Is Law School a Losing Game?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:19 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:One of my prof's brought this article up in class. It was win.

Look guys, rising tuition cost and all that jazz is a good thing. Eventually the market will weed out itself and law will be prohibitively expensive/strict that only those who really want to work with law will actually attempt/succeed-in it.


Im assuming this isnt serious.. If it is serious, it is completely wrong. If law gets more expensive plenty of people who want to work to work with law and would succeed-in it would not go to law school because it would be financial suicide.


The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get. Cost shouldn't be the factor that keeps students out of law school. The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby androstan » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:35 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:One of my prof's brought this article up in class. It was win.

Look guys, rising tuition cost and all that jazz is a good thing. Eventually the market will weed out itself and law will be prohibitively expensive/strict that only those who really want to work with law will actually attempt/succeed-in it.


Im assuming this isnt serious.. If it is serious, it is completely wrong. If law gets more expensive plenty of people who want to work to work with law and would succeed-in it would not go to law school because it would be financial suicide.


The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get. Cost shouldn't be the factor that keeps students out of law school. The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.


While I understand what you're getting at here, I don't think it should be "the bottom 100 should close". Some of the "bottom 100" are the only schools in their region and place well there. There's an actual need in such areas. Some even give in-state tuition and thus saddle their students with a reasonable amount of debt. Additionally, even if they're not the "only game in town", their often the runner-up choice to a very selective school that some people who will still make good lawyers can't get into.

On the other hand large, metropolitan areas have way too many law schools to serve that area. Arguably every school in the DC area with worse job prospects than AU/GMU should probably close up shop. Similarly for NYC. There's already NYU, Columbia, Cornell, and Fordham.

If you look at labor statistics numbers we are producing about twice as many JDs every year as we need. So we definitely need to close around 100 law schools. I just don't think we should let USNWR rankings determine which 100.

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby BrownBears09 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:52 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:One of my prof's brought this article up in class. It was win.

Look guys, rising tuition cost and all that jazz is a good thing. Eventually the market will weed out itself and law will be prohibitively expensive/strict that only those who really want to work with law will actually attempt/succeed-in it.


Im assuming this isnt serious.. If it is serious, it is completely wrong. If law gets more expensive plenty of people who want to work to work with law and would succeed-in it would not go to law school because it would be financial suicide.


The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get. Cost shouldn't be the factor that keeps students out of law school. The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.


From an issuer standpoint, the cost-benefit analysis makes loan restrictions a balancing act. Too tight on limitations and you'll just lend money to those who don't need it. Too loose and everyone will pull money out with no real payback method.

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby BrownBears09 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:56 pm

androstan wrote:On the other hand large, metropolitan areas have way too many law schools to serve that area. Arguably every school in the DC area with worse job prospects than AU/GMU should probably close up shop. Similarly for NYC. There's already NYU, Columbia, Cornell, and Fordham.

Don't really agree with NYC statement considering the (relative) portability of those degrees, current prestige, and sheer size of the NYC market.
androstan wrote:If you look at labor statistics numbers we are producing about twice as many JDs every year as we need. So we definitely need to close around 100 law schools. I just don't think we should let USNWR rankings determine which 100.

+1

User avatar
HazelEyes
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby HazelEyes » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:02 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:One of my prof's brought this article up in class. It was win.

Look guys, rising tuition cost and all that jazz is a good thing. Eventually the market will weed out itself and law will be prohibitively expensive/strict that only those who really want to work with law will actually attempt/succeed-in it.


Im assuming this isnt serious.. If it is serious, it is completely wrong. If law gets more expensive plenty of people who want to work to work with law and would succeed-in it would not go to law school because it would be financial suicide.


The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get. Cost shouldn't be the factor that keeps students out of law school. The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.



OR- only people who are rich will go to law school. The whole point of higher education is that it is supposed to be available to everyone who works hard.

