulatory capture) the federal government will loan the full cost of attendance to anyone they admit—even though it is likely that, given their entrance credentials, a very large percentage of InfiLaw’s current students will never pass a bar exam, let alone actually secure jobs as lawyers. (The full cost of attendance at these schools is now over $200,000.) 

It would be bad enough if the collapse of law-school admissions standards, and the subsequent collapse of bar-passage rates, were limited to a handful of especially egregious bad actors in the world of for-profit higher education. But as I argued last year, the same basic path followed by Infilaw is now being taken by dozens of other law schools, almost all of which are nonprofits. The only difference between these schools and the InfiLaw group is that most of them waited a year or two longer before reducing their admissions standards in response to plummeting application numbers, and that therefore it will take another year or two before this is reflected in the national bar-exam results.” [Emphasis mine]

For $ome rea$on, cockroaches such as Nicholas Allard of Crooklyn Law School prefer to blame the NCBE for making the bar exam too damn hard. After all, DELIBERATELY lowering admi$$ion$ “standards” could not possibly lead to lower bar passage rates, right?!?! Who the hell could have foreseen this outcome?! Certainly not the academics who were simply trying to get as many asses in seats as possible, out of the goodness of their hearts! They can’t be bothered to think of the repercussions to students, graduates and their families, taxpayers, and potential legal clients.

Conclusion: The law school swine have been roasted once again, by one of the premier news sources on the planet. Hell, this one was authored by the Editorial Board. Lemmings, do you need this spelled out for you in Crayola on posterboard?!?! Perhaps, you may be able to contemplate such a message on an Etch A Sketch. Furthermore, Paul Campos is a tenured professor at the University of Colorado. He has taken on his own Indu$try. Do you think he has done so, because he’s bored or needs a hobby? 

If you are still contemplating a “legal education” – in light of a mountain range of research showing that law school is a TERRIBLE GAMBLE for MOST students – then you deserve your fate. I only hope that you don’t drag down a spouse or children, in the process. You would be better off paying someone $10,000 to beat your ass to a pulp. That is certainly preferable to trying to repay $145K-$200K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for a worthless law degree – while earning a paltry $39K per year.

49 comments:

  1. And a major law dean has admitted the scam. David Yellen on LawDeans on Legal Ed, "1. there was a time when a number of law schools used employment data in a way that was morally, if not legally, fraudulent."

    ReplyDelete
  2. We are so close to our goal of these law schools closing down, it's unbelievable how much progress we have made in the hearts and minds of the public. The courts have completely failed us, and we are still winning the war. These pigs are roasting up nicely.

    I look forward to seeing these dumps start to fail, one by one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as it pains me to write this, no schools are going to close until the loan money stops. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely any time soon. Charleston/Florida Coastal, etc are still open, still enrolling students...it won't stop until the money does. As is pointed out by others, there are way to many people with nothing better to do than go to law school with someone else's money.

      Delete
    2. Don't be so sure. Indiana Tech eliminated tuition this year but still enticed only 15 students. That law skule will be floating down the Wabash soon enough.

      Delete
    3. I.T. won't go down without a fight. Imagine how many people will be humiliated if it closed within a couple of years of opening?

      Delete
    4. It won't be able to put up much of a fight with cream puffs. As for humiliation, they've suffered plenty of that already.

      Delete
    5. OG-i hope you're right; it just seems that IT's main campus is willing to sink millions of $$$ into this new law school-that's what it must have cost by now-and has succumbed to the malady of throwing good money after bad. Because even though IT isn't accredited-yet-if it were to close, there would be massive shudders through the hallowed halls of the Academy.
      So I hope you are right.

      Delete
    6. The university has thrown away much of its formerly substantial endowment on its stinking toilet of a law skule. And this year it eliminated tuition in an ill-fated attempt to draw in a class of 1L's (only 15 rose to the bait). So the law skule is bringing in almost no money but has high expenses—probably several million dollars this year. That's a hell of a big drain on the rest of the university. Is there any sign of stanching the flow of red ink? Any reason to think that next year they will be able to reinstate tuition and attract far more students? After all, the parent institution can't cover the loss forever.

