Monday, April 15, 2013

Unlicensed Therapy from Tulsa Tams

Buonaparte knew everything, even to the names of our cadets in the East India service; but he failed in this, that he did not calculate the resistance which barbarism makes to refinement. He thought that the Russians could not burn Moscow, because the Parisians could not burn Paris. —Hazlitt
Awhile back a professor—Wasn't that Tulsa Tams?—said that those other professors who think that law school is a scam should quit, if it bothers them so much. The comment was directed towards "LawProf". I can't remember if it was Tams or another buffo; the shill quotient is too extreme for me to remember individual distinctions in the borg cube of 12,000 law professors out there, each spamming their 'research' and 'theories' to themselves. But her obnoxious "look how smart and mature I am" self-serving comment deserves more scrutiny. 

The point of her comment, which no doubt she felt was genius when she made it, was based on the pretense that she is both morally and intellectual superior. This belief in turn is based on her preschool-level superficial logic: if you are personally bothered by something, then you should just stop doing it and then it won't bother you. It's like telling a woman who is being stalked by a creepazoid, "Hey lady, don't get emotional about it. Just move to a different city!" Wow, what a genius solution! If a couple whistleblowers shut up and quit, the problem will go away! It's magic!

But which is it, Tam-a-roni? You ignore the issue at hand and concentrate on others' emotional state, which is quite a different thing than the real issue we are trying to discuss: you know, that thing involving massive debt of jobless smart kids that you are partially responsible for, since you profit by it and know (or should know) very well that you are ovaries-deep in the fraud. It's not about our feelings, my unlicensed therapist friend, but about the corruption—your corruption as well. Either Law School as we know it is a scam, or it isn't. Which is it? If it is indeed not a scam, why tell someone to quit? Why not persuade us that it is not a scam? Through evidence and reason? Notice she does not, and cannot. Why would you want someone to throw their career away on the false belief that there is a scam? In either case, Tamarind, you give bad advice—even if there is no "scam" at all.

If though, law school is a scam, then by definition you are a scammer, not only profiting by a pseudo-legal should-be-may-be criminal enterprise, but were also attempting to manipulate the main whistleblower among your peer group into quitting. Of course you failed, since one cannot manipulate another of higher intellect and maturity. That, my jobless hordes, is what psychologists call incongruence: the emotionally clueless person thinks that everybody else is clueless. 
Read my book-length satire/exposé of law school, Smarter Than Socrates: The End of the Law School Era.


  1. From Wiki ....

    "Psychological projection was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud .... [P]rojection involves projecting positive or negative qualities onto others, and is a common psychological process. Theoretically, projection and the related projective identification reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires through displacement."

    I believe that many law school defenders are merely projecting on Campos et al.

    I have read that projection leads to unfortunate results. I'd be interested in what everyone thinks will happen to law school defenders. (Exile on Helena?)

    1. I think the law profs are about to find out what happened to their students and just how diverse the law degree really is. I'm sure law school professor will be a real résumé enhancer. Maybe they should have taken an interest is not saturating the market a few decades.

  2. Your logic is illogical.

    She is saying "my job is not a scam, but those professors who their job is a scam should quit their jobs if they do not want to scam." You may disagree with her as to whether her job is a scam, but her position is logical.

    It is illogical for a law professor to say "law school is a scam but I will not quit my job scamming because I am telling you I am scamming you while I continue to scam you." Unless the law professor is saying that his job is not a scam but other law profs' jobs are a scam because of whatever his school does that other schools do not; but I do not think he is saying that most of the time.

    And no, saying a law professor who says he is involved in scamming and won't quit is somehow like a stalking victim does not make sense. That would make him the stalker in that analogy.

    1. Leiter alert . . .

    2. I'd say it's perfectly logical for Prof. Campos to stay in his current position. Law professors should be the first people to call out problems in legal education and demand reforms. How is Campos a "scammer" when he's part of a minority publicly admitting there are huge problems and demanding reforms?

    3. This point ignores economic reality. Campos was not feeling good about his role, but he knows from where his paycheck comes. He was not going to quit and leave himself jobless.

      Jobs and employment get all sorts of otherwise decent people to do all sorts of crappy things. Go look at a debt-collection firm, for example. Look at congressional staffers who write fictitious letters to constituents to make them feel like their representatives care about them. The world is replete with people who need jobs and will engage in crappy practices to put food on the table. The question then becomes, "How far are you willing to go with it?"

      Campos' observations and arguments were spot-on as regards the advice and warnings to be given to 0-L's considering law school. One of those warnings includes the long-standing practice of law schools' fraudulent representations of employment statistics for recent graduates. Kudos for him doing that!

      What his detractors in academia are saying is that they are not the least bit bothered that 0-L's were lured into a $150k expense after being presented with false information. I honestly don't see how they could not be bothered by that.

      I am not saying they need to resign their jobs, but to ignore it, despite that the issue is now squarely on the table for all to see, and then, to continue to pretend all was on the up-and-up shows us something far worse than the likes of Campos.

    4. Not only that, but the law profs would have been better off deflating the bubble before it burst on them. There is going to be significant disruption to their gig now.

    5. Your logic is illogical.

      It is not logical to say, "Even though law school is a scam, so long as I say it is not a scam (and indeed, may believe it is not a scam, even though it is), it is o.k. for me to continue scamming students as a law professor."

    6. If you need law professors at all then Campos would be one of the professors that you would keep. He teaches Theory of Punishment, which I imagine would be somewhat useful for prosecutors and judges.
      You would also want to keep professors who have actually practiced law for an extended period of time, and maybe perhaps non-lawyers who have talents in heavily lawyered industries like medicine, education, insurance, securities, accounting, and the like.

  3. It is interesting that Tam's ego obstructs even her own self-interest. Whatever prospects exist for law schools to de-scam themselves, even partially, depend on critics-from-within like Campos, Tamanaha, and Merritt. And if no such de-scamming occurs, Tam's gravy train will lose its student money fuel and come to a shit-screeching halt.

    Suppose that Campos, Tamahana and/or Merritt ever DID announce a resignation out of protest or disgust. If Tams recognized her self-interest, she would get down on her knees and beg them to stay.

  4. great article about higher ed in general and how small, unattached schools are shuttering:

  5. A heads up for something nutty and IMHO very strange:,-SHAME-SHAME-SHAME!.html

    A lot of the few earnest and well meaning contributors to this blog might be a little naïve, and I just want to suggest once again that anonymity at this late stage in the scamblogging proceedings might harm rather than help.

    Otherwise your anon visitors may well be commenting from many positions and having a great party.

    All can be dealt with by simply asking all commenters to register and state their real identities.

    Easy enough, and I wonder why it can't be or wont be done at this very late stage in the law school scamblog history?

    1. Because nobody wants to "register" except for you, Paintroach.

      YOU DUN GOOFED by giving out your name. Now you're like an acid-thrower's victim: you want to throw acid in everyone ELSE's faces so they'll all look just like you.

  6. Notice how very quickly comes the response of the Law School Truth Center/Mr. Infinity/World Traveling Law Student Troll.

    He jumps on the replies and not 15 or 20 minutes will pass before he will reply.

    My last plea:

    Do not allow anon commenters, or it will undermine so much good work.

    John Koch
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Touro Law School Graduate class of 1996

    With three hundred and forty five thousand dollars of quadrupled student loan debt to be carried to my dead grave.

    The interest will continue to compound and finally reach over 1.5 million dollars.

    But you all will allow the anon troll of many voices that vsits the scamblogs every 15 minutes to shit all over me and Campos and DJM and Nando and Cryn Johannsen and you and even Deborah Cassens Weiss.

    Have it your way.

    1. I wish it was 345 MILLION dollars.

      P.S. Get a government job.

  7. “The Name”

    By Maurice Leiter

    Fake name.
    Painter. Paint, that slop
    Spread on walls, like a prisoner smearing his waste in anger.
    By day, he stands by walls, smearing,
    Holding that long hard brush handle, wishing it was a cock.
    Like his real name. Koch.

    He dreams of plunging that handle, a man’s handle,
    Brian’s handle,
    Deep down into his mouth,
    Paint spewing from its tip as it spasms and jerks its load.
    His penis hardens at the thought, and he excuses himself.
    In toilet, he rubs his dry cock while he shits, imagining the feces is a fat member
    Sliding gracefully from his anus after blowing.
    He comes, paint dribbling messily over his painted hands
    Which he wipes on the decorative towels.

    That night, he shits again, online,
    His excrement staining,
    Leaving others to clear up his filth.

    1. You deformed retarded, Painter. I think the Feds have bigger problems right now than a dirty (but amusing) poem. Boston, perhaps?

      I can hear the director now: "Drop everything guys! We got ourselves another poetry emergency! Man the black SUVs. Full ammo, machine guns and cool coats with FBI on the back for everyone. Those evildoers at OTLSS have turned it up to ELEVEN this time!"

      My god, you are such a cunt Painter.

    2. That was so immature. I could see a 15 year-old writing crap like that, being corrected, and then, being embarrassed for being so stupidly immature. For someone in their mid-20's? Wow!

    3. As immature, and hopefully embarrassing to the author as it should have been, you need to learn to let it go. It's a sign of weakness to let a 15 year-old's silly poem get to you that you'd want to take any action on it.

    4. Too late, I already reported it. You'll be sorry - all of you!

      Except for you, JeffM.

      [makes roachy smooching/smacking sounds]

  8. I'm nominating you for the 2013 Pulitzer Prize in Poetry.

    1. Nominate Painter for the 2013 Putz Price in Cuntry.