Whittier Shutting Down Forum

[AlbertParsons]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

It's not a matter of statistics, or numbers. We have to understand what place certain professions have in the American imagination. Yes, today we (people on this forum) look at the legal profession through a dystopian shade and scoff at the notion that it can guarantee a good upper middle class existence. But the conclusion which the vast majority of TLSers correctly draw has not seeped into the general American imagination, especially in low-income and immigrant communities. (Even if we look at the lowering number of applicants, I would argue that a shift towards tech has fueled decrease rather than some realization that the legal profession is not a guaranteed ticket to the top.)

I'm a first generation immigration and I can tell you my parents look at being a doctor, lawyer, etc. as golden tickets in a sense. And why shouldn't they? Forget confirmation bias, there's confirmation of 100 years of American history. Similarly, we can look at the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis. I applaud anyone who has an unbreakable, indelible spirit of self-awareness you reference, but if the opportunity presents itself so I can buy a house, which has been the avenue for mobility, I'll probably take it, especially considering purported objective experts letting me know I qualify (i.e. admissions staff letting people with 140s in to law school).

ABA is at fault. Tighten up accreditation. We should have more minority and poorer applicants, but let's get create pipelines that encourage success and not profiteering.

[vcap180]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

It's not a matter of statistics, or numbers. We have to understand what place certain professions have in the American imagination. Yes, today we (people on this forum) look at the legal profession through a dystopian shade and scoff at the notion that it can guarantee a good upper middle class existence. But the conclusion which the vast majority of TLSers correctly draw has not seeped into the general American imagination, especially in low-income and immigrant communities. (Even if we look at the lowering number of applicants, I would argue that a shift towards tech has fueled decrease rather than some realization that the legal profession is not a guaranteed ticket to the top.)

I'm a first generation immigration and I can tell you my parents look at being a doctor, lawyer, etc. as golden tickets in a sense. And why shouldn't they? Forget confirmation bias, there's confirmation of 100 years of American history. Similarly, we can look at the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis. I applaud anyone who has an unbreakable, indelible spirit of self-awareness you reference, but if the opportunity presents itself so I can buy a house, which has been the avenue for mobility, I'll probably take it, especially considering purported objective experts letting me know I qualify (i.e. admissions staff letting people with 140s in to law school).

ABA is at fault. Tighten up accreditation. We should have more minority and poorer applicants, but let's get create pipelines that encourage success and not profiteering.

I say it's 50/50.

50% on the students for making willfully ignorant of willfully reckless decisions. 50% on the ABA for allowing student to make the same.

[blerggggg]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

Except most of these people probably didnt study for the lsat so the idea of "maxing out" is probably foreign to them as well

And thus they deserve none of my sympathy!!

I look at it like this:
20 LSAT questions are basically testing to see if you're a literate person with a pulse

Another 20 can be pretty easily deduced by virtue of being reasonably educated (like receiving a bachelors degree)

Another 20 can be secured through sheer studying/preparation by anyone who meets the above two requirements.

This means no one should ever receive a raw score of less than like 60, which equates to like a 150.

It honestly boggles my mind how privileged this forum is sometimes. (But not really considering how insular the legal profession is)

Look, people that aren't born with silver spoons in their mouths don't know better. They simply want to get that American dream, get the high paying job, and get the white picket fence. School administrators, who know better but want to line their pockets instead, should do better.

Instead of roasting the students, who yes are somewhat culpable but definitely deserve some sympathy, we should be roasting the school administrators who saw their students as cash cows, knowing that they wouldn't be prepared to pay off their debt, but instead went along for the ride anyway. Stop blaming the students and start blaming the exploiters.

[grades??]

How much do you guys think the ABA is to blame for all of this? LSAC is one thing but doesn't ABA have the discretion to say, "no you're obviously a diploma mill, we won't accredit you." Or something among those lines?

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

Except most of these people probably didnt study for the lsat so the idea of "maxing out" is probably foreign to them as well

And thus they deserve none of my sympathy!!

I look at it like this:
20 LSAT questions are basically testing to see if you're a literate person with a pulse

Another 20 can be pretty easily deduced by virtue of being reasonably educated (like receiving a bachelors degree)

Another 20 can be secured through sheer studying/preparation by anyone who meets the above two requirements.

This means no one should ever receive a raw score of less than like 60, which equates to like a 150.

