Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:09 am

I'm sure you can apply sociological and economic empirical research to jurisprudence, but then, is it jurisprudence research?

To expand: If a lawyer with a background in physics does a physics experiment to support a legal "theory" he has, that'd still be "physics research", not "judicial research", right?

Although this makes me wonder the value of a solid understanding of sociology, economics, history, and science would be for lawyers.

What if law school is basically all of those things instead what it is now, training people to become experts in all the fields directly relevant for whatever law they want to do. You'd have specialized courses and tracks. For example, if you're on an "environmental law" track, it would include environmental science courses, biology courses, yada yada. If you happened to have majored in environmental science, you could carry over credit or something. You'd basically be doing a masters in a particular subject matter, but with an added legal element.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Well, "law and X" is definitely a thing, and specialization seems like one answer. You can presumably go and study at a school with people who have doctorates in a discipline, or pick a department you like? It seems worth looking into JD/PhDs that are fully paid for - if nothing else, it leaves someone with a JD and a bunch of time reading more books, I guess. They're actually interesting to me, because I wonder if they address one of the big differences in outcomes between humanities and applied sciences PhDs - the whole "applied" thing.

PeanutsNJam wrote:
Businesslady wrote:research in jurisprudence


What does that really mean though? It's not like you can apply the scientific method to something that is fundamentally philosophical. You can't scientifically prove "should" and "ought".

Idk, I think what people are saying is that law is a field where the scientific rigor is limited by its intangible nature. Not that I'm saying law isn't rigorous in other ways.

You can't discover a new law.

But I haven't actually read any law journals so what do I know.

The social sciences have had their own epistemological breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions

Tamanaha again, who should just post more (and who also did this kind of meta-analysis of empirical work, which I just skimmed) on the state of theory:

Image
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2546370

Then, of course, there are dudes like this:
https://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/daniel-e-ho

who do work like this:
http://gking.harvard.edu/files/matchp.pdf

The whole "I'm pro-life and love guns, will law schools ding me?" thing is a pretty good illustration of what's fucked up.

e: Oh, and of course, the way people interpret data on here, which (if I were more of an actual sociopath) would make me wonder if tuition should be doubled as a Pigovian tax to fund this type of research - as a policy matter. Of course, student debt is fucked up and inefficient, and consumer spending is probably a better way to stimulate the economy anyway. Is there a law review article on the instrumental theory of law school debt?
Last edited by Businesslady on Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby sublime » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:21 pm

..

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:27 pm

Don't you go there? Just walk into his office on Monday. What's he going to do, slap you? These places are just people.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15401
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby sublime » Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:43 pm

..

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:36 pm

This is a long post mostly about how I don't know if I care about the reproduction of hierarchy per se, but interpassivity. Bootstraps

1.
PeanutsNJam wrote:Although this makes me wonder the value of a solid understanding of sociology, economics, history, and science would be for lawyers.

The lawyers that exist, or the lawyers you'd like to exist? I'd think "no idea" and "a lot," respectively. Linguistics too. Also, the real world seems instructive (including doing a shitty service job for low pay) - and if that's something HLS is moving toward, good for them. I wonder if TFA should be, like, instant acceptance at HYS and full scholarship everywhere that does them, because it's basically a proxy for 1) undergrad performance and 2) exposure to seeing how fucked up systems can be when policies are constructed from abstract doctrines.

But the BA is a wildly inconsistent degree, and all GPAs are fungible because of the USNWR arms race? Learnable test + meaningless metric + trashed economy + massive pricetag: enjoy your corporate common law, underfunded public defenders, and the American prison-industrial complex!

This is so inefficient. It's maddening. I didn't read that Posner article on instrumental whatever and tort, and how it analogizes to what amounts to a policy of mass indenture, but I'll let Tamanaha clean up that line of thinking when he shows up.

