Ripped from the headlines, as it were, as of February 21, 2019:
Some schools took advantage of students’ desperation for a lucrative career in law, said Jerry Anderson, dean of the Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa. To attract students, they lowered admission standards and let students borrow well into the six figures to pay ever-rising tuition bills. Meanwhile, bar exam failure rates were rising.
“Not everyone should go to law school,” Anderson said. “Admitting students that are not really prepared for the rigors of a legal education or for the rigors of a legal practice, that’s a bad thing.”
A-yup. Totally agree. Nice that people in-the-know are actually talking about it, instead of pretending like it didn't happen. Where was this discussion previously, especially when Campos and Tamanaha were being called out, to say nothing of other scambloggers...? Wonder if Nando saw this...
Kaplan's Thomas said that what many people in the legal education field now see is “a little right-sizing of legal education. If we have all these schools and not enough demand to satisfy them, perhaps it would be better off in the longer run if some of the law schools — particularly in the lower tier — did indeed choose to close.”
Hilarious. A little "right-sizing." I seem to remember a lot of push-back on this idea, previously, how everything is fine, how the scambloggers are losers, if you can dream it you can achieve it, etc. etc. etc. I notice many usual-suspects LawProfs have been very non-vocal on this, compared to even 5-10 year ago. And what about access? How do you plan to defend liberty and pursue justice with fewer, count 'em, fewer law schools...?
Meanwhile, law school tuition has been soaring. According to data compiled by the advocacy group Law School Transparency, since 1985, tuition at private law schools has risen 270 percent, while tuition at public schools has risen 580 percent after accounting for inflation. Average tuition now stands at $47,000 at private schools, $27,000 for public in-state students and $40,000 for public out-of-state students.
If you go with the assumption that costs double every twenty years, law schools have been making a hefty profit way above even that rule-of-thumb, all along the way. Because the law is "dynamic" and "ever-changing," don'cha know.
“People have long viewed a legal education as a ticket to financial security,” McEntee says [sic]. “And that just wasn’t the case. Not only did a substantial number of graduates not actually become lawyers, but then once you do become a lawyer, not all the salaries are commensurate with what you might expect if you get your information from the news or TV or movies.”
McEntee pointed out that fewer than 70 percent of today’s law school graduates land jobs that require a J.D. and passing the bar exam — the legal jobs that tend to pay the highest salaries. Several decades ago, the proportion was above 80 percent.
Ah well. Pay no mind, nothing to see here, move along. Just dive-in, 0Ls, the Law School Cartel has nothing but your best interests at heart. The mean, mean scambloggers just want to thin the ranks so as to have less competition in their lucrative legal careers.
"....not all the salaries are commensurate with what you might expect if you get your information from the news or TV or movies.”
ReplyDeleteThey forgot to add something:
"Or if you get your information from the law schools themselves."
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.
DeleteMcEntee, of Law School Transparency, is on our side. He has done good anti-scam work for years.
DeleteCould you please cite your source for this article? Commenting on random excerpts is not very helpful. Thanks
ReplyDeleteThe citation is the link ("February 21, 2019") in the first sentence.
DeleteAnderson is hypocritical to condemn "[s]ome schools" that "lowered admission standards and let students borrow well into the six figures". His own toilet school, Drake, did just that. The cost of attendance, if fully financed with debt, is $236k. And Drake has generally lowered its standards in recent years. It draws its students from the vicinity of the fiftieth percentile on the LSAT. Drake is not an über-toilet, but it definitely is a toilet.
ReplyDeletePre-scam, Drake produced main street lawyers, insurance subrogation, and county prosecutors. After the market became saturated, those positions were sought by people from more prestigious schools, and the Drake grads were squeezed out. If you graduate in the top 1/3, you have a chance. If not, your degree is worthless.
DeleteIf it weren't for Drake there would be no Nando, so I guess it has some use.
DeleteRespectfully, please stop with the "top third" stuff. There are two sets of students in law schools today: those who are in the top ten percent of the class (and preferably on the Law Review as well) and those who are not. Part of the scam is convincing dupes, well, if you aren't in the top ten percent, and you don't make Law Review, but if you are ranked in, uh, the top 35 percent, or 30 percent or 40 percent or whatever, and if you write for The Environmental Justice Quarterly. . .well. . . see. . .that's pretty much the same thing as being at the top of your class and making Law Review--it is not. On Campus Interviews are limited to the Top Ten Percent. The Career Service Center will happily line up OCI for these folks (who don't need the Career Service Center anyway). If you, respectfully, think that anyone, anywhere, gives a damn about someone blabbering, well, I was in the 67th percentile, and check out this article I wrote for the Space Law quarterly. . .rest assured, no one cares. Literally, no one cares at all. I have been practicing for over 20 years. Know how many lawyers told me they were in the top third of their class and wrote for a non-law review journal? Zero.
