In 2006, my first law school book, Later in Life Lawyers, was published. In 2012, I wrote a lengthy epilogue/update to address specifically the negative effects of the economic downturn on the job prospects for law graduates. While by no means the first to point out the fact that the legal economy crashed and was not coming back, I was back then – and remain today – an ardent believer in the idea that the legal economy didn’t just collapse back in the mid 2000s, but rather changed forever. And as such, attitudes towards legal education and legal careers should also change.
Attitudes didn't change though, despite the valiant efforts of many writers, bloggers, and other activists over the years who have done whatever they can to change the conversation about law school. And so frustrating was the continued rosy outlook given by the usual sources inside academia, many of whom should have known better and were (and still are) engaging in deliberate deception or incompetent misleading of college students – and it’s one of the two, because while commentators are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts – that I wrote Con Law: Avoiding...or Beating...the Scam of the Century with the great Thane Messinger, a book with the sole purpose of presenting a no-holds-barred, sugarless, utterly depressing portrait of the realities of law school and the legal business, because people were still just not getting it.
This isn’t a temporary blip in the legal economy; law school is not a place to wait out the tail end of the Great Recession and leap, upon graduation, into a job market unable to get its hands on enough qualified lawyers. The legal job market is never going to recover (at least not in any form similar to the job market of the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s.) Technology has taken its toll, law firms have finally realized that the “associate” is all but obsolete – certainly too expensive – and clients, now having seen that they don’t have to spend a fortune on legal services anymore, will not be inclined to go back to the days where lawyers were calling the shots and raking in the billable hours.
And this message is now, at last, being spread through established sources such as The Boston Globe. A recent article entitled Waning Ranks at Law Schools caught my eye, not necessarily for breaking any new ground, but for how similar its message is to that of the scambloggers and other law school critics many years ago.
In prior times, you’d have attributed quotes such as the following to a scamblogger:
“It’s a complete structural change, and it’s not going away.”
“The end result is fewer graduates, and fewer law schools.”
But you’d have been wrong. They are, in fact, the words Richard P. Campbell, lawyer and former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, who also is quoted, with no ridicule from law professors whatsoever, as saying, “The recession brought about a structural change.” We’ve been pointing that out for years though.
Who might have said the following KrAzY scamblog nonsense in response to the fact that law school applications have plummeted, not recovered, and won’t recover because students are clearly on board with the idea that law no longer offers a golden ticket? “There’s a pretty broad consensus that this is something completely different.”
In prior times, you’d have attributed quotes such as the following to a scamblogger:
“It’s a complete structural change, and it’s not going away.”
“The end result is fewer graduates, and fewer law schools.”
But you’d have been wrong. They are, in fact, the words Richard P. Campbell, lawyer and former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, who also is quoted, with no ridicule from law professors whatsoever, as saying, “The recession brought about a structural change.” We’ve been pointing that out for years though.
Who might have said the following KrAzY scamblog nonsense in response to the fact that law school applications have plummeted, not recovered, and won’t recover because students are clearly on board with the idea that law no longer offers a golden ticket? “There’s a pretty broad consensus that this is something completely different.”
Broad consensus? Completely different? Because if you'd have listened to any law school insider a couple of years ago, there would be broad consensus only on the idea that nothing had changed whatsoever and law school was still the best way to a fine, stable, lucrative career.
Those were the words of Vincent D. Rougeau, dean of Boston College Law School, who clearly didn’t get the Establishment memo to all law school faculty members to parrot the message that the downturn is just a temporary blip and jobs-a-plenty await just around the corner.
“Nobody is acting as if there’s reason to believe there will suddenly be a large spike [in entry-level legal hiring].” The words of a lunatic scamblogger? Because if one had listened to the words of almost every law professor recently, things were about to rebound healthily and we'd all be back to normal next year. (No, next year. No, we meant the year after that.) Nah, it's Jeremy Paul, dean of Northeastern University’s law school, who is also quoted as pointing out that, “Declines in entry-level hiring and flat funding for legal services programs have made jobs harder to come by, and law schools are not expecting enrollment to rebound quickly.”
Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad for the help. I don’t care who jumps on board the bandwagon, because everyone is welcome. I don’t even particularly care if the guy or girl climbing aboard spent the past five years shouting that the scambloggers were just a bunch of disgruntled law students who were responsible for their own failure, or spent the past two decades sucking on one of the countless teats of the student loan pig. What matters now (to me, at least, and this is in no way implying that I speak for this blog or any other bloggers or critics) is that the message is being spread by anyone willing to spread it, because there’s still plenty of people out there who still aren’t getting it. Yes, applicants to Indiana Tech Law School, I’m looking at you.
But let’s not let our guard down or stop pushing the message. We’re right. They’re wrong. We’ve always been right, and as law grads and lawyers who have been through the system ourselves and seen the nightmarishly bad job market with our own eyes, we’re infinitely more qualified to speak on the subject than the vast majority of law professors whose livelihoods depend on recruiting as many students as possible, and who, safely tucked away in academia, can ignore the realities of the legal profession. Law schools are “fighting back”. As the article points out towards the end, the automation of the legal profession is an opportunity not to be wasted:
Er, Andrew, no they can’t.
Andrew Perlman, a Suffolk law professor who directs the school’s Institute on Law Practice Technology & Innovation, said schools need to shift their focus to emerging areas, such as document automation and electronic discovery, which involves software that searches documents for relevant information. “It used to be a lawyer went page by page,” he said. “The real growth is not going to be in traditional settings.”
Suffolk created the institute, along with a new concentration in legal technology, to train students in the type of technology that has eliminated so many traditional jobs.
“Instead of fighting it, lawyers can participate in it,” he said.
Er, Andrew, no they can’t.
Charles
Cooper is the author, along with Thane Messinger, of “Con Law: Avoiding...or Beating...the Scam of the
Century (The Real Student's Guide to Law School and the Legal Profession)”, in addition to being the moderator at
Nontradlaw.net and the author of “Later in L ife Lawyers”. He can be contacted at charlescooperauthor@gmail.com.
This time next year scamprofs will be saying "It's not our fault, we were just following orders!"
ReplyDeleteThe end is coming....
Just following orders, like Eichmann—when they weren't busily counting their ill-gotten gains.
DeleteThank you, Charles. I saw this article and thought "someone should do a post on this..."
ReplyDeleteI say this all the time, and I'm going to say it again: Friends, who are you going to trust? An actual practicing lawyer, who is head of the Massachusetts Bar Association, saying there has been a structural change and the jobs aren't coming back? Or a Harvard-educated LawProf (and an army of Deans of Admissions) talking about how a JD is a "million dollar degree?"
One does not get paid based on your decision. The other does.
In the past I would have said "you decide", but instead I will say DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
"One does not get paid based on your decision. The other does."
DeleteThat is the key. It amazes me that applicants fail to consider the source of their information when it comes to law school. We make zero money from this; nobody who has ever written about the law school scam has ever made money from their advice, and it's given free, without self-serving bias, and is based upon actual legal experiences.
The pro-law information coming from law schools is stained with the fact that recruiting students is how law professors continue to stay employed. The faculty and administration derive every last cent of their revenue (and salaries) from student tuition, and their financial interest in recruiting new students is immense. No new students, no paycheck for professors, so course the law school propaganda is rosy. The pro-law information is also often given out by professors who have never worked as lawyers (within recent memory), and who have absolutely no idea about anything to do with the realities of the profession.
So who should the applicants trust? The guys and girls with experience or no financial interest? Or the professors and admissions staff who have no experience and a huge financial incentive to recruit?
It's a no-brainer. Problem is, so are most law school applicants these days.
Frustrating...
A few years ago, some of the profe$$ors might actually have believed their stuff about the supposed value of a law degree and the putative abundance of professional opportunities within and without law. Being so badly out of touch with reality was inexcusable but quite common.
DeleteToday, however, they're guilty of willful blindness or far worse.
I have academics in my family. Speaking generally of course, academics don't seem to understand the workings of the workforce.
DeleteFor example, I had a whole argument with my cousin over medical schools (he's a professor at one). He seems to think that there are not enough doctors and that they should build more and more medical schools. Sound familiar?
My point: I actually do believe law professors legitimately think a legal education has merit. They may be misleading themselves, but I don't thing they're intentionally being deceptive.
There actually is a doctor shortage, to explode in a few years. As difficult as it is to believe, the AMA issued a self-serving study showing a surplus of docs back in 2000. The flawed methodology did not take into account the retirement of most of the workforce through boomer attrition. The AMA acutally cares about docs and wont sell it for a few academic larks. I believe the reason is the length and personal destructiveness of their training. Like Vietnam, it builds solidarity with practitioners (dentistry could also be included in this.) Any other profession has sold out and opened up X number of schools.
