Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Has scamblogging lost it?

I have to comment on recent events here.  I'd do it in a private email to the blog mods and authors, but it affects the readers too - you're part of this movement.

Serious question.  Have we lost it?

This blog started off great.  High interest, good community involvement, lots of effort from all concerned.

Over the past week - over the past month, really - it's gone downhill.  Through no fault of those writers who are spending their time and effort producing high-quality articles each day for you all to read, to get the message out there.  It's hard work.

And in return, we get what from the readers?  A stream of dumb comments?  One or two sensible, thoughtful comments amidst a sea of utter trash that makes us all look like idiots?  From JD Painter ruining this for everyone, to whoever that moron Tannebaum was, recently things have got out of hand.  Sorry to be the one to call you on it, but do you want this blog to survive?

We have extraordinary writers like dybbuk putting himself out there consistently for you.  There's a whole team of us who are writing and producing articles and trying to keep this movement alive, because to be honest, there's only us and Nando who are still bothering to fight.  Nobody gets paid to do this.  Nobody gets any glory or reward.

We're not here for your entertainment.  We're here to work for you to help you receive a better education, better opportunities, and more respect.

So I think it's time to take a step back and ask yourself what your role is.  Active participants, or hangers-on and clowns who are looking for somewhere to screw around while bored?  I'm willing to do everything I can to work towards reforming legal education.  We all are.  So at least show us some scrap of respect and stop treating our work like trash.

Comments relevant to this post will be welcome.  It's time for a discussion and a roll-call.  Who is with us?  And who's just here for fun?

What do you need to become more engaged and focused?  Moderated comments?  Different articles?  A new direction?

You tell us.  Because right now, all you're telling us is that this is a giant waste of time.

73 comments:

  1. You have to be kidding. You are the one that made those childish Wednesday pictures and posts bashing Brian Leiter.

    Are you really are an adjunct law professor?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gossip is exquisite cuisine for the auditory palate; a delicious repast for hungry ears.

    Oscar Wilde

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only thing worst than being talked about is not being talked about.

    Oscar Wilde

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I comment sometimes. This blog is my 1-stop shop for recent law school news. The round up of links are especially good.

    Still hoping for the day when a law school or three or thirty go under and its reported here!

    FYI - I'm from an unusual background - never been to law school, applied twice. I was blessed with straight rejections (from T-7, even those aren't worth it anymore). If the price ever collapses I'd apply again.

    --QS

    ReplyDelete
  9. Moderated comments please.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "What do you need to become more engaged and focused?"

    A complete and absolute end to all posts by Painter. Not sure how to make that happen; either take court action against him, or actually pay the little creep a fixed fee each month to stay away. It whouldn't cost much; he'd probably sell his soul (and those of his parents) to the devil himself for $50 per month.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Personally, I think the energy of the good writers on this site should be focused toward leaving high quality comments on blogs like Prawfs, Faculty Lounge, and Volokh. Now that ITLSS is shut down, that is the best place to continue the debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. We need to do more, but we also need our own forum where we're not subject to control by others. Leaving comments elsewhere is a great idea (and that is something that everyone can do, not just the writers here), but we need to keep a place where we are safe in our opinions and know that they will not be deleted.

      Delete
  12. I think that many of us, myself included, work 12-14 hours a day for little pay. Many have spouses and children. I put in a lot of effort to write thoughtful posts and saw little reward and a lot of wasted time. I have mentioned a number of times that more action and less talk is the way forward. Apparently, few agree. I do moderate comments now, my small contribution, as the trolls still dominate some posts. I will write when I have time again.

    Meanwhile, dybbuck is a machine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +10 on dybbuk.

      I agree that few agree more action and less talk is the way forward. I tried at the early stages of this blog, but was met with universal "it's too much effort." And my own level of posting has decreased because there is very little reward for all of the hours of effort.

      To put this into perspective for readers, each writer puts literally hours and hours and hours of effort into each post. They are researched, drafted, put aside, reviewed and edited, and then published. It's not a five minutes per day operation where posts are rushed off and thrown out there. And after all that work, when there's two comments that are useful and twenty comments from a certain destructive individual that have nothing to do with the post and everything to do with banjos and fictional enemies, it seems like a waste of time. I've noticed that many of the writers feel that way too, judging by how the levels of posting have decreased.

      I'm currently pushing for fully moderated comments. And I know that will decrease participation in this blog, but at present, I'd gladly exchange the Painter posts and filth for a fraction of good quality input. I'm waiting on advice from the other writers (so check your email).

      I think all of the mods and writers here are happy to put time and effort into a quality product, if that quality product is met with a quality reception from readers. I don't really want to waste my time maintaining a blog for Painter's personal entertainment.

      Delete
    2. Surprised to hear the posts go through layers of review. The topics are fine. The points are fine (usually), but the tone and approach are way off the mark.

      Delete
    3. Ok JeffM. Advice please. It's easy to point out the problems. Do you have any solutions? What would you do differently?

      Delete
    4. Write in a more professional tone. Too many snide remarks. Just report the mainstream news and rebut it. It's okay to use humor, but don't get snide. You have at least not stooped to posting pictures of toilet bowls full of shit, like that other blog nobody goes to. But seriously, your traffic count will "look" much lower since the bonehead comments will be gone, but the odds you might be taken seriously will improve.

      Delete
    5. Meh. Advice appreciated, but it's been tried before. Sensible scamblogs don't work. They are ignored because they are competing with "LOOK OVER HERE AT ALL THE MONEY YOU COULD EARN BY ATTENDING OUR LAW SCHOOL!!!"

      Remember that this blog is not written for 'grown ups'. It's not trying to persuade professors and boomers that they should change. They won't change. They have "got theirs", they will continue to "get theirs", and nothing we write will change that attitude.

      This blog is written for college kids who might be thinking about law school, or high school kids who think that law school sounds cool.

      Think of it like an anti-smoking campaign. It's not targetting those who have already got cancer at age 50. It's targetting those who are in danger of getting hooked in the first place at a young age. And it has to be written to appeal to those kinds of people.

      A boring "Smoking is bad for you, kids" ad doesn't work, which is why there are silly and lighthearted anti-smoking campaigns that kids pay attention to. Same for this blog. A boring "law school is bad for you" campaign will not work. It has been tried and failed many times over. But what does work are posts that take jabs, make fun of the system, overstep boundaries, and appeal to the younger readers.

      We're all generally on the same page in that the scam will only change when demand for JDs drops. How to do that? Stop people from going to law school. We have tried to change the system from the inside and it failed. We have tried to get motivated about student loan reform and that failed. We have tried to discuss these issues with deans and professors and that failed.

      So the bottom line is that we now have to stand outside the law school gates with a big warning sign telling kids that they are making a stupid decision. That is our only audience, because nobody else is listening or wants to listen.

      Trying to fight the boomer-run establishment on its own level fails every time. We just need to stop the supply of customers.

      Delete
    6. Well, if your goal is to dissuade bright, intelligent students from going to law school, do you think that person is going to listen to advice from the Bevises and Buttheads of law schools? It would be like being talked out of being an actor by Lindsay Lohan. What wanna-be TV movie star is going to listen to the likes of her?

      Delete
    7. "Well, if your goal is to dissuade bright, intelligent students from going to law school, do you think that person is going to listen to advice from the Bevises and Buttheads of law schools"

      Unfortunately, those "bright, intelligent students" do not listen to the smart kids who write well. The way to reach them is by showing that this issue prompts anger, snark, mockery, and scorn. Clinical responses to anger-inducing social problems rarely get anywhere.

      If this and other scamblogs stuck to "professionalism," they'd be drowned out by the prestigious do-nothings who are currently running the law schools and nothing would ever seriously change.

      Delete
    8. If you had to credit someone with the reduction of law school admissions applications in half, who would it be? Campos, maybe? Regardless, I think most people highly regard Campos and listened to him and respected him. There were some notables who did not, but by and large, his audience was more generally accepting. Look at his style. Is is something most people ignore?

      Delete
    9. "...if your goal is to dissuade bright, intelligent students from going to law school, do you think that person is going to listen to advice from the Bevises and Buttheads of law schools?"

      Maybe not Beavis & Butthead, but what about Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert? Being a wiseass can be an effective way to reach much of our target audience.

      Delete
    10. Jeff- I don't know how much Campos you read, but he put in a lot of anger and snark and derision.

      Delete
    11. Yes, I think there's some selective memory about Campos's work at ITLSS. This site generally mirrors his work in content and style, and the bloggers here have discussed this in private before. Campos became a little more analytical in his later posts, looking at some more statistical aspects and interpretations rather than the basic issues, but generally this site is not much different from that which you see here. Individual bloggers have their own styles, but I wouldn't call this site much of a departure from ITLSS.

      Delete
    12. JeffM,

      "You have at least not stooped to posting pictures of toilet bowls full of shit, like that other blog nobody goes to."

      My blog receives 1,000-1,3000 visitors on a typical day. According to my blog counter, the site has 1.84 million page views since.

      Maybe you don't comprehend the reasoning behind the pictures. I simply provided a visual to the term "third tier toilet." The early scamblogs had to grab the reader's attention. There is so much data on the internet, people quickly move on if you have not engaged them. Using a professorial tone - and describing this social problem in clinical language - would not have attracted the attention of the New York Times, Slate, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.

      Campos's blog was very effective because it was written by a tenured law prof at a decent school. Also, he employed an angry young man tone. His commentary had bite.

      The writing on this site is solid, with the exception of the Law School "Truth" Center. Keep relying on facts. The use of hyperlinks helps show that law school is a serious gamble. It is okay to use an aggressive tone, as long as the main entry is fact-based and entertaining.

      The comments should be moderated. Otherwise, the "discussion" devolves quickly. Nothing is more frustrating than reading a great essay, and then seeing that one or two mentally deranged people hijacking the comment thread.

      Delete
    13. OK. Honestly, I had never heard of Campos until about 2 months ago. I read some of his latest postings, but I am not as familiar with him as many of you are. Maybe you should just cancel commenting altogether and add a "forum" section using phpBB. Members could create accounts, log in, and play their silly games there. That way, you have the playground for the roughians, and you have the blog for "news." I don't know. Just thinking... (It must be hell to moderate all this stuff. I wouldn't want that task).

      Delete
  13. Moderate comments. The discussion should be focused on "legal education" and its impact on debt-strapped students and recent grads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. The comments have become a distraction.

      Delete
  14. Read your articles again. They have a juvenile tone. You take a serious subject and attack it like Bevis & Butthead. It's a welcome mat for squirrelly commenters. Nobody will ever take this place seriously. A few kids might get talked out of law school here, but ABC News will never quote you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you miss the point. This blog was supposed to be a composite blog for a group of people who could not start their own blogs and get good readership. Different approaches are welcome. Refreshing too.

      Delete
    2. The problem is it is devolving into a Jerry Springer show for lawyers who society is supposed to laugh at.

      Delete
    3. Not because of the posts, right? It's the comments that lead to the Springer Show atmosphere.

      Moderate comments now. I'm sick of Painter shitting all over this blog in drunken rages.

      Delete
    4. It's both. I agree comments need to be moderated. But also, the posts need to be, too. Look at that long write-up on Tannebaum. That was stooping at its finest. It's a big tit-for-tat game. "Somebody said 'X.' Nany-nanny-nanny." A lot of it is like that.

      Honestly, many of this blog's authors will land some job somewhere or start a practice and start to realize some financial benefit. Then, they will not be the same people they are now. This blog will be left behind for a new, temporarily disillusioned recruit, who in turn, will get past his or her misery, and the cycle will continue on.

      That's supposing this blog lasts....

      Campos had the right tonality, but after a couple of years (or however his ITLSS blog lasted), a person naturally really has said all there is to say. See how his posts degraded toward the end - with all those crazy thoughts about IP addresses, etc. The man was killing himself, spiritually. Finally, and rightly, he checked out.

      Either you keep it above-board, or it will never last. Or even if it did, it will never be what it could be.

      Delete
    5. "Tone" and "tonality" are not synonyms.

      Delete
  15. Unfortunately, there is always going to be some level of "haters gonna hate" going on in this subject.

    Most of the blame-the-victim mentality is dervied from "whistling past the graveyard," IMO. Since no one wants to admit that sometimes bad things can happen to anybody, despite honest and/or best efforts, you get strawman bashing about how struggling grads are looser morans and how super-awesome the "successful" people are because of their hard work that no one else does anymore. Couple that with the prestiege chase and general dickishness and you get the bizarre implosions we have all witnessed.

    However, a large number of the anti-scam blog folks do tacitly admit to structural challenges in the industry and think law school is b.s., so that is something. Let's build on that by (1) moderating comments, (2) pressing on, and (3) demonstrating that this community is not "a bunch of whiners," but regular working joes who think law school is a scam and needs to be reformed.

    However, you can't please everybody. There will always be a fringe contingent that hates you just becuase you say thinks they don't like. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow, thanks for the compliment, Adjunct. I am a fan of your writing and wicked sense of humor as well.

    I am not disillusioned by this project, even though our comment threads here are not at the level of ITLSS. Look at the OTLSS page view counter--90,000 views in two months. Each post here has been viewed by several hundred readers, a few by over a thousand. As long as people are reading and thinking about law school scam issues, it doesn’t matter whether they comment. And the troll comments can simply be deleted.

    Eyes on the prize! The law school scam will fail, just like all pyramid schemes and price bubbles. The question is how many lives will be ruined before the inevitable correction. If the collective impact of scamblogging is to bring down the law school scam one year earlier than would otherwise have happened, that means many thousands of bright but naïve kids saved from a catastrophe. It is an honor to be a part of the effort.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have recently left the practice of law. Although I still have loans, they are nothing like the amounts that recent grads are saddled with. I come to this site because most of the articles are well written. If you really want to take the next step, you have to start coordinating real events, with real people, at real law schools. Send some of these "scambloggers" to law school meet-and-greets, orientations, etc. Reading comments on internet has a limited effect. But seeing some of these broken motherfuckers in person would have a big effect. JD Painterguy would be extremely effective in person. Granted he is a loser, probably mentally ill, and certainly addicted to something. This is what 0Ls need to see: that law schools will admit anyone for a buck, and that being a law grad is not prestigious.

    As for me, I will pass on exerting myself. I have moved past this whole ordeal. Let go of the lawyer dream and you will feel better. Don't worry so much about the loans, because they will never be repaid anyway...so why worry?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "From JD Painter ruining this for everyone"

    At this point, I assume that he is getting paid by the law schools to disrupt the scam blogs.

    Hey, it's a living...

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'd also note that the news value of the scam blogs will be going up soon - I think this year has been a disaster for the law schools, admissions-wise, and you have to think that some of the law schools are going to look at the numbers, and decide to close up shop, rather than keep losing money indefinitely...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Please continue this blog. I am something of the "enemy" as I am a boomer lawyer. However, I have seen first hand what the oversupply of lawyers have done to this profession. 26 years ago, with a lot of work and family support, I was able to start what is now a modestly successful practice. I had a mere $10,000 dollars in student loans. If I had the loan burden many of you carry plus the saturated market with which to contend, I would have failed in the first year, even with my family's support. My modest success withstanding, I still have to spend at least 40 to 50 percent of my time on marketing. I cannot imagine being a young lawyer now and trying to slay these dragons. What these deans have done to the lives of some of this country's best and brightest is criminal. To take young lives and fill them with the hope that they can overcome nearly insurmountable hurdles in exchange for their 30 pieces of silver is criminal. Keep blogging. If there is a God, you are doing his work. Don't allow trolls and idiots to dissuade you. Your work is too important!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With this, I agree. The scam existed back when I was in law school from 1990-93. The glut has only become worse, thus, making the effect of the scam that much more unbearable. The scamblogs are not going to fix things for the current generation, but hopefully, they will drive the markets such that in 10 or 15 years, we will see a return to the days when law school was a more reasonable choice. The goal should be to dissuade students from attending law school based on current data.

      Delete
    2. The blog will continue. It's an important job, but once in a while we all need to be reminded of why we're here. It's a long game, it's slow movement, but we need to remain focused and free from distractions.

      Delete
  22. That goes for Nando's work as well.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just moderate the damn comments and remove any and all references to Mr. I-------- and P--------.

    It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is that simple. But it's also a lot of work! We have jobs too.

      Painter doesn't. From posting patterns, he sits at home, posts as "Painter", then also posts his own attacks against himself to stir up trouble. That's hard to combat.

      Delete
  24. I read ITLSS regularly and come to this blog often to follow the thread of the law school scam. Many of the posts here are very worthwhile and I thank the authors. But I agree with JeffM's comment above that this blog should avoid pure snark so that it is respectable.

    I'm someone who graduated in 2001 and has been in "biglaw" ever since (fingers crossed that I keep it up), but is very concerned about the profession, the terrible outcomes for so many law students, and the effects of so many debt-burdened lives on society.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Incidental to my posts above, you all DO know that this lawyer problem is merely a facet of a much larger problem, right? The middle class is, in real, inflation-adjusted terms, becoming worse and worse-off. When you have nothing, invest nothing, and buy nothing of consequence, it is not likely you will need the services of a lawyer. This reduces the pool of work. So, the problem is from two different angles.

    "Success" is not in reducing the number of lawyers. It is in lifting up the middle class. But I think the middle class is largely doomed, because politically-speaking, there is no reason for politicians to help it. So, it looks like "Plan B" is the only option - reduce the number of lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly true. One of the issues that hits the middle class hard is the outrageous cost of tuition, and I'm looking at law school pretty squarely.

      Lots of people knee-jerk with "don't send ur kids to skool!!!", but I doubt many people want to experiment on their own kids that way, especially given the last several decades of college=upwardly mobile.

      By limiting the number of lawyers, we're also curbing tuition the only way possible, which is to make people choose a Plan B of some kind. People only change when it hits them in the pocketbook. It's not moving mountains, but it is one of the few levers we have.

      Delete
    2. Meaning, forcing the law schools to react to market pressure. That's what I meant by "people".

      Delete
  26. I like the round up of other articles on the scam. I think the blog should continue. It's valuable. You need more insider input though. Towards the end of his run, LawProf was being send emails and other things from current law students and shaming schools that way. The blog should try and get current law students to forward information they have and emails and all other bullshit the proffessoriate and admins send out to them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I read this blog in an RSS reader, so I only even look at comments if I want to post one myself, which is very rare. But then, I also read ITLSS via RSS and I came over to read the comments page almost daily because while there was some trolling and a lot of repetition, the comments were regularly wonderful. So I don't think it's just a matter of deleting troll comments, but of encouraging good ones. The writers here are all great, but Campos seemed to have more of the trick of leaving hooks that commenters would seize on and reply to. I'd also suggest that you promote good posts from the blog more across relevant parts of the internet, or on content streams like Reddit.

    I read this blog out of interest, and because the articles are good - I've not been personally affected by the scam, though I've met a few out-of-luck law grads. I am affected by the broader crisis of which this is a part - the education bubble and the loss of a generation to debt and underemployment. For the most part I'm on you-guys side and would love to see this blog continue to be a source for news as the bubble bursts, but then you let things slide like Preston Bell calling a struggling PhD a 'slut' on the front page, and some sympathetic part of me dies inside. Attacking single mothers is neither new nor funny, and it came across as being kinda sociopathic - Preston obviously didn't give a shit about people whose life circumstances were different to his, and nor did he give a shit about any female readers, and the effect of this was far from endearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, a lot of Campos' commenters came solely because he was a LawProf. They didn't care about the message so much as they cared about the messenger's status.

      Delete
  28. Hi guys,

    First, off, don't go. I guess a paramount questions for any scam blog are ones of stamina and direction. Stamina to keep beating the same drum - which isn't that hard if you're living the scam v. living the dream! I see the scam blog movement as doing several positive things: getting hits and coming up first on a Google search - i.e. spreading the word; giving all of us who are frustrated and fed up with the structure of the system a place to be connected to each other and tell our stories; sowing the seeds of political change by shaping public opinion on an issue that certainly has the potential to garner broad public support, since most of the public is screwed to some degree or another.

    My suggestion (I'm entirely serious): go Drudge. Opinion articles and commentary are great, but there's a financial article in the news almost everyday on this issue. Be a news compiler! Link to scam blogs. Link to garbage the law schools and ABA are spewing. So Glenn Reynolds sort of does this by having a recurring tag for higher education bubble on Instapundit, and it's always good. But there is not site dedicated to law school news, scam news, political/financial aspects of the bubble.

    YOU SHOULD BE THAT SITE! Also, you deserve some ad revenue. No reason to be martyrs twice.

    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of good ideas. Lots of work too! We're not going anywhere - just regrouping I guess.

      Delete
  29. I have to agree with moderation of the posts. JD Painter is the reason that I generally do not read the comments or post comments. Comments to an article should at least stay somewhat on topic.

    As to the articles, I surprisingly agree to a certain degree with Jeffm (a frequent flyer at jdunderground who I generally disagree with). Anyway, I do not visit here as often as I visited Campos' site because I don't feel I'm part of the target audience and there really is too much snark for my taste. I am an attorney and an active scamblogger with a ton of student loan debt, not a college kid.

    I enjoyed Inside despite the snark. Here, at Outside, there is just too much snark and too many stupid comments to have to overlook to get to what matters---Ending the law school scam, dissuading lemmings and getting some debt forgiveness/bankruptcy protection.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I guess I don't understand how an anonymous blog going to achieve those goals."

    I don't see how revealing our identities (not that I actually know who any of the other writers are anyway) would help. What would it achieve?

    Law professors have shown time and time again that they have utter disrespect for their students. Adding a name to that won't suddenly give any more power to our voices.

    Some law professors actively seek out names of those who speak out against the Law School Establishment, threaten their jobs, ruin their reputations, and show the same reaction towards law students and recent grads as they might towards accidentally stepping on a dog turd. Crazy people like JD Painter have been after our identities for years. God knows what that nut would do. It's not worth it.

    The downsides of losing anonymity are far bigger than the benefits gained by speaking out under our real names.

    Remember, we're not all unemployed law grads. Some have really nice jobs, and those jobs would be threatened if we spoke out publicly against this scam. At least one of us is a law professor, albeit an adjunct. I imagine her job would disappear fairly quickly if she posted under her real name, probably not having the tenure protection that Campos enjoyed.

    We stand behind our words. A name does not make that stance any firmer. The message remains clear - law school is a scam. If someone is the kind of person that is more interested in who is speaking rather than what the message is, then they're welcome to law school. We can't save everybody. Our message is the same as that which came from the mouth of the great Paul Campos. Exactly the same.

    In fact, our anonymity allows us to step over these fake boundaries that various people have set up. Well, guess what? Being anonymous allows us to hit harder, call stupidity out when we see it, and publish opinions that others aren't brave enough to stand behind. We're not fighting an old-timey civil war here, where the generals met for tea before the battles and everyone took their turn shooting and waited for the other side to reload. We're fighting a dirty, nasty little war, and we'll use whatever techniques we have. And we have more techniques when anonymous. The chances of me, for example, getting to say what I said from my real life position without serious repercussions would be slim to none.

    The bottom line is that anonymity stays, for commenters, for writers, for moderators. I will do nothing ever to reveal who anybody is. If they want to come out, that's fine.

    Oh, and people do take us seriously. We've been around for a fraction of the time your site has, but we're killing you in terms of readership and support. People take us very seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've criticized law schools, professors, institutions, lawyers, law students, everyone really - all with my name attached to it. Some people like what I say, some people hate it, some people don't care. As they say "haters gonna hate." At the end of the day, who cares? It's what you deal with when you conduct yourself in public.

      But, bottom line, anonymous means no skin in the game to many people. No skin in the game, no one cares what you think.

      I'm not discounting what you're trying to say, or your ability to say it - I just think it loses a fair bit of its impact when delivered in this context. Just something to think about it.

      Delete
    2. Keith, I accidentally deleted your prior comment. My mistake - still trying to work this out.

      Skin in the game.

      We all have skin in this game. We're all JD grads or students. Trust me on that. Who would be dumb enough to step into this fight without having skin in the game?

      Again, we're not fighting fair. We're fighting to win. No rules. No names. No repercussions from my bosses or judges or whoever. If us winning and shutting law schools down takes us insulting law professors, ruining the reputations of lawyers, and trashing these prestigious institutions, then so be it.

      We've got the impact. Law schools, especially those bottom-feeder trashpits, are on the run. I'll be posting more about that later. But we're making changes. We're making a difference.

      I think we just disagree on this point. You're all about respecting the traditions. I'm - we're - all about breaking the rules and making it very obvious that this whole legal education system is a money-making scam.

      Believe me, I've looked at revealing who I am, and the credibility that it would bring to the movement. And I'm talking Campos++ levels of cred here, not to brag. But it's not worth it. The benefits of fighting like a drug-addicted, ball-twisting whore far outweigh the benefits of fighting like a gentleman with pistols at dawn.

      Your pistols at dawn is being met with my Glock against your head while you're still sleeping.

      Delete
    3. Fair enough. Two things:

      1) Keep in mind when you're trying to discredit something, you own credibility comes into question.

      2) When someone like me, who is trying to change the system from within (as you note) comes around, it's probably better to engage with me - than to lash out, troll, etc. I'm not saying don't be critical if I say something stupid. But there's a way to go about it. I think you know what I mean.

      I agree with some of what you guys are saying. I'm also trying to effect change and help new lawyers out in my own way - blog/book/whatever. I spend at least 2-3 hours every week talking with new lawyers via email or on the phone. Helping them network, talk about jobs, etc. I'm all about being free with my time and helping people out. It just seems like a waste for you guys to push away people who are part of the system, and are working hard to change it publicly. There are better targets for your ire.

      Delete
    4. Keith, I really think you, Jordan, Brian and others should not waste your time on this site. It seems like you have better things to do both in your personal and professional life than to mess with us "losers".

      I actually agree with a large portion of your initial post that caused this spat in the first place. But your wake up call is not going to change anyone.

      I also don't care whether you use your real name or not. And using your name does not make your words that much more important. Many people have called for law school reforms with their real names and tomorrow, someone else will do it too.

      I think at some point, this blog and others like it will reach the top of the search engines when someone googles "law school" or "lsat". Once that happens, will it matter whether we use our real names or not?

      And later, some of us may decide to come out publicly. But by then, we will have established a reputation and will be in a position to make a change.

      Delete
    5. Ok Keith, we get it. You're trying to piggyback some readership from your comments on this site. Great. Whatever turns you on and gets your blog some hits.

      Listen, I've been covering this situation since the late 1990s. While you were in middle school. Please, you're preaching to the choir.

      And to address your points:

      1) Bullshit.

      2) Bullshit. We've done the "change from inside" thing ourselves. I've done it before, and it doesn't work. Which is probably why we've never heard of you before.

      Dude, give it up. You spend a whole two hours per week talking to new lawyers? A 2010 grad (right?), talking to new lawyers? ***You're*** a new laywer. I've been doing this for over a decade longer than you. I spend two hours per ***day*** on this project. That's 15 hours per week. Trying to discourage new lawyers and telling them to quit before they end up as suckers working in personal injury for a fatty boss in prestigious firms such as "Hamer Law Group" in Birmingham, AL. That hotbed of racism and retardation, er, I mean high-end law.

      How many of your new lawyer grasshoppers do you tell to get the hell out before they end up as failures with twice as much debt as they started with?

      If you really want to help, send me an email and I'll add you as a formal writer here. Pure freedom, like every other writer. No censorship. But until then, you're part of the problem if you're not part of the solution.

      Delete
  31. I am just an idiot 3L... nothing to add but I do come here everyday to for an update.

    I appreciate that some one picked up the torch after Campos shut down his blog.

    It is also true that there is a lack of substantive discussion. I wish MacK would post on here. I found his comments to be insightful. It would be even better we he joined with a few articles of his own.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think you guys are doing a great job. As for the haters, fuck them. The critics use the same old tired-ass talking points:

    "Get over your sense of entitlement."
    "You should have studied harder."
    "Network."
    "You should have known the employment numbers were bogus."
    "What else were you going to do with your liberal arts degree?"

    Can the quality of the posts be improved? Of course. But ultimately this blog should set a goal for being on the top of the search engine list when someone google searches "law school".

    Rock on.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Keep it up. Let the haters hate. Their criticisms are the same weak, debunked, tired-ass talking points:

    "Stop whining and start sending resumes."
    "Network"
    "You should have studied harder in school."
    "You should have known that the employment statistics were bogus."

    Can the quality of the posts be improved? Of course. But don't let the self-righteous and the crazies get the best of you. It's part of the game.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I also appreciate the work being done here. I don't ever comment but I certainly come and check the sites for law related news and events. I for one would be sad if it went away.

    Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm a long time JDUer and was an avid Campos reader/commenter. I appreciate the work you guys are doing and think moderation will go a long way toward improving the comment section.

    ReplyDelete
  36. the writing here is pretty good. But campos is a very special writer. So it's no surprise that comments and readership is down compared to him.

    Just keep at it. Time is on our side. We are winning.

    I shut down my own scamblog some time ago. Just took over too much of my life and other job-related reasons.

    I rarely comment here anymore but I do read this blog almost every day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His audience was large because he was a law professor, not because he was a "very special writer." All he did was take the three years worth of discussions we had already had on the scamblogs, repackage it as if it was his idea, and say the same things we had been saying before. It's like that commercial where it's an office meeting and someone says a really good idea but nobody listens, then the boss repeats exactly the same idea and everyone thinks it's the best thing they've ever heard. Campos broke no new ground other than being the first law professor to wholeheartedly sign on to the movement.

      Delete
    2. Disagree with above anon - whatever else Campos had going for him, tenure, prior popularity, etc, he is a wonderful writer. He never claimed that scamblogging was his idea - far from it. But he did 'repackage' it in the sense of being a very talented and compelling writer making use of his position to spread the word. Don't underrate great writing, guys.

      Delete
  37. I don't post but I am all over these blogs. I shouldn't be because all it does is remind me of my utterly foolish decision to attend law school. Who knows how long it will take for this very flawed system to change, but if your efforts convince a young person to pursue other careers you all have done well. I cannot imagine the system left unchanged five years out, simply because of the rate of tuition increase over the last ten years. If all goes according to plan, my three years in law school and the ten years after, will result in the chains of debt releasing me before im 40. Yes indeed, I will be in my mid-late 30's with a positive networth of $1 dollar and it will represent the crowning achievement of my career. This has been the worst decision of my entire life. Haha so a positive spin is that I have learned a great lesson about not being a moron. If I wasn't so ashamed of myself I would walk around with a t-shirt everyday that read:

    "160K in debt and almost 2K in monthly payments to put 'analytical thinker' on my non-law entry level resume"

    Oh wait, you actually cannot put law degree on your resume because HR managers see no value in it. I will head off any snide remarks and acknowledge that I am a fool. For those willing to believe there might be something to this anti-law school grumbling, do your homework before you use student loans undergrad or grad. Do not buy into the bullshit from the older generations, even though it is well intentioned bullshit. If you want to be a lawyer then great but please go ask young people practicing from the school you plan to attend and ask them about their experience. It sucks but if you cannot afford a law degree then such is life. Borrowing money for school does not necessarily= opportunity. Work hard, save your money and one day send your kids to law school. Or just make my mistake and find out for yourself.....

    ReplyDelete