Is it Unethical to Be a Law Professor at a Very Low Ranked Law School? Forum

[lavarman84]

I can't see how being a law professor at a low ranked school is any more unethical than working at a high-ranked law firm.

*Biglawyers taking a break from helping Megacorp avoid paying taxes to debate the ethics of law professors*

Haha. I thought the same as you two.

[JazzOne]

I advocate for change regarding issues that seem unfair to me (e.g., law schools' failure to prepare students for bar exams).

I am irritated that my school (ranked #1 in the state) was outperformed on the most recent bar exam by the 2nd and 3rd ranked law schools in the state. Lower ranked schools seem to be less pompous about teaching students how to pass the bar. I think that the licensure process for doctors makes much more sense than that for lawyers. The MBE should be taken immediately after 1L.

Fine if you want to offer a few bar-focused courses, but I would have been annoyed if you made me study a bunch of bar junk because a few of the bottom feeders might fail the bar.

If you didn't pass the bar, there are basically 3 possibilities:

1) You didn't study properly in the 2 months before
2) Random fluke (panic attack, had the flu, computer exploded)
3) You have no business practicing law

I'm fairly confident most students at top schools could pass the bar with an intensive 3-month class without going to law school.

I never proposed making bar prep classes mandatory. But I do find it objectionable that law school costs so much and takes 3 years to complete, yet students are required to spend extra money and time learning the material to become licensed. That reality bothers me even more considering the following impression of law school curricula:

- You don't need 3 years to get the gist of what law school wants you get into your head. Honestly, everything seems to be a repetition of what you learn over 1L, or, hell, over the first semester.
- You're paying way too much for the education you're getting.

A law school graduate should not have to spend another several thousand bucks on bar prep (after shelling out a fortune for law school) when the final year of law school is a blow-off joke anyway. Bar prep classes should not be structured like 1L courses either. Bar prep classes should cover the entire gamut of MBE questions, and they should teach testing strategies in addition to BLL. Not all students need or want this, but the ones that do should not have to turn to a private company.

[JazzOne]

I advocate for change regarding issues that seem unfair to me (e.g., law schools' failure to prepare students for bar exams).

I am irritated that my school (ranked #1 in the state) was outperformed on the most recent bar exam by the 2nd and 3rd ranked law schools in the state. Lower ranked schools seem to be less pompous about teaching students how to pass the bar. I think that the licensure process for doctors makes much more sense than that for lawyers. The MBE should be taken immediately after 1L.

Fine if you want to offer a few bar-focused courses, but I would have been annoyed if you made me study a bunch of bar junk because a few of the bottom feeders might fail the bar.

If you didn't pass the bar, there are basically 3 possibilities:

1) You didn't study properly in the 2 months before
2) Random fluke (panic attack, had the flu, computer exploded)
3) You have no business practicing law

I'm fairly confident most students at top schools could pass the bar with an intensive 3-month class without going to law school.

I have worked with more than a dozen people who passed the bar after failing it one or more times. Not everything can be generalized so easily. Some of my clients were smart folks (with really poor testing skills) who went on to become successful attorneys. One of them is doing very well at a big law firm.

[JazzOne]

Uh when weighing my decision to go to law school, employment statistics and bar passage rate were the most important factors for me. Arguably, I could have added financial risk to the top as well. Everything else was an added plus.

I doubt most people here don't look at employment stats as a factor.

Fair enough. But I never said that people don't look at employment stats. I said they don't rely on them. I looked at them. And before I put down my deposit, I decided that law school was way too expensive to justify the risks. And then I went to law school anyway. I know many current and former law students who saw the poor statistics and assumed they could buck the trend.

[JazzOne]

Yeah, absolutely agree. My lower T1 has a 90+% passage rate and offers no bar courses - it's on the student. Nothing about the bar is relevant for practice, anyway, except the fact of passing it.

And I definitely considered employment stats. Unfortunately for me this was pre-LST and the stats were less than helpful, but especially now it's totally on the student to consider the stats.

The bar passage rate in my state is around 70%, so bar prep is a bigger deal here than in most states. I work with a significant number of clients who have job offers but have not passed the bar exam. That situation is probably much rarer in states with higher passage rates and smaller legal markets.

Also, the teaching model utilized by BARBRI and Kaplan does not incorporate best teaching practices, and it completely ignores alternate learning styles. That model of teaching is adequate for many people, but there is also a particular type of student that is poorly served by that model. And I would argue that "adequacy" is not the appropriate standard for such an expensive product. I also expect bar prep providers to be efficient and responsive to the needs of individual students, which they are not.

[zot1]

Uh when weighing my decision to go to law school, employment statistics and bar passage rate were the most important factors for me. Arguably, I could have added financial risk to the top as well. Everything else was an added plus.

I doubt most people here don't look at employment stats as a factor.

Fair enough. But I never said that people don't look at employment stats. I said they don't rely on them. I looked at them. And before I put down my deposit, I decided that law school was way too expensive to justify the risks. And then I went to law school anyway. I know many current and former law students who saw the poor statistics and assumed they could buck the trend.

I meant people do rely on them. That's why they look at the them and use them as a factor. Going to a school with an 80% employment rate is always better than going to one with only 40% (I'm over simplifying employment rates for sake of argument since how the rates break down is also important).

[JazzOne]

Uh when weighing my decision to go to law school, employment statistics and bar passage rate were the most important factors for me. Arguably, I could have added financial risk to the top as well. Everything else was an added plus.

I doubt most people here don't look at employment stats as a factor.

Fair enough. But I never said that people don't look at employment stats. I said they don't rely on them. I looked at them. And before I put down my deposit, I decided that law school was way too expensive to justify the risks. And then I went to law school anyway. I know many current and former law students who saw the poor statistics and assumed they could buck the trend.

I meant people do rely on them. That's why they look at the them and use them as a factor. Going to a school with an 80% employment rate is always better than going to one with only 40% (I'm over simplifying employment rates for sake of argument since how the rates break down is also important).

It is easy to compare the employment statistics of various schools. And it is easy to compare tuition costs. But it is infinitely more difficult to analyze those statistics together to come up with a cost/benefit analysis for each school. How much more should I be willing to pay for a school with 10% better employment? Once the analysis becomes that complex, I think most people just give up and go with their desire. Surely you know people who attended law school despite serious reservations.

[zot1]

Uh when weighing my decision to go to law school, employment statistics and bar passage rate were the most important factors for me. Arguably, I could have added financial risk to the top as well. Everything else was an added plus.

I doubt most people here don't look at employment stats as a factor.

Fair enough. But I never said that people don't look at employment stats. I said they don't rely on them. I looked at them. And before I put down my deposit, I decided that law school was way too expensive to justify the risks. And then I went to law school anyway. I know many current and former law students who saw the poor statistics and assumed they could buck the trend.

I meant people do rely on them. That's why they look at the them and use them as a factor. Going to a school with an 80% employment rate is always better than going to one with only 40% (I'm over simplifying employment rates for sake of argument since how the rates break down is also important).

It is easy to compare the employment statistics of various schools. And it is easy to compare tuition costs. But it is infinitely more difficult to analyze those statistics together to come up with a cost/benefit analysis for each school. How much more should I be willing to pay for a school with 10% better employment than another school? Once the analysis becomes that complex, I think most people just give up and go with their desire. Surely you know people who attended law school despite serious reservations about the cost.

Surely I do, but cost reservations is an entirely different conversation Employment statistics are still part of the equation. What the applicants desire might also mean a school to give them better options despite cost.

[Anonymous User]

Law professor here (T1). I don't feel unethical at all. The world's a tough place. I've been kicked in the teeth more times than I care to recall. My job is tough, and I work hard. I advocate for change regarding issues that seem unfair to me (e.g., law schools' failure to prepare students for bar exams). But TLS, Scamblog, and the Transparency Project have been around for years at this point. Anyone who takes out huge loans for law school in 2016 has either failed to do adequate research or decided to take the risk anyway. Life's tough in the big city. Some people aren't as smart as they think they are.

Having said that, I work at a super-regional school. I don't know how I would feel if I worked at a law school with a poor ranking. I am irritated that my school (ranked #1 in the state) was outperformed on the most recent bar exam by the 2nd and 3rd ranked law schools in the state. Lower ranked schools seem to be less pompous about teaching students how to pass the bar. I think that the licensure process for doctors makes much more sense than that for lawyers. The MBE should be taken immediately after 1L.

It's interesting that you "advocate for change regarding issues that seem unfair to me", yet don't consider institutional grifting to be a problem. I suppose it makes sense that you wouldn't care about advocating for lower tuition and greater transparency, since you directly benefit from the law school racket. Look, if you enjoy teaching and don't really care about the potentially ruinous levels of debt your students are borrowing, that's fine. Just be honest with yourself instead of chalking up institutional problems as life being tough in the "big city" (whatever the hell that means)

I only consider it to be "grifting" if the schools were ginning up their employment statistics. Some schools were undoubtedly doing that, but I don't think my T1 law school engaged in that kind of practice. Also, I readily admitted that I might feel differently if I were teaching at a lower-ranked school. I enjoy teaching very much (you are right about that), and because I enjoy it so much, I go out of my way to help my students above and beyond the requirements of my employment. Against my own interests, I have steered dozens of people (on this forum and clients of mine) away from attending law school.

But some of the perceived problems are just sour grapes because entitled law school students don't always get big law or whatever other unrealistic outcomes they dream up. Let's be honest here. How many of us actually relied on employment statistics when choosing to go to law school? I didn't. I knew I was taking a huge gamble, and I didn't get the outcome I wanted. That's life in the big city, and I don't blame my law school for my failure to heed the warnings.

You and I agree that there are institutional problems in legal academia. I am just concerned about different problems from the ones that bother you. That doesn't make me un-conscientious. The biggest problem from my perspective is my school's failure to prepare students for the bar exam. I make a lot of noise about that problem, and my school is starting to take the issue more seriously. If you see a different problem, why don't you do something about it instead of being an asshole to me (whatever the hell that's accomplishing)?

I didn't mean to come off as an asshole. My post was merely a reaction to your rather flippant view on a pretty serious issue. A large portion of millennials will be burdened with outrageous debt for most of their lives. Obviously, there are many causes for this, and perhaps many law students are partially to blame for choosing to go to law school (or an expensive undergrad) in the first place. However, do law school professors and administrators also deserve some share of the blame by serving as cogs in a broken system? It's an interesting question. I'm not necessarily saying ALL professors are unethical, but perhaps you might concede that a professor at Thomas Jefferson Law (where 80% of grads never find employment in the legal profession) is helping facilitate a scam?

On a personal note, I go to a T20 and have had a good law school experience so far. I've enjoyed my classes and professors, and landed a job through OCI. But on some level, I recognize how absurd and overpriced the system is, and feel for the many students who are attending at sticker and will graduate with 200k of debt (and probably never be able to own a home, pay for their kids' college, etc). Just because things have worked out for me so far doesn't immunize me from the reality that there are systemic issues with law school.

[Moneytrees]

Accidental anon, the above post is mine.

[Lettow]

You can go down the rabbit hole of "cogs in the system" using certain viewpoints to say everyone in the United States is unethical for not renouncing their citizenship, because the system they support through taxes contributes to despair in other places in the world. I don't believe this is true, but it's equally as valid as thinking law professors are unethical for pursuing academia and happening to end up in a T4 law school.

I think it's a ridiculous argument made by people who want to lash out at the "system" and anyone with any connection to that system. Calling some poor admin assistant unethical because she works the front desk at a T4...

[Genius]

You can go down the rabbit hole of "cogs in the system" using certain viewpoints to say everyone in the United States is unethical for not renouncing their citizenship, because the system they support through taxes contributes to despair in other places in the world. I don't believe this is true, but it's equally as valid as thinking law professors are unethical for pursuing academia and happening to end up in a T4 law school.

I think it's a ridiculous argument made by people who want to lash out at the "system" and anyone with any connection to that system. Calling some poor admin assistant unethical because she works the front desk at a T4...

Pretty sure everyone agrees w this minus a few salts who keep bumping this thread.

[Anonymous User]

You can go down the rabbit hole of "cogs in the system" using certain viewpoints to say everyone in the United States is unethical for not renouncing their citizenship, because the system they support through taxes contributes to despair in other places in the world. I don't believe this is true, but it's equally as valid as thinking law professors are unethical for pursuing academia and happening to end up in a T4 law school.

I think it's a ridiculous argument made by people who want to lash out at the "system" and anyone with any connection to that system. Calling some poor admin assistant unethical because she works the front desk at a T4...

It is by definition not "equally as valid" because a professor at a TTT has far greater say in the organization's admissions policies and marketing materials than an admin assistant does, or than the average citizen has in setting government policy. If you are making $220k teaching torts at a TTT you ought to be aware that (1) you likely do not have the option of teaching at Harvard (2) that your cushy salary is directly funded by the crippling debt of the half of the class that pays tuition, which is the same half that won't get jobs, and that (3) you together with a few of your colleagues can probably effectuate at least some change.

Additionally, just because the existence of prisons is inevitable doesn't mean there are no moral implications to working as a prison guard.

[JazzOne]

I didn't mean to come off as an asshole. My post was merely a reaction to your rather flippant view on a pretty serious issue. A large portion of millennials will be burdened with outrageous debt for most of their lives. Obviously, there are many causes for this, and perhaps many law students are partially to blame for choosing to go to law school (or an expensive undergrad) in the first place. However, do law school professors and administrators also deserve some share of the blame by serving as cogs in a broken system? It's an interesting question. I'm not necessarily saying ALL professors are unethical, but perhaps you might concede that a professor at Thomas Jefferson Law (where 80% of grads never find employment in the legal profession) is helping facilitate a scam?

Let me try to understand your position a little better.

What conduct by low-ranked law schools do you find unethical? In the past, I think employment statistics were reported in a misleading manner. But there seems to be much greater transparency today, so I question whether that is still a problem. The other basis of your argument seems to be affordability. What responsibility do law schools have to provide affordable access to legal training? My answer depends heavily on whether the school is public or private, but it's a complicated question either way.

Assuming law schools are engaging in unethical conduct, why do you think the responsibility flows down to the professors, who make none of the administrative decisions? Professors have no way to verify employment statistics. They are too busy creating lesson plans, teaching classes, and publishing law review articles. The academic market is very competitive, and professors have little influence over the administration. Furthermore, professors should feel justified in relying on the oversight of the Justice Department, the ABA, and the state bar associations. Those institutions are tasked with regulating the administration of law schools, not the professoriat.

[Moneytrees]

I didn't mean to come off as an asshole. My post was merely a reaction to your rather flippant view on a pretty serious issue. A large portion of millennials will be burdened with outrageous debt for most of their lives. Obviously, there are many causes for this, and perhaps many law students are partially to blame for choosing to go to law school (or an expensive undergrad) in the first place. However, do law school professors and administrators also deserve some share of the blame by serving as cogs in a broken system? It's an interesting question. I'm not necessarily saying ALL professors are unethical, but perhaps you might concede that a professor at Thomas Jefferson Law (where 80% of grads never find employment in the legal profession) is helping facilitate a scam?

Let me try to understand your position a little better.

What conduct by low-ranked law schools do you find unethical? In the past, I think employment statistics were reported in a misleading manner. But there seems to be much greater transparency today, so I question whether that is still a problem. The other basis of your argument seems to be affordability. What responsibility do law schools have to provide affordable access to legal training? My answer depends heavily on whether the school is public or private, but it's a complicated question either way.

