.

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby 20141023 » Sun May 26, 2013 10:20 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FKASunny
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:40 am

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby FKASunny » Sun May 26, 2013 10:43 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) wrote:
justonemoregame wrote:Let's face it, nothing is coming from the ABA/law school administration (where these aren't the same people). If you look at the submissions to the Task Force on Legal Education, there are profs and administrators who are so off-base in their solutions, it's sickening. The Dean of UCONN actually identified declining enrollment as the problem itself, rather than what it actually is: a solution. What we are trying to encourage, they are trying to correct. Not enough people purchasing JDs? Let's sell LLMs. Graduating with too much debt? Let's spit 'em out after two years so we don't have to cut enrollment. Not enough jobs? loltoobad, derpa derpa clinics and experiential derpa moar skills utilization.


There are many in legal academia who point to the decline in law school enrollment as threatening to exacerbate the current shortage for lawyers in rural and remote areas. Of course, this isn't caused by a shortage in law school graduates. It's caused by a generation burdened by absurd debt and the attraction that cities offer young, educated people. As with doctors, there is a serious need to deal with serving populations in the US that are currently underserved by the legal profession, but boosting enrollment at schools in Michigan, Florida, or California is not a solution.

While an advertising campaign or even more efforts to educate potential law students would definitely help on the margins, there is no denying that there is a sizable chunk of the population that will just dismiss this information as elitist or overly pessimistic. The solution to the structural problems in the legal market need to contain serious cost cutting measures or we're doomed to only dealing with half of the problem.

We're not saying "shut down schools!!!" We're saying that many schools need to lose their accreditation; they would still be allowed to exist, but because they aren't accredited, they just wouldn't be able to draw on federal funds. This would naturally cause them to lower their costs or risk going out of business.

Also, I can't see how a negative advertisement campaign directed at certain private TTTs would be viewed as "elitist." Just like we now know that smoking causes cancer, we finally have the employment data to back up our claims of these schools being a scam. Graduates have tried to unsuccessfully sue various TTTs for misleading applicants, but courts have ruled in favor of the law schools because the students were blamed for taking the employment data reported by these schools at face value. Stating the actual outcomes of students, or better yet, interviewing jobless graduates from these schools and quoting their interviews alongside employment data for these schools, would be awesome in my opinion.

I definitely agree with you. I just see the justifications and platitudes people would use in defense of an institution that "serves" minority and immigrant students that otherwise wouldn't have access to a law degree. It's complete bullshit, but people love to eat that shit up.

bananapeanutbutter
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby bananapeanutbutter » Sun May 26, 2013 11:01 pm

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) wrote:
kappycaft1 wrote:
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) wrote:
justonemoregame wrote:Let's face it, nothing is coming from the ABA/law school administration (where these aren't the same people). If you look at the submissions to the Task Force on Legal Education, there are profs and administrators who are so off-base in their solutions, it's sickening. The Dean of UCONN actually identified declining enrollment as the problem itself, rather than what it actually is: a solution. What we are trying to encourage, they are trying to correct. Not enough people purchasing JDs? Let's sell LLMs. Graduating with too much debt? Let's spit 'em out after two years so we don't have to cut enrollment. Not enough jobs? loltoobad, derpa derpa clinics and experiential derpa moar skills utilization.


There are many in legal academia who point to the decline in law school enrollment as threatening to exacerbate the current shortage for lawyers in rural and remote areas. Of course, this isn't caused by a shortage in law school graduates. It's caused by a generation burdened by absurd debt and the attraction that cities offer young, educated people. As with doctors, there is a serious need to deal with serving populations in the US that are currently underserved by the legal profession, but boosting enrollment at schools in Michigan, Florida, or California is not a solution.

While an advertising campaign or even more efforts to educate potential law students would definitely help on the margins, there is no denying that there is a sizable chunk of the population that will just dismiss this information as elitist or overly pessimistic. The solution to the structural problems in the legal market need to contain serious cost cutting measures or we're doomed to only dealing with half of the problem.

We're not saying "shut down schools!!!" We're saying that many schools need to lose their accreditation; they would still be allowed to exist, but because they aren't accredited, they just wouldn't be able to draw on federal funds. This would naturally cause them to lower their costs or risk going out of business.

Also, I can't see how a negative advertisement campaign directed at certain private TTTs would be viewed as "elitist." Just like we now know that smoking causes cancer, we finally have the employment data to back up our claims of these schools being a scam. Graduates have tried to unsuccessfully sue various TTTs for misleading applicants, but courts have ruled in favor of the law schools because the students were blamed for taking the employment data reported by these schools at face value. Stating the actual outcomes of students, or better yet, interviewing jobless graduates from these schools and quoting their interviews alongside employment data for these schools, would be awesome in my opinion.

I definitely agree with you. I just see the justifications and platitudes people would use in defense of an institution that "serves" minority and immigrant students that otherwise wouldn't have access to a law degree. It's complete bullshit, but people love to eat that shit up.

Nobody that goes to New England Law or NYLS is traveling back to bumblefuck. Those are the ones that would lose the federal funds. If the scumbag dean of Touro Law came out and said, but how will we able to help service those who need legal aid in Jackson, Mississippi, he'd be laughed at.

Additionally, what are these under-served communities? We have legal aid in every city, have affirmative action in place to assist many minority groups and because of the rules of the profession, lawyers can't charge below a certain amount anyway so poor people would need to go with legal aid regardless.

Lastly, what are the odds of somebody with the work ethic and aptitude to garner a 2.6 and 140, and who is also immersed with 200k debt and no job prospects (and likely motivated by trying to get as much quick cash as possible) is going to make a tangible and positive impact on the community? I think any underrepresented community, with the current model, could certainly have candidates who get into a tier one institution.

bananapeanutbutter
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby bananapeanutbutter » Sun May 26, 2013 11:12 pm

Look, these schools are trying to make money. They all are. All these deans want to keep their jobs, and all professors want to make enough salary to support a household while being able to spend significant time with them. They're all humans too, and I'm not one of those educators should have a simple drive a Toyota kind of life guys when these are some of the most talented legal thinkers in the entire world. They should be allowed to make a profit.

But the model only works if the relationship of positive outcomes is mutual. That's still the case more times than not at the top schools, and is a rarity at all of the other ones. In the third and fourth tiers, a positive outcome is less common than beating the house in Vegas. The schools aren't disclaiming this on their own, and the truth is unlike cigarettes, if somebody decides to take out a 200k loan for a 1% chance at a six figure job for a 4th tier, they aren't only messing up their own life but are burdening the tax payer. 99% of the time, it is us who pay back their dumb choice and all they have to deal with is not being allowed to own a home for their lifetime.

There's a good argument this is worse than Vegas because these bottom feeding schools aren't just contributing to a bad life for the purchaser, but are burdening the public. If somebody loses their home and car and savings in Vegas, it's tragic but it only influences them - alright, survival of the fittest. The Cooley model kind of not only plays with the tenets of Darwinism, but also screws over the fit as well through having to pay for a poor bet that none of us would have ever made. There's no justification for it, and no economic model in history or that has ever been posited supports it.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby 20141023 » Mon May 27, 2013 7:33 am

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jas1503
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:27 pm

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby jas1503 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:13 pm

Thought that they were affiliated with the University of Phoenix online brand...Disappointed that there won't be any online law schooling :cry:


The Socratic method would be awesome online.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby 20141023 » Tue May 28, 2013 12:43 am

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby Micdiddy » Tue May 28, 2013 3:45 pm

So, are we assuming no government interference? Or just the government cannot force them to close? I think the more productive discussion would be assuming no gov't interference whatsoever (unless it is a practical campaign to change policy, instead of a magic wand "if government only did this").

W/o gov't interference, honestly so much has already been done to try and shed light on this issue. Itlss along with a general shift in common beliefs becoming more and more realistic have probably helped numerous hopefuls avoid these schools, but others will simply never find these websites or not listen. Possibly, we can push our alma maters for more informed pre-law advisors? Not sure about the practicality or usefulness of that one (like anyone uses a pre-law advisor these days).
Maybe Create websites so that when people search "Barry Law" their first hit might be the schools website, but the second hit would be something like "the Barry Law scam" with lst numbers and a description of how such a school could ruin ones life (and i guess just do that for every scam school? Would take a lot of work and dedication for no money). Hopefully, it'll be more visible that way instead of hoping people find TLS.

Besides that...campaign the gov't, ABA and all that.

User avatar
unclepete
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby unclepete » Thu May 30, 2013 1:21 pm

My SO works for a PE fund who looked into buying InfiLaw. They decided it wasn't ethically or morally responsible to be involved in such a thing. It also comes with a HUGE legal risk, with all of the potential lawsuits (sort of ironic...)

User avatar
Micdiddy
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: Smoking can be bad for you...

Postby Micdiddy » Thu May 30, 2013 1:48 pm

unclepete wrote:My SO works for a PE fund who looked into buying InfiLaw. They decided it wasn't ethically or morally responsible to be involved in such a thing. It also comes with a HUGE legal risk, with all of the potential lawsuits (sort of ironic...)


Lol. I love that they deemed the very existence of Infilaw unethical. 100% true.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: theGrinch and 6 guests