|
Every time somebody complains about the ABA, somebody else says that it was ruled that the ABA can't remove accreditation from schools as we want them to and they have their hands tied. Somebody just post a link to this already so I can read about it.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Every time somebody complains about the ABA, somebody else says that it was ruled that the ABA can't remove accreditation from schools as we want them to and they have their hands tied. Somebody just post a link to this already so I can read about it. This does not satisfy me in the slightest. While I haven't even read this information yet it already sounds as much of a lame and shoddy excuse as Obama's stuff on DADT. Excuses Excuses Excuses. This organization is failing. Utterly failing. I am all about the rule of law but this stuff honestly calls for the most brutal creative destruction as far as the law will allow. For my trivial part I intend on bolstering out Wikipedia's page on "criticism of the ABA" with links and factual information in the next few days that tries to convey accurately how much of a failure it currently is and I am thinking about writing a few letters to express the same sentiments to the ABA. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 05:43
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Every time somebody complains about the ABA, somebody else says that it was ruled that the ABA can't remove accreditation from schools as we want them to and they have their hands tied. Somebody just post a link to this already so I can read about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 05:45
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:Every time somebody complains about the ABA, somebody else says that it was ruled that the ABA can't remove accreditation from schools as we want them to and they have their hands tied. Somebody just post a link to this already so I can read about it. http://www.antitrustupdate.com/Cases/FullText/CF-USvABA.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 05:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:http://www.antitrustupdate.com/Cases/FullText/CF-USvABA.html I noted this to read later tonight. If someone could give a cliffnotes version of the current situation that would be greatly appreciated in the interim. To put in bluntly: What barriers stand in the way of removing / de-crediting some of these schools? Or atleast getting a stop-hold on accrediting anymore? Organizations and entities tend to further their own existence. Grow. Its a difficult process to tear down a wall that you have put up. Sometimes organizations grow for good but now the legal education sector seems to be growing/grown like a cancer. It seems we are right on the last verges of "Self-preservation" and "sovereignty" defences/excuses when it comes to the harsh realities that seem to be demanded by the facts: Some of these schools need to close their doors if not atleast no more schools will be accreddited. It seems like it would be for the huge good of the legal profession and legal education, the good of legal students, the good the legal profession as it operates in society at large and societies perception of it. I would argue strongly the ABA's own stated goals and mission support this end. Having said this, what will the law allow us to do to this end?. Creative destruction is needed. Badly. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 05:59
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:What barriers stand in the way of removing / de-crediting some of these schools? At this point, it would take a congressional act exempting the ABA from anti-trust laws. While there is occasionally some talk about doing this, there isn't really a lobby effort in place to make it happen. Which is no surprise, because I can't think of a single organized group with a lobby arm that would directly benefit from such an exemption. I can think of plenty of organized groups (state bars, the ABA itself) that both benefit from more law schools and more aspiring lawyers and have the resources to effectively lobby congress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:At this point, it would take a congressional act exempting the ABA from anti-trust laws. While there is occasionally some talk about doing this, there isn't really a lobby effort in place to make it happen. Which is no surprise, because I can't think of a single organized group with a lobby arm that would directly benefit from such an exemption. I can think of plenty of organized groups (state bars, the ABA itself) that both benefit from more law schools and more aspiring lawyers and have the resources to effectively lobby congress. Well, as long as we are still talking about the ABA representing nothing but itself to the seeming detriment of its own stated goals and mission then okay then ~_~. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 06:16
