Sound familiar?  In all these years, not much has changed.  Just this month, a New York Times article summarized the findings of a recent Congressional investigation.  For profit trade schools and colleges often: (1) urge students to misstate their finances so they will be eligible for federally insured loans; (2) offer courses that range from poor to mediocre; and (3) offer little help for graduates in finding employment.  Additionally, prospective students making inquiries often find themselves phoned relentlessly by the school: one such person received over one hundred and fifty calls urging him to sign up.  No wonder daytime television is overwhelmed with advertising for these schools — they are a gold mine for their owners.

These schools are not cheap – many charge over $20,000 for the course of instruction.  Sure, some are better than others; and some do help their students find a new career.  But often the same courses of instruction can be found for little cost or free at public junior colleges or state colleges.  One example in the San Francisco Bay Area: for profit culinary colleges charge thousands of dollars, while Contra Costa College (a public, inexpensive junior college in the East Bay) has a world famous pastry chef and food service program that would cost the same prospective student very little.

To seek self-improvement and a career in a field you love is great, and you should be commended.  But make sure to do so responsibly and intelligently.  Investigate the claims of for profit schools; check with employers in your chosen field to see if they respect their degrees; and see what local public colleges have to offer in the same field.  Why start out your new career in debt if you don’t have to?  Be a smart consumer in one of the most important decisions of your life!

As UCLA law professor Richard Sander and Brooklyn law professor Jane Yakowitz wrote in a recent paper:

The consistent theme we find throughout this analysis is that performance in law school – as measured by law school grades – is the most important predictor of career success. It is decisively more important than law school “eliteness.” . . . Since the dominant conventional wisdom says that law school prestige is all-important, and since students who “trade-up” in school prestige generally take a hit to their school performance, we think prospective students are getting the wrong message.

On some levels, this makes complete sense. There are a number of reasons some of the best students can’t go to elite schools (price, location, etc), and excelling at middle- or low-tier schools should never be a drawback. But my hunch is that the paper doesn’t take all factors of attending the Harvards and Yales of the country in to account. Attending these elite schools, for example, enables students to interact with professors and alums generally considered “big shots” in the professional and academic community. Such star power simply isn’t available at most lower tier schools.

The paper would be more convincing if it delved in to the reasons that higher grades are more important than school prestige. “We weren’t looking at that, so we don’t know,” said Sander. Noting that he was “mostly speculating” he continued, “it could have to do with psychological factors, a level of confidence you gain from doing well that serves you well not only in school but afterward.”

Since it appears that law school admissions has swayed too closely to domination by a few, in some ways I’m pulling for this study to be accurate. But before students flock to their safety schools in order to rack up A+ after A+, more studies are needed on the subject. For now, let’s continue assuming the elites remain on top.

Photo credit: DAEllis

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is generally considered liberal on political matters, ruled in favor of the University, arguing that the school’s open-access policy, which requires that all school-sponsored clubs admit everyone regardless of their politics, religion, or sexual orientation, applied to CLS as well.

In its decision Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hastings. Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsberg said that the school’s all-comers policy “is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization form,” and that by trying to dodge the policy, CLS sought “not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”

Needless to say, the ruling was a major disappointment for CLS. “All college students, including religious students, should have the right to form groups around shared beliefs without being banished from campus,” said the group’s senior counsel Kim Colby in a press release. “Today’s ruling, however, will have limited impact. We are not aware of any other public university that has the exact same policy as Hastings.”

This marked yet another close 5-4 ruling from a deeply ideologically divided court, with the court’s swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, siding with the liberal wing to uphold Hastings’ dismissal of CLS. For dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the court’s conservative members that the decision “is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country” and that he “can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.”

Photo credit: Christian Legal Society

On a certain level, the urge to inflate grades is understandable. “If somebody’s paying $150,000 for a law school degree, you don’t want to call them a loser at the end,” says grade inflation researcher Stuart Rojstaczer. “So you artificially call every student a success.” But it’s still unclear whether the academic up tick will fool employers, since so many frequent the popular blog Above the Law, which keeps track of schools engaging in academic inflation through leaked student memos.

Needless to say, the Times story set off a firestorm in the legal blogosphere. Bruce Carton of Legal Blog Watch wonders what other numbers we can alter to make ourselves feel better. For example, “why should people have to wear blue jeans that say ‘Waist 38′ on them? Blue jeans marketers should deflate the size written on each pair (so size 38 now becomes 32) to make their customers ‘look more attractive in a competitive dating market.’”

On his blog Law Prof on the Loose, Jon Siegel writes that firms will not be deceived as long as Universities continue to list class rank. “You could call all the grades A, B, and C or you could call them Apple, Fire Engine, and Giraffe, and it wouldn’t matter as long as you had class rank,” he writes.

But class rank doesn’t solve the expectations problem, writes Howard Wasserman for PrawfsBlawg. Wasserman implies that some of the blame lies with the employers, who are only interested in students who are off-the-charts academically. “As a relatively new, lower-tiered school, firms are interested only in our very top students,” he writes. “But many firms seemed to say that a 3.3 GPA was not high enough for them to look at, even if that person was #3 in the class.”

Weighing the complex angles of this debate, I can’t get over Siegel’s view that when it comes down to it, grade inflation “amounts to deception.” If you want to make it more difficult for employers to judge graduates, it’s more honest to follow the example of top ten schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley, which have each implemented pass/fail systems to reduce competition without redefining As, Bs, and Cs.

Photo credit: j_mills

I’m thankful that the internet has made it possible to speak to other legal bloggers across the country from the comfort and convenience of my office. But there are times when I want to meet the names on my Google Reader face to face. Santa Clara University professor Eric Goldman has assembled a few meet ups of Bay Area Blawgers over the past few years. And Kevin O’Keefe’s blog has promoted Beer for Bloggers in different cities across the US. From all accounts I’ve heard and read, these events have been well received and succeeded at putting human faces on familiar local bloggers.

On Thursday June 3 at 6 pm, I hope you will meet me at Thirsty Bear Brewery in San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood to grab a post-work beer and talk about… well… anything. Here are the details:

Date: Thursday June 3

Time: 6:00 pm

Location: Thirsty Bear Brewery (quick walk from Montgomery St. BART Station)

661 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3915

(415) 974-0905

You can reach me by email at benb@gjel.com or call me at 925-253-5800 if you have any questions. And feel free to invite other bloggers, lawyers, and colleagues who might be interested.

I hope to see you there!

Photo credit: magerleagues

Adley says he’s philosophically opposed to allowing a group that receives taxpayer funds to challenge other state entities in court. Past clinic success, he says, “has resulted in a loss of jobs and economic development for the state.” Dan Bourne, president of the Louisiana Chemical Industry and an Adley supporter, says the Tulane clinics exhibit “wanton disregard for the economic well-being of the state.”

This week, the state’s chemical industry has stepped up its criticism of the clinics, asking supporters to withhold donations and stop matching grants to Tulane. “The university flies cover for a unit that attacks state agencies and kills jobs, and one way to make sure the other units of the university understand the depth of this problem is to cut off corporate support and recruiting,” said Bourne.

Tulane students and faculty have been vocal in their opposition to the bill and the chemical industry’s proposed sanctions. “It’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face,” said director of Tulane’s environmental law clinic Adam Babich. “The university is one of the crown jewels of Louisiana. To try to harm Tulane because you don’t like the fact that citizens are entitled to lawyers is wrong.”

Others have pointed out the conspicuous timing of Adley’s bill, right on the heels of BP’s oil spill disaster off the Louisiana coast. “Right now, with oil lapping our shores, nobody in Louisiana would be idiot enough to advance such a proposition,” wrote New Orleans columnist James Gill. “Well, nobody outside the state Legislature.”

Adley and Bourne claim the connection between the oil spill and Tulane law clinics is faulty. But since the clinic’s mission statement is to “protect and restore the environment for the benefit of the public,” the association is sticking, and some are starting to wonder who, if not Tulane, will continue demanding stricter environmental regulations on behalf of Louisianians.

Photo credit: Tulane Public Relations

This week, the challenge grew more serious in Louisiana, where  state Sen. Robert Adley introduced a bill, similar to legislation rejected by Maryland’s legislature, that would withhold state funds from law clinics that refuse to turn over case information. “The intent is fairly simple,” says Adley. “Philosophically, I’m opposed to taking taxpayer money and then turning around to suing taxpayers. If you’re going to take money from the taxpayers and the government, you ought not to be able to sue the taxpayers and the government.”

It turns out that these environmental law clinics don’t just stand up for that “little guy,” and mess with giant corporations for fun. As the National Law Journal reports, they’ve achieved tangible results:

Last year, the clinic helped secure a mercury contamination settlement from EnerVest Operating LLC, an oil and gas management company. It also helped stop the planned conversion of a power plant into a coal and petroleum coke burning facility — reversing earlier approval given by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. The clinic alleged that the move would limit emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. Critics have accused the clinic of driving investments and commerce out of the state, while supporters credit it with standing up for citizens’ rights and protecting natural resources.

Proponents of the clinics have suggested that in addition to curbing a system that produces results while providing second and third year law students with courtroom experience, restricting the freedom of clinics could be unlawful. “Legislative oversight of lawyer activities is an unacceptable government intrusion into the necessary and confidential lawyer-client relationship and an expansion of government regulation of the rights of private citizens,” leaders from the Society of American Law Teachers wrote in a letter to Tulane law Dean Stephen M. Griffin.

On May 12, Adley’s bill is scheduled for review before Louisiana’s commerce and consumer protection committee, which will either follow Maryland’s lead and throw out the challenge, or put the country’s first rubber stamp on legislation that would end university law clinics. It’s hard to imagine that, with a growing oil spill off the Gulf Coast, coming down against an environmental law clinic would be popular. But we’ll keep you posted.

