Sunday, March 1, 2015
Two ABA-Accredited Law Schools Have Now Decided to Drop the LSAT for Ten Percent of Their Incoming Classes
The Culprits: SUNY Buffalo and the University of Iowa: On February 24, 2015, BloombergBusiness published reporter Natalie Kitroeff’s article, which was entitled “The First Two Law Schools to Drop the LSAT Could Be Just the Beginning.” Check out this opening:
“Two law schools said this month that they would begin accepting applicants who have not taken the Law School Admissions Test, a move that may help curb weak interest and plunging enrollments in law schools across the country. The State University of New York-Buffalo Law School and the University of Iowa College of Law said they would admit students from their respective undergraduate colleges based on their grade point average and scores on standardized tests other than the LSAT.
“Taking the LSAT is a pain, and it is expensive,” says James Gardner, dean of SUNY Buffalo’s law school. The test comes with a $170 fee, often in addition to months-long prep courses and tutoring that can cost thousands of dollars. “This is just a way to identify strong-performing students based on perfectly rational criteria that don’t involve the LSAT,” Gardner says.
He acknowledges, however, that the change might be a lifeline to law schools, which have lately been suffering from a persistent lack of bodies. “It does address that problem to the extent that they remove what is, for some students, an obstacle for applying to law school,” says Gardner. In 2014, first-year enrollment at U.S. law schools fell to about 38,000, its lowest point in four decades, down 28 percent since it peaked in 2010. First-year enrollments have declined by around 20 percent since 2011 at both SUNY Buffalo and the University of Iowa.
The two schools are the first to announce that they've taken advantage of a recent ruling by the American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools. In August, the ABA changed its rules to allow law schools to fill up to 10 percent of their class with students who have not taken the LSAT, as long as they were at the top of their college class and scored highly on the the SAT and ACT, college aptitude tests, or on the GRE or GMAT graduate school exams.
Additional law schools will probably follow. Before the ABA loosened its standards, around 15 schools had successfully applied for special dispensation to admit some students without LSAT scores, and Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the ABA, expects these and other programs to take advantage of new rules allowing them to do so without informing the ABA.” [Emphasis mine]
Listening to law school dean proclaim that the LSAT is an expensive pain is priceless, in terms of the comedy gold provided. Sitting in a chair for roughly four hours and shelling out a few hundred bucks is NOTHING compared to three years and incurring $130K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt for a chance to enter a GLUTTED field.
Perhaps, “law professors” truly have the math aptitude of a toddler. On second thought, even 18 month kids can put the colored donuts/stacking rings in the right order. Overpaid, severely underworked academics complaining about the cost of the LSAT are the equivalent of hardened drug dealers stating that they want neighborhood children to wear bike helmets – in order to look out for their health and safety.
Other Coverage: Elie Mystal issued a scathing, epic ATL piece – on February 27, 2015. His article was labeled “Killing The LSAT Is A Bad Deal For Students.” He comes out swinging, i.e. telling the truth about this sham:
“Law schools are not dispensing with the LSAT to help you, they’re doing it to trick you. Instead of dropping $170 on a fee, plus whatever you spend on a prep course, to figure out if you might actually be good at law school, they want to strike down any barrier that might make you reconsider taking on $150,000 or more in debt. Oh, you’ll still have to take a massively important standardized test, it’s called the bar exam. But the school will have already gotten your money/debt obligations by the time you sit for it. The house wins the moment you step into the casino.
And those are just the surface problems. Those are just the obvious issues with law schools dropping the LSAT requirement. The news from the University of Iowa and SUNY Buffalo is actually even more nefariously designed to trick students when you start peeling back additional layers.”
Later on, Mystal nailed this situation down PERFECTLY. Behold:
“These law schools are trying to turn the purchase of legal education into an impulse buy. Don’t buy a prep course that costs a thousand bucks, instead spend $150,000 bucks on a lark. This is the law school version of the guy who tells you that he doesn’t use condoms because it “kills the mood.” The LSAT is a de-minimus prophylactic that, if used properly, can help protect students from harm. But Iowa and SUNY just want you to trust them.