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Well, as long as we are still talking about the ABA representing nothing but itself to the seeming detriment of its own stated goals and mission then okay then ~_~. To make my earlier joke clearer since you're not American: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." It is a basic antitrust violation to restrict the number of law schools to drive up lawyer salaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 06:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:To make my earlier joke clearer since you're not American: I am an American and a citizen btw, born in GA and lived there until I was 8. Have visited back frequently with family since. I was last in the USA earlier this year for a period of several months. I study Law in New Zealand but at various times I have considered/lamented about studying Law in the USA post-grad or something. I understand antitrust. I don't think it would be illegal for the ABA to atleast express and articulate the problem we have now clearly instead of the jerk-off president saying "Hurrr, should have researched more (Pretty much meaning avoiding all career services information put out by law schools and the ABA) before you got into our currently lovely scheme". It wouldn't be restraining to say "this shouldn't happen and the facts demand it doesn't, but its not like we can stop you". I would argue again, if the ABA really had any interest in its stated goal and mission it would tell any new school that wanted to be accredited "This is a loving terrible idea" and pretty much state at its conference that there are too many schools and the quality of education/the perception of proffession/ the status of the profession is suffering immensely. Hell, every new school that opened up should be publicly marked as a terrible idea to get involved in by the ABA. As a way to earn a liveable income it should be seen as crackpot as forms of homeopathy are to cure cancer. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what we need is some sort of agreement to restrain the trade in legal education but what about those small dealers and worthy men who will end up on the government bread line if they can't teach at Cooley?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
You know honestly I am not just angry about the prospect of lovely incomes or something. Its not about trying to force some sort of backdoor-antitrust stuff to cut out schools just so I personally might have some sort of better chance at getting a swanker job if I studied law in the USA or something. I think the current problem honestly does an enormous dis-service to the profession at large and a whole generation of kids with earnest intentions to study law. It gets to the point now where many laugh at those kids who want to be public interest types as 'special snowflake pandas' destined to be destitute and the legal education sector seems like a brutal destroying grinder destined to churn out uber-insecure competitive types that who only know how to rise above the pack because thats pretty much what they must do constantly. I have a sense of humour about this (Im helping make a video skit for our wee law revue down here at the most southern Law School in the world on this topic ;D) but at the same time its pretty absurd and tragic. Well. Life is like that anyways I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Hell, every new school that opened up should be publicly marked as a terrible idea to get involved in by the ABA. As a way to earn a liveable income it should be seen as crackpot as forms of homeopathy are to cure cancer. That would be...unwise. Antitrust law has been dealing with people trying to evade it for a very long time and given the ABA is already under a consent decree, they wouldn't get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 07:19
|
|
|
I have a question for you lawyers and law school cadets. I've been coming across a hell of a lot of talk about how bad law school is, and how bad of a decision it is to get into it. Obviously, you can find some of that in the OP of this thread. Not to rant on about it, but I've seen it everywhere from people I've met on vacation who have talked about how much they hated their choice to go into law school, to facebook walls, to people I went to school with, to youtube videos, etc. The THING is, I don't ever remember hearing this kind of sentiment until the last couple of years in my life. For example, I can remember talking to a high school guidance counselor about being a lawyer, and never hearing the truth that most people prefer to be castrated instead. Obviously a high school guidance counselor is probably someone who couldn't do much more in life than be a high school counselor, but this train of thought picked my curiosity--is the climate out there for lawyers just really bad or something, like recently? Or is this just some kind of funky trend? Or have way too many people been going to law school in the last 10 years? What gives? Or have people always been so vocal in discouraging people from law schoo, and I just haven't noticed it until now (this is probably the case)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
anonexpedient posted:I have a question for you lawyers and law school cadets. I've been coming across a hell of a lot of talk about how bad law school is, and how bad of a decision it is to get into it. Obviously, you can find some of that in the OP of this thread. I would posit its a mixture of things. 1.Its definitely a developing thing, the legal education market has been growing and becoming bloated for some while before the labor market issues re the recession. 2.I would characterize it as a generational issue as well. For Baby-boomers and people before us going to Law School was seemingly more difficult for a number of reasons and there seems to have been a relatively strong parity between supply and demand for legal services. Going to Law school in my parents day was an almost bona fide prestigious way to make a living. There is an element of false-optimism that has staved off such sentiment for a long time following this generational gap. I honestly really don't like the idea of having to tell some kid at high school/university that is interested in law school DIE ALONE NO JOBS PLEASE THINK HARD ABOUT THIS but its becoming severely evident that this needs to happen for the persons own best interests. Im not telling people what to think, Im just trying to cry havoc please consider these facts before you go ahead with your decision. For far too long there has been an attitude of "Meh, don't listen to the naysayers, just pursue what you want!" when it really should be "There are serious factual economic things you should consider. Don't let emotional stuff about prestige or being a 'lawyer type' cloud your judgement. In fact, if things go astray, you may be in huge debt and just seemingly wasted a significant amount of time when you could be doing other things/studying other things. Also you might be depressed and an alcoholic. 3.Mostly what I and others are angry about what is disingenious or at minimum severely incompetent advice/information given by career services, law Schools themselves and the ABA about the nature and quality of a law degree in the labor market. See this for information on this topic in particular: http://lawschoolscam.blogspot.com/ The legal proffesion, especially the ABA has been operating like a business rather than an organization with supposed goals and mandate to improve legal education and look after the interests of its members. Refer back to my previous post containing the ABA's stated goals and mission: the poo poo they have been upto seems to conflict directly with that. Instead of being captain of the ship and protecting the boat its like the rear end in a top hat president is sitting in the top deck eating a nice lunch and saying "tough poo poo" that the boat is loving up. Complete failure. Probably the biggest lie I think is "A Law Degree (in the form of a JD) will help you almost anywhere/has a diversity of benefits even if you don't pursue being a lawyer!" when in reality people are literally taking their JD of their resumes because employers see those applicants as being over-qualified or over-specialized for the job. Who wants to hire someone who is overqualified and would likely leave you at the first chance at a 'legal job'. Too many people think that law school is a 'safe bet' or 'money in the bag' when it simply isn't so. This false perception has been fueled by the legal education market itself who must start to be held accountable. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
anonexpedient posted:I have a question for you lawyers and law school cadets. I've been coming across a hell of a lot of talk about how bad law school is, and how bad of a decision it is to get into it. Obviously, you can find some of that in the OP of this thread. The environment turned bad, slowly, recently. I am partnered with guys who started their careers in the early 1980's, and they were able to build lucrative practices from networking with their neighbors. I have been trying to follow their path for the last 12 years, but my neighbors are loving broke. Regular people used to have some money to pay lawyers, now nobody does and there are a million lawyers. 30 years ago, a law degree was a license to print money. The national conciousness adopted that view. The money has been squeezed out of the profession since, but it takes time for the truth to be adopted as common knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 10:44
|
|
|
anonexpedient posted:Or have people always been so vocal in discouraging people from law schoo, and I just haven't noticed it until now (this is probably the case)?  It's not just the law school, it's the massive debt you can go into in order to get it Linguica fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 13:11
|
|
|
I mean, Im kinda joking, but if there was anything that really demanded some sort of Tea-party esque activism this poo poo would seem to call for it. A state-of-mind flurry of anger might actually good too because its easily actioned on by the body public: Don't go to Law School you undergrads! *Burns a pinyata pig named the ABA * *Builds a styrofoam box with a sign saying "Accredited Law School coming to you soon courtesy of the ABA!*. Freaking disrupt some ABA townhall meetings or something. Linguica posted:Besides the other reasons stated, there's also stuff like this Am I just mistaking correlation for causation or does it seem that Reaganomics seems to be at the root of the current problem we have now. I swear dig up that man and put him on trial. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:07
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:I swear dig up that man and put him on trial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:To make my earlier joke clearer since you're not American: I know I'm being lazy, and I could look this up, but how do law schools differ from med schools? Why are med schools able to control their numbers? Revolver fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Linguica posted:Are cadaver synods part of the common law? It seems like something we could find in deep Anglo-Saxon precedent. Im talking back to Alfreds Dooms or something. If not we create a new action. It is the traditional precedent of the common law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Reaganomics is the root cause of every problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 14:23
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:I know I'm being lazy, and I could look this up, but how do law schools differ from med schools? Why are med schools able to control their numbers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Vote GOP so that they can work closely with the Chamber of Commerce and create jobs for us* *doc review in India
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 15:10
