Is Law School a Losing Game?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
NZA
Posts: 1285
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:01 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby NZA » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:15 pm

ResolutePear wrote:Yep. You can be on IBR in the private sector, too - but it's 20-years instead of 10-years. It makes it pretty even in the aforementioned scenario.

As laughable as it is, the forgiveness is taxable too. If they forgive 100k, you might need to take out a loan to pay the taxes. :D


LOL! Does it count as income for that tax year or something?

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:15 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
brickman wrote:Is there good data on how our tuition is being spent? Is it just going to the construction of increasingly unnecessarily nice buildings? Honest to god, I need to understand how the hell they can justify the cost beyond the blanket statement that it is just "the price you pay for a graduate degree".


Nobody is forcing you to attend a particular school. If you don't agree with the tuition, you can easily go elsewhere. If it doesn't make financial sense to do so, then it's not as bad as it seems.

Making nice buildings and such, from what I understand, is derived from the university endowments. Tuition is for the operating costs of the school - as in huge libraries need to be kept up better than those schools that use loopholes to get ABA accredited with sub-standard libraries, for instance.


i think the problem is that a lot of schools...all have that hefty tuition tag, regardless of ranking or job prospects haha


Supply and demand.

I can guarantee you that should law school enrollment fall within 25% of what it is today, many of those schools would simply not survive and tuition would probably go down.

User avatar
ggocat
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:51 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ggocat » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:16 pm

brickman wrote:Is there good data on how our tuition is being spent? Is it just going to the construction of increasingly unnecessarily nice buildings? Honest to god, I need to understand how the hell they can justify the cost beyond the blanket statement that it is just "the price you pay for a graduate degree".

The most detailed data you are likely to get from a school are the responses to Part 6 of the ABA questionnaire. See http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... naire.html. If you ask the school, it might give you the responses. It might not, but there's no harm in asking.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:17 pm

NZA wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:Yep. You can be on IBR in the private sector, too - but it's 20-years instead of 10-years. It makes it pretty even in the aforementioned scenario.

As laughable as it is, the forgiveness is taxable too. If they forgive 100k, you might need to take out a loan to pay the taxes. :D


LOL! Does it count as income for that tax year or something?


Check into it, because some types of forgiveness is taxable while others are not. Also, I made a mistake: It's 25-years instead of 20.

User avatar
JenDarby
Posts: 13289
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby JenDarby » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:21 pm

Family members and my bf have sent me this article, while simultaneously continuing to encourage me to pursue law school, remaining entirely optimistic about it.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby 09042014 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:23 pm

LRAP and 10 year IBR is only for public interest.

25 IBR is just good enough to keep you afloat while you start your career. But you'll have to pay that shit off eventually or get income tax pwnd.

rundoxierun
Posts: 1893
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby rundoxierun » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:42 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
brickman wrote:Is there good data on how our tuition is being spent? Is it just going to the construction of increasingly unnecessarily nice buildings? Honest to god, I need to understand how the hell they can justify the cost beyond the blanket statement that it is just "the price you pay for a graduate degree".


Nobody is forcing you to attend a particular school. If you don't agree with the tuition, you can easily go elsewhere. If it doesn't make financial sense to do so, then it's not as bad as it seems.

Making nice buildings and such, from what I understand, is derived from the university endowments. Tuition is for the operating costs of the school - as in huge libraries need to be kept up better than those schools that use loopholes to get ABA accredited with sub-standard libraries, for instance.


Naw its not that simple.. school funding, especially private schools, is really complex. Their board votes that a certain percentage of endowments can be used each year(usually towards operating expenses and aid) then tuition also goes toward operating expenses and then they often have certain "funds" that call alumni and get smaller donations that can be directed toward certain departments and generally at least a portion of that goes towards operating expenses. In addition, they generally have a bunch of other endowed funds set up to fund things like building, securing speakers, specific professorships and other crap. Tuition alone almost never covers operating expenses.

That said, a lot of schools waste a ridiculous amount of money. I used to attend a university of 2200 students. The money that went to administration costs was absolutely ridiculous. For example, there were like 3 assistant dean of students and each had their own individual secretary. Not to mention the NYC consulting firms they used to hire to help determine the optimal time to have a universal break in classes for lunch (not joking).

