Wednesday, August 19, 2015

More LSAC Hi-jinks

First off, thank you to our contributors and our commentators for standing tall on the law school scam.  I normally try to pitch my hat in the ring two or three times a month here on OTLSS, and unfortunately work has prevented me from doing my part as much as I would like as of late.  It's a group volunteer effort, and I for one appreciate everyone's participation here during the summer, which can be a time of slow news days to begin with.

LSAC's latest numbers have come out, and they are showing a modest 1.9% drop in applicants for 2014-2015.  This has been heralded in some corners (mostly academic) as the end of the recession, the renewal of the legal profession, and other platitudes from those desperate to believe that needed changes have come.   Perhaps the rate of decline has indeed slowed or even stopped, but that didn't prevent LSAC from playing games with their reported data then and now.

Early this year, I lambasted LSAC for their questionable accounting and charting standards.  As we all know there have been declines in applicants for several years now, and the cartel was looking for any sign, anywhere, that the bleeding was staunched.  Below is my own view of the data, plotting applicants against applications for the last five years.  Amazingly, not only are the r-squared regression values damn near 1.0 each year, apparently you can count on about 6.75 applications per applicant without fail.



Which leads to the disturbing "bump" in the latest applicant chart from LSAC.  Thanks to the Internet Wayback Machine, you can see the same chart from the June 2015 timeframe without the bump.  Now, in August 2015, there is a strange bump in the applicant count for BOTH 2014 and 2015 where there was none before for 2014.  Furthermore, as we know the relationship between applicants and applications is linear, where is the consummate "bump" in applications?  Hmmm...nowhere to be seen, and the applications curves are as smooth as a baby's bum.

Or maybe there is a bump in the applications after all...?  I back-calculate approximately 4,500 students in the applicant "bump" that appeared between June and August, and if I use my 6.75x correlation on what appears to be a very small change in applications, I get around 2,200 students, or half of the recently-proclaimed bump.  Close enough?  No real change at all in applications, given the 0.99 correlation value between applicants and applications, so the disconnect between the two LSAC charts remains?  It's hard to tell just looking at the chart with its severely compressed scaling.


August 2015

June 2015

August 2015

In any event, LSAC has already demonstrated a propensity to game the numbers and their charts to suit their own view of the world, and this modest 1.9% decline is overall applicants is not to be trusted, bump or no bump.  LSATs taken continues to decline across the board, and to think that happy days are here again for the Cartel is dubious at best.

Athornia Steele, head of LSAC, described the scambloggers as "wicked witches of the west."  The truth can cut both ways, however.  I submit that anyone who values brains, heart, and courage will find common-cause with the (green-skinned) scambloggers long before joining LSAC's merry traipsing down the yellow-brick road that is no doubt paved with "good intentions"...and hefty, non-dischargable student loans.

80 comments:

  1. Athornia Steele is a lying cunt. End of story.

    Anything that charlatan's hands touch turns to dogshit. So fuck him, fuck his lies, fuck LSAC, fuck law schools, fuck law professors and every god damn last one of the cocksuckers who scams students.

    America is a scam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @11:16,

      "America is a scam."

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out. So which country ARE you moving to? LoL, they're probably all fighting with each other to have such an innovative, hard-working person as yourself become a citizen.

      Delete
    2. 11:16 keep it real and speak truth to power. This country is a fucked up place to live in. The postwar economic boom ended a long-ass time ago and the nonstop rabid cultural jingoism about how America is the greatest country ever doesn't fly with intelligent wage slaves like us. 11:22 can preach about leaving if you don't like it, but chances are his/her life is fucked up too and doesn't realize it. If not, 11:22 why don't you leave. This is a scamblog, not the Wall Street Journal comments section bro.

      Delete
    3. America's not a scam. The scam is convincing people that America isn't like other countries. Really, we're just a bigger Greece with more natural resources and a lot more wealth to throw around. We're fat, we demand that the government give us good jobs, and we love us a nice, bloated, cartelized economy.

      Delete
    4. @:11:16 AM:

      Pay no attention to 11:22.

      This is, undoubtedly, the same Tool that trolls on TTR and tried to troll me when I posted the comments about Pace's 3 + 3 program and coming out $250,000 in debt starting off. Oh, and then there's Gribble, the Boomer Apologist who got in a huff when I commented at the end about our friends, the Boomers.

      Allow me to repost a glorious soppy Love Letter by an apologist, Boomer-loving effete snob:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      gribble
      August 5, 2015 at 12:12 PM

      I wonder what the psychological damage is with these outcomes. It's not really mentioned much, but even without the debt, law is brutal.

      You can't educate people, make them unemployable, and then for that not to have long term psychological consequences. They called it a Depression for a reason, people aren't robots and numbers. People feel, no matter what anybody wants to argue otherwise.

      The tremendous pain and suffering inflicted by these law school pigs for consigning the majority of their graduates to a lifetime of devastating underemployment and all the shame and desperation derived thereof is appalling.

      Transparency would help, but especially Boomers are extremely stubborn in their solipsism. I know I personally still struggle myself, I'm in a way better spot than most yet I certainly can't say I feel secure and confident going forward. When I had the student loans hanging over me it was even more brutal, but it's not like I get to enjoy the stability the Boomers had with a career. I am very much still extremely careful with money and always looking for the other shoe to drop.

      People like 38 Year Solo are so rare. He gets it, he sympathizes with us, he takes up the cause and mentions the realities, and that helps.

      I have Boomer neighbors, I don't speak much to them but when I do they generally are dismissive of me in terms of career, family etc. It's usually not outright attacks, but passive aggressive BS.

      This might be a bit of a tangent, but I really wish there was some sort of frontier or something to explore. Just a way to get out and do something greater, travel to another place. I guess it's possible, maybe I'm too risk averse, but it would definitely feel better that way. If only to get away from the entrenched structure here, all the materialism, and all the focus on having a stable career and having the 2.5 kids and 2 cars and whatever other BS displays of status are expected.

      I've read that people during the Great Depression carried those scars their entire lives. I think probably the same has happened to me.

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Delete
    5. con't because of character limit:

      I stopped posted over at TTR Craphole because of the above Troll, who's apparently here as well, Boomer Apologists like Gribble, and some Boomer solo who keeps blathering on about his 3 Sons: Chip, Ernie, and Dougie who will "never be lawyers."

      Jesus Christ.. NO ONE WANTS TO LISTEN OLD MAN.. Least of all, me.

      He might "get it". He might sympathize. But guess what? He has no understanding of just how bad it is for graduates today when the balances are $250k starting before they've even graduated. And, btw, I underestimated. A recent thread on JDU about mandatory on-campus housing calculates $200k for an undergrad degree:

      So: ADD $150k to that and you're at balances of $350k starting!

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x5MSYJWPqEUJ:www.jdunderground.com/all/thread.php%3FthreadId%3D93755+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

      The Boomers may sympathize all they like but that's no comfort when it's your life that's ruined. Your life in the crosshairs, you who'll never be able to be rid of debt or buy a house or plan on a stable career or secure retirement.

      And they are still there, voting their own interests ahead of yours when all's said and done. And, I stopped posted because of the seeping "Blame the Victim" mentality I see on that site.

      And finally, yes, everything in America today *is* a Scam.

      Other places? Look at the Gini index and pick a country that isn't approaching Mexico like the US, say Norway. They do still exist.

      Delete
    6. 2:50, I'm hoping either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump get elected and restore bankruptcy protections to student loans. I would file immediately and get rid of this toxic debt. The reality is tens of thousands if not at least 100k lawyers are in seriously deep shit right now including myself. We need to be retrained for jobs now.

      Delete
    7. @11:16/1:08/2:50,

      LOL, I imagine three tiny roaches spreading their filmy wings and flying away to another country.

      You are just lazy parasites who want to leech off of the system. Now that you've fattened yourselves on as much borrowed money as possible (and you have probably swollen up like a couple of fucking ticks), you are simply looking to move on to a new host.

      As for your TL;DR comment, I have no idea what you are talking about - or who your little nemesis is - but I've got the summarized version of your crybaby comment RAAAAIIIIGHT here:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IBCkTI-ZBTM/U-N3JO5uACI/AAAAAAAAQZw/1Ko0_Z_HO7E/s1600/Borrowing-money.jpg

      Delete
    8. Stories shared from 38 year solo (and other scamblogs), were a big part of me realizing what a horrible job market this is (of course data like at LST helped). I declined my offers. As far as I'm concerned the guy helped me a lot. I don't see the wisdom or graciousness in hating a generation of people collectively, even if they do sometimes tend to share certain attitudes. I try to take people as individuals, flawed as they may be. Anyway, good luck to you.

      Delete
    9. @11:22

      Yeah 11:16 here. You're clearly an idiot if your stock answer to any critic is "well go ahead and leave then."

      Grown ups can admit that something is deeply broken (i.e. America) and then do their best to fix it (i.e. me) instead of burying their heads in the sand and ignoring things (i.e. you).

      What are you doing to help fix the obvious problem?

      Oh yeah, nothing. You're trolling because you're retarded and have too much time on your hands.

      So fuck off, "professor".

      Delete
    10. @12:08/10:44,

      THEN STAY. But quit fucking crying and pay back your debts the honest way.

      Pray tell, what exactly ****are**** you "doing" to "fix" your problem? Sitting around all day with your mouth open, hoping that somebody will come along and put some food into you? Let me know how that works out.

      Look, dude, I get it. Like you, I love to spend, and I hate to pay bills. But you're not the government: they won't let you borrow and borrow without ever paying any of the money back.

      As for 10:44, if you admit that every other country on Earth is far worse than the U.S., you should just STFU and count your blessings. Right?

      No, you're just a lazy roachie who wants a six-figure handout. Your idea of a "better" country is one that pays you to sit on your fat booty and goof off while everyone else works to support you. There is no country liek that.

      Maybe you just need a big strong man to take care of you and financially support you. From the tone and tenor of your comments, you would probably consider that to be heaven on earth.

      Delete
    11. 5:54 do you work for a law school? Only student loan debt, among all debts in Anglo-American legal history within the past few decades, has been singled out for complete refusal to be allowed into bankruptcy. The whole reason why America has allowed debts to be forgiven is to encourage business risk and allow risk into the system for lenders. Why are you on a law school scamblog reading posts by lawyers who can't find work and can but can't afford to pay back 100k+ in toxic debt? You probably work for a law school, which one? Everyone here wants to know.

      Delete
    12. @7:00,

      LOL - THAT's your only reply? A pea-brained conspiracy theory?

      "The whole reason why America has allowed debts to be forgiven is to encourage business risk and allow risk into the system for lenders."

      O RLY? *I* sure wouldn't feel "encouraged" to "risk" my money by lending it to someone with no collateral or security, if the law allowed that person to just spend all the money and immediately declare bankruptcy. With a mortgage, at least, the lender can recover SOME of his money by repossessing the house. Not so with student debt.

      You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It just blows my mind that you can't find a satisfactory job, i.e., one where they pay you six figures to watch movies and play video games all day.

      LOL, keep us updated on your job search. It's clear enough from your attitude that you are working VERY HARD on that.

      Delete
    13. 5:44, once again you're missing the point. Troll.

      "Your idea of a "better" country is one that pays you to sit on your fat booty and goof off while everyone else works to support you. There is no country liek that."

      Yes, there is no country "liek" that...

      You see things in black and white, when in reality they're many shades of gray. It's not a case of STFU or leave. Too binary for anyone but the biggest simpleton really. I expect that kind of logic from the dummies over at SupportTheConfederateFlag.org (don't know if it exists) or some other idiot forum.

      No, the reality is that the country I want to live in is one where AFTER PAYING $100,000 FOR A LAW DEGREE SOLD TO ME ON THE BASIS OF PROVIDING TANGIBLE CAREER OPTIONS, THAT THE UNDERLYING FACTS WERE NOT DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE, HIDDEN, AND MANIPULATED BY LAW SCHOOLS, LSAC, LAW PROFESSORS, APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU, AND THE ABA. I simply ask for fairness.

      Which is where blogs like this come along. An unbiased, truthful look at the state of the legal education industry. To counter the BS people like you peddle. To counter the lies clearly told by the law schools. To expose the scam for what it is, when others aren't brave enough to open their mouths.

      That's all I'm asking for. A country where universities DON'T FUCKING LIE.

      I could put up with the lies if law schools were cheap and student debt was consequently not so onerous and crippling.

      I could put up with the student debt if law schools offered the opportunities they so readily claim they provide.

      But I can't sit back and let law schools lie, take obscene amounts of student loan money, and place students in a position of massive debt and no opportunities. That's the problem.

      So take your fucking patriotism and suchlike and stuff it up your mother's cunt "liek" where you blew your load last night, Brancy Leitong.

      Delete
    14. @3:28,

      LOL, what are the "tangible" "career options" your diploma mill "offered" you? Do you even know what the word "tangible" actually means?

      And if the "lies" the law schools tell are so "clear" (as you claim), then how were they able to trick a towering intellectual such as yourself to blow $100,000 on them? Hmmmm?

      I enjoyed the insults, btw. You're quite a ray of sunshine ... I just can't for the LIFE of me figure out why it is that you can't get a job doing anything besides cleaning toilets and scavenging in fucking dumpsters.

      LOL

      Delete
    15. 5:54,

      Telling people to pay back their debts when they will never have the means to do so. Quite classy. I'm sure your law school employers are proud. After all, someone else is getting screwed and as long as it doesn't explode on the federal government's bottom line then you think you can hide it.

      The more important solution to the problem is to kill this stupid student loan program. All it has done is made higher education unaffordable for everyone. If these hucksters and con men want asses in their seats, then they can be reasonable and charge $5,000/year for the "honor".

      Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy is useful as a safety valve to be scammed. Unlike what the scamsters would suggest, bankruptcy is a highly undesirable state of affairs and damages your credit. They mustn't think much of those JDs if they think that these people are stupid enough to frivolously file for bankruptcy.

      Delete
    16. 7:00 You never answered the question as to what sector of the economy you work for. It's obvious that law schools are fighting back against their oppressed victims that they have defrauded billions of dollars from and it's no surprise that during summer break some of you criminals are posting here and at other blogs. The lender (i.e. the Federal Government) is on the hook for all of these toxic loans and the people are fed up with you morons making 200k a year teaching 1 class a semester. Hell, Elizabeth Warren made over 300k teaching 1 class and had the summer off as well. Good luck filing for unemployment like the rest of us who got screwed over you creepy weirdo.

      Delete
    17. @11:13,

      LOL - our lazy dingleberry is posting at 11:13 am on a weekday. He must clean all of his toilets on the NIGHT SHIFT.

      You certainly SOUND **LIEK** a quality employee. Between the nonstop crying, the utter lack of financial responsibility, and your apparent fixation on bestiality, incest, and - ahem - dog boners, I don't understand WHY nobody will hire you to sit in an office and goof off all day.

      Given your, um, fixation on the subject, maybe what you really need is a big strong DOG to take care of you instead. Arf, arf!

      LOL

      Delete
    18. 4:14, you're still failing.

      Delete
    19. @11:29,

      O RLY?

      Then why are YOU the one who is crying non-stop on this site, i.e. about your student loans, about every aspect of America being a scam, about how you can't find a husband to take care of you financially for life, etc, etc?

      I don't have any debts whatsoever. I truly hope that you are enjoying your, ahem, "success."

      Delete
    20. 7:08 go home, you're past your bedtime boomer.

      Delete
    21. I object to the suggestion at 10:44 of a sexual relationship between Leiter and Leong. It's well known by now that Brian's primary sexual outlet is his malicious denunciations of people he considers less powerful than himself. And he thoroughly degraded Nancy by convincing her to participate in the Illinois ethics scandal. That's got to be far more thrilling to him than mere physical seduction.

      Delete
    22. @6:02,

      How's the job search going? LOL, I'm sure you are being EXTREMELY diligent, since you haet your debt so much and obviously want to pay it off the honest way.

      Or are you still searching for a big strong man to be your sugar daddy? I hope your beau (assuming you find one) has a couple of dogs, as well - you seem to be rather interested in the subject.

      P.S. What would YOU know about "climbing the career ladder"? Are you trying to get promoted from toilet-scrubber to dishwasher or something? I hope you at least wash your hands on the one day that you make that big career move. LOL

      Delete
    23. 3:28 is a typical welfare troll. He likes to claim that the taxpayers should be punished because the trash pit he voluntarily attended "promised" him "tangible" "job opportunities."

      Naturally, his claim falls apart under even the most cursory scrutiny: what specific job did the law school offer him? Did the law school identify the future employer by name? Did the law school quote the specific salary at this new job? Did the debtor independently verify the law school's promise of a job with the actual employer? Or did the trash pit law school specifically promise to hire him themselves? Was the law school's specific job offer in writing?

      No, of course not.

      I guess the taxpayers should just be glad that this imbecile debtor didn't also trick himself into believing that law school would give him the power to fly through the air like Superman and travel through time. This loser *CLEARLY* thinks the taxpayers are on the hook for making all of his fantasies become true - but I'm not sure how the taxpayers can actually give him the powers of time travel or Superman.

      Maybe we could compromise by purchasing a dog for 3:28, yes? Dogs seem to figure prominently in his fantasies, for some strange reason.

      Delete
    24. 6:17 is right on. There is obviously a personality disorder going on. Who sues a Canadian philosophy professor for defamation?

      Delete
    25. I think that Nancy got the last laugh on that one. "She who laughs last, laughs best."

      Whatever Nancy did or did not do in the process of falling upwards, she now owns her own **Tenure!!** at the highly prestigious Sturm College of Law. So now she gets to grade and degrade any students who disagree with her. And they're going deeply into debt for the privilege.

      Talk about power! It's enough to drive a man-hating law professor crazy, if she wasn't already.

      Delete
    26. Please keep your comments fair, responsible, and tasteful. This is no place for personal attacks or sexual insinuations.

      Delete
    27. @6:55,

      I assume that little finger-wag is intended for the "America is a scam" commenter, yes? It sounds liek he really has incest and dog boners on the brain for some strange reason.

      I on the other hand get sick with rage when I see these lazy washout bums coming on here and demanding a six-figure handout. And posting at 11:13 am on a weekday! They aren't working at all.

      I hope that 35 years from now, all the stupid/lazy/angry indebted fucks who use this site to demand a loan bailout will be stupid OLD indebted fucks who are now homeless, and who finally look the part (i.e., no teeth, long white scruffy beard, filthy clothing, shopping cart, etc).

      If they ever bail out the student loan assholes, that'll be last fucking time that I ever pay any taxes. I will literally move to another country.

      Delete
    28. You there at 7:32 are one sick individual. Sick with rage, indeed. You sound like a cartoon version of a sociopath. But apparently you're real.

      No one ever got "a six-figure handout." The money was wasted as soon as it was handed over to the law school parasites.

      Here's a general warning about real life.If you go too far in trying to dehumanize other people, it usually blows back at you. It really will ruin your relationships. What are relationships? Those are what keep normal people too busy to hate at 7:32 in the evening.

      Delete
    29. "I will literally move to another country."

      I'd actually prefer for you to quit paying your taxes and then stick around. I'm sure you'd meet some nice homeless people that way. :)

      But if you really want to make a contribution to society, I guess leaving completely would create more value for everyone. And US citizens are still liable for taxes, so you'll be forfeiting your citizenship, right? Sounds good to me.

      Delete
    30. @7:32,

      Here is what I want to know, as someone with no student loan debt, two technical degrees and a law degree: what do you think should happen to the professors and administrators of these higher education trashpits?

      Law school was a mistake for me, but because of my extreme aversion to debt, I managed to graduate debt free. I turned down top law schools and I attended a TTT , which has resulted in me being a lot worse off than had I not attended law school (I make decent money because I am in a niche area of the law, although it too is dying due to over saturation).

      I turned down top schools to graduate debt free, and lateraling to another job has been close to impossible for me as a result; yet, I don't hate the idiots who went 200k in debt as much as I hate the administrators and professors who are using political connections and long standing social beliefs, ie lawyers make a lot of money, to con the naive and stupid to go into debt in exchange dwindling career prospects. Then, as a taxpayer, I have to pay the debts off and these professors and administrators get to live like kings and queens at my expense. Why doesn't that infuriate you?

      Lets say I will agree with you that we need to let all these debt slaves suffer until death for their mistake of getting a law degree, would you agree that these law professors and administrators should also join them in similar misery. If not, why not?

      Delete
    31. "sick with rage" - reminds me of the crazies I met while I practiced. Lawyers are scum. So glad I'll never practice again. Nothing but stress, drama, and bullshit with low pay and no benefits. Fuck law school. By the way, if you spend your free time on this Earth wanting other human beings to suffer you seriously should get some mental health treatment, unless you have a personality disorder which is untreatable. In that case, just shut up.

      Delete
    32. Oh really? You'd move to another country?

      Well, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out.". I believe that's a direct quote from you at 11:22 AM.

      Lol!

      A retard hoisted by his own petard!

      Game, set, and match to ME!

      Now fuck off. You've been thoroughly embarrassed by your own logic. Enjoy being proven inferior! Now go on, spend more time thinking of a devastating retort......and FAYLING!

      A "boomer" hit in the head by his "boomerang" words that came back to haunt him! LOLOLOLLLOLILILLLOL!!!!!!111!!1!!!!!!

      Delete
    33. @7:32,

      After 35 years, they'll have all have discharged their remaining debts through IBR or PAYE. Time to start planning on that big move.

      Delete
    34. "If they ever bail out the student loan assholes, that'll be last fucking time that I ever pay any taxes. I will literally move to another country."

      When you leave, maybe you can take the scammers with you. A country without law schools is change we can all believe in.

      Delete
    35. That's enough of the personal discussion. If you want to rip into one another, please go elsewhere.

      Delete
    36. Mr. Dog Boner Enthusiast@ 1:42/3:02/9:53/10:52,

      My my my, you've certainly been busy. Did you run out of toilets to scrub?

      The DIFFERENCE is that I am a taxpayer, whereas you are clearly a tax parasite. Accordingly, the country would be financially harmed if I renounced and shipped out - but it would be enriched if someone liek you did it. You might be happy to see the taxpayers leave, but you sure seem to be mighty fond of the tax dollars that would leave with them.

      See the difference?

      As for you, 8:15, I haven't really given your question much thought. But I'd say the student loan debtors are worse. The law schools didn't force their customers to give them anything - and they didn't really trick them to any significant extent, either - see my comment at 9:39. The loudmouth deadbeats, on the other hand, basically want to use the government to forcibly steal the money that THEY owe - taking it from taxpayers who don't work at law schools, and who had nothing whatsoever to do with ***THEIR OWN*** decision to attend law school.

      Really, 8:15 - which one of those sounds worse to you?

      Delete
    37. I just want the lazy debtroaches to leave the country. Or maybe I'll be the one to leave instead. Hopefully not - they probably won't bail out the roaches. Of course, my departure would be a regrettable instance of the country losing money. 9:53's exit would be liek a tapeworm exiting its host.

      Delete
    38. We're not ripping into one another, we're ripping into a sociopathic troll.

      It looks like the Internet may not be quite as elite and pretentious as you'd like it to be. In that case, you may want to go elsewhere.

      Delete
    39. @2:19,

      LOL - you keep ducking the question, man. How's the job search going? Which firms are you interviewing at today?

      Yeah, that's what I thought. Since you aren't working - OR even looking for a job - maybe you should just post a list of all the movies you will be watching today while everyone else is at work. LOL, the movies probably all feature dogs, don't they?

      Delete
    40. 10:52 here, paying taxes and paying back my student loans. Difference is unlike the troll, I'm not a sociopath working for the law schools to silence criticism so they can lead more lambs to the slaughter.

      I'm pretty sure the country would be plenty enriched if we dumped the law prof parasites. They're the ones getting fat off of massive handouts courtesy of the American taxpayer, yet you aren't railing against them. As I have said before, end this student loan idiocy and everyone will be better off for it; everyone except the scamsters, but they can go fly a kite.

      Delete
    41. @8:29,

      I think the law schools and professors are worse because they are the mob bosses and the student debtors, at worst, are the soldiers. I don't agree with your opinion that these folks were not tricked, nor do I agree with you that the law schools were not actually trying to deceive anyone. In fact, one of the decisions that was dismissed in court clearly stated that the schools were actively deceiving, but kids with college education should have known better.

      I'm prepared to concede to you that these people should have their lives ruined for being stupid if you agree that law professors and administrators belong in jail. ( I don't agree with you that that's the right thing to do, but if you'll concede the professors and administrators belong in jail for their theft, I'll concede it). They are the power structure. They are the ones lobbying the government to make sure this situation continues. They are the ones that have regulatory captured the ABA, both ensuring that curriculums remain useless and that any idiot (who will not be able to pay back the debt) can go to law school. Most importantly, they are the ones who keep the TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

      The only way your morality makes sense is if you are the type of conservative that believes the weak, naive and stupid should be destroyed, EVEN IF THE TAXPAYER eats the bill. I believe the tax payer shouldn't be in the social Darwinism business, where I fund (by having to pay back the unpaid debt) of the lavish lives of the trust fund professoriate so they can sort out who should be destroyed or not.

      Think about it this way. I'd like to sell shit product to idiots and get paid for it guaranteed by the government, but I can't because that's not how capitalism works. If I bribe politicians to make this scheme a reality, I can't absolve myself of my thievery by arguing that it's the fault of the idiot consumers who bought it.

      There is pent up demand for plenty of shit people want but can't have; it's the government and the puppeteers that make this product different, ie law degrees different. I hold them responsible because they are structuring, enabling, and enforcing the theft.

      Delete
    42. @1152,

      Let's agree to disagree. As I said, the debtors' claims fall apart if you press them for any "specifics" at all about what they were "promised." Was the promise in writing? Was a specific promised employer identified by name? Did the law school promise a specific start date at the promised job? No, of course not.

      Face it - most of the lemmings sold THEMSELVES on attending, with very little prodding from anyone. I mean, it's not like the law schools kicked down their goddam DOORS and kidnapped them - right?

      I guess the students were supposed to just put their feet up and let the law schools pass the bar exam for them, send out their resumes, and go to the interviews for them, right? "Hey, kids, take a load off and let our law school do all the work for you while the money just ROLLS in" - is THAT what the law schools specifically promised their students? Hmmm? If the students were THAT easy to "trick," then they probably would never have been any good at practicing law anyway.

      Also, you act liek the money went directly from the taxpayers to the law school. Aren't you, um, FORGETTING someone in that analysis? The debtor ASKED to borrow the money - and then he CHOSE to give it to a law school. You seriously don't think a borrower should have to pay back the loans that they take out?

      I guess every financial institution should act like some kind of "mad banker" - one that gives every single person $250,000 to play with, with no expectation that they ever pay it back. How long do you think that bank would stay in business?

      Delete
    43. @9:12,

      Yes, you POOR LAMB.

      Why would an institution of high finance make a loan to a LAMB? How could they expect a LAMB to pay the money back?

      A LAMB doesn't understand money! It sure does like to spend it, though.

      LOL

      Delete
    44. As a moderator of this site, I decline the suggestion that I go elsewhere.

      This really isn't the place for protracted personal attacks, let alone defamation. Inappropriate messages may be deleted without notice.

      Delete
    45. 5:16,

      "I guess every financial institution should act like some kind of "mad banker" - one that gives every single person $250,000 to play with, with no expectation that they ever pay it back. How long do you think that bank would stay in business?"

      Evidently they can stay in business a while, if that bank's loans is guaranteed by taxpayers. Very few of these debtors will ever earn enough to pay back their loans. Suggesting that anyone was guaranteed anything is a tired line of Boomers that ignores the basic fact that the vast majority of law school graduates have no chance of ever making a career in law. Paying your dues has nothing to do with it; your typical grad from your typical law school will never make good money as a lawyer.

      This is why law schools are so terrible; they lie about the expected outcomes of earning their degrees. Likewise, scamblogs are great because they open people's eyes to the lies. Law school enrollment has been declining for years and it needs to continue going down. The situation can't be rectified until a large number of law schools close.

      Delete
    46. 7:32 is gribble. You can tell by the style of writing. Banned on JDU, banned in life.

      Delete
    47. @5:16,

      Even if every single point you make is 100 percent correct, (which as I stated, I am not sure is the case), the law schools and higher Ed administrators are the power players that lobby, ie bribe, the government to make sure this system remains in place.

      I can't sell a product to idiots and get a guaranteed return from the federal government. What you fail to realize is that the schools got the money and the tax payer is going to foot the bill no matter what. Even if all of these lemmings never have the debt discharged and die on the street, they won't pay the debt back (either because they can't or they don't want to). The law schools are lobbying for this scheme: they get lent money from people who can't or won't pay back and then make taxpayers such as myself pay for it. I don't understand how they are somehow exempt from this thievery. The government isn't offering guaranteed and non discharge able money for other products, why this one?

      The purpose of these loans is to fill the coffers of the law schools, and it is the law schools and other higher education institutions that are maintaining a system that enriches itself at the tax payer's expense. The lemmings are the conduits for this exchange. The lemmings dying on the street doesn't get me my tax dollars back, as the law schools will just start filling their seats with bums of the street if they have to. What then?

      Delete
    48. OG - You've certainly shown a lot more forbearance than I would have.

      Delete
    49. @8:12,

      Are you a little bit, um, CONFUSED? The law schools don't "get lent money" from anyone - the borrowers do. They asked for it. Whether or not the money SHOULD have been loaned to them in the past, the fact remains that they should pay back the money that they borrowed ... right?

      "The lemmings dying on the street doesn't get me my tax dollars back, as the law schools will just start filling their seats with bums of the street if they have to. What then?"

      Can I borrow some money from you? It sounds like you would be an awesome lender, what with your nihilist philosophy about being paid back. Yep, you got me - the debtors can avoid repayment by dying of old age. But in the meantime (say, the next 65 years or so), shouldn't the creditor at least make a good-faith effort to get his own money back? I don't see how the rightness of that last proposition can even be seriously challenged.

      Delete
    50. @11:16,

      "Suggesting that anyone was guaranteed anything is a tired line of Boomers that ignores the basic fact that the vast majority of law school graduates have no chance of ever making a career in law ... This is why law schools are so terrible; they lie about the expected outcomes of earning their degrees."

      But, sir! Sir! Why won't you provide any SPECIFICS about these lies? Can you offer an actual quote? Something in writing, perhaps?

      See, this is why all these debtor lawsuits have (almost without exception) been laughed out of court: the plaintiffs get awfully slippery and evasive when you ask them to recite the precise language that "tricked" them.

      For most of these fools, BUYER'S REMORSE is precisely the same thing as proof positive that they were "defrauded." And yet they never want to share the info about what the fraudulent statements were. How very odd!

      Delete
    51. 8:14,

      The entire Simkovic "study" for starters? His followup conclusion that:

      "For many college graduates, the $30,000 to $60,000 extra per year that they can typically earn with a law degree will mean the difference between living in a safe and clean neighborhood or one that is dangerous and polluted."

      This statement is extremely misleading, as a great many law school graduates only find themselves in greater poverty. Were it uttered in any other context, Mr. Simkovic would be on the hook for fraud. The courts have ruled though that law schools and their enablers have carte blanche to defraud as many people as they like.

      I expect you are going to try to rebut this by claiming the statement isn't old enough for law school grads to have relied on. This just happens to have been the most convenient example. The lies didn't just start now.

      Delete
    52. @11:51,

      LOL, so I suppose you believe that every single person on earth who reads that sentence is entitled to have the taxpayers give them $250,000 to play with, with no obligation to ever pay it back.

      Is that what you are saying? He didn't even limit it to HIS specific law school, but rather to law schools in general.

      That's the strongest example you can even think of?

      Delete
    53. 4:56,

      Nice try, but no. I believe that the taxpayers should pay $0 for any lemming attending law school. Student loans are destroying this country, and they must be stopped.

      Delete
    54. @10:52,

      The student loans won't "destroy" anything as long as the borrowers pay the money back with interest - so naturally I assume that you are a FIERCE advocate of making sure that that happens, right?

      LOL

      Delete
    55. 11:23,

      Most of them can't pay it back. As in, they will never make anywhere close to the salary needed to service the loan. They should pay it back, but short of winning the SuperLotto many of them won't ever be able to do so.

      That is why we need to shut off the student loan spigot. Federal lending policy is incredibly stupid. That some kid with no job and no property can take out $200k in loans to go into a field where outcomes justifying such an expenditure are not typical is insane. Anything else is purely secondary to this objective.

      Delete
  2. So they are straight-up falsifying the evidence now. If there were any justice, these clowns would be disbarred and in prison. Unfortunately, the courts are in the tank for the scam so that's never going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let them cook the books. The fact remains that law schools are closing. McCooley closed a campus. Mitchell|Hamline (yes, the latest member of the vertical-bar club) prettifies the shuttering of Mitchell. Vermont Law School is teetering. Thomas Jefferson is tottering. Indiana Tech may dry up and blow away before its first class graduates—before it even achieves accreditation—despite bribing the general public with free tuition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be the greatest day of my life when shITLS closes its doors.

      Delete
    2. And when Indy Tech's drive-thru law school closes next year, I'm sure that Andre Pondscum will blame it on racism.

      Delete
    3. They have a drive-thru?

      Maybe they can re-purpose it into a Sonic after the law school closes.

      They suck too, btw. Just got one up here and man.. people complaining like mad. Barely 2 stars so far.

      Delete
    4. Fort Wayne could use another White Castle. "Dougie Fresh" would make a great night manager.

      Delete
    5. Dialogue at Indiana Tech's drive-through window:

      — Welcome to Indiana Tech Law Skule 'n' Take-Out Joint! My name be dougie fresh. May I take your order?

      — I'd like a JD and some French fries.

      — Your total is $156,727.74. Will that be cash or charge?

      Delete
    6. Don't forget the law firm drive-thru in Connecticut; anyone else remember that place?

      Delete
    7. Sorry I couldn't post the link yesterday, but here it is...
      http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/A-New-Spin-On-Legal-Service-105381588.html?dr

      Delete
    8. This Connecticut drive-thru law firm is one brilliant scam.

      Delete
    9. I wouldn't call it a scam, just a natural progression of where things are going with law.

      Delete
  4. That is some great investigative reporting, Duped. Hit 'em hard!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Finally, this week, the Wall Street Journal ran a series of articles on the grad school loan binge and the fact that the loans are going in large part to doctors and lawyers. The article covered the increasing number of loans that will be written off at the expense of taxpayers.

    Readers of the Wall Street Journal who commented were by and large enraged. Readers who paid their children's college tuition with great hardship or paid off their own loans felt they were duped, yes, duped by the Government.

    The article did not cover, however the disastrous impact that the loan binge has had on the legal job market. It did mention that there are no monetary limits on the loans for graduate school. It also mentioned that there are no standards for outcomes- the loans are wholly without underwriting.

    The U.S. taxpayer is becoming enraged with this system of funding a generation of what are going to be deadbeats because of the lack of outcome standards in educational loans. Right now there are close to half a million unemployed or unemployed lawyers, but the educational load spigot is deluging the legal market with more loans and hence funding hundreds of thousands of future deadbeat lawyers who will have no choice but to default because they are unemployed or underemployed.

    The Obama administration, when asked to comment by the Wall Street Journal, gave their blessing to the program. Whatever quality control standards on educational loans were proposed back aways seem to not be moving any closer to being the rule.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LSAC's numbers are obviously screwed up, but I would assume incompetence is playing a greater role than fraud.

    Here's at least part of what's going on: last year, without announcing it, LSAC decided to change the way it treated applications from people who were admitted but took a deferred admission. LSAC started double-counting these people, in the following way: say you were admitted to State U in the 2012-13 cycle, but deferred your admission until the fall of 2014. Starting last fall, LSAC started counting you as having applied in both 2012-13 *and* 2013-14. That explains why LSAC reported 54,527 total applicants for the 13-14 cycle in mid-August 2014, with 100% reporting, but then reported 55,700 total applicants for the cycle in its final tally a few months later (the 1200 bump was made up of deferred applicants).

    The August applicant numbers just reported don't make any sense unless you assume they threw the deferred admits from the 13-14 cycle into the August 2015 "final" count, since they're reporting 55,700 as down 1.9% from last year at this time, but last year at this time they were reporting 54,527 applicants. I think they're just confused and inconsistent.

    Anyway I heard from another source that the actual number of applicants during this cycle, not counting deferred acceptances from the previous year, was 54,130, i.e, down slightly less than 1% from last year. LSATs administered were up a bit in June year over year (about 6%) so this may in fact be the bottom, at least for now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The number thrown out above about 1/2 million lawyers who are underemployed or out of work. Is that a true figure or just a guess?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's probably the number who aren't working as lawyers, which is fairly easy to calculate. Whether that makes them underemployed may depend on whether they even want to work as lawyers any more.

      Delete
    2. Difference between number of licensed lawyers in U.S. and the BLS estimate of the number of lawyer jobs. Some of these could be doing something else, like being a U.S. Senator, or President of the U.S. Some could be voluntarily retired or voluntarily taking a break with kids. Likelihood is that much or most of the differential is due to staggering lawyer oversupply.

      Delete
    3. And of course that doesn't count the ones who have given up their license because they cannot do a thing with it.

      Delete
    4. That seems like a staggering number, it's hard to wrap your head around it, and another 50,000 will be out in 8-9 months from now.

      Delete
    5. Part of the problem is that 25,000 first year jobs do not add up to a million jobs for lawyers, making it impossible for a large portion of the law grads who get entry-level legal jobs to continue as lawyers until age 66 or 67 on average, the Social Security retirement age. The number of U.S. lawyer jobs is only 760,000, and that number annualizes lawyers working less than full-time. So you will have half the lawyers who get entry -level lawyer jobs in fact unable to continue working as lawyers or working part-time because there are not enough career lawyer jobs for everyone who gets an entry-level lawyer job to have a career as a lawyer.


      BLS does not collect any pay figures for the couple of hundred thousand self-employed lawyer jobs, (which probably equates to many more than a couple of hundred thousand human beings, many of whom are underemployed). Therefore, the compensation figures published by BLS vastly overstate the compensation of licensed lawyers.

      If you look at the new 2015 NYU Law class profile, the LSAT statistics have dropped since last year, and thankfully the class is a little smaller. Even a top law school like NYU is very risky at a 430 person class size. Now if the class was half of that, before and after this moment, and other law schools produced only enough lawyers to fill only 800,000 legal jobs for 40 years, an NYU law degree might be a very valuable degree. With the current numbers of lawyers vs. jobs, an NYU law degree is playing the lottery, and the declining LSAT numbers reflect that some people who can get in are recognizing the huge risk.

      Delete
  8. I thought the whole point of messing with the numbers was to fool other people, not yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is the difference between the 1.3 million licensed lawyers in the U.S. and the 760,000 lawyer jobs. Not clear that ALL of these people are unemployed or underemployed, but surely many or most are. You have U.S. Senators, President of the U.S., women who quit to be with their kids and some retired lawyers who keep their registration active. Most of the 500,000 are likely to be looking for work though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It blows my mind that people are STILL whining and complaining about law school. How long ago did most of you go? You all sound like a BROKEN record!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tens of thousands of young Americans are still destroying their lives with their poor decisions to attend law school. We have to keep talking about this until the law school cartel collapses and the fraud ends.

      Delete