Is Law School a Losing Game? (NY Times article)

[Jeffort]

Hmm, we must not have read the same article. Or, did you read the article at all? Wallerstein is the lead character in this narrative, and he is featured heavily:

  1st Page: He is the article lead, and is discussed in the first 5 paragraphs
  2nd page: He is in 7 more paragraphs
  3rd page: He is in 2 paragraphs, and 2 others are about Thomas Jefferson law where he went
  4th page: He is in 7 paragraphs
  5th page: He is in 4 paragraphs, and mentioned in others by name
  6th page: He is in 0 paragraphs, but the first 3 paragraphs are devoted to discussing the place where he now works
  7th page: He is in 6 of the 7 paragraphs, and closes the article

So, he featured more than just a little bit, and there is certainly far more about him than just a "few" juicy quotes. He is the lead and close of the article, and the glue that binds numerous other sections.

The point is that as a representative of this particular problem, Wallerstein is maybe the worst one they could have chosen. And, now the article features a correction indicating that Bohn, the other lawyer discussed, didn't get a Columbia law degree after all (he went to Florida), and that his debt came from undergrad, not law school. This isn't about killing the messenger; it's about showing how the featured person in this article really can't be seen as a representative of this problem at all.

I'll get to your Bar course comment in just a moment...

Even though Mr. W is the featured example/character in the story, that doesn't make him the main point of the article.  The bulk of the article and the main points it seeks to make are about the system, not about Mr. W himself.  He certainly is an extreme example and was likely chosen as the personal story 'glue' of the article because of that. 

I'm not really sure how one could rack up $250k in debt just for law school, but the article does not specify that it is all from LS related loans.  Perhaps he was chosen by the writer to help sensationalize the article a bit.  If he did in fact borrow $250k just for LS, then yeah, we should beat him with a wet noodle because he or anyone else would have to be well stoned and blowing $$$ on all sorts of non LS luxuries to burn through that amount over the time getting a J.D., and we should also beat up the entities that approved and funded such extreme debt.  However, I don't think "Let's gang up on Mr. W" was the point.  Even though his amount of debt is extreme and therefore not representative of the typical recent law grad, the main points of the article remain the same without his story.   

[Ashley O]

That's a slight change in tune--"Very little of the long article is about him; it only included a few (likely without full context) 'juicy' Wallerstein quotes" versus "Mr. W is the featured example/character in the story"--so I'll take that as a concession of my point about Mr. W's presence in the article.

Regardless, you seem to have adopted a significant portion of my commentary (namely that Mr. W is a bad example of the problem) without understanding that I was never arguing against the point that the law market has some issues. Wallerstein is simply a terrible example to use to portray the issue. So, that's not "kill the messenger" or "ganging up on Mr. W as the point" but rather a criticism of the author of the article (who clearly had other issues as well, given the correction made about Bohn's portion of the story).

Pointing out the problems with Wallerstein's account of his situation is fair game when he is being used as a representative example of what is wrong with the legal job market and law school system. Perhaps he was chosen in order to "sensationalize" the story, but choosing him as the main example undermined the quality of the article and the argument being made. I'd rather see an article featuring a Georgetown grad who was fiscally responsible who is having troubles now, not this guy's story.

Anyway, I'm out on this topic. No need to waste any more time on it. 

[Jeffort]

Taking out $15k in additional loans in order to study for, take (and hopefully pass) the bar exam is not extreme or unheard of At ALL!  To have a chance of getting a legal job and going into paid law practice you have to immediately prep for the bar exam right after graduating from LS.  Check out how much bar exam prep courses charge!  LSAT prep classes are pocket change in comparison.  The BarBri bar prep class for the CA bar exam is $3800 plus additional deposits and fees!!!  and the class/bar prep is a full time ~60-80 hr a week job in itself, leaving little time to be out earning a paycheck.    

I'm going to have to beg to differ, mainly because I think your math makes no fiscal sense. Let's say BarBri is $4k (and we'll set aside the fact that many people pay those deposit fees while in law school, often before their third year). Since Wallerstein claims to have borrowed $15k for bar preparation, that leaves him $11k for everything else in his life. Let's say he studied 2 months. That leaves him $11k to live on during those two months, or $5500 a month. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Mr. Wallerstein must have been living quite well if that was the case. Certainly better than any "student" I know. Even at 3 months of studying, he still had just under $3700 month free cash to spend. After room and board, there's still plenty for living well. The point is that Wallerstein treated his law school experience as if it was an open checking account, and now, somehow, he thinks he doesn't have to pay for it all. Sure, he can spend $15k on bar prep, but he didn't have to, and that's just one more reason he is a terrible example of the problems in the legal job market.

I didn't say it makes fiscal sense.  I was pointing out that having big expenses and incurring large amounts of additional debt after graduation in order to study for and pass the bar exam and to survive during the job seeking time is a common reality/necessary evil for many law grads.  Sure, as is his total debt level, $15k for bar prep time is high compared to what he could have survived on with responsible budgeting and spending (by cutting out those daily $5-6 a cup Starbucks drinks and various other wasteful expenses like going out to eat or whatever, for example), the point still remains.  After graduation you still need to keep getting and spending $$$ to make it to the bar exam and hopefully to getting hired by a firm in order to generate income from the J.D., which is very difficult these days for freshly minted lawyers, especially so for ones from LS's below tier 1.  

[Jeffort]

Perhaps he was chosen in order to "sensationalize" the story, but choosing him as the main example undermined the quality of the article and the argument being made. I'd rather see an article featuring a Georgetown grad who was fiscally responsible who is having troubles now, not this guy's story.

Actually, that was part of my perspective.  Just because the author used an extreme example does not mean that the truth and reality of the rest of the analysis and discussion is without merit in terms of what most LS students currently face.  I was bothered that the thread discussion was focusing on Mr. W rather than on the merits of the criticism of the system.

[Ashley O]

Go back and read what you wrote initially. You are changing your story faster than I care to follow.

[Jeffort]

Go back and read what you wrote initially. You are changing your story faster than I care to follow.

I did, several times and haven't changed my position.

I opened up with:

I think the focus on and harsh judgments against Mr. Wallerstein in this thread are misplaced.  Very little of the long article is about him; it only included a few (likely without full context) 'juicy' Wallerstein quotes.  Chastising him excessively and implying that maybe he should be locked up seems akin to shooting the messenger.

The article is an indictment of the current state of academic processes and legal profession systems that are in the business of 'manufacturing lawyers'.

Context Ashley.  I commented on the course of the thread discussion because most of the posts focused on Mr. W rather than on the question posed by the title of the article and its discussion of many relevant factors involved in seeking a legal career that aspiring lawyers have to face and navigate.  

Not my fault people that posted seem more interested in talking about and criticizing Mr. W and his apparently prodigal spending habits than in discussing the very real issues students contemplating a legal career face these days.  Do you disagree with that observation of mine?

Let me say it another way, the article IS NOT meant to be an expose about Mr. W, it is about whether or not seeking LS and a legal career is worth it.  I think focusing on talking about/lambasting Mr. W and pointing out that he is an extreme case (Based on the limited facts presented about him it is not even clear if his $250k in debt is purely LS related, perhaps much of it is from UG loans?) instead of discussing the pertinent issues in the article is misplaced focus that is being used in the discussion to ignore the overall message and point of THE ARTICLE, hence my fairly loose use of 'shoot the messenger'.  The messenger I was referring to is the ARTICLE, not Mr. W, get it?  Just because Mr. W does not appear to be a sympathetic example and was probably a bad choice of examples to use by the author, should we then disregard the important stuff in the article that all potential lawyers have to deal with?

BTW, this is a discussion board, not an argue and be adversarial board.  /just saying


So, how about the important issues?  With everything involved in the 'manufacturing lawyers' process, is it a losing game?  Is it worth the investment and taking the risks involved?  Should aspiring lawyers trust and rely on the stats and other information about legal career opportunities presented to them by the involved institutions when making important life changing decisions like taking out huge loans and dedicating years of ones life to get into LS, graduate from LS, and pass the bar in order to get a law job?

[Ashley O]

You bolding certain parts of your comments doesn't make your argument any more sound. And bolding and increasing font size looks like a desperate ploy, especially when you make sure not to bold the parts where you totally changed your tune. I'd still love to hear your explanation of how you can first claim Wallerstein is a minor part of the article and then later claim he was a featured example.

And please don't hide behind the statement that "BTW, this is a discussion board, not an argue and be adversarial board." It smacks of hypocrisy when you just spent a few paragraphs attacking me and being condescending ("Context Ashley").

As for your argument in your last post, the quality of the examples used does change the nature of the discussion. If I use an extreme and somewhat ridiculous example as the main component of my argument, my argument is weakened. That is what I have been saying all along. This is a NYT article, not some essay by a sophomore in college. The author tried to make a number of broad-based points using examples that are--and I'm being generous--weak. We are well within our rights to attack Wallerstein as a representative example, because that is what he is being passed off as. There are no doubt problems in the legal field, but this article isn't a fair portrayal of those issues.

[Jeffort]

You bolding certain parts of your comments doesn't make your argument any more sound. And bolding and increasing font size looks like a desperate ploy, especially when you make sure not to bold the parts where you totally changed your tune. I'd still love to hear your explanation of how you can first claim Wallerstein is a minor part of the article and then later claim he was a featured example.

And please don't hide behind the statement that "BTW, this is a discussion board, not an argue and be adversarial board." It smacks of hypocrisy when you just spent a few paragraphs attacking me and being condescending ("Context Ashley").

As for your argument in your last post, the quality of the examples used does change the nature of the discussion. If I use an extreme and somewhat ridiculous example as the main component of my argument, my argument is weakened. That is what I have been saying all along. This is a NYT article, not some essay by a sophomore in college. The author tried to make a number of broad-based points using examples that are--and I'm being generous--weak. We are well within our rights to attack Wallerstein as a representative example, because that is what he is being passed off as. There are no doubt problems in the legal field, but this article isn't a fair portrayal of those issues.

 

Nice try with the bait!  I give you +2 credit for that.   

Admiral Ackbar's "It's a trap!" scene

[Ashley O]

Nice work on avoiding the question!

[Jeffort]

Nice work on avoiding the question!

Thanks  

I figured that getting lunch, spending time reading through the mounds of substantive commentary/discussion all over the web about the article and relevant issues it presented that all aspiring lawyers face is more important than engaging in your petty nit picky (and somewhat hostile) focus on the construction of the article, Mr. W, and how I phrased my posts.  Mr. W being the featured/mentioned personal example of a law student with huge debt is not incompatible with him also being a minor part of the main points/focus of the article.

I'm not even sure what your questions are and believe you missed the boat with this.  I want to talk about the topic of the article but you seem to want to focus on the phrasing of my posts and on forming conclusions about me based on words and phrases I put in bold and/or enlarged the font size of.  Lot's of people all over the world are discussing the actual substance of the article intelligently instead of myopically focusing on criticizing Mr. W and/or the wording of individuals posting commentary about the main topic.

Check it out, tons of people are actually talking intelligently about the topic of the article!  (and yes, now I am being condescending and criticizing you, I wasn't before)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+Law+School+a+Losing+Game%3F

Once you click the link and get the google results, click the 'News' link on the upper left to get a giant list of down to the hour discussions about the topic of the article from sources all over the web.    

If you just want to antagonize me and criticize what I say and do, please at least go on a few dates and out to dinner with me first.  

[MEMEMEME]

Well, I asked if the ABA employment rates were skewed because they actually break it down something like this:

Clerkship
Private Practice
Government
Academia
etc.

So I was kind of curious how a school could skew that when grads are actually working at Applebee's. Yes, I realize that the article talked about the U.S. News employment rates. Can we discuss this instead?

Also, I think that besides the T14 schools that the overqualified applicants (please interpret "overqualified" that with a grain of salt) tend to pay less because they are more likely to succeed and thus, more "deserving." The people that are not pay the big bucks and it is at their own risk. It's like, "yeah, you will get a legal education if you really want it, but you gotta pay for the cream of crop to be here." Of course, the T14 schools, even at full fare, are less of a risk for obvious reasons. It might not be right, but people have to realize that if they have a low LSAT, etc. and they have to pay a full fare, odds are against them to make a solid profit from that investment and they better make sure they know what they're doing.

Also, what about IBR (income based repayment) of student loans? What do any of you think about that?

[Jeffort]

Well, I asked if the ABA employment rates were skewed because they actually break it down something like this:

Clerkship
Private Practice
Government
Academia
etc.

So I was kind of curious how a school could skew that when grads are actually working at Applebee's. Yes, I realize that the article talked about the U.S. News employment rates. Can we discuss this instead?

Also, I think that besides the T14 schools that the overqualified applicants (please interpret "overqualified" that with a grain of salt) tend to pay less because they are more likely to succeed and thus, more "deserving." The people that are not pay the big bucks and it is at their own risk. It's like, "yeah, you will get a legal education if you really want it, but you gotta pay for the cream of crop to be here." Of course, the T14 schools, even at full fare, are less of a risk for obvious reasons. It might not be right, but people have to realize that if they have a low LSAT, etc. and they have to pay a full fare, odds are against them to make a solid profit from that investment and they better make sure they know what they're doing.

Also, what about IBR (income based repayment) of student loans? What do any of you think about that?

RE:  the employed rates stats the ABA, US News and others get from the LS's.  The guy at US News that is their director of data research (Robert Morse) addressed that yesterday.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2011/01/13/us-news-challenges-aba-on-law-school-employment-data-standards.html

At the early January 2011 annual meeting of The Association of American Law Schools (AALS), I was similarly asked about the reliability of the law schools' employment statistics and why U.S. News doesn't do more to make sure the reported figures are accurate. It's clear that some law schools are being very aggressive in their reporting practices and are, in effect, gaming the rankings via their accreditation data. Currently, in our employment calculations, graduates who are working either full or part time in legal or non-legal jobs or pursuing graduate degrees are considered employed.

So yes, if you are waiting tables at Applebee's or working the McD's drive through window, your Alma mater LS gets to add one to the employed graduates column.

Robert Morse addressed some of the controversy about law school supplied employment data of graduates that US News, the ABA and other organizations use to calculate rankings and various other things, but mostly shifted blame for the sometimes deceptive stats back to the law schools.  I certainly would not want to be Mr. Morse these days and if I were him I wouldn't be telling people about being in charge of developing the data collection and ranking methodologies without having a 24/7 secret service style security detail for personal protection!  

[lawerguy12]

The cost of becoming a lawyer is the only thing detouring my brother from following in my father's footsteps. We have a few lawyers in our family, and really hoped he would become one.  He just doesn't want to be in dept and spend years paying off his student loans.  He is looking into some tax breaks or scholarships before he applies to law school.

[LawSchoolGuy]

The cost of becoming a lawyer is the only thing detouring my brother from following in my father's footsteps. We have a few lawyers in our family, and really hoped he would become one.  He just doesn't want to be in dept and spend years paying off his student loans.  He is looking into some tax breaks or scholarships before he applies to law school.

I don't think there will be many tax breaks, but he should definitely look not just into outside scholarships, but also school-specific scholarships and grants. Plenty of schools give merit-based aid based on GPA and LSAT combos, and there are a lot of schools that have many in-house scholarships based on very specific criteria like ethnic/racial background, potential area of specialization, or residency. He should start looking at schools and go to each of their financial aid websites to see what they've got. Some also offer reciprocity for some out of state students (meaning that they'll give in-state tuition to out of state students from specific states).

[Anne]

The cost of becoming a lawyer is the only thing detouring my brother from following in my father's footsteps. We have a few lawyers in our family, and really hoped he would become one.  He just doesn't want to be in dept and spend years paying off his student loans.  He is looking into some tax breaks or scholarships before he applies to law school.

I don't think there will be many tax breaks, but he should definitely look not just into outside scholarships, but also school-specific scholarships and grants. Plenty of schools give merit-based aid based on GPA and LSAT combos, and there are a lot of schools that have many in-house scholarships based on very specific criteria like ethnic/racial background, potential area of specialization, or residency. He should start looking at schools and go to each of their financial aid websites to see what they've got. Some also offer reciprocity for some out of state students (meaning that they'll give in-state tuition to out of state students from specific states).

Just to piggyback off what LSG was saying, I don't know what kind of law your brother is looking to practice, but he should also look into loan repayment assistance programs (LRAPs). If he's thinking about going into public interest or public service, those programs are exceptional.

Also, here's a list of law school finaid offices (with links!): http://powerscore.com/lsat/admissions/content_financialaid.cfm