Making the cost prohibitive will weed out the poor people who would do a fantastic job, but don’t have the means to attend. OR, those very same people will keep taking out ridiculous loans.
As long as law schools accept people, loans will be issued. The aforementioned professor has his head in the clouds. Or stuck up his overpaid @$$.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby androstan » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:11 pm

BrownBears09 wrote:
androstan wrote:On the other hand large, metropolitan areas have way too many law schools to serve that area. Arguably every school in the DC area with worse job prospects than AU/GMU should probably close up shop. Similarly for NYC. There's already NYU, Columbia, Cornell, and Fordham.

Don't really agree with NYC statement considering the (relative) portability of those degrees, current prestige, and sheer size of the NYC market.


Yeah, I'm off-base regarding this. I was speaking in haste.

Accreditation shouldn't be based on peer assessment score or LSAT/GPA, which are huge parts of USNWR. Primary factors would be employment prospects, BAR passage, and income/debt ratio with maybe some reasonably minor provisions for things like class size, library quality, clinics, etc.

So for instance, if your BAR passage falls too low your accreditation falls to provisional and if you don't get it back up you're out. If your JD-required employment falls too low you go provisional, and then if it doesn't come up you're out. If your income/debt ratio falls too low you're in trouble.

Where, quantitatively, do you place the accreditation standard for these metrics? You place it such that the number of expected JD's is approximately equal to the number of JD positions opening.

This kind of system would weed out the chaff in a hurry and put the legal sector on a sane track. Even if they don't lose accreditation, if your law school doesn't measure up or doesn't report the data honestly, it loses eligibility for federal student loans. What people decide to do in private transactions is their own business, but private student loans should probably still be dischargeable, to stave off predatory lending.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Stringer Bell » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:21 pm

robotclubmember wrote:The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get.


You are 100% right up to this point.

robotclubmember wrote:The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.


But here's where you lost me. Unions limiting membership and access to a profession is almost always bad for society as a whole. The issue is with the ease of getting loans. If loans were actually underwritten by financial institutions (albeit with government subsidies to lenders to actually spur them to get in the business) things like ability to pay your loans back would be factored in and people wouldn't get loaned 250k to go to Thomas Jefferson. Employment statistics would be more accurate because the lenders would demand them. Also, lower cost options to receive a legitimate legal education would pop up.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2568
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby androstan » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:42 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.


But here's where you lost me. Unions limiting membership and access to a profession is almost always bad for society as a whole. The issue is with the ease of getting loans. If loans were actually underwritten by financial institutions (albeit with government subsidies to lenders to actually spur them to get in the business) things like ability to pay your loans back would be factored in and people wouldn't get loaned 250k to go to Thomas Jefferson. Employment statistics would be more accurate because the lenders would demand them. Also, lower cost options to receive a legitimate legal education would pop up.


Lenders wouldn't care if the graduates were employed as lawyers though. Almost everyone that graduates from law school becomes "employed" in some capacity because they have to work to live. Lenders would just figure out how much they think the student will be able to pay, and not lend more than that. So yes, making loans private would bring down the total amount one could borrow. That would help, but the problem is bigger than that.

I don't have a problem with federally back loans. However, with federally backed money comes the associated regulations to prevent abuse, misuse, and other undesirable consequences. To be eligible for federally backed loans your school has to be ranked on BAR passage, JD-required employment rate, and income/debt ratio such that the sum of your graduates plus all the graduates of all the schools ranked higher than you is equal to the projected number of new JD-required openings each year.

This way, the ABA can accredit all the law schools it wants and the government can hand out good, federally backed student loans for those who really need them; the taxpayers won't be paying off defaulted federal loans from some LS that doesn't adequately prepare or place its graduates in jobs.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:05 pm

True, USNWR rankings shouldn't be the sole determinant in law school closings. But, there isn't a chance in hell that any law schools are going to be closing anyway. The supply/demand imbalance will continue as long as financing is excessively accessible.

Perhaps loans for law school should go completely privatized and go through a process that extends beyond just credit-worthiness. Maybe lenders, for the sake of protecting their own capital, should demand a five-year plan for law school students seeking loans. Maybe the application process should take a look at what school the borrower has been accepted to and start making realistic assessments of the borrower's ability to repay the loan. Easy money creates bubbles. Homeowners with shaky financial security should never have been allowed to borrow money, in the same way, someone with Wallerstein's profile shouldn't have been given a loan in the first place. They should take a look at USNWR rankings, demand a well-stated five-year plan, take a look at the borrower's academic performance as well as credit. These things are realistic ways of determining a borrower's ability to repay. Someone going to a TTTT who never had any meaningful work experience and who has no realistic plan other than "it's a prestige thing, and my friend's respect is important to me" just never should have been handed out a loan.

Of course, someone will say, that won't be fair to someone or another. At some point, it's just tough love. Law school is not for everyone. Yes this is America and few people here have ever experienced any real hardship in their life, and we're all entitled in many ways compared to those that came before us, but that's not a very good excuse for justifying this idea that no one should be priced out, we should cater to every Wallerstein's unrealistic hopes of making it big in NYC coming from some TTTT in San Diego. Maybe some people need to get priced out, for their own good. The spicket needs to be shut off for some. Maybe some lenders need to look at someone's profile and say, "Shit son, you never worked an honest day in your god damn life and graduated with a summa cum C-average, I just don't think we can lend you the money for law school at this time." Make them roll up their sleeves and prove they know how to work and be self-sufficient before handing out money like Halloween candy to these jokers.

EDIT - Of course I realize this is wishful thinking. Lenders are incentivized by short-term profit motives, which means long-term ability to repay debt doesn't really get the consideration it should. Especially the rank and file in the banking industry, who get commission checks on loans approved, not loans actually paid back, and who try to process as much bad credit as they can get out the door. Sometimes, a free market can be a little bit too free.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ISTAND » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:14 pm

HazelEyes wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:One of my prof's brought this article up in class. It was win.

Look guys, rising tuition cost and all that jazz is a good thing. Eventually the market will weed out itself and law will be prohibitively expensive/strict that only those who really want to work with law will actually attempt/succeed-in it.


Im assuming this isnt serious.. If it is serious, it is completely wrong. If law gets more expensive plenty of people who want to work to work with law and would succeed-in it would not go to law school because it would be financial suicide.


The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get. Cost shouldn't be the factor that keeps students out of law school. The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.



OR- only people who are rich will go to law school. The whole point of higher education is that it is supposed to be available to everyone who works hard.

Making the cost prohibitive will weed out the poor people who would do a fantastic job, but don’t have the means to attend. OR, those very same people will keep taking out ridiculous loans.
As long as law schools accept people, loans will be issued. The aforementioned professor has his head in the clouds. Or stuck up his overpaid @$$.


+1
Education should be affordable. Up until this year a university education was from in England but now they're following the US model to put students in debt and take advantage of their desire to become educated, making a profit off of them. You'd think like most countries, the government would pay for students to get an education considering it only benefits society and they'll contribute more in taxes in the long run. It shouldn't handicap them for years to come just so law professors make hundreds of thousands in ridiculous salary and wherever else the money is going...such as BANKS!!!!!!!!!! The bank lobby they say is the strongest in the nation and they make quite a bit of money lending out student loans. But back to the main issue the article raises - the schools are misleading students with their phony numbers. That should be illegal and should be overseen by a separate body not affiliated with profiting from law students (such as Newsweek, the Bar association etc.). I heard Bill Clinton give a speech on a local public television channel over the summer (owned by the UC regents in California, I think he was giving a talk to UCSB) and he said he would never take out a student loan and that he thought it was one of the most destructive things to a person. Um, so how would us non rich folk get an education? He clearly knows it's wrong but nobody does anything about it.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby piccolittle » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:46 pm

tl;dr the last ten pages or so of this thread, but has anyone seen this new post on Jason Bohn, the Columbia guy from the article?

--LinkRemoved--

He didn't get his JD from Columbia...
thank god

Though CLS still comes off kind of douchey for dismissing him and his mega debt.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby gwuorbust » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:05 pm

While we can say that 100 lawl schools should be shut down, and it is very true, that is never going to happen. What is more possible, however, would be if each school was only accredited offer say 250 JD degree per year. That way each school would be equal AND it would help reduce the over saturation of the market.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby rundoxierun » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:07 pm

gwuorbust wrote:While we can say that 100 lawl schools should be shut down, and it is very true, that is never going to happen. What is more possible, however, would be if each school was only accredited offer say 250 JD degree per year. That way each school would be equal AND it would help reduce the over saturation of the market.


why?

User avatar
Sinra
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Sinra » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:42 pm

piccolittle wrote:tl;dr the last ten pages or so of this thread, but has anyone seen this new post on Jason Bohn, the Columbia guy from the article?

--LinkRemoved--

He didn't get his JD from Columbia...
thank god

Though CLS still comes off kind of douchey for dismissing him and his mega debt.


Well the entire point of the article was that law school was a losing game because of all the debt incurred therein. That makes sense. Then they go on to say that this guy has massive debt from Columbia Law School. He went to law school on scholly at UF. He might have incurred most of his debt at Columbia, but it was for undergrad and his master's. In which case it makes the whole "law school = bad investment" argument moot in the case of this particular young man...as arguably it was going to a prestigious undergrad/master's program that did him in financially speaking.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby ISTAND » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:43 pm

Sinra wrote:
piccolittle wrote:tl;dr the last ten pages or so of this thread, but has anyone seen this new post on Jason Bohn, the Columbia guy from the article?

--LinkRemoved--

He didn't get his JD from Columbia...
thank god

Though CLS still comes off kind of douchey for dismissing him and his mega debt.


Well the entire point of the article was that law school was a losing game because of all the debt incurred therein. That makes sense. Then they go on to say that this guy has massive debt from Columbia Law School. He went to law school on scholly at UF. He might have incurred most of his debt at Columbia, but it was for undergrad and his master's. In which case it makes the whole "law school = bad investment" argument moot in the case of this particular young man...as arguably it was going to a prestigious undergrad/master's program that did him in financially speaking.


That wasn't the whole point of the article. It was about how the schools LIE and make up numbers. Read it again. A side effect of the lying is attracting students deceptively who then end up with debt. For example with the school they used, 25% of the graduating students didn't respond if they had found work after graduating but per their deceptive guidelines they are allowed to state that they are gainfully employed. And if a student is employed flipping burgers, they are still considered employed and give the false impression it is as a lawyer. And the school creates phony temp admin jobs in their office for the month of February at $20+/hr because stats are collected in Feb and they want to use those who are unemployed from the prior graduating year as employed for the stats they release to students school shopping. It's all a gimmick. And then they release data stating their last graduating class has an employment rate of 97% when over a quarter never responded to their survey, many work outside of law because they couldn't find work and others are temporarily employed at their school for the month of Feb to gather the data. This takes place in all the schools. If they said 60% of their students can't find work in law it might make some students think twice before taking out $200,000 in loans. And yes some of you don't need loans and will be the top of your class and get the awesome jobs so obviously you have nothing to worry about with regards to the massive deception tactics of the schools and some of you don't care that they are doing it to unsuspecting fellow students unfortunately. Then they have the audacity to preach and teach ethics.
Last edited by ISTAND on Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:53 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby gwuorbust » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:48 pm

tkgrrett wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:While we can say that 100 lawl schools should be shut down, and it is very true, that is never going to happen. What is more possible, however, would be if each school was only accredited offer say 250 JD degree per year. That way each school would be equal AND it would help reduce the over saturation of the market.


why?


b/c when you have a school like University of Miami pumping out 400 kids per year that could be cut down to 250. GULC and their near 1000 new lawyers per year. Those are insane numbers. An across the board cut would limit the number of new lawyers by between 1/3 and 1/2. No one school would have agree to close down and the problem of too many new lawyers would be reduced.

dabears1
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:41 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby dabears1 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:03 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:While we can say that 100 lawl schools should be shut down, and it is very true, that is never going to happen. What is more possible, however, would be if each school was only accredited offer say 250 JD degree per year. That way each school would be equal AND it would help reduce the over saturation of the market.


why?


b/c when you have a school like University of Miami pumping out 400 kids per year that could be cut down to 250. GULC and their near 1000 new lawyers per year. Those are insane numbers. An across the board cut would limit the number of new lawyers by between 1/3 and 1/2. No one school would have agree to close down and the problem of too many new lawyers would be reduced.


Fuk'nA, 1000 new JD's are pumped out of GULC per year? I think lawl schools should probably start training their grads to function in other capacites as well... like compliance officers for companies, etc, etc. I mean, how many attorneys can an (already strained/desperate) economic system sustain?

User avatar
HarlandBassett
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:50 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby HarlandBassett » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:15 pm

more followup to the article from FTT


Columbia Attempts to Extricate Itself from Potential PR Disaster
Upon the publication of The New York Times' exposé of how law schools cook the books to fool students into paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that they usually don't have, Columbia University went into damage control mode. Columbia contacted me several times so that I could announce to the world that Jason Bohn, an educated indentured servant who works as a temp attorney, received his Juris Doctor from University of Florida and not Columbia Law, even though he received two degrees from Columbia and amassed almost all of his $200,000 debt as a result.

I mentioned that it was low of Columbia to so crudely try to distance itself from a student who ruined his finances to study there, and who received, not one, but two degrees from Columbia. The author of the Times' piece seems to agree, as you are about to see in the email I recently received (yes, another one) from the Columbia PR office.
Wed, January 12, 2011 4:48:03 AM
FYI
...
From:
Steven Gosset
...
Add to Contacts
To: firsttiertoilet@yahoo.com

From The New York Times website:

An earlier version of this article misstated the educational history of Jason Bohn, a recent law school graduate. While Mr. Bohn took classes at Columbia Law School, his law degree is from the University of Florida. And while nearly all of his student loan debt was accumulated at Columbia University, it was incurred while he was an undergraduate and while working on a master’s degree, and not at Columbia Law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/busin ... age&src=me

One final note: In response to your statement: "I want to add that it is quite low of Columbia to distance itself from one of its graduates in such a crude manner," sometimes it is easier to be angry than to acknowledge the facts. At no point did we ever disavow that Jason attended other schools within Columbia University. He attained his undergraduate degree from the School of General Studies (which is the picture of him at a 2005 graduation referenced by an earlier comment) and he received an M.A. in International Law for which he took four classes at the Law School. But at no point was he a registered law student, nor did any of the debt that he incurred result from his having been at the Law School. That was our only position, and our efforts to set the record straight had nothing to do with trying to diminish his other accomplishments, especially his two Columbia degrees. The Times has acknowledged this not only in the correction, but by revising the article to reflect these facts, which is a very unusual step for the newspaper.

Steven Gosset
Press Officer
Columbia Law School
1125 Amsterdam Avenue, Room 811
New York, NY 10025
steven.gosset@law.columbia.edu
212-854-1787 (office)
646-284-8549 (mobile)

Follow us on Twitter at http://www.Twitter.com/ColumbiaLaw [Emphasis added]
I appreciate Gosset's softer words about Bohn this time around, but I can't help but see it as a disingenuous move.

Imagine receiving two degrees from a university, paying enormous and unjustified sums in the process, only to have your university aggressively distance itself from you, emailing an unknown blogger and anyone who would listen that you did not earn your degree from that university's law school. Now, remember that Bohn never claimed to have earned his Juris Doctor from Columbia (in fact, I understand that he was stern with Segal on this issue and did not want to give anyone the wrong idea) and that the Times article did not claim so either, though it might have created that impression. How would you feel?

In return for having allowed Mr. Gosset to use my blog as a PR soapbox, reprinting his emails, and clarifying Bohn's status, I am making three requests, which Gosset should address, out of decency.


FIRST REQUEST
If Columbia truly cared about Mr. Bohn, of whom they made such a public spectacle, they would make amends where it counts. That starts with helping him pay off the debt he incurred while attending Columbia. If you do not want to have anything to do with him, why should he be tied down by debt that he used to pay your exorbitant tuition fees?


SECOND REQUEST
I would like Columbia to promptly inform me regarding what percentage of its Class of 2010 is:

-Unemployed
-Underemployed
-Working temp jobs
-Working jobs with insufficient remuneration to justify the cost of attendance

If you cannot provide information on all categories, provide information on the ones you can do so. No excuses.


THIRD REQUEST
I demand that Columbia Law state clearly and unequivocally that it aims to comply with The Law School Transparency Project.


Notice that I am not asking you to cut your professors' and deans' salaries with a commensurate cut in tuition fees. That would be asking too much, right? These three requests are simple and relatively cheap for an institution of your size. You would also earn the respect and appreciation of your student body and the establishment press of New York.

Lastly, I want to give a moral lesson: Do not use your students as a means to make a point. Mr. Bohn is a human being and should be treated like one.

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

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby rundoxierun » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:17 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:While we can say that 100 lawl schools should be shut down, and it is very true, that is never going to happen. What is more possible, however, would be if each school was only accredited offer say 250 JD degree per year. That way each school would be equal AND it would help reduce the over saturation of the market.


why?


b/c when you have a school like University of Miami pumping out 400 kids per year that could be cut down to 250. GULC and their near 1000 new lawyers per year. Those are insane numbers. An across the board cut would limit the number of new lawyers by between 1/3 and 1/2. No one school would have agree to close down and the problem of too many new lawyers would be reduced.


Thats really silly.. you present something that is unlikely to happen then propose something that is both less likely to happen and not even effective.

User avatar
Sinra
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Sinra » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:46 pm

ISTAND wrote:That wasn't the whole point of the article. It was about how the schools LIE and make up numbers. Read it again. A side effect of the lying is attracting students deceptively who then end up with debt. For example with the school they used, 25% of the graduating students didn't respond if they had found work after graduating but per their deceptive guidelines they are allowed to state that they are gainfully employed. And if a student is employed flipping burgers, they are still considered employed and give the false impression it is as a lawyer. And the school creates phony temp admin jobs in their office for the month of February at $20+/hr because stats are collected in Feb and they want to use those who are unemployed from the prior graduating year as employed for the stats they release to students school shopping. It's all a gimmick. And then they release data stating their last graduating class has an employment rate of 97% when over a quarter never responded to their survey, many work outside of law because they couldn't find work and others are temporarily employed at their school for the month of Feb to gather the data. This takes place in all the schools. If they said 60% of their students can't find work in law it might make some students think twice before taking out $200,000 in loans. And yes some of you don't need loans and will be the top of your class and get the awesome jobs so obviously you have nothing to worry about with regards to the massive deception tactics of the schools and some of you don't care that they are doing it to unsuspecting fellow students unfortunately. Then they have the audacity to preach and teach ethics.


I disagree. The overall tone of the article--the main point--was the incredible amounts of debt that people incur to go to law schools and here they are unemployed/underemployed and massively in debt. The information regarding the number-massaging was a large part of the story and reflected how law schools game the rankings for their financial benefit...subsidizing the undergraduate universities in many instances. It was a far-reaching article but the main point was definitely that law school is a dangerous financial gamble. Look, I feel like they could have easily proven the point and could have found T14 graduates with the same problem as the other gentleman, Wallerstein. But they used someone that did not fit the story they were trying to tell.


HarlandBassett wrote:


In return for having allowed Mr. Gosset to use my blog as a PR soapbox, reprinting his emails, and clarifying Bohn's status, I am making three requests, which Gosset should address, out of decency.


FIRST REQUEST
If Columbia truly cared about Mr. Bohn, of whom they made such a public spectacle, they would make amends where it counts. That starts with helping him pay off the debt he incurred while attending Columbia. If you do not want to have anything to do with him, why should he be tied down by debt that he used to pay your exorbitant tuition fees?


SECOND REQUEST
I would like Columbia to promptly inform me regarding what percentage of its Class of 2010 is:

-Unemployed
-Underemployed
-Working temp jobs
-Working jobs with insufficient remuneration to justify the cost of attendance

If you cannot provide information on all categories, provide information on the ones you can do so. No excuses.


THIRD REQUEST
I demand that Columbia Law state clearly and unequivocally that it aims to comply with The Law School Transparency Project.


Notice that I am not asking you to cut your professors' and deans' salaries with a commensurate cut in tuition fees. That would be asking too much, right? These three requests are simple and relatively cheap for an institution of your size. You would also earn the respect and appreciation of your student body and the establishment press of New York.

Lastly, I want to give a moral lesson: Do not use your students as a means to make a point. Mr. Bohn is a human being and should be treated like one.


Ludicrous. :roll: Now Columbia is supposed to pay off the debt of anyone that regrets their decision? Lulz.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Bronte » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:50 pm

Nevermind. Stupid me.

Miracle
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:25 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Miracle » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:55 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
tkgrrett wrote:
ResolutePear wrote:One of my prof's brought this article up in class. It was win.

Look guys, rising tuition cost and all that jazz is a good thing. Eventually the market will weed out itself and law will be prohibitively expensive/strict that only those who really want to work with law will actually attempt/succeed-in it.


Im assuming this isnt serious.. If it is serious, it is completely wrong. If law gets more expensive plenty of people who want to work to work with law and would succeed-in it would not go to law school because it would be financial suicide.


The real flaw in this is that the cost of law school isn't prohibitively expensive at all, when you consider how easy it is to get loans, just like Wallerstein did, just like any one of us could and very likely will do. The cost keeps going up, and yet the number of students doesn't go down at all. The loans are too easy to get. Cost shouldn't be the factor that keeps students out of law school. The admissions requirements should be tighter, the bottom 100 should close, but that will never happen.


+1 the bottom 100 should def. close.

It's a shame how our profession is deteriorating in front of our own eyes. Something should be done, soon!

User avatar
mpj_3050
Posts: 372
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby mpj_3050 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:07 pm

I went through the ABA law school guide and you could easily close down the underperforming privates in crowded markets. Western New England, New York Law School, and Thomas Jefferson? It is absolutely insane that they can get away with charging what they do. When I went through the list you could close down at least 50 private schools and be fine. The biglaw firms are not going to even let me mop the floors so I can hardly be called an elitist, but it is downright suicidal to take out 200k or even 100k for the Dominos Pizza School of Law.

jjb2101
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby jjb2101 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:08 pm

My name is Jason Bohn and I am posting this because there has been a great deal of chatter about my situation, e.g., “Jason J. Bohn is Screwed” on the AutoAdmit board:

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... forum_id=2

Because much of the aforementioned chatter was either false or incomplete, I felt I needed to set the record straight by publishing the text of my email communications with New York Times reporter David Segal:

--LinkRemoved--

Although Mr. Segal has finally corrected his error and Columbia has stopped disclaiming me, significant damage to my reputation has been done. As a result, I have decided that I need to provide a little more context to the New York Times article and its progeny.

Specifically, I am a ninth grade dropout and GED recipient from uptown Manhattan and the Bronx. My father had a drug problem and my mother abandoned me when she remarried. I spent part of my youth in a group home where violence was a reoccurring theme:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/14/nyreg ... ubled.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... ter%20Care

After a near death experience, I entered Miami-Dade Community College in 2001. Less than 10 years later, I have two Ivy League degrees and a law degree from a top 50 school. I also have more professional experience than most recent law graduates. Specifically, I have two plus years of experience as a contract attorney or litigation paralegal at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Paul Weiss and Quinn Emanuel. In fact, since completing law school last year I have worked on four projects that were approximately three months in length, so I have had enough work. Rather, the problem during the past year has been the quality of work, level of job security, and an income that is less than the six figures I thought my resume would draw when I entered law school in 2006. Of course, I am optimistic that my situation will improve once I finally take the New York Bar exam this February and we have a sustained economic recovery this quarter and next. Indeed, I am hoping to eventually secure an associate in-house counsel position at an investment bank, securities firm, private equity or hedge fund.

Please do not get the wrong impression. I am not complaining about my current situation. I just entered my 30s, I live in the coolest neighborhood in NYC (Astoria - Long Island City) with my dog (Kaiser Soze), and I own a relatively new car (VW Wolfsberg). Unfortunately, I have approximately $200k plus in student loan debt, most of which was incurred at my beloved alma mater, a place I loved so much I went there twice. Conversely, I only had to cover my living expenses during my two years at the University of Florida, a school I originally decided to attend over a few schools further up the US News ranking for the following reasons: (1) I did not get into the so-called “T14;” (2) I had previously spent about one third of my life in South Florida; (3) the University of Florida is the only top 50 school in the state; (4) in terms of relative strength, Florida was stronger in the Sunshine State than Fordham was in the Empire State; and (5) I received a full scholarship to go. Currently, I am taking a few courses part-time to keep some of my student loans in deferment; others are in an economic hardship forbearance status; and a few I am making timely payments on to retain my 700 plus credit score.

A few weeks ago, I agreed to participate in the New York Times article for two reasons:

(1) As I have previously mentioned, the student loan bubble in this country is serious and indentured servitude is not limited to graduates of schools that no one has ever heard of. Indeed, I know more than a few "six figure debt" students from top 50 law schools like Columbia and Florida, and some of them are currently underemployed or unemployed. By assisting with the New York Times effort to shed additional light on the problem, I hoped to raise public awareness regarding this sub-prime mortgage-like crisis.

(2) Additionally, after months of sending my resume into the abysses of job listing databases never to be heard from again, I decided to be more aggressive by taking the Madonna/Lady Gaga approach: no publicity is bad publicity. Indeed, there have been 1,000 plus views of my LinkedIn profile over the last 48 - 72 hours, including a few members with “CEO” and “General Counsel” titles. Unfortunately, any positive gain in having potential employers view my online resume was likely lost in the confusion caused by the New York Times misleading statement, Columbia’s damage control, and all the chatter caused by the controversy.

Finally, in response to the New York Times article, a number of individuals facing similar hardships sent supportive messages. I am happy I could serve as a voice for those who overcame tremendous obstacles and did everything they were suppose to do (including not taking out loans to fund European adventures), but who still find themselves swimming in debt.

Miracle
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:25 pm

Re: Is Law School a Losing Game?

Postby Miracle » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:09 pm

mpj_3050 wrote:I went through the ABA law school guide and you could easily close down the underperforming privates in crowded markets. Western New England, New York Law School, and Thomas Jefferson? It is absolutely insane that they can get away with charging what they do. When I went through the list you could close down at least 50 private schools and be fine. The biglaw firms are not going to even let me mop the floors so I can hardly be called an elitist, but it is downright suicidal to take out 200k or even 100k for the Dominos Pizza School of Law.


I know, but there are people out there that are willing to pay.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 8 guests