Search the Lounge


« BioNews: Egg donors to challenge US payment rules in court | Main | The 20th century American Lawyer: What's Missing? »

December 02, 2015


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


Anon - what you have posted is a series of transparent "straw man" arguments, that have systematically collapsed, whereupon you dug into ad hominem attacks. You have dodged the fundamental question, instead questioning motives. You profess to be a law professor - to be blunt, I do not think you should be teaching law, and based on your performance here, definitely not practicing.

It is pretty obvious that you are horrified at the employment consequences of the current law school crisis. It is also, objectively, obvious, that you concerns would be better addressed by being more proficient lawyer or law professor.

To be absolutely blunt, stay anonymous - even to the law school boosters your performance has been disastrous.


You ask " is there some magic that makes GW, Georgetown, Emory, W&L, et al, immune from similarly loud criticisms from LST in service of those same goals."

Really, you ask this? Your research skills are well poor, your arguments Trump-ian. Who do you think unveiled and made an issue of those schools temporary hiring of their graduates as a way of improving their apparent employment data - that would be LST... which, means that English, factual knowledge, intellectual integrity - well you are not doing well here.

Moreover, my point that you should not be teaching (or practicing) law is illustrated by the basic point - even allowing for the fact that they have massaged their employment data, they have not had disastrous bar-exam outcomes, unlike the school you are presumably shilling for here (and to be fair to those kids, if you were teaching them, based on your posts here, they were double-damned.)


Gee, Mac. The sophistication of your argument has utterly persuaded me. I'll immediately leave the law as you suggest. Thanks so much for your insightful commentary.


If I were LST, I would be focusing on exaggerated statements from schools like Colorado as to their employment stats -- even in this age of transparency:

"Around 93.5 percent of [Colorado University]'s graduates last year were employed 10 months after completing their degree, a number the school hopes to increase to 95 percent."

Compare the actual Colorado employment stats are much lower:

This might be a good school for Professor Campos to highlight and shame.

terry malloy

Anon, apparently you and I understand a different dialect.

the one I understand is the one that Kyle is speaking thought the small, but powerful data transparency his website offers. He's telling the kids not to play near the downed power lines.

the english you speak seems to take umbrage with Kyle not warning the kids in Yale that sailing might be a dangerous sport with the same ferocity that he is warning kids not to play near the downed power lines.

agree to disagree.



thank you so much. My insight may be nothing special, but it outstrips yours.

Enrique Guerra Pujol

LSAC's press release is pure garbage ... If LSAT scores are not that useful, then why even use them at all during the admissions game?

David Frakt

There are many "objectionable practices" at law schools. LST is a small organization and cannot devote the same time and attention to all of them. We have to prioritize, and the recent focus of LST has been on the large number of schools admitting large numbers of very high risk students. These predatory practices have a huge and profoundly negative impact on the lives of many students, and degrade the profession as a whole. The relatively small numbers of schools that are accepting large groups of transfer students has, thus far, not been a focus of LST. At this point, it is not clear to me what harm this practice is causing. That being said, one of the reasons that LST wanted to have a large and diverse National Advisory Council is to get strategic guidance on what issues LST should be tackling. If there is a consensus among the NAC members that this is a significant problem that is worthy of further scrutiny, then we will advise LST to do so.

On a personal note, when I was teaching at Western State, there was a significant problem with students from the top of the class transferring at the end of their first years to more prestigious schools in Los Angeles. Given that the faculty members were virtually all graduates of prestigious schools, we could hardly blame a student at Western State for transferring to USC or UCLA or Pepperdine or Loyola if they could get in there. Nevertheless, as an institution we decided to make it a priority to try to entice our top-performing students to stay by offering them increased scholarships, summer travel stipends and other special perks. The strategy of making our best students feel especially valued worked and transfers dropped dramatically, at least for the remaining years that I was there. Inevitably, almost all law schools will lose some students to transfer attrition. Most schools, other than those at the very bottom, can replace the students lost by accepting transfers from schools slightly lower in the pecking order. But law schools that are losing disproportionate numbers of students to transfer attrition should consider whether they are doing everything possible to make those students want to stay.

David Frakt

Anon 02:59

I am a little confused by your concept of a conflict. Just to be clear, I did not write the LST Report. I mainly provided editorial feedback on it. But I am the Chair of LST's National Advisory Council and soon LST will be posting the names and short bios of myself and the other members other website. So, I would appreciate your sage advice on what disclaimers I should include. Are you saying that I should disclose every law school job that I ever applied for and didn't get, or just the Florida Coastal one? The list of law schools that I actually interviewed with over the years that didn't hire me is quite long, but here goes: University of Washington, Gonzaga, Loyola - LA, Missouri, Georgia State (callback!), Cleveland State (callback!), Cincinnati, FAMU, South Carolina, Tennessee, Baltimore, New England School of Law, Cornell, Tulane, Montana (callback for Deanship!), Utah, Wyoming, Florida International, LaVerne (callback!), Chapman, SMU, Colorado, Indiana (Indianapolis), Tulsa (callback!), Willamette, Idaho (callback - Associate Dean), Drexel (callback - Assistant Dean), Stetson, Capital. I taught at Georgetown as an adjunct. I taught at Pitt as a visiting professor. I was a tenure-track Associate Professor at Western State and Barry (two schools on LST's high risk list). I have been a guest clinical instructor several times at Duke. I have guest lectured one or more times or appeared at symposiums or debates at the following schools: Harvard, NYU, American, Akron, Whittier, Osgoode Hall (Toronto), Stanford, Florida Coastal, Mercer, Nova Southeastern, UCLA, Loyola-LA, Thomas Jefferson, LaVerne, Penn State, Michigan State, Southern Illinois, Case Western Reserve, Seton Hall, Cleveland State, and Washburn. And I've published in law reviews at Harvard, Duke, Michigan State, Texas, Case Western, Valparaiso, USF, Pitt, Washburn and Florida State. I think that about covers it. Oh wait, I went to Harvard, but I got waitlisted at Yale. I'm still kind of bitter about that.


LSAC to LST - How dare you claim our entrance exam for law school actually helps predict academic success in law school and on the bar exam! Never underestimate the depths of the scam: race baiting, conspiracy theories, and now even attacking your own standards for admission. Whatever it takes - as long as those sweet federal student loan dollars keep pouring in!


Anon @ 7pm.

It would seem pretty obvious to readers here that your statement "I'll immediately leave the law as you suggest" contains the same logical fallacy as "he's trying to make me look stupid" (i.e., implying effort, necessity and lack of success.) That is to say, it implies that your departure from law school teaching (that it is clearly imminent) is voluntary (and yes, it's pretty obvious to all readers that you are exiting law school teaching, inferred by reading your hysterical and rancid posts.) However, I think your posts here illustrate another fallacy, or at least misconception on your part - that law professors are only being forced out because of the economic pressure on law schools and LST. It could simply be because they really ought not to be teaching.

Your posts illustrate another point - passing the bar (which I presume you did (but who knows)) does not in fact show that someone is actually qualified to practice law. I think that may soon be apparent to you too.


Professor Frakt and moderators,

I think it's become clear though Mac's multiple and increasingly unhinged, fact-free, and personal attacks that such posts should not have been allowed in the first place and should be removed.


I have no idea what the heck you're even trying to say anymore. I'm not departing law teaching, involuntarily or otherwise. It's called sarcasm.



Let's be clear here. You placed a series of screeds on this forum in which you made personal and ad hominem attacks on Frat, Merritt, McEntee and LST. You questioned their motives and bone fides, implied that some mysterious conspiracy was sponsoring them, ranted repeatedly and when pressed could not back up any of your alleged facts. You made idiotic statements in which you accused LST of ignoring the hiring of graduates by large schools, ignoring the reality that it was LST that unveiled this practice. In fact, you could be described as making a series of "increasingly unhinged, fact-free, and personal attacks." Curiously Anon - you are convinced that commenting on an anonymous person is a personal attack (try and get your head around the logic of that.)

In response I am pointing out two things, which you can be sure has occurred to everyone who has read your "increasingly unhinged, fact-free, and personal attacks" and that is that they are clearly motivated by a strong personal animus, one that most reasonable observers would consider as almost certainly reflecting your personal situation at your law school.

I also pointed out that you posts have been so irrational and devoid of actual factual content that it does in fact speak to your abilities as a law teacher and indeed when the thing you fear happens, as a lawyer. You have in fact read your posts? You have seen the wild logical fallacies, the personal attacks embedded in every one haven't you? Or maybe you have not - actually almost certainly you have not.


You're blending your anons, Mac. I am not the one who (allegedly) questioned LSTs bona fides or raised questions about their funding sources. Different anon.



Oh dear, one anon claims not to be another anon - who knew.... and who is convinced....

John Coates

Total enrollment of the top 6 law schools (see Blau and Margulies 1974-75) has been the same since 1970.

In that time, the US population grew by 55%, and US GDP has grown by more than 14x.

anonymous cowards

Ill bet anon is another shyster who works for toliet tier law schools preying on clueless students. It's funny how the folks who cant stand criticism of unscrupulous law school practices always seem to work for law schools. Correlation?

anonymous cowards

Shyster law schools and the worthless ABA are slowly destroying this profession as they saddle bottom tier, poorly educated students with no hope of BAR passage with 6 figures of debt. And they have the audacity to say they do so for the good of diversity. If they actually cared about diversity, toliet law schools wouldnt charge 40-50k a year in tuition. It's no wonder why our legal profession is considered unscrupulous by everyone else, considering how we prey on young and vunerable students entering the profession.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad