Page 1 of 2

Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:47 pm
by NoJob

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:57 pm
by rman1201
Thanks for the revelation... The figures cited actually seem more promising than tls makes it out to to be

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:07 pm
by thegor1987
rman1201 wrote:Thanks for the revelation... The figures cited actually seem more promising than tls makes it out to to be


no he said the figures cited were before the economy went down, and that those figures are much more bleak now.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:11 pm
by Lokomani
Not really rman. It gives absolutely no indication of what types of jobs the schools are counting as "employed," nor does it specify the breakdowns of the salaries on the low end. 42% under 65k sounds bad enough, but imagine 15-20% under 40k because they're doing temp work or part-time bullshit for the law school. Also, even the article admits that these figures were during a more favorable job market.

These are just more half-truths from the ABA, take with a grain or 2 of salt.

Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:13 pm
by NZA
Lokomani wrote:Not really rman. It gives absolutely no indication of what types of jobs the schools are counting as "employed," nor does it specify the breakdowns of the salaries on the low end. 42% under 65k sounds bad enough, but imagine 15-20% under 40k because they're doing temp work or part-time bullshit for the law school. Also, even the article admits that these figures were during a more favorable job market.

These are just more half-truths from the ABA, take it with a grain or 2 of salt. Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?


Thanks for the link, OP.

Also, I read the Cornell article, and liked it quite a bit. Not much to add, just wanted to say that people applying to LS should at least read these articles so they know what to expect.

For me, none of this info screams, "DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL." But it does scream, "THINK ABOUT THIS MORE SERIOUSLY THAN YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY."

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:23 pm
by NoJob
Lokomani wrote:Not really rman. It gives absolutely no indication of what types of jobs the schools are counting as "employed," nor does it specify the breakdowns of the salaries on the low end. 42% under 65k sounds bad enough, but imagine 15-20% under 40k because they're doing temp work or part-time bullshit for the law school. Also, even the article admits that these figures were during a more favorable job market.

These are just more half-truths from the ABA, take with a grain or 2 of salt.

Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?


I was looking for the Dolin. Good work brother. Sadly, this will make no difference to the 0ls as they all think they will win the biglaw lottery.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:25 pm
by NoJob
NZA wrote:
Lokomani wrote:Not really rman. It gives absolutely no indication of what types of jobs the schools are counting as "employed," nor does it specify the breakdowns of the salaries on the low end. 42% under 65k sounds bad enough, but imagine 15-20% under 40k because they're doing temp work or part-time bullshit for the law school. Also, even the article admits that these figures were during a more favorable job market.

These are just more half-truths from the ABA, take it with a grain or 2 of salt. Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?


Thanks for the link, OP.

Also, I read the Cornell article, and liked it quite a bit. Not much to add, just wanted to say that people applying to LS should at least read these articles so they know what to expect.

For me, none of this info screams, "DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL." But it does scream, "THINK ABOUT THIS MORE SERIOUSLY THAN YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY."



Perhaps. But to have the ABA say that the 0ls should reconsider is pretty amazing in my opinion.

I also like that the gung ho 0ls really can't dispute what the ABA says. How can they? They accredited the TTT they are planning on attending and are warning them about their decision.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:25 pm
by rman1201
The point I was getting at is this has only been discussed/linked to/posted 1,000,000+ times on this site.
Enough with the bullshit PSAs. Yeah, the legal market isn't great and schools' employment info should be taken with a grain of salt. I get it, we all get it. The people who are naive enough to just jump on the law school wagon and expect life to be made (god forbid at some TTT) aren't likely to put in the research and time to come to this site anyways. Law schools a huge risk and will probably be disappointing in some form to all involved. But meh, if you like law go for it. If you want to be rich be a doctor.
But I digress - stop posting these repetitive links. Law school = McManager discussions have been dominating this forum and are getting stale.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:29 pm
by NoJob
rman1201 wrote:The point I was getting at is this has only been discussed/linked to/posted 1,000,000+ times on this site.
Enough with the bullshit PSAs. Yeah, the legal market isn't great and schools' employment info should be taken with a grain of salt. I get it, we all get it. The people who are naive enough to just jump on the law school wagon and expect life to be made (god forbid at some TTT) aren't likely to put in the research and time to come to this site anyways. Law schools a huge risk and will probably be disappointing in some form to all involved. But meh, if you like law go for it. If you want to be rich be a doctor.
But I digress - stop posting these repetitive links. Law school = McManager discussions have been dominating this forum and are getting stale.


Really. McManager? You can't even fall back on that as your JD will be the kiss of death to non law employers. As someone else said, does law school teach you to manage a restaurant? No. Does it teach you how to handle employees? No. Then what the hell did it teach it? Nothing. You wasted three years and a lot of money talking about some hairy hand, some ship called the peerless, and basic torts. Your interview, if you are lucky to even get one, will be a waste of time for even a McManager position.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:32 pm
by NoJob
rman1201 wrote:The point I was getting at is this has only been discussed/linked to/posted 1,000,000+ times on this site.
Enough with the bullshit PSAs. Yeah, the legal market isn't great and schools' employment info should be taken with a grain of salt. I get it, we all get it. The people who are naive enough to just jump on the law school wagon and expect life to be made (god forbid at some TTT) aren't likely to put in the research and time to come to this site anyways. Law schools a huge risk and will probably be disappointing in some form to all involved. But meh, if you like law go for it. If you want to be rich be a doctor.
But I digress - stop posting these repetitive links. Law school = McManager discussions have been dominating this forum and are getting stale.


Second, maybe this issue has been dominating the forum because good people who have taken it up the rear from the law schools are trying to prevent future kids from suffering their fate

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:34 pm
by rman1201
And this is the direction where all these endless threads go. Law = Doom. If it's that awful just drop out and cut your losses.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:38 pm
by NoJob
rman1201 wrote:And this is the direction where all these endless threads go. Law = Doom. If it's that awful just drop out and cut your losses.


and let naive 0ls go into 100k+ of debt (that they can't go bankrupt to get rid of) without a warning. I would rather annoy you and give those people fair warning.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:40 pm
by DukeCornell
Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?


Thanks for the info! " The Socratic method allows law schools to maintain a high student-to-teacher (tuition-to-salary) ratio." Wow! :shock: :idea:

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:41 pm
by BrownBears09
NoJob wrote:
rman1201 wrote:And this is the direction where all these endless threads go. Law = Doom. If it's that awful just drop out and cut your losses.


and let naive 0ls go into 100k+ of debt (that they can't go bankrupt to get rid of) without a warning. I would rather annoy you and give those people fair warning.


I don't know about you, but I'm a special snowflake and everything will be different for me.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:42 pm
by rman1201
Meh, IBR reduces the risk. You can't bankrupt out of it, but you can IBR out of it in 10-25 years (with credit intact).

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:43 pm
by NoJob
rman1201 wrote:Meh, IBR reduces the risk. You can't bankrupt out of it, but you can IBR out of it in 10-25 years (with credit intact).


And a debt to income ratio that prevents you from getting a mortgage, car loans, etc.

Also, if you get married, that income counts towards your stats, too. Do you really want to put that burden on your spouse?

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:48 pm
by NoJob
DukeCornell wrote:
Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?


Thanks for the info! " The Socratic method allows law schools to maintain a high student-to-teacher (tuition-to-salary) ratio." Wow! :shock: :idea:


And the schools can move that law school money to cover the less-profitable departments.

Re: Read

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:52 pm
by rman1201
NoJob wrote:
rman1201 wrote:Meh, IBR reduces the risk. You can't bankrupt out of it, but you can IBR out of it in 10-25 years (with credit intact).


And a debt to income ratio that prevents you from getting a mortgage, car loans, etc.

Also, if you get married, that income counts towards your stats, too. Do you really want to put that burden on your spouse?


It wouldn't be any more of a burden than if you were able to bankrupt out of the debt.

But I'm not arguing with your points, yeah there's a significant chance of shit after law school. This site does over-exaggerate at times though. And the PSAs are cool when the truly naive 0L comes along (I'm only a semi-naive 0L), but are all these random new topics necessary?

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:05 am
by NoJob
rman1201 wrote:
NoJob wrote:
rman1201 wrote:Meh, IBR reduces the risk. You can't bankrupt out of it, but you can IBR out of it in 10-25 years (with credit intact).


And a debt to income ratio that prevents you from getting a mortgage, car loans, etc.

Also, if you get married, that income counts towards your stats, too. Do you really want to put that burden on your spouse?


It wouldn't be any more of a burden than if you were able to bankrupt out of the debt.

But I'm not arguing with your points, yeah there's a significant chance of shit after law school. This site does over-exaggerate at times though. And the PSAs are cool when the truly naive 0L comes along (I'm only a semi-naive 0L), but are all these random new topics necessary?


There is a difference. A chapter 7 disappears from your credit report in 10 years. Your student loans can't.

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:08 am
by dextermorgan
No Job? Sucks to be you.

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:08 am
by rman1201
NoJob wrote:
rman1201 wrote:
NoJob wrote:
rman1201 wrote:Meh, IBR reduces the risk. You can't bankrupt out of it, but you can IBR out of it in 10-25 years (with credit intact).


And a debt to income ratio that prevents you from getting a mortgage, car loans, etc.

Also, if you get married, that income counts towards your stats, too. Do you really want to put that burden on your spouse?


It wouldn't be any more of a burden than if you were able to bankrupt out of the debt.

But I'm not arguing with your points, yeah there's a significant chance of shit after law school. This site does over-exaggerate at times though. And the PSAs are cool when the truly naive 0L comes along (I'm only a semi-naive 0L), but are all these random new topics necessary?


There is a difference. A chapter 7 disappears from your credit report in 10 years. Your student loans can't.


As I stated 2 posts ago, IBR. The debt disappears in 10 years (PI) or 25 years (private). The Debt/Income ratio would still be a killer for that time period, but after that the debt is forgiven (and without the credit repercussions of bankruptcy).

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:09 am
by romothesavior
rman1201 wrote: This site does over-exaggerate at times though.

Not as often as you'd like to make yourself believe.

In fact, as far as law school related forums on the internet, TLS is probably the most pro-law school one you'll find.

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:19 am
by rman1201
romothesavior wrote:
rman1201 wrote: This site does over-exaggerate at times though.

Not as often as you'd like to make yourself believe.

In fact, as far as law school related forums on the internet, TLS is probably the most pro-law school one you'll find.


Yeah but this is the internet after all, where flame wars break out over videos of Muppets.

The schools give too much bs over employment, but most law forums/blogs give too much bs on the other side
(See quote from this thread)
Really. McManager? You can't even fall back on that as your JD will be the kiss of death to non law employers. As someone else said, does law school teach you to manage a restaurant? No. Does it teach you how to handle employees? No. Then what the hell did it teach it? Nothing. You wasted three years and a lot of money talking about some hairy hand, some ship called the peerless, and basic torts. Your interview, if you are lucky to even get one, will be a waste of time for even a McManager position.


Law school = likely ton of debt (with ways to manage it) and a job in the $40-80k range.
Thats it.
It doesn't = $160k salary nor does it = dying in a ditch alone.

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:23 am
by romothesavior
rman1201 wrote:Law school = likely ton of debt (with ways to manage it) and a job in the $40-80k range.
Thats it.
It doesn't = $160k salary nor does it = dying in a ditch alone.

If you can even get a job at all. A lot of 3Ls and recent grads would kill for a job in the $40-80k range. And from an economic standpoint, lots of debt for a $45k per year job ain't real smart.

The only reason most people should go to law school is because they really, really want to be a lawyer. That's it. And not many 0Ls even know what that entails.

Re: Read

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:36 am
by NZA
NoJob wrote:
NZA wrote:
Lokomani wrote:Not really rman. It gives absolutely no indication of what types of jobs the schools are counting as "employed," nor does it specify the breakdowns of the salaries on the low end. 42% under 65k sounds bad enough, but imagine 15-20% under 40k because they're doing temp work or part-time bullshit for the law school. Also, even the article admits that these figures were during a more favorable job market.

These are just more half-truths from the ABA, take it with a grain or 2 of salt. Here is a more comprehensive article on the matter:
http://www.cwsl.edu/content/journals/Dolin.pdf

This article from Cornell law explains WHY law schools have gotten away with this heinous inflation of the cost of an education, as well as other factors which contributed to the bubble:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/resear ... aham-2.pdf


How do I REACH THESE KEEDZ?


Thanks for the link, OP.

Also, I read the Cornell article, and liked it quite a bit. Not much to add, just wanted to say that people applying to LS should at least read these articles so they know what to expect.

For me, none of this info screams, "DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL." But it does scream, "THINK ABOUT THIS MORE SERIOUSLY THAN YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY."



Perhaps. But to have the ABA say that the 0ls should reconsider is pretty amazing in my opinion.

I also like that the gung ho 0ls really can't dispute what the ABA says. How can they? They accredited the TTT they are planning on attending and are warning them about their decision.


I don't think anyone here is trying to dispute what the ABA is saying. Again, what I got from their article was that a) law school is getting more expensive, b) while the average salary for a LS graduate is decreasing, so c) you should carefully think about your chances of being able to live comfortably with what may be six figures worth of debt.

The gloom and doom perspective is just as unhealthy as naive optimism.

It's not impossible to look at the law schools you are accepted to, carefully go over the financial aid you receive from them, and then make a rational decision that will allow you to fulfill your career goals in a financially responsible way. I personally never planned to work in BigLaw, anyway, and I think that the opportunity law school gives me is worth the risk.