Sunday 31 March 2013

The Law School Scambloggers have it so bad....


Imagine this life, and then ask yourself, is it worth sitting on the internet all day complaining about the life you have?  And yet they think that law schools are made of poop...

On this Easter Sunday, please, be thankful for that which you do have.  Even if it is only a cushy house in the United States, a law degree, IBR and a period of unemployment. 

We are what we make ourselves, and we are a result of how we think.  Let this be a lesson to you. 

(warning: the video above contains adult language.)

Kindness May Improve Mental Health

A recent article on the BCC, called "Love Letters and Kindness May Improve Mental Health" is something that many should think about.  Especially in an age where it seems that so many people are, well, just plain mean.

Dr Lynn Alden and Dr Jennifer Trew, from the University of British Columbia, asked volunteers with high levels of social anxiety to commit multiple acts of kindness on two days a week over a four-week period.
"Sometimes people would give a small gift to somebody, or picking somebody up from work, visiting sick people, thanking a bus driver. They were actually fairly small acts," explained Dr Alden.
They were small acts perhaps, but ones which had a much bigger impact. Source: BBC World News
Why is it, then, that many people find it so hard to be nice to each other?  I have dealt with people, who, find it beneficial to be mean to each other.  And then, there is the flip side.  Those who are nice to each other are sometimes a part of a crazy cult like place.  Watching the video below, I could not help but think that this was the perfect life.  Except, the big flaw, worshiping a false God. 


We, as people, crave kindness, but we don't want to give it.  It's as if we hoard it for people who we are related to or who somehow give us what we want first.  And if someone doesn't believe like us, we feel the need to dislike them, to prove them wrong, or we start to hate them.  But is this healthy?  No, I believe it will backfire.  Did Jesus ever hate his enemies or those who crossed him?  So, why should we dislike those who cross us? 

Many state that my theory of positive thinking is absurd.  However, I believe that it is the only way in which a person can live a sane and healthy life.  There is NOTHING that negative thinking will get you.  No romantic partner will want a lifetime of that.  Friends will back away from you for it.  And you won't get anywhere in life with that attitude.  Many people, likewise, think that those who are kind are just pushovers.  Well, that's also not true.  And what if it was?  I would rather be a kind pushover than a jerk.  Being a jerk throughout life may get you ahead for a while, but will it get you the ultimate prize?  No, probably not. 

The benefits of kindness are apparent, but the perceived cost is too high for many.  Sometimes it is even hard for me to not appreciate everyone for who they are.  Sometimes I get angry at family or old flames for how they vexed me or crossed me.  But, such anger is never healthy. 

Why are some people so downright mean?  I have always wondered this, but now I find myself wondering it more than ever.  Being mean, to me, shows desperation.  Yes, I think that is it.

Saturday 30 March 2013

Would you spend $100,000 to go to chess school?


Money Quote: "Law schools reported that 56.2 percent of the 46,364 graduates from the Class of 2012 were employed in long-term, full-time positions where passage of the bar exam was required, compared with 54.9 percent for the class of 2011 — a 1.3 percentage point increase."

Perhaps we scam bloggers should start thinking that the glass is half full!

New Book Questions Preferential Legal Treatment of Religious Liberty (Outcome Magazine from The University of Chicago News Office)

Brian Leitner's new book "Why Tolerate Religion?" is now out. Act now by following the above link and you can be the first to comment about Professor Leitner's new book in the open thread.


Money Quote: "Looking back, he says, he probably would have skipped law school. Our source went to law school in the first place because it was 'intellectually challenging,' he says. 'But the problem is just because something is intellectually challenging it doesn't mean you have to make a career [out of it],' our source told us. 'Chess is interesting, but does that mean you should pay $100,000 to go to chess school? Obviously there isn't a huge market for professional chess players ... It's an exaggeration, but I feel like the legal industry is just as bad as the professional chess industry.'

Another cautionary tale. One and done. You are damaged goods.

Wasting Away in Baristaville

Why a BA is Now a Ticket to a Job in a Coffee Shop by Megan McArdle (The Daily Beast)


Money Quote: "A growing number of students may be in a credentialling arms race to gain access to routine service jobs."



Money Quote: “The times of graduating from medical school and driving a Porsche are done,” said Dr. Dana Lowenthal, a first-year radiology resident and fourth-generation doctor. “It was never easy, but there was light at the end of the tunnel. This is new territory.”

So, if a BA gets you a job in a coffee shop, and MD radiology dream jobs are disappearing, what does a JD get you?

Study Find Class Affects Law School Experience by Aleksandra Gjorgievska (Yale Daily News)

Money Quote: "When Yale Law School sends out its coveted admission letters, the nation's top-ranked law school may not be guaranteeing an equal shot at success for all members of its future classes, a new report has found....Based on 243 student responses to the survey, the report highlights student concerns related to class differences -- such as access to informal networks that are only available to upper-class students -- and recommends strategies for addressing them."

So..."All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"? At the end of the day the LSAT and GPA don't really matter? It comes down to class and networks?

The Case Against the Law Firm Billable Hour by Steven J. Harper (New York Times Op-Ed)

Money Quote: "The billable-hour system is the way most lawyers in big firms charge clients, but it serves no one. Well, almost no one. It brings most equity partners in those firms great wealth. Law firm leaders call it a leveraged pyramid. Most associates call it a living hell."

Steven J. Harper seems to be publishing articles everywhere in support of his new book The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in CrisisHas anybody read the book? Anything new in it?

Government Data Reveal Freestanding Private Law Schools Growing Reliance on GRAD Plus Loans by Matt Leichner (AmLaw Daily)

Money Quote: "Private law schools in general have rapidly absorbed new forms of federal lending, and they are a dominant player in the Grad PLUS Loan Program. Due to the heavy debts and poor employment outcomes that graduates of FSP law schools must contend with, it's likely that we'll be hearing more about them as they grapple with fewer resources. With the Higher Education Act up for renewal this year, hopefully we will also see more calls for ending the unlimited lending law schools thrive on."

I hereby call for ending the unlimited lending law schools thrive on. (Great article with lots of statistics to back up his arguments. Worth a read for those of you filling out applications to Cooley and New England School of Law.)

Alums' Bellwether Fraud Suit Against New York Law School Fails on Appeal by Karen Sloan (Connecticut Law Tribune)

Money Quote: "[The law school alumni attorney] Strauss expressed disappointment that his team was unable to accomplish its primary goal, which was to secure compensation for the New York Law School plaintiffs, but saw a silver lining: "Our secondary goal was to change the way law schools operate and increase transparency, and we've done that," he said. 

An update for those of you following the scamlaw litigation.

[Sorry for all the formatting issues. This is a learn as you go project. Blogger doesn't offer all the formatting options as Word.]

Friday 29 March 2013

A Treasury of Idiotic Quotes by Law School Profs. and Deans, Vol. II (The Versatility Edition)

This is the second installment in my series entitled "Idiotic Quotes by Law Profs." Most of the quotes in the first installment reflected the declarants' idiotic belief that legal instruction is best provided by six-figure salaried scholars (and pseudo-scholars) who have limited background or interest in actual lawyering.
 
This set of idiotic quotes concerns the versatility of the JD degree, or simply the all-around wonderfulness of being a law student. Proponents of the view that a JD is versatile assert that nonlaw white collar employers are eager to offer employment to JDs in light of the super-cerebral skills that can only be had by attending law school. The truth is otherwise-- any mystique that a JD once held has been destroyed by the massive overproduction of lawyers. Now, in fact, a law degree carries toxic connotations. It is a degree that seems to convey the message: "I have no marketable skills, but I have elite expectations and an argumentative personality." 

The quotes below are clearly idiotic, and so are worthy of inclusion in this series. Yet, I do not really consider these quotes to be scamming, as I define it. Scamming means offering economic arguments about how a law degree is worth millions of dollars in future earnings or will become a rare and valuable asset as the boomers retire. Such scamming arguments may be highly enticing to those who do not realize that the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the economy will create 218,800 job openings for lawyers, including growth and replacement needs, and including part-time jobs, during the decade of 2010-2020, in contrast to the 450,000 JDs that law schools are primed to confer during the same period.

I doubt that many kids spend three years and $100,000+ on law school in order to compete for a job in human resources or to find inner bliss. So why are these quotes relevant? Why do so many law deans and professors keep yapping about versatility or about the intellectual and personal fulfillment that can be found only in law school? I believe that it is about self-delusion. These academics believe fervently in the myth of versatility because it helps them avoid a painful truth and its moral implications-- namely, that most of their students, the kids who trusted them and made them rich, emerge from law school with brutally curtailed life options and prospects, rather than expanded ones.

Forgive the long-winded introduction. As usual, notes and links to sources appear at the bottom.


1. Prof. Patricia Leary (Whittier): "This [attending law school at Whittier] is an experience that changes them, makes them completely who they are in terms of intellect, emotions, conscience, values. When a student really fully engages in this experience, it is a joy to see."

2. Prof. Steven Diamond (Santa Clara): "A JD is a powerful degree to have in our kind of society and despite the current mismatch in the job market a relatively rare one."
 
3. Prof. Sam Halabi (U. of Tulsa): "The ability to draft simple but important documents for family and friends; effectively negotiate with future employers and businesses; and, communicate clearly in a variety of media is invaluable no matter which career a student pursues after graduation."

4.  Dean John Corkery (John Marshall): "The question is, really, why would someone go to law school? To get a legal education, but also to improve themselves and to improve their ability to meet challenges they might face in life."

5. Dean Harold Krent (Chicago-Kent): "Many people do wonderfully creative and interesting things with a law degree other than practice law, including being a journalist or being an investor or being a counselor."

6.  Dean Harold Krent (again): "There are still people who are going to graduate school in art history. There are still people who are going to graduate school in ancient Greek. There are not that many lucrative job opportunities in those fields, but people are engaged, interested and motivated and they think the sacrifice is worth it."

7. Dean Chris Guthrie (Vanderbilt): "One of the virtues of legal training is that it equips you to pursue so many different career paths successfully."

8. Prof. Hazel Weiser (Fordham): "At a time when our country, actually the entire planet, needs a large and diverse reservoir of talented civic leaders with analytical capacity, problem solving, and mediation skills, law school seems like a fantastic educational option. . . . Because legal study is inherently political (although I went to law school when admitting that was considered heresy), law schools offer the curious and the intellectually prepared an opportunity to critique society and the ways in which we have tried (and failed, sometimes) to regulate, to induce, to cajole, to punish, and the ways in which we have succeeded in making a fairer and more inclusive society."

9. Prof. Brian Leiter (U of Chicago): "I've known JDs both here and at Texas who went into consulting firms by choice, not by necessity, and where the JD was an essential credential, though they weren't doing primarily legal work. What we need to know is whether this is common or uncommon."

10. Prof. Michael Olivas (U. of Houston): "I do not view the migrating role of lawyers to civilian life across non-law fields as evidence of our declining competence, as some commentators have in analyzing legal employment figures, but rather this as robust evidence of the growing value of being a lawyer and applying our skills to the many societal problems in need of our multifaceted talents."

11. Prof. Michael Olivas (U. of Houston): "We have erected a substantial system of training lawyers, one that is a spectacular success by any measure, notwithstanding the cracks in the infrastructure."

12. Prof. Kendall Isaac (Appalachian): "At some point, we need to change the expectation for a JD. Yes, some will go on to become lawyers (even if only 28.6%), but is a legal career the only measurement of success for the degree? It is not. I know plenty of people with law degrees that went on to earn as much if not more money than their lawyer brethren working in fields like human resources, contract analysis & marketing, ethics & compliance, amongst others. If we would widen our perspective on the value of the degree, we would be able to appreciate how the degree can help graduates improve their career and standard of living. I see part of my role as helping my students see this bigger picture so that they don't become disheartened by the rhetoric coming from certain naysayers and doomsday speakers out there."

13. Prof. Lisa Glerman (Catholic): "Nevertheless, I suspect that many people who would like to become lawyers are hesitating to apply to law school because of inaccurate negative propaganda and because of incomplete information. Lots of the employment data is distorted because it falsely assumes that all the good jobs for lawyers require bar passage; in fact, there are lots of great jobs in law and policy-making that are not traditional law practice jobs."

14. Prof. Linda Greene (U. of Wisconsin) "Whether the questions involve constitutional protection for undocumented children or cloning or climate measures or the parameters of humanitarian intervention or the ownership of the resources beyond our gravitational field, the best in legal education prepares its graduates to participate in the discourse and arrangements necessary to such complex concerns. It is true that the cost of this quality education, all in, may exceed $200,000. The value of a new generation of law graduates prepared to take on these challenges: Priceless."

15. Prof. Kevin Noble Maillard (Syracuse): "[P]eople go to law school, pay tuition and graduate to become many things: educators, business leaders, politicians and, yes, attorneys. . . . At the risk of sounding "liberal artsy," law school should emphasize educated citizenship. It prepares people to become leaders in our society, which makes it imperative that they be rigorously trained as thinkers. They will become stewards of policies that affect our everyday lives: in our schools, our jobs and our families."

16. Prof. [so cool he only needs one made-up name] SpearIt (SLU): "Rather than short-sighting law schools as a manufacturing plant for attorneys, legal education might be encouraged beyond. Whether one aspires to business, politics, public service, or scholarly pursuits, law school may be a worthy investment. And there is social good in knowing law, or as famously admonished in criminal law, "ignorance" is no excuse. While the high cost of law school probably prohibits many from studying law, it is certainly true that many J.D.s use their degree in creative ways as non-lawyers, including as directors, educators, administrators, and more."

17. Prof. Leonard Long (Quinnipiac): "First, assume that upon the law students’ successful (very good grades, honor societies, etc.) completion of law school, job market for entry-level lawyers shrinks such that their law job prospects approach zero. From that vantage point, will those graduates still view their legal education as a good investment or not? If a legal education’s only, or dominant, value is that it prepares students to be lawyers, then it seem that three years of law school turned out to have been a poor investment. Contrast our law students with persons who happily (that is, successfully) date someone for three years, with plans to marry that someone at the end of three years (say at the end of law school) but, due to some external factors or events, that someone is no longer able or willing to marry (e.g., that someone’s job requires them to relocate to another country). Even though things did not work out on the marriage front, would these star crossed lovers view the last three happy years of dating as a poor investment and a waste? In some instances, yes; but in most instances, probably not."
____________________________________________________________________________

Notes and links to sources.
 
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZD5i57Nks (video at 1:05-1:23)
(I sincerely hope that attending Whittier Law is as joyous and life-fulfilling as Prof. Leary says. Because Whittier Law students graduate with an average debt load of  $143,536, which is the tenth highest among the 201 ABA law schools. These same students have a mere 17.1% chance of obtaining a full-time long-term bar-required job within nine months of graduation, the second worst placement outcome among the 201 schools.

2.  http://stephen-diamond.com/?p=4325

3.  The "TU Law Blog" has apparently deleted all posts preceding October 3, 2011. This quote, dated August 15, 2011, can be viewed via the Internet Wayback Machine:
* Go to http://archive.org/web/web.php
* Enter the following link and press take me back:
http://www.utulsa.edu/academics/colleges/college-of-law/Misc%20Sites/blog/TU%20Law%20Blog.aspx
* Press "2011" at the top of the screen, which "explores captures for this URL."
* Click on capture at date August 31, 2011.
* Scroll down to post at August 15, 2011, entitled "The Decision to Go to Law School."

or, alternatively,  see this JD Underground thread from August 21, 2011 (h/t Nando):
http://www.jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=19845

4. http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com//Articles/2011/08/01/transparency.aspx
h/t redking 666, commenter in thread on Idiotic Quotes, I.
5. See n. 4
6. See n. 4.
7. http://www.top-law-schools.com/chris-guthrie-interview.html
8. https://www.saltlaw.org/blog/2011/08/17/in-defense-of-a-legal-education/
9. http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2012/12/the-case-against-law-schools.html
10. http://www.aals.org/services_newsletter_presAug11.php
11. See n. 10
12. http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/07/what-would-you-tell-aspiring-law-professors.html (comment at Jul 22, 2012 11:16:56 AM)
13. http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/11/more-turbulence-ahead-another-plunge-in-lsat-takers.html (comment at November 18, 2012 at 11:39 AM)
14. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/21/the-case-against-law-school/a-law-degree-is-priceless
15. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/21/the-case-against-law-school/the-right-preparation-for-lawyer-citizens

16. http://www.saltlaw.org/blog/2011/08/29/unmasking-anonymity-whos-scamming/
(Professor SpearIt has no experience as a practicing lawyer, though he does have a JD. He also has a Ph.D in religion, so perhaps he can elicit divine assistance in helping his students obtain professional training or jobs).

17. Leonard J. Long, "Resisting Anti-Intellectualism and Promoting Legal Literacy," 34 S. Ill. U.L.J. 1, 36 n.97 (2009). http://www.law.siu.edu/journal/34fall/1%20-%20Long.pdf

(In striking contrast to all the others on this list, and maybe even to his credit, Prof. Long, apparently does not bother pretending to like or respect his students, According to the Quinnipiac Chronicle’s February 28, 2007 article: "Professor offends law students,"  Long sent an email to his students stating that, “several QUSL students will go off to be smug little assistant district attorneys and such, wearing ill-fitting power suit, and thinking themselves as doing justice.” He then refused their requests to continue the discussion he had started.
 
 http://www.quchronicle.com/2007/02/chronicle-exclusive-professor-offends-law-students/
 
Hopefully, QU's job placement statistics bring comfort to the irascible Long. The vast majority of his students will never practice law of any sort, and therefore will not harbor thoughts offensive to Long about the value of their legal careers. The Law School Transparency site indicates that only 33.1% of Quinnipiac’s 2011 graduates got bar-required long term jobs within nine months of graduation).

Happenings: March 29, 2013

Once you read this post, the cat above will be OUT of the bag.

Today I went to work but got out early since it was Good Friday.  It was a good Friday.

Why you ask?

Because, today I went to Chinatown with my wife and we had Bahn Mi at Bahn Mi Saigon.  Man, I do miss the Bahn Mi places I used to live near in San Francisco, but this place really hit the spot.  It is located in New York's Chinatown on Mott and Grand.  I recommend it to everyone who reads this blog and lives in the NYC area.