It honestly boggles my mind how privileged this forum is sometimes. (But not really considering how insular the legal profession is)

Look, people that aren't born with silver spoons in their mouths don't know better. They simply want to get that American dream, get the high paying job, and get the white picket fence. School administrators, who know better but want to line their pockets instead, should do better.

Instead of roasting the students, who yes are somewhat culpable but definitely deserve some sympathy, we should be roasting the school administrators who saw their students as cash cows, knowing that they wouldn't be prepared to pay off their debt, but instead went along for the ride anyway. Stop blaming the students and start blaming the exploiters.

We can blame both. It is literally amazingly easy to see how bad these schools are. You don't need a silver spoon. If you can register for the lsat, you can find out how bad these schools are.

[cavalier1138]

It honestly boggles my mind how privileged this forum is sometimes. (But not really considering how insular the legal profession is)

Look, people that aren't born with silver spoons in their mouths don't know better. They simply want to get that American dream, get the high paying job, and get the white picket fence. School administrators, who know better but want to line their pockets instead, should do better.

Instead of roasting the students, who yes are somewhat culpable but definitely deserve some sympathy, we should be roasting the school administrators who saw their students as cash cows, knowing that they wouldn't be prepared to pay off their debt, but instead went along for the ride anyway. Stop blaming the students and start blaming the exploiters.

No one is failing to blame the administrators here. I just don't see the point in absolving the students.

I was poor before law school. I'm still poor now. I don't come from a family of lawyers. So I went online and started trying to find out what I needed to do if I wanted to become a lawyer. I found attorneys, and I asked them about their experiences. I didn't excuse myself from this process by virtue of my income.

I get that everyone comes from different backgrounds, cultures, families, and economic situations. I just refuse to believe that people get a pass on basic things because of that. Poor people, immigrants, people of color, etc. are just as capable of being skeptical and thinking rationally as anyone else. It's not like we're talking about uneducated people who haven't already gone through college to learn some of these skills.

[guynourmin]

The median age 3 of the last 4 years has been 25. These are adults.

[Stylnator]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

[cavalier1138]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

But why would you assume that everything is amazing for every lawyer from every school everywhere?

Even the worst high school students appreciate the difference between their community college and their state flagship school. Why would that ability to discern outcomes go out the window when it comes to a professional degree?

[Jack_Kelly]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

But why would you assume that everything is amazing for every lawyer from every school everywhere?

Even the worst high school students appreciate the difference between their community college and their state flagship school. Why would that ability to discern outcomes go out the window when it comes to a professional degree?

I come from a rural area and I'm not sure that's true. There was some recognition that there was a difference, but I think for a lot of people who were the first in their family to go to college there was no real difference between ETSU, UTK, and VT (I'm from the VA/TN border)

[guynourmin]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research

a lot of people would say going to college for 3-4 years should expose you to the idea that you shouldn't just assume things you have no basis for and then mortgage your life away, though, right?

[curry1]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research

a lot of people would say going to college for 3-4 years should expose you to the idea that you shouldn't just assume things you have no basis for and then mortgage your life away, though, right?

I doubt this type of scholarship is taught at directional state university

[trebekismyhero]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

But why would you assume that everything is amazing for every lawyer from every school everywhere?

Even the worst high school students appreciate the difference between their community college and their state flagship school. Why would that ability to discern outcomes go out the window when it comes to a professional degree?

The students deserve some blame, but there is no comparison for a community college and a state flagship, they give out different degrees. A shitty TTT law school still hands out a JD. And pre-law advisors at my state flagship school that was home to a t20 school knew jackshit about the difference between good law schools and bad law schools. As mentioned above, you often need a trigger to investigate something.

They aren't 18 year olds I get that and they deserve blame for not doing their due diligence before going into so much debt. But most things in society point to being a lawyer as guaranteed UMC or better. And especially if people talk to lawyers from the 70s and 80s they just confirm that. Most of the blame goes to the administrators and the ABA.

Students certainly deserve blame, but they deserve more sympathy than anything

[Stylnator]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

But why would you assume that everything is amazing for every lawyer from every school everywhere?

Even the worst high school students appreciate the difference between their community college and their state flagship school. Why would that ability to discern outcomes go out the window when it comes to a professional degree?

I'm not stating these students don't have the ability to research, I'm saying they don't have the motivation for doing so because the myth of the rich lawyer is perpetuated time and time again in the media and probably even in our own experiences (I myself know of way more successful lawyers than failed lawyers because the successful ones are much louder with their stories). Whether we like it or not, a law degree carries an inherent sense of social prestige with it simply because people who have 0 clue about the legal field continue to build it up. If you were told your whole life that becoming a lawyer is the way to get rich and every lawyer you've heard of is rich - why would you start researching anything to the contrary?

[vcap180]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

Wait are you being sarcastic?

I think deciding to spend 3 years of your life and 6 figures on a decision should be a sufficient "trigger for research"!!!

[Rahviveh]

I'm not sure how much this would help, but LSAC should like email you a school's ABA employment disclosures after you apply or something along those lines. We know they exist, but I'm not sure how many of these 3Ls saw that less than 1 in 6 people from the school became lawyers the year before they decided to attend. As has been pointed out by others: simply having the internet only takes you so far. Ultimately, these kids ruined their own lives, but they should have received a little more resistance from somebody! Does the ABA or LSAC have a guide they send to all UG prelaw advisors just letting them know these types of disclosures exist? I'd imagine the well-meaning professor who signed up to be a schools prelaw advisor because they had literally no one else willing to do it wouldn't mind a little help.

Did you watch the video? It wouldn't help. These people don't believe in statistics. Law students in general even a top schools are terrible at understanding stats and numbers.

The only solution is shut these places down so they can't attend

yeah, people need to stop blaming those who attend terrible law schools. Even "smart" people cannot understand basic stats and paternalism is actually justified in this situation dealing with people who can't even break 150 on the LSAT.

It's not even a matter of statistics, it comes down to basic self-awareness - if you're maxing out at a 146 LSAT score, you need to accept that this career path isn't for you. I feel bad for almost no TTTTTTTTT students.

Except most of these people probably didnt study for the lsat so the idea of "maxing out" is probably foreign to them as well

And thus they deserve none of my sympathy!!

I look at it like this:
20 LSAT questions are basically testing to see if you're a literate person with a pulse

Another 20 can be pretty easily deduced by virtue of being reasonably educated (like receiving a bachelors degree)

Another 20 can be secured through sheer studying/preparation by anyone who meets the above two requirements.

This means no one should ever receive a raw score of less than like 60, which equates to like a 150.

It honestly boggles my mind how privileged this forum is sometimes. (But not really considering how insular the legal profession is)

Look, people that aren't born with silver spoons in their mouths don't know better. They simply want to get that American dream, get the high paying job, and get the white picket fence. School administrators, who know better but want to line their pockets instead, should do better.

Instead of roasting the students, who yes are somewhat culpable but definitely deserve some sympathy, we should be roasting the school administrators who saw their students as cash cows, knowing that they wouldn't be prepared to pay off their debt, but instead went along for the ride anyway. Stop blaming the students and start blaming the exploiters.

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

[Alpal29]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

But why would you assume that everything is amazing for every lawyer from every school everywhere?

Even the worst high school students appreciate the difference between their community college and their state flagship school. Why would that ability to discern outcomes go out the window when it comes to a professional degree?

The students deserve some blame, but there is no comparison for a community college and a state flagship, they give out different degrees. A shitty TTT law school still hands out a JD. And pre-law advisors at my state flagship school that was home to a t20 school knew jackshit about the difference between good law schools and bad law schools. As mentioned above, you often need a trigger to investigate something.

They aren't 18 year olds I get that and they deserve blame for not doing their due diligence before going into so much debt. But most things in society point to being a lawyer as guaranteed UMC or better. And especially if people talk to lawyers from the 70s and 80s they just confirm that. Most of the blame goes to the administrators and the ABA.

Students certainly deserve blame, but they deserve more sympathy than anything

I agree with this. My "pre-law" advisor at my undergrad college, which was a decent liberal arts school, would tell you a 155 was a great score and you would be a successful attorney coming out of a TT or TTT in a saturated market. I've watched a lot classmates wind up at those schools because of this guidance and be seriously in debt and have poor job prospects.

I don't know that I would have listened to my pre-law advisor or not, because I didn't get into the law school thing until after I had graduated, so I was forced to do independent research to even begin to build a list and ideas.