The problem is that 1) education is becoming inherently more expensive as it becomes more advanced 2)You have to compete for enrollment to a certain degree 3) for state schools, governments have no problem just cutting their budgets and telling them to figure it out and 4)Rankings mean you have to spend at least a certain amount to kind of keep up with the Jones'.. this fourth one is especially important for law schools I would think.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Stringer Bell » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:42 pm

Drake014 wrote:I'd like to point out the most important point that everyone should take away from this article:

If you allow anyone to borrow lots of money, lots of stupid people will do so. It doesn't matter what its for, maybe its a house, car, or degree. The point is, allowing the vast majority of the population to borrow huge amounts of money will result in lots of people being in serious debt.

Unfortunately, proving that law school students aren't the best policy makers, people on these message boards constantly bitch about how we should limit the number of law schools. Returning to the age of guilds is not the solution to this problem. The simple solution is to stop allowing anyone to borrow huge amounts of money for advanced degrees. Allow students to discharge debts through bankruptcy. Don't have the government guarantee 100% of loans (maybe having the government guarantee a fractions might be a better idea). If lenders have to face consequences for making bad loans, they'll stop lending money to idiots. Right now we've completely destroyed capitalistic mechanisms from the student loan process. Lenders can make bad loans and borrowers can borrow themselves stupid.


This

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby JazzOne » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:46 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
brickman wrote:Is there good data on how our tuition is being spent? Is it just going to the construction of increasingly unnecessarily nice buildings? Honest to god, I need to understand how the hell they can justify the cost beyond the blanket statement that it is just "the price you pay for a graduate degree".


Nobody is forcing you to attend a particular school. If you don't agree with the tuition, you can easily go elsewhere. If it doesn't make financial sense to do so, then it's not as bad as it seems.

Making nice buildings and such, from what I understand, is derived from the university endowments. Tuition is for the operating costs of the school - as in huge libraries need to be kept up better than those schools that use loopholes to get ABA accredited with sub-standard libraries, for instance.


Naw its not that simple.. school funding, especially private schools, is really complex. Their board votes that a certain percentage of endowments can be used each year(usually towards operating expenses and aid) then tuition also goes toward operating expenses and then they often have certain "funds" that call alumni and get smaller donations that can be directed toward certain departments and generally at least a portion of that goes towards operating expenses. In addition, they generally have a bunch of other endowed funds set up to fund things like building, securing speakers, specific professorships and other crap. Tuition alone almost never covers operating expenses.

That said, a lot of schools waste a ridiculous amount of money. I used to attend a university of 2200 students. The money that went to administration costs was absolutely ridiculous. For example, there were like 3 assistant dean of students and each had their own individual secretary. Not to mention the NYC consulting firms they used to hire to help determine the optimal time to have a universal break in classes for lunch (not joking).

The problem is that 1) education is becoming inherently more expensive as it becomes more advanced 2)You have to compete for enrollment to a certain degree 3) for state schools, governments have no problem just cutting their budgets and telling them to figure it out and 4)Rankings mean you have to spend at least a certain amount to kind of keep up with the Jones'.. this fourth one is especially important for law schools I would think.

I have been willing to criticize my own law school when it was deserved. However, UT is one of the few good schools that keeps COA down. The tuition is very reasonable, and they give away a ton of money. We don't have any fancy architecture or nice views from the library, but it doesn't cost a fortune to attend.

Having said that, the problem with the government subsidization of education is that schools have raised tuition and captured much of the benefit that was intended to go to poor people.

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby piccolittle » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:46 pm

JenDarby wrote:Family members and my bf have sent me this article, while simultaneously continuing to encourage me to pursue law school, remaining entirely optimistic about it.


That's the problem with articles like these. They feature a huge douche who went to a crappy school and is cavalier about his debt. Many of us are able to look at this as another insight into the awful legal market, but to be honest, most of us and our family members are looking at him and saying "that's not me." It's easy to rationalize our own choice when these articles apparently feature only atypical examples.

What about all the struggling T14 grads? Now there's a wake-up call. This NYT article is not news to anyone.

Also, P.S., the guy shown on LinkedIn and the guy in the "ward of the state" article are the same Jason Bohn. Look at the picture - it's the same. And the history fits.
Last edited by piccolittle on Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby JazzOne » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:47 pm

JenDarby wrote:Family members and my bf have sent me this article, while simultaneously continuing to encourage me to pursue law school, remaining entirely optimistic about it.

lol

Just do it. We all did.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby brickman » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:21 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
brickman wrote:Is there good data on how our tuition is being spent? Is it just going to the construction of increasingly unnecessarily nice buildings? Honest to god, I need to understand how the hell they can justify the cost beyond the blanket statement that it is just "the price you pay for a graduate degree".