IT’S A TRAP. Barry Currier, managing director of accreditation and legal education at the American Bar Association, basically said so:
Currier says doing away with the test might draw people to a career in law who would otherwise go to business or medical school.
Think about that statement for a second. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THAT? That’s the problem with law schools right there. Instead of making law school reasonable, affordable, and valuable to people who want to be lawyers, deans are concerned with drawing — suckering — people into law who don’t know what they want to do with their lives. “I wanted to be a doctor, but I went to law school because I didn’t have to take a test.” That’s who they’re trying to sell law school to! That’s freaking evil.” [Emphasis mine]
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the cockroaches at the American Bar Association issued this decision, in order to buoy sagging applications and enrollment at member schools. Real professional schools seek to limit entry to the field BEFORE the pupils take on insane amounts of educational debt. However, we know conclusively, by now, that U.S. “law professors” and administrators DO NOT GIVE ONE DAMN about the students. It is all about the money, and the pigs want to extend this scam for as long as possible.
Posted by Nando at 5:49 AM
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Washington and Lee School of Law Gets Flushed by University Administration and Members of the Board of Trustees
The Garbage Pit’s Announcement: This certified trash heap issued a press release, labeled “School of Law Strategic Transition Plan,” on February 9, 2015. Here is the text, in part:
“Washington and Lee School of Law
Strategic Transition Plan
In response to the changes in the legal profession and legal education nationally, Washington and Lee's School of Law has adopted a proactive approach to stabilize the school's enrollment and financial structure without sacrificing its special strengths. The University's senior administration, in consultation with a working group of faculty and administrators within the law school and a task force of trustees, has developed a strategic initiative that is now being implemented after being presented to the Board of Trustees at its winter meeting this month.
As outlined in the bullet points below, Washington and Lee's law school intends to protect its core values, including its emphasis on educating students for professional integrity, as well as its defining characteristics of personalized attention, strong student-faculty relationships, and an innovative curriculum. At the same time, the financial framework will enable the school to return to self-sufficiency by the 2017-18 academic year.
Highlights of the Plan
• Beginning with the 2015-16 academic year, the school will enroll entering 1L classes of about 100 students, resulting in a full-time student body of about 300. For comparison's sake, the current law school student body is 374 and includes the largest third-year class in school history. The Class of 2017, which entered last fall, had 101 members…
• The current student-faculty ratio (9:1) will be preserved, but with smaller enrollments the allocation for faculty compensation will be reduced by about 20 percent (equivalent to six positions) and will be achieved through attrition over the four-year period. In addition, some senior faculty salaries will have a one-time salary reduction of 2 percent with salaries frozen for all faculty during the three-year period.
• Six administrative and staff positions will be reduced over a five-year period, and there will also be budget reductions for visiting and adjunct faculty.” [Emphasis mine]
You’re welcome, thieves! For too long, you vultures have fed on the flesh and futures of lemmings. Now, that you have gorged yourselves – and the potential pool of victims continues to shrink – you are forced to undergo some serious cuts.
Actually, it appears that the univer$ity’s senior administration and the board of tru$tee$ made this decision for you, bitches. Isn’t it great to see that potential law school applicants are now starting to resemble “sophisticated consumers”?!?!
Other Coverage: On February 19, 2015, Paul Campos wrote a Lawyers, Guns & Money entry entitled “Washington and Lee Law School cuts salaries, downsizes faculty and staff, invades corpus of endowment.” Check out his analysis of the situation:
“Prior to last year, the school’s total JD enrollment was consistently between 390-405 JD students, so this plan represents about a 25% reduction in the student body relative to historical norms.
W&L got a lot of good press a few years ago for transforming their third year of law school into an “experiential” externship-based program. The program didn’t result in more jobs for their graduates, however, and now the school’s central administration is bringing down the budget hammer.
Similar stories are now playing out all over legal academia.” [Emphasis mine]
I know how much “law professors” love to claim that attorneys and law students suck at math. However, the administration, tru$tee$ and business consultants at the parent univer$ity have some arithmetic skills. After all, they are planning to reduce overall SOL faculty compensation by about 20% – as a way to offset an enrollment drop of 25 percent. If the cockroaches were in charge of cuts, they would try to trim their salaries by about 1/10 of that amount. Plus, they would also try to maintain their foolish journals and wasteful clinic offerings – at the same time.
