Sacred Cows Die Hard

What began as a "simple" post expressing concern over increased law school applicant rates, and the misguided rationales that could explain why such an increase is occurring, instead resulted in a lively debate in the comment section over the value and utility of law school and of a legal career in and of itself.  As some have openly questioned the purpose of the scamblogs now that it is 2019, it is all the more interesting that the debate still continues to roil, rather than being a matter that is instead fully "settled," if the use of the scamblogs has indeed run its full course.

Lawyers deal in nuance.  If a dispute was a simple matter of facts, or something that proved to be not much of a dispute after all, then lawyers would not even be needed.  It is preciscely becuase that large expanses of grey can exist between extremes of black and white that individuals skilled in weighing various factors, and advocating for a position that is supported by the same factors, becomes necessary from time to time.

The anti-scamblog arguments, as evidenced by the last comment section, still seem to fall into a handful of broad categories:

*  The scamblogs are just plain ignorant;

*  The scamblogs oversimplify the true state of affairs;

*  The scamblogs are insolent;

*  The scamblogs are a bunch of losers whose message should be discarded, Because Reasons.

What is interesting about all this is that these broad arguments were the exact same arguments leveled at the scamblogs almost ten years ago, if not earlier.  While it is unfortunately difficult now to link to  sites such as Third Tier Reality, one thing I distinctly remember from Nando's inaugural post was the debate that raged in that comments section.  The long and the short of it is this:  nothing much has changed between late 2018 and late 2008, at least as regards the anti-scamblog comments.  In 2013-2014 or so they died down, I would argue because the truth of the movement had been made manifest, but now that a new crop of students are applying who perhaps are not as acquainted with the message, the cycle begins anew.  This excellent post on the history of the scamblog movement is still informative.

--more below the fold--

As to the charges?  One could spend a lot of time reading the last few years of posts on OTLSS alone, but to sum up:  

Ignorant?  Well, the scambloggers are themselves licensed attorneys or law school graduates, so they do have first-hand experience.  Oversimplification?  Given the existence of Law School Transparency as well as the press generated by the New York Times and others who also criticized the state of the legal industry, that would also seem to be an unwarranted.  Insolent?  Perhaps guilty as charged, but it is all to easy to level that charge against a message one does not find agreeable.  Losers?  Again, the scambloggers are mostly employed (in my own personal case, for the last 13 years since law school, thank God) either in bona fide legal careers or "JD-Advantage" (ha,ha) careers, so I guess it depends on what sort of loser you are talking about.  "Slackers" you will generally not find among the supporters of the scamblog movement.

It all comes down to this: the scamblogs have never said "the world does not need lawyers," or "there should be no law schools," or other easily-dismissed dreck.  We have said "law school is financially damaging," or "there are too many graduates for too few real positions," or "law school is not for everyone, but a select few who have necessary and important financial and societal backing in place can make a go of it," or "really, go do something else instead," or "the top 14 law schools are not a sure thing, if they ever were," or "law schools sell pipe dreams more often than not."  And I believe we have attempted to support our positions over the years with not only our own experiences, but with the data that can be had.

Friends, law school is not for everyone.  Not only has the Cartel been called out for poor accounting standards, scholarship games and half-truths (see Inflilaw for some of the most egregious examples, but it is not limited to the for-profit sector), but the simple, real truth is that all the moxie and boot-strapping in the world does not replace solid backing.  It is not about intelligence, or determination, but the state of the industry, of which many players pay a part.  While a select few do enjoy notable success, many, many do not.

One prior comment asked the question: "Why would a bunch of lawyer bloggers advocate for free for not attending law school?  What do they stand to gain?"  After several years of being on-message, I would say to ask the question is to answer it, but to be more plain - the cynical, old joke is that maybe the purpose of one's life is to serve as a warning to others.  While it may not always be quite that bad (but your mileage may vary), the scamblogs do sternly warn for the real sake of others, which is much more than we received when we ourselves took the plunge among rosy employment statistics and JD-Advantage fairy tales.  That, in honesty, is all.    Make your decisions accordingly.