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

[Johann]

Also with PAYE now, a large debt load doesn't really even count as debt. There's no reason to pay it off if your salary is not high, so taking on high education debt is basically just agreeing to a small wage garment for 25 years. Not so different from Harvard or Yale or whoever program where instead of up front tuition you pay 1% of lifetime earnings.

Low ranked schools pump out graduates that are frankly more practice prepared than the top law schools. They are more prepared to deal with crazies that need help with their slip n fall, file standard bankruptcy forms, etc etc. Only difference is the govt/lib voters feel the burden of providing this should fall on the tax payers. Hate the game not the player

yeah agree for the most part.

profs at low ranked schools are subsidized by the govt because the govt has made the policy decision to promote education as a public good (even to those deemed "dumb" by those on this board - many of which come from poor backgrounds or speak english as a 2nd language). because of PAYE, it's not really praying on dumbs anymore, so im okay with the profs and have a little bit of beef with some schools but meh.

[kaysta]

It's unethical to be a law professor at a high ranked school and get paid half a mil funded by students tuition.

[Rahviveh]

Who cares? Most of them are pathetic, ugly losers who would never survive in a real job. Paul Campos is an exception (and a national hero).

[Boxerman]

Someone else will do it if you don't. If you go teach at a TTT and educate the students to the best of your ability, then it's not remotely unethical. If you coast off your resume and do fuck all, then it's totally unethical. Considering all professors fall within those two bounds, I'd say the answer is generally no. You can spin the existence of terrible schools as schools that give less fortunate people the chance to become a lawyer, if you wanted.

[pancakes3]

Someone else will do it if you don't. If you go teach at a TTT and educate the students to the best of your ability, then it's not remotely unethical. If you coast off your resume and do fuck all, then it's totally unethical. Considering all professors fall within those two bounds, I'd say the answer is generally no. You can spin the existence of terrible schools as schools that give less fortunate people the chance to become a lawyer, if you wanted.

So it's not unethical as long as you're just following orders?

[Clyde Frog]

Who cares? Most of them are pathetic, ugly losers who would never survive in a real job. Paul Campos is an exception (and a national hero).

Paul Campos is the rawest mutha fucka on TLS. I'd place any amount of money on him kicking the shit out of anyone here.

[hiversitize]

Someone else will do it if you don't. If you go teach at a TTT and educate the students to the best of your ability, then it's not remotely unethical. If you coast off your resume and do fuck all, then it's totally unethical. Considering all professors fall within those two bounds, I'd say the answer is generally no. You can spin the existence of terrible schools as schools that give less fortunate people the chance to become a lawyer, if you wanted.

This doesn't really make sense. The core of the problem is that these schools are akin to payday loan and subprime loan rackets: they entice people who shouldn't be getting a given product/service into paying lots of money for that product/service, which leaves them in a worse position than when they began. You can try all you want as a prof at these schools, but the fact is that the system is taking massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, saddling people with debt that they statistically don't have a prayer of paying off, and foisting highly underqualified lawyers into the legal market to protect and look after the most important interests (money and familial rights) of many peoples' lives. "Coasting off your resume" and not trying is universally unethical for a law professor, but being paid by student loan dollars while taking part in a system that separates people from their money with no statistically likely return on investment seems facially unethical for profs at very low ranked schools. To be clear, it seems blanket unethical to be a law prof at one of these schools, regardless of your effort level.

Also, these terrible schools are not a legitimate chance for less fortunate people to become lawyers. They generally take in people who should not ever be lawyers, regardless of their life's fortune. Their test scores and GPAs are abysmal. Rather, they are giving ignorant or misinformed people the chance to take out lots of loans and hand that money over to unworthy educational institutions. This is a very raw deal.

[JazzOne]

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.

[Moneytrees]

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)

[UVA2B]

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)

Rare quality necro. Kudos.

[Anonymous User]

No, not necessarily.

My father was a professor at a TTT for a long time. He went out of his way to do pro bono work for students with C&F issues, to help students in and out of the classroom, etc. He consistently helped his students find internships and jobs in their geographical area of choice. Many, MANY, law students and lawyers at said school owe their careers to him. I look at it as he helped his students make the best of their situation (being at a super regional TTT) and helped them channel their interests and find jobs that would help to pay off debt and turn into fulfilling careers. I don't see that as unethical at all.

I will say, it's a very regional TTT in a small city but in an overall rural area, and a very large amount of the students who go there simply need a law degree to go work in their father's/grandfather's/uncle's/aunt's/whoever's law practice. The school has churned out many successful attorneys, but many of those attorneys had jobs lined up before they set foot on campus.

[squishylawstudent321]

What is our definition of "very low ranked"? Anything ranked above 100?

[JazzOne]

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)?

[Milksteak]

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.

[AJordan]

Not trolling. Do you find it problematic pointing to incoming student responsibility when it comes to choosing to go to law school but then creating a perception of disingenuous teamwork by railing against a problem that could likely be solved by the same student's diligence? An instructor at a T20 really worried about this? What about CSO effectiveness? That seems to be a much bigger problem for T20 schools these days. Anecdotally, sure, but doing my due diligence.

[JazzOne]

Not trolling. Do you find it problematic pointing to incoming student responsibility when it comes to choosing to go to law school but then creating a perception of disingenuous teamwork by railing against a problem that could likely be solved by the same student's diligence? An instructor at a T20 really worried about this? What about CSO effectiveness? That seems to be a much bigger problem for T20 schools these days. Anecdotally, sure, but doing my due diligence.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if I'm interpreting you correctly, I don't think those positions are inconsistent or mutually exclusive. It is perfectly reasonable to expect adults to conduct more than cursory research when making 6-figure decisions. And it is also reasonable to expect our state universities to charge affordable tuition and provide accurate employment data.

I was pretty happy with the work of my school's CSO, so I'm not sure about the need for improvement there.

[TheoO]

Just trying to see if I'm following based on the discussion topic. Are you arguing that a law professor can make up for their ethical culpability in teaching at a low ranked school that offers abysmal career prospects and sends unqualified attorneys out into the world by putting max effort into their job and attempting to mitigate at least the latter situation?

I'm just pushing back on the "law school teaches you nothing and provides no added value" half-joke

Yea, but this is rarely the argument people make, The arguments are generally:
- 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.

[TLSaul2001]

I don't really think so. I went to a TTT and the highest paid professor made $380,000 a year (he'd been there for almost 30 years) to teach 2 classes a semester. Guy was living the dream.

[nealric]

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.

[zot1]

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)?

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.

[trebekismyhero]

I think it really depends on the low ranked law school and what the professor is doing in addition to teaching. If it is a true dumpster fire like the Infilaw schools or really any school where students are going into $200k in debt on avg with less than 50% employment then that is unethical probably no matter what.

If a professor is at a low ranked school that isn't quite like that and does everything they can to help their students find employment and gives advice beyond just what they're teaching then I wouldn't find that unethical.

[trebekismyhero]

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.

Totally agree with nealric. I didn't take several courses that the bar exam covered and learning in bar prep was plenty.

[nealric]

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.

Totally agree with nealric. I didn't take several courses that the bar exam covered and learning in bar prep was plenty.

Yeah, my state had ~21 subjects (depending on how you count unique subjects) and I think I had taken about seven of them. Even on the ones that I had taken, my profs mostly pontificated on their pet academic theories rather than teaching black letter law. It was slightly stress inducing during the bar study period to have to learn everything from scratch, but in the end it wasn't a problem at all.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

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*

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

Totally agree with nealric. I didn't take several courses that the bar exam covered and learning in bar prep was plenty.

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.