Are Law Schools Getting Desperate? Forum

[minnbills]

This criticism is unfair. What matters, at the end of the day, is whether or not his arguments and analyses have merit.

Ethos, logos, and pathos, in that order of importance.

If he is a hypocrite and a hack (which I happen to think he is), it absolutely diminishes the validity of his arguments.

He's calling for reform, and unless UC tries to adopt reforms and he acts against them I just don't think it's appropriate to call him a hypocrite. I think it begs the same kind of eye-rolling reserved for politicians who demanded Buffett give up a chunk of his income or else they wouldn't consider the Buffett rule.

Whether or not he's a hack is related to the quality of his analysis and all that, so that's separate.

And FWIW I get the sense he goes too far, so I'm not just white knighting here.

[Mr. Somebody]

http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/Pages/ ... ships.aspx

Thanks.

Looks like a lot of people are getting pi so at least they'll be able to use lrap. Not many getting into law firms

[MrAnon]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

[soitgoes9]

This criticism is unfair. What matters, at the end of the day, is whether or not his arguments and analyses have merit.

Ethos, logos, and pathos, in that order of importance.

If he is a hypocrite and a hack (which I happen to think he is), it absolutely diminishes the validity of his arguments.

Hey Aristotle

[kapachino]

3. If you read his blog, you'll find he doesn't spare his own school (as recently as Tuesday).

I doubt this would matter much if he weren't (wasn't?) collecting a paycheck. Kind of turns his righteous indignation into hypocrisy, does it not?

[boredatwork]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

....Where in the world did you come up with this gem? If companies and people have the means to pursue legal recourse the work is there. Firms won't hire young associates because they can get temp attorneys to do the grunt work, I will give you that but it will have nothing to do with the caliber of law students, law school doesn't even teach you how to practice law for Christ sake. Even with the glut of contract attorneys firms will have to hire more attorneys to staff than they do now because they have to have people on staff capable of doing complicated work.

[MrAnon]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

....Where in the world did you come up with this gem? If companies and people have the means to pursue legal recourse the work is there. Firms won't hire young associates because they can get temp attorneys to do the grunt work, I will give you that but it will have nothing to do with the caliber of law students, law school doesn't even teach you how to practice law for Christ sake. Even with the glut of contract attorneys firms will have to hire more attorneys to staff than they do now because they have to have people on staff capable of doing complicated work.

Someone who got admitted to a T1 due to a dearth of applicants isn't capable of doing complicated work. The firms know that.

[RedBirds2011]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

....Where in the world did you come up with this gem? If companies and people have the means to pursue legal recourse the work is there. Firms won't hire young associates because they can get temp attorneys to do the grunt work, I will give you that but it will have nothing to do with the caliber of law students, law school doesn't even teach you how to practice law for Christ sake. Even with the glut of contract attorneys firms will have to hire more attorneys to staff than they do now because they have to have people on staff capable of doing complicated work.

Someone who got admitted to a T1 due to a dearth of applicants isn't capable of doing complicated work. The firms know that.

Yea, um...ok

/sarcasm

not sure this even deserves a legitimate response

[boredatwork]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

....Where in the world did you come up with this gem? If companies and people have the means to pursue legal recourse the work is there. Firms won't hire young associates because they can get temp attorneys to do the grunt work, I will give you that but it will have nothing to do with the caliber of law students, law school doesn't even teach you how to practice law for Christ sake. Even with the glut of contract attorneys firms will have to hire more attorneys to staff than they do now because they have to have people on staff capable of doing complicated work.

Someone who got admitted to a T1 due to a dearth of applicants isn't capable of doing complicated work. The firms know that.

And I thought your last comment was stupid. Firms know 3 things about you before you interview
1. your class rank
2. your school
3. whatever is on your resume
If the firm that interviews you likes you then that firm will let you do SA's for them so they can evaluate your raw abilities. Does this clerk have the motivation we need? does he have the writing skills? the ability to apply law to fact? Does he have the charisma and drive to be successful here? if the answer is yes, they will probably give you an offer assuming there is work for you to do.
Firms expect you to come to them knowing nothing. They spend two years teaching you how to practice law before they ever realize a return on investment. Do you really think they give 2 shits if you scored a 174 instead of a 176 on a standardized test?

[ineptimusprime]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

So you're saying that the difference between a 165 LSAT and a 175 LSAT is readily apparent based solely on an interview?

[LSAT Blog]

3. If you read his blog, you'll find he doesn't spare his own school (as recently as Tuesday).

I doubt this would matter much if he weren't (wasn't?) collecting a paycheck. Kind of turns his righteous indignation into hypocrisy, does it not?

By that logic, under what circumstances could one attempt to change a system from within without being called a hypocrite?

Perhaps the best solution would be for him to take whatever salary he feels law professors should be paid, and distribute the difference to the students.

Or donate the difference to Law School Transparency (perhaps he has already given them a donation).

edited to fix quotefail

[moneybagsphd]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

I think what you're ignoring here- something that others have pointed out- is that this isn't an "epic cycle." It was pretty fucking average (just with more WLing, hearing back later from schools, etc.)

[Mad Hatter]

Perhaps the best solution would be for him to take whatever salary he feels law professors should be paid, and distribute the difference to the students.

Or donate the difference to Law School Transparency (perhaps he has already given them a donation).

Quote fail. But yes, this too.

[Dale]

And I thought your last comment was stupid. Firms know 3 things about you before you interview
1. your class rank
2. your school
3. whatever is on your resume

I was one of a small handful of 1Ls who interviewed for a SA spot at a particularly prestigious NYC law firm before my exam grads had been released.

I often wondered if they somehow knew my grades before asking me to interview. I can see how a law firm could learn about my grades before me (via connections, etc.). On the other hand, since I didn’t do spectacular on my exams (2 A-, 2 B+), maybe they didn’t know about my grades. But for whatever reason I suspected that they did because I have no other earthly explanation why I was chosen for this SA interview. Anyone have any insight on this?

[JDizzle2015]

Paul Campos...great troll or greatest troll?

According to Brian Leiter... he's a subpar incompetent troll.

[minnbills]

I often wondered if they somehow knew my grades before asking me to interview. I can see how a law firm could learn about my grades before me (via connections, etc.). On the other hand, since I didn’t do spectacular on my exams (2 A-, 2 B+), maybe they didn’t know about my grades. But for whatever reason I suspected that they did because I have no other earthly explanation why I was chosen for this SA interview. Anyone have any insight on this?

Is there some other factor? IP, diversity, etc.

[MrAnon]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

So you're saying that the difference between a 165 LSAT and a 175 LSAT is readily apparent based solely on an interview?

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

[albusdumbledore]

Look, I'm nor Mr. Campos' biggest fan or anything, although I do appreciate a lot of what he has to say (even if I, personally, would have said it much differently). Nonetheless, turning everything he says into a referendum on opinions of his character (apparently gleaned over the internet) while partially - or, in many cases, completely - ignoring the substance of what he has to say is intellectually dishonest at best, and complete idiocy at worst.

If users followed around some 0L, raiding on-topic threads with things he had said in the past, changing the topic, derailing actual conversation, and making personal attacks, they would be banned. I'm not sure why people seem to think it is any different with a law professor, but I assure you that it won't be for long.

You can't suck from the teat of the sow and at the same time argue that the sow shouldn't exist. Or rather, you can, but that immediately calls your own character and motives into question. That's why people react to Campos the way that they do. And that isn't a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Legitimate_use). Campos does not get to be the Patron Saint of Indebted Law Students. And what really boggles my mind is that he goes so far as to level moral arguments against these schools. That's asinine. If you legitimately believe these schools are doing students a moral disservice and you're on the receiving end of such a disservice, then you're aiding and abetting.

[boredatwork]

The problem with all the excitement about "epic cycles" is that word is out that law schools are desperate, that they are not attracting good candidates, and this is the type of thing firms of all calibers will seize on and use as an excuse to slash hiring even further. It will be rationalized that even though we used to hire from GW, we are not going to hire GW students who belong at Touro. And it will show in the quality of the applicants appearance and interview that there has been a step down. Firms of all sizes are looking for any way they can to tighten belts and this just gives them another excuse to be more selective than they have been. I think we can all agree by this time that even though we are well past Lehman, and supposedly improving in the economy, the level of work that existed in the early 2000s will not be back for decades.

So you're saying that the difference between a 165 LSAT and a 175 LSAT is readily apparent based solely on an interview?

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

You sir are an epic troll.

[kapachino]

3. If you read his blog, you'll find he doesn't spare his own school (as recently as Tuesday).

I doubt this would matter much if he weren't (wasn't?) collecting a paycheck. Kind of turns his righteous indignation into hypocrisy, does it not?

By that logic, under what circumstances could one attempt to change a system from within without being called a hypocrite?

Most whistle-blowers gain relevance and respect by leaving the corrupt system behind, not by setting up a blog and blasting it while simultaneously profiting from it. How can one be the champion of the wronged when he/she is part of the problem? I don't have a negative opinion of Mr. Campos or his blog, but I do find the fact that he's doing all this while profiting from everything he's supposed to be against rather odd.

[Dale]

I often wondered if they somehow knew my grades before asking me to interview. I can see how a law firm could learn about my grades before me (via connections, etc.). On the other hand, since I didn’t do spectacular on my exams (2 A-, 2 B+), maybe they didn’t know about my grades. But for whatever reason I suspected that they did because I have no other earthly explanation why I was chosen for this SA interview. Anyone have any insight on this?

Is there some other factor? IP, diversity, etc.

No ― that’s why it was puzzling. I hardly ever visit the prof in their office, nor am I a gunner (I do well in cold calls, FWIW), for all practical purpose I’am stealth. I have zero connections or experience. I am not disagreeing with the earlier poster about firms knowing your grades before an interview, I just wonder if it is true, or not.

[albusdumbledore]

I'm going to give you a little while to reflect on how everything you said (while potentially true), says absolutely fuck nothing about the actual topic at hand.

Then reflect on the meaning of the words "on topic."

I'll wait.

Sure. It was off topic. So was his initial blast on Dean Z. Had nothing to do with waitlists. That's why I went there.

[Nova]

So you're saying that the difference between a 165 LSAT and a 175 LSAT is readily apparent based solely on an interview?

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Many people who mastered the LSAT are grinders. Sure some are just that fucking smart, but most worked very very hard. I grinded 18 points up from my diagnostic. I dont really think I gained any IQ points (ok maybe 1 or 2...) or whatever you measure intelligence with. Some people studied a lot less and got my score. That just means I wanted it more. LSAT =/= How smart you are.

[Dale]

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Then there is the person whose LSAT practice scores are consistently +175 but only scores 165 on the actual test. Perhaps their LSAT study course was purchased on a budget. Had they been able to invest twice the $ for a better course, perhaps they would have nailed a real +175. Some LSAT courses are just flat out better than others. Ditto SAT.

[albusdumbledore]

Sure. It was off topic. So was his initial blast on Dean Z. Had nothing to do with waitlists. That's why I went there.

Are you talking about a different thread? Because his comment about Dean Z was directly in response to curious1, who did us all the favor of being the first to start the "fuck Paul Campos (what were we talking about again?)" portion of this thread, on the first page.

Also, in your tu quoque example: the legitimate use of tu quoque is to invalidate A, not to invalidate P. So if the topic of the thread is P (which it almost always is), and invalidating A doesn't invalidate P, the actual topic, then invalidating A would be...

SPOILER: the answer is "off-topic." It is always off topic, unless we happen to be in some lounge thread about whether Paul Campos is a decent human being. So knock it the fuck off. And I don't just mean you, in particular, I mean TLS as a whole.

I'll knock it off, that's fine. But if we're talking about the same thing, I'm legimately confused on how this post was a response to anything:

Kindly wonderful Dean Z wrote this at a time when she knew full well that Michigan had just hired 17% of its 2010 class into short-term low-paid "fellowships":

http://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2z ... aspx?ID=48

It certainly doesn't make sense as a response to curious1's first post in this thread. Campos didn't even quote it. It's just a reiteration of the Michigan blast he made a few weeks ago.