Paul is one of the bloggers at that blog I stopped linking to after they deleted all Meade's comments (Lawyers, Guns & Money). Here's what I wrote about the Anonymous Law Professor blog. I thought it was a student, because it had some bad writing and simplistic thinking.
Is the Anonymous Law Professor blog more important now that we know who it is? (Assuming you ever cared at all.)
IN THE COMMENTS: somefeller said:
It was dumb for him to try to write anonymously/pseudonymously, because he already was a fairly well-known blogger who writes under his own name. That really added nothing to the conversation and if anything detracted from his points by creating a biographical whodunit...I disagree. He got attention with the "Anonymous" tease, with an Inside Higher Ed article and lots of links and discussion. If it had just been Paul Campos's next diatribe, who would have cared? Maybe by the time he'd worked the whole thing into a book, with an impressive publisher — like his "Jurismania: The Madness of American Law," published by Oxford University Press — everyone would take the trouble to read and talk about it. But this way, he got lots of publicity for his project, right at the outset. He even got the eminent lawprofcrank Brian Leiter bellyaching about it. That was pretty rich. I'd say Paul Campos is doing just fine. He should keep up the graphomania, hook Oxford University Press again, and grasp the fame and money that comes from writing a pithy polemic that hits right in the zone as people question the value of a legal education.
Posts
91 comments:
It sounds as if he outed himself because having someone else out him would have hurt his career--more than outing himself anyway.
What a mess he's gotten himself into, trying to become internet-famous.
Good call - I remember your previous post:
Is the Anonymous Law Professor blog more important now that we know who it is? (Assuming you ever cared at all.)
Nope - didn't care then, don't care now.
No.
Meh. Campos is already an Internet personality with goofy things to say (though he does say something interesting once in awhile).
It would have been a lot more interesting had it been deeply considered thought from some tax prof laboring in obscurity at the University of Indiana. Some person who felt they just had to get their truth out there. That would have meant something. But from Campos? It's just something else to say from a guy who says enough to say already.
The Mystery Law Prof is revealed, and no one cares.
That is sort of sad.
It's like seeing the Lone Ranger's face.
Assuming you ever cared at all.
That's a 10.
Seems like a first class douuchebag. Didn't you say he was a friend of yours?
edutcher...We watched a great post war film, From Here To Eternity, this afternoon on TCM.
The billed cast was all-star, and so was the extras cast
The extras doing cameo parts included Claude Akins (a bad guy in many 50s and 60s films) and George Reeves who was Superman in the original TV series.
Yawn, stretch, scratch.
I'm shocked--shocked!--that people in the profession of teaching law support the teaching of law when it comes under criticism. Naturally their conclusion that it's worth paying them for their services is reliable. They're professional thinkers, you see.
Ann is collecting $160,000.00 a year from the taxpayers of Wisconsin and barely works. I can understand why does not want others to point out that students are not getting value for their money. She is exhibit no. 1!
It was only a matter of time until he was outed, and no, I still don't care.
Is the Anonymous Law Professor blog more important now that we know who it is?
Reminds me of an exercise we did in a sociology class where the professor gave us all an identical essay to read, except for the credentials attributed to the author. It was quite interesting how much people based their opinions on the credentials of the author rather than the content of the essay.
Well, I like a "HA" now and then.
And, I see stuff said up on Glenn Reynolds, that doesn't make sense to me.
Yesterday, he had a "up" a law school called "1957" ... Which you could go to tomorrow. And, tuition would only be $20,000 per year.
Back in those days? Men married secretaries (usually), who supported them through medical school or law school. Which was a different "burden of debt" to carry.
Today, they'd have to married a billionaire's daughter. And, then? Wh6y would they want to work after that? Let alone the grueling schedule of a beginner's job at some high powered law firm?
The mysteries of life.
Im posting here because I have no more 9vs for my emg 81. :*(
Add another for dont care.
There are about 500,000 more lawyers than the country needs. Two of them are my kids but I'd put them in the other half million. Fortunately, both have been out of law school for 20 years and are doing well. I wouldn't want to be a new graduate trying to pay loans.
