15 more law schools to be sued Forum

[briviere]

I think something that is being missed here is the supply and demand curve.

As for the market value...well that is easy. Market value is whatever the market will bare.

Let's use Yale as an example. Each year over 3,000 people apply for the honor of paying $46,000/yr in tuition. Yale admits about 250 and matriculates 200. Going back to my economics roots, that indicates that the tuition for Yale is actually too low.

Heck, even Cooley got almost 6000 applicants who were willing to pay $28,000/yr.

Now this is not an endorsement for fudging statistics. Or any of the other issues mentioned.

I know not everyone who applies actually plans on attending, and of course people apply to multiple schools. But still...

Anyway, look back at the supply and demand curves. When the price is lowered more people will buy. So if you are looking to create even more competition for yourself. Lower the cost to get into the marketplace.

Closing schools decreases supply. When supply decreases, prices go up. If you want to get rid of the lower tiered schools because you feel that they are the problem, then the cost of entry into the marketplace will go up. Of course if this happens, then people will graduate with even more debt than they have now.

What? I don't even...

Sigh, ok, here we go.

Market value is whatever the market will bare.
Given that we are all aware that a surfeit of government money and the advent of non-dischargeable debt in professional post-sec education has skewed the chances of any proper supply-demand relationship I will assume this comment was a joke.

As for everything else you stated: the fact that they are being sued on the grounds of misrepresenting information that would be essential to make an informed decision whether to enrol, the entire basis for any free market economic analysis is thrown out the window because of information asymmetry.

worst.economic analysis.ever

[briviere]

O.K.

So, I read through the thread and I've decided to ask that we try and post some proposed solutions to what we (those of us who aren't suffering from cognitive dissonance) all agree to be an important issue. I'm looking forward to the HiveMind immediately locating the weaknesses in my arguments and to what you all come up with.

1. Get rid of non-dischargeable debt (I'm referring to the concept): I imagine this would remove some of the distortion in the student loan market and, because this debt that can never be escaped from, dis-incentivize securitizing student loan debt (thereby lowering the demand for student loan debt). As a result, I believe that the diligence on the lender-side would necessarily increase in quality and fewer loans would be made (albeit more sensible ones). This, in turn, would mean fewer students would be able to finance a three year trip to the TTT, and the lessend supply of students would mean those institutions would have to adapt or close.

2. Nomenclature change? If we all agree that the legal market is now a bimodal - and that this cannot/should not be changed - perhaps we should start calling a spade a spade and come up with new terms to differentiate those JDs whose stats conform to either node? Something like nurse vs nurse practitioner.

btw. I am aware that the nurse/nurse practitioner analogy is not perfect as a nurse practitioner has, by definition, obtained more and more advanced education.

[Aberzombie1892]

1. Get rid of non-dischargeable debt (I'm referring to the concept): I imagine this would remove some of the distortion in the student loan market and, because this debt that can never be escaped from, dis-incentivize securitizing student loan debt (thereby lowering the demand for student loan debt). As a result, I believe that the diligence on the lender-side would necessarily increase in quality and fewer loans would be made (albeit more sensible ones). This, in turn, would mean fewer students would be able to finance a three year trip to the TTT, and the lessend supply of students would mean those institutions would have to adapt or close.

Yes and no. I see where you are coming from, but student debt shouldn't be dischargeable as many people would just take advantage of it. I would propose that the government should get out of the business of guaranteeing student loans. That would largely solve almost all problems.

2. Nomenclature change? If we all agree that the legal market is now a bimodal - and that this cannot/should not be changed - perhaps we should start calling a spade a spade and come up with new terms to differentiate those JDs whose stats conform to either node? Something like nurse vs nurse practitioner.

Law school salaries are not bimodal. That oh so popular chart only includes nalp employers and only accounts for 1/3-1/2 of all salaries (~18,000 graduates). In reality, there is a large spike between $30,000-$55,000 and tiny spikes at $145,000 and $160,000.

[paul34]

.

[howlery]

So what alternatives do the anti-law school camp propose? What do you suggest the type of person who would have been a successful law school grad do instead of LS? What if they are not interested in earning an MBA? Is any grad degree outside of science/math not worth it?

All I've seen so far:
-retail for a bit --> corporate job
-MBA --> profit

I'm not taking sides at all, just wondering if what MTal and company say is true what else does one do with a liberal arts degree and an interest in practicing law/the legal world besides not attending law school?

[jenesaislaw]

". . . if anyone ever had doubts about the ABA as a captured agency, looking at just this one committee is enough to put those doubts to rest.

What about LST? Are you guys up to the challenge?

We are. Check out the forum on legal education, including my post: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/lawschool ... ation.html

[observationalist]

". . . if anyone ever had doubts about the ABA as a captured agency, looking at just this one committee is enough to put those doubts to rest.

What about LST? Are you guys up to the challenge?

We are. Check out the forum on legal education, including my post: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/lawschool ... ation.html

On that note, the forum moderator is interested in publishing guest posts and I think it would be great if anyone wanted to get a few TLSers together and submit a post. It would certainly add some diversity into the conversation given that the consumer viewpoint is largely absent from the conversation (except for LST and arguably a few professors who are sympathetic to the consumers of legal ed). I also think it would do a lot in terms of challenging the common belief that prospective law students don't know what they're getting into... some of you are offering up ideas that certainly merit more discussion among faculty and deans. This forum is one of the few arenas to actually encourage a public discussion among different stakeholders.

[HOPEFORCHANGE]

Oh well, now law students will just have to sign agreements that say something like this:

"I acknowledge that legal education, like any higher education, is a risk. Just because I show up at any law school and attend class and pass or even do reasonably well, does not guarantee me a job. It's my own actions (grades and networking) and intelligence in discerning whether the integrity of the institution based on the economy and other factors that will determine whether I will ever actually be a paid lawyer after completion of this three-year program."

Simple. People whine too much. People who whine about such things haven't had enough problems in life.

[PDaddy]

I just thought this would be worth re-posting.

Robert Morse is a cop-out! Since when is USNWR beholden to what the ABA does? USNWR can make its own definition for "employed" and run with it. The ABA does not sanction USNWR and the reverse is not true either. If USNWR or the ABA wants a definition for "EMPLOYED", they can start with mine and tweak it to perfection. Just fix it so that employment at Starbucks, etc, doesn't count so that we can see which schools really do work hard for their students and graduates.

An example of an employed person could be the following:

Requirement: Full-time Employment and Other Compensation - unless negotiated by the graduate by way of stipulated contract, and at the graduate's discretion, or other selected endeavors (as noted below) are pursued by the choice of the graduate.

1) A graduate who earns at least $35/hr on a full-time, permanent basis (defined as 40 hrs/week minimum and at least 52 weeks of employment per year for a minimum of two years) at a "law-oriented position", defined as that which requires for its acceptance and performance that a candidate obtains a J.D., LL.B, J.S.D., LL.M, or PH.D degree and/or admission and continued membership to at least one state bar (or "province" if located in Canada), and whose employment normally entitles him/her to systematic performance reviews resulting in raises, and/or whose job offers a comprehensive health benefits package that is covered at 50% or greater by the employer, a paid vacation package of at least two weeks per year, and/or an optional matching stock options, and/or 401K package, and/or a "partner track" progression.

"Law-oriented" can be defined as consisting primarily (85%) of duties that have as their central focus the practice of legal skills taught at a law and/or business school, such as the writing, transmission and filing of briefs, the negotiation, making and execution of contracts, and the performaces of duties consistent with being an officer of the courts, such as interviewing witnesses, perfoming depositions, performing oral arguments, performing mediations, conducting legal research, etc., as well as the teaching/training of others in such practices, and doing all in settings that are largely legal in nature, i.e., where the majority of employees and officers perform similar or related duties, or

2) A graduate holding any non-law related profession where the graduate's yearly compensation demonstrably exceeds an average of $70,000 per year regardless of the position (an average of $69,999.99 or less, in a non-law profession, would mean the graduate is "unemployed"), with a minimum of two years in the profession, and either (a) a demonstrable debt to income ratio of 50% or lower, or (b) a generous, consistently subsidized LRAP program by the employer, and all standard benefits, or

3) A graduate who holds any legal professorship or administrative position at an accredited law school, college or university, paying a minimum of $65,000 per year, offering any or all of the above benefits of the first paragraph, and where the graduate is required to teach the law to others on at least a trice-weekly basis and for at least six months out of a calendar year, required to work at or manage an administrative office or clinic at an accredited law school, college or university, perform research or studies' whose results are intended for publishing, and/or who originates or co-writes legal briefs for submission to courts of law and/or opposing counsels, or who assists and/or oversees law students in such activities, or

4) Any graduate who has successfully campaigned for and obtained a public office (such as City Council or Mayor), regardless of compensation, locality or level.

5) Continued graduate study shall not count as "employment" unless the graduate is pursuing a (minimum) partially school subsidized graduate/professional degree or Ph.D, and/or operates as the primary administrator of a law-related, government or college/university sponsored research project. The graduate's loan payments must be deferred, partially paid/defrayed and/or subsidized by the college/university.

6) A graduate who holds any law-related public interest position and/or position in which participation is on a full-time basis and/or results in the deferral/defrayment of all educational loans by government, or college or university sponsorship or subsidy.

If I can come up with that in a matter of minutes, imagine what the ABA or USNWR could do. My definition is far from perfect, but my point is simple. If USNWR and/or the ABA wanted to conceive and enforce a viable definition for employment, they could easily do it. They do not want to. With the exception of the top-10 schools, the rankings would be shaken up beyond recognition. USNWR would lose all credibility and fold.

I don't think many doc reviewers or Starbucks baristas would count as "employed" under my definition.

[3v3ryth1ng]

So what alternatives do the anti-law school camp propose? What do you suggest the type of person who would have been a successful law school grad do instead of LS? What if they are not interested in earning an MBA? Is any grad degree outside of science/math not worth it?

All I've seen so far:
-retail for a bit --> corporate job
-MBA --> profit

I'm not taking sides at all, just wondering if what MTal and company say is true what else does one do with a liberal arts degree and an interest in practicing law/the legal world besides not attending law school?

I think the lesson is that if you're only moderately interested in law, or if your parents are just pushing you into it, think twice about it. If you really want to be an attorney, do it. Listen to reason, but don't listen to negative people who want to kill your dreams because they don't have any. I don't see how an MBA or retail job would ever satisfy someone who is passionately interested in law.

[niceopposum]

no someone who is passionately interested in law.

edit: too cynical, but mostly those people who believe they love the law are fooling themselves

[3v3ryth1ng]

no someone who is passionately interested in law.

edit: too cynical, but mostly those people who believe they love the law are fooling themselves

It's probably not the law they love, but what they're doing with it. Cynical people will never understand that.

[observationalist]

So what alternatives do the anti-law school camp propose? What do you suggest the type of person who would have been a successful law school grad do instead of LS? What if they are not interested in earning an MBA? Is any grad degree outside of science/math not worth it?

All I've seen so far:
-retail for a bit --> corporate job
-MBA --> profit

I'm not taking sides at all, just wondering if what MTal and company say is true what else does one do with a liberal arts degree and an interest in practicing law/the legal world besides not attending law school?

I think the lesson is that if you're only moderately interested in law, or if your parents are just pushing you into it, think twice about it. If you really want to be an attorney, do it. Listen to reason, but don't listen to negative people who want to kill your dreams because they don't have any. I don't see how an MBA or retail job would ever satisfy someone who is passionately interested in law.

While admissions essays aren't necessarily the right place to mine for why people go to law school (given that it's mostly just putting your best foot forward), it does probably indicate something when you hear about how over half of all applicants explain their desire to attend law school as due to witnessing/experiencing some form of injustice. If a desire to correct injustice is truly a motivating factor for going to law school, then the alternative to law school would be any path that can get you to that point. The problem is that even in the public interest realm people view law school as the default entryway, probably because people still view it as the way to the prestigious PI gigs. Rural or small-town social work doesn't sound appealing to many people... neither does being thrown into unfamiliar territory through Peace Corps or even something domestic like JVC (Jesuit Volunteer Corps).

Another alternative: public policy programs. We haven't done any comparative research into what the employment outcomes look like, but you're still looking at saving one to two year's tuition and lost earnings and you may find the work is a lot more interesting than the few PI jobs out there that are strictly legal in nature.

[3v3ryth1ng]

So what alternatives do the anti-law school camp propose? What do you suggest the type of person who would have been a successful law school grad do instead of LS? What if they are not interested in earning an MBA? Is any grad degree outside of science/math not worth it?

All I've seen so far:
-retail for a bit --> corporate job
-MBA --> profit

I'm not taking sides at all, just wondering if what MTal and company say is true what else does one do with a liberal arts degree and an interest in practicing law/the legal world besides not attending law school?

I think the lesson is that if you're only moderately interested in law, or if your parents are just pushing you into it, think twice about it. If you really want to be an attorney, do it. Listen to reason, but don't listen to negative people who want to kill your dreams because they don't have any. I don't see how an MBA or retail job would ever satisfy someone who is passionately interested in law.

While admissions essays aren't necessarily the right place to mine for why people go to law school (given that it's mostly just putting your best foot forward), it does probably indicate something when you hear about how over half of all applicants explain their desire to attend law school as due to witnessing/experiencing some form of injustice. If a desire to correct injustice is truly a motivating factor for going to law school, then the alternative to law school would be any path that can get you to that point. The problem is that even in the public interest realm people view law school as the default entryway, probably because people still view it as the way to the prestigious PI gigs. Rural or small-town social work doesn't sound appealing to many people... neither does being thrown into unfamiliar territory through Peace Corps or even something domestic like JVC (Jesuit Volunteer Corps).

Another alternative: public policy programs. We haven't done any comparative research into what the employment outcomes look like, but you're still looking at saving one to two year's tuition and lost earnings and you may find the work is a lot more interesting than the few PI jobs out there that are strictly legal in nature.

Dang it! I guess I should rewrite my personal statement! :\

[observationalist]

So what alternatives do the anti-law school camp propose? What do you suggest the type of person who would have been a successful law school grad do instead of LS? What if they are not interested in earning an MBA? Is any grad degree outside of science/math not worth it?

All I've seen so far:
-retail for a bit --> corporate job
-MBA --> profit

I'm not taking sides at all, just wondering if what MTal and company say is true what else does one do with a liberal arts degree and an interest in practicing law/the legal world besides not attending law school?

I think the lesson is that if you're only moderately interested in law, or if your parents are just pushing you into it, think twice about it. If you really want to be an attorney, do it. Listen to reason, but don't listen to negative people who want to kill your dreams because they don't have any. I don't see how an MBA or retail job would ever satisfy someone who is passionately interested in law.

While admissions essays aren't necessarily the right place to mine for why people go to law school (given that it's mostly just putting your best foot forward), it does probably indicate something when you hear about how over half of all applicants explain their desire to attend law school as due to witnessing/experiencing some form of injustice. If a desire to correct injustice is truly a motivating factor for going to law school, then the alternative to law school would be any path that can get you to that point. The problem is that even in the public interest realm people view law school as the default entryway, probably because people still view it as the way to the prestigious PI gigs. Rural or small-town social work doesn't sound appealing to many people... neither does being thrown into unfamiliar territory through Peace Corps or even something domestic like JVC (Jesuit Volunteer Corps).

Another alternative: public policy programs. We haven't done any comparative research into what the employment outcomes look like, but you're still looking at saving one to two year's tuition and lost earnings and you may find the work is a lot more interesting than the few PI jobs out there that are strictly legal in nature.

Dang it! I guess I should rewrite my personal statement! :\

Oh don't get me wrong, if it works for over half of all past applicants it's likely going to continue working. And as long as it's not so bad as talking about that time you went on a cruise and pulled up to the dock to witness all these poor island people selling things, and how that makes you want to work at the UN, you probably won't lose any points. It's just something of a running joke among adcomms that so many applicants write about wanting to make the world a better place, when in reality they're all going to fight for the jobs that pay the most money. (Not my view, but I'm less cynical than many adcomms).

[JCougar]

It's just something of a running joke among adcomms that so many applicants write about wanting to make the world a better place, when in reality they're all going to fight for the jobs that pay the most money. (Not my view, but I'm less cynical than many adcomms).

But the leadership positions in this society where you can make the most difference are easier to get if you have the money/prestige/connections that come from Biglaw.

[Opie]

It's even mentioned in Law School Confidential that every year X amount of people say they want to go into PI and every year the percentage that do is WAY smaller.

[No13baby]

It's even mentioned in Law School Confidential that every year X amount of people say they want to go into PI and every year the percentage that do is WAY smaller.

I would guess that that number is due in part to the lack of funded PI jobs available, though. I know several people who were relatively committed to PI but couldn't find any paid employment and wound up doing other stuff.

[beach_terror]

It's even mentioned in Law School Confidential that every year X amount of people say they want to go into PI and every year the percentage that do is WAY smaller.

PI is also competitive. A lot of people say they want big law work but don't get it either.

[Opie]

Oh, I know it's because the jobs aren't there. If there were unlimited jobs in PI with LRAP to go with it, people would be lining up for them.

[MTal]

Posted this in the other thread but it got locked, so I will repost

"I can trap 20 of the little bastards"

"U. of I. probe of law school reveals intense culture, falsified data"

--LinkRemoved-- ... 4118.story

Know this: Law schools do not exist to educate you, enlighten you, or provide you with a job. They exist for 1 purpose and 1 purpose only: to TAKE YOUR MONEY. And this is not just the way U of Illinois law operates...this is the way ALL law schools operate. You all are the commodities which provide the professors and administrators with their livelihood. Where there's a dollar to be made, there's a dollar to be made, and you TLS posters are the gullible suckers who are freely handing over your financial futures so that people like Pless can collect their 250k yearly salaries while leaving the vast majority of their graduates out in the cold.

[howlery]

Thanks for the replies, I really appreciate it. I've been involved in more court preceedings than most people my age, so I'd like to think my long-time interest in the law isn't as artificial as some others who go into it for the wrong reasons (as you all mentioned).

Though I do agree that by not experiencing what an attorney actually does on a normal day I can't definitely say it is what I want to spend the rest of my life doing, which is complicated further by all the areas of practice. Does everyone make that gamble?

I'm probably getting off topic with this, apologies.

[S-IV]

"you TLS posters are the gullible suckers who are freely handing over your financial futures"

Does anyone else find it a little ridiculous for one to openly criticize a classification of individuals of which oneself is also a part of? lol!

[MTal]

"you TLS posters are the gullible suckers who are freely handing over your financial futures"

Does anyone else find it a little ridiculous for one to openly criticize a classification of individuals of which oneself is also a part of? lol!

Except that I have a job and am not in law school.

[anozira]

...