2. In advance, and repeating myself, I agree that law school in its present form probably shouldn't exist, but because it's passive and wasteful, and it might not be subsidizing what it should. I don't even really see a problem with building expensive buildings on credit to house well-paid scholars if you can fundraise LAMF (which nonprofit orgs do, and do well). But anyway, running with these really crude ideas here and not doing the reading is a big fucking problem. Like, I wonder whether there's much to read into the revolving door between the deanship of Stanford Law and the Hewlett Foundation. That seems like a cool and interesting question about what role elite legal education plays in society, and how it relates to the underlying logic of the new / "effective" philanthropy, and why people hate George Soros so much for understanding reflexivity.

It's fucked up to charge so much directly to the student, but so what if it's expensive to teach responsible and intelligent people about legal theory so they can practice law - or not practice law, whichever. Fine. It costs a lot to train a fighter pilot, too, and I don't think they're dogfighting all the time or whatever. Is the Air Force a scam?

Image

I doubt it. Like anything else - you have to parse out the looting. But then, you know - scarcity mindset of a lazy hivemind that misses all the big issues. Maybe everything is working. It doesn't feel like it's working, but I just make bad posts on websites.

3. I think a central concern should be distinguishing between qualitative risk management of the sort that doing wrong will get you sued for malpractice, and the scarcity mindset. The latter is completely fucked and inefficient.

There's no issue with "learning how to think like a lawyer" - except to the extent it means "fuck I'm so fucked, I need to constantly be thinking about leverage ratios but not why they matter, what could go wrong, we're all so fucked, the corporate client is always right," in which case the issues, again, are risk distribution, agent-principal problems, and parsing out the looting.

4. If you're not as bothered by the stock/flow aspect of debt because you're a law and econ master (or just don't have to be bothered), can you go to law school and just try and make basic income happen for 3 years, and then join a basic income policy nonprofit? Is there a basic income clinic anywhere? Can I get a school-funded job in pushing for basic income? Why not? What student group would tell a school it wants a basic income clinic? This section is kind of a joke about how when I just critique everyone is like "well, what should anyone do about it" and when I throw out ideas people are like "not a good idea and would never work." This isn't even remotely my job. There are people who get paid at law schools to have ideas and execute them.

5. Also, what about going for the "Finance and the Good Society" approach from the policy side? What about using law and econ to address our worst domestic moral failure?

I hate "don't go" - because then nobody will go! I definitely get it because holy fuck at the cost, but still. I also dislike the school-funded jobs stigma because is it the worst if someone who doesn't know what they're doing ends up working in a clinic? I can't drill down into that. I don't know what it means.

6. Wanting the safety of "jobs numbers" makes all the sense in the world - in a world that ties good health care and housing to employment with unclear social utility, and then won't hire under the bullshit pretext of "skills." Wanting to get good at a service profession is totally respectable - though the "allure" of the pay (which probably is too low on an hourly basis for what it is) really isn't.

7. But the loss of bargaining power while applying and "negotiating" scholarships leads to having panic attacks over curved exams that are pure bloodsport for the chance of wondering "V20 to V17?" and internalizing "exits" as a proxy for "optionality" - like, isn't this weird passivity kind of bred on the way in?

This board exists as a kind of collective consciousness pricing mechanism - but at a certain level, assuming no independent means, everything that's not

* pure need-based aid & killer LRAP at HYS
* NYU RTK
* NU ED 150k
* whatever RD full ride you get

seems like it sets up a pretty fucky and stressy incentive structure right from the start.

8. Is Career Services the proper locus of this discussion? Why is everything so disjointed? Is there anywhere that it's not? Should I be easier on "jobs" and apply this same logic (systems are just people!) to the firms themselves? That seems more difficult than schools. I don't understand what NLG really does. I also don't understand American politics, for whatever that's worth.

9. Why can't ABA schools just deal with this conveyor belt trajectory, collectively or in tiers, LSAC Statement of Good Practices style? Collective action problem? Competition? Antitrust? Employment risks? Certain faculties more conservative than others? Not wanting to fuck with the loan faucet mechanism by waking up the political resentment / scarcity mindset machine? Is this basically college basketball recruiting, where there are rules that schools constantly skirt, and players who should just be getting paid (like in doctorate programs) end up places that will put them in the pros, and then only certain players make it? This is the kind of bigger question I think LST should think about how to ask (and who will be willing to answer it), because I just make bad posts on websites.