Afterwards, we went to a local co-op to purchase some bulk foods and then to Trader Joe's to stock up on some groceries for the weekend.  We got a lot of good stuff and a couple naughty things, such as dark chocolate peanut butter cups.  Num Nums!

Easter is upon us, folks!  Sometimes I find this holiday hard to understand.  I don't know what a giant bunny who lays eggs has to do with the death of Jesus, but I guess I have time to figure it out.  But, seriously, that makes as much sense as people saying "don't go to law school."  (In other words, it doesn't make sense.  At all.)


Oh, I forgot to mention that we stopped and got some dumplings to go in Chinatown as well as some Chow Fun.  Doesn't that sound FUN?  I think I am going to go get some of that and maybe throw on a show about Egypt.  Oh, cat's out of the bag.  That's one of the places I am going this summer.  Good ol' Egypt, land of the Pharaohs, Pyramids, Sphinx, and other crazy stuff (like camel touts).   

Thanks for reading.

Inflated Billing Practices, Part II

To pick up where RAB left off on March 27, 2013, I myself am looking forward to the demise of the hourly billing model.  Because, to be frank, it’s a scam - and people have known it for years.

I used to work as an engineer, and I tend to compare what I do now as an attorney in a “JD-Advantage” (I still can’t type that without chuckling grimly) position to what I did prior.  As an engineer, I had to charge my time to various contract jobs that went through the factory, just as attorneys in private practice bill their clientele for individual cases.

My beef with the hourly billing model is that it is hardly an exact science to begin with, and is fraught with potential for abuse (“shocker!”).  I review attorney bills all the time, and laugh at what is charged to me for essentially “churning the file” in many, many cases.  Even when dealing with people who do try to bill accurately and ethically, one runs into what I call the “Airplane” dilemma.

The dilemma is as follows: I’m on an airplane for (client/contract X) business travel, and I have three hours to kill.  I am billing (client/contract X) for my travel time and expenses.  Fair enough.  Now, I can kick back and do nothing, or I can work on another (client/contract Y) file for those three hours.

If I work on another file, the engineer in me says “I’m not creating time ex nihilo here; there are only three hours at play.  If I work on “Y” on the plane, then I am not simultaneously going to bill “X” for those same three hours.  I’m not two people doing two jobs at once – that’s why they are called “man-hours.”  Frankly, it’s also ethical to not charge “X” more than my travel expenses while I am doing actual file-work for “Y” on the plane.”

If I work on another file, the lawyer in me says “Woo-hoo!  Double time!  I’m traveling for X for three hours!  Charge ‘em!  I’m working on Y’s file!  Charge ‘em!”

The difference here is that as an engineer I was salaried, while as a lawyer, it’s eat what you kill.  If both “X” and “Y” were going through the same factory and I worked on both projects in an engineering capacity, it was considered a courtesy to split my time appropriately between projects.  Both projects benefitted from my presence (i.e. troubleshooting), “X” and “Y” both had product roll off the line at the end of the day, and I get paid either way.  It would be unfair for me to tag “X” with all my hours and not tag “Y” for any, as that would be a free ride for Y.  It would be equally unfair to charge “X” and “Y” the exact same time apiece, because I am splitting my time between both jobs, not working both jobs simultaneously.  Both “X” and “Y” had given “retainers” to the factory, and I needed to charge those retainers appropriately.

I remember trying to explain this to law professors (in an ethics class, no less), law students, and practitioners alike.  They all looked at me with furrowed brows and said “you bill X and Y for the same time” as if I was a dolt and there was no dilemma at all.

It was then that I realized the scammy nature of law practice and billing.  I viewed the world in terms of “man-hours”, but lawyers viewed the world in terms of “billables.”  The fact that a human being cannot be two places at once, nor actually work on two jobs simultaneously, leads to situations where one person can charge more than 24 “hours” a day.  And the increase from the ABA recommended 1,300 billable hours a year in the 1950s to 2,200+ billable "hours" a year, todayAnd this does not take into account actively “churning the file”, as shown in the case of DLA Piper.

I remember meeting a 25-year-old attorney at a interviewing function back when I was in law school.  She was nice, intelligent, and freely admitted that “look, I’m brand new, and I don’t know what I’m doing.”  I appreciated her candor.  But I also knew she was earning $160k back in the hey-day of legal practice and that, in principle, was ridiculous.  But it was a “big name” firm, so whatevs.  Boomer partners gotta get that PPP.

Again, no offense to her.  But $160k at 25, in 2003?  I knew of engineering managers with 20-30 years experience that didn’t earn that.  The simple fact that the billable model was unsustainable and is now crashing is a long overdue correction, not unlike all the other bubbles that our economy is apparently predicated upon.

Thursday 28 March 2013

Breaking News: New York Judges Are Still Corrupt


Today, the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, decided not to consider an appeal to the First Department’s affirmation of the New York Law School lawsuit.  You may remember presiding Judge Schweitzer for saying that the nine class action plaintiffs were “sophisticated consumers” and that no reasonable consumer, let alone a sophisticated consumer, would believe the garbage employment statistics published by NYLS.  Like many of the decisions that have dismissed the scam-suits, his opinion was filled with inaccurate information and bad math.  His logic was not better.  Basically, he stated that an egregious lie is more protected under the law than a subtle trick.  In other words, the idea that NYLS was a respectable law school that actually produced practicing lawyers was so absurd that no one could believe it, especially a sophisticated consumer. 

Just to recap that pretzel: the student is held to the high standard of a sophisticated consumer, and the law school is held to a standard lower than most penis enlargement advertisements.

Fortunately, the New Jersey lawsuit against Widener and lawsuits in California will be the first in a greater trend.  More lawsuits will be filed, more discovery will reveal the greater frauds outside of just employment/salary scams, and the ship will continue to sink. 

Of course, the judges in New York, at all levels of the judiciary, have expressed their simple desire to not be bothered with cleaning up their own profession.  Perhaps Chief Judge Lippman feared that if the lawsuits could survive dismissal, his honorary degree from Pace might become worthless.  Too bad he’s behind the curve: any degree from Pace or almost any other New York scam-factory is worthless.

By the way, I want to take this moment to emphasize that while the Republicans have their own blindness and spending messes, the law school scam is 100% limousine liberal invented.  The unlimited federal loans funding this mess derive from the notion that the poor kids and minorities will benefit (yeah right, seen many black and latino students in the top 10% of T50)?  The Vatican-level respect given to law schools by judges, many compensated as guest professors or internship coordinators, derives from their idea that these “institutions” help to develop knowledge, intellect, and moral direction.

It is a symptom of the typical generation gap, often discussed.  These judges attended law schools when they really did offer to most graduates the opportunity to practice law and to move upward in careers toward powerful financial and policy positions and judgeships.  These judges still live in a time when a 10-year gig at the public defender’s office was considered the last resort or the weird choice of a do-gooder.  They do not understand the level of cutthroat competition, including Ivy-graduate applicants to public defender offices in obscure counties, and they do not realize that most current graduates will not be practicing law in 10 years and most will never repay their student debt. 

The First Department, which wrote a toothless affirmation of the NYLS opinion, admitted that students were misled.  However, they thought that our “noble profession” could deal with it through ethics complaints, not through the actual legal avenues available to people scammed by any other industry.  The draw of judges on the deciding panel was apparently, by the legal team’s analysis, comprised of those on the liberal side of the spectrum of the New York judiciary.

That says a lot about that generation of judges when a liberal panel believes that the systematic use of misleading propaganda, used to scam young people out of millions, should not even progress into discovery to try to reveal whether the schools intentionally doctored the data in order to trick people. 

I think that the real explanation behind all of this is simple.  Many of these judges hail from the schools involved in the lawsuits or schools that would be next on the hit list.  The lawsuits make the profession look even less credible, if that is possible, and it would be really embarrassing for the judge if their own school lost one of these lawsuits.

I guess our generation will have to change things.  You know, because I am sure that in our brave new normal many Pace, Fordham, Cardozo, and Brooklyn Law School students will gain judgeships someday.

So you want to be a K-JD? Not so fast

I'm a K-JD, unfortunately.  I knew that most people wait a year or two before enrolling in law school after they graduate college.  I reasoned that because I wanted to be a lawyer (or so I thought), it would be better to get through law school faster so I could start my legal career.  I scored at about the 80th percentile at 160 after studying moderately over a few months (which I thought at the time was a good score, and I eventually get a full-ride at a school with a median of 150).

In a thread I recently read at Top-Law-Schools, a TLS regular told someone who had scored a 157 and was asking for law school advice that their LSAT number is more important to law schools than someone's college GPA.  Because of that, the TLS regular reasoned, the original poster (OP) should spend at least four to six months of hard studying in order to see what he or she could acheive before attending law school.

A K-JD is, by definition, someone who was in school from kindergarten through college, and begins attending law school the Fall semester after they graduate.  Unless the K-JD is someone who graduates a semester early and spends the off-semester prepping for the LSAT, they do not have the clear schedule needed to adequately prepare for the LSAT.  Adequate, in this use, would mean putting forth the same effort into mastering the LSAT that the person put getting their undergraduate degree.

The LSAT, as many of us know, is a very learnable test.  In my case, the very first practice test I took I scored a 150, and after a few months of moderate study I was getting high 150's and low 160's, ending with 160.  Some people's first practice test is much lower, and some people score much higher. 

Because the LSAT is so important to law school admissions; where you get in, how much money you are offered and at what schools, which will have profound effects for the rest of someone's life, it is a wonder why there are so many K-JD's.  Using my situation as an example, if I had spent a year after college working full-time and studying 30 hours a week on the LSAT, I probably could have scored high enough to get accepted to at least some of the lower T14's (the area where I had the most trouble were the logic games, which are some of the most learnable sections), and significant money offers from Tier 1's.

Many law students, including K-JD's, use the transfer game to make up for underperforming on the LSAT.  This isn't as good as performing up to their LSAT potential the first time around: they will miss out on scholarship money, law review, moot court, developing peer and professorial relationships, and be in a weaker situation for OCI.

My misinformed self figured a 160 was "good enough."  After all, lawyers make good money, and even if you are not making six figures, many mid-to-high five-figures legal jobs were there.  Law schools outside the level of Harvard still will adequately prepare you for the practice of law, and because all law schools teach the same things, a retake isn't necessary.

Talking to non-scholarship receiving 1L's last year made it clear to me that the LSAT itself was not very important to many of them.  I wonder what the LSAT talks are like at schools with higher medians.  Are the people attending schools with medians of 160+, many of which have employment statistics that are similar or worse than mine, scoring at the top of their potential?  http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=american 

Us scambloggers are often stereotyped as trying to steer everyone away from law school.  I'm not sure that that is true.  I think we support and even encourage people who adequately inform and prepare themselves for law school to apply.

K-JD's, by-and-large do not adequately inform and prepare themselves for law school.  If they would, they would spend more time researching law schools and fully devoting themselves to getting a good score on the LSAT, and that simply is not possible unless someone graduates early.  This group is the youngest and least-informed of all who apply and attend law schools, and their indifference to the LSAT and ability to borrow enormous amounts of federal student loans makes them attractive targets for law schools who feed on marginal candidates.

As others have noted, outreach and activism for K-JD's group can be achieved at colleges through pre-law classes and clubs. Think about using your status as an alumni to help a few people make sure they prepare and inform themselves about law school.

Seething Hall Mall Skooll (with McLaren F1 debt!)‏

Last night, at Prince's Hall, Mr Whistler made his first public appearance as a lecturer on art, and spoke for more than an hour with really marvellous eloquence on the absolute uselessness of all lectures of the kind. —Wilde

[Robin Williams voice:] Gooooooooood mooooooooorning, ScamDeans! Riiiiiiiiise n' shine!