      Indiana Tech will fold. Plans must already be in the works. Maybe it will "merge" with Valpo or Cooley. Maybe it will just shut up shop. But the parent institution will soon have to cut it off. As I recall, the endowment before this dumb venture stood at $40M. If they're burning through $4M a year on this bitch, they have only a few years left before the endowment is gone.

      Delete
  3. I have no pity for lemmings who choose to attend cesspools like Florida Coastal. However, these schools have no business putting the U.S. taxpayer on the hook with student loan money that will never be repaid. And the longer this student loan scam goes on, the worse the eventual crash is going to be for higher education as a whole.

    Law school is a good investment for maybe 20% of the applicant pool. For the rest, it is tantamount to a spinal cord injury to an otherwise productive career.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's what's really funny. These boys and girls can't be bothered to read stuff like this that's widely available (and free) to all. But they think they're gonna make a (good) living reading thousands of pages in statutes and thick reports filled with legalese.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but that's not what lawyers do. No, lawyers just drive around in expensive cars, fly to exotic destinations on an expense account, rub elbows with celebrities, and play with dolphins.

      Delete
  5. When the NYT editorializes, hopefully it is no longer the end of the beginning, but rather the beginning of the end.

    ReplyDelete
  6. These law schools and even ranked not for profit law schools will have a steady supply of students. There are thousands of mid level managers who graduated from undergrad schools like Iowa Baptist Eastern River University of the Torah with mediocre grades and now work 80 irregular hours weekly at Walmart, Wendy's and other retailers and earn 40K per year. With basically open enrollment at many many law schools today to fill seats, the guys and gals can become LAWYERS!!! These guys are not dumb. They can become solo LAWYERS and earn the same money and only work 40-50 hours. Its a win for people that were never ever considered law school material.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, you have a point! The lustre is so worn off the legal "profession" that I would have to agree that people otherwise resigned to working retail may view attending a TTT as an escape route to comparable money for fewer hours (maybe).

      Delete
    2. Have you ever been to a furniture store where the sales associates are in their 40s and 50s? That's a scary situation. A while back I bought some new couches and the sales guys swarmed on us like a flock of fucking crows. I actually knew a loser that worked at the same place. This asshole actually carried a gun in his sportcoat while on the job. You know the type. Scrawny. Tiny dick. Tea party member. Has to have a gun at all times. His brother's the same with guns except he's a fatshit and works in a call center. Anyway, the guy told me every sales associate at that place makes commission. No salary. Straight commission. The saddest ones are the old men with gray temples. Just fucking sad. I'll bet the law schools pick up some of those bastards. 'Wanna enter a rewarding career?' and all that.

      Delete
    3. The idea is to avoid the private sector all together. We can't save the forty year old doing retail. He or she has a problem whether they go to law school or otherwise.

      We can save the 18 and 23 year olds contemplating disastorous consequences, especially law. It's all bad. All of it. We are competing with people that lack human rights, and more of it is on the way. You can't have a middle class in an environment with a perpetual labor surplus, especially if stems from the third world. The best jobs, I dare say perhaps the only jobs, are the ones where you have a political right to complain, and those are big city municipal jobs.

      Don't throw your life away chasing private sector fantasies, or you'll wind up like the furniture salesman, or worse, an indebted fourth tier law graduate.

      Delete
    4. Someone making $40k a year is well in the top half of income earners in the US.

      51% of workers make under $30k. If you're adding the unemployed to the equation, I wonder just how much of the overall population that is?

      So actually probably these guys aren't making $40k. And you probably won't make that as a solo, and almost definitely not for 40 hours a week. You're better off working a minimum wage job most likely, it lets you skip the debt and if you really are consistently working probably gives you more money. Remember the minimum wage is expected to be raised.

      Yes being a sales associate sucks. I did that while back in college. Amusingly enough I dropped back by a few places I worked at several years after law school, saw the same people working there still. Just the way the world is now.

      People in their 40s and 50s might be more bitter because they fucking blew it. They had a shot at a better economy and failed to take advantage of it, probably were druggy idiots or something. The time is passed for them, even if they're clean now, going to law school is a fool's errand. They likely won't get anything, and even doc review I've heard is tough to get.

      Delete
    5. These TTT's are well-positioned to take full advantage of a sort of "Willy Loman" syndrome that's out there. I predict the lol schools will soon be advertising on tv md-mornings along with the Loser "Medical Office Billing Assistant" academies and the like!

      Delete
    6. Well, I'm in my forties, and I can tell you that I never had a shot at a better economy. The 1990s were OK in the middle but started and ended badly. I've hit several protracted periods of unemployment and have had to change professions a few times as well.

      Certainly people in their sixties, however, or even in their mid-fifties, have very little to bitch about.

      Delete
  7. For some reason, the Republicans have been influential in stopping the enforcement of employment outcome-based lending in the case of for profit law schools. Can anyone explain this? Does not make sense to keep these things going at great taxpayer expense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they are friendly with the chickenshit scum who run these law schools.

      Delete
    2. Interesting. That would be a role reversal then from the Pelosi-led Democratic Congress refusing to tie employment outcomes to federal student loans roughly a decade or so ago.

      Pelosi, if you don't know, is backed by the University of Phoenix, they are one of her biggest campaign contributors. So that was her reason for blocking the free student loan money.

      At that time, the Dems claimed tying loans to employment would be an "attack against diversity" and prevent access to education.

      You can still probably find the post from the now defunct Tom the Temp blog attacking Pelosi (and Matasar and many others!). A precursor to Nando you could say.

      My conclusion would simply be, if what you wrote is correct, that ultimately it doesn't matter which side is attacking and which side is defending, they will take turns and just do whatever they want anyway. Perhaps now it is thought the Republicans are more powerful, so they will block turning off the loan spigot. When the Dems were more powerful they blocked it. It's funny to see the farce play out when they each change sides willy nilly and whatever Wall St. wants always gets done anyway.

      Delete
  8. Fuck, the cost of attending that shithole Florida Coastal is about the same as buying a 2015 Ferrari California. The difference between a Ferrari and Florida Coastal JD is that the former will get you positive attention while the latter relegates you to a leper in the legal profession. Between the two, I would pass on the FCLS JD and buy the Ferrari. At least if I finance the Ferrari, I could drive it for a few months and then return, file bankruptcy and move on. Unfortunately, the student loans used to finance a futile degree are NON-DISCHARGEABLE and will follow you to your grave.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I need the LS complex to implode to a 2 year affordable program so that I can finally segue from tax valuation to tax attorney. As a CPA, it pisses me off that there are affordable online MBA programs, but not for law schools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HUH!!!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!??????????????

      ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?????!?!?!?!?!?!

      Are you seriously here saying that you need a law degree of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER?????????!?!??!?!?!?!????

      YOU WILL NEVER BE A TAX ATTORNEY!!!!!! YOU ARE EXTREMELY STUPID IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE STORIES OF CAREER CHANGERS WHO GET ABSOLUTELY FUCKED UP THE ASS WITH BRIAN LEITER'S LEONG-SCENTED COCKSHAFT AND REGRET EVER TRYING TO BECOME LAWYERS??????

      You are a total retarded moron if you seriously want to ever, ever, EVER set foot in a law school given the extortionate cost and ZERO OPPORTUNITIES.

      You will regret your decision. You will be begging for even a shit CPA position after five years of trying to make it as a tax attorney.

      What a TOTAL RETARDED CUNT YOU ARE!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. He's probably a shitty CPA. Every CPA I know makes way more than any attorney I know. On the high side they clear millions, and Big Law is their bitch. Even the smaller CPA firms clear $300k+ in profits.

      Good luck trying to get that as an attorney. If you're a shitty CPA you'll be a shitty tax attorney.

      And online MBA programs? Geez, just as useless. If you don't have a top MBA degree, and even then, B-Schools aren't a great bet either.

      Too many stupid people think education means something. You either have connections and talent or you don't. If you have neither, the absolute dumbest thing to do is dig yourself a bigger hole and jump into it.

