Posts Tagged ‘education’

Too Many Lawyers Not Enough Jobs: New York Edition

The statistics cannot be ignored, slow economy, too many lawyers not enough jobs = Do Not Attend law school. We warned you and now more than ever main stream media is catching up. Because it’s so obvious and so overwhelming. Where before, say five or more years ago, one had an excuse, no knowledge of deceptive statistics, false encouragement of upward mobility, the higher education will make your life better. The Wall Street Journal is telling you there aren’t enough jobs for attorneys and they’re just referring to the NEWLY minted law graduates; not those who have been laid off or otherwise terminated, from the high ranking partnerships to the staff attorney who find that there is no resources awaiting them in the legal industry.So add that to the 9,000 new law school graduates in New York alone. Here you go:

New York Times Report Show Lawyer Surplus Law Jobs Shortage, Lawcrossing Finds 29,000 Attorney Jobs

Pasadena, CA — (SBWIRE) — 06/29/2011
The New York Times is reporting that the tough job market for new lawyers is partly a result of a lawyer glut in the law jobs market.

The article is based on data gathered and analyzed by Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. (EMSI), a consulting firm specializing in economic analysis and employment data. The figures gathered by EMSI in fact show that the law schools are graduating more JDs than the economy can absorb for the next few years.

EMSI has taken as its baseline the number of people passing the bar in every state and DC in 2009. The numbers were then put up against the number of estimated job openings for lawyers in those states for the period 2010-15. In every state except Wisconsin and Nebraska, plus DC, there was a lawyer surplus.

The biggest surplus was in New York. 9,787 people passed the bar in 2009 for an estimated 2,100 openings for the period 2010-15. Nationwide, there were only 26,239 job openings for lawyers, while 53,508 people passed the bar. California was in second page with almost 3,000 lawyers in surplus.

Even Nebraska and Wisconsin just have negligible surpluses of law jobs for lawyers. But even though attorney jobs for new lawyers are scare, they exist in most states. LawCrossing is a job aggregator site for all types of legal jobs. The site has been able to locate over 5,500 attorney jobs in New York alone. Nationwide it has located over 29,000 attorney jobs.

Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy: Predatory Student Loan Lenders, Middle Class Hope for Upward Mobility, the Legal Industry and the Inevitable Bubble

As some potential law students continue to await LSAT scores, law school admissions or are wondering whether or not going to law school will give them that one chance at a better life, it would benefit you to read the following:

Being led to the slaughter

A law journal article: 20 Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy 67 (2010)
Options for Student Loan Borrowers: A Derivatives-Based Proposal to Protect Students and Control Debt Fueled Inflation in the Higher Education Market, Michael C. Macchiarola; Arun Abraham

O.k. so this article is 72 pages, obviously I won’t delve into the entire piece but I am placing some introductory quotes in which the author is direct with failing legal industry and how the student loan industry are basically predators. He specifically discusses law schools and new lawyers are a bad investment. the author is a ‘distinguished lecturer.’ The author is a law professor and is honest enough to basically state that going to law school isn’t worth it. Do you 0Ls get it? one of your potential professors is telling you that LAW SCHOOL IS A BAD INVESTMENT!

Here are the Table of Contents for a very brief overview:
INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    I. THE RUNAWAY COSTS OF AMERICAN LEGAL EDUCATION
By the Numbers
The Causes: A Combustible Mix of Accreditation,Rankings, Peculiar Incentives and Federal Encouragement
A Brief History of the Law School and Its Accreditation
The Rankings Game
The Peculiar Incentives of the Law School Faculty
The Federal Government and the Student Loan Market
The Scope of Government Involvement
Crisis in the Market and the Emergence of SAFRA
Income-Based Repayment and More of the Same
“For-Profit” Schools and a Way Forward

THE DISAPPOINTING REVENUE PICTURE FOR LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES
INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES AND ENTERPRISE LIABILITY
Informational Asymmetries Abound
Applying Lessons from Enterprise Liability Theory

Now for some introductory quotes:
Runaway tuitions and the burdensome student debt required for most Americans to obtain a post-secondary degree are under scrutiny like never before.4 Evidence is beginning to mount that, for too many students, debt-financed education represents a stifling encumbrance instead of the great investment that society’s collective commonsense has long advanced.5 Such a finding is unsurprising in light of the fact that, for too long, the value of education has been reflexively embraced without adequate examination of its cost. (p. 69-70)

As most bloggers have been stating, the cost is not worth the proposed benefit with all of the practical variables: economy, shrinking industry, inflation, lower salaries, loan payments and their capitalized interest as well as the time and psychological warfare this field demands.

The cost of attending law school, for example, has increased at two to three times the rate of inflation over the last three decades.11 The promise of accessible loans has made loan eligible middle- and lower-income students an easy mark for unabashed, aggressive student-loan marketing.12 “The end result,” in fact, “has been an unprecedented, debt-fueled wealth transfer from students of modest means to the increasingly prosperous higher education industry and opportunistic student loan lenders.” (p. 71-72)

Now deemed “McLaw” this along with LPOs and general outsourcing has set the middle class population in a cycle of perpetual financial slavery. Upward mobility is not founded in usurious personal debt. Do not think of the titles. Do not think of prestige. Think of your life and happiness and with any common sense you will decide not to attend law school.

US News & World Reports: (Law School) Know What You’re Getting Into

US News & World Reports
Ann Levine
November 22, 2010

I am proud to be a lawyer and I am proud to help other people reach their dream of becoming a lawyer. [sounds desparate to sell the profession]. However, there have been numerous stories recently that may discourage you from applying to law school. There are negative and disgruntled law students and attorneys warning you about the evils of law schools, of the profession, and of anyone remotely related to it. My goal is to make sure you don’t join that disgruntled bunch. [Which can simply be prevented by not attending law school]

So, if you decide to go to law school, you need to feel that the benefits outweigh the sacrifices and potential drawbacks that many of the naysayers routinely harp on. Go into it with your eyes wide open, ready to work hard, ready to make your way and create your own career. [Sounds like a tort in the beginning you are proceeding into a known danger and that it’s forseeable that you will have damages]. You won’t expect anyone to hand you a six figure job at graduation.

[This is such a misleading characterization, that most attorneys EXPECT six figures. No most attorneys expect after committing and investing time, money, effort and basically their life into achieving admittance into a noble profession that one can obtain a job in which one can have DECENT housing, food and transportation. The only graduates who really expect six figures upon graduation are those set for the patent bar, trust fund babies, IVY League graduates with connections.]

You will go into this with an understanding of the realities of the profession. You will know that success does not happen overnight, that your dream job isn’t the first job out of law school, but the one you hold ten years down the road. [false misrepresentation, how in the world can such a writer state this with a ‘straight face’ without submitting statistics or even state based on people he or she knows. It appears the author writes in theory or the same rhetoric that continues to be told to unsuspecting 0Ls.]
There is no fast track to success in law school or in anything else in life. The key is to make the best decisions you can about your future with the information you currently have at your disposal.

I want you to really consider whether to go to law school, and I want to share the questions you should be asking before you go. Plus, I want to make sure you are equipped to make good decisions about where to attend.

Let’s start here: Reasons NOT to Go to Law School:

1. Money (How much does law school cost and how can I pay for it?)

2. Time (three years full-time, 4 years part-time)

3. Bad career outlook in current economic environment

4. It’s difficult

5. It’s competitive

6. There are too many lawyers

It appears that 1, 3, 5, 6 are all related to NOT being able to get a job or make decent money with a law degree. Decent refers to enough money to sustain you and your family (whatever that may be) with food, gas, heat, electricity, housing and transportation. Four out of the six reality checks are stating that you cannot live a normal life with a law degree. So those of you who are already making $50,000-$75,000 without a law degree; you are in a much better position than most licensed American attorneys. So, does it make ANY sense to encumber your life with unnecessary debt to be in a profession with superficial professionalism, mentally disabled persons who many have broken down after realizing the reality of what going to law school has done to them, all while struggling to meet your monthly financial obligations and reaching for straws to keep a facade of upward mobility. Reason with yourself and don’t ignore the signs.

Points 2 and 4 are related to losing valuable years of your life to spend hours, days, weeks studying to impress law professors who already made their decisions of who each student is, where they will fall in the mandatory curve within the first week of classes, all the while subjecting students to the Socratic method with the intent of satisfying a power-trip. Now all professors are like this but most are. Your first year you do not select your law professors and many have tenure, so good luck in being treated fairly while learning about the law–ironic isn’t it?

Now, the Reasons TO Attend Law School:

1. Learning how to think

2. Profession you can always rely upon/Job security

3. Helping others/contributing to the community

4. Being important and respected

5. Financial security, prosperity

Points 2 and 5 do not make any sense in light of the previous set of points. Although most professions and both the private and public sector is suffering due to the current economy, the legal profession has forever changed. There is no such thing as financial security in general when there is a permanent oversaturation of law graduates and attorneys. Due to this saturation how can point 4 be valid? Value is based on quality and rarity. Many media outlets have exposed how unprepared most law graduates are and have been over the past few decades. When lawyers are a dime a dozen, how are you important? Though theoretically an attorney is to advocate, be a defender of the Constitution, etc, most attorneys are either focused on keeping their financial security which inevitably compromises the value of the services and as a result the profession. Additionally, when there is not a demand for a product or service, the price steadily decreases (oversaturation).

You need to do your research about each one of these pros and cons. How much can you expect to make in the area of law you plan on pursuing? What would your student loan payment be? Your rent? Your car payment? Etc.

So, how can you research this? Talk to lawyers in big firms, lawyers who work for the public defender, lawyers who work in a firm with only two or three attorneys, or insurance defense attorneys. Ask them how much they made in their first five years of practice and how much they made after ten years. Ask them what they really do all day. Ask them to describe a typical case they are working on. [A simple approach is to read these blogs. The following two questions are good suggestions though:]

Ask them what time they get to the office everyday and what time they leave. Ask them if they like their jobs.
Ask them where they went to law school. Did they take a scholarship to a lower ranked school? Why or why not?

Do top law schools open some doors? Do you want to clerk for the Supreme Court? Be a law professor? I suggest you look up people who have jobs you would like to have one day and see where they went to law school.

It’s essential you have a firm grasp on what the profession entails before you commit. Comparing and contrasting the answers to these questions with your expectations is key to helping you make your decision.

If you’ve gone through this thought process and you still decide to attend law school, you will know what you are getting yourself into. You will be in a position to make good decisions about your future. And then you’ll be ready to hear this podcast: How to Get Hired as a Rookie Attorney.

In other words you will definitely be “proceeding into a known danger.”

Have You Heard?: Feds Investigate For-Profit Universities Amidst Growing Default

All Rights Reserved

ahhh, it’s like music to our ears? On June 21, 2010 a U.S. Senate Committee announced a hearing entitled “Emerging Risk? An Overview of the Federal Investment in For-Profit Education”:  US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions: Newsroom – Press Releases

With the current economy and an increase of debt and student loan defaults, the federal government finally became satiated and wants answers. I really don’t understand how such a big portion of the U.S. economy both mortgages and student loans could remain unregulated for two decades and after the emerging economic collapse the question is asked “what happened?” o.k…let’s see if a little common sense will clarify: when you don’t supervise a sector and allow them to run amuck they will do anything they can, find any loophole, use any possible agent, step on the average American to get that almighty dollar. But as long as it APPEARED that the economy is ok and the private sector seemed to know what it was doing a blind eye was turned. Now, evidence of the economic consequence is so great, the country has to address it, though it appears it’s too late. Then again, it’s not like the exact same people have been in control or even members of Congress for the past two decades–wait the majority has. Yet, we have to give credit to the federal government for taking a major step to address these issues. Anyway… 

“More than two decades have passed since Congress last examined the for-profit education sector and in that time, we have seen an explosion in growth in for-profit colleges, and in the federal taxpayer dollars they receive,” said Harkin.  With students, families and taxpayers investing so heavily in for-profit institutions through large loan debt and billions of dollars in federal student aid, we must ensure that student are actually getting the knowledge and skills they need to pay off the debt. Congress has notice the massive debt that university students incur, without the ability find jobs in this horrible economy or actually demonstrate practical skills in the job market, thus making the university student “unmarketable” because as you know, you are considered as a commodity. You are a social security number, a statistic, owned by the private industry, that’s why your debt can be traded to whoever buys it and you have no say in the matter. 

