Alaska Has Something to Be Proud Of: It Ain't Sarah Palin!

Lawmaker wants Alaska's first medical, law schools

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AP) — An Alaska lawmaker has pledged to add schools of medicine and law to a state that has neither.

State Rep. Scott Kawasaki says he'll file legislation before the Alaska Assembly reconvenes in January that would create the graduate programs.

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reports that Alaska is the only state without a law school, and one of the few states without a medical school.

Kawasaki says Alaska suffers from doctor shortages and high legal and health care costs.

University of Alaska system spokeswoman Kate Ripley says adding graduate programs would require an analysis of student demand and the work force needed to staff both schools.

***

Dear Rep. Scott Kawasaki,

Please leave well enough alone.  Your state has a relatively small and wealthy population.  Don't you like it that way?  Adding a bunch of poor law grads won't make legal fees more affordable--it will glut your legal system with malpractice cases and leave many Alaskans with below par legal representation. You will have an influx of law students to your state that will bring down the median income upon graduating.  They will have no real skills to contribute to the Alaskan Economy.  I can see through your lies, Mr. Representative.  You obviously want a cash cow in the state, but I hope that you will be able to live with the repercussions of your actions.  It's one thing to hear about homeless crazies dying in the harsh Alaskan cold--but a whole different thing to deal with the over-educated and underemployed law school grads taxing your meager welfare system.  Think better of this whole plan.  There isn't a state in the Nation that needs a law school. Your state is better for not having one.  

Sincerely,

Angel the Lawyer

Law Students Behaving Badly: Using Their Knowledge for the Greater Good

So, does the bouncer have to worry about a lawsuit?
Thanks tipster!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

USNWR: Don't Overemphasize Ranking When Choosing Law School

Kaplan did a study to determine what dumb lemmings use to choose a law school.  The report revealed:

30 percent of test takers say that a law school's ranking is the most critical factor, followed by geographic location at 24 percent; academic programming at 19 percent; and affordability at 12 percent. Only 8 percent of respondents consider a law school's job placement statistics to be the most important factor.

USNWR isn't happy with the overemphasis on their rankings stating:
The U.S. News Best Law Schools rankings spotlight the country's academically excellent law school programs in many areas. However, they should be used by prospective students as just one tool in the process for picking the best school for them. Many other factors that cannot be measured need to go into such an important decision, including the overall cost, location, course offerings, school culture, job prospects, advising or mentoring opportunities, and campus life.

I read this tidbit as follows:  give all law schools a chance!

Yah right.  Ranking is the only thing that matters to Big Law--arguably the ultimate end result for many law students.  Let's go through the factors that USNWR focuses on:

overall cost: important.  But one must note that the cost has no correlation whatsoever of cost with quality of education.  So you could pay out the ass for a TTTT education and pay less for a T25 education.  Or you could pay very little for an unaccredited school, which is definitely worse than paying for Harvard or Yale.

location: important, but no so much if you go to a T14.  A T14 degree will travel all over the United States.  However, a TTTT education is arguably a regional degree--if that.  Case in point, New York Law School.  Probably not worth it in New York, and worth less outside of New York.

course offerings: Not important at all.  Law school is boring and bland, whatever class you take.  Furthermore, many of the classes listed in the catalog are not offered EVER.  Or they are offered so infrequently, that you will never get into the class.  Also, although your GPA is supremely important--employers don't give two shits what classes you take.  If you take many classes on entertainment law or labor law, that does not equate a job in entertainment law or labor law--because no one cares.

school culture:  Who cares and how are you to figure that out without going?  My Tier One school advertises itself as being a small and intimate law school environment with friendly professors.  I even spoke to hired guns (students) that lied about the school's culture.  It was small, but that's where the description ended.  I never met so many snobby students and professors in my life.

job prospects:  Once again, with law schools lying through their teeth about employment stats, how are you to know.  The only way you can be certain that you have job prospects is by going to a T14 or, arguably, a T8 school.

advising or mentoring opportunities:  Once again, who the hell cares.  Even the shittiest of the shit law schools will claim to have mentoring opportunities.  After all, there is no shortage of graduates.  It's dumb to make a decision based on this.  If you go to a T14, it may be unnecessary--because you'll have something better, a well-connected alumnae base.

campus life:  You already went to college.  Grow the fuck up.  I don't care if Harvard or Yale have the lamest student life out there--that is the appropriate law school to go to.  This should not be the basis of any adult decision.

Maybe USNWR is trying to take the heat off of their roll in the demise of tens of thousands of people every year.  Maybe they feel badly that TTTT schools get the shaft.  This is a load of bull honky and is to be disregarded.

Yale of fail.

What the hell is this snake thing?

Is a Prestigious College Worth It? More Importantly, Would You Believe What These People Have to Say About It?

With the state of unemployment today, one must ask whether a college education is worth it?  Since most people view college as a non-negotiable, the question becomes; is an Elite College worth it?
So, once again, the ineffectual New York Times examines the issue by quoting studies conducted by... guess who?  Elite college educators.  Should we buy their self-serving studies?  Here's some of the notable points:

...One of those authors, Scott L. Thomas, a sociologist who is a professor of educational studies at Claremont, said high school students and their parents should take any attempt to apply broad generalizations to such personal choices with a grain of salt.

“Prestige does pay,” Mr. Thomas said in an interview. “But prestige costs, too. The question is, is the cost less than the added return?”

Among the most cited research on the subject — a paper by economists from the RAND Corporation and Brigham Young and Cornell Universities — found that “strong evidence emerges of a significant economic return to attending an elite private institution, and some evidence suggests this premium has increased over time.”

“Education is a long-run investment,” said Professor Eide, chairman of the economics department at Brigham Young, “It may be more painful to finance right now. People may be more hesitant to go into debt because of the recession. In my opinion, they should be looking over the long run of their child’s life.”

I'm happy that RAND was involved because it's relatively objective.  Of course, it should be noted that "RAND is also the home to the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, one of the original graduate programs in public policy and the first to offer a Ph.D."  So, I guess they are in on it too.  So, I credit them and discredit them in one paragraph. Lovely.
I don't know who is better suited to provide an unbiased study of the actual value of an elite college education.  However, I'm certain that educators will never tell you that an education, elite or not, is not worth the cost.  It's funny that these educators are cited in an article that directly affects them. It would be comical and absurd if car manufacturers were quoted in a story claiming that expensive cars are safer than inexpensive cars.  So why does an article like this make it into the esteemed New York Times? I'll tell you why, because we respect educators and colleges.  We expect that they will be honest and truthful when they have proven to be anything but.  Just look at the way they rip off students.  If you remember, in the post I did about No Sucker Left Behind, it's apparent that colleges see their students as an ATM.  A few examples, once again:

1. Bait and Switch Scholarship: The first year that I attended FYU (Fuck You University), I was given a scholarship based on ... hell, I didn't know. I had good grades in high school, so I assumed it was based on merit.  I filled out a FAFSA, and I got a scholarship.  At the end of first year, I filled out another FAFSA. I had a 4.0 (all of college actually)--so I assumed I would get the same financial package, but the scholarship was gone--POOF.  It was gone. I asked about it and I was told that it just wasn't available to me anymore. Classic bait and switch.  Give the freshman a great financial aid packages and pull out the rug from under them and they are stuck.  What are they going to do, transfer?

2.  FYU had an average sports team.  One year, the school made it to finals or playoffs or whatever they are called, and the next year, tuition went up by 20%.  As it turns out, the reason why schools give a shit about their sports team is NOT school spirit.  Rather, it's the greatest marketing tool ever.  If the team is doing great, then you can justify a hike in tuition.  Oh yah, alumna love to donate money to their schools when the sports team is doing well.

3.  Did you ever wonder why vital classes were offered only once a year, and not in the summer?  Why can't organic chemistry be offered every semester when it's the prerequisite to so many majors?  It's not JUST because the professors are lazy shits.  It's also because, if you don't fix your schedule perfectly, you're forced to enroll for one additional semester. I was wondering why so many people graduate from college in 5 years, rather than 4.  That's why!

In the end, I don't even care what the premise of the article is.  Educators would never discount a college education altogether, as they should, because they make too much perpetrating a fraud on America. The issue shouldn't be whether an elite college is worth it, it should be whether a college education is worth it.  They are nearly all over priced. College is a great experience, it's true.  But it doesn't make you more marketable.  It's a luxury, i.e. reserved for people who can afford it--but you'll never hear it from the educators.  Who would put themselves out of business?

Nanny State?

I was watching Fox News.  Yes, I watch it sometimes. I also listen to 770 a.m. so that I can get a daily shot of adrenaline.  I get so angry, but I do it nonetheless.  I'm sure my blood pressure is super high as a result, but I'll never know since I don't have health insurance.  I have three jobs, but no health insurance--it's great.  So, I would love to share the clip with you, but I can't find it.  The title was "Nanny State." There were four talking heads criticizing young people--ages 16 to 24--for being unemployed.  Apparently 1 in 5 people in that age group are unemployed.  That's a whopping 20%.  The reason why they're unemployed is not the obvious reason, because they are no jobs.  Rather, it's because young people can easily move in with their parents upon graduating, can apply for food stamps and are now under their parents' health insurance until they are 26.  So, it's because they're lazy.  One of the guests said that young people would do well by digging ditches like immigrants (his words, not mine) to learn a valuable lesson about life.  Then, the ugly guy from capiltalistpig.com said that it's the minimum wage that's keeping young people unemployed.  I started to nod my head, thinking that the minimum wage is too low for young people to sustain themselves.  NOPE.  It's too high, so that small business can't afford to hire more young people.  Of course, I'm no genius, but I would have loved to be on the show to state the obvious:  young people can't find jobs because older people (like me) are taking those jobs.  Why would you hire a 22 year old to do a job if you can find a 30 something year old with a proven track record to do the same.  Furthermore, most young people don't want to go away to college and then move back in with their parents.  Living with your parents is demoralizing.  Young people don't want to live with their parents.  We need to trust that young people, if given a living wage, will quickly move out of their parents' home.  And as for food stamps: if you've applied for food stamps--please tell me here.  I want to hear about it. I know many people who are unemployed and they have not applied for food stamps--they eat lots of tuna and oodles of noodles and manage, somehow.  We don't have unemployment of 20% in the 16 to 24 age range because young people have too much of a safety net.  What parent, in any crisis, would allow their children to become homeless if they didn't have to?

There's a major disconnect in this nation.  People are so caught up in their own success to understand why others are not doing so well.  Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you criticize and berate others.

Jonathan Hoenig-the Capitalist Pig.

Kenneth Starr did What???! Wall of Shame: Jonathan Bristol

I had to google Kenneth Starr when I read this story.  Nope, it's not the same Kenneth Starr, the one who almost ousted our President and the one who was most recently the President of Baylor University and the former professor at both George Mason Law and Chapman law and the Former Dean of Pepperdine Law School.  His name has been hijacked by another Ponzi Schemer.  This is old news, because it happened in May, but here it is:

The SEC previously charged Starr, Starr Investment Advisors LLC, and Starr & Company LLC with violating securities laws pertaining to custody of clients' assets and misusing client funds to buy a multi-million dollar luxury condominium on Manhattan's Upper East Side, among other things.

Starr was arrested in May and indicted on 23 counts of fraud and money laundering involving $59 million. Starr was a financial adviser to several celebrities including Uma Thurman and Martin Scorsese. 

What's newsworthy today is that his attorney was charged with taking part in this crazy scheme.  His attorney, Jonathan Bristol, is being accused of using his attorney trust accounts to as conduits for Starr's clients' stolen money.   The SEC charged him today.

Bristol had a legal and professional responsibility not to assist Ken Starr in conduct that he knew was unlawful," said George S. Canellos, director of the SEC's New York Regional Office. "Bristol crossed the line from lawyer to conspirator when he failed to safeguard funds entrusted to him, helped Starr steal client money, and lied to the victims to perpetuate the scheme."

According to the SEC, more than $25 million belonging to Starr's clients flowed through Bristol's attorney trust accounts. Without his clients' authorization, Starr would transfer their funds into the attorney trust accounts. Bristol would then transfer the stolen funds to Starr and his two companies for Starr's personal use.

Is that money laundering?  I wonder what his cut was... Hmmm.  

“College essentially provided them with nothing”...

Sound familiar?  Well, given the difficulty of finding a job as a college or professional school grad--it should be.  Except this statement was made by a Chinese man, Zhang Ming, in China. Yes, the world's biggest super power, China, took a pass-go card through middle class prosperity to over-education and under-stimulation. And you thought this was an American problem.  Think again!

In a kind of cruel reversal, China’s old migrant class — uneducated villagers who flocked to factory towns to make goods for export — are now in high demand, with spot labor shortages and tighter government oversight driving up blue-collar wages.

But the supply of those trained in accounting, finance and computer programming now seems limitless, and their value has plunged. Between 2003 and 2009, the average starting salary for migrant laborers grew by nearly 80 percent; during the same period, starting pay for college graduates stayed the same, although their wages actually decreased if inflation is taken into account.

The latter paragraph sounds much like what we have going on in the good ol' U.S.A.  Of course, we shipped our factory jobs to China--so there is no comparison in that respect.  Arguably, the college grads in China have it worse though.  Since their parents are farmers and factory workers, they can't take their children in when they fall on their over-educated faces.  Instead, they are living in a modern day ghetto of intelligencia:

Liu Yang, a coal miner’s daughter, arrived in the capital this past summer with a freshly printed diploma from Datong University, $140 in her wallet and an air of invincibility. 

Her first taste of reality came later the same day, as she lugged her bags through a ramshackle neighborhood, not far from the Olympic Village, where tens of thousands of other young strivers cram four to a room.

Unable to find a bed and unimpressed by the rabbit warren of slapdash buildings, Ms. Liu scowled as the smell of trash wafted up around her. “Beijing isn’t like this in the movies,” she said.

Wow.  That makes your momma's basement sound lovely, doesn't it.  In china, they call their unemployed graduates "ants":

Chinese sociologists have come up with a new term for educated young people who move in search of work like Ms. Liu: the ant tribe. It is a reference to their immense numbers — at least 100,000 in Beijing alone — and to the fact that they often settle into crowded neighborhoods, toiling for wages that would give even low-paid factory workers pause.

We call educated people "poor." It's easier and requires no sociology report.

It's nice to know that we're not alone.  China took our factory jobs, but is suffering nonetheless.  I said it before and I'll say it again--an education is a luxury that many can't afford, especially when it results in lesser earning power.  It's the possibly the worst investment out there.  Connections will get you farther.


Thanks tipster!