« Obamacare upheld | Main | Reviewing my past posts on Obamacare »

June 29, 2012

Comments

I'm wondering if LSU is high because Louisiana is a civil law, not a common law, state. So I'm wondering if there a bunch of foreign students at the school that drive the numbers up (if you want a US law degree for some reason and come from certain countries, Louisiana law schools may be your only option). People that get law school degrees from other states probably cannot practice in Louisiana, correct?

The ONLY way one LIVES their "Champagne Wishes & Caviah Dreams" via the LA Law fantasy (to use some old references)

is by graduating Harvard of Yale Law.
Oh, and BE in The Club BEFORE you attend.

Americans are RULED BY a class of NOBLEMEN, no different than what they fought against in 1776.

GMR is right re: the napoleonic code. Very few layers from outside LA bother to bar into LA. The difference between many states is small enough they even offer reciprocity of bar passage, and where they are different, their similarities are more pronounced than their differences.
So LA is it's own little "island"
Havign said that, they suffer from the "Yale or Fail" microcosm the same as the rest of the US. If you go to Toulane, your odds are vastly better than LSU. Enough that I wonder, even including the "island" effect, if the numbers are fudged.
Another factor is the Katrina/BP Spill blip. there are still environmental/compliance jobs pertaining to those two things "juicing" the local economy.

"Law in the state of Louisiana is based in part on civil law. Louisiana is unique among the 50 U.S. states in having a legal system partially based on French and Spanish codes and ultimately Roman law, as opposed to English common law.[1] Louisiana thus follows the system of most non-Anglophone countries in the world." ---Wikipedia

Also, Louisiana has an absurd number of lawyers, and the courts are very busy with ridiculous lawsuits.

It makes do difference how much publicity this story gets. Law schools will continue to be swamped with applicants because law school is easy: no math, no science, no computers. It's basically just an extension of liberal arts college.

180K for a Big Law Salary isn't much when you take into the high cost of living where these firms are located. In addition, much of the paycheck goes into paying back their student loans for those associates. Further, do we have an oversaturation of law school graduates in this country? Look at our inept law regulated bureaucrats like Obama, and look at those of the Chinese, they have rulers who are engineers.

Law education isn't much different from that of a liberal arts education. It's pretty much easy and you can it learn on your own. The countless of number of sh*tty law schools says it all.

@Firepower

You are dead wrong about Yale and Harvard ruling the West Coast market. If you want to become a millionaire in Cali, you have to graduate from Stanford. It has the highest average graduate salary and obviously fair better with placement due to location and tech firms recruiting for in house council aka corporate lawyers.

Every commentator should be required to submit sufficient backup data and facts to support their statements.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/03/08/the-best-law-schools-for-getting-rich/

HS:

I mean no offense, but why have you kept repeating the same mistakes, educationally speaking? After realizing you wasted three years and over a hundred thousand dollars in law school debt, why did you do an MBA and then a taxation degree? I think you mentioned that the MBA wasn't such a big deal because you did it part time, as well as the NYU tax degree, but, from my understanding, you are still working as a programmer, a field which even a four year degree is not necessary. So why waste the money and time? I can however see why a programmer would still want one (or any other person for that matter), just to say they have a four year degree, even if they will never use it, but, of course, people getting useless degrees and who cant get into HYP should pay the least amount possible for an accredited degree.

As an FYI - I just finished competing an MBA (full-time) and can only get sales and customer service jobs paying $12 an hour. I am unemployed and leaving it off my resume. :-(

How do the Milton Friedman chimos explain this?

Law schools will continue to be swamped with applicants because law school is easy: no math, no science, no computers. It's basically just an extension of liberal arts college.

You're wrong on two counts:

1. Liberal arts isn't always easy. It is easier for some. I myself found my math and science to be easier.

2. Some law schools may be easy but in terms of minimum number of hours of studying required it's a lot harder than most undergrad majors.

Professor in general are con artists/thieves, not just law school professors.

"If you want to become a millionaire in Cali, you have to graduate from Stanford."

How great would it be if federal civil rights officials targeted basic snobbery rather than imaginary 'racism'? BTW Lexus Liberal, that piece you cite was written by a self-described sportswriter, who proclaims that he occasionally moonlights on education. The longtime G.C. of Oracle went to Boalt. Also, where did you get the idea in-house counsel were "corporate lawyers"? That term describes outside attorneys who do time-sensitive M&A work. In-house counsel positions are for women and other womanly types who do employment, compliance or other scut work. For example, Applied Materials once had a group of managers who were forcing employees to sit for covert Scientology training. In-house lawyers were the ones assigned to 'counsel' the abused employees and then make excuses for the managers.

"As an FYI - I just finished competing an MBA (full-time) and can only get sales and customer service jobs paying $12 an hour. I am unemployed and leaving it off my resume. :-("

Attending business school full-time is usually an even worse decision than attending law school unless you're at a top 15 school (someone would argue M7).

*some

Some thoughts...

State schools in the Top 20 (in terms of percentage of graduates employed in jobs requiring a law degree) include the Universities of Virginia, Michigan, California (Berkeley), Alabama and Arizona, and, of course, LSU.

Also in the Top 20 were schools I'd never heard of (St. Mary's University, Mississippi College). These schools did a better job for their graduates than, say, Vanderbilt or Baylor or Texas or UNC? Really?

Thomas M. Cooley graduated 999 new lawyers! I guess there's one born every minute.

The article contained the usual canards from law school deans - "You can't measure the value of a law degree in terms of dollars." Yeah, right. I'm sure the unemployed graduates are just happy as clams when they move back in with their parents and work at some lousy job to make their loan payments. And - "Many people get law degrees to advance their careers but never intend to practice law." But the only example cited is "government workers."

"Attending business school full-time is usually an even worse decision than attending law school unless you're at a top 15 school (someone would argue M7)."

It's a bad decision but how would it be WORSE than below top 14 law schools which takes 3 years and is more expensive?

@Lexus Liberal

""Firepower

You are dead wrong about Yale and Harvard!!""

Um, wtf do you want, a COMPLETE, all-inclusive footnote/annotated LIST cluttering up somebody's blog? Grow a brain stem.

@ Lexus Liberal

Standford law school is full of red diaper doper babies. Kids born into wealthy California families who embrace left of center politics. It's no different than Harvard of Yale in that regard.

"How great would it be if federal civil rights officials targeted basic snobbery rather than imaginary 'racism'?" - mel


Oh the racism witch hunts are part of the snobbery. Their purpose is to punish "the wrong sort of white". If you spend any time around liberals you'd know they're the most snobbish people of all. Nothing disgusts the upper class white more than the thought he could be prole white. They have to distinguish themselves from the riffraff so opposing racism, sexism, and homophobia, becomes their religion. Liberal professors are simply the new priesthood with the state being the new church.

You need to pay more attention to the regional element in the hiring of law school graduates.

Yes, the University of Arizona graduate's resume is probably going straight into the recycle bin at a big Manhattan firm, but that may not be the case at a good-quality Phoenix firm.

Americans have this idea that there's a truly national educational system, where two institutions with the same "rankings" are essentially interchangeable, but this isn't always the case, even at the undergraduate level.

So, if you decide that you wish to practice law in, say, Indianapolis, going to the University of Indiana Law school might be a smart choice (assuming you can graduate in the top 25% of the class). (I don't know, this is just an example I made up.) BUT that means that you MUST have a clear idea of what you want to do with your degree BEFORE you enroll.

So more GW students have law related jobs, but GW is 20 and Georgetown is ranked 14. And Georgetown is an even bigger diploma mill than GW. How do the US News rankings make any sense in light of this?

What percentage of students going to law school only applied because they didnt get their dream job, PhD program acceptance, or are rich kids making unacceptable average wages? How many applicants for law school have been quarter life crisis kids who didnt have an idea of what they wanted to do in life and thought 'law school' sounds good, orderly and ambitious? There have been too many students going to college and too many going to law school for all of the wrong reasons.

Some lawyers agree: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/08/opinion/la-oe-greenbaum8-2010jan08

"Yes, the University of Arizona graduate's resume is probably going straight into the recycle bin at a big Manhattan firm, but that may not be the case at a good-quality Phoenix firm."


Half Sigma addressed this before. He says the top Phoenix law firms will occasionally take someone from a local school but that's mostly to maintain good relations with the community.

In other words you better be some local big shot's son if you went to Arizona State Law school. Otherwise forget about it.

"1. Liberal arts isn't always easy. It is easier for some."

From input from my own and friends children I understand that Lib Arts are easy even in HYPS and slightly lesser schools as long as you don't mind to be in the bottom 30% of the class.

"I myself found my math and science to be easier."

In many, many years in science/technology field, I have never met an American born white (many but not all asians as well) who was good enough to be in STEM in HYPS and had problems with difficult Lib Arts subjects.
Once you mastered the language and able to think logically, clearly and consistently and are not hindered badly by ADHD, you will have no problems even with the hardest topics in Philosophy and such.

Bottom line: If you are ESL student and/or are not as good in Math/Science as you think you are, you may very well have problems with really weighty topics in Lib Arts.

"I just finished competing an MBA (full-time) and can only get sales and customer service jobs paying $12 an hour. I am unemployed and leaving it off my resume. :-("

My advice is to try to get one of the customer service jobs. $12/hour isn't a fortune by any means, but it's a whole lot better than a goose egg. You also should be able to spin it into something that sounds pretty decent on your resume.

As for the sales jobs, avoid them like the plague unless: (a) they pay salaries rather than commissions,* and (b) the customers come to you, rather than you having to go out and cold-call solicit for business.

"So, if you decide that you wish to practice law in, say, Indianapolis, going to the University of Indiana Law school might be a smart choice (assuming you can graduate in the top 25% of the class). (I don't know, this is just an example I made up.) BUT that means that you MUST have a clear idea of what you want to do with your degree BEFORE you enroll."

Attending a state flagship law school *may* be a reasonable decision, though surely not as reasonable as it was several years ago. But keep in mind that the hypothetical Indian University Law School graduate will be pretty much limited to working in the Hoosier State and lacking in geographical mobility.

* = base + commission or draw against commission may be sort of acceptable. Straight commission is completely unacceptable without exception.

@Nicolai

"Law schools will continue to be swamped with applicants because law school is easy: no math, no science, no computers. It's basically just an extension of liberal arts college.

You're wrong on two counts:

1. Liberal arts isn't always easy. It is easier for some. I myself found my math and science to be easier.

2. Some law schools may be easy but in terms of minimum number of hours of studying required it's a lot harder than most undergrad major."

If it wasn't easy, why is there an oversaturation
of students in the liberal arts programs and law schools? Let's put the salary issues aside for a moment. STEM fields pay just as much, some paying even more than lawyers who grind longer hours. Most BIGLAW guys don't have a life besides their desk jobs. Unless they become partners, it's all grind work for the partners. Being a partner is only for a select few, and the others are weeded out so the firm can draw fresh blood again.

When are law school deans and other idiots going to stop blathering, Law school "will teach you to think like a lawyer"..."opens so many doors"..."bet you didn't know [insert well known figure's name here] is a lawyer, he never practiced law and look how rich and successful he is"..."stepping stone into politics"..."you don't have to practice law, you know, you can do some many other things with a J.D."

Full disclosure: 1987 1L dropout, New England School of Law,

Check out #3 on 100 Reasons:

http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2010/09/3-your-pedigree-counts.html

The more that higher education has been "democratized" the more common degrees of every kind have been become. When everyone has a degree, the prestige of your school is more important, so the expansion of higher education ends up promoting elitism.

"a graduate working for some small divorce lawyer for $10/hour or less, which happens quite frequently"

$10 per hour, are you serious? Telemarketers and store cashiers make that much or even more.

