Thursday, December 5, 2013

The Law School Admission Council's DiscoverLaw project encourages high school kids to dream about going to law school to save the dolphins.



The image that appears above, and the others that appear at the bottom of this post,  are from the DiscoverLaw.org site. DiscoverLaw.org is an initiative of the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which is the nonprofit that administers the LSAT, and facilitates the law school admissions process on behalf of ABA accredited law schools. DiscoverLaw.org was "created with high school and first and second year undergraduates in mind." This initiative seeks to encourage kids, particularly but not exclusively those from ethnically and racially diverse backgrounds, to "discover early how to be a successful law school applicant."  

The DiscoverLaw site states that "LSAC will provide grants to member law schools to demonstrate to high school and early college students why the world does need another lawyer.  Your law school is eligible for a maximum of $2,750 to program events that address early outreach, awareness, and preparation aimed at the target audience." The DiscoverLaw images are intended for use at these events, and are downloadable as posters.
 
I have thoughtlessly compared the law school scammers to Bernie Madoff, but these images make me realize how unfair that is to nebbishy old Uncle Ponzi, rotting away in federal prison. Madoff scammed the wealthy, and he scammed institutional investors who should have known better. The law school racketeers operate from a lower circle of depravity, luring social justice-oriented kids into life-destroying debt by promising to provide the foundation for a career that will allow those kids to fulfill their highest ideals.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Law School Lemmings

Just want to point out that we've added a new blog to our list on the right hand side of the page - Law School Lemmings.  Please check it out, as it's a great barometer of how far the scam message is and isn't getting out there.  They are doing god's work over there, as are all the scamblogs.

And if any of you have blogs that address law school scam issues (or even a healthy skepticism of the law school machine), let us know.  As can be clearly seen from Law School Lemmings, there are still countless misguided kids out there who just have no idea what they're getting into, and they need all the discouragement they can get.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

The ABA Is Speaking. Will Law Schools Listen?

The ABA, as many of you know, is currently studying the future of legal education and is attempting to determine a way to save law school administrators' and professors' jobs improve the current state of legal education. There is a lot in this report that seems to be lip service to mollify scam bloggers and other critics. Let's look at some of the juicier bits of the draft report. Their words are in bold, mine are normal text.

P. 3: 
"Broader Delivery of Law Related Services:
This should include licensing persons other than holders of a J.D. to deliver limited legal services, and authorizing bar admission for people whose preparation may be other than the traditional four years of college plus three years of classroom based law school education."
While the law schools are still pumping out almost twice as many graduates as there are jobs available, this proposal would cannibalize potential job opportunities. In the excellent book, Con Law, my fellow blog mate Charles Cooper writes about new grads who are forced to become solos chasing an ever more despicable and low grade clientele. Introducing more competition into the current climate works directly against law grads' interests. Good job, ABA.

P. 8
"[Online] criticism is diminishing public confidence in law schools and legal education and it adversely affects attitudes of prospective law students.
" Boo hoo. Law schools are stealing billions of dollars a year and enriching law school administrators and professors. Any criticism is warranted and richly deserved.

P. 11 
"What the ABA Standards [for Approval of Law Schools] do encourage is a continued increase in the quality of the  J.D. educational program. The pursuit of quality by law schools has unquestionably led to a strong system for training lawyers, and the ABA Standards have played a key role. But “quality of legal education” is an abstract notion as to which there is no objective metric for progress or achievement." Let me suggest a metric: student employment in a job requiring a bar license within a reasonable time after graduation. I know it's crazy, but let's give it a shot.

P. 12
"In some rural areas, for example, there are few lawyers and it is difficult for communities to encourage new ones to set up practice, either because of low prospective return on investment or lack of interest in small town or rural life." The "all the jobs are in rural Nebraska" argument is a red herring. There is a dearth of lawyers in these communities because there just isn't all that much work in most of these places to allow a lawyer to service her debt and live the American Dream. I live in a state with a large rural population. Many areas have one attorney for a three or four county area, because the low population, lack of disposable income and low demand will simply not support more than that.