Ann is collecting $160,000.00 a year from the taxpayers of Wisconsin and barely works.
Paul Campos is collecting about this same amount from the citizens of Colorado and barely works. What's your point?
Do you have one?
Outing yourself?
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
How can a publicity whore be outed? Outing assumes the outee wants privacy not fame.
It was dumb for him to try to write anonymously/pseudonymously, because he already was a fairly well-known blogger who writes under his own name. That really added nothing to the conversation and if anything detracted from his points by creating a biographical whodunit. I'd agree with Seven Machos that it would have been different if started his blog as a person who was a complete unknown in legal blogging circles.
But my main view regarding this hasn't changed - the name he writes under doesn't matter, and the response to him from a lot of law professors sounds like the circling of wagons. And once again - the cost of legal education (and higher education in general) has been outstripping inflation for far too long, with little increase in quality or benefits to students to justify the cost increases. Let's see his critics spend some time on that topic.
Jay Retread: Ann is collecting $160,000.00 a year from the taxpayers of Wisconsin and barely works. I can understand why does not want others to point out that students are not getting value for their money. She is exhibit no. 1!
Althouse is probably the only reason most people outside of Wisconsin have ever heard of her university.
Jason, you could say that about the UW football and basketball team. Most people (and I mean 99.9%) have never heard of Ann.
Are you suggesting that the taxpayers of WI fork out $160,000.00 a year so that a half dozen middle age fat guys can hang out in their basements discussing American Idol with a real live law professor?
Althouse is probably the only reason most people outside of Wisconsin have ever heard of her university.
I'm sure that her students who are now how many thousands in debt and pursuing a too-likely-to-be-useless law degree will be happy to hear that.
Dean Ammons is probably the only reason many people have heard of Widener Law School. Achieving name recognition for your institution doesn't justify taking your students' money and giving little to nothing of value in return.
Ann is offended that one of her colleagues is shining light on what she herself is doing. Ann is abusing the tenure system. She is sucking on the government teat and is flaunting the fact she does not do much work in return.
I thought it was a student, because it had some bad writing and simplistic thinking.
Which seems to be par for the course from today's academia.
wv: lisestud - for when you need your lisemares serviced.
Ann, have you ever written anything about the increasing number of unsuccessful law school graduates? Do you think this is an important issue?
traditionalguy said...
edutcher...We watched a great post war film, From Here To Eternity, this afternoon on TCM.
The billed cast was all-star, and so was the extras cast
The extras doing cameo parts included Claude Akins (a bad guy in many 50s and 60s films) and George Reeves who was Superman in the original TV series.
A great showcase for a lot of postwar stars, soon-to-be stars, and second-time stars (Sinatra building a new career) in that one.
George Reeves was an old pro by then - you can see him in the 1940 flick, "Strawberry Blonde".
Akins, OTOH, was just getting a 40 year career started.
George Reeves? Didn't he kill himself?
I have heard Reeve's success as Superman led the movie to edit out a bunch of his big parts in From Here to Eternity. As a result, Reeves felt his being stereotyped as Superman would hurt his career and that depressed him and may have contributed to his suicide.
The Envy Club is up late tonight.
Law Professors, much like lawyers, cost a lot of money. That is because they are in a skilled profession that has enormous social value.
The only question is whether a given high paid professor or high paid lawyer is worth what he/she is being paid.
They all are high paid and some of them are worth it 10 times over.
A good lawyer is wonderful asset, and someone trains them.
It is true that today's graduates are in need of work, as is every body since we entered the Burst Bubble Depression in private business growth.
So if you want graduates to thrive, thenquit griping and go elect Palin. Perry will hurt more lawyers careers than he helps.
Ann is offended
Please point to the language that Althouse uses suggesting any kind of offense.
what she herself is doing.
What is it that Campos is doing?
Ann is abusing the tenure system.
What is it that Campos is doing?
She is sucking on the government teat
What is it that Campos is doing?
Further, aren't all public employees sucking at the government teat? If so, you certainly don't have any problem with cutting the lavish benefits of school teachers and bureaucrats.
Right?
Ms. Althouse,
What did you do today with that huge six figure salary earned off of the backs of students who could not afford to pay it?
Thank you,
A student whose life was ruined by the law school scam
Althouse, Meade and you have to try Bay 5 Diner in Mazomanie.
The drive is pretty, the restaurant is great and you will be impressed that such a small town produces such a great restaurant.
Perhaps on your next drive to Spring Green?
"What is it that Campos is doing?"
--------
Campos is giving his mea culpa in the hopes of fixing the problem. Ms. Althouse is fattening herself by suckling on the teet of emaciated students whose lives are destroyed to support her largesse.
And nice try with the "simplistic thinking" accusation Althouse. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE - honest, granular disclosure of what happens to your graduates. You only want to make it seem complicated so that you can obfuscate matters. Why hasn't your law school complied with Law School Transparency's disclosure recommendations Ms. Althouse? Do a post on that.
I hope I never hire a lawyer who was too stupid to evaluate his job prospects before he decided to go to law school.
Why hasn't your law school complied with Law School Transparency's disclosure recommendations Ms. Althouse? Do a post on that.
If you were too stupid to know what you getting into, you are too stupid to be a lawyer.
Pass the bar ? Or flunk out? You sure sound like one or the other.
"If you were too stupid to know what you getting into, you are too stupid to be a lawyer."
---------
Is that what your school tells your unemployed, indebted and scammed grads Ms. Althouse?
Man, you people are in rare form tonight.
Ms. Althouse is fattening herself by suckling on the teet of emaciated students whose lives are destroyed to support her largesse.
What is it that Campos is doing? Is Althouse collecting different public money?
honest, granular disclosure of what happens to your graduates
Do you really thing that law grads from the University of Wisconsin make more money than law grads from the University of Colorado?
Do a post on that.
You do a post on that. Think anybody will read it? Me neither.
Is that what your school tells your unemployed, indebted and scammed grads Ms. Althouse?
Did she write that?
Jay Retread: Jason, you could say that about the UW football and basketball team.
Sports teams might help with getting money from alumni, or recruiting students. With Althouse there's a chance someone in the legal profession has heard of the school's legal department, for you know, legal thought. If I were a student that would be important to me.
Are you suggesting that the taxpayers of WI fork out $160,000.00 a year so that a half dozen middle age fat guys can hang out in their basements discussing American Idol with a real live law professor?
The "work" that most professors do (on top of teaching classes) is writing papers no one reads. If all Althouse did was talk about American Idol I might say she was at their level of usefulness, but a week of Althouse has far more intellectual activity than that.
I'd like to hear Ann's views on the subject, if she's willing to give them. I imagine she won't have the same sort of "buyer beware" attitude many of her commenters do. She knows what first year law students are like. They are not lawyers and its ridiculous to hold them to that standard.
Jay -- Do you believe that only Althouse's salary should be cut? Or are you suggesting that all state and federal employees take substantial salary cuts?
Try, just for a second, to be coherent. Are you a flaming libertarian, or are you just a lonely, sad asshole?
Never cared at all. Fuck lawyers.
First year law students are, presumably, graduates of a university. If they are not capable of making competent choices of a career, they had a damned poor education and should consider a trade like plumbing. Of course, plumbers require certain skills that make be lacking in law school applicants.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. In a dynamic and changing economy such as ours, is there even a such thing as a "competent career choice?" Most people don't plan where they end up, they just end up somewhere.
Besides, the point the law school "scambloggers" are making is that the law schools are lying to them about their career prospects. I suppose you can blame them for not being savvy enough to spot the lies, but really, we're talking about 22 year olds here. How world-wise were you at that age?
law school "scambloggers"
It's true that law schools are fraudulently reporting data. But that's certainly not the fault of any professor. Moreover, while students at Wisconsin and Colorado are having more trouble finding jobs they want (especially the bottom half of each class), the real problem is at dumps like Widener and Thomas Cooley.
Finally, college grads themselves are having terrible problems finding jobs. Is it really an unreasonable decision to camp out in law school for three years in the hope that the economy can get its shit together by the time you graduate with an advanced degree?
I say all this as a holder of a law degree who cannot stand the practice of law, and who could not in good conscience advise any creative, intelligent person to be a lawyer. I do always add that law school itself is an amazing, life-changing experience.
"suckling on the teet of emaciated students"
Thanks for the visual. Doesn't sound like too much of a meal.
Further, aren't all public employees sucking at the government teat? If so, you certainly don't have any problem with cutting the lavish benefits of school teachers and bureaucrats.
This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to speak to it:
1) I don't want to cut the benefits of school teachers, but I'd like to see the retirement age raised a bit; nobody should be retiring from education in his or her 50s and expecting a lifelong pension.
2) Not only do I want the lavish pensions of bureaucrats cut, but I'd like to see half of them fired and quite a few of the agencies for which they "work" (EPA, Department of Education, etc.) shut down. That would go a long way toward solving the government's financial problems.
Kev -- I'm with you on all that. And more. Jay is a leftist flamer. It's ridiculous for him to criticize Althouse given his political proclivities. He knows this, which is why he won't engage in substantive argument, and why Althouse ignores him and will likely continue to do so.
Why don't I ignore him? Good question.
"Althouse is probably the only reason most people outside of Wisconsin have ever heard of her university."
I know this is a heated discussion, but I hope people are not being serious here.
Most people hear about universities because of sports teams.
But people who use the knowledge of universities have sure heard of them. For example, Wisconsin is great in the field of fisheries - they work with people who are trying to keep the Asian Carp from messing with the Great Lakes. Wisconsin produces great research & does quite well in world rankings.
"Is it really an unreasonable decision to camp out in law school for three years in the hope that the economy can get its shit together by the time you graduate with an advanced degree?"
I think it's unlikely the economy will get its shit together in 3 years.
I'd tell somebody not to do it unless he (a) wasn't going to take on on student debt or (b) was going to attend a very top law school.
Otherwise- too risky in this economy.
Instead of hanging out in law school - better to spend some time getting your foot in the door doing an unpaid internship or other strategies to get the career started.
Medical school/ nursing school or Wharton MBA -- still worth it because grad can get jobs and pay off the student loans.
Do I care more now that I know who he is? Well, how long do I have to pick through the links to find out who he is? The name Paul Campos is vaguely familiar but in any real sense, he is still anonymous to me. Where's he teach? Is he tenured? Is he respected?
"Paul Campos" means very little more to me than "anonymous."
Is Ann Althouse overpaid? Hell, if you are earning a salary, you can and should find gratifying work that pays you as much as possible. If you don't, you're an idiot.
The more important question is whether UW-Madison's subsidy from state and federal governments is well spent. I think most state university systems are "edifice complexes" with extremely expensive buildings (built with extremely expensive union labor) and redundant programs. Is the real social benefit of any specific public university worth its incredibly high cost? Glenn Reynolds has been touching this hot potato for some time. Society needs to expand the debate.
Bravo to the posters who suggest that if you havent evaluated the prospects of future employment you probably should not have elected law school--same with those who elect graduate degrees in architecture, anthropology and art history.
Be an acturial--great money--downside requires lots of math and rigorous testing to be certified.
Engineering also works: same downsides as above. Lawyers parse words, Engineers and Acturials do math--no parsing there.
hmmmm-maybe its actuarian not sure and too lazy to google--
Lawyers also handle real people with real problems and make things better for them.
If we did not do that, then people would not hire us.
The value of an honest person who can take a weak person's problems with the other 90% of the world's jerks who abuse everyone who is weak and brag about it, and not take advantage of the trapped person, but make their enemies go away, is worthy of their pay.
Which brings us back to tThe problem with lawyers, which is that they cost money.
But we are pay as you have needs, like a grocery store. We do not send out policemen to levy taxes all of the time like the Government Gang does.
I can assure you that when a lawyer has been paid a retainer , he earns the money or loses repeat business and reputation. But if he does the work first and then sends a bill 90% of the clients will never pay it.
Now who are the ethical ones in this relationship?
P.S. Guess what happens to the $200,000 of student loan money used to pay that tuition?
I'll tell you what happened to it in my case. First of all it was completely guaranteed by the government so the bank that lent it had zero risk of loss. The first few years after I graduated (during which I made about $15,000 to $20,000 per year doing temporary work), it was either deferred. And then it was put under IBR. IBR is a program whereby you make a tiny payment based on your salary ($0 in my case). My required payment was $2,500 a month, but I pay zero. After one month of this my bank, Citibank, took advantage of the government guaranty and transferred the loans to Sallie Mae in return for their full face amount. SO YOU TAXPAYER'S PAID OFF MY LOAN IN FULL.
With Sallie Mae I will continue to make the IBR payment (of zero), the balance grows with interest, but after 10 or 25 years the entire balance will be wiped out meaning the government will never the money they paid citibank when they guaranteed my loan, meaning the entire burden of this scam fell on the shoulders of you taxpayers. So to the "f*ck lawyers" crowd, it seems the JOKE'S ON YOU!
Granted, if I ever make decent money IBR will require me to pay off my loan, but we've already established that this is unlikely to ever happen.
Trad guy--agree that lawyers are like .45s--when you need one you need one bad--many lawyers who serve everyday citizens are totally necessary. Things like child custody, divorce and the problems of life all require competent legal counsel. The laws are too complex for laypersons to navigate.
Roger Wrote:
"Bravo to the posters who suggest that if you havent evaluated the prospects of future employment you probably should not have elected law school"
------------
I wrote a response to this but it keeps gettig deleted (I won't accuse anyone of censorship, perhaps it was a technical glitch.)
The problem is that students DO research career placement. They go to the school's website, which says that 99% of grads find employment within 9 months of graduation and those who choose to work in private firms earn a median of $160,000 per year.
The entire problem is that schools lie about what happens to their graduates. Law School Transparency was an organization created to rectify this problem. They developed a standard for disclosure and sent it to the schools. Do you know what happened? Every school rejected their proposal. Why would schools want to be honest about the misery that awaits their graduates? That would cut into their enrollment, tuition revenue and thus professor salaries.
Look, if Toyota published misleading information regarding the quality, safety and mileage of their cars you wouldn't blame the consumer for relying on it would you? Then why are you blaming law students for believing what their schools told them?
Roger Wrote:
"Bravo to the posters who suggest that if you havent evaluated the prospects of future employment you probably should not have elected law school"
The problem is that students DO research career placement. They go to the school's website, which says that 99% of grads find employment within 9 months of graduation and those who choose to work in private firms earn a median of $160,000 per year.
The entire problem is that schools lie about what happens to their graduates. Law School Transparency was an organization created to rectify this problem. They developed a standard for disclosure and sent it to the schools. Do you know what happened? Every school rejected their proposal. Why would schools want to be honest about the misery that awaits their graduates? That would cut into their enrollment, tuition revenue and thus professor salaries.
P.S. don't put the word Toyota in your comments because it causes them to be blocked. lol.
or not . . . I had a comment that I couldn't get posted until I took Toyota out of it, and then it posted. Perhaps it was actually the length that was the problem. any way I'm out.
One complaint about hyperbolic writing: in Campos's "outing" post, he speaks with certainty about how "law school costs have increased exponentially".
Here's an article discussing whether law school tuition has increased in exponential or linear fashion.
I don't really understand that article's opening observation that the ABA chart at the top makes the tuition increase "appear exponential". It looks linear, as the article eventually concludes it is. If the minimum time unit on the chart were several decades long, one might conclude that the trend is exponential, though these figures don't appear to be in real dollars, so even then, it seems unlikely.
Aren't lawyers supposed to seek exacting expressions of facts?
dlong handle person
I assume this is your point, then: Law schools simply misrepresent the facts about future employment prospects--That, I do not doubt, because what they want is tax subsidized tuition money. I am having a hard time understanding why prospective law students havent figured this out--(no personal offense intended)--perhaps if law students contracted with (a la professor Kingsfield) with their alma maters for future employment things might change? congtractual obligation might be a potential remedy
Bob Ellison: you may be making the erroneous assumption that lawyers are numerate--exponential vs linear--you say potatoes, I say potahtas (from the lawyers point of view)
Roger J.-- actually, my experience with lawyers has led me to believe that with some very notable exceptions, lawyers tend to be lousy with numbers. I'm just saying that if such an expression is an important part of the argument, one had better understand what the expression means. Lawyers tend to understand very well the differences between things like "murder" and "manslaughter", for example. If one of the pillars of an argument is about the rate of increase in tuition costs, that rate must be described accurately, lest the pillar crumble.
Has anyone paid any attention to the poor quality of scholarship that emanates from academe lately? There is little to recommend it as high school drop out commentary much less those who supposedly teach.
A Bachelor degree has lost so much value that it almost serves as a high school diploma and a Masters has lost a lot of its status.
I am not surprised that many in academe need to comment behind a false name.
Jay Retread,
Ann's compensation is precisely worth the value that somebody perceives it to be worth. That you are jealous of her salary speaks to your worth or lack thereof.
That said, I think lawyers are overpaid. They have an ethical quandry about making money in their profession. That is, lawyers primarily make overly complex laws and people have to pay them to interpret those laws.
Ethically, it's not unlike public sector employee unions, except lawyers can actually help you out if you run afoul of the system.
WV = "palig" does that have something to do with putting lipstick on a farm animal? Maybe it refers to Jay's assertions.
Bob: agree entirely--as an aside from my experience on lawyer heavy blogs such as volokh, I've never seen a lawyer on those blogs who didnt think he or she was the smartest guy in the room--a JD degree makes you a lawyer; it doesnt make you an expert on every other field. Perhaps the JD degree should disappear and bring back the LLB--
but I'd like to see the retirement age raised a bit; nobody should be retiring from education in his or her 50s and expecting a lifelong pension.
Do you not get that getting public employees out and into retirement at that age, encourages turnover - that younger employees take their place...at a lower salary?
You know, it just occured to me what a lame deal this is:
So you law professors have outed another of your kind for deception - not a surprise to anyone who doesn't already understand lawyers - most of us could give a shit. You're only concerned because he's one of yours. But when it comes to outing anything else, you guys are at a loss, instead posing "you can look at it this way or that" type scenarios.
When is The Law Professor Clique going to get some real balls and defend anyone other than themselves?
From what I hear, you guys are doing alright to begin with,...
Do you not get that getting public employees out and into retirement at that age, encourages turnover - that younger employees take their place...at a lower salary?
Are you suggesting that this saves money? You're still paying the person who retired, they're just not working for you anymore. Good thing public employee retirement plans aren't bankrupting multiple states...oh...
"younger employees take their place...at a lower salary"
But they collect pensions not earned or saved, but coerced from taxpayers, making those salary-plus-benefit packages excessive compared to the private sector, and not worth the turnover 'benefit' you describe.
It remains to be seen whether regulated turnover is any benefit at all to the society that pays for it, although clearly it benefits the recipients of state largesse
George Reeves was murdered--allegedly by studio head Eddie Mannix as payback for an affair with his wife, Toni. Mannix even said as much on his deathbed.
Reeves wasn't depressed according to everyone that knew him. He was set to marry Lenore Lemmon in three days and had extensive plans and arrangements for a Spanish honeymoon. He had movie work lined up and another season of Superman episodes at a big salary increase. The movie Hollywood Land is loosely based on the story.
I met a former LA cop who said that he and his partner were the responding detectives and they could see that it wasn't a suicide afer a few minutes in the room. They got a call from the Chief of Detectives who told them to collect as little evidence as possible. The next morning, a couple of "celebrity detectives" asked to take over the case and they gladly told them to have at it--wanting no part of any of this themselves.
Seven Machos, I continue to pay attention to Jay Retard because: a) I love the fact that he can't even properly spell his own last name, and; b) he's such a great example of the half-smart, half-educated type who seethes with righteous Marxist indignation that people he considers his inferiors in every way succeed in a competitive system while he has to live in his Mom's basement.
For a long time I thought he was mocking the pseudo-intellectual, disaffected self-proclaimed Marxists I knew in school who seemed to pride themselves for taking as many courses in 'Thought' and 'Studies' and such as possible while avoiding as much as possible any requiring rigor and thus being as ignorant as possible of the real world. That was pretty funny, I thought.
Then it dawned on me. This was real. He's not just pretending to be an ignorant Marxist douchebag, he *is* an ignorant, jealous, seething Marxist douchebag. And that's even funnier.
Jay Retread said... "Ann is offended that one of her colleagues is shining light on what she herself is doing. Ann is abusing the tenure system. She is sucking on the government teat and is flaunting the fact she does not do much work in return."
Assuming you are right about the worthlessness of my attempt at law professing, what else can I do that would be less teat-sucking? You realize that I am 60 years old and have taught for 25+ years. I have a vested pension. If I quit, I would do no work, and the pension fund would pay me for the rest of my (and Meade's) life.
"Outing yourself? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?"
He's about to be outed, so he's outing himself. It's like "You can't fire me. I quit!" Except there aren't 2 different words for that.
Talking about someone being too stupid to hold a certain profession reminds me of a story my wife told me. When she was in medical school, med students there (University of Miami, FL) were required to take a very difficult physics course. One of the students asked the professor why did they have to take physics in medical school. The professor replied with words to the effect that if you can not pass physics, you are too stupid to be a doctor and should not be trusted with the lives of patients.
"Ann, have you ever written anything about the increasing number of unsuccessful law school graduates? Do you think this is an important issue?"
I've blogged about it. I don't do scholarship about it. It's hardly my field of expertise.
"I'd like to hear Ann's views on the subject, if she's willing to give them. I imagine she won't have the same sort of "buyer beware" attitude many of her commenters do. She knows what first year law students are like. They are not lawyers and its ridiculous to hold them to that standard."
When someone asks me about whether they should go to law school, I am honest about it. It's not the guaranteed high-paying job that some people think... more in the past than today.
Compare 3 years of law school to the time and money you'd put into some other graduate program and compare the prospects. Think a PhD in political science or sociology is a better bet?
Unfortunately, it's difficult out there these days for all young people, but they have to do something. I'm extremely sympathetic to this pervasive problem that goes way beyond law school.
People who go to law school are adults, and they are making a decision about what is best for them. There shouldn't be any hiding of the facts upon which they base their decision, but the decision to go to law school is a good one for many people.
If you do go to law school, work hard and learn everything you can. Take the placement process seriously from the beginning. You'd be surprised how many law students drift through classes without reading assignments (that are often less than 20 pages long) and don't take advantage of the opportunity to hone their skills through classroom debate. I'm not present at the job interviews, but these things have to be done well. The opportunities are there, but they aren't easy.
I'm not trying to push the blame onto students there. I'm just saying: Know what you are getting into and fight for your place in the cramped job market. If you don't like that, don't waste the time and money going to law school
Ann, if you're blogging any more on this, and on perhaps the value of anonymous blogging, you'll want to see this: 'Carl Salonen Libelous Workplace Allegations of Child Pornography and Sexual Harassment at Long Beach City College'.
It is sometimes difficult for law professors to gauge student effort. People (and professors) used to mock me for not taking notes in Law School but hey that's what study groups and free riding are for. I was laser focused on the lectures and was bound to give a relevant response when called upon. I learn through human interaction and the Socratic method, not slavishly copying shit down. I discovered early on this made me a decent legal scholar and a terrible lawyer.
Thanks for the response Ann. I think what you've said is fair and I have no disagreement with any of it.
You asked in an update to this post, "who would care?" if Campos had begun this blog under his real name. The answer is the scambloggers and their audience. They care very much. They have been waiting a long time for law professors to speak publicly about this issue and lend some much needed credibility to the argument that the law schools themselves need to reform and cannot continue to blame the students. Blaming the students, quite bizarrely in my opinion, is just about everybody's first instinct. I know everybody hates lawyers, but these are law students and there is a big difference.
Campos is, I believe, the first law professor to really come out strongly on the side of the students. A few other law professors have made a few comments and observations here and there, but nothing like this before. He's the first to come out and admit that there is a serious problem and that law professors are not blameless. I think he deserves great credit for that and should enjoy some time in the spotlight.
I disagree. He got attention with the "Anonymous" tease, with an Inside Higher Ed article and lots of links and discussion. If it had just been Paul Campos's next diatribe, who would have cared?
A fair point. But there is a whole blogosphere subculture of law school scam blogs, and if Campos created a new blog on just that subject (not buried in his other blog) using his name from the beginning, he would probably still have gotten attention from at least those other blogs. Plus, there have been law professors, like Brian Tamanaha, who have gotten attention for writing pieces critical of the current law school system. However, I can see your point that starting this as an anonymous blog may have gotten him more mainstream attention than if he started with his own name from day one. Either way, I'd agree, now he's in it this far he may as well continue and write as much as he can on the topic and see if a book deal can come.
themightypuck said..."It is sometimes difficult for law professors to gauge student effort. People (and professors) used to mock me for not taking notes in Law School but hey that's what study groups and free riding are for. I was laser focused on the lectures and was bound to give a relevant response when called upon. I learn through human interaction and the Socratic method, not slavishly copying shit down. I discovered early on this made me a decent legal scholar and a terrible lawyer.'
I have often recommended this method. I've said, listen and participate and after class write a few sentences about what just happened. That would be effective in my view. If you transcribe everything, you'll probably find you have material that could be rewritten in a few sentences. The doctrine is better derived from the readings and written carefully and concisely before class. But some people write notes as their way of paying attention.
My statement about students not working hard enough to prepare and pay attention is not based on whether I see them taking notes. It's based on absenteeism and failure to participate, even when called on. There are students who will say "I didn't do the readings" or will struggle with the question in a way that strongly implies that they did not. And if I had $10 for every time a student, called on, has said "Could you repeat the question?" I could buy a new car.
I thought it was a student, because it had some bad writing and simplistic thinking.
correctio: I thought it was a law professor, lawyer or judge because it had some bad writing and simplistic thinking.
Campos puts on the PC-progressive schtick at times but like the rest of the blowhards at L.G.& M, he's not. His writing on Ward Churchill was garbage (not to say libellous). Whether one shares Professor Churchill's political views or not, he's a crusader for the freedom of expression.
Now, u go Smurfhousers
Gee, _I_ thought it was a professor, because it had some bad writing and simplistic thinking.
"People who go to law school are adults, and they are making a decision about what is best for them. There shouldn't be any hiding of the facts upon which they base their decision, but the decision to go to law school is a good one for many people."
hahaha
hahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm with you up until the last half of the last sentence. If your definition of many is 1/4 of the people who end up enrolling in law school, then yes, it's a "good" choice. But the truth is that for the vast majority of law graduates, the benefits are nowhere close to outweighing the costs. I suggest you spend some time with the students who graduated in the lower half of their class. Unless of course you live in a conceal and carry state.
Simply looking at a schools' employment statistics is not an adequate way to research job prospects in one's chosen profession. Its a very simple minded, immature, research method. An intelligent person would do far more comprehensive research before plunking down 100 grand on an education. Just glancing at a law school brochure or website is not true "research".
That said, these schools should quit telling lies and committing fraud. They are preying on the less intelligent, and that is bad ethics.
Post a Comment