Mr. Furious, of the Mystery Men
Third Tier Reality is one of many blogs recently founded by disappointed law graduates who somehow labored under the misconception that a law school degree guaranteed that they would get 6 figure offers from big law firms and then live the life of Denny Crane until they could retire to a Caribbean island at the age of 55. A depressing number of these deluded souls managed to get themselves in hock up to their eyeballs, and when the recession hit and law firms cut back, felt first, like fools, second, angry and desperate, and third, that it was everyone else’s fault. Thus was born the “law school scam” conspiracy theory. Third Tier Reality, like the others of its breed, maintains that law schools intentionally misled scores of trusting students to pay their obscenely high tuitions, knowing that they were pumping out more lawyers than the legal market would bear.
To the extent that the site tries to educate would-be law students that there is no guaranteed gravy-train at the end of three years of law school, the website is, at worst, harmless. “My goal is to inform potential law school students and applicants of the ugly realities of attending law school,” he writes. His message: Do not seek a law degree unless…
“(1) YOU GET INTO A TOP 8 LAW SCHOOL; (2) YOU GET A FULL-TUITION SCHOLARSHIP TO ATTEND; (3) YOU HAVE EMPLOYMENT AS AN ATTORNEY SECURED THROUGH A RELATIVE OR CLOSE FRIEND; OR (4) YOU ARE FULLY AWARE BEFOREHAND THAT YOUR HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, GUARANTEE A JOB AS AN ATTORNEY OR IN THE LEGAL INDUSTRY.”
That’s all good advice, though it presumes that more people get law degrees under the delusion alluded to in (4) than I believe is true. Nobody ever told me that a law degree guaranteed a high-paying job as an attorney, and if we understood that decades ago when law was booming, I don’t see where the confusion set in. I worked in the administration of Georgetown Law Center, and that school never made such a representation. In addition, Third Tier Reality goes further, as its brethren blogs do, to insist that a law degree from less than a “First Tier” school is actually an impediment in the job market. I hate to kick this particular hornets nest again, but this is a self-serving rationalization for failure.
A good law school education improves your writing, speaking, analytical and problem-solving skills, as well as giving you a versatile knowledge base that is useful in not just many other fields, but every other field. “Third tier” law schools are certainly capable of providing this; it doesn’t have to be a “top 8” school. (If you want a scam, try the law school rating system. As with colleges, there just is not that big a difference between the top ten and the top 50.) If you go to law school and can’t get a legal job or a professional job in another field where a knowledge of law or the skills or a lawyer are useful (which is to say, most of them), then the problem isn’t the law school, or the “scam” or that a legal degree isn’t respected by employers.
It’s you.
It literally drives “Nando,” the author of this website, and his fellow Toys-R-Us clerk/law grads crazy when I say this, which I have said before. On “Nando’s” site, I am accorded full villain status for the post I wrote last October, chiding an Occupy demonstrator for hanging out in the park with a sad, hand-lettered complaining that his law degree didn’t get him the job he thought it guaranteed. Maybe that was Nando. You see, we don’t need conspiracy theories or the sudden, mythical unpopularity of law degrees in the workplace or even the recession to explain why he can’t find a job. All we need is his website.
Nando, you see, is angry. Not Paul Krugman angry, or even Lewis Black angry. We’re talking full-bore, deranged postal worker, Mr. Furious angry. (I wonder…nah. Can’t be.) Here’s a typical passage, and far from the most agitated:
“Conclusion: Steven Davidoff is merely another academic hustler, trying to keep the wool over the applicants’ eyes. Davidoff seeks to use his background from the London Business School as solidify his excrementitious argument. He employs double-speak and false dilemmas to make his “case” that law school graduates are better off than their counterparts in veterinary school. NOTHING could be further from the truth….Veterinary schools do the humane thing and limit the number of seats to match the future need of animal doctors AT THE APPLICATION STAGE. In stark contrast, law school pigs accept and graduate FAR TOO MANY students – meaning that they unnecessarily strap down legions of their graduates with tons of non-dischargeable debt. (Of course, the cockroaches cynically assert that they are opening the doors of the “profession” to historically under-represented groups.)… U.S. “law professors” often attempt to justify the exaggerated costs of “legal education” by claiming that grads can practice law for 40 years. However, they fail to point out that, every year, ABA-accredited law schools produce TENS OF THOUSANDS of grads who never practice law. The dogs also conveniently “forget” to mention that tons of lawyers are out of the “profession” within 5-10 years.”
That’s not all. In addition to routinely referring to others, especially law deans and professors, as “cockroaches,” “pigs,” “dogs” and even more denigrating terms ( I, for example, am “a ball-less, spineless, brainless waste of sperm and egg. The man has no character and no integrity. He bills himself as a purported “ethics guru.” Always be leery of these types; by nature, they are mere charlatans who seek to avoid real work. However, this physically and ethically grotesque pig takes deceit and dishonesty to another level.” So unfair. I have never billed myself as an “ethics guru”!), Nando decorates his site with graphic photographs of various forms of fecal matter, including a particularly nauseating shot of the aftermath of explosive diarrhea.
What is the likelihood that such a pathologically bitter, mean-spirited, hateful and uncivil individual will persuade an employer that he should be trusted to interact with clients or customers? I can assure you that a bar admissions committee reviewing Nando’s application for membership in any jurisdiction in the nation would take one spin through Third Tier Reality and plant a large, red REJECTED stamp on the cover page. This is the great irony of this website: while blaming law schools for the inability of some graduates to find the jobs they want, the writer makes it blindingly clear why he can’t find a legal job, and it has nothing to do with his diploma.
Ethics Alarms 
What ever happened to people graduating from law school and going into business for themselves?? Did that ever cross their minds?
If they bet the farm on being a big firm partner, no—they can’t afford the struggle. But you are right: no lawyer is unemployed unless he chooses to be.
Really that applies to more that just new J.D.’s.
Yes, one can usually scrape up a minimum-wage job doing *something*.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not going to law school is a good bet.
They could have tried to become a military lawyer.
You’re joking, right? JAG is extremely selective. Even the Army, which statistically is the “easiest” to get into, accepts only 16% of its applicants.
The kid can write, I’ll give him that.
I predict a promising future for him – as a columnist for the New York Times, or as a pundit for MSNBC.COM
If only that darn JD wasn’t holding him back…
You bet. Damn shame, ain’t it?
He can’t complain. Imagine what it’s like being ball-less AND spineless.
I think there are lots of jobs available at Current TV, right up his alley.
OK, I have a little more sympathy for these people than you do, but not much sympathy for his behavior. I think you give the average college student too much credit for understanding how the job market works and for realizing that they will have to make some kind of a living after they leave college.
Most of the students that I see view their B.S. as virtually worthless and its only purpose is as a prerequisite for admission to med/dental/PA/physical therapy school. They are obsessed with these goals because of the huge pay and social importance (possibly more perceived than real) that comes with such professions. They really don’t consider anything else because those are ‘boring’ and for ordinary people. They don’t want to work their way up, they want to start at the top. The truth is that there are a lot of decent paying, rewarding jobs that they could get with their B.S., but if they had their dream set on becoming “a doctor” and living the doctor lifestyle both financially and socially, accepting a lower position is akin to exile.
I suspect these law students had the same dreams and delusions. They saw law school as their ticket to a seven figure salary at a prestigious law firm, with the social status and exciting, important work that comes with it. The reality of being a small town, struggling, independent attorney dealing with the mundane everyday work of an attorney is a shock to their long-held dream and ego and makes them feel like they have been duped.
Remember, they all get their idea of what life is like from TV. Their idea of what an attorney is comes from TV shows. They won’t ‘settle’ for an average job, those are for chumps. They are ‘special’ and they aren’t going to work a manufacturing job (how boring, meaningless, and for poor people) and they aren’t going to work as a technician (you have to take orders from people and run tests all day). This is one of the reasons we have high unemployment and 4 million jobs we can’t fill. No one wants to be a machinist even if the pay starts at $40,000/year. They would rather be unemployed. I see a lot of graduates working as waiters and waitresses because they couldn’t get into the ‘big-ticket’ program they dreamed of. They could get a decent job in industry, but they won’t do it. They would rather complain about how college ripped them off and they have $60,000 in student loans while waiting tables than to go get a $75,000/year job in the petroleum industry. Waiting tables isn’t a ‘real’ job, it is temporary and their life is on hold. If they take a job in industry, they will have given up on their dream.
This is why we shouldn’t teach children to have high self-esteem. Self-esteem requires nothing of the individual, but demands everything from those around them. We need to teach them to have self-confidence, because that doesn’t work well without competence. High self-esteem is poison without an even higher (and well-justified) self-confidence.
“Remember, they all get their idea of what life is like from TV. Their idea of what an attorney is comes from TV shows.”
And from those glossy law school brochures. I’ll bet that if you compared those to TV’s depictions of being a lawyer, the major difference would be that the law schools doesn’t promise as much sex.
I worked with a plumber that had been a lawyer but walked away from it. He worked with my company for about a year then went out on his own. He would read the course books to get his licenses on his breaks , he then took the tests to get his journeymen’s licence and then his masters licence and he passed them both easily.
I asked him why he went from being a lawyer to being a plumber and his answer was, being a plumber is more fun and the money is about the same.
No educational institution can promised you a job. Period. You obtain certain skills or knowledge sets, then YOU MARKET YOURSELF. With regard to law school, they are lots and lots of ways to parlay a JD into some other kind of work. All a JD proves is that you can make it through 3 years of law school. That’s all. And the expectation that with a JD you’ll go off and make millions only shows that one hasn’t done his or her research. There’s a plethora of lawyers out there… I think if you can’t get in to med school go to law school.
Anyone know it’s harder to get into veterinary school than med school? Why? Because there are so few veterinary schools out there. Too bad, because we need more veterinarians, not more lawyers.
The thing I wonder is where did these people get the idea that career and success were owed to them? And what’s stopping them from working on their own and building something themselves. Sounds like a bunch entitled selfish brats to me.
Wow…it certainly is baby-boomer/tea-party central around here. Enjoy patting yourselves on the back for your astute cleverness and mental acumen while Rome continues to burn for future generations. Nothing to see here but the “personal responsibility brigade” who is, of course, blameless and without sin…moving along…
By the way, before I get written off as a “entitled, whining brat,” I have been employed for the last twenty years, am raising my daughter, and pay my mortgage and taxes, thank you very much. You guys could stand to have a little heart for those less fortunate.
But who am I kidding?
1. It may be Baby-Boomer Central–I’ll plead to that one, but Tea Party? Hardly.
2. Sarcasm is not an argument. Do you have an actual point? I didn’t see one articulated.
3. What does any of that have to do with website of someone with an advanced, versatile degree who 1) bought something on credit that he couldn’t afford 2) blames everyone but himself for his plight and 3) sabotages any chance of employment by exposing himself as uncivil, bitter boor in widely circulated writing?
4. Your assumptions are wrong, your stereoptypes are unfair, your reasoning is lazy and your tone is obnoxious. I don’t know who you are kidding, but you sure aren’t fooling anybody.
I apologize for the long post upfront:
My point is that the situation Nando is railing about is more complex than the scenario of a bunch of disgruntled youth, unwilling to “work hard”, whining for a hand-out. Nando may pour it on thick with name calling and scatological imagery; fair enough. However, to dismiss the underlying message is overly simplistic, dismissive of people’s good-faith effort and ignores the real economic hardship that many face.
I think it is more than fair to say that worldwide, over the last 40 years, (1) there has been a marked increase of college graduates in rough proportion to overall population; (2) tuition for undergrad and graduate school has skyrocketed, whether measured in real or adjusted dollars; (3) middle-class incomes have stagnated, and (4) the overall economy has suffered. This combination of factors does not bode well for anyone, especially younger people, regardless of political stripe. All you have to do is look at Bloomberg, Zero-Hedge, and similar sites to get data on this.
Outside of elite circles, people go to college to make themselves marketable. The marketplace has all but demanded it. We can debate the efficacy of various degree programs…I have two engineering degrees (the highly vaunted “STEM” majors) and a law degree, and have licenses in both fields. My own personal results have been fair to middling, yet I “work hard”, pay my student loans (“high” compared to 1970s tutition dollars), etc. etc. etc.
In my own case, I would say my legal education was a mistake given the cost-to-income ratio, as the patent law and “versatile JD” offerings did not readily present themselves to me. I continue to make a go of it, but it is by no means easy. The mileage of others will vary – and who you know is always a tremendous benefit and is always understated when one group criticizes another for their failings. None of us sprang fully-formed from the head of Zeus.
There is recent evidence that law schools in particular manipulated placement and salary statistics, that NALP and USN&WR reported these statistics unquestioningly, and that students relied on them. According to the courts so far, this manipulation, while real, is not actionable. Yet it did influence many to make the decisions they made.
As such, I feel for the anger and frustration that many college graduates feel, be they legal or otherwise, as I share in it. I think many, many people would absolutely jump at the chance to “work hard” and earn income that would allow a desirable living while servicing debt. Luckily, I have managed to survive where others haven’t, and I am grateful for it.
But, for you or other posters on this forum to eschew any sense of compassion and say that all “these people” need to do (along with the welfare-queens and homeless, I suspect?) is “hang a shingle”, “get a job”, “be willing to work”, “stop whining” is, in turn, to pick and choose data that supports your worldview and ignore other valid counter-arguments.
I would call that unethical.
1) No apologies necessary for long, well thought-out posts.
2) This is an excellent, balanced comment, and will be the Comment of the Day as soon as I can post it. Thank-you.
3) “My point is that the situation Nando is railing about is more complex than the scenario of a bunch of disgruntled youth, unwilling to “work hard”, whining for a hand-out.” Did I ever say it wasn’t? My two forays into this issue was a law grad hanging out in a park with a whiny sign rather than actively seeking employment, and a blogger whose blog, in its incivility, both undermine his employment options and would make bat membership problematical if he weren’t already a member of one. I do object to blaming the degree as a detriment to employment. That is nonsense.
4) I wasn’t addressing college, but law school. I think the college degree hype has always been a fraud, intentional or not; it is grossly over-priced, and yes, the degree is close to meaningless. Everything you say about college is correct, but I never addressed that here. The college loan situation is shameful, and is roughly equivalent to what was done in the housing market. None of which has anything to do with my posts.
5) I have never denied that going into hock for a law degree at current price levels in a fool’s bargain. You may note that I said that Nando’s core advice that heads his blog is largely good advice, if a bit over-stated.
6.) The blog is unethical because of its uncivil and needlessly vicious rhetoric. That’s what I said, and it is true. It also undermines his objective. Writing like that is fun but self-indulgent: I can do it to, and its a blast. But you only convince those who already agree with you.
7) If you went into law to make a lot of money, then you went into law for the wrong reason. It’s a profession. Does it cost too much for a profession? Yes. Then don’t buy it, unless you can pay for it.
8) “But, for you or other posters on this forum to eschew any sense of compassion and say that all “these people” need to do (along with the welfare-queens and homeless, I suspect?) is “hang a shingle”, “get a job”, “be willing to work”, “stop whining” is, in turn, to pick and choose data that supports your worldview and ignore other valid counter-arguments.” Other commenters can speak for themselves, but I have been clear, I think: A. If you have a law degree and are so much in debt that you can’t take jobs that pay less than six figures without having to live in a box, I feel sorry for you, but you also made a poor choice, and need to stop blaming the degree, the school, and everyone else for it. B. You do NOT have to work at McDonald’s, and stop saying you do. You can practice law in many ways’ you can hire yourself. The fact that those jobs may not be enough to pay down your loans is irrelevant to the fact that if you have a degree, someone, someplace, at some price, can use your services, UNLESS you really aren’t much of a lawyer—and that’s your fault too.
C. In my case, “look for a job” means “don’t stand around OWS holding a stupid sign. That gets you nowhere” Is that insensitive? Hardly.
D. The welfare queens/homeless reference is superior, arrogant nonsense. The issues are unrelated, and your insinuation is insulting. The comparison of a healthy individual with a degree in law with a single-mother of six without a high school diploma living in a depressed area and without work skills is breathlessly unfair. The first individual has options—the second has far, far fewer. Homeless people are overwhelmingly sick or addicted, which is also sick. Of course I have compassion for them. If you are homeless and NOT sick or addicted, or of sub-average intelligence, I will probably have compassion for you only for a limited amount of time.
E. What “world view”? I’m a lawyer, most of the people I know are lawyers, my sister and father were lawyers; I worked for a law school; I work with lawyers every day. My perspective is that I know what a law degree is worth, I’ve managed to turn mine into both legal and non-legal employment without coming from a top 8 school, or being on a law journal; I’ve been both unemployed, in debt and homeless, I have worked damn hard to deal with all of these issues, I an quite secure in my conclusion that someone who equates anyone who doesn’t agree that a JD a one-way ticket to Palookaville shouldn’t be equated with steaming dogpiles by someone like Nando, who would be better served spending his time finding ways to use his degree rather than complaining about it.
Welcome aboard, 40 yr old Gen-Xer. Stick around, and you’ll find this place is more libertarian than anything else. I daresay a fair number of the regulars here are Boomers, but would bet that there’s also Xers and probably a few millenials hanging out.
All good that you’re employed, raising a daughter and meeting mortgage and tax payments. Now, let me ask you this: if your daughter wanted to study – oh, say, Art History – how would you feel about he taking out tens of thousands in student loans to do so, armed with the knowledge that a degree in Art History qualifies you for few jobs beyond pushing latte at Starbucks? You’d try to talk her out of it, I hope. Similarly, if she went to law school, wouldn’t you at least HOPE that she’d researched the job market?
As Jack noted, some of the points Jack made about the blog’s purpose aren’t without merit. The larger point, which most of us agree with, is that carrying a massive chip on one’s shoulder is of no value in hunting for a job. This guy clearly has one, and I’ve hired enough people over the years to realize that when you hire someone with a chip on their shoulder, they tend to bring it in with them on their first day.
But he can write…
I think you just successfully analogized the whole thread, Arthur! Jack: You should have replied to this snark shark with something like, “WHO’S scruffy looking?”. That kind of humor tends to drive these guys right up the wall! It’s a matter of ego. They’re trying to project their failure onto others because (as is now common) they either can’t cope with or conceive the idea that maybe they themselves are not the brightest bulb on the marquee. To point out otherwise invariably provokes a harsh, often frenzied response. But, then again, you already know that!
Thanks, Steven. Apologies for the typos in that post. Wish there was an edit function here, but blame myself for not proofing.
I know what you mean, Arthur. In that respect, Xanga (my website) is actually superior to WordPress. Now… one thing about this thread that puzzles me is how Jack came to epitomize it with that silly Ben Stiller movie!
Arthur, I hear you on the college majors issue. It’s a tough situation, and it forces people into “pipelines,” I would say, which then lead to some market oversaturation.
I would argue that the “research” is easier said than done, though. If we had access to “perfect” information then I would indeed say buyer-beware, the market would produce the right number of graduates for a given field, and so on. I still think we put too much risk on the heads of those with the least information, even with research. And the data is sometime suspect.
If you’re buying a refrigerator, that’s one thing. Easy to correct from a bad choice there. It’s harder to redirect one’s life in the same way.
If you’re buying a refrigerator, that’s one thing. Easy to correct from a bad choice there. It’s harder to redirect one’s life in the same way.
Correct. Which is why it’s especially important to do your homework on a decision of this scale.
And the information on refrigerators isn’t always that good, either.
I am a third-year law student at a “prestigious” law school who landed one of those coveted “V5” big law firm jobs. But that doesn’t make me insensitive to the plight of those who were not so lucky (ie, ~90% of my fellow students when you aggregate across all the law schools). Schools pump out 45,000 JDs every year and, at best, there are 20,000 new legal jobs. No matter how hard people network, how willing they are to relocate geographically or consider a different specialty (frankly any specialty), you can’t fit 45,000 pegs into 20,000 holes. Sure, some might go into consulting or compliance or start a business. Maybe 500 will set up solo shops anywhere they can get customers who will actually pay them (remember they need to pay down 100K+ in student loans). But even if every single one of them maximized their efforts and their flexibility, there simply would not be enough jobs for them. Schools all up and down the range are suckering people in by inflating their employment numbers (my school does it by hiring unemployed people for a year after graduation). They report median salaries based on the responses of 10% of the class.
I am not saying there is no personal responsibility or that I approve of the way Nando goes about spreading his message. But there is true fraud being perpetrated by these schools. As libertarians, I assume you would agree with my conclusion that we need to turn off the federal financial aid spigot…or, rather, make it much more selective/stringent. For-profit schools have to show that their graduates are gainfully employed (albeit a pitifully low showing) in order to receive federal financial aid. The schools need to have some skin in the game.
1. What makes you think I’m a libertarian?
2. I don’t see any systemic fraud. Buyer beware.
3. 90%? How do you figure?
4. Law degrees will get you good non-law jobs, so you are under-counting “holes” severely.
5. Borrowing more than you know you can pay back isn’t the law school’s fault.
6. Yes: market forces should be allowed to operate, and there should be half as many law schools.
1. One of the comments above said “this place is more libertarian than anything else.” I don’t consider myself libertarian, but in this instance I do believe the government needs to significantly reduce its role as student loan maker/guarantor.
2. The systemic fraud is what I am described above: schools employing their own graduates for a year so that they can inflate their ’employed after 9 months’ percentage (I don’t think schools should have to not do this….rather just that their statistics indicate the percentage of jobs that are school funded); calling waitressing or retail jobs ‘business/industry’; reporting median salaries based on 10% of the class reporting and not making that clear. Even if schools did correct these problems, you would still see people taking out loans to go to schools with terrible prospects because of a spate of cognitive biases that behavioral economists have identified….hence, the simultaneous need to restrain the free flow of government loans.
3. The 90% is in reference to the law students who don’t get big law jobs. There are about 5K big law positions each year in this economy and 45K JDs.
4. I mentioned in my original post that some people will go into consulting or compliance or maybe go back to what they were doing before law school. But there are not enough good non-law jobs to absorb the 25K surplus. About 5-10% of my “T6” school graduated without a good job last year, most of whom ended up doing the school-funded thing. Some of them were probably lazy about job-hunting or limited themselves to law or certain geographical areas, but there were also several who were applying for everything under the sun from PMF to consulting gigs to wealth management to the FBI to compliance. If people were struggling at my school, I have to believe people were struggling elsewhere, and it was not always because they thought they were “too good” for certain jobs or insisted on a particular area or type of law. or even on law at all. You have to remember that there is stiff competition for these good jobs that are outside the legal field. Perhaps truly good non-legal jobs absorb another 10K of the JDs that graduate every year although I would be really surprised if it was that high. That would still leave 15K with a bad outcome.
