Front page NY times: massive app drop; schools in trouble; Forum

[North]

Then how exactly are schools measured to each other? What do you think recruiters rely on to measure/compare schools?

Look, the problem is with your blanket statement that every school outside the T2 should be shut down. That's stupid. If you think that schools like the University of Montana and the University of Hawaii should be shut down, but American University should remain open because EMPLOYERS LIKE RANKINGS, then you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

I said FOR THE MOST PART. Goodness gracious!

Read:

dancing around the issue.

Oh bummer. Doesn't change the fact that you were "saved", does it?

Save be the bell! Enjoy UVA.

I don't even.

ITT: BlaqBella gets petulant when wrong.

[dingbat]

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Mr. Lulz.

How do law recruiters measure/compare schools to each other?

A) schools they know are phenominal (HYS)
B) schools they know are great (roughly speaking, T14 plus the best school in the region)
C) schools they know are good (eg in NY Fordham)
D) schools they know are ok (eg in NY Dozo)
D2) schools they've heard of (eg in NY Tulane, Notre Dame)
E) schools that they're somewhat familiar with (eg in NY St johns)
E2) schools they've never heard of but sound ok (university of...)
F) schools that they know are crud (Touro/NYLS)
F2) schools that sound made up (capital university)
G) schools known for being a joke (Cooley)

[justonemoregame]

I want to see faculty salary cuts, and I think if schools were smart they would go that route and publicize it as a direct response not only to falling enrollment, but runaway tuition. I think people care how schools respond to this, and so far it's been SPS. It's weird that tuition has now reached some meta status in the universe where the laws of physics prevent its reduction. But I guess that's just the way it has to be, so schools have to find some way to Illinois the system they created and increase "scholarships." They can't just take it off the front end, they have to go in through the Villanova, in other words.

I was really disappointed in reading about the case of Vermont Law. Shit hits the fan, so who do we screw? Staff. The lowest-paid folks on the roster. Does it not make since to trim the fat where it is largest, and keep the people who do necessary things like cut the grass and answer the phones for $12/hour?

I believe Vermont said that faculty layoffs were coming.

How does that help the problem?

Cut faculty salary and pass the savings on to students in the form of scholarships. (Since tuition must necessarily increase). I don't know that it solves the problem as much as it salves it, but it's a lot more direct than derpa derpa clinics and derpa derpa more business law classes.

[delusional]

Man front page. Glad to see the message is starting to really make it into the mainstream.

The NYT, in response to the groundswell caused by Paul Campos's ITLSS and Kyle McIntyre's LST, has been responsive to the crisis for for a good two years now.

Three pointers, however, with respect to that NYT's article. Overall, it's a bit too conservative.

a) The average debt loads are extraordinarily low-balled. They are self-reported from law schools and usually rely on near-dishonest distortions. For instance, most schools don't report average debt upon graduation, including interest and origination fees, but only average debt principal. For the average bloke going to law school on his own, he'll owe out about a quarter of a million dollars in loans upon graduation, excluding undergraduate debt.

See here: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot. ... state.html

b) The statement of Professor Hadfield of USC quoted in the article that "actually, we have an exploding demand for both ordinary folk lawyers and big corporate ones" is laughable on its face. It is simply flat wrong. Just flat wrong. But it was unchallenged in the article, despite being exposed as flatly impossible by the author quoted earlier, Professor Tamanaha, who in his book "Failing Law Schools" reviewed actual statistics that indicate demand for legal services. Professor Hatfield is likely adopting a line common among law school defenders that demand should be greater which, as a reassurance to prospective law school students is, again, laughable on its face.

And it's not even likely true. The article itself references plenty of reasons why demand should be lower: technology, information availability, and outsourcing.

c) The article suggests law schools are experimenting with "ways to cut cost" and suggest that such ways include eliminating the third year of law school. The article totally ignores the possibility that the best way for law schools to cut cost is simply to do so: it doesn't question the cause that law school tuition has risen 4 times the pace of inflation for the last decade, even when quoting Professor Tamanaha that it is because law schools are trying to "maximize revenue."

Overall, the article was rather kind to law schools.

Good post from beginning to end.

(Although Hadfield was my professor and I liked her, you're absolutely right about her point, which, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant to the article.)

[justonemoregame]

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Mr. Lulz.

How do law recruiters measure/compare schools to each other?

A) schools they know are phenominal (HYS)
B) schools they know are great (roughly speaking, T14 plus the best school in the region)
C) schools they know are good (eg in NY Fordham)
D) schools they know are ok (eg in NY Dozo)
D2) schools they've heard of (eg in NY Tulane, Notre Dame)
E) schools that they're somewhat familiar with (eg in NY St johns)
E2) schools they've never heard of but sound ok (university of...)
F) schools that they know are crud (Touro/NYLS)
F2) schools that sound made up (capital university)
G) schools known for being a joke (Cooley)

Dingbat, don't you know that law firm recruiters have their memories erased at the end of fiscal year? That's how they keep billing like ballers.

[BlaqBella]

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Mr. Lulz.

How do law recruiters measure/compare schools to each other?

A) schools they know are phenominal (HYS)
B) schools they know are great (roughly speaking, T14 plus the best school in the region)
C) schools they know are good (eg in NY Fordham)
D) schools they know are ok (eg in NY Dozo)
D2) schools they've heard of (eg in NY Tulane, Notre Dame)
E) schools that they're somewhat familiar with (eg in NY St johns)
E2) schools they've never heard of but sound ok (university of...)
F) schools that they know are crud (Touro/NYLS)
F2) schools that sound made up (capital university)
G) schools known for being a joke (Cooley)

I agree. Its no irony that schools in categories A-C are mostly ranked better than D-G.

Are law firm recruiters dictating the ranking or are rankings dictating the recruiters? Chicken or the egg? Which came first. Is it a hybrid of both? This is the question Mr. Lulz is NOT addressing.

Of course I am only speaking of BIGLAW firm employers, not PI or special interests.

[Unoriginalist]

For most BIGLAW firms, they pay attention to rankings. FOR THE MOST PART, Rankings is a reflection of reputation and reputation a reflection of rankings. That is a FACT

Nope. Reputation among legal employers constitutes only 15% of a school's USNWR ranking.

Uhm, wrong evidence. You want to know what LAW FIRM recruiters think, not what % of a measure accounted for a ranking.

More applicable:

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/the-best ... ecruiters/


Keep dancing around the issue. Firms ARE prestige whores. Even you yourself indicate TLS saved from from a TTTT. Why didn't you go to a TTTT instead of UVA? LOLOL.

Contadictions FTW!

I think there's some causation/correlation confusion going on here. I feel like you're trying to argue that the rankings are absolute, but there's a lot of wiggle room. Sure, rankings do, at some level, reflect the general level of reputation of a school, but it's not like Biglaw recruiters are waiting with bated breath to see if UCI ends up ranked 28 or 38, or that they're flocking to ASU.

For this reason, going to a lower ranked regional school can actually be beneficial to going to a higher ranked school elsewhere. I'm not sure if that's exactly the point you were trying to make, but I feel like that's all dingbat and others were saying.

[Ludo!]

I see there has been a blaqbella appearance. TLDR?

[warandpeace]

I see there has been a blaqbella appearance. TLDR?

She denies fact and brings up chickens and eggs

[dingbat]

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Mr. Lulz.

How do law recruiters measure/compare schools to each other?

A) schools they know are phenominal (HYS)
B) schools they know are great (roughly speaking, T14 plus the best school in the region)
C) schools they know are good (eg in NY Fordham)
D) schools they know are ok (eg in NY Dozo)
D2) schools they've heard of (eg in NY Tulane, Notre Dame)
E) schools that they're somewhat familiar with (eg in NY St johns)
E2) schools they've never heard of but sound ok (university of...)
F) schools that they know are crud (Touro/NYLS)
F2) schools that sound made up (capital university)
G) schools known for being a joke (Cooley)

I agree. Its no irony that schools in categories A-C are mostly ranked better than D-G.

Are law firm recruiters dictating the ranking or are rankings dictating the recruiters? Chicken or the egg? Which came first. Is it a hybrid of both? This is the question Mr. Lulz is NOT addressing.

Of course I am only speaking of BIGLAW firm employers, not PI or special interests.

Considering that most firms and most law schools predate thè rankings and that hiring occurred long before the rankings, what do you think?

Seriously, no one outside legal academia pays attention to the rankings.
This explains why the rankings don't match NJL250 lists, law school transparency employment scores or ABA placement data.

[dingbat]

I see there has been a blaqbella appearance. TLDR?

BlaqBella appeared, and did her usual stint.
No lulz. Nothing to see. Move along

[Miracle]

I want to see faculty salary cuts, and I think if schools were smart they would go that route and publicize it as a direct response not only to falling enrollment, but runaway tuition. I think people care how schools respond to this, and so far it's been SPS. It's weird that tuition has now reached some meta status in the universe where the laws of physics prevent its reduction. But I guess that's just the way it has to be, so schools have to find some way to Illinois the system they created and increase "scholarships." They can't just take it off the front end, they have to go in through the Villanova, in other words.

I was really disappointed in reading about the case of Vermont Law. Shit hits the fan, so who do we screw? Staff. The lowest-paid folks on the roster. Does it not make since to trim the fat where it is largest, and keep the people who do necessary things like cut the grass and answer the phones for $12/hour?

I believe Vermont said that faculty layoffs were coming.

How does that help the problem?