Assuming law schools are engaging in unethical conduct, why do you think the responsibility flows down to the professors, who make none of the administrative decisions? Professors have no way to verify employment statistics. They are too busy creating lesson plans, teaching classes, and publishing law review articles. The academic market is very competitive, and professors have little influence over the administration. Furthermore, professors should feel justified in relying on the oversight of the Justice Department, the ABA, and the state bar associations. Those institutions are tasked with regulating the administration of law schools, not the professoriat.

Many low-ranked schools are a complete and utter scam. I find almost everything those schools do ethically objectionable.

First, those schools (and many top schools) obfuscate their real employment stats as much as they can (one common tactic is to advertise artificially high employment scores that include those students who are employed by the school or in a non-legal capacity). Secondly, low ranked schools prey on students who have LSAT scores in the low 140s and who are not likely to pass the bar exam. They offer a large portion of their incoming classes "merit" scholarships, knowing that a majority of the students will lose their scholarships after 1L year. Many of these students have a low socioeconomic status, which makes them especially vulnerable to advertising tricks ("X school was ranked n.3 in IP Law!") and complex scholarship arrangements. I'm glad you brought up the ABA, because ultimately, I believe the ABA and the Justice Department are responsible for the proliferation of these scam institutions. No school with a bar passage rate/employment rate of less than 20% should be accredited.

You seem to assume that I blame professors for the unethical conduct of law schools. This would be incorrect. I never claimed that professors are unethical, per se. As you mentioned, academia is extremely competitive, and I think it would be unfair to castigate a young academic for accepting a position at a low-ranked law school. However, I do think that by virtue of being in a position of power in law schools, professors have a ethical duty to try to fix the institutional problems that currently plague the legal field. I know that is a vague statement, and you may disagree with it, but I stand by it. You assert that "professors have little influence over the administration" and that professors are "too busy" to do much other than teach, but I think those are BS excuses, honestly. Professors have plenty of influence and time. Do you really believe that if professors aggressively lobbied the ABA for a better accreditation process, more affordable tuition, and greater transparency, this would accomplish nothing?

Ultimately, most professors are simply unwilling to put in the effort to try to reform the legal field. That doesn't mean they are unethical, though.

[Anonymous User]

Anon because easy to piece things together based on my posts.

Last year, I taught at a local non-ABA-accredited school. It was absolutely jarring in so many respects. It's a whole different world.

To summarize, I'd say about all but a handful of their few hundred students have no business trying to become lawyers. They simply don't have the intellectual ability or drive. I say this as someone who did mediocrely at a mediocre T1. The work product I saw from all but a couple students was jaw-dropping. Their inability to understand the most basic concepts was depressing. It's no surprise their bar pass rate is 20-30% for first timers, in the single digits for everyone else.

The entire administration is either deceptively trying to scam people or woefully naive (or both). They love to emphasize that they are an "opportunity school," meaning most of their students wouldn't be able to go to law school anywhere else. (For the reasons I explained above, there is a very good reason why.) They unabashedly focus on veterans, because there are a lot in this part of the country...and that sweet, sweet GI bill. They have skewed stats on their website that are so misleading on their face that it'd be hilarious if it weren't causing people to go six figures in debt with no chance of becoming a lawyer. At staff meetings, there were blatant discussions on how "to best represent the school's employment stats." The dean and senior admin people flagrantly lie to staff, students, accreditors, etc. My friend and I always joke about how the place is a billion dollar FCA suit waiting to happen.

Since learning about how the school operates, I've refused to be involved with it. There are maybe one or two students every year or so who end up doing okay, but they all loathe the school and consider themselves scammed despite landing on their feet. It is a complete and utter scam for the rest of its students. I feel disgusting for having been a part of it. Anyone who works there is guilty.

[Lettow]

You can go down the rabbit hole of "cogs in the system" using certain viewpoints to say everyone in the United States is unethical for not renouncing their citizenship, because the system they support through taxes contributes to despair in other places in the world. I don't believe this is true, but it's equally as valid as thinking law professors are unethical for pursuing academia and happening to end up in a T4 law school.

I think it's a ridiculous argument made by people who want to lash out at the "system" and anyone with any connection to that system. Calling some poor admin assistant unethical because she works the front desk at a T4...

It is by definition not "equally as valid" because a professor at a TTT has far greater say in the organization's admissions policies and marketing materials than an admin assistant does, or than the average citizen has in setting government policy. If you are making $220k teaching torts at a TTT you ought to be aware that (1) you likely do not have the option of teaching at Harvard (2) that your cushy salary is directly funded by the crippling debt of the half of the class that pays tuition, which is the same half that won't get jobs, and that (3) you together with a few of your colleagues can probably effectuate at least some change.

Additionally, just because the existence of prisons is inevitable doesn't mean there are no moral implications to working as a prison guard.

Sure it is. You're proposing someone should organize resistance. You then call this person immoral (to some degree) for not organizing resistance, because his/her organization or institution negatively contributes to something. This applies to literally anything except maybe a few non-profits.

You're trying to narrow the circumstances to justify your irrational dislike for a particular group.

[delusional]

You can go down the rabbit hole of "cogs in the system" using certain viewpoints to say everyone in the United States is unethical for not renouncing their citizenship, because the system they support through taxes contributes to despair in other places in the world. I don't believe this is true, but it's equally as valid as thinking law professors are unethical for pursuing academia and happening to end up in a T4 law school.

I think it's a ridiculous argument made by people who want to lash out at the "system" and anyone with any connection to that system. Calling some poor admin assistant unethical because she works the front desk at a T4...

It is by definition not "equally as valid" because a professor at a TTT has far greater say in the organization's admissions policies and marketing materials than an admin assistant does, or than the average citizen has in setting government policy. If you are making $220k teaching torts at a TTT you ought to be aware that (1) you likely do not have the option of teaching at Harvard (2) that your cushy salary is directly funded by the crippling debt of the half of the class that pays tuition, which is the same half that won't get jobs, and that (3) you together with a few of your colleagues can probably effectuate at least some change.

Additionally, just because the existence of prisons is inevitable doesn't mean there are no moral implications to working as a prison guard.

Sure it is. You're proposing someone should organize resistance. You then call this person immoral (to some degree) for not organizing resistance, because his/her organization or institution negatively contributes to something. This applies to literally anything except maybe a few non-profits.

You're trying to narrow the circumstances to justify your irrational dislike for a particular group.

I don't know why my post above was anonymous, but that was me.

You are trying to make it black and white when it is varying shades of gray. I am saying that people who profit directly and significantly off of the charade that Texas Southern University Law School is kind of like Harvard but understands that you don't have time to study for the LSAT, should realize that what they are doing is immoral. I am not saying that every person who works for an organization which as ever done anything unethical must quit immediately or is deserving of death.

If you want to get lawyerly about it, we can set out the factors to be weighed in analyzing whether it is moral to hold a particular position in a particular organization: (1) location of the position within the hierarchy, (2) relationship between the duties associated with the position and the organization's immoral conduct, and (3) egregiousness and frequency of the organization's immoral conduct.

[Lettow]

You are trying to make it black and white when it is varying shades of gray. I am saying that people who profit directly and significantly off of the charade that Texas Southern University Law School is kind of like Harvard but understands that you don't have time to study for the LSAT, should realize that what they are doing is immoral. I am not saying that every person who works for an organization which as ever done anything unethical must quit immediately or is deserving of death.

If you want to get lawyerly about it, we can set out the factors to be weighed in analyzing whether it is moral to hold a particular position in a particular organization: (1) location of the position within the hierarchy, (2) relationship between the duties associated with the position and the organization's immoral conduct, and (3) egregiousness and frequency of the organization's immoral conduct.

But people "profit directly and significantly off of the charade that [X] is" in every organization. The administrative assistants profit directly and significantly. The cleaning and maintenance crews do, too.

I think your argument has some merit for leadership positions, but not employees. Professors, however, lack authority to make decisions on school tuition. They could, as you said, revolt, but so could any employee in any organization.