« Erwin Chemerinsky, BarBri lecturer, liberal, dean | Main | Paul Krugman, full of **** »

September 19, 2007

Comments

Going to this school probably will be a bad deal, but it's not as if many of its students would have had many other opportunities. Chances are, the typical student will be someone with an unmarketable liberal arts degree, who can't do math, can't do science, can't do computers, and who most likely is working at Starbucks or Blockbuster for nine bucks an hour.

I don't think it's a "given" that UCI's law school will be a bottom-feeder. It is a part of the University of California system which has four universities in the top two tiers of the USN&WR. I'd imagine that it would have a pretty good chance of joining UC-Davis in the second tier. It still may or may not be worth someone's while to attend it, I doubt it's going to end up as a bottom-ranked school.

Chances are, the typical student will be someone with an unmarketable liberal arts degree, who can't do math, can't do science, can't do computers, and who most likely is working at Starbucks or Blockbuster for nine bucks an hour.

Like the several college grads that I've met here at my current employer, many liberal arts grads are unable to find work, and oddly, most seem unwilling to apply for civil service jobs which pay better than the $11/hr that we make here in our call centre.

you're thinking too much from a second order perspective.

how much extra poon does the status of being a lawyer confer upon a guy compared to the poon he could pull from the additional $200K earned by continuing to work and not paying law school tuition?

my guess is that he will improve his quality of pussy with the law degree, no matter how nth tier the school, unless he is currently working in some incredibly lucrative lower status job.

I don't think it's a "given" that UCI's law school will be a bottom-feeder. It is a part of the University of California system which has four universities in the top two tiers of the USN&WR.

It may take some time for the law school to develop a decent reputation even though UCI is a good university. Back in the 1980's, Yale's fairly new business school had a surprisingly mediocre reputation despite being part of a very high-prestige university. It just hadn't been around long enough for its graduates to make names for themselves and boost the school's reputation.

how much extra poon does the status of being a lawyer confer upon a guy

Uh, not much.

Being a lawyer only leads to more poon if one is a lawyer with a big firm that pays lots and lots of money - exactly the firms that will rarely, if ever, employ graduates of UCI Law.

And even then, it's mostly poon from predatory females who have designs on the lawyer and his money from day one, and which ultimately costs way more (in terms of money, drama, and opportunity costs) than the poon that can be had on the 'red market'.

It is a part of the University of California system which has four universities in the top two tiers of the USN&WR. I'd imagine that it would have a pretty good chance of joining UC-Davis in the second tier. It still may or may not be worth someone's while to attend it, I doubt it's going to end up as a bottom-ranked school.

I concur as to the potential of UCI. Dispute the status of Davis and Hastings as "second-tier" per USN. They are in the USN first tier. However, it is also true that the first tier is pretty big and many people say it really should be broken into two tiers, and Davis and Hastings would be in that second tier.

The "first tier" is really three tiers. There's the top-14. Then there are some schools that have an especially strong rep but are not quite in the top-14, including U.T. Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Fordham, etc. And then there is the bottom of the first tier which really isn't any different than a "second tier" school.

For some reason they don't list the distinction between the two. They have "Top Schools" which includes the top two tiers, and then list out the third and fourth tier. I got confused in thinking that there were 50 total rather than 50 in each of the top two tiers. So Spungen is right, UC-Davis and Hastings Law are in the top 50 and first tier.

Oh, you hairsplitting fuckers.

If you're going to call the T14 a tier all its own, then it's impossible to avoid splitting the T14 itself into two more tiers: YHS and the other eleven. In fact, those three make themselves into a separate 'tier' on purpose, by being the only three law schools that don't give any sort of merit-based fellowships.

There's a top 3 (YHS), a top 6 (YHS + CCN) and then the top 14.

But the "top 14" has received the most discussion in online forums.

Many pundits have jumped on the UC-Irvine law school to demonstrate how modern politics works. California has a huge nursing shortage and no shortage of lawyers. Yet, the state is opening new law schools but not opening new nursing programs.

The though is that nursing programs are expensive, do not bring in grants or research dollars, have held in low esteem in academia, and produce aluminist who do not donate.

held in low esteem in academia

I think that's the biggie. They're still viewed as "vocational" which few schools want to be seen as.

From the article:

"they’re moneymakers, in part because faculty costs are low compared with other graduate schools and classrooms can be large, says Richard Matasar, dean of New York Law. “Within a university, law schools tend to be relatively efficient producers of net income.”"

And there you go.

All of this reinforces my belief that the federal government has got to take some drastic action. And soon. While I'm not generally in favor of meddlesome government the higher education crisis is different, because the federal government played a big part in creating the crisis when it brought about federally guaranteed student loans. These loans have made it possible for far more people to afford higher education, unfortunately there are far too strings attached. People are allowed to borrow to the hilt in order to get totally unmarketable educations.

What I would propose is connecting loan availability and terms with marketability of studies. People who want to study high-demand fields, for instance engineering or nursing, should be able to get all the money they need at very favorable terms. In fact, if demand for degree-holders is high enough, they should get the money for free without ever having to pay it back.

On the other hand, if you want to study something unmarketable, such as liberal arts, or if you want to go to a non-top-tier law school, you'd better hope that Mommy and Daddy can foot the bill, because you're on your own, buster.

Of course, implementing such a system would be complicated. People who switch their majors in college would have to be dealt with somehow, and another complication is that demand for people in certain fields is not static but changes over time. Even so, something has to be done, because our present higher education system is a total abortion, with huge numbers of unemployed or underemployed graduates contrasted with desparate employee shortages in some fields.

Why not just join the military? Yeah, there are obvious strings attached (and risks of course), but I took advantage of every opportunity they had and I ended up with a great education that was more than how to shoot people and blow stuff up. The resources are there if you are willing to use them and it is basically free and you are getting a paycheck. Also, you can't beat the networking.

Why do lower tier universities continue to offer degrees in academic disciplines that are obviously unmarketable? Why aren't there hoardes of underemployed/unemployed liberal art grads camping out on campuses across the country? Why are taxpayers subsidizing young people to study fluff subjects? Why isn't this an issue in public administration?

Superstars of activism continue to talk about "getting people to college" and "without education, blah blah blah". Yeah, well...how about "getting people to education beyond high school where they learn something marketable"?

Wouldn't it be funny if you were a single parent that struggled for 18 years at a low paying, crappy job so that you can send your kid to college and it decides to major in Classical Literature?

Yeah, maybe you gave your kid a "better life"...too bad it only lasted 4-5 years. And now, they're back living with you.

Sucker.

Anyway, it seems like the current job market requires a specific degree more than anytime in history. The exceptions being the Ivy Leagues and their slightly inferior institutions. If you get a degree in English Lit from Notre Dame, you can pretty much get a job managing finances at some bank or some advertising job.

If lower tier universities were smart (and there are lots of them), they shut down all "fluff" subjects or drastically cut them down to only those wishing to pursue advanced studies in them, and send all of those potential "independent thinking, trouble makers" (students and profs) packing for McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

A lifetime of "minimum wage drudgery" and compulsory television viewing is all the bastards need anyway.

"A lifetime of "minimum wage drudgery" and compulsory television viewing is all the bastards need anyway"

Draft the fuckers! Then they can learn some real lessons about life. But just don't put them in my unit.

There was an online dating study that showed lawyers got more contacts from women than other guys did. Far more, I believe. Same went for firemen and military guys.

If lower tier universities were smart (and there are lots of them), they shut down all "fluff" subjects or drastically cut them down to only those wishing to pursue advanced studies in them, and send all of those potential "independent thinking, trouble makers" (students and profs) packing for McDonalds and Wal-Mart.
Why? They'd lose lots of money. It's a scam...

There was an online dating study that showed lawyers got more contacts from women than other guys did. Far more, I believe. Same went for firemen and military guys.

I hope this isn't meant as an attempt to contradict what I said above about how all the poon will come from gold diggers.

Here's a gedanken experiment: If more women contact some individual ONLINE (meaning personality factors, appearance, charisma, etc. are totally out of the equation) because he's a LAWYER... do you think they're doing it because they're all starry-eyed at the sexiness of the "Esq." after his name?

Or do you think it's because they're smart enough to realize that he (1) probably makes more money than the average Joe, and, just as importantly, (2) probably never got even 5 minutes of a desirable woman's attention before getting his law degree, so he's totally clueless and readily exploitable by a smart, gold-digging woman who knows how to take advantage of pussy-drunk virgin-or-still-damn-close beta-male attorneys?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And if you think the same factors are at work for LAWYERS, an almost universally despised class of people, as for 'men in uniform,' you (1) are stupid utterly beyond belief, and (2) have probably never interacted with a woman, other than your mother.

Now please go away.

Anna pillua - I've been on this blog a long time. If anyone's going away, it's you. That attitude needs to change, quick.

I am not a lawyer, at least not yet. I was just saying what was found in the study. I personally believe that a lawyer brings certain prestige to the table, even if he isn't rich, and it probably helps a bit with women. All the lawyers I know have hot wives. Some might be golddiggers, sure. Figure this out and just bang them, not date them.

You have some real hatred for lawyers, for some reason.

In surveys in which regular people are asked to rank the prestige of professions, lawyers always come out near the top (although never as high as medical doctors).

I wouldn't think this makes much of a difference in online dating, but if there's a study that says otherwise...

From USA Today:

Occupations with the most prestige
Scientist 52%
Doctor 52%
Firefighter 48%
Teacher 48%
Military officer 47%
Nurse 44%
Police officer 40%
Priest/minister/clergy 32%
Member of Congress 31%
Engineer 29%
Athlete 21%
Architect 20%
Business executive 19%
Lawyer 17%
Entertainer 16%
Union leader 16%
Actor 16%
Banker 15%
Journalist 14%
Accountant 10%
Stockbroker 10%
Real estate broker/agent 5%
Source: Harris Poll of 1,012 adults conducted Aug. 10-15, 2004.


Looks like lawyers don't do so well.

>>Why? They'd lose lots of money. It's a scam...<<

But they won't be able to donate any money to the alumni association.

I'm suspecting that the students who major in more academic oriented programs are having their parents picking up the tab.

So maybe there's no need to get pissed off since the taxpayer isn't necessarily funding such a blatant waste of resources?

I'm suspecting that the students who major in more academic oriented programs are having their parents picking up the tab.

If they're attending state school, the state is picking up part of the tab. Lots of people in useless majors in state schools..

The comments to this entry are closed.