Cut faculty salary and pass the savings on to students in the form of scholarships. (Since tuition must necessarily increase). I don't know that it solves the problem as much as it salves it, but it's a lot more direct than derpa derpa clinics and derpa derpa more business law classes.

That seems a little contradictory...we are cutting salaries in order to improve current student conditions (more scholarship, decrease in a tuition etc), just so that we can graduate more people, and allow them to enter into a world where they will be paid not so hot salaries. So, we are enabling, the very same problem we are criticizing.

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

[BlaqBella]

Considering that most firms and most law schools predate thè rankings and that hiring occurred long before the rankings, what do you think?

You presuppose what was of past (pre-rankings) applies to what is of present (post-rankings).

Hiring procedures have changed...just like the legal market.

The only constant is change.

[justonemoregame]

I was really disappointed in reading about the case of Vermont Law. Shit hits the fan, so who do we screw? Staff. The lowest-paid folks on the roster. Does it not make since to trim the fat where it is largest, and keep the people who do necessary things like cut the grass and answer the phones for $12/hour?

I believe Vermont said that faculty layoffs were coming.[/quote]

How does that help the problem?[/quote]

Cut faculty salary and pass the savings on to students in the form of scholarships. (Since tuition must necessarily increase). I don't know that it solves the problem as much as it salves it, but it's a lot more direct than derpa derpa clinics and derpa derpa more business law classes.[/quote]

That seems a little contradictory...we are cutting salaries in order to improve current student conditions (more scholarship, decrease in a tuition etc), just so that we can graduate more people, and allow them to enter into a world where they will be paid not so hot salaries. So, we are enabling, the very same problem we are criticizing.

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.[/quote]

Well I agree we should increase have standards (which would probably take care of class sizes and ultimately shutting some schools down). But tuition it too high, too. And faculty are overpaid. Chop chop

[byn]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Heck, why stop there? There are 200+ now. Will that even come close to managing the 2:1 ratio between new grads and net new jobs?

[francesfarmer]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Heck, why stop there? There are 200+ now. Will that even come close to managing the 2:1 ratio between new grads and net new jobs?

Ideas are right but says heck: shitboomer?

JK JK

[Tiago Splitter]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

[paratactical]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

I say we start sending everyone who tells kids that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up straight to the death panels to nip all this in the bud.

[buddyt]

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

This this this this this.

[Miracle]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

Well thats going to improve the problem. According to your statement, money will buy law school! By doing what you are suggesting we would eliminate more qualified candidates as if we don't have that problem already. We already have enough people attending law school who should not be attending there in the first place.

[Tom Joad]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

Exactly this.

And Blackened Bella just doesn't know.

[Miracle]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

I say we start sending everyone who tells kids that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up straight to the death panels to nip all this in the bud.

Not Funny! LOL

[Tiago Splitter]

We should increase the standards, shut down 30-40 schools, decrease class sizes, and move on from there. It seems as if we are circling around but not addressing what the issue really is.

Or just make student loans like any other loan and solve the problem tomorrow.

Well thats going to improve the problem. According to your statement, money will buy law school! By doing what you are suggesting we would eliminate more qualified candidates as if we don't have that problem already. We already have enough people attending law school who should not be attending there in the first place.

"But, but, but, no one would loan a poor guy money to attend Harvard!" Come on. Banks would be lining up to make loans to needy students who had the credentials to get into top schools, and tuition prices would drop rapidly. Not to mention schools could always guarantee some part of the loans or make the loans themselves if they are so worthwhile.

Attempting to improve "access" to education is what got us here in the first place.

[Miracle]

Then how exactly are schools measured to each other? What do you think recruiters rely on to measure/compare schools?

Look, the problem is with your blanket statement that every school outside the T2 should be shut down. That's stupid. If you think that schools like the University of Montana and the University of Hawaii should be shut down, but American University should remain open because EMPLOYERS LIKE RANKINGS, then you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

I said FOR THE MOST PART. Goodness gracious!

Read:

dancing around the issue.

Oh bummer. Doesn't change the fact that you were "saved", does it?

Save be the bell! Enjoy UVA.

I don't even.

ITT: BlaqBella gets petulant when wrong.

Whats wrong with shutting down all of the schools from T2 down! If you don't qualify-can't get in...why are you there? At the end of the day you will lose to someone ore qualified than you in the long run.

[bizzybone1313]

Are people who plan to go to law school in spite of the bad news for the profession simply applying to T14s instead of the state schools they would have applied to if the outlook were different?

I'm applying to T14s and some safeties for monetary bargaining purposes. However, I intend to enroll in a Top 7.

A T777?

No dude, it's T77, everyone knows the correct tiers are HYSCC NP VB M DNCG

Michigan appears to be going downhill. I bet in the future they are ranked in the lower T-14, Georgetown drops out of the T-14, Duke becomes solidly ranked T-7-8 and UT-Austin/UCLA becomes a T-14.