During CLS v. Martinez oral arguments before the Supreme Court Monday, justices seemed divided on whether Hastings was at fault. The school says that CLS violates its  ”all-comers” policy, which states that to receive public support, a group must let any student participate, vote, and be eligible for elected positions. CLS argues that admitting gay students violates freedom of religion and association under the constitution, and that Hastings applies the policy selectively. Writing for The Faculty Lounge, Calvin Massey predicts that the court’s decision will hinge on whether Hastings can prove that it does not use “selective application.” As Justice Scalia commented yesterday, “They stipulated that the [all-comers] policy exists. They didn’t stipulate that it is…being faithfully applied by Hastings.”

But when it comes down to it, CLS essentially says that Hastings is violating its freedom of religion and association by forcing it to respect the freedom and association of gay students. So ruling in favor of CLS could undercut the court’s constitutional argument. And, as Paul Cates of the ACLU points out, religion has historically been used by some to perpetuate discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.

A decision is not expected until June, but it’s sure to spark debate on college campuses nationwide about how publicly funded religious groups impact freedom of speech, religion, and association.

Photo credit: Christian Legal Society

The most well publicized clinic challenge occurred earlier this month at the University of Maryland. Last month, the state Senate approved a bill that, if signed into law, would strip the university of $250,000 for refusing to disclose client information. The bill was introduced after the clinic challenged the environmental record of one of the state’s largest employers, Perdue poultry. Maryland Republican Michael Smigiel said such programs shouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to advocate controversial issues. “I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of taxpayers who would be uncomfortable funding the legal clinic if it was solely intereseted in just promoting the death penalty or pro-life issues,” he said. Clinic critics have so far made similar arguments in Michigan and Louisiana.

What Smigiel didn’t mention was that thanks to their lack of government intervention, law clinics provide students important real-world expeirence, and are often the only groups to go after powerful actors for civil rights violations or corporate misconduct. And, as PopTort points out, a world without law clinics is a world without Legally Blonde. But after citing his knee jerk support for clinics, Bill Araiza of PrawfsBlawg wonders if state legislatures should have the right to see where its money is spent.

In a statement, American Bar Association president Carolyn Lamm said that requiring clinics to disclose client information could stigmatize the practice for potential clients. “This could result in their not seeking and receiving the legal assistance that they need,” she said. And in an editorial this Sunday, the New York Times proclaimed its strong support for the clinics, saying clinic autonomy is essential. “Law school clinics often provide the only legal assistance available to poor people.” the editorial concludes. “Some powerful interests may not like that, but it is critically important work.”

This sentiment rings true here at GJEL because we value the ability to fight for the little guy. GJEL takes all clients on a contingency basis, which means that we don’t get paid unless our client wins. Under this system, like law clinics, someone without significant financial power can take on the country’s biggest corporations.

But Scalia seems to think that the over abundance of bright lawyers would better serve society if they were discovering new genes or cures for diseases. He might be crazy. I tell you now that society would actually be harmed if they put me in a science lab. I would probably mix the wrong chemicals and come out a different color (hopefully orange or purple or something fun), and with an extra arm. I am not good at science. I like science, I dabble in science, but I cannot make a full time study of science. At least not without seriously injuring myself or the human race. And a lot of attorneys I know feel the same way.

So, anyway, after saying I wasn’t going to write about this, why am I writing about it now? Well, today over at Lowering the Bar, there was a nice post that agreed with my point of view. And Eric Johnson at another of my favorite blogs, Prawfsblawg, had made a similar argument as Scalia’s in March of last year. I was glad to see that someone was on the same page as me when I read the Lowering the Bar post, but then when I saw the Prawfsblawg post, I starte to change my mind.

When I read Eric Johnson’s post, I thought not about how there are too many lawyers, or that those lawyers should be curing cancer. I thought about the wasteful nature of the profession as a whole. Here’s the second half of Johnson’s post:

But, since justice in America is based on the adversarial system, isn’t every bright law student just cancelled out by another equally bright classmate? Is the legal profession just an arms race that squanders talent in the overall scheme of things?

These questions are not limited to the litigation context. Think of the tens of thousands of hours of brilliance that goes into outsmarting the tax code. I sure don’t blame folks for doing it. But does the effort leave us all better off?

Let’s suppose that smarter lawyers make truth more findable for juries and law more just as applied by courts. Even if that were true, is the gain large enough to offset the opportunities lost by not redirecting bright minds into science, business, engineering, medicine, and the arts?

Aside from the last line where he suggests other pursuits for the bright legal minds, Johnson is noting that the things done in the legal profession are a waste, in and of themselves. No matter how many or how few bright minds become lawyers, they will all be doing the same wasteful things. They’re just arguing! But that arguing is important–as Johnson notes, it “makes the truth more findable.”

Of course, I’m no good at science, so I’ll stick with law. But if I was any good at science…would it be a good idea for me to change careers? Maybe. Maybe we should leave law to the people like me, who couldn’t titrate a buffer solution if our lives depended on it, and let those who are bright at both law and science leave the legal profession to cure cancer.