Slate

If your Facebook news feed is anything like mine, by now you’ve probably seen the Slate article encouraging people to “Apply to law school now!”, as well as Joe’s biting reply. The beef has gone back and forth. I’m not going to debate the job numbers; that’s been handled more than ably, and those who are willing to make an honest assessment of the job market already have.

Instead I am going to focus on the human cost of losing the law school lottery….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “What Happens When You Lose The Law School Lottery”

Elie here. Everybody wants a deal. Everybody wants to “beat the market,” and the internet makes us think that we can. If a baby with an e-Trade app can make money, why can’t you? Buy low, sell high: I’m sure I read that on a bumper sticker somewhere, or maybe in the New Yorker.

Increasingly, the internet thinks it’s identified just the right undervalued asset to snap up at a discount: legal education. The decline in law school applications has been sharp and truly shocking to some. It doesn’t make sense that a law degree would suddenly be much less valuable now than it was 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. The value should rebound. The world still needs lawyers. And if you haven’t noticed, or just disregarded, long-term structural changes in the market for legal services, the fact that every law dean will tell you that the market rebound is right around the corner gives you more confidence in your logical assessment. It’s not like every law dean in the country would lie about the value of their product, right?

We can and will continue to debate the likely future value of a legal education. But can we dispense with the notion that purchasing full-price legal education right now involves “buying low”? You are not buying low, you are buying at historically unprecedented heights. Nobody would put “Buy high, hope to sell at fair market price in three years” on a bumper sticker.

And nobody should be putting that on the internet either….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Law School Is Not A Stock: It’s A Very Expensive Lotto Ticket”

* As I noted yesterday over at Redline, the defense in the NCAA trial is putting up some terrible witnesses. Here’s another example. The NCAA’s expert wrote a textbook. The NCAA might have wanted to check it out before bringing him on to help defend themselves IN AN ANTITRUST CASE. [Twitter / Stewart Mandel]

* Elie and I got in a spirited discussion with Slate’s Jordan Weissmann over my edits to his piece on law schools. And it looks like some outside observers took notice. [Law and More]

* The case for grade inflation. [The Atlantic]

* In Wisconsin, a Scott Walker supporter allegedly voted for his boy 5 times. His defense is ripped from a Days of Our Lives script. [CBS News]

* Our mates at Legal Cheek have the ideal follow-up to our World Cup guide: Which last 16 World Cup team is your law firm? As a QPR fan, I’ll tip my hat to their Harry Redknapp quote. [Legal Cheeks]

* Overpreparing for a simple meeting. [What Should Law Bros Call Me]

* An 11th Circuit PIP nightmare. [South Florida Lawyers]

* Hong Kong lawyers protesting what they see as China meddling. Honestly can you blame China? Ever since Hong Kong let Batman just swoop in and grab that guy, you can’t really trust the Hong Kong legal system. [Reuters]

Many of you have by now seen the Slate article by Jordan Weissmann published yesterday afternoon entitled Apply to Law School Now! Indeed, many readers sent this particular piece along to us through our tips line, deeply concerned. Indeed, one tip came with the message: “Waiting for Elie’s head to explode in 3, 2, 1…”

Well, we’re here to make a confession. Slate sent us a draft copy of this article to edit and darned if we forgot to email over the redlined copy.[1] This piece is therefore totally on us, guys. Don’t blame Slate.

In the interest of rebuilding Slate’s reputation, we’ve attached our redline so we can see how the article would have read with proper editing….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The ATL Markup Of Slate’s ‘Apply To Law School Now!’ Article”

I shouldn’t laugh at this. A recent law school graduate got completely screwed by her own father and I shouldn’t find it so funny.

But I do. I find it goddamn hilarious. The student actually got a clue halfway through law school and decided to drop out. But her father convinced her to stick it out by promising to pay her tuition. She finished, she graduated, and when it came time to pay the bills, Daddy said, “Sorry, I lied.”

Ha. Hahahahaha. When will law students learn that EVERYBODY IS LYING. You know, except me. EVERYBODY ELSE IS LYING…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Father Ultimately Trolls Law Student Daughter”

Earlier this week, Jim Saksa wrote a piece in Slate entitled “You Can Do Anything With A Law Degree,” where he argued that you can’t do everything with a law degree despite the propaganda of the law school-industrial complex. Apparently he didn’t realize you could herd sheep. All in all, it was a great addition to the growing pushback to the lie that it’s a good idea to blow six figures on a legal education even if you aren’t committed to a life at least tangentially in the law and you get into a microwave law school.

It’s already generated some ridiculous defensive blowback. One carefully constructed rebuttal to the Slate piece, attempting to rehabilitate the “law degree as fashionable accessory” argument, looks on its face like a serious challenge. It’s not….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “People Actually Trying To Defend ‘You Can Do Anything With A Law Degree’”

Is it acceptable to say a friendly hello to a Supreme Court justice if you see one of the nine out in public? That’s the question posed in a recent Dear Prudence column. As a federal judicial stalker an Article III groupie myself, I say yes. Because who knows? The justice might give you an autograph (and some free wine).

But some people don’t need to chase after Supreme Court justices. Some people will get to work closely with the members of the high court as law clerks, crafting the opinions that will rule us all.

Thanks to everyone who responded to our recent request for SCOTUS clerk hiring news for October Term 2014. Let’s look at the updated list of clerks hired so far….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: The Early Word On October Term 2014″

I actually think I may yet get married — statistically 90% of people get married at some point. But I would say that love and craziness has overwhelmed my life, and I am trying to write about it, and at the same time tell the story of New York City from 1609 to the present.

Elizabeth Wurtzel, the prominent lawyer and bestselling, critically acclaimed author, in a recent Ask Me Anything forum on Reddit (via Althouse, via Slate).

(Additional discussion, plus a photo of me and Elizabeth Wurtzel, after the jump.)

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Is Elizabeth Wurtzel Getting Married?”

This one escaped our attention for a while, but apparently Slate writer Matthew Yglesias set off a war of words a couple weeks ago with an article about the Zimmerman trial and the role of public defenders. Yglesias, best known for having a much better handle on inflation than Ben Bernanke, waded into legal commentary, contrasting Zimmerman’s trial experience with the experience of indigent criminal defendants.

Former public defenders took offense at the article and have taken to the Internet and social media to rip Yglesias. Yglesias has offered an apology and been rebuffed.

So what’s the deal here?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Slate Suggests Public Defenders Are Incompetent; Public Defenders Disagree”

Every now and again, attorneys email into Dear Prudence over on Slate and ask the columnist for advice. Then we here at Above the Law read that advice and offer our own, unsolicited versions. It’s fun. It’s like being a know-it-all at a beer garden when somebody mutters “I’ll have a Sam’s” when there’s Goose Island right there on tap.

Today, we have an embarrassment of riches; two attorneys have appeared in recent Dear Prudence columns. They sound entitled and confused, suspicious but trusting, fun for the whole family…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Paranoid Attorneys Ask Prudence For Advice”

Page 1 of 3123