Monday, February 1, 2021

The Law-School Scam is just one ugly part of the Degree Scam

The Law-School Scam, exhaustively discussed by your dutiful servants here at OTLSS, is only one small part—a particularly ugly one, I admit—of the Degree Scam. To understand the Degree Scam, we need to review a bit of history. So gather around Old Guy, boys and girls, and let him tell you a story.

For most of the first half of the twentieth century, few children in the US went on to high school. Many did not finish elementary school. Black, Latino, Indigenous, and rural white people were especially unlikely to attend school for more than a few years, if that.

By World War II, high school was common in most places, though by no means all—for white people, that is. Black people in many areas—not just the Southeast—were still deprived of high school or at best were sidelined into "seg" dumping grounds. Much the same was true of other racialized groups; indeed, it is still more or less true today. Of course, with so few students going to high school, university degrees were rare.

The end of the war marked the beginning of a distinctive generation, the baby boomers, so called because of a spike in the birth rate that extended from 1946 almost until the mid-sixties. The baby boomers profited handsomely from the economic upswing that followed the war—especially in the US, which, unlike much of the rest of the world, emerged practically unscathed. The French call the period from 1945 to the early 1970s the thirty glorious years (les trente glorieuses), and for good reason, because it was unusually prosperous. Simply by chronological accident, the baby boomers reaped the fruits of cheap housing, cheap goods, high wages, rapid growth, nearly full employment (at least among white men, and increasingly among white women and some racialized populations), abundant opportunities. The baby boomers tend to credit themselves for what was really nothing but dumb luck.

As I mentioned, few people in the US went to university. That changed with the baby boomers' cohort. Since most baby boomers had attended high school (unlike the generations before them), they were admissible in principle to university. Various social changes drove many of them to enroll for a bachelor's degree in the 1970s, including the civil-rights movement (which increased blue-collar employment for Black men while also displacing many white men, thereby leading the latter to look into other options) and the fizzling out of les trente glorieuses.

University was so cheap in the 1970s that a baby boomer could work during the summer at some low-paying job—grocery clerk, telephone operator, whatever—and save enough money to cover tuition for the entire following year. A degree back then set a baby boomer apart, precisely because degrees were so uncommon. Many down-at-heel white people and even some racialized people were able to get good jobs in engineering, law, business, teaching, other domains. But even blue-collar employment, at least for able-bodied men, still paid so well that a factory worker who had never finished high school could typically afford a house, a car, and various other trappings of comfortable life, all while accumulating a defined-benefit pension and enjoying other valuable benefits.

Things changed rapidly for the worse in the early 1980s, which is why the idiotic far right nowadays talks of "making America great again". Cushy blue-collar jobs were drying up while decadent white yuppies blew everything that they had and more on high living. Old Guy's generation, namely Generation X, were urged to finish high school, because prospects for dropouts were rapidly deteriorating. Old Guy remembers hearing in the late 1970s that soon one the job of garbage collector would require a high-school diploma. His was the first generation in living memory that made less money than the one before.

Just a few years later, when Old Guy did finish high school, Generation X was being told to go on to university, as a high-school diploma was worth next to nothing. And the universities needed lakes of young blood on which to feed their bloated staffs of baby boomers. Thus Generation X was herded into universities, which happily instituted remedial programs for the hordes of "students" unable to read their high-school diplomas. By then, however, university was no longer cheap; nobody could pay for it with the money saved from bagging groceries the prior summer. It was terribly expensive, and those of us with no trust fund or Daddy Warbucks had to borrow five-figure sums at high interest in order to pay for it—without access to bankruptcy, a cherished tactic of baby-boomer yuppies eager to rid themselves of responsibility for their irresponsibility.

Generation X finished university with poor prospects. The few jobs to be found were often temporary, short-term endeavors. The word pension sounded obsolete. When everyone and her pet gerbil had a bachelor's degree, the things were all but worthless. How else to distinguish oneself but with a master's degree? (The baby boomers themselves had just come out of their fad of pursuing an MBA, often at an employer's expense. But an MBA or any other degree loses its prestige when everyone in town has a fistful of them.)

Naturally, the Degree Scam, already well under way, was delighted to expand the offerings. Sign up for a Master's of Fine Arts, a Master's of Creative Writing, a Master's of This, a Master's of That! And of course law school is the all-purpose solution, since You Can Do Anything with a Law Degree (cue jaunty music from the Roaring Twenties). So law schools spread like kudzu to the point that you could hardly throw a brick without breaking the office window of some fat-assed boomer pig who wolfs down red-velvet cupcakes while being fanned by her rented slaves on a package tour in Kenya or some born-with-a-silver-spoon-up-my-ass princess who oppresses those with the temerity to criticize her scholarshit about the Open Road. Insidiously, the boomer scamsters touted their extremely costly offerings—funded with non-dischargeable federally guaranteed student loans at high interest rates—as opportunities for racialized and other groups on the receiving end of discrimination, without drawing attention to the fact that a bunch of mostly white, upper-class scamsters were lining their pockets with the proceeds of this allegedly eleemosynary campaign.

Generation X was royally fucked by the baby boomers, but it must be said that Generation X was also the last generation for which university made any financial sense at all (just barely, in Old Guy's case). Conventional Wisdom™ dispensed by the boomers, who fancy themselves the fount of all knowledge, treats "education" as an "investment". Careful readers will note the propagandistic bait-and-switch ploy that equates education (properly understood as self-cultivation) with institutional dispensations (degrees issued by universities) and investment (placement of money for an anticipated gain) with expenditure (payment of whatever monstrous amount the universities demand). (On the subject of "investment", note politicians' tendency to speak of investments rather than expenditures. "We are investing $1 billion in our armed forces." No, you are spending—squandering—that money.) If going to university were truly an investment, we'd expect to see an analysis of the expected gains and the risks. Yet we never see one. Instead, paying whatever the universities charge is an "investment", and that's the end of the matter.

What worked for the baby boomers, however, does not work today. The baby boomers paid pocket change for their degrees and got good jobs. Hell, baby boomers without a degree, without even a high-school diploma, were better off than most of today's young graduates of law school, even before we take student loans into account. So tell the baby boomers to stick their Conventional Wisdom™ up their ass. Don't fall for it.

It is difficult to encourage independent thought in the anti-intellectual US, but Old Guy is going to try. Consider that your effort to break into the legal "profession" would require at least seven years of university, not to mention preparation for one or more bar exams. During that time, your earned income is likely to be very low. Instead of going for a mythological career in law, you could get a job right after high school, live cheaply, save much of your income, invest in index-linked ETFs with low managerial fees, and be well on your way to an early retirement while some dolt of your age is still struggling with the formation of contracts over at Cooley. Or you could go to trade school, work as a paid apprentice, and be fully licensed around the time that dolt first showed up for classes in a Cooley sweatshirt. By the time the Cooleyite in the polyester-covered mortarboard was applying for food stamps and receiving bills for student loans well into the six figures, you'd have a respectable nest egg, and almost certainly far better prospects of income for the rest of your days.

Knowing full well that few of his readers will perform the exercise described above, Old Guy will reduce his recommendations to a form that will fit on an index card, if not a bumper sticker:

1) Consider university if you are going into medicine or nursing AND can succeed AND have figured out how you are going to pay for it AND have a serious Plan B.

2) Go ahead and attend university if you have the money to blow on it AND don't need to earn an income with the anticipated degree.

3) Otherwise, DO NOT GO TO UNIVERSITY.

If you've already finished university and are now contemplating law school, the advice is the same, except that you can drop item (1).


128 comments:

  1. "If going to university were truly an investment, we'd expect to see an analysis of the expected gains and the risks. Yet we never see one". Actually...here is a website that provides the return on investment in an education, depending on where you graduate: https://www.payscale.com/college-roi

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing that. It's interesting that the top ten include the US military academies (zero tuition makes a big difference!) and various other unconventional establishments. Click on page 201 (the last one), and you find a bunch of nameless colleges with 20-year returns approaching NEGATIVE $200k.

      Out of 2006 institutions reviewed, the last one with a positive net return twenty years after graduation is number 1777 (net return $100). One might consider a gain of only $100 over twenty years rather slight for the risk of paying enormous tuition and the expenditure of four or more years of one's life.

      Six of those two thousand institutions had a net ROI a bit over $1 million; thus they can be said to offer the infamous Million-Dollar Degree of scamster propaganda. That represents on average $50k per year over the median earnings of a high-school graduate who did not go to university (apparently no adjustment has been made for the time value of money, which would burst that "million-dollar" bubble). Four of the six are military in nature.

      Number 22 is the last one above $800k, and the decline continues. In other words, only 1% of the institutions reviewed yield an average premium in wages of $40k over a high-school graduate for the first twenty years. And even that tiny group is dominated by military schools, the rest mostly being schools dedicated to engineering and a few élite country clubs (curiously not including Yale). Everywhere else, the premium is smaller, usually much smaller—and not infrequently negative.

      Delete
    2. Reminds me of the "seat licenses" for NFL games a few teams tried some time ago. They claimed it was an investment, but there was no way to get a return and it was just an attempt to bilk their seat holders for more money. They could pull it whenever and any sale was heavily restricted, with no market available to even move them.

      They managed to fool some people with it, but I think it just didn't work enough so they probably gave up. I have to admit I didn't follow the saga any more than just laughing at anyone that would have bought those things.

      Delete
  2. An excellent analysis. I would add just a minor detail, that the seed for the Baby Boomer post secondary education boom, was the post World War II GI Bill of Rights. Millions of GIs who had been depression poor just 5 years earlier could now obtain a college education at government expense plus a stipend. Many colleges and universities were established in these years and the existing ones greatly expanded. The members of this newly educated post war generation were able to obtain managerial level jobs unimaginable a few years earlier. This newly expanded upper middle class combined with the expanded higher education capacity, set the stage for the Baby Boomer generation to step in by the 1960s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me add a bit more history, 8:06. I have deduced that I am a bit older than most folks who post here, and also my parents were older than average when they started a family so my parents grew up during the Depression and I heard a lot about that era from them. My father grew up in the county seat and largest city (1940 pop. 3,400) of a small, agricultural county in Minnesota (1940 pop. 14,000). The minority population of both in those days was 0. Among many things he told me about that era were these:

      1. You would not need all of your fingers and toes to count the people in the county who had at least a four year college degree. They were: physicians, dentists, judges, lawyers, the superintendent of schools, the Catholic pastor and my grandfather, who was the county engineer (mainly responsible for the county highways). And of those the medical people and the priest had graduate degrees and the legal people needed six years of higher eduction, so only two had just a four year degree. CPAs were trained at schools that just taught acounting. Nurses were hospital-trained. School principals and teachers and Protestant ministers had two year degrees. Bank presidents were bright high school graduates who had started out as tellers and worked their way up, learning the business as they went. The proprietors of the largest businesses had no college training.

      2. His high school class (1942) numbered exactly 2/3 of the number of freshmen who had enrolled four years earlier. The drop outs weren't necessarily dumb, many just didn't plan to do anything that required understanding algebra or having familiarity with Shakespeare.

      But then, as you say, came the GI Bill which completely altered the landscape. As my father also said, the key factor in whether someone attended any college in those days was the ability to pay the tuition and forego four years of income. After the GI Bill it was all about meeting the admissions standards, and there were some people who could not meet them. So by the ealy 1950's a B.A., B.S., B.B.A. or whatever had become the bienvenue of breaking into the world of business, teaching and a number of other things, although in my state at least I have know CPAs who got licensed in the 1950's with only an associate's degree. In any event, a new standard was set. And back down in high school it was decided that eveyone needed to graduate. Since there were people who couldn't handle the material this led to the watering down and dumbing down of high school graduation requirements.