Conclusion: As you can see, the trash pit will charge $45,110 in tuition alone – for the 2015-2016 school year. Fees will add another $1,107 to this big-ass figure. It is also currently rated as the co-43rd greatest, most magnificent and sensational law school in the entire country – by US “News” & World Report. Sadly, waterheads are still applying to, and enrolling in, this pile of excrement. Hell, if these commodes charged $78K per year, in tuition alone, idiots would still seek admission.
Keep your eyes open for other college$ and univer$itie$ to cut the fat among their law faculty, in upcoming months. For decades, these corporations – even the ones designated as “non-profit” - have relied on the law schools as cash cows. You can bet your ass that the main heads of these supposed “in$titution$ of higher learning” will not bleed money – in order to keep the pigs afloat. By the way, these men and women are smart enough to realize that the national decrease in law school applicants is not a temporary trend. Do you really picture these shrewd administrators bailing out the swine for SEVERAL years, in the hopes that the law schools will eventually see an increase in enrollment?!
Posted by Nando at 4:32 AM
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Burnt to a Crisp: On February 18, 2015, Slate published a Jordan Weissmann piece entitled “The Great Law School Bust Is About to Claim Its First Victim.” Look at this opening:
“In 2014, law schools watched their new enrollment numbers collapse to lows not seen since the 1970s, as the tales of horror and woe from the legal job market continued to scare off would-be applicants. The lack of students has, of course, presented some financial difficulties for the academy. Schools have tried to tighten up their budgets in response (one especially oversize[d] J.D. mill even closed a campus), but it was starting to seem inevitable that at least one would have to shut down entirely.
We haven't quite reached that point. However, two law schools in St. Paul, Minnesota, have now announced plans to merge in order to stay afloat. Pending approval from the American Bar Association, Hamline University School of Law and William Mitchell College of Law will combine their operations starting next fall. The reports make it sound, more or less, like Hamline is getting absorbed by its old rival. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the new school will operate "independently" of Hamline—mostly out of William Mitchell's campus—and will be headed by William Mitchell's current dean. No word yet on layoffs.” [Emphasis mine]
It’s great to see mainstream publications using terms such as “JD mill.” Remember when such phrases were only being employed by scambloggers? Thanks to watershed articles from David Segal of the New York Times and the efforts of Paul Campos and Brian Tamanaha, it became acceptable for others to take a swing at the law school pigs.
Now, scroll down to Weissmann’s conclusion:
“According to an American Bar Association spokesman, this is the first time "in memory" that two accredited law schools have merged. (The ABA does not keep records of law school closings on hand, but the spokesman said no staff knew of any similar instances.) As far as the organization knows, no accredited law school has ever closed outright, either. But don't be shocked if it eventually happens.” [Emphasis mine]
I covered this TTT merger in my prior entry. However, this is an important moment in U.S. “legal education.” The cockroaches will need to decide whether they want to extend the scam until the old farts on the faculty retire or end up in wooden coats, at the expense of keeping their respective commodes viable long-term.
Other Coverage: On February 18, 2015, Adam Wahlberg posted a MinnPost article headlined “Why William Mitchell and Hamline Law had to merge.” Check out the following excerpt:
“There are a lot of reasons the merger of Hamline University and William Mitchell College of Law makes sense. But it’s also clear that they had to do this. That’s why the news was released on a Friday with a minimal amount of hurrahs. It’s a downsizing, not an occasion to throw confetti…
Minnesota is conspicuous by its abundance of law students, and right-sizing has arrived. The boom times are over, and the 2008 recession won. Last year Hamline had just 90 [first year] students, making it one of only 25 law schools in the country with fewer than 100 [first year] students. Hamline fought back as best it could. It zealously marketed, particularly its weekend JD track, which was apparent to anyone who walked through the downtown Minneapolis skyway system. But the enrollment numbers at both Hamline and William Mitchell were still down, in no small part thanks to each school’s tuition (holding steady at $30,000 for each) and job reports from the market (holding steady at fairly abysmal).
