Shocking state of law schools, when will ABA act?

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

The results of the latest California bar exam are out...The results are getting even worse!  Hard to believe but it is true! 

 

What has happened all across the land is that more & more people are hearing what a rip-off law schools have become and the sorry state of the legal profession.  SO law schools are getting fewer qualified applicants...like a LOT fewer applicants.  I think it is down about 40%

 

So what is a law professor and law skool Dean to do?  Their salaries don't pay themselves! 

 

Why not just let in more students that would have been rejected in the past due to poor LSAT scores and low grades?  Got to keep the seats full!  Just think, you can get 3-4 years of money from that student.

 

A perfect scheme, EXCEPT eventually those students have to take the bar exam.  Results have been falling for YEARS now, as the schools need to stay full (or as close to it as they can) to make the money.

 

Well, there is now a big problem in California (and other states), as MANY skools now have less than 50% passage rate.  Heck, some skools have LESS THAN A 25% passage rate.  Here are the latest results:

 

Santa Clara: 69 percent

Loyola (LA): 67 percent

Western State: 67 percent

UCLA: 64 percent

Pepperdine: 59 percent

U. San Diego: 53 percent

McGeorge: 50 percent

STATEWIDE AVERAGE: 45 PERCENT

California Western: 45 percent

Golden Gate: 33 percent

U. San Francisco: 31 percent

UC Hastings: 27 percent

Southwestern: 24 percent

Thomas Jefferson: 24 percent

 

I know a graduate (who passed the bar) of "Southwestern"...they did not have a very outcome in their life...Tuition at Southwestern is now $51k a year.  Not even 25% of their graduates are passing the bar.

 

When is the ABA going to step in and say "enough is enough"?  What the heck is the department of Education doing?  What level of loans from these students are going to get repaid?  If you can't pass the bar, how the heck do become an attorney?  If you can't become an attorney, what is the point of your education?  To enrich the professors, deans and school? 

 

Enough is enough, these "skools" need to be shutdown.

[mrholty]

Along the opposite lines the government needs to look at licensing to becoming a doctor.  The cost of our healthcare is driven by not only drug costs and insurance profits but also salaries.

[KJP]

Hey all:

 

The results of the latest California bar exam are out...The results are getting even worse!  Hard to believe but it is true! 

 

What has happened all across the land is that more & more people are hearing what a rip-off law schools have become and the sorry state of the legal profession.  SO law schools are getting fewer qualified applicants...like a LOT fewer applicants.  I think it is down about 40%

 

So what is a law professor and law skool Dean to do?  Their salaries don't pay themselves! 

 

Why not just let in more students that would have been rejected in the past due to poor LSAT scores and low grades?  Got to keep the seats full!  Just think, you can get 3-4 years of money from that student.

 

A perfect scheme, EXCEPT eventually those students have to take the bar exam.  Results have been falling for YEARS now, as the schools need to stay full (or as close to it as they can) to make the money.

 

Well, there is now a big problem in California (and other states), as MANY skools now have less than 50% passage rate.  Heck, some skools have LESS THAN A 25% passage rate.  Here are the latest results:

 

Santa Clara: 69 percent

Loyola (LA): 67 percent

Western State: 67 percent

UCLA: 64 percent

Pepperdine: 59 percent

U. San Diego: 53 percent

McGeorge: 50 percent

STATEWIDE AVERAGE: 45 PERCENT

California Western: 45 percent

Golden Gate: 33 percent

U. San Francisco: 31 percent

UC Hastings: 27 percent

Southwestern: 24 percent

Thomas Jefferson: 24 percent

 

I know a graduate (who passed the bar) of "Southwestern"...they did not have a very outcome in their life...Tuition at Southwestern is now $51k a year.  Not even 25% of their graduates are passing the bar.

 

When is the ABA going to step in and say "enough is enough"?  What the heck is the department of Education doing?  What level of loans from these students are going to get repaid?  If you can't pass the bar, how the heck do become an attorney?  If you can't become an attorney, what is the point of your education?  To enrich the professors, deans and school? 

 

Enough is enough, these "skools" need to be shutdown.

 

The ABA is a guild.  Low bar passage rates are not a concern.

 

I assume most of the third- and four-tier law schools are surviving on student loans that at largely guaranteed by the federal government and essentially non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.  If you got rid of those financial subsidies, those schools likely could not survive in their current form, which probably would be a good thing. 

 

There is a tremendous need for lawyers to help low income people in criminal law, immigration, family law, etc.  But it is extremely difficult to have that kind of practice when you have $150,000 in school debt.  Ideally, there would be alternative types of legal education, such as a shortened, two-year program that provided extensive practical training and was taught by practicing lawyers who had no research/publishing obligations.  But as a guild, the ABA has no interest in pursuing that path, and state legislatures are dominated by lawyers, so I wouldn't expect any legislative initiatives along those lines anytime soon.

[rb]

Yea, I don't think that anyone cares. Least of all the current Department of Education. Also I don't think that what you're describing is limited to only the legal profession but it is a wide spread problem.

 

As you've pointed out in your original post a big cause are the exorbitant tuition costs. There is no reason why university should cost this much. But in the past if anyone raised the issue they were slammed down with free market arguments i.e. if the students are willing to pay these exorbitant costs, who are we to intervene.

 

I don't know how you can put the genie back in the bottle now. At this point the "skools" are business selling degrees and the students are no longer students but customers. If you don't let someone in you miss on customers/revenue. If you fail someone you loose revenue. It's ridiculous and it's completely self-inflicted.

[GregS]

Medicine weeds out unqualified people at med school admissions.  Law weeds them out at the bar exam.

[DTEJD1997]

Medicine weeds out unqualified people at med school admissions.  Law weeds them out at the bar exam.

 

So wait a minute....accredited "skools" are letting in people that they almost know are NOT going to be able to pass the bar/practice?  That is in violation of what the ABA says...

 

Sure, a person's life is ruined...no big deal there...

 

The skool got paid up front.  The taxpayer (you, me and every other employed person) is left holding the bag.  I, as a taxpayer, don't want my money going to enrich these deans & professors.  It is same thing with the "for profit" skools.

 

Southwestern Law Skool has 964 students enrolled!  I am going to presume that the VAST majority of their students are borrowing to fund their edukation.  That is close to $50MM a year in tuition.  Southwestern is not the only skool with this problem.  You've got 10 skools in California with a HUGE bar passage problem.  Could that be $500MM a year?  That figure is probably a bit high...but even so...

 

Then, the problem is certainly NOT limited to California.  Here in Michigan we've got the "Cooley Skool of Law" and all their campuses...We've also got a problem with University of Detroit/Mercy and their passage rates.  I also know there are problems in North Carolina and Florida.  I am going to guess that there are other states with this problem....

 

So $500MM here, $100MM there, $120MM over yonder and so on and so forth...and now you've got a real problem.

 

The AMA seems to kind of be doing their job...the ABA is asleep at the switch.

 

[Gregmal]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

[rb]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

This may sound more harsh then I intend it to be so don't take it the wrong way. But this sort of thinking is a big part of the problem along with "market prices" for tuition thinking.

 

I'd say that the people going into these schools cannot make informed decisions. Part of the problem is the everyone is special and you can be what you want to be bullshit. But also that these students are pretty young and not all have the ability to make the right decision because of youth/inexperience/etc.

 

Furthermore, the biggest part of the problem is that they don't have the information to make an informed decision. For example they think they're gonna make 80-90k 3 years out of school. As DTEJD said here often that's wrong they'll make 40. But they don't know that. Also since the schools became de facto business they market to these kids pretty aggressively and throw a lot of bullshit their way. The employment and salary stats they publish are also cooked which contributes the misinformation. I know a couple of very reputable business schools that flat out lie in their stats. If the reputable schools do it you can bet your ass the lower ones are doing it "bigly".

 

But sure it's the kids' fault they don't know any of this. Why should the schools bear any responsibility. If we follow this path then why do the schools even need admission departments?

[rb]

Medicine weeds out unqualified people at med school admissions.  Law weeds them out at the bar exam.

 

So wait a minute....accredited "skools" are letting in people that they almost know are NOT going to be able to pass the bar/practice?  That is in violation of what the ABA says...

 

Sure, a person's life is ruined...no big deal there...

 

The skool got paid up front.  The taxpayer (you, me and every other employed person) is left holding the bag.  I, as a taxpayer, don't want my money going to enrich these deans & professors.  It is same thing with the "for profit" skools.

 

Southwestern Law Skool has 964 students enrolled!  I am going to presume that the VAST majority of their students are borrowing to fund their edukation.  That is close to $50MM a year in tuition.  Southwestern is not the only skool with this problem.  You've got 10 skools in California with a HUGE bar passage problem.  Could that be $500MM a year?  That figure is probably a bit high...but even so...

 

Then, the problem is certainly NOT limited to California.  Here in Michigan we've got the "Cooley Skool of Law" and all their campuses...We've also got a problem with University of Detroit/Mercy and their passage rates.  I also know there are problems in North Carolina and Florida.  I am going to guess that there are other states with this problem....

 

So $500MM here, $100MM there, $120MM over yonder and so on and so forth...and now you've got a real problem.

 

The AMA seems to kind of be doing their job...the ABA is asleep at the switch.

Well I don't think it's against the ABA because I don't think any of these people were dumb enough to write down anywhere that this is what they're doing. It's all wink wink nudge nudge stuff.

 

I would posit that it's a lot worse that you think and the number are way way bigger. You're just talking about law. But this sort of thing happens across all subjects. So take your numbers and multiply by 100. You can see it in the law stuff cause you look at bar numbers. It's less obvious in other areas where they're no professional exams. But the result is the same, the school let it students that it know would not be able to succeed, took the money, and at the end the student can't get a job or the salary is way lower than expected. It's basically a predatory business practice.

 

As a tax payer I guess you can rest easy because I don't think you'll need to cover much since the loans aren't dischargeable even in bankruptcy. Actually the gov't i think is making good money on these. So you're good. The deans are good. It's just the student that end up with crushed dreams, mountains of debt and lost years/youth.

 

Of course the problem is fixable. Pick a hard nosed asshole, put him (or her) in charge and stay out of his way. But of course it would involve government intervention or regulation. So no can do. I'd say you should calm down a bit and save some of your outrage. I think things are going to get worse from here, not better.

[JayGatsby]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

A lot of these loans are provided by the federal government. The heartless Republican answer would probably be to stop providing these loans, which would force that decision to the private market. A lot of these schools would disappear overnight, for better or for worse. Gary Johnson talked a fair amount amount how access to capital had driven up costs and totally messed up the whole system. 

[Gregmal]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

This may sound more harsh then I intend it to be so don't take it the wrong way. But this sort of thinking is a big part of the problem along with "market prices" for tuition thinking.

 

I'd say that the people going into these schools cannot make informed decisions. Part of the problem is the everyone is special and you can be what you want to be bullshit. But also that these students are pretty young and not all have the ability to make the right decision because of youth/inexperience/etc.

 

Furthermore, the biggest part of the problem is that they don't have the information to make an informed decision. For example they think they're gonna make 80-90k 3 years out of school. As DTEJD said here often that's wrong they'll make 40. But they don't know that. Also since the schools became de facto business they market to these kids pretty aggressively and throw a lot of bullshit their way. The employment and salary stats they publish are also cooked which contributes the misinformation. I know a couple of very reputable business schools that flat out lie in their stats. If the reputable schools do it you can bet your ass the lower ones are doing it "bigly".

 

But sure it's the kids' fault they don't know any of this. Why should the schools bear any responsibility. If we follow this path then why do the schools even need admission departments?

 

Not taken the wrong way at all. Open dialogue is great and honestly this IS a big issue facing future generations and imo a worthwhile discussion; not just the law schools either, but universities as a whole.

 

In regards to your points, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, the schools need to be reigned in for sure. But I also think this just excuses people not being diligent. If I buy Company XYZ stock, I damn well better be doing more than just reading the Company's investor packet... Same applies here. Smarter people(especially the type that one would think fall into the category of lawyer capable people) are typically very curious and inquisitive. They are critical. Naive generally wouldn't be a word to describe a person with the skill set needed to pursue a law degree.

 

There is also a sense of entitlement that comes with taking these schools at their word. I should be a lawyer, despite perhaps inferior marks. I should have someone offer me 80k/year once I graduate. But I've never met anyone successful who wholly carries this mentality around that things will just be given to them. No one in their right mind should really think they are coming out of a mid tier school and starting at Baker McKenzie. That would be like graduating from Elon in SC with a 3.5 in Business Administration and expecting a job in investment banking at GS.

 

Outside of the bigger name firms in bigger cities, its small and mid tier firms and associates typically start at 35-60k a year if they are lucky. This is not hard material to find. Otherwise, your only option is going out on your own, which is a roll of the dice and typically even there, you dont make shit for several years.

 

Perhaps getting long winded, but this truly is a fascinating subject to me because of its far reaching and treacherous ramifications.

 

I originally looked into law. Growing up I always wanted to be a lawyer. I went to a small, typical rich kid, 4 year school. I looked at the most popular majors for law school students at the time and picked two, history and English to double major in and graduated with a 3.9. I scored mid 160s on LSAT. Then, among several things, the financial crisis occurred and the idea of spending 3 more years in school, accumulating 150-200k in debt, and then having to be a slave at 50k/yea for 5 years, did not appear attractive to me as getting into the financial world near a generational bottom. Maybe I'm different though.

 

My sister is brilliant. Aced the SATs first time taking them, full ride to UF, always wanted to be a biologist. Knew all along she wouldn't make shit, but she wanted to do something she was passionate about.

 

My younger brother always wanted to be a doctor. Studied hard, got into a good med school, and along the way, always joked, I'll be up to my eyeballs in debt until I'm 50. He knew pay trends weren't what they used to be for doctors doing what he wanted. Decided to do it anyway, but he knew what he was looking at.

 

My youngest brother decided at 16, "I want to be a biomedical engineer". Why? "I'm going to make a shit load of money". And so far, that's what he is doing.

 

I've never met someone qualified to do something, who doesn't know what they are getting into prior to making such a life decision. The one example I have of this, was an old friend. Never the brightest of the bunch, lazy, real leaf floating in the wind. Mediocre high school grades, never went to a real university. Spent 3 years and 30k at a for profit getting a degree in surgical technology thinking he'd transfer to a real school and become a doctor(pipe dream from day 1). Graduated with his degree, which he pretty soon found out wouldnt even transfer over to local community schools. He now delivers packages for Fedex. After starting a landscaping company and failing.

 

So to me I guess, the horrible law school results is more symptomatic of people being allowed to foray into areas they don't belong or shouldn't be in the first place. Couple that with these same people typically being naive and probably uniformed, mix in schools being deceptive and misleading, and yea, we've got problems. The only real answer IMO is being more proactive about teaching people how to identify their strengths, and teaching them how to exploit those strengths. I never saw kids in wheel chairs doing competitive swimming in school. I saw a lot of idiots pursuing MBAs and grasping for a law degree.

 

[Desert_Rat]

Hey all:

 

The results of the latest California bar exam are out...The results are getting even worse!  Hard to believe but it is true! 

 

What has happened all across the land is that more & more people are hearing what a rip-off law schools have become and the sorry state of the legal profession.  SO law schools are getting fewer qualified applicants...like a LOT fewer applicants.  I think it is down about 40%

 

So what is a law professor and law skool Dean to do?  Their salaries don't pay themselves! 

 

Why not just let in more students that would have been rejected in the past due to poor LSAT scores and low grades?  Got to keep the seats full!  Just think, you can get 3-4 years of money from that student.

 

A perfect scheme, EXCEPT eventually those students have to take the bar exam.  Results have been falling for YEARS now, as the schools need to stay full (or as close to it as they can) to make the money.

 

Well, there is now a big problem in California (and other states), as MANY skools now have less than 50% passage rate.  Heck, some skools have LESS THAN A 25% passage rate.  Here are the latest results:

 

Santa Clara: 69 percent

Loyola (LA): 67 percent

Western State: 67 percent

UCLA: 64 percent

Pepperdine: 59 percent

U. San Diego: 53 percent

McGeorge: 50 percent

STATEWIDE AVERAGE: 45 PERCENT

California Western: 45 percent

Golden Gate: 33 percent

U. San Francisco: 31 percent

UC Hastings: 27 percent

Southwestern: 24 percent

Thomas Jefferson: 24 percent

 

I know a graduate (who passed the bar) of "Southwestern"...they did not have a very outcome in their life...Tuition at Southwestern is now $51k a year.  Not even 25% of their graduates are passing the bar.

 

When is the ABA going to step in and say "enough is enough"?  What the heck is the department of Education doing?  What level of loans from these students are going to get repaid?  If you can't pass the bar, how the heck do become an attorney?  If you can't become an attorney, what is the point of your education?  To enrich the professors, deans and school? 

 

Enough is enough, these "skools" need to be shutdown.

 

I laughed.

 

From what I read 75% of California black youth can't read at state level either, and that level, compared to the rest of America, must be ridiculously low.

 

Honestly, I don't hire lawyers but i do try hiring the kids of today. They're all unprepared to accomplish anything in life. Mostly idiots, mechanically illiterate, uncomfortable with basic tools. I bet they're good gamers and have substantial followers though! I say good luck, future generations - plural because I can't see why and how it will ever get better.

 

[DTEJD1997]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

 

Yes, you bring up excellent points...HOWEVER, let me add some counter points.

 

A). I very strongly suspect that a 3.0 and a 140 LSAT is not "bottom of the barrel" for a lot of skools.  There are rumors that many skools are just about open admission.  Obviously, a skool is probably not going to let somebody in with 1.65 GPA and a 130 LSAT...but I know for a fact that skools are WIDELY letting in applicants with undergrad GPA's of under 3.0.  And these are people in the liberal arts...not science, business, etc.

 

B).  People should absolutely be responsible for doing due diligence....no doubt.  HOWEVER, many skools are outright lying about outcomes for their graduates.  Even more are publishing highly suspect figures and heavily gamed that would be VERY difficult to suss out.  The mainstream media is complicit in this.  Best example is USNWR annual ranking.

 

If a car dealership, or financial advisor were to do what the law skools are doing, they would be in YUGE legal trouble.

 

So how exactly is student going to do due diligence properly?  Trusted institutions are lying/gaming the system.

 

The interweb is starting to have some effect...word of mouth is starting to work...but this has been going on for DECADES.  The truth is only starting to come to light.

 

Of course, there is a bigger problem than just the law skools...

[winjitsu]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

 

Yes, you bring up excellent points...HOWEVER, let me add some counter points.

 

A). I very strongly suspect that a 3.0 and a 140 LSAT is not "bottom of the barrel" for a lot of skools.  There are rumors that many skools are just about open admission.  Obviously, a skool is probably not going to let somebody in with 1.65 GPA and a 130 LSAT...but I know for a fact that skools are WIDELY letting in applicants with undergrad GPA's of under 3.0.  And these are people in the liberal arts...not science, business, etc.

 

B).  People should absolutely be responsible for doing due diligence....no doubt.  HOWEVER, many skools are outright lying about outcomes for their graduates.  Even more are publishing highly suspect figures and heavily gamed that would be VERY difficult to suss out.  The mainstream media is complicit in this.  Best example is USNWR annual ranking.

 

If a car dealership, or financial advisor were to do what the law skools are doing, they would be in YUGE legal trouble.

 

So how exactly is student going to do due diligence properly?  Trusted institutions are lying/gaming the system.

 

The interweb is starting to have some effect...word of mouth is starting to work...but this has been going on for DECADES.  The truth is only starting to come to light.

 

Of course, there is a bigger problem than just the law skools...

 

I did a bit of work on the for-profit school shorts from a few years back (Corinthian College, Strayer etc.). I think this is essentially the same thesis...

 

Schools took advantage of unsophisticated [uneducated, dumb, poor] students and taught them to load up on federal loans. The schools get paid immediately by the government, while the students and government are left with the bill. Since revenue/profit is based on the number of students rather than the student's financial success, there is a perverse incentive to enroll as many students as possible. Several of the for-profit schools were charged with of making falsifying grad/employment data on marketing documents.

 

A few ways I think we could improves the system:

 

1) Stricter government criteria for loans to schools with poor graduation/passed bar/employment. Non-profit schools may be the next wave.

2) Allow student loans to be discharged at bankruptcy. Creditors will be much stricter at giving out loans and students will be discouraged from making poor financial decisions.

3) Create some type of market mechanism where schools and student's future success are aligned. This seems hard and is pure speculation on my part, but an example could be less tuition up front, but a royalty on a student's salary post graduation.

4) Allow students to pursue professional degrees at undergrad (medical, dental, law etc.). The US college system follows the liberal arts philosophy that students should not pursue professional degrees during their undergrad. Its archaic and unnecessarily adds several years of schooling for doctors and lawyers.

 

 

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

This has been common practice in most guilds, since almost day 1.

The lawyers just aren’t very good at it.

 

We want many to pursue, but > 50% to fail to get; they become the low paid technical workforce for the professionals to hire, and were persuaded to pay for their technical training themselves (a neat trick). The better trick is that they were then sold at professional billing rates to the client, but paid not much more than minimum wage (net of hours eaten). Sucks when you’re peon, but it’s great when you’re king – so don’t rock the boat; pass your professional exams, & become king (partner) instead. As soon as possible.

 

Every now & then there are new twists. Everyone needs to be a CFA (because the king made it the ‘screen’ for the industry sector). The guild ensures that every CFA anywhere in the world gets the same technical training, and games the series of 3 exams to bleed out just the number required each year for global net replacement/expansion. The stats on successive 1st time passes on all 3 exams is generally <5%; but 90-100% of the population believes it’ll be them. Better still, the NA population of very smart people - doesn’t realise that I’m going to hire from Asia first where this (now globally standardized) skill set can be bought for roughly 50% less. Smart kings.

 

It’s a great system, but deans are little more than goats staked out to feed leopards;

most have teeth, but they are essentially insurance policies against disruptive change. 

 

A wise person applying for schools, tries for offers – and then ‘negotiates’, often culminating in an ‘anointment’ meeting with the dean. If you’ve done well - it’ll all be very civilized but you’ll feel a knife at either your back, or throat; while you have your own knife at his/her cohunes, and whisper sweet nothings in his/her ear. The gracious offer is then used to persuade a more civilized school that plays nice. Brooklyn meets Princeton.

 

Not everyone is going to be a lawyer, or make a living at it.

If society really wanted to stop the illusion, it would have pulled the curtain away a long time ago. 

 

SD

 

 

[LongHaul]

Welcome to the world we live in.  People want your money and will deceive you for it in all walks of life.  That in itself is a huge education.  That includes colleges, CEO's, salesman of all sorts, dentists, doctors, automotive aftermarket and the list goes on.  And there are many, many ways to be deceived through hope and greed, being naive, overconfident, etc, etc. 

 

I was looking at a used pickup truck the other day so I go up to look at it ~ 1hr away.  The seller listed it with some mechanical flaws so he appeared upfront about the flaws.  Then I get there and there is rust on the inside of cab on bolts and a lot of dirt under the truck bed.  I specifically asked him if the truck was in a flood and he says no (and records were clean on car).  I told him it looked like the truck had been flooded and was going to pass.  He was a lying sack of sh*t trying to sell a very problematic vehicle to make a little extra income.

 

I got an education out of the whole thing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gamecock-YT]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

This may sound more harsh then I intend it to be so don't take it the wrong way. But this sort of thinking is a big part of the problem along with "market prices" for tuition thinking.

 

I'd say that the people going into these schools cannot make informed decisions. Part of the problem is the everyone is special and you can be what you want to be bullshit. But also that these students are pretty young and not all have the ability to make the right decision because of youth/inexperience/etc.

 

Furthermore, the biggest part of the problem is that they don't have the information to make an informed decision. For example they think they're gonna make 80-90k 3 years out of school. As DTEJD said here often that's wrong they'll make 40. But they don't know that. Also since the schools became de facto business they market to these kids pretty aggressively and throw a lot of bullshit their way. The employment and salary stats they publish are also cooked which contributes the misinformation. I know a couple of very reputable business schools that flat out lie in their stats. If the reputable schools do it you can bet your ass the lower ones are doing it "bigly".

 

But sure it's the kids' fault they don't know any of this. Why should the schools bear any responsibility. If we follow this path then why do the schools even need admission departments?

 

That would be like graduating from Elon in SC with a 3.5 in Business Administration and expecting a job in investment banking at GS.

 

 

 

That would be really difficult, especially since Elon is in NC, not SC. ;)

[mrholty]

Its an interesting thread but like others its all in how the game is played.

I’ve read articles in the past few years about how law schools suck and hide crappy student employment rates.  The most often they “hire” the student to do work at the school.  University gets to report higher rates, etc, etc.