Law attracts sociopaths more than any other profession. In a field where subjectivity is to be manipulated to objectivity, the best liars are needed to do just that.

One of the fields that aspire ex cons is Law. No surprise there!

I think many White kids should take up STEM instead. After all, Asians lack any creativity and ingenuity when it comes to math and the sciences. They just know how to memorize and play by the rules.

@ mel belli

“BTW Lexus Liberal, that piece you cite was written by a self-described sportswriter, who proclaims that he occasionally moonlights on education.”

“Kurt Badenhausen: I am a senior editor at Forbes and focus mainly on the business of sports and our annual franchise valuations. I also head up our biennial B-School rankings, our list of America's Best Small Companies and our annual features on the Best Places for Business (metros, states and countries). I joined Forbes in 1998 after working 3+ years at Financial World magazine.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/people/kbadenhausen/

Nice try, please don’t hold your breath for Forbes to get a “sports” section and start hiring sportswriters.

“Also, where did you get the idea in-house counsel were "corporate lawyers?”

The notion that outside law firms perform all or most of a Fortune 500 company’s legal work is no longer the case in this country’s large corporations. Many corporations have over one hundred in-house lawyers employed to represent them throughout the world. Likewise, there has been a significant change in the role of in-house counsel. They no longer merely prepare and file routine documents
and draft corporate minutes. Enron had over 250 lawyers employed in its legal department who handled its transactions and litigation matters. The use of in-house lawyers may have begun as a means of controlling costs, but many corporations believe that they receive superior work from lawyers who are more knowledgeable about the business affairs of the corporation and can help make corporate decisions on business and legal matters.

http://www.utcle.org/eLibrary/preview.php?asset_file_id=1769

"If it wasn't easy, why is there an oversaturation
of students in the liberal arts programs and law schools? Let's put the salary issues aside for a moment. STEM fields pay just as much, some paying even more than lawyers who grind longer hours. Most BIGLAW guys don't have a life besides their desk jobs. Unless they become partners, it's all grind work for the partners. Being a partner is only for a select few, and the others are weeded out so the firm can draw fresh blood again."

Yes, Law is an easy field to study. The pass rate for the bar is generally around 80%. The CPA exam, by contrast, is around 45%, but can be passed by students with IQs of only 110, though they'd have to study harder for the exam than CPA students with over 120 IQs.

Law is so easy a topic that it should actually be an undergrad major, not a post-undergrad degree by itself.

But, remember, if Law were an undergrad degree, then universities would make LESS money because the colleges make MORE money by keeping students in school longer than they should be.

This is why the gened should be eliminated as it has been in British universities - the the extra time spent knocking off gened classes (which are dominated by kook liberal arts professors) DELAYS the graduation date for all undergrads and thus brings in more tuition revenue for our crooked universities.

And not only are the universities financial ripoffs, but they the liberal arts departments in particular are doing everything they can to destroy the country.

Again, we need to pull the plug on the liberal arts.

"I think many White kids should take up STEM instead. After all, Asians lack any creativity and ingenuity when it comes to math and the sciences. They just know how to memorize and play by the rules."

That's a pretty broad and inaccurate swipe at Asians. Japan, for example, has produced lots of creative inventions.

Studying STEM is no panacea. There is no shortage of underemployed and unemployed STEM grads.

Creativity is nice, but, by itself, doesn't pay. No one gives a crap about your great ideas. Most of the most successful entrepreneurs weren't the most creative ones; they were incremental innovators who out-executed their competitors. Henry Ford didn't invent the car or the assembly line, but he was one of the first to successfully combine both innovations. Mark Zuckerberg didn't invent social networking, but he out-executed MySpace, Friendster, and other predecessors.

And outside of entrepreneurship, creativity counts for even less. How many executives do you think climbed to the top of their corporate ladders because they had the most innovative ideas? The whole structure of most companies is built to prevent you from thinking as much as possible, because when most people improvise, they screw up.

