bceagles182 wrote:This thread is stupid
1. The study contains so many errors that it's a joke. To name a few:
It ignores that nobody takes the bar in DC b/c they can waive in -- most take the NY bar instead.
It ignores that people who graduate from UWisconsin are automatically barred in Wisconsin.
It ignores that many people take the bar in multiple states, which renders both the national and the state numbers utterly useless. For example, pretty much everyone practicing in Jersey takes the NY bar as well.
2. Going to law school is not a bad decision for everyone outside the T14. It is, obviously, a gamble. And going to law school to get rich is a mistake because the odds are against it. But for those of us who want to become lawyers, it is not necessarily a bad decision. On the contrary, it can prove to be a very beneficial decision for those who attend lower ranked schools and end up at the top of the class. Those people made the correct decision to gamble on their own abilities, regardless of their objectively-defined initial odds of success.
This is America. It's competitive and only the smartest/strongest survive (unless the democrats are in office). As long as the information is available, people can weigh the numbers, evaluate their own abilities, and make a subjective determination about what is best for themselves. If they are willing to roll the dice, then who are you to say it is automatically a poor decision?
This whole concept of "t14 material" is a joke. It doesn't matter if someone didn't do well on the lsat if they can kick your ass on law school exams. Top 5% @ t2>>>>>>>>>>>> Top 50% @ somewhere like Georgetown
1. those errors have been talked about and if you want to look back and make more comments then do so, but you can't dismiss the study as a whole on the basis of a part.
2. going to law school is not a bad decision for EVERYONE outside of the T14, which wasn't the argument, but it is financially a bad investment for about half of everyone outside the T14. applicants have information, but the quality of information is shit. would you think it was fair that you invested hundreds of thousands in stock for a company whose financial statements mere materially misstated so that you were not aware of the true financial health of the company? no, and that's why we have independent auditors attest to the fairness and accuracy of financial reporting on publicly held companies, so that investors can make informed decisions. medical ethics, when possible, requires not consent but "informed" consent from the patient to conduct to a procedure. see where i'm going? where's the oversight from the ABA? the onus should not be on the student to seek data outside of the school's website, because an institution that teaches law should have the ethics not to misreport or misrepresent its employment data, yet many schools do just that. applicants can make decisions off the information provided, but not "informed" ones because the data is bullshit. being "willing" to roll the dice presupposes that the student knew the dice weren't loaded against them, in the case of TTT/TTTT's and most T2's quite honestly.
the root of the problem: PEOPLE GO TO LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE CAREER CHOICE ON THE BASIS OF FLAWED DATA. THE EMPLOYMENT DATA IS WRONG HOWEVER, THEREFORE THEY ARE WRONG. if shit schools published an accurate picture of post-employment prospects, people wouldn't be lining up to go to 'Bozo so they could do doc review for $25 an hour.
and I'd take median at G-town over top 5% at a T2, but that's just me. and it does matter if you kicked ass on the lsat, because schools buy lsat scores in the form of scholly $$$ to boost their stats, so it means presumably you paid less, which significantly impacts your rate of return on your investment. and yes, maybe the gamble worked out well for those at the top 5% of their T2. wow, a 5% chance of getting a decent payback on you investment, what a deal!
It's competitive and only the smartest/strongest survive (unless the democrats are in office)
lolwut? wtf is this? we're going to politicize an analysis of the surplus of lawyers now?? what does obama have to do with yer legal jerbs? don't forget what forum you're in.