This will probably be my last entry at this particular blog address. This is something I've been mulling over for the last few months, and I think the time's right to put it out to the internet pasture for a number of reasons, only a few of which I'll get into here.
When I started this blog, my goal was, as the title suggests, to be a small, positive force in changing legal education to match the ideals that almost everyone seems to agree it should have.
As it turns out, few people give a shit about doing that. Those who believe the system is rotten have little to no faith that it can be salvaged. Those who refuse to believe the system is rotten continue to blame students for their apparent sloth, misunderstanding, etc. Those open to reforming the system from within have little use for voices from the pseudonymous crowd, who is like little more than dirty, dried flecks of chewing gum on the bottom of academia's $500 shoes.
Personally, I've grown far more pessimistic about reform's prospects over the last year, and I've grown far more cynical about the legal profession as a whole. There are some things that, frankly, should be as plain as the sun is the sky: the fact that we're graduating 30-40% too many entrants into an allegedly-regulated profession; the fact that accredited law schools engaged in misleading advertising; the fact that the ease of federal loans and the strict limitations on federal bankruptcy have created a severe distortion between students and student loan lenders; etc.
And yet people - otherwise intelligent people - oppose these basic truths and fight them with every logical fallacy in the politics-for-dopes playbook. Take, for example, Scott Greenfield's recent post on today's law students viewing law school as a consumer product. Scott runs a solid blog with generally-good commentary, and by all accounts he's a great attorney. Yet, on this issue, flaws that should be ironed out the sophomore year in college appear: the straw man ("$160k job and a Ferrari"), the factless distortion (scambloggers "are usually unemployed"), the false dichotomy (in this case, between consumer good and education), the inconsistent rhetoric (if education, and the people who run it, is fundamentally different now, how can he credibly claim it meets the same normative values that it did 30 years ago?), etc.
Human psychology being what it is, those who purchase a product defend it, and the successful defend whatever they attribute their success to. Many in the boomer crowd would rather believe that the younger generation is lazy, stupid, careless, greedy, etc. than believe for one second that there's so much as a fingernail scratch on the immaculate, motherly system that birthed and breast-fed them. Curiously, many of these same people can readily recognize the flaws of other social systems, but when you mention higher education, they give you an earful about "the privilege of having an education" and "renowned research institutions" and all sorts of other shit that no one should, objectively, care about.
The idea that they would rather assume young people are lazy, stupid, careless, greedy, etc. strikes me as shockingly cynical and inherently narcissistic.
The critical thinking skills that should be taught in the freshman year of any self-respecting liberal arts education - and as a last resort, the first year of law school - go out the window.
It only goes to show how thoroughly screwed up the system is. This is supposed to be a profession where things like truth and justice are valued. And yet the system that breeds new entrants is muddied with concealment and arbitrariness and somehow that is not only acceptable, but justified when it disadvantages smart, hard-working people with disabling debt.
I've heard of multiple interviewers that tell interviewees that the interviewees' resumes are far more impressive than the interviewer's was when he or she first got hired. There are magna cum laude graduates working in retail and as support staff. There are second-tier law review editors forced to take temporary positions that lead to doc review. Likely a minority of new graduates in 2010 will be practicing law in a mere decade, and this is with tuition resembling a suburban mortgage payment.
It's a mad world, and not one that lacks proud, thumb-in-the-chest apologists. I've tried to reach them and rebut them all in the hopes of a positive restructuring. In retrospect, this might have been a poor move. The title is certainly something I'm no longer a fan of, and frankly, I'm not even sure I care about reform actually succeeding. There's part of me that believes the only thing that will change this part of the world is economic implosion, although I still think eliminating the ABA's monopoly on legal education would be a respectable start to lowering student debts and allowing for broader labor mobility.
Personally, going to law school was a horrible life decision. I have achieved respectable honors at every educational level, and gotten excellent performance reviews at every job I've ever worked. I went to a name-brand (read: top 30ish) undergraduate school and a law school that I thought would set my career on a decent path.
All I've ever asked for a decent middle-class lifestyle where I can pursue my few hobbies, have a family, etc. I know many individuals who gained that with two-year degrees without that much of a problem, and I'd be fine with that, a decent, $40k salary. I figured law school would at least secure that if I put the work in. On my most pessimistic, bottom-floor projections, I figured if I worked hard and did "well" in law school, I'd land a job with a $50,000 salary, which would be sufficient to pay off my loans long-term, live comfortably, have a family, save for retirement. I've done slightly better than I expected and I will be thrilled to have full-time work making $35k or greater within six months. With my "stats," the brochure projected I'd have no problem securing full-time work north of $65k, with a fair crack at a $100k+.
But apparently, to some people, the malfunction was my own. And my peers who finished with experience and solid academics, who would be thrilled to land $45k jobs working for the public defender or a legal aid, well, they're malfunctioned to.
The big question, thus, is this: To them, is there any scenario in which law school resembles a consumer scam?
Surely, the answer is "yes" to anyone capable of examining human nature, isn't it? Even the most out-of-touch bastard would have to concede that, right? And yet, apparently, a system where the students pay $200k in debt for a rather arbitrary crack at a any permanent work when jobs were advertised to them in the triple digits is on the "not fraud" side.
Thankfully, that view is receding into the minority. Today, Kurzon Strauss announced it was filing lawsuits against fifteen (15!) more schools: Cal-Western, Southwestern, San Francisco, Florida Coastal, Chicago-Kent, DePaul, John Marshall, Baltimore, Albany, Brooklyn, Hofstra, Pace, St. Johns, Villanova, and Widener. Can we call these the second-tier sued?
The thing is, there are so many more that are indistinguishable. Where are the two (three, for that matter) Loyolas? What about Golden Gate, Touro, Barry, Ave Maria, Florida International, St. Thomas (both, for that matter), John Marshall (Atlanta), St. Mary's, Phoenix, Elon, etc. etc. etc.? And is the ABA and/or US News going to be joined?
Is it a good time to mention that the aforementioned Scott Greenfield went to NYLS ("first-tier sued") when it was far cheaper and far more beneficial to one's life prospects? That today's Scott Greenfields may very well get sucked into permanent doc review through no choice of their own?
So many questions, but alas I must leave them for now. A year of growth and learning has made this blog stale. The title was chosen with the best of intentions but doesn't fit the message as nice as I would have liked. A reflection of its creator, the format has too often become long-winded (see this entry for Christ's sake). The blog-roll has become lengthy with blogs I don't even read.
As I might have to do with my job (if nothing else is weird about the legal job market, it's the ambiguity and arbitrariness), it's best if I start over. Thankfully, the internet gives me that prerogative so denied by our bankruptcy code.
It's been a good year. More people read my entries here than probably read the average journal article. I got my email address sued. I thrashed Indiana Tech to bits (god, that was a fun entry, albeit depressing since I imagine they'll open a law school anyway). I got hits from every law school from Albany to Yale.
I've learned a lot, too. Sometime soon, time permitting, I'll be back at the dance in new clothes. In the meantime, kids, have a good one, stay away from law school, and watch the headlines to see if - yuppee - you're a class action member. Don't laugh, Harvard kids. The way things are going, it's only time.