P. 13: 
"There is wide disagreement about the purpose of law schools. For example, a commonly stated purpose of law schools is to train lawyers, but there is no consensus about what this means." Tamanaha and others have advocated a bifurcated approach to legal education. Certain schools (probably the elite ones like Harvard) can remain dedicated to developing leaders and teaching students how to "think like lawyers". All the others can teach students how to do what most attorneys do: draft wills and contracts, file a divorce, and how to litigate a case. This approach would help settle this "disagreement". The Report explores this idea more in depth on P. 22-23.

P. 21:
"To begin, there is relatively little scholarship funding or discounting provided to students on the basis of financial need. Rather, the widespread practice is for a school to announce nominal tuition rates and then use extensive discounting to build class profiles it finds desirable. In particular, schools pursue students with high LSAT scores and high GPA’s. Students who do not
contribute positively to the desired class profile receive little if any benefit from discounting and must rely extensively on borrowing to finance their education."Chasing prestige is a problem endemic to the legal profession. The legal profession's aristocratic ambitions need to be disabused before we can make law a truly meritocratic enterprise.

P. 25:
"Law schools have a societal role: to prepare individuals to provide law related services." Don't tell this to law profs. The majority of them are so out of touch that they think drivel like Nancy Leong's law and pop culture study is a worthwhile pursuit.

P. 26:
"But for law schools that choose to pursue other models, faculty culture and faculty role may have to change to support them. These changes may relate to: accountability for outcomes; scope of decision-making authority; responsibilities for teaching, internal service, external service, and scholarly work; career expectations; modes of compensation; interdependence; scope of the category “faculty” and internal classifications within that category; and a host of other factors." The majority of the law professorate will fight this type of change tooth and nail. After all, why would they want to give up the most highly paid part time job in America and possibly the world?

The suggestions in this report have some merit, which is why they will almost certainly be ignored by all the major stakeholders involved. Until law schools are subjected to some sort of system where employment outcomes are tied to the amount of student loans available to its students. Without that type of accountability, law schools will continue to abdicate their duty to actually teach students how to practice law in favor of producing ever more esoteric and useless "legal scholarship".

Monday, December 2, 2013

Self-help Delusions

The other day, I got one of those ubiquitous self-help articles via e-mail.  As it was from Forbes and had to do with what makes people "mentally strong," I thought sure, why not, let's take a look.


I generally find these articles simplistic and repetitive.  Too much hopium and pollyanna cheerleading for my taste, but as a Gen-Xer perhaps I am a shade cynical.  To be fair, these articles are not full-blown books, nor are they intended to cover every circumstance, nor are the ideas not worth considering at some level.   

I was struck, however, by how many of these recommendations for "mental strength" echo so many of the knee-jerk criticisms of the scambloggers and other JDs who feel like law school was a raw deal.  Clearly the message behind these articles deeply pervades the national psyche on multiple levels, because it seems like every criticism of the scamblog movement is a familiar laundry list of these self-same self-help articles on what it takes to be "successful."  While the aftermath of law school was not the original subject of the author, let's look at a few of these items through the lens of scambloggery (just replace "mentally strong people" with "JD graduates with bar licenses"):    

1. Waste Time Feeling Sorry for Themselves. You don’t see mentally strong people feeling sorry for their circumstances or dwelling on the way they’ve been mistreated. They have learned to take responsibility for their actions and outcomes, and they have an inherent understanding of the fact that frequently life is not fair. They are able to emerge from trying circumstances with self-awareness and gratitude for the lessons learned. When a situation turns out badly, they respond with phrases such as “Oh, well.” Or perhaps simply, “Next!”
7. Dwell on the Past. There is strength in acknowledging the past and especially in acknowledging the things learned from past experiences—but a mentally strong person is able to avoid miring their mental energy in past disappointments or in fantasies of the “glory days” gone by. They invest the majority of their energy in creating an optimal present and future.

Numbers 1 and 7 are oft-hurled criticisms by the pro-law-cartel, and they oversimplify and minimize the run-up to the circumstances/mistreatment that transpired in the first instance.  While we can all agree that "life is not fair," how one responds to that unfairness matters.  If you have been taken advantage of, do you just lie down and take it and say "whadayagonnado?"  Sometimes, maybe that is indeed the answer, but I bet for most of our readers they don't generally take things lying down.  Given the overstuffed dockets around the country, however, it appears that many people who believe they have rights choose to assert them in many, many cases.  Further, are we to just let things lie, shrug our shoulders and move on with a smile on our faces, knowing that those who follow us are very likely to fall into the same trap that only becomes more damaging with each subsequent academic year?  That would be heartless.
Many scambloggers have taken and continue to take responsibility for their actions by working as practicing attorneys or in some full-time professional capacity, paying their student loans, paying on their other obligations, etc.  However, this does not erase the gravitas of the situation or the legitimate criticisms given by the survivors.  There is much more to this than "feeling sorry for oneself," as if all that happened was that the scambloggers didn't get a pony.  This is about thousands of dollars of lost opportunity costs and hundreds of thousands in non-dischargeable debt, all for the privilege of later being told "Oh, sorry, we've been producing twice as many graduates as there are available jobs for decades now, and the employment statistics were (ahem) less than accurate.  Did we not mention that?  Oops!  Tee Hee! Go "network," or something."
Oh, well!  Next!  I would hate to highlight these problems and have others not view me as a mentally strong person or anything.  Best to just stay quiet, I guess.

6. Fear Taking Calculated Risks. A mentally strong person is willing to take calculated risks. This is a different thing entirely than jumping headlong into foolish risks. But with mental strength, an individual can weigh the risks and benefits thoroughly, and will fully assess the potential downsides and even the worst-case scenarios before they take action.
If I had $5 for every time I saw some yokel (many of whom never went to law school, themselves) say "well, you should have done your research, then", I could retire now.  It is not fear of weighing risks and benefits that lead the scambloggers to say what they say.  Ironically, it was directly because of the willingness to take a risk and willingness to rely on the representations and rankings, only to find out that the information relied upon was faulty to the point of being fraudulent, that many graduates now find themselves in dire circumstances.  Who knew the true score all along?   Dingdingding!  Yes, Law Schools, thanks for playing!
While information transparency has been improving in recent years (and the market has responded, as evidenced by declining LSATs and law school applicants year-over-year), there is still a long way to go to getting to the truth of student outcomes.  Those with superior information, knowing their representations were not truthful, were certainly keeping it close to their chests for decades while welcoming thousands of new enrollees every year. 

8. Make the Same Mistakes Over and Over. We all know the definition of insanity, right? It’s when we take the same actions again and again while hoping for a different and better outcome than we’ve gotten before. A mentally strong person accepts full responsibility for past behavior and is willing to learn from mistakes. Research shows that the ability to be self-reflective in an accurate and productive way is one of the greatest strengths of spectacularly successful executives and entrepreneurs.
Agreed.  This is why the scambloggers encourage others to take another path, especially if the attorney thing just isn't working out despite best efforts.  Or better yet, learn from the mistakes of others and don't even go to law school in the first place.  It would be insane not to temper the rosy outcomes sold by the cartel with the in-the-trenches experiences of actual graduates 5, 10, and 15+ years down the road (which we do right here on OTLSS).  Yet many 0Ls watch others criticise the scambloggers as "bitter," and in turn jump off the cliff themselves because the arguments of the scambloggers are dismissed as the fevered rantings of losers.  Funny, the critics are never available for comment, afterwards, once the truth hits home.

9. Resent Other People’s Success. It takes strength of character to feel genuine joy and excitement for other people’s success. Mentally strong people have this ability. They don’t become jealous or resentful when others succeed (although they may take close notes on what the individual did well). They are willing to work hard for their own chances at success, without relying on shortcuts.
A strawman, at least as applied to the scambloggers.  If someone succeeds on building a successful solo practice or being a BigLaw titan of industry, then that is excellent news!  Truly!  If you have the resources and connections to pull it off, good for you!  Just because a legal career works well for a select few doesn't mean the majority should follow the same path.  And, from an "ethical" and "professional" perspective, I believe there is a duty to say as much, given recent and current market conditions.

10. Give Up After Failure. Every failure is a chance to improve. Even the greatest entrepreneurs are willing to admit that their early efforts invariably brought many failures. Mentally strong people are willing to fail again and again, if necessary, as long as the learning experience from every “failure” can bring them closer to their ultimate goals.
Similar to Number 6 above.  There is nothing wrong with failing again and again and learning from the failures (see, e.g. the "practice" of law), so long as there is a credible, visible path to recovery.  With the increasing non-dischargable cost, yet declining value of a JD, the initial "failure" is hard to shake off and the road to meaningful recovery is practically invisible. 
In the extreme cases, there is huge difference between failure that "sets you back" and failure that can end a career.  The former requires a willingness to forgo a European vacation one year or put off buying a new car; the latter requires E&O insurance and a big bankroll to get through the lean times.

12. Feel the World Owes Them Anything. Particularly in the current economy, executives and employees at every level are gaining the realization that the world does not owe them a salary, a benefits package and a comfortable life, regardless of their preparation and schooling. Mentally strong people enter the world prepared to work and succeed on their merits, at every stage of the game.


Another strawman, as applied to the scambloggers.  No one has ever said that recent graduates are "owed" or should be "guaranteed" a job.  No one has ever denied the value of "hard work."  It is precisely because the World owes you nothing, the fact that there are no guarantees, that the scambloggers say what they say.  In the interim, the shills float sugarplum dreams of successful law careers and how valuable the degree is over a lifetime, while ignoring the fact that computers get more and more sophisticated at predictive coding and States allow more and more "legal technicians" to do what used to be called "the practice of law," only now no bar license is required.  Oh, and JD overproduction, too.
Let's be grimly honest, here:  "merit" is good, but pedigree and connections are better.


13. Expect Immediate Results. Whether it’s a workout plan, a nutritional regimen, or starting a business, mentally strong people are “in it for the long haul”. They know better than to expect immediate results. They apply their energy and time in measured doses and they celebrate each milestone and increment of success on the way. They have “staying power.” And they understand that genuine changes take time. Do you have mental strength? Are there elements on this list you need more of? With thanks to Amy Morin, I would like to reinforce my own abilities further in each of these areas today. How about you?

Agreed, in principle.  However, the tremendous debt burden borne by graduates today (as compared to inflation-adjusted law school tuition from, say, the 70s), as well as the need to earn significant income on a percentage-basis to service said debt, greatly reduces the practical time horizon for a reasonable ROI for many.  It's not that JDs expect immediate results, so much as they can't afford to wait.  Those without significant backing are at a large disadvantage, and that is something that a positive, can-do outlook does not directly address.

In closing, let's hear it for being a "mentally strong person."  Not a thing wrong with that.  As concerns a legal career, however, let's temper this with an understanding that the all-too-simplistic and dubious criticisms of how kids these days need to "buck-up" and "get out there" are just that: overly-simplistic and quasi-truthful.  After all, the law school cartel is counting on you to buy-in without asking too many questions.
A positive, can-do outlook, while important, is also a dime-a-dozen.  What, do you honestly think that only you have a strong desire to succeed?  It is both insulting and the height of arrogance to say that "all those people" over there just don't want it bad enough, and only "I" have the gumption and smarts to do what it takes to make it.  Special Snowflake Syndrome, anyone?

Instead, go be a mentally strong person someplace else, where the market is more favorable and where you might be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.  There are too many in the law already who are convinced that they are mentally stronger than the next guy, and the feeding frenzy is only getting worse.

Saturday, November 30, 2013

It's not what you know, but who you know

Recently, I wrote about the Pless family – remember them?  Paul Pless, “convicted” law school fake stats fall guy, and his wife Stacey Tutt who just so happened to get a nice teaching job at the same school at the same time that Paul took the heat for the entire scandal.  Yeah, acting alone and all that.

Turns out that family connections are often exploited for employment purposes.  Take for example our good friend and self-proclaimed lifelong oppressee Nancy Leong, now an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law (currently clawing her way up the prestige ladder at UCLA as a visiting professor - I guess only T14 is good enough.)  According to her New York Times wedding announcement, she’s shacked up with one Justin Pidot.  Back in 2010, Justin was a rising star with the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice.  And now, concurrent with Nancy’s arrival at Denver in 2011, Justin is miraculously a law professor at Denver too!

