Docreviewsux's warnings-against-law-school thread

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Docreviewsux
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 am

Re: The Real Problem With Law Schools

Postby Docreviewsux » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:21 pm

NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.


Agree. They won't mention the faulty reporting until at least one school loses a fraud suit.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby sinfiery » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:26 pm

I dunno if your bullshitting some stupid anecdote some homeless lawyer told you/you are the homeless lawyer or not because THERE IS NO DATA. I'd pay an extra 2k in tuition if they started collecting these reports.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby DoubleChecks » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:31 pm

Docreviewsux wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:“The price of legal education has risen as the job market for lawyers has declined. More than two out of every five 2011 graduates did not obtain a full-time long-term job requiring a law degree; the median starting salary of the class, among the less than half of graduates for whom a salary was reported, was $60,000. The problematic economics are captured by this fundamental mismatch: a graduate who earns the median salary cannot afford to make the monthly loan payments on the average debt.”

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

If law profs warn against law school, why still go?

Because if you attend a decent school, you can still find decent employment...

What really needs to happen is that the bottom 100 law schools get shut down because they are really the ones who are pulling the employment numbers and salaries down.


Do you know what percentage of biglaw associates make partner? It's not very high, and transitioning to another field or another area becomes harder as one gets older.

Indeed, we have many former biglaw associates who used to run doc reviews now on the circuit themselves. They often are trying to start their own practices in the thriving areas of family and DuI law.

We are talking Columbia, Pennsylvania, Northwestern, and Chicago grads here too.

The point is that even the winners are still likely going to wind up losers.


Neat anecdotes. I doubt that is a very high percentage reality for most T6 grads though...and starting your own business in family law or whatnot CAN be very lucrative, as any small business can be.

There are a ton of problems w/ legal education now and how it is set up. I just hope people sit down long and hard and intelligently decide whether x law school is for them, based on geographic preference, type of work, debt, etc. Too many rush into it and allow for the proliferation of unnecessary law schools.

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

Re: The Real Problem With Law Schools

Postby rad lulz » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:56 pm

NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.

Agree

FamilyLawEsq
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby FamilyLawEsq » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:57 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:
Docreviewsux wrote:“The price of legal education has risen as the job market for lawyers has declined. More than two out of every five 2011 graduates did not obtain a full-time long-term job requiring a law degree; the median starting salary of the class, among the less than half of graduates for whom a salary was reported, was $60,000. The problematic economics are captured by this fundamental mismatch: a graduate who earns the median salary cannot afford to make the monthly loan payments on the average debt.”

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

If law profs warn against law school, why still go?

Because if you attend a decent school, you can still find decent employment...

What really needs to happen is that the bottom 100 law schools get shut down because they are really the ones who are pulling the employment numbers and salaries down.


Do you know what percentage of biglaw associates make partner? It's not very high, and transitioning to another field or another area becomes harder as one gets older.

Indeed, we have many former biglaw associates who used to run doc reviews now on the circuit themselves. They often are trying to start their own practices in the thriving areas of family and DuI law.

We are talking Columbia, Pennsylvania, Northwestern, and Chicago grads here too.

The point is that even the winners are still likely going to wind up losers.


Neat anecdotes. I doubt that is a very high percentage reality for most T6 grads though...and starting your own business in family law or whatnot CAN be very lucrative, as any small business can be.

There are a ton of problems w/ legal education now and how it is set up. I just hope people sit down long and hard and intelligently decide whether x law school is for them, based on geographic preference, type of work, debt, etc. Too many rush into it and allow for the proliferation of unnecessary law schools.


You are dead on. IMO the increase in law school prices is driven by the law professors. Unless there is a large capital improvement going on, the bulk of tuition is going to professors, some who work 20 hours per week, recyle their classes and write something once a year. Contracts, Property, and Wills classes have virtually remained unchanged in the last 30 years. More students going to school=the potential for more law professors=hiring of new professors to replace higher salaried older ones. I don't think there should be tenure in the law school setting either. Professors are not saying don't go for the law student's benefit. There are too many lawyers and too few jobs at every level of practice.

I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

bananapeanutbutter
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: The Real Problem With Law Schools

Postby bananapeanutbutter » Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:42 pm

rad lulz wrote:
NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.

Agree

So the problem is it being too easy to get loans, not the prices. If it was harder to get the 200k loan to go to Cooley, and one had to put together a business plan like they had to to take out a small business loan then they would need to actually research the schools and argue why they are a good bet rationally. The prices would fall, and special snowflake syndrome would be less rampant.

People expect post-college education to be a fiduciary and look out for the best interests of society. Whether or not they should morally be held to this standard is debatable, but obviously the courts don't believe they should be legally. Therefore, the real focus should be at the government, and not at the schools. The scam schools in the 4th tier are privately owned businesses. If the business is selling something very overpriced, the rational consumer would not buy it. If a shocking number of consumers are irrational, the government should not lend them money to make the irrational purchase.

User avatar
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: The Real Problem With Law Schools

Postby cahwc12 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:44 pm

NYstate wrote:These articles never mention the role of the schools in this mess. The decades of lies about employment statistics created the impression that everyone going to law school would find employment at a 6 figure salary. The fraud was enough that lawsuits have been brought against several schools for fraud. The one against NYLS was dismissed because the claims seemed so ridiculous that no rational person would believe them. The highest court in New York vert critically questioned the ethics of the dean and the case has been attempted to be reopened.

This wring impression needs to be corrected.

Also they ignored the role of the availability of federal loans to go to any school in any amount available to any student who gets in. Schools had no incentive to keep tuition low.


Insofar as they even had some incentive to keep tuition from rising as rampantly, in 2007, Florida governor Crist signed into law a bill that allowed state universities to charge a "tuition differential" to cover whatever projected costs would be necessary to stay "competitive" with respect to research, etc. Tuition has increased almost 100% since then...

And the stuff some of these unis are using that extra money for is disgusting. One uni funded a $50 million venture that helps people found tech startups and file patents on which they get half of the profits. So if you are a full-time student, you pay roughly $1000/semester extra to fund startups that lead to further university profits. These startups do good research, but students don't get anything out of them, and there's a strong moral argument to be made about why students are forcibly subsidizing this research through student loans.

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

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby 20141023 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:30 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:29 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:You see, the thing is that people say that the turnover rate with biglaw is extremely high, but I currently work at the headquarters of one of the largest automotive firms in the world and the turnover rate (of engineers) is also extremely high here. Many of the people that I work with hate their jobs, and we lose most (70%) of our new hires after about 2-4 years. When I previously worked for a world-class consulting firm in Tokyo, the turnover rate was high there as well. With all of these jobs, people are either built for the job and love it (the minority), or despise working ridiculous hours and traveling all the time and hate it (the majority). At least with biglaw it sounds like one doesn't have to travel as much, even though the hours suck. Additionally, the starting pay at biglaw is about 2x as much as these other jobs.

While I agree that there are too many lawyers out there right now, I honestly believe that this is the fault of random shitty schools that are pumping out random shitty lawyers. I also find it funny that the law professors who are speaking out about going to law school are usually working at these random shitty law schools. Just to give one example, let's look at HYS versus Cooley. Here are the number of students that graduated from each of these institutions in 2012:

Yale: 222
Harvard: 590
Stanford: 181
Total: 993

Cooley: 1079

Even GULC, which is known among the T14 as being a "diploma mill," only graduated 626 students in 2012. Although many of the issues with the current legal market are caused by there being too many lawyers, this is in turn a result of there being too many law schools. A simple solution would be to do away with a ton of these POS institutions that are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from students (and taxpayers) and leaving them with nothing.


I more or less agree with you, but I'd add the caveat that there are plenty of people who attend top schools who lack interpersonal skills and networking basics to get a job or have a career. On the flip side, there are mouthbreathers at Cooley who can instinctively manage social situations and get a job. Networking, the ability to make people comfortable around you, social savy to know when not to voice an opinion, etc., is under appreciated. These skills are responsible for getting some people into large firms, but more importantly they explain how near 100% of all other legal jobs are had. I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.

But yeah torch all schools outside the top 150 or so.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby cinephile » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:49 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.


I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else. We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall, it'd be better to tell half the class (or three-quarters or however many) to drop out.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:40 pm

cinephile wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.


I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else.


95% of employed grads at my school networks his/her way into their job.

cinephile wrote:We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall,


I agree. But in a sense the entire economy is a zero-sum game. I'd rather have my friends get jobs than people who went to other law schools. I was giving advice on an individual sense.

cinephile wrote: it'd be better to tell half the class (or three-quarters or however many) to drop out.


Sure, but on TLS people always say "bottom half should drop out." At the vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely to get a job as top third because networking, interpersonal skills, luck, etc., get you a job, not grades. Alls I was sayin.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby sinfiery » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:11 pm

FamilyLawEsq wrote:I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

No, absolutely not. First off, social mobility. Second off, learn how markets work before spouting this asinine opinion. Third, have some damn consideration for idealism and what you find to be qualities our society should strive for regardless of lost monetary gains.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby DoubleChecks » Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:08 am

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
cinephile wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.


I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else.


95% of employed grads at my school networks his/her way into their job.

cinephile wrote:We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall,


I agree. But in a sense the entire economy is a zero-sum game. I'd rather have my friends get jobs than people who went to other law schools. I was giving advice on an individual sense.

cinephile wrote: it'd be better to tell half the class (or three-quarters or however many) to drop out.


Sure, but on TLS people always say "bottom half should drop out." At the vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely to get a job as top third because networking, interpersonal skills, luck, etc., get you a job, not grades. Alls I was sayin.


95% of employed grads at your school networks their way into a job? Not sure if you're damning the school or complimenting it lol. Either way, these sound like shady law school stats! 95% of 20 people from a class of 300...would mean pretty much nothing.

On the idea that at a vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely as top third to get a job...that's interesting; could very well be true. My, my, if it were, I'd hope that information would be circulated more for those making such decisions.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:11 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
cinephile wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote: I actually see people with good-not-great grades at my school and worry they should focus less on school and more on reaching out to practitioners in their target area.


I don't get it. Okay, so one dude from your school networks his way into a job, that just means one less job for someone else.


95% of employed grads at my school networks his/her way into their job.

cinephile wrote:We're not creating jobs here, just competing against one another in a zero-sum game. On an individual level it might make sense to give this sort of advice, but looking at your school overall,


I agree. But in a sense the entire economy is a zero-sum game. I'd rather have my friends get jobs than people who went to other law schools. I was giving advice on an individual sense.

cinephile wrote: it'd be better to tell half the class (or three-quarters or however many) to drop out.


Sure, but on TLS people always say "bottom half should drop out." At the vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely to get a job as top third because networking, interpersonal skills, luck, etc., get you a job, not grades. Alls I was sayin.


DoubleChecks wrote:95% of employed grads at your school networks their way into a job? Not sure if you're damning the school or complimenting it lol.


I suppose in a way I am damning my school. For 95% of the class, going to CU might help-- employers view the school in a positive light because CU is the most selective law school for about 1000 miles. But these students will get their jobs by networking, maybe with CU alums maybe not. You could argue that the school is still getting them the job because the students can talk up their education and experience from the school, but really the student is selling themselves in this situation, the school is not selling them. That is the case for every law school outside the top 15 or so. For T1- TTTT, your grades don't get you a job unless you are at the tippity top. It not like at Columbia, where you can graduate in the top half and essentially get your job based on your school/rank; either through OCI or by sending out hundreds of cover letters and resumes with your class rank. OCI accounts for less than 5% of hiring here, and accounts for only marginally higher percentages at regional schools in larger legal markets. From schools like CU, Tulane, Wisconsin, whatever, sending out cover letters to strangers that mention you're top half, top 1/3, top 20% doesn't help much; it might help get you a meeting but you won't be hired based on your school/grades. And usually the person who gets you a job will have encountered you, in person, before encountering your resume.

Re-reading this gives me the sneaking suspicion that I explained this poorly. My apologies if that is the case. Still clicking submit.

DoubleChecks wrote:Either way, these sound like shady law school stats! 95% of 20 people from a class of 300...would mean pretty much nothing.


Confused... What?

DoubleChecks wrote:On the idea that at a vast majority of law schools, bottom third is just as likely as top third to get a job...that's interesting; could very well be true. My, my, if it were, I'd hope that information would be circulated more for those making such decisions.


We'd all rather be top 1/3 than bottom 1/3, so "just as likely" isn't entirely true. But for all intents and purposes someone in the bottom 1/3 has nearly the same chance of employment as someone in the top 1/3 for the reasons discussed. As far as why this information isn't cirulated much, I can only guess. I've found TLS is a bit heavy on advice for students who go to "top" schools. There are a few posters who do attend more average schools, and with some patience you can find their advice.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby DoubleChecks » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:45 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:Either way, these sound like shady law school stats! 95% of 20 people from a class of 300...would mean pretty much nothing.


Confused... What?



Was just pointing out that saying "95% of those who are employed did it through networking" means very little without the raw numbers to back it up. 95% of 20 people is very different from 95% of 1000. Reminded me of law school employment stats that mislead folks, saying 94%* are employed and make a median of $90,000** nine months out from graduating.

*of those who responded to our at times selective survey
**of those who noted their salary from the group of people who suffer from selection biased and responded to the survey in the first case

STCL was one of the most egregious offenders a few yrs ago. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they had 75% salary of $145,000 being reported on their website...to bad it was based off of like single digit %s of those who actually responded to that question. Literally a handful of people lol.

FamilyLawEsq
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby FamilyLawEsq » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:07 am

sinfiery wrote:
FamilyLawEsq wrote:I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

No, absolutely not. First off, social mobility. Second off, learn how markets work before spouting this asinine opinion. Third, have some damn consideration for idealism and what you find to be qualities our society should strive for regardless of lost monetary gains.


Owning a law firm for the last 30+ years, having a daughter graduate from law school in 2011 and hiring law students in this economy gives me a pretty good idea of how the market works. Perhaps I am being paternal, but again this is my personal opinion, having been there, done that, seen that, and still seeing it.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby DoubleChecks » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:24 am

FamilyLawEsq wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
FamilyLawEsq wrote:I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.

No, absolutely not. First off, social mobility. Second off, learn how markets work before spouting this asinine opinion. Third, have some damn consideration for idealism and what you find to be qualities our society should strive for regardless of lost monetary gains.


Owning a law firm for the last 30+ years, having a daughter graduate from law school in 2011 and hiring law students in this economy gives me a pretty good idea of how the market works. Perhaps I am being paternal, but again this is my personal opinion, having been there, done that, seen that, and still seeing it.


I support you FamilyLawEsq! lol, if not only because sinfiery's comment was actually extremely hypocritical. Your original comment was both reasonable and a "personal belief." His reaction seems unwarranted and over the top to me, where I almost wonder if he was just trolling you in the first place.

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

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby romothesavior » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:27 am

Taking on 150k+ in debt from say Chicago is an infinitely better investment than 100 or even 75k from a school like Dayton. I'm pretty debt averse and pretty adamantly against sticker outside of HYS, but this 50% rule is really silly. There are schools where biglaw +AIII rates are higher than most schools' lawyer job placement total. That should be kept in mind in advising people.

Docreviewsux
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 am

Law School is a Sham

Postby Docreviewsux » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:39 am


User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby patrickd139 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:40 am

Oh hai, this thread again.

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

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby 20141023 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:40 am

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Docreviewsux
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby Docreviewsux » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:46 am

patrickd139 wrote:Oh hai, this thread again.


It's the title of the article buddy.

Docreviewsux
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:13 am

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby Docreviewsux » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:50 am

What's the effect of PAYE on your FICO score? The ability to get a loan and the rate of interest? What happens to your credit if you are thirty days late?

What happens if the rethuglicans revoke PAYE?

jack5on
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: More law profs against law school

Postby jack5on » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:59 am

FamilyLawEsq wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:
You are dead on. IMO the increase in law school prices is driven by the law professors. Unless there is a large capital improvement going on, the bulk of tuition is going to professors, some who work 20 hours per week, recyle their classes and write something once a year. Contracts, Property, and Wills classes have virtually remained unchanged in the last 30 years. More students going to school=the potential for more law professors=hiring of new professors to replace higher salaried older ones. I don't think there should be tenure in the law school setting either. Professors are not saying don't go for the law student's benefit. There are too many lawyers and too few jobs at every level of practice.

I personally believe that you should not go to any law school unless you can attend without having to pay more than 50% of the total cost through loans.


http://www.economist.com/node/21563714
Why tuition has gone up so much...

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Law School is a Sham

Postby nickb285 » Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:00 am

Image




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests