Fusterclucked

Fusterclucked

"You wanted to be a lawyer all your life and now you are a lawyer. Do you take pride in that?"
"I am not a lawyer. I'm a server."
"Lawyers do lawyer things. Lawyers work at law firms. Lawyers do public policy work. Lawyers don't serve pizza."

Search Terms: education arms race, global labor arbitrage, foreign outsourcing, H-1B visa, L-1 visa, illegal immigration, offshoring, higher education, college, law school, graduate school, professional school, MBA, jurisdoctorate, health care, unemployment, underemployment, Barack Obama, national debt, trade deficit, deficit spending, economy, Malthus, Malthusian, environment, socialism, capitalism, communism, free market, social democrat, law school scam, law school lawsuits, meritocracy, student loans, should I go to law school, best law schools, JD, unemployed lawyers, unemployed attorneys, unemployed JDs, underemployed lawyers, underemployed attorneys.

Insights, snide comments, and news about the value of higher education, the perils of going to law school, and America's race to the bottom.
"If everyone went to college we would have the world's most highly educated Walmart and McDonalds employees."

-- Origin unknown.
According to various reports on the JD Underground forum, some states (such as Michigan) have begun increasing the requirements for Bar Exam passage, presumably in an attempt to reduce the number of new attorneys entering the field.

While I applaud (if true) the desire to reduce the number of new attorneys, I feel that failing people on the Bar Exam is the wrong way to go about it. The barrier to entry should be placed before anyone enters law school and before people invest three years and over $100,000 on unneeded higher education. The state bars are just further victimizing victims of the law school scam. If they want to reduce the number of new JDs they should just declare that only graduates of certain law schools (say the top 50 law schools) are eligible for admission and then grandfather in anyone who entered law school prior to the announcement.
Earlier today Paul Campos published a post about an article that appeared on Forbes's blog titled Grad School: Still Worth the Money? The article in question is nothing more than a misleading and blatantly false propaganda piece encouraging people to go to graduate school written by the owner of a graduate school entrance exam test prep company.

I don't have anything to add to what Professor Campos had to say other than to point out that this sort of crap makes it difficult for prospective law students to be "sophisticated consumers" as the judge who dismissed the class action lawsuit against New York Law School seems to believe. As Professor Campos points out, Forbes is (or at least used to be) a reputable publication. If the content in Forbes cannot be trusted, then who are prospective students supposed to turn to when they are researching the value of attending law school? Who is more trustworthy and reputable, Forbes or anonymous loudmouth malcontent bloggers whose work is relatively obscure?
No, I'm not writing about "The Great Disappointment of 1844" when Jesus failed to appear as prophesied:

One of the law school defendants' core arguments appears to be the bankrupt notion that prospective law students are "savvy sophisticated consumers who should know better than to take the law school's employment statistic puffery seriously."

Obviously, I completely reject that notion, especially for those people who enrolled in law school prior to 2009 when the law school scambuster blogs were just starting to become known. Even now they still have a relatively low profile compared to the readership of the overly optimistic pre-law forums.

Firstly, what difference does it make if a consumer is sophisticated? Does that justify outright fraud? Does having a sophisticated consumer base give a merchant a license to make false claims about his product? Should Madoff have been exonerated on the basis that most if not all of his clients were wealthy sophisticated consumers who should have known better than to fall for a Ponzi scheme? Should Enron have been found not guilty because many of its investors were, presumably, sophisticated mutual fund managers and other Wall Street investors?

Secondly, the misleading employment statistics are akin to a comprehensive conspiracy engaged in by numerous players in the legal education industry. Almost ALL of the law schools report similarly misleading, high employment statistics. For this reason, a particular school's wonderful placement stats do not stick out like a sore thumb, raising suspicion and skepticism in the mind of a pre-law undergraduate. Also, according to one worthwhile read, The National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reported similar statistics . Moreover, all of the accredited law schools have the implicit sanction of the ABA, and now it sounds like some of the law schools are planning to argue that they were just following the ABA's employment statistics reporting guidelines. It almost looks like a concerted conspiracy to defraud the students with the law schools pointing at the ABA and the U.S. News and World Report 's law school rankings, the ABA pointing at the law schools and U.S. News , and with U.S. News pointing at the law schools and the ABA.

How the hell were these undergraduates supposed to learn that the employment stats were inaccurate to the point that they were laughable and fraudulently misleading?&nbps; They would have had to conduct first-hand surveys of a law school's graduates, directly contacting all graduates of a given year.&nbps; Furthermore, although the law schools may publish disclaimers, the prospective students still have little information to work with, and, collectively, the statistics suggest that even if you cannot obtain a six figure job in Big Law that you will at least be able to obtain an entry-level career-building job in Small Law that will provide you with a good chance of obtaining a return on your law school investment. In context, most law school brochure readers would probably interpret the statistics and the disclaimers as meaning that not everyone or even most of the graduates obtained high salaries, but when a number such as "93% of our graduates were employed nine months after graduation" is bandied about, even with disclaimers a reasonable and appropriately skeptical reader could not conclude that, in reality, it should be interpreted to mean that in actuality 65% of the graduates ended up unemployed or severely underemployed-and-involuntarily-out-of-field.

Thirdly, consider the pre-law undergraduates' state of mind and context of knowledge when they were making their decisions about whether to attend law school and how to interpret the published employment statistics and their disclaimers. Almost everyone who goes to college has been bombarded, since Kindergarten or even Nursery school, with the notion that higher education (the more the better) guarantees vocational and financial success. This notion was reinforced throughout grade school and high school. These twenty year-olds heard it from their parents and relatives. Their teachers taught them to believe it in school. They heard it all over the TV and the radio and from the mouths of intellectuals, news commentators, and politicians. "Studies show that college graduates earn $1 million more than mere high school graduates." "Everyone should go to college." "The solution to our nation's economic problems is more education." Many of these law students were probably even pressured by their parents and families to attend professional or graduate school.

Furthermore, Colleges and Universities are held in high esteem in our society. The general public does not regard them as being greedy self-interested for-profit businesses (which, in actuality, as it turns out, they pretty much are). Established institutions of higher learning, both public and private (as opposed to the fly-by-night for-profit schools that have oozed out from the slime recently), are not generally regarded as being untrustworthy like politicians or used car salesmen. Colleges and Universities are viewed as standing for progressive thought, justice, and the betterment of society. Also, many if not most of them are taxpayer-funded or supported by tax dollars in various ways (research grants, etc.). They are supposed to serve the best interests of the public. So, why would a twenty year old undergraduate suspect them of publishing fraudulently misleading employment statistics, especially venerable professional schools?

When you piece the big picture together, is it any wonder that prospective law students, most of whom are just twenty or twenty-one years old, would be easily misled by what may be fraudulently misleading employment statistics that have the implicit sanction of the American Bar Association and their parent institutions (often, in essence, a branch of the government in the case of public universities)? Even today, even after the media has aired numerous news reports about unemployed college graduates, the general public still holds institutions of higher learning in high esteem.

Thus, the "sophisticated consumer" argument is complete and utter horseshit.

According to the Above the Law blog , the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed against the Thomas Jefferson School of Law has been DENIED! Also, about 20 more law schools are liable to get sued for some form of misrepresentation. This denial is a cause for celebration, and hopefully these lawsuits will make it into the discovery stage. I cannot wait to see what kinds of incriminating emails and documents leak out during discovery (assuming that they have not already been destroyed or sequestered in a dusty locked chest surrounded by ancient equipment in a cobweb-strewn dimly-lit forlorn science department subbasement).

Earlier this month, New York Magazine published a nice article about the law school lawsuits where you can learn more about the intrepid attorneys who are bringing filing the lawsuits. Here are some quotes from the article, "The Case(s) Against Law Schools" :

Meanwhile, law-school tuition rose 317 percent nationwide during the aughts, compared with a 71 percent spike for undergraduate tuition.

Coincidentally, two days ago (Wednesday), on the same day when Above the Law broke the news about the denial of Thomas Jefferson School of Law's motion to dismiss, the ABA Journal published a fluff piece entitled, "What Would You Want the Contents of a Sandwich Named After Your Law Firm or Law School to Be?" . I lucked out and was able to post the first comment in response, but my second comment was deleted. My deleted comment said something to the effect:

"According to Above the Law, the motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit against the Thomas Jefferson School of Law has been DENIED! I don't know what kind of sandwiches were delivered to the ABA's offices today, but I sure wouldn't want to eat them." (For those who didn't get the joke, you are supposed to infer that the denial of the motion to dismiss was akin to big stinky shit sandwiches being delivered to the ABA's offices for lunch on Wednesday.)

In other news, The National Law Journal published an article about a motion to dismiss hearing in the lawsuit against New York Law School: "Judge Skeptical of both sides in law school jobs data litigation" .

The plaintiffs, seeking class status, allege that that they were lured to enroll by misleading postgraduate employment figures published by the school. They filed suit in August, claiming that the school committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and violated the state's general business law regarding deceptive acts and practices in reporting for several years beginning during the mid-2000s that about 90 percent of its students had secured jobs nine months after graduating.

Could it be...could it possibly be that the school wanted prospective law students to think that it meant that 90% of all graduates found high paying work in the legal profession? Or was it just published for amusement purposes or to fill space in the brochure? Was the publication of facially false and misleading statistics a sign of good will towards prospective students on the law school's part?

Also, if the school's brochure were discussing employment statistics and the school KNEW that those statistics were facially false, then why didn't it at least publish more detailed statistics and endeavor to determine and publish accurate statistics? Could it be...could it be that the school was intentionally trying to mislead prospective law students?

Everyone, including the judge, can probably infer the correct answers to those questions.

In my opinion, this law school fully intended to mislead prospective law students knowing that all of the other law schools (and NALP) were doing the same thing (and that such aggregate misleading statistics would reinforce one another) and that prospective students would assume that these statistics had the implicit sanction of the ABA. (That's all just my opinion; I'm not claiming that it's fact. Don't SLAPP*** me bro.)

I don't know if attorneys David Anziska, Jesse Strauss, and Frank Raimond (who are handling the class action lawsuits for the Plaintiffs) are reading this or will ever have the time to read this, but if so, I sure hope that you hammer the Defendants with those questions.

Yesterday I made a new animated political cartoon satirizing the law school scam. It isn't as good as my first two, but I hope that some of you enjoy it. I was inspired by the prospect of people being able to purchase law degrees at drive-thru windows.

In other news, I am gushing over the report that the motion to dismiss in the Thomas Jefferson School of Law class action lawsuit has been DENIED!

You know that the economy is bad and that the situation is dire when...porn actresses speak of finding alternate means of earning a living! Thanks goes to the poster YouGottaBeShittingMe for bringing this article to our attention at the JD Underground forum . Here are some quotes from the article "Porn Stars: The Death of a Sex-Industry Profession" published at The Daily Beast interspersed with my commentary.

In the legal field we speak of Big Law, Mid-Law, and ShitLaw. Is there a porn industry equivalent in the form of Big Porn, Mid-Porn, and Shit Porn? (No scatological jokes in the comments, please.) Is there such a thing as starving solo porn actresses?

On the bright side, these porn actresses are better off than most college graduates. I suspect that they probably didn't have to take out student loans to enter into the porn industry. Also, the porn actress job market is probably much better than the legal job market and many other knowledge-based job markets.

*** If you are new to the law school scambuster community, the term "Network" has become an inside meme used to denote futility and to humorously mock naive successful people (well-off know-it-alls, mostly from older generations) who mindlessly advise the college educated unemployed and underemployed to "network!". It's almost like our own "Who is John Galt?"

I think this photo of an Occupy Wall Street protestor shot by Jena Cumbo is worth at least 10,000 words. So, I thought I'd post it. Can you say overeducated, overqualified, and unemployable? It's a great illustration of what's wrong with our higher education system today where such a large excess of college graduates are produced that their degrees have little employment value.

Photo credit: Jena Cumbo , image linked from SOMA Magazine .
I am pleased to announce that last night the CBS Evening News provided credible national publicity for the Law School Scam with a 2.5 minute piece that featured Professor Paul Campos . (Credit is due to OhioDocReviewer for posting about it on JD Underground.)

CBS News correspondent Chip Reid reports:

Thirty year old Kevin Johnson graduated from New York Law School last February. His lifelong dream is to serve the needy as a lawyer, but for now he's serving pizza.

Johnson graduated in the top 25% of his class and was confident he'd find a job, especially when he saw his law school reporting an employment rate of around 90% on its website.

I do not know if this specific piece was made possible by Paul Campos, but he deserves tremendous credit for giving credibility to our views. I admire his bravery for going against the pecuniary interests of his colleagues and the law school establishment. Paul, if you are reading this, thank you for providing a credible public voice for the hundreds of thousands of disgruntled JDs who are cheering for you. I hope that you receive a 30 or 45 minute slot on NPR's Talk of the Nation and On Point.

Also, we should give credit to the three lawyers who are handling the class action lawsuits against the law schools; they have also brought publicity to the Law School Scam. They are David Anziska, Jesse Strauss, and Frank Raimond.

Professor Campos recently participated in a discussion at Stanford which you can watch on YouTube . It's worthwhile.

In the comments to my "Persuading the 'Personal Responsibility' Crowd" thread a debate broke out about whether or not the law schools are committing fraud. In my view the answer is a resounding Yes, in the context of actuality and not legality . From a legal perspective it will depend on individual states' fraud statutes and case law, the specific facts at issue, etc.

In one of the comments to that thread, poster "Just Sayin" responded in part:

The Huffington Post published an article that, if factual, provides a scathing indictment of some members of the top "1%". Allegedly, a petty banker stiffed a waitress for a $135 meal, leaving a 1% tip of $1.33 with a circle around the printed word "tip" and an arrow pointing to "Get a real job." Supposedly, the photo of the receipt was taken by the banker's employee and posted on his blog, Future Ex Banker .

The restaurant claims that they found their copy of the receipt and that the receipt (or photo) had been altered. In the meantime, the blog has since mysteriously disappeared from Wordpress. The Smoking Gun published an article with more information about the purported hoax.

So, what do you guys think? Was this real or was it a hoax? Was it Photoshopped? Is the restaurant covering up this incident to please its wealthy clientele? Could the supposed banker have threatened Wordpress and the restaurant? Why would a well-paid employee be so stupid as to publicize his boss's embarrassing indiscretion knowing that it would probably result in an immediate termination if it were traced back to him? If it were all a hoax, then someone took quite a risk knowing that the photo and blog post could be traced back to him. (Somebody paid for that receipt with a credit card). Maybe he found a discarded receipt and altered it.

I'd like to believe that it's real since it would reinforce my belief that many members of the wealthy elite are arrogant, vicious, and out-of-touch with the lower classes. I don't know if it's real or not, but the story certainly isn't unbelievable and it's rather delicious. It would be great if we could hear from the waitress, but I'm sure she won't be talking, at least not until she finds another job.

Addendum: Here is a link to a news report video where you can see the restaurant's manager discussing the incident. She seems pretty credible to me and upon taking a closer look at the photo, it does indeed appear as though th
Real Incest Sex Movies
Teen Daughter Pics
Ypur Porn

Fusterclucked

Report Page