10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ ... e_paradigm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_effect

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:53 pm

I know I'm just cherry-picking here, and cherry-picking on literal things rather than the overall theory, and not offering solutions, but:
Businesslady wrote:I wonder if TFA should be, like, instant acceptance at HYS and full scholarship everywhere that does them, because it's basically a proxy for 1) undergrad performance and 2) exposure to seeing how fucked up systems can be when policies are constructed from abstract doctrines.
Dear God, no. TFA is a way for the striver class to further polish their resume in their pitstop enlightening the masses on their way to the post-grad degree that was basically inevitable from the start. (My apologies to all the individual TFA people who were great/dedicated to their jobs, many of you are amazing human beings who really care about students, but there are tons of problems with that program.)

It's fucked up to charge so much directly to the student, but so what if it's expensive to teach responsible and intelligent people about legal theory so they can practice law - or not practice law, whichever. Fine. It costs a lot to train a fighter pilot, too. Is the Air Force a scam?
The point is that it's NOT expensive to teach people about legal theory. You need a professor, maybe some case books, and maybe a blackboard. Clinics are more expensive, but not that much. It's not med school. Legal research doesn't even cost very much (it's much more the humanities than it is the sciences.) There's no correlation between cost to the school to train and cost to the student to learn.

Besides, the Air Force doesn't charge fighter pilots for the training.

4. If you're not as bothered by the stock/flow aspect of debt because you're a law and econ master (or just don't have to be bothered), can you go to law school and just try and make basic income happen for 3 years, and then join a basic income policy nonprofit? Is there a basic income clinic anywhere? Can I get a school-funded job in pushing for basic income? Why not? What student group would tell a school it wants a basic income clinic?

Do law schools even talk about basic income? I've never seen it discussed. I just don't think it's something at all connected to the way that law schools are currently configured. I'm sure it's ultimately useful to have people with JDs involved in that that kind of conversation, but basic income really doesn't have anything to do with legal practice (or legal theory as taught to prepare you for legal practice, even though it doesn't). I get that your point is that it should, but I guess I don't know how to bridge the massive gap between what you seem to be envisioning and what law school is actually like.

7. But the loss of bargaining power while applying and "negotiating" scholarships leads to having panic attacks over curved exams that are pure bloodsport for the chance of wondering "V20 to V17?" and internalizing "exits" as a proxy for "optionality" - like, isn't this weird passivity kind of bred on the way in?

Pretty much. (PhD programs breed weird neuroses, too.) I mean, I agree that it's a problem. Ironically it may be less of an issue at schools with terrible numbers, where "V20 to V17" isn't even remotely a thing - it doesn't matter what has been artificially determined to be the brass ring when you can't ever get it anyway. Unfortunately a lot of people at those schools end up shut out of the legal profession.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:58 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I know I'm just cherry-picking here, and cherry-picking on literal things rather than the overall theory, and not offering solutions, but:
Businesslady wrote:I wonder if TFA should be, like, instant acceptance at HYS and full scholarship everywhere that does them, because it's basically a proxy for 1) undergrad performance and 2) exposure to seeing how fucked up systems can be when policies are constructed from abstract doctrines.
Dear God, no. TFA is a way for the striver class to further polish their resume in their pitstop enlightening the masses on their way to the post-grad degree that was basically inevitable from the start. (My apologies to all the individual TFA people who were great/dedicated to their jobs, many of you are amazing human beings who really care about students, but there are tons of problems with that program.)

