A Modest Proposal

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
devilishangelrjp
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:21 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby devilishangelrjp » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:26 pm

Veyron wrote:
jayzon wrote:I am not offended by your point of view; I am offended by the smarmy douchiness which accompanies it.


Step one: Read Atlas Shrugged
Step two: Embrace elitism
Step three: ???
Step four: Profittt!


Step 1: Highly overrated book. The only people who read it are bandwagon-jumpers who heard it was a good book from other literary wannabes...oh and people trying for a scholarship.
Step 2: No.
Step 3: My thoughts exactly.
Step 4: Lose Steps 1-3 and then you can.

User avatar
Fancy Pants
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Fancy Pants » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:36 pm

devilishangelrjp wrote:
Veyron wrote:
jayzon wrote:I am not offended by your point of view; I am offended by the smarmy douchiness which accompanies it.


Step one: Read Atlas Shrugged
Step two: Embrace elitism
Step three: ???
Step four: Profittt!


Step 1: Highly overrated book. The only people who read it are bandwagon-jumpers who heard it was a good book from other literary wannabes...oh and people trying for a scholarship.
Step 2: No.
Step 3: My thoughts exactly.
Step 4: Lose Steps 1-3 and then you can.


Aw this post makes me sad. You clearly don't get the joke, which means you have never seen the Underpants Gnomes. Which is sad. :|

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:51 pm

Veyron wrote:Except, my dear captain, monopolies tend to endure when left alone without government interference SEE: Standard Oil.

On the LLB proposal: TITCR.

Fancy pants: I clearly don't care about TTTrs (outside of my friends at TTTs). Just pointing out our mutual interests in order to convince you to support a policy beneficial to me. I've always been under the impression that downward pressure on wages at the bottom of a market tends to depress wages at the top of the market, even if there is little overlap in hiring. Perhaps an econ major can correct me if I am wrong.


First, there is no such thing as non governemnt interference in this country. Standard Oil is supported by the government in many ways, as are virtually all businesses and organizations in this country.

Secondly, no monopoly endures forever. Whether it takes months, years or decades, ALL monopolies fall eventually. You're looking at the short run. I specifically clarified the long run. The long run could very well be a half a century.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:55 pm

I was referring to Standard Oil in its original robber baron form when the US government couldn't touch it.

Besides, in the long run, we are all dead, even companies.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:58 pm

Veyron wrote:I was referring to Standard Oil in its original robber baron form when the US government couldn't touch it.

Besides, in the long run, we are all dead, even companies.


Yup. Which is why I don't want your proposal to be implemented. I don't want to wait for the long run when its made moot. I'd like to completely avoid it in the short run by not implementing something so pointless and elitist.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:59 pm

What is the "it" you seek to avoid?

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Veyron wrote:What is the "it" you seek to avoid?


Seriously?

User avatar
84Sunbird2000
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby 84Sunbird2000 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:02 pm

Veyron wrote:Which is why the proposal includes an enrollment cap.


You're wording led me (and flcath I believe) to think that the enrollment cap was referring to the maximum population for each state's school per its states population, not that each state would have X number of schools with incoming classes around 600. Yes, I realize some states with populations below 2.5 million would have smaller schools under your proposition.

Nonetheless, I shouldn't feed you.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:07 pm

The cap proposed was a hard one for each school. Obviously the 2000 person cap was idiotically high.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby flcath » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:21 pm

kwhitegocubs wrote:
Veyron wrote:Which is why the proposal includes an enrollment cap.


You're wording led me (and flcath I believe) to think that the enrollment cap was referring to the maximum population for each state's school per its states population, not that each state would have X number of schools with incoming classes around 600. Yes, I realize some states with populations below 2.5 million would have smaller schools under your proposition.

Nonetheless, I shouldn't feed you.

Oh. That makes a lot more sense. I think you (Veyron) had a misplaced modifier in your proposal, 'cause I wasn't just being a dick I really did read it that way.

This proposal does an awful job taking into account that certain states (Virginia) have a disproportionate number of good LSs to their population, while others (Texas) don't. Basically you'd be shutting down William & Mary and George Mason while leaving Baylor and Houston open.

Also: still not politically feasible in any way.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:29 pm

Yes, but I think that schools below the current T-14 (or 20) would see their rankings adjust to suit their respective rank in each market, so SMU would adjust to = Mason (which is the 2nd best LS in VA and would not be shut down in any event).