5. It is a mix of the law school’s fault and the student’s fault. If the law school is being transparent and you still borrow too much, fine, then it is on you. As I mentioned earlier, because of cognitive biases (see the optimism bias and the overconfidence bias), people will still borrow too much even if they had all the information. But less people will go, and they will, on the whole, borrow less to do it if they saw the real information. This is already starting to happen because of publicity surrounding the issue. But ironically the biggest drop is among the people most likely to succeed: those who score 170+ on the LSAT. If schools provided detailed employment information, and the federal financial aid bonanza was reigned in, you would see no complaints from me even though some people would still over-borrow.
6. Agree (unless you are including no disclosure on the schools’ part as an aspect of market forces)
1. Not a serious question. I just keep score of all the ideological biases I am variously assumed to have. It’s quite a list.
2. What makes you think hiring a grad is intended to deceive? I was hired by the new Dean after graduation, because he knew my talents and wanted me in the administration. How do law schools know what grads won’t be hired someplace else, and hire those? This conspiracy theory makes no sense if you think about it for two minutes.
3. Why is “big law jobs” the relevant test? I never wanted a big law job, and those with big law jobs seem to hate them in many cases. The test should be “professional jobs.”
4. “But there are not enough good non-law jobs to absorb the 25K surplus.” Absolutely untrue! Business, management, non-profits, fundraising, marketing, writing, lobbying, journalism, associations—the fields where a law degree is a powerful credential are many. You’re lack of imagination on this score mirrors that of many of your unemployed, complaining colleagues.
5. If the schools aren’t hiding their tuition costs, I don’t see what they have to be transparent about. If you have to be told that no degree guarantees a big payday, and that taking on 6 figures of indebtedness before you have guaranteed employment that will pay for it is certifiable, then you are too naive and slow-witted to be a good lawyer. I mean it. It’s terrible reasoning, and the laws schools are only responsible for admitting people that greedy and deluded.
I don’t want to be snide—you’re making reasonable arguments, but cognitive bias is no excuse for irrational behavior, just a partial explanation.
2. It is not the hiring of a grad that is necessarily intended to deceive, but not making clear that that is what happened to 10% of your class and claiming that you have 98% employment is deceptive. Most school-funded jobs are not long-term, full-time professional employment. They are usually the school paying for you to work at a non-profit or government agency with the hope that you will get hired in the end. A few people do get hired. I am not against such programs. I just don’t think they should be lumped in together with more desirable employment outcomes. No one is gunning for these school-funded positions; they are a fall back. People who want public interest or gov rather than private work are gunning for gov Honors or Skadden or Equal Justice Works fellowships.
3. Big law is definitely not the only relevant test although it is a relevant test. If school didn’t cost so much, I probably wouldn’t be doing big law. But it is damn risky in this economy to go to a law school and incur more than 100K in debt and not even consider big law. Yes, there is IBR and LRAP (most of which depend to some extent on IBR, which has a potentially shaky future), but getting a PLSF-qualifying IBR job, so that you don’t have a huge tax bomb when your loans are forgiven after 25 years (happens if you are in the private sector), is about 100x harder than landing a big law job. Seriously. Then you have to worry about keeping that job for ten years in a very uncertain economy where organizations are cutting back left and right. Also, for a lot of people that want to do public interest long-term, the smart move is to go to a big law firm for a few years, do pro bono work in the area you would like to move into, and then move into public interest after that. For some reason, you get a big promotion if you do it this way rather than working your way up in the organization. I saw it firsthand at the two public interest jobs I worked at during law school. My boss at Legal Aid even told me to go to a firm and then transition to Legal Aid after (she did not do that and regretted it). All this to say….sure big law is not everything, but it is an important indicator of general legal hiring market health, and it is damn anemic right now.
4. You are right that I am not well-versed in the non-legal jobs available to JDs since I have not conducted an extensive job search. However, my question is, if these good professional jobs are out there, why aren’t the masses of unemployed JDs and soon-to-be JDs snapping them up? I will not accept the answer that it is some inherent characteristic in the unemployed people that is holding them back from these plentiful promising professional jobs (that they’re not creative enough, not trying hard enough, not willing to do non-legal work, not willing to move, etc). As I have mentioned before, I am sure there are some who are unemployed due to laziness or inflexibility or pride, but I know too many creative, hard-working, qualified, flexible law students/recent JDs who are unemployed to believe that the problem is with the students. The problem is with the lack of jobs.
5. The school does not have to, like, put a disclaimer on its brochure saying ‘high-paying job not guaranteed’ or something. All I am saying is that the schools should put the real data out there….real detailed employment data and then let the chips fall where they may. (Actually perhaps that is an understatement – I also believe that the schools should bear some of the risk.) A free market can only operate properly when there is transparency. People hypnotized by the laughable idea that law=$$$$$ are going to go to law school whether the data is there or not. But there are prospective students who would be helped by knowing what the real outcomes of the school’s graduates are.
Regarding cognitive bias, I was not referring to it as an excuse; I was referring to it to say that even with more transparency regarding employment statistics, there will still be people who over-borrow. But with transparency at least some people will make more rational decisions. The reason I believe schools should release this data is because I think it is bordering on fraud to not release it, not because of cognitive biases.
I used to agree with your position before I went to law school. I remember when I was first looking into it, I came across a thread entitled ‘don’t go to law school unless it is a T14’ and I was completely shocked. I thought the person must’ve been crazy. Now I don’t completely agree that it is T14 or bust, but I believe that if you are going non-T14, you should have a hefty scholarship or be going to a state school like Montana or Hawaii, hopefully on the cheap. Frankly, I wouldn’t pay sticker at Georgetown or UVa either. Cornell, Duke, and Penn get a pass because they have small classes. Anyway I digress.
I don’t think Nando is the best example of people who have been chewed up and spit out by the current legal education mess. But his blog does not strike me as unethical.
2. Why are these statistics important or useful? I’m unique; so are you. My eployment prospects are not governed by what happens to anyone else or predicted by them. This mindset is part of the problem.
3. Agreed.
4. It really isn’t. Law grads don’t look for non-law jobs or don’t know what to look for or how.
5. Transparency? I never asked for that information and I don’t know what it’s good for. Do you want to be a lawyer or not? Does the school teach you to be a lawyer? You get the degree and its up to you. I make my own network and build my career. Local law schools are good for getting jobs in localities. A BU degree is more valuable in Boston than a Stanford JD. You do your research—it’s your life.
Nando’s site is unprofessional and uncivil. That’s unethical enough for me.
Nando is not the only person who is angry at a broken system. There are many of us who are seething, perplexed at how a school can justify charging $60,000. Further, many people are not waiting for a $160,000 job. I, as many, would be happy with a chance at a $30,000 job after law school. As it stands now, I have no idea what I will do once I graduate. I will not, however, move back in with my parents at this age. In short, I am terrified. I may go overseas to teach English. That would be my best bet. Even though I did very well my first year, I gave up knowing that no matter how well I would never succeed.
I agree that there are some students who are not doing anything and are angry for no reason, but there are others who tried over and over again, only to find out that there was NOTHING for them. Not everyone in law is obsessed about money and/or prestige. Further, as I constantly write about on my own blog, I would NEVER want to work in big law (nor would have I ever had a chance). That kind of lifestyle sounds disgusting to me. Further, I am really, really bad at kissing butt. Also, I refuse to be treated like human garbage, something that sounds common place in that kind of environment.
Contact me offline, and I’d be happy to help with some career advice, contacts and options. My e-mail is on the home page.
Dear Jack Marshall. You are a sorely deluded moron. Your pathetic straw man argument that the scam bloggers feel ‘entitled’ to anything is ridiculous.
Do you think the law schools are ‘entitled’ to openly lie about job prospects. Do you support that fraud?
If you are going to substitute invective and insults for actual arguments, you should at least be able to do it with as much flair as Nando. You don’t know what a straw man argument is, and you don’t know what entitled means. In my book, when law grads are bitter and angry because the degree they over-paid for didn’t automatically win them the biglaw jobs they thought they had bought tickets for, that’s per se an expression of entitlement. I wouldn’t hire an uncivil hot head like Nando if he were the last lawyer on earth an d I had a firm to fill. i wouldn’t hire you because you publish insults by name and don’t have the guts to give your own—and the fact that you don’t know the meaning of simple words like “entitled.”
I’ve explained why the law school jobs stats complaint is just excuse-making. Read the threads, then you might be worth talking to.
This piece is particularly wrong:
2. What makes you think hiring a grad is intended to deceive? I was hired by the new Dean after graduation, because he knew my talents and wanted me in the administration. How do law schools know what grads won’t be hired someplace else, and hire those? This conspiracy theory makes no sense if you think about it for two minutes.
Law schools make low, part time offers, to their students only, at the same time the stats are collected for employment. Of course, the only students who will take these offers up will be the ones without jobs. And when they take these jobs up, they will be reported as ’employed’ in a JD required job. These jobs are offered by the universities solely to game the results. They are a fraud.
What law schools do this? How many? How many students are hired? A school would have to hire a large number to move the needle sufficiently to make a difference. How do you distinguish between legitimate hires—I worked for my law school for 7 years—and your alleged fake hires? This sounds like an urban legend conspiracy to me.
Here’s the link, click through to get the data from the ABA. Many are hiring over 10% of graduates, some are approaching 20%.
You started by saying that these offers by universities couldn’t be a problem because the law schools wouldn’t know they were hiring otherwise unemployed graduates. Then when it was pointed out that in fact these offers were part time jobs at a low rate (and thereby almost by definition would exclude grads with new jobs) you then switched tack to say it isn’t really happening.
I wonder what your next argument in defence of this will be?
1. When I was hired, I had another job offer. There are plenty of reasons a student would take a part-time job with a law school while seeking full time employment. My initial point stands. There is no way for the school to know when they hire a student that he or she would have otherwise been unemployed.
2. The conspiracy is what is an urban legend. I didn’t say law schools didn’t hire grads—it makes sense for law schools to hire grads.
3. Are you saying law schools shouldn’t hire grads, or that they should disclose that they hire grads? Clearly they do disclose, hence the stats.
4. I don’t see what this has to do with a “scam.” Employment stats don’t tell me a thing about my personal chances. I’m not a generic graduate. Neither are you. My odds of getting hired are not the odds of a generic group, so I couldn’t care less what those statistics are, with or without school hires.
5. It’s a phony complaint.
– the jobs are overwhelmingly part time and low paid, and therefore by definition will be taken up largely by the otherwise unemployed.
– they were not seperately disclosed until recently, only at the agitation of the scambloggers. Until then, the universities were using them to boost their employment rate.
– Point 4 is simply bizarre. Employment stats are used by the uni’s to recruit the students; these stats were clearly being inflated by these hires.
Sorry link here:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/04/2010-placement.html
In fact your point about employment stats is so strange, we really need to explore it further:
– You seem to be saying that stats in general in this field have no value, as every person is different. Accordingly, someone admitted to Yale should defer and go to a much lower ranked school, because ‘everyone is different’ and just because Yale has stronger stats than the locally ranked school, this means nothing. Or I suppose I should take up smoking- everyone’s different- so just because others get lung cancer doesn’t mean I will. Stats are meaningless!
– I am not sure, but you also seem to be endorsing the argument the law schools ran in the recent court actions – that by definition their stats are highly compromised rubbish and therefore no rational person should rely upon them. I lied because everyone knows that I’m a liar, just isn’t a great argument to be trotting out if you’re a law school.
1. It’s not strange at all. The same is true of colleges. Take twins, one of which goes to Yale and another who attends Podunk U. Their abilities are a far stronger correlation to their success than which school they went to. If you want to go to a top tier law school, swell–you’ll get a good education. But, for example, very, very few of the top plaintiffs trial lawyers graduate from the prestige schools—and they make a lot of money, are terrific lawyers, and routinely drive biglaw attorneys nuts. They hustle, they are quick and passionate, and they work like dogs.
2. I’m saying that no stat can tell you how you will fare in the job market, and no intelligent, responsible person should believe they can.
3. No, if the stats are faked, that’s wrong. But you need causality as well as proof of wrongdoing. It is irrational to use such stats as a reason to spend more money that you can pay back. It’s not the law school’s fault that you make poor and irrational choices.
1. Logically false. You’re trying to say ability is more important than the prestige of one’s institution. As proof, you note that people of high ability do well in the abstract even if they go to small schools. Do you see the problem, or do you need me to explain further?
3. Logically ridiculous. Your words: “It is irrational to use such stats as a reason to spend more money that you can pay back.” Let’s call the amount of money a student actually spends A. Let’s call the amount a student can actually pay back B. We can agree the goal is to keep (A/B)<1. But how would you go about calculating A and B? You ultimately will set A based on B, so let's try to figure out B in isolation.
What would be helpful in knowing how much money a student will actually be able to pay back in 4 years' time? Under traditional lending principles, you would compare projected income with projected expenses and the stability of those numbers. If you have a rough estimate that you will be making $80k gross with set living expenses (rent + utilities) around $24k, you can probably conservatively count on having at least 20k in expendable cash. If you can make those numbers for 10 years and devote 50% to debt service, that persons' B number for 10-year payoff would be 100k. Pure, super-conservative ballparking would suggest A can borrower 90k.
Well, where is the kid going to get estimates of his salary? He can poll local attorneys himself, consult the BLS and other economic records, and of course he can look at the official-looking numbers the law school is presenting. Do you see where this is going, or do you need me to explain further?
Under your reasoning, it's "irrational" to point to X when Y has happened, where no rational person could calculate the odds of Y without X.
1.It is not logically false; it’s true. I know so as someone who has hired lawyers, and as someone who has been in the job market many times. Give me an impressive candidate from Podunk U., and a less impressive one from Harcard, and I’ll hire the first every time…and so will most people. What’s the logical fallacy? You are arguing that the prestige of one’s laws school is more important than actual qualifications, and that’s not just illogical and false, it’s ridiculous.
3. You think it is ever logical to, in essence, bet six figures, when you don’t have the resources on hand, to buy something that cannot possibly be relied upon to directly lead to sufficient income to meet that obligation? When you can’t possibly know what industry, economic and other conditions will be at play three years down the line? THAT’S ridiculous: also stupid. Anyone who buys a degree on the assumption that its a money coupon doesn’t comprehend the purpose of education, places greed above professional values, and already has shown a lack of character, common sense and judgment.
Well, where is the kid going to get estimates of his salary?
Wowee. The argument here is that fledgling lawyers deserve some sort of special insight into the job market that almost no one else enjoys.
You want to enter a field in which you’ve got a pretty good shot at estimating your pay grade in five years? Join the military, and then be careful that you don’t excel, screw up or get killed. Even then there are no guarantees.
Over the course of my own career, I’ve observed that the most successful people I encounter are those who are engaged in pursuits that they truly enjoy (they either entered the field because they loved it, or they came to love it). And success isn’t measured simply by salary. I’ve known plenty of people who have plenty of cash who are nasty and embittered and who live miserable lives.
Jack’s original point in this thread still stands strong. From my own perspective anyone who enters law (or any other profession) simply because of the prospect of money, rather than a fascination for the work itself, is making a big mistake.
“Business, management, non-profits, fundraising, marketing, writing, lobbying, journalism, associations—the fields where a law degree is a powerful credential are many. You’re lack of imagination on this score mirrors that of many of your unemployed, complaining colleagues.”
Again, this is absolutely false and reveals a stupendous (and likely willful) ignorance of the current job market. Trust me, Jack, recent law graduates ARE seeking out positions in business, journalism, “writing,” etc. The business community by and large does not want entry-level lawyers in management positions. This might come as a shock, but they want people with actual management experience. Either that, or they hire an MBA, of which there are legions looking for opportunities. Given the choice, no one in their right mind would hire a mid-tier entry-level law graduate to run a popsicle stand if there was an experienced MBA available. Marketing is even more ludicrous; you realize people get degrees in that, too, right? That it takes specialized knowledge that has nothing to do with anything taught in the average law school? Journalism is another saturated and dying field that people leave to go to law school. In an age where finding an unemployed English MA or Journalism BA holder is easy, who would hire a law graduate to do something they’re simply not trained to do? “Writing” can be done before law school as effectively as after, and there’s an argument to be made that law school would actually stunt literary talent (much of legal writing is about scrubbing out individual voice and sanitizing prose to the point of efficient dullness).
There is a limited subset of positions in consulting, analysis, compliance, etc. that benefit from lawyer skills without requiring a license. They are few and far between. I know this because I’ve making contacts, applying for positions, and trying to find one of these positions for the last nine months. I even have banking industry experience. Those type of jobs are hard to get, and the jobs you mention above have no increased odds with the JD.
Here is a challenge: Missouri has a good job listings program for the entire state:
https://jobs.mo.gov/mcs/jobseeker/jobsearch.aspx
Find me ten (10) jobs that would be really good non-law opportunities for the average entry-level attorney (let’s say 1 year of general office experience, ~100 USNW law school, top 1/3, poli sci major in undergrad).
