The first one isn't that bad:
"When I found out [pre-law services] were getting cut, I was pretty shocked about it. They have done so much for me," [senior Erin] Walker said. . . ."I didn't know what I needed to do to get ready to go to law school. I was completely lost," Walker said.Did pre-law services take your LSAT for you? Did they get you a high GPA? No? Then, despite appearances to the contrary, they really haven't done that much for you. But it's understandable that one would think that. After all, law school is a long, glorified disabusing process. You start a doe-eyed undergraduate with one slate of perceptions and when you're through the meat grinder you realize a variety of truths, including that there are very few things that actually matter when it comes to getting into law school. Furthermore, if you're "completely lost" in dealing with schools' websites and LSAC, which are straightforward about a simple process, you're going to be even more lost when you try to figure out what the governing law is on some issues.
And then we have this:
Melanie Nutt, director of admissions and financial aid at the Wake Forest University School of Law, said she wants her name added to the letter to the Provost. She reinforced the impact of losing Tetro and pre-law services on N.C. State."Losing Mary [Tetro] would be a real blow to the students and to the law schools as well," Nutt said. "[Tetro] has just been a phenomenal resource."
No kidding. You're losing an inside sales person at the state's 2nd-biggest public school. Already, one should note a theme in the article: no one is actually articulating what pre-law services actually did that was so indispensable for N.C. State students. Instead, they merely dish out platitudes like "it was so valuable" and "losing this sucks." Seriously, are N.C. State students so utterly dumb they can't figure this stuff out? Do none of N.C. State's other advisers have an hour to read up on law school?
I did not have pre-law services in undergrad, so I honestly have no idea what they do for you and - again - I see no pressing need to have one. But apparently others do - even if they can't articulate why:
"Cutting something in a big college, like engineering, would be more efficient, because they have so many resources," [senior Harrison] Do said. "If you cut this small, little thing that helps so many students, that to me isn't being very efficient."Efficient? Efficiency is about resource maximization and waste reduction. I don't care how many programs there are in the engineering college, they're probably all a better use of resources than a pre-law department. Again, I'm sorry a dedicated educator is losing her job, but a pre-law advising service is basically $350k down the sinkhole. Every second a student spends in there would be better spent figuring out LSAT tricks, studying for higher undergraduate grades, or chatting it up with bored professors to get better letters of recommendation.
One of the biggest problems in education - legal and otherwise - is that when someone says "we really need [x]," too few people stand up and say "bullshit." Guaranteed government-driven revenues have never encouraged thrift, and so now we have bloated university structures with all sorts of useless centers and services that are economic deadweights but - oh no! - we can't cut them because we actually hired nice people to fill those positions.
Well, if schools had any interest in teaching their students about the real world, they'd be far more aggressive in shedding excess baggage when budget cuts proved necessary, and they'd be far more hostile to people who try to tell them otherwise. No one in the private sector ever had his job saved because he was a good person or even good at his job in isolation. The fact that we treat public/non-profit university employees differently when many states are flat broke is absurd.
Surely they can get people who have graduated from law school to talk about the value added instead of current undergraduate seniors?
ReplyDeleteOh ... the silence there speaks volumes.
What would be the purpose of pre-law advising, anyway? There are NO barriers to entry into law school. There are more law schools in America than gas stations.
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of engineering? The highest average salaries for graduates who have "just" a bachelor's degree tend to come from engineering, which means those students are most likely to donate money to the school, especially in their first few years after graduating. Law students? I didn't meet a single one willing to donate to my law school after graduation, not that most could afford it.
ReplyDeleteThat "logic" about efficiency is why so many pre-law students are so dismal at the logic games portion of the LSAT.
J-Dog is correct. Pre-law programs do not offer much, other than rah-rah enthusiasm, i.e. "You too can fight for justice and right wrongs! Here is some helpful info, so you can score well on the LSAT."
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't get is what a dedicated pre-law program DOES that can't easily be covered by career services.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, when I was an undergrad waaay back when, Career Services offered a few workshops to incoming freshmen, including dedicated pre-law and pre-med workshops.
The pre-law workshop (which I did attend) was basically a few hours of "here's what you need to do for the next few years if you're thinking about law school, here are some handouts, here is where we keep some helpful books you might wants to read, we'll take questions now."
Senior year, there was an "Applying to Law School" workshop, also run by Career Services - which I did not attend, but which, as I understand it, also consisted of a few hours of helpful information about applications and LSATs, and a chance to ask questions.
If you had any special pre-law issues that couldnt' be addressed in two workshops, you made an appointment with Career Services, same as anyone else.
Being as the salaries of the people spending a few hours year leading workshops were part of the overall Career Services budget, the total annual expense dedicated to pre-law was...the cost of the hand-outs.
What else, exactly, IS there to do???
I would rather up taxes on GE or wealthy people and keep a person employed even if in a useless position.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that the best pre-law advisor is someone who beleves law school to be a scam in the general case, but that there exists special cases were law school is a good choice.
ReplyDeleteSuch a person is going to tell English majors that they will not be IP lawyers, and they will not want to be PI lawyers.
They will tell people who got a 150 on the LSAT to retake the test and enroll nowhere that will take a 150.
They will tell people that a law degree isn't going to fix the fact that they got poor grades, or studied a useless major.
They will not run a recruiting fair with 90 law schools, because there aren't 90 law schools worth going to. They will have a hand-picked 30 schools at the very most.
They will tell students that student loans are nondeschargable in bankruptcy, and law as a profession cares about what tier a lawyer's law school is in.