Search the Lounge

Categories

« The Future of the Corporate Board at AALS | Main | Pamela Bridgewater (1969-2014) »

January 02, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

No, breh

"In other words it has been true for many years that only half of all JDs practice law."

"it does undermine the claim that law schools have been over-producing licensed lawyers."

I'm guessing we won't agree on the second point, and, based on the first point, I suspect that's because we define "over-produce" quite differently.

Barry


Posted by: Just saying...

"Interesting that the Dean discounts quantitative measures. I know that Infilaw is big into Six Sigma, or at least was. Some of the deans at other Infilaw schools were applying it to their operations. I would assume that was a corporate mandate."

Stages of bullsh*tting. First, fake the numbers (e.g., count everybody for percentage employed, but only the good jobs for salaries).

Second, call the people pointing out the fraud liars.

Third, invent jobs ('JD Advantage').

Fourth, claim that people want those 'JD Advantage' jobs.

Fifth, scream at the people pointing out the lies and fraud.

Sixth, disparage the whole idea of numbers.

Seventh - recycle as needed.

John Thompson

@Anon/6:19 p.m.:

"Even if one does not accept the conclusions about the value of a JD demonstrated by Simkovic and McIntyre (whose research has been vetted by many scholars no doubt more qualified than "no,breh"), it seems a big stretch to argue that law schools have been fooling people for decades about where JDs end up working."

Before the Internet, I'm guessing that it was harder to find a group of underemployed JDs willing to talk about their experiences in sufficient detail to learn that one's own career disappointments were not unique. It also probably helped that law school used to be affordable enough that the resulting debt could be serviced by other kinds of white-collar work while allowing a typical middle-class American lifestyle. People just assumed that their failures were theirs alone, and quietly moved on with their lives.

Law schools were positioned to observe all this, with desperate graduates coming back to the career development offices to beg for help finding legal work months after graduation. They knew that one's chances of first being hired as an attorney got worse over time. They might not have done any investigating into the lives of their less successful graduates, but they would have known that a surprising number of JDs were struggling to enter the profession. None of that made the brochures or law school rankings guides that were most people's introduction to the life of a law student before the Internet.

Barry

Anon: "..., there have been more people working as lawyers every year for more than the last decade at least and earning more income every year even in 2008."

That doesn't mean much at all, and this has been covered again and again and again on the 'scamblogs'.

Anon

It may not mean much to you but it explains why law schools will not shut down because they are not over producing licensed lawyers.

Nathan A

"It may not mean much to you but it explains why law schools will not shut down because they are not over producing licensed lawyers."

This is pretty ridiculous. Businesses shutdown when their revenue streams dry up. Even if EVERY law graduate in America ended up unemployed, law schools would remain open so long they could find people willing to pay $250k over three years. Law schools won't shutdown for the same reason that for-profit scams like Kaplan College and Bridgepoint Education won't shutdown - a surplus of unsuspecting victims with easy access to loan money.


Barry

Anon: " (Again, please demonstrate how the administrators and faculty are paid less at "non profit" law schools before drawing these negative inferences.)"

Bullsh*t. The thing which people are complaining about is that the tuition is far, far too high for the outcomes.

Nobody here is complaining about Harvard's tuition.

Anon

Nathan you display an astonishing naivete about the business of higher education. Many universities are stepping up and supporting the law schools because they know based on long term data and the current ongoing recovery that the law schools will be profitable again. In fact many of them probably are already thanks to the over-reaction of undergrads who have been moving away from applying in larger numbers. That last trend will of course begin to reverse in the next year or two. And then the university investments will have paid off handsomely. The only schools really at serious risk are the stand-alones and the for profits.

Barry

Anon's got to be a law professor.

The lack of logic, blithe assertion of non-facts, inability to do math,...

Just saying...

Anon: Many of the mid and lower tiered law schools that still receive "support" from their universities have had to cut to the bone. The support is minimal. The universities support them, in large part, because no U. wants to be the first to close its law school.

AProf

"The only schools really at serious risk are the stand-alones and the for profits."

Anon, tell that to the dental schools that closed, some of them highly-ranked and connected to prestigious universities.

MacK

Anon-

The reality is that no university wants to be first to close its law school, but several will settle for fifth, tenth and fifteenth. Once the first few schools close, the stigma will shrink

Nathan A

Anon @ 11:07 AM.

Not naive. I just remember what happened to dental schools in the 1980s. I'm not the only person who has been thinking about the demise of dental schools - (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_deans/2013/11/a-lesson-from-a-different-profession.html).

I also find it abominable that any university would subsidize its law school. Law professors are paid more than professors in science/engineering/social science even though professors in science/engineering/social science have to (a) find outside support for their research, and (b) have their work subjected to a higher standard (peer review).

The higher salaries for law professors were fine when law school tuition dollars subsidized "legal scholarship." Since that is no longer the case its time for a pay cut or for law professors to demonstrate how valuable their scholarship is by bringing in grant money.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad