Well, the pressure is clearly on, which can only be a good thing. Yet another resounding defense of the legal education industry, and boy, does the lady doth protest too much, lemme tell ya:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/law-school-is-worth-the-money.html?hp&_r=0
Counterarguments to these assertions abound within the scam-blog community, and they have been discussed here and in many other places. One of my long-standing favorite half-truths is the assertion that average salaries for law grads are $125k. While that can be technically true, the average tells you nothing about the standard deviation or distrubution of salaries. What confidence interval are we talking about? One sigma? One-quarter sigma? We all know about the bi-modal distrubution of legal salaries (see, for example, here). Looking at that chart, the average could indeed be around $125k, but damn few people actually make that (2% according to NALP in 2008, and boy, oh boy, did the economy only improve from there). Oh looky, 50% of grads make under $72k (the median), and a select chunk of well-connected people make $170k. That's about an average of $125k! See?!?
Who said lawyers were bad at math? All technically true, precise...and heavily misleading. Thanks, you bastions (bastards?) of ethics. $50k salaries could be ok, but for the total cost of law school. To turn a phrase, the tuition is too damn high, let alone the additional incidental costs to attend. It's pretty easy to run up a $150k bill after three years.
Anyway, the defenders of the law school cartel always like to go on about how entitled grads are, how they have to think long-term, that education is an investment, that grads should be pursuing justice and liberty as opposed to filthy lucre, etc. etc. etc. One thing I've never seen a clear answer to: why are (Boomer) Deans, Law Professors, and other Administrators "entitled" to handsome six-figure salaries? Why are lol skools "entitled" to be revenue-drivers for the rest of the University? They all acknowledge that student debt is a problem, and student tuition is directly proportional to salaries and "special projects". But funny, ever-increasing tuition at rates several times that of inflation is as sacrosanct as Norquist's no-tax-increase pledge. It is a given, and is never to be questioned.
The real question is: "Law School is Worth It" - but for whom, exactly?
One thing is clear. Fish gotta swim. Birds gotta fly. Shills gotta shill.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
That Sound You Heard Was The Student Loan Bubble Popping
Well, because a law degree is one of the most expensive degrees out there as has been clearly demonstrated, apparently the cost-to-value proposition is not doin' too well. While these charts are for all student loan debt, we also know that 45,000 law grads a year, at ever-increasing tutition, have been pumped out into the marketplace at a rate of 2 to 1 for available law positions for some time now. No matter what hand-waving takes place about how great and versatile JDs are, the simple fact is that thousands of law grads live in these increasing default rates. Many more struggle to stay ahead of the jaws of the default monster. To say nothing of the circumstances of other degree holders.
Well, never mind the fact that tutition has grown at several times the rate of inflation due to sweet, sweet, Federal loan money. As such, what was much easier to pay off in 1970 is a tad bit harder now. Our Boomer forebears tend to conveniently forget this whole inflation-adjusted-money-expanding-cost-of-living proposition when myopically dismissing later generations for being "lazy" and "entitled." Outside of elite circles, $500, $800, $1200-plus monthly student loan payments are tough to manage, to say the least.
But, the lol skools got theirs, so who cares? Whatevs. Law grads just need to "network" more and take some personal responsibility. Tuition coupled with diminishing prospects has nothing to do with it, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. This is a monster solely of the student's own making.
As the Once-ler once said, "Business is Business and Business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know..."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/scariest-chart-quarter-student-debt-bubble-officially-pops-90-day-delinquency-rate-g
Well, never mind the fact that tutition has grown at several times the rate of inflation due to sweet, sweet, Federal loan money. As such, what was much easier to pay off in 1970 is a tad bit harder now. Our Boomer forebears tend to conveniently forget this whole inflation-adjusted-money-expanding-cost-of-living proposition when myopically dismissing later generations for being "lazy" and "entitled." Outside of elite circles, $500, $800, $1200-plus monthly student loan payments are tough to manage, to say the least.
But, the lol skools got theirs, so who cares? Whatevs. Law grads just need to "network" more and take some personal responsibility. Tuition coupled with diminishing prospects has nothing to do with it, and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. This is a monster solely of the student's own making.
As the Once-ler once said, "Business is Business and Business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know..."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/scariest-chart-quarter-student-debt-bubble-officially-pops-90-day-delinquency-rate-g
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Trustworthy Data v. Fraudulent Stats and the "Personal Responsibility Brigade"
Well, we all knew, down deep, that it was happening - after having been through the law school wringer and confronting the realities of the marketplace. The difficult-to-find jobs, the low wages compared to student loan burdens, the non-versatility of the JD. The complete opposite of what the law schools proclaimed.
It was difficult to prove, but the circumstantial evidence was there with the anecdotes, the BLS statistics, the skyrocketing legal tuition, the insane faculty and administrative salaries. However, it was dismissed out of hand, relegated to the trash heap, written off as the complainings of bitter, entitled losers - mostly by those who profit from student loans and their apologists.
But, as seen on LST and other sites, the strongest evidence yet that (allegedly) fraudulent employment stats were published by TJSL, and that "everyone was doing it":
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/2012/10/ex-cso-assistant-director-from-tjls-admits-to-fraud/
And, Professor Campos relates the tale about increasing the rolls of a LLM program for fun and profit, with the uncomfortable question of "is this in the best interest of the students?" being left deliberately unresolved.
http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-state-of-discourse.html
As for the plight of students and professionals who have to live with the consequences? Cue the "personal responsiblity brigade," ("PRB") who will swoop in and say "well, those damn kids should have done their 'research'. Why would any thinking person believe these people anyway? Of course the schools were self-interested. Whiners. Losers."
Ah, yes, the much ballyhooed "research" canard, the sword upon which many a troubled graduate has fallen upon as the simple answer to complex woes.
Leaving behind the question of "are you really going to blame victims of fraud in the first place? Rly? That's OK with you?" for the moment, the bigger question is "how does one determine quality data?" Purchasing higher education is not exactly the same thing as buying a refrigerator - in the latter case, there are Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, user reviews, and a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to turn to, to name a few. Also, a bad refigerator purchase is easy to recover from, while a "bad education" is not - especially in 2012 dollars. It is life-changing.
From whence does the research data come from, then, in the case of Law Schools? Why, the schools themselves. NALP merely parrots the data. USN&WR merely parrots the data. The ABA looks the other way, doing whatever the accreditation committee does all day. There is no independent review of the data. No uninterested parties. One would think that these non-profit bastions of ethics and future-lawyer-character-formation would feel some sense of fiduciary duty, but you would be wrong - at least to hear the courts tell it. The students "should have known better and suspected the data was fraudulent."
How about the experiences of other lawyers? Well, that data is anecdotal, and difficult to quantify with any real sense of trend analysis or confidence. "Successful" lawyers will tell you that it is the best thing they ever did, and so should you. "Unsuccessful" lawyers are (wait for it!) bitter, whining losers who should not be trusted.
Again, what "data" is the prospective student to rely upon with confidence, such that the PRB would be rightly justified in holding the student to task for their poor choice, as they so seem to relish in their self-righteous zeal?
None, as far as I can see. The PRB's de facto recommendation, then, in essence? "Don't get an education, as no institution of higher learning can be trusted." For that matter, don't do anything, then, that would expose someone to risk of any kind, as the victim will be blamed in full, with no fault lying with the perpatrator.
I would draw the comparison between Wall Street banks bundling sub-prime mortgage CDOs with Moody's and Standard & Poor's rubber-stamping the quality of the CDOs, and the need for effective regulation. But we already know how the PRB feels about homeowners who struggle to pay their underwater mortgages, or investors who looked at the data and invested in CDOs that were set up to fail. Why should students be treated any differently?
All I can say is: it must be great to have the omniscient vantage point of the PRB. I wonder what it's like to be perfect in every way.
It was difficult to prove, but the circumstantial evidence was there with the anecdotes, the BLS statistics, the skyrocketing legal tuition, the insane faculty and administrative salaries. However, it was dismissed out of hand, relegated to the trash heap, written off as the complainings of bitter, entitled losers - mostly by those who profit from student loans and their apologists.
But, as seen on LST and other sites, the strongest evidence yet that (allegedly) fraudulent employment stats were published by TJSL, and that "everyone was doing it":
http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/2012/10/ex-cso-assistant-director-from-tjls-admits-to-fraud/
And, Professor Campos relates the tale about increasing the rolls of a LLM program for fun and profit, with the uncomfortable question of "is this in the best interest of the students?" being left deliberately unresolved.
http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-state-of-discourse.html
As for the plight of students and professionals who have to live with the consequences? Cue the "personal responsiblity brigade," ("PRB") who will swoop in and say "well, those damn kids should have done their 'research'. Why would any thinking person believe these people anyway? Of course the schools were self-interested. Whiners. Losers."
Ah, yes, the much ballyhooed "research" canard, the sword upon which many a troubled graduate has fallen upon as the simple answer to complex woes.
Leaving behind the question of "are you really going to blame victims of fraud in the first place? Rly? That's OK with you?" for the moment, the bigger question is "how does one determine quality data?" Purchasing higher education is not exactly the same thing as buying a refrigerator - in the latter case, there are Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratories, user reviews, and a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to turn to, to name a few. Also, a bad refigerator purchase is easy to recover from, while a "bad education" is not - especially in 2012 dollars. It is life-changing.
From whence does the research data come from, then, in the case of Law Schools? Why, the schools themselves. NALP merely parrots the data. USN&WR merely parrots the data. The ABA looks the other way, doing whatever the accreditation committee does all day. There is no independent review of the data. No uninterested parties. One would think that these non-profit bastions of ethics and future-lawyer-character-formation would feel some sense of fiduciary duty, but you would be wrong - at least to hear the courts tell it. The students "should have known better and suspected the data was fraudulent."
How about the experiences of other lawyers? Well, that data is anecdotal, and difficult to quantify with any real sense of trend analysis or confidence. "Successful" lawyers will tell you that it is the best thing they ever did, and so should you. "Unsuccessful" lawyers are (wait for it!) bitter, whining losers who should not be trusted.
Again, what "data" is the prospective student to rely upon with confidence, such that the PRB would be rightly justified in holding the student to task for their poor choice, as they so seem to relish in their self-righteous zeal?
None, as far as I can see. The PRB's de facto recommendation, then, in essence? "Don't get an education, as no institution of higher learning can be trusted." For that matter, don't do anything, then, that would expose someone to risk of any kind, as the victim will be blamed in full, with no fault lying with the perpatrator.
I would draw the comparison between Wall Street banks bundling sub-prime mortgage CDOs with Moody's and Standard & Poor's rubber-stamping the quality of the CDOs, and the need for effective regulation. But we already know how the PRB feels about homeowners who struggle to pay their underwater mortgages, or investors who looked at the data and invested in CDOs that were set up to fail. Why should students be treated any differently?
All I can say is: it must be great to have the omniscient vantage point of the PRB. I wonder what it's like to be perfect in every way.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Here is what you're getting into...
This poster sums it up beautifully, in a comment at DailyKos regarding the business of "for-profit" education. Which is increasingly becoming the mentality of "non-profit" education (cough cough Indiana Tech School of Law cough cough)...
No-win for those on the downward (56+ / 0-)
No-win for those on the downward (56+ / 0-)
spiral slide.
Can't get a job/a job that pays the bills? If you weren't lazy, you'd go back to college and get the skills you need to be in demand.
Got another degree and now up to your eyes in student loans? Oh, so rather than bit the bullet like everyone else, you went for the luxury life of a grad student and now you'll pay for it.
Still can't get a job? Why didn't you get a degree in something in demand? Your bad choice, idiot.
Took out even more student loans to do the extra time to switch fields entirely for your graduate degree and now struggling? You're an irresponsible spender who thinks you deserve to get degrees in two subjects and be a professional student forever; no wonder you're up to your eyeballs in debt—you can't manage your life.
Didn't want to go into debt so you studied part-time while you worked, only to find that because your degree took so long, your skills are out of date the moment you graduate? You're afraid to take risks and take responsibility for your actions; you should have taken student loans like everybody else so that you
could get your degree in a timely fashion rather than slacking off.
Basically: It's always your fault. College has little to do with it. Poor? YOU SUCK, THAT'S WHAT.
Welcome to America.
Can't get a job/a job that pays the bills? If you weren't lazy, you'd go back to college and get the skills you need to be in demand.
Got another degree and now up to your eyes in student loans? Oh, so rather than bit the bullet like everyone else, you went for the luxury life of a grad student and now you'll pay for it.
Still can't get a job? Why didn't you get a degree in something in demand? Your bad choice, idiot.
Took out even more student loans to do the extra time to switch fields entirely for your graduate degree and now struggling? You're an irresponsible spender who thinks you deserve to get degrees in two subjects and be a professional student forever; no wonder you're up to your eyeballs in debt—you can't manage your life.
Didn't want to go into debt so you studied part-time while you worked, only to find that because your degree took so long, your skills are out of date the moment you graduate? You're afraid to take risks and take responsibility for your actions; you should have taken student loans like everybody else so that you
could get your degree in a timely fashion rather than slacking off.
Basically: It's always your fault. College has little to do with it. Poor? YOU SUCK, THAT'S WHAT.
Welcome to America.
Good luck non-trads, and watch out. As you look at the glossy brochures and the doctored placement statistics, remember that it's always ON YOU. Period. Think twice, or better three times, before you double-down on that oh-so-glamourous legal future.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
The Non-Versatile JD, part 7 or 8 or so...I've lost count
I was running through this problem in the back of my mind recently, and DJM beat me to the punch. Potential non-trads, take a read:
http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/08/jd-not-needed.html
This is it in a nutshell - if you don't land pure legal employment for the various reasons mentioned here and on other blogs, the legally-related jobs that seem to be a great fit for JDs do not require a JD AT ALL.
Think about this for a minute - the whole premise is that legal knowledge and understanding is valuable. And I would argue that it is. So many times, problems arise due to someone not doing what they are supposed to do via contract. They either do not comply with statutes and governmental regulations, or they default "wrongfully" due to a dispute with another party, or they don't make a good businees decision when looking at the costs of complying with a requirement vs. costs of litigation, or they don't preserve claims on appeal re: a governmental contracting body.
So, in theory, a JD should be a perfect fit. But no one appears to want a JD candidate, seemingly if for no other reason than the cost to employ a JD is just too high, or that the breadth of the education is not necessary relative to the specific job skills required. In other words, the necessary skills can be learned on the job, so why pay more?
Lord knows I've tried, myself. I finally landed a JD-preferred job years ago, and it wasn't for lack of trying. I have and continue to look at better jobs and opportunities to leverage my JD (becuase I'm stuck with it, like it or not), but convincing the other party that it's worth it is a huge challenge. A lot of employers can't connect the dots or otherwise see the value of a JD, as evidenced by DJM and the job descriptions that can be easily found.
Lol skool tuition has essentially shut the doors on a whole generation of graduates who could have gone into non-traditional career paths, but for the salary level they need to survive and service loans. Again, it isn't the 1970s anymore, costs have gone up, competition is even more fierce.
If your aren't shut out due to predictive coding, funding, or pedigree, then you're shut out due to debt. If you have to go back to school, go for something (1) targeted to the business world job you are seeking, and (2) cheaper. Avoid the non-versatile JD at all costs.
http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/08/jd-not-needed.html
This is it in a nutshell - if you don't land pure legal employment for the various reasons mentioned here and on other blogs, the legally-related jobs that seem to be a great fit for JDs do not require a JD AT ALL.
Think about this for a minute - the whole premise is that legal knowledge and understanding is valuable. And I would argue that it is. So many times, problems arise due to someone not doing what they are supposed to do via contract. They either do not comply with statutes and governmental regulations, or they default "wrongfully" due to a dispute with another party, or they don't make a good businees decision when looking at the costs of complying with a requirement vs. costs of litigation, or they don't preserve claims on appeal re: a governmental contracting body.
So, in theory, a JD should be a perfect fit. But no one appears to want a JD candidate, seemingly if for no other reason than the cost to employ a JD is just too high, or that the breadth of the education is not necessary relative to the specific job skills required. In other words, the necessary skills can be learned on the job, so why pay more?
Lord knows I've tried, myself. I finally landed a JD-preferred job years ago, and it wasn't for lack of trying. I have and continue to look at better jobs and opportunities to leverage my JD (becuase I'm stuck with it, like it or not), but convincing the other party that it's worth it is a huge challenge. A lot of employers can't connect the dots or otherwise see the value of a JD, as evidenced by DJM and the job descriptions that can be easily found.
Lol skool tuition has essentially shut the doors on a whole generation of graduates who could have gone into non-traditional career paths, but for the salary level they need to survive and service loans. Again, it isn't the 1970s anymore, costs have gone up, competition is even more fierce.
If your aren't shut out due to predictive coding, funding, or pedigree, then you're shut out due to debt. If you have to go back to school, go for something (1) targeted to the business world job you are seeking, and (2) cheaper. Avoid the non-versatile JD at all costs.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Law School Tuition
To follow up on a prior post.
http://www.abajournal.com/lawscribbler/article/law_profs_ideal_affordable_law_school_not_possible_in_reality_chemerinsky/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email
Apparently, you can have precise knowledge about tuition and know nothing about the quality of the education, or you can have precise knowledge about the quality of the education and know nothing about the tuition. You just can't know about tuition and quality with high accuracy at the same time, "in reality."
So, best to just charge high tuition, then, and know that factor with exceedingly high certainty. Affordability, quality, outcomes, etc. all become murky then, but, hey, whatever. Versatile-JD blah-blah-blah.
It's un-frickin'-believable what people will say for a buck.
http://www.abajournal.com/lawscribbler/article/law_profs_ideal_affordable_law_school_not_possible_in_reality_chemerinsky/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email
Apparently, you can have precise knowledge about tuition and know nothing about the quality of the education, or you can have precise knowledge about the quality of the education and know nothing about the tuition. You just can't know about tuition and quality with high accuracy at the same time, "in reality."
So, best to just charge high tuition, then, and know that factor with exceedingly high certainty. Affordability, quality, outcomes, etc. all become murky then, but, hey, whatever. Versatile-JD blah-blah-blah.
It's un-frickin'-believable what people will say for a buck.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Ten years ago...
It just dawned on me today that I began my law school misadventure ten years ago, right about now.
Yep. My wife and I had packed up and moved. My “old” career behind, going forward in a new direction. New changes, new towns, new opportunities…
…that didn’t really pan out at all. But I did get a large side helping of new debt, though, that’s for sure. “I went to law school, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt,” as they say. I’m half-way through my private loans, but I still have a long way to go on my debt overall.
I never was able to work as an attorney in private practice. Full stop. But, I’m not exactly crying in my beer over that one, either. For some that is a sore subject and a disappointing result, and I hate that people who really wanted to have that experience didn’t have it work out of them, or it became something they didn’t want after all in the long term. Shattered dreams are no fun.
For my part, the “versatile JD” result I was looking for didn’t turn out either, so I can sympathize with my fellow lawyer wanna-bees, at least in the disappointment department. While I can say I am “proud” of my technical achievement as a licensed attorney, in retrospect it was NOT worth the time, the effort, the debt, and the lost opportunity costs. While I have been (gratefully) employed, I wish I could say it was my stellar JD that made “all the difference.” Economically, I would have been better off at my old career, debt-free, no doubt about it.
My office is full of ex-private practice attorneys, as well as a few like me who "never got a start" in the first place. They are people who were forced out, people who were sick of it and looking for something else to pay the bills, a little bit of everything.
So I soldier on and try to make the best of it. While I bear some responsibility for my decision, the lol skools had their part to play in their misrepresentations, no matter how they try to deny it and foist the blame on “sophisticated consumers.”
http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2012/08/aba-decides-we-need-a-rule-to-stop-law-schools-lying-about-jobs.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top
In the “don’t take it from me, take it from him” department, Crux of Law is back blogging about his experience. Apparently, there is at least one other person besides my crazy self who would say lol skool is not for non-trads, despite the tone-deaf trumpeting of deans, administrators, and career services offices about “versatile JDs”:
http://cruxoflaw.blogspot.com/
Nando is three years strong and continuing on, skewering lol skools for our benfit! Just like L4L, Tom the Temp, and others inspired Nando and his message, TTR has helped me realize I wasn’t crazy either and inspired me to speak my peace, FWIW.
http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/
SubprimeJD is back, too, with a nice little piece about staying positive and moving on, one step at a time.
http://subprimejd.blogspot.com/2012/08/dealing-with-post-graduation-depression.html
So, Gawd bless, everybody. Hopefully, if you are a non-trad (or, heck, regular) student and you’ve turned your back on law school, chances are extremely good that you made the best decision possible, absent money and sweet legal connections. If you took the plunge and/or are out on the other side of the whole experience, live and learn, I guess. Just don’t blame yourself – that is exactly what “they” want you to do to keep you down and out, rather than placing the accountability exactly where it belongs.
Yep. My wife and I had packed up and moved. My “old” career behind, going forward in a new direction. New changes, new towns, new opportunities…
…that didn’t really pan out at all. But I did get a large side helping of new debt, though, that’s for sure. “I went to law school, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt,” as they say. I’m half-way through my private loans, but I still have a long way to go on my debt overall.
I never was able to work as an attorney in private practice. Full stop. But, I’m not exactly crying in my beer over that one, either. For some that is a sore subject and a disappointing result, and I hate that people who really wanted to have that experience didn’t have it work out of them, or it became something they didn’t want after all in the long term. Shattered dreams are no fun.
For my part, the “versatile JD” result I was looking for didn’t turn out either, so I can sympathize with my fellow lawyer wanna-bees, at least in the disappointment department. While I can say I am “proud” of my technical achievement as a licensed attorney, in retrospect it was NOT worth the time, the effort, the debt, and the lost opportunity costs. While I have been (gratefully) employed, I wish I could say it was my stellar JD that made “all the difference.” Economically, I would have been better off at my old career, debt-free, no doubt about it.
My office is full of ex-private practice attorneys, as well as a few like me who "never got a start" in the first place. They are people who were forced out, people who were sick of it and looking for something else to pay the bills, a little bit of everything.
So I soldier on and try to make the best of it. While I bear some responsibility for my decision, the lol skools had their part to play in their misrepresentations, no matter how they try to deny it and foist the blame on “sophisticated consumers.”
http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2012/08/aba-decides-we-need-a-rule-to-stop-law-schools-lying-about-jobs.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top
In the “don’t take it from me, take it from him” department, Crux of Law is back blogging about his experience. Apparently, there is at least one other person besides my crazy self who would say lol skool is not for non-trads, despite the tone-deaf trumpeting of deans, administrators, and career services offices about “versatile JDs”:
http://cruxoflaw.blogspot.com/
Nando is three years strong and continuing on, skewering lol skools for our benfit! Just like L4L, Tom the Temp, and others inspired Nando and his message, TTR has helped me realize I wasn’t crazy either and inspired me to speak my peace, FWIW.
http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/
SubprimeJD is back, too, with a nice little piece about staying positive and moving on, one step at a time.
http://subprimejd.blogspot.com/2012/08/dealing-with-post-graduation-depression.html
So, Gawd bless, everybody. Hopefully, if you are a non-trad (or, heck, regular) student and you’ve turned your back on law school, chances are extremely good that you made the best decision possible, absent money and sweet legal connections. If you took the plunge and/or are out on the other side of the whole experience, live and learn, I guess. Just don’t blame yourself – that is exactly what “they” want you to do to keep you down and out, rather than placing the accountability exactly where it belongs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)