Thursday, February 6, 2020

Texas Southern University fires president over admissions scandal at über-toilet law school

Texas Southern University has just fired its president, in part over a scandal involving admissions to its über-toilet law school.

In his "Notice of Proposed Termination for Cause" (see link above), the chairman of the board cited the following as the first of several grounds for termination:

As set forth in your Contract, you have a duty to promptly advise and fully report to the Board any matter known by you that tends to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule on the University. It is alleged that you failed to meet this obligation by failing to report to the Board and to the internal auditor allegations of fraudulent and dishonest activities of the former Associate Dean of Law School Admissions and Financial Aid (the "Former Assistant Dean"). As you know, the Former Assistant Dean resigned in lieu of termination for facilitating a fraudulent transfer law school application for Student One. Also, the Former Assistant Dean facilitated second fraudulent admission and scholarship for a first-year law school student (Student Two) in exchange for fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) in cash. The Former Assistant Dean also provided false LSAT information for submission to the ABA law school accreditation review board. Each of these items are [sic] serious matters and are the subject of ongoing investigations.

A footnote explains that "Student name has been redacted to preserve their amenity". Presumably anonymity was intended, but one cannot expect a high standard of literacy at Texas Southern.

There are further allegations of cover-ups, inconsistent statements, interference with an investigation, and related wrongdoing.

Old Guy is not surprised to see an overpaid hackademic functionary accused of corruption. He is, however, astounded to see that someone paid a $14k bribe in order to get into the law skule at Texas Southern. With its LSAT scores of 143/145/147, Texas Southern ranks below all but Southern University Law Center and perhaps Cooley. Imagine being lousy enough that Texas Southern wouldn't take your ass!

At first I thought that the bribe might have been paid for the "scholarship", but the text says that the admission too was fraudulent, thereby suggesting that it could not have been achieved by the usual means of applying directly. One wonders just how bad a person has to be to resort to such desperate measures for admission to über-toilet Texas Southern.

Also interesting is that the contract required the president to advise of "any matter known by [him] that tends to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule on the University". Did he tell them that the stench of their über-toilet law school fouled the air for a hundred miles around? If not, he should indeed have been fired.


  1. The 14k had to be a kickback for the scholarship, which was probably obtained by reporting a false LSAT score to the adcomm or something which would technically make the admission fraudulent even if they would have gotten in with their real score.

    The letter also implies that the student was transferred to another graduate program (for which they hadn't even applied) because that same student was threatening to reveal the scheme. I wonder if the student realized how horrible his prospects would be coming out of that school, scholarship or no, and basically blackmailed the dean into putting them into something with better prospects.

    This Dean also has "the usual" issues, like using the foundation as a slush fund to procure luxurious travel and entertainment without the scrutiny of the regents. I hear about that kind of stuff at public universities like this all the time: University money is public money but foundation money (which is privately donated) isn't, so deans raid those things all the time and no one bats an eye unless a newspaper gets wind of it.

    Greed, man. I just don't get it. A dean like that has a great thing going. You make a million bucks a year or whatever; if you don't want to fly coach just pay for the upgrade yourself. Why put your whole gravy train in jeopardy for something so stupid? And I'm sure the "Former Assistant Dean" made a great salary too, did that person really need the 14k that much? And are they so stupid as to think it OK to give a 20 year old that kind of dirt on them for a measly 14k? Sheesh.

  2. Orite... So you are in Texas and mom and dad own a few successful businesses, eg car dealerships, BBQ spots, ranches, some real estate, etc.

    You have the money, you have the women, you have the car, and you have the life. But you want to tell people you are success in and of yourself. You want people to know you have value independent of that, and that you would have had that stuff without mom and dad.

    You don’t want to actually put in serious work because there are better things to do. Plus, when you graduate, after a few years, you’ll either take over mom and dads operations and introduce yourself as a lawyer or your parents will subsidize a mill for you. You’ll hire other people to do the real work and you are just selling. At this point, no one is going to know you inherited anything and everyone will assume you did it on your own because every Boomer knows lawyers make money.

    That’s the 14k bribe to get into law school. That’s the purpose of the TTTs. That’s it. That’s who this whole profession is basically for at this point.

  3. On the subject of bribery related to admissions, former corporate bigwig Douglas Hodge was just sentenced to nine months in federal prison, a $750k fine, 500 hours of community service, and two years of supervised release for paying $850k in bribes to get two of his little darlings into Georgetown and two others into USC:

    1. This entire scheme is just so that the children of the rich can satisfy the apex of Maslow’s hierarchy. That’s it. That’s really the root cause of the entire higher education scam. It’s not the deans, the professors, etc. (although they are beneficiaries and enforcers).

      We have to pretend everyone has a shot. We have to pretend it’s a meritocracy. But It has to be anything but for it to work.

      Very expensive and useless skill sets so rich children can pretend they achieved, while everyone else is buried.

    2. 2-7-2020 @ 1:01 PM has nailed it.

      First, law is NOT a "noble profession". It is a profession of nobles. People - the stupid fools of today - have twisted the meaning of that phrase beyond the obvious simple meaning in order to cloak the law in good deeds and the lower-class American aristocrats, both then and now, are more than happy to allow the myth to perpetuate among the ignorant Masses.

      Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th century wrote: “it is at the bar or bench that the American aristocracy is found."

      Also, a good article here which starts off with a poll in 1978 regarding French advocates and how less than 5% of the population had a favorable view of them.

      While not nobles themselves, French and English lawyers, and their American counterparts, have a function: To serve the aristocracy - the politicians and the Elite who themselves make the laws. So law never was what it was.

      It's more Horatio Alger bullshit for consumption by the naive.

      Finally, he is again entirely correct about that term "meritocracy". Entirely correct. I saw it in my own graduating class. Those who had connections were and still are very well employed. Others found their way into "public service" which again is serving the State (the upper-level Aristocrats) etc.

      The rest should never have gotten into the Game. Because any way you slice it, depending on your state, there are "X" applicants for any "Y" legal job and with very few exceptions "X" is always a goodly multiple of "Y".

      If you're not from wealth, if you don't have the inside track, if you can't luckbox, somehow, into "public service" - you're doomed. And we'll see more and more $300K+ Lottery Winners (losers) as the tuition climbs ever higher and higher with seemingly no limits.

      Or in other words: Nando and others were quite right.

    3. @7:50,

      But that’s the way it’s always going to be. The children of the top of the hierarchy are always going to take the structured, defined, and prestigious path.

      What’s difficult about life? Risk, uncertainty and hard work. These kids need something that gets rid of risk and uncertainty and can minimize the hard work in some instances.

      What’s good about life? Pleasure, security, leisure and self-respect. If someone gives you pleasure, security, and leisure, and people know it, you won’t get self-respect. Enter the higher education scam. Remedies the problem. But it has to be artificial. If you actually learned useful skills in school, you could displace the top of the hierarchy. It has to be useless and difficult. This way you are under control.

      De Tocqueville has an entire chapter in his book that the US would become a superpower in large party because unlike Europe, Americans focused on practical education, no theoretical garbage. Theory is the province of aristocrats. The self made need real skills. But when you spend the best years of your life going into debt to learn theoretical garbage you are hobbled.

      I don’t see any hope of us getting back to our routes. Jack Daniels owned his own distillery at 14. The man was a self made millionaire before 20 because he sent his formative years learning real, tangible, and marketable skills. Compare that to today...

    4. I absolutely agree.

      I was saying this over 20 years ago and getting pissed on. That is: Go to Trade school, not even college.

      Who was right?

      Who was wrong?

      They use the same books for Property at Cornell as they do Touro. The difference is hierarchy and exclusivity, nothing more.

      How do I know? Why do I say this?

      Because in my last post I mentioned people from my TTT in solid high-paying private-sector jobs that have been there for years - through nothing more than connections. Nothing to do with grades. Theirs were worse than mine, by far. I know.

      And I know who they are and where they are today. Based on nothing more than connections and a phone call.

      Good luck to the Lemmings indeed.

      They don't know how unlevel the playing field really is and how stacked the deck is against them, by design. The law schools need that sweet Tuition money. They know who the likely winners are beforehand, I assure you. The rest are there to donate. And that's going to be 95%++.

      The Lemmings do eventually find this out sometime during 3L or after graduation, etc. By then it's too late.. Just how everyone wants it. Nice and predatory. That's America today.

    5. Why do people go to Cornell rather than to Touro? Not for the quality of the instruction. I admit that Cornell offers more, but a student of Cornell's caliber could learn about as much law at Touro.

      People choose Cornell, if they can get in, because of its prestige. A JD from Cornell is much more useful for finding work.

      But even that is misleading, because bright but unconnected Cornellians aren't likely to fare well. Big debt is practically assured; employment is not, by any means.

      I too have long advocated trade school. University was the baby boomers' plaything: it was cheap back then, and it led to well-paying jobs in an era when people were paid a lot without so much as a high-school diploma. The baby boomers pulled up the ladder, however, thereby leaving the subsequent generations (including mine) with extremely expensive universities and a blighted job market.

      If you are of undistinguished means, university is probably a bad bet nowadays. It may not be bad if you go into medicine. Forget about law, however. Take up a trade and avoid the whole goddamn higher-ejookayshun scam.

    6. “ Take up a trade and avoid the whole goddamn higher-ejookayshun scam.”

      That’s what the “Uncle Tom” Booker T. Washington told African Americans more than 100 years ago. He also told them to beware of race baiters and other people who wanted to “help” all people of color.

      Poor black people didn’t want to hear it then, and poor people of all colors don’t want to hear it now.

      The truth hurts. If your parents don’t have money, you do the jobs people don’t want to do as early as possible and you do them in the parts of the country where rich people don’t want to live.

      I find it hysterical looking at my colleagues in Biglaw. These people can’t afford a place to live within reasonable commuting distance to the office, where they will have to clock in 80 plus hours a week to be competitive. They pay 55 percent in taxes, and have all around tough lives. The “rich.”

      If you go down to Texas as a programmer you can buy a piece of real estate every five years, but who wants to live in the “sticks.”

      Decisions have consequences.

    7. Further to OG's point:

      Construction business in my neck of the woods is damned slow but builders struggle to find someone who can build a decent chimney.

    8. With two daughters who recently graduated from the Florida State University system, the tuition was not that expensive, and we paid it off with the Florida Prepaid years before. The real cost was the cost of living, for which the educational system cannot be blamed. At any rate, their degrees got them jobs they never would have gotten without degrees. But the jobs don't pay a reasonable living wage, so I have to supplement both of their incomes. Where this country is is not going to end well.

    9. When it comes to Operation Varsity Blues, I think what that really exposed was privilege. I mean think about it. The scandal there was that the parents bribed INDIVIDUALS, which was a fraudulent scheme. But there is nothing illegal about it as long as you bribe the university itself. It costs a lot more, but if you donate enough money to have a building named after you, you can bet that your progeny will be practically guaranteed admission for generations hence.

      In other words, the myth these colleges have of meritocracy is just that: myth. Bribery is perfectly legal, and happens all the time, so long as you bribe the school itself and not individuals who make admission decisions. These people went down because they bribed individuals who can be bought off more cheaply than the university. That's all.

      Nearly every school has a price at which admission can be bought; these guys are really only in trouble because they got a discount on that price and cut the university out of the deal, not because what they did was wrong in concept. And this is reflected in the absurd two-week sentences these people are set to serve. How much money is being spent to send a couple of celebs to camp fed for two weeks? And how much restitution are they actually going to pay?

    10. Precisely, 1:26. We discussed that issue here:

      Rich people enjoy many perfectly legal forms of bribery that will get their children into prestigious universities. Quite a few are even tax-deductible.

    11. Subsidizing in the early career as well as living costs is a great point. I know quite a few people that had to be subsidized for their parents for several years working a job in a major city. Many of them are now making in the low to mid-six figures, and obviously no longer need it and don't ask for it.

      However children of the poor or the bootstrapping parents will never get those opportunities. Outside of Big Law and Medicine (and a handful of other major debt long schooling positions), nothing starts you at six figures, but the vast majority of jobs that pay six figures or careers that will get there are in high COL areas. So how does someone get started?

      First there are connections but even after that and along with them secondly it's subsidizing and starting someone off. The whole earn everything yourself idea the lower classes have just is not conducive to legacies and achieving real wealth. It's practically winning the lottery to go from nothing to something, and the biggest asset young people have is their youth and energy. When that is wasted away the door essentially slams shut.

      By the time someone has "earned" enough to put themselves through living costs in a major city, they aged themselves right out of those early career opportunities. Nobody is going to hire a 35 year old for a starting level $50k a year job that would lead to six figures within four years. They were only going to hire the 25-30 year old in that spot, although the ages tend to skew even younger especially for the unconnected.

    12. You've described my experience, 8:48. I'd add that those of us who do not come from big cities struggle to become established in those cities. Someone who grew up in, say, New York City might well be able to go on living with Mommy and Daddy for the first few years; someone like me who grew up in Bumblefuck would have to demonstrate a high income just to rent an apartment there. Thus the suggestion, uttered here many times, of getting a highly paid and politically defended municipal job as a police officer, teacher, janitor, or whatever is unrealistic for many of us.

      As 8:48 said, if one of us hayseeds finally accumulates the wherewithal required to live in a big city, that ship has sailed.

  4. Btw, I omitted the link to that article. It's from the Cornell International Law Journal. The material I mentioned is right on the first page of the article itself.

    This was the opinion in France in 1978 about the then-current state of their legal profession. That's 42 years ago.. In socialist France. At it's height.. When things "weren't (or shouldn't be - me) that bad."

    The article was written in 1982.

    Also when things ".. weren't that bad."

    Well, check the tuition for law schools in 1982 vs. today. Paul Campos discussed this. The value of the degree (lifetime) is consumed by the debt. It's not Rocket Science analysis. But Lemmings don't do it.

    Here's the link to the article:

    And let me finally cite this excellent first comment form the previous entry on this blog:


    Nailed it.

    1. For whatever reason, that link got chopped.

      Here's his comment:


      February 3, 2020 at 9:34 AM

      It’s just a job for rich people trying to satisfy the Apex of Maslow’s hierarchy. I don’t have value because my parents left me money, a business, connections, etc. No, I have value because I’m an attorney and everyone knows that’s a difficult thing to do. Anyone who says otherwise is a loser, etc. And the scam rolls on.

      Best case scenario:

      190k biglaw salary in NYC:

      That’s 9k a month after taxes.

      That’s 6.5k after you pay 3.5k in rent

      That’s 4k after you pay 2.5k in loan payments a month.

      That’s 3k after you pay for food and miscellaneous expenses on frugal budget.

      36k a year. Best case scenario. To live in a place like NYC, LA, Chicago, or San Fran. You’ll never have anything. You’ll work like a slave. You are “rich.” And that’s if things go well.

      Good luck kidos.


    2. I find this comment concerning biglaw extremely disappointing.

      The misery I see in this blog really stems from a misunderstanding of what the legal profession is.

      Im in my late fifties, I just started making “real” money. It’s true the entry level salaries for biglaw are not much in most of the markets.

      You don’t do biglaw for yourself, you do biglaw for your family. My wife and I don’t like each other, we haven’t been on a vacation in years, but we stick together for our children. I billed 78 hours last week, which translates into 120 hours of work, I’m overseas now closing a deal and I haven’t slept in two days.

      Am I upset? No. Why?

      My children are living like kings. My son went in six vacations last year. He’s in Singapore now with three Instagram models that are his classmates. My daughter is finishing her BA in one of the most prestigious musical programs in the United States, and I’m going to be able to fully subsidize her music career: I bought her an apartment in London and she gets a stipend of 8000 pounds a month.

      I just gave my son 300k to invest in a start up in San Fracisco, and I’m going to buy him a place there too once the market calms down a bit. (He’s finishing his last year at a top ten engineering program, and he’s not going to spend a single day as an employee).

      This view regarding the children of the rich is juvenile. Do you guys think the money just came out of nowhere? Do you understand the sacrifice that has to be made to leave someone enough money to live a real life?

      I see a bunch of entitled children here. Law provides a very viable path for people who want to serve something more than themselves. It’s not made for people who want a good life for themselves. That ship sailed well before 2008.

      And with respect to these jobs that allegedly provide a comfortable existence without much work or debt, how long do you think that’s going to last? Do you think it’s sustainable paying janitors 300k given the nature of the global economy? When the next reset happens, what are these people going to do for their families?

      Grow up and become adults. You didn’t get the privilege of a good hand, neither did I. Use your degrees to build a better life for the next generation. I can assure you things are only going to get more competitive and expensive.

      If you are willing to work incredibly hard with a law degree, there is still opportunity. You won’t enjoy it, and it will take years, and it will be painful, but your children and family will thank you.

      That’s my 2 cents, but feel free to keep complaining. No one is going to care. Rich kids had great parents. Instead of being envious of them, try and make rich kids yourselves.

    3. ^^^ so you sacrificed your happiness for what again? Do your really think what you have done for your children will make them happier? They will have the same issues as everybody else, just like you have significant issues. My nephew graduated from a decent law school with close to 270 K in debt. He found a job with a very small firm where his potential is unlimited. He and his wife are making enough money to pay the rent for a very nice apartment in Miami. they have two very young children. They are happy as can be, and that is without a rich Dad providing for them. Will he make it in law in the long term, who knows, but he and his wife are taking it day by day. I agree there is a lot of sour grapes on this board because of the assumption that no one can make it in the law. People are making it in the law every day. Some people really enjoy being lawyers. I'm sorry you don't and I am sorry for your wife too...she probably thinks about the poor bohemian artist she could have married with regrets. Very sad.

    4. This doesn't make sense to me. If you want to be able to give the next generation a lot of money, then by definition you must MAKE a lot of money. It doesn't really matter whether you're doing it for yourself or your kids; either way you need high pay, which is something the law is still culturally seen as providing. It is a fallacy the schools are more than happy to perpetuate until its time to pay the piper at which time they say "I promised you nothing but the ability to sit for the bar."

      The sharp distinction between expectation and reality, and for that matter between the present and the past, is the source of much of the "misery" on here, and rightly so. As compared to boomer times the pay is less, the competition is far more fierce, and on top of all that the debt you take on to play is exponentially higher.

      If pay were high and people were just griping about the stress or about not having any time to spend with family, then this critique would make sense. You'd be saying to suck it up and rationalize it based on the idea that doing this will enable your kids to have something better. But low pay plus high debt equals no net worth to pass along to the next generation. To the extent you imply the common bootstraps fallacy that such rewards will come to those who work hard enough, it simply isn't true. A hamster in a wheel works very hard too, but gets nowhere. No amount of hard work can overcome the law of supply and demand.

    5. “Do your really think what you have done for your children will make them happier?”

      Yes absolutely. They have total freedom. They are really living life and they are able to self actualize without having to work for other people. They travel, they pursue their dreams and they have acquired (and continue to acquire) real skills that will be useful during this transformative time period during human history.

      “ They are happy as can be, and that is without a rich Dad providing for them. Will he make it in law in the long term, who knows, but he and his wife are taking it day by day.”

      It’s unlikely they are truly happy. And if they are happy, they won’t find much success in law. Their children will pay the price. It’s a choice though. This is a service profession and for people who want to sacrifice. If they have a different mindset, they almost certainly won’t succeed.

      “ I agree there is a lot of sour grapes on this board because of the assumption that no one can make it in the law.”

      The sour grapes is the definition of “make.” You cannot be personally happy as a lawyer unless you serve something higher than yourself, and then, it isn’t happiness but meaning.

      That’s why so many people are unhappy. They were under the misimpression that this profession was a path or personal fulfillment and happiness. It absolutely is not. If you aren’t a person who wants to work hard, then law offers absolutely no advantage. You could have had such a life, as others have noted, by pursuing teaching or some other kind of more leisurely employment.

      Your nephew may make it in law, but the cost will be extraordinary, and if he is the type of person that is happy with the next generation living better, he will find meaning.

      Unless you find substantial help, there is no other path to success in law without extreme pain.

      The pursuit of personal pleasure and happiness is what’s crippled so many people in this business. This isn’t about you living well. This is the long type of work for that.

      If you try and find fulfillment, you’ll be poor or unemployed and realize that you could have had much better doing something else. Compare an Ada salary in NYC to a teacher salary and you’ll understand what I mean.

      If you work hard like I did, you’ll build something great, but it will cost. That’s the trade, and people don’t get that.

      “ she probably thinks about the poor bohemian artist she could have married with regrets.”

      No she knows what we have done. She sees how our daughter lives, just like I see how my son lives, and she knows we did right. Pursuing childish dreams that condemn the next generation to hell (look at the members of this board as a prime example) is not a path or meaning.

      Incidentally, my daughter is dating a young musician. They are able to live like humans in London because of what I did. I’m sure her colleagues are envious of her as the members of this board are envious of rich kids. It sucks that most people don’t have decent parents, but that’s the dice of life.

    6. So basically you have a wife who hates you and two children who think of you as a human ATM machine (to use a term that has appeared elsewhere), and you want us to think that is a good thing?

      Why don't you send your wife on a vacation? It sounds like she could use one.

      Also, if working hard and sacrificing for the next generation are so desirable, why aren't your children becoming lawyers and doing that for their children?

    7. It is admirable that you are providing for your children. Put away as much as you can. Law jobs do not last beyond age 65 for most people. There are exceptions, but not many. You can work, but earn a lot less after you hit age 65. Just saying that the law gravy train ends much sooner than most people expect.

      You can surely make your children comfortable. Law does not usually provide great wealth to the next generation though because most lawyers do not earn that much. There are exceptions, like Linda Eastman's (Mrs. Paul McCartney's) dad, who accumulated $300 million dollars. Those are the exceptions though.

    8. @1:16,

      Right, but my comment was directed to those lucky enough to wind up in biglaw.

      There’s a misconception about it. We dont pay 190k a year because we want associates to be rich. We pay that because it’s the only job where you have a chance to pay your loans off before you are 40 (in fact, pay them off at all).

      I see these kids walk in and walk out, thinking they were going to be rich because they come from bumfuckle USA where a house costs 150k, and they get depressed. They thought if you win the law game, you will actually live a good life. No, not the case. The next generation gets to live. You get to sacrifice.

      In my view, if there is a scam, that’s the scam. People think 190k in NYC, LA or San Fran is real money. It isn’t. Firms are businesses operating for the benefit of the shareholders (me). We pay the least we can get away with it, and we pay 190k a year because you will work in humane hours, for years, and you will do it because we provide the only way to get back to step one. And if- and it’s a big if- you understand the gift of biglaw, you’ll continue working like that for years. And when your best years are behind you and you’ve bled, cried and suffered, then you’ll make real money. The next generation will reap the benefits. You can be proud of what you’ve done.

      If YOU want a good life, look elsewhere (and good luck because it’s a pipe dream). If you are a mature adult ready to pay the ultimate price for the ultimate reward, work your ass off.

    9. @6:32,

      I’m resigned that my life is for the service of others. I’m used to living on little. If the worst comes to worse, I’ll rent out my apartment and net like 7k a month and retire overseas. But that’s not my goal. My goal is to make sure the kids live the right way, and if I keep making what I make over the next few years, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I’m comfortable with that.


      My wife is a lawyer too, so she can’t go on vacation. She doesn’t work as much as me, but still alot.

      My kids don’t view me as an ATM, they love me. My son knows what I’ve given him. Do you think his female companions on vacation with him had anyone that cared about them? Do you think they had parents who sacrificed? No. Do you think he doesn’t see how screwed his male classmates are? He knows and he knows what I’ve done for him is magnificent. And not only did I give him money, but I’ve positioned him to be a real player in the global economy. He has the capital and the skills necessary to move the ball from point B to point Z (I moved it from point A to point B).

      And my daughter loves me even more. She gets to live her dream with someone she loves and money is not an issue because I delivered. I made it happen. I have to work harder for her though because unlike her brother, it’s unlikely she’ll ever make real money. In five more years, I’ll have put enough aside for her that she’ll be straight (forever).

      And to answer your question on why they don’t become lawyers, why should they? They don’t have to do this. I carried the cross for them.

    10. @7:19 PM

      If you cannot tell the difference between money and love and caring about someone, then it is impossible for me to explain it to you. You are obviously substituting money for love. There are a lot of people who care about me and it isn't a financial transaction. And for that, I really feel sorry for you and your kids. They may have everything, but they are truly missing out.

    11. I like how he mentions that biglaw provides "the only way back to step one" because it is the only way to pay off your loans, and even then only if you live like a pauper given the taxes and cost of living in major metros.

      Well once again, by definition, all that achieves is that you're back at step one, i.e. zero net worth.

      I could see moving on from there, focused on giving your progeny something better, if you get the chance. But that poster knows as well as I do that you're either on the "partnership track" or you're not, and most won't be. For most, getting back to step one is ALL it will do. That second step of making real money for kids won't occur, because you'll get "the talk" where they tell you that you won't be making partner and they don't do 15th year associate or whatever.

      So if you're lucky, you'll jump ship in-house or government, or to a much smaller "boutique" and it will be a large paycut taken in hopes that you've earned the right to have a life again now that the loans are gone.

  5. I stopped at Law School in Texas
    It was a little place called TSU
    And I put $14,000 in the admissions office
    ‘Cause I am a Law School Man

    So print me another batch of diplomas
    For they ain’t the worst in the land (though their close)
    And I’ll put $14,000 in the admissions office
    And I’ll play the Law School Scam

    The law school done print my diploma
    I thanked them and called them again
    I said those diplomas sure do fit me
    ‘Cause I am a Law School Man

    So print me another batch of diplomas
    For they ain’t the worst in the land (though their close)
    And I’ll put $14,000 in the admissions office
    And I’ll play the Law School Scam

    I climbed in my battered Yugo
    And then like a turtle I was gone
    I got them rusty wheels a rollin’
    Cause I got a feeling I’ve been conned

    So print me another batch of diplomas
    For they ain’t the worst in the land (though their close)
    And I’ll put $14,000 in the admissions office
    And I’ll play the Law School Scam

    w/apologies to Terry Fell/Buck Owen and the Buckaroos

  6. Congratulations to the resident Boomer here.

    He's managed to hit in 2 rambling posts every single talking point about his generation and how they view everyone else.

    He hasn't disproved anything written here or the 2 comments cited, in particular the one by 2-7 @ 1:01 pm. In fact, he's proven 101 pm's point amply well.

    Literally covered all the Boomer bases and then some. Bootstrapping Boomers, etc. the hard work myth, Daddy's Little Girl who amply proves 101 pm's point, and so on.

    And advises people to gamble "roll the dice" when rolling the dice today on a $300k+ education between university and law school - with compounding interest - will get you financially slaughtered.

    But.. you know. You have to "find happiness" outside yourself. What a bunch of typical naval-gazing Boomer nonsense.

    Oh, and of course the insults and put-downs. We're all ignorant juveniles, you know..

    Well done, Sir! Well done! (slop clap)

    1. Just keep complaining and see how far it will get you. You can accept that it is what it is or you can keep complaining. Life’s not fair. Some people have me as a dad, and other (most) people have nobodies. Do what you can with what you got.

      If you want to be a lawyer, it’s going to be an extraordinary amount of work. That’s the net of it.

  7. "Some people have me as a dad, and other (most) people have nobodies."

    I'm straining to tell the difference.

    1. You are correct Old Guy. He confuses love with money. I feel sorry for him. My parent's may have had nothing material, but I wouldn't trade them for him and his wife at all. I do not feel envy for him and his children; I feel sorry for them.

    2. It seems that he is trying to live vicariously through his children. There is no way I would want that.

    3. Is this guy pulling our chain, completely delusional or is this the outline of tbe next legal best seller? He has 300k to throw at his son. A London flat and 96k a year to hold over his daughter until he can give her som real money. And the he says his daughter will likely be a failure on her own despite being enrolled in one of the most prestigious music programs in the world. No mention of gift taxes though.

    4. Yea, the guy is a doubt.

    5. Another part of his story that didn't make any sense is that he allegedly is negotiating a deal overseas and hasn't slept in 2 days, and yet finds time to post here.

      Obviously a troll.

  8. Concordia University is closing. It's looking to unload its law school onto some poor sap.

    That's an angle the blogs didn't consider; the law schools on the deck of a sinking ship University.

    1. Indeed, we had not considered that eventuality. Well, it arose in the context of the contemptible Western State College of Law when its parent university ran into trouble last year.

      Über-toilet Concordia, according to the article that 11:08 cited above, is proposing to find a buyer. I don't hold out great hope for that. Who wants an über-toilet in Idaho with fewer than 100 students a year? Then again, some damn company got approval last summer to buy the Western State College of Law, whose first-year enrollment last autumn was only 23—far too small for sustainability.

  9. Of course he's a troll. The giveaway was when he referenced the BART janitor who made over $276,000. That was discussed on JD Underground in some or another thread.

    He doesn't own a house, riggght.. He's a renter in one of the most expensive cities in the world where, like Harry Potter, you can live in a cubbyhole under the stairs and pay 3-4 grand per month yet can throw his Hunter Biden-esque son all the money he needs for glorified hookers and blow. Daughter is enrolled in a useless degree which will never prepare her to make any money in life but it's at least 'prestigious', etc. I mean.. she's a starving artiste with a rich Daddy, etc. so she'll just drift through life with nary a care in the world and that's okay because she's a Trust Fund Baby and living her dreams - 'standards for Thee but not for Me'.

    Extols the 'hard work' schtick forgetting that 'prestige' and connections are the only things that really matter in law, connections moreso. Forgets oversupply, etc. No amount of 'hard work' can create a job or buck the laws of supply and demand, etc. Or overcome rankings and prestige when it comes to the legal field.

    And finally, even while extolling 'hard work', fails to apply the same standards to his own children yet demands them from everyone else. It's called hypocrisy. And Boomers are great at it.

    Again, odds are high as it stands anyway this guy is a troll extraordinaire. The BS is so thick I can almost cut it with a knife..

    1. The other thing that didn't make much sense about his story is that he claims that his son is graduating from a top 10 engineering program, but his male classmates are screwed. Two problems here. One, this program has no female classmates? I have known female engineers, so that is suspicious. The other thing is that his classmates are screwed when there is an engineering job shortage and one can get multiple interview requests from across the country just by posted one's resume online.

      The other thing is that apparently both his children are already failures since they cannot make money without him, which also doesn't add up.

    2. Being a White guy in Asia, the super models are standard, but I'm sure this dope isn't really traveled, so he imported some SAMONG gold diggers in Singapore. He will never get the glorious revenge in life of a middle-class White kid working in Asia, meeting great women who appreciate him vis-a-vis the anti-White toxicity of living in the "Anglo" West.
      Can we get Socialism at this point!?

      His comment on living a healthy life as a pipe dream did hit personally and he may be correct on that, though it seems like many government people do have reasonable, if not spectacular, lives.

  10. He won't have to retire to Central America. His son should be able to support him after he son gets the next Microsoft up and running.

  11. Indeed, I have been exposed as a “troll.” Woe is me. Woe is me.

    In any event, I have a flight to catch back home. I won’t bother arguing with people stuck in their ways.

    For people lucky enough to get biglaw, my advice is to work as hard as you can to provide for your families. It’s one of the last few careers where if you stick with it for a long time, the next generation can have an amazing life.

    For the rest of you, try and work as hard as you can as well, maybe things will get better for your families, no use in complaining. There aren’t that many options anymore, so be grateful that with some luck and extreme hard work, maybe things can improve.

    My generation is criticized all the time for being selfish and short sighted, and that’s true on the whole. Hopefully the next generation can live by a better example.

    “ He doesn't own a house, riggght.. He's a renter in one of the most expensive cities in the world where, like Harry Potter, you can live in a cubbyhole under the stairs and pay 3-4 grand per month yet can throw his Hunter Biden-esque son all the money he needs for glorified hookers and blow.”

    I do own, I own an apartment. And the rest of your screed reflects one of the central points I am trying to make: you aren’t going to be rich working in biglaw until you put in a lot of time and a lot of effort. The major biglaw markets are absurdly expensive, and 190k isn’t much money here. I see people getting discouraged all the time when they aren’t left with much after working their tail off. These kids are missing the big picture: the reward is at the end and for your families, not for you, but feel free to pound the ground and say life isn’t fair, I’m sure it will be great.

    “ Of course he's a troll. The giveaway was when he referenced the BART janitor who made over $276,000.”

    No I’m not trolling, I just read idiotic advice telling kids to pursue these graft-based careers in lieu of a legal (or other education). That advice was correct twenty years ago. Those jobs aren’t going to be around for much longer, precisely for the reasons the idiots posting said advice put forth: why should someone pursue any sort of excellence when they can vote themselves that kind of pay, avoid student loans, etc. You think the powers to be are going to allow that to continue? If so, by all means, give it a go. I know what’s coming down the pipe, and no one, Republican or Democrat is going to stop it.

    1. "In any event, I have a flight to catch back home. I won't bother arguing with people stuck in their ways."

      Project much?

      In any event, if you are not going to argue your position, why are you even posting here in the first place?

  12. Contd:

    “ The other thing that didn't make much sense about his story is that he claims that his son is graduating from a top 10 engineering program, but his male classmates are screwed. Two problems here. One, this program has no female classmates? I have known female engineers, so that is suspicious. The other thing is that his classmates are screwed when there is an engineering job shortage and one can get multiple interview requests from across the country just by posted one's resume online.“

    It depends on the definition of “make.” My son can “make it” as an Engineer by competing visciously and working his tail off like I did as a lawyer, but he doesn’t have to do that. He has capital and ability. Other people can work for him and make the money, the way I worked for people who had great parents during my life so they can live a great life.

    As for my son’s companions, they aren’t “hookers,” and universities with top engineering programs do have other majors (for those uninformed on the matter)... My son has the means to take his classmates on trips and he chooses who go with him for a good time. Unfortunately, most of his classmates don’t have those means because their families didn’t provide as I have for him.

    With respect to his male classmates, I do stand corrected. “Screwed” is not the correct word. They’ll have the same options lawyers do: work extremely hard, compete in the global market and excel for the next generation. However, despite what people claim, Engineering does not have the same upside for employees as law, and the career span is 20 years maximum if you haven’t moved into management or otherwise secured equity.

    He won't have to retire to Central America. His son should be able to support him after he son gets the next Microsoft up and running.”

    If my children have to support me, I have failed.

    “ Daughter is enrolled in a useless degree which will never prepare her to make any money in life but it's at least 'prestigious', etc. I mean.. she's a starving artiste with a rich Daddy, etc. so she'll just drift through life with nary a care in the world and that's okay because she's a Trust Fund Baby and living her dreams - 'standards for Thee but not for Me'.”

    My daughter isn’t getting a useless degree, she’s getting a degree that you can’t live on if you don’t have independent sources of income. She has those independent sources because of my efforts. There’s no double standard, the standard is the same: if someone else didn’t sacrifice for you, you will have to sacrifice. It’s as simple as a thermodynamics equation.

    In any event, I know it’s pointless arguing with people set in their ways. Keep complaining, I’m sure something will work out for you.

    1. Do you understand what the definition of "independent" is?

      I refer you specifically to the second of 2 definitions below:


      adjective: independent from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

      "the study is totally independent of central government"

      2. not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence.

      "I wanted to remain independent in old age"

  13. The simple issue is, there's no money in law. Doesn't matter how hard you work etc etc, nobody will pay for it. So its not a question of sacrificing etc, when there's simply no jobs and no paying clients in the field.

  14. Even if this guy is the real deal, his arguments are false. He says avoid the public sector, using a ridiculous example, but his point is to avoid the public sector altogether.

    They started saying this right after Reagan got elected. These public sector jobs can't last. Their pensions can't last. Give up that pension that is going to go bankrupt and take ownership in a 401k. Here it is 40 years later and there are more public sector jobs than ever, paying better than ever, and the pensions are still solvent and the 401ks tank. Thousands or retirees are enjoying life in places like Florida and Arizona on well paying pensions after retiring at 62. Yet the lie was to quit these jobs for the private sector because they couldn't last. Yet they did last and continue to last and will continue for the lifespans of anyone reading this.

    His argument is the only people who will have a meaningful life are those who can make a bundle and set up trust funds for their kids establishing a foundation for some kind of dynasty. Can this kind of economic system last any longer than the 300k janitor? What happens to his daughter's kids as she spends down the trust fund, being eroded by inflation and poor life choices? What then?

    I am not sure what he is advocating. He says you can make it in law if you work hard, then backpedals and says he is only referring to big law. Does he think the 3rd and 4th tiers really get many big law opportunities? We know the top 10 school graduates will have job opportunities. They know that too. For the 4th tier grad whose only option is to go solo out of school, will working hard alone be enough to be writing out $300k checks and buying London condos at 50?

    It's a nice story but not very useful.

    1. Exactly this.

      If you start as a junior attorney in State "public service", you are making $65k. Within a few years, you hit low 80's/90's.

      The same is largely true at the Fed. level.

      You're on the Taxpayer's dime.

      I know you know this so I'm asking rhetorically: Do you know how these private firms would absolutely BALK at paying that kind of money for someone who has no book of business, no real world legal skills, etc. because it all comes out of the Partners' bottom lines?

      They won't pay that kind of money - even the $65k/yr. - absent top credentials for the local grads. That means, top 5% / Law Review.

      The public sector jobs at this point have outpaced in many cases their private sector equivalents.

      As far as sustainability, no one really cares. It's all a Shell Game with Taxpayer dollars at all levels, Fed/State/local.

    2. I'm not even sure the story makes any sense. He claims his son majored in Engineering, and then claims that it isn't a viable career, unlike law. He claims janitors make 300K a year (sure). He claims to buy friends for his son. Maybe it is a tale of what not to do.

    3. Exactly correct. Municipal employment is the best path to social mobility in the United States today, and nothing is going to happen to these jobs.

      Vampires like 3:49 need to the lie to continue so they can profit. By don’t worry, if he really is working those hours, unless he is in a V10 firm (unlikely given the quality of the writing), his days are numbered. Hard work counts for nothing in this business, it’s about originating business. Why am I going to pay a boomer seven figures when I can hire five laterals that are younger, hungrier, and cheaper to output triple the work.

      This is a relationships business now. Grinders aren’t necessary at any level.

      This guy’s daughter is going to be blowing I-Bankers in London to keep her standard of living and as for the son, I hope he is working out and likes selling drugs because he isn’t going to be able to bang Instagram hoes with money, he’ll have to do i with natural appeal, and judging by the quality of his old man’s character, I doubt he has the alpha qualities for that.

      Better to be born blind than have had sight and lost it. I hope this guy is a total sociopath that just originated business because if he’s banking on grinding to keep the trust fund brigade in style, he’s screwed and they are even more screwed.

      As for what young people should do, Ive said over and over again: municipal employment. Like 6:35 says, they’ve been heralding the end of these jobs for three decades, but these are still the best jobs. You vote and no one can fuck with you. Fuck student loans, fuck 80 hour weeks with no pension, and fuck the assholes selling the lie.

      It’s the private sector grinders like the trust fund champion that need to worry, the real Draculas aren’t in the sharing business. They don’t need your labor, there’s a steady supply of idiots to take your place.

      My 2 cents.

      P.S. If you want to talk about 1 percent outcomes, cops on Long Island can do for their kids what this jerk off did, and they get to retire at 45. I’ll take that unlikely outcome over the slavery of law any day.

    4. @ 2-11-2020 7:02 PM.

      The BART story is true.

      There were stories online about it.

      I don't begrudge him that money. He's in San Francisco. And at least *somebody* is trying to keep the place clean. No one else cares. It's just getting worse and worse with each passing year.

    5. Also the MTA (Transit Authority) guys with their union. Multiples of people with Golden Parachutes.

      LIRR too:

    6. If you had to identify the theme of his ramblings, it would have to be, if you get a job in big law, don't quit.

    7. Yeah that BART guy had to work basically 80 hours a week, working like every holiday and essentially never taking a day off, to make that much OT. It's budget neutral for BART anyway because as they said, if he hadn't taken those hours someone (or many someones) would have.

      The real question to me is what he did during all that time, which is impossible to answer without following him around. I've heard of a lot of these kinds of gigs that let you get away with a lot of sitting around. You're paid by the hour so you have an incentive to take things slow, make 4 hours of work take 8 or whatever, and it adds up.

      Plus, your manager is on a salary that does not change based on such costs. So they have no incentive to micromanage you and even the ones who might care aren't going to be around on those holidays and graveyard shifts you're picking up.

      So, not saying this individual did that. No way of knowing. But opportunities do tend to abound in these sectors to spend a lot of time clocked in but not doing much actual work, or working very slowly.

  15. Concordia University in Portland, Ore. is closing. It's unclear what the fate of its satellite law school in Boise will be.

    Concordia most likely opened the law school (in a different state!) in order to generate revenue. Instead, the law school accelerated the parent university's demise. Poetically ironic.

    1. Apparently the law school will close, too.

  16. Here is an interesting article about survivorship bias.

    The Perils of "Survivorship Bias"

    Computational and behavioral scientist Sendhil Mullainathan describes how to avoid a common fault in reasoning

    Essentially put, if only look at the lawyers that have succeeded, you will think that with enough hard work, you will be successful too. What you don't see are the ones that put in a lot of hard work and didn't succeed.

    1. That error in reasoning is a form of selection bias. Another example: "The people in Country X are overwhelmingly hostile to the government. Why, I was there recently, and everyone with whom I spoke expressed opposition." What we don't find out is that the person making this claim spoke with three or four people, all in English (assume that this language is not commonly spoken in the country), all in big cities, all with certain characteristics (relatively high socio-economic status, young, whatever). The sample is too small, but also it is unrepresentative, because the person spoke only with certain types of people—and those people's political views may well differ from those of the majority of the population. One might as well conclude, from speaking with members of a yacht club, that the general public in the US is extremely hostile to raising taxes on the rich.

      The phenomenon also tends to reflect the common confusion of correlation and causation. "X, Y, and Z dropped out of school and then made millions; therefore, if I drop out of school, I shall make millions." But dropping out didn't cause those people to make all that money; something else did. And there is plenty of evidence suggesting that dropping out is not in itself a wise move. Or "I took pill W (or prayed or whatever), and now my pain is gone, so the pill (prayer, whatever) must have worked." But the pain may well have gone away for some other reason, and the pill/prayer may have been useless (or even harmful).

      In the example that you mentioned, there is an additional mistake: the assumption that the lawyers in question worked hard to succeed. Some of them may have been trust-fund babies who didn't really work hard. Successful lawyers may be likely to have special advantages, such as inherited wealth or being born at a favorable time (hello, baby boomers), that have nothing to do with hard work.

    2. It’s just a simple problem. It’s a simple solution. It’s a simple analysis.

      6:35 basically nailed it. People have been saying public sector jobs are going to bankrupt the country, states, municipalities, whatever, for years. It hasn’t happened. It won’t happen.

      The private sector employee is finished. He or she is a political minority, and we all know what happens to political minorities in a Democracy. The clock cannot turned back. Globalization is here to stay.

      Employers like the douchebag talking about his kids need people to believe a lie to keep running on the treadmill. There is no hope on the treadmill. If you make a high salary, it is temporary and will be taxed heavily. It will involve painful effort.

      A government job does not involve painful effort. It is politically protected. It comes with a pension. Employers don’t want you to have that option because they want you to work for them until you burn out. Rinse and repeat.

      The answer is simple: do not pursue private sector employment, particularly in law. Pursue high quality, politically protected and highly remunerative public sector employment in the public sector. Even a modest public sector pension of 60k a year is the equivalent of several million dollars in an annuity. The people advising other people to pursue private sector employment are from a gone-by era. It’s done. It’s been done for a long time. The work force is and will remain in India and a China.

      There’s nothing more to say on the topic. If people can’t accept that, they’ll suffer. Let’s flip the narrative: going to law school in 1960 was a good idea. Most people didn’t want to go. They wanted to work right out of high school. Same deal here but in reverse.

      You take the path less traveled by or you get trampled.

    3. What you have to look at, though, is HOW those governments are avoiding being bankrupted by unsustainable pensions. What they're doing, for the most part, is making them less generous. But prospectively only, and based on hire date. This is common because many state constitutions make pension promises unbreakable once made, but do not mandate making them in the first place.

      I see it every day. The guy that started 5 years ago has a way better pension than the guy who started yesterday, and the guy who started 10 years ago has it better than either. It's all about seniority.

      Law enforcement is usually last to feel the effects of that transition, but we recently hired a retired cop who told us they're feeling it too - he was one of the last to get the "really good" pension from the old days, he says, and that while their ratchet-down is happening more slowly and less severely than for the office drones, it's hitting the cops too. Definition of "retirement age" is slowly creeping up and the percentage of salary to be paid as pension is slowly creeping down. Basically every new class that enters police academy gets a slightly less generous promise than the one before it.

      State and local governments are basically phasing into a defined contribution system, and they're doing it with a lot of grandfathering. They can't "break" promises, but they can make those promises to some but not to others.

      Point being, that legendary government gravy train is coming to the end of the line too. Just more gradually than the private sector.

  17. If Concordia's law school does close down, it will be the twelfth in the past three years or so:

    Cooley (one campus)
    Mitchell (merged with Hamline—call it a dignified death)
    Indiana Tech
    Arizona Summit
    Cooley (another campus)
    Thomas Jefferson (going to state accreditation only)
    La Verne (going to state accreditation only)

  18. Another reason why people hate lawyers, hate working with them, hate living around them etc.,:

    "Potential sue - Loss of money
    Post by confusedinvestor » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:47 am

    We might get sued by our neighbor who happens to be our daughter's best friend's dad.

    We did an attached addition (1 bedroom/bath room, approx. 400 sq ft) to our home in our backyard with proper city permits and fees. Addition was completed 6 months back and the county already increased our property taxes etc - so all recording is completed.

    Now, our neighbor, who happens to be an attorney himself, lives 4 houses down the street from us, on the same side of the road, came over during my daughter's birthday party this weekend to pick up her daughter from the drop off birthday party and wanted to see our addition. He gladly agreed, showed him our new addition and then he said (or threatened) that we may have to tear everything down if we did not take permissions from Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) board. He was asking who is going to live in that new bedroom.

    I did not even knew if such board or restrictions even exists - "Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs)" as we don't have HOA and I don't even know what to check for as I thought all I had to do is get city building dept permits ... strictions

    I am very worried if I have to tear my addition down where I spent over 150K

    He recently did sue one of my front door neighbor when he was building a detached home in his backyard but I don't know what really transpired there. He mentioned that he sued my neighbor as well when they did the addition and forced them to convert from detached to attached addtion. I don't know what his actual motives are ? trying to target people for money ?

    My addition is attached and for personal use only, with all city permitted

    Is this an case I should consult a real estate attorney ? if yes, what is the best way to find an attorney ? Should we be proactive or reactive until he sue us ?

    Note: I live in So Cal area. Any help would be appreciated."

    Explains the JD-VD phenomena.

    1. ^^^ so the good lawyers are caste into the pot with the bad lawyers just like good doctors are caste into the pot with bad doctors, and on and on and on. What is your point? That lawyers sue? I have to assume every time I have sued somebody, they held it against myself or my client or both. Oh well....that's the way it goes. Some people just don't like the idea of being held accountable. If you prosecute criminals, you will be accused of routinely violating somebody's rights, if you defend, you help criminals get around the law on "technicalities", like using the constitution. If you don't have thick skin, you definitely should not be a litigator. You can't win. It is highly unlikely this guy did not know about HOA restrictions and covenants. Undoubtedly people know if they are moving into a restricted community and I am sure it is required they are provided with a copy of the covenants on purchase. So sounds to me like this guy violated the rules and is now pleading innocence through ignorance. In our HOA, I am on the board of directors and homeowner did a lot of construction beautifying his house, without getting permission to do so, and he happens as a result to be flooding his neighbors yard with rain water. Of course we are going to take him to task, and we are the ones being unreasonable, especially me, since I am a trial lawyer....Tough Sh^t

    2. It would be real funny if both of you were referring to the same thing in the same neighborhood.

    3. "funny if both of you were referring to the same thing in the same neighborhood"

      Yep. Except 7:02 is discussing a neighborhood without an HOA, so, unlikely.

  19. lol, but honestly nosy neighbors are nosy neighbors whether they happen to be lawyers or not. And it's hard to sympathize with the homeowner too. How the heck can someone with the financial wherewithal to buy a house be unaware of the concept of an HOA or the fact that they live in one?

    1. Say what you want about Boomer lawyers, but they are part of some of the most lucrative legal scams in history-case in point, title insurance. Created for the housing boom after WWII, everybody gets it when they buy a house, right? And it's many a Boomer who owns these places.
      Case in point: out of law school, a friend actually got a job, working for a title company. The company was owned by an old lawyer who literally did no work and rarely showed up. Instead he hired newly minted JDs, paid them a pittance, and sent them to the closings. The pay was so bad nobody lasted more than a year or two.
      At every closing, the new homeowner was given a six inch stack of documents to sign-one of which was an acknowledgement that he had received, read, and understood all the covenants. And the fat old Boomer was no dope; as new developments created more and more covenants, he added a new line of business: representing HOAs, with most of the business suing homeowners. Virtually every case is a slam dunk.
      A racket? Probably. But no sympathy for a guy who buys a house and spends 150k on an addition, but doesn't remember that he's got a HOA and covenants. He signed the paperwork, after all.
      But here's some free advice: if you've got a neighbor who you know to be litigious, don't let him in your house-and don't speak with him or her about anything. You want to avoid people like that at all cost, or at least make them do a little work before they report you to the HOA.

  20. The value of "hard work". It's fine. (As long as somebody else does it..)

    2 articles from Paul Campos and one from Above The Law:

    Re: Scott Brown

    ATL's take:

    LST link:

    1. In light of how awful this law school is, the salary/benefits paid to O'Brien are outrageous, as is the appointment of the singularly unqualified(for anything, let alone law school dean)Scott Brown to any post, public or private-although it appears he's been feeding at the public trough for years.
      And the terrible bar passage rate and the terrible employment numbers and the prohibitive cost yada yada yada....point out the problem: Why does anyone apply to this school, let alone attend? At what point are people responsible for their own terrible decisions? It's clear that taxpayers will get stuck with the bill, even while graduates get stuck with crushing debt-and it's clear that Brown's salary/bennnies will be shocking too.
      But even with all this information available to anyone bothering to look, 0Ls will still apply and attend the 146th greatest law school in the country-why? It's getting harder, if not impossible, to feel any empathy for the soon-to-be unemployed, but saddled with enormous debt, graduates of TTTTs such as this school.
      It's almost unbelievable-but no, people actually attend this school.

  21. First, let's define our terms:

    Second, look at birth year of subject in question: Check. Early Boomer.

    But here's the really effed-up part from the Scott Brown piece:

    (1) Why does the school’s current $87 million endowment never seem to generate any income? (The endowment averaged an annual return of barely more than one percent for the five years between 2014 and 2018 inclusive, while the stock market went up by nearly 50% over this same time).

    (2) Why does fundraising for the endowment appear to be almost literally non-existent in recent years — less than $80,000 was raised for it in each of the previous three years?


    Literally, within 5 years, they could've turned that $87 million into $130,500,000 by investing in a simple market index fund - all tax-free (so-called "non-profit" org.)

    But, let's call this place what it is: A Federal Student Loan Processing Center. All they do, all they focus on, all they care about is intake. This is their existence.

    I refer you again to what the current classes will have as a final number to deal with:

    Literally NO ONE at the school - all these Hackademic Geniuses - never ONCE thought to invest the endowment. Not one??

    Boomers: Blowing every opportunity since 1965... (sigh)

    "Duh.. Hey guys! Maybe we could, ya know.. invest some of dis money??"

    "Quiet Jimmy! We're just the Council of Corrupt Boomer Elders!"

    "Duuuuh...!! Dat's for sure!!"


    Hard work, kids. Hard work.

    Just buy your ~$300,000 in non-dischargeable student loan debt and shut up. We know what's best for you! Trust us.