Yeah, but isn't that the whole concept? Getting the striver class into the lifeworld? My understanding was HLS gonna HLS

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:04 pm

Also, professors are kind of expensive, right? Like, isn't going to office hours basically talking to a lawyer with a really desirable job? At this point I'm kind of taking the piss - but also not, because if there's going to be a hierarchy regardless, there should be some way to make it serve a quality control function and align it with society's interests. I like the idea of well-paid law professors subsidized by philanthropy, the state, and (better-paid relative to debt) practicing attorneys.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby utahraptor » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:12 pm

yeah but LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP is absolutely worthless

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:12 pm

Businesslady wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I know I'm just cherry-picking here, and cherry-picking on literal things rather than the overall theory, and not offering solutions, but:
Businesslady wrote:I wonder if TFA should be, like, instant acceptance at HYS and full scholarship everywhere that does them, because it's basically a proxy for 1) undergrad performance and 2) exposure to seeing how fucked up systems can be when policies are constructed from abstract doctrines.
Dear God, no. TFA is a way for the striver class to further polish their resume in their pitstop enlightening the masses on their way to the post-grad degree that was basically inevitable from the start. (My apologies to all the individual TFA people who were great/dedicated to their jobs, many of you are amazing human beings who really care about students, but there are tons of problems with that program.)

Yeah, but isn't that the whole concept? Getting the striver class into the lifeworld? My understanding was HLS gonna HLS

Eh, I don't think it works, but mostly I think that would encourage people do to TFA for the purposes of getting into an elite law school (even more than they already do), which I think would be terrible. I don't think TFA should be about getting the striver class into the lifeworld, frankly, because that makes poor kids instrumental to the enlightenment of the privileged, which, yuck.

Re: professors being expensive - I have a hard time going along with that because I know how much less professors in non-legal fields make. I get that law profs are well paid because many of them can command a higher wage in the private sector, but since law school is a professional school and most law profs have maybe 3-5 years experience actually practicing in the field that they're sending students into, I don't really think they should be that well paid, no. There's a hierarchy among law profs, too - the ones who actually teach skills relevant to practice (legal writing and clinics) are usually not tenured and paid significantly less than the ones producing law review articles about jurisprudence. (Admittedly this dynamic isn't really unique to law schools.)

As much as it doesn't sound that way right now, I am pro-research for the sake of research. But if you can't get fancy corporate lawyers to take a paycut to come teach law, get people who work with the indigent or in criminal law where, I promise you, law prof salaries are a big step up.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:48 pm

If we're talking about the striver class as the privileged, I mean, Goldman hires out of TFA too. They just do. That framing's kind of cynical and not really outcome-focused. Like, what's the alternative to poor kids as "instrumental" to enlightenment? Entitled adult children who never left a bubble in positions of decisionmaking responsibility for others' interests? Banks and firms exclusively made of sociopaths who like money? I don't really care what people want going into TFA - or maybe even what people who won't have debt think they want going into elite law schools, for that matter - if they're reminded how fucked the world is and given a sense of agency and responsibility when they get there. That's the consequentialist alchemy of this whole thing.

There's a paper on the sociology of econ that shows how much more they make than other professors as well (in part because they're competitive in the private sector, in part because they're our priest class) - but there's a kind of Soviet be-productive-in-society logic of loans / IBR on some level there, as in law: that compensation should reflect the value you create for your customers. There's also the Paul Graham idea of creating something that scales - and good scholarship should create value at scale, which is the whole premise. In this case I think you'd still want the externalities of social benefit priced in.

I think just because humanities professors are underpaid because they have trouble demonstrating their value in dollar terms doesn't make law professors overpaid and agree that lifeworld -> scholarly comfort would be a good arc; I just don't think it's all that zero-sum.

e: I'm sus of the hegemony of the quantifiable, life's not dollar-denominated, just being realist, etc.

User avatar
Desert Fox
Progressively loosing literacy
Posts: 14397
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:55 pm

There is no reason legal SCHOLARSHIP can't be a part-time hobby for lawyers and other professors with legal degrees.

Profs at my school taught like 3-5 classes a YEAR.

Why are students expected to subsidize this bullshit.

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby utahraptor » Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:57 pm

shut down law schools; fund more macarthur fellows

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:23 pm

Businesslady wrote:If we're talking about the striver class as the privileged, I mean, Goldman hires out of TFA too. They just do. That framing's kind of cynical and not really outcome-focused. Like, what's the alternative to poor kids as "instrumental" to enlightenment? Entitled adult children who never left a bubble in positions of decisionmaking responsibility for others' interests? Banks and firms exclusively made of sociopaths who like money? I don't really care what people want going into TFA - or maybe even what people who won't have debt think they want going into elite law schools, for that matter - if they're reminded how fucked the world is and given a sense of agency and responsibility when they get there. That's the consequentialist alchemy of this whole thing.

There's a paper on the sociology of econ that shows how much more they make than other professors as well (in part because they're competitive in the private sector, in part because they're our priest class) - but there's a kind of Soviet be-productive-in-society logic of loans / IBR on some level there, as in law: that compensation should reflect the value you create for your customers. There's also the Paul Graham idea of creating something that scales - and good scholarship should create value at scale, which is the whole premise. In this case I think you'd still want the externalities of social benefit priced in.

I think just because humanities professors are underpaid because they have trouble demonstrating their value in dollar terms doesn't make law professors overpaid and agree that lifeworld -> scholarly comfort would be a good arc; I just don't think it's all that zero-sum.

e: I'm sus of the hegemony of the quantifiable, life's not dollar-denominated, just being realist, etc.

Yeah, I still just don't think elite schools should privilege TFA. I get your point about the problem with adult children who've never left a bubble, but I would much rather tackle directly the issue of getting more of the kids who get taught *by* TFA into elite schools and Goldman and so on, than use TFA to fix rich/privileged kids. (I mean, didn't SBL do TFA or something very similar? I'm not sure the alchemy is working.)

And I agree that humanities profs should be higher paid more so than law profs paid less, but I only care about law prof salaries in the context of the cost of law school. You seemed to suggest that law schools are expensive because law profs are well-paid, but when it comes to what's necessary in a legal education, the current setup for law profs isn't it. Hire fewer and have them teach more, if faculty salaries are what makes law school expensive. But I don't actually think there's any correlation between faculty salary and law school tuition, given how much tuition has gone up in real-dollar terms. I mean, in 2000 my law school cost $7,000 a year, now it's almost $32,000. I doubt faculty salaries have increased at the same rate.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:51 pm

Oh, I was just speaking to the part of the article in the OP about flying around to conferences and living well. I'm for that

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:53 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Why are students expected to subsidize this bullshit.

Because the jobs they get are within a system of state monopolies on legitimate reallocation of resources?

e: I mostly think they shouldn't have to, I don't know if I made that clear. It's just an incentive structure

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:44 am

utahraptor wrote:shut down law schools; fund more macarthur fellows

This doesn't even make sense, though! Why not just make law schools more fun and way cheaper or better LRAP'd instead of misery factories preaching scarcity doctrines and fire drill mentalities?

----

Like, I get it's a service industry. It's an industry that serves, for example, financiers arranging acquisitions, irrespective of the actual value proposition of the "synergies" of a deal. Do you need more than an LL.B to do deal work? I don't know. Would law undergrads gun for IB jobs? I assume they do overseas.

You know what's dumb? The trillion-dollar farm bill and the industrial brutality of making meat cheaper than it should be and creating toxic pigshit CO2 mills in the process. That's a dumb allocation of resources. That's way dumber than letting people who study the system of a country's laws fly around to talk about them and sleep in nice beds and eat good food. It's way dumber than loaning people a bunch of money to study at what should be (and what could be) a hybrid of civil service academies, policy research centers, and trade schools, and then ask for some of it back if they take that education to a private firm. (I know. Tax bomb. It sucks.)

So partners want to show off the diploma to clients who can feel safe that they're buying a premium product. Cool. People should be able to do what they want, including grinding away long into the night and constantly checking e-mail. I assume from PPP numbers that firms can afford to pay a bit better for that, and by extension for the (grossly inefficient, but never mind that now) screening and sorting process and the competitive weapon of an aura of supremacy.

That's where the institutional responsibility thing comes in, and where this starts to look like prestige arbitrage. It's not faculties who are getting the most significant subsidies here, and everyone knows it. They're just the ones who vote on things and ultimately let people get sold too cheaply into unpleasant and unstable working conditions relative to debt loads, even if it's a passive process.

This structure (I know it's simplified, in before a comma-mover pulls a Well Actually on some detail) is pretty fucked:

application / negotiation -> brute force 1L curve sorting / grade-on -> OCI -> 2 years of ??? -> big debt

Law reviews print various schools' partners' (read: faculties') professional currency, and serve as a signaling mechanism for employers. They don't function like real academic journals. That's pretty corny. Some seem to operate like trade journals at times, which makes sense. Maybe the whole thing is working. I wouldn't know.

That setup seems to risk privileging and subsidizing grinding, intellectual sloppiness, and rank prestige-whoring over utility and novelty. That's not to say other disciplines don't do those things as well, but it's still a pretty offensive organizing principle for evaluating and sorting the ultimate work product of the institutions that train people to interface between the state's force legitimization institutions and parties with conflicts. I mean, the HLS model of creating a space for public intellectuals to work is pretty cool; they seem to do prestige arbitrage right. They could maybe still do the ban high-hour firms from OCI thing.

It's kind of shocking that it's so openly and shamelessly done the way it is - but then, when admissions and pricing constitutes adverse selection by design (LSAT/GPA, spreadsheet scholarship negotiation), and nobody really does actual due diligence, what's to be expected? Someone needs to Cass Sunstein this whole market for lemons. Cass Sunstein should.

If people want to try to buy social capital in the form of a law degree to get more "options," that's what they'll do. It's not productive to make them wonder if it's going to cost them their middle class dream to try and do their own thing. People shouldn't have their lives thrown into total flux by a no-offer - it's pretty offensive to make people mortgage themselves to participate in the conflict resolution machine, even if they went in thinking about paychecks. A tax bomb shouldn't make someone wonder whether they can buy a house after legitimately trying to participate in conventional professional society and getting burned. There's really no good reason for ostensibly fungible schools to be competing with each other so awkwardly and inefficiently at the admissions stage - but they do, it seems because of the fire-the-coach rankings mindset - so all these weird substitutes applicants use for certainty and safety and life hedging don't seem as good as collectively securing solid life hedges from the institutions at peak bargaining power.

The whole thing just seems slapped together and outrageously inefficient and inelegant. You end up with a jurisprudence factory made out of kludges designed to make more kludges. The world's so fucked up, though! I don't want to burn it all down. I kind of think more talented people should go to law school.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22813
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:59 am

Businesslady wrote:I don't want to burn it all down. I kind of think more talented people should go to law school.

Why? How would that change anything? There are already lots of talented people who go I law school (depending on how you define talented).

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:03 am

Maybe because they're bored or just want to move somewhere. I especially mean people who can get it paid for.

e: Not to be sassy, but I actually don't get the obsession with bright-line rules at all. I don't know why people cling to them so desperately or expect me of all people to be tossing them off casually. That seems like a social problem to me, intuitively.

I have no idea why anyone would do anything. I just want a lot of other people to do a lot of things that might benefit me or other people in some way, that's all. I bet some of them could figure out how to do it in law school. None of this is legal advice or education advice or legal education advice. I just make bad posts on websites.

Image

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby utahraptor » Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:50 am

ratfukr i had a (slightly) more comprehensive response written up but my computer crashed and your post frankly doesn't warrant it

yes LLBs can do deal work

yeah, law undergrads might try to get IB jobs, but that doesn't mean that IBs would hire them/it would really work

maybe you could keep law school but make it just a trade school, like something clearly focused in preparing people for work so the hang a shingle thing isn't so silly/so that people enter firms with more hands-on experience. things are trending this way, but not really quickly or substantially enough.

more importantly, you've shifted back into viewing legal academia as something real. it's not. it's not real. yeah, i'm sure that some academics care how often they're cited and which journal they're published in, but many don't care. there's a [very] famous professor here who chose to publish his work in a particular journal because its name amused him.

i've had the opportunity to have some brilliant people as professors, but it hasn't enriched my life, and i'm sure that LAW SCHOOL does very little to enrich theirs beyond the financial compensation. i don't benefit from having a god of IP law teach me crim. i don't benefit from having an actual con law scholar teach me what a statute is. they certainly don't benefit from our presence either (except when they function slightly more like real academia and find a bright student to "co" write a paper for with them. (that's not about me, btw)

if you're serious about wanting to have more academics that do good things, recognize that law professors, by and large, are not the academics you're looking for, and the ones who are legitimately brilliant would assuredly be able to teach graduate level classes in other, more academic fields

i'm sorry if this is dismissive and i'm sure you don't like it, but i really hate stuff that puffs up the intellectual/academic aspects of law, because there's not much there. this isn't a field for ~intellectuals~ and ~SCHOLARS~. like you said, it's a service industry. it's white collar work that involves thought, but let's not make it into more than it is.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:26 am

I like your responses.

IB is more about target school / GPA than subject, I'm pretty sure. I don't know why I brought it up except that it's an example of an industry that doesn't really give a shit about what you studied and acknowledges that it's going to teach you on the job. I guess I was thinking that law makes sense as a generic UG degree so 1) people don't get pwned with 3 more years of whatever 2) you can teach it along with certain econ / sociology / poli sci / psychology courses in a more fluid way, if making doctrine stick is what matters. I feel like I'd rather people who argued about rules spent some time in the lifeworld, though, and that people who argued about and decided big rules undertook a learning process that conveyed a better concept of what constitutes expertise. That seems uncontroversial but I know fuck all.

utahraptor wrote:i've had the opportunity to have some brilliant people as professors, but it hasn't enriched my life, and i'm sure that LAW SCHOOL does very little to enrich theirs beyond the financial compensation. i don't benefit from having a god of IP law teach me crim. i don't benefit from having an actual con law scholar teach me what a statute is. they certainly don't benefit from our presence either (except when they function slightly more like real academia and find a bright student to "co" write a paper for with them. (that's not about me, btw)

Sorry, I guess? I hope you got what you wanted for the price you paid. Did you try? Was it frustrating?

If any law professor wants to write a paper with me (I want to be on it as Businesslady) HMU

utahraptor wrote:let's not make it into more than it is.

I think it sounds fun to try to make it more than it is! I want everyone to make everything more than it is, though.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:42 am

I get the ideal law school that you're clawing at, but I think it's just not achievable. It would require a significant amount of forward-thinking and self-sacrifice from all the individuals involved, from faculty to alumnus to prospective students.

It's the same reason our government fails miserably at funding public education. No politician in their right mind would go against their constituents in favor of a policy that can only produce tangible results at least a decade in the future. It's all game theory. Unless you can sit everybody in the country involved in the legal field down and get them to agree on a course of action, things won't change.

Do you really think convincing 100 1Ls to stroll onto campus and start a student group about anything can change anything?

Human greed and selfishness are inevitable, and they stand in between present circumstances and the ideal. Unfortunately, you can either scream at the rain to stop, or just get an umbrella and suck it up.

You can bet your ass GULC alumns will do anything they can to prevent GULC from dropping out of the T14, integrity and efficacy be damned.

If we really wanted to fix some serious problems, find an undiscovered continent and ship all the baby boomers there.

User avatar
Businesslady
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby Businesslady » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:50 am

I'm not sure that's a sufficiently detailed game-theoretical model to draw such strong conclusions.

User avatar
mmelittlechicken
Posts: 4680
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:34 am

Re: Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy

Postby mmelittlechicken » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:09 am

Categorically banning K-JD would probably help.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

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