“While for-profit colleges have a responsibility to their shareholders, they also have a responsibility to provide educational value to their students, and an obligation to ensure that the federal dollars they receive are well spent, particularly now that Congress has made an historic investment in student aid.” Historic? This word should cause us all concern, this sounds like a venture that is unprecedented which will require a different type of solution. The past two decades the federal government increasingly spent taxpayer dollars on colleges and universities without seeing a return. Maybe now the federal government understands what the average law graduate deals with everyday of his/her life.  College students graduating to become working citizens and meaningful participants in the growth of the economy (no, buying branded lattes does not count). But, let’s face facts, the government is seeing a constant money loss and want their money back, which is its right, however my skepticism dictates that it hardly cares whether or not students received a valuable education, just that, because the latter is lacking so is the student loans’ repayment rate. 

Witnesses will include:
Panel I
Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC
Panel II
Steven Eisman, Portfolio Manager, FrontPoint Financial Services Fund, LP, New York, NY
Yasmine Issa, former Sanford Brown Institute student, Yonkers, NY
Sharon Thomas Parrott, Senior Vice President, Government and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer, DeVry, Inc., Chicago, IL
Margaret Reiter, former Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA
  
Notice that not one dean of student affairs, university president, graduate student, or parent with a PLUS loan aren’t participating in this hearing session. At least there is one undergraduate student, though she only has $20,000 of debt; compared to any graduate or professional school graduate we scoff at that, but suffering is suffering. Looking at numbers, filings and memoranda will not give the full picture of this epic problem. Sometimes putting the faces with the numbers, stories of devastated lives injects the creative adrenaline needed to garner a communicable solution.

In the first panel: Kathleen Tighe , Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, her testimony does not get too relevant until P. 12:   

“Considering the economic downturn over the last several years, combined with escalating student loan debts, a significant concern is the potential for increased loan defaults as we have seen the national cohort default rate increase recently.” I agree we all should be worried, but I wouldn’t characterize this particular concern as ‘potential’ I think it’s more accurate to say ‘inevitable.’ I had to find the definition of ‘cohort’ default rate which refers to borrowers entering into their repayment period. Those in deferment or forbearance mask what will be the default boom of student loans. 

Not addressed by this change were two issues noted in our earlier report. In that report, we identified that cohort default rates were not a true representation, as they were reduced by: (1) a statutory change to the HEA’s definition of default from 180 days of delinquency to 270 days of delinquency; this 90-day delay excludes a significant number of defaulters from the cohort default rate calculation; and (2) an increase in the use of deferments and forbearances. As well as providing an increased period of time for universities to seek more funding with a buffer period hiding the true default, thus making the institutions appear more qualified for additional federal funding, at least that’s my theory. 

 We found that deferments and forbearances had more than doubled in the period we examined.  Borrowers in deferment or forbearance do not make payments on their loans, so they are not counted as defaulters, but they continue to be counted with other students in the cohort, thus reducing the cohort rate. May she meant “reducing the ‘cohort default rate.”  I guess I did have the right line of thinking. 

 While we recognize that the Congress has provided additional repayment flexibilities, when borrowers reach the limits on deferments and begin repayment they may still lack the income and eventually default and are not accounted for in the cohort default rate. The rest of her testimony can be read here: [http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tighe.pdf

I wanted to highlight one of the other testifiers Yasmine Issa, as she starts you feel as if she took a portion of your life transcript:  

Thank you for inviting me to speak today. My name is Yasmine Issa. I thought that going to school to learn a marketable skill would allow me to provide for my family. Instead it has left me more than $20,000 in debt, and unable to be hired in the field I trained for. The resounding imagery of your life has now flashed before your eyes. As you can see, she assumed that what she learn was actually a marketable skill, and as with many lawyers and law graduates was left unemployed. Oh and multiply that $20,000 by 5 and you have the average student loan debt for law graduates. The rest of her story diverges as her training was not from a certified school while law schools have no problem with accredidation [http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Issa.pdf]. I may have to do a Part II, but am unsure I can stomach it.

