Top Law Schools

My friends and I have recently been discussing whether it is ethical to be a law professor at a very low ranked law school. This quandary comes from two sources. First, these schools generally have absolutely atrocious employment prospects. As such, law professors are directly taking part in a system that saddles students with large quantities of debt while giving most of them no method of utilizing their law degree to pay off that debt upon graduation. Second, these schools have incredibly low admission standards in terms of grades and test scores, which are used as surrogates for assessing student ability. Thus, law professors are also directly involved with the bestowal of law degrees and the churning out of attorneys who perhaps shouldn't be practicing law to begin with and will not provide good or even adequate service to their clients. I believe these concerns apply to fields outside of law as well, but law school seems like a very good example through which to explore them. Would love to hear others' thoughts about this.

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

There's no winning in this situation.

Note to self: become a professor at high ranked school.

.

I also posted this on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/academia/comme ... _very_low/

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Obviously you attended a school that failed to teach you to think like a law professor lawyer.

I think choosing to teach at Arizona State is a fine choice as long as you cop a beej or two from the locals

Paul Campos wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Obviously you attended a school that failed to teach you to think like a law professor lawyer.

It might be because I was, and still am, an idiot, but most of my law professors have made me smarter than I was when I first entered law school. Part of it might have been the process, but at least for me, the teaching and education wasn't ineffective.

Paul Campos wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Obviously you attended a school that failed to teach you to think like a law professor lawyer.

I mean, you can't put a price of studying under the sage tutelage of THE Brian Leiter.

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Paul Campos wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Obviously you attended a school that failed to teach you to think like a law professor lawyer.

It might be because I was, and still am, an idiot, but most of my law professors have made me smarter than I was when I first entered law school. Part of it might have been the process, but at least for me, the teaching and education wasn't ineffective.

Like, $200k smarter, or like, I-don't-stick-my-fork-in-the-wall-socket-anymore smarter?

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Paul Campos wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Obviously you attended a school that failed to teach you to think like a law professor lawyer.

It might be because I was, and still am, an idiot, but most of my law professors have made me smarter than I was when I first entered law school. Part of it might have been the process, but at least for me, the teaching and education wasn't ineffective.

Like, $200k smarter, or like, I-don't-stick-my-fork-in-the-wall-socket-anymore smarter?

Certainly not $200k smarter, which is why nobody should go to any law school without substabtial scholarship/financial aid or at least family support. I do want to respond substantively by saying that law professors do add value though. At least, the ones who are good teachers, which is not always synonymous with ~genius legal scholar~.

You do have to have an open mind though. If you think you know everything, then law school will not do anything for you. I used to be lazy and dumb, but now I appreciate attention to detail and nuance so in that way I'm less dumb. I'm wrong a lot in law school and I learned how to learn from being wrong. I learned how to adequately explain and express things without making conclusory statements. In terms of practical skills, I'm a much better reader and writer. Of course, I was an abysmal reader and writer coming in so that's not saying much.

None of this is worth $200k, but it's not a waste of 3 years if you don't let it be.

I've never stuck my fork in a socket so with no baseline with which to compare we have to accept the null hypothesis.

many excellent lawyers come from bottom of the barrel or even unaccredited colleges

If someone is dumb enough to overpay that's on them and is no different than dumbs paying $200k for an english degree at random Liberal Arts College or $100k for a year of some made up trade program at For Profit U. Blame the govt. guaranteeing loans for that

pancakes3 wrote:I've never stuck my fork in a socket so with no baseline with which to compare we have to accept the null hypothesis.

nerd

ballouttacontrol wrote:many excellent lawyers come from bottom of the barrel or even unaccredited colleges

If someone is dumb enough to overpay that's on them and is no different than dumbs paying $200k for an english degree at random Liberal Arts College or $100k for a year of some made up trade program at For Profit U. Blame the govt. guaranteeing loans for that

I blame the government for covering the full cost of grad degrees for people with sub 3.0 UG GPAs and a 143 on the LSAT. This is the problem. These schools wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government footing the bill. Make people pay for their degree or perform well enough to get scholarships. The government is ruining higher education by allowing people to go into this kind of debt for shiTTTTy schools and dismal employment prospects.

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Paul Campos wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

hiversitize wrote:

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

This brings up the issue of being heavily compensated by student debt and taxpayer dollars, but it seems as though at a highly ranked school the professor is at least part of a system that is providing something in return for students' investments, and the students are in turn being put in positions where they are capable of paying off their loans from taxpayers. That isn't the case with very low ranked schools.

Firms hire students from good schools because they come in already capable; the professors don't provide any value-add financially.

Obviously you attended a school that failed to teach you to think like a law professor lawyer.

It might be because I was, and still am, an idiot, but most of my law professors have made me smarter than I was when I first entered law school. Part of it might have been the process, but at least for me, the teaching and education wasn't ineffective.

Like, $200k smarter, or like, I-don't-stick-my-fork-in-the-wall-socket-anymore smarter?

Certainly not $200k smarter, which is why nobody should go to any law school without substabtial scholarship/financial aid or at least family support. I do want to respond substantively by saying that law professors do add value though. At least, the ones who are good teachers, which is not always synonymous with ~genius legal scholar~.

You do have to have an open mind though. If you think you know everything, then law school will not do anything for you. I used to be lazy and dumb, but now I appreciate attention to detail and nuance so in that way I'm less dumb. I'm wrong a lot in law school and I learned how to learn from being wrong. I learned how to adequately explain and express things without making conclusory statements. In terms of practical skills, I'm a much better reader and writer. Of course, I was an abysmal reader and writer coming in so that's not saying much.

None of this is worth $200k, but it's not a waste of 3 years if you don't let it be.

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?

Anonymous User wrote:

ballouttacontrol wrote:many excellent lawyers come from bottom of the barrel or even unaccredited colleges

If someone is dumb enough to overpay that's on them and is no different than dumbs paying $200k for an english degree at random Liberal Arts College or $100k for a year of some made up trade program at For Profit U. Blame the govt. guaranteeing loans for that

I blame the government for covering the full cost of grad degrees for people with sub 3.0 UG GPAs and a 143 on the LSAT. This is the problem. These schools wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government footing the bill. Make people pay for their degree or perform well enough to get scholarships. The government is ruining higher education by allowing people to go into this kind of debt for shiTTTTy schools and dismal employment prospects.

I think the gov. definitely has a role here. It should not be so easy to get funding for a degree that offers the person taking the loan almost no reasonable avenue for paying it back using the degree that was earned. I think the number of law schools and class sizes should be curtailed and federal education loans, at least for legal studies, should not be so liberally dispensed. The gov.'s culpability, however, doesn't seems to alleviate that of law professors at low ranked schools who are also part of systems that saddle individuals with debt, cost taxpayers, and produce a good amount of lawyers who probly shouldn't be lawyers.

ballouttacontrol wrote:many excellent lawyers come from bottom of the barrel or even unaccredited colleges

Certainly, but most who come from bottom-of-the-barrel and unaccredited schools are far from excellent, and they have debt that they likely can't pay off, or will struggle mightily to pay off, using their law degree. This is just a matter of numbers. While there are always outliers, they do not validate the system.

Counterpoing: The "qualifications" threshold might be useful for the legal market where supply outstrips demand but what about the medical field where it's essentially at equilibrium? Requiring an "industry-by-industry" examination of what applicants are subject to a threshold and then the bigger problem of determining what that threshold should be - is probably outside the capabilities of government.

hiversitize wrote: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

hiversitize wrote:

ballouttacontrol wrote:many excellent lawyers come from bottom of the barrel or even unaccredited colleges

Certainly, but most who come from bottom-of-the-barrel and unaccredited schools are far from excellent, and they have debt that they likely can't pay off, or will struggle mightily to pay off, using their law degree. This is just a matter of numbers. While there are always outliers, they do not validate the system.

Exactly - every TTT graduates a couple people a year who will have long successful careers as attorneys. But that doesn't justify that the entire model is based on the 99% of the class who will not, and who are charged large amounts of money that the school knows they are borrowing on a non-dischargable basis. It is a monumental injustice. It is unfathomable to me why state attorneys general are not all over this, and other academic scams like it. My best guess is that it's because the differences between legitimate and exploitative academia is not always articulable.

I also think a lot of the problem has to do w/ entering students of TTTTTTT schools. A lot of people at my school (100-115 rank) are seemingly totally ignorant of the job prospects. I've spoken to a few, who have asked what classes I signed up for (which I respond "im transferring' and that starts the convo) and then the employment-ignorance becomes evident.

I dont think people at my school (majority anyways) have even opened the ABA employment stats. They think they can just go work at a big firm with median grades. Hearing this makes me just think ''they have no idea''.

So, some fault is definitely on the students for being ignorant about the market and their school's placement, is what I'm saying.

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