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.

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-)

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.

-9.63, 0.00
I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

by nobody at all on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:07:30 PM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/14/1138308/-Corporate-U-Higher-ed-the-Bain-way-part-1

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. 

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.

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.   

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.

Chemerinsky vs. Tamanaha on Tutition Costs

I was reading the latest defense of the Law School Cartel, and had to take a break from student woes for a minute.  I remember having to bludgeon my way through Mr. Chemerinsky's con law text book for two semesters way back when, and not surprisingly, I find his defenses equally obtuse now.  Ladies and Gentlemen, "You Get What You Pay For":

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202564055135&You_get_what_you_pay_for_in_legal_education&slreturn=20120623185606

Some of my favorite parts:

“Tamanaha is correct that law professors are paid significantly more than university faculty in disciplines like English, philosophy and history. Imagine that a law school tried to pay at that level, say roughly half of current faculty salaries at top law schools. Who would come and teach at a school where they got paid half what other law schools would pay them, and who would stay there when other opportunities arose?”

Imagine!  Who, indeed, would deign to teach for such six-figure paltry scraps by slumming it with the Philosophy department?  By the way, Erwin, the problem you’re talking about is called “price-fixing”.  UC Irvine could take the moral high road and “lead the way,” or something. 

“About half of our budget is faculty salaries and benefits, but even slicing these in half wouldn't save nearly enough for a tuition decrease like the one Tamanaha argues for. The only way to accomplish that would also be to cut the size of the faculty at least in half. Increasing the teaching load from an average of three to four courses won't help much, since I and many on our faculty are already teaching four or more courses every year.”

Indeed!  A crushing burden!  You might have to actually forego a conference or something, and some people might have to (gasp) look for and compete for a job!  Someone, stop the madness!

“Cutting a law faculty in half would require relying far more on relatively low-cost adjunct faculty. Tamanaha's assumption is that relying on practitioners rather than professors to teach more classes won't compromise the quality of the education students receive. Here I think he is just wrong. There are certainly some spectacular adjunct professors at every law school, and they play a vital role. But as I see each year when I read the student evaluations at my school, overall the evaluations for the full-time faculty are substantially better than they are for the adjuncts. It is easy to understand why. Teaching is a skill, and most people get better the more they do it. Moreover, full-time faculty generally have more time to prepare than adjunct professors who usually have busy practices.”

The legal logic here is indeed mighty – “Here I think he is just wrong.”  Stand back, everybody!  Bask in the glory of those high-dollar “thinking-like-a-lawyer” skills everybody touts so much!

Ah well - the long slide towards the reverse-democratization of (legal) education continues.  Let's get down to Brass Tacks:  Law School (and most of higher education) is about the feedback loop of educating the well-to-do, so that they in turn support the school.  If it were actually about making, say, legal education affordable and/or accessable to the masses, then the "presteige quotient" collapses and well-to-do will not be showing up because they don't really care how much tuition is in the first place.  Defending liberty and pursuing justice will always take a back seat to "keeping things in the family," per se.

A little honesty would go a long way, and would allow non-trads and regular students both to make more informed decisions.  But, somebody's gotta get bilked, you know - how else would the economy function?      

This Blog Starts to Write Itself

The anecdotes keep piling up.  Call it hearsay if you want, although I can't see what the motivation to lie would be...

AnonymousJuly 7, 2012 11:13 AM

Last night, I had dinner with a college buddy who went to law school 12 years after we graduated from college. He went to a T50 on a partial scholarship. Prior to going to law school, he was making $120K as a biochemist. So he decided that he peaked at his former job and decided to become a non-trad law student at the age of 33. Fast forward to today. He is 40 years old, owes $105K in student loans and earns $60K a year in NYC. He went from making $120K 8 years ago with no debt to cutting his salary by 50% and carrying $105K in student loans. He is a smart guy, realizes he will never own a house, get married, have kids or have a bank account (to avoid Sallie Mae's bank levies). I suspect he works using a Tax ID Number instead of his social security number so that Sallie Mae doesn't garnish his wages. I don't consider this guy to be a typical lemming. He had a 2.8 GPA but a 176LSAT score. Today, he probably could have attended Rutgers, sorry, Rowan Law School, for free. But alas, he went to law school during the model and bottles day. Kids, Nando makes no money from this site. He is telling you the cold hard and brutal truth. Do not listen to the law school deans or law professors who are only going to paint a rosy picture to sucker you in and keep the gravy train locomotive running full steam ahead.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2012/07/third-tier-waste-heap-west-virginia.html#comment-form

One thing is for sure - the lol skools have every reason to keep on lying.  Thou$and$ of rea$on$ multiplied by hundreds of students.  Caveat Emptor.