Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby beachbum » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:16 pm

flcath wrote:Interviewer: "The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that there will be 74,000 new lawyer jobs opening up over the next decade. During that time, American law schools will graduate over 400,000 law graduates, so there's a massive oversupply problem."

Dean: "It's not clear to me there's an oversupply at all."

Interviewer: "Really, because that's like a 4-to-1 ratio."

Dean: "Well only 20% of the legal needs of poor people are being met. They should go [start firms that?] serve those people."

Interviewer: "But you can't do that if you're taking out six-figure debt."

Dean: "You know . . . you can and you can't. We've gotten into a situation where we measure the worth of higher eduction by the dollar return on the investment." (Goes on to talk about the value of doing what you love, and yes, the "versatility" of the JD.)


And this is a top official at a government-subsidized institution of higher learning. Something has gone horribly, horribly wrong in our education system.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:31 pm

What a shitboomer.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby stillwater » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:44 pm

Every household should revolt against the shitboomer(s) in their midst. Only by neutralizing the shitboomer can we can take our future back.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:48 pm

stillwater wrote:Every household should revolt against the shitboomer(s) in their midst. Only by neutralizing the shitboomer can we can take our future back.

Image

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2094
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:57 pm

flcath wrote:Interviewer: "The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that there will be 74,000 new lawyer jobs opening up over the next decade. During that time, American law schools will graduate over 400,000 law graduates, so there's a massive oversupply problem."

Dean: "It's not clear to me there's an oversupply at all."

Interviewer: "Really, because that's like a 4-to-1 ratio."

Dean: "Well only 20% of the legal needs of poor people are being met. They should go [start firms that?] serve those people."

Interviewer: "But you can't do that if you're taking out six-figure debt."

Dean: "You know . . . you can and you can't. We've gotten into a situation where we measure the worth of higher eduction by the dollar return on the investment." (Goes on to talk about the value of doing what you love, and yes, the "versatility" of the JD.)


He's either an idiot or a liar or both.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby IAFG » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:00 pm

We didn't used to measure return on investment on education because the investment wasn't two fucking mortgages. What a fuckwad.

BearsGrl
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby BearsGrl » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:05 pm

Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby IAFG » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:23 pm

BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?

User avatar
BlueJeanBaby
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby BlueJeanBaby » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:28 pm

IAFG wrote:
BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?


I have a random question related to this. I know almost nothing about finance when it comes to loans. If, for example, I end up having loan money leftover from my first year of ls, is it better to use the extra money for the next year, or to make a payment on my loans while they are in deferment (it is my understanding that if you make a payment while they are in deferment, you get to choose which loan the money goes to, as well as whether you want it applied to capital or the interest)? For reference, I am asking as somoene who has (about 20k of) undergraduate loans that I am paying off as well.

BearsGrl
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby BearsGrl » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:29 pm

IAFG wrote:
BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?


Yeah, exactly like those. Maybe it could be a smart strategy. I'm just tossing it out there as a general idea. It took me awhile, despite TLS, to get around just how bad the legal market and just how bad certain schools were. The only reason I considered going to law school (outside of wanting to be an attorney) was the fact that I had real estate that could be solid in lieu of tuition. I don't know how the average person pays tuition, rent, etc. in a larget metro and expects to have a "normal" life. Maybe down payments could be some sort of helper. Not sure.

BearsGrl
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby BearsGrl » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:31 pm

BlueJeanBaby wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?


I have a random question related to this. I know almost nothing about finance when it comes to loans. If, for example, I end up having loan money leftover from my first year of ls, is it better to use the extra money for the next year, or to make a payment on my loans while they are in deferment (it is my understanding that if you make a payment while they are in deferment, you get to choose which loan the money goes to, as well as whether you want it applied to capital or the interest)? For reference, I am asking as somoene who has (about 20k of) undergraduate loans that I am paying off as well.


I thought it was better to just request less the next time around. You're going to want "emergency fund" money (say 3 months worth). Any income you have during the Summer should be applied towards the loans.

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby bdubs » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:40 pm

BlueJeanBaby wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?


I have a random question related to this. I know almost nothing about finance when it comes to loans. If, for example, I end up having loan money leftover from my first year of ls, is it better to use the extra money for the next year, or to make a payment on my loans while they are in deferment (it is my understanding that if you make a payment while they are in deferment, you get to choose which loan the money goes to, as well as whether you want it applied to capital or the interest)? For reference, I am asking as somoene who has (about 20k of) undergraduate loans that I am paying off as well.


Unless you have higher interest rate loans than the ones you would be taking out (unlikely), then you should just take out less next year. It would be a wash if there were no origination fees for loans, but there are pretty substantial origination fees that make borrowing extra money cost more than repaying existing loans.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:42 pm

bdubs wrote:
BlueJeanBaby wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?


I have a random question related to this. I know almost nothing about finance when it comes to loans. If, for example, I end up having loan money leftover from my first year of ls, is it better to use the extra money for the next year, or to make a payment on my loans while they are in deferment (it is my understanding that if you make a payment while they are in deferment, you get to choose which loan the money goes to, as well as whether you want it applied to capital or the interest)? For reference, I am asking as somoene who has (about 20k of) undergraduate loans that I am paying off as well.


Unless you have higher interest rate loans than the ones you would be taking out (unlikely), then you should just take out less next year. It would be a wash if there were no origination fees for loans, but there are pretty substantial origination fees that make borrowing extra money cost more than repaying existing loans.

What s/he said
(and I know a lot about finance)

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby IAFG » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:18 pm

BearsGrl wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BearsGrl wrote:Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?


Yeah, exactly like those. Maybe it could be a smart strategy. I'm just tossing it out there as a general idea. It took me awhile, despite TLS, to get around just how bad the legal market and just how bad certain schools were. The only reason I considered going to law school (outside of wanting to be an attorney) was the fact that I had real estate that could be solid in lieu of tuition. I don't know how the average person pays tuition, rent, etc. in a larget metro and expects to have a "normal" life. Maybe down payments could be some sort of helper. Not sure.

I understand where you are coming from but unlike home ownership there is a huge problem with depriving access to people without family means, and it would be damn hard to scrape together that kind of cash without family money.

eric922
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby eric922 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:32 pm

You know I'm all for not measuring the worth of education based on how much money the degree will earn you. In fact, I hate the idea that the sole purpose of education should be to get a good job. To me that reeks of anti-intellectualism and is a bad sign for our society.

However, when you are being forced to take out at least a 100k debt to pay for that education then you need a well paying job to deal with that massive debt. Perhaps this dean should stop being a hypocrite and institute a pay cut for him and the rest of the staff so that the students can get an education without having to take out massive loans. Until he does that I will continue to hold to my firm belief that he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

User avatar
thelawyler
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby thelawyler » Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:19 pm

hypocrit is too nice of a word

User avatar
UVAIce
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby UVAIce » Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:59 pm

As much as everyone on TLS goes crazy about law school tuition, there really isn't that large of a difference between the "law school scam" and the "college scam." 4 years at a private institution or as an out of state student at a public university can easily set someone back $100K. Also, getting a degree in sociology is just as expensive as getting a degree in engineering. The engineer will probably have a job that s/he can pay their student loans with. The sociology major is unlikely to be in the same situation. I'm also willing to bet that the rate of "good outcomes" from lower tier colleges is horrendous. Especially when you throw in the fact that there are a lot of universities with 4 year graduation rates sitting around 50%.

The law school "scam" is really just a sub-genre of the general problem with higher education. Many people invest in higher education for a better outcome salary wise and that simply is not always the case. I think what is different about the law school crowd is that they tend to have other options, even if those options are not a whole lot better than those of most law students. A lot of people in our society think that having one or more advanced degrees automatically makes you more employable.

My biggest issue with all this nonsense is that people really want 0% risk. Or, at the very least, less than double digit risk when it comes to law school. Heck, what people really want is to attend a law school where 100% of the student body has a preferred outcome. Even in the best of times this was not the case and it certainly isn't going to be the case given the context of the times. It does not take an extremely gifted individual to work out what 8% interest is on $200K. At some point I simply stop taking pity on individuals. Higher education in the United States has routinely subsidized the education of "smart" students with students with worse numbers. In my mind, that is what the real problem is here. But I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon given the hierarchical structures we have built into higher education.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:04 pm

UVAIce wrote:As much as everyone on TLS goes crazy about law school tuition, there really isn't that large of a difference between the "law school scam" and the "college scam." 4 years at a private institution or as an out of state student at a public university can easily set someone back $100K. Also, getting a degree in sociology is just as expensive as getting a degree in engineering. The engineer will probably have a job that s/he can pay their student loans with. The sociology major is unlikely to be in the same situation. I'm also willing to bet that the rate of "good outcomes" from lower tier colleges is horrendous. Especially when you throw in the fact that there are a lot of universities with 4 year graduation rates sitting around 50%.

The law school "scam" is really just a sub-genre of the general problem with higher education. Many people invest in higher education for a better outcome salary wise and that simply is not always the case. I think what is different about the law school crowd is that they tend to have other options, even if those options are not a whole lot better than those of most law students. A lot of people in our society think that having one or more advanced degrees automatically makes you more employable.

My biggest issue with all this nonsense is that people really want 0% risk. Or, at the very least, less than double digit risk when it comes to law school. Heck, what people really want is to attend a law school where 100% of the student body has a preferred outcome. Even in the best of times this was not the case and it certainly isn't going to be the case given the context of the times. It does not take an extremely gifted individual to work out what 8% interest is on $200K. At some point I simply stop taking pity on individuals. Higher education in the United States has routinely subsidized the education of "smart" students with students with worse numbers. In my mind, that is what the real problem is here. But I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon given the hierarchical structures we have built into higher education.

My brother went to college in Europe. Medical school (at an ivy equivalent) cost about two grand a year

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby bdubs » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:06 pm

UVAIce wrote:As much as everyone on TLS goes crazy about law school tuition, there really isn't that large of a difference between the "law school scam" and the "college scam." 4 years at a private institution or as an out of state student at a public university can easily set someone back $100K. Also, getting a degree in sociology is just as expensive as getting a degree in engineering. The engineer will probably have a job that s/he can pay their student loans with. The sociology major is unlikely to be in the same situation. I'm also willing to bet that the rate of "good outcomes" from lower tier colleges is horrendous. Especially when you throw in the fact that there are a lot of universities with 4 year graduation rates sitting around 50%.

The law school "scam" is really just a sub-genre of the general problem with higher education. Many people invest in higher education for a better outcome salary wise and that simply is not always the case. I think what is different about the law school crowd is that they tend to have other options, even if those options are not a whole lot better than those of most law students. A lot of people in our society think that having one or more advanced degrees automatically makes you more employable.

My biggest issue with all this nonsense is that people really want 0% risk. Or, at the very least, less than double digit risk when it comes to law school. Heck, what people really want is to attend a law school where 100% of the student body has a preferred outcome. Even in the best of times this was not the case and it certainly isn't going to be the case given the context of the times. It does not take an extremely gifted individual to work out what 8% interest is on $200K. At some point I simply stop taking pity on individuals. Higher education in the United States has routinely subsidized the education of "smart" students with students with worse numbers. In my mind, that is what the real problem is here. But I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon given the hierarchical structures we have built into higher education.


There is some validity to this POV, however there are many more grants and scholarships available to undergrads and far more of them are need based.

I don't think anyone thinks law school will ever be or should be a risk free investment. The major complaint is that the information about exactly how much risk someone is taking on should be more transparent, and perhaps reporting should be required to be more visible (to help protect people from their own ignorance).

User avatar
crazycanuck
Posts: 3046
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby crazycanuck » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:09 pm

dingbat wrote:
UVAIce wrote:As much as everyone on TLS goes crazy about law school tuition, there really isn't that large of a difference between the "law school scam" and the "college scam." 4 years at a private institution or as an out of state student at a public university can easily set someone back $100K. Also, getting a degree in sociology is just as expensive as getting a degree in engineering. The engineer will probably have a job that s/he can pay their student loans with. The sociology major is unlikely to be in the same situation. I'm also willing to bet that the rate of "good outcomes" from lower tier colleges is horrendous. Especially when you throw in the fact that there are a lot of universities with 4 year graduation rates sitting around 50%.

The law school "scam" is really just a sub-genre of the general problem with higher education. Many people invest in higher education for a better outcome salary wise and that simply is not always the case. I think what is different about the law school crowd is that they tend to have other options, even if those options are not a whole lot better than those of most law students. A lot of people in our society think that having one or more advanced degrees automatically makes you more employable.

My biggest issue with all this nonsense is that people really want 0% risk. Or, at the very least, less than double digit risk when it comes to law school. Heck, what people really want is to attend a law school where 100% of the student body has a preferred outcome. Even in the best of times this was not the case and it certainly isn't going to be the case given the context of the times. It does not take an extremely gifted individual to work out what 8% interest is on $200K. At some point I simply stop taking pity on individuals. Higher education in the United States has routinely subsidized the education of "smart" students with students with worse numbers. In my mind, that is what the real problem is here. But I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon given the hierarchical structures we have built into higher education.

My brother went to college in Europe. Medical school (at an ivy equivalent) cost about two grand a year


I have no debt from uni. My gf, has 7k. We both went to one of the top schools in Canada. The most I ever paid in tuition was about 3.5k for the year.

Tuition in the U.S is ridiculous.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby romothesavior » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:12 pm

This dean is disgusting. I am so thoroughly fed up with the whole law school scam it makes me almost ill thinking about it. These turds are robbing their students and ruining their lives to pay themselves six figure salaries. I hope there is a rung of hell hot (or cold) enough for these people.

uvabro
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby uvabro » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:18 pm

The TTT grads who do make it big tend to give donations. Rather than using this money to pad salaries and build buildings maybe schools can be nicer about scholarships, and loan repayment options. They're basically getting paid and getting paid again.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby stillwater » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:48 pm

this dude is a fucking crook, just like the other overpaid pimps that sit at their false seats of power, gratified by the circle-jerk of awards, endowed chairs and honorifics bestowed by their buddies who receive the same trumped up, hollow gratifications. they exist to perpetuate the system.

eric922
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby eric922 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:52 pm

You know the more I read about the law school scam the more I start to think we would be better off if we went back to reading the law.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:53 pm

eric922 wrote:You know the more I read about the law school scam the more I start to think we would be better off if we went back to reading the law.

reading =/= understanding




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.