Top Law Schools

This is the thread for discussing the Kansas Law dean taking questions thread so that the original thread [eta: link] doesn't get filled with illiterate circlejerking that defeats the purpose of this website. It is a sponsored post in that if a cheap-ish public law school wants to hire me as an adcom who works online and never has to go into an office, I will mock people more openly for their RC fails. That way, when I have to repeat myself about what questions are being answered because maladapted weirdos with decent grades and test scores and no social skills always piss in the water, it will be entertaining instead of just depressing.

I first want to note how dumb it is to rip on a law dean who wants to explain what it is he's selling to a population of applicants that is likely more competitive for scholarships than the general pool. For a population aspiring to do depos [1], you kind of suck at asking questions so far. [2]

Here is a post critiquing Freedman's "great time to go to law school" post by somebody whose academic CV is kind of literally pretty much empirical jobs studies:
http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/

I didn't really put effort into reading either article, because this is a Transparency 1.0 thing (I think;dr) and I am interested in the late capitalism angle. This may be perfectly appropriate as between more local jobs-oriented law schools if that's the context. [3] But leaving aside "fuck 'jobs,'" [4] this has notes of "bootstraps" in its "why don't people enter the workforce and get skills?" meme. Because boomers don't hire and the skills gap is flame, guy.

I will look forward to also not reading the "If you're not really that smart but just test well, maybe now is a great time to go to an expensive elite law school to get on a job conveyor belt and not be interested in the academic offerings" meme posts if "the market" comes back.

Paul Campos wrote:(1) Though I hesitate to reduce OP's OP to black letter form, I gather a central part of the point is that the law school crisis/scam is just a characteristic example of the crisis of what certain leftists refer to hopefully as late capitalism. I think that's right, which is why the transparency movement can only do so much even in law schools, let alone beyond them.

In a sense, one could say that we have reached the end of the law school scam — in the sense that young people who enroll in law school today have every opportunity to avoid being misled about the prospects that await them. Of course this is no excuse for continuing to engage in aggressive sales tactics that sound more like a condo time-share pitch than a disinterested scholarly evaluation of the evidence.

In other words, we’re moving toward a situation — we’re not there yet, mainly because of the cultural lag in recognizing what has been happening to the legal profession, i.e., the Legally Blonde Syndrome — in which law students will be no more prone to overestimate their career prospects than Ph.D. candidates are now prone to overestimate their odds of getting a tenure track job (I”m assuming here that the latter don’t tend to indulge in too much optimism and confirmation bias, although I have to admit that this assumption isn’t actually based on anything other than my own optimistic wish that this is the case. My co-bloggers and many commentators are in a position to confirm or correct this impression, and I hope they do so).

That is all to the good, but, in terms of genuine reform, it’s very much half or perhaps a third of a loaf. Genuine reform goes far beyond even optimal transparency (which is still far away in the law school world), because the crisis of the American law school is just a particularly sharp example of a far broader crisis: that created by an economy that simply doesn’t produce anything like enough appropriate (halfway decent-paying, skills based) jobs for our increasingly educated, and increasingly disaffected, younger generations.

The real scam, in other words, is the contemporary structure of our society. Making that transparent is a goal towards which the law school reform movement is playing its own small part.

[1] Even if the most relevant professional skillset is ankle-biting, hivemind, crab-in-a-bucket syndrome, then various other posters may be thinking like lawyers, but I am still bored by it and don't think it's billable per se but I could be wrong.

[2] To be fair, Ron Don's are pretty solid, and got answers. 80k plus interest still seems pretty harsh CoL-adjusted, so maybe getting all "SCAAAAAAM" on behalf of, like, out-of-state students with no scholarship is totally fair enough? But, like, way to suck at the setup. I was not impressed by the way he blew his wad right at the opening, but such is life. Plus, I guess if the end goal is to draft depo questions from the fluorescent safety of the cube for a couple years and then get kicked out, or even to just write good ice burns for people in positions of institutional power, then my vocational critique does not really apply to Ron Don.

SBL wrote:If you're one of the best law schools in the Midwest surely you won't mind sharing the percentage of your graduating class that are offered federal clerkships.

Emphasis added; I don't exactly understand how this is a useful metric for a regionally focused school, but I know fuck all

Businesslady wrote:

SBL wrote:If you're one of the best law schools in the Midwest surely you won't mind sharing the percentage of your graduating class that are offered federal clerkships.

Emphasis added; I don't exactly understand how this is a useful metric for a regionally focused school, but I know fuck all

If it's one of the best, then they should be placing high in the local circuit.

OK I lucked out because I just looked at a map but "the local circuit" assuming you mean 10th is barely in the Midwest

I'm not going to ask him, but the thing that seemed most off, to me at least, was pretending like having your students going out, hanging shingles, and failing was an OK thing.

(1) I doubt that very many graduating 3Ls know what's required to hang a shingle (read 3Ls certainly don't know enough to hang a shingle)

(2) Even if you managed to have classes that taught enough Kansas law so that students know where to start for family law matters, wills, &c., would they know shit about marketing? Know how to interact with clients?

(3) Some law schools who focus on this shit have started clinical programs so that their students aren't utterly doomed. I have no idea if Kansas does, but that would be interesting/interesting to hear him claim some sort of value add with.

Outside of that, goddamn I don't understand why people need to piss themselves in excitement at the prospect of making someone in a position of authority look dumb (accomplishing nothing more than pissing themselves in public).

Maybe there should be, like, loan repayment for solos. I bet one DUI pays like six months of rent

utahraptor wrote: Outside of that, goddamn I don't understand why people need to piss themselves in excitement at the prospect of making someone in a position of authority look dumb (accomplishing nothing more than pissing themselves in public).

With respect to the original KU Law thread, I remain entirely indifferent to KU Law, but that thread has certainly caused me to lower my opinion of some of TLS's more frequent participants.

Taking out a shitload of debt when you know you want to be a solo seems like a terrible idea and they probably straight up shouldn't let people. I'm doing the TLS thing where I go on about things I know fuck all about, but, like, unpaid work for a solo seems easy AF to get in theory.

*opens phone book* "Hi, my name is X, can I come do boring things for you that you don't want to, use my school's Westlaw, and let you keep all the money?"

Like, someone might even have to do this more than once, but won't they have to get used to shit like this anyway as a solo? I guess that's not really necessarily worthwhile experience though and this might not be responsive.

I agree with the clinical offerings as selling points thing, but almost more in that universities should be socially responsible, and places like Texas should probably intentionally breed more localized activism because state gov is so fucking wacko and susceptible to industry capture.

People from the Midwest love it. They don't shut up about wherever they're from. I'd think that selling people that don't really want to leave on the idea of keeping their future home from turning into a full-on banana republic might be a good strategy.

Varianz wrote:So to clarify Dean, your position is that LST is not accurate because solos should be counted as a good outcome and it measures results a month early?

Just holy motherfucking QED on the RC level of people on this website

Businesslady wrote:

Varianz wrote:So to clarify Dean, your position is that LST is not accurate because solos should be counted as a good outcome and it measures results a month early?

Just holy motherfucking QED on the RC level of people on this website

But he got'em! He got'em good!

"So, just to clarify your literally-worded post, would you agree with this reductive misstatement of what you said plainly?"

JayhawkLaw wrote:To clarify, I am answering questions about the University of Kansas School of Law.

Hopefully that's clear now.

Boom, headshot. That's what I like to see. Get 'em Steve

Businesslady wrote:

JayhawkLaw wrote:To clarify, I am answering questions about the University of Kansas School of Law.

Hopefully that's clear now.

Boom, headshot. That's what I like to see. Get 'em Steve

are you associated in any way with the school, dean, or the state of Kansas? Nothing related to your comment, just curious...

Did you read my other thread about the idea of transparency and law school? Just curious

cotiger wrote:

Businesslady wrote:

Varianz wrote:So to clarify Dean, your position is that LST is not accurate because solos should be counted as a good outcome and it measures results a month early?

Just holy motherfucking QED on the RC level of people on this website

But he got'em! He got'em good!

the internet is totally rekking this guy. how'd he not see it coming!

Just stop.

Businesslady wrote:Did you read my other thread about the idea of transparency and law school? Just curious

thanks

utahraptor wrote:I'm not going to ask him, but the thing that seemed most off, to me at least, was pretending like having your students going out, hanging shingles, and failing was an OK thing.

(1) I doubt that very many graduating 3Ls know what's required to hang a shingle (read 3Ls certainly don't know enough to hang a shingle)

(2) Even if you managed to have classes that taught enough Kansas law so that students know where to start for family law matters, wills, &c., would they know shit about marketing? Know how to interact with clients?

(3) Some law schools who focus on this shit have started clinical programs so that their students aren't utterly doomed. I have no idea if Kansas does, but that would be interesting/interesting to hear him claim some sort of value add with.

Outside of that, goddamn I don't understand why people need to piss themselves in excitement at the prospect of making someone in a position of authority look dumb (accomplishing nothing more than pissing themselves in public).

Going solo as a 4L is absolutely guaranteed malpractice

Businesslady wrote:Taking out a shitload of debt when you know you want to be a solo seems like a terrible idea and they probably straight up shouldn't let people. I'm doing the TLS thing where I go on about things I know fuck all about, but, like, unpaid work for a solo seems easy AF to get in theory.

*opens phone book* "Hi, my name is X, can I come do boring things for you that you don't want to, use my school's Westlaw, and let you keep all the money?"

Like, someone might even have to do this more than once, but won't they have to get used to shit like this anyway as a solo? I guess that's not really necessarily worthwhile experience though and this might not be responsive.

I think that there are many problems, like (1) most law schools don't teach much local law. You could take family law and never learn your local statutes. That's a problem if you want to apply what you know in a meaningful way. (2) It's going to be very different when you're trying to feed yourself as a solo, compared to being a student who can work for free. People are going to not want to pay you. (3) Building on (2), many of the required skills are law-adjacent rather than things you learn in law school. How do you get a deadbeat client to pay you? How do you negotiate pricing? How do you market yourself? How do you build a niche? Do you actually understand the ethics rules well enough to avoid malpractice? What do you do when you are accused of malpractice?

Just seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The fact that many solos can't hack it should demonstrate that it's an awful idea. Also, the idea that it's beneficial because you can move into firm work is farcical to me. Maybe you have a shot at doing that because you did something legal, or by a miracle you managed to build a book of business, but I don't think anyone is going to be impressed with the legal prowess of some snot-nosed kid.

It also shows what those recent grads would have against them. Would you hire some kid to be your lawyer? Even if they seem bright, would you choose the young-un over the established attorney with a record, with previous clients who can vouch for her work?

I have no idea how people get into that sort of "small law" work. I get the impression you need to find a solo practitioner who is busy and successful and hope that she takes you under her wing long enough that you either learn enough to try your hand at it in earnest, or that you can take over the practice so she can retire/scale down. Not really a sustainable "plan" for anyone, and I don't know how you'd build institutional support for it.

Also, legal zoom, find law, &c.

SBL wrote:Going solo as a 4L is absolutely guaranteed malpractice

which is why I'm kinda shocked that he talks about it as though it's OK

I was more speaking to the utility of working for free in clinics as a student relative to working for free for solos. I still think the clinics should be there, and that they should go extra hard on the state supreme court stuff, because social responsibility. I'm slightly wasted right now and also not the KU dean, but I looked at the faculty website and it looks like at least two specialize in "Practice in Kansas" for what that's worth. I am imagining people going back to their Kansas towns to do wills and shit. I'm both intoxicated and ignorant, but even in more urban areas I don't really see a lot of devastating malpractice claims coming out of fucking up a divorce filing or whatever. Even badly suing debt collectors or filing goofy vexatious ADA claims would just get you hit with, like, sanctions, right? Maybe going to law school in Kansas and basically only taking ethics classes to do this strategy is credited

I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but welcome to TLS. Looking for other people to weigh in here.

I get that "lolno" is the knee-jerk reaction to recent grads going solo, but based on what limited exposure I have to 2Ls and 3Ls, none of them have really greatly considered the possibility. I get that if you take nothing but Law and Cake Baking and never actually have any interest in going solo, you're almost definitely not qualified to go solo, but it seems weird to me to assume that someone in law school with three years "to burn" wouldn't possibly have the ability to work themselves into a spot where they could actually go solo without bringing down the wrath of the state bar.

How masturbatory is this thought process?

edit> sort of call in to SBL

"you'll commit malpractice" is the dumbest fucking refrain on a forum full of dumb refrains

fats provolone wrote:"you'll commit malpractice" is the dumbest fucking refrain on a forum full of dumb refrains

Srs? I can't imagine anyone who stepped out of law school capable of actually lawyering.

twenty wrote:I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but welcome to TLS. Looking for other people to weigh in here.

I get that "lolno" is the knee-jerk reaction to recent grads going solo, but based on what limited exposure I have to 2Ls and 3Ls, none of them have really greatly considered the possibility. I get that if you take nothing but Law and Cake Baking and never actually have any interest in going solo, you're almost definitely not qualified to go solo, but it seems weird to me to assume that someone in law school with three years "to burn" wouldn't possibly have the ability to work themselves into a spot where they could actually go solo without bringing down the wrath of the state bar.

How masturbatory is this thought process?

edit> sort of call in to SBL

In theory you could spend all of law school working with lawyers and probably be ok to do a few things but in my inexpert opinion it's too risky