Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Something to think about if you or anyone you know is looking at law school.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/busin ... ef=general" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is pretty sad all-around. On the one hand college undergrads should be more careful about making sure an investment as big as law school will have a commensurate return, but would you have as many people in this situation if law schools weren't starved for students and skewing job placement stats? And if high school guidance counselors and undergrad academic advisers need to make sure students understand the truth about job market realities.
SMH

I've been saying this for years.

I'm very lucky to be where I am. I have friends that paid exponentially more to go to law school then I did (scholarship) and who make $40,000 a year. $40,000 a year cannot pay for $150,000 in debt.

Shame on US News for their hack rankings and shame on the law schools for lying about their employment numbers and charging absolutely outlandish amounts of tuition, but most importantly shame on the American Bar Association for accrediting way too many half-assed law schools.

Cry us a fvcking river!

native wrote:Cry us a fvcking river!

Hey man - I don't have anything to cry about. And people who go to law school because they don't know what else to do aren't off the hook either.

But there are institutional issues that are also at fault for this problem.

I don't know, UM's law school isn't too bad of a value, I believe around 10K a year for in-state students. Pretty highly rated for a state school, too. My sister's boyfriend is in his second year there, and I believe he's more or less guaranteed a job with the firm he's interning for right now.

I doubt he'll be making 160K right off the bat, but very few people in MT make that much, anyway.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:Cry us a fvcking river!

Hey man - I don't have anything to cry about. And people who go to law school because they don't know what else to do aren't off the hook either.

But there are institutional issues that are also at fault for this problem.

Understand and concur, df.

...but my previous post was, well, kinda fun.

The giant student loan balances that people are graduating with these days are a ball and chain on the newbie to income earning, some so much so, many may never be able to get them paid back.

There are so many attorneys in these small towns where I live, there are some living at or near the poverty level. If it were not for the municipal, county and state work available to them, many would need to change their profession.

It's actually pretty tough out there for new law graduates with these loan balances.

I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for people who get themselves in this situation...nor do I have sympathy for people who bought homes they couldn't afford. Of course, there is more than one side to blame in both instances, but ignorance is not an excuse.

bandl wrote:I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for people who get themselves in this situation...nor do I have sympathy for people who bought homes they couldn't afford. Of course, there is more than one side to blame in both instances, but ignorance is not an excuse.

Point taken, but in the case of an 18 or 19 year old talking to the admissions folks about how they can afford their education, the federal student loan program comes right up.

Tell an impressionable young person who up to now has lived at home, never had more than a temporary job, and probably has not yet balanced a check book that the pittance they will borrow to get their degree is not going to be a burden on them later as they earn bazillions in their new career...

I mean it's ok if you are sure you are MD material, but a law degree? Earning power may depend on a lot more than just passing the bar.

We have posters righ here I believe that have very large studen loan balances, that are pursuing degrees that simply will not provide a huge income. These are kids, just getting started.

Dang!

I would never advise a son or daughter to attend law school now. The market is saturated, and good entry-level positions are few. The law business has always been somewhat cyclical -- bankruptcy types flourish when transactional lawyers are in the tank, and vice versa -- but this is structurally different. Would-be first year associates are competing with legal research services from Bangalore. My little firm has done pretty well, but there's no assurance of continued success. You're only as good as your last case.

Ivytalk wrote:I would never advise a son or daughter to attend law school now. The market is saturated, and good entry-level positions are few. The law business has always been somewhat cyclical -- bankruptcy types flourish when transactional lawyers are in the tank, and vice versa -- but this is structurally different. Would-be first year associates are competing with legal research services from Bangalore. My little firm has done pretty well, but there's no assurance of continued success. You're only as good as your last case.

I tell people one thing regarding to law school nowadays - only go if you can go on a really good scholarship and pay next to nothing.

If you have to pay a lot, don't go. You won't make it back anytime soon.

There are way too many lawyers, law students, and law schools.

It's funny how law is taught in this country -- under the assumption that everyone who wants to study law on the graduate level should strive to be a lawyer.

Understanding law is wonderful, but is there a market/need for schools which would teach law for people interested in public service careers? Certainly a school can deliver a superior legal education for such people without charging $40,000 a year in tuition.

C'mon...if these greedy law students had only taken a couple of simple courses such as economics, math, and/or statistics, they would not be in their situation.

But let's not forget that lawyering is such a noble profession.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... nt/105940/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JoltinJoe wrote:There are way too many lawyers, law students, and law schools.

It's funny how law is taught in this country -- under the assumption that everyone who wants to study law on the graduate level should strive to be a lawyer.

Understanding law is wonderful, but is there a market/need for schools which would teach law for people interested in public service careers? Certainly a school can deliver a superior legal education for such people without charging $40,000 a year in tuition.

My alma mater used to do such a thing actually and I always thought it was a great program. It was a Masters of Law program (but not a post JD LLM). The students took the same first-year law school classes as JD students but spread out over whatever time they wanted. They also took a few electives of their chosing, which were usually related to their field of employment. Total cost for the degree was around $20,000. Most of the students were social workers, cops, and other public service employees.

They cut the program the year after I graduated because they said it apparently detracted from the "reputation" of the school. Total BS. They just wanted to fill those seats in the classroom with JD students paying $40,000 a year who now have no job.

JoltinJoe wrote:But let's not forget that lawyering is such a noble profession.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... nt/105940/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gosh, Joe, that sounded like it came from one of your scum-sucking Yankee fan threads!

When I was at Wake Forest the graduate business school shared a building with the law school. They also offered combination degrees where you could concurrently get a combination of JD, MBA, or MD. There were a handful of overachieving freaks that did the trifecta.

Ivytalk wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:But let's not forget that lawyering is such a noble profession.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... nt/105940/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gosh, Joe, that sounded like it came from one of your scum-sucking Yankee fan threads!

Except these guys were deadly serious.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Gosh, Joe, that sounded like it came from one of your scum-sucking Yankee fan threads!

Except these guys were deadly serious.

Yeah. It sets a pretty poor example of professionalism and (un)civility.

A lawyer purchased a box ofvery rare and expensive cigars, and then insured them against, among other
things, fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires. The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued and WON!

Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable 'fire' and was obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished in the 'fires'.

NOW FOR THE BEST PART...

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

The ranking tricks are shameful and the ABA needs to get their act in order or have someone get their act in order for them. People need to make responsible decisions, but they need realistic data to make those decisions as well.

That said, the main guy they talk about in here is ridiculous. Forget those creditors...he's got 'prestige':

MR. WALLERSTEIN, for his part, is not complaining. Once you throw in the intangibles of having a J.D., he says, he is one of law schools’ satisfied customers.

“It’s a prestige thing,” he says. “I’m an attorney. All of my friends see me as a person they look up to. They understand I’m in a lot of debt, but I’ve done something they feel they could never do and the respect and admiration is important.”

Really? Do your friends look up to your unemployed status, too?

And, if you really want to be sick:

Another of Mr. Wallerstein’s techniques for remaining cool in a serious financial pickle: believe that the pickle might somehow disappear.

“Bank bailouts, company bailouts — I don’t know, we’re the generation of bailouts,” he says in a hallway during a break from his Peak Discovery job. “And like, this debt of mine is just sort of, it’s a little illusory. I feel like at some point, I’ll negotiate it away, or they won’t collect it.”

What a dunce.

I luuuuuuuuve lawyers.

I'm sorry... Am I understanding this wrong
We're all surprised (shocked even) that a Law school is lying - and better yet lying to a bunch of future lawyers

Two Things:
1) Lawyers get paid to lie - its what they do
2) Law schools telling lies to future law school students is called "Good Practice"

The only justice in the universe in regards to this situation would be if somehow the law school got sued and then the school counter sued and then the students sued the counter suit and then they all got trapped in a never ending cycle of suit/counter suit that went on for eternity all the while they were boiling in a pit of fire...

(or something like that)

Chizzang wrote:I'm sorry... Am I understanding this wrong
We're all surprised (shocked even) that a Law school is lying - and better yet lying to a bunch of future lawyers

Two Things:
1) Lawyers get paid to lie - its what they do
2) Law schools telling lies to future law school students is called "Good Practice"

The only justice in the universe in regards to this situation would be if somehow the law school got sued and then the school counter sued and then the students sued the counter suit and then they all got trapped in a never ending cycle of suit/counter suit that went on for eternity all the while they were boiling in a pit of fire...

(or something like that)

Chizzang wrote:I'm sorry... Am I understanding this wrong
We're all surprised (shocked even) that a Law school is lying - and better yet lying to a bunch of future lawyers

Two Things:
1) Lawyers get paid to lie - its what they do
2) Law schools telling lies to future law school students is called "Good Practice"

The only justice in the universe in regards to this situation would be if somehow the law school got sued and then the school counter sued and then the students sued the counter suit and then they all got trapped in a never ending cycle of suit/counter suit that went on for eternity all the while they were boiling in a pit of fire...

(or something like that)

I think I will join you for a cup of joe, cleets.

I don't really hate lawyers, per se, but I do love lawyer jokes!