Your insistence that this is a “lack of imagination” is frankly offensive to those of us who are actually out there applying to plausible opportunities and milking our social networks for possibilities. This isn’t 1975 where there are openings in other areas and the law degree is a signal that the person is bright and hard-working. Every field has excess supply to demand, which shuts out once-fervent areas like teaching, journalism, business, etc.
Joe, you don’t want to find a job; you just want to make excuses. Employer didn’t just magically change their minds about the presumed (if often false) general competence of lawyers for good, non-legal jobs and careers. MBAs reputation has seldom been lower. States don’t list most of the jobs that would be fits for professionals; they don’t find out about them.
Call or e-mail me and set up a phone meeting, and let me hear what you’ve done and what you may not have done. I’d also like to get a sense of your demeanor and how you come of in interviews.You can start by sending me your resume, and a typical job inquiry letter I’d rather try to help you out than pointlessly and futilely try to argue you out of a toxic victim’s mindset.
I will not be calling you or emailing you. For one, you’re offensive and dismissive of anyone who isn’t Jack Marshall or one of his toadies, and for two, your analytical abilities are incredibly weak and you seem to lack any shred of intellectual honesty.
In this thread, you’ve basically argued that I and others like me don’t really want to work and that the market is just flat-out wrong because we’re all “unique.” You shift premises whenever someone challenges your conclusion, always ready with the “but we’re all unique, so stats don’t matter” or “the jobs are out there, you just don’t know how to find them!” You speak in these vague, non-describable terms that simply can’t withstand scrutiny. And when someone tries to pin you down, you wind up weaseling out of your tenuous position with rubbish. Here is an example:
“Give me an impressive candidate from Podunk U., and a less impressive one from Har[v]ard, and I’ll hire the first every time…and so will most people. What’s the logical fallacy?”
That is not, and never has been, the question posed. This is incredibly low-level straw man construction, but I suppose that’s not much different than pretending there is a giant ball of professional jobs out there just yearning to be plucked by Valparaiso Law graduates.
Another straw man is your claim about borrowing six figures being unreasonable. I presented the hypo in generics precisely to avoid such generalizations. How about $35k – is it reasonable to borrow that much to get the super-valuable law degree? Real people need answers to those questions, and you’re claiming that it’s “ridiculous” and “irrational” for them to use the best empirical evidence available.
Yet at the same time, employment statistics don’t matter because we’re all special snowflakes who control our own destiny. If that’s the case, wouldn’t that counter your idea that it’s per se unreasonable to borrow 6 figures? Wouldn’t it counter the utility of law school at all, or your denigration of MBAs? You’re giving credence to market opinion while telling graduates that the market doesn’t mean anything when it comes to law degress (cuz we can just find ourselves a job).
With such dogmatism, critical thinking skills, and refusal to consider empirical evidence you disfavor, it’s no wonder you washed out of the law decades ago. If you pull this crap in a courtroom, you will lose early and often. And you think you can offer valuable career advice? Get real.
Fine, be a victim. I am hardly dismissive, since I have taken the time at length to debate this with you, despite teh fact that you, like most of your ilk from scamblog-land, have no interest in any perspective but the one you have invested in.
1. “In this thread, you’ve basically argued that I and others like me don’t really want to work and that the market is just flat-out wrong because we’re all “unique.” Where have I argued that the struggling law grads don’t want to work? I have argued that those like you refuse to take responsibility for your own pliaght, and are blaming the degree, rather than 1) the economy, which has led to a depressed market that makes it more difficult, but far from impossible, to find jobs in every field 2) bad risks, that have limited your options and 3) your own skills.
2. Stats tell what stats tell about groups. No, they are not dispositive or especially predictive for individuals who have unique characteristics that separate them from a group—as most do. Your mindset on this score is crippling and self-defeating.
3. Your argument is the one that is slippery. You claim the prestige degree is what matters, my hypothetical disproves that. What matters most is the demonstrable ability of the graduate. Where’s the straw man? Your whole premise is a straw man.
4. Obviously it isn’t unreasonable to borrow $35 K for a law degree, because most jobs will pay more than that. It is the massive debt that creates the pressure to acquire a job with a massive salary. There is no such thing as reliable data that will predict what YOU, Joe, will be able to earn on the market. If may be the best there is, but it still is unreliable, and obviously so. Past data isn’t particularly useful in something like this. That’s why wise people don’t rely on it.
5. “Yet at the same time, employment statistics don’t matter because we’re all special snowflakes who control our own destiny. If that’s the case, wouldn’t that counter your idea that it’s per se unreasonable to borrow 6 figures?” You see, lawyers are supposed to be able to reason and solve problems. This question provides the key to your job issues. Of course not. Controlling one’s own destiny means maximizing options, which accumulating huge debt does not do. If you have no options, you have no control. I never said the statistics “don’t matter.” I said that it was foolish to rely on them, either as proof of certain riches then, or proof of certain failure now. And that is true.
6. You are an ass, my friend, and don’t think that doesn’t contribute to your job-hunting problems. In good faith, I offered to take the time to demonstrate to you that there were good jobs that a law degree would help you get, and you responded, in the fine tradition of Nando, with insults, not only to me, but to the other commenters here, who are hardly toadies. I did not “wash out” of the law, Jerk…I went to law school with no particular legal aspirations at all. I was gainfully employed as a prosecutor when I accepted a non-legal job, nearly re-entered the law 7 years later, didn’t, and have had a fascinating and varied career that has taken me across the globe, into politics, the arts, business, health care, management, history, writing, public speaking and ethics, with plenty of other opportunities on the horizon—and my legal training has been as essential part of all of it…exactly, and I mean exactly, the kind of varied and versatile career that I expected my degree to facilitate.
7. You can wallow in failure and misery; I’m not obligated to give you any more of my time in exchange for insults and tantrums. Go whine somewhere else. This is your last comment.
8. My offer is hereby withdrawn.