DeleteMy LSAT was the 70th percentile at the time and I could only get into a 4th tier (US News) on your tierings bottom or second to bottom.
DeleteAs 4:42 said, "top third" is meaningless outside Harvard, Yale, and maybe five or six other schools. It's simply a confession that one ended in the middle of the class. (The top 5% are in the "top third" but wouldn't say so; they'd say "top 5%" or similar.)
DeleteEven the top 10% aren't likely to do well coming out of an über-toilet such as Appalachian or Western State or Florida Coastal. Once again, the choice of school is critical. However great your ass may be (and it isn't half so great as you think), it doesn't belong at a toilet law school. No amount of perfume in the form of grades or law review will mask the stench of "Cooley" or "Ave Maria" or "Touro" on a résumé.
It's also quite true that no one gives a good goddamn about any law review other than the flagship one. If you edit Journal of International Talmudic Sports Law or Intersectionality of Dolphins and Hip-Hop, you only advertise your failure to make the real law review. Don't even bother with these bullshit publications. Everybody knows that they exist primarily as prestige-whoring instruments for those with no claim to prestige. And don't tell me that you're interested in international Talmudic sports law as a career. That too is a sign of stupidity.
4:42 is spot on. One of the dirty secrets is that the law schools know the percentages, but they let hundreds of people attend because "liberty" and "justice." You're encouraged to fight on, to keep striving, because A's become Professors, B's become Judges, and C's become attorneys.
DeleteUtter horse s**t. All that matters are the top positions and the credentialling markers that go with (e.g. "real" law review), and even then it has been a struggle for some of these folks with the best credentials. So much worse, then, for the bottom 90%. But to hold to the truth as shown by the real-world experience of 4:42 would ethically require the admission of fewer students.
If fewer people attended, the glut of attorneys would be reduced, and everyone would have somewhat better prospects in the most broad sense possible. But that impacts Cartel pocketbooks, so don't expect that to happen anytime soon, except through forcible Valpo-style market closures.
"A students become professors, B students become judges, C students become rich" may not be altogether wrong at a Harvard, but it is totally off base at a Cooley. Hardly anyone out of a Cooley becomes a professor or a judge—and do you really have to ask about becoming rich?
DeleteTop grades and the flagship law review matter at only a small number of schools—maybe 30 at the outside. They should help you at Michigan but not at Humdrum U. Again, if you must go to law school, at least select one of the thirteen (http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-seven-tiers-of-law-schools.html) that have an arguable claim to prestige and also see half or more of their graduates get high-paying jobs. Do not go to Humdrum U. Certainly do not go to an über-toilet.
Expecting to make the top 10% and the law review is a bad plan. Old Guy made both (in a breeze, too), but he didn't expect to do so. There isn't much room at the top, and you can't feel confident of arriving.
Per the article - "Dream Center Education Holdings." Some of the muckity-mucks behind Western State Law in CA.
ReplyDeleteInfilaw by another name, and also in receivership. How can they be so brazenly cynical, calling thier endeavour a "dream center." It's insulting, really.
The previous article here discussed Western State, which apparently is no longer viable (its students are not receiving student loans) and can be expected to close soon.
Delete"Dream Center" turns out to be a church that bought up dozens of bullshit schools of various sorts (the über-toilet law school was just part of a package). Now "Dream Center", more of a nightmare center for its dupes, is bitching because its investments have failed, and somehow the good Christians of "Dream Center" seem to have made off with some $9 million in financial aid that should have been distributed to students. As you said, it's just another InfiLaw.
Sad. So, along with Western State, Whittier and Valpo are also examples of dare I say "faith-based" instiutions who hit the wall, but not before cashing the checks of course. Probably won't happen due to other factors (backing, donors, reputation), but it makes you wonder how long till a Loyola, a Pepperdine, or a Notre Dame fall from grace for the same reasons...?
DeleteWe don't need faith-based institutions; we need reason-based ones. Keeping the hopeless out of law school is far more helpful than praying that they'll pass the bar exams and find a decent job.
