His latest entry, entitled "Another Perspective," is a step in the wrong direction in that it diminishes the impact of the author's previous claims. In this post, the author allows another individual to reclaim the glory of the professoriat. The good that comes from this post is that it reveals the petty viciousness of the beasts who operate these institutions. It is entirely possible that the blog is a hoax, but the reaction from the privileged and parasitic sections of this profession illustrate what we are up against.
I quote from "Brian Leiter's Law School Reports":
It was obvious to me after reading the blog, with its reckless and inaccurate generalizations (cf. Paul Horwitz's commentary), since the author has written in this vein under his own name in the past. And the clues as to his identity the author provided--the number of years in teaching, best law school in his state, a "tier 1" law school, etc., as well as the interview he gave--just confirmed that impression. Since he teaches at a state law school, and in a state that has shown it is willing to fire tenured faculty under the right circumstances, I am somewhat amazed he would do this, since the blog is tantamount to an admission that he is not really doing his job and doesn't deserve his salary . . . . More seriously, when his identity becomes public, as seems inevitable given how poorly he has disguised it, he will have humiliated his colleagues and his school, neither of which deserve his latest exercise in seeking the limelight. I hope he has the good sense to just delete the whole thing before he makes things worse.This author then goes on to praise the latest "Inside the Law School Scam" entry:
I'm glad to see he's already starting to back-pedal on some of his irresponsible rhetoric, perhaps because, as I know from my e-mail, some of his colleagues already suspect he's behind it.Even if the guy removes his blog, we already know that students are being bled dry for no good reason. The nasty language directed at him is utterly useless.
Unless he's going to say what is actually right, then I've got no sympathy for him. Yes, the legal academia is ruthless and they're to blame, but this guy is too.
ReplyDeleteBrian Leiter is correct. All members of the glorious and benevolent executive committee of the American Association of Law Schools must rightfully denounce the revisionist Inside the Law School Scam. The author of the blog must attend a self-criticism session held before American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar confess to his crimes against legal education. He will then be exiled to document delivery temp jobs for then next five years. Only then will the AALS determine if he's is sufficiently remorseful and rehabilitated.
ReplyDeleteHis newest post doesn't show any signs of backing down -- quite the opposite.
ReplyDeleteDUH ? So he's covering his ass by qualifiers. What did you expect? It does help that your blog's message is echoed by a law professor. What amazes me is that 40 years after I entered law school the truth finally surfaces. Yes, it was less expensive back in 1971, but law school was still a scam back then. I ended up a fed, where a GS-15 with a high school education got exactly the same salary as a GS-15 lawyer.
ReplyDeleteLaw school prospects have always been intertwined with familial connections and money. I was incredibly lucky that my civil rights work included lecturing prison guards and one of them became an SES who hired me. Otherwise I'd still be at the carwash job I got after law school graduation.
The wiser ones said of the housing market back in 2007 that "it wasn't just subprime anymore."
ReplyDeleteMore and more, it's becoming apparent that the student loan fiasco isn't just law school anymore. Thanks to blogs like yours, you've made a lot of noise. And now the chickens are home to roose for other graduate programs.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/18/have-b-schools-become-debtors-prisons/
The pigs have come out in full force, as we all knew they would. The "professors" KNOW the following: (a) that they are not adequately preparing students to practice law; (b) that law schools are cash cows; (c) that they are mostly failed attorneys who ran to the safe confines of academia; (d) that NOTHING justifies charging law students $36,850 per year - for a third tier commode; (e) that the legal job market is shrinking thanks to state legislatures opening to practice to non-lawyers, ABA decisions such as ABA "Ethics" Opinion 08-451, and advances in software and technology; (f) that recent JDs are taking on crushing amounts of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt; and (g) that they, as "professors," have cushy-ass jobs.
ReplyDeleteIn the final analysis, these cockroaches DO NOT want to return to the "noble profession" of law. In fact, they would rather anything than work as attorneys again.
It's extremely important that we vote for Ron Paul in 2012 because current economic policies divert all capital from Wall Street and away from Main Street.
ReplyDeleteTo get a fresh (and I believe more accurate) perspective on politics, check out infowars.com
Law school isn't the only scam...Obama, Perry and Romney are all scams,too.
(Yes I am an unemployed graduate of a 1st tier law school).
RON PAUL 2012
I don't think Ron Paul is the answer.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Ron Paul is the answer.
ReplyDelete@Knut: I think Ron Paul IS the answer, if you like freedom. He wants to end the wars, end the bailouts, and reign in or end the Fed. If that's not "an" answer, perhaps not "the" answer, I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul predicted everything: the housing crisis, the fact that the bailouts wouldn't do anything for the real economy, etc. He is a very, very smart man, much smarter than you know who.
Unfortunately most law students and lawyers are liberal, even as those liberal (read: social welfare) policies have and always will drive economies and livelihoods into the ground. Compare Michigan to Taiwan over the last 30 years and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Who do you think the answer is? Obama? Anyone but the most delusional know that Obama is a tool of Wall Street.
In fact I will wager that there's not a single person that has any actual factual or logical basis about why Ron Paul is not the best candidate in the CURRENT FIELD.
ReplyDeleteIf Bernie Sanders was actually running, he would be a close second. I will debate you, Knut, on this point and I don't think you will be able to win based on facts or logic. Based on impulse or denial, perhaps.
I would like to hear your rebuttal (an actual factual rebuttal, not an emotional, hype-filled milieu).
PLEASE DON'T TELL ME YOU'LL VOTE FOR OBAMA!! IF YOU DO, YOU'LL DISCREDIT THIS WHOLE BLOG!!
Obama has done more damage to the economy and the legal profession than any President in U.S. history.
I think Ron Paul is the answer. Picketing law schools with signs giving date of graduation, amount of debt, current salary if any, and amount of loan payment might help, and a bit of dramatization with chains and manacles might not hurt. The best time to do this is about the time that prospective students are coming to check the place out, and then after first year first semester grades come out...
ReplyDeleteRon Paul says some refreshing things. Yes, he opposed the wars and the bailouts. However, I fear his extreme right wing program would, if implemented, resemble the "shock therapy" that plagued Russia during the Yeltsin/Gaidar years.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama is our Gorbachev, a weak and perhaps well-meaning figure of the establishment who inherits deep structural problems from his predecessor and presides over further economic decay and national decline, then Ron Paul, if elected, would be our Yeltsin.
Tell me I'm wrong and that "shock therapy" would work wonders for America instead of bolstering the position of the very few while impoverishing the rest.
Ron Paul talks freedom, but he opposes freedom for women, and that's the bigger half of the human race. His opposition to the Civil Rights Act is based on the theory that shopkeepers should be able to summon the police to eject selected peaceful customers who wish to transact business on the same basis as every other customer, which is surely a massive abuse of State power.
ReplyDeletePaul's foreign policy in many respects fine but his ignorance of economics is amazing; just today he denounced FEMA on the grounds that the states could do the job just as well. Only someone who is bad at math could make such a statement. Fortunately his chances of becoming President are the same as Michelle Bachmann's; unfortunately the corporatist/statist who will win the GOP nomination will have unlimited funds with which to crush the moderate conservative who won in 2008.
First I want to address rewinn, but more importantly: Knut, I started writing a reply to your post Ron Paul & economics but realized that if I were to just post a comment, this would not be as effective in terms of being able to communicate than if I was to write a "guest post" on your blog. Mainly, I want the post to more organized, I want to insert some pictures and the like to illustrate my point, and I just couldn't do that by posting a comment.
ReplyDeleteTherefore let me know if you will let me do this. I think it's extremely important for Americans to understand what is going on with this country because I think most don't. Knut I hope you will permit me to do this. Soon you will be getting an email from "anonymousmcgee123@yahoo.com". Just reply to my email and tell me how I can submit my "guest post". I think it will be worth your while to read and you will also enjoy it. It will be apolitical and a purely economic post, but it will tie in some of Ron Paul's vs. current economic policy; not for political reasons, but for economic reasons.
As to rewinn: most of the issues that you raised are collateral to Ron Paul's message; they are not central issues and sound more like Rachel Maddow soundbites. I will just address the FEMA thing. Ron Paul is absolutely right about FEMA.
I won't really go into it because like I said it's a collateral issue but basically: (1) many of the floods/disasters etc. occur in areas where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT subsidizes flood insurance. I.e. w/o those subsidies, NO ONE would live in those areas because the costs of insurance would be too high. So the taxpayer (1) has to pay for others' flood insurance; (2) then has to pay FEMA salaries, for FEMA to clean up the mess etc. Second FEMA is largely ineffective (as all beuracracies are) as can be seen by their response (or lack of) to Katrina etc. Third there are rumors that FEMA is being set up like a Trojan horse; a federal police force if you will.
I would just like to leave you with this quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788
And I would just like to add regarding rewinn's comment...I don't know if it's intentional, but the way you phrased your comment was highly misleading. It's almost an outright lie.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all - I am a man and I am offended to hear you say that women are somehow more essential or more important than men ("bigger half"). Not only is that phrase an oxymoron, it is also inaccurate and like I said, highly offensive to me as a man. Without men, there wouldn't be a human race.
Second "opposes freedom for women"? Where do you get this from? RP opposes abortions (which I don't) but I don't know how you equate abortions with "freedom".
Last and most important. Like I said, I don't care about Democratic/Republican or even about liberal/conservative.
My most important concern is: a GOOD ECONOMY. I don't want to be a legal aid lawyer, OK? I want to MAKE MONEY. That used to be the American dream and why immigrants came to this country. That's right...they didn't come here to help poor people because they WERE POOR. And they wanted to be RICH.
Now it's also highly misleading and deceptive for you to focus on the issues that you did and ignore the most fundamental issues facing this country, namely:
* that the U.S. is currently in 5 or more WARS;
* that the people in charge have been dead wrong about the economy, and have repeatedly told the American people things about the economy that weren't true (i.e. "bailing out the banks will improve the economy"; i.e.2. "the economy will be better by now, etc.").
Anecdotally, Ron Paul predicted that bailouts would do nothing for the real economy AND he is the ONLY CANDIDATE even TALKING about ending the wars. And you say that he is "ignorant" of economics? If RP is "ignorant" even though he's been right time and again, who's knowledgeable? Bernanke? Obama? Paulson? Warren Buffett? These guys have been nothing but wrong time and again.
Now like I said I don't care if the tooth fairy gets elected, as long as the tooth fairy makes this a normal country again, instead of a crony capitalist war machine.
-anamymousmcgee123
'Obama has done more damage to the economy and the legal profession than any President in U.S. history.'
ReplyDeleteI'm not particularly political and I suspect that goes for most of us here, but I have to call MASSIVE BS on that statement. While I'm not much of a fan of Obama (and there's a good deal that interests me about Ron Paul), the fact of the matter is that Obama inherited by far the worst mess of any US President since FDR or Lincoln from George W. Bush, both economic and military. What the hell is he supposed to do, wave a damn magic wand to solve it? It's gonna take decades for the US to climb out of this swamp if the country ever does. Obama at the very least was able to get Congress to pass a bill in 2010 that weakens the power of Sallie Mae (somewhat), limits interest increases and does boost opportunities for IBR. Not nearly enough but at least a step in the right direction.
The US policies causing all this misery for us, including the ridiculous tuition levels, interest rates and non-dischargeability of student loans (courtesy of the 2005 banking bill and it's predecessors), are courtesy of a broken and extremely corrupt political system that allows the richest and most corrupt interests to give enormous sums of money to campaigns, to buy politicians and policy. So the already super-rich and privileged are given even more power to drain the rest of us dry.
Take a look at Al Lord and other leading figures within Sallie Mae and the other corrupt student loan lenders, they work far less hard than a maid or fruit-picker in a field, and they contribute nothing at all productive to society. In fact they make it even worse (like many health insurers who charge ever-increasing, unaffordable rates for their garbage insurance and then refuse to pay for medical stays that themselves have ridiculously inflated prices). Yet it's these people who are the most richly-rewarded in our society, and because of the system's inherent corruption, these are the people who have the power, which they use to distract the 99% of Americans who aren't super-rich and turn us against each other. And most of the politicians backing these corrupt, crippling policies (especially for the country's youth) are Republicans.