"There’s very little middle-ground in entry-level law salaries; it’s either a high BIGLAW salary, or too low to justify the cost of attending (tuition plus the loss of three years not doing something else)."

Even HYS law students are being ripped off because everything they learned in LAW school could have been taught at the undergrad level.

Of course, colleges, don't want LAW taught at the undergrad level because they would lose out on the extra revenue they generate by making students who just completed their bachelor's degree take another 4 years of LAW "education".

So, Sigma, isn't the fact Top-14 LAW schools exist another aspect of the overall college scam because the fact Top college undergrads can't get a law education at the undergrad level proves the colleges are dragging out how long it should take to get a degree at the undergrad and undergraduate level?

If students got degrees faster, the universities would lose out on the revenue they steal by keeping students in college longer than the should with gened degree requirements (that can often take more credits than a student's major) and making students take law programs that could easily be taught at the undergrad level?

I love how people deride the liberal arts as easier as opposed to science when in fact science professors make their classes more challenging, that's all. Science and math professors believe in meritocracy and liberal arts believe in egalitarianism, which is why the liberal arts are so watered down. But, also, I believe that any "studies" majors, communications, vocational majors (nursing, business, etc.,) are bullshit.

Truth is, Google, Microsoft, JP Morgan, should simply open up their own universities (which is what are current universities are de facto), it's what this joke of situation has come to.

Solution to the problem of college debt is reinstate a caste system (proles into trades, middle class into college, etc.,)create an admissions system based on MAJOR, thus the school of liberal arts will only have to charge a fraction of the school of business and the school of engineering and all will be good. The liberal arts major wont make much money but wont be indebted either.

@Chris P

Simple, go to any high school, especially those that are NAM infested, and ask those students if math and the physical sciences are just as easy as history.

If STEM is not harder, then it requires a certain long term discipline to learn them. Now when do NAMs have any discipline to engage in something longterm as learning STEM? Let's not even bring IQ into the mix, because we are talking about behaviorial patterns.

Foremost, we need to honestly deal with the NAM problem before any reform can take place, whether it's in the economy, school and social polices. NAMs are antithetical to all matters pertaining to this country, because they cannot function normally and productively in any progressive society. Just like the disabled and mentally ill, they serve as a handicap at best.

"Simple, go to any high school, especially those that are NAM infested, and ask those students if math and the physical sciences are just as easy as history."

High school doesn't count. NAMs shouldn't even be behind desks.

The fact of the matter is that if history professors assigned as much coursework and tried to weed out students much as physics professors then the liberal arts would not be as much of a joke.

Second, the merit of a field should not be based on it's "difficulty". If no one recorded history, or at least tried, then we could have no knowledge of the past (which is obviously important enough). Sure, a lot of kids choose history as a joke major but history is nonetheless surely important.

Third, if everyone majored in physics, then we would have too many physicists. The problem is not that people major in history, it is the fact that people CHOOSE to major in history and there being no place in society for them besides Starbucks. Some people clearly felt history is what they liked so they did it. On a descriptive level, we have problems because the desires of a citizenry are mismatched with the wishes of employers.

Many people on this blog have an defeatist mindset. Yes, attending a top 14 law school will give you a better start in your career and yes you must be wise in choosing to attend law school, but you can still be successful if you don't attend a top 14 law school. Most wealthy people don't attend HYP , but they still become successful. I think most people on this blog and in the HBD community do want to put in hard work and just expect that their High IQ is just enough. In the real world is does not work like this. The first prerequisite is having an high IQ, but 80% of your success comes from dedication, persistence, having faith, working hard, focus and confidence. Unfortunately many in the HBD community lack the latter qualities. How are you going to become successful if you don't believe things can get better and you don't have faith in a desired future?

"Yes, attending a top 14 law school will give you a better start in your career and yes you must be wise in choosing to attend law school, but you can still be successful if you don't attend a top 14 law school. Most wealthy people don't attend HYP , but they still become successful."

Yeah but the chances of a t14 grad becoming successful are much higher than non-t14. Paying off 200k of debt at 40k a year does not sound like fun to me and that is the reality for your avg non-t14 grad.


"The first prerequisite is having an high IQ, but 80% of your success comes from dedication, persistence, having faith, working hard, focus and confidence. Unfortunately many in the HBD community lack the latter qualities. How are you going to become successful if you don't believe things can get better and you don't have faith in a desired future?"

With our Liberals in power, they will try to destroy everything that signifies hard work and persistence. Because of their social policies of favoring NAMs, everything they touch turns into dust, except their nice homes and neighborhoods free from these people.

Foremost is that we have a NAM problem. NAMs are incapable of building a progressive society of productivity, let alone wealth. Most of the major decrepit and derelict urban areas are infested with NAMs. It wouldn't matter if they were revitalized because they will destroy their neighborhoods at a given time. This is the reason why housing in big cities is so segregated and expensive because of their wasteful occupation of large urban areas. It's also another reason why our public education system sucks (and some private as well). They lower their standards so NAMs can attend them. It's also a reason as to why corporate chains and most gov't departments in the big cities have rude workers with entitlement issues. You could make a correlation as to why you have to pay dearly for many things because of Liberals and their NAM policies. Higher taxes, expensive housing and private schools are a few things that come to mind.

"Most of the major decrepit and derelict urban areas are infested with NAMs."

First, I'd be wary of the "infested" language. NAMs are human beings, not termites.

Second, have some sense of history. NAMs (specifically, blacks), contributed to building wealth in a lot of urban areas decades ago, when they migrated there to work in factories. The closure of those factories, combined with social welfare policies that a) gave former factory workers an incentive to stay in cities with no jobs for them, and b) broke up families by encouraging illegitimacy, contributed to a lot of the dysfunction you see today in cities such as Camden and Detroit.

@ Chris P

Yes, I think the Liberal Arts are important and beneficial to one's learning. However, as TUJ and you would say, they should not be part of a defacto undergraduate curriculm simply because it's a waste of time and money. Students should be able to take what they choose to specialize, and not what is required. When LA courses are involuntarily thrown at them, because the school decides it's a requirement and not by choice, it produces an inefficient learning system and bogs down the students. You gather that most undergrads coming out of college didn't remember a thing about those irrelevant subjects that they were required to take. They should not be offered as a requirement but a cheaper option by choice. Colleges should only offer very refined classes in the LA or STEM subjects. That means, those who are not ready or wanting to be part of it, will take up a post HS education of general learning for a low cost or free of charge.

I believe the educated middle class should also take up the trades. Not all trades were meant for proles. Some require a higher thinking capacity such as Lawyering. Yes, the legal field is a trade, it just happens to be treated as more prestigious than let's say plumbing.

Trade schools have their share of problems like the colleges. Trade schools are NAM infested, they make their money by recruiting incapable NAM students with govt's vouchers paid by the general public. Most of the NAMs drop out because they don't have the knack for it. The schools don't care as long as there's a revenue stream coming in from taxpayers' dollars. Trades are not as easy as some people think they are, just look at the high turnover rate of NAMs failing at them.

How many NAMs who are overrepresented in the trade schools, are actually working in auto repair and HVAC systems?

Not many!

@ DaveinHackensack,

How many educated people like to live around a NAM, Black majority? I gather not that many. They are seen as troublesome, just like pests are. They also tend to destroy their living areas. What normal group of people would defecate on their own neighborhood?

All I can say is that the Liberals need to clean up their mess after years of failed social policies, or if push comes to shove, be removed ruthlessly from power that promotes this kind of dysfunction.

@ Dave

While I appreciate your effort to humanize NAM's I think you have a misunderstanding of history. Dysfunctional black behavior began a long time before "factories closed" or "welfare". In fact it's argued by Paul Kersey (Stuff Black People Don't Like blog) that businesses fled to escape blacks. Detroit is the blackest city in America and it's not far off from African warlordism. Black illegitimacy also predates the welfare state and is the norm throughout Africa. It was only whites who uplifted blacks into marriage and monogamy. Without the strict hand of white discipline blacks have returned to their natural inclinations.

