A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Matthies » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:51 pm

I’m with Philo, I just can’t in good conscious put all, or even the majority of the blame on the schools here. If no students enroll, then you have no law school, but they will enroll, they will fill up there first class at Belmont, because individuals WILL enroll their of their own free will.

False advertising or not by the school, that first class will be full. At some point you have to say the individual is making the decision and must be held accountable for their own actions. If I’m going to buy a car I’m going to do some research, I’m going to look it up online, go to consumer reports, maybe find a message board with owners of that car and talk to them. I’m not going to rely on just what the car company says in their add about their cars being on the road longer or reselling for more money, I’m going to check my facts before I pay 30k for an automobile.

Now, if you don’t, you just see an add on TV, like the thing, rush out and pay 30k for a car and it ends up being a piece of shit, I don’t feel like it’s my duty to protect you from yourself. And I’m not going to buy it when you try to blame the car maker for duping you into buying something without being informed.

I’m not saying that the too many law schools argument does not have merit, or that schools are not misleading their students, or that jobs are very hard to come by, or that we don’t have too many lawyers. I will coincide those points, all of them. But I cannot, based on my own personal experiences and feelings about the individual go along with anything that does not put the onus of the responsibility on the person making the decisions to do what they do. Like I said in the smoking example, I’m not going to blame Philipp Morris for my lung cancer, no one forced me to smoke or keep smoking. No one is forcing anyone to go to these schools.

If everyone stopped smoking they would stop making ciggetters. If everyone stopped wanting to be a lawyer they would stop opening new law schools. Its not a chicken and the egg thing, new schools open because there is more demand by want to be lawyers than there are law school seats. The law schools did not create he demand, they did not sit empty waiting for everyone to want to be a lawyer, everyone wanted to be lawyer so they opened more schools.

Individuals, in my view, need to take responsibility for their own decisions, successes and failures, and I just can’t buy into this its the schools fault and reconcile that with what I have just described. Again, that does not mean I don’t see the merit in the argument to close schools, it’s just that option seems to me to be taking more responsibility away from the individual, saying it’s not your fault you could not get a $160k job from a t4 “its the system” that’s to blame “they duped” you and you’re an innocent victim. That is the McDonalds made me fat argument. I just can’t personally buy into that even if it would make my life much easier if they closed every law school in the country but mine.

reasonable minds will differ, that's just how I personally see the issue based on my experinces

User avatar
arhmcpo
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:05 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby arhmcpo » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:07 pm

Agreed. Anyone mature enough to make the decision to go to law school should be mature enough to do a little research on what school to go to. Any future Belmont students have no one to blame but themselves when they come out w/ huge debt and can't seem to find the millions of entertainment law positions out in Nashville or ANY OTHER part of the country for that matter... that do not exist. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone doubts that the 1L class will be full of people who looked at the location or thought $30,000k plus tuition must be justified with great job prospects...right? right?! The only recourse besides individual responsibility would be an even more paternalistic state that had a way of preventing people from falling into 150k debt when their job prospects are slim to none.

This is all quite sad really.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby reasonable_man » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:12 pm

What about people who are already lawyers that watch these blood sucking TTTs pop up everywhere? There are more than enough law schools in existence to fill the demand for lawyer services. The demand for idiots to become lawyers need not and should not be met. This is a profession, not a game. The more law schools that open, the lower the standards for admission at the bottom ranks. These lower performing students eventually become lawyers and eventually have the opportunity to fucking destroy lives through malpractice and lack of necessary capacity to be competent practicioners. The bar exam is no real barrier. Its a test that can be studied and learned by most. Some will fail a time or two, but most will pass. I see no reason to let less qualified people become lawyers and I see no need to provide legal education to everyone who wants it. The AMA doesn't allow it and if the ABA had any backbone, they would follow suit.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Matthies » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:26 pm

reasonable_man wrote: There are more than enough law schools in existence to fill the demand for lawyer services. The demand for idiots to become lawyers need not and should not be met. I see no reason to let less qualified people become lawyers and I see no need to provide legal education to everyone who wants it. The AMA doesn't allow it and if the ABA had any backbone, they would follow suit.


I agree with this completely. But it’s the demand from everyone to be a lawyer that I think is the problem. The schools just respond to that, it’s the everyone thinks they can be lawyer that is flooding the profession.

Why not just make it harder to get in the first place? Change the LSAt so it can’t be learned, make it an adaptive test, don’t allow people to keep taking it till they get the score they want. Require a pre-law education. Make people show they can write something since that is what lawyers do. Make people work a few years before entering the school like an MBA.

Decrease the flood of everyone with a BA can apply to law school and then you won’t have every new law school filling up its class the year they open. Law school is the easiest grad program to get into with the least requirements. Make it harder to get into law school and the demand by want to be lawyers will go down, the schools will close and market will normalize. So long as anyone with a degree can take one test and get into law school nothing is stopping them from doing so.

There is a simpler answer for this. The legal profession started going down the shitter in the early 70s, coincidently with them letting women into law school. Women now make up 50% or more of law students. Simply get rid of them and go back to all male law schools and everything would fix its self. There would be plenty of jobs for everyone that mattered and the women could find themselves husbands to support them - problem solved.

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Mr. Matlock » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:30 pm

Matthies wrote:There is a simpler answer for this. The legal profession started going down the shitter in the early 70s, coincidently with them letting women into law school. Women now make up 50% or more of law students. Simply get rid of them and go back to all male law schools and everything would fix its self. There would be plenty of jobs for everyone that mattered and the women could find themselves husbands to support them - problem solved.

:lol:
IBDD&TT

User avatar
soullesswonder
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby soullesswonder » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:31 pm

Matthies wrote: Change the LSAt so it can’t be learned, make it an adaptive test, don’t allow people to keep taking it till they get the score they want.


This.

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:33 pm

Matthies wrote:
reasonable_man wrote: There are more than enough law schools in existence to fill the demand for lawyer services. The demand for idiots to become lawyers need not and should not be met. I see no reason to let less qualified people become lawyers and I see no need to provide legal education to everyone who wants it. The AMA doesn't allow it and if the ABA had any backbone, they would follow suit.


I agree with this completely. But it’s the demand from everyone to be a lawyer that I think is the problem. The schools just respond to that, it’s the everyone thinks they can be lawyer that is flooding the profession.

Why not just make it harder to get in the first place? Change the LSAt so it can’t be learned, make it an adaptive test, don’t allow people to keep taking it till they get the score they want. Require a pre-law education. Make people show they can write something since that is what lawyers do. Make people work a few years before entering the school like an MBA.

Decrease the flood of everyone with a BA can apply to law school and then you won’t have every new law school filling up its class the year they open. Law school is the easiest grad program to get into with the least requirements. Make it harder to get into law school and the demand by want to be lawyers will go down, the schools will close and market will normalize. So long as anyone with a degree can take one test and get into law school nothing is stopping them from doing so.

There is a simpler answer for this. The legal profession started going down the shitter in the early 70s, coincidently with them letting women into law school. Women now make up 50% or more of law students. Simply get rid of them and go back to all male law schools and everything would fix its self. There would be plenty of jobs for everyone that mattered and the women could find themselves husbands to support them - problem solved.


I assume this is sarcasm. If not, I disclaim all responsibility for what happens to you in this thread.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Matthies » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:37 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:
Matthies wrote:
reasonable_man wrote: There are more than enough law schools in existence to fill the demand for lawyer services. The demand for idiots to become lawyers need not and should not be met. I see no reason to let less qualified people become lawyers and I see no need to provide legal education to everyone who wants it. The AMA doesn't allow it and if the ABA had any backbone, they would follow suit.


I agree with this completely. But it’s the demand from everyone to be a lawyer that I think is the problem. The schools just respond to that, it’s the everyone thinks they can be lawyer that is flooding the profession.

Why not just make it harder to get in the first place? Change the LSAt so it can’t be learned, make it an adaptive test, don’t allow people to keep taking it till they get the score they want. Require a pre-law education. Make people show they can write something since that is what lawyers do. Make people work a few years before entering the school like an MBA.

Decrease the flood of everyone with a BA can apply to law school and then you won’t have every new law school filling up its class the year they open. Law school is the easiest grad program to get into with the least requirements. Make it harder to get into law school and the demand by want to be lawyers will go down, the schools will close and market will normalize. So long as anyone with a degree can take one test and get into law school nothing is stopping them from doing so.

There is a simpler answer for this. The legal profession started going down the shitter in the early 70s, coincidently with them letting women into law school. Women now make up 50% or more of law students. Simply get rid of them and go back to all male law schools and everything would fix its self. There would be plenty of jobs for everyone that mattered and the women could find themselves husbands to support them - problem solved.


I assume this is sarcasm. If not, I disclaim all responsibility for what happens to you in this thread.



