Top Law Schools

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opini ... inion&_r=1&

at him saying that average lawyers' debt ($125k) is less than average lawyers' salary

LawBrah wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opini ... inion&_r=1&

at him saying that average lawyers' debt ($125k) is less than average lawyers' salary

Average and median are two totally different things. RC FTW!

dsn32 wrote:

LawBrah wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opini ... inion&_r=1&

at him saying that average lawyers' debt ($125k) is less than average lawyers' salary

Average and median are two totally different things. RC FTW!

^guy who went to middling law school

Last spring we accepted an excellent student with a generous financial-aid package that left her with the need to borrow only $5,000 a year. She told us that she thought it would be “irresponsible” to borrow the money. She didn’t attend any law school.

What he didn't want to admit - she just didn't want to go to Case Western.

I can't wait for Paul Campos (my personal hero) to eviscerate this idiotic editorial and refute it point by point. Of course, he may be too exhausted by people's refusal to listen to his previous refutations of such nonsense, but I would dearly love to see the NYTimes publish a rebuttal by Campos or Tamanaha.

How many of these "paul Campos is my personal hero" posters are really Campos alts?

Also, yeah the average lawyers salary may be higher thN 125, but unemployed jds don't factor into the average salary number. That article really irked me

Pumpkin_Pie wrote:Last spring we accepted an excellent student with a generous financial-aid package that left her with the need to borrow only $5,000 a year. She told us that she thought it would be “irresponsible” to borrow the money. She didn’t attend any law school.

What he didn't want to admit - she just didn't want to go to Case Western.

Honestly, she should have tried to get that last $5,000 covered. I'd at least consider attending Case Western for free if I were aiming for a certain market.

.

presh wrote:

Mqt wrote:

Pumpkin_Pie wrote:Last spring we accepted an excellent student with a generous financial-aid package that left her with the need to borrow only $5,000 a year. She told us that she thought it would be “irresponsible” to borrow the money. She didn’t attend any law school.

What he didn't want to admit - she just didn't want to go to Case Western.

Honestly, she should have tried to get that last $5,000 covered. I'd at least consider attending Case Western for free if I were aiming for a certain market.

The way this is worded though, I bet it was only $5,000 a year to cover tuition. If she would also be borrowing to cover COL (very few schools give scholarships for this), then his statement is pretty disingenuous.

this guy being disingenuous? nah...

.

.

LSTfan wrote:Case Western, by the numbers:

Tuition (3 years): $127,692
USNWR Rank: #67

Not Working: 13%
Working Part-Time: 19.4%
Working at a Firm (2-10 attorneys): 15.9%

Salary - 25% (all employed): $46,500

That's a whole lot of shitty outcomes right there. The not working, part-time, and shitlaw adds up to almost half of all grads.

better than a LOT of TTTs, and frankly with a scholarship that good, that would be a great choice for trying to work in Ohio. As with any other school, definitely not worth sticker though

.

What else will these thousands of students who have been discouraged from attending law school do? Where will they find a more fulfilling career? They’re not all going to be doctors or investment bankers ...

Ho ho, burn.

*

bdm261 wrote:So will my app to Case likely be accepted this cycle despite being below median?

Case Western Dean: 1
TLS: 0

bdm261 wrote:So will my app to Case likely be accepted this cycle despite being below median?

Lol at asking that ITT.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:

LSTfan wrote:Case Western, by the numbers:

Tuition (3 years): $127,692
USNWR Rank: #67

Not Working: 13%
Working Part-Time: 19.4%
Working at a Firm (2-10 attorneys): 15.9%

Salary - 25% (all employed): $46,500

That's a whole lot of shitty outcomes right there. The not working, part-time, and shitlaw adds up to almost half of all grads.

better than a LOT of TTTs, and frankly with a scholarship that good, that would be a great choice for trying to work in Ohio. As with any other school, definitely not worth sticker though

Even if tuition were free, 3 years in opportunity costs for a school that isn't good for trying to work in law at all, even law in Ohio.

Saw this earlier today and literally stopped reading after "I'm a law dean"

To take the most recent low before this era, in 1998, 55 percent of law graduates started in law firms. In 2011, that number was 50 percent. A 9 percent decline from a previous low during the worst economic conditions in decades hardly seems catastrophic

Does anyone understand the math here? I think there's a statistic missing -- maybe the 46% of CW grads that got a FT LT JD job according to LST?

Yes, all law schools are worth some money. To say that a Case Western degree is worth the same amount of money as a Yale degree or a Columbia degree like Lawrence Mitchell has is total bullshit. I can't believe this guy wrote this, much less allowed it to be published in the New York Times.

holy shit, are his frames purple?
all he needs now is kramer's technicolor dreamcoat.

SaintsTheMetal wrote: better than a LOT of TTTs, and frankly with a scholarship that good, that would be a great choice for trying to work in Ohio. As with any other school, definitely not worth sticker though

I don't think it would be a "great choice" for any reason. A better choice than say, University of Dayton, but "less bad" does not mean "great," or even "good."

Borg wrote:Yes, all law schools are worth some money. To say that a Case Western degree is worth the same amount of money as a Yale degree or a Columbia degree like Lawrence Mitchell has is total bullshit. I can't believe this guy wrote this, much less allowed it to be published in the New York Times.

I think writing an article like this is going to do this Dean's cause more harm than good. Number one, it makes him an easy target for criticism.

Number two, the article was so poorly argued and full of easily refutable and intentionally skewed statistics that it simply reinforces the notion that lawyers are dishonest, shifty shysters simply looking for self-enrichment by passive-aggressively taking your money--so dishonest that they'll turn on themselves and "eat their own" at the first opportunity.

It wasn't even good writing from an aesthetic perspective. This guy has mediocre writing skills and a very poor command of logic, facts, and reality. And yet he occupies one of the most successful positions in the legal field. If he isn't a walking, talking advertisement of why bright people shouldn't stay the hell away from this industry, than I don't know what is. If this is the type of person the industry considers its "leaders," we're all doomed.

It's sad, Mitchell had a reputation as a perceptive critic of the banking industry, and criticized the sleaziness back before everyone realized how bad it was. He's basically done a 180 degree turn and is trying to pull the same sort of thing Goldman Sachs and all the other sociopathic investment firms did. It is the height of dishonesty to pretend the career earnings of someone who graduated law school 50 years ago has anything to do with career prospects now.