Do not attend TJSL

[bk1]

Sorry I'm a half-decent person? Gotta remember I was talking to real prospective applicants when this all started, not super douche. I actually didn't want them to attend TJSL. If that makes me "holier-than-thou," I guess I am.

Relevant. (LinkRemoved)

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Sorry I'm a half-decent person?

You are such a martyr bro, keep up the good work.

Im glad my meaning wasn't lost on everyone.

No I got it. I disagree.

[flcath]

rad lulz already hit it, but Sallie Mae is what keeps any type of a "market based" approach to law schools from ever working. You obviously know this from the other 9,732,000 it's been raised on TLS, but it never fails to piss me off when some shit-for-brains pseudo-libertarian talks about how we don't need gov't intervention, while completely ignoring that the "demand" for law school is 90% fake, and wouldn't exist absent free gubmint cash.

How isn't that a good argument for getting the government out of the student loan bizness?

That's a totally viable solution. As far as I'm concerned: you can close 120 schools by gov't fiat, you can raise the accreditation bar so high that 120 schools fail inevitably it, you can cut student loans and let 120 schools fail through market forces, or you can take a can of gasoline and burn down 120 schools.

Each method has it's plusses and minuses, respectively: antitrust concerns and central planning inefficiency; waste expenses on dumb accreditation requirements; transition costs, an adverse impact on students, and a likely anti-minority impact; it's illegal and someone could get hurt. But there's no argument that we should continue to spend taxpayer money giving life-support to 215+ law schools, fucking over a generation of students in the process.

Yea I agree. Still not sure what the "pseudo-libertarian" diss was all about though.

There are those who react violently to the idea of basing the # of ABA accredited schools on the # of entry-level positions available, on the basis that this is Soviet economic policy and just lawyers trying to inflate their wages. *Some* of these folks then go on to assert that the market will ultimately solve the problem, when in fact law schools are not selling a product on the free market at all. This is not a difficult concept to grasp--apparently you felt it was so obvious that you couldn't believe anyone would make that argument--but, alas, search through a few TLS threads and you'll find morons espousing it everywhere.

[flcath]

If it wasn't obvious, I don't personally give a shit how the problem gets solved, as long as it does. There's something of an ideological deadlock on the issue: no one seriously contends that we need twice as many law grads as we can gainfully employ--for Christ's sake, it hasn't even increased access to legal services for the poor (which in theory would be the one upside to the TTT phenomenon)--but there's deep disagreement on how to solve it, even though any one of the aforesaid methods would work just fine, and produce a better result than what we have currently.

[Napt]

*Some* of these folks then go on to assert that the market will ultimately solve the problem, when in fact law schools are not selling a product on the free market at all.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm libertarian myself; maybe I just haven't encountered these people, as they clearly aren't genuinely libertarian.

[shoeshine]

TBF: Law school in general is a bad/risky investment.

TJLS is just at the riskiest end of the spectrum. It is the C grade junk bonds of the law school market (think of HYS as AAA+). So someone with a low appetite for risk should not buy (attend) the riskiest investment (school). However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that want to undertake the risk of going to a school like TJLS. Its entire existence is a function of the market place. There are some people that want to go to law school but can't achieve the grades necessary to attend a T1. As long as they understand the risks I think they should be allowed and possibly encouraged to go.

I agree that, like any investment, TJLS should have to report accurate numbers so that students (investors) can make wise decisions. A few years ago I would have said that the information that people were getting about TJLS was completely false and they were border line performing fraud. However, now the tables have turned and there is more negative information out there about TJLS than positive. If you don't believe me just Google "Thomas Jefferson Law School" and look at the results on the first page. Between Paul Campos, NYT Articles, Scam Blogs, Threads on TLS, and Abovethelaw there is a ton of information available about the bar passage rates and employment prospects of TJLS. Any student who understands this information and still decides to attend is doing it at their own risk and we should not judge them for their decision.

I actually know someone who attends TJLS (which is more than the other people in this thread can say). She claims that most of the people in her class (1Ls) understood the job prospects coming into TJLS. Everyone has their own plan about what to do. Some people are gunning. Others plan on relying on family connections and others want to pursue things outside of law.

The point is that it is unfair to assume that all of the people choosing to attend TJLS aren't aware of the job prospects before entering. And if they are aware of that then they have made an informed decision that we really have no business judging them for. It is sort of elitist to deny people access to the practice of law based on our perceptions about whether they are making a good financial choice.

[Mal Reynolds]

*Some* of these folks then go on to assert that the market will ultimately solve the problem, when in fact law schools are not selling a product on the free market at all.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm libertarian myself; maybe I just haven't encountered these people, as they clearly aren't genuinely libertarian.

This is just what this thread needs.

MOAR RON PAULLLLL

[flcath]

*Some* of these folks then go on to assert that the market will ultimately solve the problem, when in fact law schools are not selling a product on the free market at all.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm libertarian myself; maybe I just haven't encountered these people, as they clearly aren't genuinely libertarian.

Yes. I would describe them (actually, I think in fairness I have described them this way ITT) as people with libertarian instincts who aren't smart. Or maybe just dumb people who know how to repeat libertarian talking points.

[Lawl Shcool]

TBF: Law school in general is a bad/risky investment.

TJLS is just at the riskiest end of the spectrum. It is the C grade junk bonds of the law school market (think of HYS as AAA+). So someone with a low appetite for risk should not buy (attend) the riskiest investment (school). However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that want to undertake the risk of going to a school like TJLS. Its entire existence is a function of the market place. There are some people that want to go to law school but can't achieve the grades necessary to attend a T1. As long as they understand the risks I think they should be allowed and possibly encouraged to go.

I agree that, like any investment, TJLS should have to report accurate numbers so that students (investors) can make wise decisions. A few years ago I would have said that the information that people were getting about TJLS was completely false and they were border line performing fraud. However, now the tables have turned and there is more negative information out there about TJLS than positive. If you don't believe me just Google "Thomas Jefferson Law School" and look at the results on the first page. Between Paul Campos, NYT Articles, Scam Blogs, Threads on TLS, and Abovethelaw there is a ton of information available about the bar passage rates and employment prospects of TJLS. Any student who understands this information and still decides to attend is doing it at their own risk and we should not judge them for their decision.

I actually know someone who attends TJLS (which is more than the other people in this thread can say). She claims that most of the people in her class (1Ls) understood the job prospects coming into TJLS. Everyone has their own plan about what to do. Some people are gunning. Others plan on relying on family connections and others want to pursue things outside of law.

The point is that it is unfair to assume that all of the people choosing to attend TJLS aren't aware of the job prospects before entering. And if they are aware of that then they have made an informed decision that we really have no business judging them for. It is sort of elitist to deny people access to the practice of law based on our perceptions about whether they are making a good financial choice.

I agree with all of this.

[Napt]

*Some* of these folks then go on to assert that the market will ultimately solve the problem, when in fact law schools are not selling a product on the free market at all.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm libertarian myself; maybe I just haven't encountered these people, as they clearly aren't genuinely libertarian.

Yes. I would describe them (actually, I think in fairness I have described them this way ITT) as people with libertarian instincts who aren't smart. Or maybe just dumb people who know how to repeat libertarian talking points.

Indeed. They might post on the libertarian board of reddit or frequently make annoying Ron Paul posts on Facebook.

[flcath]

*Some* of these folks then go on to assert that the market will ultimately solve the problem, when in fact law schools are not selling a product on the free market at all.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm libertarian myself; maybe I just haven't encountered these people, as they clearly aren't genuinely libertarian.

Yes. I would describe them (actually, I think in fairness I have described them this way ITT) as people with libertarian instincts who aren't smart. Or maybe just dumb people who know how to repeat libertarian talking points.

Indeed. They might post on the libertarian board of reddit or frequently make annoying Ron Paul posts on Facebook.

Bear in mind: these people are the face of the libertarian movement.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

TBF: Law school in general is a bad/risky investment.

TJLS is just at the riskiest end of the spectrum. It is the C grade junk bonds of the law school market (think of HYS as AAA+). So someone with a low appetite for risk should not buy (attend) the riskiest investment (school). However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that want to undertake the risk of going to a school like TJLS. Its entire existence is a function of the market place. There are some people that want to go to law school but can't achieve the grades necessary to attend a T1. As long as they understand the risks I think they should be allowed and possibly encouraged to go.

I agree that, like any investment, TJLS should have to report accurate numbers so that students (investors) can make wise decisions. A few years ago I would have said that the information that people were getting about TJLS was completely false and they were border line performing fraud. However, now the tables have turned and there is more negative information out there about TJLS than positive. If you don't believe me just Google "Thomas Jefferson Law School" and look at the results on the first page. Between Paul Campos, NYT Articles, Scam Blogs, Threads on TLS, and Abovethelaw there is a ton of information available about the bar passage rates and employment prospects of TJLS. Any student who understands this information and still decides to attend is doing it at their own risk and we should not judge them for their decision.

I actually know someone who attends TJLS (which is more than the other people in this thread can say). She claims that most of the people in her class (1Ls) understood the job prospects coming into TJLS. Everyone has their own plan about what to do. Some people are gunning. Others plan on relying on family connections and others want to pursue things outside of law.

The point is that it is unfair to assume that all of the people choosing to attend TJLS aren't aware of the job prospects before entering. And if they are aware of that then they have made an informed decision that we really have no business judging them for. It is sort of elitist to deny people access to the practice of law based on our perceptions about whether they are making a good financial choice.

The majority of people at my school don't have a really good grasp on the job prospects, and they are in the 90th percentile on the LSAT. Surely some do, just like some at TJSL do. My position was this:

I just posted the NALP numbers. If they had already read them, no sweat. If not, it may save them from a disaster. Cool.

If someone really understands that they have around a 1.8% chance of securing 65k a year from TJSL and that 93% of their fellow students are borrowing an average of $153,000, then I will be respectful of whatever decision they make.

[flcath]

TBF: Law school in general is a bad/risky investment.

TJLS is just at the riskiest end of the spectrum. It is the C grade junk bonds of the law school market (think of HYS as AAA+). So someone with a low appetite for risk should not buy (attend) the riskiest investment (school). However, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that want to undertake the risk of going to a school like TJLS. Its entire existence is a function of the market place. There are some people that want to go to law school but can't achieve the grades necessary to attend a T1. As long as they understand the risks I think they should be allowed and possibly encouraged to go.

I agree that, like any investment, TJLS should have to report accurate numbers so that students (investors) can make wise decisions. A few years ago I would have said that the information that people were getting about TJLS was completely false and they were border line performing fraud. However, now the tables have turned and there is more negative information out there about TJLS than positive. If you don't believe me just Google "Thomas Jefferson Law School" and look at the results on the first page. Between Paul Campos, NYT Articles, Scam Blogs, Threads on TLS, and Abovethelaw there is a ton of information available about the bar passage rates and employment prospects of TJLS. Any student who understands this information and still decides to attend is doing it at their own risk and we should not judge them for their decision.

I actually know someone who attends TJLS (which is more than the other people in this thread can say). She claims that most of the people in her class (1Ls) understood the job prospects coming into TJLS. Everyone has their own plan about what to do. Some people are gunning. Others plan on relying on family connections and others want to pursue things outside of law.

The point is that it is unfair to assume that all of the people choosing to attend TJLS aren't aware of the job prospects before entering. And if they are aware of that then they have made an informed decision that we really have no business judging them for. It is sort of elitist to deny people access to the practice of law based on our perceptions about whether they are making a good financial choice.

Okay, for the purposes of this post, I'll accept the fiction that TJSL students chose to become TJSL students on the basis of an informed, rational choice.

I'm fine with them paying out of pocket for to go to TJSL. I'm even fine with them securing a private loan from a lender willing to take the risk on them (banks would do it for an HYS student; do you think they'd do it for a TJSL kid?). But why the hell is the gov't offering this person a loan that (1) will be destructive, on average, to the student, (2) will be destructive to *all* students, since they will have to compete--directly or indirectly--with that (artificially created) student, (3) will be destructive to the legal profession and its clients, since it dilutes the quality of the profession, and (4) will be destructive to the taxpayers who suffer when the student defaults?

Why not offer kids gov't loans for Lamborghinis, using the same logic of "oh, well they knew the risks of going into debt for a $200,000 car on a $30K salary, so who are we to tell them they can't do it?"

[Napt]

Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm libertarian myself; maybe I just haven't encountered these people, as they clearly aren't genuinely libertarian.

Yes. I would describe them (actually, I think in fairness I have described them this way ITT) as people with libertarian instincts who aren't smart. Or maybe just dumb people who know how to repeat libertarian talking points.

Indeed. They might post on the libertarian board of reddit or frequently make annoying Ron Paul posts on Facebook.

Bear in mind: these people are the face of the libertarian movement.

Yea, that's probably true. I'd rather have the Cato and/or Mises Institute as the face of the libertarian movement but that will never happen. Ron Paul is okay insofar that he's attracted a decent amount of kids to the libertarian brand, but the kids have been so obnoxious that whenever I say I'm a libertarian irl or online people now assume I'm an obnoxious Paultard.

[shoeshine]

Okay, for the purposes of this post, I'll accept the fiction that TJSL students chose to become TJSL students on the basis of an informed, rational choice.

I'm fine with them paying out of pocket for to go to TJSL. I'm even fine with them securing a private loan from a lender willing to take the risk on them (banks would do it for an HYS student; do you think they'd do it for a TJSL kid?). But why the hell is the gov't offering this person a loan that (1) will be destructive, on average, to the student, (2) will be destructive to *all* students, since they will have to compete--directly or indirectly--with that (artificially created) student, (3) will be destructive to the legal profession and its clients, since it dilutes the quality of the profession, and (4) will be destructive to the taxpayers who suffer when the student defaults?

Why not offer kids gov't loans for Lamborghinis, using the same logic of "oh, well they knew the risks of going into debt for a $200,000 car on a $30K salary, so who are we to tell them they can't do it?"

First of all I want to say that I actually agree with you. I hate the idea of the government backing education loans especially when they go to for-profit universities (University of Phoenix, Full Sail University, etc.).

However, I disagree that it harms the profession or dilutes the quality of the lawyer. The reason the ABA allows TTTs (instead of going the route of the MD schools you often post about) is because they want broad access to legal services. I am not sure if they have truly increased the access to legal services but I can guarantee you that if you shut down all the TTTs tomorrow there would be a shortage of legal services in the next decade that would dwarf anything the medical profession has ever seen. If the TTTs aren't giving broader access to legal services they are at least holding the amount of access steady.

Second, I don't necessarily think that attending a higher ranked school makes you a better lawyer. Most lawyers agree the things you do in law school and on the LSAT have no direct correlation to your success at actually practicing law. And then there is the study that reported that non-t14 grads were actually making partner at much higher rates then their elite school counterparts. Source: http://www-source.abajournal.com/news/article/do_elite_law_grads_disdain_longtime_biglaw_work_stats_suggest_lower-tier

The part about it possibly being destructive to students and tax payers i agree with. If people want to take risks on education it should be with their own money or financed privately. However, implementing a change like that would have to come in the form of larger educations finance reform which is much bigger than a few TTT law schools.

[BarcaCrossesTheAlps]

The ABA? They will accredit anything. This provides false legitimacy.

The idiots who want to go to garbage schools suck blood from the US treasury because they are allowed to do so. So, the fed gives money for accredited schools. Get accredited? No prob! Probably as difficult as passing a McDonald's food inspection.

Vampires, I tell ya! And stupid ones at that. Who in the hell would take out enough money to buy a house when all the fucking evidence in the world points to $40K a year job? Only an overconfident douche bag who desperately needs the advice of this board, whether they want it or not. The vicious cycle continues.... dumbasses are siphoning money to fund their daydreams and further the decline of Western Civilization! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

[Gail]

Disgusting and blatant Alexander Hamilton trolling.

[Gail]

The ABA? They will accredit anything. This provides false legitimacy.

The idiots who want to go to garbage schools suck blood from the US treasury because they are allowed to do so. So, the fed gives money for accredited schools. Get accredited? No prob! Probably as difficult as passing a McDonald's food inspection.

Vampires, I tell ya! And stupid ones at that. Who in the hell would take out enough money to buy a house when all the fucking evidence in the world points to $40K a year job? Only an overconfident douche bag who desperately needs the advice of this board, whether they want it or not. The vicious cycle continues.... dumbasses are siphoning money to fund their daydreams and further the decline of Western Civilization! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

In 1990, maybe.

[vpintz]

Disgusting and blatant Alexander Hamilton trolling.

lol'ed. I see what you did thar.

[timbs4339]

Okay, for the purposes of this post, I'll accept the fiction that TJSL students chose to become TJSL students on the basis of an informed, rational choice.

I'm fine with them paying out of pocket for to go to TJSL. I'm even fine with them securing a private loan from a lender willing to take the risk on them (banks would do it for an HYS student; do you think they'd do it for a TJSL kid?). But why the hell is the gov't offering this person a loan that (1) will be destructive, on average, to the student, (2) will be destructive to *all* students, since they will have to compete--directly or indirectly--with that (artificially created) student, (3) will be destructive to the legal profession and its clients, since it dilutes the quality of the profession, and (4) will be destructive to the taxpayers who suffer when the student defaults?

Why not offer kids gov't loans for Lamborghinis, using the same logic of "oh, well they knew the risks of going into debt for a $200,000 car on a $30K salary, so who are we to tell them they can't do it?"

First of all I want to say that I actually agree with you. I hate the idea of the government backing education loans especially when they go to for-profit universities (University of Phoenix, Full Sail University, etc.).

However, I disagree that it harms the profession or dilutes the quality of the lawyer. The reason the ABA allows TTTs (instead of going the route of the MD schools you often post about) is because they want broad access to legal services. I am not sure if they have truly increased the access to legal services but I can guarantee you that if you shut down all the TTTs tomorrow there would be a shortage of legal services in the next decade that would dwarf anything the medical profession has ever seen. If the TTTs aren't giving broader access to legal services they are at least holding the amount of access steady.

Second, I don't necessarily think that attending a higher ranked school makes you a better lawyer. Most lawyers agree the things you do in law school and on the LSAT have no direct correlation to your success at actually practicing law. And then there is the study that reported that non-t14 grads were actually making partner at much higher rates then their elite school counterparts. Source: http://www-source.abajournal.com/news/article/do_elite_law_grads_disdain_longtime_biglaw_work_stats_suggest_lower-tier

The part about it possibly being destructive to students and tax payers i agree with. If people want to take risks on education it should be with their own money or financed privately. However, implementing a change like that would have to come in the form of larger educations finance reform which is much bigger than a few TTT law schools.

1) There is a shortage of legal services not because there are not enough lawyers but because there are not enough clients who can pay lawyers. Put it another way, the market for clients who can pay seeking lawyers is pretty damn good. The market for clients who can't pay does not depend on the "free market" but on how much government intervention is involved- does the government see access to decent criminal and civil legal services as a fundamental right? This determines how much funding is available for legal aid, etc.

Much of the demand for legal services is a demand for lawyers at $0 or much lower than it takes to run a practice and support yourself. I fail to see how dumping people with higher startup costs (because of 150K of debt) on the market is going to change this. This just makes it more likely they are going to take the first decent paying non-law job to start paying down the debt.

2) The oversupply of grads hurts the profession because of the massive PR hit we're taking, both directly and indirectly. People are slowly losing faith that law is a gateway to an upper-middle class life. Now it's just another fucking job, and one you have to incur 100K in costs to get. Recent law grads are living with their parents, working for 12/hr, working retail or food services, working for free. The word is getting out there, both through basic observation and articles in the NYT and other national media.

What protects all lawyers from price competition is, at the end of the day, the reputation of the profession for self-policing. That's what allows unauthorized practice laws to stand. The ABA and state bars have lost all control of law schools and if you don't think this isn't going to translate into less respect for the profession overall you're dreaming.

3) The above doesn't even begin to touch on the effects to the taxpayer and society in the form of outstanding student loan debt that will drag down the economy. Law students regularly graduate with 100K or 150K in debt, at the higher end of the spectrum. Consigning people who are of above-average intelligence to 150K in debt peonage in their mid-twenties is bad social policy. TJSL is one of the highest ranked schools in terms of average debt load, IIRC.

In short: anyone who lived through the recession should understand implicitly that letting people make stupid financial decisions as a matter of course will blowback on all of us in the end. Like the above poster said I really don't care how we solve the problem. Hell, keep TJSL and all the 200 ABA schools and have them all slash class sizes proportionate to their job placement. Just solve the fucking problem before it buries us all.

[flem]

So... you transferred. This is what you said in the other thread:

Why does that matter?

Fucking LOL

[EdgarWinter]

.

[BarcaCrossesTheAlps]

The ABA? They will accredit anything. This provides false legitimacy.

The idiots who want to go to garbage schools suck blood from the US treasury because they are allowed to do so. So, the fed gives money for accredited schools. Get accredited? No prob! Probably as difficult as passing a McDonald's food inspection.

Vampires, I tell ya! And stupid ones at that. Who in the hell would take out enough money to buy a house when all the fucking evidence in the world points to $40K a year job? Only an overconfident douche bag who desperately needs the advice of this board, whether they want it or not. The vicious cycle continues.... dumbasses are siphoning money to fund their daydreams and further the decline of Western Civilization! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

In 1990, maybe.

Heh.

Too many kids take out 150K to go to TTT and TTTT schools.

[BarcaCrossesTheAlps]

Disgusting and blatant Alexander Hamilton trolling.

Confusing rights and privileges? Maybe you are just conflating?

[splitbrain]

So... you transferred. This is what you said in the other thread:

Why does that matter?

Fucking LOL

Saw that and lol'd too. That poster can't honestly tell the difference between saying "I went to TJSL and now work in biglaw" vs "I transferred out of TJSL to a top 10 school and now work in biglaw". Eesh.