Is China America’s Mirror?: Newsweek: Smart, Young, and Broke: White-Collar Workers are China’s Newest Underclass

All Rights Reserved

Melinda Liu and Marjie Vlaskamp, p. 40, June 28 & July 5, 2010; online version: China’s New Underclass: White-Collar Workers – NewsweekAnd you thought it was bad here. Must we wonder why globalization may not be such a good idea? Because when a bunch of countries jump on a bandwagon, say the proliferation of higher education, there’s little to no room for recovery, and no I’m not referring to fleeing to another country, well not necessarily!

“Guo and an estimated million others like him represent and unprecedented and troublesome development in China: a fast-growing white-collar underclass. Since the ‘90s, Chinese universities have doubled their admissions, far outpacing the job market for college grads.” [emphasis mine] My word, does this sound familiar? I know these blogs are dedicated to the law school (graduate level) industry, but I am sure that American undergraduate universities have been doing the same thing. I’ve read commentators and some bloggers suggest leaving the U.S., should you be that desparate—choose wisely!

I wonder if the author’s been reading these blogs, then again just the sad, universal reality of university systems here and abroad:  This year China’s universities and tech institutes churned out roughly 6.3 million graduates.  Many grew up in impoverished rural towns and villages and attended second- or third-tier schools in provinces, trusting that studying hard would bring them better lives than their parents had.  Interesting, we see that the promise of upward mobility is not only promoted here as the American Dream, but in other countries for hope as well. I wonder how their medical and legal fields are doing?

They may be smart and energetic, but some are starting to ask if the promise of a better life was a lie. If you have to ask, then you likely know the answer.

They’re known as “ants,” for their willingness to work, their dirt-poor living conditions, and the seeming futility of their efforts.  “These ants have high ambitions but virtually no practical skills”…

The similarities between those Chinese graduates in the tech field and American law graduates is simply astonishing. It’s a potentially explosive situation. It sure is. Just imagine how many millions of unemployed, educated persons who were deluded will lose patience with the current trend. Someone commented before about potential riots and living near concentrated urban areas.

The discontent rising among the ants is even more worrying. Blue-collar wages have actually soared recently, while white-collar pay is shrinking. This resonates so deeply right now I’m confident we can superimpose attorney with computer programmer and change the geographic region and we will have a sufficient description of the American legal industry.

…the government admits that at least one in eight is permanently unemployed. And those who get jobs don’t always find work in their chosen fields. Ditto. College grads have far higher expectations than the migrant laborers who have fueled China’s growth for three decades.  “Ants are educated. They speak foreign languages. They’re Internet-savvy.  It’s that potential for trouble that has the government worried,” he says.  “If they aren’t satisfied with their living conditions and want to start a movement, like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, it becomes a huge problem.”

This is an interesting take, the Chinese government is concerned about the educated persons becoming unruly. In a way it makes sense. People who lived in poverty most of their lives and chose not to attain higher education and debt are accustomed to a lower standard of living. Those who work hard, with aspirations of attaining a “better life” are crudely disappointed with the all-encompassing economic reality. Thus, the former, really did not have any thing to lose, while the latter has invested time, money, effort and sacrificed aspects of normal social living based on societal and other assurances that it will be compensated for upon completion. Very interesting. Though it’s not simply black and white, of course there will be poor people who are willing to cause harm and take what’s not theirs, but I think this article shed some light (at least for me) on how we compartmentalize (poor vs. middle class or wealthy, educated vs. uneducated, etc) but the variables may cross depending on the circumstances.

This guy gives some ideas on how an uprising would occur. Is it just me or do governments tend to look at suppressing uprisings, stemming tides of frustration but oft-times do not offer or work with those affected to create solutions to the circumstances that originated the frustrations?

The ants don’t seem to be organizing in any big way so far. But they clearly have the necessary technical skills and a sense of common backgrounds and objectives.  “it’s like I’ve joined an army,” says Wang Lei, a young University of Innder Mongolia graduate who has found steady work as a computer programmer after months o searching.  “For the rest of my life, I’ll meet former Tanjialing inhabitants and have strong ties with them because of our shared experience.” Comments like this make China’s leaders nervous, not least because the ant tribes are so fluid and difficult to monitor.  If they were somehow to make common cause with other restive rural-born Chinese, such as landless farmers or migrant workers, they’d be extremely hard to suppress.”

This wouldn’t happen in America, we’re too individualistic, judge people by their clothes and there’s too much racism and haves vs. have-nots. In China, although there are ethnic Chinese and others, they’re more homogenous than Americans. So, it’s not just bad here for educated folks, just look around you.

Sallie Mae: Make Interest Payments While at University & Save!

Commerce Bank teams with Sallie Mae on new student loan product | Dollars & Sense June 22, 2010:

Commerce Bank teams with Sallie Mae on new student loan product This title looks a bit truthful, I see the usage of the word “product”, these corporations are trying to sell you something. With any product companies have advertising and marketing to induce a potential consumer to buy, but what is its value-to you-not them?!

Commerce Bank is offering the Smart Option Student Loan to help students pay off their college debt faster.Smart Option, which is provided through student loan lender Sallie Mae, allows students to make interest payments while in school. Because we know an average college student makes so much money that they can afford interest payments while enrolled full-time, providing for housing and shelter. Hmm, many obtain higher education to increase their salary potential, so what makes you think they can afford interest only payments, even though the principal is deferred? Maybe they can use some of the student loan money to pay interest, though it’s supposed to help pay for tuition, fees, books and what they need to survive while in school.

According to Commerce, a typical freshman can save more than 50 percent in interest charges over the life of the loan and it off in seven years after graduation instead of the standard 15-year term offered by other loan products. A typical freshman is 17-18 years old, where will they get this money? Their summer jobs paid minimum wage, please elaborate.

Students who enroll in the plan and make all their monthly payments by automatic debit may be eligible for a 0.25 percentage point rate reduction. In addition, students can take advantage of the Smart Reward program and earn 2 percent of their scheduled monthly payment as a reward in a Upromise account. Any percentage rate deduction is good, but what are the terms and conditions, like if they missed one payment does Sallie Mae terminate the entire program? With the latter 2% earned, I doubt the extent of benefit since the entire time inflation is rising and the student may not have been able to negotiate a fixed interest rate on the loan itself

The loan also allows customers to apply with a creditworthy co-signer, which can mean a better chance of approval and a lower rate. Students may also be eligible to apply to have the co-signer removed from the account after they graduate and make 12 consecutive loan repayments on time. We give you permission to get someone else in debt on your behalf, how gracisous of you. With many parents who have lost retirement accounts, receiving pink slips;  and wondering when they will be able to retire, why not add the high risk of their child’s student loan default. One should seriously consider whether he or she should really purchase this product; especially when college graduates, let alone some professionals are unable to find jobs with degrees.

The Current Recession: Newsweek: The Race Gap in the Economic Recovery

All Rights Reserved

On June 15, 2010, I posted concerning continuous coverage of U.S. Black unemployment across all sectors. [See June 15, 2010: 

Unemployment Programs; Black Unemployment… «].  Here, the Economic Policy Institute provided statistics on black unemployment.  On June 18, 2010, Newsweek referencesInstitute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP): A Research Institute of the Heller School which conducted its own numerical study regarding wealth gap that Blacks and Hispanics confront with regards to the general economy.

Although it may be argued that these blogs are always attacking statistics of law schools and their alumn employment rates; these polls and statistics are different. One they involved different institutes and federal government agencies analyzing the financial data with personal/identifying information that must be including when filing for unemployment benefits. These institutes and agencies have no apparent financial benefit by boosting the numbers, it actually makes America and the system by which it operates by look pretty awful.

The gap between the accumulated wealth of white and black Americans (excluding home equity) stood at $20,000 in 1984; by 2007 it had grown to $95,000. “The growth of the racial wealth gap significantly affects the economic future of American families.  For example, the racial wealth gap in 1984 amounted to  less  than  three  years  tuition  payment  for  one  child  at  a  public  university.  By 2007, the dollar amount of the gap is enough to pay full tuition at a four year public university for two children, plus tuition at a public medical school,” the researchers wrote.

For Shapiro, such findings raise the question of whether America’s racial progress will collapse under the weight of financial insecurity.  It also makes him question whether public policy has been effectively employed.  In the aftermath of Katrina, he argues, there was an opportunity to undo the effect of generations of extreme residential segregation.  That opportunity, he says, was lost, as New Orleans recreated the segregation the hurricane had destroyed.  Now, he believes, we have another opportunity: to use tax and fiscal policy to create a more egalitarian society.” [emphasis mine] Umm I think we can conclude by various empirical evidence that it already has.

“The wrinkle, I point out, during our conversation, is that many Americans don’t see economic egalitarianism as a particular priority—or even as a desirable goal.At a time when so many are struggling, the idea of targeting minorities for special help seems a difficult notion to sell.” I’ll just insert a quote from John Howard Griffin’s book Black Like Me (p.44) : They put us low, and then blame us for being down there and say that since we are low, we can’t deserve our rights.”

You mean the average American citizen does not believe in equality or being treated fairly–doesn’t surprise me at all. Why does it have to be special help, just provide retroactive compensation for damages to those affected by discriminatory practices and ensure objective regulatory agencies that have experience and foresight in monitoring these occurrences. That’s the problem, the system creates the circumstances which causes certain target populations to be in situations that somehow have to be “resolved” instead of prevention or actual enforcement of laws that would protect them and treat them like the American they are. Instead, certain persons desire to carve out ‘special’ programs which implies these populations are defective and generally are unable to thrive, providing imagery to broader civic society that these populations are ‘a problem.’ Sounds like a set up. No, change the environment of racism by enforcement of the laws and you wouldn’t need special programs. It’ll probably save taxpayers money too.

With higher rates of undergraduate education, continued discrimination in both employment and lending practices, it makes sense for Black Americans to not attend law school. You’re worthy enough to contract debt such as mortgages with subprime rates though you had equal or better credit than your white counterpart (yes, there are published studies from the Federal Reserve and OPI regarding the mortgages issued to blacks, whites and hispanics stemming from the 1990’s which evidences this) for homes built with cheap Chinese materials,* and student loans for an education that gets you a door slammed in the face, but as far as the system is concerned you are not worthy to be treated equitably. I will provide an altered quote (my alteration in yellow) from John Howard Griffin’s book again:

 We’ll do business with you people. We’ll sure as hell screw your people over in nearly every facet of your life so you will not be able to achieve the American dream. Other than that, you’re just completely off the record as far as we’re concerned.

I could care less if someone called me bitter, walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before you spew names. Though a great sense of pride existed when teaching a Black man, woman, child how to read, and finally gaining access to institutions of learning, a shadow system was prepared to knocked down any progress that minorities built. It’s a disgrace.

*most new homes were built with these construction materials, though my primary point was regarding criminal lending practices.

Third Recent News Article: Law graduates, economy and job market

This is related to the previous post on Life’s Mockery: Another News Article: “Law Degree Can’t Guarantee Law Firm Offer” . Just a couple of days ago Crain Business Journal posted:

Law grads’ job prospects ebb with economy – Crain’s Cleveland Business . “As 2010 law school graduates are framing their diplomas and are preparing to enter the working world, the profession is reporting that employment rates for the class of 2009 were the lowest in more than a decade.” The low employment rate didn’t happen over night, other factors contributed to the steady decline of the legal industry. Those in certain positions knew this but not only continued enrolling law students, but increased the number of law students matriculating at their institution. You knew, 0Ls likely didn’t but agents of the industry did.

“The employment rate last year was the lowest since 1996. In addition, the employment numbers include an increase in the number of graduates engaged in part-time and short-term work, as well as more grads taking jobs at the schools they had attended.” And you still are posting on various boards and blogs which law school you’re considering attending. A wise man or woman learn from the mistakes of others.