Why don't the rows in the WSJ's chart add up to 100%?

"Yes, I think the Liberal Arts are important and beneficial to one's learning. However, as TUJ and you would say, they should not be part of a defacto undergraduate curriculm simply because it's a waste of time and money. Students should be able to take what they choose to specialize, and not what is required."

JS,

1) Even if liberal arts professors were conservative, the gened would still be a waste of time because ALL of the subjects taught in the gened - Philosophy, English lit, History, Government/Political Science, Art, Music, Diversity 101 - are subjects that ALREADY should have been mastered and taught in high school. The intelligent college students have already taken English literature in high school and know how to write an essay. The dumb college students shouldn't even be in college.

So the gened has managed to fail both the intelligent and dumb students, the former because they've already taken and mastered these subjects and are just wasting time and tuition dollars going over known subjects and the later because they can't get much out of the classes.


2) the colleges make MORE money by dragging out how many years it takes to get a degree because the more time students spend in college, the more tuition dollars colleges receive.

3) In addition to being a money making scam and, the gened serves as an indoctrination center because it's loaded with leftist liberal arts classes (PHIL 101, POLISCI 101) and lighter on hard subjects (CALC 101) where the professors encourage students to join Teach for America, Green orgs, protest capitalism, or join Slut Marches.

The colleges need to be the next mission of a conservative defunding campaign that began with Scott Walker's victory over public sector union funding.

Getting rid of the gened - by using "making college more affordable for the middle class" as a cover excuse to defund our ideological enemies - would eliminate most liberal arts departments because the 80% of students who are studying a vocational subject will not take the gened, except in maybe an abbreviated form, so they can graduate sooner with less debt.

Continuing my points about the gened,

There are two benefits to lobbying state and federal legislators to rid the gened (maybe by regulating that all high grades with scores higher than an F count fully to satisfying all college gened requirements and that freshmen can bypass the gened immediately start taking junior level courses if they haven't had any Fs):

1) Since 80% of students study something vocationally oriented, and few students major in the humanities, if the gened is eliminated there will be mass layoffs of liberal arts teachers because the liberal arts professors mostly teach gened classes to non-LA majors.

With fewer English, History, gender studies, and poli sci professors, may be crippled because the liberal arts professors give academic credibility to the left's schemes.

2) College degrees become more valuable to employers because the various majors would become more specialized as they are in Britain and Australia where there are no gened requirements.

Intelligent students already have taken liberal arts courses in high school and don't need more of it, especially the attendant political indoctrination.

What intelligent students need are courses in subjects they have not studied in high school, such as engineering, programming (although CS departments are lousy at teaching programming that is useful in a real tech environment, they could be improved to be more valuable to employers and teach more real world IT skills) and other subjects high IQ high school students have not had a chance to learn before.

Guys,

If you feel stuck in your career and you are very smart my advice is to move to Silicon Valley. Brain power counts for a lot in start-ups and in the better big firms as well. You can prove yourself in very competitive conditions. Come work like a mad dog. Give it your all.

Hey! the law school I'm going to (Samford University in Birmingham Al) is doing a little better than average in terms of graduates finding a job in the law field!

"There are a few weird exceptions, such as the very high employment rate from Louisiana State University, which makes me wonder if some schools are submitting false data. As far as I can tell, the ABA simply created a much stricter methodology for law school job placement reporting, and this is a great step in the right direction, but there’s no auditing of the data so we don’t know if schools are fraudulently submitting bogus data"

Um..no..I mean don't get me wrong law schools often manipulate data and misrepresent salaries on a grand scale (for example saying that the average graduate makes 80 K a year when only 10 % of the class reported salaries) but straight up making up numbers out of thin air?? Naw, they ain't that crazy..not yet lol

The comments to this entry are closed.