 

Hell 20+ years ago when I was applying to undergrad there were schools that sent out application letters fully filled out.  Their application fee was something like $20-25 vs the $50 for my local state school.  Only in college did I learn thru a friend that the school I was thinking of as the worst offender did this to get extra admission dollars to help the university, making a profit against the mailing cost but instead of accepting lower students  they kept their high standards and reported a very high selective acceptance rate.  This looked good in the eyes of the USNews report, which was fairly new moving them up in the rankings and that became a cycle of success as the higher rankings got them better students and it fed on itself. 

10 years ago I worked for a mid-sized Insurance company who wanted to get a younger client base and so a group spent a lot of time seeing if we could play in the Private Student Lending Space.  We choose not to but it was really easy to see the defaults.  By the end of the pilot project and some data the actuaries we learned that we could identify if a kid was going to pay the loan back based on 4 things:

1. Major

2. University

3. Parent’s income

4. Parent’s co-sign

There were a few other kickers that helped but these were the big 4.  We really wanted to go to market with a loan that was co-signed by the parent and we wanted to segment the rate schedule based on your major and/or university.  Frankly if you were a civil engineer we knew you had a job and if you were in women’s studies good luck.  In a real market that would be normal and allowed and that is what the student should rely on.  If a kid sees that a dance major is at 22% interest than that is a signal.  Instead our lawyers (yours may differ) stated that segmenting by university could very well be likely a form of discrimination.  There is some truth to that as we saw that students that came from higher household incomes in general were more likely to graduate which helped their earning potential which we hypothesized was based on the fact that the higher income provided the family with more of a cushion is something happened which could draw the kid out of school.  I left the group when the decision was made to not go forward but they started to look at private student lending to trade programs as many of those are absolute cesspools that make the public for profit schools look saintly.

 

[TorontoRaptorsFan]

It's a very scary fact that there are far too many unqualified students going into law school and ending up with no job (forget about legal profession) and A LOT OF DEBT. I guess the same could be said about MBA students.

 

My brother just graduated with his masters degree in tax law and was saying it's a huge problem especially amongst schools with poor reputations who are churning out graduates with no end in sight.

[winjitsu]

1. Major

2. University

3. Parent’s income

4. Parent’s co-sign

There were a few other kickers that helped but these were the big 4.  We really wanted to go to market with a loan that was co-signed by the parent and we wanted to segment the rate schedule based on your major and/or university.  Frankly if you were a civil engineer we knew you had a job and if you were in women’s studies good luck.  In a real market that would be normal and allowed and that is what the student should rely on.  If a kid sees that a dance major is at 22% interest than that is a signal.  Instead our lawyers (yours may differ) stated that segmenting by university could very well be likely a form of discrimination.  There is some truth to that as we saw that students that came from higher household incomes in general were more likely to graduate which helped their earning potential which we hypothesized was based on the fact that the higher income provided the family with more of a cushion is something happened which could draw the kid out of school.  I left the group when the decision was made to not go forward but they started to look at private student lending to trade programs as many of those are absolute cesspools that make the public for profit schools look saintly.

 

Social Finance, aka SOFI, is one of the largest and hottest fintech start-ups right now (around since... 2012?). Basically started with the idea that not all students should be paying the same rates on loans. Their market entry strategy was to only refinance the loans of students that attended top colleges (literally only schools like Ivy Leagues, Stanford, MIT).

 

Major specific loan segregation is also starting. I've seen lenders advertising to computer science majors, as well as dentists and medical students with lower student loan rates. Corroborates your research and I think its a better market approach.

 

[DTEJD1997]

Its an interesting thread but like others its all in how the game is played.

I’ve read articles in the past few years about how law schools suck and hide crappy student employment rates.  The most often they “hire” the student to do work at the school.  University gets to report higher rates, etc, etc.

 

Hell 20+ years ago when I was applying to undergrad there were schools that sent out application letters fully filled out.  Their application fee was something like $20-25 vs the $50 for my local state school.  Only in college did I learn thru a friend that the school I was thinking of as the worst offender did this to get extra admission dollars to help the university, making a profit against the mailing cost but instead of accepting lower students  they kept their high standards and reported a very high selective acceptance rate.  This looked good in the eyes of the USNews report, which was fairly new moving them up in the rankings and that became a cycle of success as the higher rankings got them better students and it fed on itself. 

I left the group when the decision was made to not go forward but they started to look at private student lending to trade programs as many of those are absolute cesspools that make the public for profit schools look saintly.

 

There have been rumors/reports of skools that target applicants to specifically deny them.  WHY?  They are gaming the system...as skools that have a large rejection rate appear to be more selective.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/colleges-ratchet-recruiting-applicants-just-turn/

 

This is just one of many underhanded things that non-profits are doing...

[SharperDingaan]

Now an enterprising lad would do a little research; pull copies of those stats, add some of the date rape stats, and have a discussion with a reporter  - early/mid way through recruiting season.

 

Select the target, let the process suck him in, and advise that a 'non disclosure' scholarship for around 10K should about do it. Of course they will go incandescent - but they WILL give him want he wants :D More importantly they will do everything they can to get rid of him; great references in return for the 'scholarship' - but only if they can get him to go someplace else. It's just playing poker for a handy tail-wind.

 

Eventually our lad will find an 'acceptable' school. If you're his/her business school classmate, you'll probably learn a thing or two;

you'll probably also discover that there are more than one of these people in your 'year'.

Win-win.

 

Of course we're all better off when we live in a clean ship; but if you have to work with a dirty one - it's gloves off, rough hockey.

Fun for maybe a game or two, but a short term proposition.

Bonus, if some good comes of it  ;)

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

 

[johnny]

Not to be a heartless Republican, but...

 

Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

 

My only real job was in LSAT prep and admissions work. Not a single person in these kids' lives have told them that a 3.0/140 can't cut it, because almost everybody in a position of credibility/authority on that topic makes it a habit to regularly lie to them about it. Even the very schools that have no interest in admitting them will absolutely refuse to say so (partly because they want to improve their statistics).

 

Just think about this. Imagine if everybody in a position of educational authority over you constantly told you that test scores didn't matter, that they only determined "how good you are at taking tests". Your teachers in K-12, most of your (liberal) professors, the student-services administrators at your college. Imagine if, even the very institutions that use those numbers made it a regular practice to obfuscate their importance and insist that they don't have GPA/SAT/LSAT floors, but look at the "whole applicant".

 

By the time reality rolls around, you are so far down that path that changing directions is totally unfathomable.

 

Most people are already seniors (or graduates), a few grand into LSAT prep, and on their 10th viewing of Legally Blonde before they even begin to have the slightest sense of just how constrained they are by their numbers. I suspect even then, most applicants have a certain delusion about it until all of the rejections come in.

 

You've spent 4 years majoring in Sociology and planning to be a human rights lawyer. You've spent 300 hours studying the LSAT instead of applying for jobs. The former mayor of Los Angeles went to an unaccredited law school, and you'll always find some dipshit baby-boomer lawyer who will insist to you that academic pedigree doesn't matter, and that he was able to become a millionaire off of ADA-extortion lawsuits with his JD from DeVry U. There's enough delusional signaling in the world to give you confidence that you too can make it. And it's helped by the fact that almost every law school is very aggressive about misrepresenting their career/salary data so the failures are well hidden.

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

My apologies for not backing up some of my opinions with facts...here is one:

 

ABA standard 501(b) “a school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.”

 

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2014_2015_aba_standards_chapter5.authcheckdam.pdf

 

If a skool has a bar passage rate of the vicinity of 50%, or even lower...I would argue this is a violation of ABA standard 501.  Remember, a group of 100 students who START law school, will not finish...some will drop out and some will be ejected...

 

Mistakes happen, I get that.  A one time catastrophe of failing students is one thing...several years of that is quite another...

 

If the ABA is not going to enforce their standards, what is the point of even having them?

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

It was brought up previously that students with a 3.0 GPA and a 140 LSAT might not be the best candidate for the legal profession...Perhaps that is true? 

 

Not at Cooley School of Law!

 

In the year 2015, the lowest 25% of admitted students (full time) had an approximate GPA of 2.51 and an LSAT of 138.

 

As for part time students, the lowest 25% of students had a GPA of 2.50 and an LSAT of 137.

 

This was discussed at length at the blog "The Faculty Lounge", please see:

 

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2016/01/disgraceful-developments-at-cooley-law-school.html