“Jennifer Blaga, director of career planning at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University, said the employment rate for her class of 201 students in 2009 was 84.8%, though she cautioned that not all students report whether they have found jobs.” I’ll repeat what I wrote in that other post: If I went around and asked 10 people I knew were employed and they all said yes I can easily offer that out of the people I surveyed, 100% were employed, which by no means reflect the actual legal industry and broader economy.”

“Ms. Blaga said Cleveland State law graduates are better off than some because they often are looking for jobs at smaller firms, many of which did not face the same challenges that large law firms have over the past three years, when new hires often were deferred for several months and attorneys were laid off.” Smaller firms which also start off at a lower salary for attorney positions not likely to increase earning potential nor maintain a decent standard of living.

“While the 2009 NALP Employment Report and Salary Survey noted that an increasing number of law schools were boosting their employment figures by offering graduates positions at their alma maters, Ms. Blaga — herself a Cleveland-Marshall graduate, albeit in 1994 — said that is not the case at Cleveland State. In 2009, 1.2% of graduates had jobs in academia; 55.6% entered private practice, with slightly more than half of those graduates working in firms with two to 10 attorneys.” They’re on the defensive thanks to Nando at Third Tier Reality and see  Exposing The Law School Scam: A closer look at the employment stats for the 2009 law school class They know people are dissecting the statistics they proffer.

“At the 192 law schools that responded to the NALP survey, academic employment rose to 3.5% in 2009 from 2.3% in 2008. Talking about plumping a turkey so the masses can devour. These temporary, revolving positions helped law schools report exaggerated employment statistics for the new hapless crop to be harvested in next three years, but look:
“James Leipold, NALP’s executive director, said the academic hires were one piece of the “underlying weakness” the employment figures hid. More than 40% of the law schools reported that they provided jobs for graduates on campus and, including judicial clerkships, nearly 25% of all jobs for graduates were temporary.” Now that’s some honesty.

“Added Ms. Weinzierl: “Employers are realizing lawyers have a lot of skills others may not have. They’re more open to considering those who have a legal background.” You’re kidding me right? Please explain why most lawyers have noted that having a J.D. is a detriment to finding working outside the legal field and with professors and seasoned practicioners admitting that law graduates are entering the legal workforce with little to no practical skills, thus unprepared to meet the needs of firms and clients. Oh, do explain.

University of Chicago’s ‘All You Need Is Law: Because Love Is Inefficient’

Copyright, All Rights Reserved

Image from Disney's Aladdin

Ok, I’m not sure if this is direct retaliatory art scheme to Esq. Never’s A Law School Carol, but this is just frightening. Apparently the University of Chicago Law School does this annually. On its website it shows a law school musical entitled: “All You Need Is Law: Because Love Is Inefficient” [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/node/2744] Have people lost their minds? Is this a parody? As much as I hear about Americans disliking Disney, I think it’s just  odd and insulting to abuse a song from The Lion King?  The law students used the Circle of Life, in a way this makes sense. Predators attacking, eliminating and consuming their prey to carry on the tradition (the hunt) as they have been taught, ok I digress.

Why in the world would future professionals parade themselves while professors and deans clap and probably think “yes, dance for us, schuck and jive, entertain us while we profit off the federal student loans that is paying our salaries, sabatticals and pensions.” It’s not like you’re spending time with friends or family such as dinner, bowling, or the theatre, this is apparently an official law school activity. Is this the privilege of being in a T-14 law school, I can probably guess the extent if a lower ranked law school would dare subject its students to such activities.

Anyway, looking at the title of the musical this shows how if you not an elitist you better be a cut throat, arrogant, heartless, shrill to succeed in law. You will learn how to push the envelope, learn the difference between legal ethics and human ethics and the psychotic ones will manipulate or blur the lines between both, while true justice fades away in the distance. Forget about family life, cultivating nurturing relationships that will outlast the average legal career. All you need is law?, all you’ll need is an anti-depressant if you attend law school.