I'm just throwing out possible solutions to the problem! :P

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby 98234872348 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Matthies wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:
Matthies wrote:
reasonable_man wrote: There are more than enough law schools in existence to fill the demand for lawyer services. The demand for idiots to become lawyers need not and should not be met. I see no reason to let less qualified people become lawyers and I see no need to provide legal education to everyone who wants it. The AMA doesn't allow it and if the ABA had any backbone, they would follow suit.


I agree with this completely. But it’s the demand from everyone to be a lawyer that I think is the problem. The schools just respond to that, it’s the everyone thinks they can be lawyer that is flooding the profession.

Why not just make it harder to get in the first place? Change the LSAt so it can’t be learned, make it an adaptive test, don’t allow people to keep taking it till they get the score they want. Require a pre-law education. Make people show they can write something since that is what lawyers do. Make people work a few years before entering the school like an MBA.

Decrease the flood of everyone with a BA can apply to law school and then you won’t have every new law school filling up its class the year they open. Law school is the easiest grad program to get into with the least requirements. Make it harder to get into law school and the demand by want to be lawyers will go down, the schools will close and market will normalize. So long as anyone with a degree can take one test and get into law school nothing is stopping them from doing so.

There is a simpler answer for this. The legal profession started going down the shitter in the early 70s, coincidently with them letting women into law school. Women now make up 50% or more of law students. Simply get rid of them and go back to all male law schools and everything would fix its self. There would be plenty of jobs for everyone that mattered and the women could find themselves husbands to support them - problem solved.


I assume this is sarcasm. If not, I disclaim all responsibility for what happens to you in this thread.



I'm just throwing out possible solutions to the problem! :P

I don't think this solution will agree with, among other things, the 14th amendment...
Last edited by 98234872348 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Matthies » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:50 pm

mistergoft wrote:I don't think this solution will bode well, with, among other things, the 14th amendment...



Your right, we would of course need to repeal that one, and most certainly the 19th amendment. Actually in my book we could just repeal all of them after the 3rd amendment. That’s really the lynch pin of our society anyway. Protip on a Con Law exam the third amendment is always the right answer when you’re in doubt, if you don't know what to say just start jabbering away about the third amendment, you'll get points for sure.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby jenesaislaw » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:41 pm

Philo38 wrote:I agree misrepresentation of employment stats is unethical. However, I really do say survival of the fittest. Afterall, you and I are both fully aware of the job market and the reporting procedures of law schools right? The same level of information is available for all potential students.


No, the same level of information is not available for all prospectives. There is far more information available to those at the best schools. The further down the rankings you go, the worse off prospectives are in terms of what they know. This is because a) "law firms" has more meaning for schools that place large percentages in NLJ 250 firms; and b) reporting percentages are higher from schools that place more graduates in these firms because people are more inclined to share when they're highly paid.

What you maybe meant to say - or perhaps should have said if you were not discerning - was that the reporting processes are the same for all law schools by the ABA, NALP, and US News. This is true and a problem, but unsupportive of your point as it goes to misrepresentation being unethical.

Philo38 wrote:Also, the other aspect to the Nashville market aside form the entertainment law is the medical market, and Belmont certainly pumps alot of grads into both the music business and medical fields. We do have HCA here afterall. That said, if Belmont and Nashville School of Law both tank becuse that is what the new legal job market demands than so be it.


Do you think having lots of I-bankers from Vandy's undergrad helps us law grads/2Ls obtain jobs on Wall Street with firms that do their work? If you think so, I'm confident you're wrong.

Your free market approach to law schools is a problem. These schools tanking means actual people tanking who are grossly indebted because of their reliance on misleading statements about job prospects. Example:

Belmont also ran the numbers to determine whether Tennessee’s economy could support many more lawyers. It concluded that Tennessee is under-lawyered — boasting eight attorneys for every 10,000 residents, compared to 14 lawyers for every 10,000 Georgians and nine for every 10,000 Alabamans.

Do Georgians have too many lawyers? Alabamians? That TN has fewer attorneys per capita is meaningless without first understanding a) why those numbers are what they are and b) whether they are optimized already, or too many. Perhaps GA and AL are the problem - not TN.

These schools will not and do not fail because people continue investing in their future (misguidedly). Demand comes from both sides: the applicant pool and the job pool. They won't fail because there are always fools thinking they can be the one who will make it, against all odds.

Philo38 wrote:I will say, I do think Belmont will have to lower thier prospective tuition. I am very excited by the prospect of a REAL full - time law school moving in and taking the place of Nashville School of Law as a cheaper, less difficult, more locally minded alternative to Vanderbilt. I don't know if they will fill that role, but the role is there to be filled and it will be fantastic if they can/will.


The demand is there, they won't need to lower tuition. And it is, at this time, not a much cheaper alternative to Vanderbilt. The median scholarship/grant at Vanderbilt for the class of 2011 was $15,000 (67% received a scholarship/grant), with tuition this year at $42,000. For a sizable portion of this Vanderbilt class, it is cheaper than Belmont will be. Perhaps significantly so, given potential job opportunities.

Assuming no scholarships, the Vanderbilt degree is between $21,000 and $51,000 cheaper. The cost of living is estimated at ~$21,000 per year. While I can vouch for this being an overestimate, the cost should not vary for anybody attending Belmont. The Belmont degree will still cost (not including opportunity cost, which is probably lower for those attending Belmont instead of Vanderbilt - though this is just a guess) between $138,000 - $168,000, depending on tuition levels and assuming tuition is static (faulty assumption). Vanderbilt, on the other hand, costs (on the same terms) $190,000. Comparing Belmont tuition to Vanderbilt tuition is the wrong comparison. Can Belmont graduates handle the debt? That's the question.

User avatar
observationalist
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:55 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby observationalist » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Matthies wrote:
OperaSoprano wrote:
I assume this is sarcasm. If not, I disclaim all responsibility for what happens to you in this thread.



I'm just throwing out possible solutions to the problem! :P


OS, you should listen to Matthies... he's a success story, particularly wrt to the importance of networking. Matthies has been around for years on lawschooldiscussion and has been very helpful in getting people to look at what regions they want to practice when deciding between schools. The lessons he shares are definitely helpful, even if he does offend a few people along the way.

Matthies, I'm glad you've jumped onto the discussion but I disagree with your car analogy. When you buy a car, you have a number of customary tools that let you accurately measure its value (BlueBook, accident history, report from a mechanic, etc). But when you invest in a JD you have very little information to go on because schools aren't required to provide it to you and they generally see very little incentive in making additional information available. People take the employment stats they see at face value... even if they're skeptical, they have very limited means of getting enough information to actually measure the level of risk involved.

I know you and reasonableman both get this, but an example might help some other folks in seeing just how obscure the reality is. As a disclaimer I'm not trying to make a particular program look bad... if we wanted to, people can go around poking holes in statistics from virtually every law school that only presents their data in the form of pie charts and bar graphs. The more examples the merrier. I chose this program because 1) it's in the middle of the USNews pack, having just broken the Top 100 this year, and 2) it's the same school which employs the scholar who wrote about why law school is too expensive and how to save legal education: --ImageRemoved--.

What does that pie chart actually describe?

For starters, it only shows the breakdown for graduates who are working, not all graduates. The chart potentially omits the 3% of the class who were still unemployed 9 months out, as well as those who "aren't looking," a category that at least for some schools means "did not respond to the email career services sent to their old email address six months ago." It's possible this chart was updated once they reached 100% employment at some later date, but it certainly doesn't represent jobs at graduation or at six months out (when people need to start paying off loans and might be concerned about still being unemployed). How do we know this? Because this school is one of about 60 ABA-approved law schools who stopped reporting the % employed at graduation once they figured out it that not reporting gave them a higher score in the USNews metric. See here: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... loyed.html . Since USNews will plug in an assumed employment % for schools that don't report, a school is incentivized to not report so long as their employment % is lower than whatever USNews assumes. Going off the taxprof chart it looks like the tipping point where not reporting to USNews makes more sense than reporting is about 43%. We can fairly assume this school aims to perform as well as it can in USNews terms, particularly given the fact that it's been very good at publicizing its recent ascension into the top 100 schools. If that's true, then it means less than 43% were employed (again, in any job) at graduation. Even if we grant them some leeway and look at the last time they reported the % at graduation, it would still only be around 50% (http://www.ilrg.com/rankings/law/view.php/40).

I'm all for letting people ignore information and make bad decisions if that's their style, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would look at the pie chart above and have any reason to assume less than half of the class had jobs when they graduated.

Why doesn't the school offer an explanation to the effect of "This pie chart does not in any way mean you should expect to have a job at graduation, or a legal job in general, or a job that will allow you to pay off your debt should you make the mistake of paying all of your tuition by taking out loans?" Because they don't have to. If they did my guess is that people would be less inclined to attend, at least until they had saved enough to prevent putting themselves into unmanageable debt. But the school can't justify releasing better information until they're either 1) required by the regulations or 2) convinced everyone else is doing it and that they'll look bad if they don't. Our hopes are that once schools see others receiving a premium for releasing more information, they'll go ahead and hop on board with reporting more information. And if their actual data is that bad, they'll go ahead and figure out how to cut costs or limit class sizes to something that's more appropriate, rather than figure out how to report less information to artificially make their program look stronger than it is.

And if we're wrong in thinking schools will do this through market pressure, we can then make our case to the ABA to change the rules and require more information. At least one scholar has alerted us to the need to show the human interest side of it... ie, talking about the Tennessee native who dreams of attending law school in Nashville, takes out 100K in loans expecting a good job, and ends up either unemployed or with a 30-40K job at graduation (and an unmanageable debt load regardless). If there were any shortage of stories like that, I would probably argue on behalf of Belmont opening up a new school so that we'd have some more fodder for appealing to the ABA. For now, I'm hoping the school takes a different path and at least educate their potential students about what type of car they're actually buying.

Sorry again for the lack of brevity. I will never make a successful transition to Twitter.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Matthies » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:41 pm

Observationalist,

You make good points as always. And I enjoy the few times we are on opposites sides of an issue because you challenge me to think carefully about what I want to say. But again I’m not disagreeing with you that schools need to do a better job of reporting statics on job placement and that students and acdemcis should demand this. (Of course there is the double edged sword here, people want good information but students also want the schools ranked by USNEWS, demand by students to know this info gives schools the incentive to lie).

None of us applying to law school, in law school, or out of law school in the last ten years are free from this original sin. Our demand as consumers to have a nice 1-200 ranking and then responding to that by applying to the highest ranked school we can get into has feed the flames of schools over reporting to increase their rank. With higer ranks comes more applications. More prestige in the eyes of law applicants. More donations from alumni. We all are part of that problem whether want to admit it not. But that’s another argument in and of its self.

As to this argument I think its safe to say you and I see the goal of law school differently, so we see it through a different prism. You talk about placement numbers and the fact that 43% of grads don’t have job at graduation. This is going to sound harsh, but that does not bother me. I don’t see the school as being a job placement office. To me the role of a law school is to give you the education you need to get the JD. It’s a school. If they also happen to find you a job too, great, but I don’t see guaranteeing the employment of their grads as their primary duty to their students. Its the job of the individual studnet to find a themslves a job if the school craps out (and anyone who knows me knows I think most students suck at this, but gain that's a diffrent arguemnt)

Again with the personal responsibility thing. Do I think it sucks that only 35% of CU grads had jobs at gradation this year? Hell yes it sucks. But I don’t think just graduating law school, any law school, means someone owes you a job as a lawyer. I don’t think everyone out there, even the ones with good jobs, are going to make good attornies either. Hell maybe I won’t, I don’t know. But if I do or if I don’t will be solely on my shoulders. If I succeed then I’m not going to give the credit to my school, should I fail I’d be a hypocrite if I blamed my school either. I’ll stand and fall on my owe and take responsibility for what I do or do not do to achieve that.

Yes I am one of those crazy people who actually believe hard work in the face of obstacles will pay off in the end. I know I’m an idealist and want some crazy world where to each to his abilities. But that’s how I see it and that’s how I live it.

Since this is getting long, this is how I would say the car example is germane to the law school situation. There are lawyers out there working in cities and that are graduates of the law school someone is looking at going to. Its easy to find them. Its easy to ask them for their advice. Its easy to go to local bar associations website and download salary data. Its easy to do, but it takes effort to do it right.

You can go to law school part-time and work to defer costs. You can work for years and save money to go to law school. You can take a scholarship at a lower ranked school. You don’t have to borrow 150k to go to law school unless you chose to.

And that is the thing. We humans like to take the path of least resistance. We don’t ask working lawyers for information on the profession, we buy USNEWS and come to websites like this and ask other 0Ls to confirm what we think is true. We don’t want to wait to go to law school until we can afford, we want it RIGHT NOW.

And we want it to be true. Its much easier to digest that there is some evil force out there working against all the good law students then to admit we ourselves, by buying into the USnews hype, by prepping for the LSAt, by choosing to get a magor that is worthless without grad school, by clamoring to fill up all the law schools, we, us, me and you, are as much a cause of the system we operate under today as we are victims of it.

The system is broken no doubt. But closing a few law school here and there is like putting a cork in a bathtub. You will stop the water running through the pipes temporally but far more water is backing up wait for its turn to go down. Until you turn the faucet off, or at least slow its flow, its always going to be there. Until we somehow decrease the demand of everyone and his brother going to law school closing a few school is not going to make the problem of too many lawyers and not enough jobs go away. You won’t stop the supply until you stop the demand. (how we should do this is beyond the scope of this arguemnt, and I sure as hell don;'t have a decent plan of my own)

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Mr. Matlock » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:58 pm

Matthies wrote:Observationalist,

You make good points as always. And I enjoy the few times we are on opposites sides of an issue because you challenge me to think carefully about what I want to say. But again I’m not disagreeing with you that schools need to do a better job of reporting statics on job placement and that students and acdemcis should demand this. (Of course there is the double edged sword here, people want good information but students also want the schools ranked by USNEWS, demand by students to know this info gives schools the incentive to lie).

None of us applying to law school, in law school, or out of law school in the last ten years are free from this original sin. Our demand as consumers to have a nice 1-200 ranking and then responding to that by applying to the highest ranked school we can get into has feed the flames of schools over reporting to increase their rank. With higer ranks comes more applications. More prestige in the eyes of law applicants. More donations from alumni. We all are part of that problem whether want to admit it not. But that’s another argument in and of its self.

As to this argument I think its safe to say you and I see the goal of law school differently, so we see it through a different prism. You talk about placement numbers and the fact that 43% of grads don’t have job at graduation. This is going to sound harsh, but that does not bother me. I don’t see the school as being a job placement office. To me the role of a law school is to give you the education you need to get the JD. It’s a school. If they also happen to find you a job too, great, but I don’t see guaranteeing the employment of their grads as their primary duty to their students. Its the job of the individual studnet to find a themslves a job if the school craps out (and anyone who knows me knows I think most students suck at this, but gain that's a diffrent arguemnt)

Again with the personal responsibility thing. Do I think it sucks that only 35% of CU grads had jobs at gradation this year? Hell yes it sucks. But I don’t think just graduating law school, any law school, means someone owes you a job as a lawyer. I don’t think everyone out there, even the ones with good jobs, are going to make good attornies either. Hell maybe I won’t, I don’t know. But if I do or if I don’t will be solely on my shoulders. If I succeed then I’m not going to give the credit to my school, should I fail I’d be a hypocrite if I blamed my school either. I’ll stand and fall on my owe and take responsibility for what I do or do not do to achieve that.

Yes I am one of those crazy people who actually believe hard work in the face of obstacles will pay off in the end. I know I’m an idealist and want some crazy world where to each to his abilities. But that’s how I see it and that’s how I live it.

Since this is getting long, this is how I would say the car example is germane to the law school situation. There are lawyers out there working in cities and that are graduates of the law school someone is looking at going to. Its easy to find them. Its easy to ask them for their advice. Its easy to go to local bar associations website and download salary data. Its easy to do, but it takes effort to do it right.

You can go to law school part-time and work to defer costs. You can work for years and save money to go to law school. You can take a scholarship at a lower ranked school. You don’t have to borrow 150k to go to law school unless you chose to.

And that is the thing. We humans like to take the path of least resistance. We don’t ask working lawyers for information on the profession, we buy USNEWS and come to websites like this and ask other 0Ls to confirm what we think is true. We don’t want to wait to go to law school until we can afford, we want it RIGHT NOW.

And we want it to be true. Its much easier to digest that there is some evil force out there working against all the good law students then to admit we ourselves, by buying into the USnews hype, by prepping for the LSAt, by choosing to get a magor that is worthless without grad school, by clamoring to fill up all the law schools, we, us, me and you, are as much a cause of the system we operate under today as we are victims of it.

The system is broken no doubt. But closing a few law school here and there is like putting a cork in a bathtub. You will stop the water running through the pipes temporally but far more water is backing up wait for its turn to go down. Until you turn the faucet off, or at least slow its flow, its always going to be there. Until we somehow decrease the demand of everyone and his brother going to law school closing a few school is not going to make the problem of too many lawyers and not enough jobs go away. You won’t stop the supply until you stop the demand. (how we should do this is beyond the scope of this arguemnt, and I sure as hell don;'t have a decent plan of my own)

Aw fuck it. Let's go with the kick the bitches out plan.

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Philo38 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:01 pm

jenesaislaw wrote:
Philo38 wrote:I agree misrepresentation of employment stats is unethical. However, I really do say survival of the fittest. Afterall, you and I are both fully aware of the job market and the reporting procedures of law schools right? The same level of information is available for all potential students.


No, the same level of information is not available for all prospectives. There is far more information available to those at the best schools. The further down the rankings you go, the worse off prospectives are in terms of what they know. This is because a) "law firms" has more meaning for schools that place large percentages in NLJ 250 firms; and b) reporting percentages are higher from schools that place more graduates in these firms because people are more inclined to share when they're highly paid.


Let me be clear here, and let me make sure I understand your criticism. the "prospectives" I was referring to were potential law students, not current law students. Research by anyone considering a JD will uncover the information that you and I both have about the decreasing value of the JD and the turbulant legal hiring market.

User avatar
Matthies
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Matthies » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:02 pm

Matlock can we make it retroactive? :lol:

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Philo38 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:03 pm

Matthies wrote:Observationalist,

You make good points as always. And I enjoy the few times we are on opposites sides of an issue because you challenge me to think carefully about what I want to say. But again I’m not disagreeing with you that schools need to do a better job of reporting statics on job placement and that students and acdemcis should demand this. (Of course there is the double edged sword here, people want good information but students also want the schools ranked by USNEWS, demand by students to know this info gives schools the incentive to lie).

None of us applying to law school, in law school, or out of law school in the last ten years are free from this original sin. Our demand as consumers to have a nice 1-200 ranking and then responding to that by applying to the highest ranked school we can get into has feed the flames of schools over reporting to increase their rank. With higer ranks comes more applications. More prestige in the eyes of law applicants. More donations from alumni. We all are part of that problem whether want to admit it not. But that’s another argument in and of its self.

As to this argument I think its safe to say you and I see the goal of law school differently, so we see it through a different prism. You talk about placement numbers and the fact that 43% of grads don’t have job at graduation. This is going to sound harsh, but that does not bother me. I don’t see the school as being a job placement office. To me the role of a law school is to give you the education you need to get the JD. It’s a school. If they also happen to find you a job too, great, but I don’t see guaranteeing the employment of their grads as their primary duty to their students. Its the job of the individual studnet to find a themslves a job if the school craps out (and anyone who knows me knows I think most students suck at this, but gain that's a diffrent arguemnt)

Again with the personal responsibility thing. Do I think it sucks that only 35% of CU grads had jobs at gradation this year? Hell yes it sucks. But I don’t think just graduating law school, any law school, means someone owes you a job as a lawyer. I don’t think everyone out there, even the ones with good jobs, are going to make good attornies either. Hell maybe I won’t, I don’t know. But if I do or if I don’t will be solely on my shoulders. If I succeed then I’m not going to give the credit to my school, should I fail I’d be a hypocrite if I blamed my school either. I’ll stand and fall on my owe and take responsibility for what I do or do not do to achieve that.

Yes I am one of those crazy people who actually believe hard work in the face of obstacles will pay off in the end. I know I’m an idealist and want some crazy world where to each to his abilities. But that’s how I see it and that’s how I live it.

Since this is getting long, this is how I would say the car example is germane to the law school situation. There are lawyers out there working in cities and that are graduates of the law school someone is looking at going to. Its easy to find them. Its easy to ask them for their advice. Its easy to go to local bar associations website and download salary data. Its easy to do, but it takes effort to do it right.

You can go to law school part-time and work to defer costs. You can work for years and save money to go to law school. You can take a scholarship at a lower ranked school. You don’t have to borrow 150k to go to law school unless you chose to.

And that is the thing. We humans like to take the path of least resistance. We don’t ask working lawyers for information on the profession, we buy USNEWS and come to websites like this and ask other 0Ls to confirm what we think is true. We don’t want to wait to go to law school until we can afford, we want it RIGHT NOW.

And we want it to be true. Its much easier to digest that there is some evil force out there working against all the good law students then to admit we ourselves, by buying into the USnews hype, by prepping for the LSAt, by choosing to get a magor that is worthless without grad school, by clamoring to fill up all the law schools, we, us, me and you, are as much a cause of the system we operate under today as we are victims of it.

The system is broken no doubt. But closing a few law school here and there is like putting a cork in a bathtub. You will stop the water running through the pipes temporally but far more water is backing up wait for its turn to go down. Until you turn the faucet off, or at least slow its flow, its always going to be there. Until we somehow decrease the demand of everyone and his brother going to law school closing a few school is not going to make the problem of too many lawyers and not enough jobs go away. You won’t stop the supply until you stop the demand. (how we should do this is beyond the scope of this arguemnt, and I sure as hell don;'t have a decent plan of my own)


Bravo!

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:05 pm

Observationalist, well said, as always. I was giving Matthies grief for the misogynistic post. As a woman who turned down a chance to be taken care of by a guy, I can honestly say that life is much better this way. (Interestingly enough, the guy in question was a Fordham grad who had done very well for himself.)

You are absolutely right that complete information just does not exist for a vast number of schools. When I was considering Northeastern (a school I truly admire for its public interest focus and refusal to yank scholarships) I made several attempts to find out the school's employed at graduation percentage. I never could get hard numbers, but I was told that around 40% of students land jobs through their co-ops. I really had to work to get that number, and in the end, as much as I admired the school's educational philosophy, I found the prospect of graduating without a job too terrifying. Now, of course, given the economy, it could easily still happen.

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Philo38 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:10 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:Observationalist, well said, as always. I was giving Matthies grief for the misogynistic post. As a woman who turned down a chance to be taken care of by a guy, I can honestly say that life is much better this way. (Interestingly enough, the guy in question was a Fordham grad who had done very well for himself.)

You are absolutely right that complete information just does not exist for a vast number of schools. When I was considering Northeastern (a school I truly admire for its public interest focus and refusal to yank scholarships) I made several attempts to find out the school's employed at graduation percentage. I never could get hard numbers, but I was told that around 40% of students land jobs through their co-ops. I really had to work to get that number, and in the end, as much as I admired the school's educational philosophy, I found the prospect of graduating without a job too terrifying. Now, of course, given the economy, it could easily still happen.


Do you watch "Raising the Bar" I know thats embarrasing to admit, but there is a Fordham student character in the show. I've wondered what women at Fordham think about her . . . Part Fordham law student, part erotic dancer . . .

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby jenesaislaw » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:11 pm

Matthies, I'm trying to understand what your point is. It seems tangential to the real issue. I know obs is typing a response, but I want to make sure the debate here is clear. What exactly are you criticizing when you say, "You don’t have to borrow 150k to go to law school unless you chose to"? Can you sum this up in 1 or 2 sentences?
Last edited by jenesaislaw on Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Mr. Matlock » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:12 pm

Philo38 wrote: . . . Part Fordham law student, part erotic dancer . . .

Hmmm... didn't see this turn coming in the thread.
Image

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Philo38 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:16 pm

Mr. Matlock wrote:
Philo38 wrote: . . . Part Fordham law student, part erotic dancer . . .

Hmmm... didn't see this turn coming in the thread.
Image


Yeah, but I figured how often will misogynist and female Fordham students be mentioned in the same thread? I had to jump on my chance.

User avatar
jenesaislaw
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby jenesaislaw » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:17 pm

Philo38 wrote:
jenesaislaw wrote:
Philo38 wrote:I agree misrepresentation of employment stats is unethical. However, I really do say survival of the fittest. Afterall, you and I are both fully aware of the job market and the reporting procedures of law schools right? The same level of information is available for all potential students.


No, the same level of information is not available for all prospectives. There is far more information available to those at the best schools. The further down the rankings you go, the worse off prospectives are in terms of what they know. This is because a) "law firms" has more meaning for schools that place large percentages in NLJ 250 firms; and b) reporting percentages are higher from schools that place more graduates in these firms because people are more inclined to share when they're highly paid.


Let me be clear here, and let me make sure I understand your criticism. the "prospectives" I was referring to were potential law students, not current law students. Research by anyone considering a JD will uncover the information that you and I both have about the decreasing value of the JD and the turbulant legal hiring market.


Prospectives = prospective law students. Potential law students works too. The point is that it encompasses people who are applying or may apply in the future.

Also, my point remains regardless of hiring climate. That hiring is so terrible now is irrelevant to the quote you...quoted.

User avatar
Philo38
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:21 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby Philo38 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 pm

"No, the same level of information is not available for all prospectives. There is far more information available to those at the best schools."

This just led me to believe you were talking about potential lawyers, that is, law students who are trying to get info about the job market, which, I agree the better law schools provide them with better information. I'm talking about potential law students, that is, the people trying to decide which JDs are worth what, and we all have acess to the same info no?

User avatar
OperaSoprano
Posts: 4410
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:54 am

Re: A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011

Postby OperaSoprano » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:27 pm

Mr. Matlock wrote:
Philo38 wrote: . . . Part Fordham law student, part erotic dancer . . .

Hmmm... didn't see this turn coming in the thread.
Image


My roommate claims that show is based on the Bronx Defenders, where she used to work. What episode? We should rent it.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Finickywalrus and 5 guests