Thursday, May 28, 2015

First Tier Cougar Droppings: Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School

Tuition: Full-time law students who are members of the church that owns the school were only charged $11,620 for the 2014-2015 academic year. Non-Mormon law students at BYU paid double that amount, i.e. $23,240, in 2014-2015.  Here is how the school keeps tuition so low:

“The tuition at BYU Law School is among the lowest in the nation because more than 50 percent of the cost of operating the Law School is paid from the tithing contributions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All students benefit greatly from this support.”

Hell, the students who attend cheaply and cannot find decent employment upon graduation don’t exactly benefit greatly. Then again, the administrators and faculty do well – and that’s what matters, right?!?!

Ranking: According to US “News” & World Report, Brigham Young Univer$ity J. Reuben Clark Law $chool is rated as the co-34th greatest, most remarkable and splendid law school in the entire country. And it must be a truly grand institution, as it “only” shares this distinction with the following five commodes: Boston College, Fordham, Indiana University-Maurer, Ohio State, and UNC-Chapel Hill.

Employment “Placement” Statistics: Let’s check out the Employment Summary for 2014 Graduates. As you can see, there were 138 members of this BYU Law Class. Based on this chart, 128 of these JDs were employed within nine months of receiving their law degree. That equates to a 92.8% “placement” rate.

However, you will notice that 11 of these grads were in law school or university funded positions. At least, these were all full-time and long term posts. By the way, if these jobs were not included, the “placement” rate would have been a less than stellar 84.8 percent, i.e. 117/138. Those hires made quite a difference.

Go down to Employment Type. A total of 8 graduates landed article III clerkships. Remember that this is from the 34th most amazing law school in the entire nation, and that there are only two law schools in the state. Now, imagine your odds of landing such work, from a low-ranked toilet in a location that has several ABA-accredited diploma mills.

Out of 138 graduates from the 2014 class, 58 reported working in private law firms. That represents 42% of the cohort. Typically, private law offices pay more and – short of working for a federal agency in a good post – they are certainly held in higher esteem. Furthermore, people tend to go to law school so that they can make good money in a decent career – especially those with families or those looking to have kids. How many men and women attend supposed professional schools, with the intent to return to their old job or to make peanuts in a legal aid office?!?!

Also, out of the 58 BYU grads working in private law firms, only five landed posts in offices of 251-500 attorneys, while nine reported being hired by firms with 501 or more lawyers. Again, this is the 34th greatest law school in the United States. Those figures are pathetic! Could you imagine – for one second - if good American medical schools offered their graduates such weak job prospects?!

Average Law Student Indebtedness: USN&WR lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the J. Reuben Clark Class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school - as $54,203. In fact, 72% of this school’s 2014 cohort took on such foul debt. Don’t forget that this amount does not even include undergraduate debt – and also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled. 

By the Numbers: Take a look at this profile from Law School Numbers.

“BYU Law School Admissions

BYU Law School is considered a Moderately Competitive law school, which accepts only 29% of its applicants. Comparatively, [BYU] is Significantly Lower than the average cost for law school.”

Class of 2018 figures:

25th percentile UGPA: 3.40
Median UGPA: 3.75
75th percentile UGPA: 3.85
25th percentile LSAT: 158
Median LSAT: 162
75th percentile LSAT: 165

Those are some serious entrance scores, in order to be considered for this school. Keep in mind that these numbers are often achieved by men and women who are married, have children, and hold down jobs. Many, if not most, also have impressive volunteer experience. Now, look at the employment outcomes for the BYU Law Class of 2014. It simply does not match up with the lofty admission standards. Now is a bad time to attend law school, even one with a good rating.

Conclusion: BYU Law $chool is one of those places that attracts people with strong academic credentials. Frankly, several members of each class crush the LSAT and have options to attend top law schools. However, many of these same people pray about where they should go, and they sometimes pick BYU over schools such as Stanford, Columbia, or Northwestern. The odd thing is that for a school with a relatively high ranking, typically half of the recent graduating classes cannot land decent employment after earning their degree. Lastly, when a school, located in a smaller state, with such a good ranking only “places” 42 percent of its grads in private law firms – and another 5.8% in federal clerkships – then you KNOW that this is a GLUTTED field.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Attention, Dolts: CNN and Bloomberg Report That There Are Too Many Damn Lawyers

Courtesy of CNN: On May 22, 2015, Benjamin Barton – “law professor” at the University of Tennessee – wrote an op-ed for CNN. The article was entitled “The fall and rise of lawyers.” Look at this opening:

“The American legal profession has faced a tsunami of bad news since 2008. White-shoe, corporate law firms have faced waves of layoffs or even shuttered their doors. While the very top firms are rolling again, the 50 years of explosive growth that started in the 1960s are now a memory. 

But at least corporate lawyers have had recent glory days. Solo practitioners, the largest single group of American lawyers and the heart and soul of the profession, have struggled for a quarter of a century. 

Since the 1960s the IRS has collected and published income levels for all American lawyers filing as solo practitioners. In 1988, solo practitioners earned an inflation-adjusted $70,747. By 2012, earnings had fallen to $49,130, a 30% decrease in real income. And note, $49,130 is not the starting salary for these lawyers. It is the average earnings of all 354,000 lawyers who filed as solo practitioners that year. 

And the bad news has just started for these lawyers, who now face new competition from online providers of legal services such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer. 

Law school applications have plummeted. If the current trend continues, fewer students will apply to law school in 2015-16 than enrolled in law school in 2010-11. Law schools are closing campuses, merging and buying out faculty and staff.” [Emphasis mine] 

Later on in the piece, Barton added:

“Fortunately, except for in-court representation, computerization is on the verge of bypassing the legal profession altogether and solving these problems. Start with the basics of American law – statutes, regulations, and reported court decisions. 

Nonprofits and government entities have put almost all of the raw materials of American law online and Google and other search engines have made that law easier to find than ever. An American with a smart phone now has more access to legal sources than most lawyers or judges did fifteen years ago.” [Emphasis mine]

How do you like, Dumbass?! For centuries, lawyers were able to charge a premium for their services, since they had access to information – such as statutes, case law, property records, and other data – that was largely unavailable to the average person. Now, anyone with an IQ above room temperature and some curiosity can easily find these sources. As such, they don’t need to spend big sums on attorneys, especially since this is a GLUTTED field.

This “law professor” is spelling it out for, lemmings. The fact that Cockroach Barton is still a willing participant in the law school scam shows that he doesn’t give a damn his students or graduates. It also speaks volumes about his supposed “integrity.” However, this “educator” is furnishing some truth. If you are not attending a top law school, then you are looking at the following options: toiletlaw, low-paid legal aid positions, non-law jobs, and returning to your prior industry or work – with your tail in between your legs. Do you still want to incur an additional $140K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for these odds, mental deficient?!?!

From Bloomberg: On May 13, 2015, Natalie Kitroeff’s article, “There Are Too Many Lawyers, Say Law Firms,” was featured in BloombergBusiness. Look at the following segment:

“Work-life balance has traditionally been an unfamiliar concept at big law firms, but that might be changing. A majority of managers at firms say they employ too many lawyers and those lawyers are not busy enough, according to a survey released Tuesday by consultancy Altman Weil. 

Among the 320 managing partners and chairmen Altman Weil polled, 60 percent reported that overcapacity was making their firms less profitable. At large firms—more than 250 attorneys—the problem was even worse: 74 percent of leaders said idleness was hurting profit.” [Emphasis mine]

Keep in mind that 1,067 law grads, from the Class of 2013, were hired by firms of 251-500 attorneys. Another 3,980 JDs from this cohort landed in offices of 501+ lawyers. That combined figure represents less than 10.8% of the JD Class of 2013, i.e. 5,047/46,776! Yet, these firms, each and collectively representing the wealthiest criminals in the country, claim that they have too many attorneys on staff.

Per the U.S. Department of Labor: Head to the link above real quick. This is the Occupational Outlook Handbook entry for lawyers. It is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Read the portion below:

“Job Outlook 

Employment of lawyers is projected to grow 10 percent from 2012 to 2022, about as fast as the average for all occupations. Competition for jobs should continue to be strong because more students graduate from law school each year than there are jobs available.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you understand the implications, waterhead?!?! If you cannot figure out that there are too many lawyers in the United States, then how the hell can you be expected to represent paying clients on legal matters? 

Conclusion: In sum, not only are solo practitioners typically broke bastards, but there are too many attorneys in Biglaw firms. That is according to the managing partners and chairmen, not some random scambloggers. At this point in the game, if you choose to apply to and attend a non-elite law school now, then you truly are a mental deficient. Not only should you be strapped down with ridiculous sums of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. You ought to be beaten to a bloody pulp – with bamboo sticks. In the final analysis, no one forced your moronic ass to go to law school.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Drastically Reduced Toilet Paper: Pace University School of Law Offers to Match In-State Public Tuition

Wiping Your Ass With a Less Expensive Law Degree: On March 18, 2015, Jacob Gershman’s piece, “Law School Fire Sale: Pace Offers to Match In-State Public Tuition,” appeared in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Look at this excellent opening:

“Crazy Eddie” would be proud. 

Pace University Law School in New York isn’t the first law school to slash its prices to lure more students. But a new tuition program the private school is set to announce takes the discounting trend to a whole new level.

Starting next academic year, qualifying students who enroll at Pace can earn a law degree at the tuition rate of their home-state public law school. 

The program isn’t offered to any applicant. A Pace spokesman told Law Blog that eligibility would be mostly based on applicant GPA and LSAT scores with a loose cut-off around the median scores of Pace’s own students. 

In the last three years, a growing number of law schools have trimmed their prices, seeking to draw price-sensitive students amid a national decline in applicants.

But Pace officials say their program is the first of its kind in the nation. Seton Hall in New Jersey hasa more limited option that matches the in-state rate of just New Jersey public law schools. 

Pace’s regular full-time tuition now stands at $45,376, about $20,000 higher than the average in-state tuition at U.S. public law schools. 

The size of the discount would vary depending on the home state of the applicant. University of Florida, for example, charges in-state residents about $22,200. So an accepted applicant from Florida would pay less than half of Pace’s normal rate. The discount would be even steeper for students from Arkansas, whose in-state tuition stands around $14,000. 

The Pace spokesman said the matching rate covers all three years and is available to only future students.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you think these bitches and hags are offering this steep-ass tuition discount voluntarily, i.e. out of the goodness of their hearts?!?! The fact remains that this is a third tier commode that is desperately trying to remain solvent.

Cockroach Faculty Pay Reduced by 10 Percent: On May 14, 2015, Paul Caron wrote an entry labeled “In Wake of 35% Enrollment Decline, Pace Law School Dean Cuts Faculty Pay 10%, Eliminates Research Stipends And Sabbaticals, And Warns Faculty Not To Speak to Press.” Here is the entirety of that article: 

“Brian Leiter (Chicago) reports that in the face of a $5 million deficit, Pace Law School Dean David Yassky has pledged to cut $2.1 million of that deficit through a 10% salary cut for all faculty, elimination of all research stipends and sabbaticals, and a 5% salary cut for senior staff. Perhaps most curiously:

[T]he Dean, according to one source, "forbade anyone from speaking to the press about this. The materials he passed out carried two watermarks, one large across the text, and another secret one (or so he said), with each faculty member's name so he will know who the leak is, he said. 

Pace's enrollment has declined 35% since 2011, and its 25th/50th/75th LSAT has fallen three points, to 148/151/153.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, what a remarkable in$TTTiTTTuTTTion of “higher learning,” huh?!?! Hell, it seems that beauty school has higher admissions standards than this certified dung heap. Real law schools wouldn’t even CONSIDER applicants with a 153 LSAT score. And this pile of excrement accepts them! In fact, such a putrid score would place you in the 75th percentile of first year students at this trash pit.

Ranking: According to US “News” & World Report, Pace Univer$iTTTy Sewer of Law is rated as the co-138th greatest, most magnificent and sensational law school in the entire damn country. What an accomplishment, right?!?! It only shares this distinction with the following cesspools: Albany, North Dakota and the University of San Francisco.

As the Gershman article pointed out, tuition at this festering stench pit now totals $45,376 – for a chance to practice toiletlaw. That’s the equivalent of charging $28,000 for a 1984 Honda Civic hatchback with 341,026 miles on the damn thing. It might not start and third gear sticks half the time. Yes, who wouldn’t want to shell out big money for such an item?!?!

Conclusion: In the last analysis, the pigs and cockroaches – especially the older farts - at Pace “University” Sewer of Law are simply trying to extend the scam for as long as possible. They simply DO NOT GIVE ONE GODDAMN about the students, graduates or taxpayers. To these “educators,” those people are mere collateral damage. This also serves as a publicity move. Anyone who sees this as a goodwill move needs to have their brain shunt replaced. 

Lastly, it makes little difference if you walk away with $85K in additional NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt, as opposed to $140K, for the same TTT product. Your job prospects are still garbage – and you will likely earn a paltry salary. In sum, you are still incurring too much student loan debt, for the purchase of toilet paper, i.e. your law degree.

Friday, May 15, 2015

TTTT Smells of Desperation: Charleston School of Law Pigs/Owners Gather Faculty and Beg Them to Ask InfiLaw to Reconsider Purchasing the Trash Pit

Leaked Video at Emergency Faculty Meeting: On May 13, 2015, Scott Baughman posted a Youtube video that was given to South Carolina Lawyers Weekly. Here is my favorite portion of the clip. Enjoy! 

“The people still do not understand the dire situation of the school. It is as dire as it has ever been. With the failure to complete the Westbrook InfiLaw transaction, and InfiLaw’s decision to retreat, the school is left back in the same position it was in, in December. There are no suitors, no white knights, no group of investors, no state colleges, no private colleges – either profit or non-profit – seeking the law school. As we have said for almost two years now, InfiLaw is and always has been the only viable option for the survival of the school.” [Emphasis mine]

These words are hauntingly beautiful. The setting is beyond eerie. Hell, you can smell the desperation oozing from the pig’s lips. Keep in mind that both of these cockroaches pocketed $25 million in profits from this TTTT experiment. What “honorable” and decent “men,” huh?!?! Skid row bums have much more integrity than these two piles of waste.

Other Coverage: ATL published a Joe Patrice entry labeled “Leaked Video Of Charleston Law Board — CSOL Is S.O.L.” – on May 14, 2015. Check out the following excerpt:

“First Charleston School of Law cut its graduation festivities to save a couple thousand bucks. Then it announced that it will not accept an incoming class next year. This cocktail of events triggered speculation that the school was nearing the end of the road, but still nothing quite prepared us for the release of this video. 

In stark contrast to the scene — an empty office floor, apparently purchased by the struggling law school for “expansion” — Charleston School of Law board member Robert Carr informed the Charleston faculty and staff that he (and his compatriot on the board, George Kosko) will administer law school seppuku unless by some miracle Infilaw buys them out. He even begs the staff to appeal to Infilaw to reconsider purchasing the school, all so two multimillionaires don’t have to render a bunch of staff jobless. He literally tells the staff “the burden is now on you.” It’s almost beautiful in its wretchedness.” [Emphasis mine]

These two pieces of trash have the unmitigated gall to pass the buck onto the faculty. I meant that figuratively, of course. Cockroach Robert Carr and Dung Beetle George Kosko prefer to keep the big-ass bags of cash – courtesy of the federal student loan $y$tem – to themselves. Don't take it too hard, "professors." There is no honor among thieves - and you and the administrators went along with FINANCIALLY RUINING your graduates. In a just world, both of these pigs would be strung up by their hooves.

On May 13, 2015, a Phillip Bantz piece entitled “EXCLUSIVE VIDEO – Charleston School of Law: A law school on the brink” appeared in South Carolina Lawyers Weekly. Take a look at this opening:

“A press release announcing the beginning of the end of the Charleston School of Law had been circulating on Twitter for more than an hour, but most, if not all, of the faculty members who had gathered on the gutted second floor of the BellSouth Building to hear their bosses speak were in the dark. 

Two beleaguered members of the school’s board of directors, Robert Carr and George Kosko, both retired U.S. magistrates, stood in front of their wary audience on the afternoon of May 6 as Carr read from the release. “The Charleston School of Law expects to make a formal announcement next week about whether it will accept a first-year class of students in the fall, the school announced today. We cannot in good faith enroll another class…” 

But after finishing the statement that was sent to reporters, Carr delivered an ultimatum to the faculty members that had not been released publicly. He said that they could either become cheerleaders for the school’s sale to the InfiLaw System, or he and Kosko would close the private, for-profit school and everyone would lose their jobs.” [Emphasis mine]

If you are not blind, then you noticed that the swine held the meeting in an abandoned floor. It had the feel and appearance of a slimy, telemarketing boiler room. And the greedy bastards used this backdrop to make their sales pitch to faculTTTTy: “beg InfiLaw to reconsider purchasing this ABA-accredited dung heap, or you are all out on your asses!”

Conclusion: The Charle$TTTTon Chronicles continue. As you can see, the swine are reeking of desperation. These two former U.S. magi$trate$ seem to have forgotten that the South Carolina Academic Affairs and Licensing Division already voted 3-1 to reject InfiLaw’s garbage application. Why would the for-profit scum bother going through the same ordeal, and suffering further embarrassment?!?! At this point in time, both sides will dig in their heels and not back down. 

Sadly, many “law professors” at this pile of excrement will likely take up the offer – and beg the InfiLaw pigs to reconsider purchasing the school. After all, the bitches and hags would rather die than engage in actual work. There simply are not that many positions that pay six figures for 4-6 hours of “productivity” each week. Have some integrity for once, “educators.” Don’t do the bidding of rodents Carr and Kosko. Instead, go out there and test the waters. See how many law firms and non-legal employers are impressed by your ability to write esoteric law review articles, regurgitate your old, dusty-ass outlines, and put your students to sleep with lengthy political rants and “war stories” – from when you practiced law for 12 minutes, more than 20 years ago.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Do the Charleston in Order to Celebrate the Demise of Fourth Tier Charleson School of Law!

Excellent Development!: On May 6, 2015, Diane Knich’s piece “Charleston School of Law may not enroll new students in the fall,” appeared in the Post and Courier. Check out this beautiful opening:

“The Charleston School of Law has been trudging along on life support for months, but could it be about to take its final breath? 

While students were taking final exams Tuesday, George Kosko and Robert Carr, the remaining owners of the troubled law school, released a statement that said they might not enroll a new class of students in the fall. 

American Bar Association and state rules prohibit the school from simply closing its doors. If the board decides to close the school, it would have to submit a “teach-out” plan that details how students who already are enrolled would finish their education programs. 

Some students said they were confused about what the statement meant, and they found it disturbing that owners would release it in the middle of exams. 

In their prepared statement, Kosko and Carr said they could not in good faith enroll another class when “like last year, the school is spending more money than is coming in.” 

They also said they cannot assure the students that they will be able to use federal student loans for their full three years, and are not sure the school will be able to maintain its license and stay open.” [Emphasis mine]

The fact that the owners of this independent toilet released this news nearly four months before the start of the 2015-2016 school year strongly indicates that they are in serious financial trouble. Hell, if they felt that they had a chance to make this experimenTTTT work, then they would have at least waited a while longer before making this announcement.

By the way, look at this penultimate paragraph:

“Law school owners and InfiLaw representatives have said the school is in a financial crisis due to declining enrollment and the owners taking $25 million in profit out of the school between 2010 and 2013.” [Emphasis mine]

As you can see, the pigs simply took the money and ran. What “honorable” men, huh?!?! Then again, “higher education” in the U.S. is ALL about getting your hands on big piles of federal student loan dollars. The pupils are a mere means to an end.

Other Coverage: The Wall Street Journal Law Blog published a Jacob Gershman article entitled “Charleston School of Law may Suspend Enrollment” – on May 7, 2015. Take a look at the following portion:

“Just over a decade after getting off the ground, Charleston School of Law says last year’s incoming class last may be its last. 

The South Carolina school’s two remaining owners said Wednesday that they “cannot in good faith enroll another class” while losing money and lacking confidence that it could maintain its license to operate. 

“We are heartbroken with this situation,” Robert Carr and George Kosko said in a joint statement. “This has been a wonderful ride, and we have always done what we thought was in the best interest of the school and the students.” 

Their statement suggested that the decision wasn’t final, saying they would provide an update next week. The school’s announcement was reported Wednesday by the Charleston Regional Business Journal.

One of the school’s five original co-founders, Ed Westbrook, stepped down from Charleston’s board in March, according to the paper. Two other co-founders have retired[.]” [Emphasis mine]

Yeah, sure you cockroaches put your students' interests first - and I'm on short list for the Fields Medal.  Although, I am sure that you swine enjoyed the ride, at the expense of your students, graduates, and federal taxpayers.

Average Law Student Indebtedness: US “News” lists the average law student indebtedness - for those members of the Charle$TTTTon Sewer of Law Class of 2014 who incurred debt for law school - as $147,031. Fully 85% of this garbage pit’s 2013 cohort took on such toxic debt. Don’t forget that this amount does not even include undergraduate debt – and also does not take accrued interest into account, while the student is enrolled.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, if this ABA-accredited dung heap shuts its doors, it will be cause for celebration. Look at the debt figure above, for JDs from this pile of exrement. Do you think for – one damn second – that CharlesTTTTon SOL graduates are finding jobs that allow them to reasonably pay back their student loans?!?! At least, the owners/pigs made a ton of cash, and that’s what matters, right?!

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.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Employment Data for the JD Class of 2014, Now Ten Months After Graduation

Still Too Many Grads: On April 30, 2015 at 9:57 am, JDU accountholder “ichininosan” posted an original thread entitled “Class of 2014 Jobs Data.” Here is the information, which he derived from the ABA Section of Legal “Education” – Employment Summary Report:

“ABA has published it -- class of 2014, ten months out: 

Grads: 43,633 
Full time bar-required jobs: 24,481* 
Not Full time bar-req jobs: 19,152* 
Firms (1-10 lawyers): 7,472 
Firms (11-100 lawyers): 3,556 
Firms (101+ lawyers): 6,061 
Fed clerks: 1,246 

funded positions and putative solos not treated as full time employed” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, there are still too damn many graduates for the available number of attorney positions each year. What a wondrous “profession,” huh?!?! Notice the relatively miniscule number of article III clerkships, Lemming? How many of those posts – which typically lead to Biglaw or careers in legal academia – will be filled by TTT grads?!

At 10:43 am on the same day, the author then followed up with this insight:

“My take on the numbers -- very little has changed in the demand for lawyers. It's flat. There is a market for less than 25,000 new lawyers each year and law schools will continue to produce far more graduates -- at great cost to the students and taxpayer for as long as society permits, even if that means taking in sub-145 LSAT applicants who have little hope of passing a bar exam, and much less of finding employment that justifies the cost of attendance. 

Note the categories that are truly flat -- law firms with 11 or more lawyers and federal clerks. These are the categories that best reflect demand for lawyers. I've long suspected that the 1-10 lawyers category serves as a mixture of legitimate lawyer jobs and de facto quasi-unemployment recent graduates going solo or banding together to try to make it. And so, there were 3,141 fewer grads in 2014 and 467 fewer graduates entering the latter category. As class sizes decrease in the future, I expect there will be fewer graduates classified in the 1-10 law firm grouping. 

The one bit of good news -- class sizes are shrinking! 2013 was the largest class ever. 

The bad news -- given the cost, the number of grads for whom law school is a good economic proposition continues to be about 7,300 (about 17% of grads)[.]” [Emphasis mine]

Ichininosan nailed it perfectly, with that gem. Hell, in fact MANY recent Biglaw associates either burn out – or are dumped on their ass within 3-5 years. So unless they are able to pay off their student loans quickly, it might not be a wise investment for even members of this group.

Remember When the Metric Was Nine Months Upon Graduation?: Back on June 9, 2013, the ABA Journal published a Mark Hansen article entitled “Track job outcomes 9 or 10 months after graduation? ABA legal ed council to take it up in August.” From the opening:

“The governing council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has voted to defer action until August on a proposal to push back by a month the date on which law schools measure graduate employment outcomes… 

The proposal, put forth by the council’s data policy and collection committee, was to move back by a month the date that schools measure employment outcomes from Feb. 15, or nine months after graduation, until March 15. 

The committee based its [recommendaTTTion] on the fact that some states, like California and New York, are slow to report bar exam results, which it said works a particular hardship on schools located in those states and on schools whose graduates seek employment in substantial numbers in those states. 

Moving the employment status determination date from Feb. 15 to March 15 would help level the playing field between schools located in states that release bar exam results relatively quickly and schools located in states that take much longer, it said.” [Emphasis mine]

If you believe that the rodents extended the timeline, in order to benefit students or law grads, then you are in dire need of a brain stent. If a subsequent improvement in employment rate occurs, it looks better for the diploma mills – especially when they are seeking asses in seats.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, the American Bar Association cockraches moved the timeline back an additional month, in order to artificially improve the commodes’ employment “placement” rate. For $ome rea$on, the bastards didn’t give the law schools a 10 month window until now – even though the reasons stated above have existed for a long time. Then again, maybe it is just one hell of a “coincidence” that this proposal happened just as the published overall JD employment rate had been garbage for several consecutive years. However, the pigs cannot create full-time attorney positions out of thin air.
Web Analytics