And so Mitchell|Hamline School of Law was born out of necessity. It may take a while before it looks good on a sweatshirt.” [Emphasis mine]
Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think that Mitchell|Hamline Sewer of Law will look good on a damn diploma?!?! Hell, they ought to issue these degrees on two-ply toilet paper. That’s about all your “education” is worth to employers, Lemming.
Later on, the piece contained this little nugget:
“[TTT Dean Jean] Holloway’s predecessor, Don Lewis, who today is in practice at Nilan Johnson Lewis, echoes Holloway’s sentiment, while noting that such a merger is close to unprecedented in American jurisprudence.
“There have been only a couple other mergers of this magnitude,” said Lewis. “Michigan State and Detroit College of Law did one many years back, and about five years ago so did the University of New Hampshire and the Franklin Pierce Law Center.
Those are the only ones I know of.” Those are the only ones so far, though there are rumors in the legal world about Vermont Law School and the University of Vermont pulling the trigger.” [Emphasis mine]
Don’t forget that Texas A&M University purchased a toilet formerly known as Texas Wesleyan SOL; Rutgers-Newark supposedly merging with Rutgers-Camden; Western Michigan University partnering with TTTT Cooley Law Sewer; various ABA commodes admitting students from the parent university without making them take the LSAT; accredited law schools in lily white areas targeting kids from Historically Black College$ and Univer$itie$; trash pits advertising on city buses; dung heaps continually admitting first year classes with declining LSAT scores and UGPAs; etc. Do you feel that the bitches and hags are resorting to such measures because they are doing so well?!?!
Conclusion: You can bet your ass that I am enjoying the hell out of this development. Don’t feel sorry for the pigs and cockroaches. If you start to do so, then just think of all the young lives that they have FINANCIALLY RUINED over the years. In the event that you are still sorrowful for the academic thieves, go ahead and jump into freeway traffic. By the way, it will be great to see the “educator” swine apply for actual jobs – where they will be expected to be productive – especially positions where they will no longer suck on the federal teat.
Posted by Nando at 4:14 AM
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Toilet Merger: William Mitchell College of Law and Hamline University School of Law to Join Third Tier Forces
One Down: On February 13, 2014, the Star Tribune published a piece from reporter Maura Lerner, under the banner headline “Hamline, William Mitchell law schools to merge.” Check out this epic opening:
“With enrollment in a free-fall nationally, some predicted it was just a matter of time before some American law schools started disappearing.
Now, Minnesota is dropping from four to three. On Friday, Hamline University and William Mitchell College of Law announced that they are merging their law schools, which have been rivals for four decades.
The surprise announcement comes at a time when law schools throughout the country are struggling to fill their seats, and first-year enrollment has dropped to a 40-year low. This would be the first merger of two law schools in memory, according to a spokesman for the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools.
The new combined school will be called the Mitchell|Hamline School of Law, and will be located mainly on Mitchell’s campus in St. Paul. It will be headed by Mitchell’s new dean, Mark Gordon, who was appointed just last month.
“What this is going to do is give the combined law school a sufficient size to be able to offer a truly robust program of legal education,” said Eric Janus, who is stepping down as Mitchell’s dean this summer. He said the newly combined school will have about 900 students. As of last year, Hamline had 439 students and Mitchell had 809.
Jean Holloway, who was named Hamline’s first female law school dean in December 2013, declined to say if she’ll remain at the new school. “It remains to be seen,” she said.
Janus acknowledged that combining the two schools will result in some cuts in faculty and staff. But he declined to speculate how many jobs may be lost and said he hoped to avoid layoffs through voluntary attrition. Mitchell has the equivalent of 35 full-time faculty members and Hamline has 26, according to school officials.” [Emphasis mine]
This is a watershed moment in U.S. “legal education.” I am glad to see that more “law professors” – including a recently installed dean – will be tossed in the trash, where they belong. Now these bitches and hags get to prove whether they could indeed land a job that pays much higher than a teaching position! At least, there will be fewer parasites on campus.
Other Coverage: On February 13, 2015, Twin Cities Pioneer Press posted a Josh Verges article labeled “Hamline, William Mitchell law schools to merge.” Look at this portion:
“After four straight years of steep enrollment declines, St. Paul's two law schools have agreed to become one.
The William Mitchell College of Law and Hamline University School of Law on Friday announced an agreement on a long-rumored merger -- the Mitchell-Hamline School of Law.
The law school will exist primarily on the Mitchell campus, but some classes will be held at Hamline.
"It's a bold move, for sure, and probably long overdue," said Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota State Bar Association and a Mitchell graduate.
Law school enrollment in Minnesota and nationally has been in a tailspin. Anxiety over student loan debt is high, and job prospects for new lawyers have been slim since the Great Recession.
Since peaking in 2010, first-year law school enrollment has fallen 28 percent across the country to its lowest point since 1973, the American Bar Association reported.
At Hamline and Mitchell, first-year enrollment has dropped 56 percent in the past four years -- from a combined 584 to 259 this fall.” [Emphasis mine]
Now, scroll down to the end of the page, and review this info:
“BY THE NUMBERS
- On U.S. News and World Report's latest annual ranking of 194 U.S. law schools, Hamline placed 121st and William Mitchell 135th. The University of Minnesota placed 20th and the University of St. Thomas 129th.
- According to their most recent tax filings, William Mitchell lost nearly $1.6 million on $35 million in revenues in 2012-13, while Hamline made about $800,000 on revenue of about $122 million. An official for William Mitchell notes their loss was due to a one-time expense. During the fiscal years ending in 2011 and 2012, William Mitchell reported surpluses of $3.7 million and $2.9 million, respectively.” [Emphasis mine]
Clearly, these two steaming piles of waste didn’t merge because they were both in such extraordinary financial shape. Now that law school applicants are somewhat approaching “sophisticated consumer” status, fewer are applying to, and enrolling in, ABA-accredited toilets.
Conclusion: Good riddance to the third tier commode known as Hamline University Sewer of Law! On a side note, the former “director” of my toilet’s CDO was a Hamline JD. It has taken a lot of concerted effort – from many dedicated individuals – to reach this point. Let’s see how many other dung heaps and trash pits follow in these TTT footsteps. To those who have helped expose the law school scam, thank you. This is a great day, and you should to reflect on and enjoy your contribution to saving young people from financial hell.
Posted by Nando at 5:36 AM
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The Excellent News Continues: On February 7, 2015, the Indianapolis Business Journal published a J.K. Wall piece entitled “ ‘No relief’ for law school enrollment slump.” The entire article is fascinating, and it provides real insight into how the pigs view their students. Take at look at this wonderful opening:
“After three down years for law school enrollment, Austen Parrish expected a rebound of applications and enrollment this year at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
But it isn’t happening.
The law school, which Parrish leads, saw the number of first-year law students decline 10 percent this school year on top of the nearly 25-percent decline in first-year enrollment it suffered from 2010 to 2013.
A similar story is playing out at most law schools in Indiana and the nation. Enrollment has fallen at the IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law at IUPUI and Valparaiso University Law School in northwest Indiana.
And a law school started recently by Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne has enrolled only a third of the students it expected.
In response, Indiana’s law schools are not replacing retiring faculty, spending more on recruiting, creating programs for non-attorney types of legal education, and experimenting with an educational approach that responds to what many see as permanent shifts in demand for legal services.” [Emphasis mine]
Perhaps, Cockroach Austen Parrish will take a pay cut in his big-ass, unjustified salary - in order to help out his fellow academic thieves. In a just world, these swine would be taken out back and flogged severely. Later on, the story continued:
Normally, law school grads would be sucked up by private law firms. But firms aren’t hiring as much for a host of reasons, IU Maurer professor Bill Henderson wrote in Pepperdine Law Review in a searing 2013 article titled “A Blueprint for Change.”
[Pig] Henderson, named last month by National Jurist magazine as the most influential person in legal education, noted that more corporate clients insist on fee-based contracts rather than paying for billable hours. Also, many clients refuse to pay for work performed by junior associates—that is, recent law school graduates.
Those trends have squeezed the percentage of hours for which law firms are paid—versus what they actually worked—to about 80 percent from more than 90 percent five years ago.
On top of that, fast-growing companies are performing electronic discovery and due diligence—the kinds of things recent law school grads were often assigned—with computer algorithms or lawyers in India.
“The demand for our core product—traditionally trained law school graduates—is collapsing,” Henderson wrote. He added, “Stated bluntly, the legal profession is becoming a subset of a larger legal industry that is increasingly populated by nonlawyers, technologists, and entrepreneurs.”
The drop-off in demand for lawyers is so serious that some law schools could go out of business.” [Emphasis mine]
For $ome rea$on, the law school cockroaches fail to mention the slow death of the billable hour to their students and potential victims, during either the application process or at orienTTTaTTTion. A mere oversight on their part, right?!?! By the way, you could easily replace these worthless, tenured pieces of trash with lectures on DVD.
Other Coverage: On January 10, 2015, Jim Vasallo’s entry, “Enrollment at Law Schools in Indiana Continues to Drop,” was posted on JD Journal. Focus on the brief excerpt below:
“Maurer School of Law is not the only one in Indiana suffering from a drop in enrollment. Valparaiso University Law School and the IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law at IUPUI have also suffered through a drop in enrollment.
A brand new law school started by Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne did not bring in the number of students it expected to do so.
Susan Fitzgerald, a higher education analyst from Moody’s Investors Service, said, “This continued decrease in student demand is consistent with our belief that the legal industry is experiencing a fundamental shift rather than a cyclical trend.” [Emphasis mine]
You’re welcome, bitches! Do you understand the importance of that last statement? That was from Moody’s, not some angry law grad working as a doc review monkey. It is great to see that college grads are now better informed – due to these blogs and mainstream articles on the scam – and making wise decisions.
Conclusion: I enjoy watching the law school pigs burn to a crisp. Who doesn’t enjoy the smell of bacon?! Just think of the numbers of young lives these bastards have collectively ruined, over the course of their academic avocation. Once you take that into account, you will not feel one ounce of sympathy for these “educators” getting bought out and bounced. In the final analysis, it is only a matter of time before a few of these dung heaps shut down. Univer$itie$ will not continue to purchase garbage law schools, and college “presidents” will not keep shelling out large amounts of cash in order to keep these filthy turds afloat.
Posted by Nando at 4:22 AM
Friday, February 6, 2015
The Verdict on Legal Clinics: Jason Webb Yackee, an associate “professor” at the University of Wisconsin Law Sewer, published a brief academic paper – in draft form - entitled “Does Experiential Learning Improve JD Employment Outcomes?” You can download the damn thing at the link above. Take a look at his conclusion:
“The ABA, through its recently amended accreditation standards, has increased the pressure on law schools to spend more of their dollars on skills training. This may be a good thing, but before deciding that it is, we should identify what we are hoping to accomplish, what it might prevent us from accomplishing, and we should use modern empirical methods, to the extent possible, to estimate the likelihood and magnitude of the anticipated consequences, both good and bad. This paper is a modest attempt to examine one anticipated consequence—that more skills training is likely to lead to better JD employment outcomes. The results, while certainly not definitive, are also not encouraging.
None of this is to say that skills education is necessarily wasted money. Law schools might rationally and justifiably invest in skills training to achieve other worthwhile goals unrelated to JD employment outcomes. It is easy to imagine a number of plausible and perhaps even empirically testable hypotheses about the positive consequences of skills training. For example, perhaps students who engage in skills training have a more enjoyable time in law school. Perhaps they enter their first job with more confidence and less stress. Perhaps they obtain better jobs than they otherwise would have obtained. Perhaps they have a meaningful impact on the lives of the legally underserved. Perhaps they are less likely to commit professional malpractice in their first jobs. And so on. Clinics and other experiential learning opportunities certainly have a role to play in modern legal education, and perhaps an important one. But in deciding how much to spend on providing such opportunities, law schools might want to consider the lack of evidence that such opportunities are likely to improve their graduates’ overall prospects of obtaining a quality job as a lawyer.” [Emphasis mine]
Yes, law grads are going to put their “advocacy skills” to use when they are selling insurance policies, tending bar, and stocking shelves, right?!?! And who doesn’t go to law school for the primary purpose of having an enjoyable time?! What better way to piss away three years of your life and incur an additional $135K+ in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt! That is more important than becoming a licensed attorney, correct?
