Good Idea or Another Ploy to Get College Students to Attend a TTT?

I hadn't realized until recently that Massachusetts was home to so many non-accredited law schools. I blogged last month about the opening of The University of Massachusetts School of Law at Dartmouth. Now I've come across an article about a new program with the American College of History and Legal Studies and the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover:

So you're a community college student working full time and looking for a path to law school.

A college designed for you is close to opening, pending approval by Gov. John Lynch of a bill that cleared the House on Wednesday. The American College of History and Legal Studies would enroll students for their final two years of college and award bachelor's degrees in one field: history and legal studies. Classes would meet in Salem three nights a week, and the $10,000 tuition - modest for any baccalaureate institution - would be cut in half for students awarded a scholarship.

The college guarantees students with high grades admission to the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, and it allows high achievers to shave a year from their studies by combining their final year of college with their first year of law school. It wasn't a difficult arrangement to make. The dean of the independent law school, Lawrence Velvel, is the founder and dean of the new college.

Velvel began work on ACHLS after seeing bright students shut out of the legal profession because of a modest economic background or youthful inattention to their studies.

"A lot of people think that they cannot go to law school, that there is no way they will be admitted," Velvel said. "It gives a chance to people who otherwise academically wouldn't have the chance."

Actually sounds like a pretty good plan at first glance, doesn't it? Lower tuition rates and the ability to finish law school in two years instead of three. What the article doesn't mention is that the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is a non-ABA accredited school. Essentially anyone can get into this school if they want to attend. Since it is non-accredited, LSAT is not required as part of the school's admissions criteria.

I'm not accusing Velvel of not having good intentions for this low cost college and I'm no fan of the LSAT, the ABA, or its accreditation standards. But I can't support the idea of anyone wasting money on a non-accredited law school when the legal industry is imploding and jobs continue to be outsourced. Despite that most academics were high achieving students who attended elite universities, for some reason they believe they are doing low achieving students a favor by allowing them to attend low ranked schools when perhaps they'd be better suited at learning a trade instead. Learning history is important, but most people aren't meant to get a JD or a Ph.D in history. High achievers from lower income families will get the financial aid and scholarships to attend state schools for around the same amount ACHLS charges for tuition. For those who did not excel in school, getting a certificate from a fourth tier school in a subject like history will not help them find a job in the real world.

Attending a third-tier ABA accredited law school is bad enough but if your grades and LSAT scores are so low that you have to attend a non-accredited school, it's probably best for you to abandon the idea of becoming a lawyer. The best place to educate yourself and learn about history and the law is the library. You have thousands of books at your disposal for free. You'll learn more in a year reading a book a week at your local library than a year in any law school classroom. Don't waste even $10,000 towards a degree that won't help you find a job. All I can say to anyone about to attend a non-accredited law school is to run the other way while you still can.

UPDATE: I was curious as to how much Velvel makes for running an unaccredited law school. According to a Boston Business Journal article from 2006, Velvel made $268,985. Nice work if you can get it.

Has Anyone Ever Heard of Bowen Law School?

Or Duquesne University for that matter? These schools were ranked in the top 25 law school writing programs by U.S. News and World Report. Really, what is the point of a writing program ranking? We all know that rankings outside of the top 20 law schools are worthless. Creating another ranking is just throwing third tier schools a bone to use in their propaganda to fool more students into believing they attend a school worthy of taking out a $100k loan.

From Arkansas Business:

For the fourth time in six years, the UALR William H. Bowen School of Law was ranked in the top 25 law school writing programs by U.S. News and World Report.

Bowen's legal writing program was ranked No. 22 in this year's report, tied with the University of Michigan, Marquette University, and Duquesne University's writing programs.

In addition to Bowen's standing as one of the top legal writing programs in the country, the school's part-time law school program was ranked No. 38.

"These rankings reinforce our belief that UALR Bowen School students receive a first-rate legal education," said Dean John DiPippa. "We work day-in and day-out to share our values of professionalism, public service, and access to justice with students and the larger legal community."

So why did I hear through the grapevine that several graduates of one of the top ranked law school legal writing programs according USNWR were the worst writers in their office? Unless there is a correlation between where a law school is ranked in this survey and its hiring rate, this particular ranking is worthless to students. Most law schools only offer one or two required legal writing classes. Beyond that required class, it really depends on the individual student's writing ability. It doesn't matter if your school is ranked first or fiftieth in the writing program ranking. Seriously, USNWR needs to stop with this bullshit. A toilet is still a toilet no matter how fancy you try to make it out to be.