And I didn't go to some shitty undergrad, I went to a pretty respectable one and my "pre-law" advisor was that shitty. They would tell you that your major mattered and the schools would consider it with your GPA and that taking out loans was a good idea because you would be able to pay them back with a high paying job out of law school. They didn't explain employment statistics or the fact that people fail the bar. If you're a first gen student, who needs assistance to navigate and your school admin and advisors are giving you shitty information? I have a lot of sympathy for them. There is definitely still some blame on the students, because at some point you have to see past the song and dance, but denial is a strong drug if you're already in deep.

[Stylnator]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research

a lot of people would say going to college for 3-4 years should expose you to the idea that you shouldn't just assume things you have no basis for and then mortgage your life away, though, right?

I would hope it does, but maybe students going to these schools struggle to apply that concept outside of the classroom.

[blerggggg]

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

Oh don't worry, it wasn't directed towards you. The students should have done their due diligence there is no doubt about that; but given the context of who these student might be and what their backgrounds are, they might not be dealing with same set of facts we all are. Had I not known about TLS a couple years ago, had I not known other law school students that gave me advice, I could well be on my way to going to John Marshall. The students have blame, but the school administrators and ABA have more. Just surprised me that so many people on here could be like, "oh you got a 140? you didn't know to google xyz law school 509 and employment data? you have no sympathy from me."

[Stylnator]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

But why would you assume that everything is amazing for every lawyer from every school everywhere?

Even the worst high school students appreciate the difference between their community college and their state flagship school. Why would that ability to discern outcomes go out the window when it comes to a professional degree?

The students deserve some blame, but there is no comparison for a community college and a state flagship, they give out different degrees. A shitty TTT law school still hands out a JD. And pre-law advisors at my state flagship school that was home to a t20 school knew jackshit about the difference between good law schools and bad law schools. As mentioned above, you often need a trigger to investigate something.

They aren't 18 year olds I get that and they deserve blame for not doing their due diligence before going into so much debt. But most things in society point to being a lawyer as guaranteed UMC or better. And especially if people talk to lawyers from the 70s and 80s they just confirm that. Most of the blame goes to the administrators and the ABA.

Students certainly deserve blame, but they deserve more sympathy than anything

I agree with this. My "pre-law" advisor at my undergrad college, which was a decent liberal arts school, would tell you a 155 was a great score and you would be a successful attorney coming out of a TT or TTT in a saturated market. I've watched a lot classmates wind up at those schools because of this guidance and be seriously in debt and have poor job prospects.

I don't know that I would have listened to my pre-law advisor or not, because I didn't get into the law school thing until after I had graduated, so I was forced to do independent research to even begin to build a list and ideas.

And I didn't go to some shitty undergrad, I went to a pretty respectable one and my "pre-law" advisor was that shitty. They would tell you that your major mattered and the schools would consider it with your GPA and that taking out loans was a good idea. If you're a first gen student, who needs assistance to navigate and your school admin and advisors are giving you shitty information? I have a lot of sympathy for them. There is definitely still some blame on the students, because at some point you have to see past the song and dance, but denial is a strong drug if you're already in deep.

My pre-law advisor got fired for telling students not to go to my undergrad's law school if they were serious about being an attorney. If it wasn't for him and his very realistic (and often harsh) criticism of the legal field - I might be going to a TTT for 200k worth of debt. I think we can all agree that even those students who go to good universities aren't guaranteed to get proper guidance.

Oh, and the next person that was hired as a pre law advisor went to YLS on a blind LSAT and so tells everyone the LSAT isn't worth stressing over.

[vcap180]

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

Oh don't worry, it wasn't directed towards you. The students should have done their due diligence there is no doubt about that; but given the context of who these student might be and what their backgrounds are, they might not be dealing with same set of facts we all are. Had I not known about TLS a couple years ago, had I not known other law school students that gave me advice, I could well be on my way to going to John Marshall. The students have blame, but the school administrators and ABA have more. Just surprised me that so many people on here could be like, "oh you got a 140? you didn't know to google xyz law school 509 and employment data? you have no sympathy from me."

I've always been amused by the irony of comments like this; do you realize how offensive this ought to be to the individuals that you are purporting to be standing up for?

[Stylnator]

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

Oh don't worry, it wasn't directed towards you. The students should have done their due diligence there is no doubt about that; but given the context of who these student might be and what their backgrounds are, they might not be dealing with same set of facts we all are. Had I not known about TLS a couple years ago, had I not known other law school students that gave me advice, I could well be on my way to going to John Marshall. The students have blame, but the school administrators and ABA have more. Just surprised me that so many people on here could be like, "oh you got a 140? you didn't know to google xyz law school 509 and employment data? you have no sympathy from me."

I've always been amused by the irony of comments like this; do you realize how offensive this ought to be to the individuals that you are purporting to be standing up for?

Since when is it offensive to not assume everyone has equal access to resources?

[blerggggg]

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

Oh don't worry, it wasn't directed towards you. The students should have done their due diligence there is no doubt about that; but given the context of who these student might be and what their backgrounds are, they might not be dealing with same set of facts we all are. Had I not known about TLS a couple years ago, had I not known other law school students that gave me advice, I could well be on my way to going to John Marshall. The students have blame, but the school administrators and ABA have more. Just surprised me that so many people on here could be like, "oh you got a 140? you didn't know to google xyz law school 509 and employment data? you have no sympathy from me."

I've always been amused by the irony of comments like this; do you realize how offensive this ought to be to the individuals that you are purporting to be standing up for?

Still standing up for them more than you are honey. It takes you five seconds to put yourself in another person's shoes.

For the record, I'm not saying all POC and low-income people get free passes for whatever they do. I'm not putting my statements on micro scale, every case is different. But when there is a large-scale exploitative system, then yeah I am going to say something.

[Stylnator]

If you come from a household that gives you no exposure to the legal world why on earth would you assume any negativity in the profession at all? Everyone needs some sort of a trigger for their research, but I assume most TTTTTT students don't ever have that trigger (especially minority students).

Wait are you being sarcastic?

I think deciding to spend 3 years of your life and 6 figures on a decision should be a sufficient "trigger for research"!!!

No I wasn't being sarcastic. I agree that the time + money should be a motivation to think twice about the choices being made here but I can understand why someone wouldn't. "six figures" isn't coming out of your pocket and you don't have to deal with the consequences just yet, so it might not seem like that big of a deal when starting out. And for KJD, they've got plenty of time that 3 years also might not seem like a big deal.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

Oh don't worry, it wasn't directed towards you. The students should have done their due diligence there is no doubt about that; but given the context of who these student might be and what their backgrounds are, they might not be dealing with same set of facts we all are. Had I not known about TLS a couple years ago, had I not known other law school students that gave me advice, I could well be on my way to going to John Marshall. The students have blame, but the school administrators and ABA have more. Just surprised me that so many people on here could be like, "oh you got a 140? you didn't know to google xyz law school 509 and employment data? you have no sympathy from me."

I've always been amused by the irony of comments like this; do you realize how offensive this ought to be to the individuals that you are purporting to be standing up for?

Since when is it offensive to not assume everyone has equal access to resources?

Unless they submitted their applications by snail mail, I'm pretty sure they had access to a computer when they applied. I'm pretty sure anyone in the United States (let alone Southern California) can get access to a computer somehow. A trip to the public library would've been the bare minimum before someone decides to spend six-figures on ANY investment.

If someone blindly invests $1 million on an acre of dirt in Appalachia, I'm pretty sure you would blame the investor for not looking into it, not the seller.

[vcap180]

My post wasn't meant to roast the students. People are generally bad with statistics. I think this equally applies to top law students, but they go to schools where job outcomes aren't an issue so it doesn't really matter for thEm.

I just don't think lack of information is the issue anymore. Maybe it was pre-ITE but not now. I think everyone in that room is aware that Whittier has terrible placement. But that does not make what the school admin is doing any less predatory

Oh don't worry, it wasn't directed towards you. The students should have done their due diligence there is no doubt about that; but given the context of who these student might be and what their backgrounds are, they might not be dealing with same set of facts we all are. Had I not known about TLS a couple years ago, had I not known other law school students that gave me advice, I could well be on my way to going to John Marshall. The students have blame, but the school administrators and ABA have more. Just surprised me that so many people on here could be like, "oh you got a 140? you didn't know to google xyz law school 509 and employment data? you have no sympathy from me."

I've always been amused by the irony of comments like this; do you realize how offensive this ought to be to the individuals that you are purporting to be standing up for?

Since when is it offensive to not assume everyone has equal access to resources?

It's offensive to assume that individuals from less than ideal socioeconomic backgrounds are incapable of performing basic research with regard to major life decisions.