A Hypocritical Commencement Speech at Emory Forum

[NR3C1]

Every law school applicant should hear/read this speech BEFORE, and not AFTER, "investing" hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to law school. This particular professor is from Emory, but one wonders if her beliefs are also shared by a lot of faculty and staff from other law schools.

Here are some articles about it:

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/possibly ... eech-ever/

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... obs_to_get_/

And here is a video of the speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3wyBNYw ... e&t=36m10s

[071816]

yikes...

[paulinaporizkova]

what up alty mcalterson

[shoeshine]

There is literally nothing good coming out of Emory. Has anyone else felt like the faculty seems to be "mad" at the student population from all the news that has come out of there in the last year?

[paulinaporizkova]

but srsly, i loled bigtime here:

Things Emory is not entitled to: any alumni gift from anybody in the class of 2011.
How I will win through giving: Give advice to everybody about why they should not go to Emory Law.

also, this woman is clearly a bitch and i love MQ!

[MrAnon]

Faculty is mad because their universe will be up-ended if would-be applicants and admittees to middling T1 schools wise up to the prospects those schools offer and choose not to apply/attend.

[flcath]

I really didn't have that big of a problem with it. She's probably right.

If it had come from a fellow under-employed student, it'd be no big deal. But it came from an individual who gets six figures to sit on her ass all day, so it's irritating.

[BlueDiamond]

this was just a terrible speech on every level.. she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

also.. graduations are long and boring... almost nobody wants to attend and even those that do are wishing it was over an hour into it. I vote that graduations be cancelled and the money that was going to be spent on them be used for tuition reduction

[2011Cycle]

Sounds like the best thing coming out of Emory is the Civ Pro book authored by Freer.

[Tanicius]

this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did get the point across clearly. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined but it's not the end of the world. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have these days. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is also not hypocritical at all. She's clearly a professor who loves her students and tries to help them. Her point wasn't, "It's fine out there because look where I am!" Her point was to give a large group of depressed graduates some badly needed hope and courage to keep striving.

[emorystud2010]

.

[flcath]

this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

I'm with you, except for the last line.

Dude, the legal education establishment she works for is what caused the legal industry to cease being a 'profession.' I already said I thought the content was fine, but to hear it from a law professor is irritating.

Hurricane Katrina victims need to "get over" that, too, but they probably don't want to hear it in a speech from GWB.

[flcath]

Seriously? Can we ever get some positive publicity?

Emory and UVA have both been getting mega-screwed on ATL lately.

Though there's always a pretext, I highly suspect Elie just doesn't like the South.

[Tanicius]

this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

I'm with you, except for the last line.

Dude, the legal education establishment she works for is what caused the legal industry to cease being a 'profession.' I already said I thought the content was fine, but to hear it from a law professor is irritating.

Just because she works in the legal establishment doesn't mean she encourages its trend. That's like calling a human being hypocritical when they say there are solvable problems in society.

Hurricane Katrina victims need to "get over" that, too, but they probably don't want to hear it in a speech from GWB.

I thought the tone of the speech was uplifting. It was a "Get over it" in the "Keep your chin up" sense rather than a "Get over it because the volume of your whining is annoying to me when I try to work in my cushy office down the hall."

[2011Cycle]

this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

The speech only seems hypocritical when considered along the stated and inferred impressions one received from the prospective student literature, viewbooks, and in person discussions with admissions reps at LSAC fairs. When considered alone, the speech is a reasonable counterweight to the marketing/advertising literature which most law schools provide to applicants. yes, graduation may not be the best forum for her opinions which for the most part are truisms, but once the sting of the timing dulls, the truth is a good input to entering 0L's like myself.

[Tanicius]

this was just a terrible speech on every level..

No, it wasn't. The only notable flaw is that she sounds flushed and a little nervous at points, so she talks fast.

she decided on honesty which is great and all but at least get the point across clearly if youre going to do it

She did. Her thesis is that the law has been ruined. She supports this through several different arguments, all of them easy to see and well supported IMO: the law is too complicated, lawyers are too concerned with themselves, etc. "It's more lucrative to deal in complexity than it is to simplify... to serve the needs of the few, the rich, and the connected." An element of cohesion in oratory and writing is looping vocabulary, which her speech is heavy on. The word "complicated" appears probably a dozen if not more times.

This is a good speech and it needs to be the kind of commencement speech most law schools have. "The job market is terrible," but the graduates need to "[G]et over it" and move on, because if they let their soured mindset dictate everything they're going to compromise more than they already are.

This speech is not hypocritical at all.

The speech only seems hypocritical when considered along the stated and inferred impressions one received from the prospective student literature, viewbooks, and in person discussions with admissions reps at LSAC fairs. When considered alone, the speech is a reasonable counterweight to the marketing/advertising literature which most law schools provide to applicants. yes, graduation may not be the best forum for her opinions which for the most part are truisms, but once the sting of the timing dulls, the truth is a good input to entering 0L's like myself.

That, but also it's ridiculous to assume that she agrees with how her school's admissions office operates just because she has a job at the same institution.

[xchel2828]

I found this comment on TTR, and it pretty much expresses how I feel about this "speech:"

I watched the Emory law graduation speech. If this speech was given to the incoming 1L class on the first day of orientation, I might say it was a great speech. In a sense, the professor isn't saying anything all that different from what the people on this board say - that lawyering can suck, that the biglaw jobs don't exist, and that new graduates are going to have to set their sights low. She acknowledges that a good percent of the graduates have no jobs. The problem is, she is telling this to graduates who are going to be in debt hell for the rest of their lives.

If this kind of speech was given to all incoming law students on the first day of orientation when a tuition refund could still be had, and if the law schools' websites and printed promotional materials reflected the realities the professor cited in her speech, then I would say that the law schools were being responsible and honest.

To tell a group of graduates who have taken out three years worth of loans to just get over it and have a good attitude about things is below disgusting. When you have one or two thousand dollars worth of loans to pay off every month, and the credit card bills that piled up when you were paying expenses that you couldn't afford because you gave up three years of income to go to law school, you don't need to get over it or have a better attitude. You need adequate income or a way out of debt. Sallie Mae won't cash your positive attitude.

May 26, 2011 6:04 PM

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/20 ... l#comments

[Tanicius]

I found this comment on TTR, and it pretty much expresses how I feel about this "speech:"

I watched the Emory law graduation speech. If this speech was given to the incoming 1L class on the first day of orientation, I might say it was a great speech. In a sense, the professor isn't saying anything all that different from what the people on this board say - that lawyering can suck, that the biglaw jobs don't exist, and that new graduates are going to have to set their sights low. She acknowledges that a good percent of the graduates have no jobs. The problem is, she is telling this to graduates who are going to be in debt hell for the rest of their lives.

If this kind of speech was given to all incoming law students on the first day of orientation when a tuition refund could still be had, and if the law schools' websites and printed promotional materials reflected the realities the professor cited in her speech, then I would say that the law schools were being responsible and honest.

To tell a group of graduates who have taken out three years worth of loans to just get over it and have a good attitude about things is below disgusting. When you have one or two thousand dollars worth of loans to pay off every month, and the credit card bills that piled up when you were paying expenses that you couldn't afford because you gave up three years of income to go to law school, you don't need to get over it or have a better attitude. You need adequate income or a way out of debt. Sallie Mae won't cash your positive attitude.

May 26, 2011 6:04 PM

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/20 ... l#comments

The criticisms of her speech seem to make no distinction between the professor and the school. What the school did was bad. The professor is just giving legitimate advice.

[xchel2828]

The criticisms of her speech seem to make no distinction between the professor and the school. What the school did was bad. The professor is just giving legitimate advice.

No one is disputing that the "advice" given by the professor is not legitimate when taken without any context. The problem is that she gave this advice to new graduates, not prospective students, that have just spend 150K, if not more, in tuition and fees. But what it really messed up is that the professor's salary dependent directly on convincing these stupid students that their investment was worth it. It turns out it was not, and now, after the fact, the professor basically tells the new graduates "sorry, life is hard."

I also dispute the notion that the professor is giving these new graduates advice because advice implies BEFORE the fact. These dudes have already paid and the damage has been done. Instead of advice, I would call it a criticism. The professor is criticizing the "sense of entitlement" of these new graduates.

[xchel2828]

And yet people keep enrolling at Emory.

How can people be so stupid?

[tea_drinker]

The criticisms of her speech seem to make no distinction between the professor and the school. What the school did was bad. The professor is just giving legitimate advice.

No one is disputing that the "advice" given by the professor is not legitimate when taken without any context. The problem is that she gave this advice to new graduates, not prospective students, that have just spend 150K, if not more, in tuition and fees. But what it really messed up is that the professor's salary dependent directly on convincing these stupid students that their investment was worth it. It turns out it was not, and now, after the fact, the professor basically tells the new graduates "sorry, life is hard."

I also dispute the notion that the professor is giving these new graduates advice because advice implies BEFORE the fact. These dudes have already paid and the damage has been done. Instead of advice, I would call it a criticism. The professor is criticizing the "sense of entitlement" of these new graduates.

I don't think anyone, besides the students themselves, can say whether the investment was not worth it. So, you may not want to jump to conclusion that fast.

Another point is emory's employment stats might have been better three years ago when these students started matriculating, so it's not like emory intentionally lied about their employment stats. At least, they had the gut to report "accurate" data and plummeted in the ranking, compared to a bunch of TTT or TTTT schools out there.

[paulinaporizkova]

Seriously? Can we ever get some positive publicity?

Emory and UVA have both been getting mega-screwed on ATL lately.

Though there's always a pretext, I highly suspect Elie just doesn't like the South.

i thought black jews loved the south

[Grizz]

Seriously? Can we ever get some positive publicity?

Emory and UVA have both been getting mega-screwed on ATL lately.

Though there's always a pretext, I highly suspect Elie just doesn't like the South.

Duke gets ripped on a decent amt., but never Vanderbilt.

[shoeshine]

And yet people keep enrolling at Emory.

How can people be so stupid?

If Cooley can find students, Emory should have no problem.

[Curry]

And yet people keep enrolling at Emory.

For 10% of people, its a good investment.