Why I went to Law School

Many people wonder why I went to law school.  Was it to play around on Sallie Mae's dime for three years, travel the world, and kick back and relax?  Or was it to better myself with the hope that I would one day get a legal job and make enough money to pay back my loans? 

It was the latter.

One of my professors, during my 1L year lauded me for being "one of the few that actually took law school seriously."  He wrote me a letter of recommendation when I landed a spot in the top 18% of my class and transferred to a higher ranked school in New York.  The truth was, I did take law school seriously, and I wanted to be as good as I could be, so I could get a good job, pay back my loans, and provide a good income to support my wife and myself.

Then I came across the scamblogs.  The whiners stated that law school was a fraud, the deans were tricksters and it was all a lie!  I wondered if they were right as I read their whine parade.  I wondered why people would spend their days posting on the internet instead of doing something to better themselves.  Of course, I took offense to this.  I wanted nothing to do with these cretins! 

During law school I did my best to keep my skills sharp.  I was involved in internships and clinics.  I had a mentor.  I kept this blog as a way to tell others that you don't have to be depressed about law school.  However, those who ran the scamblogs were quite angry at me.  They said I should just throw in the towel, drop out, and pretty much whine on the internet all the time.

I did not want to do that.

So what, I took a few trips during law school?  I paid for many of these myself.  Further, my trips were not just for pleasure.  I made a money off of them.  For example, I created a website based on my trip to Puerto Rico which brings me a nice bit of income, and will eventually pay that trip back.  I purchased goods for resale in Egypt and will be selling those at a flea market in the next couple of weeks.  I also sublet my apartment while I was out.  Yet, those who criticize me have no idea how these things work.  "How do I mix pleasure with income production," they ask.  "Is that even possible?!" they lament.  Instead, they sit on an internet forum and tell everyone else that they are better than everyone else.  What a wretched way to live. 

People on the internet act like they know everyone else so well, but they do not.  We all come from vastly different backgrounds.  I came from a poor family.  I had the choice to either do little with my life or strive to make myself as good as I could be.  I may never pay back my debt.  I may have to rely on IBR my whole life.  That is not my main plan, but it is a back up plan.  It is a hell of a lot better than having no back up plan or not paying back my loans.  How many people are in default on their loans and pay nothing?  I will not do that. 

Some mistakenly believe that if you are from a poor background you have no right to go to law school.  These elitist individuals should be avoided at all costs.  Their way of thinking is toxic and destructive.  If you spend your time taking what they have to say in this regard seriously, you will only destroy yourself.  That way of thinking is archaic and disgusting, vile at best.  As a human being, your background does not matter.  You are what matters.  I have always known that I was not my parent, nor was I the person who failed.  I was a different person, with a chance to succeed.  Some people will hate that.  I am sorry if you hate me because you wish you did something different in your life.  One thing I have realized is that those who hate others hate themselves more.  What bothers one about another person is something that they find true about themselves. 

I will continue to strive to make myself better as long as I live.  I hope to one day pay off all my student loans, and I plan to.

And with that being said, I will not explain my reasons for law school or be forced to defend myself on this blog again.  One should NOT have to explain oneself for trying to better oneself or pursuing a degree in law or any other field.

How I Think, and Why I Think That Way: A Struggling Law Grad's Positive Outlook on Life

Many people wonder why, with almost $300,000 in college debt and no job, how I can not be down in the dumps as they are.  There are many reasons that I am satisfied, and even thrilled, with my life, and I want to share those reasons with my readers.

First, I realize that there is so much opportunity out there for me.  I am still decently young and have a long time ahead of me.  About a decade ago I would have never imagined traveling all over the world.  In fact, I had never left the Northwestern United States where I was raised.  If someone told me I would be traveling to Europe (4x), Africa (2x), Asia (2x) and Central America (4x) in ten years, I would have thought they were crazy.  Yet, the truth was, I longed to travel, and I made it a goal of mine.  In fact, I have found that goal setting has helped me become the person who I have wanted to be and it has allowed me to do so much in life.  Yes, even go to, transfer, and graduate from law school!

Second, I want to say that I realize that there are many ways to get things done.  I can own a home on IBR.  I can purchase inexpensive land.  I can learn to build my own tiny home (see this awesome website: Tiny House Swoon).  There are so many opportunities in life for those who are willing to become creative.

Third, I have always believed in maintaining good health, eating right, and abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.  This includes "mind drugs."  I define "mind drugs" as things that damage how one thinks.  Mind drugs are all over the internet.  Lately, however, I have found myself getting somewhat involved in mind drugs, and I have realized that they do nothing to help me.  Internet forums where people whine and lament about life have no part in a healthy adult outlook.  If you spend time reading websites where people are telling you that you can not succeed no matter what, or that you will fail, you will probably end up failing.  You have to remove yourself from that way of thinking if you want to succeed.  Pure and simple.