Other Coverage: On February 5, 2015, the Washington Post featured an Orin Kerr op-ed piece labeled “Do law school clinics lead to more jobs for law school graduates?” Check out this excerpt:
“From the paper:
In this section I present a statistical analysis examining the correlation between employment outcomes and clinical opportunities. Graph 3 provides an initial examination, a simple scatterplot of employment outcomes versus clinical positions available as a percent of enrolled JD students. If clinical opportunities positively impacted employment outcomes, we would expect the data points to slope upward and to the right. In fact, the trend-line is slightly upward sloping, but it is not statistically significant (p=0.687). Moreover, if we remove Yale as an outlier, the trend-line is perfectly flat. In either case, the graph provides no evidence of a meaningful relationship between clinical opportunities and employment outcomes.” [Emphasis mine]
This is no surprise to the legions of JDs who were enrolled in garbage internships and clinics – and then ended up returning to their prior line of work or went into a typical, non-law office setting. By the way, when you end up in internships or TTT clinics, legal employers typically view you as a loser who couldn’t find a real job during law school. After all, who in their right mind takes on mountains of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt – for the “privilege” of representing ungrateful, broke-ass clients?!?!
Michael Risch, law school pig at Villanova, posted a Faculty Lounge entry labeled “Law School Clinics and Employment.” Review the following portion:
“The results of this study aren't terribly surprising to me. I'm not a clinic hater - indeed, I started and ran one myself. But I've long believed that hiring is based on market conditions and little else. Thus, I've never really understood the strong push for increased clinical education in the name of increase employment at a time when law schools must cut budgets, given that good clinics are expensive. Of course, increasing clinical education because it leads to better learning outcomes may make the investment worthwhile.
I suppose, then, I should not have been surprised to see my own law school's view of experiential learning front and center in this paper: we've ramped up our efforts, opening two new clinics, expanded externship opportunities, and created week-long modules targeted at real-world learning. Why? Because our students asked for it, our employers asked for it, and we think it will help our students be better lawyers earlier (even if I'm skeptical about being ready on day one).
Nonetheless, this may be an area where stated preferences differ from revealed preferences. Are our employment outcomes better? Yes. Are they better enough? Not until everyone gets a job -- but no number of clinics will get that done. Market conditions and prestige are the key drivers, and this paper finds as much.” [Emphasis mine]
Can you even picture these bitches and hags working in private law firms? They would be required to be productive – and publishing articles that point out the obvious does not fall under that category. At least, this “educator” is honest about market conditions and prestige, i.e. decent law firms don’t want to hire idiots who went to low-ranked toilets. So what the hell is the point of attending such a cesspool and taking part in these clinics?!?!
Conclusion: In the final analysis, the law school cockroaches have been using these programs so they can chirp about making students “practice ready.” The MAIN problem is that there are not enough damn legal job openings for the numbers of law grads each year! Anyone with a brain stem and a shred of honesty has realized this for years. For the dense, building more horse-drawn carriages is not going to magically lead to an increase in demand for such a product. If you are still considering law school at this point, then you are a pathetic fool.
Posted by Nando at 12:26 AM
Monday, February 2, 2015
Rise of the Machines: On January 25, 2014, Greenwich Time published a Maggie Gordon article entitled “Trending: Where the lawyers live.” Take a look at this opening:
“Lower Fairfield County has long been a haven for lawyers, with the town of Greenwich employing about three times as many legal professionals per capita as the national average. But the changing nature of the field in an increasingly digital world is disturbing that landscape.
Suddenly, in about 2008, 2009 and 2010, the market began contracting because fewer people were interested in the traditional attorney-client relationship model," said Mark Dubois, president of the Connecticut Bar Association.
