Not gone: just lovin' life!

Dear legions of readers,

I am not gone.  I am just enjoying life.  Finals are upon me and I am studying like a banshee.  I am preparing for summer, my international trip, and for gearing up for the bar exam.  This is how law school is supposed to end.  Soon I will be back in the office, basically printing money.  I have also been busy with my other writings, my business, and feeling good about life.

Law school can help you attain your dreams.  Don't listen to those who say otherwise. 

Ask yourself:

If the big cheese of scamblogging can, as a result of law school, afford a three bedroom house and have found a job on the other side of the country, why can you not?  This individual makes enough money to pay $4000 at once on his loans.  Doesn't that tell you that law school is perhaps not a bad investment. 

Law school is, like any other investment, somewhat risky.  There will always be losers to every investment, that is life.  However, law school does not have the same amount of losers as other investments.  It's just that the 'losers' are a heck of a lot more vocal about it.  Why not though?  Law school does attract a certain loud type.  And I can not help but wonder if those who are loud and prone to fit throwing are the ones who are likely to fail.  Why do many of these people still live with mother and father, even thought they are pushing 30, 40, and 50 years old?  Does that not show you something about their adult coping skills.  Does that not show you something about why they failed to thrive in life?  It's not law school that failed them, it's something deep inside of them.

Are you planning to begin law school in 2014?  Then good luck to you!  Chances are, if you truly want to practice law and if you take it seriously, you will succeed.  

Those who succeed are those who:

Are independent, realizing that as adults they have to create and maintain their own lives.
Are willing to put the time in to do well.
Those who find jobs and internships during law school.
Those who treat others with respect.
Those who know who they are and what they want out of life.
Those who have real life experiences.
Those who do not go into law purely for the money.

Notice how the whiners state that they only went to law school to make money and throw a fit when they only land a $60,000 a year entry level job?  Do you notice how they whine when they get doc review that pays $30-40 an hour?  Why not volunteer and supplement your income with the doc review?  Why not create a strategy and implement it in your life. 

Oh yeah, you're waiting for your parents to do that for you...

Some of my critics sit in their three bedroom homes posting pictures of poo and commenting and complaining on the internet instead of spending time with their growing children.  And they wonder why they are so angry. 

It's your life.  Do not waste it.  Do what you dream of doing and NEVER let anyone else hold you back!

Above the Law's Law School Rankings

With all the thunder surrounding the legal education crisis, there has been a couple of new law school rankings systems which attempt to steal some of USN's thunder.  The National Jurist was one such one, whose methodology is broken down here.

Post-Graduate Success:  50%
Employment Rate:  22.5%
Super Lawyers:  12.5%
Partners in NLJ 200:  10%
Bar Passage:  5%

Student Satisfaction:  35%
RateMyProfessors.com:  20%
Princeton Review:  15%

Affordability and Diversity:  15%
Debt:  10%
Diversity:  5%

ATL gave those rankings hefty criticism, calling it "pure ridiculousness."  Now, however, they have gotten into the law school ranking game.

http://abovethelaw.com/careers/law-school-rankings/


The basis of their rankings system is that they don't care about inputs, such as LSAT, GPA, and student scholarships, while focusing on outcomes, such as FT jobs, quality of jobs, cost, and alumni satisfaction.

Their ranking methodology is:

30% - Quality Jobs Score (combining NLJ250 firms with federal judicial clerkships)
30% - Employment Score (FTLT jobs with bar passage required, solos/school-funded positions excluded)
15% - Educational Cost
10% - ATL alumni ranking
7.5% - % Active Federal Judges
7.5% - % SCOTUS Clerks

There are immediately some problems with the ranking methodology, and if I wanted to I could nitpick, but I won't.  ATL says that they are focusing on what students care about, and their methodology makes a certain amount of sense.

They rank only 50 schools, and the top 10 are:

1. Yale
2. Stanford
3. Harvard
4. Chicago
5. Pennsylvania
6. Duke
7. Virginia
8. Columbia
9. Berkeley
10. New York

Of special mention are Yale, with most SCOTUS/Federal Clerks, Pennsylvania, with best employment score/quality jobs, and BYU (#28), which had the lowest cost.

Why only 50, you ask?  Well, according to their scores, Yale has an 85.87, and #50, Arizona State University, had 36.83.  So the other 150+ law schools have an abysmal score compared to even the lowest of the 50 on the ATL rankings, and I would be surprised if there was much difference between ASU and schools ranked at 100 or even 150/200.

Do you think the ATL ranking is the best we have?  What do you think about their methodology?  What would you do differently?

Please comment below, and we will try to keep the spam/worthless comments to a minimum.

Tamanaha Tears a New One

I finally got around to reading Brian Tamanaha’s new article (he wrote the book Failing Law Schools).  It is a great read because it represents a break in the silence of the uncomfortable law professor class, at least the biggest break since Inside the Law School Scam was retired.

Basically, the article argues that law schools, mostly made up of different factions of liberal law professors or “religious” conservative professors, pillaged the broken federal loan system to make themselves rich.  They started their professorial careers with the intent of fighting The System, and now they have become another example of corporate pirates, raping and pillaging the young to receive high salaries and many other goodies.

Furthermore, these mostly liberal professors have now created the ultimate anti-liberal system, where only the rich can advance in legal careers because only the rich—with rare exceptions—graduate near the top of the top law schools.  Also, only the rich can effectively deal with the massive debt loads upon graduation.

The most startling thing about the article, which Tamanaha predicts will cost him a number of friendships, is the vitriolic tone and the accusations of absolute hypocrisy.  It channels rather well the anger often expressed in blogs like this one, but he brings the message to the law review world with much drama.

For those interested in this read:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2256725&download=yes

While it is still just more talk, the shift in tone from purely analytical to outright pissed off feels like some type of progress.  Hopefully, it will help snap a few more people out of their collective stupor.

Take It From Research Scientists...

Sorry to step any toes with a quick, random post, but I gotta share this gem at the end of the article:


Money Quote:  Heinrich says the movie isn't just about demonstrating IBM's prowess in nanotechnology.  "If I can get 1,000 kids to join science rather than go into law school, I would be happy," he says.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/01/180278664/dont-miss-the-premiere-of-the-worlds-smallest-movie

'Nuff said.  While few get to do actual "BigLaw-level-equivalent" research (sound familiar?), take it from an old STEM-turned-lawyer flunkie:  Science can be way more fun, if not reasonably renumerative.

Can you get full student loans for the last semester of college study?

Query:  Can you get your full student loan money for your last semester of study in college? 

The answer:  No, but you can possibly get some more, depending on the amount of credits you have left.

For example, You can get more money during the last semester, but you can also get less.  It depends on the number of credits being taken.

To find this out, you want to multiply the annual loan amount by the number of credits enrolled and then divide by the number of credits for full-time financial aid status.

For example: let's assume that 12 credits is full-time for financial aid (this can vary by school):

7500*(17/12) = $10,625
7500*(12/12) = $ 7,500
7500*(9/12) = $ 5,625

The school will use a one semester budget, and the total of all aid in the semester cannot exceed this budget, which means that even if the student has more credits and could get more of their awarded loans, the loans would be reduced if the total of all aid were to exceed COA (cost of attendance) for the single term.

Schools are supposed to automatically prorate loans for any student that they can reasonably be expected to know will graduate at the end of the semester.   Financial aid administrators will run reports to identify these students, then prorate their loans. 

So, if you are taking less than the full time credits, you will find that you actually get LESS loan money than you may have expected.

In sum, if you want to get as much as possible, try to save a full time course load for your final semester of study instead of dropping down to part time.

Getting the full teach grant for one semester of study?

Can you get the full teach grant for one semester of study?

Sadly, no.  According to the website, "this grant is up to $4,000 per year, or up to $2,000 per semester, and is pro-rated if you are enrolled less than full time or less than half time."

That means you can not get the full teach grant for one semester of study.  I was recently looking into getting her full year awarded grants and scholarships for a single semester, as my wife will be graduating after only going through one semester of study this year.  Sadly, the only thing that can be moved over is part of her loans. 

Toxic Debt & No Intrinsic Value (i.e., Your J.D.)

Sorry to interrupt the usual psychopath vs. narcissist comment flame war on here . . .

Strike One of the J.D.: Toxic Debt

There ought to be more discussion of the nature of debt that law graduates "incur" in their "studies". The toxicity of Student loan debt is more dangerous than the media lets on: it is not just the amount but the manner of debt that kills. It is more deadly than slowly taking a bubble bath in pure quicksilver without so much as rinsing off afterwards. Student loan debt is a deadly added burden to law grads, even well-employed ones. It is one thing to lose one's savings—even a gamblin' fool, walking into a casino and losing his "investment", may still walk out without debt. So he is "even Steven" , as gambling debts are not legally enforceable. The legal structure we live under gives total immunity to gambling debts, but no mercy to student ones! LOL . . .They can't touch Gamblin' Bob, but TTT goody-two-shoes is screwed! Totes ratchid, d00d. No "MyEdAccount" or ICRP for Gamblin' Bob. His net value is $0.00, which is bad for his future retirement plan, but at least is better than a jobless J.D. holder's -$200,000.

The debt is toxic most of all because it is nondischargeable—there is no escape or excuse from paying it. Only the fact that debtor's prison no longer exists is in the indebted TTTT flaw stupent's favor. It is further toxic because a third party (the guvmint) paid the actual tuition and wishes to collect it back; the "tuition" was really not chosen by the future debtor. The student loan slave is even worse off than that "degenerate gambler" that lost every hand at poker on borrowed money and had to give his son's SUV to Tony Soprano's daughter avoid getting kneecapped. At least the degenerate gambler got to play with the money he borrowed—he was connected to the money and could ask for as little or much as he wanted, and had a chance to win. The law graduate does not even really get to handle the money; he never even sees it. It is all owed by him though, and he must pay the inflated tuition because of governmental student loan guarantees allows law schools to raise tuition to whatever they please; the graduate is then stuck in an unavoidable onslaught of debt since the government has the power (unlike a casino) to legally enforce its debt. Currently policy makes student loan debt immune from even a total bankruptcy claim.

Strike Two & Three: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value 

A law degree, like any other credential, has both potential intrinsic & extrinsic value. A good degree (i.e., not law) has both: intrinsic value that gives the student a more developed mind for his long-term benefit, and extrinsic, consisting of useful training which society values and is willing to pay the graduate for. Uh-oh! 

We already know that law school does not teach you to practice law! (i.e., actually be a productive member of the profession). At least a philosophy degree teaches you "how to reason" or at the least, to cite depressing aphorisms from Schopenhauer to bide you through your unemployment. A J.D. does not even provide that much. But the degree lacks extrinsic value too, as has been discussed many times; it cannot get half of its graduates a job nor keep the few with jobs initially gainfully employed long enough to make the inflated "tuition" debt worthwhile. 

So we see that a law degree carries toxic debt while lacking both intrinsic & extrinsic value. Which leads to the disturbing and contempuous-laden question: Why are they still going to law school at all?

____________________________________________________________
My book-length satire/exposé of law school, Smarter Than Socrates: The End of the Law School Era.