Forth, I am a Christian and believe in God.  As such, it would be to spit in His face to not be thankful for the life He has given me.  My life may not be completely perfect, but I have so much to be thankful for.  God has assisted in me traveling the world and I have seen firsthand the lives of other people.  I realize that many people have not seen the struggles that go on in poorer countries, and it is hard for many to realize (or even care) that others have a hard life.  However, the reality is that many U.S. citizens have it exceedingly good and have little to no cause to complain.  I do not believe that a student debtor who went to law school has any cause to complain upon graduation day.  In fact, to do so is incredibly selfish and even somewhat vile.  Of course, I have found that too many people only care about themselves and can not appreciate how well they have it in life.  Complaining on the internet, sadly, has become a sport for some, and I honestly, with all my heart, hope that some of these people can one day make it off of the couch and see the world that is beyond their living room.

I have many goals for the future and I am very excited about them.  This blog will continue to share how I go about reaching those goals while being thankful for and using my law school education.  We have been taught so much in law school and I can not let all that go to waste.  And further, I must remember that those who are vocal about and angry at law school are only a very small minority.  Most law school graduates seem very happy about their choice to go to law school, and I am sure they will continue to be, as long as they stay away from toxic sites such as the ones that I used to frequent.

Perhaps after I am finished with my current book I will write a book on why law school can be a good investment and how a positive outlook in life will help a law school grad.  Until then, please keep reading this blog and e-mail me any questions you have.  Thank you.

Are all law schools the same?

I was talking to someone recently about college.  She is looking to start college next year to become a teacher.  She said to me, "I really don't know which school to pick, many have programs that are so different.  It's not like law school.  They are all the same."

Now, I have talked to this person a lot about law school.  In fact, so much that we may or may not be married (I am posting a lot less here about who I am as I am a little scared about having this blog revealed to C&F).  But remember, this blog is here to help people.  I am not the bad guy.  I am a really good person whose only motive is to help people go to law school (and maybe to destroy Third Tier Reality, which is a vile little site).  So, should I have to worry about C&F finding this blog and/or who I am?

Well, I wanted to talk about law schools being the same.  Now, remember, I went to two law schools.  A 4th tier school and a 1st/2nd tier school.  I have also toured other law schools (this person went with me while I toured them) and I must say, she is right.  In the end, they were all the same.

Law schools, largely, are the same.  Many like to stroke their ego and make themselves believe that their law school is something special, or it's a "smarter" school than others.  But in reality, the schools are largely all the same.  Some have better facilities, some have a bigger library, but they all have teachers with excellent credentials (even fourth tier schools), they all teach from the SAME books, they all teach the same thing and have the same first year courses.  There are some differences in what is required to graduate, but overall, they are all the same.  The only difference is how people perceive them to be.

The Schools Are Ranked

The schools are ranked arbitrarily by U.S. News, a magazine that exists largely due to its popular ranking of colleges and universities.  The rankings are, in the end, quite worthless, yet people buy into them with fervor. Law schools, like medical schools and business schools, are all ranked in terms of some formula.  Many of these rankings can be gamed, some schools, however, will always be at the top because they are seen as elite (Harvard, for example, which is just a Western New England University with older buildings).  The real power behind the rankings is how they are perceived by the population.  One's ego is a powerful thing, and people will always compare their school and the school of their children with the rest of the world, saying "well, I got into Stahnferd" or "I drank ale while at Yale for 4 years, hic!  Yes-sir-ree!"

***

Looking back, I think I enjoyed my time at the 4th tier school more than the 1st/2nd tier school.  It was a down to earth school with some great teachers who I felt were a LOT more approachable.  Class sizes were smaller, I found that I really enjoyed the subject matter more, and I did well as a result.  The second school was larger, teachers were harder to talk to, and I felt like just a soulless individual at many times.  It's not that it was a bad school, but the ranking said NOTHING at all about how good it was.  In fact, if I was to rank them based on my experience alone, I would have given Western New England the higher marks.

Of course, that's not how it works, and everyone wants to be at the top school, just as everyone wants a house and a child, as they believe they are "supposed to" do those things.  But does that bring happiness?  Should one go to a top school because a magazine says it is a top school?  Is Columbia really that much different than Hastings?  I doubt it.  Other than the amount of students that get jobs, I don't think the school is that much better.  And more people get jobs out of Columbia because it's ranked higher and it has a name that rich parents swoon over.  It's all a big elaborate joke!

In the end, if you are choosing a law school, do not worry at all about the rankings, but go with the school YOU like the best.  If you are happy in Vermont, don't settle for anything else.  If you want to be in Western Massachusetts, Western New England is a great school.  Don't think that you are missing out on something by not going to Boston College if that is not where you want to be.  If you are content at Brooklyn, don't bother with Fordham.  In the end, I transferred schools because I wanted to be in New York.  However, after living two and a half years in New York, I know that I no longer want to be there.  If you are thinking of transferring law schools, don't do it because of a better rank.  Don't give up a scholarship just for a better number.  Stay if you are happy.  Go if you truly like the school better.

Thanks for reading.

So, when all is said and done, who *should* go to law school?

The Law School Scam trains its sights primarily on those institutions (and their leaders) that perpetuate the systematic impoverishment of thousands of would-be lawyers in a rapidly shrinking market for legal services. At the same time, not quite as much attention is paid to those students who put themselves in this position to begin with by continuing to apply. Sure, we may derisively refer to this cohort as “lemmings”, no doubt with a measure of self-loathing; after all we were once like they are now, to lift a line from Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam, whoever).  But while the profession has a responsibly (willfully abandoned, it seems) to see to it that there aren’t more lawyers than the identifiable demand for legal services can ever justify, people will continue inevitably to apply in larger numbers than what is probably necessary. For these and other reasons, this blog - and countless others - has expounded at length about why you shouldn’t consider applying to law school, but it may also be an equally useful exercise to consider who should be applying to law school.  

Should, of course, is really a terrible word, thoroughly larded with definitive presumptions and unfounded certainties. Nobody should do anything where advanced higher education is concerned. Legal prodigies of such startling genius as Ronan Farrow and the young Judge Posner were by no means predestined for careers in law simply because they were really, really smart. But it no doubt also helps to understand the particular kind of smart you have to be to succeed both in law school and as a lawyer. At the conclusion of a characteristically unchallenging 4-6 years of college you ought to have a clear understanding of whether or not you are, in fact, possessed of this brand of smart. And if there is any doubt in your mind, the folks at the Law School Admissions Counsel offer up a wonderfully time-consuming and tedious diagnostic administered a couple of times a year that should provide you with a much clearer idea.   

Before heading down this path, I would begin by asking yourself if you really understand the difference between summary and analysis. More critically, does your major area of study call for one, or the other (perhaps a tantalizing combination of both)? Analysis comes from the Greek word for breaking up or loosening, while summary is derived from the Latin for “of or pertaining to the sum.” We use the term analysis a lot in undergrad in place of the word summary. In the myriad blue books you have written (or typed, perhaps I’m showing my age here) for courses in PoliSci or Sociology or English, there isn’t much analysis, but there’s an awful lot of summary. Look at the exams you are taking; what are the questions being asked? Do they involve an analytical framework? Or do they involve mere recitation, with perhaps a spot of comparison? Are you called upon to identify the discrete patterns undergirding complicating systems, or is it merely enough to do the reading, summarize what was said in lecture, and maybe add a little bracketing at the front and the end of the essay to affect the appearance of argumentation and conclusion? These are important distinctions to make that in the normal university environment may not be altogether apparent, and if you’ve majored in areas like Linguistics, Mathematics, Psychology, Economics, or even any STEM field then it is likely the case that you have been tested almost exclusively in analysis.  

Secondly, you need to ask yourself how good are you at teaching yourself new material. I say this because in the university setting you have very likely had little exposure to Socratic Method and, if you have, it probably bears little resemblance to the form of it used in law school. Socratic Method, as applied in law school, has little to do with pedagogy as you’ve previously encountered it and more to do with the performance of a native talent. That native talent (which may well not be native to you) is, again, the ability to tease out the discrete rules governing an ambiguous system of facts where a significant amount of information about these facts is left unsaid. Most case law, for example, has little to do with the facts of the case itself. Simply having read the case, and understood what it “said” is not the level of analysis you will be expected to bring to a law school lecture, or to an exam. If you have viewed The Paper Chase, you may remember the scene where the hapless Mr. Brooks erroneously believes his photographic recollection of the casebook would help him understand an in-class hypothetical. It’s easy to state from the outset that one need simply to know the difference between understanding the rule and understanding the case, but the reason why this distinction cannot be emphasized enough is simply because cases are not presented in such a way where the rule is altogether clear and easily digestible into discreet parts (which dovetails with my earlier point about analysis). Much of bar review revolves around the spoon-feeding to you of black letter law into digestible parts, but it is important to note (again, from the outset), that 1) you need only pass the bar exam, not get an A and 2) passing the bar does not, by itself, get you quite as far in the job market as your 1L grades will.   

The third question to ask yourself is how reliant are you on professor feedback? Your grade as a 1L rests almost entirely on your performance on one exam. How accustomed are you to evaluation? An undergraduate in PoliSci or English may well be drawing the bulk of their upper level course grades from research papers and essays, which are often written in stages over the course of the semester. When was the last you had to sit for an exam where you didn’t necessarily know what was going to be covered and, more importantly, what kind of curve you were going to be graded on? As a 1L, you will have the opportunity to take practice exams and, perhaps, solicit feedback from your professors, but you won’t have very much time to do this while keeping up with material covered in class and, moreover, it will have to be done entirely on your own ambit while dozens of your classmates seek to employ the same strategy as yourself. You can't all get A's. Hell, a lot of you won't even be able to get B's. If you’ve experienced this system first-hand enough times to find it simpatico with your style of learning then that’s wonderful news, because otherwise you will not be given the time or resources to learn it out on your own as a 1L.  

Fourth, and I hate to sound crass here, where did you get in (presuming that you’ve even applied)? I figure that, by this point, you’re 90% of the way to committing yourself to law school, so anything I say will sound like needless gainsaying at this point. But believe you me when I tell you there’s never been a better time not to become a lawyer (there was, by the by, a widely circulated blog piece stating precisely the opposite that perhaps you’ve read, but believe you me again when I tell you that much of it is self-referential, counter-intuitive nonsense that, in all statistical probability, won't apply to you or to most people with a J.D.). You know the rankings very well by now; they no doubt have played a critical role in your decision on where to apply. You have probably been given substantial indication of how the rankings figure as far as likely job outcomes. That being said, it’s often more helpful (and clarifying) to frame these rankings in the context of who gets hired from which schools, in what volume, and from where. Matriculants from less than a handful of schools (these are, in total, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and UChicago) can expect the attention of just about any legal employer regardless of class rank or grades. After that point (and yes, this includes NYU and Columbia), you will probably have to finish in the top quarter to expect the same result (along with places like UPenn, Virginia, Georgetown, Cornell, Northwestern, etc.) Below the Top 15 of law schools, your opportunities narrow significantly, usually to state, regional, and local positions. Even if you attend a lower-ranked law school that happens to be the best in its state, you will still have to finish towards the top of your class (even as high as the top 5%) to attract the best legal employers within said jurisdiction. If my first three points were any indication, it is extraordinarily easy to fall outside of this range in law school, and not for want of any effort on your part.  

The final consideration goes one step further, assuming everything has broken your way up to the point of graduation and, hopefully, bar exam passage. Do you know and understand what work in the legal profession actually entails? Do you have even a general sense of law firm billing models and what effect this will have on your life as an associate? Have you worked as a paralegal in a big law firm? If so, is there anything about the billable hour that would encourage you to invite substantially more of it into your life? The pay is enticing, no doubt, but it is beyond the scope of this article to explain how the money is rarely ever equal to the frustration that comes with it, and that most of your income will  go towards debt repayment anyways. What about bi-modal income distribution? If you’re unable to get a six-figure position with a big law firm, are you prepared for your next best outcome to be a middle five-figure position with few opportunities for advancement or transfer? Do you understand the challenges facing the profession now and that we are looking at a possible future in which every position at our biggest law firms - short of janitorial, tech support, and (perhaps) conference services positions - will be treated as revenue centers also subject to billable hour thresholds? Do you understand that alternative career paths for JD’s are largely anecdotal or illusory? Does solo practice interest you? Are you prepared for the tremendous financial burden of supporting your own practice in a rapidly shrinking market for legal services pursuing clients who very often cannot pay afford to pay you? If BIGLAW is where you see yourself headed, are you interested in working in what is, in most instances, an affiliated profession of finance? Do you have an eye for term sheets? How about liquidity, capitalization, and disclosure thresholds? Very few of these issues are discussed in extraordinary detail in law school, and I suspect most law professors have had little significant exposure to them. Sure, you may want to do none of these things with your JD. You may even want genuinely to become the prototypical Legal Aid, County Defender, or DA’s office level of public interest attorney. But understand from the outset that, in a lot of jurisdictions, these positions are not much easier to obtain than a summer associate’s gig at a big law firm.  

These are not, by any means, the only factors to consider if you’re considering law school. They are, however, ones that non-lawyers and legal academics tend not offer up when asked if you should consider applying. Understand that, at this point in human history, if you choose to enter law school you are committing yourself to a high risk, incredibly costly endeavor with rapidly diminishing returns in order to gain access to a profession that is experiencing substantial, permanent downward compression at every single level.  Somebody either unfamiliar with the legal profession, or academically siloed from it, isn’t going to have an experience of it relevant enough to be able to say much of value about working as a lawyer. The Law School Scam movement will continue to do its job shining a light on the institutional myopia of the legal academy. But these problems will only persist so long as law schools believe they have an inexhaustible supply of potential applicants. As you consider entering the profession, you need to take the time right now to make a critical inventory of your skills and interests and whether or not they will be best-served by a legal education.  The answer for you just might be a resounding “Yes”, but I wouldn’t bet money on it.