A Big TLS Welcome to Belmont College of Law, 2011 Forum

[Philo38]

I didn't mean to imply that Belmont grads will be equal to Vandy grads. The point is there are a lot of Jobs around Nashville that Vandy grads are not taking. I work in law firms in Nashville, over half of the attorneys who practice in this state are from school outside of this state. There are just as many Ole miss, Alabama, and Cumberland law grads working in law firms in Nashville as Vandy.

If you have a list of jobs in Nashville that Vandy students turned down this year, please share them with the class. Other wise you'd better grab one of Ronald's tits quick before all the milk is gone.

I really don't understand your anger here, and I believe it is misplaced.

I keep hearing arguments to the tune of, "the last thing we need is more lawyers!" Are you operating under the assumption that law schools build JD students out of raw material like GM builds cars? Law schools provide a service, they can only exist as far as people demand that service.

There are not more JDs because there are more and more law schools, there are more and more law schools because there are more people who want JDs.

If Belmont thinks that there is a pool of potential law students that desire a JD that will be interested in them, than they will succeed. If not, they will buckle. It isn't as if there will be a very large percentage of people who never considered law school and as soon as Belmont opens its doors will go . . . "hey, I want a $30,000 a year legal education don't I?"

Furthermore, over 50% of the legal jobs in Nashville are filled with candidates from schools outside the state.

We haven't opened up a law school in over A CENTURY. It isn't as if Tennessee just can't open up law schools fast enough. We have ONE real law school in Nashville and that is one only open to candidates in the top 10% really, Belmont will provide an option for people who want to study law in Nashville and can't afford Vanderbilt.


Also, it certainly is not fair to focus only on last year as an argument for what the market does and does not need in general, Belmont started planning this school 5 years ago, and won't open it until 2012. As I said, a law school is not a temporary thing. What Belmont saw is a significant lack of Tennessee educated lawyers in Nashville, as well as low numbers of lawyers as an average percentage of the population in Tennessee, and determined there was a void that they can fill. Not over the last three years, but hiring over a significant period of time.

Belmont isn't creating more students, it is providing potential students with another option. And in Nashville, the options are VERY slim.

You're an idiot. Its just that simple.

Its not the demand of people that want a JD that matters; its the demand for legal services from attorneys that matter. Who cares how many fucking idiots want a jd, if there are already too many out there for the amount of jobs available? Get a clue brah; we already have too many lawyers. Just because this school will find 150+ morons to sign up year after year, it does not mean that the institution is being responsible by flooding more lawyers into an already saturated market.

I really think you are only seeing a small portion of the picture.

All that a law school is concerned with is that people want to pay for thier degree. Sure, they are concerned with the legal market because the quality and quantity of legal jobs is a partial determining factor of the value of that degree. The other factor that determines the value of thier JD is the demand for a JD; meaning, the number of students willing to pay for a JD and how much they are willing to pay for it.

The problem is not the amount of JD granting institutions, it is that the amount of people kicking each other to overpay for a JD CURRENTLY outweighs the number of jobs. You see? Supply AND demand.

Don't get me wrong I understand your frustration, and I think it is justified, I just think it is misplaced.

[MTal]

Honestly the only way to stop this madness is not to close down all the law schools but to end the federally subsidized law school LOANS. Once that happens, the shithole TTT's will shut their doors accordingly.

Nah let em write the loans... Just make them dischargable in bankruptcy... Then we'll see how long schools like Belmont College of Law and stuff will be able to charge 40k a year when no one is willing to write the loan..

Cutting off government loans in the first place would create barriers even for qualified students who were not creditworthy. Because of medical issues, my own credit is ruined, and I doubt that any private lender would give me tuition money even if I were going to Yale. Ending government lending would only perpetuate the inequality of opportunity already rampant in this country.

It's inexcusable that student loans are not dischargable in bankruptcy, though. I have a feeling the law might change in our lifetime.

Honestly, not to be a jerk, but this is a poor Economic argument. Not a single QUALIFIED student would be denied entry into law school because they had no way to pay. Even the poorest of the poor would be able to afford Yale since the lender would be fairly certain to get a hefty return for their investment, since the yale grad could easily land biglaw, even after a prestigious clerkship. None of the qualified students would be unable to go to law school, it's the UNQUALIFIED students who would be prohibited.

[Mr. Matlock]

Honestly the only way to stop this madness is not to close down all the law schools but to end the federally subsidized law school LOANS.

I totally agree with this. End loans period.

Loans are not a bad thing but we have too much access to credit in this country. That causes everything to skyrocket in price, from education to healthcare to housing.

Well I'm all for keeping the poors out of the profession. If not for all those damn smart poor kids being all needy and stuff I would have been a legacy admit to hararvd. Damn poor people are taking my spots!

Here here! Down with the poors!!!! They smell too.

[Matthies]

It's not about that...once upon a time a poor person could afford to work their way through college and law school. At my orientation at Hastings a judge talked about how he worked his way through UG and Hastings by working an lumber mills and shit. My mom's tuition at LSU in the 70s was $200 a semester.

Hell in the early 2000s the tuition at Hastings was under 10 grand a year. Even back then you could earn enough money over the summers and part time to pay the bulk of that amount. Not anymore...

Well I'll say I went to LS part-time and paid my way, and my schools was damn expenivse. It can be done, but again its a choice the indivudal makes. All that being said I still don't like the poors.

[OperaSoprano]

Honestly the only way to stop this madness is not to close down all the law schools but to end the federally subsidized law school LOANS. Once that happens, the shithole TTT's will shut their doors accordingly.

Nah let em write the loans... Just make them dischargable in bankruptcy... Then we'll see how long schools like Belmont College of Law and stuff will be able to charge 40k a year when no one is willing to write the loan..

Cutting off government loans in the first place would create barriers even for qualified students who were not creditworthy. Because of medical issues, my own credit is ruined, and I doubt that any private lender would give me tuition money even if I were going to Yale. Ending government lending would only perpetuate the inequality of opportunity already rampant in this country.

It's inexcusable that student loans are not dischargable in bankruptcy, though. I have a feeling the law might change in our lifetime.

Honestly, not to be a jerk, but this is a poor Economic argument. Not a single QUALIFIED student would be denied entry into law school because they had no way to pay. Even the poorest of the poor would be able to afford Yale since the lender would be fairly certain to get a hefty return for their investment, since the yale grad could easily land biglaw, even after a prestigious clerkship. None of the qualified students would be unable to go to law school, it's the UNQUALIFIED students who would be prohibited.

Are you arguing that admission to Yale would trump a horrible credit history? I don't know that I agree, but I don't have a degree in finance, so I'll let others argue it out. In addition, where do you draw that "qualified" line, and what would you say to students who want to work for nonprofits or the government? Shouldn't they have the same opportunities to attend top schools?

[Philo38]

So here's the argument:

1. Belmont shouldn't be blamed for getting sucked into the hype of a JD bubble
2. The JD market of 2006-07 was actually the norm, and we will return there
3. Not having lawyers educated in Tennessee is the worst thing to happen to Nashville since Clay Aiken lost on American Idol
4. Having a relatively low percentage of lawyers in TN is a bad thing rather than indication of the state's sanity
5. Even the most mediocre students have a constitutional right to go to a law school located within 20 miles of their home.

Listen, my point in giving the numbers of inderepresentaion of people who recieved legal education in Nashville was not to show some great tragedy, it was to show that Belmont has a justification for thinking there will be a demand for more JD options in Nashville . . . because there is.

Whether to justify the demand is another thing all together, but the demand is there. And, Belmont thinks that it is there to the tune of a 25 million dollar initial invesment.

"5. Even the most mediocre students have a constitutional right to go to a law school located within 20 miles of their home."

I'm not sure that I said anything that would lead you to this. I didn't say there was a RIGHT to go to law school in Nashville, I said there is a demand for a law school in Nashville.

[NeverlandRancher]

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Didn't misread your sentence. You said "Ole Miss (the non-Vandy Nashville elite school of choice for some reason)." If you don't understand how that equates to saying Ole Miss is an elite school, I can't help you. In addition, it is not the non-vandy school of choice in Nashville. But, then again, I clearly don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

OMG, you're a retard for not understanding the tangential thought that I initially failed to express in a clear and unequivocal manner.

Yeah, sorry brother. I don't put a hell of a lot of stock into writing flawlessly on a goddamn internet chat room. In case you missed it earlier in the thread, I accepted and understood his confusion with my initial statement and clarified it in a fairly "clear and unequivocal manner". He still didn't understand it.

[Matthies]

Here here! Down with the poors!!!! They smell too.

Seriously, if I have to read another sob story about someone growing up poor I’m going to puke. My family has worked in biglaw for generations and in the old days if your daughter met someone at the firm you knew he was from a good family. Now its all these social climbers who think society owes them a shot at the brass ring. You don’t even know at the country club anymore, the guy next you could be “new money.” Its killing the blue blood gene pool. Thank god they invented Acura’s so we can tell who the new rich are at a distance before the smell gets there.

[MTal]

@ OperaSoprano

All the top schools have great LRAP programs which would help students not seeking biglaw. The point is that most lenders would be very willing to finance a student's education at a top school, while being extremely hesitant to do so at a bottom school. The only reason they do so now is that the loans are backed by the feds. Remove this support and the whole TTT house of cards comes crashing down.

[General Tso]

How is it that our generation has been desensitized to debt and just accepts it as a natural lifestyle? Why don't people in America do like they do in France when they are being exploited?
--ImageRemoved--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France

[Mr. Matlock]

Here here! Down with the poors!!!! They smell too.

Seriously, if I have to read another sob story about someone growing up poor I’m going to puke. My family has worked in biglaw for generations and in the old days if your daughter met someone at the firm you knew he was from a good family. Now its all these social climbers who think society owes them a shot at the brass ring. You don’t even know at the country club anymore, the guy next you could be “new money.” Its killing the blue blood gene pool. Thank god they invented Acura’s so we can tell who the new rich are at a distance before the smell gets there.

Would you mind PM'ing me your father's name. I think we may have something in common.

[bouakedojo]

.

[Matthies]

@ OperaSoprano

All the top schools have great LRAP programs which would help students not seeking biglaw. The point is that most lenders would be very willing to finance a student's education at a top school, while being extremely hesitant to do so at a bottom school. The only reason they do so now is that the loans are backed by the feds. Remove this support and the whole TTT house of cards comes crashing down.

Personlly I think its becuase they can't be dischanrged in bankrupcy, so the lenders know you have to pay them back no matter where you go to school and no matter what that they will get thier money.

[MTal]

How is it that our generation has been desensitized to debt and just accepts it as a natural lifestyle? Why don't people in America do like they do in France when they are being exploited?

Once again, God you are an idiot.

[OperaSoprano]

How is it that our generation has been desensitized to debt and just accepts it as a natural lifestyle? Why don't people in America do like they do in France when they are being exploited?
--ImageRemoved--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France

As a huge Les Miserables fan, I support this plan 100%. If anyone wants to barricade Broadway south of 72nd St, send me a PM.

MTal: I'm not against closing schools that don't give decent prospects to their students (especially those that intentionally obfuscate the truth), but I do think it would be fundamentally unjust to have some sort of LSAT/GPA cutoff for initial funding. Those numbers are only modestly correlated with 1L success. (There are several studies to this effect that very clearly show that LSAT/GPA is not destiny. YCRev claims he can't plug in my numbers and tell me where I'll place in my own class.)

[General Tso]

How is it that our generation has been desensitized to debt and just accepts it as a natural lifestyle? Why don't people in America do like they do in France when they are being exploited?

Once again, God you are an idiot.

People in America are too easily bought and sold. We could be living like kings by now if we just had the guts

[Matthies]

Here here! Down with the poors!!!! They smell too.

Seriously, if I have to read another sob story about someone growing up poor I’m going to puke. My family has worked in biglaw for generations and in the old days if your daughter met someone at the firm you knew he was from a good family. Now its all these social climbers who think society owes them a shot at the brass ring. You don’t even know at the country club anymore, the guy next you could be “new money.” Its killing the blue blood gene pool. Thank god they invented Acura’s so we can tell who the new rich are at a distance before the smell gets there.

Would you mind PM'ing me your father's name. I think we may have something in common.

Mom's side, dad's side is all BigAdvertising

[MTal]

How is it that our generation has been desensitized to debt and just accepts it as a natural lifestyle? Why don't people in America do like they do in France when they are being exploited?

Once again, God you are an idiot.

People in America are too easily bought and sold. We could be living like kings by now if just had the guts

Yeah rise up against your capitalist masters and take over, just like the communists did in 1917. Мерзкая тварь.

[MTal]

MTal: I'm not against closing schools that don't give decent prospects to their students (especially those that intentionally obfuscate the truth), but I do think it would be fundamentally unjust to have some sort of LSAT/GPA cutoff for initial funding. Those numbers are only modestly correlated with 1L success. (There are several studies to this effect that very clearly show that LSAT/GPA is not destiny. YCRev claims he can't plug in my numbers and tell me where I'll place in my own class.)

If a student had the will, he would work hard enough to obtain the requisite score needed to obtain law school financing. Like I said before, no qualified student would be denied and no unqualified student would be admitted. That's simply the way the free market works.

[General Tso]

Yeah rise up against your capitalist masters and take over, just like the communists did in 1917. Мерзкая тварь.

kakaya umnitsa u nas!....a muy duraki ne znaem kak chitat po russki

[Matthies]

MTal: I'm not against closing schools that don't give decent prospects to their students (especially those that intentionally obfuscate the truth), but I do think it would be fundamentally unjust to have some sort of LSAT/GPA cutoff for initial funding. Those numbers are only modestly correlated with 1L success. (There are several studies to this effect that very clearly show that LSAT/GPA is not destiny. YCRev claims he can't plug in my numbers and tell me where I'll place in my own class.)

But under what your proposing then wouldn’t there be a cutoff for GPA/LSAT for people who could go to law school then? I mean if you close the law schools off to people with some arbitrary GPA/LAST number how that anymore unjust than making people pay for LS if they want to go. (Not that I agree that loans should be cut off, but its seems your making the argument don’t cutoff loans to ME because I would not be able to go, but do cut off acess to law school for those beneath me because they don’t deserve to go). I don’t know if that’s what your trying to say, but that is how I’m reading it. I think that would be unjust. Let people go to law school. Let people fail. Those that want it bad enough will rise to the top.

[OperaSoprano]

MTal: I'm not against closing schools that don't give decent prospects to their students (especially those that intentionally obfuscate the truth), but I do think it would be fundamentally unjust to have some sort of LSAT/GPA cutoff for initial funding. Those numbers are only modestly correlated with 1L success. (There are several studies to this effect that very clearly show that LSAT/GPA is not destiny. YCRev claims he can't plug in my numbers and tell me where I'll place in my own class.)

But under what your proposing then wouldn’t there be a cutoff for GPA/LSAT for people who could go to law school then? I mean if you close the law schools off to people with some arbitrary GPA/LAST number how that anymore unjust than making people pay for LS if they want to go. (Not that I agree that loans should be cut off, but its seems your making the argument don’t cutoff loans to ME because I would not be able to go, but do cut off acess to law school for those beneath me because they don’t deserve to go). I don’t know if that’s what your trying to say, but that is how I’m reading it. I think that would be unjust. Let people go to law school. Let people fail. Those that want it bad enough will rise to the top.

My plan would be to punish schools for dishonesty and false advertising, not create bright line LSAT/GPA cutoffs. I am fundamentally opposed to such a concept, and don't think it would work very well in practice. I would argue that all law schools should be audited (to prevent misrepresentation), and schools with very low bar passage and employment statistics would be given a few years to catch up. Those unable to do so would then lose accreditation. The remaining law schools (at least one public school in every state, and many others that do decently in their markets) would then use holistic evaluation methods (not just LSAT/GPA) to select students, and those students would receive guaranteed Federal loans dischargable in bankruptcy. I think this would be the fairest way to do it.

[Matthies]

MTal: I'm not against closing schools that don't give decent prospects to their students (especially those that intentionally obfuscate the truth), but I do think it would be fundamentally unjust to have some sort of LSAT/GPA cutoff for initial funding. Those numbers are only modestly correlated with 1L success. (There are several studies to this effect that very clearly show that LSAT/GPA is not destiny. YCRev claims he can't plug in my numbers and tell me where I'll place in my own class.)

But under what your proposing then wouldn’t there be a cutoff for GPA/LSAT for people who could go to law school then? I mean if you close the law schools off to people with some arbitrary GPA/LAST number how that anymore unjust than making people pay for LS if they want to go. (Not that I agree that loans should be cut off, but its seems your making the argument don’t cutoff loans to ME because I would not be able to go, but do cut off acess to law school for those beneath me because they don’t deserve to go). I don’t know if that’s what your trying to say, but that is how I’m reading it. I think that would be unjust. Let people go to law school. Let people fail. Those that want it bad enough will rise to the top.

My plan would be to punish schools for dishonesty and false advertising, not create bright line LSAT/GPA cutoffs. I am fundamentally opposed to such a concept, and don't think it would work very well in practice. I would argue that all law schools should be audited (to prevent misrepresentation), and schools with very low bar passage and employment statistics would be given a few years to catch up. Those unable to do so would then lose accreditation. The remaining law schools (at least one public school in every state, and many others that do decently in their markets) would then use holistic evaluation methods (not just LSAT/GPA) to select students, and those students would receive guaranteed Federal loans dischargable in bankruptcy. I think this would be the fairest way to do it.

I'm not opposed to this plan, except for the employment statsicts part, I agree with quality reporting, but I don't neceassrily agree with closing schools that don't find thier grads a certain percentage jobs. If we had true reporting of employment than studnts could make thier own choices, good or bad. I suspect low employment schools would close on thier own, but I'm against not letting stupid people make stupid misktes, if they want to make them. Buyer beware, open market and all that crap.

[NeverlandRancher]

The bottom line of the BUCL debate is that Belmont is a great school with a great reputation in Nashville (despite what many of you seem to believe without any warrant whatsoever). They have the endowment to get the facilities and faculty needed to be create a great law program (read Tier 2). there is no reason to believe, except for ITE, that it is unreasonable to give Nashville JD hopefuls who are not in the top 5% for Vandy and do not want to relocate hours away a chance to study law at a great school in Nashville. Are there any arguments out there that do not relate to ITE or unwarranted assumptions about the quality of the school? I will concede that Belmont should wait a few years for the economy to recover, but the majority of you seem to think that it is a bad idea regardless.

[OperaSoprano]

MTal: I'm not against closing schools that don't give decent prospects to their students (especially those that intentionally obfuscate the truth), but I do think it would be fundamentally unjust to have some sort of LSAT/GPA cutoff for initial funding. Those numbers are only modestly correlated with 1L success. (There are several studies to this effect that very clearly show that LSAT/GPA is not destiny. YCRev claims he can't plug in my numbers and tell me where I'll place in my own class.)

But under what your proposing then wouldn’t there be a cutoff for GPA/LSAT for people who could go to law school then? I mean if you close the law schools off to people with some arbitrary GPA/LAST number how that anymore unjust than making people pay for LS if they want to go. (Not that I agree that loans should be cut off, but its seems your making the argument don’t cutoff loans to ME because I would not be able to go, but do cut off acess to law school for those beneath me because they don’t deserve to go). I don’t know if that’s what your trying to say, but that is how I’m reading it. I think that would be unjust. Let people go to law school. Let people fail. Those that want it bad enough will rise to the top.

My plan would be to punish schools for dishonesty and false advertising, not create bright line LSAT/GPA cutoffs. I am fundamentally opposed to such a concept, and don't think it would work very well in practice. I would argue that all law schools should be audited (to prevent misrepresentation), and schools with very low bar passage and employment statistics would be given a few years to catch up. Those unable to do so would then lose accreditation. The remaining law schools (at least one public school in every state, and many others that do decently in their markets) would then use holistic evaluation methods (not just LSAT/GPA) to select students, and those students would receive guaranteed Federal loans dischargable in bankruptcy. I think this would be the fairest way to do it.

I'm not opposed to this plan, except for the employment statsicts part, I agree with quality reporting, but I don't neceassrily agree with closing schools that don't find thier grads a certain percentage jobs. If we had true reporting of employment than studnts could make thier own choices, good or bad. I suspect low employment schools would close on thier own, but I'm against not letting stupid people make stupid misktes, if they want to make them. Buyer beware, open market and all that crap.

I believe this is what happened with medical schools, after the A-B-C grading scheme was instituted. The ABA might not even have to yank accreditation. I do feel sorry for people who take on the debt without at least knowing the score, though. Accurate information can be hard to find, and the bottom line is that we need more transparency.