      So in the final analysis, all our nation did was shift the arbitrary boundaries of educational achievement over an unchanging reality. To guarantee that people could reach those arbitrary boundaries we have lowered standards in high schools, in colleges and universities and in TTTT law schools and MBA programs. Everywhere, really, except medical school, dental school and nursing schools, where people can get dead if you screw up. Worse yet, we now have a permanent academic class accustomed to high pay for little work that is in full control of those academic boundaries, and politicians who buy short term votes by passing out student loans.

      Delete
    2. The academic class is dying too at a lot of schools, FWIW. Law profs are insulated because the ABA requires X% of classes to be taught by full-time faculty, but elsewhere the picture for academics is pretty dire.

      At my local big university, the dean openly talks about how there are fewer and fewer tenure-track positions being considered, and those that remain are only for people that are either grandfathered in (who will be replaced with adjuncts as soon as they retire) or for whom the university expects to make a profit because the professor will bring in far more in research grant dollars than they will spend on the prof's pay. Everything else is part-time adjuncts who get paid a few grand per class per semester and no benefits.

      Also, you're absolutely right that the GI bill was the original money grab. It fundamentally altered what college was and who was "college material," a trend later to continue with student loans. The notion of there being an "English major" would've been silly before then. True liberal arts in the noblest tradition was steeped in not only reading the classics, but reading them in their original latin and greek forms. It wasn't necessarily "useful" in a get a job sense, but it was HARD and the students were students (not customers) expected to perform to a high standard employers would admire. Earning a BA meant something and as you said, it was a rare achievement.

      Also right: The traditional "learned professions" were few. Merriam Websters still defines it as law, medicine and clergy.

      Of course, nowadays we have TTT law schools and anyone who wants to can set up a "church" in a strip mall because 1st amendment freedom of religion forbids any kind of licensure for being a pastor. Medicine and its related fields, as you said, are pretty much the only fields that have held on to across-the-board high selectivity because people could die. Of course, the supply and demand imbalance has gotten so bad there that people are dying because of a shortage of qualified professionals, but even the things meant to ameliorate that shortage like nurse practitioners and physician assistants are quite selective with a done of prerequisites intended to keep out would-be career switchers.

      Delete
  3. I am sure older people grasp these numbers, but it cost me $3500 in tuition in 1990 to attend a very highly regarded state school for chemical engineering and about the same for room and board. That's about $14,000 in today's dollars.
    My starting salary in 1995 was $42,000, allowing me to pay off the loans very quickly. Starting salaries today for the same jobs are only about $65,000.

    Tuition has also doubled to attend the same school now. Heed Old Guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All the way back when I graduated high school in the late 80's, literally just about everyone who graduated from high school was being practically ordered to go to college. I served in Army Reserve at the time, and knew some very dim bulbs who really hadn't earned their high school diploma being relentlessly pushed into college because their parents, grand parents, high school guidance counselors etc. all sternly told them that they HAD to get a college degree to accomplish anything in life. May dropped out, or failed out, or took 5-7 years to get a worthless B.A. I knew one guy who graduated in the morning and went to work at a local construction site that afternoon. Others drove cabs, worked at Blockbuster, etc. But here is the thing: I was smart enough to see all this, in real time at age 18-21 and make sure that I got into a good law school, at a time when there was a functioning job market for JD's, with Army ROTC as a back-up plan. I didn't feel sorry for the idiots drinking and screwing and partying their way through college then, and I don't now. The "scam" is very, very apparent, popular movies like "Black Sheep" are made about idiots partying their way to worthless degrees, and if someone is dumb enough to fall for the scam anyway, that is their own fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes, the old chestnut: "If you don't go to college you'll end up digging ditches and living in a van down by the river." Such an absurd narrative, and high schools effectively had to push it: So much funding and measurement of your "success" as a school was tied to the percentage of your graduates that go to college, with no regard to whether they finish or whether it actually improves their income afterwards.

      It's been that way for a long time, and over the years CTE (Career & Technical Education) has been absolutely gutted. There have been high schools with auto shop programs that could graduate ASE certified mechanics. But running an auto shop is a lot more expensive than running a classroom, and it doesn't raise those all-important college enrollment metrics and may even lower them. Plus there's massive stigma for the "shop kids" who enroll in such things. They're the dumb ones, goes the stereotype. We're just warehousing them to graduation, and after that they'll likely either enlist in the military or end up in jail. Messaging like that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Meanwhile, anyone who says "not everyone should go to college" is branded as an elitist and run out of town on a rail.

      Delete
    2. Funny, those allegedly dumb young people pursuing auto repair as a career tend to make a damn sight more money than their classmates who go off to university, or even to law school.

      Delete
  5. I miss the days when people used to laugh at suckers who signed up for pyramid schemes like selling Mary Kay or Amway. Today's kids get scammed so much harder, and in such a more insidious way, by the multilevel marketing education-industrial complex. They stopped hiding that reality when Betsy DeVos was named Secretary of Education.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At this point, higher education is so entwined with predatory capitalism that I can't see anything being done until the whole thing collapses, not just higher education, but Wall St. in general and the system set in place to enrich the elite classes.

    The Gamestop stock thing yet again exposed the elites as average intellects with the power of the State and system behind them. Once again, the elites simply cheated even harder. As Roddy Piper said: "Just when they think they have the answers, I change the question". The elite just rig harder every time. It is their identity to be rich and they will not let anything stop that.

    I assume at some point the rich will realize they need to throw more crumbs out to the commoners, and tricking them into jumping through hoops like higher education won't cut it. But regular people are often willing to suffer if you tell them to, so they'll probably just make a new scam as an excuse for why the system is rigged in their favor and the common classes aren't allowed to do the same things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least the MLMs fully disclose the fact that you make money not by selling their junk but by recruiting new sellers. That disclosure, as opposed to false claims of the money coming from something else like an investment strategy, is how they're not technically a pyramid scheme and thus legal. Anyone who has even a basic high school concept of exponential math should be able to plainly see the scam, and yet people buy into it anyway. Schools are held to an even lower standard, free to point to the "million dollar degree" myth and exploit the belief that any BA in anything from anywhere is worth any cost.

    If you're gonna go to college (which we need to tell kids they don't have to), almost everyone except people going to Harvard or whatever are better off starting at a community college and then transferring. Those places are hidden gems. Contrary to the stigma, they're the destination not for the dumb kids but for the smart money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whether they are considered pyramid schemes or not, that's what they are. When each participant has to recruit more than one new one, growth is exponential, and quickly enough the population of prospective recruits is exhausted. For example, starting with a cohort of 1, if each participant recruits only two others, the second cohort has 2, the third 4, the fourth 8, the tenth 512—and the thirty-third cohort is incomplete because the entire population of the world has joined and there is no one left to recruit. Scams of this sort typically require more than two recruits, so they exhaust the supply of stooges in even fewer rounds.

      Even people who cannot perform the calculation demonstrated above should be able to see that this scam cannot work because it is based on getting something for nothing. A multi-level marketing scam (or, equivalently, a chain letter or a Ponzi scheme) merely builds itself up and redistributes the fees paid by its dupes; it contributes nothing to the economy, so how can it possibly create gains?

      Legal or not, these things are scams. The same goes for law schools and, for that matter, colleges and universities generally.

      Delete
    2. Agree. I'm of course advocating for my kids to get into the best university we can afford, will educate them about non-dischargeable student loans, and will encourage them to take advantage of being in school. But if there's doubt about what they want to do, it's community college for them!

      Delete
    3. In Connecticut, credits from our community colleges are 100% transferable to our five state universities. You can get UConn on your resume while paying peanuts for two years of your college education. It is amazing how few people take advantage of that.

      Delete
    4. Yes, that's the exponential math I was talking about. You don't even need to be able to run through the calculations. You just need to understand the concept that exponents turn small numbers into impossibly huge ones very, very quickly.

      This concept is sixth grade math. Off-topic, that's another problem with K-12 ed. Generations of kids have concluded they're just genetically "bad at math" and/or that they "will never use this in real life" precisely because it's taught by memorizing algorithms and then measuring success based on how good the students are at being "human computers" just spitting out the answer correctly and quickly. They're right: You probably won't ever need to be able to do that again in real life. But you will need to think about problems and at least understand the concepts of how the answers could be found.

      Real math connects the dots, shows its relationship to things like logic and critical thinking. But we don't teach it that way, so kids just conclude they suck at it. That's how people eventually end up with tragic outcomes like going to law school.

      Delete
    5. Exactly, 9:53, and something like that is true pretty much everywhere in the country. CCs have largely shifted from job prep and remedial work targeted at dropouts and nontrads, to becoming more of just a cheaper way to satisfy general education requirements. And the 4 year schools want these kids: They're among a pretty small fraction of community college students who actually finish. CCs have such huge attrition that finishing at all distinguishes you. My state gave guaranteed admit and credit transfer to the flagship to such in state associates grads with just a 2.5, and at a 3.0 GPA they bump it to an automatic one-third scholarship.

      Even a public ivy like the University of Michigan openly advises using it as a backdoor for people whose high school records are less than stellar: https://admissions.umich.edu/apply/transfer-applicants/community-college-students

      So not only do you save a bunch of cash, you may even be able to use it as a stepping stone to get in somewhere significantly better than what you could've gotten into based on high school record.

      Delete
    6. There is no need for college at all, as some other posts pointed out.

      So why does it exist? Obviously to line the pockets of academia, but also as an excuse to exclude the non-elites from lucrative, secure, easy positions. Instead of citing their nobility, they claim it's due to their merit, and point to the education. That is why schools like Harvard and Yale had such legacy admissions in place.

      Of course the regular people buy that and then they think if their children go to those schools, it will prove they belong at the top too.

      That hasn't been the case in my experience. I've known some absolutely brilliant regular class people that made it into these schools, but they were frozen out when it came to hiring or career achievement or whatever else, if they weren't smacked down within the schools themselves with poorer grades or whatever. Since these token admissions were genuinely geniuses, it was usually hard to stop them academically, so the elite classes often came up with different disqualifiers.

      Personally I think it would be better for everyone if we just admitted how classist everything is, and just gave up the canard of meritocracy and capitalism. Just admit you're pretty much born into whatever class you're at, let the elites go back to their tea parties and social balls, let the middle classes do the actual work, and hopefully things are also better for the lower classes. Instead of letting the finance class exploit everyone relentlessly.

      The CCs may or may not work out now. I've heard about the CC thing decades ago, I know a few that did okay with it, but the vast majority had to really struggle. Many "good" jobs demand a transcript, and there's no hiding the CC on the transcript. But for some things it does work out, it was a popular ploy to enter medical school, as the prereqs were much easier to get at CC and easier to get higher grades on, and then just finish up the rest of the credits at a university. State Universities generally grade pre-med very, very harshly and provide poor to no real teaching, and cheating is rampant because of the stakes. Medical schools also do not care about the CC, and by the time someone graduates medical school, the only thing that matters is the residency matching, and they'll only really look at medical school themselves.

      Anyway it's just tough and there's so many landmines to know of. There is no way a child will know all of this and be able to overcome it. That is again one of the major advantages of the elite classes, not only the money and resources and things being rigged in their favor to begin with, but the information advantage to know which routes can work and how they work. And they take it on themselves to help and guide their children.

      The Lori Loughlin thing was pretty funny and the response to it. But that illustrates the difference in classes. She was just stupid enough to get caught, and the kids involved were also really dumb. But most don't get caught, and that's what regular kids are competing with. Regular parents just deny it and don't make the effort, the effort the rich make does make a difference.

      Delete
    7. I've never heard of any industry outside law regularly requesting transcripts. I'm sure it happens at some places, but I don't think it's industry-standard anywhere but law. I have, however, seen SOME medical schools frown on people who got nearly all their science prereqs from CCs. I'd probably still just use the CC to get gen eds out of the way, and do the hard science post-transfer. Besides, I don't think I've even seen a CC that offers some of the biggest weed-outs, like organic chem. Maybe there's some that do, but I'm pretty sure most schools consider that to be an upper-division-only course.

      Delete
    8. Good points, 11:44. And I can attest that those few of us plebeians who manage to get into the Harvards and the Yales find ourselves frozen out of jobs. Harvard and Yale have to let in a handful of the great unwashed so as not to be seen as the hackademic branch of the Social Register or the yacht club. But the great unwashed aren't welcome at the end of the day, though people like Old Guy are easily misled into thinking otherwise.

      Delete
  8. China, India and other nations couldn't be held down forever, economically! Probably the biggest difference between generations in the U.S. is how many jobs/tasks can be outsourced, automated or turned into an algorithm. Our "every child is a snowflake" rubber stamp educational system obviously isn't preparing young people for this new reality:

    https://time.com/5886503/covid-19-majority-young-adults-parents/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Old Guy, I finally think you are addressing the overall problem. I'm considering starting a blog titled "Outside the Higher Education Scam," but nobody reads blogs anymore--too much text, not enough memes to express simple, knee-jerk opinions. One fundamental problem we have is this obsession with "letters" like B.A., B.S. (BullShit), MS (More Shit), and PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper). The traditional 120 semester-hour, four-year undergraduate degree needs to go the way of pet rocks and transactional analysis therapy. Employers really should start looking for mastery in courses in subject areas relevant to the jobs being sought by applicants, not whether they totally aced that Philosophy 3301 class as a sophomore. As a physician, I can see NO compelling reason whatsoever that a person should have to complete a bachelor's degree before entering medical school. That's even more true with law, which should be an undergraduate degree plus internship. (Those who want to teach can go on and get the esteemed "JD".

    There is another insidious cultural force here that benefits the higher-education cartel. From the 80's onward popular culture led us to believe that the only dignified way to transition from adolescence to adulthood was to go off to an expensive college on with and idyllic campus in a distant city. Those who chose to go to community college to get "a few basics out of the way" were laughed at, and even attendance at publicly supported universities was looked down on. The problem was compounded by the fact that by the time the "me" generation's children reached college age, the boomers--my parents include--had already squandered any potential savings on luxury cars, cruises, and divorce attorneys. There was nothing left for the kids to go to college. So the artificial student loan economy, in which unlimited money that did not yet exist was used to fund higher education. So prices have skyrocketed since the 80's to the point that a good university education is in reality unaffordable to 90% of American youngsters.

    Hell, as an "above average" student, I was able to benefit from automatic admission to a state flagship, where tuition was still almost negligible. That's an option that is no longer available to most Americans as well, as the spots that don't get given out to the "top ten percenters" end up being handed to students--who often would not be admitted otherwise--from demographic groups that support the demand for "diversity," along with athletes who get treated like royalty, with special dorms, their own cafeterias, and so-on. The rest of us are left out, forced to fend for ourselves at overpriced private institutions or regional no-name universities that often charge tuition that is as high, or even higher, than the state flagships.

    I had hoped the COVID-19 pandemic would change things. But, alas the lemmings of America who get all of their news from Facebook and Twitter cannot grasp anything too complex to be expressed in 180 characters or less.

    We are living in a declining civilization. God help us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US's so-called civilization was always anti-intellectual. For years I have suggested that the US cut the crap and shut the schools down. Why pretend to care about education? Already the schools are little more than glorified day-care centers, so why not replace the expensive teachers with babysitters and be done with it?

      Both medicine and law are undergraduate programs in some parts of the world.

      The option of attending two years of community college and then two years at a university doesn't work well for all majors, since it tends to force the substantive courses into those last two years.

      Delete
    2. Yes, colleges are glorified day-care centers. Look, unintelligent, immature 18 year olds learn that college is a place they can go to get away from mom and dad, and drink/drug/screw/party the years away. Pledge a fraternity, go to exciting athletic events, etc. So they go for it. In my day the school promptly failed these kids out, but now the schools have wised up and realized that the kids are cash cows, so just give them grades they don't deserve and keep the party going for 4, 5, or more years. BUT. . .take that campus lifestyle away. . .and tell Junior you're staying right here at home with Mom and Dad, and you can sit in the basement and do online learning in front of your computer screen. . .and Junior's gonna say no way, I'm not gonna spend 4 years of my life doing that. ..and just like that, the college bubble may burst. Who knows, if enough people give up on college, there will be far fewer K-JD's applying to law school 4 years from now. . .and that bubble might finally burst as well. Maybe these kids will go to trade school or actually, heaven forbid--Get A Job--instead of heading off to a 4 year party, epitomized in movies like Old School, Black Sheep, etc.

      Delete
    3. I wish I had spent my college years partying, those are the types of people that make it. Career centers actually aren't lying about networking. If you don't have a parental network, you're going to have to forge that network through partying and connections, the frats etc.

      Life has very little to do with studying and hard work, the vast majority that focus in on that end up with little to nothing to show for that other than a slew of mental health issues and poor social networks.

      And no, older generations weren't just "smarter and harder working" either. Your average Boomer spent their college years being drug addled hippies fornicating with unsafe sex. They then simply turned around and took all the wealth and decided to attack every younger generation as lazy, immature and stupid.

      Science and common sense indicate human brains and the average makeup of a people do not change in one or two generations. Only a Boomer would ever think that's how evolution works, with them of course as the ultimate lifeform and everyone after them degenerates.

      Enough of that garbage.

      Delete
  10. Here is one thing to note: many folks are saying that since the COVID lockdown and the shift to "remote learning" the days of traditional colleges and universities may be numbered. Again, when I graduated high school just about everyone went away to college, often for the wrong reasons, and many simply used college as a place to party and have fun. Now, though, I think far few students are going "away" to colleges. . .I can tell you for a fact that dorms are nearly empty on many (most?) campuses and blow-out fraternity parties appear to be a thing of the past right now. . .ditto packed stadiums of fans rooting for the NCAA basketball, or football when that was in season. . . . I mean, I am not sure that this will send students on the right path, where they could attend a short, cheap trade school, immediately get a good job, and be set for life, but I do think the big crowded campuses, with very active Greek Life, packed football and basketball stadiums, all that may be a thing of the past in 2021. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What both exacerbates and infuriates me is how much apparent difficulty the academics are having adapting to remote learning. 90% of college instruction is the good ol' "lecture and examination" format. How hard is it to set up a camera and put lectures on line, and respond to questions and discussions done via email or chat features that are available on conferencing apps? Basically these shitheads want captive on-campus audiences that are easier to deceive and indoctrinate. Furthermore, they are uncomfortable with the knowledge that in theory anyone in the world could view their lame-ass lectures.

      Delete
    2. Actually, X-er, I have read in numerous places in the last 11 months that room and board are a key profit center, especially for small colleges, and that the loss of that revenue stream has already killed some of them.

      About 20 years ago there was a well-publicized case involving Yale, which mandated that freshmen live and dine on campus in their assigned residential college. An Orthodox Jewish matriculate said he could not do that. While kosher food was available, he said the licentious lifestyle was incompatible with the tenets of his faith. Yale said too bad, your freshman year on campus is a critical part of a Yale education.

      So the student sued and lost. He then paid for room and board and got an off-campus apartment and didn't get expelled. Simply put, Yale only cared about getting his money. As the old saying goes, if they say it's not the money it's the principle, it's the money.

      Delete
    3. LOL at the Yale "residential college" system. Princeton has a similar requirement that students live on campus in a residential college the first two years. Urban legend is that Hollywood actress Brooke Shields got a waiver after her freshman year because she was able to cite "security" concerns.

      Delete
  11. Heard a new angle of the law school scam last week. I was at a CLE held by the University of North Carolina's law school. One of the sessions was about hiring law school graduates. They of course encouraged us to hire their graduates. But then they had a trick that I hadn't heard of before. They said that if we didn't want to hire their graduates long term, we could "try them out" by hiring them for one year "clerkships," after which we could discard them. The speaker even talked glowingly about one lawyer who has hired a string of graduates for these one year "clerkships" for years now. Of course these "jobs" last just long enough for the law school to count them as full time, long term, bar passage required positions. It would seem that the law schools are back at it, thinking of new ways to push the envelope and scam the system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. Yeah, the big thing they need now is for it not to be a "school funded position" cuz USNWR and the ABA got wise to that.

      I don't know if it'll work though. You know what you're getting when you hire a new grad. Their intelligence and potential will vary a lot, but all they've been trained to do is find and read appellate cases and make arguments based on them in an IRAC type format.

      Unless all you need help with is writing appellate briefs, pretty much everything you need them to do is stuff you're going to have to teach them. So letting them go after a year means flushing your training investment.

      Delete
    2. Rare is the recent graduate from the U of North Carolina whom I would entrust with the writing of an appellate brief.

      Delete
    3. lol true, just pointing out that all you really do in law school is read and discuss appellate cases and then take an essay test at the end of each class that presents hypothetical and uncontested fact patterns that turn on issues of pure law, but which have been constructed such that they could go either way.

      Whether it makes you GOOD at such things is a whole different question, but it's the only concrete practice skill I can think of that matches up squarely with the "Case Method" that all law schools have used since Langdell invented it at Harvard in the 1800s.

      It's a bit like being taught how to fly a plane when it's already in the air, but receiving no training on how to take off or land.

      Delete
  12. I'd like to know what you think of Concord Law School. My email is CollegeMeltdown@protonmail.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Law_School

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do we really need concocted racial intersectionalism on this site, like a law professor?
    The Civil Rights era had nothing to do with unions. Socialists in the 30s opened up the unions to the newly arrived black people, trafficked by the bosses from the South after the 1923 Immigration Act shut-off the endless flow of suckers from Europe.
    There were no black people or non-white people outside of the South before the 1930s--the very low high school graduation rate in the pre-war years was, therefore, a complete reflection of the oppression of the White working classes. I can't even finish this article. Can we get an editor with the honesty of the scamblog movement on here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There certainly were many Black people and other non-white people outside the South before the 1930s. And the unions were not opened up to Black people so quickly as you think. Perhaps you should study some history before accusing others of dishonesty.

      Delete
    2. Old Guy, liberalism is the religion of the scam artists that we're working against. You lose credibility when you proselytize for it.

      Delete
    3. I'm not proselytizing for anything; I'm dealing in facts.

      Delete
  14. You'll understand after the revolution, OG.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not sure what article about race is being referenced but there were definitely some free black people in the Northeast dating back to the Revolutionary era.

    the allegedly "Great" Migration of millions of blacks from the South to the Rust Belt started in the 1910's and lasted until the 1950's.

    the claim about Rust Belt trade unions being open to blacks in the 1930's is ludicrous. Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" circa 1970 was designed to promote entry into trade unions for blacks, who had been systematically excluded. (combined with LBJ's "shackles" speech, it later morphed into what we now know as affirmative action.

    even today, though there's been some improvement, Rust Belt trade unions still aren't known as bastions of "diversity and inclusion"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite true. And the trade unions used to be openly racist. Both the AFL and the CIO have a long history of open, unabashed racism.

      There were also unfree Blacks in the Northeast during the Revolutionary era and earlier—as long ago as the first half of the seventeenth century. A revolt of slaves occurred in New York City in 1712.

      Delete
    2. During the New York draft riots in July 1863 rioters burned down the "Colored Orphan Asylum," so evidently there were enough black people there to generate enough orphans to warrant the building and funding of an orphanage.

      Delete
    3. I had thought that it was well known that Black people in the nineteenth century migrated northward out of the Southeast via the Underground Railroad. Many of them even went on to Canada, including Harriet Tubman herself. Tubman settled in the house that she bought in upstate New York, where she died in 1913, well before the 1930s.

      The Chicago Defender, for decades the US's leading Black-run newspaper, was founded in 1905. Although it was widely distributed in the Southeast and elsewhere, it was, as the name suggests, produced in Chicago.

      The NAACP was founded in Baltimore in 1909. Maryland is admittedly in the Southeast, but just barely. One of the NAACP's founders, the great W.E.B. Du Bois, was born in Massachusetts in 1868, and he had at least three generations of ancestors who were born in the Northeast. For the sake of thoroughness, I should mention that Du Bois was Black.