Article on CU Law Tuition Increase States 9 Out of 10 Grads Find Jobs, Are Fine With Owing $200k

Did the University of Colorado pay the person who wrote this article? Despite that tuition at UC Law will go up by 15 percent, the law students interviewed seem fine and dandy with paying the increase and owing $200k in student loans:

When he finishes law school at the University of Colorado, Sean Dormer expects he'll be saddled with $200,000 of student-loan debt.

The first-year law student is leaning toward a modest-paying, public-interest field and says "there are more important things in life than money." His in-state tuition tab next year will be $24,264, up 10.5 percent from this year's rate.

Maybe these incoming student haven't been hit by reality yet or maybe they just come from rich families. But where is the outrage from students with the foresight to understand that they can't afford the increase in tuition without a job or if they plan to work in public interest? We need someone like Harlan Ellison to set these kids straight, aka tell them to drop out of law school before they take out another loan from Aunt Sallie.

Law students said they're resigned to taking out more loans, and some plan to graduate with debt in the six figures, contending with their aspirations to pursue careers in service-oriented fields.

Wow. Does CU have a top notch loan forgiveness program because that would be the only reasonable explanation why these students are okay with owing six figures and graduating during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Did CU screen students for the interview making sure that anyone against the tuition increase was kept in the TTT basement when the cameras arrived? Here is an outrageous statistic in the article provided by the law school, naturally.

Nearly nine out of 10 law graduates are employed within nine months, according to the law school. Of those students, 14 percent worked for government agencies with pay ranging from $43,000 to $102,000. Seven percent worked in public interest and nonprofit fields, with salaries ranging from $35,000 to $50,000. The highest-paid graduates worked in large firms, starting at up to $160,000 a year.

Can law schools stop using employment statistics from 1998? Does anyone really believe that 90 percent of UC Law grads from the last two years found law related full-time jobs that paid more than $50k? Even the false statistics provided by the school seem fishy. Only 21 percent of students are accounted for who found jobs in government and public interest. They don't give us the percentage of grads who allegedly got $160k jobs in BigLaw. I'm guessing that is because grads who find jobs in BigLaw are an anomaly at UC Law. We can only guess what happens to the majority of the students who don't find BigLaw or government jobs.

Second-year law student Elise Aiken said she expects to graduate with $100,000 in debt, which wouldn't be such a daunting figure if she had aspirations to work for a big law firm. Instead, she said she wants to take on a career in environmental law, which she doesn't expect to pay a colossal salary.

If she finds a job at all. Working off a $100k loan wouldn't be so bad if we still lived in the 90s. At least most of the students could be assured that they'd get a job that would keep them from moving back home with the parents and allow them to slowly pay off their loans for the next 20 years. Graduates today aren't as lucky. When will students get it through their heads that the jobs aren't coming back and the economy will never recover to 1990 levels in our lifetime. Jobs have been permanently outsourced. There are no jobs.

Comments That Should Have Been Posts

Someone needs to make sure the masses stay in their place.

Anonymous @ 1:24 posted some good research in the post below.

I posted this over at Nando's blog awhile back, but received no response - let me know what you guys think:

"Just to show everyone how easy it was for our parents compared to our current plight, and just some food for thought in general:

The federal minimum wage from 1980-1981 was $3.10 and from 1981-1990 it was $3.35. If we assume that an average person could get a job paying minimum wage during the school years of 1980-81 to 1982-83 during a three year stint at the University of Michigan Law School, and assuming that person worked 20 hours per week during the 52 weeks of the three years in law school (certainly quite an easy task if you ask me), that person would have made $10,192.00 over the three year period.

Now, how much would tuition have been for those three school years? A grand total of $7,266.80!

In other words, you could work minimum wage jobs during your law school stay and actually come out ahead $2,925.20 when only taking into account tuition versus total minimum wage earnings! The extra money left over represents about $81.25 left over each month.

I realize you would have to take into account food, lodging, transportation, etc. However, average rent was $300.00 (which if you had roomates would be significantly cheaper - say ~$75.00), and everything else was much cheaper. Basically, you really could work minimum wage jobs back then and pretty much cover ALL of your costs for three years of law school. I really don't even know why people took out loans back then (if they did at all).

Now, comparing the numbers today:

Tuition - $129,030.00 for three years of tuition (assuming they don't raise tuition for the next three years...good luck with that).

Michigan minimum wage - $7.40. Working 20 hour weeks for the three years you would make $23,088.00.

Running the numbers, you would be left with a deficit of $105,942.00! And that's not even mentioned housing costs, food, transportation, etc."

With those numbers in mind, I then posed the following question:

"Maybe someone here can clarify this for me, but why did people really even need loans when all this federal student loan legislation was passed? Are you telling me that people really couldn't come up with the money to pay for their tuition back then? I really find that hard to believe. As I pointed out earlier, even as recent as 1985 (and a few years later even) you could completely finance a top notch law school education. Why were the loans needed?"

So does anyone have any thoughts? I really want to know why anyone from that day and age even needed loans to finish school. I realize that I only took numbers from the University of Michigan, but I have checked numbers from other schools and have found them to be quite comparable, and in many instances you could fund an education for much less than the numbers cited above. I'd especially be interested in hearing thoughts from those that graduated college from that time period.

In many ways our society was more equal three decades ago than it is today. We've made progress in dealing with racism, homophobia, and sexism but have gone backwards in terms of dealing with economic inequality. It amazes me that in this recession, colleges and universities still have the nerve to justify increases in tuition and room & board fees. As I commented in the post below, high tuition costs and the burden it has on American families is one of the reasons why the US lags behind many European and Asian countries when it comes to education and cutting edge research, especially in math and science. While other countries pay talented students (debt free!) to study overseas and receive the best education to become tomorrow's leaders in science, medicine, and technology, we seem fine with blaming young people who get in over their heads in student debt simply because they want an education to do something better with their lives.

Angel and Grumpy Young Man make valid points. A college degree shouldn't be a requirement for everyone nor is everyone meant to become an academic, a doctor, or a lawyer. I agree that the ABA needs to be reformed and all of TTT schools shut down. But let's be clear that a good education and making connections with important people at top universities and at Ivy Leagues is one of the few ways a person can move up the socio-economic ladder. Poor, working, and middle class students who are smart and determined enough to overcome the many obstacles to get into a Tier 1 school should not be prevented from attending because they don't have the money. I see the growing inaccessibility to an affordable education as another way the elite can keep anyone else from upsetting the golden applecart of wealth and privilege. Inaccessibility to a quality education whether we're talking about primary school or college is just another form of discrimination and segregation. If more people were as outraged we might actually have a fighting chance at changing the system.

This Lemming Knows What He's Talking About...

I ran across this gem in my morning surf.  It's a somewhat realistic critique of law school, as put forth by a 3L.  My points are in red.

Opinion
Law School Rewarding, But Tough
January 29, 2010 - 2:27am
By Benjamin Keep

As the recession lingers and law school applications skyrocket, applicants should pause to consider just what sort of beast law school is. Out of all graduate school options, law school seems like the cheap and effective one. Most Ph.D. programs require significant years of work that result in a modest salary in research, administration or private practice; medical school offers a significant salary at roughly the same time investment, but at a considerably higher cost; but law school offers both a short time investment with a high earning potential (though usually at the cost of significant student loans). Perhaps the law school J.D. competes only with the MBA in its perceived payoff. Yet both have come under attack as being ineffective and superfluous as investment banks and large law firms continue to hemorrhage employees.  But I say, why must one go to graduate school at all? Plumbers, Electricians, HVAC installers all seem to earn a good living.  And I think, as far as graduate degrees go, that it's probably more expensive than many more practical graduate degrees--such as Masters of Social Work or Physician's Assistant School. However, he claims, the distinction lies in that you have higher earning potential. This is arguable at best. Many attorneys never get out of the high 5 figure salary.  And many lawyers these days cannot even land a job and are working for free (i.e. for the experience). 

Law school is an easy target, in part because it pursues ambiguous goals. Law school promises both to be undergraduate-plus — a teaching environment that emphasizes analytical reasoning, problem-solving, and intellectual rigor — and a professional school, where students learn the suite of researching, writing and advocacy skills that effective lawyers use. The J.D. is somewhat of an anomaly: academics disagree as to whether the degree is doctorate-level or not. Law School is a refuge for those that are not ready to enter the real world.  Why wouldn't someone be ready, you ask?  Perhaps because they picked the wrong undergrad degree, 'wrong' being defined as a degree based on curiosity rather than practicality.  Others are not ready to work because they need more or a different college experience.  This is where Law School comes in handy.  People get wasted and act stupid for an additional three years, under the guise of obtaining a questionable doctorate level degree. 

Members of journals are generally required to write a small, thesis-length piece (called a note) during their second year, but the length and depth cannot compare to a dissertation, and students write most notes without significant faculty supervision. The vast majority of these notes are dropped after they have been written, left unpublished and unpursued. In addition, a significant number of students decline the journal application process in the first place.  I don't think that anyone LOVES the journal experience, but it's a necessity if you want to land a BigLaw job right after law school--if there are any jobs to be had.  Generally, it's a hamster wheel for law students. You don't know enough about anything as a law student to write a legitimate note--that will be recognized in any field.  But I think that BigLaw values the fact that you can produce high volumes of writing under the pressue of a deadline.  To that end, it is necessary to show you are up for it.  The people that decline to write on are too busy with the college experience to be bothered, or did not have sufficient attorney influence to realize that it's something they should be doing. 

Law school doesn’t strictly impart attorney skills either. Only one required course teaches the fundamentals of legal practice (“lawyering” or “legal research and writing”); the vast majority of other classes are substantive or exploratory in nature. Law School fails miserably at preparing one to practice the law.  This is definitely true.  And I'm sure that legal research and writing could be taught on the job--so it's arguable that the entire 3 years is a worthless waste of time if you actually want to practice law.  If you really want to be a lawyer, after high school--take BARBRI and sit for the Cali Bar. You will owe nearly nothing and be in the same place as most Law School Grads in terms of having NO IDEA what the hell you're doing.

However valuable the Socratic method is as a teaching tool, its justification as preparation for judicial inquiry can fall flat, particularly when most lawyers, even those practicing litigation, never see the inside of a courtroom. Law school graduates exit with principles, not rules. No law student leaves school knowing what the law is, rather, they all leave with a toolbox for thinking about legal questions. It's funny that this is mentioned. I thought that appearing before a judge would be like the Socratic Method--but it wasn't.  Generally, no one was harder on me with questioning than my Civ Pro Professor.  She was a royal bitch. I've argued cases at the Appellate Division, I've argued motions in Supreme Court, Superior  Court, Civil Court, I've had trials. I've never had any issues answering the Judge's questions to his satisfaction. I find Judges to be agreeable people.  Maybe the Socratic Method helped, but I think I would be just as good on my feet had I went straight to court after college. I think you either have it or you don't. 

After passing the bar, lawyers specialize and largely ignore the law in the areas they don’t practice. Students learn the most about law at their firms, in their clinics and at their internships.

Law school is schizophrenic in a more abstract way as well. The rigor that makes law school appealing also burdens the experience with an insistent linearity. Most law students are over-achieving type-A personalities, helping to make the environment one that cultivates lawyerly attributes: an exhaustive work ethic, a detail-oriented approach and an obsessive nature. The timeline and pace of the lifestyle leaves little time for exploration, and less for reflection.

The popular conception that law students go on to pursue a diverse range of different jobs is true. But it’s not true in the way most think. The law touches a lot of things: governance, business, social relations, international relations, technology — but despite the diverse contexts, the purpose of law schools is to create prestigious lawyers. How would this kid know? He's completely wrong.  People have a very hard time entering other fields, even fields they know that they can master or have daily contact with through the law, because non-legal employers are reluctant to hire lawyers.  They think you will leave them for more pay.  The reason why the pay is so low, is because they don't hire you and put you in upper management.  Non-legal employers hire you for entry level positions earning 40K+.  Essentially, they hire you for jobs you could have gotten three years prior--right out of college.  That makes Law School worth it, right?  And with all of the loans you have pulled out, you need to earn more than $40K to survive.  I find it funny that a 3L can speak to this when he has yet to hunt for a non-lawyer job. I speak from experience.  I got this very same offer two weeks ago from company.  Mind you, I'm nearly a decade out.

To pursue a career in public interest, teaching, management, policy or administration requires considerable job search fortitude. You will be swimming against a tide of processes created to transition law students into lawyers.  I don't understand what the "tide of processes," but I will say that these jobs are the most sought after in the age of deferrment. As you know, entire first year classes of BigLaw have been deferred indefinitely and given stipends conditioned upon practicing public interest.  So, these jobs--which are low paying--are hard to get unless you're in the top 5% at Harvard or Yale.  Prestige has become the new form of currency.

The popular perception of legal work can also be quite different from the reality. Very few legal jobs require covert investigations, in-court turnabouts, and flashes of genius. Most require patient document review, extensive computer research and copious editing. Law students must keep their career goals in mind throughout the training process to effectively transition into a successful, happy career.  Doc Review!!! Don't I know it!

To those who are applying to law school this season: good luck.

Benjamin Keep, a third-year law student at Cornell, administers Barely Legal, a column featuring a rotating cast of law students that appears alternate Fridays this semester. He may be reached at bkeep@cornellsun.com

Well, as far as lemmings go, he is extremely enlightened.  Good luck out there, in the wasteland!

The Holidays are Around the Corner!

Nothing gets me more in the mood than The Christmas Carol... the ghosts... Scrooge and Tiny Tim. EsqNever (a fellow blogger) has made the story relevant to lawyers in his creation of Law School Carol. Hilarious, kids. Make sure to watch parts #2 to #5 as well and the epilogue.

Law School: Don't do it!

So, I was stupid and uninformed and I went to law school.  But thank God, I wasn't the only idiot to make that mistake.  Some people think that God gives us all a mission in life. I definitely have one. I have a duty to tell all naive students not to go to Law School.

Let me break it down for you.  People think Lawyers make money. People hate lawyers, they respect Lawyers.  Whatever your feelings may be.. whether you think they are intellectuals, bloodsuckers, scam artists, ambulance chasers, or crooks....  you probably assume they make money.  WRONG!  My school, let's call it, Princeton School of Law, promised that the average salary of a lawyer graduating from law school was $70K.  That sounded like a lot of money to me at the time. I thought I could count on earning at least $70K.  That's not what happened.  What happens is that a shitload of people earn $40 or $50K, a few people earn (at the time I graduated), $125K and this somehow averages to $70K.  This was before "The Crash."  So things have only gotten worse.  Ha.  Lawyers graduating in May 2009 would be dancing for joy if they found a job earning $50K.  Let's downward modify that to $30K.  

And you can't even tell someone that your earning potential will grow.  If you're a first year associate today, earning $165K--your salary may have been cut down to $145K or $125K.  And you may never become partner.  Actually, you will never become Partner.  That's a myth. It's almost attainable in firms big and small.  So, you have no future in your big firm.  Eventually you're counseled to that effect and you're encouraged to move on.  What will you do?  Ideally, you will move to an in-house counsel job.  But you aren't that lucky.  

So, in all likelihood, you'll do something to give back to society.  I guess you've taken so much that you must be punished.  That's not true of course.  Earning a good living for less than a decade does not warrant punishment.   But you will be punished by earning $40K doing nonprofit work, or devoting yourself to civil service.  Either way, you're not earning a lot of money.  Oh yah, and you have $200K of debt that you PROBABLY didn't pay off because you thought you'd always be living on cloud 9 in big law.  So now you're fucked.  

The other scenario is that you weren't on moot court or law review and you're always trying to pursue to the allusive 6 figure salary.  And you can never save enough because you pitch over $1000 a month to those shitty loans that you pulled out to go to law school.

What should you have done?

You should have taken an entry level job at a company and worked your way up the corporate ladder.  By the time you're 25, when your dumb friends are graduating from law school, you are already earning over $60K without debt.  

It's all about net, not gross.  $60K-$200K law school loans equals not enough money.  $60K free and clear is ideal.  

This is the legal field's dirty little secret.  No one seems to know or consider this when they decide to take the $200K plunge for a law school education.  They just ASSume that this is the responsible thing to do when you graduated from college.  Law Schools aren't going to tell you this.  Because they can't be honest with you and still get you to fork over the money.  We are drowning in lawyers.  There are too many of us and there is certainly not enough money to make sure that we won't all go hungry.  But every day law schools open up and get accreditation from the ABA.  Every year, more and more people sit for the bar... thinking that the hard part is behind them.  It's in front of you folks!  Now that you're strapped with a law school loan that you can't get rid of in bankruptcy, how the hell will you live?

You can live in the hood like me.  I can very honestly say that I don't have more now than I did when I was in law school. I travelled more when I was in law school. I had a car when I was in law school. I had more clothes when I was in law school. I ate at nice restaurants.  Now, I live like a student.  I better get used to it because it's not getting better for people like me.

Maybe someday, Capitalism will do what it's supposed to do and law schools will close for failure to produce happy graduates.  I can only pray.