      Delete
    3. Agreed!!

      https://www.quora.com/Should-accountants-be-permitted-to-purport-to-give-legal-advice-given-the-fact-that-their-education-is-in-accountancy-principles-and-not-in-the-law

      Look at the answer down the page by Marc Whinery. Once you get a JD, you will have *two* licensing boards on your back, as if one isn't bad enough..

      12:26 is correct. Totally correct.

      Delete
    4. Law is a PRESTIGE-based "profession". Where you go to school is paramount, and you can forever stain a perfectly good resume (for example, a perfectly good CPA) with a degree from a terlet law school.

      If you do decide to get a law degree, keep this in mind.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure why these messages have to be so derogatory to the poster and can't be even a little bit supportive.

      Delete
    6. Because 6:56 is correct as well and the OP to this thread has to be CRAZY to want to get a non-prestige law degree which will do less than nothing for them except, perhaps, to blunt their career and almost certainly make them less employable even with the CPA AND cripple them with life/soul crushing debt.

      In other words, OP *is* an idiot, no question..

      Delete
    7. Agreed. The poster who is a CPA doesn't need a law degree of any kind. Huge waste of time and money. Why sully something that is good? To quote the late John Lennon, "The Dream is Over."

      Delete
  10. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/business/dealbook/study-cites-lower-standards-in-law-school-admissions.html?_r=0

    The New York Times bitch-slapped the law school pigs again, with an October 26, 2015 piece from Elizabeth Olson for Dealbook. That article was entitled “Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions.” Review the following segment:

    "As law schools across the country try to keep their classrooms full, many are admitting students with lesser qualifications, including those with a lower admissions test score — considered an important predictor of whether a graduate will earn the credentials to practice law.

    About a third of the 204 accredited law schools had entering classes last year with at least 25 percent of the class consisting of “at risk” students, or those with law school admissions test scores of below 150, according to a new study by Law School Transparency, a nonprofit advocacy organization.

    Law school admissions scores closely mirror the final results of the state bar exams, which graduates must pass to qualify as licensed lawyers. Many in legal education consider a score of 150 as a telling dividing line between future success or failure.

    “Too many law schools are filling their entering classes with people who face serious risk of not passing the bar exam,” said Kyle McEntee, executive director of Law School Transparency, which he helped to found six years ago to promote more open law school practices. He said that last year 45 schools, up from eight in 2010, admitted seriously at-risk students.

    Most law schools maintain that test scores are only one indicator, albeit an important one, of the ability to pass the bar. They also say they need flexibility in selecting students to assure a diverse population of lawyers.

    Yet many schools are also facing pressure from plummeting enrollments — the lowest in decades. Law school enrollment reached a peak in 2010, as many students fled a troubled economy to the schools’ safe harbor. With a swelling crop of students, bar passage rates soared, but it all began to come apart quickly when jobs in law seemed to melt away overnight as the industry adjusted to a changed economy.

    Threatening to further weaken laws schools’ position, initial reports from states show that bar passage rates this year are again slumping.

    The National Conference of Bar Examiners, a Madison, Wis., organization that oversees the 200-question multiple choice portion of the exam given in most states, found that overall results slipped again, to the lowest point since 1988.

    Most states have yet to report the complete results of their July 2015 bar exam, but early numbers paint a dismal picture."

    Scambloggers, including predecessors such as L4L and Tom the Temp, flushed the cockroaches years ago. However, it is nice to see that one of the preeminent news sources in the land has played a key role in documenting the law school scam.

    ReplyDelete
  11. These shitholes should be shuttered. Florida Coastal is a stench pit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Check out this apologist on Bloomberg for the law school cartel in the article "Don't Baby Law School Applicants": http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-27/don-t-baby-law-school-applicants

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are just Untermenschen and their lives don't count.... never forget, that is how the lemmings are perceived by the perpetrators.

      Delete
    2. 5:01 speaks the truth. You can tell this just by seeing the contempt on the faces of tenured law profs when they address their TTT students. I mean, shit, these are their paying customers and they hate them. Maybe these cocksucking professors are mad at themselves for not teaching at elite law schools.

      Delete
    3. I agree they shouldn't be "babied"-let 'em apply and attend-but WITHOUT the taxpayers footing the bill.

      Delete
  13. http://thelawyerbubble.com/2015/10/28/game-changer/

    Earlier today, Steven J. Harper highlighted the NYT story on his blog, Belly of the Beast. The entry was labeled "Game Changer?" Take a look at this portion:

    "The Paper of Record Speaks

    In January 2011, The New York Times’ David Segal wrote a series that exposed the cynical gamesmanship whereby law schools inflated their recent graduates’ employment statistics. Through the deepening Great Recession, the profession still generated 90-plus percent employment rates for recent graduates. How? By counting every short-term, part-time, and non-JD-related job as if it were a position that any law graduate would want. Part-time greeters at Wal-mart, temporary baristas at Starbucks, and associates at Cravath were all the same in the eyes of that metric: employed.

    The ugly truth surprised many prospective law students, but not the ABA, which had approved the schools’ misleading reporting methods. It turned out that within nine months of graduation, only about half of all new J.D.-degree holders were obtaining full-time long-term (defined as lasting a year) jobs that required bar passage. Within two years of the Times’ expose’, the ABA succumbed to public embarrassment and required law schools to detail their employment outcomes.

    And It Speaks Again…

    The overall full-time long-term JD-required employment rate has barely budged since the new age of transparency began, but law school tuition and resulting student debt have outpaced inflation. As applications to law school plummeted, many deans responded by increasing acceptance rates to keep student loan revenues flowing.

    So now the focus has shifted from full disclosure to flawed funding, and the Times has entered the field of battle:

    — On August 25, it published my op-ed on the law school debt crisis and the ABA”s feeble response. It went viral.

    — On October 24, the Times’ lead editorial was “The Law Student Debt Crisis.” It, too, went viral.

    — On October 26, the first page of the Times’ business section completed the trifecta with “Study Cites Lower Standards in Law School Admissions.” The article discusses Law School Transparency’s report documenting that bottom-feeder schools are exploiting unqualified applicants.

    And Still the Naysayers Resist…"

    Harper then goes on to quote a few of the naysayers. Of course, these bitches and hags turn out to be academic thieves. What a strange “coincidence,” huh?!?! No one with an ounce of integrity or honesty has bothered to come to the pigs’ aid.

    In the final analysis, listening to “law professors” and administrators defend their evil conduct is akin to hearing a drunk driver blame his dead victims for being on the same road as him, when he got toasted and got behind the wheel. These vile pieces of trash take no accountability or responsibility for their WILLFUL and DELIBERATE actions. And the “educators” wonders why nobody outside of their payroll respects them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ABA doesn't care, the DOE doesn't care, the banks don't care. The law schools don't care either, but they'll take the fall before these other pigs ever do. We'll just have to be satisfied with the law school pigs getting roasted, if even that happens.

      The DOE has been around since 1979. Much like anything else the Federal Government touches, it can only screw things up.

      I'm looking forward to the next thing the federal government weasels itself into to ruin. I'm thinking air. We'll get air quotas. It'll be framed as access to clean air, and at the end of a decade or two everyone that isn't born connected has to breathe in smog.

      Delete
  14. Hey Nando, I got some OT but still interesting news for you...

    Batten down the hatches, because there might be yet another surge in lemmings headed towards law school; Reese Witherspoon is apparently discussing the idea of a "Legally Blonde 3"!

    By the way, I just found this other blog not too long ago...
    http://lawschoollies.com/
    Have you ever seen or read this one before? Might it be worth adding to the blogroll?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right.

      Legally Blonde 3: Reese Witherspoon and Luke Wilson Interested in Reprising their Roles

      http://www.crossmap.com/news/legally-blonde-3-reese-witherspoon-and-luke-wilson-interested-in-reprising-their-roles-22137

      Delete
  15. New York Bar Exam Pass Rate Hits Historic Low ...