Luckily, I personally never spent any time in Seething hall. I wonder what would have happened, though, had I fallen for what poker players call the "Seething Hall Sucker Play" (i.e., trying to go to law school there). When I was considering going to law school, someone else who was also applying told me that "The Hall" offered him some 30 g's of scholarship money. To my surprise, that did not even cover all of tuition; there was another $6,000 due. He had to beg a special committee to get that extra 6 g's, and word on the street is that they put all the scholarship students in the same section to ensure most would lose their hats by the next year, since scholarships are on condition one finishes close enough to the top of the class. It puzzled me that even getting 30k off the sticker still left 6k a year to pay, which sounds very low—Walmart nay, dollar store low—now with tuition inflation and the other six-figure numbers we see here lately. But think carefully before you judge 6k a year as penny-ante: at three years of it, with interest, you have 20k or so, a substantial debt by itself, to all but the Rich Uncle Pennybags one-percenters. By comparison, 20k would be enough to start a well-funded at-home business, or even a seeder fund for a larger business. Even a paltry 20k of debt is a lot of dough to bake on an uncertain outcome. Luckily, I refused to think that a job at the end of law skooll was guaranteed, as I did not fully trust the "job placement number tango" that they advertised (99% of Seething Hall stupents become millionaires within 9 months of graduation!). 
I wonder what could possibly be wrong with Seething Hall? On that note, let's take a quick break. We need to raise money to pay for this blog, so let me give a "shout out" to our new sponsor:
ADVERTISEMENT: Valvoline® Racing Synthetic (VR1) Motor Oil: Advanced racing synthetic motor oil is proven to maximize horsepower during demanding driving conditions. The advanced racing synthetic trusted by top engine builders and crew chiefs to protect in extreme racing conditions. Look for Valvoline Racing Synthetic at participating auto parts stores.

Ok, back to the post. Consider it: without a good job, even a mere 18k or 20k is a brutal amount of debt. Even with a job, it is annoying, and eats up several nice Professor Tammy Piety-quality luxury vacations to hot spot destinations. Hey B-lite, say 'hi' to Tams if you get there before me. For all the talk of tuition increases and debt loads in the media, no one has really expressed the sheer value of the wasted dollars that we are paying back. I am not suggesting people forgo formal education to take chartered cruises of all their friends and family to Andros, just to have little-umbrella-style drinks with B-Lite, but if you are wasting that much money, why not? If there are no jobs, why not get an Abercrombie & Kent loan instead of a Stafford one? The debts we read of now, 125k, 175, even 250k, nondischargable and without escape, are beyond comprehension for anyone who is not rolling in the top 2%, or 1% of incomes. All the talk of "you may as well put your tuition money on the roulette wheel" should be extended to its logical conclusion: instead of gambling it, just spend it on exotic automobiles so desirable that they didn't bother to translate the owner's manual into English.

Ridiculous: In under a decade, Seething Hall has increased their tuition by over 11k, to $47,300 or so a year for the next batch of raw-rumped 0L's. That is a lot of jack, jack. When it comes to the law skooll game overall, Seething Hall's yearly percentage price increase doesn't matter much, only because the situation has gotten so bad. We are beyond Shelby Cobra debt; we are in McLaren F1 debt. But for decency's sake, what did Seething Hall do with that 11.3k per student more? (That is $13 million added income to the school, not subtracting what "scholarships" they give out for the first year to a portion of the incoming students). Is the education at Seething Hall one-third better now than it was in the mid 2000's? Riiighhhtt. 

Someone told me to go to Seton Hall because of its proximity to Wall Street and New York money, but I had my doubts, and those doubts seem to have been justified; from a 2011 report:
With a sky-high tuition of $45,048 and poor job prospects for the majority of graduates, attending Seton Hall is most likely a bad idea. Even those who receive scholarship money must place in the top 50% of their class in order to avoid losing their aid, so students who do decide to attend Seton Hall on scholarship should be prepared to work hard.

Overall, if you are accepted to one of the Rutgers schools or another cheaper law school in the area, you should seriously consider pursuing that path. While a small number of Seton Hall graduates end up making the big bucks, the vast majority of them do not. [http://www.top-law-schools.com/seton-hall-law.html]
Here's to you, Seething Hall Mall Skooll. I have two questions: first, why do you exist? and second, and most important, for the price, do you recommend Synthetic Blend or Full Synthetic?
_____________________________________________________________
Read my book-length satire/exposé of law school, Smarter Than Socrates: The End of the Law School Era.

Wednesday 27 March 2013

New Non-Profit Coming Soon!

In the past year I have dabbled.  First, I tried my hand at creating my very own business.  It has resulted in success.  Then I wrote a book.  Boom!  Success.  Now I am about to create a non-profit organization.

Men (and women, of course) like. Mr. Infinity are the kind of driving force that have shaped this great country since the days of George Washington.  These wunderkinds are those who take risks and go against the grain of conventional thought.  The result: greatness.  

My very own non-profit corporation!


Needless to say, I am excited.  I have never started a non-profit before.  Maybe if I work it for ten years I can get my loans discharged.  It's worth trying.  Even if not, at least I will know.  And it's the wanting to know that drives me.

Those, like Mr. Infinity, who ask questions and who test the waters of knowledge are those who forge ahead for the rest of us.  Needless to say, they find the answers to the questions that mainstream society is oftentimes too timid or otherwise incapacitated to find out.  Mr. Infinity, we salute you!

I must say, this year is turning out to be something else:

-Graduation from Law School (can i get a bo-yah?)
-self-published a book
-travels to the Caribbean, Europe, Asia, and Africa (and possibly the Northwestern U.S. during winter '13)
-a real bona fide business, and
-A non-profit that shall help many.

I credit God, first and foremost (obviously), positive thinking (which is essential), and setting goals.  Also, being married to an amazing woman helps as well.  Need I mention my pets?  That's right!  Pets!!!  Plus, knowing that Campos has folded his deck of cards gives me infinite strength!

Signed and sealed in the blood of,
Mr. Infinity

No More Camposblog!



I just found out today that Professor Campos quit his scamblog.  I know, a bit late, huh?  Well, I don't look at the scamblogs anymore and was really surprised at first when I heard this.  However, after talking with another person, I became convinced that the blog was a ruse in order to sell books on Amazon.com.  You see, after months and months, and months, of posting drivel and gathering "free" research on the internet, Campos went and published a little Ebook.  (Part of me wonders if he got the idea for making an ebook from me, as his book came out after "Derailed at My Law School"). 

Anyway, Campos is gone now and I must say this is a huge win for the sane people who realize that law school is merely the educational route one takes in order to practice law in the United States.  All along I thought Campos was just a fraud and a swindler.  A carnival barker of the internet.  Now I feel that I was, once again, right all along. 

Jonestly, sometimes being right all the time gets boring (and old). 

NYT: Inflated billing practices?