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:I know I'm being lazy, and I could look this up, but how do law schools differ from med schools? Why are med schools able to control their numbers? The fact that med schools have traditionally required a certain undergraduate background means that, unlike law school, people generally can't decide to go to med school because they are just out of other ideas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 15:16
|
|
|
Napoleon I posted:but what about those small dealers and worthy men who will end up on the government bread line if they can't teach at Cooley? you make the mistake in thinking that it's the arse end of the "official" ranking scale that needs to be shut down
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
The ABA, although it claims to represent the legal profession as a whole, realistically only serves the interests of big firm lawyers. They are the ones who find the time to put in to the volunteer side of things, and it is big firms who pay the ~400 dollar yearly dues (in addition to money for "section" memberships) for each of their attorneys to be members. So what you get when your organization is comprised of the oligarchy of the profession is narrow and unrealistic viewpoints such as the one you quoted from past president Carolyn Lamm (who was widely disliked even within the organization, I might add). It is the equivalent of the white middle-class "Tea Partier" who has had every advantage who cannot understand why poor people don't just bootstrap themselves into riches. They fail to see how times and circumstances are different. In that regard though, I think the Young Lawyers Division and the Law Student Division at the ABA have been doing some good work toward what I would say are the ideals of this and other internet communities of disgruntled lawyers and law students. Very recently I read some internal communications regarding resolutions presented to the ABA Board of Governors from the Young Lawyers Division w/r/t asking the ABA to take some very tough stances on making changes to the way law schools advertise and report job statistics, for example. The ABA is a huge bureaucracy, and one that exists currently to protect the interests of big firm attorneys in general. For that reason, you haven't seen a lot of action/response on the "holy poo poo the sky is falling for law students" front because it doesn't have any noticeable effect on the current people who make the policy decisions. There has been an attempt to shift away from that in the recent past, but like any huge stodgy organization it takes time; and the ABA realized the need for changes too late. So while the antitrust decision hampers things a bit, realize that there are a lot of other things standing in the way; not the least of which is a membership base at the ABA that has a "gently caress you, got mine" attitude towards the current law school feeding frenzy. Defleshed fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That would be...unwise. Antitrust law has been dealing with people trying to evade it for a very long time and given the ABA is already under a consent decree, they wouldn't get away with it. State bars could also make their bars harder. A lot of states have 90+% pass rates. It is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:11
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:Very recently I read some internal communications Hey man, not that you're in a highly sensitive job, but you may want to be a little careful with your disclosures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
Some kid at our school has resorted to stealing books from the library and selling them online to pay off his law school debt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irFRKLae20M
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
entris posted:Hey man, not that you're in a highly sensitive job, but you may want to be a little careful with your disclosures. The resolutions to which I refer, like all ABA governance decisions, are public knowledge. Here: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_weighs_required_disclosure_of_law_school_job_stats_more_rigorous_report/ I'm smart enough to not do anything to endanger my phoney-baloney job. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, but they could significantly tighten standards. There is a problem with lovely law schools, being, well lovely. This is what ABA accreditation is meant to prevent. It doesn't do that right now. If states made their bars more difficult, it would reduce the supply of lawyers some (or at least delay when they enter the market; surely the percentage of people who NEVER pass the bar despite multiple tries is pretty small), but more individuals would still be hosed out of all of their tuition money. I definitely agree that making bars harder would help from the supply side of things, but it seems as though that would only worsen the problem of people getting into debt that they will never realistically be able to pay back. Disregarding the fact that it has very little incentive to do so, could the ABA force law schools to make admissions standards much higher? If it legally cannot reduce the number of law schools, it could reduce the supply of lawyer by making it tougher to get in. Schools would probably have to be forced to close without being mandated to do so. E: Oops, I may have just repeated what you said in the first part of your post. Did you mean the standards that the law schools are held to or the standards that incoming students are held to? Both should be tightened; I agree with you either way.
