I am not alone! Forum

[somethingsome]

Deleted

[rinkrat19]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

[LockBox]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

[bport hopeful]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

Dude didnt say that.

[LockBox]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

Dude didnt say that.

I didn't say he did

[TheFriendlyBarber]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

Haha. What a turd.

[kaiser]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

He never said his advice has no merit. He is just understandably skeptical of it. If the CEO of a cigarette company gives me an argument as to why cigarettes aren't bad for me, my conclusion isn't that he must be wrong due to his vested interest. But I take his advice with an insanely huge grain of salt.

[CanadianWolf]

The article is interesting, but I have trouble accepting the SLU professor's assertion--based on U.S. Dept. of Labor findings--that the unemployment rate for lawyers was just 1.5% in 2010.

[Blessedassurance]

The article is interesting bullshit.

Fixed.

[bport hopeful]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

Dude didnt say that.

I didn't say he did

Weird.

[fanmingrui]

I don't want to get into a big flame war, but I just thought I'd put this out there:

http://www.nationaljurist.com/content/w ... l-worth-it

Get back to us after your fruitless job search.

[LockBox]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

He never said his advice has no merit. He is just understandably skeptical of it. If the CEO of a cigarette company gives me an argument as to why cigarettes aren't bad for me, my conclusion isn't that he must be wrong due to his vested interest. But I take his advice with an insanely huge grain of salt.

The comment is sarcastically implying that the exact opposite is true - namely, it IS a terrible idea to go to law school to pay his salary.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the professors words with a grain of salt...and i'm a 0L but I have a hard time with a lot of people on a pre-law board continually bash the prospects of a law career because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it...perhaps this is the case for some but it should be noted that some feel the costs are worth it while accepting the risks involved.

[bport hopeful]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

He never said his advice has no merit. He is just understandably skeptical of it. If the CEO of a cigarette company gives me an argument as to why cigarettes aren't bad for me, my conclusion isn't that he must be wrong due to his vested interest. But I take his advice with an insanely huge grain of salt.

The comment is sarcastically implying that the exact opposite is true - namely, it IS a terrible idea to go to law school to pay his salary.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the professors words with a grain of salt...and i'm a 0L but I have a hard time with a lot of people on a pre-law board continually bash the prospects of a law career because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it...perhaps this is the case for some but it should be noted that some feel the costs are worth it while accepting the risks involved.

Ive never heard this song before.

[minnbills]

because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it.

Almost 40%

Many of those employed are doing doc review as well.

I mean, there are just quite a few holes in the prof's argument that most seasoned TLSers are able to spot pretty quicky. Like when he cites $110,000/whatever as the median pay for lawyers, he doesn't mention that many law gradues (and this has been going on for decades) never work in law in the first place. A better question would have been: "what is the median pay for law school graduates." etc. etc

[Mal Reynolds]

OP no one said you are alone; you're just not with logical/statistically valid company.

[LockBox]

I'm not trying to flame or whatever...but there are a lot of people on here that do more than just caution against unknowingly walking into 1L. Being knowledgeable about job prospects etc is a long ways from just T14 or don't go.

Sirhcyam, thanks for the article.

[kaiser]

Shocker! Professor at a (barely) TT law school wants to convince you it's actually not a terrible idea to go there and pay his salary with your tuition dollars!

Your argument's reasoning is flawed because your argument presumes that if a person stands to reap benefits from advice given, then said advice has no merit.

He never said his advice has no merit. He is just understandably skeptical of it. If the CEO of a cigarette company gives me an argument as to why cigarettes aren't bad for me, my conclusion isn't that he must be wrong due to his vested interest. But I take his advice with an insanely huge grain of salt.

The comment is sarcastically implying that the exact opposite is true - namely, it IS a terrible idea to go to law school to pay his salary.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the professors words with a grain of salt...and i'm a 0L but I have a hard time with a lot of people on a pre-law board continually bash the prospects of a law career because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it...perhaps this is the case for some but it should be noted that some feel the costs are worth it while accepting the risks involved.

My comments are not sarcastically implying anything. Those are merely the assumptions you are placing upon what I said. I was trying to give an extreme example of one with vested interest, and why the input of such an individual is largely useless since the possible bias of his input renders his words meaningless. And you are certainly right that some honestly take the time to make an informed decision based on a proper cost/benefit with a full understanding of all the factors. Problem is, that is not the case for most students.

[bport hopeful]

I'm not trying to flame or whatever...but there are a lot of people on here that do more than just caution against unknowingly walking into 1L. Being knowledgeable about job prospects etc is a long ways from just T14 or don't go.

Sirhcyam, thanks for the article.

After 900 posts, you should know that this is auto flame

[LockBox]

because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it.

Almost 40%

Many of those employed are doing doc review as well.

I mean, there are just quite a few holes in the prof's argument that most seasoned TLSers are able to spot pretty quicky. Like when he cites $110,000/whatever as the median pay for lawyers, he doesn't mention that many law gradues (and this has been going on for decades) never work in law in the first place. A better question would have been: "what is the median pay for law school graduates." etc. etc

Granted, the professor could make his argument clearer. But of those 40% and those doing doc review....how long does that last for them? Is it right to be law averse if you can't find employment 9 months out? Does this mean you'll never find employment?

[LockBox]

I'm not trying to flame or whatever...but there are a lot of people on here that do more than just caution against unknowingly walking into 1L. Being knowledgeable about job prospects etc is a long ways from just T14 or don't go.

Sirhcyam, thanks for the article.

After 900 posts, you should know that this is auto flame

Why? I am bored at work, but i'm not trying to incite an argument. I also think it's helpful to have an atmosphere of caution against this profession on these boards - it has made me think twice about applying. Maybe i'm wrong, and everyone that i've heard of going to TT and ending up doing fairly well is just anecdotal anomalies?

[bport hopeful]

I'm not trying to flame or whatever...but there are a lot of people on here that do more than just caution against unknowingly walking into 1L. Being knowledgeable about job prospects etc is a long ways from just T14 or don't go.

Sirhcyam, thanks for the article.

After 900 posts, you should know that this is auto flame

Why? I am bored at work, but i'm not trying to incite an argument. I also think it's helpful to have an atmosphere of caution against this profession on these boards - it has made me think twice about applying. Maybe i'm wrong, and everyone that i've heard of going to TT and ending up doing fairly well is just anecdotal anomalies?

I go to a TT, I just dont talk about it here.

[Blessedassurance]

"Here’s a defense of going to law school. Written by a law professor. Who doesn’t teach at an elite institution. Next up, we have a fox who wants you to take down barriers of entry to the hen house." - ATL

[LockBox]

"Here’s a defense of going to law school. Written by a law professor. Who doesn’t teach at an elite institution. Next up, we have a fox who wants you to take down barriers of entry to the hen house." - ATL

So students at his law school should not be there? They (or the majority of them or bottom 90% or whatever you want to say) would have been better off not attending? Any university professor who speaks to the benefits of higher learning must clearly only be self-motivated, yes? This isn't a flame. How can you paint such a broad picture and not expect this reply?

[bport hopeful]

"Here’s a defense of going to law school. Written by a law professor. Who doesn’t teach at an elite institution. Next up, we have a fox who wants you to take down barriers of entry to the hen house." - ATL

So students at his law school should not be there? They (or the majority of them or bottom 90% or whatever you want to say) would have been better off not attending? Any university professor who speaks to the benefits of higher learning must clearly only be self-motivated, yes? This isn't a flame. How can you paint such a broad picture and not expect this reply?

They can be there, but its a bad financial decision.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

The comment is sarcastically implying that the exact opposite is true - namely, it IS a terrible idea to go to law school to pay his salary.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the professors words with a grain of salt...and i'm a 0L but I have a hard time with a lot of people on a pre-law board continually bash the prospects of a law career because....what, some law grads can't secure jobs within 9 months? Neither can a lot of other graduates in other fields. Others argue that the debt doesn't make the expenditure worth it...perhaps this is the case for some but it should be noted that some feel the costs are worth it while accepting the risks involved.

If you can't secure a firm job within 9 months of law school, your chances of getting a firm job (small/mid-law/biglaw) are very small. If you don't get a 2L SA in biglaw, your chances of biglaw in your future are very small.

You seem to think that a good chunk of legal hiring extends indefinetely past when law school is over. The reality is that legal hiring essentially finishes at the beginning of your 2nd year for biglaw. Small firms can hire significantly later, based on need. Very little firms are going to be interested in a law school grad who has been unemployed for a year though.

It's not a question of T14 or nothing. It's a question of limiting debt while trying to maximize job opportunities. I would advise people to take the full ride at a local, lower ranked school in the area you want to work that has decent placement in that area than some T14's at sticker. (I.e. SMU full-ride vs. GULC.)

More reading for you:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=775
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=168092
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=168118
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=168258