Nobody is forcing you to attend a particular school. If you don't agree with the tuition, you can easily go elsewhere. If it doesn't make financial sense to do so, then it's not as bad as it seems.

Making nice buildings and such, from what I understand, is derived from the university endowments. Tuition is for the operating costs of the school - as in huge libraries need to be kept up better than those schools that use loopholes to get ABA accredited with sub-standard libraries, for instance.


Naw its not that simple.. school funding, especially private schools, is really complex. Their board votes that a certain percentage of endowments can be used each year(usually towards operating expenses and aid) then tuition also goes toward operating expenses and then they often have certain "funds" that call alumni and get smaller donations that can be directed toward certain departments and generally at least a portion of that goes towards operating expenses. In addition, they generally have a bunch of other endowed funds set up to fund things like building, securing speakers, specific professorships and other crap. Tuition alone almost never covers operating expenses.

That said, a lot of schools waste a ridiculous amount of money. I used to attend a university of 2200 students. The money that went to administration costs was absolutely ridiculous. For example, there were like 3 assistant dean of students and each had their own individual secretary. Not to mention the NYC consulting firms they used to hire to help determine the optimal time to have a universal break in classes for lunch (not joking).

The problem is that 1) education is becoming inherently more expensive as it becomes more advanced 2)You have to compete for enrollment to a certain degree 3) for state schools, governments have no problem just cutting their budgets and telling them to figure it out and 4)Rankings mean you have to spend at least a certain amount to kind of keep up with the Jones'.. this fourth one is especially important for law schools I would think.


I can appreciate the fact that as knowledge gets more complex that the cost of the education will increase, but there has to be some means by which students can exercise cost control measures over the decisions of the administrators. I mean, the decision to hire a consultant for lunch time planning may have some merit, granted, but if that decision means a substantial operational cost increase for a marginal-- if not non-existant-- benefit, shouldn't the individuals who are providing the revenue source, as investors in their education, be able to moderate this behavior to some extent? How the hell do you create an antagonistic relationship to keep down the price of goofy stuff and just really make sure that expenditures are going towards activities that will have a good rate of return for the individual students.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:27 pm

brickman wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
brickman wrote:Is there good data on how our tuition is being spent? Is it just going to the construction of increasingly unnecessarily nice buildings? Honest to god, I need to understand how the hell they can justify the cost beyond the blanket statement that it is just "the price you pay for a graduate degree".


Nobody is forcing you to attend a particular school. If you don't agree with the tuition, you can easily go elsewhere. If it doesn't make financial sense to do so, then it's not as bad as it seems.

Making nice buildings and such, from what I understand, is derived from the university endowments. Tuition is for the operating costs of the school - as in huge libraries need to be kept up better than those schools that use loopholes to get ABA accredited with sub-standard libraries, for instance.


Naw its not that simple.. school funding, especially private schools, is really complex. Their board votes that a certain percentage of endowments can be used each year(usually towards operating expenses and aid) then tuition also goes toward operating expenses and then they often have certain "funds" that call alumni and get smaller donations that can be directed toward certain departments and generally at least a portion of that goes towards operating expenses. In addition, they generally have a bunch of other endowed funds set up to fund things like building, securing speakers, specific professorships and other crap. Tuition alone almost never covers operating expenses.

That said, a lot of schools waste a ridiculous amount of money. I used to attend a university of 2200 students. The money that went to administration costs was absolutely ridiculous. For example, there were like 3 assistant dean of students and each had their own individual secretary. Not to mention the NYC consulting firms they used to hire to help determine the optimal time to have a universal break in classes for lunch (not joking).

The problem is that 1) education is becoming inherently more expensive as it becomes more advanced 2)You have to compete for enrollment to a certain degree 3) for state schools, governments have no problem just cutting their budgets and telling them to figure it out and 4)Rankings mean you have to spend at least a certain amount to kind of keep up with the Jones'.. this fourth one is especially important for law schools I would think.


I can appreciate the fact that as knowledge gets more complex that the cost of the education will increase, but there has to be some means by which students can exercise cost control measures over the decisions of the administrators. I mean, the decision to hire a consultant for lunch time planning may have some merit, granted, but if that decision means a substantial operational cost increase for a marginal-- if not non-existant-- benefit, shouldn't the individuals who are providing the revenue source, as investors in their education, be able to moderate this behavior to some extent? How the hell do you create an antagonistic relationship to keep down the price of goofy stuff and just really make sure that expenditures are going towards activities that will have a good rate of return for the individual students.


Everybody has their own definition or theory of what makes for the best education.

Some try to throw in spirit and prestige in the mix.

Others would rather have Nobel Prize winning economist teach in a 4-wall white room, uniform to the next.

masterthearts
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:04 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby masterthearts » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:14 pm

I found this Michael Wallerstein (the guy in the NY Times article on facebook. According to his facebook, it seems as if he has been working at Deloitte sinc November. Did anyone friend him?

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby acrossthelake » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:17 pm

Moving this to the admissions forum since it makes slightly more sense there and gets more traffic so ppl can stop posting this article in that thread over and over.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:18 pm

acrossthelake wrote:Moving this to the admissions forum since it makes slightly more sense there and gets more traffic so ppl can stop posting this article in that thread over and over.


We got moved across the lake. Great. :|
:arrow:
:mrgreen:

ISTAND
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:31 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ISTAND » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:26 pm

icouldbuyu wrote:
swfangirl wrote:Before y'all dismiss this because the main person discussed in the article went to a T4 school, consider this:

Jason Bohn is earning $33 an hour as a legal temp while strapped to more than $200,000 in loans, a sizable chunk of which he accumulated during his time at Columbia University, where he finished both a J.D. and a master’s degree.


I just looked this guy up on linkedin and I found him. His masters is in some useless liberal arts concentration. Additionally, based on his profile pic, he looks like he's in his 30's, which the article states is a handicapp. Is it possible that completing a MA/JD jointly resulted in bad grades, thus no big law offers? Just trying to make sense of this person's circumstances.


Did you miss the bigger picture of the article? It didn't revolve around this guy who was just an example and mentioned in the beginning and end with backed up points made in between. To the minority who won't need to take out any loans yes this can be amusing and you can downplay everything and ignore the deceptive reports the schools publish to get naive students, promising them jobs and big salaries so they shell out the dough.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:30 pm

ISTAND wrote:
icouldbuyu wrote:
swfangirl wrote:Before y'all dismiss this because the main person discussed in the article went to a T4 school, consider this:

Jason Bohn is earning $33 an hour as a legal temp while strapped to more than $200,000 in loans, a sizable chunk of which he accumulated during his time at Columbia University, where he finished both a J.D. and a master’s degree.


I just looked this guy up on linkedin and I found him. His masters is in some useless liberal arts concentration. Additionally, based on his profile pic, he looks like he's in his 30's, which the article states is a handicapp. Is it possible that completing a MA/JD jointly resulted in bad grades, thus no big law offers? Just trying to make sense of this person's circumstances.


Did you miss the bigger picture of the article? It didn't revolve around this guy who was just an example and mentioned in the beginning and end with backed up points made in between. To the minority who won't need to take out any loans yes this can be amusing and you can downplay everything and ignore the deceptive reports the schools publish to get naive students, promising them jobs and big salaries so they shell out the dough.


How many legal job openings are there yearly? How many students graduate from schools similarly and superiorly ranked than Columbia? I can see somebody from a TTT like Coastal getting dinged like - there has to be somebody really off about you to not have ANY job whatsoever "forever" after your entrance to the bar.

User avatar
MrSparkle
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 3:06 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby MrSparkle » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:33 pm

When I was thinking about law school as an undergrad, I was shocked by how easy it was to get into a JD program compared to MD...premed courses are a bitch, and that coupled with mandatory volunteer clinical work and resume-boosting research means an MD is an achievement before you even apply.

The openness and high "failure" rate of a legal career seems reflective of the ease with which you get in. A 3.2 in communications from Joe-Blow University and a 157 LSAT will get in somewhere, while the equivalent for premed would bar you from all but the most remote Caribbean island medical schools.

Going to any medical school will almost assure you a sizeable piece of the pie, because the numbers of people who have access are kept artificially small. Yet consider the issues the medical field faces today - a pressure to specialize for the highest salaries leading to a lack of general practitioners, which are made up with cheap imported MDs from other countries. There are also soaring malpractice insurance costs tied to every medical professional (ironically because of our massive legal market).

My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

This all reminds me of a study described in that book Freakonomics, about why so many kids are willing to be petty drug dealers when they would average more income at a minimum wage job. Everyone is chasing the tiny chance of being the head honcho rolling in the dough, while not having a realistic grasp of the risks. Nobody thinks they're going to be a statistic, when unfortunately we all are in that same pie graph.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p

ISTAND
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:31 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ISTAND » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:45 pm

MrSparkle wrote:
My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p


That's the point- students aren't informed of the high-risk nature of law school because as the article points out, the schools and bar are releasing misleading information using fuzzy math. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating to prevent someone at a shot in law but
rather to make schools and the bar association release accurate information so students aren't duped just so the schools get their tuition money.
Last edited by ISTAND on Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:46 pm

MrSparkle wrote:When I was thinking about law school as an undergrad, I was shocked by how easy it was to get into a JD program compared to MD...premed courses are a bitch, and that coupled with mandatory volunteer clinical work and resume-boosting research means an MD is an achievement before you even apply.

The openness and high "failure" rate of a legal career seems reflective of the ease with which you get in. A 3.2 in communications from Joe-Blow University and a 157 LSAT will get in somewhere, while the equivalent for premed would bar you from all but the most remote Caribbean island medical schools.

Going to any medical school will almost assure you a sizeable piece of the pie, because the numbers of people who have access are kept artificially small. Yet consider the issues the medical field faces today - a pressure to specialize for the highest salaries leading to a lack of general practitioners, which are made up with cheap imported MDs from other countries. There are also soaring malpractice insurance costs tied to every medical professional (ironically because of our massive legal market).

My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

This all reminds me of a study described in that book Freakonomics, about why so many kids are willing to be petty drug dealers when they would average more income at a minimum wage job. Everyone is chasing the tiny chance of being the head honcho rolling in the dough, while not having a realistic grasp of the risks. Nobody thinks they're going to be a statistic, when unfortunately we all are in that same pie graph.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p


Pft. I'm motorsports law secure. $$$ Models and Bottles $$$

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ResolutePear » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:48 pm

ISTAND wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p


That's the point- students aren't informed of the high-risk nature of law school because as the article points out, the schools and bar are releasing misleading information using fuzzy math. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating to prevent someone at a shot in law but rather to make schools and the bar association release accurate information.


Why is it their job to do that for you? I just don't understand this logic.

If you're smart enough to get a JD, you should be smart enough to understand that education is just a different business sector.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Drake014 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:50 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
ISTAND wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p


That's the point- students aren't informed of the high-risk nature of law school because as the article points out, the schools and bar are releasing misleading information using fuzzy math. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating to prevent someone at a shot in law but rather to make schools and the bar association release accurate information.


Why is it their job to do that for you? I just don't understand this logic.

If you're smart enough to get a JD, you should be smart enough to understand that education is just a different business sector.


I'm tired of this fully informed shit. There will always be idiots. Fully informing an idiot of something still will not end in a good result. Idiots should not be able to borrow the country into economic turmoil.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby AreJay711 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:50 pm

ResolutePear wrote:
ISTAND wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p


That's the point- students aren't informed of the high-risk nature of law school because as the article points out, the schools and bar are releasing misleading information using fuzzy math. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating to prevent someone at a shot in law but rather to make schools and the bar association release accurate information.


Why is it their job to do that for you? I just don't understand this logic.

If you're smart enough to get a JD, you should be smart enough to understand that education is just a different business sector.

In fairness, most businesses that don't create value for their customers don't stay in business very long. It it gov't loans that throw a wrench in the market mechanisms -- I'm not complaining really since I'll take them, but the are the problem.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby AreJay711 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:51 pm

Drake014 wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:
ISTAND wrote:
MrSparkle wrote:
My point is, is it really better to bar people from an industry, or prevent them from gambling $150,000? What about at casinos? What about MBAs? Or master's degrees? Or liberal arts PhDs?

I don't know if the legal industry will be better if, say, only T50 graduates got jobs. It shouldn't make a difference as long as people are informed of the high-risk nature of law school.

But I guess I won't care when I'm head honcho. =p


That's the point- students aren't informed of the high-risk nature of law school because as the article points out, the schools and bar are releasing misleading information using fuzzy math. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating to prevent someone at a shot in law but rather to make schools and the bar association release accurate information.


Why is it their job to do that for you? I just don't understand this logic.

If you're smart enough to get a JD, you should be smart enough to understand that education is just a different business sector.


I'm tired of this fully informed shit. There will always be idiots. Fully informing an idiot of something still will not end in a good result. Idiots should not be able to borrow the country into economic turmoil.


I've said it once and I'll say it again: let natural selection take it's course with those people.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acr, Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests