Whittier Shutting Down Forum

[dclaw93]

I just be an idiot because I can't find the video. Link?

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/04/whittier ... -its-wake/

[Redfactor]

A bit of revisionist history here in terms of TLS.

This site, even back then, actively warned people about schools. The meta thought back then was that T-14 was okay and t-14 at sticker was more acceptable, but "trap schools" were widely criticized for employment possibilities, especially at sticker (think USC/GW).

This site, through its posters, actually did a decent job of illustrating the difference between T-14 and poser schools who published the same employment statistic as T-14 (median private sector salary being market rate - the statistic in those days). I will, however, say that the school profiles did an inadequate job and rarely, if ever, cast a profiled school in a negative light. (But then again, only 30 or so schools had profiles -- and that took a while to get to.)

Certainly not back in 2008/2009. The idea of a trap school was something ID'd by Prof. Campos back in 2012. Before then, the general consensus was still that "T-1" schools were okay, even if everyone knew the Cooleys and NELS's of the world were terrible decisions. People on this site did not start challenging the decision to attend, say, GW or BU/BC at sticker until later. (There were other sites, like JDU, that were talking about this concept much earlier.)

Yeah dude I have no idea where you've been but this site has a pretty bad reputation in the law school scam movement, precisely because people didn't seriously start challenging prospective students who wanted to go to trap schools until 2012ish and the whole scam movement became mainstream. Just go ask on JDU what they think about TLS. I remember when I first starting looking into LS in 2012, JDU was way, way more pessimistic about employment outcomes and LS in general than TLS was. Back then the only reason I settled for T14 or bust was advice on JDU, not TLS.

I have been on-and-off this site since Ken was an semi-active poster.

I have respect for Campos but he absolutely did not create the term trap school nor did his ideas feel original. Campos' work echoed what a decent contingent of posters were advocating; his significance came from his stature within the legal academia and gave legitimacy to the argument.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I have been on-and-off this site since Ken was an semi-active poster.

I have respect for Campos but he absolutely did not create the term trap school nor did his ideas feel original. Campos' work echoed what a decent contingent of posters were advocating; his significance came from his stature within the legal academia and gave legitimacy to the argument.

A "decent contingent" I can give you. Doesn't mean much though when you have a much bigger contingent advocating for the other position. On the balance, this site was clearly pro-LS until recently.

[Pragmatic Gun]

I saw one thread from pre recession where someone decided to go to NYU without giving any schooly info. Everyone was so happy for OP. The optimism in ppl'a comments was jarring to read

[Paul Campos]

I'm not trying to trademark it or anything but I wasn't aware of the phrase "trap school" when I first used it at ITLSS. If somebody can find prior uses I'd be interested to see them.

[Lettow]

Apologies if this was discussed much more at length after page 9 (where I stopped reading), but zot1 made a fantastic point.

The problem isn't having internet, the problem is having some basic knowledge that allows you to know that you can look for something in the Internet.

I'd tweak "basic knowledge," though, because I think people generally know that information is available on the internet; I'm guessing most law students who eventually attend the worst law schools conduct "research" by, as other posters mentioned, looking up the school's website or Wikipedia.

The problem is they just don't conduct in depth research. And this isn't limited to just those from low-income backgrounds. It seems to be true of so many people across the country, from all ranges of backgrounds. People might do some basic Google searches here and there if they're stumped by something or they want to check something out really quick, but the vast majority of people do not truly conduct internet research required to analyze the choices available and pick the best option while relying on tons of factors (rather than cost and admission requirements alone). They're likelier to rely on advice of those around them, such as close family or friends.

A lot of people just don't seem to have the instinct to internet research a subject in depth.

Of course, some people have stumbled across the horrifying numbers and disregarded it for whatever reason, such as not truly understanding the risk or listening to outside advice. But I think the majority of those who attend the worst of the TTTs and unranked schools just didn't do their research, like so many people don't do their research throughout all society.

[Lettow]

Also, the argument that people should be blamed for not researching because it is a $200,000 life decision is somewhat unfair. So many people do not research retirement, which is objectively far more important than picking a good law school and involves an amount of money far exceeding $200,000.

Some upper middle class professionals probably still rely on financial advisors and end up investing in things like annuities. Or, not even that bad, they simply lose out on potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime because their financial advisor had them make investments that provided merely OK returns when they could done their research and done the DIY approach with low-cost index funds. (Or the advisor picked good investments but his fee alone cost the individual over hundreds of thousands over 40 years--https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investi ... gs-impact/.) The amount of research required for this isn't all that much greater than the amount of research required to make an educated and wise decision for law school.

[Wipfelder]

Also, the argument that people should be blamed for not researching because it is a $200,000 life decision is somewhat unfair. So many people do not research retirement, which is objectively far more important than picking a good law school and involves an amount of money far exceeding $200,000.

Some upper middle class professionals probably still rely on financial advisors and end up investing in things like annuities. Or, not even that bad, they simply lose out on potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime because their financial advisor had them make investments that provided merely OK returns when they could done their research and done the DIY approach with low-cost index funds. (Or the advisor picked good investments but his fee alone cost the individual over hundreds of thousands over 40 years--https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investi ... gs-impact/.) The amount of research required for this isn't all that much greater than the amount of research required to make an educated and wise decision for law school.

This is an excellent post. But 200k now is millions down the line a ways, so I still think not researching LS is a bad mistake. OTOH it's much more understandable.

[Jack_Kelly]

I find this stat pretty amazing: 43% of students there got no scholarship. Tuition is $45K/yr. That's more than most T2s out of state (It's only 2K less than Washington and Lee! Which has 99% getting scholarships). Do people there just really want to stay in the area?

[TakeItToTrial]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but I'm bored at work.

Question for those defending Whittier students' decisions: if those who are going into six-figure debt to attend an unranked law school are not responsible for their poor decision-making, is anyone responsible for poor decision-making during the law school admissions process?

Can we agree that people who have been exposed to the relevant information but willfully ignore it are partially responsible?

Or is the idea that nobody bears personal responsibility, and this is a systemic issue that requires paternalistic government intervention?

[Mr. Blackacre]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but I'm bored at work.

Question for those defending Whittier students' decisions: if those who are going into six-figure debt to attend an unranked law school are not responsible for their poor decision-making, is anyone responsible for poor decision-making during the law school admissions process?

Can we agree that people who have been exposed to the relevant information but willfully ignore it are partially responsible?

Or is the idea that nobody bears personal responsibility, and this is a systemic issue that requires paternalistic government intervention?

Somehow you're still stuck on the idea that people ITT are saying the students aren't responsible at all. Of course if you've been exposed to the information and you ignore it you're partially responsible. But that's not the only factor. As far as I know, this is a systemic issue that in fact has resulted in government intervention. Things have gotten so bad that the government is not letting certain schools have access to federal loans, on criteria that really are mostly bs when you look at other schools that do have such access. The ABA isn't the government, but they've certainly been considering "paternalistic intervention" as well by trying to revise their standards for accreditation.

[Redfactor]

I'm not trying to trademark it or anything but I wasn't aware of the phrase "trap school" when I first used it at ITLSS. If somebody can find prior uses I'd be interested to see them.

Huh, it appears it's me who erred in recounting accurate chronology....

The search function does not lie, even if it goes against my memory; my memory has clearly failed me here.

I apologize for usurping credit where credit is due.

[Lettow]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but I'm bored at work.

Question for those defending Whittier students' decisions: if those who are going into six-figure debt to attend an unranked law school are not responsible for their poor decision-making, is anyone responsible for poor decision-making during the law school admissions process?

Can we agree that people who have been exposed to the relevant information but willfully ignore it are partially responsible?

Or is the idea that nobody bears personal responsibility, and this is a systemic issue that requires paternalistic government intervention?

It's both. The student is literally responsible because it's his decision and he failed to research his options. But, at least for those defending the students, that's not where the analysis ends. There are reasons for why the student failed to research his options.

So, it's taking into account the why it happened, not just what happened. I think it's always a good idea to look at the whole picture, rather than focus so much on the individual's actions. At the end of the day, the country is not benefited by a student raking up 200k debt and failing to find employment. Blaming the student is fine to the extent that the person casting judgment doesn't overlook the serious, systematic problem that allowed the student to make that terrible choice.

[Rahviveh]

Brian Leiter weighed in on the whittier closing: http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... ttier.html

But far more egregious is the presumptuous intervention of Robert Anderson, Associate Professor of Law at Pepperdine. Faculty members at Whittier are going to lose their jobs, and some may never work again as law teachers or work again at all. Yet Anderson has the audacity to scold them for not having taken an early retirement in the financial interest of the school. Seriously? Does Prof. Anderson pay the bills for any members of that faculty, does he know about their college-age children or their elderly parents or their chronic medical conditions that require a salary and a health insurance plan? Does he know that a job is not just a paycheck for many people (maybe not Robert Anderson), but a focal point of purpose and meaning in a life? Does he know that many did take early retirement a few years ago, and that others might have quite reasonably believed that the school's fortunes, now that both its faculty and student body were smaller, would rebound?

The horror!

[Mr_Chukes]

Damn this hits close to home because my friend is a 2L there. I'm glad people won't be able to go here anymore but sad about the outcomes of these students in the school now.

[candidlatke]

leiter's had some interesting remarks in the past

http://www.top-law-schools.com/brian-le ... rview.html

[timbs4339]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but I'm bored at work.

Question for those defending Whittier students' decisions: if those who are going into six-figure debt to attend an unranked law school are not responsible for their poor decision-making, is anyone responsible for poor decision-making during the law school admissions process?

Can we agree that people who have been exposed to the relevant information but willfully ignore it are partially responsible?

Or is the idea that nobody bears personal responsibility, and this is a systemic issue that requires paternalistic government intervention?

OK. I'll bite.

So I think you're confusing "defending Whittier students' decisions" with "analyzing why they are making those decisions."

If we agree that there is a problem, and that this problem requires solutions, then sitting around trying to apportion blame or responsibility for the problem is only the beginning of the analysis. Even if you don't want to slap the label victim on students, you then need to analyze why the various actors who are at fault made the decisions that they did, and then you need to come up with ways to change people's behavior, then you need to check and make sure those solutions don't have unintended consequences. Often, that gets you to a more nuanced analysis of the issue than just "the Whittier students were stupid, lazy, greedy, and beyond saving."