      And remember that the person who called me dishonest stated that "[t]here were no black people or non-white people outside of the South before the 1930s". Well, non-white people includes Indigenous people. There were none of those outside the Southeast before the 1930s? No people of Chinese or Japanese origin? No Mexicans in the vast lands that the US stole from Mexico in the first half of the nineteenth century? No Hawaiians in the Pacific Northwest 200 years ago (Owyhee County, Idaho, is named after Hawaii)? How nice it is to learn these valuable lessons in white-chauvinist history!

      Delete
    4. Wasn't it a relatively small number that actually succeeded? And before the Civil War there was still the Fugitive Slave Act to worry about, so could Black people who made it North ever really rest easily?

      Delete
  16. And actually a big part of what made the Defender successful was that Chicago was the hub of the nation's rail system. Black Pullman porters carried it all over the country leading to a nationwide following north and south. And by 1905 Chicago's original black neighborhood, Bronzeville, was well established with a cultural identity to rival Harlem's that flourished in the 1919's and 1920's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's true. Distribution by rail was important because the paper would be confiscated if sent into the South by mail or other conventional means.

      Travel by rail is almost unknown nowadays outside a few heavily urbanized areas, but in that day it was common. Black people migrating northward, if they had nowhere in particular to go, often got on the nearest northbound train. From Mississippi, that was the Illinois Central, which ran to Chicago. People leaving points farther to the east often ended up in Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, New York, or other cities served by the nearest train.

      Robert Abbott, the founder of the Defender, also made it his business to get Black people out of semi-slavery in the Southeast. His paper openly encouraged Black people to head to Northern cities.

      Delete
  17. I really enjoy this blog. It tells the truth about law school. What I really can't stand is how many lawyers defend the legal profession. Where else can you spend 200K and see jobs posted for document review that pay twenty bucks an hour, five bucks an hour more than Amazon will pay anyone with a pulse to throw boxes starting out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't hear many lawyers defending the profession. Survey people that graduated 10+ years out. If they're in biglaw, they make decent money but they work 80+ hour weeks. If they're not in biglaw, they're probably broke or burned out of the profession entirely. Either way, ask them if they'd recommend law to their kids and I'll bet the overwhelming majority would say "no."

      The defenders I've seen are a few very old lawyers who've remained clueless to how bad things have gotten, but that's getting pretty rare now that things have been bad for like 20 years. The other defenders are often just "fake it til you make it" types or the rare one who has a long-established and highly successful practice that their kid can just go to law school and inherit as a birthright.

      Even being "connected" isn't enough. It's amazing how much it takes to actually be able to give your kid anything in law. I had one friend whose dad was a big city judge, and another whose dad was a tenured law prof of literally international renown. Like this dude actually did try international human rights cases in the Hague and stuff. Best job the prof's kid could manage to score was a paralegal gig in a small town law firm, and after years and years of that she finally managed to get into the public defender. And the judge's kid worked doc review til he couldn't stand it anymore and now sells real estate.

      So yeah, it is very rare indeed to encounter a lawyer who loves being a lawyer and who would encourage others to become lawyers. In my experience, anyway. They're almost all miserable for one reason or another, though of course if you're just asking them at some law school event or whatever they're in public and will feel obligated to lie and pretend they're loving life.

      Delete
    2. Anybody else notice that student loan forgiveness is back in the news cycle over the last few days?

      Reading MSM websites and the comments you have to LOL at the frequent objection that "wealthy doctors and lawyers would benefit".

      Those of us in the profession understand concepts like "bimodal salary distribution" and "20k new jobs for 40k new grads". But it seems the general public has no clue about the rampant unemployment and to a greater extent, underemployment. In the public consciousness, you either make $180k starting salary in biglaw OR you have family money and can afford to be a local prosecutor/public defender.

      It would be nice if the NYT or WashPo revisited the issue that they touched on 7-8 years ago but then dropped.

      Delete
    3. Well stated, 11:23. I'll just add that many of those "clueless" old timers you describe aren't as clueless as they may seem. I know of one solo who will be eighty this year who still works full time "because he loves it." Fact is, which nobody knows, he's into the IRS for over $600K and his nice house on the farm he inherited from his parents only stays out of tax lien foreclosure as long as he keeps making payments.

      Over the last few years my state has had a number of high-profile, right-out-of-the-clients'-funds-account, six and seven figure embezzlements. And they weren't kids, they were all people with thirty or forty plus years' experience and seemingly well established. For every one who has crossed that line there have to be dozens who can just control themselves or have partners who can.

      What the old timers do have going for them in these parts is that the judges give all the special public defender work to them.

      Delete
  18. Based on my state's published bar disciplinary actions, 7:17a has spotted a trend. Yes, many involve the proverbial clueless and hopeless new grad solo, but many others involve massive embezzlements by attorneys who have been barred for 30 and 40 years. It seems that most of the genuinely old-timers still practicing are doing it because they have to, not because they want to.

    And I don't see many lawyers recommending the profession to anyone. The bigger culprits these days are clueless parents, guidance counselors etc who still firmly beleive all lawyers are rich so it's a good idea to go to law school. They're the same ones(their kids do it, too) it still say "doctor or lawyer" in the same sentence, as if the professions-and the job prospects attached-are the same. Yeah, both will set you back between 250-350k by the time you are done, but that's where it ends. All new MDs can get jobs; good luck if you are a newly-minted JD. It's basic laziness and ignorance, since these adult advisors can't bother to actually learn the state of the legal profession, but it's the cause of many a 0L to attend a TTTT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are quite correct, 9:49a, about solos who cannot afford to retire. A number of years ago my state's bar discipline people were having a constant problem with a ninety-something solo who was constantly bouncing trust account checks. The man wasn't stealing anything, he just couldn't handle the math anymore. In a perfect world they'd have tried to suspend his license on the grounds of mental incompetence but they knew he needed the income. Not unlike an elderly prison lifer who stops applying for parole knowing he'd have a pitiful social security/food stamps income and no remaining family or friends on the outside.

      Delete
    2. The bar associations discredit the legal "profession" by failing to uphold meaningful standards of competence and conduct. That incompetent nonagenarian "needed the income", so the disciplinary people charged with protecting the public decided to let him go on taking other people's money.

      I've reported a number of lawyers only to see the bar association do nothing.

      I don't recommend this "profession" either; I actively advise people to avoid it. Medicine too may be going into decline, but law is badly fucked up. I am still astounded that people routinely borrow $300k or $400k for law school, on top of whatever they may have borrowed for a bachelor's degree, when even the most highly remunerated jobs for new graduates cannot justify that sort of expense. In strictly monetary terms, the best that one can hope to do right after law school is to work for some goddamn white-shoe firm in an expensive city for $180k or $190k. That job will require perhaps 80 or more hours a week and will probably not last more than three or four years, after which any other position is likely to pay a lot less.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely, OG. Bar ethics counsel are a lot like prosecutors IMHO: They look for low-hanging fruit, and trust accounts are by far the lowest hanging fruit. In my state the banks have to automatically report any trust account overdrafts to the bar. Since there's almost no legitimate reason a trust account should ever be overdrawn, such a report essentially hands the bar the lawyer's head on a platter.

      Stuff that requires real investigation or that could go either way isn't seen as worth their time. Solos and very small firms also lack resources with which to defend themselves, which makes them attractive targets. And small-law clients are by far the most likely to complain anyway; the bar is entirely reactive to reports it receives, it is not out there doing random compliance audits on lawyers to my knowledge.

      Delete
  19. Big Law isn't the best outcome. The best outcomes are law professor, federal agency, state agency, in-house counsel for a big corp or GSE or boutique law firm. There's also of course the judicial route, which overlaps with the law professor route and simply is then a choice between taking the professor job or the judge/magistrate position.

    Perhaps the reason these options are not mentioned is, ultimately, even Big Law is more realistic for most law graduates than any of these highly class based positions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe so, but those paths tend to run thru biglaw too.

      In-house? At fortune 500s that's usually the landing pad for people who either do not make or do not want to make partner in biglaw. In house legal departments don't want to train you, they rely on the big firm you come from to have done that.

      Bigfed and law prof gigs usually also go to people coming out of federal clerkships, and those people usually have deferred biglaw offers and biglaw is where they spent 2L summer at the very least.

      Point is, get biglaw your 2L summer, and get an offer at the end of that summer. You might take that offer, or you might defer it for a federal clerkship. Maybe you'll return and eventually hop in house, or maybe you'll get a law prof or bigfed gig and you won't return to biglaw at all.

      Either way, the path to those good outcomes you mention may not BE biglaw, but they certainly run THROUGH biglaw. It is POSSIBLE to make it there other ways, for example sometimes an AUSA will get hired after a long time in a state prosecutor office. But such cases are the exception, not the rule, especially at the USAO offices you really want like SDNY.

      Delete
    2. As 11:27 said, those positions are based on class. It's easy to say «get biglaw your 2L summer", but not everyone can do so. Big Law wants people from the upper class.

      Delete
    3. When I say get biglaw I don't mean anyone can. I mean that anyone who doesn't (which is the vast majority at the nonelite schools) should probably drop out the minute they emerge from OCI with no offers.

      Delete
    4. I just came across this. Source Wikipedia article about Harry S. Truman. Is this presumptuous to say the least? They think the law is so exalted that when someone says no, it means yes?

      While serving as president in 1947, Truman applied for a license to practice law.[31] A friend who was an attorney began working out the arrangements, and informed Truman that his application had to be notarized. By the time Truman received this information he had changed his mind, so he never sought notarization. After rediscovery of Truman's application, in 1996 the Missouri Supreme Court issued Truman a posthumous honorary law license.[32]

      Delete
  20. well this thread was supposed to be more about going to college than law school. Law school is one thing. College is another. I think its still true that people who do not have a college degree generally are seen as lesser people in the eyes of those who do...and that probably stings enough that people should go to college just for the accomplishment of completing it, if nothing else. It also does make it easier to get a middle class job somewhere. Not all people are cut out for the trades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What other people think of you is none of your business. It is simply foolish to advocate a costly but nearly useless degree just for appearance' sake.

      Delete
  21. Yeah not sure how smart anyone looks that pays a hundred thousand or more for a degree that is worth way less than a six to nine month trade school program. I fall into this group. Makes me sick everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let me ask a serious question here. If tuition is not an issue, is not a classically liberal undergraduate education worth it? Learn about art, history. Science, philosophy, the classics, drama etc.? You have the rest of your life to work. How can exposing the mind yo literature like Shakespeare, to courses about subjects that make life worth living not be worth it? Forget law, forget premed, who knows where expanding the mind might lead a person, how much better that education can make a person. This whole site seems to ignore the intangible benefits of education...its all geared it seems to a person making a good living. Seems to me build the mind and everything will fall into place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your question arises because the word education is so widely abused nowadays. Education (from a Latin word meaning 'leading out [of benightedness]') is self-cultivation—development of one's own intellectual faculties. Almost everyone considers education a good thing. Certainly Old Guy wouldn't discourage anyone from reading Shakespeare (Old Guy himself has read all of Shakespeare's works) or studying art or history or whatever else.

      But the word nowadays often refers to the pursuit of hackademic credentials. Obtaining a bachelor's degree is called "getting an education" (there is no such thing as "an education"), as if a person passed from uneducated to educated on the day of graduation. And there is a lot more disagreement about the merits of "education" in this institutional sense.

      This equivocation on the term education favors the Degree Scam: since education (self-cultivation) is universally recognized as a noble and worthy pursuit, careless people are led to suppose the same about "education" in the form of fee-charging degree programs. It is worth while to read Shakespeare and develop an appreciation of art; therefore, it is worth while to pour four years and $100k or more into a BA that may never take one near art or Shakespeare. Obviously that does not follow.

      You have given no reason in favor of the belief "build the mind and everything will fall into place". Such propaganda fosters the Degree Scam—even though the Degree Scam can hardly be said to build the mind.