The ABA is one of the most powerful trade-groups in America. If they wanted to do it, they could get the support.

User avatar
84Sunbird2000
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby 84Sunbird2000 » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:38 pm

Veyron wrote:Yes, but I think that schools below the current T-14 (or 20) would see their rankings adjust to suit their respective rank in each market, so SMU would adjust to = Mason (which is the 2nd best LS in VA and would not be shut down in any event).

The ABA is one of the most powerful trade-groups in America. If they wanted to do it, they could get the support.


Lulz, libertarian trolling extremism. Mason is better than William and Mary AND Washington and Lee??

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:53 pm

I may be *slightly* biased by the fact that the school is the worldwide center of Austrian Economics. Nonetheless, I thought that it was also higher ranked. IDK, I don't really keep up with the schools' relative positions. If it be lower ranked, let the axe fall on its head then.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Renzo » Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:57 pm

flcath wrote:This is a very exaggerated characterization of many European nations.

My main question (and this seems to be the only--albeit incomplete--remedy that might actually transpire) is this: why doesn't the ABA regulate and require accurate employment and salary data? I have yet to hear a solid reason (and the idea that mandating LS graduates fill out a questionnaire [truthfully] is an unreasonable burden is NOT a solid reason).

1) It isn't an exaggeration, but I thought of another situation when it can occur. It only occurs in a) communist centrally-planned economies, and b) when a cartel controls the industry. Since b) hardly ever applies to professional services, a) is the only condition relevant. You disagree? Then tell me what trade is artificially scarce in what country (and not for consumer-protection reasons).

2) the ABA cannot force anyone to report their salary--what would they do if you refuse? Further, reasonably accurate salary data is already available both from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and from the ABA. Information availability isn't the problem, the problem is bad risk assessment by applicants, and there isn't much anyone can do to make people be better judges of risk/reward.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby flcath » Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:34 pm

Renzo wrote:
flcath wrote:This is a very exaggerated characterization of many European nations.

My main question (and this seems to be the only--albeit incomplete--remedy that might actually transpire) is this: why doesn't the ABA regulate and require accurate employment and salary data? I have yet to hear a solid reason (and the idea that mandating LS graduates fill out a questionnaire [truthfully] is an unreasonable burden is NOT a solid reason).

1) It isn't an exaggeration, but I thought of another situation when it can occur. It only occurs in a) communist centrally-planned economies, and b) when a cartel controls the industry. Since b) hardly ever applies to professional services, a) is the only condition relevant. You disagree? Then tell me what trade is artificially scarce in what country (and not for consumer-protection reasons).
My (admittedly very general and second-hand... don't let this come off as me pretending to know exactly how Europe works) understanding was that many/most EU nations have a tiered education system that essentially forced students off the academic track to the vocational track early on and then distributed them among the "academic" professions based on factors *other than* (1) achievement of minimal competency (i.e., consumer protection) and (2) the applicants pure choice. Also, US medical schools do this: any MS dean would tell you that a good portion of the selectivity of US med schools has nothing at all to do with professional quality/consumer protection... however, I will concede that there are economic factors present there (it costs $$$$ to educate doctors) that are not present with LS.

Renzo wrote:2) the ABA cannot force anyone to report their salary--what would they do if you refuse?
This is the one thing that you wrote that is absolutely ridiculous. OF COURSE they can force you to report your salary. If they can force you to report your job history, your criminal history (including EXPUNGED arrests for which you were never convicted), previous substance abuse issues, et cetera, and there is a compelling public interest served by such coercion, they can certainly force you. The only privacy issue would be if they then published salary info in a manner than made it personally identifiable, which they needn't do.

Renzo wrote:Further, reasonably accurate salary data is already available both from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and from the ABA. Information availability isn't the problem, the problem is bad risk assessment by applicants, and there isn't much anyone can do to make people be better judges of risk/reward.
(a) reasonable salary info *broken down by law school* is not available and
(b) even if applicants are not entitled to (a), they certainly are entitled to not being deliberately mislead by false misrepresentations of (a)

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Renzo » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:16 pm

flcath wrote:
Renzo wrote: the ABA cannot force anyone to report their salary--what would they do if you refuse?
This is the one thing that you wrote that is absolutely ridiculous. OF COURSE they can force you to report your salary. If they can force you to report your job history, your criminal history (including EXPUNGED arrests for which you were never convicted), previous substance abuse issues, et cetera, and there is a compelling public interest served by such coercion, they can certainly force you. The only privacy issue would be if they then published salary info in a manner than made it personally identifiable, which they needn't do.

You are confusing the ABA with the practice bars (state bar, federal bar, SCOTUS bar). No one needs to ever join the ABA, or report anything to them--it's a voluntary, private industry association. The bar you pass to practice isn't related in any way.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby flcath » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:44 pm

Renzo wrote:
flcath wrote:
Renzo wrote: the ABA cannot force anyone to report their salary--what would they do if you refuse?
This is the one thing that you wrote that is absolutely ridiculous. OF COURSE they can force you to report your salary. If they can force you to report your job history, your criminal history (including EXPUNGED arrests for which you were never convicted), previous substance abuse issues, et cetera, and there is a compelling public interest served by such coercion, they can certainly force you. The only privacy issue would be if they then published salary info in a manner than made it personally identifiable, which they needn't do.

You are confusing the ABA with the practice bars (state bar, federal bar, SCOTUS bar). No one needs to ever join the ABA, or report anything to them--it's a voluntary, private industry association. The bar you pass to practice isn't related in any way.
I just knew I was gonna get pwned for this and I was thinking about it when I was walking around Publix with the gf (this marks the first time I've ever thought about an internet thread while doing other things... please God let this not become a trend). Thank you for the civility of your correction (though I swear to God I did know this, despite the inappropriate example).

What I should have said was that your *state* bar could easily compel such compliance, and could turn the data over to the ABA or, I guess, certify the statistics independently. I feel like the ABA holds enough cards (with LS accreditation) to persuade state bars to consent to this--I don't see why most of them wouldn't want to anyway--and even if certain bars feel a disincentive to participate (like maybe South Dakota or some place where all the LSs are bad), the ABA could restrict them from putting any salary data at all up.

Edit: Basically what I'm saying is that there are far more Big Brother-ish practices in place in America right now (have you ever heard of how new MD grads are sorted into residency programs?) than simply requiring new lawyers to submit salary info *one time* in their life for the purposes of aggregate data. Especially given that there's a pre-existing problem of market saturation, and that LSs do receive subsidy from the federal gov't (which may seem irrelevant, but it was good enough to get JAG recruiters onto LS campuses without their consent).

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Renzo » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:56 pm

flcath wrote:
Renzo wrote:
flcath wrote:
Renzo wrote: the ABA cannot force anyone to report their salary--what would they do if you refuse?
This is the one thing that you wrote that is absolutely ridiculous. OF COURSE they can force you to report your salary. If they can force you to report your job history, your criminal history (including EXPUNGED arrests for which you were never convicted), previous substance abuse issues, et cetera, and there is a compelling public interest served by such coercion, they can certainly force you. The only privacy issue would be if they then published salary info in a manner than made it personally identifiable, which they needn't do.

You are confusing the ABA with the practice bars (state bar, federal bar, SCOTUS bar). No one needs to ever join the ABA, or report anything to them--it's a voluntary, private industry association. The bar you pass to practice isn't related in any way.
I just knew I was gonna get pwned for this and I was thinking about it when I was walking around Publix with the gf (this marks the first time I've ever thought about an internet thread while doing other things... please God let this not become a trend). Thank you for the civility of your correction (though I swear to God I did know this, despite the inappropriate example).

What I should have said was that your *state* bar could easily compel such compliance, and could turn the data over to the ABA or, I guess, certify the statistics independently. I feel like the ABA holds enough cards (with LS accreditation) to persuade state bars to consent to this--I don't see why most of them wouldn't want to anyway--and even if certain bars feel a disincentive to participate (like maybe South Dakota or some place where all the LSs are bad), the ABA could restrict them from putting any salary data at all up.

You'd be asking an association of people, some of who are making truly obscene amounts of money, to voluntarily require themselves to make their own financial data public information. This seems unlikely to go over well. Further, it isn't likely that state bars have such authority. A state bar can decide who practices and who doesn't, but they have no authority to regulate schools; that is not a judicial function. The ABA doesn't hold any cards with state bars; there is absolutely nothing that it can do to practicing attorneys or state bars, other than issue stern emails. What is it going to do, revoke Boalt's accreditation to strong-arm the California government into agreeing to it's demands?

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4858
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Borhas » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:07 pm

devilishangelrjp wrote:
Veyron wrote:
jayzon wrote:I am not offended by your point of view; I am offended by the smarmy douchiness which accompanies it.


Step one: Read Atlas Shrugged
Step two: Embrace elitism
Step three: ???
Step four: Profittt!


Step 1: Highly overrated book. The only people who read it are bandwagon-jumpers who heard it was a good book from other literary wannabes...oh and people trying for a scholarship.
Step 2: No.
Step 3: My thoughts exactly.
Step 4: Lose Steps 1-3 and then you can.


So are you a bandwagon-jumping literary wannabee or are you evaluating a book you've never even read (aka full of crap)

wired
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby wired » Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:09 pm

Everyone stop feeding the troll.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby flcath » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:00 am

Renzo wrote:
flcath wrote:What I should have said was that your *state* bar could easily compel such compliance, and could turn the data over to the ABA or, I guess, certify the statistics independently. I feel like the ABA holds enough cards (with LS accreditation) to persuade state bars to consent to this--I don't see why most of them wouldn't want to anyway--and even if certain bars feel a disincentive to participate (like maybe South Dakota or some place where all the LSs are bad), the ABA could restrict them from putting any salary data at all up.

You'd be asking an association of people, some of who are making truly obscene amounts of money, to voluntarily require themselves to make their own financial data public information. This seems unlikely to go over well. Further, it isn't likely that state bars have such authority. A state bar can decide who practices and who doesn't, but they have no authority to regulate schools; that is not a judicial function. The ABA doesn't hold any cards with state bars; there is absolutely nothing that it can do to practicing attorneys or state bars, other than issue stern emails. What is it going to do, revoke Boalt's accreditation to strong-arm the California government into agreeing to it's demands?
Yeah, I guess that was the theory. Of course that doesn't mean it would be taken that far.

Regardless, let's say it *could* be done (we are talking about a *change* in policy here). What--other than enforcement/execution hangups--would be the downside?

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

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:44 am

I work in a firm with 80 lawyers in the NYC area. I handle mostly commercial litigation, products liability, construction defects and mass tort/environmental-toxic tort defense and appear appear primarily in the Supreme Court in New York and either the Southern or Eastern District Federal Courts...

Based on what I've seen from you ITT, you aren't even qualified to be my secretary's assistant. Go back to playing x-box junior.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:35 am

reasonable_man wrote:

Based on what I've seen from you ITT, you aren't even qualified to be my secretary's assistant. Go back to playing x-box junior.


Oh noes, not a lawyer from the NYC "area" aka Jersey... sorry about your tiny pink BIGLAW ding broseph. At real firms the lawyers are capable of moving beyond ad hominem attacks, but since it seems to be the only type of argument your TTT hide understands (or is able to make), I have answered you in kind.

All of the rest of you... I like where this is going. This debate has definitely expanded my view of the subject. There are definitely more complications to my proposal than first meet the eye, although it still appears feasible.

edit: I think whoever proposed just not giving federal loans to those at true TTT's may have the best idea of all. Benefits:

* Politically popular: no one wants to spend their tax money to prop up -gasp- lawyers.

* Would restrict the size of the legal industry while minimizing government involvement.

GWdawg
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:34 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby GWdawg » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:47 am

Dear Veyron,

The LSAT is not a measure of a persons worth. If it were, I have a feeling your resulting score would doom you to one of the TTT's you now advocate eliminating.

In other words, you're a dick. I truly hope that you either flunk out or do so poorly at your T14 school that the only work you can find is at some shitlaw firm working for the people you currently deride as beneath you.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: A Modest Proposal

Postby Veyron » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:58 am

GWdawg wrote:Dear Veyron,

The LSAT is not a measure of a persons worth. If it were, I have a feeling your resulting score would doom you to one of the TTT's you now advocate eliminating.


I'm sure it would - if it was a measure of a person's worth. As it is, it is the best existing measure of a person's ability to succeed in law school, so I imagine that i will do as any T-14er (which is to say, well). Besides, I plan on working for a firm in a 2ndary market, so its not like I will ever be riding the big preftige train. I merely wished to derail the guy who discounted my argument because he worked in Jersey shitlaw and I was - GASP - a 0L by pointing out how stupid attacks against individuals (or their spelling) instead of arguments are. Next time you post, you might do well to actually critique the merits of what has been said instead of shoring up your injured pride.

Much love.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests