Failure is not an option (Campos)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby jselson » Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:37 pm

zman wrote:
NYstate wrote:
zman wrote:plenty of poor people went to Yale and columbia in the 50s. I don't think the quality of education is that much better at yale/Columbia or a state school. It's about even.

Where are your stats on this? I do not believe it to be true, though maybe you include people who had the GI bill because they were WWII veterans? That is a different government program instead of loans to pay for school.

And by people I assume you mean men ( white.) Columbia didn't accept women in the 1950s. Not sure about Yale.

Of course the education is better at a small private school than an overcrowded state school. That doesn't mean you can't get the basics from a state school.


"Of course the education is better at a small private school" Just barely maybe. Does it really matter? WIth all the advanced tech, you can access information very easily and educate yourself.


So many self-motivated autodidacts in the world. So many employers who will accept a running list of what you've learned rather than a degree.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby IAFG » Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:57 pm

Oh man, there are autodidacts all over the Internet. And they can't wait to tell you how they've done their homework, read the studies (or rather, the abstracts) and now know better than MDs, statisticians, the CDC, etc. Robyn O'Brien comes to mind.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:20 pm

zman wrote:plenty of poor people went to Yale and columbia in the 50s. I don't think the quality of education is that much better at yale/Columbia or a state school. It's about even.


In my opinion, you are focusing too heavily on the "educational quality" aspect of a given school. Higher ed institutions, ESPECIALLY law schools, tend to be more valuable as signaling devices rather than as actual measures of practice-ready graduates. You don't hire a Yale Law graduate because the faculty at Yale is so much more adept at teaching law than any other school (matter of fact, some people argue that they're less adept at teaching practical skills). You hire them because you can be sure you're hiring someone who is smart and capable. In most fields the admissions process has already "sorted" students, so employers can hazard a guess as to how smart/capable you are without needing to interview every resume that lands on their desks.

The same principle holds true today for a college education, despite the fact that most students are graduating with little to no practical skills (which they will presumably learn at their positions). Having a college degree demonstrates that you are a) Smart enough to have gotten into College X, however smart that may require, and b) A decent enough worker so as to have graduated, or to have received a GPA of x.xx. Note that none of the above suggests at any point that you have learned anything.

Also, I would dispute the notion that "plenty" of poor people went to Yale and Columbia in the '50s. By 1960 the tuition at these schools is around $1500, which is about half the median income of the time. So in the absence of loans, you're talking about perhaps two years' salary for a middle-class family, not including room/board/books/whatnot (and of course, most households are one-income at this point). That is perhaps doable, and it contributes to the increasing presence of the middle-class at elite educational institutions during the post-war years (along with standardized testing and the GI Bill). But if you were poorer, and school costs maybe three or four years' salary? No way, not without loans or a scholarship.

Also, this analysis necessarily excludes women and minorities, meaning that even in the whitest time in American history (late 50s/early 60s), 55% of the population is shut out by default.

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby haus » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:36 pm

Big Dog wrote:
I suppose our core disagreement lies in what you articulated in 1).. I believe these schools should be accessible to anyone intelligent and hard working enough to be admitted, and the ability to attend should not depend on financial factors


Fair enough, but the point of Campos's argument is that xx% of those "intelligent and hard working enough to be admitted" should be de-admitted after 1L. Let 'em in, give 'em all the loans that they want, then kick 'em to the gutter with no job. Does that really make sense from a societal pov?

Even very good selection process will make mistakes.

While the 40%+ removal rate from decades ago is likely over the top, a effective absence of academic removal seems like an over correction. It does not seem unlikely that 1-3% of those who enter into T20 programs may be unable to hack it.

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby jselson » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:42 pm

haus wrote:
Big Dog wrote:
I suppose our core disagreement lies in what you articulated in 1).. I believe these schools should be accessible to anyone intelligent and hard working enough to be admitted, and the ability to attend should not depend on financial factors


Fair enough, but the point of Campos's argument is that xx% of those "intelligent and hard working enough to be admitted" should be de-admitted after 1L. Let 'em in, give 'em all the loans that they want, then kick 'em to the gutter with no job. Does that really make sense from a societal pov?

Even very good selection process will make mistakes.

While the 40%+ removal rate from decades ago is likely over the top, a effective absence of academic removal seems like an over correction. It does not seem unlikely that 1-3% of those who enter into T20 programs may be unable to hack it.


And I wonder what the 3-year drop out rate is, approximately ...

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby Big Dog » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:44 pm

It does not seem unlikely that 1-3% of those who enter into T20 programs may be unable to hack it.


And how do you define ability to "hack it"? Solely on grades? Or, what about outcomes: are they passing the bar after say, no more than three tries? If so, even the bottom graduate is still an attorney. (Heck our current VP was the opposite of a top grad in LS, if I recall.)

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby haus » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:55 pm

Big Dog wrote:
It does not seem unlikely that 1-3% of those who enter into T20 programs may be unable to hack it.


And how do you define ability to "hack it"? Solely on grades? ...

Well it is still school, grades would seem to be a good place to start. Unless perhaps you would like to have everyone compete for time in 40 meter sprints...
Last edited by haus on Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby haus » Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:03 pm

jselson wrote:And I wonder what the 3-year drop out rate is, approximately ...

Interesting question. Imagine a possibility where the students themselves properly sorted themselves into those who are doing well enough and those who are not with little or no direct input from the school itself. The question becomes, what is the school really accomplishing in exchange for their 20-40k/year? If the student is capable of gathering the required information, and then make a self evaluation regarding weather or not they should graduate, why not just do away with the middle man, grow out the bar exam process and allow people pay BARBRI for a year or so of prepping and allow these people to take a shot at the bar exam?

User avatar
Ling520
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:53 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby Ling520 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:22 pm

zman wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that the average high school grad back in the 50s was more educated than the average college grad today. It's probably not even close, high school was HARD in those days.


There is no doubt in your mind? Do you also believe strongly in your heart? With powerful arguments like that to back up your completely baseless, ludicrous claims, I'm sure you would have aced your law school exams in the 60s and never of had to worry about failing out.

User avatar
jk148706
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby jk148706 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:48 pm

Ling520 wrote:
zman wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that the average high school grad back in the 50s was more educated than the average college grad today. It's probably not even close, high school was HARD in those days.


There is no doubt in your mind? Do you also believe strongly in your heart? With powerful arguments like that to back up your completely baseless, ludicrous claims, I'm sure you would have aced your law school exams in the 60s and never of had to worry about failing out.


I get so many lolz from this site

Paul Campos
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:44 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby Paul Campos » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:38 pm

I dont see it that way. Paul specifically used Colorado as an example. His blog was suggesting tht UC-Boulder start flunking out law students, for no other reason than they can.


I've already pointed out once in this thread that I didn't say or even imply this.

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:07 am

Re: Failure is not an option (Campos)

Postby haus » Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:08 pm

Paul Campos wrote:
I dont see it that way. Paul specifically used Colorado as an example. His blog was suggesting tht UC-Boulder start flunking out law students, for no other reason than they can.


I've already pointed out once in this thread that I didn't say or even imply this.

Do not feel bad RC is not everyone's favorite subject. Besides it can be more entertaining to assign the argument you wish to rail against to someone else, this way it does not look like you are standing at a bus stop arguing with yourself.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigZuck, bns212, chicago-gunner123, favabeansoup, isuggestbedtime, WiltyMIZ, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests