Calico Cat

Calico Cat was one of the first bloggers to try to expose the law school scam. He did so as a top 10% (at graduation) student from a tier 1 school back in 2004! Imagine what he would have to say about today's environment.

Unfortunately, this forefather of the scam busting movement's site is no longer available, so I have decided to run his salient essay on this blog. (Thank you, Google Cache.)

The lousy post-graduation opportunities for new attorneys are nothing new; it's just that both the economy and COA are much worse today. Don't be fooled. Even if the economy recovers, happy days will not be here again (for lawyers).

Law school: the big lie

(Reprinted from the now defunct Calico Cat blog.)

Every year tens of thousands of wannabe lawyers enter law school. The majority will be extremely disappointed by their career opportunities.

Thus the title of this essay: law school is a big lie. People enter law school with the idea that a law degree is their ticket to a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle. In fact, just the opposite, law school for most is a ticket to a worse financial state than if they had not attended at all.

This news is hard for people to accept, because “everyone knows” that lawyers make a lot of money. Right? Well look at the salaries for government lawyers in your area. They probably start in the 30s. Why would anyone take a job paying in the 30s if law jobs pay six figures? They wouldn’t. After a decade or more of service to the state, you salary will most likely max out in the five figures. That’s a pretty lousy salary for a job that requires three years of graduate school education. There are plenty of people without any graduate education earning six figures, and they don’t have to pay back the student loans that lawyers have to take out in order to pay for law school. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world and he doesn’t even have an undergraduate degree.

There are some lawyers who start out with a good salary. They work for what they call “BIGLAW” on the internet message boards. Big law firms pay their associates a starting salary in the six figures. But here’s the sad news: only a tiny percentage of law school graduates will ever get these six figure jobs at big law firms. Unless you go to a top law school, the six figure big law firm job will most likely not be yours.

There are only 14 top law schools. That’s right. Not 10, not 15, but 14. They are, in descending order of prestige: Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, UC Berkeley, and Georgetown. And that’s it. Go to any other law school, and your chances of getting a big law firm job will be slim to none.

There are also distinct levels of prestige within the top 14. Yale, Harvard, and Stanford are head and shoulders above the rest. Then Columbia, NYU and maybe Chicago round out the top 6. Attending one of these top top law schools will vastly improve your odds. The guy graduating at the bottom of the class at Harvard will have better career opportunities than the guy graduating at the top of the class at an ordinary law school.

Outside of the top law schools, the only law school graduates having decent job opportunities will be those who graduated in the top ten percent of the class and who made law review. Law review and top ten percent are usually the same people because at most law schools the law review members are selected from those whose grades are in the top ten percent at the end of the first year. If like me, your grades weren’t in the top ten percent at the end of the first year, but you managed to graduate in the top ten percent, you are screwed because you weren’t on law review. Furthermore, most big law firms make offers to their summer associates, who get interviewed and hired during the second half of the second year, thus it’s mostly your grades during the first three semesters of law school that determine your entire legal future.

If you are reading this, and you’re a law student who already received your first semester grades, and they aren’t top ten percent, then my advice is to drop out now instead of throwing more money down the law school black hole.

Despite being warned that the only way to get a decent job in law if one attends a non-top 14 school is to make law review and the top ten percent, tens of thousands of suckers will enroll anyway. They think “I will be the one who makes the top ten percent” or “even if I don’t make the top ten percent, things will work out.” Let’s state the odds clearly: 90% of the class will not make the top 10%. You are not the only person in law school thinking they are going to bust their butt to make the top ten percent. 80% of the people start out thinking they are going to bust their butt. And some people from the 20% who are slackers are going to wind up in the top 10% too, because law school grades have a huge random element. One of the biggest slacker/party girls in my first year law school class made the top 10%. She wound up getting a high paying job at a big law firm because the law school gods decided to randomly grace her during her first semester.

The law schools will trick prospective students with bogus statistics about the great career opportunities available to graduates. Don’t believe everything you read. First of all, there are the documented lies, like the admissions brochure for my law school alma mater, Arizona State University College of Law (ASU), which listed the average starting salary for graduates with job offers at graduation from private law firms. But what percentage of the class graduates with a job offer in hand from a private law firm? About 10%? Trumpeting the average salary for 10% of the class is damned deceptive.

I further suspect that some law schools outright lie on their reported career placement statistics. Think about public companies. They have a strong incentive to lie on their financial statements, so that is why they have to prepare their statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and the accounting has to be audited by an independent public accounting firm. Despite these safeguards, companies like Enron are still caught lying on their financial statements.

Law school career placement statistics do not have to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted principles, and they aren’t audited by independent public accountants. Therefore they can’t be trusted. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because they are “non-profit” they can be trusted, or that they are run only for the benefit of the public. There’s no such thing as no one making a profit. “Non-profit” only means that no one owns the residual profits from the law school, there are plenty of stakeholders making out like bandits. Law schools are run for the benefit of the law professors who have cushy six figure jobs, and the money for their salaries comes from the gullible chumps called law students.

How cushy is a job as a law professor? Law professors earn six figures and only have to work six hours a week. And they get summers off too. How much better can it get? That’s right, law professors are only allowed to teach six hours of classes a week. If they taught more than six hours a week, the law school would lose its accreditation. Maybe some of the new law professors have to spend some time preparing for class, but by the time the law professor has a few years under his belt, he knows the material cold. Some of the older law professors were able to recite the entire textbook without ever even looking at it. In class one day, all the students looked quizzically at the law professor while he recited the exact details of a case that wasn’t in the textbook. Finally this was brought to his attention. It turns out that he was reciting from the last edition of the book. He didn’t even bother to look at the textbook in front of him to see that the case wasn’t in there.

The only time that law professors have to do any real work is when they grade exams. And law school exams are only given once at the end of the semester. So we are talking about two weeks of real work at the end of each semester. And in one case, a law professor at ASU, was apparently too lazy to even put in his two weeks of work and he made up fake grades for the students in his class. When his deception was discovered, all he got was a temporary suspension, and a short time later he was back at law school teaching law.

So we see, law professors have cushy jobs, therefore they have a strong incentive to lie on the career placement statistics because those are equivalent to a for-profit company’s financial statements, and it’s what the prospective law students look at to decide if they want to “invest” in the law school education.

Another fallacy that prospective law students hold onto is that the law degree has some kind of value outside of law. They think, “if I don’t practice law, at least it’s a prestigious degree that will help my non-law career.” This is completely false. Having a law degree hurts your chances of getting non-law jobs. No one wants to hire you if you have a law degree. Because “everyone knows” that lawyers make so much money, they can’t understand why someone with a law degree would want to do anything else but practice law. If you say “I couldn’t find a job practicing law.” which is probably the truth, they will think “this person is a loser because everyone know how easy it is to find a job practicing law, and we don’t hire losers around here.” If you say “I was just exploring my options but decided I didn’t want to practice law,” then they will think “this person has no idea what he wants to do, we want to hire people who know where their career is going.” There is absolutely no way to spin the law degree in a way that it helps you get a non-law job. Hiring managers are looking for cookie cutter resumes, not resumes where people have education unrelated to the job. From their perspective, they’re not hiring a lawyer so they don’t give a crap if you know how to synthesize appellate cases (assuming they even know what “synthesize appellate cases” means, which is unlikely). The only way I have been able to find any jobs outside of law is to leave the law degree off my resume. Whenever the law degree has been on my resume, it has been the kiss of death that prevents me from finding a job.

Finally, this essay would be incomplete if it didn’t discuss the burden of student loans. Whatever salary you make after graduating from law school has to be discounted by the cost of your student loan repayments. The student loan payments are not tax deductible (except to a very limited extent which will likely not apply to you). Your marginal tax rate will probably be around 45%, which means that for every $100/month in student loan payments, you need to have a stated additional salary of $182/month to cover the student loan payments. This means that if your law school education adds $500/month in student loan payments, you are paying $6,000/year in student loans and you need to earn an extra $10,910/year to cover the payments. This means that a $40,000/year job as a law school graduate gives you the equivalent disposable income of a $29,090/year job if you didn’t have a law degree. And it’s a lot easier to find a $29,000/year job with a bachelor’s degree than it is to find a $40,000/year job with a law degree.

Even if you are one of the rare and lucky law school graduates who can obtain a six figure job at a big law firm, those jobs are rumored to be bad. I can’t say much about this because I never worked at a big law firm, but according to what I’ve been told, a large percentage of the partners at big law firms are jerks who treat their associates like garbage and make them work ridiculously long hours. Some of this may be unjustified whining, because I was treated like garbage at a job where I was making $9/hour. Nevertheless, one needs to consider that the ultimate goal of law school, a big law firm job, attained by only a small percentage of law school graduates, may not be the great reward it’s supposed to be.

I predict that some prospective law students will find this essay, read it, and not believe it. Because no matter how much you try to tell a prospective law student the truth about law, they don’t believe it. “Everyone knows” that lawyers make a lot of money, how can this be true? Believe me, it’s true, and if you attend law school you will learn this the hard way. Don’t waste three years of your life and go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt that can never be discharged in bankruptcy to find out that your career opportunities suck after all that. Please, learn the truth now.

Five Weak Reasons for Attending Law School

Above the Law recently ran an article defending attending law school. They were kind enough to link to this blog, but sadly not kind enough to provide a particularly compelling justification for their wayward advice.

To be honest, I actually think this article may be an example of very subtle satire. Can David Lat really believe that educational trust funds and potential sinecures are really relevant to the debate?

In any event, here are my summaries of his five "arguments" and my brief responses to each point.

Argument 1: Hey, winning the lottery is possible.

Sure, there's a better chance of getting a BigLaw job than winning the Power Ball. Nevertheless, when you win a lottery jackpot, you walk away free and clear with millions. When you "win" a BigLaw job, you still have to work long hours for an annual salary of $100k plus dollars.

Would I have taken a job like this if it was offered to me? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's fun. Many lawyers are miserable and plenty end up washing out of these jobs after a few years.

More importantly, however, is the penalty for not making the OCI cut for BigLaw. In the legal world, it's a loooong way down if you're not in the magic top X% of your class.

If you play the lottery and lose, you're out a couple of bucks. If you lose the law school gamble, you could throw yourself into massive debt and torch your career trajectory for years to come.

Argument 2: You can always become a law professor or work for daddy

If you don't have BigLaw grades, you don't have law professor grades. Plus, do you really want to be part of the law school scam?

Also, we all know that if your name is William P. Buffington III, your old man can find you a law job. He can probably also get you a non-attorney position. This is axiomatic, and anyone in this position already knows he is set for life. This isn't germane to the debate.

As for some of the other jobs listed, sure they're all possible. It's also possible that you could be a PG in the NBA, but I wouldn't risk six figures of debt on that potential opportunity either.

I can't believe people still suggest that a law degree is useful for pursuing "alternative careers". Unless the alternative career they have in mind is in janitorial services or being a "professional companion" to male executives, please see the rest of this site for my rebuttal.

Argument 3: A B.A. in liberal arts is also worthless

A J.D., for many people, is essentially a graduate liberal arts degree. It doesn't teach you anything practical, and aside from the mostly inaccessible legal jobs, it isn't valued by employers.

You don't get out of a hole by continuing to dig yourself deeper; you get out by trying to climb out by working your way up from low level jobs and picking up some practical skills.

Argument 4: Not Everyone Takes on Debt

Yes, but most do. Once again, if your old man can write a check to cover the ordeal, congratulations. This website probably isn't for you. For everyone else, even "a little debt" can still mean big payments for many years in return for a largely worthless piece of paper.

Debt isn't even the biggest problem. Thanks to the IBR, even larger debts are now manageable (if annoying).

The big problem is having a three year gap in your resume and a degree that makes you overqualified for virtually every non-legal position that would otherwise be accessible to you.

Even if you do go the attorney route - for those who aren't at the top of the class - your sentence is a life of toilet law and/or document review slavery.

Argument 5: Pride

I have been introduced as Attorney [My Last Name], and I receive mail addressed to [My Name], Esq. I also live at home with my parents and spent about 14 months unemployed. That kind of takes some of the wind out of the old sails.


I look forward to Lat eventually letting us in on the joke. This article would have been better suited for April 1.

PSA: Rising 3L's Cut Your Losses

Let me be blunt: If you've just completed your 1L year and you've learned that you are not in the top 25% (save those from the top 3 schools or who have some incredible family connections), it's probably time to start looking at other options.

In fact, let me be even more blunt - If you're in this situation and you're even considering signing another promissory note with Aunt Sallie Mae and heading back to your TTT this fall, you, sir or madam, are insane.

If people who have the logical reasoning ability to crack 160 or even 170 on the LSAT can't recognize that pursuing entry into a glutted field with anything less than stellar credentials is a bad idea, then I have to agree with the critics of standardized testing: There must be something seriously flawed with the exam.

While the willingness of 1L's to hang around doesn't negate the wickedness of the law school cartel, it certainly does make these students seem like less sympathetic characters. What else do they need? A front page story in the Wall Street Journal with the headline, If You Stay in Law School, You'll Be Unemployed and Living in Your Mom's Basement in Two Years?

Unfortunately, the WSJ hasn't been kind enough to run such an piece, but we have something that's pretty darn close in the US News and World Report article entitled, Law Jobs Will Be Harder to Come By.

In this article, the law school cartel's court statistician, James Leipold (of NALP) admits that's it's going to be ugly for the class of 2011, and he's not exactly ready to predict a return to normalcy in 2012 either. (Though he does leave just enough room for hope so that 1L's and prelaws can talk themselves into going down with the ship.)

If people like Leipold can't come up with optimistic things to say about the legal market, then you know that happy days aren't here again.

How is this particularly relevant to rising 3L's? Well, while any sane member of the class of 2012, who isn't law review bound, should be preparing for his law school exit interview, members of the class of 2011 are in a far more difficult situation.

After all, as the conventional wisdom goes, if you realize after 1L year that LS isn't for you, it's time to cut your losses and move on, but if you've already invested two years into law school, you might as well stick it out and at least get the degree.

I respectfully disagree. Yes, walking away from two years worth of intensive school work (particularly when the third year is the least difficult) with little to show for it is not appealing. Nevertheless, one needs to keep in mind the sunk cost fallacy - it is irrational to make future decisions based upon costs that have already been incurred.

For many people having a law degree and a license is of absolutely no help. They can't find (or really don't want) legal jobs. The J.D. does nothing to help a person find non-legal work. Even trying to bail yourself out with doc review work isn't really an option anymore.

The cost of completing a third year is also prohibitive. At most private schools, tuition alone is between $30 - $50k. Throw in living expenses and the total cost could easily exceed $70k. Upon graduation, the fallacy of the sunk cost can become even more enticing. If you've completed law school, you "might as well take the bar exam". Of course, this little intellectual exercise can cost thousands more in test prep programs, exam fees, and even living expenses.

What's more there's still the opportunity cost of forgoing yet another year (and a summer) of wages. Add up all these costs - plus the interest on the amount you'll need to borrow - and you'll see that "just finishing up your degree" is hardly something you can do on the cheap.

Now, I know the psychological barriers to pulling the trigger and bailing out at this point are high. (To say nothing of the peer - and likely parental - pressure.)

Therefore, let me pose some more modest steps you can take.

It's still summer and the law school beast won't be demanding it's feast of your tuition dollars at least until August. Use this time to search for a job. If you can land something that pays decently and seems interesting, dump your law school faster than the average law school dean dumped his or her sense of decency.

While landing a half decent job that quickly may not be the easiest feat ever, you do have some advantages when compared to the average law school graduate. For one thing, you're only two years removed from either college or full time employment. Moreover, nobody is going to be afraid that you'll just run off and take an attorney position when the economy improves because you won't be eligible to even sit for the bar.

If employers seem skeptical about your decision to drop out, you can at least reply that you had hoped that law school would help prepare you for a variety of fields other than law, but once you realized that it had little application outside of practicing as an attorney, you decided to withdraw. Plus, a little lawyer bashing will warm the hearts of more than a few prospective employers.

If you can't bring yourself to drop out and you don't land anything over the summer, you should dedicate yourself to using your 3L year to find a job. By this, I don't mean occasionally applying for something. I mean putting in as much effort as those of use who are out of school. Network, try to get internships (non-legal), send out a ton of resumes (learn what works and what doesn't), etc.

Pretty much devote as much time as you can without failing out of school. Don't worry about law school. What do you think is going to be more important to your future? Getting a serious jump on finding a non-legal job or getting a "B+" instead of a "B" in Complex Litigation or making the "Octo-Final" round of the "Moot Court Tribal Indian Law" competition?

You guys didn't listen when you enrolled in law school. Now, you have an opportunity to mitigate the damage you've already done to your careers. If those who have already graduated are any indication, those who fall for the fallacy of the sunk costs are, well, sunk.

Response to a Commenter

[Note: This comment appeared in the comments section to my last post. I've decided to address it as a separate post because it raises some important issues.]

Just a question: What exactly is "toilet law?" It sounds like you are saying there is "Big Law" or "Toilet Law" or "Non-Profit/Public Sector Law" and that's it...am I getting that right?

I'm only asking because I will be attending law school (on a scholarship) and would not work in so-called "Big Law."

Don't bother telling me not to go to law school--I've weighed everything and am going, at least as long as I maintain the scholarship.

And on a side note--why WOULD anyone think that a JD would help with a non-law job? I think anyone who would go to law school based on that (or give that any weight whatsoever) is kind of foolish to begin with. The purpose of a JD is to practice law. Of course a job that gains no benefit form that isn't going to pay a premium for you (or even hire you) based on that! Instead, I'm sure most employers look at that and think that you'll just want more money either now or down the road while a "less educated" applicant will not want as much.

Gerald T. Studebaker

Esq. Never's Response:

Gerald,

Thank you for providing an intelligent comment from a pro-law school perspective. I'm sorry that you can't be talked out of going to law school, but I certainly hope that you're somehow able to succeed.

"Toilet law" generally refers to small firms that are not very pleasant to work for. They have low starting salaries particularly when weighed against the average starting salaries depicted in the law school marketing materials. (See some of the links from my last post for examples.)

Moreover, there is very little room for advancement, much of the work involves tediously filling out forms for different courts, and the time one spends in court usually takes place in some of more depressing court rooms in the jurisdiction. I urge you to take a look at Big Debt, Small Law's "about" section also linked in my last post.

I know that you probably think that you'll just work for a mid-law firm or a "good" small law firm. This is not quite as feasible as you believe. Many of these boutique and mid-sized firms don't hire law school graduates straight from law school. In most cases, you actually need to work for Big Law and then lateral over to these firms once your time as a big firm associate comes to an end.

Some of these firms may hire a handful of recent graduates, but in those cases, the graduates will likely have the same credentials that most Big Law starting associates have (either very high grades or a degree from one of the top few schools).

You may believe that you're a shoe in for ending up in that category, but just remember there are currently plenty of unemployed T-14 students, and even if we assume that the end of the recession will take care of this "anomaly", even before the recession, plenty of good law students were in tough shape. (Hence the topic of my last post.)

If you don't believe me, Angel the Lawyer of "But I Did Everything Right!" graduated from a top 30 school with a scholarship (pre-recession). Big Debt, Small Law graduated in the top 1/3rd of his class from second tier, Seton Hall. This was also pre-recession. Both of them ended up in "toilet" law making only slightly more than many college graduates are able to make. They didn't even have real benefit packages (e.g. no real health coverage).

The reason why so many bright students who miss the cutoff for Big Law but are still able to find firm work end up in "toilet law" is because those are the firms that tend to hire. Many small firms are small for a reason, and if they are going to expand they either want attorneys with a pre-existing book of business or at least somebody they don't have to waste time training.

The law firm "mills" that make money on the volume of cases they are able to churn out tend to be the low level personal injury and insurance defense firms. Because they just need warm bodies to keeping pushing the clients and settlements through, they're willing (or at least were willing, pre-recession) to take on inexperienced recent graduates and continue hiring them as older associates burn out and can't endure working for these firms anymore.

As for your query about non-legal jobs. You are correct that there is no reason to go to law school if you don't plan on practicing. Moreover, I'm glad you're going into school recognizing that getting a non-legal job after graduation isn't really an accessible option.

Nevertheless, plenty of law students enter law school every year under the assumption that if that can't make it law, they'll at least be able to market their skills in another field. The law schools certainly do nothing to persuade law students against believing this fallacy. They often highlight the ostensible versatility of the J.D.

Regardless, many students do eventually end up never practicing either because they hate the law or can't find work as an attorney. At my decent, second tier school, the school's own statistics indicated that almost 20% (1/5) of the students went into "business" after graduation! This was also based upon the Class of 2007, who graduated before the market crashed.

The problem with the legal field is that there are so many attorneys and only a limited number of jobs. As I mentioned, before the recession, many of the surplus J.D.'s could find mind numbing temporary jobs working in document review. Now that those jobs are largely unavailable (at least to recent graduates), the only exit for many students is to try to find non-legal positions.

Moreover, a good number of people end up going through law school and realize that being an attorney is not for them.

Once again, I regret that you seem unwilling to listen to some of these warnings, but if you do end up in a position where you either lose your scholarship or don't have the grades to get a good job, I urge you to remain open minded to the possibility of dropping out.

Best of luck,

Esq. Never

The Essential Law School Talking Point: Blame the Recession

You don't have to tell me that recessions stink. With unemployment hovering around 10% and unemployment for folks under 30 usually reported at about 15%, who knows when I'll ever find a job. Moreover, those statistics don't include the underemployed and people who have just stopped looking for work.

Recessions aren't bad for everyone, however. Those with stable jobs that are largely unaffected by the business cycle (or are living off savings) can enjoy an indirect boost in discretionary income due to the falling price level. Certain speculators can take advantage of depressed prices and eventually profit when the economy and prices rebound. Even scam artists can take advantage of those who are out of work and are looking for an easy way to generate extra income.

Speaking of scam artists, law schools aren't exactly hurting during the recession either. For one thing, the economic collapse has resulted in a skyrocketing demand for graduate education as throngs of dupes flock to the ivory tower to wait out the recession. This has allowed the law schools to keep the scam (and tuition prices) growing stronger than ever.

Not only that, it has given them the cover they need to explain away the disastrous employment prospects that await their victims, err, graduates. "Surely, the law schools aren't to blame for the downturn in the economy," they contend. "Why everybody is hurting, and unfortunately the legal industry has been no exception." Plus, they make sure to add, "Prospective students should not be deterred; after all, the recession will surely be over by the time you graduate. Pay no attention to the plight of the classes of 2009/10."

It's, of course, true that jobs aren't exactly plentiful in any field. Nevertheless, as I pointed in in my "Craigslist Test" post, while there are few if any opportunities for attorneys (at least at the entry level), there are listings for positions in other fields - even in legal support roles!

There have also been multiple Craigslist ads offering salaries south of $40k in which the employer is only willing to consider the most elite applicants. Other firms have sought to hire new "attorneys" at hourly wages comparable to what one could make at Home Depot.

This ugly scenario can partially be attributed to the recession, but the reason why the market for attorneys is particularly atrocious (when compared to other industries) is because it never was all that robust to begin with. When the economy collapsed, the legal labor market got pounded into the ground.

To be sure, aspects of the legal industry were booming during the middle of the last decade. The large corporate firms were raking in the dough, and as a result, graduates from the elite schools, the top 10-20% of the "decent" schools, and a few "affirmative action" picks from the true toilets made their way into the coveted SA positions and eventually landed cushy first year associate positions.

Those who were truly gifted at networking, were born into the right families, or were just plain lucky also did alright. Also, those who were willing to accept the vow of poverty could likely find some DA or PD position to allow them to get the experience of working in the courtroom and to call themselves attorneys.

For pretty much everyone else, the golden age of legal employment wasn't exactly golden. Sure the media didn't really start to notice until their Ivy League golden children were no longer getting wined and dined by the big law plutocracy, but life wasn't so pleasant for the average unconnected graduate of virtually every school below the top 25 schools (and that's probably being generous) during this era.

For one thing, grad plus loans and the IBR plan have only been available since 2007 and 2009 respectively. While tuition was slightly lower a few years ago, going into six figures of debt for a private law school degree was hardly out of the question. That meant that it was easy to rack up nearly half of ones debt in private, non-dischargable loans and essentially become Sallie Mae's indentured servant for life.

But let's put that aside because the debt issue has been "solved". (At least until the the expense of the IBR blows up in the government's face.)

One cliche from that "golden era" was that law students were forced to take the high paying but largely unfulfilling associate positions at large firms in order to effectively pay down their debts. The truth was, of course, that only a limited number of students even had this opportunity.

What about the rest of the poor schlubs who were saddled with just as much debt but less impressive transcripts and/or academic pedigrees?

It's true that between 2004 and 2008, this wasn't an automatic sentence of unemployment and living in your mom's basement. Instead it usually was a sentence of wishing you were unemployed while working in Paul Weiss' poorly ventilated document review basement.

You see, this age of abundance was an era when the bright and well educated were flushed out of the back of law school machine only to work for some ambulance chasing parasite, click a mouse for $35 bucks an hour in a document review gulag, or abandon law altogether, rendering one's entire graduate education worthless.

And you know what? Those really were the good old days! I'm serious. As mentioned, today's toilet law firms essentially want top 10% students from tier one schools who were on law review. (All for the princely sum of $35k/year sans benefits.)

Doc Review gigs now requires experience - meaning entry level attorneys are actually under qualified to click a stupid mouse. I've personally been waiting for almost nine months to get a JUNIOR doc review position that pays $17/hour. We all, of course, know the score when it comes to finding a non-legal job.

Still, while I am left to dream about the days in which I could sit around in some third-world-worthy landlord tenant court or where I could actually be taken seriously at an interview for a job that doesn't require more than a BA, it probably says something about the law school industry when its most prosperous years were still a vile nightmare for most graduates.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at our friend, Big Debt, Small Law. He graduated in 2005, top 1/3 of his class, from a second tier school. His reward? Cutting and pasting some mind numbing motions while representing the dregs of society for some ambulance chasing chop shop. Somehow, I doubt that this lovely career option was in the ol' Seton Hall brochure.

