As is stated at the top of this blog, we welcome commentary, opinions, and (most) anything else our readers want to contribute, even if it disagrees with our core message. Increasingly we get mail from actual lawyers and even LawProfs(!), and this mail is largely more supportive of our position than not. Birds of a feather flock together, to be sure, but at the same time we like sharing the testimony of others to demonstrate that we are not alone in our position, and that information is power when evaluating claims.
Without further introduction, we have the following from a current law student:
Hey there,
I just want to say that your blog is f**king heroic!
I'm a law student (sadly). I decided to go to law school on a bunch of factors. Having the opportunity to hang up my own shingle and do what I want was actually a big factor. A bit random, I know, but that's the main reason why I decided to take on the debt.
I ended up at a TTT where I was getting a decent, albeit bait n switch scholarship. As a result, sections were stacked, and I suffered because of it (health issues my first semester made things worse too). Anyway, I finished strong in spring, and decided to transfer since I didn't like the area (too podunk), the school's curriculum, and some of my ass-backward (equally podunk and ultra conservative) classmates. You know there's not a lot of diversity in politics and personal philosophies when your Property prof mentions, right in the middle of lecture, as to how there are, "oodles of Republicans" in your class.
For our spring semester, we were all forced to take this Philosophy 101-esque class. It was horrible. It was a way for certain professors, and certain douchebag students, to pontificate (and for said profs and admin to line their pockets). Nevermind the fact that we badly need Con Law I by then.
The more bizarre thing, however, was that none of my classmates wanted to voice their concerns to administration about it. Everyone bitched behind closed doors. When I tried to speak to a student--who I thought was a friend--about how classes like these help perpetuate the whole law school scam, she said, "is this real, or is this some silly perception of yours."
Talk about ostriches with their heads in the sand! The charge to try and have the class erased from the curriculum for future generations was headed by myself and one other student. Everyone told us to give up since we weren't going to benefit from the class being dropped in the future, but I didn't care. I guess I was one of the only students who was truly interested in justice at that school.
End of story: I don't know what really happened to our efforts. My transfer was successful by June, and I had actually got the hell out of dodge right after finals anyway. Around that time, there were rumblings about how the law school was being kept afloat by the main campus because enrollment was so low. Pathetic. I'm currently at a 2nd tier dump, but in a town that is more familiar, surrounded by family and wonderful friends, and with other (non-law) possibilities open to me.
Thanks for the blog, keep up the awesome work. The struggle is really trying to convince the special ostrich-type snowflakes to see the reality. Feel free to share my story with as many as possible.
Personally, I don't know about "badly needing Con Law I", but I get your point. Good luck, and we wish you the best. Regardless of one's personal politics and interests, honesty is good for the soul, and we share these stories to demonstrate that we are not alone and our numbers our growing.
In contrast, the Law School Cartel has no soul, which explains why they have been dishonest for some time now, have intentionally obfuscated the truth, and have let people believe that they are the only ones who feel the way they feel and believe they way they believe, because Federal Student Loan Dollars. Shame and peer pressure are powerful motivators, until the curtain is pulled back, of course.
And that is why we scamblog. If you don't want to take our word for it as (old) graduates with bar licenses, fine...but don't ignore the experience of a current law student in the trenches, right now.
My advice to this kid is to worry less about conservative classmates and philosophy classes and worry more about graduating from a second tier dump with a mountain of debt and no job prospects.
ReplyDeleteAnd undistinguished grades, too. (This person mentioned not doing well enough to get the discount renewed at her or his previous law skule.)
DeleteAgreed. Personality conflicts and other minor matters are very small compared to huge debt, unemployment and underemployment. Your ex-classmates might be lined up after graduation and don't want any controversy while in law school. However, the mere admission of attending a law school relayed as a 2nd tier "dump" should tell you that problems are very highly likely on your horizon.
DeleteAbsolutely. No matter how comfortable he is with the liberal students at his new TT, his career prospects are far from exciting.
DeleteAdditionally, engaging people with opposing ideas will probably make you a better lawyer.
DeleteCalling those who think differently "douchebags" might be personally satisfying, but it certainly isn't helping hone any skills of persuasion.
Original poster, gotta say that I think there's little real difference between a TTT and a TT, unless you're calling USNWR 10-20 a TT. Maybe your own job prospects are better now but in aggregate simply going TTT to TT probably will not increase one's position that much.
ReplyDeleteAnything outside the top 10-15 schools I would call a toilet, in that the amount of debt you're likely going to incur will not be reduced or eliminated by an increase in earnings after you graduate.
Not getting into a top 10 or 15 school should send a huge red flag up for anyone who wants to go to law school. The thought process that should be triggered should run like this: "I have been identified as a mark by sleazy snake oil salesmen. Anyone encouraging me to go to school is as trustworthy as an Oriental rug saleperson. I should not go to law school and waste three years of life learning useless crap unless I know I want to practice law and I accept that I will have a negative return on the investment.
That's right, not getting into a top 10/15 school (some would say top 14, I would say top 12) is a huge red flag. And that's even before considering how much debt you can safely exit with. My own conclusion was that only a top 5 school can justify borrowing full tuition plus all expenses.
DeleteAbsolutely. The categories should go like this:
DeleteFirst tier: Harvard, Yale, maybe Stanford
Second tier: five or six more schools
Third tier: about ten more schools
Fourth tier: all the rest
Is there a difference between George Washington University and Cooley? Certainly. But neither one is worth attending, unless perhaps Daddy is covering all expenses in cash (which, incidentally, is the case for a lot of people at George Washington but not at Cooley).
Fools impart significance to moving from a "third tier" law skule (#101) to a "second tier" skule (#99). Such fools should not be in law school at all. This "second tier" garbage put out by You Ass News plays to the vanity of people who, as 6:42 said, have been fingered as marks by obscenely overpaid law-skule touts.
"Yale or fail" is not much of an exaggeration. And the wisdom of attending even Yale (unless Daddy is paying) is questionable. Plenty of people from Yale Law are unemployed a few years after graduation.
DeleteI think there are three categories of Law Schools:
DeleteElite Schools -- Harvard, Yale and 10-12 other "top" schools.
Second Tier -- Schools ranked from #12-15 all the way down to about # 80
Toilets (avoid at all cost) -- all other schools
Second Tier schools are worth it IF and only if you get a free ride (thanks to mommy and daddy) AND you have absolutely no expectation to practice law. Thus, you graduate with no debt, and you are somewhat free to try other things afterwards.
Toilet schools are a complete waste of money, and you should not go to them regardless of whether you get a free ride or not.
Anon at 10:27,
DeleteBut someone going to a school ranked 15-80 with no intent to practice law is still wasting three years of life, no matter who pays for it. My time is precious and as we've covered ad nauseum, jdadvantage jobs are a myth.
And remember, that scarlet JD on your resume is a huge detriment to getting a job outside of law.
And you can't really omit the JD either, because a three year employment gap WILL be noticed.
Take the $200,000 your patents were giving you to go to law school and invest it.
Agreed. But I'm a lot less concerned about the welfare of the idle rich. Anyone whose daddy can and will write a check for $200k or $300k is unlikely to have to worry about employment: Daddy will arrange that, too.
DeleteBut the argument I make with people who say that the T14, nay T13, are still somewhat risky is ... what is your alternative? If you get in there, isn't it worth the gamble? If I wanted to be a lawyer, looking at the stats, I would go to a T13, if accepted.
DeleteMy buddy is graduating UVA and he isn't looking forward to his future as a lawyer in terms of day to day work, but he's glad that he will have a shot at a good career. It's no certainty, but the odds are in his favor versus being an entry level drone in corporate America ... plus he starts at 150k salary, rather than 50k.
The economy is tough (there aren't high paying jobs sitting there for the taking outside of specific disciplines), you have to take risks ... going to Stanford or Virginia Law isn't a horrible risk if you're serious about life.
Your point is taken. Whilst going past the Bursar at my toilet one day on 2006 I overheard a conversation that went something to the effect of
DeleteStudent one: don't you have to pay your tuition?
Student two: I'm not worried about that. My dad
Pays that for me.
Yeah. I actually heard that.
I didn't know that person but I have had to work my way through life since the age of 15, (41 now), and I would have zero respect
for someone like that.
