NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby scammedhard » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:16 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:The article sheds light on the business of law school, but at the end of the day, some of the blame lands on students. No one tells anyone that they have to take on $100K+ of debt for a law degree, and there are always cheaper law school options. Are these cheaper options what most students want? No, but it means that students have a choice. The issue is many of them make the wrong one by participating in high-states gambling.

I also blame the DoEd because taxpayers' money is the one that is being gambled. WORSE, if the gamble does not work out, taxpayers are still on the hook through IBR et al. And EVEN WORSE, all of these government-backed programs work to the great benefit of law schools, an industry that faces no regulation and deceptively manipulates its employment stats.
Last edited by scammedhard on Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Oglethorpe
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby Oglethorpe » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:23 pm

namename wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:The article sheds light on the business of law school, but at the end of the day, some of the blame lands on students. No one tells anyone that they have to take on $100K+ of debt for a law degree, and there are always cheaper law school options. Are these cheaper options what most students want? No, but it means that students have a choice. The issue is many of them make the wrong one by participating in high-states gambling.


But are they gambling on the basis of information that is systematically biased, implicitly backed by the ABA?

Sure, the students are responsible for their choices. But a student can be responsible AND a school can be unethical AND a system can be deeply misleading at the same time.



I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.

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

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby robotclubmember » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:55 pm

namename wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:The article sheds light on the business of law school, but at the end of the day, some of the blame lands on students. No one tells anyone that they have to take on $100K+ of debt for a law degree, and there are always cheaper law school options. Are these cheaper options what most students want? No, but it means that students have a choice. The issue is many of them make the wrong one by participating in high-states gambling.


But are they gambling on the basis of information that is systematically biased, implicitly backed by the ABA?

Sure, the students are responsible for their choices. But a student can be responsible AND a school can be unethical AND a system can be deeply misleading at the same time.


precisely. the students consent, but is their consent adequately "informed"? why would anyone believe that the educational institutions that teach law and justice would themselves be so bereft of ethical integrity?

The ABA offers no meaningful regulation and oversight of its schools. the employment statistics being published by schools (like NYLS and basically all of them really) are neither fair nor accurate, but they are within ABA guidelines. who watches the watchers? the ABA is encouraging a system which gives false promises to prospective students who rely on fair and accurate information on employment prospects before committing to six digits of debt, but are given data that misrepresents the reality of their prospects. the ABA should be ashamed of their role in oversaturating the legal market and destroying the lives of thousands of students who assumed they would be among the “98% employed” upon graduation, but find themselves jobless and saddled with a mortgage before they even bought a house.

far too many law school function as nothing but pyramid scheme. it's simple:

the student loans that are federally guaranteed and are given to virtually everyone function as a wealth transfer vehicle from penniless 20-year-olds to greedy academicians. ANY INTEREST IN YOUR FUTURE IS SECONDARY TO PROFIT.

the only thing those “academicians” at schools like Cooley or TJSL need is a rubber stamp to thrust students into financial ruin, and that’s where the ABA comes in. they have directly allowed this pyramid scheme to work. the ABA was supposed to strengthen this profession but has instead created a vast over-supply of lawyers by knowingly accrediting more institutions that produce far more lawyers than what the industry has demand for. the law schools are further supported by being allowed to give obfuscated and deceptive employment statistics to prospective students, luring them to take on six digits of debt on the basis of fundamentally flawed information. this should be criminal but as was noted, many faculty members at low-tier schools have a vested financial interest in maintaining a system that profits them at the expense of harming students and the industry.

TL;DR: PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS LOOKING AT ANYTHING OUTSIDE T1 (and much inside T1), YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. DO NOT ATTEND LAW SCHOOL. IT IS AN UNREGULATED PYRAMID SCHEME TO STEAL YOUR MONEY.


my closing argument: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=157855&p=4614023#p4614023

User avatar
SullaFelix
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:18 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby SullaFelix » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:35 pm

sunynp wrote:
JusticeHarlan wrote:Did I miss it, or did the article not mention Matasar's position (LinkRemoved) as chair of the board of Access Group, which describes itself (LinkRemoved) as "a premier originator and servicer of private education loans" that profits based on people taking out large, government backed, non-discharged loans? The bond stuff was pretty interesting, but without talking about his role in Access Group, I don't think it fully covers the depth of Matasar's conflict of interest. Other than that, not a bad article.


The article did NOT mention the Access Group, but several comments on the NYtimes website criticize the article for omitting that information.
Another thing about the comments, it seems that a lot of people hate lawyers. After spending so much time on this website, I was surprised at the degree of anger and low regard for our profession.


I don't necessarily think the article erred in not mentioning the Group — the article was not meant as a takedown of Dean Matasar, but an indictment of the economics of third tier law schools with NYLS as a paradigmatic example. Keeping the heat on Matasar may have distracted from the story's focus.

It would be great fodder for a brief follow-up, though.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby ahduth » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:42 pm

robotclubmember wrote:TL;DR: PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS LOOKING AT ANYTHING OUTSIDE T1 (and much inside T1), YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. DO NOT ATTEND LAW SCHOOL. IT IS AN UNREGULATED PYRAMID SCHEME TO STEAL YOUR MONEY.


Eh, my problem is more that the ABA should be acting as a union for laywers, and they're not. They're not only relentlessly increasing the supply of laywers via their lax accreditation/employment verification standards, but they're whole-heartedly endorsing the offshoring of work. I suppose they're protecting the interests of the GC offices, but do GC offices comprise the majority of their dues paying members? Their credibility is pretty heavily ingrained at this point, but anyone trusting them or their analysis needs a wake up call.

Now that I think about it, I don't strictly disagree with you, I just don't think it's a pyramid scheme.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:47 pm

I agree that the employment statistics being reported are somewhat of a joke. It's true. Not even the ABA knows what the average law school graduate makes (which is likely around $50,000 or less).

However, students have to mature enough to perform research. They are, after all, educated consumer. While I do believe the information given by law schools should be more accurate, information related to employment is out there and students just have to find it (Martindale/nalpdirectory/NLJ250 Go To list/speaking with practitioners/articles/etc.).

I am certain that not even 1/5 of the people at T14s, let alone the T50, use tls.com (or abovethelaw.com or lawschoolnumbers.com) and they ended up concluding that the T1/T4 would be the best bet through other means - if they can perform the necessary research, why can't everyone else?

Debt is a completely different ball game, as it is the one thing students can control before starting law school. Students at schools ranked as highly as Columbia have almost no clue what their employment prospects will look like until after they get their first semester grades returned to them. Roughly ~60% of the class will at least be "okay" with it. The remaining group is barely in a better position than someone from Fordham outside the top 25-30%. My point is that once you are in school, your employability varies dramatically even at top schools - as a result, students should be mindful of controlling debt prior to 1L as banking on big law is foolhardy.

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

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby robotclubmember » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:07 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:I agree that the employment statistics being reported are somewhat of a joke. It's true. Not even the ABA knows what the average law school graduate makes (which is likely around $50,000 or less).

However, students have to mature enough to perform research. They are, after all, educated consumer. While I do believe the information given by law schools should be more accurate, information related to employment is out there and students just have to find it (Martindale/nalpdirectory/NLJ250 Go To list/speaking with practitioners/articles/etc.).

I am certain that not even 1/5 of the people at T14s, let alone the T50, use tls.com (or abovethelaw.com or lawschoolnumbers.com) and they ended up concluding that the T1/T4 would be the best bet through other means - if they can perform the necessary research, why can't everyone else?


I have done tons of research and to be honest, all I can rely on is anecdotal evidence. There isn't a strong collection of data out there. Even lawschooltransparency.com only reinterprets fundamentally flawed data. Look at the comments in the NYT article. I enjoyed this one: re: employment stats:

#72. I went to a very highly regarded law school and graduated during an economic downturn -- albeit one not nearly as severe as the current economic environment. It was a struggle to find a job where I wanted to, but I was in the top half of my class and I did find a suitable position shortly after graduation. The pay was less than I hoped, but I dutifully and proudly reported the fact of my law firm employment and my starting pay to my law school's career office. I vividly remember reading the school's self-reported figures for the salary range and employment status of my class when they were announced a year later in the alumni magazine -- only to discover that what was purportedly the lowest starting salary for my class was $20,000 higher than what I was getting. Anecdotally, I knew of many classmates who were unemployed, or at least not employed in the legal field, and they could not have been counted if the percentage of legal employment figure for my class was to be believed. So when I see figures for legal employment released by law school career offices now, I assume them to be wildly inflated. I suspect that the average celebrity Twitter feed has more grounding in facts than what comes out of law school placement offices.


The numbers are fiction, the data is incomplete and unreliable. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS. So how are they supposed to 'do the research?'

It's like investing in publicly traded shares of a corporation. That company could report ANY NUMBERS IT WANTS, and no one could stop it, except that SEC regulation requires that an INDEPENDENT auditor attest to the fairness and accuracy of financial statements. this is to ensure that information is not MATERIALLY MISLEADING. Without auditors, shareholders would be completely at the mercy of the company to report its financial data, and that data is the key factor in choosing to invest. Without auditors, the market would fall apart.

There is no such oversight with law schools, and the legal market IS falling apart. Just as investors RELY on fair and accurate data to make a decision, so do law school students RELY on fair and accurate employment data. Lib arts majors don't throw their money down on law school for fun, they do it for a career to make money. Investors don't throw their money down on stock for fun, they do it for a means to make money. The difference in this analogy is that investors are given real information subject to a thorough audit from a truly independent source. Law school students are given materially misrepresented data that hasn't been reviewed by anyone AND NO PRACTICAL MEANS TO GET DATA ANYWHERE ELSE.

Where is this research supposed to be coming from? People shouldn't have an inherent expectation that the numbers are all fiction and they should do their own research. They should be able to trust the ethical integrity of legal academicians. We wouldn't need auditors if companies didn't lie. Everyone lies. The law schools are lying in their stats, but there is no mechanism to ferret the lies out.
Last edited by robotclubmember on Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

areyouinsane
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby areyouinsane » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:08 pm

I don't think the article went far enough in hammering the shyster Richard "Tricky Dick" Matasar.

First of all, he served for many years as chairmen of Access Group, a private student lender. Access Group loans were shopped/sold by the Fin. Aid office to many NYLS students, and Richard "Tricky Dick" Matasar personally profited from said loans. It was a textbook conflict of interest.

His salary was/is astronomical: he brought home a whopping $519,238 in total compensation from NY LAW in 2009:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 ... 8d39-9.pdf

The Guidestar reports which feature the Form 990 for all the law schools are a real eye-opener. The salaries paid to deans, admins, and professors are all above and beyond reason. Most law school deans earn 350 K to 600 K a year, assistant deans usually 250 K or more, and many tenured profs are raking in 200-300 K for "teaching" 6 hours a week for 40 weeks a year (when they can even be bothered to show up, since many also have side practices (or serve as expert witnesses) and make another 200 K or so from these revenue streams.

I hate to make this political (and in fact generally support left-wing causes), but the Dems spend a lot of time whining and complaining about CEO pay and corporate largess, but NEVER say a peep about the wheelbarrows of Federal taxpayer loot that flows from Sallie Mae into people like Matasar's pockets! Remember, even at private schools the salaries of admins and profs are largely paid for by taxpayer-subsidized student loans.

This system cannot last, and in fact is in the early stages of implosion. Robot is right that it's essentially a pyramid scheme, dependant upon never-ending influxes of fresh suckers paying full boat to finance the absurd salaries of these hogs.

Get the ABA out of the accredation business altogether, and let state community colleges and other low-cost schools have law programs that, upon completion, allow kids to sit the states' bars. Staff these schools with local practicing (or retired/semi retired) lawyers, who could share a wealth of practical experience with students and would do so for a modest salary (like 30 K a year, since the job only takes 6 or 8 hours a week of time). Get rid of all the deans and assistant deans and assistant to the assitant deans and other assorted system-milkers, swindlers, and con artists.

Of course, change will have to come from outside the system. Only when the bonds default b/c the lines of suckers have dried up will the current system collapse, and the toilets like NYLS, 'Bozo, Brooklyn and other over-priced also rans close their doors for good.

User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:41 pm

I like the comments areyouinsane and robotclubmember are making. Thanks you two.

User avatar
drdolittle
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby drdolittle » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:45 pm

areyouinsane wrote:I don't think the article went far enough in hammering the shyster Richard "Tricky Dick" Matasar.

First of all, he served for many years as chairmen of Access Group, a private student lender. Access Group loans were shopped/sold by the Fin. Aid office to many NYLS students, and Richard "Tricky Dick" Matasar personally profited from said loans. It was a textbook conflict of interest.

His salary was/is astronomical: he brought home a whopping $519,238 in total compensation from NY LAW in 2009:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 ... 8d39-9.pdf

The Guidestar reports which feature the Form 990 for all the law schools are a real eye-opener. The salaries paid to deans, admins, and professors are all above and beyond reason. Most law school deans earn 350 K to 600 K a year, assistant deans usually 250 K or more, and many tenured profs are raking in 200-300 K for "teaching" 6 hours a week for 40 weeks a year (when they can even be bothered to show up, since many also have side practices (or serve as expert witnesses) and make another 200 K or so from these revenue streams.

I hate to make this political (and in fact generally support left-wing causes), but the Dems spend a lot of time whining and complaining about CEO pay and corporate largess, but NEVER say a peep about the wheelbarrows of Federal taxpayer loot that flows from Sallie Mae into people like Matasar's pockets! Remember, even at private schools the salaries of admins and profs are largely paid for by taxpayer-subsidized student loans.

This system cannot last, and in fact is in the early stages of implosion. Robot is right that it's essentially a pyramid scheme, dependant upon never-ending influxes of fresh suckers paying full boat to finance the absurd salaries of these hogs.

Get the ABA out of the accredation business altogether, and let state community colleges and other low-cost schools have law programs that, upon completion, allow kids to sit the states' bars. Staff these schools with local practicing (or retired/semi retired) lawyers, who could share a wealth of practical experience with students and would do so for a modest salary (like 30 K a year, since the job only takes 6 or 8 hours a week of time). Get rid of all the deans and assistant deans and assistant to the assitant deans and other assorted system-milkers, swindlers, and con artists.

Of course, change will have to come from outside the system. Only when the bonds default b/c the lines of suckers have dried up will the current system collapse, and the toilets like NYLS, 'Bozo, Brooklyn and other over-priced also rans close their doors for good.

:shock: Didn't realize the salaries were that high, though I figured they were more than enough. I guess it does make sense in such a closed and dysfunctional system. Tenure's a big problem. It should be eliminated except maybe for the absolute top profs, yet they wouldn't need tenure in the first place. Only the lackeys truly need tenure. But at those salaries!?

Also, ironically, the majority of profs would much rather teach than practice, so it makes absolutely no sense to pay them anywhere near what they'd make in private/inhouse practice. And most legal "scholarship" is bunk anyway, it's not like they're discovering the cure for cancer, or for that matter dealing with truly new issues (of which there are many). Instead they're typically just churning away at the same old bs, e.g. law & econ, critical race theory, etc...

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby scammedhard » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:10 pm

The reality is the not much is going to change as long as the ABA is in charge of regulating law schools. Please write to your Senators, Representatives and the DoEd, and ask them to take the accreditation and regulatory powers away from the ABA. It's the only way. A few short, simple letters can perhaps make a huge difference in your future legal career. It can actually just be the same letter, just change the mailing address. And it doesn't have to be anything fancy, just a few lines explaining the main point: no more ABA because it has failed to do its job while law schools benefit at the expense of taxpayers.
Last edited by scammedhard on Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Bronx Bum
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby Bronx Bum » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:14 pm

LOL at the doom and gloom on this site. Law is still a noble profession. Relax. The economy will pick up.

scammedhard
Posts: 642
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby scammedhard » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:20 pm

Bronx Bum wrote:LOL at the doom and gloom on this site. Law is still a noble profession. Relax. The economy will pick up.

Doom and gloom? You wrote a few days ago:
Chose Fordham basically sticker last year. Going into 2L...worst mistake I've ever made in my entire life. I has put me back significantly and I dread waking up each morning.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=160033&p=4600963#p4600963

Can you please explain?

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:33 pm

robotclubmember wrote:I have done tons of research and to be honest, all I can rely on is anecdotal evidence. There isn't a strong collection of data out there. Even lawschooltransparency.com only reinterprets fundamentally flawed data. Look at the comments in the NYT article. I enjoyed this one: re: employment stats:

#72. I went to a very highly regarded law school and graduated during an economic downturn -- albeit one not nearly as severe as the current economic environment. It was a struggle to find a job where I wanted to, but I was in the top half of my class and I did find a suitable position shortly after graduation. The pay was less than I hoped, but I dutifully and proudly reported the fact of my law firm employment and my starting pay to my law school's career office. I vividly remember reading the school's self-reported figures for the salary range and employment status of my class when they were announced a year later in the alumni magazine -- only to discover that what was purportedly the lowest starting salary for my class was $20,000 higher than what I was getting. Anecdotally, I knew of many classmates who were unemployed, or at least not employed in the legal field, and they could not have been counted if the percentage of legal employment figure for my class was to be believed. So when I see figures for legal employment released by law school career offices now, I assume them to be wildly inflated. I suspect that the average celebrity Twitter feed has more grounding in facts than what comes out of law school placement offices.


I understand what you are saying and agree with it. I'm simply saying that knowing that you (prospective students) have no idea of how much money they will make post graduation from law school, they should strive to limit their debt before entering said law school. This should be accomplished by balancing the "prestige" (rank) of the law school with how much of a scholarship they are being offered. This is certainly not to say that it isn't criminal that 1) people in legal higher ed make so much or that 2) schools essentially lie to students.

User avatar
JusticeHarlan
Posts: 1434
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby JusticeHarlan » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:11 pm

SullaFelix wrote:
sunynp wrote:
JusticeHarlan wrote:Did I miss it, or did the article not mention Matasar's position (LinkRemoved) as chair of the board of Access Group, which describes itself (LinkRemoved) as "a premier originator and servicer of private education loans" that profits based on people taking out large, government backed, non-discharged loans? The bond stuff was pretty interesting, but without talking about his role in Access Group, I don't think it fully covers the depth of Matasar's conflict of interest. Other than that, not a bad article.


The article did NOT mention the Access Group, but several comments on the NYtimes website criticize the article for omitting that information.
Another thing about the comments, it seems that a lot of people hate lawyers. After spending so much time on this website, I was surprised at the degree of anger and low regard for our profession.


I don't necessarily think the article erred in not mentioning the Group — the article was not meant as a takedown of Dean Matasar, but an indictment of the economics of third tier law schools with NYLS as a paradigmatic example. Keeping the heat on Matasar may have distracted from the story's focus.

It would be great fodder for a brief follow-up, though.

You make a good point: the more they focus on Matasar/NYLS, the less it's really about law school in general. Fair enough.

I do think, though, when they bring up just how substantial an increase in enrollment NYLS has that one year (30% against an average of 6% for peer schools, iirc), and suggest one reason (the bonds they issued for their new building), it seems like it'd be fair to bring up another possibility, the Access Group connection, especially when they also go into the apparent cognitive dissonance about what he says and what he does (which the Access Group connection also partially explains).

Or I could just be blinded by how evil I think he is for serving on the board for Access Group and running a law school, and think it should get brought up at every remotely relevant juncture.
Last edited by JusticeHarlan on Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

claudenm
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:52 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby claudenm » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:34 pm

Master Tofu wrote:
sunynp wrote:This better make ATL's quote of the day on Monday -

“My salary,” Mr. Campos said, “is paid by the current structure, which is in many ways deceptive and unjust to a point that verges on fraud. But as a law professor, I understand that what is good for me is that the structure stay the way it is.”


"My salary is paid by those who will be in debt forever because of lies we told them. But, hey, I'm cool with that. "


Paul Campos is actually acutally pretty astute. He wrote this article talking about the employment scam: http://www.tnr.com/article/87251/law-sc ... georgetown .

I think his quote was taken partially out of context. Also it does state a fact, I would bet Campos thinks what schools are doing is immoral (but not enough to quit his job).

Aqualibrium
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:57 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby Aqualibrium » Sun Jul 17, 2011 11:34 pm

scammedhard wrote:
Bronx Bum wrote:LOL at the doom and gloom on this site. Law is still a noble profession. Relax. The economy will pick up.

Doom and gloom? You wrote a few days ago:
Chose Fordham basically sticker last year. Going into 2L...worst mistake I've ever made in my entire life. I has put me back significantly and I dread waking up each morning.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=160033&p=4600963#p4600963

Can you please explain?



LOL Bronx Bum just can't catch a break huh?

javancho
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby javancho » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:32 pm

ATL comments on the response from Dean Matasar to the New York Times article:

"Law Schools Head To The Bunker To Avoid New York Times Fallout"
--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:39 pm

Aqualibrium wrote:
scammedhard wrote:
Bronx Bum wrote:LOL at the doom and gloom on this site. Law is still a noble profession. Relax. The economy will pick up.

Doom and gloom? You wrote a few days ago:
Chose Fordham basically sticker last year. Going into 2L...worst mistake I've ever made in my entire life. I has put me back significantly and I dread waking up each morning.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=160033&p=4600963#p4600963

Can you please explain?



LOL Bronx Bum just can't catch a break huh?


Cue the sad music from The Price is Right when a contestant loses.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4855
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby Borhas » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:59 pm

sunynp wrote:The problem with focusing on NYLS is that it is easy to marginalize this report. Like all his other stories about law, he ends up with a focus that is simple to discredit - in this case, because the school is so lowly ranked. Still, it makes a good impact when he mentions that this school charges more than Harvard.


low rank, but how many schools are ranked comparably low? 25-50%?

There's way more TTT than T-14's or even T1s

User avatar
DietCoke
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 2:24 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby DietCoke » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:49 am

Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.































Oglethorpe wrote:I agree. Had I not found this site I would still believe the reported data. The average Joe has no reason to be skeptical of ABA backed employment statistics.


^this is why most blame go on the school, the ABA, and the USNWR.

User avatar
DietCoke
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 2:24 am

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby DietCoke » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:31 am

robotclubmember wrote:my closing argument: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3#p4614023


OH GOODNESS WHAT THE FUK DID I JUST READ?

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:09 am

DietCoke wrote:
robotclubmember wrote:my closing argument: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3#p4614023


OH GOODNESS WHAT THE FUK DID I JUST READ?

Are you not entertained?!

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

Re: NYTimes: "Law School Economics: Ka-Ching!"

Postby robotclubmember » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:30 am

Is this not why you came?!




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 4 guests