I've decided to take a hiatus from my hiatus in order to bring you today's post. What's the occasion? Well, I actually (somewhat) recently had an interview. This is rare enough of an event that I would probably take the time to blog about it regardless of the circumstances.
Unfortunately, instead of being able to use this occasion to either encourage my readers or to offer some additional insight into the job search process, the only thing I learned based upon this experience is that there's yet another layer to the frustration of trying to find a job with a JD in this economy.
I'm not sure how many of my readers read (or are at least familiar with) ESPN.com's Bill Simmons, one of the website's better known sports columnists. I have mixed feeling about his columns. There are things I find aggravating about them - such as his ubiquitous references to television programs that are geared towards teenage girls, not middle aged sports columnists - but some of his pieces are fairly insightful.
One feature that appears in his columns from time to time is his rubric for the "Levels of Losing": That is, how hard it is for a fan base to grapple with their team's loss in an important sporting event.
If the defeat leaves you feeling like somebody just punched you in the gut, you're somewhere on the far side of the spectrum. If you're literally crying after you watch your side go down in flames, you're probably at the terminal point of athletic despair. (You also probably take sports a wee bit too seriously.)
The reason why this is a recurring topic in his columns is because every once in a while a city faces a defeat so monumental that a new category has to be added to appropriately capture the anguish of the despondent fan base.
The same revelation also seems to be applicable to the job search. Just when you thought you couldn't possibly see a new low in this miserable process, something new crops up to make you question whether the gulags and mass shortages in the former USSR were a fair trade off in order to have a guaranteed job.
I'm not creative enough to develop a full blown "Levels of Losing" for the job seeker, but here's my abbreviated version (from least depressing to most).
Category 1: Sending out well tailored resumes and custom made cover letters to jobs in which you're both interested and for which you appear to be qualified and never hearing a word back from the employer.
Category 2: Being asked to come in for an "interview" with a recruiter for a position. Of course, the interview is scheduled for two days after you've applied. The recruiter gives you a full blown interview, but he/she is only "interviewing" you to submit you to the HR representative who will make the actual decision as to whether or not to give you a real interview. While all this is going on, the company in question hires somebody else. (Uh, more on this in a future post.)
Category 3: Being asked to come in for a real interview with a company after months without getting any responses. You have a great interview and conversation with the interviewer who works on the marketing side of the company.
Following this, you have a less impressive interview with a guy who works in the tech division. It turns out that they're looking for somebody with a stronger programming background - even though they don't have the courtesy to bother telling you this. Instead, they make up some excuse about the third person who was going to interview you being "unavailable" and claim they'll be in touch. They never call back and refuse to respond to your follow up inquiries.
I thought that was as bad it was going to get - spineless and discourteous interviewers unwilling to let you know they're looking for somebody else and hoping that you'll go away if they just ignore you.
Unfortunately, my recent interview experience introduced me to a fourth category:
At first, things looked quite promising. I had taken some time off from blitzing the jobs boards to focus on reaching out to my network and going to some job fairs (more on this in later posts). I applied for the position in question during a brief spurt of submitting my resume for five jobs. I received no response from the first three, a rejection from one, and a request for an interview from the last - a pretty impressive ratio based upon my past experience.
The job for which I received an interview looked great. It was tangentially related to the law - and I even mentioned the JD in my cover letter, professional summary, and body of my resume - the salary was quite good (at least based upon my low standards), and the position was even respectable enough to divert attention away from the fact that I wasn't actually practicing law.
I recognized that this was possibly my one chance to land on my feet after the entire JD debacle, and I set forth to do everything I could to secure the position. If I was going to miss out on this opportunity, at least I would be able to say I tried my best.
I promptly responded to the request for an interview as politely and (reasonably) eagerly as possible. I then began preparing for all potential questions that may come up. I highlighted my most relevant experience. I researched the company's website to develop intelligent questions and buttress my likely responses. I wrote everything out and rehearsed my "talking points". I even skipped out on another (albeit minor) opportunity in my career search to prepare for the interview.
On the day of the interview, I left my house early to make sure there was no chance that I would get there late. When I arrived, I was about 40 minutes early, so I decided to head into a local coffee shop before the interview.
I usually try not to arrive too early for an interview because it can create an awkward situation. Either they'll sit you down in a waiting area near the receptionist, who would probably rather attend to her work without somebody else sitting directly across from her, or if they put you in a separate conference room, there's pressure on the interviewer to attend to you quickly even though he wasn't expecting you until later. Plus, there's always the risk of the ladies being too distracted to get any of their work done with someone with Esq. Never's good looks hanging around the office. (Well, okay, maybe that last point isn't exactly the world's biggest concern.)
In any event, I ended up leaving the coffee shop about 20 minutes prior to the interview. After the brief walk and going through security, I was about 15 minutes early. This seemed reasonable to me because most employers value promptness, and an employer probably should be prepared for an interview within that time frame.
Despite being in a pretty nice building in the downtown area of the city, the office seemed a bit disorganized; there wasn't really any reception area. Instead, the office manager led me to an empty and somewhat cluttered sub-conference room. To my surprise, despite being a bit early, the interviewer quickly arrived to conduct the interview.
The first bad sign was that he didn't even bother to take the time to print my resume. At the time, I chalked it up to my early arrival and perhaps the disorganized nature of the office. In retrospect, if the guy didn't bother printing out my resume and marking it up, he probably wasn't too intrigued with my candidacy to begin with.
The interview started off well enough. He took the time to give me more background on the position, and I agreed that I would be able to perform the tasks assigned and that I was excited about this opportunity.
Following that, he asked the general "catch all" question, "Tell me about yourself". I picked out three major accomplishments from my experience that were directly on point with what the job description called for. He seemed impressed. So far, so good.
He then inquired about whether I had specific experience in a similar role. It was a bit of a curve ball because I did not, but the job description specifically said "No experience necessary" and nowhere on my resume (that they ostensibly read) did I claim to have such experience. I conceded that I did not, but quickly described my related experience, and he also seemed satisfied and reiterated that specific experience wasn't necessary. I felt like I was still holding on and that once we continued with the series of questions, my intense preparation would start paying off.
He then asked a somewhat irrelevant question about my undergraduate experience, which I answered with a couple of lighthearted (but professional) anecdotes hopeful that I was beginning to establish a connection with the interviewer.
He then looked down at my resume, and I began contemplating which direction he would take the interview. Would he want to talk about my work experience? My computer skills? Why I moved back to my home state?
And then...he stood up, shook my hand, and started heading towards the door. Yes, folks, that's right. This interview into which I had dumped all of my effort lasted for THREE questions and for five (maybe ten) minutes!
I stood up in disbelief. Was this guy serious? He had me drive out to his office for this? As he left, he said he needed to talk things over with his boss and they would get back to me to schedule a second interview. I had a brief optimistic feeling that perhaps they had just called me in to verify that I was the "chosen one" for this position; however, once he quickly added the condition, "...if we're interested," I realized that I had a better chance of getting a call from the Abominable Snowman than ever hearing from this guy again.
Yes, I had come to play and leave everything on the field in order to snag this position, but it seems like I had lost before I even arrived at the office that day. I have to assume that they already knew they either were affirmatively going to hire a certain candidate or they somehow recognized that they didn't want me for the job after scheduling the interview.
I don't know how else to explain it. He didn't bother asking me the "Why law school?" question or about my former job or even the almost obligatory "Do you have any questions for me?" query. He didn't even offer me a business card, which essentially says, "Don't bother wasting your time with a thank you/follow up." (I sent one to the office manager anyway.)
Of course, following in the fine tradition of HR discourtesy, he also didn't bother to tell me that they were looking for somebody else nor did he respond to my follow up a week later - sent via the office manager.
As an aside, if any of you end up in recruiting/HR, could please keep your own experiences in mind and perhaps treat applicants with some modicum of respect. (For anyone currently in this field who reads this blog, perhaps you guys could keep in mind we're not just some lousy products that you don't want to buy at the store. Besides, if you'd like to live a life of evil, there are probably some law school administration jobs that are more lucrative and require less stress.)
Back to the subject of this post: I hope this company isn't this tactless in all of their candidate searches. What if I was black or a woman? This would have had EEOC suit written all over it.
Nothing about this really makes sense. If say they met a candidate (or candidates) who had experience but was (were) willing to accept underemployment in a tough economy, wouldn't his (their) resume(s) have indicated this? If so, why bother bringing me in for an interview before having the chance to vet such a clearly superior candidate (or candidates)?
Aside from somebody with experience, I have a hard time believing that they already interviewed somebody who was so good that it wouldn't even be worth the time to give me a full evaluation. How good does somebody (particularly without any direct experience) need to come across that they could decide beforehand that nobody else even deserves a hearing?
Maybe some of you think that I'm being too generous to myself and that I'm unwilling to accept that I blew the interview. I honestly don't think it's possible. If I had a full interview and didn't come across that great, that's one thing, but only getting three questions? I don't think so. Unless I simultaneously broke wind and insulted the guy's mother, I don't think there's any call for dispensing with me with such a cursory "evaluation".
Also, while I have many weaknesses, I think I'm actually pretty good at interviewing. When I graduated college, one interviewer called me back for a second interview because she said I "brought a lot of energy to the first interview."
Folks, there are many ways to describe me (some of them probably not very nice), but energetic is not one of them. You can think of Esq. Never as kind of a more laid back version of Al Gore. Nevertheless, I am somehow able to make myself comes across as far more engaging during job interviews than I am in most other settings.
In any event, whatever charm I may be able to muster for these interviews clearly couldn't overcome this disaster of an experience.
Maybe somebody's cousin needed a sinecure or I inadvertently ran over the interviewer's dog at some point in the past.
Regardless, there you have it, a category four job search defeat: Finding the "perfect" job - getting invited for an interview - diligently preparing for it - walking into the interview without knowing you're already disqualified - and then being dismissed without even the pretense that they took your candidacy seriously. Oh, and then having them continue to string you along while also ignoring your requests for further information.
I don't know what could possibly qualify for a category five experience. I assume it would include a kick to the groin and being throwing down an elevator shaft, but I really don't want to know for sure.
This blog post is based upon a sports analogy, so let me conclude with another sports reference.
In Major League Baseball, just making the playoffs is somewhat of an accomplishment. This is in contrast to the NBA where half the teams end up in the post season. In baseball, if you make the playoffs, it means that you're only one of four teams in your league to extend your season into October. After slogging your way through a lengthy season, you either ended up as the best team in the division or as the best out of all of the other teams in the league.
When a team clinches a playoff berth, there's obviously celebration both in the clubhouse and in the team's hometown. Nevertheless, the real work is just beginning. Sure, it's nice to be in the post season, but getting wiped out in the divisional series isn't going to impress anybody, and years from now, nobody besides hometown fans and baseball nerds are going to even remember the initial accomplishment.
I've learned that it's pretty much the same thing with first interviews. Sure, after sending out reams of resumes, its nice to have some proof that somebody actually read yours and that they're even interested in considering you for the job. You feel happy for a couple of days, but it's almost meaningless.
Yes, you can't win the World Series if you don't get into the playoffs to begin with, and you can't get an offer if you're not getting interviews. Nevertheless, just as a team shouldn't start making room on their trophy shelf in anticipation of a title during the first round, the job seeker should realize that a first interview is a step toward getting a job, but it's only a very small one.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Hiatus
Hi, everyone. As most of the regular readers of this blog (or anyone who can read the date of the last entry) probably know, I haven't posted in a while.
Nothing particularly interesting or cataclysmic has happened, but I am taking a break from blogging for a while. Writing lengthy (at least by blog standards) pieces for about half a year has been a bit draining. Also, searching for a job and attending to other projects is quite time consuming. In addition, consistently reflecting on my own job search plight and focusing on the corruption of the law school industry gets pretty depressing over time.
I do plan to eventually return with some new posts, but for the time being (probably a couple weeks to a month), I plan on taking a break from being 'Esq. Never'. This will give me more time to focus on my pro-MSU Law blog (j/k).
See you in a few weeks.
Nothing particularly interesting or cataclysmic has happened, but I am taking a break from blogging for a while. Writing lengthy (at least by blog standards) pieces for about half a year has been a bit draining. Also, searching for a job and attending to other projects is quite time consuming. In addition, consistently reflecting on my own job search plight and focusing on the corruption of the law school industry gets pretty depressing over time.
I do plan to eventually return with some new posts, but for the time being (probably a couple weeks to a month), I plan on taking a break from being 'Esq. Never'. This will give me more time to focus on my pro-MSU Law blog (j/k).
See you in a few weeks.
Friday, April 23, 2010
QA with Esq. Never
Let's go into the weekend with the QA I promised you a while ago. These questions appear in no particular order. I've tried to limit my answers to keep this post to a reasonable length.
How old are you, E.N.?
I am in my late 20's.
What led you start this website?
I sort of touched on this in my first post, but I had some thoughts I wanted to share both about law school and trying to find a non-legal job. I initially thought the main point of the blog would be to chronicle my quest for a job, but given that a lot of my time was spent sending resumes off into oblivion, I focused a bit more on other subject matter. As I became more frustrated with how useless my degree truly appeared to be and learned that many, many other people were in the same or a worse boat, the blog took on more of a "scam busting" flavor.
How did those job fairs work out?
I actually only went to one of the three for which I signed up. I ditched the first two because the paltry number of companies present didn't seem to make it worth the trip. The one I did attend was actually quite good. I plan to blog about it in the future. I did get a few leads, but so far, nothing has worked out. It did help that this particular fair was aimed at a specific industry.
Why won't you reveal where you went to law school? What are you afraid of?
My job search is difficult enough without possibly exposing myself and having an angry law school, alumni, etc. doing everything they can to further frustrate it.
That said, even if I wasn't concerned about my anonymity, I'm not sure I'd really like to get into a fight with my particular school. I've said before that I don't think it's as sleazy as say Seton Hall or NYLS. It is, of course, overpriced and generally a useless institution, but it isn't the worst of the worst.
This really isn't about Esq. Never vs. Law School X. It's about an entire industry that engages in deceptive marketing, exploits the cheap credit that flows from the student lending system, and doesn't really care that its "customers" end up indebted and unemployable.
Why are comments now censored (they used to display immediately)?
At one point I didn't monitor comments. I wanted to allow everyone to voice their opinions even if was the typical "You're a whiner" and "You should have done more research" canards.
Sadly, one person wanted to post identifying information about me and ruined it for everyone. That said, I do not censor comments. They are only on a delay. I recognize this may discourage discussion, but for the time being, it is necessary.
Aside from attempts to "expose" me, I have rejected comments that are entirely off topic, spam, or duplicate posts. If you search through my comments, you will find critical remarks about my opinions and even a decent amount of name calling aimed towards me.
Why are you so hesitant to weigh in on politics?
Personally, I see it as irrelevant. Most people who go to law school have developed some sort of political viewpoint, and by siding with or against certain politicians, I believe I would unnecessarily anger other people who do not agree with me.
I do not see the problems with higher education (and law school specifically) as part of a systemic problem with America. I see it as a bad "product" that deserves to be criticized. Just like there are websites dedicated to exposing "get rich quick" schemes and other ripoffs, I believe this blog serves the same function for the law school industry.
The recession aside, I think life would have been just fine for me had I not made such a bad decision in attending law school. I believe the problems with law school can be solved through realistic changes to how legal education is provided that do not require ushering in the workers' revolution.
That said, I do think there are governmental issues that relate to the problems with law school. Chiefly, I believe the culprit is the limitless supply of student loans. To remedy the situation, I advocate two policy positions. One "left-winged": Allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy; one "right-winged": End the federal student loan program at least for graduate, professional schools.
These measure would cause the COA to plummet, force many TTT's out of market, and probably require the restructuring of the entire legal education system around a more practical model. The only expensive, theoretical institutions that would survive would be the ones that could truly guarantee jobs to their graduates that would allow them to service their debts.
What will happen to Esq. Never when you get a job?
Good question. For the time being, that isn't much of a concern.
Feel free to continue e-mailing me questions, and I will continue this series when I get enough to warrant an additional post.
How old are you, E.N.?
I am in my late 20's.
What led you start this website?
I sort of touched on this in my first post, but I had some thoughts I wanted to share both about law school and trying to find a non-legal job. I initially thought the main point of the blog would be to chronicle my quest for a job, but given that a lot of my time was spent sending resumes off into oblivion, I focused a bit more on other subject matter. As I became more frustrated with how useless my degree truly appeared to be and learned that many, many other people were in the same or a worse boat, the blog took on more of a "scam busting" flavor.
How did those job fairs work out?
I actually only went to one of the three for which I signed up. I ditched the first two because the paltry number of companies present didn't seem to make it worth the trip. The one I did attend was actually quite good. I plan to blog about it in the future. I did get a few leads, but so far, nothing has worked out. It did help that this particular fair was aimed at a specific industry.
Why won't you reveal where you went to law school? What are you afraid of?
My job search is difficult enough without possibly exposing myself and having an angry law school, alumni, etc. doing everything they can to further frustrate it.
That said, even if I wasn't concerned about my anonymity, I'm not sure I'd really like to get into a fight with my particular school. I've said before that I don't think it's as sleazy as say Seton Hall or NYLS. It is, of course, overpriced and generally a useless institution, but it isn't the worst of the worst.
This really isn't about Esq. Never vs. Law School X. It's about an entire industry that engages in deceptive marketing, exploits the cheap credit that flows from the student lending system, and doesn't really care that its "customers" end up indebted and unemployable.
Why are comments now censored (they used to display immediately)?
At one point I didn't monitor comments. I wanted to allow everyone to voice their opinions even if was the typical "You're a whiner" and "You should have done more research" canards.
Sadly, one person wanted to post identifying information about me and ruined it for everyone. That said, I do not censor comments. They are only on a delay. I recognize this may discourage discussion, but for the time being, it is necessary.
Aside from attempts to "expose" me, I have rejected comments that are entirely off topic, spam, or duplicate posts. If you search through my comments, you will find critical remarks about my opinions and even a decent amount of name calling aimed towards me.
Why are you so hesitant to weigh in on politics?
Personally, I see it as irrelevant. Most people who go to law school have developed some sort of political viewpoint, and by siding with or against certain politicians, I believe I would unnecessarily anger other people who do not agree with me.
I do not see the problems with higher education (and law school specifically) as part of a systemic problem with America. I see it as a bad "product" that deserves to be criticized. Just like there are websites dedicated to exposing "get rich quick" schemes and other ripoffs, I believe this blog serves the same function for the law school industry.
The recession aside, I think life would have been just fine for me had I not made such a bad decision in attending law school. I believe the problems with law school can be solved through realistic changes to how legal education is provided that do not require ushering in the workers' revolution.
That said, I do think there are governmental issues that relate to the problems with law school. Chiefly, I believe the culprit is the limitless supply of student loans. To remedy the situation, I advocate two policy positions. One "left-winged": Allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy; one "right-winged": End the federal student loan program at least for graduate, professional schools.
These measure would cause the COA to plummet, force many TTT's out of market, and probably require the restructuring of the entire legal education system around a more practical model. The only expensive, theoretical institutions that would survive would be the ones that could truly guarantee jobs to their graduates that would allow them to service their debts.
What will happen to Esq. Never when you get a job?
Good question. For the time being, that isn't much of a concern.
Feel free to continue e-mailing me questions, and I will continue this series when I get enough to warrant an additional post.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
A Scam Within a Scam...Within a Scam?
If you've ever read Shakespeare's famous play, A Midsummer Night's Dream, you probably know that it is famous (in part) because it features a play within a play. I'm knowledgeable enough about literature to know that fact. I, however, am not quite sophisticated enough to realize why it is particularly noteworthy.
Nevertheless, while I may be ignorant when it comes to the intricacies of the Bard's greatest works, over the past several months I've become quite adept at recognizing the shady tactics of our friends in the law school and higher education industrial complex.
First, there was Solo Practice University. For hundreds of dollars they promised to give solo practitioners (even those right out of law school) the tools they need to succeed. Of course, those tools consisted almost exclusively of a bunch of (non-state specific) videos for practicing different areas of the law. Like a set of videos for "Do-It-Yourself Surgery", such an approach to learning the law was a bit perfunctory, and the results were more likely than not destined to be rather messy.
Then our friends at Law Crossings started spamming the job boards, claiming they could help graduates find their first attorney positions regardless of whether the applicant's GPA was 2.0 or 4.0.
I watched a story on 60 Minutes the other night where a couple of psudeo-doctors convinced patients with a certain terminal ailment to pony up some big bucks in exchange for a nonexistent cure. You know what? I'll bet those "doctors" would be thoroughly disgusted by Law Crossings.
Seriously. What type of scum bag is willing to further rip off somebody who already is unemployable and under a mountain of debt? They'd honestly be less repugnant characters if they just took your money in exchange for a swift kick to the groin.
So now comes the latest in a long line of swindles. But this swindle actually has multiple layers. (Hence it being a "Scam within a Scam".)
I recently received an urgent piece of mail from some company called ECMC. Prior to reading this piece of mail, I had no idea who ECMC was. In fact, I'm still not 100% sure who they are except that the company guarantees federal loans. Apparently, however, this company was in possession of personal data related to me. It also seems that their crack security team allowed said personal data to be compromised.
Great. So let me get this straight. My law school and Sallie Mae conned me into going into massive debt for a worthless degree. Then for some reason they handed over my personal information to some other student lending company of some sort without telling me about it - though I'm sure it was buried in one of the 39 letters with 8-inch font they send me every week. Now, thanks to their bungling, another con artist has absconded with my sensitive, personal information.
It doesn't end there, though. Even though they insist that no "savings, checking, or credit card account numbers" were compromised (uh, what about SS numbers?) - which there's really no reason they should have in the first place - they're offering 12 free months of credit monitoring through another company.
Now call me cynical, but I can't help it at this point. If important data truly wasn't compromised, is this really necessary? If I sign up for this, how come I anticipate seeing myself being automatically re-enrolled at $59.99 a month once the free trial is over? Sorry, I don't have a lot of faith in a company that uses some doofus playing the guitar in a pirate-themed restaurant to advertise for its product. (Maybe that guy should go to law school - then he'd really have something to sing about!)
So in addition to all my other woes, I have to choose between trusting that recently released inmate #68934 isn't selling my personal data over the internet to some guy in Nigeria or risk spending eight hours on the phone in 12 months trying cancel my brand new credit alert contract.
Is paying that Law Crossings guy to kick me in the groin an option?
All the world's a stage filled with potential law students,
And all the men and women merely a source of revenue;
They have their savings and the ability to sign promissory notes,
And one man in his time can be conned many times,
His indebtedness being seven ages.
-As The Law School Industry Likes It
Nevertheless, while I may be ignorant when it comes to the intricacies of the Bard's greatest works, over the past several months I've become quite adept at recognizing the shady tactics of our friends in the law school and higher education industrial complex.
First, there was Solo Practice University. For hundreds of dollars they promised to give solo practitioners (even those right out of law school) the tools they need to succeed. Of course, those tools consisted almost exclusively of a bunch of (non-state specific) videos for practicing different areas of the law. Like a set of videos for "Do-It-Yourself Surgery", such an approach to learning the law was a bit perfunctory, and the results were more likely than not destined to be rather messy.
Then our friends at Law Crossings started spamming the job boards, claiming they could help graduates find their first attorney positions regardless of whether the applicant's GPA was 2.0 or 4.0.
I watched a story on 60 Minutes the other night where a couple of psudeo-doctors convinced patients with a certain terminal ailment to pony up some big bucks in exchange for a nonexistent cure. You know what? I'll bet those "doctors" would be thoroughly disgusted by Law Crossings.
Seriously. What type of scum bag is willing to further rip off somebody who already is unemployable and under a mountain of debt? They'd honestly be less repugnant characters if they just took your money in exchange for a swift kick to the groin.
So now comes the latest in a long line of swindles. But this swindle actually has multiple layers. (Hence it being a "Scam within a Scam".)
I recently received an urgent piece of mail from some company called ECMC. Prior to reading this piece of mail, I had no idea who ECMC was. In fact, I'm still not 100% sure who they are except that the company guarantees federal loans. Apparently, however, this company was in possession of personal data related to me. It also seems that their crack security team allowed said personal data to be compromised.
Great. So let me get this straight. My law school and Sallie Mae conned me into going into massive debt for a worthless degree. Then for some reason they handed over my personal information to some other student lending company of some sort without telling me about it - though I'm sure it was buried in one of the 39 letters with 8-inch font they send me every week. Now, thanks to their bungling, another con artist has absconded with my sensitive, personal information.
It doesn't end there, though. Even though they insist that no "savings, checking, or credit card account numbers" were compromised (uh, what about SS numbers?) - which there's really no reason they should have in the first place - they're offering 12 free months of credit monitoring through another company.
Now call me cynical, but I can't help it at this point. If important data truly wasn't compromised, is this really necessary? If I sign up for this, how come I anticipate seeing myself being automatically re-enrolled at $59.99 a month once the free trial is over? Sorry, I don't have a lot of faith in a company that uses some doofus playing the guitar in a pirate-themed restaurant to advertise for its product. (Maybe that guy should go to law school - then he'd really have something to sing about!)
So in addition to all my other woes, I have to choose between trusting that recently released inmate #68934 isn't selling my personal data over the internet to some guy in Nigeria or risk spending eight hours on the phone in 12 months trying cancel my brand new credit alert contract.
Is paying that Law Crossings guy to kick me in the groin an option?
All the world's a stage filled with potential law students,
And all the men and women merely a source of revenue;
They have their savings and the ability to sign promissory notes,
And one man in his time can be conned many times,
His indebtedness being seven ages.
-As The Law School Industry Likes It
Monday, April 19, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 16, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Ask Esq. Never
I receive quite a bit of e-mail and comments seeking my opinions, thoughts, and (yikes!) even advice on certain matters. People are also occasionally interested in more information about this blog and the anti-law school backlash in general.
I think I do a pretty decent job replying to people when it comes to e-mail, but because I'm always careful to protect the privacy of anyone who contacts me, I never share their often interesting questions on the blog. As for the comments, I admittedly tend to do a poor job of responding to anything other than direct challenges to a position that I take.
Therefore, I would like to publish a "mailbag" post in the near future. I'm not sure how popular this will be, but I figure it's a good time to give this a try.
If you have something that you'd like me to address for the mailbag, please send me an e-mail at esqnever@hotmail.com with "Mailbag" or "Ask Esq. Never" in the subject (or mention in the body of the e-mail that you'd like to have your question included in the blog post).
Feel free to ask questions about this blog, law school, scam blogs in general, the "alternative" job search, or anything else you think is relevant. If you have a comment to which you'd like me to react, please feel free to share it as well. Also, feel free to ask multiple questions (to be answered separately).
Try to keep the question short enough for a blog posts (no more than a few sentences). Also, please don't ask questions that would take an entire blog post to explain.
Questions that are not serious, will not receive serious answers. If you do politely ask a critical question in good faith, I promise not to make fun of you.
I will not answer questions that would compromise my anonymity (e.g. where I live; where I went to school). In order to maintain the philosophical neutrality of this blog, I will also not share my politics or personal beliefs on serious subjects that are unrelated to law school. Obviously, I will not entertain questions or comments that are particularly offensive or obscene.
If I receive enough questions/comments in short order, I will respond with a blog post this week. If it takes longer to gather enough responses, I will wait until later in the month. If this feature proves to be particularly popular, I'll categorize the questions and break up the blogs posts accordingly. If this feature is a complete bust, I'll cry myself to sleep and just make up some fake questions...or I'll just forget about it and turn my attention to other posts.
If you do not note that you want to be included in the mailbag, I'll keep your e-mail in confidence. I'll print your first name only if it appears in the body of your e-mail. I will respect requests to remain anonymous.
Please do not post questions to the comments section. (I have disabled it for this post.)
Thank you, and I look forward to responding to the questions and comments that you send to esqnever@hotmail.com (with "Mailbag" or "Ask Esq. Never" in the subject).
I think I do a pretty decent job replying to people when it comes to e-mail, but because I'm always careful to protect the privacy of anyone who contacts me, I never share their often interesting questions on the blog. As for the comments, I admittedly tend to do a poor job of responding to anything other than direct challenges to a position that I take.
Therefore, I would like to publish a "mailbag" post in the near future. I'm not sure how popular this will be, but I figure it's a good time to give this a try.
If you have something that you'd like me to address for the mailbag, please send me an e-mail at esqnever@hotmail.com with "Mailbag" or "Ask Esq. Never" in the subject (or mention in the body of the e-mail that you'd like to have your question included in the blog post).
Feel free to ask questions about this blog, law school, scam blogs in general, the "alternative" job search, or anything else you think is relevant. If you have a comment to which you'd like me to react, please feel free to share it as well. Also, feel free to ask multiple questions (to be answered separately).
Try to keep the question short enough for a blog posts (no more than a few sentences). Also, please don't ask questions that would take an entire blog post to explain.
Questions that are not serious, will not receive serious answers. If you do politely ask a critical question in good faith, I promise not to make fun of you.
I will not answer questions that would compromise my anonymity (e.g. where I live; where I went to school). In order to maintain the philosophical neutrality of this blog, I will also not share my politics or personal beliefs on serious subjects that are unrelated to law school. Obviously, I will not entertain questions or comments that are particularly offensive or obscene.
If I receive enough questions/comments in short order, I will respond with a blog post this week. If it takes longer to gather enough responses, I will wait until later in the month. If this feature proves to be particularly popular, I'll categorize the questions and break up the blogs posts accordingly. If this feature is a complete bust, I'll cry myself to sleep and just make up some fake questions...or I'll just forget about it and turn my attention to other posts.
If you do not note that you want to be included in the mailbag, I'll keep your e-mail in confidence. I'll print your first name only if it appears in the body of your e-mail. I will respect requests to remain anonymous.
Please do not post questions to the comments section. (I have disabled it for this post.)
Thank you, and I look forward to responding to the questions and comments that you send to esqnever@hotmail.com (with "Mailbag" or "Ask Esq. Never" in the subject).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