"Many people thought they could do what they needed to do online, whether it was refinancing their house or with other legal documents. They'll ask them to be emailed to them to sign and then they'll email them back instead of billing all those hours," Dubois said. "So the profession has and is changing." [Emphasis mine]
Imagine that, people! Who would have thought that legal clients would use software and an Internet connection to save money?! If this is happening in small town America, then you can bet your ass that the effect on lawyers in big cities is that much greater – especially when you take doc review into account. A few paragraphs later, the piece continued:
“[Y]oung lawyers are having a hard time finding jobs in a sector of the economy that has been tightening. Back in 2011, the American Bar Association reported 9.2 percent of law school grads were still unemployed nine months after graduation. The following year that figure was up to 10.6 percent, and in 2013 it increased again to 11.2 percent.
"My practice has changed dramatically over the past five or 10 years, primarily because of the technological advances," said Greenwich resident Glen Canner, who practices law in Stamford. "I'm able to do so much myself now. I read about the challenges new lawyers have finding employment and I compare that to my situation, where these advancements allow me to do a lot of the work myself."
LegalZoom trumps juniors
When Canner began his career 35 years ago, young lawyers were needed to review cases, do research and tackle some straightforward cases. But with the efficiencies he's been able to create with document readers and increasingly digital records, that kind of manpower isn't needed anymore.
"That's good for me," he said. "But for these young lawyers, how do they break into the field? I feel their pain, because they need to get experience to build their careers, but there's just not as much of a need anymore." [Emphasis mine]
Many attorneys are now relying on piecemeal work for the bulk of their business. If you don’t know what that means, then you simply shouldn’t be accepted into a “professional degree” program. Now scroll down to this conclusion:
“[I]n the law field, this is translating to a smaller number of young lawyers. The Connecticut Bar Association tracks the number of lawyers across all age ranges, and while there were 6,154 lawyers in their 30s at last count and 9,211 lawyers in their 40s, there were only 1,290 lawyers in their 20s.
"There's one way that you can view the story," Dubois said. "What had been a robust market, where you could spend three years going to school and then enjoy a lifetime of reasonable earnings in a recession-proof profession has now been rendered asunder in the new market economics of the 21st century with the advent of technology and the change in how people define legal services or the delivery of legal services." [Emphasis mine]
Other Coverage: On January 25, 2015, “Digitalserf” started a JD Junkyard thread, which was labeled “CT Young lawyers replaced by technology.” Check out this insightful comment from "JohnDoeee," posted on January 26, 2015 at 1:11 am:
"...began his career 35 years ago..."
Nando has been addressing the effects of technology on legal employment for quite some time now on Third Tier Reality.
In fact, his latest entry comments on commercials for Legal Zoom.
Technology is a problem but it's not even the main problem. Tuition has far outstripped inflation for many years now. Law is similar to a Ponzi scheme in that people who started 35 years ago, the early investors, did in fact get some return on their investment which was cheaper at that time. As more and more people received JD's, the value of the degree, the investment, was diluted. Year after year. And each year, the investment costs more for less likely and less[e]r returns.
Law is all but dead for the Winners in the New Guilded Age we live in. In short, the PPC: The Preferred, Protected, and Connected.” [Emphasis mine]
This poster is correct. Those who got in earlier definitely benefited greatly. They essentially paid a small admission fee into the “profession” and competed with fewer attorneys for a large, ignorant potential client base.
Conclusion: In the final analysis, lawyers were once able to access guarded information that was not readily available to clients and the general public. Now, anyone with an Internet connection and a brain stem can view statutes, case law, property records, etc. With the advent of companies such as LegalZoom, those in need of legal services can save tons of money. People can now draft their own wills and file for divorce without the need for some schmuck to bill them a few thousand dollars.
By the way, the general public now realizes that attorneys have been robbing them blind. Why should they pay a lawyer $3,000 for easy draftings anf filings? For the common man and woman, this is good news. However, since law school tuition has reached outrageous levels, those seeking to enter the supposed “profession” are the ones taking it on the nose and chin. Don’t worry, “law professor” pigs. Many of you will soon have the chance to practice law and scrape by for a living, too.
Posted by Nando at 4:48 AM