The Meek Will Neither Inherit the World Nor Solve Unemployment

From Justin Long at The Faculty Lounge:

But there is an entire side to the discussion that we simply aren't having: beyond reducing supply, we should be increasing demand. Despite the shrinking numbers of existing jobs in existing firms working for existing clients, there is no corresponding shrinkage among those who simply cannot afford the legal advice they need.  Where is the debate about how to find funds so that lawyers can be hired to serve those clients, at salaries commensurate with their skill, education, and indebtedness?

Side of the discussion?  What side is that, exactly, the irrelevant one?  The let's-make-stuff-up one?

Unmet legal needs do exist, but it's quickly reached mythological proportions in trying to defend the output of attorneys or conjuring up schemes to employ the new lawyer underclass and mint more new ones.  I call bullshit fueled by ivory tower bias and fantastical ideas about the poor.

Epic Rant

Today we celebrate the epic rant of our brother, Mike Cunningham, of Nowhere University, who lives at the corner of Discouraged and Hopeless.

An article entitled "Jobs Offer Student Loan Forgiveness," by Susan Tompor, Detroit Free Press "Personal Finance Columnist" offered up typical finance fare: get hired in a public service government job and you can get out from under all that nasty student loan debt, yadda yadda yadda.

Tompor offers up as examples various college and law grads attempting to get out from under their six-figure student loan debt. Naturally, when you click on the comments section, you immediately find a boomer troll with his "tisk, tisk, tisk" aimed at these reckless borrowing youth: "So why take out the debt to begin with? There are many other ways to both attend and pay for college. Community college (to start/basic courses), military services, etc."

Brother Cunningham, from his vantage point at the corner of Discouraged and Hopeless, replies to the typical "go to community college" or "join the military" arguments as follows:

Mike Cunningham · Nowhere university

Why should we have to join the military or start at community colleges when baby boomers had the luxury of going to any college they wanted for affordable prices? What makes you better than me?

Baby boomers had every possible advantage possible. If I was living in an era where college was cheap enough to pay out of pocket and the average salary was 50k, I wouldn't be stupid enough to take out a loan on a house I can't afford. But that's exactly what almost every baby boomer did.

Why are we idiots for taking on college debt we can't afford when you all took home loans you couldn't afford? And at the same time, this country rewards the loan sharks that did it all. Thanks, America. I'd rather live in Russia if I had the money to get out.

Reply · 2 ·

 · 11 hours ago

Obviously, Brother Cunningham stewed after his first comment, then went back to add a second rant:

• 
  

  Mike Cunningham · Nowhere university
  

  I got saddled with 30k in debt before I realized what a joke college was along with this trash can of a country.
  
  Now instead of getting a high paying job for spending (wasting) 4 years trying to better myself, I live in the ghetto with drug lords getting bigger welfare checks than my salary at McDonald's. And to top it off, whenever I mention my debt, it's always the same thing from people: "Stupid you for taking on that kind of debt." "Stupid you for picking English." How was I supposed to know that becoming a LAWYER was a dead end in life? Only in America could that ever happen.
  
  Seriously, this country is a joke. If you're under 30 and have any kind of potential left for your life, get out NOW. It enslaves its young with lifelong debt. It steals pensions from its old. It gives BILLIONS in corporate handouts to billionaires. It hands out benefit after benefit to its government employees, and everything is made in China. What a diseased, corrupt, depressing, putrid joke.

  Reply ·
  

   · 11 hours ago

A scam blog tip of the hat to Counselor Cunningham. Congratulations on an epic rant! Keep up the good work out there on the message boards!

Who might benefit from an Indiana Tech law degree? Noone.

Who might benefit from an Indiana Tech law degree? Noone. Not no one, Noone.

If you click on the Indiana Tech Law School website, you will encounter the smiling face of one of four persons and a blurb from that person endorsing the "vision," "mission," or "focus" of the start-up law school. One is the Indiana Tech Law director of admissions Crystal Ridgley, whose endorsement is hardly a surprise. Two are local lawyers-- a county prosecutor and a director of a nonprofit called Neighborhood Christian Legal Services. Maybe these two lawyers will avail themselves of Indiana Tech’s pool of free law school interns, but it remains to be seen whether they will hire a grad from open enrollment Indiana Tech instead of one from highly selective schools like IU Bloomington or Notre Dame in the event that they have funds to hire an entry-level staff attorney.

The fourth smiling face, however, belongs to an actual student in the Charter Class, Kyle Noone, who is quoted as follows:  

"I chose Indiana Tech Law School because of its focus on us, the students, to be successful in the current legal world. An academic curriculum that includes relevant teachings to everyday legal practicing provides the preparation to be a successful attorney. The mentor program will provide me with invaluable local legal relationships that will prepare me for my future in law." 

Why new law graduates are not "entitled"

 A common refrain from older generations about mine (I'm a K-JD) is that we are lazy, spoiled, and entitled.  It is the last description that gets me the most upset.  While "entitled" doesn't necessarily have negative connotations, I think in this context it could be best defined as such:

entitled - the feeling that something is owed to you when you did not necessarily earn it
(Dictionary of Antiro, 2013 edition)

Two years ago at a commencement speech, a law professor from Emory by the name of Sara Stadler, who was voted "Most Outstanding Professor by the Class of 2011"told the same class that while many of them wouldn't land the big-paying jobs they wanted, they should "get over it.  The one thing standing in the way of happiness for many people is a sense of entitlement."  She went on to tell them that "they might have to move to Nebraska," and that they should "learn to be a giver, not a taker."  (All quotes are from the ABA Journal article, though the video does include some gems they did not note).

Matsuzaki’s Folly

In Ken Matsuzaki’s quest to pass the New York State bar exam, the seventeenth time was the charm. The test is offered twice a year, in February and July, and Matsuzaki had sat for every one since completing Cardozo law school, in early 2005. He’s taken the bar in Brooklyn, in Albany, in the vast Javits Center, in Manhattan (“I don’t like that one,” he said. “Lines too long at the bathrooms”), and, this past February, in Buffalo. “I like Buffalo,” he said. "Less crowded. I could reserve a hotel very close to the testing place."

Let us honor Ken Matsuzaki; a New Yorker article in the "cutesy" section detailed how cute-cute it was that the tenacious Japanese national took the New York Bar Exam seventeen times, and in different locations—like a sort of lemming/super-snowflake Grand Tour. In the midst of La Débâcle, with applications to law schools declining by one-third in just four years, some schools facing closure,  the market saturated worse than a Crisco-lard hybrid pie crust, and disaster facing even the big law pedigreed, there are still people spending the equivalent of a new car on seventeen bar exam fees when they are not even intending on practicing law (should they actually pass, never a certainty, nor even a likelihood). Further in the article, the New York Bar, when asked for a comment, added that at least two people had taken the bar of that state over sixty times each (not "six", but "sixty"). Sixty bar exams, at the very least, must have been taken over 30 years should the sucker-victim attempt both summer and winter. The fee to take the test appears to be $250 a pop.

Butthurt LawProfs

As the facade continues to crumble on the Law School brand, I find it quite comical how various LawProfs have become increasingly bitter, snippy, and downright angry about people questioning the value of a law degree.

To a certain extent, it is understandable.  No group likes to have another group trash them wholesale for who they are.  Lawyers understand this more than most - who hasn't been (not-so-jokingly) reviled as a "shark", a "bottom-feeder", an "obstructionist", or a generalized "a-hole"?   I'm used to people acting that way towards me, once they find out I am a lawyer.  It's not pleasant, but I know that many people have had bad experiences with lawyers, whether deserved or undeserved.  I get that.  Sometimes I counter the argument by saying that lawyers have the unique (and sometime unpleasant) task of being an advocate for one side, and in any conflict is is natural to feel some vitriol towards the side that you perceive to be impeding your progress.  But that's the way it goes.  I don't feel the need to defend myself to the millions of people who think lawyers are "bad people" - it isn't worth the effort, there is a lot of grey between the extremes of black and white, and few minds will be changed in any event.

Not so with LawProfs.  I would have said this was due to the fact that they are concerned about their pocketbook, and to a certain extent I'm sure they are.  However, when you look at LawProf CVs (and trust me, reading one after the other makes for a natural substitute for caster oil, in case you ever need to purge), one thing is clear - these are not exactly rags-to-riches people.  They largely come from big-name schools.  Have big-name pedigrees.  Have done some big-name stuff.  Stuff that the vast majority never even come close to touching or having access to.

In essence, they largely come from money and influence.  How could it be otherwise?  Who can afford to do what they have done?  How else could they garner the plumb assignments they have had prior to becoming a professor?  Bootstrapping and sacrifice?  Don't make me laugh.

As such, this is not really about LawProfs losing their livelihood.  While that might sting a bit, they have other resources to fall back on by virtue of the segment of society they come from.

This is really about pride.  And pride goeth before a fall, as some ancient wisdom has said.

LawProfs did what they did because the like the position in society they occupy.  They enjoy being looked up to and respected.  They enjoy hearing themselves talk (clearly).  They want to be revered by their peers and colleagues, so they hob-nob at high-dollar colloquia and write love-letters (i.e. legal scholarship) to each other in order to garner influence.  They wanted to be admired by legions of law students who were eager to join the "majesty" of the profession they claim to occupy.  And let's be honest: the job was a sweet deal - in comparison, you have to lay a lot of bricks and hang a lot of drywall in order to make $200k a year, and the hours aren't nearly as good.

But, as the tarnish has spread and lives have been reduced to debt-serfdom, the LawProfs just aren't getting that ego-stroke they way they were accustomed to.  Deans and administrators are talking more and more about "little-people" stuff, like budgets and increased work loads.  People are demanding more accountability and work product that justifies their role, not just their pet project of the semester.  And that causes the LawProfs to have a sad.  Even from LawProfs who are in no danger of losing their jobs due to the size of the foundation that supports the school or parent university (i.e. status and preftige).

Why did this happen?  Is it solely because times are tough for "lazy", "bitter", "entitled" graduates, and students need a convenient scapegoat for their "failure"?  If only it were that simple - at least that would imply that things are actually better for everyone, student and LawProf alike.  Student frustration over having to "settle" for their second or third choices would actually be a welcome outcome, as opposed to current joblessness and crushing debt for thousands upon thousands.

No, I would argue that the ire towards LawProfs comes from the fact that for decades, they Just Didn't Care.  Period.  And why should they, when they were in no danger of facing the kind of circumstances their students faced?  I'm sure there is a LawProf or two out there who tried to help their students, put in a word for them where they could, so let good karma fall where it will.  But as a profession, they were too busy being complicit in the scam, looking the other way, pretending that thousands of lives weren't being destroyed while they wrote yet another "Law and _____" article or attended another circle-jerk symposium for $100-200k a year and a six-hour-a-week teaching load.

One thing is for certain.  As the situation continues to sour, and as fewer and fewer law students attend, watch the Pride sail into the stratosphere as LawProfs are increasingly required to do what most people do for their livelihood - work.  Inside the bubble, no less.  And instead of regarding their own contributions to the situation with sober judgment (with rare exception), these butthurt LawProfs are blame-shifting and looking in all the wrong places for respect and sympathy.  They did everything right...!  Didn't they...?

Nope, there's no Sympathy for the Devil here.  In short, welcome to how the other-half live.  Enjoy your stay.

Another Review of "One Millimeter Morning", Law Professor's (Secret) "Memoirs"

Selections of a Law Professor's (Secret) "Memoirs"

Recently, a post here "reviewed" (exposed) the "memoirs" (juvenile ramblings) of a "law professor" (non-practicing attorney) who "teaches" (pontificates in front of 22-year old student debtors, without so much as a lesson plan, a whole six hours a week).  I too wish to do this, because the sheer arrogance of it was begging to be held up to further ridicule in the form of parody. So I took another look at a "professor's" book.  This Professor of Flaw wrote something which he calls his "memoirs", though that is really a French word for what we might better call a "diary" (a child's journal of self-absorption). Let's not get hung up on the difference between an autobiography of someone not old enough to write one, or "memoirs" of someone who has not been accomplished or famous enough to write one, or a diary of someone who didn't actually keep a daily record of their life. I don't know what to call it; some guy wrote a bunch of stuff about his life, and thinks the world must know about it. I agree, though not for the same reason. Here are my favorite passages from the "memoir", "One Millimeter Morning", that I thought I would share with you. Remember, this guy is paid well to teach "future lawyers" who may "one day be on the highest court in the land":