DeleteAdditionally, don't be too critical of undergrad students. Their life experiences are high school and undergrad, where there is a modicrum of fairness and efforts of helping students because of their young age. The idea that schools are scams is a stretch for them. Youth naivete is a well cultivated enterprise in this country. We live in a very fluid, self-censoring society and it takes much life experience to cut through the B.S.
Charles:
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you said but I also believe the job market was hard from 1995 forward. In other words, the systemic changes impacting the legal market began in the mid-90s recession. The idea that things were great pre-2008 financial crisis or even in the early 2000s is a myth. It began much earlier.
I wasn't around then, so I'll take your word for it.
DeleteBut I think that something huge happened with the legal profession in the Great Recession, something far bigger than the usual ups and downs, and far harsher than the gradual decline that seems to have been happening for decades.
In the Great Recession, I think we had the perfect storm of (1) bloated firms grossly overcharging clients and generating busywork, (2) clients who could no longer afford to let lawyers call the shots, and (3) technology that was just about ripe. When all three occurred together, the profession underwent a seismic change. Lawyers cut rates significantly to retain business, clients realized that they could do much of their work without the meddling lawyers, and technology helped clients wrestle control of their legal affairs back from the overpaid legal profession. Doc review mills, online legal services, corporations tired of biglaw's bullshit, etc. The entire profession dropped off a cliff a few years ago, and the drop was sharp.
Law schools and law professors are just about starting to realize that their message of "don't worry kids, there's a giant trampoline at the bottom" isn't working. The applicants can see the growing pile of skeletons hundreds of feet below.
I think you are both right. As a graduate from the mid 90's, I recall the "Greedy Associates" Board (before "blogging" was a thing) that was popular from about 1997 until the early aughts. Associates from biglaw would post about salary scales (large), bonuses (obscene), house counsel jobs (cushy) etc. At the time, this was presented as the "norm" for young lawyers. Jay Foonberg's book about opening a solo practice and making a comfortable living right out of school was a best seller. Nobody discussed the bi-modal distribution of salaries. However, the BLS data and sites like Salary.com posted average salaries for brand new lawyers in the high 5 figures to low six figures (depending on your geographic location). If you weren't making $140K by the time you were 5 years out, you were in the lower tail of the distribution. I can't say the information was inaccurate, but as a young attorney looking for work in a large legal market, there was a disconnect.
DeleteThose of us who did not end up in biglaw were quietly wondering why we were failing so badly, and why we'd periodically discover classmates who'd dropped out of the business to become electricians and plumbers (they never told their stories). All the job listings were for those with "0-2 years experience" or "over 10 years experience" in a specific field or a "developed book of business." If you weren't established with a firm in the first couple years your chances of employment narrowed considerably. Those of us who got on with a small or medium law firm, learned quickly that the "partnership track" discussed glowingly during the interview process meant "up or out" and that for the large majority that meant "out."
Nobody publicly acknowledged this situation, and all we heard were the taunts from the Greedy Associates of "loser" and "S**t-law lawyer," and war stories from the partners about the "good old days" when kick-backs and "pay-for-play" were acceptable methods of developing a corporate client base ("I've got mine, good luck getting yours").
Things may have been great in Biglaw, but there have been hidden problems in the "common class" of attorneys since at least my time. It may be the only reason the scamblog movement is gaining traction is that the technological changes (e-discovery and dissemination of information about billing practices to the corporate clients) have caused some pain in the upper echelons of the profession, and those with memberships in the ABA realize the Ponzi system that is Biglaw will have to be restructured.
I suppose I shouldn't be bitter; I, unlike many of my colleagues, haven't been spit out of the legal system - yet - and have actually used my degree. However, it's hard when my mother-in-law tells me I made a horrible choice coming out of law school by not accepting the partnership track job that would have guaranteed her daughter and grand kids the millionaire lifestyle with a mansion and a yacht. People of my era will never be able to convince anybody that we were not malingerers and frauds because, regardless of the "new normal" since 2008 (or whenever) we received the golden ticket.
Speaking from the perspective of a 1995 law school graduate, I had a reaction similar to 6:16's. I don't really disagree with anything in the article, but I think it makes it sound like things were much better in the pre-2008 era than they actually were. This notion is bit of a pet peeve of mine, as it reinforces law schools' narrative that everything was just fine until 2008. It wasn't; the Great Recession took problems that had been developing for a long time and blew them up to a size where the law schools just couldn't hide them anymore.
DeleteI can't speak for the time before I was in law school, but my impression is that the market got bumpy in the recession at the start of the '90s, bottomed out in '93, and remained sluggish through '96. After that, a strong economy and the rise of document review masked some of the problems, but the job situation never got anywhere near as good as the law schools' employment stats would have had you believe. (Maybe it was that good back in the '80s? I don't know.) Note that the earliest shots across of the prow of the scamblog movement, like The Calico Cat and the Barely Legal blog, came before the big economic downturn.
The Great Recession did do a lot of damage to the legal market -- there's no doubt about that -- probably more in one fell swoop than all that had happened up to that point. But it isn't like law schools suddenly went from placing 100% of their grads in permanent full-time legal employment to placing only 50% (which is what the law schools would have you believe) . The number was probably around 80% in a good year in the late '90s or early '00s (in the depressed market of the early-to-mid '90s, there were years when it was probably in the 65-70% range). When it was 80%, the other 20% could be dismissed as losers who must have gotten bad grades or gone to bad schools. When it was 50%, and people with what had always been considered good academic pedigrees were struggling to find jobs, it became harder to brand the other 50% that way.
11:50's point is well-taken, too. When I started law school, Biglaw paid only $65-75K or so. My understanding is that the tech boom of the late '90s drove up Biglaw salaries rapidly, causing them to peel away from the rest of the market and creating the bimodel distribution that we have today. Law grads with the credentials to get Biglaw -- never any more than 15-20% of law grads -- experienced rapid salary escalation, but this never really trickled down to the lower ranks of the professions, who saw little or nothing in the way of salary increases. The Biglaw salary increases in turn seemed to touch off some kind of employment statistics arm race, with law schools trying to outdo each other in finding creative ways to manipluate their salary stats so it would seem like all of their graduates were getting Biglaw money. Before the late '90s, when Biglaw salaries rose rapidly, you couldn't do that, because there wasn't as much of a gap between Biglaw and everybody else. When I applied to law school in 1991, my school was reporting an average salary of $35K -- I kid you not -- and this was at a non-T14 first tier school, usually ranked in the 20s in USN&WR.
Good points all round.
DeleteIt might be a question of hope: in the 1990s, since nobody was speaking up about the scam, I get the impression that there was a general belief from many that things would turn around one day, that legal hiring was cyclical and has its ups and downs (although more downs). But today, I sense that any kind of hope for a recovery has just about disappeared, and that this is the new normal.
I remember there were waves of news stories about New York biglaw firms wining and dining their summer associates, Apparently a party atmosphere prevailed during some of those endless summers. That went out of style for awhile, and then in the mid-aughts it came back in a big way for one last encore.
ReplyDeleteThose days are gone forever, I think.
I hope so! That's one grotesque display of how the entire industry is less about the law and more about making money. Were I a client, I would flip out if I was ever billed for a single hour of summer associate "research," and thankfully many clients now refuse to pay for work performed by junior associates. I remember the quality of my work when I was in that position, and it's fair to say that no first year lawyer has much to offer any client.
DeleteGreat post, Charles. One of your best.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what Steve Diamond thinks about this. He's probably thinking, "The deans are turning against us!"
ReplyDeleteHe's "gone fishing," for the summer, as of this date. I'm sure he will have some grand rebuttal after Labor Day, as he certainly will have had plenty of time to mull it over.
Deletehttp://stephen-diamond.com/?page_id=4930
Thanks for the update, Duped.
DeleteSo glad that Mr. Diamond has the opportunity to spend the whole summer deep in thought. Hopefully, taking the entire summer off will help him generate some good and much-needed ideas for the next law review article. That would be well worth having a couple of hundred students go in debt to fund that.
And a note to students and graduates: quit your bitching! You see how your student loan dollars are being put to good use?
It doesn't feel like "Years after the end of the recession..." Welcome to the new normal.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is how many law graduates in are full-time, permanent legal jobs or comparable jobs for their careers?. How many of the higher paying big law full-time, permanent legal jobs are for relatively inexperienced lawyers? How many of the higher paying jobs altogether are for younger people?
ReplyDeleteThe people applying to law school have zero understanding of likely career trajectories - there is no information on this out there. How many of the legal jobs in the U.S. are full-time permanent legal jobs where a lawyer with more than 10 years experience can work for a career at least theoretically? It is fairly easy to get the breakdown of licensed lawyers by age.
If prospective students could look at supply of lawyers vs. demand in full-time legal jobs that a lawyer can actually stay in for a career, the numbers may be 3 licensed lawyers for every such job, or worse. There are probably a large number of the almost 1.3 million licensed lawyers who do doc review or temp or who work as solos and are not employed full-time. Is it 200,000 people or 500.000? No data is available.
Going to Harvard does exempt a lawyer from being impacted by the severe lawyer oversupply.
As Elie says, the level of applicants to law school, even today, at the reduced level, is still very much based on the "information gap." The employment opportunities for lawyers in the U.S. are much worse than these 0Ls could ever imagine.
Numbers don't lie. The BLS lies because it provides very misleading data on lawyer employment.
Yes, but when do the law schools start closing? As long as they are open, the scam continues, and as of this post, not one ABA accredited law school has closed.
ReplyDeleteWhile the deserving should be given thanks and appreciation, there is much work to be done.
You raise a valid point. Its the federal loan dollars that keep the schools open. Campos has said that he expects few if any schools to shut down - with the proviso that if the loan dollars stop flowing, all bets are off.
DeleteThe sizes of this year's entering classes at the various law skules will be known in the next couple of months. That information will be useful for predicting which schools will close and when.
DeleteAlready, however, we can see which law skules are in deep trouble. Several months ago it was reported that Vermont Law Skule was in negotiations with the U of Vermont over various options, including a take-over; and of course it is in financial trouble as well. Indiana Tech Law Skule filled barely a quarter of its seats last year and is now so desperate that it recently started sending out bulk mail with offers of discounts (up to full tuition) based on LSAT scores. I predict that Indiana Tech this year won't get more than 18 students in its entering class.
I'd like to see some law schools close, since that's the best way to reduce the number of law professors and the overall waste of economic resources. However, to reduce the number of students in misery, meaning debt slavery and marginal employment, all we need is to reduce overall enrollment. If that were to drop another 30 to 40 percent, the legal profession could take a deep collective breath and regain some of its former dignity.
DeleteSome of the top schools have done their part and reduced enrollment by 10 to 20 percent. If the inferior schools reduce enrollment by an average of 50 to 60 percent, then I don't care if they close or not.
Something has to close, even one school, in order to shock the system. I still think everyone is living in a dreamworld where they wish things were as they believe, but they haven't had someone pinch them and wake them up yet. So why not keep dreaming?
DeleteA school closure would be that pinch, and I think that's the next monumental moment in turning this mess around.
Still working hard on ITLS, but it's keeping itself out of the press these days. I think it's learned that there is such a thing as bad publicity, and that hiding the truth still works as a recruitment tool.
Does Indiana Tech still have an art collection? I want to see it before the school closes forever. I figure I've got ten more months, unless the administrators sold the art to pay their own salaries. In that case, some former donors may have gotten a bit upset.
DeleteCharles Cooper:
Delete"Something has to close, even one school, in order to shock the system. I still think everyone is living in a dreamworld where they wish things were as they believe, but they haven't had someone pinch them and wake them up yet. So why not keep dreaming?"
My bet is still on the worst of the stand-alone law schools. They'll have to offer massive tuition cuts and/or see class sizes drop like a rock, which means that they're looking at massive gross revenue cuts. And they don't have universities who might fund them out of status concerns.
Once the bank turns off their credit, that's it.
So your bet is still on the worst of the stand-alone law schools. Are we talking New England School of Law here?
DeleteHard to say which one is the worst; there are so many strong contenders for that rank. Appalachian gives New England stiff competition, as does anything affiliated with Infilaw.
DeleteMany stand-alone law schools are headed for the grave, but so are many that are part of a larger institution. For example, I can't believe that Indiana Tech will go on subsidizing its law skule for much longer.
Yes, it would be great to see some law schools close. That would be the most efficient way to reduce the number of law professors--and don't forget the administrators!--and reduce the overall waste of economic resources by a parasitic scam.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my greatest concern is humanitarian: how can we reduce the number of young people reduced to misery by the scam? If overall enrollment declined another 30 to 40 percent, then the legal profession could catch its collective breath and regain some of its former dignity. The students, some of them quite bright, who chose to complete law school would have reasonable job prospects and the ability to repay their debts.
Some top law schools have done their part to rehumanize the profession, reducing their enrollment by 10 to 20 percent. If all the inferior schools, including Brooklyn and American U, reduced enrollment by 50 to 60 percent, then the humanitarian crisis might be resolved. That's a result I'd accept and even celebrate, regardless of whether the worst schools are forced to close.
No, they must close. if there was a whiff of recovery in the popular conciousness, new suckers would apply and schools would revamp enrollment. Most don't understand the huge pressure of the administrative class to bring in revenue. This is no longer the crusty professor taking an admin position before retirement, but a full time MBA boob squeezing money out of anything for his bonus.
DeleteI had "Professor" Perlman at Suffolk Law School. One of the most pretentious, disconnected people I've ever met. A classmate described him as being mad that he was stuck in a sh!th0le like Suffolk when he should be professoring at Harvard.
ReplyDeleteAs is typical for law profs, he spent a few years in big-law then jumped at "academia" the first chance he saw. I'll give him credit, though. He actually new what meta data was in Word docs. Not sure why that makes him qualified to opine on law practice "technology and innovation", though. I'm sure he reads a lot of articles.
/rant
Let's see how this is supposed to work. Perlman will make you more employable by teaching you how to automate other lawyers out of their jobs? That's not a sustainable business model.
DeleteThe reality is that like most professors, Perlman has research interests that won't help his students find jobs. They shouldn't borrow money to take his classes, period.
If Perelman were willing to leave the Boston area, he could probably find a more prestigious job. Harvard is out of the question with those credentials. LLM from Columbia? Give me a break.
DeletePeter Alexander's page on LinkedIn mentions as his last job that position at Indiana Tech. Currently he describes himself as a "Consultant" in Carbondale, Illinois.
ReplyDeleteHow likely is it that he would suddenly resign sua sponte as both dean and tenured professor only to become a "Consultant" elsewhere? Does anyone have trouble reading between the lines?
Looks like he got canned and went back to Carbondale with his tail between his legs. I wonder if he's consulting for the SIU law school, where he used to be dean. He never should have left.
Delete"Consultant" is often a way to put a positive spin on unemployment.
DeleteI just can't believe that he resigned even a tenured post as professor for the sake of becoming a nondescript "consultant" supposedly pursuing other employment opportunities (according to Indiana Dreck's press release). He must have been given the axe. But why? Removing him as dean is one thing; forcing him out of his tenured sinecure is another. I suspect that something really ugly happened. Who can give us the inside scoop?
A tenured sinecure at Indiana Tech doesn't mean much. The institution as a whole is not on the line to keep tenured law professors living in luxury. Financial exigency, you know.
DeleteHere's a really good question for any remaining defenders of the law school scam:
DeleteWhy doesn't Peter Alexander describe himself as an ATTORNEY in Carbondale, Illinois?
OT - a couple of links that may be of interest:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/a-law-firm-cashes-in-on-the-management-of-data/2014/07/18/fcbce420-0c68-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html
"Rosenthal said he recently got 400 applicants to fill 10 such spots." (document review)
From 2004:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100201042315/http://www.calicocat.com/2004/08/law-school-big-lie.html
Note that some of the comments are similar to the ones Law School Lemmings receives.
Found the Calico Cat link via JDJunkyard:
http://jdjunkyard.forumatic.com/index.php?sid=651ab7ef329e69c7753c25744c7f3656
which perhaps should be on this site's blog roll.
Better link for JDJunkyard:
ReplyDeletehttp://jdjunkyard.forumatic.com/viewforum.php?f=2
If you want to get more people on the bandwagon, remember to appeal to our natural allies against the scam. Those allies include college professors in subjects other than law. They could be at the forefront in protesting the law professors' excessive salaries, miniscule workloads, and inexplicable exemption from peer review.
ReplyDeleteEven most philosophy professors could be enlisted to question the moral assumptions of the law school scam. Most law-and-philosophy articles are absolute trash, due to lack of self-awareness by the authors, lack of peer review, and the ridiculous multiplication of venues. Philosophy professors outside the scam can easily tell what's happening, and we need them to speak out against the laziness, entitlement, and inflated egos of the law professors. Not to mention, in certain cases, their boorish behavior, poor hygiene, and general contempt for social norms.
Go to Seattle, you'll find plenty of bandwagoners there!
ReplyDelete