There is an undeniable connection.  Just guessing, but I think Nancy pulled strings and helped her hubby get a cushy gig as a law professor, just like Paul Pless pulled strings or made a deal to get his wife a teaching gig in return for him taking the heat for the stats scandal.  Furthermore, looking at Justin’s resume, she’s been pulling strings to get his levels of “scholarship” to where they need to be too.  For example, she recently worked as an assistant law professor at William & Mary, and he has managed to get an article published in the William & Mary Law Review - another strange coincidence.

(How Justin obtained his plum job with the DOJ is itself most likely another family connection being used, for his father was the chief of the natural resources division of the Maine attorney general’s office and consequently probably had some connections that could be exploited to get his son in the door at the federal version.)

So what does all of this go to show?  Is it trying to show that Justin Pidot doesn’t deserve his position as a law professor?  Is his scholarship worthless because it’s conveniently published in journals where he has connections?  Of course not.  In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that Justin, with his actual real life law experience, is precisely who we need in law schools.  He practiced environmental law recently at a high level, and now he’s teaching it.  He’s no “old fart” out of touch professor who has spent the past twenty years regurgitating the notes he took himself while a 1L at Harvard, nor is he some inexperienced K-->JD-->clerkship-->classroom "walking credential collection" with a resume stuffed with high dollar prestigious school names but who has never held a real job, let alone a legal job.

I'm sure Justin is doing just fine in the classroom.  He has the education, and more importantly the experience.  That is precisely what this blog is advocating for.  Law professors who know how to be lawyers, not just who know about the law.

No, my point is nothing of the sort.  Nancy and Justin are just an illustration for anyone who still doesn’t get the fact that post-JD employment, especially those legal jobs that are actually worth having (DOJ, for example, or Biglaw, or a law faculty position – we’re not talking about slumming it at some two-attorney strip mall social security claims mill), is not so much a matter of what you know but who you know.  If you don’t have the connections, your chances of landing a good legal job when you graduate are slender.

As one commenter to a prior Leong-based post spent so much time trying to argue, it’s not as if we wouldn’t do the same thing if we could.  And he or she was absolutely right, to some extent.  While becoming a law professor is not everyone’s idea of a dream job, I don’t think anyone would not use their connections to get a good job with the federal government, state government, a great firm, or a cushy corporate gig.  I don’t begrudge anyone using those connections.  Nothing wrong with that, and I’d do the same.  So well done to Justin - you did what you needed to do to get where you wanted to be.  That's how life works, and you get it.  I’d advise anyone seeking a law job to use whatever connections they have, because the career services advisor at their law school sure isn’t going to help.

But let’s all be very clear and honest about this.  Those with connections succeed, and those without struggle.  I could have gone to the same law school as Justin Pidot, had the same experience as him, but would never get hired as a law professor because I didn't have an insider connection.  Some people have good connections, most people don’t.  It’s an unwritten rule of the legal employment game, and one that law schools fail to disclose.  For many jobs, you need someone else to put their foot in the door for you.  You need an invitation.  You need insiders.  You need juice.  Whatever you want to call it.  And for many reasons, those who end up getting nice jobs because of connections tend to hide this fact.  It’s not inherently unfair, but it’s distasteful for many who firmly believe that employment should be on merit alone, not legacies and connections and under the table deals and knowing the right people, especially when we’re paying six figures for the opportunity to even get a shot at a legal job.  To pay all that money in tuition only to find out that the game was rigged from the start is unpleasant.  It’s the way society works though, and the point of this post is solely to make sure that all applicants are fully aware of the two following points:

First, even attending a top school and doing well sometimes isn’t enough to get a nice job unless you have connections.

Second, those successful students at low-ranked schools are often successful not because of the law school, but because of connections.

The second point is the most important, given the fact that students at top law schools can generally find some kind of work.  It’s the tens of thousands of law students at the 185 or so non top-14 law schools who suffer under this culture of connections, because they go into law school thinking that the playing field is level, and that they have (statistically) the same chance of success as everyone else.  In reality, anyone without proven preexisting legal connections should never go into law school under the assumption that if they succeed they will obtain either a job that pays anywhere in the upper 25% of that school’s reported salaries for its graduates or any secure job in government.  Those kinds of nice jobs are generally reserved for students with connections and not necessarily those who work hard and get the best grades.

Connections are vitally important in law (and life), especially now that jobs are hard to come by.  Parents hand books of business to their children, and attorney uncles and aunts make sure their law student nieces and nephews get the summer jobs in law firms rather than hiring Joe JD through OCI.  Government employees open doors for their relatives and friends while the rest of us blindly toss resume after resume into government recruiting web sites.  Without having someone already on the inside, your chances of ever getting through the door are greatly diminished, and your analysis of whether law school is a good choice for you should factor in this unspoken rule of the game.  Most of the good jobs are already allocated before you even walk into your first 1L class, so ignore those success stories prominently displayed on your target law school’s web site because the school is hiding the fact that the kid going off to work in Biglaw is the son of a prominent rainmaker, and the kid who is going off to be a prosecutor has an uncle who is a judge.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

A Note From Richard Sander

Given the universally negative reaction to my post yesterday, I chose to remove the post. But, before I made the choice to do so, Richard Sander sent the following email to us:
-----
From: Sander, Richard
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2013
Subject: Please retract your post and issue an apology
To: "outsidethelawschoolscam@gmail.com" <outsidethelawschoolscam@gmail.com>


            I had never heard of your blog until yesterday, when someone alerted me to the above post.  I write to point out that the post is inaccurate in almost every particular, and ask that the author retract the post and acknowledge that its claims are not based on any established facts.
            To be specific:
            --It is not true that UCLA has “stopped placing black students in Sander’s 1L course”.  Most student assignment to the eight 1L sections is random, subject to some shifting to ensure that, for example, a section does not include only one black.  No professor is “avoided” with respect to any assignment.  I have averaged about the same number of 1L black students as my colleagues over the past several years; in this fall’s class, I had an above-average number of Hispanics (though I was unaware of the number until a reporter asked me about it).
            --It is not true that I have a bias, either “provable” or otherwise, against *any* of my students.  Both my impression, and that of my Dean of Students, is that my black students actually perform *better* in my class than they do in their other 1L classes, though I have not tried to measure this difference to see if it is statistically significant.  Partly because I work on a wide range of civil rights and inequality issues, I have mentored an unusually large number of African-American students and graduates over the years; many of whom have gone on to highly successful careers in practice or in legal academia.
            --If there was any evidence that I (or any other professor) actually discriminated against students of any race, the appropriate action for UCLA to take, and one I believe they would take, would be to do a thorough investigation and, if the evidence was convincing, to remove me from the faculty.  I think the real, as opposed to imagined, evidence would show a  fair and dedicated professor who puts in above-average hours and resources to help all of his students get the most out of law school.

Richard Sander, UCLA
-----

To be clear, I'm removing the post only because I feel it was not up to the high standards of this site. I would also like to make it clear to Mr. Sander that I am not a wet behind the ears law student who fears him as if he were Professor Kingsfield from The Paper Chase.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

A Thanksgiving Suggestion

Towards the end of our book, Con Law, Thane Messinger and I detail what we describe as "quitting points": moments during law school when it is very clear that your chances of successfully landing a worthwhile legal job following graduation are dramatically and often-irreparably reduced, and when you should take a step back and reconsider whether you should remain in law school.  For example, if your grades are merely average at the end of your first year, it’s probably time to quit; you are highly unlikely to be selected for any on-campus interviews, and your resume is highly unlikely to stand out as that of a superstar future lawyer from that point forward.  Time to cut your losses and leave, saving yourself two years of your life along with a six figure loan balance that you would accrue during your remaining time in law school.

With Thanksgiving rapidly approaching, I’d like to describe an earlier quitting point.  If you’re a 1L, you’ve now been in law school for a couple of months.  You’ve seen it from the inside, and you have a pretty good feel for what law school is like and how well you stack up against you classmates.  You now know should have a reasonable idea of whether this is what you want to do for the rest of your life.  So take the time over Thanksgiving to relax and look around the dinner table.  Take a look at the lives of those who are near and dear to you, what they’ve done over the years.  Look at the friends at home you might be reconnecting with.  Those lives that last year, you thought you could do better than.  Your aunt who has taught high school for two decades?  She’s pretty happy, right?  Your father, who has an average job in an average company, something he works hard at, he’s stressed sometimes, but generally manages to keep the household afloat.  Your cousin, struggling from the bottom up, trying to forge a life for herself in New York City; how is she getting on?  The brother you always thought was an idiot for dropping out of undergrad and going off to be a fitness instructor, but who now has a new girlfriend and is about to move to California.  Your buddy from college who started working for the local government and has risen through the ranks quicker than he expected.  How does all of that stack up against law school now that you’ve had a taste of 1L?

Sit back and take stock of where you are.  And start to think about whether this is where you want to be.

Chances are, those around you will be more secure than you previously thought, living happier lives, more fulfilling lives, have more freedom (financial and otherwise), and generally don’t miss the fact that they don’t have advanced degrees or the “prestige” of being a licensed professional.  Sure, they may ooh and ahh over the future lawyer at the table, but watch at how quickly their interest fades and the lawyer jokes begin.  And you might – just might – wonder how you made the mistake of attending law school in the first place.

If any of this rings true, then you should start to plan your exit.  By all means stay until the end of the semester, see how exams go if you want, enjoy your last few weeks of higher education because you’ve already paid for it, but start to plan around not returning after Christmas.  Think of how much money you’ll save by not going back.  Your mistake has cost you just one half of one year of tuition and fees – a hefty sum, undoubtedly, but at least it’s not six times that amount, which it will be if you stay and finish up your degree.  You’ve given it a try, you decided you disliked it after a good effort, and people respect that.  More importantly, this does not make you a quitter; it makes you an independent adult who is not afraid to admit when things didn't turn out as expected, and who has the strength of character to make changes when changes are needed.  Don’t leave it too long and finish 1L, because then you run the risk of being pressured into returning to finish up the entire degree, or falling foul of the sunk costs argument which doesn't even apply to law schools in the first place.  It’s okay to make mistakes.  It’s okay to change your mind.  And it’s better to realize that you’re on the wrong path sooner rather than later.

And next Thanksgiving, any awkward conversation about you and law school will last just a couple of sentences.  You tried it, you hated it, you moved on, just like that new hairstyle or jacket that didn't quite fit your style.  And everyone else will move on too.  Perhaps you’ll even laugh about it, your brief foray into the sleazy world of lawyering.  (More than likely, those around you will offhandedly mention how they didn't think you'd make a good lawyer anyway, or that they knew you were making a bad choice but they didn't want to spoil your dreams.)  And perhaps you’ll spare a thought for those students who didn’t have the yams to quit when they realized they didn’t like studying law; instead of enjoying their Thanksgiving next year like you will be, an exciting chapter of your life just having opened up, they’ll be excusing themselves from the table early to sneak off and read cases about corporations and tax and evidence.  You’ll be watching football and drinking a beer, toasting the fact that you dodged a bullet.

I’m absolutely serious about this.  During Thanksgiving, you should be examining whether you made the right choice.  Was law school what you thought it would be?  Brilliant minds debating the law, or dreary professor phoning in a decade-old lecture about the development of the law of personal jurisdiction?  Thrilling mental journey, or mindnumbing two hour slog through hundreds of pages of boring opinions to figure out a point of law that you realize could be explained in two minutes by a lawyer rather than a professor?  Because it doesn’t really get much better or easier than it is during 1L (students just learn the rules of the game and get lazier in subsequent years).  Law school is semester after semester after semester of the same thing.

Where do you want to be next Thanksgiving?  Ignoring lawyer jokes, or making them?

Charles Cooper is the author, along with Thane Messinger, of “Con Law: Avoiding...or Beating...the Scam of the Century (The Real Student's Guide to Law School and the Legal Profession)”, in addition to being the moderator at Nontradlaw.net and the author of “Later in Life Lawyers”.  He can be contacted at charlescooperauthor@gmail.com.