A hot article at the New York Times right now discusses a lawsuit brought against the law firm DLA Piper for over billing. Discovery by the client unearthed a number of emails where associates joked and reveled about churning and over billing the file. There are almost 500 comments at this point where lawyers and clients are weighing in on the practice. This really bad PR is a further nail in the coffin of Big Law and its system of training young lawyers at the expense of clients for the profit of partners.

Anyone like to comment here on how this will effect law schools as clients begin to revolt or about billing practices in general?

Leiter's Phone Hacked! Photos Found!

Somebody hacked Brian Leiter's phone and forwarded me some pictures that were found. Below is one of the less "explicit".  Looks like our favorite plump professor has got him some sweet gangsta-style chest ink.  Could that be his professor gang name that he's rocking?  Check out what he seems to have emailed his professor buddies, all of whom I'm sure are green with envy.  Or from nausea.

(Professor Piety thought it was awesome, and promised to send a pic of hers back.  Which is, incidentally, on her back.  A tramp stamp.  I'll see if I can find that one for you all.)

More photos next week.

Tuesday 26 March 2013

Opposition's First Epistle: Be Nice to Taxpayers

Generic Law Scam Victims
1000 Unemployment Lane
Loserville, USA (probably California)

Greetings Lesser Beings:

We here at the Law School Truth Center understand your plight, much in the same way that mortgage predators understand their customers' plights.  Got to have a blueprint to rob a joint.  You are victims.  We know.  We exploited the crap out of you.

Yet your exploitation does not justify lashing out against the fine taxpayers of this country.  We speak of Freddy the Fireman, Carrie the Carpenter (hey, no gender stereotypes here), Denny the Dentist, and Guillermo the Gardner (hey, stereotypes exist for a reason).  These hard-working individuals slave tirelessly and dutifully pay exorbitant tax rates to Uncle Sam.  Our entire economy runs on their sweat and their sacrifices and their ability to gain credit card approval.


As you likely know, student loans are overwhelmingly a federally-backed enterprise.  Skipping over a whole bunch of economic mumbo jumbo that frankly most of you are too stupid to understand, that means if you never pay back your loans, those fine taxpayers are basically stuck paying for YOUR education.  So the next time you go out in public, look at Cassius the Cashier.  Look at him closely.  Not like that, you pervert!  That's more like it.  When you whine and moan about your $2000 loan payments, when you put them on IBR with no intent of paying the full balance, Cassius has to pay the bill.  Now what the hell did Cassius ever do to you?!?!?  HE didn't tell you to go the law school.  HE didn't tell you to take out student loans to buy Starbucks and a new cell phone every day.  HE didn't tell you to choose an expensive private law school over an efficient public alternative like UCLA.  And yet, YOU are making HIM pay for YOUR mistakes.

And some of you even have the audacity to ask for bankruptcy protections!  Why don't you just kick Cassius in the face, huh?  No other form of debt would so burden an honest taxpayer with such clean, firm-but-soft hands as Cassius.

Shame on you, law graduates!  Cassius the Cashier deserves more.  As does Fannie the Farmer and Uni the Unionized Concrete Pourer.  Pay your own damned loans so they don't have to.  Moreover, you should GIVE them money for their troubles.  Here they are, trying to work to raise families and whatnot, and YOU had the shame to take money from them at below-market interest rates.

At the very least, could you at least thank them for serving as taxpaying guarantors of your legal education?  Even if we sorta lied to you, you'll always have the expertise and the juris doctor credential.  You at least owe Cassius and co. a "thank you."  How many of you even have the basic human decency to issue a "thank you?"  A hug?  A complimentary handjob?  A basket of mixed fruit?

Why are law graduates so damned ungrateful?  Your arguments would go further if you only had an ounce - a tiny tidbit of a pinch of a dollop - of that magical salve: basic human kindness.

But no - you take their money at super-low interest rates, make them foot the bill for your mistakes and indulgences, and THEN you decide not to say thank you for the opportunity.  Why, as a taxpayer myself, I should spit in your collective faces for the downright IMPUDENCE and IMPERTINENCE you have shown the average taxpayer.

Want to know what you CAN do to help the taxpayers out?

Start scamming lemmings yourself.  You heard me.  They're a gullible bunch - I mean, look in the damned mirror.  You thought you were a smart and special little snowflake, but then you woke up one day broke, unhappy, failed, and you have no idea what just happened.  It's not some magical roofies; it's business psychology.  Be creative.  You'll be surprised what those suckers in the 18-35 bracket spend their money on.  Like, you know, near-worthless legal educations.

Once you start scamming the lemmings like us, you'll feel what it's like to be that most special of person: a taxpayer.  Once you're a taxpayer, you can bitch and moan all you want about the law school scam, as you'll have actually sustained a real loss like Cassius the Cashier and Freddy the Fireman and all those others whose labor runs our world-class nation.

But right now?  After taking all that money and refusing to pay it back?  You're way ahead.  Don't be a poor sport to the average taxpayer, who is the only true loser in this wonderful, wonderful game.

Have some humanity, and give Wally the Waiter a hug, and a big tip.  He's given you so much more than fries already.

Sincerely,

The Law School Truth Center

p.s.  Have you considered making a donation to your law school?  Every day you use your legal education in many versatile ways to help society, but your law school only had three years to use your tuition money.

p.s.s. Please tell people to enroll for fall.  Please.  We're desperate.

The Law School Truth Center is a NNP (non-non-profit) dedicated to spreading the glorious truth about law schools, extolling the virtues of expansive legal education, encouraging lemmings to enroll and gain valuable career-altering skills, and rewarding law schools for scamming as many people as possible.  Unlike law graduates, the LSTC is grateful for the opportunity to post on Outside the Law School Scam in addition to its regular blog, which can be found at http://www.lawschoolscam.com/blog.  It can be reached at lawschoolscam - at - usa.com.  Thanks for reading.

Happenings: 3/26/12 and Depeche Mode: Delta Machine Deluxe Edition review.

This is the first of a new series of posts I am going to do called "Happenings."

In this post I am going to talk about my life and what is going on.  Right now I am on Spring Break which is pretty cool.  This gives me some time to work on my own projects and a legal drafting paper that is due next week.  Gnarly, huh?

Second, today I purchased Delta Machine (Deluxe Edition) by Depeche Mode.  I was not sure how the original and the deluxe were different, other than a few extra songs.  I must say that I am enjoying the new album so far and it will give me something to listen to this summer when I take my long trip overseas.

"Is the deluxe edition of Delta Machine worth the extra cost?"
Answer: Sure (see review below)

FULL COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF DELTA MACHINE COMING SOON


Today I get my Razor scooter A5 Lux.  I am excited.  It may be back at my apartment right now waiting for me.  As I type this I am on the campus of a "New York University" that I do not attend that is in an outter borough.  Being that there are people out there that read this blog who are actually wanting to kill me, I do not dare say where I am.  
Generally, these types of posts, known as "happenings," will probably be a lot shorter and filled with bullet points about my life.  Being that this week has been somewhat slow, I don't have much to write about, however, I have something planned for a future post that promises to be a lot of fun.  Excited?  I am!

Application Stagnation: Skimming off the top of the 0L pool

Usually underdog/protest/scam blogs have bad news to report, as that is (regretfully) the nature of our situation. After all, if things were good, there would be no need to write about them very much, and little impetus to read of them either. The sorrow caused by the ScamDeans and the Professors like Prof. Tammy Piety/Privity/Charity—whatever the Sillygoose's name is—normally provides enough material (i.e. injustice) for us to address and leaves little time for other things. Sometimes, however, good news happens. 

For several years now we have seen declining enrollments by 0L's. Law School Tuition Bubble has more graphs and numbers for your perusal, but the short answer is that the number of LSAT takers in the year 2013 have declined down to the number of takers in the year 2001. That is important, and unlike the Skool's contempt of criticism, it cannot be ignored. After twelve years, the legal education complex has now not got a single more LSAT taker. Stagnation, dude! It sux. This is bigger news than one might realize, because in the last twelve years nineteen (19) lovely new law schools have opened—but not a single additional applicant in the pool. It is not just applicants, but actual enrolled stupents (I mean, students) are also in decline, as reflected in the lower LSAT takers. After all, the fewer LSAT takers, the fewer 1L's. What strikes the observer as the most interesting two points to take from this is that:

1) the better qualified students are the ones who are no longer enrolling in law school (schools are forced to reduce 1L seats in order to maintain LSAT & grade point averages), and 

2) the scambloggers are the ones significantly responsible (i.e., deserve credit) for this diminution of number and quality.
These two things are not breaking news and have been discussed already but they deserve a mention here. True, the economy is a factor, but not as much as one might think; normally, when the economy tanks, enrollments go up, because going to school is a refuge from the free market. After all, a lecture from any Professor Dumbledumb is the same regardless of the weather outside or the stock market or corporate earnings reports.

This is good news, but not yet a completely victory, of course. It is extremely difficult to stop a system as large and well-funded as the Legal Education business. More than even money, the social cred that law schools have—had—was immense, they were respected as routes for intelligent people to get good jobs as attorneys, judges, and politicians. The only bad rep was that lawyers were considered untrustworthy, and law school was a sort of 'liar school', but still, it got money and jobs to those who wanted them, so it had street cred enough. Money talks. But that was then, O scamdeans! Now, the veil is off the ugly face of law school. The cred, the source of their main power—public opinion—is being eaten away, year by year, a couple fewer LSAT takers every day. Power is a more delicate thing than many realize; it can be lost much, much more quickly than it can be gained. The bigger they are . . . 

I talk of Law Schools being a system, because that is what they really are. The legal educational system is more than a group of individuals, for if one ScamDean resigned, another ScamAssistantDean would take his place almost immediately. We can't directly stop the Department of Education from giving out student loans without any oversight, or shut the schools down, or even convince most 0L's from attending. Not yet, at least. But what can be done is already being done, and has been done to a good extent: scare away the best. The total dum-dums, or their inverse equivalent, the high-IQ-high-self-esteem idiots, (a.k.a., "special snowflakes") may be unstoppable as far as telling the truth to them goes. They will enroll anyway. But we can hit the marginals, the ones who think twice before signing on the "I will pay back all my loans even though I am not even receiving most of the money directly and I have no question to ask about this arrangement because I do not think about things that matter, making my own effective IQ about zero, despite any good grades or test scores I might have had in the past to prove that I am very very smart in theory" dotted line. 

Notice how heavy cream in the store costs more than regular; and regular costs more than half-and-half; and whole milk costs more than skim. The early scambloggers have skimmed right off the top of the fresh milk, taking much of the valuable cream with them, and leaving the watery curds for the Scam Deans. It remains to be seen whether this skimming will continue as the system tries to lower its standards, at the risk of losing ranking (in the short term at least: and the ScamDeans are indeed vulnerable in the short term since rankings come out every year. Lolz!), or having a declining bar passage rate. Several anti-system people are anticipating the closure of the weaker law schools, although it remains to be seen whether this will hurt the system or not. The closure of a few law schools will ease up on the pressure of the remainder; at the same time, however, it will break much of the still-substantial social cred that the schools have left. People will see the schools close, and that will skim even more cream than even one-hundred blogs being typed-up by a hundred roid-rage-filled scambloggers could. Who wants to bet on a declining proposition? 
Even just a few school closures will break the back of the law school-gives-you-lots-of-money-after-graduate-and-my-friends-told-me-I-am-good-at-arguing-so-that-means-Supreme-Court-for-me mythology. Also, any fraud conviction in the pending law suits is also a big threat to the System; although they will be able to claim it was just one or two fourth tier skoolls that did the scam, and the big boys will wash their hands of it faster than Herod does in a Mel Gibson movie; the mere association of FRAUD—law schools being sued by their own students—will smash the system's social cred further. Being cannabilized by your own alums in the courthouse down the road from your own school: It's bad for business, dude. In all, the law school system and its ScamDeans and Professor Dumbledums will find themselves is as comfortable a social position as Huguenots after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

So odds are that the "scam blogs" do work, and are working, and will probably continue to work, as we continue to steal the butter out of the Valvoline Dean's fridge. We should almost feel sorry for them: we will take so much cream, even Poor Professor Plurality will have to take her coffee black. And she worked hard for that cup; why, she even paid her dues.
_____________________________________________________________
Read my book-length satire/exposé of law school, Smarter Than Socrates: The End of the Law School Era.
Girls Generation - Korean