      Delete
    2. Not THAT long ago, tuition WASN'T an issue. For the boomers it was essentially nominal. And that is exactly what's needed to bring back the liberal arts, which I agree should be brought back, just without the mortgage sized debt.

      Schools used to just philosophically NOT see tuition as the way you kept the lights on. That's what endowments, grants and (for public schools) public aid was for. Tuition was never a way to make money or something you'd go out of business without. It just defrayed some of the costs. So-called "tuition dependence" by schools is a relatively new phenomenon.

      This "charge whatever the [loan-distorted] market will bear" attitude makes the school a business and the student a customer. That, in turn, fuels grade inflation and dumbing down courses and admit standards and arms races for luxury dorms and gyms with lazy rivers. And it's also what's putting the business schools in gleaming palaces and the liberal arts in a broom closet.

      If we could go back to what universities once were, then people wouldn't be mortgaging their futures to go and the value of those classical studies (which is real) could have a chance to reemerge. The schools would regain the moral high ground on the argument about the importance of generalized critical thinking and a CHALLENGING education in the classics over a mere "trade school."

      So-called "tuition dependence" is, to me, the Great Cancer of higher ed. It's not JUST that the schools salivate over the loan dollars. It's that legislatures and donors and everyone else begin to EXPECT these costs to be borne by student borrowing. Fifty years ago no way anyone would say "Oh you don't need my donation/legislative appropriation/etc, you can just raise tuition!"

      So for me, it's not just the loans. It's the fundamental philosophical shift the availability of those loans has caused, both for schools and for their other funding sources. From student to customer and from education as an a-priori "good thing" to "just another product offered by just another business."

      Delete
    3. To your point, for a long time tuition was low or even no cost:
      https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/what-happened-to-californias-free-tuition-a-history-of-fees-and-budget-issues/103-465128027

      Delete
    4. So costs at California's state-run universities were trifling or even nil for all generations before mine (Generation X).

      Delete
  23. Further to my post:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2020/01/28/if-you-go-to-a-liberal-arts-college-youll-make-more-money/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is some truth to the notion that STEM people seem to start out higher but top out earlier. Most software engineers, for example, don't work in Silicon Valley. It's like the movie office space where peter works in a boring nondescript office building and his whole job is to "update bank software for the year 2000 switch." That sort of thing starts you out higher than your non-STEM classmates, but there's not a whole lot of upward mobility and it's vulnerable to outsourcing.

      But that doesn't make liberal arts into some panacea. Looking at the actual study, they did NOT exclude elite institutions or STEM as the news article claims. They excluded big universities. That excludes Harvard sure, but it doesn't exclude small but still elite schools like Amherst, nor does it exclude small but still STEM focused schools like Harvey Mudd. Indeed, the actual findings were that the best-performing small schools had a high percentage of STEM major and/or enrolled the smallest percentage of students with Pell Grants.

      So you can do well out of a small "liberal arts" school...if you major in STEM or have rich parents or enroll at one of the "tiny ivies" like Amherst. Not so surprising a finding when looked at that way.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it is true. On top of that, age-based discrimination is rampant in "STEM" fields—starting in the thirties.

      I started out in STEM (at a time when it wasn't know by that name) but was out in less than a decade, mainly because of outsourcing. Duped Non-Traditional seems to have had a similar experience.

      Delete
  24. I'd like to recommend this book: "A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education"

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maggie Tsavaris, a professor sacked by now-defunct über-toilet Savannah Law School, lost her claim of age-based discrimination:

    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/20-11150/20-11150-2021-02-25.html

    The dean described Tsavaris's teaching as "the worst [he] had ever seen at the school" (at 4).

    ReplyDelete
  26. School is still good if you know what you want to do. Let say you want to work in health administration...if you get a degree in that field it would make it a lot easier to get a job in that field. Not only will you learn something about the area, but you will also be more likely to successfully network into a job. I just think coming out of highschool without some sort of advanced education is hit or miss as to whether somebody will find something they want to do and get a job in it.....unless you are talking about the trades...then just go to vocational school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of people who know what they want to do cannot do it. What happens if you go for that degree in health administration but can't find a job in the field?

      You haven't taken into consideration the cost, including the opportunity cost, of pursuing a degree.

      Delete
  27. Here is a real shocker, Georgetown U says - why yes, a college degree is worth it. LOL. My daughter graduated from a state school with no debt and a communications degree, has been working a year and is now considering Grad school to help her career..if she finds a program she will be happy with. She is now a resident of NYC and I told her find a good Suny program you like and I will help you. Tuition very reasonable. But she wants to go to Georgetown...tuition over $2000.00 per credit. The only way I would front that cost is if what she wanted was the foreign service or something..then and only then would I even consider paying its cost.https://www.seattleu.edu/newsroom/stories/2020/roi.html?redirect=true

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, "communications" is a foolish major. It used to be the laughing-stock of majors—before it was displaced by such non-academic crap as golf-course management and interior decorating, which should rather be taught at vocational establishments, if at all.

      Second, take it from Old Guy: paying dearly for some allegedly prestigious institution—Georgetown should be called a trap school—is even more foolish than majoring in communications.

      Third, she probably doesn't belong in New York City. I get the impression that she puts glamour ahead of practical concerns.

      Delete
    2. Old guy, I doubt my daughter went to college for anything but the "experience", and if she did go to Georgetown, her ulterior motive would likely be meeting a marriageable guy...she is very cute and athletic....you are right from a practical point of view, but in the end, if nothing else, she got to experience living with other coeds her age for a few years when everybody was more or less unencumbered with obligations and responsibilities. The best time of her life. She studied in Sydney for half a year . She had lots of experiences that I wish I had by going to college. You do only live once. Would she be making more money if she never went to school at all, or went into something like nursing, which she had no interest in...sure. Will she make it in the field she wants to be in...film and tv production...highly unlikely but she is giving her shot in her one life to live. Nothing wrong with that. If she fails as I expect, she will come home and do something else. Going to work at 22 instead of 18..four more years to live life. Once you start working, incurring debt and assets, life becomes much more of a burden...and one year sort of drags on after another. You get married, have your kids, have all of the bills. What is the rush? Put it off for a few years.

      Delete
    3. @8:14: I think what's really hard when you're young is asking what old you is going to want. That's the problem with taking that "only live once" one shot to pursue a dream type of thinking.

      My friend's dream was ballet. Getting paid to do ballet is like betting on getting drafted into the NBA. The "one shot" argument was exactly what she used to convince her parents to pay for performing arts school and an apartment in the big city. Now she's in her 30s, it didn't work out as was the 99.5% likely outcome going in, and worse she married a fellow "starving artist" back when such poverty was seen as noble or cool, which fades rapidly with age. Now she's divorced, recently finished a bankruptcy discharge, and lives at home with no real hope of ever achieving economic independence. And she can't realistically go back to school as she has a kid with aforementioned fellow starving artist who of course pays no support. She wishes every day that her parents had put their foot down and refused to pay for what she now sees as a foolish indulgence.

      When you think about it, you DON'T have only one life to live. You have several. You at 18 is not the same person as you at 40, and the latter can certainly end up resenting the decisions made by the former.

      Delete
    4. This is exactly the problem. Way too many young people are going to college for "the experience" and have no serious interest in their studies, or using their degrees to get a job. So they end up spending 4 (or 5, or 6, or 7) years drinking, partying, and screwing around to end up delivering pizza, waiting tables, etc. All of this is at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it makes the few students who are serious about their studies look foolish. The U.S. is not a serious country, not anymore, and college is just seen as a frivolous place to join social organizations called Fraternities and Sororities, and cheer on football teams, and basketball teams, and generally just screw around. The whole thing is shameful and embarassing to serious adults trying to get a meaningful education that leads to meaningful employment.

      Delete
    5. Going to college for the college "experience" is a great idea if someone else pays the way...but it's a terrible idea if that experience includes significant debt. And if your major makes you essentially unemployable-or only employable in a retail sweatshop-again, it only makes sense if you're partying, er gaining "experience", on someone else's dime. Otherwise it's simply a waste of four years to get the 21st century's equivalent of a high school diploma.

      Delete
    6. @8:14 I think it is more important to be good at a field rather than having an interest in it, or that it has to be something that one likes. Of course, it often goes hand in hand. If one is struggling in the study of a field, there are unlikely to be proficient in it and will not likely endure long in it. Although I might be an exception to that rule. I am not very good at my field (financial) and therefore I am unhappy in it, but because various reasons, either having undemanding jobs or bosses who cover for my problems for whatever reasons, I have managed to survive in it to almost retirement at this point.

      Delete
    7. 3:16, I would bet that the majority of those starting college don't know what they want to do. Not sure what you mean have "no serious interest in their studies". My daughter I am referring to went to class regularly, studied hard and got good grades (if good grades in Communications at a State University have any meaning). She also found time for her Sorority, to learn overseas, to travel to New Zealand, Thailand, etc. while living in Australia. I did not expect her to come out of college with any specialized Knowledge that she could monetize. I expected her to grow up a little, to experience life a little. I think she accomplished that. Where she goes from here who knows. She has no debt because I paid for her schooling, and since she is living in NYC am still helping her. When her next lease comes up we are going to have to have a long talk about where she goes from here if she wants my continued financial support. But there is no one or wrong way to approach life. I have zero regrets whatsoever that she went to college. I am a lawyer, like most of you out there, and it never ceases to amaze me how little the knowledge of my many clients who have never received any advanced education. They are all very nice people, but many of them simply have no critical thinking ability. They are naïve. I see a significant difference between my educated clients vs. my not educated clients. Is that because smarter people tend to seek out education or does education make people smarter and more aware? A little bit of both I expect.

      Delete
    8. Ok, so you're rich-"She has no debt because I paid for her schooling"- and to top that, she's still on the payroll("since she is living in NYC am still helping(note: in other words, paying for everything) her".
      First, congratulations on being a 1%er.
      Second, you've fulfilled OG's first maxim: only go to college if you can do so with no debt.
      Third, for the rest of us unwashed masses how, exactly, is your daughter's experience instructive...or even vaguely helpful? Your daughter got a full pay four year vacation-sorority, travel to exotic places(hope she took the sunscreen), and came out of college with a degree in possibly the absolute least intellectually challenging major-all because you footed the bill, completely.
      The rest of us peasants took out loans because the terrible advice was that college was worth it-i.e. we'd get a job. So college ends with a worthless BA and a mountain of debt. Most college students go to college for one reason-get a job. The more clueless among them-me included-go to law school, thinking that will sanitize that BA, when generally all it gets one is a lot more debt.
      So it's great that you are so wealthy that your daughter can enjoy life with no financial worries(she is living in NYC...does she even have a job?).
      So yes, for the noblesse oblige, in addition to the Grand Tour, a college education to Think Great Thoughts(or, as a Communications major, communicate Great Thoughts) is de rigueur, but for the rest of us who actually need a job to live, eat, etc? I guess we'll eat cake.

      Delete
    9. It's moot for me as I'm middle aged now and don't have children, and the chances of having children at this point are very low.

      However, the idea that it would be "better" for society to not educate people and to have children just working "productively" is a notion that's been done before and one that I am very much against. The vast majority of the problems people outside of the upper classes have today is they simply have no real choice but to chase at being a wage slave in an ever changing limited selection of "productive" positions and then desperately cling onto that. The upper classes can choose from a great vary many variety of interests, and as typically is the case, when someone is able to pursue an interest they are happier and more productive.

      With increased automation the idea was supposed to be that more people are freed up, not that people have to be more desperate to be a good productive tool to their overlords.

      It won't be in my lifetime, and it certainly won't be from my generation and likely the next, but I suspect at some point young people will be so fed up and will see the reality of how rigged the system is, that they will revolt, as has been the case historically. You can't just create a society with massive wealth inequality that exploits and oppresses its youth. Such societies have always failed over time, and I do not see why the current world structure, especially in the West, would be immune to those historical forces.

      We are perhaps at the end stages of capitalism, or will be when people get fed up. If what we even have today is capitalism. But when a system only benefits the few, it's only a matter of time until the many no longer accept excuses, justifications and obfuscation to why their lot is so much worse than the select few that are in charge of said system.

      Delete
    10. The daughter of 9:07 is exactly the sort of person who might wish to go to law school. After all, a parent is paying for it, plus a life of leisure in New York City, lounging around at some sorority, and plenty of travel to the other side of the world. That parent is also a lawyer with plenty of money. "Communications" as her major suggests that the daughter may not approach 180 on the LSAT, but with parental money or trust funds she should be able to buy herself a space at some such recreational toilet by the sea as Pepperdine. After all, "to experience life a little" is easy to arrange when one is born into the upper crust.

      Delete
    11. I'm not rich,depending on how you define rich. She went to a state school. We prepaid her tuition and some of her room and board. It was a relatively inexpensive education. i effectively paid $75.00 per credit. She is working in nyc but she is being exploited and needs my help to survive. Next year we will see. She needs to stand up on her own two feet. I get that. An elite school was never a consideration for her because she was simply not elite school material.

      Delete
    12. @Old Guy 2:03 and yet his money only goes so far. Apparently, he doesn't have any influence to help her get a start in her chosen field, despite having achieved 'good grades at a state university.' And oddly, she or they selected the budget route of a state university, from which her parent is doubtful of the value of the degree, while at the same time doling out ample discretionary funds on semesters overseas and sorority living. Odd story.

      Delete
    13. Yes, 11:30, the picture is coming together. She was a mediocrity at best: it is even admitted that "she was simply not elite school material". She got a ridiculous degree in underwater bask—I mean, communications. Along the way there were funds galore for costly recreational pursuits. After graduation, precious Miss Communications chose to move to the most expensive city in the US. Now we are supposed to accept complaints that "she is being exploited". These years of indulgence are all justified as a way "to experience life a little", and everyone else should likewise sign up for some cotton-candy degree even though Daddy Warbucks may not be bankrolling the endeavor. Spurn vulgarians like Old Guy who contemplate such base considerations as employment and expense. Say, where is Jeeves with my Armagnac?

      Delete
    14. She got the same basic education many students in the liberal arts get. She went to a Nationally ranked public University. And depends how you define mediocrity. You all put down law and now you are putting down comunication too? Should she have majored in Finance so she could be a worker drone in the corporate world? Would that have been better for her? Another thing I paid for was her figure skating while growing up, and she competed in Europe several times with her team....it was an endeavor that kept her healthy and engaged, the type of thing that makes life worth living. Mediocrity compared to what? What makes one person's life more meritorious than another?...obviously old guy, you would concede that simply attending an elite school is meaningless, and who are some of the smartest high profile lawyers in our country? Hawley and Cruz, two obvious sociopaths... so high intelligence doesn't necessarily give you an advantage. The goal is to have good friends, to be happy with your life, to eventually end up in a relationship with somebody you can connect with. No career guarantees that, certainly not the law. I am perfectly satisfied with the path she has chosen in life and so far she has won at the game of life. We will see how things go from here...this country is in big trouble given the debt, and soon or later the Fed is going to lose control, never ending QE is not going to work, interest rates will go up and everything will come crashing down. . .and in the end nobody is coming out of this life alive, so I am happy for the life she has had up to this point.

      Delete
    15. I don't think it's just self-indulgent partying BTW. I am the 12:23 poster and in my friend's ballet example it was a very difficult program both mentally and physically and she worked her butt off in it. Didn't matter. Getting a slot with an actual ballet company is like getting drafted into the major league sports.

      So it's not just the easy majors. Some useless majors are still very difficult in fact. There's no magic bank that exchanges hard work for success. You have to work smart, not just hard, and that means going into something that's in demand which right now is pretty much just healthcare and to a lesser extent STEM and finance, or bypassing college entirely for an apprenticeship in the trades.

      While the 20 year old might see this as just sour grapes, the reality is that your dreams have to fit into a market, the market doesn't mold itself to your dreams. And while 20 year old you will have a tough time understanding this, odds are 40 year old you will understand it quite well and it's not a great thing to find out the hard way.

      Consider the analogy of a hamster in a wheel. You can work very, very hard at something and still not get anywhere. I don't care what the field is, if you go into something where supply drastically exceeds demand then all the hard work in the world likely won't enable you to make a career of it, particularly if you are not very closely connected to someone with huge clout in the field who will pull strings to get your resume (or audition video, or whatever) to the top of the stack.

      And of course, the response to that from a 20 year old is always that it doesn't matter: "Gotta take your shot if it's your dream." Problem is, that's troublingly close to the advertising slogan for the lottery: "You can't win if you don't play." Yeah, technically true but a lotto ticket doesn't cost $200,000. So by all means, move to LA and audition for movies or whatever. But don't invest a life-destroying amount of debt for something that is unlikely to work out.

      Delete
    16. With ballet, music, sports, acting, and the like, it is important to remember that many are called but few are chosen. Hitching your wagon to one of those lines of work is unlikely to turn out well.

      Delete
    17. Actually, OG, in ballet and sports it's even worse than that. There was a guy in my high school who was a hockey wunderkind. Got a full ride to a well regarded college and led them to the NCAA Divisiion I championship. Drafted by an NHL team and went right to the NHL, no time in the minors.

      In his 17th game he got slammed into the boards and blew up a shoulder. Out for the season then sent down to the minors for the next season to rebuild his strength. Won the Calder Cup but the announced he'd been hiding the extreme pain and hung up his skates. Dancers sometimes suffer career-ending injuries, too.

      Delete
    18. @4:45 I'm just of the opinion that if one can perform well in a field that has a reasonable chance of resulting in a career then one should choose that path rather then 'following the dream'. If one can perform well in a field, chances are that they will 'like' it on some level. If your child could only do well in a major such as Communications, then so be it. It is up to you whether the social advantageous and intellectual development that you perceive, were worth the time and money. At any rate, if this is the extent of the education it will be far less of a waste then spending good money after bad and continuing on with a toilet law school.

      Delete
  28. The subject of "prestigious" or "élite" degree programs (especially bachelor's degrees and law degrees) has come up so many times that Old Guy, who has degrees from two "prestigious", "élite" universities, needs to make something very clear:

    Éliteness is all about money.

    Two main reasons lead commoners to take an interest in the Harvards and the Yales: 1) They think that those establishments offer superior academic opportunities. 2) They think that the prestigious name will promote their careers.

    The superior academic opportunities are a myth, or close to it. What is true is that a Harvard will typically offer a broader range of academic pursuits than most other universities. That's great if your interests turn toward the obscure (as do Old Guy's), but it won't help you much if you are just going to sign up for vanilla courses in economics or chemistry that are available almost everywhere. A Harvard will also tend to have more seminars and other small classes, not to mention better academic facilities (a richer library, for instance). Probably it will be a bit easier to find bright classmates, too, but by no means will everyone be bright. All of that together does not justify the huge increase in cost over some pedestrian option, particularly if the latter comes with a big discount of some kind.

    The career-related advantages are another myth. The incorrect logic runs as follows: "Lots of wealthy people come out of Yale; therefore, if I go to Yale, I stand a better chance of becoming wealthy." Élite universities are for élites—those born into wealth, preferably with a blue-blooded pedigree going back several generations. Hayseeds like Old Guy should stay the hell away. It is not the name of the university that brings the great jobs but rather the pedigree of the graduate. If you apply to the banks in Manhattan or the white-shoe law firms, you will quickly be seen not to belong to the upper crust. If you instead apply for half-ass jobs, you will be viewed with suspicion: people will either wonder why someone with an élite degree is going for a half-ass job or think that you'll queen your supposed intellectual superiority over everyone else. None of this is conducive to getting a job.

    This doesn't mean that going to Humdrum U is sensible. If you too are nobody, you should not go to law school at all, and you should be careful about going for a bachelor's degree unless it is cheap (preferably free) and you need it for some such end as medical school. Do not pursue a degree for the sake of self-cultivation: you cannot afford that luxury.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The much-touted (by the Higher Education Cartel) "college experience" is to our age what panem et circenses ("bread and circuses") was to the declining Roman Empire. Except there is a big difference: A Roman plebian could cruise over to the Coliseum, get drunk, have a free lunch, and watch some naked Nubian women fight to the death, all on the emperor's dime. (The "dime" being wealth confiscated from far-away conquered lands.) America's plebians have to pay for their own college bread and circuses in the form of multiple fees, i.e. on-campus housing fees, student services fees to in part pay for the on-campus water park, fraternity dues, etc. All the while they can look with envy on the special housing, separate cafeterias and free tutoring offered to dumb-as-dirt male varsity athletes (our modern-day gladiators) who, were it not for their athletic prowess, would not have been allowed to step on the university's grounds.

    And speaking of the special warrior-caste known as college athletes...I have a friend in academia who told me that they condescendingly the rest of us as "NARP's"--Non Athletic Regular People.

    To Hell with them all. Seriously--To. Hell. With. Them. All.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US must be the only country with a warrior caste of college athletes. Most countries' universities don't even have official athletic teams, never mind teams that are the very heart and soul of the place.

      In the decadent US, even high schools are so dominated by a couple of all-male sports. Drive around and look at the signs: "East Bumblefuck High School, Home of the Tigers" (with a drawing of a football helmet to the side).

      And 12:10 is right to liken the US today to the declining Roman Empire.

      Delete
    2. Well, OG, the reality is that big-time college sports are a major driver of alumni donations. My sister was at Barnard during Columbia's legendary football losing streak of forty-some years ago and it was the alumni who were raising a stink about it.

      Also, I once heard a piece on NPR about abuses creeping into the football programs of staid New England colleges like Middlebury, Trinity, Amherst, Weslyan, etc. (Those names are given to frame the story, not sure any of them actually had abuses.) A coach was quoted as saying that when the contributing alumni of every school in the conference want to see a winning season every year you've got a problem.

      Back in the day my naive sister was of a "who cares what the alumni think?" mindset. Well, sis, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

      Delete
  30. You have overlooked one of the prime reasons male Boomers attended Big Ed years ago. Stay out of the Draft for X years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. That could happen again, but this time Big Ed has nearly exhausted the pool of recruits, and anyway I wouldn't expect the same dispensations that were given out in the days when few people attended Big Ed.

      Delete
    2. Actually, OG, the laws on the books that would be used should a draft be reinstated would allow people in higher ed to just complete their current semester.

      Delete
    3. The draft will never be reinstated, or if it were it would be because we're pretty much facing the end of society as we know it.

      Technological advances and the attractiveness of enlisting are such that our military can handle any war it might need to fight without needing to resort to conscripts ever again, and this will not change in the foreseeable future.

      The exception would be a literal World War 3, but another true world war would at this point be a nuclear war and that would pretty much mean the end of life as we know it anyway.

      People very much do go to school to get out of something else. But school is now an economic refuge from the real world. I don't see it needing to be a refuge from anything more compelling to keep the seats full.

      Delete
    4. 1:58...I wouldn't be too sure; right now Congress is considering extending Selective Service registration-required for all males 18 and up-to women of the same age in the interest of "equity". And how quickly we've forgotten what a mess the Iraq invasion became; because of a looming shortage of manpower thousands of service members whose enlistments had expired during that war were involuntarily extended. And recruiting on the home front nearly evaporated, as the usual enlistees decided not to join-forcing all branches of the military to lower their already low standards. Here's an article on point
      https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/01/the-u-s-army-lowers-recruitment-standards-again.html

      And the military paid, again and again, for lowering its standards for years, leading to involuntary separations of thousands of would-be soldiers.

      So how could it happen that the draft be reinstated? It wouldn't take much; any military conflict of even moderate intensity would wear down the current military pretty quickly. And with US troops currently scattered all over the globe, a flashpoint like West Africa or Taiwan or the Korean peninsula, is an increasingly likely place for it to start.

      Delete
  31. In the end, many of you really do have a poor view of life. You are negative education for education's sake. You are negative people trying to do what they want to do...i.e., following their dreams. You are negative people who actually want to be lawyers trying to be lawyers. Not everybody wants to choose the safe and secure route in life if it means, in the end, being miserable. Some people will be successful in "following" their dreams. Nobody should go to trade school simply because that is where the jobs are...more importantly, nothing stops anybody from going into the trades after they have chased their dream, but unsuccessfully. I told my daughters to think in terms of what they want to do and then think in terms of towards the end of their lives, what would they regret not having done, what changes would they have made if they could have, and to make them now before it is too late. If that means they choose to incur the debt necessary to go to college or law school so be it. Life tends to work out for people who are optimistic, and tends to meet the expectations of people who are pessimistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hold on to your hats, folks-it looks like Mr Infinity is back!
      It's all there-"you're too negative...gotta be a lawyer...take on that debt-what's the big deal?..."
      And it's the same amusing and pointless advice, telling his daughters to take on debt to follow their dreams...which is pretty easy-if fatuous-advice to give when someone else-his own daughters, in this case-are going to have the millstone of debt weighing them down.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, 7:13, that advice is tantamount to a recommendation to gamble one's money away on lottery tickets or penny stocks. After all, "[s]ome people will be successful".

      As for the claim that "nothing stops anybody from going into the trades after they have chased their dream", let's consider these bits of "nothing":

      1) Financial ruin
      2) A refusal to admit that one has not succeeded (people who go in for 10:59's advice are likely to go in for the gambler's fallacy)
      3) The ignominy of having settled for a trade after failing at something else

      Feel free to add to this list.

      Delete
    3. @Old Guy - This guy hasn't even been able to articulate what the value of his daughter's degree actually is other than education for education's sake. Is it for the memories? Is it to gain admittance to a social class? To marry a sugar daddy husband? He talks about following your dream, but he admitted that in his daughter's case there was never any hope for the dream to begin with. He doesn't even have the imagination to apply the degree in some distantly related occupation such as being an office drone giving power point presentations. By the way, he sneers at office drone jobs. Doesn't he realize that's where most useless degree holders wind up, to the extent that they get jobs at all?

      Delete
    4. Pouring coffee (elevated with the ridiculous Italian title barista) has become a common job for those who Followed their Dreams through an aimless four-year extension of high school.

      Perhaps social class and the sugar daddy were also important considerations, but it seems odd for someone bankrolled by Mommy and Daddy to go to an undistinguished university and study "communications" (not even offered as a major by most serious universities). As this poster admitted, going to Georgetown would have been a better way to fish for a rich husband.

      Delete
  32. "Nobody should go to trade school simply because that is where the jobs are" that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my entire life. That is literally like saying "nobody should go to an ATM simply because that is where the money is." Look, at the risk of repeating myself, for many decades the US has held this belief that literally anyone who graduates from high school should go to college. I have personally know young people, from my days in the Army Reserve, who had no academic inclination whatsoever, and were simply going to college because that's what their parents and their high school guidance counselor told them too. A friend of the family sent their daughter off to college, for no good reason at all, and about 3 years after she started, with many tens of thousands of dollars in debt, she decided to drop out, come home, and start working at her local grocery store. At The Grocery Store stocking shelves. The parents were co-signors on her student loans, so basically her entire family is up the creek due to this idiotic idea that everyone should go to college. People literally make movies about how modern universities are nothing but party zones where people literally drink until they die of alcohol poisoning on a regular basis, young women are routinely raped and sexually assaulted, young men are routinely arrested for everything from DUI's to rape. . .this is such a stupid country, it makes my head hurt. I worked harder in college than I do often today, as a successful lawyer in private practice, because I knew that my entire future rested on what I did during those 4 years, and I had to focus like a laser. I resented the party culture then, and it has only gotten worse since I graduated college back in 1992.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dilbert113 is right. The foolish belief that everyone should go to college became received wisdom in the mid-1980s and has since become ossified to the point that it is the decision not to go to college that demands justification. Of course, when college becomes obligatory, it also becomes expensive. And remedial courses that didn't exist a generation ago are now widespread.

      I agree that this is a stupid country. I'm planning to leave in a few years. I don't care if I never see the goddamn place again.

      Delete
    2. Watching the current debate about whether or not to forgive some/all/none of student loan debt, it's gotten to the point of bizarre, almost to the level of Alice Through the Looking Glass bizarre, where nobody-and I mean nobody-brings up the source of the problem-shipping everybody off to college no matter what, no matter if they can afford it, no matter if they are suited-or even want to go-in the first place.

      It would be refreshing to hear a politician actually say "The best way to solve this so-called "crisis" is to stop forcing everybody and his brother to attend college. It's not for everybody, and it's financially destroying tens of thousands."

      Will that happen? Not bloody likely.

      Delete
    3. Would that work, 6:57? I predict that people would agree that college is not for everybody—but would not put themselves in the group that shouldn't go to college. Result: everybody still goes.

      I'd like to see:

      1) Meaningful standards of admission.
      2) Regulation of costs.
      3) Public funding.
      4) Meaningful standards for continued enrollment.
      5) Elimination of remedial courses.
      6) Elimination of bullshit majors à la underwater basketweaving.
      7) Elimination of commercial male football and basketball teams.

      But since we're talking about the US, none of that will happen.

      Delete
    4. Right. When anyone says something is "not for everyone" they usually mean "not everyone is good enough" which still puts things like trade apprenticeships in the lesser category. The other problem is that politicians can talk up the trades all they want, but there's still no federal aid for them.

      I think that what we need to do is to make it so that any school (or professional program within a school) which relies on tuition for more than X% of its revenue is ineligible for student loans. Private institutions would be forced to use their endowments (donor restrictions on which could be abolished by law to the extent necessary to comply with the rule) or cease to exist, public institutions would be forced to have real and actual public support, and the for-profit diploma mills would probably be forced out of business altogether. Much of your 7 items would follow from this as well.

      Delete
    5. OG-you are, of course, correct...but it is exasperation, as the solution to the "student debt crisis" is to realize that it's a terrible idea to ship everyone to college.

      And here's a risible solution, as $50 million is literally chump change to these guys:

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-million-tuition-refunds-university-of-phoenix-ftc-settlement/

      Delete
  33. Well the issue is COL is absurd and wages have not kept up with inflation. Since Reagan dismantled infrastructure and with Nixon giving bankers the green light to deface currency, labor and the non-elite classes (which are mostly wage earners) have seen shrinking incomes and wealth, such that wealth disparity is at record levels.

    The various recessions and COVID exacerbated these issues because of Fed policies in place to continue handing money to the top. Trickle down has proven wrong at every turn yet people still praise it.

    You can not blame children and young people, who can't even vote and certainly aren't running things, while turning a blind eye to the "sophisticated and intelligent" elites that are running scams on them. Eventually your young people become jaded middle age and older, but that seems to not have happened yet.

    These are macro trends and the country will have no choice but to transition into something else. You can't have finance be such a large part of the economy, and you can't consistently deprive people of their savings and property, with taxation and inflation and currency devaluation. The point of a society is never to just enrich those at the top, every society is capable of that and that is the default.

    What makes a great society is how well off the general public is. Low IQ and low information people keep insisting the US has the richest poor in the world and in world history, while seemingly oblivious to massive wealth inequality and the elite classes robbing everyone blind in broad daylight. That has to change.

    All this other stuff is a symptom. Family businesses were historically considered the best transfer of wealth and the engine of a healthy economy, but small businesses are also at record lows now, the pandemic really hurt them, and none of the various programs ever got money to them---instead the big companies took the money, and then got all of the loans cancelled on top of that, giving them even larger advantages while creating inflation that hurts the smaller businesses even if they were still open and operating.

    This country won't fix things because people can't admit the issues and then at least half the country supports the status quo anyway, because they're convinced they will become millionaires eventually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think small business is really the backbone of anything. The much ballyhooed statistics about this often conceal the fact that the feds often consider a "small business" to be anything under 1000 employees or something, with much of the job creation numbers tied not to mom-and-pop shops, but to businesses of like 300-500 employees or so. Those aren't small, they're firmly medium sized and in many small towns having that many employees puts you amongst the biggest employers around.

      What these midsize firms are NOT doing, unless they get acquired, is raising capital by selling shares on the public market and therefore, they get to focus on actually serving customers as opposed to playing games with accounting rules, various debt instruments, and constant M&A activity to maximize shareholder value.

      The dominance of an oligopoly of publicly traded companies is the cause of the rise of the financial class you so rightly decry, as the two exist symbiotically. But the real economic backbone of this company is midsize business, not the fortune 500 but not the mom and pop shops either.

      Delete
  34. There are still plenty of people who are pushing law school. I was just reading some posts on Quora where a retired successful lawyer was trying to make some point about a former colleague, a paralegal who decided to become a lawyer, who had a low LSAT score attended a low ranked school where she struggled, passed the bar exam after 6 attempts and is now general counsel for a bank. A subsequent follow up post changed bank to 'top ranked' title insurance company.

    I guess the point was in this lawyer's opinion, the only barrier to a legal career is not passing a bar exam. I'm not sure why this lawyer, who excelled academically, received a scholarship and otherwise stresses the necessity of high academic achievement was holding up this somewhat academically challenged attorney as an example of a 'good lawyer' or someone to admire. But the stories are out there. The only drawback to law that she cited was that the general counsel has to work 70 hour weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just yesterday I went through a stack of résumés, at most one of which showed high academic achievement. Most of the transcripts were full of C's, and there were also plenty of D's and even some F's. I can understand one bad semester, which may be attributable to some personal difficulty such as illness or a shortage of money. But a pattern of poor grades throughout law school suggests problems that may be difficult to overcome. And although we commonly hear the claim that grades in law school are "arbitrary", the fact that some people (Old Guy, for instance) consistently get A's while others consistently get C's gives the lie to that.

      Why exactly should I want to interview a recent graduate who racked up a string of C's in law school? Can that person be expected ever to do better than marginal legal work?

      Those who pass the bar exam only on the sixth attempt are unlikely to find legal work anywhere. Once again, that suggests marginal ability. It's also hard to hide: when years have passed with no legal work since graduation, one can guess the reason.

      Yes, someone with the right connections could get a job at some title-insurance company after struggling at a toilet law school and making numerous attempts at the bar exam. That doesn't mean that most people of similarly poor academic potential will achieve anything similar.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I don't understand pushing the myth that there's a legal career for a poor student who struggles to pass the bar, when most average or better law graduates who pass the bar easily on the first try have extreme difficulty managing a full time lifelong career in law.

      There are just way too many intelligent people relegated to doc review, until they give up and I don't know what they do after. I think most are stuck. And after awhile, I wonder if someone even remains intelligent when law sucks the soul out of them (small law, doc review, and other un/underemployment is a norm in the legal field).

      Even before the scam was exposed, they couldn't hide that only something like half of law graduates were even in the legal field 10 years after. They hid employment statistics overall and pretty much falsified them, and have resisted every attempt to get them to provide accurate data, so the fact they even admitted how poor long term legal prospects were should probably have been a major red flag.

      They used to claim it was the versatility of the law degree. You can do anything, like pour coffee, with your legal degree! That doesn't really fly anymore because scam blogs, the NYT article and others exposed that nonsense enough to get them to at least back off a little.

      One thing I want to add to Old Guy's post (the blog entry) is the costs truly went insane around 2005 when Bush effectively removed bankruptcy protections from student loans, and also federally guaranteed the loans while using the private sector to actually service the loans, i.e. charge origination fees and interest while having zero risk at all. The loans were then packaged into SLABS, similar to MBS, yet nobody would take a haircut on them because they're completely guaranteed, and these banks and rich people aren't stupid, even if they're immoral.

      Obama at least kicked out the middlemen and had the federal government directly handle the loans, cutting out (I think?) origination fees and now allowing an option to actually forgive the loans etc. I don't know if new SLABS are still packaged or not, they might be, I'd still assume the older ones are still good and will be for some time yet.

      People still attend college and law school because the trade option is also expensive and is nowhere near the guarantee that it's spun as, and as Old Guy alludes to those jobs don't really exist now as they did for the Boomers.

      I'm still not seeing any real long term consequences of the financial class and Boomers cannibalizing younger generations. I don't know if there ever will be honestly, at least in my lifetime. For me it doesn't even matter now. I was a recent graduate when the scam blogs started up in the late'00s. I'm middle aged now and no longer young. The blogs have slowed down, and the scam seems to be back on an upswing. Few schools closed down.

      Groups like me are aware now and opted out. But the law schools simply adjusted downward, and prey on the less intelligent. Where they had been able to exploit someone like me who didn't have access to that information in the early-00s, now people that actually research and pay attention are fully aware. At most they'll attend the schools listed in other entries that might give at least a chance of being worthwhile, the schools outside of that list are filled with the elite's spawn and the unwashed masses that can barely read, write or think. As a result, international hiring has increased since American law schools have such poor students at anything outside of the very top ranks.

      Delete
    3. @OldGuy at 11:22 That would seem to make sense. I was wondering whether the story was a complete sense or all the facts are not being presented.

      I was confused about what this retired lawyer was trying to convey. She has hundreds of posts on this particular blog and sometimes will have maybe a dozen posts on a single day. Usually, her responses are to some inane question and she often gives an equally inane answer. Common questions are Does it matter what I major in in college for getting into law school? My major isn't pre-law can I still go? My major is electrical engineering, can I go. Her answers are invariably the same, Yes, any college grad can apply and law schools don't care what your major was. They only care about LSAT and GPA. To one hapless soul, she gave the advice to stay away from STEM majors in college, they will do you no good in law school. Focus on majors such as speech, logic and English lit. And choose a major where you can maximize your GPA. Because that is all that law schools care about.

      She also gives the advice that law firms don't care about your GPA in law school or which law school you attended. They only care about whether you can drum up business. She said her paralegal protege could never have succeeded in Big Law because she didn't have the abilities to be a rainmaker, but she was able to convince the title insurance company that she could add value to the business which is all they cared about.

      But her stance with her paralegal friend, who she said scored 146 on the LSAT is contradicted with her admonitions of not to bother applying to law school if your undergrad GPA is under 3.5. She stated that but endorses attending toilet law schools which we know take 2.5 GPAs and less. She also said that law schools that graduate students with low C averages are doing a disservice to the student and the profession. Yet, as I already stated the asserts that law firms and corporations don't care about grades and number a bar exam attempt and she promotes toilet law schools without any concern of the quality of the graduates. She declares that paralegal 146 is doing great as a corporate counsel, despite barely graduating from a toilet and needing 6 tries at the bar exam.

      She gives her current occupation as 'writer'. I am wondering it is writing on that blog and practicing being a fiction writer.

      Btw - oldguy - this blogsite seems to have come off a lot of search engines, although it is still coming up on Google.

      Delete
    4. The "writer" is correct that law schools only care about LSAT and (to a lesser extent) GPA. So she's right that someone whose ONLY goal is law school and who will absolutely 100% not waver from that no matter what should probably stay away from STEM. A hard science major can give you a SMALL bump in the GPA department, but not much because USNWR doesn't adjust for that. A 4.0 in English will get in before a 3.0 in STEM, all other things being equal. The law schools are aware that you can game the system by taking easy majors. But if USNWR doesn't care, they don't care.

      Problem is, no one should be THAT dead-set on law school. Majoring in something useless just to pad your GPA leaves you nothing to fall back on when you don't knock the LSAT out of the park, which you essentially must do to have any shot at getting in to any of the tiny subset of law schools worth going to.

      So that advice is simultaneously right and wrong. Right in the sense that it's the best plan for someone 100% committed to going to law school, wrong in the sense that no one should be 100% committed to law school in undergrad unless (maybe) they already have LSATs back and they got 170+.

      Also, that anecdote switching from back to title insurance is a big switch. Title companies do sell silly insurance policies on which claims never get made cuz they exclude anything even slightly weird in the chain of title, but mainly they're escrow agencies which is a glorified secretarial function perfect for a paralegal. I doubt that person is doing real GC work and is probably essentially a secretary that supervises other secretaries. The big name doesn't mean anything either, as title companies are franchise operations. Unlikely they really work for corporate, probably just one of its thousands of franchises each of which is an independently owned small business. Guy who owns the business probably just letting someone with a JD use a counsel title because it doesn't cost anything and helps a person out with some resume padding, but I'd be surprised if such a person is putting their JD to real use.

      Oh and also, all these "do I have to major in prelaw" type questions are not dumb questions. Medical school has a prerequisites list as long as your arm that de facto mandates majoring in biology. And pretty much everything else requires *something* in terms of prereqs. Certainly everything that leads to a license does. People who don't know any better ask this question all the time and they're really, really surprised that law school requires NOTHING in terms of undergrad preparation other than finishing any BA. That is highly unusual so you can't fault people for not knowing it. Though of course once you do know it, that fact along should clue you in that it may be a scam.

      Delete
    5. I was a Bio major. It destroys your GPA because classes are curved hard to a C. Getting B+ and above in a hard science course is the equivalent of an A for any other subject, it's stupid. Also labs take forever and you really wind up having to work pretty hard.

      And for what? If you don't make med school, it's useless. It's near impossible to get a good job with just a biology undergrad. You would need more schooling but even then it's probably going nowhere.

      And what's worse is because the curve is so hard, and this is especially true at a state school, the top scorers do tend to cheat. And the profs don't care and the system just doesn't really care either, you're better off cheating and risking getting caught than not cheating and not getting those top scores, which of course is nearly impossible because you're competing with cheaters and for such a small actual merit based result. In that regard, it's so similar to how law works as well.

      I think people are better off doing a non-STEM major and certainly not Biology. Get the med school prereqs done in community college and/or in summer classes, which are far less competitive, while taking an easy major.

      Most jobs either don't care about GPA or like a higher GPA. Very few care about the actual major/courses taken. Sure a specific STEM field might require it, but then at the least make sure you want that field (which you aren't guaranteed) and don't do it for medical school.

      Now granted the Caribbean schools and DO programs were and maybe still are somewhat of an option. But you'd need to know about that and also want to do that, those overseas schools are no picnic. There are a lot of benefits the US has that you wouldn't have over there, and again it's also mostly punting life forward some more. There's a stereotype that doctors have no social life/skills and just wind up marrying a trophy SO in their mid-30s. It exists because it is pretty common.

      No I think the best thing for most people is have parents with money so you can go to school for free, enjoy it, then move into a real career afterwards that has nothing to do with anything you learned in school. Higher education is more to meet a spouse from a similar socioeconomic background than anything else.

      Delete
    6. Yeah but some med schools frown on CC prereqs, you might not even find a CC that offers upper division things like organic chem, and if you're not in a "degree granting program" at the CC there's no financial aid for just taking classes. Just majoring in bio so that you can naturally pick up the prereqs along the way is the path of least resistance, and if you don't do well enough for med school there's always PA school, pharmacy school, dentistry school, and maybe even the Caribbean med schools if you're really dead-set on it.

      Otherwise, I tend to see people with just a bio undergrad degree get jobs at labs and things like that and move up from there. Certainly not a golden ticket, but it's still better than majoring in underwater basket weaving.

      Delete
  35. When talking about the predictive value of one's legal abilities based upon law school grades, I fear that people are confused. Put simply, there is a simple reason why big law firms seek graduates from the top of their class, preferably at the top law schools. It's called "marketing". They have managed to successfully convince clients and potential clients that by hiring "the best and brightest" they will receive the best work product. Factually, the work product of most first-year lawyers is dismal, and pretending that the ability to write nice essays in blue books will somehow make a grossly inexperienced lawyer produce amazing work. . .that kind of thinking ranges from profoundly stupid to flat-out insane. As if the work quality of grossly inexperienced lawyers in big law firms wasn't bad enough, in addition to being profoundly inexperienced, the are profoundly overworked. I would never pay a big law firm to do any work for me on any legal matter under any circumstances. A law firm that relies upon grossly inexperienced grossly overworked associates, and pushes most of them out by the time they get 4-5 years of experience under their belt and start to actually do good work, is not firm one should want anything to do with.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In addition, there are lots, and lots of people who are great law students and awful lawyers, and vice versa. I personally knew a guy like that, he graduated with honors, failed the Bar Exam, got arrested, and ended up living at home with his mom and working at a gas station. I knew another academic all star with amazing stats in both his Ivey League undergrad and law school, who passed the Bar with a very high score on the Multistate portion, had no trouble finding a job with a decent law firm before being sworn in. . ..and was fired within six weeks for gross incompetence, and his career never recovered from this setback. If people were smart enough to figure out that the grade/law review thing is a marketing tactic by biglaw, nothing more, and nothing less, and concentrate on getting practical experience in law instead of fetishizing over the difference between an A- and a B+ in a course teaching garbage that no practical lawyer will ever use (according the the traditional canons of British Common Law, you see . . .) then we might produce law school grads with some actual ability to practice. I mean, there still wouldn't be jobs for most of them, of course, and what work is available for new JD's tends to pay no more than you could get with your Bachelor's degree, but still, sparing competent lawyers, judges, and clients the specter of first and second year lawyers who know nothing about actually practicing law, IRL, would be helpful to prop up what is left of this "profession". I will take an experienced lawyer over a newbie every day of the week, and if you boast that got good grades and wrote for your school journal, you will sound like a high school student who boasts of making the Honor Roll and writing for his high school newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As a retired STEM professional, all I can say is AMEN! I never used what I learned for my bachelor's degree. Truth be told, all the useful stuff was from my associate's; I never used anything beyond that. Why did I get my BS? One, it was expected; two or three generations of my family had gotten their degrees, so I felt like I had to as well. Two, I'd wanted to go to law school, and I new a bachelor's was necessary to get in.

    Thankfully, I read Robert H. Miller's book, "Law School Confidential". It was the BEST $20 I ever spent! Ifigured out that law school was not only a bad investment; it probably wasn't for me. I especially liked the "mentors" he featured in the beginning of the book. Miller's mentors relate their law school and legal career experiences.

    At least one of them, if she had to do it over, wouldn't go to law school again. She had student loan payment of $1,100 a month; that was bigger than my mortgage! Even back when LSC came out, law school cost as much, if not more, than a house did. At least with a mortgage, one builds equity; at the end of the day, one has something to show for a six figure mortgage. The same can't be said for law school.

    I noticed that all of them had either been on law review or on a legal journal. I knew from my research that law review, or at the minimum, a journal, was necessary to get legal jobs. I also knew that there was, at best, a 10% chance of getting on law review. That doesn't even consider the huge commitment law review entails.

    Another sobering look at the legal profession's challenging job prospects is John Grisham's "The Rainmaker". In the book, we follow main character, Rudy Baylor, and his travails in getting a job after law school graduation. Even back in the early 1990s, if one didn't attend one of the Top 14 law schools, job prospects were dim. After 2008, even HYS grads had trouble getting jobs!

    Getting back to the degree scam, all we heard growing up was how college grads made more money than those without degrees. The PSAs were everywhere. What these purported studies and experts forgot to tell us was that it wasn't the degree that made the difference; it was the drive of the degree holder. Since it took drive to get a degree, those people would've been more successful even without them.

    So yeah, degrees are a scam. If I had a kid or were counseling someone on their future, I'd tell 'em to do well in HS. After HS, then either go to the local community college to get a useful, employable associate's degree; or to learn a trade. A plumber buddy of mine has a nicer house than I do-'nuff said!

    Anyway, those are my thoughts on this. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete