tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post2389855325038996369..comments2024-03-28T10:56:31.720-06:00Comments on Outside the Law School Scam: Hug-A-BoomerUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-4672526926189824852013-06-15T14:08:08.669-06:002013-06-15T14:08:08.669-06:00Pointless, I know, but I re-read the reference you...Pointless, I know, but I re-read the reference you cited, and the only conclusion is that you are dishonest.<br /><br />Yes, you will respond about pots, kettles, and all that. Your dishonesty is on two levels: you misrepresent what is written (what ought to be a capital crime in law, but then I'm from Texas), and you are willfully ignorant about facts that are easily discovered. Perhaps not as easily as LinkedIn, but easy nonetheless. The degree is from Harvard, full stop. (Would you believe it's not even on a wall?) If you don't like that, well, that's your problem.<br /><br />But wait, there's more. Your dishonesty is compounded by a need to cut rather than build. Why the ad hominem? The refuge of the weak? If we learned that a post were written by someone who had gone to night school, would that detract from their point? It depends (yet should strengthen, not weaken, the impact), but to argue, as you do impliedly, blithely, and arrogantly that it follows as night follows day . . . shame on you.<br /><br />And there might be yet a fourth dishonesty. Anonymity is certainly the norm here, and that's fine; but it does lessen the credibility of an attacker, especially against someone who is willing to put their name to the electronic version of paper.<br /><br />Thane.Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-85121295307357702352013-06-14T22:08:09.372-06:002013-06-14T22:08:09.372-06:00^ Fraud: the guy who attends HES, but writes "...^ Fraud: the guy who attends HES, but writes "Harvard University" on his LinkedIn profile.<br /><br />'Nuff said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-31534703272533408442013-06-14T16:43:30.778-06:002013-06-14T16:43:30.778-06:00Well maybe speaking up in front of the congregatio...Well maybe speaking up in front of the congregation would have been going too far, but maybe you could have spoken to this guy in private and tried to warn him what a terrible mistake he was making (not that he'd likely listen).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-89806844686241853592013-06-14T16:24:38.686-06:002013-06-14T16:24:38.686-06:00PS: The link was dead, but I found it. The artic...PS: The link was dead, but I found it. The article quotes a "certificate" holder, which is not the same as a degree holder. I, having been through many classes, will confirm that not all students should be there. (At "regular" Harvard classes, the raw talent is almost certainly there, with a rare exception, but the drive, maturity, and humanity too often aren't.)<br /><br />The difference is that Harvard does it exactly right. Anyone can enter, but few make it through. This is EXACTLY as education should be. In the past hundred years, something like only 7,000 have earned degrees, while hundreds of thousands have taken courses. Anyone is free to say what they like, and it's hard not to argue that resume fraud is not an abuse. <br /><br />To be admitted into either a bachelor's or master's program, one must take a set of courses, and *then* apply for admission. One is not "admitted" until then. A thesis is a requirement, at the bachelor's level as well (I think), and . . . here's the trick . . . because of this concern, the thesis is taken pretty seriously. I had a committee, just as grown-ups do. In fact, it was rather more elaborate than at the University of Texas at Austin.<br /><br />So our intrepid correspondent didn't bother to check the transcript? Who's scamming whom?<br /><br />As just a basic question (for everyone else; not you if your mind is made up): do you honestly think that, even with a few key administrative allies over the past hundred years, the Harvard Corporation would risk its name?<br /><br />You offered your "critique." Are you willing to read and critique "The Gates Unbarred"? If not, who's the fraud?<br /><br />Thane.Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-4015078190472040182013-06-14T16:10:16.081-06:002013-06-14T16:10:16.081-06:00If a nudist emperor points out that the kid is a b...If a nudist emperor points out that the kid is a brat, and by the way there's a kingdom to pillage and fair maidens to be, ah, "rescued," is the kid still a brat?<br /><br />Say, this is fun.Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-49081103380837091902013-06-14T14:45:09.399-06:002013-06-14T14:45:09.399-06:00This was supposed to be responding to the first th...This was supposed to be responding to the first thread.Adam Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12458070600725040309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-92173587285634868712013-06-14T12:26:31.081-06:002013-06-14T12:26:31.081-06:00I have encountered the problem that many younger p...I have encountered the problem that many younger people and most older people do not want to recognize the scam because it goes against their programming (cognitive dissonance). Also, this is such an image-based profession and most people want to sound successful.<br /><br />As to bullies, such is life and the legal profession. Around here it is best to not feed them, not even leftover bread crusts.Adam Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12458070600725040309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-34107165808707537112013-06-14T12:03:24.862-06:002013-06-14T12:03:24.862-06:00The Golden Corral is great, but there's this c...The Golden Corral is great, but there's this cashier at the end of the buffet.<br /><br />It's nice to have a little earning capacity so that you can eat at Golden Corral, and now, pay some of the various insurances the government seems to want us all to carry. I guess that's a dependence on money that saps my happiness. I'm trying to get over it and be free, but it ain't coming easy.<br /><br />Starting over is great, but I sure don't want to run the lawyer race again or go back to that starting line. Even pro bono cases have filing fees and entail depositions and expenses. Just like the Golden Corral, they cost too. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-49220707372035055122013-06-14T09:19:31.186-06:002013-06-14T09:19:31.186-06:00^ If a kid points out that the emperor isn't w...^ If a kid points out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, is he a "bully," too? <br /><br />Just read this, if you think your heart can stand it: <br /><br />www.dba-oracle.com/t_harvard_extension_school_lower_quality.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-78714222002933455622013-06-14T08:33:50.323-06:002013-06-14T08:33:50.323-06:00"I'm happy at the Golden Corral buffet wh..."I'm happy at the Golden Corral buffet which is something I never had in my youth and doesn't cost a lot of money. Perhaps, there's the answer."<br /><br />It's something like that. Dependence on anything - money, a job, a habit, etc. - reduces freedom. There comes a point in many peoples' lives when they feel trapped and that the second half of their lives should be more fulfilling than the first. This is commonly called a mid-life crisis. If you are lucky, you get to go back and start fresh with some other things. If you are not free to do so, you are trapped and unhappy. JeffMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03570176730771111002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-8160481897176990272013-06-13T23:34:20.710-06:002013-06-13T23:34:20.710-06:00From the comments it seems boomers want youth whic...From the comments it seems boomers want youth which is something they cannot buy. The Generation X/Yers want secure employment and the money that follows like the boomers had. I'm happy at the Golden Corral buffet which is something I never had in my youth and doesn't cost a lot of money. Perhaps, there's the answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-31711051793945894422013-06-13T23:22:56.758-06:002013-06-13T23:22:56.758-06:00Adam, Jacob, and All -
All universities charge to...Adam, Jacob, and All -<br /><br />All universities charge too much. (Even state ones, now.) Students are pushed there, and then into graduate or professional programs, regardless of their interest, talent, or maturity. Add credential creep. Multiply by professorial sinecures. <br /><br />Demand increases, supply increases more slowly (and very slowly or not at all at the top), the government steps in with loan guarantees, then pure loans, plus grants and other goodies, minus discounts, preferential treatments, and actual quality. And the price goes up. Gee. <br /><br />30 students in a classroom, each paying $2,000. (Much less . . . 300 students, each paying $8,000.) And still that's not enough.<br /><br />If one-third of matriculants were not to go to college (or two-thirds not go to law school), and if no one were allowed to go directly from high school to college, or from college to law school, we can guess what happens to quality (it goes up). What happens to price? <br /><br />Thane.<br />Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-83017788954578872402013-06-13T22:50:13.323-06:002013-06-13T22:50:13.323-06:00Anon 6:51 -
I know I shouldn't feed the beast...Anon 6:51 -<br /><br />I know I shouldn't feed the beast, but it just struck me:<br /><br />This seems just a teensy bit above the pathetically juvenile tit-for-tat in many online discussion groups. Bullies drown out reasoned discussion, with a result that lurkers lurk deeper, and many simply disappear. The bad crowds out the good. The conversations, and participants, are debased.<br /><br />Same as in law classrooms, no?<br /><br />Thane.Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-69995683563822578082013-06-13T22:39:52.758-06:002013-06-13T22:39:52.758-06:00Ad hominem aside, you are aware that the Extension...Ad hominem aside, you are aware that the Extension School is one of the schools of Harvard. Yes? <br /><br />Open enrollment? Absolutely. And one of the hidden jewels of higher education. <br /><br />You might also be aware that, because of assumptions by snotty individuals such as yourself, those within the Extension School are, shall we say, aware of their second-class status. (This despite the fact that the administrators are, yes, real academics, many of the extension faculty are senior faculty in Arts and Sciences and elsewhere (and they actually care), yada, yada.) As one might guess, this results in a certain care as to the actual academic work. Of course, if you still need to be snotty, I did take courses at the law school. <br /><br />If there is a credibility issue, it speaks as much to a comment such as yours than to anyone connected with the extension school, including students working 60-hour jobs, as I was. <br /><br />To all, if we lose it might well be because of attacks such as this. Not sure about you, but I have better things to do. <br /><br />And, by the way, the chances of success are, on a good day, no better than 50-50.<br /><br />"We" can mean society as well as any grouping of law students, lawyers, or anyone else. <br /><br />"Success" might be a more solid professional founding for *all* law graduates, such as I propose at the end of Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold.* <br /><br />As to being pretentious and boring, can I be just one?<br /><br />Thane.<br /><br />* In these discussions we focus on the supply side, but that's just half the problem. There's equally a demand side, which has been, in the best of times, badly mismanaged. Were there bar review *within* law school and mandatory internships and residencies at both courts and firms (modestly paid but required for bar admission), how different would the profession be?Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-77135512579167019552013-06-13T21:56:25.723-06:002013-06-13T21:56:25.723-06:00Finally, finally, finally ... the discussion turns...Finally, finally, finally ... the discussion turns to something beyond Law School and the awkward hunt for that first job. Finally, a light shines on career outcomes for lawyers and it ain't pretty. <br /><br />Listen to a Boomer.<br /><br />Yes, Law School's tough, WAY overpriced, and abnormally preoccupied with hierarchy, status and a misguided and highly antiquated cirriculum. The profs can be arrogant pricks, the 'Socratic' Method is grossly abused and little more than bullying, and first-year Property is a disjointed LSD-trip through snippets of out-of-context English legal history. The grades are arbitrary, the lectures are a game in 'hide the ball', and the competition among students is both infantile and cut-throat at the same time.<br /><br />So we all chant "Don't go to Law School!," hate the Deans, and despise their scam. And rightfully.<br /><br />But let's not lose sight of the real reason we're saying "Don't Go to Law School." We're saying don't be a lawyer. The problems lie in the structure of the PROFESSION. <br /><br />Listen to a Boomer. Look at them and see what they are doing. It's a pity more Boomers arent blog-focused, because if they were, the online comments reflecting extreme disappointment with their careers and outright despair would corrode your screen and make your computer shut down.<br /><br />Most all of us entered law for the "job" or money-earning aspect of it. NO. Not to become rich, not to make more money than most anyone else, not to be upper class, but simply to earn sufficient money to support yourself and family, and a practice (if need be). Like, a job. That's a highly dubious proposition in law these days, and if you do perchance achieve it, it ain't lasting more than 10 years. This sad state of affairs stems largely from the overproduction of lawyers. <br /><br />Our focus on Law School rather than piss-poor career tracks are similar to a peace activist focusing on the harshness of Boot Camp: "I'm against war because the Army puts you through this awful thing called Boot Camp where a Drill Instructor wakes you at 0500, yells at you, and makes you do push-ups and PT. You have to salute and the uniforms are drab, and some of the colonels are uncool." <br /><br />A principled peace proponent is against war (except as a last resort) because he/she recognizes that the obscenely high human and financial costs of war usually (not always) makes diplomacy or sanctions the better route. <br /><br />Don't be against war because Boot Camp sucks; be against it because in many circumstances, it's not the right vehicle to reach the national objective and, worse, greatly harms the nation. There's usually a better vehicle to get there. <br /><br />The ridiculous overproduction of lawyers over the past 20 years has completely destroyed the ability of lawyers to have a career in this profession. Yes, some of the better performing students from better schools will land jobs with firms. The sheer number of available replacement lawyers will make the job a tenuous existence and will create an work atmosphere that makes Survivor look like child's play. And it only lasts for a couple of years, at best. And when you're in your 30/40's and looking at kids and college, the profession's largely done with you. And yes, the number of lawyers trying to 'go solo' directly affects the profitability of your practice. No, I don't mean your ability to strike it rich; I mean your ability to pay your bills.<br /><br />This is the ultimate reason to say NO to law school. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-80535311974881934032013-06-13T19:51:22.423-06:002013-06-13T19:51:22.423-06:00^ Your doctorate isn't from Harvard. It's ...^ Your doctorate isn't from Harvard. It's from the extension school. <br /><br />Only someone who is obsessed with pedigree would even go there in the first place. You won't sound like you are "putting on airs" if you say "Harvard Extension School." <br /><br />It's not elite. It's literally open admissions. And yes, mine is better. Hell, UM-Lowell would be better. <br /><br />Look, I believe you should judge a school by the strength of its graduates - not the other way around. But people like you are obsessed with "prestige" - despite the fact that you don't have any. And your writing style is pretentious and boring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-40622722450727445692013-06-13T19:47:11.609-06:002013-06-13T19:47:11.609-06:00
One question that people need to ask themselves i...<br />One question that people need to ask themselves is whether they were realistic in their assessment that law school was likely to be a good choice. As a boomer, I had doubts about going to UCLA, which is pretty high up on the food chain, many many years ago. I went to a much higher rated law school. The problem was that once you got away from the University of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Virginia, you were in pretty high risk territory even back then. Sure some people from lower ranked schools hit the jackpot, but that surely was not the norm.<br /><br />What is changed now is that even the tippy top law schools do not give you a great chance of a career, and there are so many unemployed or solo lawyers from the very top schools, like Columbia, NYU, Harvard and even Yale. There are just so many displaced lawyers looking for work. <br /><br />It is a sea change from a profession that was once much more secure to a profession where most lawyers are walking on thin ice if they have not yet fallen through the ice. Going to a top law school like Harvard does not protect you from being fired. Ir is very hard to get a job when you are fired, especially if you are on the street and you are not young.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-12431920209565344462013-06-13T19:29:36.984-06:002013-06-13T19:29:36.984-06:00Sir Adam -
My apologies. This is what typing wit...Sir Adam -<br /><br />My apologies. This is what typing without coffee does. I meant "silent, lurking *majority*."<br /><br />These are the students who are (1) not running wildly into law school (or if they are, are open to having their eyes opened), or (2) who are part of that great mass of post-college non-STEM soon-to-be or recent graduates who more or less find themselves with an admissions letter. To law school.<br /><br />The real problem is twofold, I think: Students have a vested interest in believing. While we like to think we are radical and critical and ironic, in fact most of us cling to the few knowns we have. And the more unsettled life is, the more we cling. (One can guess, as long as we're talking about different generations, how inconceivable this discussion would have been to the boring-if-stable world of, say, 1952. How paradoxic that, in many ways, they were more daring than we.) <br /><br />And so, when someone comes around and tells us that the only quasi-respectable professional field we happen to have applied in is a scam, well, that's unnerving. Cognitive dissonance kicks in, and most will flatly reject the message, ignoring (at best) the messenger (or, ahem, Messinger).<br /><br />The second problem is in the "silent" part. It doesn't take long to see that bullies are the primary drivers to just about any discussion of law school. (The same is true IN law school.) It's hard to break through that, because nearly every instinct that nearly everyone has is to support, not attack, the System.<br /><br />As to how to break through? Well, wait, I'm thinking . . . . = : )<br /><br />Thane.Thane Messingernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-26331359256793975012013-06-13T18:34:50.928-06:002013-06-13T18:34:50.928-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.JeffMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03570176730771111002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-64955183470924255572013-06-13T18:34:38.852-06:002013-06-13T18:34:38.852-06:00The boomers will jump aboard except for a few thin...The boomers will jump aboard except for a few things. <br /><br />First, they have years of experience on you guys. You guys think the party ended before it ever got started. This just ain't so. The boomers figured out Betty Crocker's recipe and found out how to throw a small party with cheap-ass cake. You guys hold out like Betty Crocker's recipe doesn't make cake anymore.<br /><br />Second, because you inexperienced Y-ers claim to be fortune tellers of doom (as if we Boomers don't have just a bit more experience) is a real turn-off. We tell you how to set out to make a reasonable subsistence, but you guys will hear none of it. If you can't get a job with a firm, life is over as you know it. To that, all we Boomers can say is, "Well, if that's the way you want to make your bed, you'll just going to have to lie in it."<br /><br />Third (and Adam is still a little guilty of this as shown in his article), you think us Boomers are disheveled because we lament over not being able to afford private school for the kids and annual vacations to Europe and Disney World. News Flash! Our struggles are a little more earthly than you might think.<br /><br />JeffMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03570176730771111002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-64154648473569882382013-06-13T17:31:17.065-06:002013-06-13T17:31:17.065-06:00You are romanticizing because you had no debt and ...You are romanticizing because you had no debt and a good job the whole time. The situation of young lawyers with no jobs or low paying jobs and big debt is bad. You would be in a totally different career today with much more limited chances of success if you were in your twenties now.<br /><br />As an older lawyer, I am happy with my life but very unhappy with my career choice. The problem is the lack of jobs for me and mostof my contemporaries. Going to a top 5 or 14 law school just has not produced jobs for most of my contemporaries at this point and for the last decade. <br /><br />No, I would not want to go back and be a heavily indebted unemployed lawyer in my twenties. If I could go back to college, I would never, never, never in a million years chose to become a lawyer because lawyers have one of the highest levels of unemployment of any profession when you compare degree holders to full time permanent lawyer job holders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-29312220418861314592013-06-13T16:49:57.845-06:002013-06-13T16:49:57.845-06:00It is actually worse than you make out because lik...It is actually worse than you make out because likely only 20%, and perhaps fewer, of boomer lawyers hold real full-time permanent legal jobs. The current structure of the legal profession is a pyramid agewise. The lack of jobs for older lawyers will affect even the most successful of the current generation X and Ys when they reach their 50s and 60s.<br /><br />Being shown the door in one's 50s or 60s is the norm for boomer lawyers. Law firms all have annual and more frequent "cleansings" and the older you are, the less likely you are to survive. Even the largest companies in the U.S. allow "fit" and "comfort" terminations - a way of saying they are firing an older lawyer without specifically pointing to age.<br /><br />The legal profession is suffering from a structure that does not leave room for a whole lot of age 50 plus lawyers in real paying jobs.<br /><br />The employment numbers should not be a pyramid, but more of rectangle, with constant or almost constant numbers of legal jobs for each age group. If that were true, getting a job out of law school would land you in a career.<br /><br />The problem is that the 20% or worse number applies to top 5 law schools. Maybe it is worse for lower ranked law schools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-325294527019215752013-06-13T16:34:59.534-06:002013-06-13T16:34:59.534-06:00A lot of boomer-aged lawyers are learning about th...A lot of boomer-aged lawyers are learning about the scam in a brutal way-- it is happening to their children. People who spend 25 years raising a bright and decent kid are not delighted to see the kid's life prospects and ideals destroyed by con artists. <br /><br />dybbuk123https://www.blogger.com/profile/08142974443119061724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-59478325575297980932013-06-13T15:58:57.969-06:002013-06-13T15:58:57.969-06:00Absent is the mention of Lobbying, which is as mys...Absent is the mention of Lobbying, which is as mysterious as the all time Student Lending phantom industry.<br /><br />Really, can anyone rattle off a list of lobbyers in DC and for whatever causes?<br /><br />Or name even one glad handing lobbyist person?<br /><br />Is there an official registry of the politial lobbyists of today in DC?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3660083024919144793.post-85380841859397824312013-06-13T15:54:41.106-06:002013-06-13T15:54:41.106-06:00You're moving everything into an ideological b...You're moving everything into an ideological box. A liberal like me would say that loans should be available, capped, and dischargable in bankruptcy and/or that loans should be removed, education heavily subsidized out of general revenue and rationed. There may be pure market solutions (I'm doubtful), but the idea that it's a "dems are bad" and "repubs or libertarians are good" issue is flat nonsense. <br /><br />There may be multiple solutions, but if we continue financing higher education with loans, but don't allow dischargability in bankruptcy, no proposal will be effective and it doesn't matter whether the financing is fully private, blended, or fully public. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com