Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

This article is

spot on
3
18%
mostly true
8
47%
flawed
2
12%
worthless
4
24%
 
Total votes: 17

User avatar
Systematic1
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:14 pm

Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby Systematic1 » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:15 pm

I know I'm not the only one who sees gaping flaws in the logic of this article, and I know the debate on the value of law school isn't new news to any of you. I just figured I'd post it for the hell of it, and see if anyone cared to comment.

:roll: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/business/for-lsat-sharp-drop-in-popularity-for-second-year.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 :roll:

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby ahnhub » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:30 pm

I think David Segal is on a crusade and has stopped thinking critically about his subject, and he is uninformed about a lot of things. But if he's keeping people from going to law school, that's fine with me, because there shouldn't be so damn many people going.

lawlcat4179
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:01 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby lawlcat4179 » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:35 pm

I guess I don't see the outrage. It looks about 90% accurate to me.

LSAT administrations are down: Yes, obviously

This reflects that law school and the legal field is bad: Mostly yes, also that people now have other options coming out of the recession

changing the way that Law School is viewed by undergrads: For the most part yes

Used to be that good grades at above average school would get a six figure job: Slight exaggeration but generally true. Certainly a near lock at T14, pretty good at T30. I'm not sure I would call only the T30 above average schools, but I don't think its too much of a stretch.

Used to be viewed that law school was a way to a financially secure life: Generally true

Tons of scamblogs have cropped up, and lawsuits filed: Obviously true

For some schools, less tests administered poses a long term challenge: Obviously true

Overall, I'd say its mostly accurate. Not sure what you think is so worthless about the article. Obviously most of these things people on this site already know, but I don't exactly think the author of the article was writing this article for people on TLS, but rather the public at large. A good cross section of the population doesn't understand how bad of an idea law school is, so honestly I think that the article is a good thing, and, although fairly simplistic, pretty accurate.

For the nearly 50% of people who go to law school and can't find legal employment at graduation, law school will be one of the worst life decisions they ever make. People can stick their heads in the sand and act as if this sort of thing won't happen to them because of (insert rationalization here), but the facts are the facts. Every article that serves to warn people of this fact is, in my opinion, a good thing.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby Br3v » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:37 pm

Law market (and not any other market) had plunged since 08 bail! [sarcasm]

User avatar
Mr. Pancakes
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:11 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby Mr. Pancakes » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:42 pm

this is the third time this has been posted in the passed few days.

User avatar
sunynp
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:06 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby sunynp » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:47 pm

What are the flaws? I feel the more the word gets out about law school being a bad bet for many people, the better it is for everyone in the profession. I know there are other threads about this, but I didn't find them. So, please point out the flaws.

If you think everyone on TLS already has this message, I think you should read the threads regarding the lower tier schools. Or the threads started by people who assume they will do well and transfer to a better school. Or the threads by people who assume that the stips on their scholarships are not an issue. Or the threads by people who assume all they have to do is work harder than everyone else and they will be top 10%. Or the threads by people who assume that all the unemployed lawyers just lack personality, drive or whatever it takes to get a job, completely ignoring how grade focused most legal employment is. Or the threads by people who assume they will just go into PI if they don't get anything else, even though PI jobs can be more difficult than other jobs.

User avatar
DaftAndDirect
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:28 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby DaftAndDirect » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:48 pm

Mr. Pancakes wrote:this is the third time this has been posted in the passed few days.


Interesting.

Prompted this Google search: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/passed-vs-past/

To get on topic. Yes this article is popping up everywhere. Happy to see LSAT takers decrease though and to watch the worst of the fourth tier rot because of it.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby Br3v » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:51 pm

sunynp wrote:What are the flaws? I feel the more the word gets out about law school being a bad bet for many people, the better it is for everyone in the profession. I know there are other threads about this, but I didn't find them. So, please point out the flaws.

If you think everyone on TLS already has this message, I think you should read the threads regarding the lower tier schools. Or the threads started by people who assume they will do well and transfer to a better school. Or the threads by people who assume that the stips on their scholarships are not an issue. Or the threads by people who assume all they have to do is work harder than everyone else and they will be top 10%. Or the threads by people who assume that all the unemployed lawyers just lack personality, drive or whatever it takes to get a job, completely ignoring how grade focused most legal employment is. Or the threads by people who assume they will just go into PI if they don't get anything else, even though PI jobs can be more difficult than other jobs.


You didn't find them? Have you been introduced to the forum search?

lawlcat4179
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:01 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby lawlcat4179 » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:54 pm

Br3v wrote:Law market (and not any other market) had plunged since 08 bail! [sarcasm]


Maybe I misinterpreted, but I don't really think that his point hinges on that. It sure seems as if the legal market has been hit worse than other sectors of the economy. Additionally, the legal field is faced with significant challenges (some of which he mentions).

Technology and outsourcing are serious threats to the legal field. Isn't this generally true? Couldn't it potentially threaten the current biglaw model?

I think his point is that, given what you put into it, law school is a bad idea and people are starting to realize that. This is a generally true statement. While most sectors have also been hit, most of those don't require a three year doctoral degree and over a hundred thousand dollars in debt.

So... like he says, law school is generally a terrible idea for the majority of people who decide to go.

User avatar
Mr. Pancakes
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:11 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby Mr. Pancakes » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:59 pm

DaftAndDirect wrote:
Mr. Pancakes wrote:this is the third time this has been posted in the passed few days.


Interesting.

Prompted this Google search: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/passed-vs-past/

To get on topic. Yes this article is popping up everywhere. Happy to see LSAT takers decrease though and to watch the worst of the fourth tier rot because of it.

i misspelled a word on the interbutts. good for you for catching it and me ovurlookin it.
you should probably get hit by a car because I'm assuming by this that not too many people like having you around.

User avatar
DaftAndDirect
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:28 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby DaftAndDirect » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:00 pm

Mr. Pancakes wrote:
DaftAndDirect wrote:
Mr. Pancakes wrote:this is the third time this has been posted in the passed few days.


Interesting.

Prompted this Google search: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/passed-vs-past/

To get on topic. Yes this article is popping up everywhere. Happy to see LSAT takers decrease though and to watch the worst of the fourth tier rot because of it.

i misspelled a word on the interbutts. good for you for catching it and me ovurlookin it.
you should probably get hit by a car because I'm assuming by this that not too many people like having you around.


Whoa bro. I said interesting. As in I thought and think it's right, just different than I normally write it. my bad in hindsight looks majorly dick.

User avatar
Mr. Pancakes
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:11 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby Mr. Pancakes » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:05 pm

lol, I apologize if you were truly were doing what you said you were. I just noticed that people don't use proper grammar on the boards here because, for the most part, we all realize that it doesn't really matter. Most of us on here are fairly intelligent folks and we don't need each other pointing out misspellings and things of that nature. People leave out commas and punctuations on here for the same reasons they do on facebook and in text messages.


......I have had too much coffee.

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: Another two-bit article in the NY TIMES. What a surprise...

Postby ahnhub » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:45 pm

Well one thing people like Segal have done is to conflate issues. Outsourcing, technological innovation, oversupply...all existed pre-crash. After the crash the scambloggers wanted to point to these things as the reason the legal market went under, but 90% of the reason was the crash itself and the unprecedented financial slowdown in its wake.

It's always been very tough to get a Biglaw job outside of maybe 16-17 schools, and there were always a huge number of law schoolers graduating without jobs. And there's always been some risk involved when you take on 150K of debt, even if you go to an elite school. When I was deciding whether to go to law school I didn't see any compelling reason why the legal market wouldn't return to some kind of pre-crash, pre-boom equilibirium eventually.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, beancounter15, Blueprint Mithun, Instrumental, littlewing67, LSATSidekick, Tazewell and 13 guests