There are obviously a good number of bought-out Dems as well, but at least some of them do want to make some effort to help students, young people, the middle classes and most others in the 99% of the country who didn't inherit enough money (or brown-nose enough power players) to be able to purchase a politician of their own. My family used to more-or-less lean Republican until the party nearly went crazy enough to push the country into default recently. Ron Paul is someone we'd consider but we would never, ever vote for any Republican other than him.
To be honest, we've just become disgusted with the whole US political and economic system in general, it's exploitative, corrupt and so caught up in bickering that it gets nothing done.
That's why I can't stand these stupid labels like 'liberal' and 'conservative', they don't in any way correspond to the real world anymore. The solutions to the country's crisis are going to be intricate and professional, they're not going to emerge from stupid ideology but from cold, professional analysis and problem-solving.
And as long as the country's political system and it's officials instead prefer to point fingers and yell and scream, it'll only get worse.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,[1] and government to gain ground."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I'm sorry, but I don't see how your citation makes any sense in light of recent events. It's not government that's been threatening people's liberty and livelihood lately, it's the massively rich oligarchs who've all but bought up our political system, and fixed prices on basic things (like education and healthcare) that have made it nearly impossible for 99% of the population to stay afloat.
The financial crisis in 2008 after Lehman collapsed (the cause of much of our current misery) didn't come about from too much government, but from not enough government oversight (and what little we had not doing its job to regulate derivatives and prevent disaster). Same with the oil spill in the Gulf, same with that mine collapse in West Virginia, same with the lax regulation that's allowed the most corrupt financial institutions to drain students dry with outrageous tuition and student loan terms!
This is why the GOP continues to lose ground and become even less popular despite the bad economy- it has too many ideologues and too few sensible people who can suggest a concrete, rational solution for things. The vast majority of American voters are like us, Anon- not heavily political, not sold on any party (in some cases even having voted Republican in the past), and pragmatist.
What we hate most is rigid ideology, and that's what you seem to represent. You keep repeating this same slogan about oppressive government, when all the evidence shows that if anything, our current disaster is a result of the opposite, too little government oversight over crooked crony capitalists who are bleeding the rest of the nation dry. So the Republicans in general have nothing in the way of sensible solutions, just screaming out the same ideological talking points and trying to concentrate even more power in the top 1% (or even the top 0.1%, as it may be these days), while the 99.9% of Americans who are just trying to work and do something productive get screwed.
On this topic in particular, the Republicans in general seem to want to screw over students even worse, make our loan terms even more burdensome, make it even harder for us to get health care and employment that will pay down our loans after graduation. I don't know Ron Paul's stands on this yet, but the rest of the GOP field seems to be kowtowing to the USA's 0.1% oligarchy, and that's definitely not in our best interest. If you want us to support what you're saying, then you're going to have to make a real, rational, cogent argument on how their policies are going to help the 99.9% of the population that's being royally screwed by the oligarchs who more-or-less own the politicians, not just trot out the same tired government-is-evil talking points that not 1 person in 100,000 cares about.
@ Galivan: I don't mean to be disrespectful but PLEASE learn to think independently before it's too late.
ReplyDeleteI NEVER SAID that I support "Republicans" as a whole. The ONLY Republican I support is Ron Paul. Just like I don't support "Democrats" as a whole. but I would vote for Grayson or Bernie Sanders. But that's beside the point.
The real point is economics. First of all, Lehman's failure being the cause of this is the biggest HOAX in the history of economics. Tell me: how can letting a defunct, insolvent bank actually go BANKRUPT *cause* an economic crisis? What is the alternative? Bailing it out? Read some history. Read about the panics of the 19th century. Banks have been going bankrupt since the BEGINNING OF TIME.
Let me explain the process: a bank goes bankrupt - shareholders lose money, creditors lose money - someone else buys the assets and we move on. All the bad debt IS LIQUIDATED (as Ron Paul wants). What OBAMA has been doing (and Bush) is the OPPOSITE. They've been taking money from us (taxpayers), and instead of using that money to replace old infrastructure, or to pay down the national debt, they use that money to SUPPORT INSOLVENT BANKS.
Galivan - I am insolvent. My student loans exceed my assets and I have no income. Do think Obama gives two sh*ts about me? Do I get a bailout? Do you know why? Because I am not "too big to fail" - I am not a member of their club. Neither was Lehman. They hated Dick Fuld because he didn't have an Ivy League degree, or whatever. Goldman was in the club and it got bailed. Grow up. Learn how the world works. You're not 5 years old; stop thinking like a 5 year old.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteNext point. That this was caused by not enough regulation. Another HOAX. Tell me Galivan ol' boy-what is the MOST REGULATED INDUSTRY OF ALL? B-A-N-K-I-N-G. Did those regulations prevent this from happening? Regulations are not and will never be a substitute for competent businessmen.
If you want to look at successful economic policy, look at Russia in 1997. Look at the Asian tigers around the same time. These countries were bankrupt (like the U.S. is now, thanks to your idol Obama (and Bush)). While Bush is certainly to blame, Obama more than doubled the national debt in 3 years! Anyway, those countries were bankrupt; they defaulted on their debt. They had a painful 2-3 years after they did that, but since then they have grown like wildfire. Russian GDP increased from a trough of 196 billion in 1999 to 1.2 TRILLION as of now, according to google. That is a 6 fold increase AFTER DEFAULT in about a decade.
If you want to see successful economic policies, look at Taiwan whose citizens in the 1960's made $320 per year and now make $32,000. The Taiwanese call it the "Economic Miracle." And it's a system built on savings, production, and export. Not currency debasement, welfare, and regulations.
I agree with you on one thing: large corporations (especially Wall Street, including GE) have hijacked our government. The government HAS become tyrannical. It's fighting 5 wars, killing innocent people the world over. It's confiscating its people's money and using it to fund its disgusting projects, like bailing out their friends.
In the 18th and 19th century there was very little regulations and very little government control in this country. It grew from an uninhabited forest to the richest country in the world, all with little to no regulations. Now it's turning into a crony-capitalist/socialist police state.
I WAS BORN IN THE SOVIET UNION I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND CAPITALISM AND WHEN THERE IS FREEDOM AND WHEN THERE ISN'T. YOU HAVE NO F*CKING IDEA BECAUSE YOU ARE A SPOILED AMERICAN BRAT.
Thomas Jefferson was a genius and he was right and I'm glad I published that quote because it is true.
You think this will take "decades" to solve? If we liquidate the debt this will be over in 2 years. Your puppet Obama will never allow that to happen, just like the puppet Bush before him, because he's SOLD OUT. WAKE THE F*CK UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE for crissake!
Stop repeating everything you hear on TV like a 5 year old. Read some economics. Read some history that actually goes back before the 1960's.
-anonymous mcgee123
I would also like to add that if you want, in my opinion, the most cogent and honest assessment of the Great Depression 2, its causes and its aftermath (which is forthcoming), watch Dr. Michael Burry's Vanderbilt speech on youtube.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who don't know who Michael Burry is, he's just some schmuck who turned a $1M hedge fund into $100+ million of personal wealth, primarily by shorting subprime mortgages and predicting the economics crisis.
He also wrote an excellent New York Times Op-Ed called "I Saw the Crisis Coming-Why Didn't the Fed?"
-anonymousmcgee123
Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, Obama, socialism, "free markets," The Great Depression, communism, etc.
ReplyDeleteKnut, how did all of these viewers stumble onto a law school sucks ass scam-blog?!
All of this crap is an indirect result of economic mismanagement. Just like law school is a fraud, so is our whole political and economic system. The former is affected by the latter.
ReplyDeleteThe faculty are mostly Democrats, especially further down. The lender didn't steal the money, but the money came from deposits that would not have been deposited for no interest. The loan that you are paying on went to the faculty, went to the university, and went to administrators. The depositers (lender) should not have to forfeit their assets because it ended up in another institution's hands. Those assets will have to be recovered from the institutions. If Congress created a statutory class, then probably 50-75% of the principal could be recovered, if not more.
ReplyDelete