DeleteThere's quite a proliferation of religious law schools, at least within the Judaeo-Christian framework: lots of Catholic ones, a few evangelical Protestant ones, a Jewish one, a Mormon one… All are in Tiers 4, 5, and 6. Not one of them is needed.
Old Guy, stop wasting your time rehashing the obvious. Yes, some law schools are scams. But I don't have much sympathy for the dumbasses who get a 140 on the LSAT and think they'll be the next Paul Clement after emerging from Cooley or Coastal. And I don't have much sympathy for the bloggers on here who reiterate the same points and act like victims. I do, however, respect schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, NYU, and Columbia (left-wing unstable profs notwithstanding). Employment outcomes are generally good and the graduates are very smart. And that's the thing: the best lawyers are those with superior intellects and analytical abilities, which is something you can't teach through "academic success" or whatever bullshit programs some schools implement to try to save intractable idiots who think Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a true visionary. Simply put, 4th tier trash schools = bad. Harvard, Yale etc. = good. Now move on to new material. Better yet, apply to Cooley and create "pathways" to practice by teaching "intersectionality," embrace trigger warnings and microaggressions, and inflate minorities' grades to increase "access to justice."
DeleteThis blog is very important because it warns people there is a huge oversupply of lawyers, even if you go to a school on the "good" list. Many of us have gone to the top law schools and spent years on a job search. It is very hard to attain full-time permanent employment as a lawyer for an entire career, given the oversupply. I earn about 75% of what an experienced teacher earns in my area. I have suffered long periods of unemployment and underemployment. I would no do this over again
DeleteLOL that Drake dean just won himself an instant spot in the Scam Hall of Fame. 5-year waiting period waived.
ReplyDeleteReferring to the lead article, these stats will be interpreted by the toileteers as the employment rate going from 80% 'decades' ago, to 70 % now. A tolerable and reasonable decrease.
ReplyDeleteIt was above 80% and is now below 70%, with many of the "jobs" being poorly paid (perhaps even unpaid) dead-end positions of the document-review variety. In the meantime, the cost has gone through the roof: all law schools now cost six-figure sums when fully financed with debt, and several are approaching $400k. The possibility of discharging student loans in bankruptcy has also been eliminated.
DeleteHere is some data from 2001 to 2013, from NALP. In 2013, a full third of graduates were not getting JD-required (aka lawyer) jobs. And these were the people who responded to the surveys, on top of it.
Deletehttp://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2014/07/jd-disadvantage-part-iv-burks-smokin.html
Generally, when people don't respond, its becuase they have nothing to report (i.e. no prospects). This data was/is not encouraging. It is cavalier and trust-fundey to say "oh well, it's only a 10% drop" when it is not your financial future on the line. Telling people "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed" doesn't help, but this is exactly what the Cartel tells the also-rans each and every year.
The toileteers are looking for any positive reinforcement they can get. If someone says that <70% are becoming employed then that means at least 65% are. The 35% who don't either didn't really want to be lawyers, chose other lucrative paths, or failed to distinguish themselves in law school. Of course, we know the truth is much different. If 65% overall are obtaining JD employment, then the reality for the toilets is much worse, since the Tier ones and twos are probably in the 90% range. The toilettes are lucky to get 40%.
DeleteI'm not so sure the law schools themselves are making promises as to employment. The liability in doing so is great, and there are enough third party shills, such as the ones who post here, to do that work for them. But I may be mistaken.
The law schools don't have to make false promises of employment, since most toileteers don't bother to find out about their poor prospects, and even those who are confronted with the facts are likely to deny them. That's one reason for which I have opposed all lawsuits that disgruntled toileteers have brought against their toilet law skules.
DeleteAdditional NALP data through 2016. Same basic story.
Deletehttp://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2017/10/jd-disadvantage-part-viii-no-conference.html
If they are not passee yet, they will be soon. Since the blog has decided contrarian opinions are not worthwhile, which means this site need never defend or support its decisions, I am guessing that most people will not give this site more than a passing interest. Okay, you can keep repeating over and over and over again that Lawschool is a scam...how many times does somebody have to read it before they lose interest? Funny thing is that law teaches the best way to seek the truth is through argument and marshaling of evidence, and supposedly the truth than prevails. But you all apparently don't want any argument or any contrary opinions. You don't want to hear about people who are successful in the law or who make a personal decision to take on debt because they make the judgment that is the best thing they can do for themselves. You all have a cookie cutter mentality...you speak in absolutes. But the truth is there are pros and cons to everything and people do not and should not think in terms of absolutes. People need to hear both sides so they can make a reasoned decision for themselves. But you all have so much contempt for those who do not agree with you or can not accept that there are contrary arguments, that you will no longer accept other points of view. That's fine, its your blog, but I am just wondering why anybody who is thinking about law school would just accept what you all had to say as an absolute. You know, those who decided to avoid law school today, twenty years from now may look back on their lives and they will have to ask themselves...did they make the right decision. How they answer will depend on how successful they were in their own lives I assume, but I think that psychologically, it is easier for people to say they gave something their best shot and failed as opposed to realizing they abandoned their dreams and never gave it a shot to begin with. And going to lawschool and never practicing law is by no means the worst thing that can happen to somebody. Again, a law degree doesn't have to cost anymore than the typical college degree does it? I get this will likely not be posted, and so I will likely not bother with this site again. Intolerance of different opinions is not something I can stomach.
ReplyDeleteGiving your best shot is just not good enough in a profession that is stagnant next to the rest of the economy. You end up with educational debt and a profession that really does not need you. Even a degree from Harvard or Yale Law is often junk when the holder turns age 52.
DeleteThe law of supply and demand is working against you if you are a lawyer.
A law degree costs significantly more than other degrees. Compare the cost of a law degree at Hastings with, say, a degree in computer science or elementary education at Chico State. The costs are even higher when you factor in the loss of three years of wages for a college graduate ($120K to 150k?). And to add insult to injury, not only are the costs higher, but the returns are lower. Can you say "negative ROI"?
DeleteSo now the argument is not even that if there is no place as a lawyer, the law degree is a credential that unlocks a myriad of other doors. The arguments are that the law degree makes one a finder of truth. How if one is not a attorney? By using skills and procedures that are never used outside a courtroom or in the judicial process? The law degree will make one feel good about themselves. They fought the good fight. It leaves one with a feeling of empowerment and bestows great prestige upon its holders.
DeleteKeep posting we need the comic relief here.
Who let Mr. Ellipsis back in? His math skills are even worse than mine: yes, you can get a law degree for the cost of a college degree-but the law degree is in addition to the college degree-in other words, double your cost for limited or no return.
DeleteAnd while his obsession with this blog is both creepy and oddly flattering, he misses the point, completely. This blog, and the few that are left, are a single light in the darkness. The darkness-the scam-on the other hand spends literally millions of dollars a year to entice the gullible to get worthless scam degrees-with the taxpayers ultimately footing the bill. They've got national organizations, publicists, scam deans/prof etc etc singing the praises of the scam, and against them are few, very few, self-funded blogs presenting the truth.
So it is heartening to see the scoundrels turn on each other, as noted in the above post, and it's amusing that the dean of Drake would be such a rank hypocrite. But it also proves how badly the blogs are needed; these scoundrels will stop at nothing to keep the scam going-at least their little corner of the scam, that is.
And Mr. Ellipsis? Well, the best way to describe him is as a supporter of the Grand False Equivalence, somehow comparing the corporate law scam machine to a few hardy souls speaking the truth.
And yes, he should be banned; he seeks nothing more than to entice the clueless into making a terrible life-long decision. Let the mega-funded law school scam do that; no need to give his tripe a forum.
Look's like 10:30's comment was posted, after all. Maybe the "intolerance" is much more one-sided than 10:30 cares to admit.
Delete10:30 am here. You know what is the worst thing about practicing law, is that 10% of the lawyers out there are sociopaths and a much higher proportion of them are jerks...and these boards reflect that jerkness aspect. I even agree with what much of what the Scam movement is trying to accomplish, but there is also a lot of sour grapes here, Old Guy for instance is bright and graduated from an Elite Law School, and he has not been able to find work. So he is angry, and maybe rightly so, but the thing is that there are thousands and thousands of lawyers out there doing what many of you condescendingly refer it to as "sh^t law". Well most of us do "sh^t law", handle divorces, or closings or contract disputes, or personal injury or wills, trusts and estates. Most of us are not going to be employed by the white shoe firms and assigned to represent the interests of multibillion dollar organizations legal issues. But people need our services nonetheless and you may not get filthy rich doing "sh^t" law, but you don't have to graduate from the top ten or in the top ten of the class to be competent at what most of us do either. There are thousands and thousands of attorneys who are needed out there....to ensure people have their legal issues addressed in a competent manner, which the software simply cannot do. And guess what, you don't need to be an elite to become a Judge or even a politician..you get out there, you meet people, you run for office and voila..you are a Judge. Do you think it takes a Governor or President to appoint you in jurisdictions which allow Judges to be elected? Does anything stop anybody from taking their legal education and using it to their benefit to run for political office, even as the local dog catcher if they choose? You all downplay a legal education and I do not disagree that being a lawyer does not open any doors as far as non-legal jobs, but I disagree that being a lawyer closes any doors. Its not like going to Med or dental school and feeling like you are stuck being a doctor or dentist. You can be anything you want to be...you all make it sound like a legal education limits you, and I don't see how it possibly could. I meet people all over the place who are non-practicing lawyers and making a good living. Some sell insurance, some manage retirement plans, some are professional politicians, some start insurance agencies, some become stock brokers.. Why the hell would a law degree stop you from doing so. As for the three years of law school, speaking only for myself I immensely enjoyed law school. I enjoyed reading cases. Yea I lost a few years of education, but you know when you get to be my age, all of the years blend in together. At least law school is distinct in my mind. Practicing Law...20 years ago, fifteen years ago, all pretty much the same life, but at least its better than being an damn accountant and looking at numbers and financial records all day. Now that would drive me and most other people nuts. The only real detriment is the debt, but that can be mitigated, go to night law school. Takes a little longer but still a great deal of fun. Or go to a public law school. Yea you graduate with another 75K of debt, but is that all that different from what college graduates are racking up now in some schools. Ever look at the tuition charged by NYU for a basket weaving degree. You all need to get over your bitterness. If you are practicing lawyers and hate it, then do something else. Nothing is compelling you to stay a practicing lawyer, and nothing stops a bright individual from doing something else either.
Delete"And going to lawschool and never practicing law is by no means the worst thing that can happen to somebody."
DeleteSo....going to law school (two words, btw) and incurring at least $100K of additional debt, then never practicing is OK? Why take on the additional debt, then?
And I love all the b.s. from law schools about how having a law degree can "open doors" to non-legal positions. Not really. I got a law degree as a 'non-traditional' student and tried that route. Companies either a) asked why I wasn't at a law firm, or b) said I was 'overqualified' for the job. IF - a big IF - the company didn't do either of those, then they looked for practical experience in the law.
The truth is, law schools make law school sound like sunshine and roses because - surprise! - they are selling a product. You never hear a car salesman talk about how often the car breaks down, or that the performance of their car lags the market, do you? A salesman who did that would be unemployed pretty quickly. A law school will never discuss the downsides - like a high likelihood of not passing the bar, or not getting a job - if they're not forced to. How many law schools inflated employment numbers by hiring grads who couldn't get jobs anywhere else.
The ABA should pull accreditation for 50-60% of the law schools out there. There is only (in general) one veterinary school in each state. Not saying there should only be one law school in each state, but there should be a lot fewer schools than there are now.
And rankings? Bah. Nothing more than a B.S. marketing tactic that's pretty worthless, IMHO. Tell me - how many of you have picked up an issue of USNWR and read it for something OTHER than the rankings? Very few, I bet.
An issue of You Ass News? I thought that it ceased publication years ago. Isn't You Ass News now nothing but a bunch of bullshit rankings?
DeleteA thinking person should see that those "rankings" are crap. Unfortunately for society, but fortunately for You Ass News, the unthinking outnumber the thinking. Deans of law schools have been pushed out because of a one-point drop in a "ranking" produced for profit by a defunct right-wing magazine.
So Mr. Ellipsis is back, sans ellipsis, at 12:33(he's also here at 11:15 encouraging the gullible to go hugely in debt b/c that's the way it is).
DeleteWasn't he banned-and rightfully so? The scam has literally millions of dollars at its disposal to entice the gullible to attend, and if memory serves, has occasionally threatened to sue the blogs for speaking the truth. So why is this blog-one of the very few left-giving time to this scam shill? However remote, there is a chance that his nonsensical ramblings will convince someone, somewhere, to take the law school leap of faith. Ban him, now.
He fails to mention the true cost of attending law school, and the fact that it is in addition to, not as substitution for, a college degree. So it's another three years of debt.
Then he mentions jobs you can do with your law degree(sell insurance-he uses that 2x, become a politician, stockbroker, etc). And what do these jobs have in common? Not a single one requires a law degree-and there's not evidence having the law degree is a help in getting the job-and it may just be a hindrance. But he does, inadvertently, make a single good point-those medical and dental grads are stuck, you know, getting-really, are virtually guaranteed- actual jobs in their chosen profession which pay good money and allow a person to have a life. Graduates of scam schools have no such luck.
He continues to spin potentially ruinous fantasies; let him start his own blog. There's enough fog spun by the professional obfuscators of the scam; no need to give them any help.
To 10:30 that was a very impassioned defense of toilet law schooling, but it still rings hollow to me.
DeleteYou say that you don't see how a law degree will impede one from getting a non legal position. It won't as long as one is able to keep it a secret.
Then you list a string of occupations that a law degree may be related to, and justifiably so, but knowing a job in theory is one thing and those occupations come with their own barriers to entry. Barriers that a law degree, and especially a toilet degree, does not significantly overcome.
And you say there is this great need for legal services that is being unmet. Which may be true. But why are so many solos unable to become established? And even the underclass has a disdain for low tier schools. They know alright.
The best decision in the end is, if in doubt, and if not don't attend a lower tier law school.
So far we have banned only the comments that were repetitive and showed no engagement with the discussion here. We're not going to allow this site to be turned into a vehicle for scam propaganda. Comments should be novel and relevant. Posting substantially the same message in response to every article is unhelpful and will not be tolerated.
DeleteTo the extent that the impugned comments above show participation in the ongoing discussion, they are acceptable. They may cease to be acceptable if they too become repetitive monologues of the type that were recently banned.
Kindly refrain from groundless allegations of anger or sour grapes.
Delete"Shit law" is a standard term, used even by many practitioners of shit law. The point is not to disparage the work but to warn of the poor prospects of making a living from a solo practice when there are too many lawyers and too much debt. Even many people like you who went into law twenty or more years ago (where is Tricia Dennis these days?) are struggling, because times have changed.
I've admitted that it is possible for a recent graduate to make a go of a solo practice. Just a few weeks ago I said here that a person who was given a whole legal practice in rural Iowa for nothing just might succeed. I do say, however, that success of this sort is unlikely for the vast majority of new graduates, especially the many who owe big six-figure sums for their degrees. Not many people are handed an entire established law firm.
Doing something else after failing at law is not easy, particularly if one has student loans that must be repaid no matter what. Anyone planning to fall back on selling insurance—a line of work that requires qualifications not satisfied by law school or even admission to the bar—should first compare the payments on the anticipated debt to the income of a new insurance salesman.
Odious über-toilet Lincoln Memorial has been given full ABA accreditation. The über-toilet draws the bulk of its class from the bottom half of those taking the LSAT.
ReplyDeleteThere are far worse schools than Lincoln Memorial. It simply got started 20 or 30 years later than the real toilets. For purely institutional reasons, the ABA cowards are willing to challenge newcomers in order to restrict the competition for preexisting schools.
DeleteYes, there are worse law schools—such as Concordia, which has also just received the ABA's rubber stamp of approval. How bad is Concordia? Let's see: LSAT scores of 144/148/151 (meaning that about three-quarters of the entering class came from the bottom half of the pool), only 59 new students last year, not a single recent graduate working at a firm of more than 25 lawyers.
DeleteImagine what it's like teaching dipshits like that. No reasoning skills. Cannot write a complete sentence. Yet they think they will be lawyers.
DeleteProfessors at toilet and über-toilet law schools have discussed the hellish chore of trying to get even the simplest concepts through the skulls of their dipshit charges. That job would drive me to harakiri.
DeleteI remember that old saw, mentioned above, about the A students ending up teaching and the B students ending up working for the C students.
ReplyDeleteAt this late stage one has to wonder about the amount of student loan debt carried by the teachers/Professors.
I seem to recall that one of the perks for a Professor was that his or her children could get a College or University education tuition free?
To date though, the money is still very much there to borrow for tuition and so a dream or desire when it comes down to wanting to become a lawyer is still available for most anyone who wants to pursue the dream or ambition or wish or goal or objective and so money will never stand in the way as things stand now anyway. Just borrow it and pay it off later and good luck if things don't work out. Bad luck if the debt is a problem and........... isn't that just about it in a nutshell?