NYU LAW SUCKS Forum

[HeavenWood]

I read a report that stated that Princeton could make $6,000,000+ a year if they opened a law school. Similar with Hopkins.

LOL at Baltimore having 3 law schools. The state flagship barely puts 50% in long term full time legal jobs.

When have practical considerations ever stopped anyone?

[J-e-L-L-o]

Lol Im sure if Princeton opened ( or re-opened technically) a law school, the monetary and prestige incentives they could offer would draw an amazing faculty from the rest of the T20 within several years. These profs would have solid clerkship networks.. and princeton UG alumns are everywhere in elite law and education so the network would be influential without a bunch of JDs running around. Their facilities would be godlike (princeton campus is already loaded and gorgeous), and they could start out slow admitting only top students and expand to 200-250 and maintain strong numbers. The prestige of P alone and ivy label would attract students competitive at other T14s. And the school could offer baller scholarships with its huge endowment.

Uci had none of these advantages (except maybe a few star faculty), hence its far less glamorous status.

Hopkins could take bloombergs $250K and make two T14 law schools lol

I was joking. I like UCI lol. But carry on

[dixiecupdrinking]

There is no love lost between me and NYU as an institution. It's a horrible opportunistic corporate monster. But I'm not sure what is so "wrong" about this. They're not charging law students any more than any comparable school, so who cares if this is where they're spending their money? That is assuming, of course, that there is nothing actually illegal going on.

[kaiser]

There is no love lost between me and NYU as an institution. It's a horrible opportunistic corporate monster. But I'm not sure what is so "wrong" about this. They're not charging law students any more than any comparable school, so who cares if this is where they're spending their money? That is assuming, of course, that there is nothing actually illegal going on.

Plus, in the end, this is a way for them to entice some of the best professors to come teach at NYU. So in the end, the students do indirectly benefit from it. Shady, yes, but at the end of the day, I don't think its a big deal.

[dixiecupdrinking]

There is no love lost between me and NYU as an institution. It's a horrible opportunistic corporate monster. But I'm not sure what is so "wrong" about this. They're not charging law students any more than any comparable school, so who cares if this is where they're spending their money? That is assuming, of course, that there is nothing actually illegal going on.

Plus, in the end, this is a way for them to entice some of the best professors to come teach at NYU. So in the end, the students do indirectly benefit from it. Shady, yes, but at the end of the day, I don't think its a big deal.

Yup.

I should clarify, for any nervous 0Ls, that the NYU Law administration is generally pretty excellent. I just hate the broader university.

[sinfiery]

jbagel & sinfiery,

Regarding "perspective," this activity is still principally just as wrong whether NYU is the only one engaging in such activities (VERY unlikely) or these shenanigans are common place. I would think that is agreeable. I also think the question then becomes "is there something more to NYU?" I propose other questions to help answer the former...what specifically is "more?" Furthermore, is a degree of wrongfulness positively correlated with amount of money that is misused?

I think that is agreeable. "More" could be the CLS dean coming out and reproaching NYU for this type of behavior whilst volunteering similar info as to prove how CLS doesn't behave in such a manner.

I guess money matters but I find it hard to discern between 3 million and 5 million $. Once the "that's a ton, when you see it you know it test" has been checked, I become numb to the amount and need to know the reasoning.



Also, as a 0L going to NYU, this definitely feels like it could only benefit me.

[RodneyRuxin]

No wonder we are able to lure over so many of the best professors. Those are some nice job perks.

THIS. It's no wonder they snag so many professors from other top schools.

ETA: I'm not sure if this means it "sucks" though. The money could probably be better spent elsewhere but if it gets the most brilliant legal minds to come over and start publishing...

[timbs4339]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

[BmoreOrLess]

LOL at Baltimore having 3 law schools. The state flagship barely puts 50% in long term full time legal jobs.

When have practical considerations ever stopped anyone?

You should see the University of Baltimore's monstrosity of a new building. Employers will be flocking IN DROVES due to the state of the art classrooms and all the money they've spent on the library.

[sinfiery]

I met some UM 3Ls and was impressed by how fast they told me not to go to lawschool. (Like .25 seconds, literally after mentioned)

Cool dudes tho.



Nonlawschool friend praised that new building though, haha.

[dixiecupdrinking]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

Eh. Lots of NYU grads are PI-or-bust and use LRAP. And I never had a law professor at NYU claim he or she was "poor." Quite the opposite, more often they'd joke about how we were supporting their lifestyle.

I don't love it, but the cost issue is more systemic than this. Again, if NYU charges the same tuition as every other top school, then why does it matter what they spend their money on? It would be different if they were particularly gouging people, but they're just playing the same game as everyone else, and are just as culpable as everyone else for the state of things.

[sinfiery]

My family in NYC joked NYU was more of a real estate company turned university than the other way around like 2 weeks ago

[jbagelboy]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

the bolded is a mild exaggeration. many practicing attorneys make more than law profs -- not right out of school, but by 40-45, any biglaw associate that makes partner or upper corp management inhouse will be taking in more (and hence have a higher standard of living) than even highly paid law profs. Still, I agree its one of the least noble academic positions.. most law profs should be laid off, its such a scam

[timbs4339]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

the bolded is a mild exaggeration. many practicing attorneys make more than law profs -- not right out of school, but by 40-45, any biglaw associate that makes partner or upper corp management inhouse will be taking in more (and hence have a higher standard of living) than even highly paid law profs. Still, I agree its one of the least noble academic positions.. most law profs should be laid off, its such a scam

Well, biglawyers may make more in salary, but law profs (1) have substantial, almost total control over their day-to-day work, with no clients or bosses to deal with, (2) can work fewer hours and get a relaxing summer (TBF I know several profs who work long hours), and (3) if tenured, have almost complete job security short of egregious misconduct. And as we've seen at UT and NYU, the schools have ways to deliver a lot of compensation outside the base salary. Tamanaha talks in his book about bonuses for law review placement and other non-base compensation. Not having to pay for housing is a sweet deal.

And I honestly don't think a lot of these profs would want or be able to slug it out in the trenches to become biglaw partners. The skill sets might be completely different. Government or policy work seems to suit them better, and that stuff is much less remunerative than a tenured prof position.

[timbs4339]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

Eh. Lots of NYU grads are PI-or-bust and use LRAP. And I never had a law professor at NYU claim he or she was "poor." Quite the opposite, more often they'd joke about how we were supporting their lifestyle.

I don't love it, but the cost issue is more systemic than this. Again, if NYU charges the same tuition as every other top school, then why does it matter what they spend their money on? It would be different if they were particularly gouging people, but they're just playing the same game as everyone else, and are just as culpable as everyone else for the state of things.

LRAP is helpful, but it limits flexibility, especially in the era of budget cuts and dried up funding (a lot of very "public interest" minded jobs are not necessarily working for the government or a non-profit). And you wouldn't need an extensive LRAP program if the tuition wasn't so damn high.

I was in school during OWS and I remember a few profs trying to claim solidarity with the movement (okay, maybe with base salary they are in the 1.5%). I agree that NYU is not alone (Columbia has a similar mortgage scheme http://abovethelaw.com/2009/03/lawyerly ... professor/). I just think when you lose a sense of indignity about stuff like this, schools are allowed to justify almost any kind of behavior. If they can't come up with a decent justification for spending the money, they shouldn't be charging the tuition.

[jbagelboy]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

the bolded is a mild exaggeration. many practicing attorneys make more than law profs -- not right out of school, but by 40-45, any biglaw associate that makes partner or upper corp management inhouse will be taking in more (and hence have a higher standard of living) than even highly paid law profs. Still, I agree its one of the least noble academic positions.. most law profs should be laid off, its such a scam

Well, biglawyers may make more in salary, but law profs (1) have substantial, almost total control over their day-to-day work, with no clients or bosses to deal with, (2) can work fewer hours and get a relaxing summer (TBF I know several profs who work long hours), and (3) if tenured, have almost complete job security short of egregious misconduct. And as we've seen at UT and NYU, the schools have ways to deliver a lot of compensation outside the base salary. Tamanaha talks in his book about bonuses for law review placement and other non-base compensation. Not having to pay for housing is a sweet deal.

And I honestly don't think a lot of these profs would want or be able to slug it out in the trenches to become biglaw partners. The skill sets might be completely different. Government or policy work seems to suit them better, and that stuff is much less remunerative than a tenured prof position.

I agree. Prof QoL is superior. But you said that biglaw-bound law students won't ever be able to AFFORD the amenities available to law profs. I think you can agree this is a fallacious claim, and its not the same thing as saying that their work life is more relaxing, that they have more job security, or that there aren't different preferences/skills associated

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I totally do not understand how a professor market wage could be so high. If you were ten years into your career, how much would it take to pull you from a $125k job that you lateraled into from Biglaw, given that you would only have to work 40-45 hours a week, you'd get summers mostly off, and you might get the job for life? I would take that job if it paid two-thirds what I could make elsewhere, wouldn't most people? So it only makes sense for professor wages to be so high if schools have to pick off people who could've been partners or counsel. But do schools really need those people? Couldn't a school cut its tuition by $5k if it could hold faculty salaries to an average of 100k?

It reminds me of AT&T in the early '80s, when it was a regulated monopoly with a mandated 7% profit margin. To maximize profits, they went and maximized their costs, so they would create artificial expenses that could escape an audit, like giving out boxes and boxes of pens during meetings. It was an awesome time to work for AT&T, because salaries were artificially high--the company had no incentive to keep them down. I'm wondering if the same kind of misaligned incentive thing happens in law school. The schools get paid whether their graduates sink or swim, and as long as the feds cover your shortcomings applicants will pay any price. Because their potential revenue is virtually limitless, administrators can pay themselves/faculty more and more and it won't matter.

[timbs4339]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

the bolded is a mild exaggeration. many practicing attorneys make more than law profs -- not right out of school, but by 40-45, any biglaw associate that makes partner or upper corp management inhouse will be taking in more (and hence have a higher standard of living) than even highly paid law profs. Still, I agree its one of the least noble academic positions.. most law profs should be laid off, its such a scam

Well, biglawyers may make more in salary, but law profs (1) have substantial, almost total control over their day-to-day work, with no clients or bosses to deal with, (2) can work fewer hours and get a relaxing summer (TBF I know several profs who work long hours), and (3) if tenured, have almost complete job security short of egregious misconduct. And as we've seen at UT and NYU, the schools have ways to deliver a lot of compensation outside the base salary. Tamanaha talks in his book about bonuses for law review placement and other non-base compensation. Not having to pay for housing is a sweet deal.

And I honestly don't think a lot of these profs would want or be able to slug it out in the trenches to become biglaw partners. The skill sets might be completely different. Government or policy work seems to suit them better, and that stuff is much less remunerative than a tenured prof position.

I agree. Prof QoL is superior. But you said that biglaw-bound law students won't ever be able to AFFORD the amenities available to law profs. I think you can agree this is a fallacious claim, and its not the same thing as saying that their work life is more relaxing, that they have more job security, or that there aren't different preferences/skills associated

An exaggerated, rhetorical overstatement on TLS? Color me fucked!

And yes, I think many biglaw bound law students will not ever be able to afford $6 million Manhattan brownstones.

[timbs4339]

I totally do not understand how a professor market wage could be so high. If you were ten years into your career, how much would it take to pull you from a $125k job that you lateraled into from Biglaw, given that you would only have to work 40-45 hours a week, you'd get summers mostly off, and you might get the job for life? I would take that job if it paid two-thirds what I could make elsewhere, wouldn't most people? So it only makes sense for professor wages to be so high if schools have to pick off people who could've been partners or counsel. But do schools really need those people? Couldn't a school cut its tuition by $5k if it could hold faculty salaries to an average of 100k?

It reminds me of AT&T in the early '80s, when it was a regulated monopoly with a mandated 7% profit margin. To maximize profits, they went and maximized their costs, so they would create artificial expenses that could escape an audit, like giving out boxes and boxes of pens during meetings. It was an awesome time to work for AT&T, because salaries were artificially high--the company had no incentive to keep them down. I'm wondering if the same kind of misaligned incentive thing happens in law school. The schools get paid whether their graduates sink or swim, and as long as the feds cover your shortcomings applicants will pay any price. Because their potential revenue is virtually limitless, administrators can pay themselves/faculty more and more and it won't matter.

What I think happens is that law professors do tend to have the best credentials in the first few years out when they are hired, especially at a school like NYU. And indeed, they are extremely smart people who have successfully jumped through a lot of hoops during their lifetimes. In such a prestige conscious field as law, it's only natural that these guys think they are entitled to lifestyles significantly better than the average lawyer. And of course, they don't really care where the money comes from. It's a very short-sighted, selfish mentality.

Essentially, you're paying for the credential and where you assume that credential will take the candidate during their lifetime.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I totally do not understand how a professor market wage could be so high. If you were ten years into your career, how much would it take to pull you from a $125k job that you lateraled into from Biglaw, given that you would only have to work 40-45 hours a week, you'd get summers mostly off, and you might get the job for life? I would take that job if it paid two-thirds what I could make elsewhere, wouldn't most people? So it only makes sense for professor wages to be so high if schools have to pick off people who could've been partners or counsel. But do schools really need those people? Couldn't a school cut its tuition by $5k if it could hold faculty salaries to an average of 100k?

It reminds me of AT&T in the early '80s, when it was a regulated monopoly with a mandated 7% profit margin. To maximize profits, they went and maximized their costs, so they would create artificial expenses that could escape an audit, like giving out boxes and boxes of pens during meetings. It was an awesome time to work for AT&T, because salaries were artificially high--the company had no incentive to keep them down. I'm wondering if the same kind of misaligned incentive thing happens in law school. The schools get paid whether their graduates sink or swim, and as long as the feds cover your shortcomings applicants will pay any price. Because their potential revenue is virtually limitless, administrators can pay themselves/faculty more and more and it won't matter.

You see the same dynamic throughout the legal profession. There's no real reason biglaw firms ought to pay first year associates $160k in this economy. There's obviously a surplus of qualified candidates, even if you set the bar pretty high, like only considering T14 grads. And even if market pay for law firms was $125,000, the vast majority of biglaw associates would still go to biglaw because it would still be by far their most lucrative option. But it's hard for any one firm to reduce salaries without completely destroying their recruiting.

Basically this is what happens when there's no way to ascertain value in an industry except various arbitrary shades of prestige. There's only so many SCOTUS clerks to go around on law school faculties, so you buy them brownstones, because otherwise you wake up in ten years and your school isn't elite anymore. There's only so many cum laude T6 grads to go around so you pay them $160k because otherwise you wake up and your firm isn't elite anymore. Nothing to do with anything except the echo chamber of the profession.

[sinfiery]

Instead of giving their professors $6m condos, WUTSL just basically gave a large chunk of their class full rides

NYU LAW SUCKS

[Stinson]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

Eh. Lots of NYU grads are PI-or-bust and use LRAP. And I never had a law professor at NYU claim he or she was "poor." Quite the opposite, more often they'd joke about how we were supporting their lifestyle.

I don't love it, but the cost issue is more systemic than this. Again, if NYU charges the same tuition as every other top school, then why does it matter what they spend their money on? It would be different if they were particularly gouging people, but they're just playing the same game as everyone else, and are just as culpable as everyone else for the state of things.

Just to address the LRAP thing real quickly (because overall I agree that NYU is still better than schools that fleece their students and offer nothing in return) after Obama took office and revised IBR, NYU overhauled their generous LRAP to put the vast majority of payments on the federal dime. The result was to switch between an HYS style LRAP that pays as you go and offers students more flexibility to one in which NYU essentially makes IBR/PSLF payments on behalf of the students. (In fairness, Columbia and Chicago did the same, with the only difference being that Chicago was brazen enough to actually say it made it's LRAP program better than all others.)

That works out if you do come straight out and work in an IBR eligible job for ten straight years, but for many people it is way less flexible than what NYU used to have. Not a huge deal, but I think NYU could do more, especially as LRAP eligible jobs right out of law school are incredibly rare right now. Just saying.

[Lavitz]

Instead of giving their professors $6m condos, WUTSL just basically gave a large chunk of their class full rides

NYU LAW SUCKS

This. NYU should follow the WUSTL model if they want to stay T6.

They should start with people who withdrew months ago.

[dixiecupdrinking]

It is sort of wrong to hold yourself out as the "public interest" alternative to other similarly ranked schools, and then basically to operate as a profit machine for your top administrators and professors. One of the constant complaints about elite schools is that the debt burden makes it impossible to sustain low paying public interest work. Whether that's actually true is another matter.

It's also just fucking hypocritical. You 0Ls will know what I'm talking about when you get there and these "poor" lawprofs are joking about how everyone in the room is going to work for big evil corporate law firms- and it turns out these guys pull in huge salaries and live in apartments you'll never be able to afford. Or some of the libertarian professors that rail against government intervention and subsidy but feed off the teat.

Eh. Lots of NYU grads are PI-or-bust and use LRAP. And I never had a law professor at NYU claim he or she was "poor." Quite the opposite, more often they'd joke about how we were supporting their lifestyle.

I don't love it, but the cost issue is more systemic than this. Again, if NYU charges the same tuition as every other top school, then why does it matter what they spend their money on? It would be different if they were particularly gouging people, but they're just playing the same game as everyone else, and are just as culpable as everyone else for the state of things.

Just to address the LRAP thing real quickly (because overall I agree that NYU is still better than schools that fleece their students and offer nothing in return) after Obama took office and revised IBR, NYU overhauled their generous LRAP to put the vast majority of payments on the federal dime. The result was to switch between an HYS style LRAP that pays as you go and offers students more flexibility to one in which NYU essentially makes IBR/PSLF payments on behalf of the students. (In fairness, Columbia and Chicago did the same, with the only difference being that Chicago was brazen enough to actually say it made it's LRAP program better than all others.)

That works out if you do come straight out and work in an IBR eligible job for ten straight years, but for many people it is way less flexible than what NYU used to have. Not a huge deal, but I think NYU could do more, especially as LRAP eligible jobs right out of law school are incredibly rare right now. Just saying.

NYU still pays down your debt on a pro-rated basis if you leave before ten years. They made a big deal of saying that no one will be worse off than they were under the old program, and from what I've read and heard that is almost always the case, maybe just always full stop.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

You see the same dynamic throughout the legal profession. There's no real reason biglaw firms ought to pay first year associates $160k in this economy. There's obviously a surplus of qualified candidates, even if you set the bar pretty high, like only considering T14 grads. And even if market pay for law firms was $125,000, the vast majority of biglaw associates would still go to biglaw because it would still be by far their most lucrative option. But it's hard for any one firm to reduce salaries without completely destroying their recruiting.

Basically this is what happens when there's no way to ascertain value in an industry except various arbitrary shades of prestige. There's only so many SCOTUS clerks to go around on law school faculties, so you buy them brownstones, because otherwise you wake up in ten years and your school isn't elite anymore. There's only so many cum laude T6 grads to go around so you pay them $160k because otherwise you wake up and your firm isn't elite anymore. Nothing to do with anything except the echo chamber of the profession.

I think the difference is that where top graduates go to firms carries much more weight in a firm's prestige than faculty quality does for a school's prestige. If word gets out you pay below market as a firm, your incoming associate pool dries up quick. If a top school brought in worse faculty...I mean, would anyone notice? Do you think you could tell the difference between T14 faculty and second-tier faculty if you didn't know which was which? Has anyone ever based their decision on faculty quality? It's pretty well acknowledged that first-year associates are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, but if $160k gets them in the door when you can underpay them relative to their value as fourth- or fifth-year associates (if firms are making money, and first-years are overpaid, then someone must be underpaid), then it's a worthwhile investment.

What went on here is probably not the most effective use of those funds. Imagine if $6m went to ten extra full schollys over the next four years. Don't you think NYU would poach some HYS kids? That's pretty much exactly what UChi did and it seems to have worked wonders.