So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:57 am

laxbrah420 wrote:The fact that Paul Campos is a law professor is probably the least convincing bit of his act. "Well, I'm tenured, how best can I make a name for myself?"...
TSO BRAVE.
We've got Brian Leiter vs. Paul Campos. Score 1-1. Who fucking cares. Read the content of their messages. Campos writes more convincingly, I believe. But yea, "A FUCKING LAW PROFESSOR" is kind of meaningless considering the silence of so many others who could just as easily be TSO BRAVE.

There are a lot of law professors who are getting on-board. It's not just Campos. And there are probably some valid criticisms of Campos, but I don't think his motives are among them.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:00 am

Lwoods wrote:Law is a career choice, not a job choice. You can try lots of different jobs in your twenties (or your whole life, if you'd like), but a career requires investment. So, while I'm all for doing things on a whim or because you're bored or because you can't think of anything better to do, law school is not one of those things.

The first big thing to consider is what you want out of law school.

Then you have to really look at the data to see if going to law school will help you achieve that goal. Maybe it'll only be possible to do what you want if you attend a certain school or a school within a certain subsection of schools (probably based on overall prestige but could also be based on region or alumni network).

Next consider if it's possible to do what you want without going to law school. If so, do a cost/benefit analysis comparing your options. For example, if you want to go into politics, will you benefit more by getting a JD, considering the expense, than you would by networking alone?

Everybody has different goals, so it can't be a straight economic choice. However, I think the above analysis would be useful for most. Just keep in mind: don't choose law for the money. Don't choose any career for the money. You can choose a job or the money, but a career takes time, passion, and commitment. Money alone won't compensate for that.

I think I agree with mostly everything you said here. I wouldn't ever recommend someone treat going solo as a backup plan though, since its incredibly difficult and most people have no clue what they're doing. But overall, I agree with your approach to whether or not someone should go to law school. Solid post.


whereskyle
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:37 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby whereskyle » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:43 pm

romothesavior wrote:
Lwoods wrote:Law is a career choice, not a job choice. You can try lots of different jobs in your twenties (or your whole life, if you'd like), but a career requires investment. So, while I'm all for doing things on a whim or because you're bored or because you can't think of anything better to do, law school is not one of those things.

The first big thing to consider is what you want out of law school.

Then you have to really look at the data to see if going to law school will help you achieve that goal. Maybe it'll only be possible to do what you want if you attend a certain school or a school within a certain subsection of schools (probably based on overall prestige but could also be based on region or alumni network).

Next consider if it's possible to do what you want without going to law school. If so, do a cost/benefit analysis comparing your options. For example, if you want to go into politics, will you benefit more by getting a JD, considering the expense, than you would by networking alone?

Everybody has different goals, so it can't be a straight economic choice. However, I think the above analysis would be useful for most. Just keep in mind: don't choose law for the money. Don't choose any career for the money. You can choose a job or the money, but a career takes time, passion, and commitment. Money alone won't compensate for that.

I think I agree with mostly everything you said here. I wouldn't ever recommend someone treat going solo as a backup plan though, since its incredibly difficult and most people have no clue what they're doing. But overall, I agree with your approach to whether or not someone should go to law school. Solid post.


For a fall back option, I would recommend getting prelaw experience in a firm. I am very lucky to have worked for people, who like me, though I'm sure my performance has contributed to their positive feelings. I never want to return, but having an attorney as a mentor prelaw is certainly the most solid fall back option I can imagine.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby rad lulz » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:53 pm


User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:01 pm


(Law school is too expensive and we all have a responsibility to change the way we do business)

(Institute a 3-4% increase in tuition per usual)


User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby spleenworship » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:08 pm




Thank you for this. It is helpful for future law students to see comments like this from professors and deans.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:08 pm


romothesavior wrote:Is there a more hypocritical group of people on this planet than law professors and deans?

Seriously, FUCK legal academia. The fact that NYU would hire a slimeball like this guy is despicable.

The whole system makes me sick sometimes.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby rad lulz » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:12 pm


Damn

I suck

At poasting

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:13 pm

romothesavior wrote:

romothesavior wrote:Is there a more hypocritical group of people on this planet than law professors and deans?

Seriously, FUCK legal academia. The fact that NYU would hire a slimeball like this guy is despicable.

The whole system makes me sick sometimes.

FWIW that guy seems to be unaffiliated with the law school at NYU. The continuing studies school is pretty much a giant scam where they use the NYU brand to part people with their money. So he'll fit right in.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:18 pm

Even so the guy shouldn't even be involved in academia anywhere.

That letter actually makes me mad. It is so obviously lip service considering the complete lack of meaningful action.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby 20141023 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:25 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby 09042014 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:46 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:The fact that Paul Campos is a law professor is probably the least convincing bit of his act. "Well, I'm tenured, how best can I make a name for myself?"...
TSO BRAVE.
We've got Brian Leiter vs. Paul Campos. Score 1-1. Who fucking cares. Read the content of their messages. Campos writes more convincingly, I believe. But yea, "A FUCKING LAW PROFESSOR" is kind of meaningless considering the silence of so many others who could just as easily be TSO BRAVE.

There are a lot of law professors who are getting on-board. It's not just Campos. And there are probably some valid criticisms of Campos, but I don't think his motives are among them.


Yeah... Campos even addressed this on his blog:
Paul Campos wrote:People have asked me how I can continue to be on a law faculty, given my views. This question – when it isn’t simply a hostile attempt to derail conversation – is based on a misunderstanding. I very much believe in the potential value of higher education. And I believe that legal education can and must be reformed radically. (On one level the most important short-term reforms couldn’t be simpler: the cost of law school attendance must be reduced drastically, and the number of people graduating from law school must be decreased by a significant amount. In the longer term, the American legal system will need to confront whether it is either pedagogically justifiable or financially viable to continue to require the basic law degree to be acquired through postgraduate education).

In some very concrete, practical ways, reform is much easier to achieve from the inside. I’m proud of the fact that, as of this coming fall, my law school is on track to have cut tuition in real dollar terms over the past two years – something which perhaps no other ABA law school will be able to claim. I’m proud that CU Law School, which two years ago was publicizing highly inaccurate employment information, is now one of the most transparent schools in the country on this score. I don’t happen to believe that I would be more effective working for reform as an ex-law professor. Still, even if I did believe this, I’m well aware I wouldn’t have the moral courage to quit. That makes my belief suspiciously convenient -- but it doesn’t make it false.

Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack.


No need to call him a dick sucker.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby 20141023 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:50 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby laxbrah420 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:10 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:The fact that Paul Campos is a law professor is probably the least convincing bit of his act. "Well, I'm tenured, how best can I make a name for myself?"...
TSO BRAVE.
We've got Brian Leiter vs. Paul Campos. Score 1-1. Who fucking cares. Read the content of their messages. Campos writes more convincingly, I believe. But yea, "A FUCKING LAW PROFESSOR" is kind of meaningless considering the silence of so many others who could just as easily be TSO BRAVE.

There are a lot of law professors who are getting on-board. It's not just Campos. And there are probably some valid criticisms of Campos, but I don't think his motives are among them.


Yeah... Campos even addressed this on his blog:
Paul Campos wrote:People have asked me how I can continue to be on a law faculty, given my views. This question – when it isn’t simply a hostile attempt to derail conversation – is based on a misunderstanding. I very much believe in the potential value of higher education. And I believe that legal education can and must be reformed radically. (On one level the most important short-term reforms couldn’t be simpler: the cost of law school attendance must be reduced drastically, and the number of people graduating from law school must be decreased by a significant amount. In the longer term, the American legal system will need to confront whether it is either pedagogically justifiable or financially viable to continue to require the basic law degree to be acquired through postgraduate education).

In some very concrete, practical ways, reform is much easier to achieve from the inside. I’m proud of the fact that, as of this coming fall, my law school is on track to have cut tuition in real dollar terms over the past two years – something which perhaps no other ABA law school will be able to claim. I’m proud that CU Law School, which two years ago was publicizing highly inaccurate employment information, is now one of the most transparent schools in the country on this score. I don’t happen to believe that I would be more effective working for reform as an ex-law professor. Still, even if I did believe this, I’m well aware I wouldn’t have the moral courage to quit. That makes my belief suspiciously convenient -- but it doesn’t make it false.

Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.

Someone said listen to campos BECAUSE he's a law professor. I think that's a dumb reason. That's all. Pretty sure I made that clear and you argued a point I didnt make on purpose, Latin fallacies guy.

User avatar
albusdumbledore
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby albusdumbledore » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:11 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.

The thing about Campos is that he goes so far to make a moral argument against law and the system. If he really believes these schools are doing something objectively wrong, then he's tacitly implicating himself in it, so, right or wrong, the position he's in doesn't exactly do any favors to the argument. It's like your coke dealer telling you that drugs are bad.

User avatar
francesfarmer
Posts: 1409
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:52 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby francesfarmer » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:31 pm

twinkletoes16 wrote:I think I'm at the point where I've been researching for so long and scaring myself silly that it's becoming ingrained in me and I should probably take a step back from the google.

This is 100% what I've done and I'm 90% positive I'm not going to law school at this point! I've wanted to be a lawyer since I was 5. All I've ever done is work for lawyers. But the money's not right. Live the dream for both of us, twinkletoes.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:21 pm

albusdumbledore wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.

The thing about Campos is that he goes so far to make a moral argument against law and the system. If he really believes these schools are doing something objectively wrong, then he's tacitly implicating himself in it, so, right or wrong, the position he's in doesn't exactly do any favors to the argument. It's like your coke dealer telling you that drugs are bad.

No, because law school doesn't have to be this way. He's making an argument to reform legal education given the realties of the profession, not to throw out the whole endeavor. If he were saying that law school will always be bad for everybody, then yeah, it would be hypocritical to remain a law professor, but there is nothing wrong with criticizing an institution he's a part of if his goal is to improve it.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15501
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby Tiago Splitter » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:27 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.

The thing about Campos is that he goes so far to make a moral argument against law and the system. If he really believes these schools are doing something objectively wrong, then he's tacitly implicating himself in it, so, right or wrong, the position he's in doesn't exactly do any favors to the argument. It's like your coke dealer telling you that drugs are bad.

No, because law school doesn't have to be this way. He's making an argument to reform legal education given the realties of the profession, not to throw out the whole endeavor. If he were saying that law school will always be bad for everybody, then yeah, it would be hypocritical to remain a law professor, but there is nothing wrong with criticizing an institution he's a part of if his goal is to improve it.

Well he feels that you need to have your debt and opportunity cost paid back within seven years and preferably within five. Under these parameters he is effectively saying that law school will be bad for everybody. Perhaps he wouldn't say that is to be the case forever, but since he values potential improvements to the legal marketplace on earnings prospects at zero, there's no reason to think his position could really change.

User avatar
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:39 pm

is everyone saying that what Campos claims is false or that he's an asshole?

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby 20141023 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:40 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:44 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.

The thing about Campos is that he goes so far to make a moral argument against law and the system. If he really believes these schools are doing something objectively wrong, then he's tacitly implicating himself in it, so, right or wrong, the position he's in doesn't exactly do any favors to the argument. It's like your coke dealer telling you that drugs are bad.

No, because law school doesn't have to be this way. He's making an argument to reform legal education given the realties of the profession, not to throw out the whole endeavor. If he were saying that law school will always be bad for everybody, then yeah, it would be hypocritical to remain a law professor, but there is nothing wrong with criticizing an institution he's a part of if his goal is to improve it.

Well he feels that you need to have your debt and opportunity cost paid back within seven years and preferably within five. Under these parameters he is effectively saying that law school will be bad for everybody. Perhaps he wouldn't say that is to be the case forever, but since he values potential improvements to the legal marketplace on earnings prospects at zero, there's no reason to think his position could really change.

He's saying it costs too much relative to career outcomes. There are two sides to that issue—the cost, and the career outcome. He might not believe the industry is going to get any better, but all the more reason to think that schools should get cheaper. If tuition had merely kept pace with inflation over the last 20-30 years I don't think Campos (or anyone else) would have made such a big issue about this whole thing.

Also, 5-7 years to recoup costs is a very conservative rule, but it's also pretty realistic for most people with liberal arts degrees (i.e. they could expect to make $45-50,000) going into biglaw. So even that rule means law school turns out to be an okay move for a lot of people.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:47 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:
dixiecupdrinking wrote:
albusdumbledore wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.

The thing about Campos is that he goes so far to make a moral argument against law and the system. If he really believes these schools are doing something objectively wrong, then he's tacitly implicating himself in it, so, right or wrong, the position he's in doesn't exactly do any favors to the argument. It's like your coke dealer telling you that drugs are bad.

No, because law school doesn't have to be this way. He's making an argument to reform legal education given the realities of the profession, not to throw out the whole endeavor. If he were saying that law school will always be bad for everybody, then yeah, it would be hypocritical to remain a law professor, but there is nothing wrong with criticizing an institution he's a part of if his goal is to improve it.

Well, there kind of is something wrong with it... Campos is saying that law school is a "scam," yet his salary is coming from those who are being "scammed" (and he is aware of this fact), which in a sense makes him a "scammer." albusdumbledore's analogy of the street pharmacist was right on.

So you think it's a moral imperative for someone not only to blow the whistle, but also to quit their job, when they see something going on at work that they don't like? I think that is insane, and I also think it is a quick way to ensure the only people left are those with worse ethics.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15501
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: So ITE....who SHOULD go to law school?

Postby Tiago Splitter » Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:49 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Also, 5-7 years to recoup costs is a very conservative rule, but it's also pretty realistic for most people with liberal arts degrees (i.e. they could expect to make $45-50,000) going into biglaw. So even that rule means law school turns out to be an okay move for a lot of people.

When you take the cost of law school and three years of lost wages no one is going to pay that back in 5-7 years without a gigantic scholarship. And the better the law school the higher the typical opportunity cost, so for many even Yale doesn't pass the test.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clueless801 and 6 guests