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/10/27/new-york-bar-exam-pass-rate-hits-historic-low/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Florida Coastal doesn't have the highest average student loan debt?! Which school beat them out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas Jefferson probably.

      Delete
  17. Senators Take On Law Schools for Failing Students ....

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-30/senators-take-on-law-schools-for-failing-students

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is unfortunate but sadly the case. I have actually been to gatherings in the recent past, one of them a family wedding, where talk of going to law school is actually met with comical remarks if not dire warnings.

    In fact, one of my nephews was warned off the idea (no, NOT by me) by a concerned aunt. He's instead doing some graduate degree in medical informatics/whatever.

    It's getting out there in the mainstream that you really have to make this decision guardedly and with full knowledge of how risky an undertaking it really is. Still, I have never seen the outwardly entertaining comments the idea gets now--never would have happened 20 years ago, I assure you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Check out a book called "Hot Dogs Saved My Life". I know that it may not sound intellectual, but, most owners of hot dog stands make far more money (in net profit), than most solos, and public service/interest lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok, so it's just a lot of political posturing at this point, but let's hope it actually leads to real action:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-30/senators-take-on-law-schools-for-failing-students

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://lawlemmings.tumblr.com/research

    Here is a list of excellent news articles, blogs, books, and videos that document the law school scam. It was compiled by the Law School Lemmings website. If you are still considering a “legal education” – and you cannot find or read these sources – then you are too damn dumb to represent ANYONE in their legal affairs. Hell, you can spend less than an hour on an engine search for law school, and stumble upon these articles. Here are two of the watershed moments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?ref=business&_r=1

    On January 8, 2011, the New York Times published an epic piece from reporter David Segal, under the headline “Is Law School a Losing Game?” He came out swinging! Check out this excerpt:

    “There were fewer complaints about fudging and subsidizing when legal jobs were plentiful. But student loans have always been the financial equivalent of chronic illnesses because there is no legal way to shake them. So the glut of diplomas, the dearth of jobs and those candy-coated employment statistics have now yielded a crop of furious young lawyers who say they mortgaged their future under false pretenses. You can sample their rage, and their admonitions, on what are known as law school scam blogs, with names like Shilling Me Softly, Subprime JD and Rose Colored Glasses.

    “Avoid this overpriced sewer pit as if your life depended on it,” writes the anonymous author of the blog Third Tier Reality — a reference to the second-to-bottom tier of the U.S. News rankings — in a typically scatological review. “Unless, of course, you think that you will be better off with $110k-$190k in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a degree that qualifies you to wait tables at the Battery Park Bar and Lounge.”

    http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119040786780835602

    Back on September 24, 2007, the Wall Street Journal featured an Amir Efrati article that was entitled “Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers.” On Tom the Temp and JDU, this signaled a shift in coverage of these “institutions of higher learning.” From the opening:

    “A law degree isn't necessarily a license to print money these days.

    For graduates of elite law schools, prospects have never been better. Big law firms this year boosted their starting salaries to as high as $160,000. But the majority of law-school graduates are suffering from a supply-and-demand imbalance that's suppressing pay and job growth. The result: Graduates who don't score at the top of their class are struggling to find well-paying jobs to make payments on law-school debts that can exceed $100,000. Some are taking temporary contract work, reviewing documents for as little as $20 an hour, without benefits. And many are blaming their law schools for failing to warn them about the dark side of the job market.

    The law degree that Scott Bullock gained in 2005 from Seton Hall University -- where he says he ranked in the top third of his class -- is a "waste," he says. Some former high-school friends are earning considerably more as plumbers and electricians than the $50,000-a-year Mr. Bullock is making as a personal-injury attorney in Manhattan. To boot, he is paying off $118,000 in law-school debt.”

    Unfortunately, mentally deficient applicants did not heed these well-documented warnings. Again, these morons are the equivalent of those who choose to drink heavily and use meth – in order to find out the effects of their decision. In their feeble minds, they cannot rely on the harmful impacts that these substances have had on others. After all, these dummies feel that they are “special.”

    ReplyDelete

 
Web Analytics