Dr. Mantis Toboggan fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:47
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I'm smart enough to not do anything to endanger my phoney-baloney job. I know, I know. I was specifically referring to your phrase "internal communications" which rang a small warning bell in my head. But's probably because I work with someone who has experience as an employment law advisor for employers, so I'm probably extra sensitive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
Couldn't the state supreme courts just establish the heightened requirements and then reject 90% of the schools? I always thought it was the courts that granted the rights of audience, and the ABA was just a bunch of dickheads who sat around making brochures. Couldn't the state courts simply require that schools provide on the job training every semester, and maintain a faculty consisting entirely of professors with a minimum of a decade or so professional experience as a practising lawyer? That would immediately wipe out a large number of toilet schools such as the t14s/t1s, and ensure that students actually know what a courtroom looks like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:I'm just wondering, are you still #1 in your class at MSU (or did I remember that completely incorrectly)? If you are I think it should be noted more so that potential law stupids don't just write you off as another schlub at a TTT from whom they don't need to learn. Yeah, still number one, all A's except for a B+ in a one-credit microeconomics for lawyers class. Multiple book awards, law review, president of a student org, TA and RA jobs for multiple professors, paid law clerk experience, won a writing contest, got a national grant to write content for a legal website. ZERO interviews from federal clerkships, ONE state supreme interview so far. 15 initial firm interviews, 7 callbacks, 1 second callback, no summer associate job. For reference to any 0Ls out there, if I'm really lucky I MIGHT get a job with the Michigan Court of Appeals that pays 49k a year and has a 3-year time limit. MIGHT. People with 3.75s from my poo poo school weren't even getting interviews for the job. I've worked my rear end off and the reward, if I'm really lucky, will probably be about on par with what I'd make as a radiology tech or a mig welder. blar posted:It's not done on the same day. You have to pass the online assessment in order to qualify as a "semi-finalist" which is the in-person presentation. After that you go to the job fair. Yeah I knew the online wasn't done the same day as the in-person, I just meant that the in-person part appears to be composed of many parts. It's fun to think you could do all this work and not get the job though, that's cheering. MSU has had about 1 person a year get a PMF the last 5 years or so, so that's something. J Miracle fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Oct 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
Shang Yang posted:Couldn't the state supreme courts just establish the heightened requirements and then reject 90% of the schools? I always thought it was the courts that granted the rights of audience, and the ABA was just a bunch of dickheads who sat around making brochures. Couldn't the state courts simply require that schools provide on the job training every semester, and maintain a faculty consisting entirely of professors with a minimum of a decade or so professional experience as a practising lawyer? That would immediately wipe out a large number of toilet schools such as the t14s/t1s, and ensure that students actually know what a courtroom looks like. Grumblefish! Welcome back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
I personally just think that an easy solution is to make all schools guarantee their student loans. Suddenly there would be a lot more interest by schools in the employability and the debt burden of their graduates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Yeah, still number one, all A's except for a B+ in a one-credit microeconomics for lawyers class. Multiple book awards, law review, president of a student org, TA and RA jobs for multiple professors, paid law clerk experience, won a writing contest, got a national grant to write content for a legal website. Did you try applying here? It pays better than 49k, the work/location is great, and your credentials sound pretty impressive. This is a pretty prestigious office, if your school ranks less than 20 or so then you need not apply 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
My school currently ranks less than 100 thanks anyway...it actually is decent as far as profs and education and stuff goes, really. Just not so much with the whole, you know, graduating and getting a job thing. Just out of a morbid desire to rack up as many rejections as possible, where is the "here" you refer to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 18:20
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
J Miracle posted:My school currently ranks less than 100 thanks anyway...it actually is decent as far as profs and education and stuff goes, really. uhhh, wouldn't that be ranks more than a hundred, hence more than 20? Your school'ss rank is good enough, get in your application. It's those other people down at the bottom of the barrel who'll have a tough time. quote:Just out of a morbid desire to rack up as many rejections as possible, where is the "here" you refer to? cc state atty office, so prestigious those hartford yaellers and camford boys can't get in
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2010 18:27
|
|