Tom the Temp was around long before unemployment launched into the stratosphere. In fact, his website gained notoriety largely based upon the sheer number of law grads who were being carted into these legal gulags to help the large firms keep up with their reams of discovery during the last economic expansion.

At least back then, watching your career and dignity slip away into oblivion before your very eyes earned you around $35 an hour plus overtime. Today, if you can even find this sort of work, you'll be lucky to make $20. (Experienced "attorneys" only, of course.)

Recall, it was during 2005, the height of the expansion, that the WSJ blew the whistle in its print edition on the fudged employment statistics published by the TTT diploma mills and helped expose the subterranean, doc review sweatshops.

How about trying to jump ship and finding a career outside of the law? Well, admittedly, back before the recession, it seemed like more companies were willing to give those with law degrees a second look (or at least were more forgiving about resumes with an unexplained gap).

To be sure, this wasn't because non-legal employers valued a JD; they just had a smaller pool of candidates from which to draw their "talent". A writer from the now defunct Barely Legal blog successfully transitioned into the corporate world before the crash, but guess what key piece of advice he has for those following in his footsteps:

"[Your J.D.] doesn't entitle you to anything more than you were entitled to coming out of college."

Did you catch that? After three years of law school and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt (and possibly securing a law license), you'd better not expect any special treatment when applying for entry level positions outside of the legal field. Just try going into an interview with any sense of entitlement, TTT Grad, Esq., and see how far that gets you.

On top of that, almost every employer that takes your application seriously for a non-legal position is going to grill you over your legal education to a degree that would impress even the fictional Jack McCoy. This might be the only time in your life that having moot court experience will actually be of any benefit - to help you quickly address a barrage of hostile questions.

Barely Legal claimed that the only way to handle this inquisition is to simply explain that law school was just a detour in your educational development that helped you prepare for entry into the business world. I have found this advice to be pretty accurate.

If you find this account unpersuasive, Calico Cat wrote a few years earlier (also during the same period of prosperity) that the only way he was even able to find a job was to leave the J.D. off his resume altogether. Oh, by the way, he graduated in the top 10 percent in his class* from a tier 1 school.

So, let's assume the economy bounces back tomorrow. Let's further assume that the legal market returns to the way it was before the recession. I'd be overjoyed.

Nevertheless, what would await the majority of graduates of the class of 2011 in this more prosperous environment? Working for toilet law firms for $30-$50k per year. Being able to take mind numbing, document review jobs for hourly pay without gaining any substantive work experience. Taking a job which only requires a BA/BS and therefore rendering three years of graduate education entirely worthless.

Not exactly worth the $150k worth of debt.

Here's the Essential Esq. Never Talking Point: DO NOT GO TO LAW SCHOOL!



*Based upon his final GPA; not his 1L GPA

Prelaws Say the Darndest Things (Part 2)

It's time for the latest installment of "Prelaws say the Darndest Things!" As always, these are actual quotes from prelaw message boards/forums made by actual future Best Buy clerks and AFLAC sales representatives.

Save Your Yuan

I'm currently deciding between Temple and Villanova, with the hopes to transfer at the end of 1L.

I am interested in international law with an emphasis on China/Asian law. Temple has a LLM program with Beijing for an extra semester. The program is run by Mo Zhang who is known for his academic work in Chinese Law. Villanova has an LLM program in Singapore where you spend 2 years at Villanova and 1 year in Singapore, followed by work in Shanghai/Beijing. Villanova has two professors who are Fulbright scholars in China and Taiwan, but they do not specialize in Chinese law. There is no extra semester at Villanova. Temple has an International Law Journal, Villanova does not.

Yeah, and I'm interested in obtaining the super ability to leap over tall buildings in a single bounce, but even that fantasy is more realistic than your chances of landing an attorney position in international law after graduating from some 2TT with a third rate international law journal.

I guess Villanova is nice enough to throw in a worthless LLM with their worthless JD, but get a clue: Everybody and their brother wants to work in "international law" and a diploma from a school that can't crack the US News top 50 plus a year of partying in Southeast Asia isn't exactly going to put you at the front of the line for these jobs.

There aren't word to describe the foolishness of actually paying for an LLM in International Law (from Temple?!).

That's Crazy Talk!

Q: Would I be able to find a job in Colorado after passing the Bar (and attending University of South Dakota Law)?

A: depends on where you want to work. As a general rule, yeah. unless the school in unaccredited why wouldn't you be able to?

Maybe because very few people these days can find actual attorney jobs or any jobs at all with the plague of a JD on their resumes...Unless you're talking about working at Arby's - but then again, why would having an unaccredited degree hurt you?

But sure, going to a TTT in a state outside of where you want to practice shouldn't pose any problems in the future. Remember, you clearly want to look to prelaw message boards for important career planning advice.

Heckle and Jeckle Discuss the Florida Legal Market

Heckle: I have said this before, I will say it again, there are only 4 law schools in Florida worth considering, and they are UF, UM, FSU, and Stetson. In the future, I might add FIU, but not at this moment. ["Advising" a student looking at Nova Southeastern.]

Jeckle: Not me i want to work in the public defenders office or da's office so im sure most graduates of those four schools would not want to work in local government for 30-40k a year but i would to get the experience for a few years then open up a office.

I reject the notion that one would not be successful unless they go to the "top four" schools in florda. I have a friend that goes to famu and interns for a lawyer that practices criminal law in orlando and graduated from barry. He makes 250k a year handling violation of probation and other criminal cases.

Good grief! The "top four" schools in Florida? Talk about a meaningless statistic. Florida is like everywhere else. The truly elite firms still prefer T-14 students even if they're not local. U Florida will give you a chance (during good times) if you have top grades, but it certainly isn't going to guarantee you a job.

You've got to be kidding about recommending UMiami and freakin' Stetson, right!? You'd be better off hitting the Magic Kingdom in Orlando and converting your money into Disney dollars than wasting three years at those toilets.

Sadly, apparently "Jeckle" seems to believe that that PD and DA jobs are slam dunks. Actually, students who don't hit the top 10% at the "top four" schools will quickly realize that the big firm jobs aren't going to happen for them and by the time they graduate many of them would kill for stable PD and DA jobs (particularly with the public service loan forgiveness).

Oh, and you know a guy who INTERNS for a guy making $250k/year? Guess what, that's as close as you're going to get to the big bucks as well.

That Was Easy!

Rumors of people not being able to find jobs!!! OH MY GOD NO!!!!!!! So you are saying that if someone goes to law school they may not get a job? I heard that argument before and then I went to talk to the other academic programs at my school since a J.D. doesn't guarantee me anything, but it was the weirdest thing apparently M.B.A's, Clinical Psychologists, and even M.D.'s and basically every other academic program can't guarantee a job. Weird right?

Apparently just getting an education doesn't guarantee you a job. I know it is impossible to get a job handed to you if you go to a tier 4, but I came up with this WILD IDEA and sent my resumes into a few firms and actually showed up for an interview and got hired. I know it's a radical concept that you actually have to try to find a job, but that is the horrors of going to a tier 3 or 4 you have to put in an ounce of effort. As you said these t-14 student's probably didn't accept that they might have to put an ounce of effort in and of actually doing something they just female dog and moaning that nobody is handing them a job. Welcome to real life is all I can say. At the end of the day just saying I go to so and so school doesn't matter. You got to put effort in to succeed in life. Shocking concept for spoiled rich kids I know, but some people actually have to put work in.

[In response to somebody having the gall to complain that getting job with J.D. can be difficult...Perish the thought, I know.]

Oh, so all this time, I just had to send in a resume, get an interview, and show up for the said interview. Well, why didn't somebody tell me?!

Yes, this is great advice, prelaws. Dump a ton of money into a bottom of the barrel degree and just assume that sending in your resume to a few firms will get you interviews and inevitably a job offer.

Definitely ignore the number of students who have mass mailed their resumes to firms to receive nary a response back. Don't pay any attention to the fact that there are virtually no entry level attorney positions listed on most job boards - but plenty of paralegal and legal assistant positions available. Just having determination should be more than enough!

Pearls Next to Swine

No tier 4 is going to fail out half their class or do anything much differently than any other school. Is Touro Harvard not even close! If you go to a tier 4 you won't have people chasing you down for a job, but if you put the work in you will get a job somewhere. You probably won't sit on the Supreme Court or Work in Big law, but if you want to a lawyer then Touro will be fine. You won't be living a jet-setting lifestyle, but not many lawyers do no matter what school they go to.

Well, there's actually a pearl of wisdom in this field full of dung. It's true you'll hardly have access to a life of wealth and ease regardless of which law school you attended. But going to Touro vs. Harvard isn't a question of big law vs. small law. It's a question of big law vs. washing cars and changing addresses several times a year to avoid your creditors.

If you want to be a lawyer, getting a degree from many tier 1 schools isn't enough to secure a serious law job. You're a fool if you think you'll get anywhere with a degree from TTTouro, a TTT among TTT's.

Esq. Never: Brilliant Financial Adviser

I need a financial aid consultant because I need to understand what's the best strategy to maximize my situation and get the best aid. I am working and don't have time to figure this all out and I'm under time pressure to get it done.

Allow me to provide some free assistance. Do you have a pulse? If you answered "yes", whichever school to which you've been accepted will be more than happy to accept your virtually guaranteed Stafford and GradPLUS loans to cover the entire cost of tuition and fees.

But here's the best financial advice I can offer. You have a job. Presumably it pays your bills. Once you graduate law school, landing a decently paying job could very likely no longer be an option. You will also owe money to pay for your worthless degree. Please keep your current job and forget about law school.

There. I just saved you hundreds of thousands of dollars and from the possibility of you throwing yourself in front of a train one day.

Hear No Evil

Well, for starters, anyone with the name "lawschoolblows" is obviously biased. Continuing that thought, anyone who finds their way onto a thread for happily admitted new students who are trying to make friends and get excited for their first year at law school CLEARLY needs something else to do with their lives. Shame on you for your negativity and for giving unsolicited opinions that were clearly not asked for nor socially acceptable in this situation. So I am going to disregard most of the comments "lawschoolblows" just made.

[NB: I did not make the post in question using the moniker "Lawschoolsblows".]

Yes, shame on him for trying to save you from a life of debt and despair. Did you have the same attitude when the police officer visited your high school to warn you about the danger of tanking up and wrapping your car around an oak tree?

Just as the prom season inevitably leads to a bunch of drunken hooligans having their remains scraped off the pavement with a giant spatula, the start of a new law school year also features a flood of these naive 1L twits skipping into career perdition.

Blind Leading the Blind

Q: I am trying to decide between The University of Richmond (sticker) and The University of Baltimore (8K/year if I maitain at least a 3.25). Some things to consider....

I want to got into IP law

I would like to work in the D.C. or Richmond area after graduation

My Parents live in Richmond so I could live at home if I went to U of R.

Richmond being private is ~33k/year, Baltimore would be ~34/year the first year, but ~24K the last 2 years once I get residency.

Richmond is 86th in the Rankings, Baltimoire is a T3 school

A: I did campaign fund raising in Richmond a few years back (over 50% of our donors were attorneys), and while this is somewhat anecdotal, I found Richmond extremely well represented at all of the firms there. I would see Richmond and UVA and not much else at most of the firms. Additionally, the alumni network at Richmond seemed particularly active and engaged. I don't think this completely answers your question and I can't speak to anything about DC, but if you want to practice in Richmond going to school there seems like a good choice.

Let me get this straight. One goober is seriously considering choosing between paying full price at a school that's barely in the second tier and taking a measly 8k scholarship from an abysmal TTT. The other chump is egging him on by guessing that some of the attorneys at some fundraising event went to Richmond (likely years ago)?

I can hardly comment on this. All I can say is that at least con artists like Bernie Madoff had to put some effort into their scams. I mean the law school hucksters can't even say their scam is a challenge. Even shooting fish in a barrel has to be more difficult than relieving law school lemmings of their tuition dollars.

Alumni Connections: The Last Refuge of a Loser

Considering they're all about evenly ranked, yeah, alumni is probably the biggest factor. Fact is that employers tend to hire from their own school, and there are probably more people with AU degrees in DC than with WF or GM. Also, AU has extensive internship/externship opportunities (much more so than GM), so you could network while a student.

However, I think Wake is significantly cheaper than American, both in terms of tuition and CoL. For me personally this would be a huge factor, but you seemed to place the most emphasis on working DC so the "safest" bet among those three is almost certainly American.

If you get to the point where you're banking on alumni to help you get a job, you've already lost. (You're also likely working at a place that requires you to wear a paper hat.)

What if...I Destroy My Life?

I don't think I'd be necessarily unhappy in San Diego, but I know that I'd be happier in San Francisco. And that's where weighing the debt versus the preference comes into play.

Plus, and I didn't mention this, Cal Western has a stipulation put on the scholarship and their curve is pretty tough (they drop the bottom 20% out of their 1L, which probably helps to keep their bar passage rate up with the T1/T2 schools). I'm not sure how to consider this, I know I have the dedication and ability that should keep the scholarship, but there is always the "what if". If I had to pay tuition at Cal Western, and I knew that now, I'd absolutely choose USF.

[Choosing between Cal Western vs. University of U. San Francisco]

"The 'What If?' " [???] If you go to one of these schools, it's really not a question of IF you'll come to hate your station in life; it'll be just be a question of the degree to which you hate it.

ABA - They who are about to die, salute you!

A Responsible 0L

I don't know much about relationships, and I'm not going to pretend that I do. Maybe what I do know is based upon watching too many sitcoms when I was younger. Nevertheless, it seems that one problem that frequently arises is a situation where a person enters a relationship that most of his (or more likely, her) friends believe will end in disaster. The person, however, is so enamored with the new boyfriend that she is unwilling to listen to her friends' warnings and ends up distraught and emotionally scarred.

Maybe this scenario is just the byproduct of the crummy (and seriously wussy) TV shows I watched as a teenager. Nevertheless, I think it's a good analogy for the relationship between anti-law school advocates and the hordes of 0L's that have been seduced by the law school marketing machines.

Like a good looking "prince charming", the law school deans whisper sweet nothings about their great educational programs and the abundant career options that await the starry eyed 0L's in three years. This seduction even continues once the students are enrolled in law school.

During my 1L year, I remember professors telling us about what awaits us when we become associates in large firms - as if landing such positions was a given. One legal writing professor even urged us to be kind to our secretaries because they hold more power than they're given credit. Who would have thought that the reason they "hold more power than I do" is because they're actually gainfully employed, and I'd be lucky to get a sales position at Radio Shack?

Like the friends of an enamored teenage girl, however, the scam-bloggers can't get through to these infatuated pre-laws. "It's not true!", the 0L's cry. "They wouldn't lie to us!", they protest. No, it's us - the "losers" - who are the enemy and just out to sully the good names of these fine institutions of academic excellence because we couldn't hack it.

Sadly, when their three years are up, they finally are able to recognize the truth - once it's too late. Just like the girl who spurned her friends' counsel and has learned that "prince charming" has been dating three other girls and is indifferent to her feelings, the new law school graduates are cast out from their delusions only to realize they've been conned by some of the most duplicitous characters in higher education.

I mention all of us this to help explain why it's so refreshing to speak with 0L's who are actually willing to seriously consider the problems associated with attending law school.

Recently, an 0L sent me an e-mail asking me my opinion on whether attending LS this coming year is a good idea or not. With his permission, I have published his inquiry and my response. In order to protect his identity, I have omitted certain identifying information:

Esq, Never,

I have been accepted to [a good tier 1, but not T-14, law school] with a scholarship. It will essentially cost 65k (that includes living expenses). My Stafford loans will cover it all, so no grad plus. I have about 40k in savings as well. [A number of my relatives] all work in large firms and said they would help me out. Do you think it would be a mistake to go? Law school has always been my dream but with the market the way it is right now I don’t know if 65k in debt would be too much. Any advice would be appreciated.

-A Responsible 0L

Dear Responsible 0L,

My advice about whether one should attend LS is almost universally "no".

Because I recognize that such a direct response is unhelpful, let me pose some questions to help you think through your decision.

1) Is the 65k you plan on borrowing truly going to cover ALL expenses from the day you enroll until the day you graduate - including summers?

Remember, all sorts of attendant and unanticipated costs arise during law school. You still need to pay for insurance (including health), car repairs/maintenance, and transportation costs (just to name a few). You should not anticipate making any money over the summers when calculating the COA. Sure if you do get a big firm SA, you'll be able to cover many expenses, but many students work unpaid over the summers - even from good schools.

If your firm doesn't pay for it, you'll need to pay for bar prep, and you'll also need to take into account living expenses during that time period. If you can't find a job well after you take the bar (like me), you'll also have to have cash reserves. Do you honestly think you'll still have $40k in savings when law school is over?

2) How much help will your contacts actually be?

If you're banking on their connections, you'd better know exactly how much assistance they can provide up front. Are they partners? Are they involved in hiring decisions? Sit down with them and tell them that you're taking the risk of going to law school, and you need to know if they can get you into their firms if you're in a bind (e.g. wipe out at OCI). Can they just hand you a job? Will you need to have a certain class rank in order for them to get you in? Get as much concrete information as possible.

3) What do you mean when you say law school is your dream?

Does it mean that you dream about making six figures and working in a skyscraper? If so, recognize that only a sliver of students attain this goal - and many who do eventually "make it" find such positions stressful. There are other paths to becoming a well-to-do professional.

Do you dream of being a Jack McCoy-esque advocate in the courtroom? If so, realize that most lawyers don't spend that much time in full blown trials. Big city DA positions are also pretty competitive and don't pay that well. Also, much of what you'll do for a number of years will be fairly routine hearings and the like.

If you think that LS is going to be interesting, know that most of it deals with reading cases, pulling out rulings and then applying those rules to fact patterns usually involving subcontractors, landowners, and negligent workers. If you enjoyed the political/theoretical aspects of law in undergrad (e.g. critical legal theories, law and economics, constitutional philosophy), know that this will have little to do with your 1L courses and will usually only be covered by electives such as "Jurisprudence".

If you truly will only have $65k in debt and you'll be able to either use your school's rep (and a high class rank) or your family connections to land a good, firm job, then it could be worth it. Just realize that many attorneys are unhappy, and transitioning out of the law can be difficult later on.

Based upon your e-mail address, it seems like you have a good job. If you're bored at work, I'd look to try to find a new position or maybe enroll in a program (preferably part time) that will enhance your business or technology credentials.

Remember, being bored and unfulfilled at work is something you can change. Being in heavy debt and unemployable (as is my position) is a hole that is very hard to climb out of. I have received letters from distraught readers with T-14 degrees who are in the same position.

Also, right now even people at the best schools aren't guaranteed good jobs at graduation. The economy could be better in three years, but it's also possible that the legal market has been changed forever and that the economy could double dip into another recession. Don't attend if you're banking on a better economy.

If you do go, don't be too proud to throw in the towel. If your class rank is low and your contacts aren't working out after the first year (or even first semester), get out and try to get back into the business world.

-EN

I would urge other prospective law students to also spend time seriously considering all the potential consequences of (and alternatives to) going to law school.

The letter writer informed me that he is taking the time to consider the questions I posed in my response.

It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year

It's that time of year again. I'm not referring to the filing deadline for federal taxes. After all, given the employment status of many of this blog's readers, I assume income taxes aren't exactly a pressing issue for most of us. (I guess, it'll be up to others to provide the revenue to fund the federal student loan program that helps prop the higher education cartel.)

While April 15 is usually associated with taxes, this year it's also the date US News and World Report released the 2011 Graduate School Rankings on its website.

Like with most other facets of the graduate school swindle, an established institution will profit from this nation's obsession with higher education while the customers will end up both poorer and not particularly better informed.

To be sure, the rankings will get a significant amount of attention. All of the academics will provide the obligatory condemnation of the rankings as an imprecise tool of measuring the quality of their programs. The schools that get particularly shafted will object even more vociferously while doing their best to spin their decline in the rankings to students - both current and prospective. The schools that are promoted will wear their elevated status as a badge of honor (only to condemn the very same rankings the following year should their fortunes change).

Of course, the law school rankings (and higher education rankings in general) are garbage. The methodology is too subjective. The weights given to certain variables are questionable, and most of the self reported data are likely distortions if not outright lies.

This is to say nothing of the meaninglessness of the actual ranks themselves. What benefit does a student at the 53rd best law school enjoy that a student at the 75th best law school does not?

Sure, there are some general categories. The so-called T-14, the Top 25, etc., but even these general categories cease to be particularly important once you go down the food chain.

Here's the Esq. Never Rankings:

Probably Worth the Money: Harvard, Yale, Stanford

Possibly Worth the Money: The rest of the T-14

Don't Waste Your Money: Everybody Else


What's absurd, however, is that prospective law students will actually make their decisions on where to enroll based upon this nonsense. Some will forgo scholarships just so they can say they went to a ranked school (even if it may not be ranked next year). Some will latch onto a better ranked "national school" because the local school won't offer the same "bragging rights". Everyone will think/hope that their school will eventually climb in the rankings (and thus be a better investment) even though any such movement will do nothing for them.

Let's take a look at this year's rankings to further understand what a sham they are.

The full rankings are only available via a subscription, but you can find a copy of the tier one schools here and the tier two schools here.

Look how volatile the rankings are - particularly in the second tier. Just a couple years ago, Temple was pushing towards the top 50, now it's tied with Seton Freakin' Hall. Marquette wasn't even invited to the party this year as it fell into the third tier.

As for schools that saw significant gains, Pepperdine (while actually decently ranked last year) and Miami were pretty much towards the lower end of the 2nd tier when I was applying, and now they are knocking on the top 50's door.

If that doesn't seem that amazing, then let me pose this query: Whose souls did Hofstra and Chapman have to sell in order to make the top 100 this year?

Admittedly, the 1st tier is a little bit more stable, but let's take a look at the employment figures US News lists. We're really expected to believe that with one exception, no fewer than 70% of the class at all of the tier one schools were employed at graduation? Most even boast employment stats in the 80's and 90's.

The 9 month employment stats are even more absurd. All of the top 50 schools claim to effectively have full employment at 9 months out. Is this true? Not based upon the e-mails and comments I receive from first many first tier students.

The University of Utah even has the gall to claim absolute, full employment at 9 months out. Funny isn't this the same school that admitted it juiced the stats (err, made a mistake) just this year regarding its average starting salary? I assume this is another "mistake".

The second tier employment figures are equally unbelievable. All the second tier toilets claim to also have full employment at 9 months out. This includes the schools that could just have easily been classified as third tier schools.

What's more despicable is that US News and World Report allows about a dozen of these dumps to still be ranked in the second tier even if they are unwilling to provide their data for employment at graduation. Apparently, they can't handle the truth - Nevertheless, US News doesn't seem to let that affect their rankings too much.

This is not to say that the schools that do submit data are exactly trying to play an honest game. I guess omitting data is better than lying about it.

I'm pretty incredulous that 80% of graduates from Seton Hall and DePaul had jobs at graduation. Almost all of the other schools claim about 2/3rds of their students had jobs in hand before taking the bar. I'll personally EAT a copy US News' "Guide to the Best Grad Schools" if Chapman can prove that 90% of its students walked the stage at graduation employed as attorneys.

The one school that may have actually honestly reported this data is U Missouri, which reports only 1/2 of its students graduated with promises of employment. Its reward? Falling from 65 to 93 in the rankings. Honesty doesn't pay in the law school scam game. I'm sure they'll never make that mistake again.

Even if the data that is reported is technically true (a dubious assertion), the rankings and statistics are still garbage. Is a school that jumps (or drops) even more than 10 slots in a given year really that much better or worse than it used to be? There's nothing stopping a school from being much better ranked or even being knocked out of the top 100 in a few years based upon some quirks in the data reported or some unscientific rating of it's reputation.

Moreover, the employment data is a joke. For example, most schools in New Jersey can just throw their graduates into year long clerkships and claim they're employed at graduation even though this make work scheme will leave them destitute the year after. Employment at 9 months out is meaningless. It certainly doesn't mean almost all students are employed as attorneys within a year of graduation. It means that they have some job - any job. Working at Burger King, doing a temporary stint for the Census Bureau, or working at the local "gentleman's club" all count towards that figure.

What does it mean when a school is ranked in the 60's or 70's (or virtually anywhere else for that matter), claims that 70% are employed at graduation, and 95% at 9 months out? It means the school is a waste of money, is run by liars, and that you can always fall back on jobs you could get with or without a GED.

Swindled Abroad

A foolish friend of mine is finishing up his 1L year at a true TTT - that is, a school that is ranked below the Top 100 fold in US News and World Report. He refuses to listen to reason. He refuses to accept that I and many of his other friends that went to "better" schools are now struggling to find employment - any employment.

What is even more disconcerting is that if I can somehow get a job and place of my own by the time he graduates, he'll probably end up sleeping on my couch. He'll also likely eventually bludgeon me to death with a tire iron after weeks of coming home from his job as a bagger at the Piggly Wiggly only to hear me obnoxiously repeat "I told you so!"

Ah, but my friend's lack of discernment regarding the law school scam extends not only to his willingness to spend himself into the red for a TTT diploma. He has also recently decided that it would be wise to spend his summer abroad - paying tuition to his school for the most overpriced vacation available.

If you've ever wondered if the avarice of the law school deans knows any bounds, the very existence of these summer study abroad programs should answer that question with a resounding "No!".

In college, study abroad programs make some sense. Sure, they are often just another stop on the average liberal arts major's trip to academic perdition or a brief and frivolous diversion for those with more serious majors. In fact, I heard about one program available at a number of colleges called a "Semester at Sea", which per my understanding, essentially consists of earning academic credit while on a cruise ship. Your tax dollars at work.

Nevertheless, from a student's perspective, why not spend a semester in Europe, Asia, or Australia? As long as you can swing the travel and other attendant expenses, you're paying the same tuition dollars for an interesting experience.

Moreover, college is more than professional training - even if one takes a practical major - it is designed to help individuals mature both personally and intellectually. Okay, I honestly don't really fully buy that line given that the only thing many college parasites learn is how to use a fake I.D. Nevertheless, college does give young adults the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of some academic subjects, learn what it's like to (sort of) live on their own, and possibly gain a deeper appreciation for world around them.

Studying abroad in college does nothing to frustrate the stated purpose of undergraduate education while only putting students in slightly less advantageous financial positions. Studying abroad in law school, on the other hand, is nothing more than just another element of the overall scam.

Law school's ostensible purpose is to serve as a professional school to give budding attorneys the education and training necessary to enter the field of law. Now, we all know that's a load of nonsense, but that's the story they tell us.

If this is the case, what possible purpose does an extra semester of law school - spent abroad - serve? Having the opportunity to get inebriated in another country isn't exactly worth the price of admission.

I assume the reason why most law students bother taking on the debt for such a program is because they're afraid that they'll be left with a gap in their resumes over a summer when paid (and even voluntary) legal work is scarce. This is a bad idea. Working at the 7-11 will earn you a paycheck; studying abroad over the summer will cost you money and do nothing for your career prospects.

"International Law" is the pipe dream of far too many matriculating law students. Like "Entertainment Law" and "Sports Law", there is very little demand for such a specialization and far fewer opportunities for entry level attorneys to break into these fields - particularly from TTT law schools. While "International Law" remains popular among guileless law students, even many CSO's will admit that this is a difficult field to break into.

The small contingent that does end up practicing in this field consists almost exclusively of people who were bound for BigLaw anyway. Only a small percentage of law students practice at the big firms to begin with (or have the credentials to do so), and only a sliver of that group will end up practicing anything resembling international law.

Anyone who thinks that studying abroad will help one secure a full time position in this field is just fooling oneself. No employer in this competitive field is going to overlook a "B" transcript from a non-elite school simply because an applicant happened to spend a couple of months "studying" in some foreign city.

Moreover, whatever GPA boost a student can earn by studying abroad isn't going to be of much help. Employers are concerned about a student's performance in the first year core courses that are subject to the mandatory curve not some frivolous seminar held at the Timbuktu School of Law. That "A" in "International Peace and Conflict Legal Studies" isn't going to impress anyone.

The only beneficiaries of the law school study abroad programs are the brass at the law schools and the universities to which they're attached.

If you're that desperate to visit a foreign country, why not apply to teach English abroad and get paid? How about finding a job (even a low level one) in another nation - it can't be that much harder than finding one here with unemployment hovering around 10%. Or better yet, just take a vacation without paying the law school crooks thousands more to take their worthless courses.

In fact, just drop out of law school and spend the summer exploring the world. Even if you have to put it on your credit card, it'll be less expensive and more rewarding that two extra years of law school.

If you do plan on completing law school, I would advise you to spend as much time as possible in the U.S.A. After all, if you decide to leave the country in order to flee from your student loan creditors, there's probably no coming back.

NALP Recognizes the Scam...Sort Of

James Leipold, a representative from the NALP wing of the law school cartel considers this blog (and others) to be the equivalent of talk radio. At least that's the charge he lobs at us in the most recent edition of the National Jurist.

Is Esq. Never the Rush Limbaugh of the anti-law school movement? I guess it could be true - As long as you take into account that I don't have a multimillion dollar contract, my own Lear Jet, any interest in discussing politics (unrelated to law school), a large waistline, or you know, a radio show.

Given the context of his remarks, I think it's safe to say that Leipold isn't an enthusiastic "dittohead" trying to flatter the anti-law school community. Instead, the strong implication is that we're conspiracy minded hotheads looking for a scapegoat on which to pin our woes.

The National Jurist piece itself is authored by the magazine's own head honcho, Jack Crittenden. Crittenden, you may recall, authored an editorial in a previous edition of the National Jurist in which he implied that it was selfish for law students to go to school with the intention of actually having decently paying careers as, well, lawyers. Instead, we were informed that the recession had a silver lining because it forced us money grubbing J.D.'s to turn our attention to the "bountiful" supply of public interest jobs.

Now, to be fair to Crittenden, the current piece is much more even-handed than his last. He not only focuses on the law blogs (particularly Third Tier Reality and Esq. Never), but he also turns to critics of the law school "investment" from within the walls of legal academia - namely Prof. William Henderson of Indiana University and Prof. Herwig Schlunk of Vanderbilt University.

Of course, for every point he's willing to address from the anti-law school perspective, he finds some way to dismiss or undermine it with some apology for the cartel. Nevertheless, I guess you can't expect much more from a magazine that has about as much in the way of content as it has in the way of advertisements for studying law abroad in things like aborigine law in the Australian Outback.

Crittendon does make an interesting and fair point that the number of law schools has hardly exploded over the past few decades. Nevertheless, given the changes that legal education has gone through (not everyone used to make it through to graduation) and the reduced demand for many traditional legal services, I'm not sure this proves anything. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that just because there were numerous law schools in the 80's there are not also too many law school today. (Certainly, the recent spat of new schools - particularly low ranked, for-profit schools - offer some reason for concern.)

Crittendon furthermore recognizes that the cost of attendance at most law schools has become absurdly high. Nevertheless, he hails the ABA for taking the problem seriously and trying to rectify the situation.

What is the ABA's bold plan to tackle the outrageous tuition charged by its schools? Is it to cap the cost of attendance? Lobby for an end to federal student loans for professional schools? Limit the compensation for faculty and administrators? Prevent universities from using law schools to subsidize their other operations?

No! Instead, they have included some milquetoast disclaimer in some guide to law school that nobody reads warning that salaries may be slightly lower than expected. That should take care of the problem.

Still, after cutting through the apologist spin for the industry found in this article, it does appear to admit (albeit through gritted teeth) that - going to law school is a bad investment, the law school marketing materials are replete with distortions, the COA is too high, and that, for the most part, the law schools/legal establishment don't really care.

One of the best examples of this are the aforementioned comments by the NALP's James Leipold.

From the article:

"It's so uninformed [criticism that 90% of students find full time jobs] that it's hard to get upset," said NALP's Leipold about the bloggers. "It's like talk radio."

Leipold points out that NALP collects a very large sampling of recent graduates - 93.1 percent reported their employment status for the class of 2008. Even if everyone who did not report - a statistically unlikely scenario - 84 percent of the class of 2008 still found employment.

Well, that's interesting. As the Wall Street Journal reported (as recently as 2007), schools were reporting salary data based upon only partially reported data:

Tulane University, for example, reports to U.S. News & World Report magazine, which publishes widely watched annual law-school rankings, that its law-school graduates entering the job market in 2005 had a median salary of $135,000. But that is based on a survey that only 24% of that year's graduates completed, and those who did so likely represent the cream of the class, a Tulane official concedes.

and...

A glossy admissions brochure for Brooklyn Law School, considered second-tier, reports a median salary for recent graduates at law firms of well above $100,000. But that figure doesn't reflect all incomes of graduates at firms; fewer than half of graduates at firms responded to the survey, the school reported to U.S. News.

Furthermore, Mr. Leipold's colleague even admitted:

"We can't validate the figures; we have to rely on schools to report to us accurately," says Judy Collins, NALP's director of research.

Of course, the employment statistics are worthless regardless of whether they're based upon responses of 100% or 10% of graduating law students.

The definition of full time employment is pretty liberal. First of all, full time employment doesn't mean full time, legal employment. Everyone that can't find a job in the law but that lands positions elsewhere that don't require a law degree are still considered employed even if it's no thanks to their graduate education. This also includes taking positions in retail or at call centers.

Even the definition of "full time" is questionable. A large swath of graduating students only find employment in temporary document review, which may have full time hours, but only last for a few weeks to a few months at a time. Moreover, the law schools game the 9-month employment figures by offering "full time" but temporary stints for students who may be unemployed at 9-months out to work at the law schools. Even T-14 Georgetown stoops to this tactic.

There's more to be said about Leipold's dishonest assertion, but look at what even he admits in his next breath...

But Leipold does agree that some law schools can better [sic] with reporting salaries.

"The schools don't do a good job with real disclosure," he said. "There is no incentive for them. Some still report an average. There is 20 percent that earn at the top and then 80 percent earn far less than that. The average is not a useful number."

Well, that's pretty much the freakin' point, Leipold! What good does it do anyone if the law schools (allegedly) accurately collect the data if they then fraudulently report the data!?

The biggest complaint most of us have about the law school statistics is that they create the impression that while the the best students will be absolutely rolling in the dough, the average student will still earn a respectable salary in the law.

Instead of insulting us, perhaps you could help urge some reform in regard to these misleading figures. Of course, keeping the scam going is far more important to the NALP.

I've given Crittendon a hard time, so let's let him have the last word (from the National Jurist article). Remember, the guy who's conceding this relies on the law school cartel's glossy advertisements to pay for his supper. If he's willing to recognize this, maybe you pre-law's should take a second or third look before going to law school:

Starting salaries for entry-level attorneys used to fall into a single bell curve...Today there are two bells - one group that earns between $140,000 and $160,000 and one that earns between $35,000 and $60,000.

That results in a median of $72,000, which few law students earn.

The discrepancies between the two bells are significant, and have led many to point out that students who rely on a school's median or average, may be disappointed when they graduate and land a job far below that.

The Craigslist Test

"You should have done more research before going to law school."

If you've spent anytime criticizing the law school industry over the internet (or beyond), you've almost certainly encountered the above retort - or at least some variation of it. I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to prove. If anything it seems to be a tacit admission that law school is indeed a scam - but that the victims got what they deserved.

If it's actually intended to be a defense of law school, it's a poor one.

For one thing, even if we agree that all law students are uninformed naifs who deserved to be taken advantage of, this hardly justifies the existence of the law school cartel - particularly when it's underwritten by an endless supply of federal student loans.

For another, as I've mentioned before, few of us are interested in having a "cyber pity party". All of the sympathy in the world can't reverse the mistake of going to law school. Criticism of the law schools can, however, encourage potential students not to make the same mistake and may even encourage future reforms.

Of course, the assumption that every disaffected law school graduate simply decided to apply to take the LSAT and send in their application materials on a whim (and at quite the expense) is absurd. Many law students do put in the effort to determine if they want to be attorneys. Sadly, most of the information they have is incredibly biased.

Take the employment/salary data that is compiled by the law schools (without an independent audit) and then regurgitated by US News and the LSAC. This data isn't just "slightly off" or a component of "creative marketing". It's a well engineered distortion.

It's not that the average student is only making $70k when the stats claim the average student makes $90k. It's that students are pulling in $40k (or even south of that post-recession) without benefits despite the misleading figures, or that the only students actually earning such "salaries" (once again, pre-recession) were prols working in some subterranean sweatshops reviewing documents. (To say nothing of the schools' attempts to hide unemployment numbers by temporarily hiring recent graduates, counting part-time jobs at Five Guys, or outright lying.)

If you think I'm too concerned with salary data, I submit that the same distortions also are made by the legal media and the schools when it comes to their claims about practical training that the law schools allegedly provide and the overall utility of a law degree.

Moreover, all of this information about law school is being provided by established publications and supposedly august institutions of higher learning. This isn't some fly-by-night internet get-rich-quick scheme. I'm sorry that kids in their 20's are so trusting that they're willing to believe that even if established institutions may embellish things a little that they wouldn't outright hoodwink them out of $100k and sentence them to a life of debt slavery.

If the whole point of law school was to convince me to never trust anyone again: mission accomplished.

Personally, I think I did do a reasonable amount of research before attending law school. I purchased US News' grad school guide. I read a number of different articles about law school. I spoke to people I knew who had enrolled in law school. I spoke to practicing attorneys. I solicited advice from on-line forums. I went to law school open houses (including admitted students day at my eventual 2TT alama mater). Only a scant few of these sources offered any caution about attending law school - certainly nobody conveyed that it would be a complete disaster.

Should I have done even more research? Evidently.

Nevertheless, virtually all sources from the misleading marketing materials produced by the schools to the pro-law school school propaganda found in US News' annual guide to graduate schools to the various pre-law hucksters at undergraduate institutions insist that law school is a good investment.

In fact, with few exceptions, these anti-law school blogs are the only consistent source of criticism against law school machine. (A few more neutral sources such as Above the Law and other less law school focused blogs heroically - but too infrequently - also sound the alarm against the scam.)

Contradictorily (but hardly surprisingly), the same law school apologists, who insist that we've forfeited our right to "whine" because we failed to conduct due diligence before attending law school, seem to hate these blogs (and other internet protests against LS). Where exactly do these law school lackeys expect prospective students to find accurate information (or at least the opposing perspective) about law school? Certainly not the NALP, not US News, not the mainline media, not most older attorneys, and for Pete's sake, not the freakin' law schools.

Of course, the apologists aren't all that concerned about prospective law students making informed decisions. Instead, they're more interested in defending the schools, waxing nostalgic about what it was like to graduate in 1972, or just being jerks in general.

When it comes to incoming law students, however, perhaps the apologists have little to fear. After all, applications are up and law students are notoriously hard headed about listening to those of us who have already been hosed by the LS diploma mill racket.

For example, here's a recent comment I received to a much older blog post:

I just stumbled upon your blog and I am sorry to hear about all that you are going through. I know it must be hard. However, you have some maturing to do. How old are you? This is life. Nothing in life is guaranteed. Sometimes our efforts do nothing to move us forward in life. Other times, we are blessed with things we never imagined. I know you worked hard for your degree and you spent a lot of money to obtain it. But my advice for you would be to take the life lessons you are learning right now and keep moving forward. I am a young woman who has experienced a deep career disappointment as well even with impeccable work experience. I plan on going to law school. But I know it does not mean that I will have a six figure salary. What it means is that I worked hard for something that I wanted in my life and I hope for the best. If the worst comes, then I will take that and make another career move. I do hope you find a position soon. It is very heart breaking to be unemployed and yet highly educated. But also realize that this is life. We are never guaranteed success and fortune. We are not even guaranteed the next day. We however do have to take what we been given and make the most of it. And besides, you never know what will happen in the future. Best of luck.

Now, to the commenter's credit, this is a much nicer note than I receive from most of my critics. Nevertheless, she's still is under the impression that the purpose of this blog is just to whine about my station in life. (Hey, that's only a half truth!) She fails to recognize that there is something fundamentally wrong with legal education (if not education overall) in this country, and she could very well end up holding the same bag of law school manure the rest of us chumps are saddled with at the end of her three years.

Obviously, we can't reach everybody, but I can understand that the heavy cynicism and harshly critical attitude that you sometimes (okay - often) find in the anti-law school blogosphere can sometimes undermine our credibility.

For those of you prospective law school students that feel that way - and for those of you who know prospective students that are about to walk the plank - let me propose a neutral test to determine if law school really seems like a good idea. I call it "The Craigslist Test".

I assume most people know what Craigslist is. (For those who don't, it's pretty much an on-line classified ad website - broken down by cities and regions.) One feature with which most law graduates are amply familiar is its job listing section. Craigslist even has a specific section dedicated just to legal jobs.

Here's the test. Choose a city. Choose your city. Choose a better city. Choose multiple cities. It doesn't matter. Now, check out the number of job listings there are for attorneys - particularly for entry level attorneys. Can't find too many? That's not a big surprise. If you can't find any, here's one.

But, wait, that's just the recession talking, right? Well, to answer that, let's move on to step two. Now compare the number of attorneys positions with the number of other positions available. Chances are you'll find plenty of advertisements for financial analysts, accounts receivable clerks, sale managers, etc. - many looking for entry level candidates. Heck, just look at the number of paralegal and legal assistant positions available. The dearth of entry level attorney positions in comparison should be pretty astounding.

Oh, but you protest that Craiglist isn't exactly the best way to find legal employment? Okay, go ahead and try your luck at Monster, Career Builder, or any of the other job boards. Chances are that if you find any listings for attorneys, the employer is looking for lawyers with several years of experience working for big firms.

You see, the reason I chose Craigslist is because that's where you're going to find the bulk of the advertisements for small firm positions, which are going to be the only roles available to most students this side of the T-14. Skadden and co. don't advertise positions on job boards. They use On Campus Interviews, and if you wash out at the OCI game (as even plenty of T-14 folks are doing these days), you're about as likely to get a biglaw offer as Jack Crittenden is to stop carrying water for the law school hucksters.

Even if you've convinced yourself that "Hey, Brooklyn landlord-tenant court doesn't sound that bad" or "I think no fault insurance defense work just has a bad rap", too bad, those jobs aren't available. If you want to live out your dreams of mastering Word's cut and paste feature to update stock legal forms or hang out with dregs of society, it looks like your only option will be to turn to the wonderful world of legal networking. Feel free to search the rest of this blog to find out just how well that works.

So prospective law students, if you think anti-law school scam bloggers are just a bunch of losers who couldn't make it and seek to whine about their problems, then I guess I'll echo the law school apologists, "Do your research." Run through the job boards and any other source you'd like and see just how many entry level attorney jobs there are (plus take a look at the salaries).

Oh, and if you happen to stumble across a fabled entry level attorney job at a mid-sized firm that pays $70-80k, you may want to turn your gaze upward to take a gander at the recently airborne swine now gliding by you.