But the rich are different from you and me. They literally camnot understand life on a different level. America is a two tiered system now- the rich and everyone else.
That's kind of unfair. Yes, there is a two-tier society, but jobs which require 'hard skills', as opposed to 'soft skills', are almost always given to those who are most competent, or at the very least, networking opportunities are available to all in those fields. The two-tiered system for 'soft skill' jobs is present in finance, law, accounting, MBA programs, and high level government jobs.
DeleteThe young people I know who are successful software engineers, doctors, small business owners, or high-end carpenters didn't get their job through nepotism. My point: Hard work does beat out connections in most fields ... so pick those fields.
If you want to blame 'the rich' for their nepotism, well, I'm sorry but the working class is just as bad (I would argue worse) with letting their friends, only, into public and private union jobs. Try getting hired as a fire fighter or big city truck driver (some of whom are getting $80 an hour during overtime) ... you will need almost as good connections as it requires to break into Big Law.
The working class blames the rich for the same form of discrimination they use. Ha.
4:48, my law school—decidedly not a toilet—was full of little rich kids whose daddy was paying for everything, including the abundant liquor and the exotic travel. I had no respect for them: they were simply born into money and in most cases had little else to recommend them.
DeleteThey certainly didn't understand me, a middle-aged student who struggled financially throughout law school. Some of them wondered why I was trying to find jobs (answer: because I needed the fucking money) and why I didn't travel during the summer "vacation" (and even during the school year, as they did).
It is these nonentities, however, who got the jobs. I seldom got so much as an interview from any law firm. I obtained a federal clerkship but have doubts about my ability to find other work as a lawyer.
4:48 PM and 11:11 PM, spot on. I'm a 40-something myself now, and I too was absolutely floored by (1) the non-chalance of the preferred, protected, and connected, and (2) how many people thought it odd that I was so concerned about employment. Maybe becuase I was already fully employed prior to law school, had a family to support, etc.
DeleteThus, my handle and my scamblogging while working the coveted "JD Advantage" lifestyle. Law school is for K-JDs only, make no mistake, and even then only a select percentage.
"But the rich are different from you and me. They literally camnot understand life on a different level. America is a two tiered system now- the rich and everyone else."
Deletea/k/a pro-scam LawProfs.
"Plenty of people from Yale Law are unemployed a few years after graduation."
DeleteYou got a source for this? Because I don't believe it for one second unless the lawyer is simply a loser with no people skills.
During first year, I (11:11 again) asked the director of the "career" office about finding a summer job. Her reply: "You don't need a summer job! Spend the four-month vacation traveling around France!"
DeleteThere's been abundant discussion, here and elsewhere, of the fact that very few people at law firms nowadays make partner. Most are out on their ass within a few years. And that includes plenty of people from the Harvards and the Yales.
DeleteIn addition, when a law firm goes tits up (as has happened numerous times in recent years), even its partners can find themselves unemployable. Many older lawyers lose their job and cannot find another.
Actually, the original poster says he wants to hang a shingle, which indicates that he has no idea what he is getting into. But in any event, what does his rant have to do with the scam? He is wallowing in it like a pig in shit. He just didn't like the first school he chose and has plunged back in for more. He sounds like a real tool, too. Interested in justice? Get a life, pal. When your shingle is swinging in the breeze you're going to be worried about getting enough penny ante work through the door every month to keep the lights turned on. Unless, of course, you are a special snowflake.
ReplyDelete"I guess I was one of the only students who was truly interested in justice at that school."
ReplyDelete"Justice" - Not having to ever hear shit you disagree with ... ESPECIALLY in an academic setting.
This is a typical student who has no business attending law school. He (educated guess as to gender) denigrates "the special ostrich-type snowflakes" without recognizing that that description applies to himself as well. He frets about an imbalance between Democrats and Republicans among his classmates (as if the two branches of one right-wing party constituted political "diversity") while taking on six figures of non-dischargeable debt for a "random" pursuit. He thinks that the location of his "2nd tier dump" redeems the foolish decision to attend law school. He speaks vaguely of "other (non-law) possibilities" by way of papering over his inability to find work in law.
ReplyDeleteHaha I got the exact same impression from him. I understand there are conservatives that are probably the same, but there seems to be an endless number of young people that are gung ho liberals and hate having to even consider any other viewpoint. Most young people are liberals, for there to be any republican leaning people in his law class actually shows more diversity than the usual academic setting which is entirely left leaning. Law professors and even most undergrad professors are mostly liberals.
DeleteYoung people being Republican? Not my experience.
DeleteIf you look up the stats on lawyers, a good majority are liberal Democrats.
A lot of us suffered from bait and switch scholarship scams. Mine was at Hofstra during the Nora Demleitner administration. You should tell what school you were at so that others know the worst scammers.
ReplyDeleteNow, what makes this guy think liberal/progressive students are any less clueless than these "ultra conservative" students at the law school?
ReplyDeleteStupidity knows no political affiliation, and you're just as likely to find it in the northeast as you are in middle America.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I read the guest OP as saying law school was a mistake and that his/her eyes are opened now to special-snowflake-ism, that going to law school to hang a shingle was a bad idea, trying to get into a better school is part of what matters, etc. There seems to be complaint about fluff courses as opposed to doctrinal courses, section stacking, groupthink, and the like.
ReplyDeleteYes, there was the conservative/liberal dig, but I don't think that was the overall point.
What was the overall point? This person did not give up on law school but rather transferred to a supposedly better institution. If the lesson was to stay away from law school, this person had a strange way to deliver it.
DeleteBy the way, someone who has only just now transferred will not yet have experienced the new law school. Once the semester starts, maybe we'll be treated to a second round of bitching about Republicans (as if Democrats were not just Republicans in drag—see my comments above) and pretentious courses.
I agree with 12:03. I wish this student the best of luck. I hope he or she is not taking on massive debt. If you lose your scholarship, that's the universe telling you to drop out--not because you're necessarily a lousy student, but because the game is rigged.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI have no idea where the idea comes from that there are a bunch of young conservatives in law school, college, or basically anywhere in America. Does being against Obamacare make you a 'hard core rightist' now? I'm of the right, and I can tell you that the right is absolutely dead in America, especially among the youth. These days arguing for budget cuts is 'hardcore' conservative. Pfff. The left has won on every domain; socially, intellectually, religiously, politically, and culturally on college campuses.
Arguing for tax cuts, cutting social programs, and not driving the U.S. off the fiscal cliff doesn't make you a right-winger, it means you are not bat-sh*t insane.
Whatever, keep the taxes high, gov't huge, hand-outs rolling, and demean achievement ... the next century will belong to the Chinese. You liberals will be their slaves.
Unfortunately, most politicians would rather serve the Chinese than rule a free country.
DeleteThe standard of living Americans have enjoyed since WW2 was not equivalent to labor productivity, rather, it was a luxury of political power.
DeleteTechnology makes globalism inevitable. Sure politicians 'sold out' the working class, but they also made plenty of yuppies wealthy off of cheap labor.
I agree Jon. I made the post above stating the same thing pretty much.
DeleteI lean more towards the right but I know full well I'm in a huge minority and don't bother arguing or debating with anybody. It's just easier to let everyone think you're a liberal Democrat and just nod your head while changing the subject.
It could be because I don't watch much television. I'd like to think it's because I'm a little more aware of things, but that really doesn't matter much.
"Aware of things"--you're either a millionaire or a working class sucker, there is no other identity. The former holds power and makes the paradigms, the latter is silenced.
DeleteYou know, I appreciate this guy's remarks, but I hope his new law school offers a Philosophy 102 class.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the average law student going to look like after a few more years of declining enrollment?
ReplyDeleteThe profession is going to be full of know-nothings who think they know everything. That may have long been the case, but ability can eventually learn from experience. Inability tends to double down on stupid.
It looked like that 15 years ago pretty much. Law school really didn't start exploding until the bubble around 2005-2011 or so. Prior to that, generally people succeeded in other careers or went to something like medical school, only falling back on law when other things weren't working out.
DeleteBut now everything is more competitive and there aren't really that many opportunities. Engineering and Tech seem to be the only solid fields right now. There are also more degrees and certifications being required for other fields on top of that, like paralegal or nurse and a bunch of others. It's pretty tough out there now and has been for awhile, if you don't network yourself to a good profession or make it into medical school it can feel hopeless.
What may seem solid right now may crumble in a few years. IT seemed solid when I went into it, but in my early thirties I had lost my job (corporate merger) and could not get back into the field.
DeleteSo that philosophy-esque class was "...a way for certain professors, and certain douchebag students, to pontificate...." I'm left wondering if that's contemptible and absurd at all law schools, or only at a TTT law school. How about the poster's current TT school? Santa Clara University? The University of Denver? Emory University? The University of Chicago? How about Yale?
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to think that philosophy classes are out of place at any law school, and certainly shouldn't be paid for with federal loan money. They're obviously a vehicle for overpaying philosophy professors to alleviate the boredom of 3-year JD programs. If there exists so little law to teach, the length of JD programs should be reduced to 2 years.
NO, do NOT reduce law school to 2 years !! That would flood the market with even more lawyers, since law schools would pump-out more and more graduates.
DeleteAs meaningless as the third year of law school may be, we have to keep it for now until the total number of law schools shrinks substantially.
Surely there would be just one year where there were more grads - the year when the last of the 3 year JDs graduate with the first of the 2 year new JDs? After that, wouldn't the output just be the same?
DeleteNot a math expert, so I could be waaaaay off base.
Reducing the JD to two year would almost certainly flood the market with even more attorneys, primarily because law schools would increase their class sizes so that they can maintain the same revenue from tuition. Thus, if a law school had 300 total students, with 100 students per year, that same law school would now have class years of 150 students if the JD were 2 years.
DeleteAlso, we have enough problems these days with people entering law because law school is "just three years." Relative to medical school (4 years) and a PHD (5 years), law school seems relatively quick and easy.
Of course, what these fart-for-brains don't realize is that law school is three solid years of course work, with hardly any practical training, thus leaving students dependent on employers to train them. PHDs only have 1-1.5 years of course work, whereas medical schools have two full years of rotations. Also, there is NO law student to get a stipend for studying (as PHD students often do).
So, in short, law school MUST remain at three years for now.
@2:29
DeleteI think that side effect of class swell would be fantastic. Think about it: If all of a sudden the HYSCC schools increase their enrollment by 50%, there will be an utter shortage of butts in seats at the bottom schools. You'll start to see those close... there would likely be a domino effect up the chain (and rankings). Once you closed the schools that never should have existed in the first place, you might actually start reaching an equilibrium with the demand side of the lawyer equation.
Law school is both too much and not enough. Too much, because there is no good reason to force people to waste a year and $60k–80k on such tripe as "Neo-Rawlsian Theories of International Human Rights" or "Interdisciplinary Seminar on Law & Gerbils". Not enough, because the practice of law is almost absent from law school: students ordinarily do not even see, still less produce, a contract, a will, a motion, or an assessment of damages.
DeleteI'd caution any law student against taking a philosophy class at any law school, but especially at Chicago. Philosophy classes are the primary way the professors identify "morally depraved" students. Once you've been tagged as such by the intellectual vandals, your chances of getting good jobs or even good recommendations are slim to none.
DeleteIf you're going to a top law school, stick to law classes and keep it professional.
Right on, 6:31. Nobody needs to be tagged with the "Scarlet I" for "Insolent," merely for expressing their opinion, especially where grades are being held over their heads.
DeleteThat you, SW from CU? Sour grapes much?
ReplyDeleteCreighton? Hayseeds? Nah...
DeleteYou know exactly which CU I mean. Because you went there. Where your "podunk" classmates shared their notes with you, and thew a surprise birthday party for your pathetic ungrateful a$$. Several of those podunk classmates also got considerably higher grades than you, too, so I'd watch uses of the word "toilet," because that makes you a turd.
DeleteNice one, but i never went to either of those schools. If you actually read, you will see that law school change needs to be started by the students. Not in the form of "lets sue after we graduate (which is what some students have done). Well whatever, it's not like you bunch will listen. This is why the scam continues.
DeleteDoes this thing actually take comments? I click publish and everything disappears.
ReplyDeleteHappens to me a LOT. I just keep it brief and keep trying...off-peak hours are the best, maybe midnight to noon.
Delete