RE: FITS Charleston School of Law Coverage
Dear Editor: It is so funny to me how a bunch of degenerate hicks from South Carolina, historically with one law school, do everything within their power to bring down the only other law school in the state. You guys hide behind these screen names like a bunch of uncloaked Klansmen. What’s next, an article supporting a perpetual ban on gay marriage, barring interracial marriages, denying women the right to vote? Instead of focusing on real issues, you spend your time on manufactured B.S. – do any of you guys actually have jobs during the day?
Quite honestly, how is it even possible for any one of you to sit here and pass judgment, as if you all just graduated from Harvard or Yale or even Duke for that matter, lol – you pass judgment the way others pass judgment on you and don’t even know it! You are the laughing stock of the country and in any case, a failed Confederacy, a less than remarkable economy, and subpar schools that tend to graduate generational idiots. Yet, instead of trying to do something about this, ideas come flowing in from the good ole boys and their lackeys with their undereducated simplistic back-to-the-future seersucker suit wearing screw-ups who think that by putting on a bow tie and expressing an opinion that it somehow makes them more intelligible. You are a joke. You guys do yourself and the southeast a favor, stop trying to step on each other because it’s that same Civil War mentality that got you in this place in the first instance.
As it relates to FITSNEWS, what about one single once of journalistic integrity? How many hits does your site even get? As for the “libertarian” bit, you wish you had a clue as to what real libertarianism is – you’re content has nothing to do with being fiscally conservative and you are clearly socially inept. The layout of your webpage looks decent though… I’ll give you that – it would be even better if it said something worthwhile, but it doesn’t.
Good luck Charleston School of Law and sorry that you are surrounded by a bunch of dumbasses who can’t even articulate as to why they don’t like you. Uh, may the South rise again, just not in the same way it attempted to do so before :)
-Anonymous
SIC SEZ
Wow. I am dumber for having read your letter – and my readers are dumber as a result of my decision to publish your letter (or “you’re” letter, as you say). Seriously, this nonsense is even more meandering than that post I wrote recently on the status of the reform movement here in the Palmetto State. And that was all sorts of all over the map. Having said that, the marketplace of ideas thanks you for your participation. All of us look smarter standing next to you.
129 comments
InfiLaw flunky?
Not a flunky, a graduate.
InfiLaw flunky?
Not a flunky, a graduate.
How rude!
How rude!
The Charleston School of Law has undoubtedly given opportunities to deserving people that desire a legal education. The more important question is whether the State of South Carolina is in need of more lawyers in its economy. Is the issuance of additional law degrees and subsequent bar admissions desirable for our state? Certainly not all law school graduates enter the practice of law. As our society becomes more complex, there is perhaps a need for more analytical minds to be available in capacities other than a licensed attorney. But for those graduates that do enter practice, they put existing lawyers into competition for clients and encourage all lawyers to pursue frivolous lawsuits and to increase their fees. The law is a profession and it should not be subject to capitalism, but rather professional obligation to its clients. Our state should admit as many lawyers as are necessary for any South Carolinian to have access to an attorney, but no more. The creation of the Charleston School of Law was due to college graduates not being able to find jobs out of school, not because people couldn’t get an attorney. A more cynical view is that the explosion of education institutes is directly tied to the availability to federal loans and that these schools have funneled student loans from the federal government into their own coffers. There are enough lawyers in our state and we do not need two law schools to keep up demand. The CSOL was a mistake by its founders. The deserving students that have graduated from it are being punished by the misguided motivations of its founders. The Supreme Court and the ABA shares equal blame in granting certification to schools that were unnecessary and bear responsibility for damaging the practice of law. Perhaps the ABA should consider revoking the accreditation of unnecessary law schools and preserve the reputation of the students who took on deep debts and long hours in order to obtain their degrees from a superfluous law school.
The ABA should never had granted accreditation when it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Jean Toal and Dan Shearouse cooked the books, pulled the wool over the other justices’ eyes and changed the results in 2007. The ABA, however, is so dependent on making the 50 chief justices of the state supreme courts happy, happy, happy that nothing will happen even when a chief justice acts as Toal did.
Yes. We need more lawyers here. The lawyers in this state still think they are worth $200 to $400 per hour. Many Many more lawyers. Many
No, we need GOOD lawyers that serve the interests of their clients and NOT their own. To your point of more lawyers to lower their fees…those typically are the good, decent ones as you get what you pay for these days. That is the reality of market forces in the legal profession and the structure (administrative, judicial or otherwise) where it resides. You need more ethical people in the profession but then again that might be like trying to sweep the beach clear of sand….sigh.
You have stated much better than I the points I tried to make in the “Mrs. Goldfinch” posting.
An intelligent, well-reasoned contribution to the CSOL discussion, devoid of the weird hyper-sensitivity and low levels of self-awareness found in some comments. Strange. Welcome, but strange…
The Charleston School of Law has undoubtedly given opportunities to deserving people that desire a legal education. The more important question is whether the State of South Carolina is in need of more lawyers in its economy. Is the issuance of additional law degrees and subsequent bar admissions desirable for our state? Certainly not all law school graduates enter the practice of law. As our society becomes more complex, there is perhaps a need for more analytical minds to be available in capacities other than a licensed attorney. But for those graduates that do enter practice, they put existing lawyers into competition for clients and encourage all lawyers to pursue frivolous lawsuits and to increase their fees. The law is a profession and it should not be subject to capitalism, but rather professional obligation to its clients. Our state should admit as many lawyers as are necessary for any South Carolinian to have access to an attorney, but no more. The creation of the Charleston School of Law was due to college graduates not being able to find jobs out of school, not because people couldn’t get an attorney. A more cynical view is that the explosion of education institutes is directly tied to the availability to federal loans and that these schools have funneled student loans from the federal government into their own coffers. There are enough lawyers in our state and we do not need two law schools to keep up demand. The CSOL was a mistake by its founders. The deserving students that have graduated from it are being punished by the misguided motivations of its founders. The Supreme Court and the ABA shares equal blame in granting certification to schools that were unnecessary and bear responsibility for damaging the practice of law. Perhaps the ABA should consider revoking the accreditation of unnecessary law schools and preserve the reputation of the students who took on deep debts and long hours in order to obtain their degrees from a superfluous law school.
The ABA should never had granted accreditation when it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Jean Toal and Dan Shearouse cooked the books, pulled the wool over the other justices’ eyes and changed the results in 2007. The ABA, however, is so dependent on making the 50 chief justices of the state supreme courts happy, happy, happy that nothing will happen even when a chief justice acts as Toal did.
Yes. We need more lawyers here. The lawyers in this state still think they are worth $200 to $400 per hour. Many Many more lawyers. Many
No, we need GOOD lawyers that serve the interests of their clients and NOT their own. To your point of more lawyers to lower their fees…those typically are the good, decent ones as you get what you pay for these days. That is the reality of market forces in the legal profession and the structure (administrative, judicial or otherwise) where it resides. You need more ethical people in the profession but then again that might be like trying to sweep the beach clear of sand….sigh.
You have stated much better than I the points I tried to make in the “Mrs. Goldfinch” posting.
An intelligent, well-reasoned contribution to the CSOL discussion, devoid of the weird hyper-sensitivity and low levels of self-awareness found in some comments. Strange. Welcome, but strange…
TBG thinks you should probably go back up north.
Somebody’s “libel” to kick ur dumb@$$.*
*An homage to BigT/Grand Tango
So TBG, LGBT, or whatever your name, based on your viewpoints you might want to consider revising your initialization because it could be a little confusing to those outside the state.
Then again, with a name like Bubba, actually stepping outside of the state is not likely on the top of your priority list. So never mind.
TBG thinks you should probably go back up north.
Somebody’s “libel” to kick ur dumb@$$.*
*An homage to BigT/Grand Tango
So TBG, LGBT, or whatever your name, based on your viewpoints you might want to consider revising your initialization because it could be a little confusing to those outside the state.
Then again, with a name like Bubba, actually stepping outside of the state is not likely on the top of your priority list. So never mind.
“Yet, instead of trying to do something about this, ideas come flowing in from the good ole boys and their lackeys with their undereducated simplistic back-to-the-future seersucker suit wearing screw-ups who think that by putting on a bow tie and expressing an opinion that it somehow makes them more intelligible.”
amen…
Do you really endorse this idiotic sentence? Lets dissect its stupidity together. First, “back-to-the-future” is an oxymoron on its face, and in the context of the movie only has meaning as an attempt to escape backwards thoughts or ideas. It obviously would not apply to attempts to persist in or revive a backwards mode of dress, which is clearly what she is trying to convey. The term she is searching for is something more akin to retrograde. Second, unless the author is claiming that a there is a perception that a piece of clothing can make you speak more clearly, then the phrase should be “more intelligent,” not “more intelligible.” Third, isn’t the point of wearing a bow tie to seem folksy? Please identify a single person who wears a bow tie to seem “more intelligent (or intelligible)?
Yeah, so CL I’m getting around to you. It took me a moment to untangle that web of nonsensical crap you wrote called a response; especially because you probably sat back, read it, and felt like you made some good points. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone like that, but I’ll try anyway.
Regarding the “back-to-the-future” reference, we’ll let Doc do the explaining there as it relates to time travel. Suffice it to say the reference was about 1954 more than it was about the mode of dress. The 1954 reference being right about the year where many of you South Carolinians writing about a second law school still exist in terms of viewpoints. Your male bosses still hit on female workers, you still vote no to most things everyone else in society has already moved past, and you still hate anything progressive without being able to provide any good explanation as to why.
You are the perfect example of the backwards bow tie reference though CL and I thank you for that. I mean you actually took the time to tear apart the words and sentences and still missed the whole freaking point. After all, you just stepped out of work at the Oxford University Press and those posting should not forget this.
As for intelligible, and I really hate to do this, but Merriam-Webster has TWO definitions of “intelligible.” I suggest you re-read the readings.
The bow tie reference was simply because attorneys like to wear bow ties. I would cite a certain NY Times article that talks about this, but you would probably just find the error in my citation as opposed to reading the article. In this case however, I know there’s one of you idiots chiming in to all this rhetoric who is actually wearing a bow tie while you are typing such idiotic statements. Needless to say, it was figurative.
The implication that I might consider someone’s opinion less valid because it is actually invalid has nothing to do with the bow tie.
Aww shucks, I’m tired. I bet you wear a bow tie and I probably offended you. My sincere apologies because what I meant to say is that no matter what are you wearing, or not wearing for that matter, it is your opinions which are “retrograde” despite what clothes you might wear. Here, I mean the definition of retrograde that means “moving backward” or “reverting to an earlier or inferior condition.” I wouldn’t want to confuse you again because it is apparent the art of construction is of primary importance to your comprehension.
“It took me a moment to untangle that web of nonsensical crap you wrote called a response; especially because you probably sat back, read it, and felt like you made some good points.”
I feel like your posts must be written in another language and then Google translated into English. I mean, why would my own perception as to whether I made any good points have anything to do with how long it took you to decipher what I wrote? I would submit that it is your limited cognitive skills that determine how long it takes you to sound your way through what I wrote, not any psychic feedback you are getting regarding my feelings of self-satisfaction.
“Suffice it to say the [back to the future] reference was about 1954 more than it was about the mode of dress.”
So you did not actually mean “back to the future,” you meant back to the past. Well next time you might want to just say that or class it up a bit with the word I suggested – retrograde* – rather than spouting gibberish while calling your audience stupid. Your approach tends to be counterproductive, which is what makes it so funny that you think I am the one that missed the point.
I actually have never worn a bow tie other than with a tuxedo at a wedding, because I think they are kind of silly looking, along with other Southern staples like croakies. But I do not make the mistake of assuming that a bow tie tells me something about the intelligence of the person wearing it. I let their actual opinions and ability to express themselves guide my judgments on that, as I have done with you.
*I do love the part where you take the time to instruct me in the meaning of the word retrograde, when I was the one that suggested that you might have been better off using that term. But I am glad I was able to expand your vocabulary, even if you do not want to give credit where it is due.
This is what happens when you combine education and southern progressive thinking – you end up getting one who is articulate about absolutely nothing. Really, you said a bunch about nothing.
Let us know when you are ready to discuss the “merits” of your opinions; it’ll of course take me a while to type my response in Google and double check it against Henry Watson Fowler.
By the way I once had a client who was a Russian scientist that almost always utilized Google translation. The guy is actually one of the world’s leading scientist on luminescence. Glad you didn’t become his attorney.
Once again, you try to insult someone else and just make yourself look worse. Before I was a backwards, bow tie wearing type who “hate[d] anything progressive,” and now I am the perfect combination of “education and southern progressive thinking.” So I am a self-loathing progressive? But I thought I was a revanchist for the policies of the ’50’s.? I’ll have to start charging you for the editing help, but I think you meant “southern regressive thinking.”
I will be happy to debate issues with you, but you’ll have to make a cogent point first. Please keep in mind this all started in response to a lengthy, illogical diatribe you sent to FITS. Its not like I am ignoring some policy paper you submitted.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Revanchist? Self-loathing? I mean, I never used any of these words. You put words in my mouth which I did not say only to then turn around and argue with me about why I said them. I’m sure other people tell you this. But honestly, what in the world are you talking about? How do you not confuse yourself?
Respond all you like. I’m done going back and forth with you. This is my last response to your idiocy. I’ll let you get back to your work as editor-in-chief of I’m Think I’m Smart Magazine, Inc. Good luck with your career there.
“Revanchist? Self-loathing? I mean, I never used any of these words.”
And no one accused you of doing so. They were my description of the positions you have ascribed to me. To clear this up for you, self-loathing was a joking reference to the competing descriptions of me as a “southern progressive” who simultaneously “hate[s] anything progressive.” And revanchist was another term I thought you could use instead of retrograde. But totally up to you which one you like better.
“Respond all you like. I’m done going back and forth with you. ”
Probably for the best.
“Yet, instead of trying to do something about this, ideas come flowing in from the good ole boys and their lackeys with their undereducated simplistic back-to-the-future seersucker suit wearing screw-ups who think that by putting on a bow tie and expressing an opinion that it somehow makes them more intelligible.”
amen…
Do you really endorse this idiotic sentence? Lets dissect its stupidity together. First, “back-to-the-future” is an oxymoron on its face, and in the context of the movie only has meaning as an attempt to escape the past (which can be interpreted as backwards thoughts or ideas). It obviously would not apply to attempts to persist in or revive a backwards mode of dress, which is clearly what the author is trying to convey. The term he or she is searching for is something more akin to retrograde. Second, unless the author is claiming that a there is a perception that a piece of clothing can make you speak more clearly, then the phrase should be “more intelligent,” not “more intelligible.” Third, isn’t the point of wearing a bow tie to seem folksy? Please identify a single person who wears a bow tie to seem more intelligent (or intelligible)? Fourth, the act of expressing an opinion (in conjunction with said bow tie wearing) may in fact make one appear more intelligent depending upon the opinion being expressed. The implication that you might consider someone’s opinion less valid because of an item of clothing he is wearing actually says more about your intelligence than it does the bow tie wearer’s mental faculties.
Yeah, so CL I’m getting around to you. It took me a moment to untangle that web of nonsensical crap you wrote called a response; especially because you probably sat back, read it, and felt like you made some good points. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone like that, but I’ll try anyway.
Regarding the “back-to-the-future” reference, we’ll let Doc do the explaining there as it relates to time travel. Suffice it to say the reference was about 1954 more than it was about the mode of dress. The 1954 reference being right about the year where many of you South Carolinians writing about a second law school still exist in terms of viewpoints. Your male bosses still hit on female workers, you still vote no to most things everyone else in society has already moved past, and you still hate anything progressive without being able to provide any good explanation as to why.
You are the perfect example of the backwards bow tie reference though CL and I thank you for that. I mean you actually took the time to tear apart the words and sentences and still missed the whole freaking point. After all, you just stepped out of work at the Oxford University Press and those posting should not forget this.
As for intelligible, and I really hate to do this, but Merriam-Webster has TWO definitions of “intelligible.” I suggest you re-read the readings.
The bow tie reference was simply because attorneys like to wear bow ties. I would cite a certain NY Times article that talks about this, but you would probably just find the error in my citation as opposed to reading the article. In this case however, I know there’s one of you idiots chiming in to all this rhetoric who is actually wearing a bow tie while you are typing such idiotic statements. Needless to say, it was figurative.
The implication that I might consider someone’s opinion less valid because it is actually invalid has nothing to do with the bow tie.
Aww shucks, I’m tired. I bet you wear a bow tie and I probably offended you. My sincere apologies because what I meant to say is that no matter what are you wearing, or not wearing for that matter, it is your opinions which are “retrograde” despite what clothes you might wear. Here, I mean the definition of retrograde that means “moving backward” or “reverting to an earlier or inferior condition.” I wouldn’t want to confuse you again because it is apparent the art of construction is of primary importance to your comprehension.
“It took me a moment to untangle that web of nonsensical crap you wrote called a response; especially because you probably sat back, read it, and felt like you made some good points.”
I feel like your posts must be written in another language and then Google translated into English. I mean, why would my own perception as to whether I made any good points have anything to do with how long it took you to decipher what I wrote? I would submit that it is your limited cognitive skills that determine how long it takes you to sound your way through what I wrote, not any psychic feedback you are getting regarding my feelings of self-satisfaction.
“Suffice it to say the [back to the future] reference was about 1954 more than it was about the mode of dress.”
So you did not actually mean “back to the future,” you meant back to the past. Well next time you might want to just say that or class it up a bit with the word I suggested – retrograde* – rather than spouting gibberish while calling your audience stupid. Your approach tends to be counterproductive, which is what makes it so funny that you think I am the one that missed the point.
I actually have never worn a bow tie other than with a tuxedo at a wedding, because I think they are kind of silly looking, along with other Southern staples like croakies. But I do not make the mistake of assuming that a bow tie tells me something about the intelligence of the person wearing it. I let their actual opinions and ability to express themselves guide my judgments on that, as I have done with you.
*I do love the part where you take the time to instruct me in the meaning of the word retrograde, when I was the one that suggested that you might have been better off using that term. But I am glad I was able to expand your vocabulary, even if you do not want to give credit where it is due.
This is what happens when you combine education and southern progressive thinking – you end up getting one who is articulate about absolutely nothing. Really, you said a bunch about nothing.
Let us know when you are ready to discuss the “merits” of your opinions; it’ll of course take me a while to type my response in Google and double check it against Henry Watson Fowler.
By the way I once had a client who was a Russian scientist that almost always utilized Google translation. The guy is actually one of the world’s leading scientist on luminescence. Glad you didn’t become his attorney.
Once again, you try to insult someone else and just make yourself look worse. Before I was a backwards, bow tie wearing type who “hate[d] anything progressive,” and now I am the perfect combination of “education and southern progressive thinking.” So I am a self-loathing progressive? But I thought I was a revanchist for the policies of the ’50’s.? I’ll have to start charging you for the editing help, but I think you meant “southern regressive thinking.”
I will be happy to debate issues with you, but you’ll have to make a cogent point first. Please keep in mind this all started in response to a lengthy, illogical diatribe you sent to FITS. Its not like I am ignoring some policy paper you submitted.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Revanchist? Self-loathing? I mean, I never used any of these words. You put words in my mouth which I did not say only to then turn around and argue with me about why I said them. I’m sure other people tell you this. But honestly, what in the world are you talking about? How do you not confuse yourself?
Respond all you like. I’m done going back and forth with you. This is my last response to your idiocy. I’ll let you get back to your work as editor-in-chief of I’m Think I’m Smart Magazine, Inc. Good luck with your career there.
“Revanchist? Self-loathing? I mean, I never used any of these words.”
And no one accused you of doing so. They were my description of the positions you have ascribed to me. To clear this up for you, self-loathing was a joking reference to the competing descriptions of me as a “southern progressive” who simultaneously “hate[s] anything progressive.” And revanchist was another term I thought you could use instead of retrograde. But totally up to you which one you like better.
“Respond all you like. I’m done going back and forth with you. ”
Probably for the best.
Fook the CSOL … I use Lawcrawler!
Will does a great job reporting. Keep up it Will!!
Fook the CSOL … I use Lawcrawler!
Will does a great job reporting. Keep up it Will!!
Nobody told me Willie was handing out Klan robes. I feel cheated.
Nobody told me Willie was handing out Klan robes. I feel cheated.
The South will rise again….just wait.
Damn Straight
Yawn….
The South will rise again….just wait.
Damn Straight
Yawn….
Dear Sic and the rest of the crew who disagree with this letter: if you are dumber for having read this letter then it is only because you were pretty much too dumb to get it in the first instance. If the only problem you can point out was the grammatical mistake of “you’re” in an online blog that the FITSnews team edited for publication, then “you’re” actually just a bit smarter than one might think based on these comments.
The takeaway: South Carolina is known for always moving backwards when everyone else is trying to move forward, simple as that. It is etched in the culture and prevalent in every facet of controversy; it just never ceases to amaze the rest of the country although you are pretty desensitized to it by now.
The students, graduates, faculty, staff, or whomever else associated with CSOL deserve much better than an online forum dedicated to publishing content to bring it down and then disguise it under the name of “journalism.” Further, your content on this subject has nothing to do with libertarianism or any of your purported objectives; it’s more like Jerry Springerism.
And really, “all over the map?” How much more all over the map is this coverage and are these comments? How nebulous is the connection between this website’s promotion of “liberty” relative to actual journalism?
And finally, if this is a contest about looking smarter then let’s just say that in a room full of idiots, who “looks smarter” is sort of irrelevant.
You all ready said that T
I was thinking exactly the same thing Frank. Big T/GrandTango is hanging out over at the state now – maybe this is his brother Lil’ P.
Dear Sic and the rest of the crew who disagree with this letter: if you are dumber for having read this letter then it is only because you were pretty much too dumb to get it in the first instance. If the only problem you can point out was the grammatical mistake of “you’re” in an online blog that the FITSnews team edited for publication, then “you’re” actually just a bit smarter than one might think based on these comments.
The takeaway: South Carolina is known for always moving backwards when everyone else is trying to move forward, simple as that. It is etched in the culture and prevalent in every facet of controversy; it just never ceases to amaze the rest of the country although you are pretty desensitized to it by now.
The students, graduates, faculty, staff, or whomever else associated with CSOL deserve much better than an online forum dedicated to publishing content to bring it down and then disguise it under the name of “journalism.” Further, your content on this subject has nothing to do with libertarianism or any of your purported objectives; it’s more like Jerry Springerism.
And really, “all over the map?” How much more all over the map is this coverage and are these comments? How nebulous is the connection between this website’s promotion of “liberty” relative to actual journalism?
And finally, if this is a contest about looking smarter then let’s just say that in a room full of idiots, who “looks smarter” is sort of irrelevant.
You all ready said that T
I was thinking exactly the same thing Frank. Big T/GrandTango is hanging out over at the state now – maybe this is his brother Lil’ P.
Dear Sic and the rest of the crew who disagree with this letter: if you are dumber for having read this letter then it is only because you were pretty much too dumb to get it in the first instance. If the only problem you can point out was the grammatical mistake of “you’re” in an online blog that the FITSnews team edited for publication, then “you’re” actually just a bit smarter than one might think based on these comments.
The takeaway: South Carolina is known for always moving backwards when everyone else is trying to move forward, simple as that. It is etched in the culture and prevalent in every facet of controversy; it just never ceases to amaze the rest of the country although you are pretty desensitized to it by now.
The students, graduates, faculty, staff, or whomever else associated with CSOL deserve much better than an online forum dedicated to publishing content to bring it down and then disguise it under the name of “journalism.” Further, your content on this subject has nothing to do with libertarianism or any of your purported objectives; it’s more like Jerry Springerism.
And really, “all over the map?” How much more all over the map is this coverage and are these comments? How nebulous is the connection between this website’s promotion of “liberty” relative to actual journalism?
And finally, if this is a contest about looking smarter then let’s just say that in a room full of idiots, who “looks smarter” is sort of irrelevant.
You weren’t even smart enough to wait for the first post to take hold, instead of letting your ADHD take hold and clicking the post button a few more times?
Step-by-step checklist to your presumed stupidity:
Posted twice, yes.
By accident, yes.
Because of ADHD, no.
Because I tried posting earlier where something was posted then immediately removed by Fitsnews, yes.
Changed e-mail thinking posting possibly needed confirmation as derived from my e-mail, yes.
You actually cost yourself 10 IQ points, yes.
Sup T. How ya been man?
It sounds a lot like him, but I think T uses more dots “…” and random Capitalized WORDS…
You posted other things twice yesterday, too.
I think you’re zoomru by another name.
Oh, we can find a lot more problems than your misuse of your/you’re. I’ll repost the problems with just one sentence (the one obsessed with seersucker suits):
First, “back-to-the-future” is an oxymoron on its face, and in the context of the movie only has meaning as an attempt to escape backwards thoughts or ideas. It obviously would not apply to attempts to persist in or revive a backwards mode of dress, which is clearly what she is trying to convey. The term she is searching for is something more akin to retrograde. Second, unless the author is claiming that a there is a perception that a piece of clothing can make you speak more clearly, then the phrase should be “more intelligent,” not “more intelligible.” Third, isn’t the point of wearing a bow tie to seem folksy? Please identify a single person who wears a bow tie to seem “more intelligent (or intelligible)? And, the act of expressing an opinion (in conjunction with said bow tie wearing) may in fact make one appear more intelligent depending upon the opinion being expressed. The implication that you might consider someone’s opinion less valid because of an item of clothing he is wearing actually says more about your intelligence than it does the bow tie wearer’s mental faculties.
“The implication that you might consider someone’s opinion less valid because of an item of clothing he is wearing . . .”
Well, there are theoretical limits: clown shoes for example . . . and, more to the point, confederate admiral’s uniforms.
And a straight jacket, I suppose. But not really anything you could buy at Brooks Brothers.
I don’t know about that. Those multi-color striped oxford cloth shirts they used to sell were obviously designed for their richer clients who had more money than they did sense. But generally you make a valid point
Yeah, so CL I’m getting around to you. It took me a moment to untangle that web of nonsensical crap you wrote called a response; especially because you probably sat back, read it, and felt like you made some good points. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone like that, but I’ll try anyway.
Regarding the “back-to-the-future” reference, we’ll let Doc do the explaining there as it relates to time travel. Suffice it to say the reference was about 1954 more than it was about the mode of dress. The 1954 reference being right about the year where many of you South Carolinians still exist in terms of viewpoints. Your male bosses still hit on female workers, you still vote no to most things everyone else in society has already moved past, and you still hate anything progressive without being able to provide any good explanation as to why.
You are the perfect example of the backwards bow tie reference though CL and I thank you for that. I mean you actually took the time to tear apart the words and sentences and still missed the whole damn point. After all, you just stepped out of work at the Oxford University Press and those posting should not forget this.
As for intelligible, and I really hate to do this, but Merriam-Webster has TWO definitions of “intelligible.” I suggest you re-read the readings.
The bow tie reference was simply because attorneys like to wear bow ties. I would cite a certain NY Times article that talks about this, but you would probably just find the error in my citation as opposed to reading the article. In this case however, I know there’s one of you idiots chiming in to all this rhetoric who is actually wearing a bow tie while you are typing such idiotic statements. Needless to say, it was both figurative as well as literal.
The implication that I might consider someone’s opinion less valid because it is actually invalid has nothing to do with the bow tie.
Aww shucks, I’m tired. I bet you wear a bow tie and I probably offended you. My sincere apologies because what I meant to say is that no matter what are you wearing, or not wearing for that matter, it is your opinions which are “retrograde” despite what clothes you might wear. Here, I mean the definition of retrograde that means “moving backward” or “reverting to an earlier or inferior condition.” I wouldn’t want to confuse you again because it is apparent the art of construction is of primary importance to your comprehension.
SC has only 4,723,723 people. How many law schools do we need?
At least one less than we have…
Dear Sic and the rest of the crew who disagree with this letter: if you are dumber for having read this letter then it is only because you were pretty much too dumb to get it in the first instance. If the only problem you can point out was the grammatical mistake of “you’re” in an online blog that the FITSnews team edited for publication, then “you’re” actually just a bit smarter than one might think based on these comments.
The takeaway: South Carolina is known for always moving backwards when everyone else is trying to move forward, simple as that. It is etched in the culture and prevalent in every facet of controversy; it just never ceases to amaze the rest of the country although you are pretty desensitized to it by now.
The students, graduates, faculty, staff, or whomever else associated with CSOL deserve much better than an online forum dedicated to publishing content to bring it down and then disguise it under the name of “journalism.” Further, your content on this subject has nothing to do with libertarianism or any of your purported objectives; it’s more like Jerry Springerism.
And really, “all over the map?” How much more all over the map is this coverage and are these comments? How nebulous is the connection between this website’s promotion of “liberty” relative to actual journalism?
And finally, if this is a contest about looking smarter then let’s just say that in a room full of idiots, who “looks smarter” is sort of irrelevant.
You weren’t even smart enough to wait for the first post to take hold, instead of letting your ADHD take hold and clicking the post button a few more times?
Step-by-step checklist to your presumed stupidity:
Posted twice, yes.
By accident, yes.
Because of ADHD, no.
Because I tried posting earlier where something was posted then immediately removed by Fitsnews, yes.
Changed e-mail thinking posting possibly needed confirmation as derived from my e-mail, yes.
You actually cost yourself 10 IQ points, yes.
Sup T. How ya been man?
It sounds a lot like him, but I think T uses more dots “…” and random Capitalized WORDS…
You posted other things twice yesterday, too.
I think you’re zoomru by another name.
Oh, we can find a lot more problems than your misuse of your/you’re. I’ll repost the problems with just one sentence (the one obsessed with seersucker suits):
First, “back-to-the-future” is an oxymoron on its face, and in the context of the movie only has meaning as an attempt to escape the past (which can be interpreted as backwards thoughts or ideas). It obviously would not apply to attempts to persist in or revive a backwards mode of dress, which is clearly what the author is trying to convey. The term he or she is searching for is something more akin to retrograde. Second, unless the author is claiming that a there is a perception that a piece of clothing can make you speak more clearly, then the phrase should be “more intelligent,” not “more intelligible.” Third, isn’t the point of wearing a bow tie to seem folksy? Please identify a single person who wears a bow tie to seem more intelligent (or intelligible)? Fourth, the act of expressing an opinion (in conjunction with said bow tie wearing) may in fact make one appear more intelligent depending upon the opinion being expressed. The implication that you might consider someone’s opinion less valid because of an item of clothing he is wearing actually says more about your intelligence than it does the bow tie wearer’s mental faculties.
“The implication that you might consider someone’s opinion less valid because of an item of clothing he is wearing . . .”
Well, there are theoretical limits: clown shoes for example . . . and, more to the point, confederate admiral’s uniforms.
And a straight jacket, I suppose. But not really anything you could buy at Brooks Brothers.
I don’t know about that. Those multi-color striped oxford cloth shirts they used to sell were obviously designed for their richer clients who had more money than they did sense. But generally you make a valid point
Yeah, so CL I’m getting around to you. It took me a moment to untangle that web of nonsensical crap you wrote called a response; especially because you probably sat back, read it, and felt like you made some good points. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone like that, but I’ll try anyway.
Regarding the “back-to-the-future” reference, we’ll let Doc do the explaining there as it relates to time travel. Suffice it to say the reference was about 1954 more than it was about the mode of dress. The 1954 reference being right about the year where many of you South Carolinians still exist in terms of viewpoints. Your male bosses still hit on female workers, you still vote no to most things everyone else in society has already moved past, and you still hate anything progressive without being able to provide any good explanation as to why.
You are the perfect example of the backwards bow tie reference though CL and I thank you for that. I mean you actually took the time to tear apart the words and sentences and still missed the whole damn point. After all, you just stepped out of work at the Oxford University Press and those posting should not forget this.
As for intelligible, and I really hate to do this, but Merriam-Webster has TWO definitions of “intelligible.” I suggest you re-read the readings.
The bow tie reference was simply because attorneys like to wear bow ties. I would cite a certain NY Times article that talks about this, but you would probably just find the error in my citation as opposed to reading the article. In this case however, I know there’s one of you idiots chiming in to all this rhetoric who is actually wearing a bow tie while you are typing such idiotic statements. Needless to say, it was both figurative as well as literal.
The implication that I might consider someone’s opinion less valid because it is actually invalid has nothing to do with the bow tie.
Aww shucks, I’m tired. I bet you wear a bow tie and I probably offended you. My sincere apologies because what I meant to say is that no matter what are you wearing, or not wearing for that matter, it is your opinions which are “retrograde” despite what clothes you might wear. Here, I mean the definition of retrograde that means “moving backward” or “reverting to an earlier or inferior condition.” I wouldn’t want to confuse you again because it is apparent the art of construction is of primary importance to your comprehension.
SC has only 4,723,723 people. How many law schools do we need?
At least one less than we have…
As for the “libertarian” bit, you wish you had a clue as to what real libertarianism is – you’re content has nothing to do with being fiscally conservative and you are clearly socially inept.
TBG is a libertarian. Joined the LP in 1986. Has a signed copy of Harry Browne’s “Why Government Doesn’t Work”. Voted for Ron Paul twice.
If you don’t think we are socially inept…you haven’t been attending the meetings!
For the record, gay marriages have been *banned* for most of human history with no known negative effects. Also the women voting thing doesn’t seem to be the panacea that you seem to think it is.
You bashed libertarians, gays, & women all in one concise post.
My congrats to you!
If this were bowling it’s like you rolled two strikes in two lanes with one roll.
Thanks.
TBG just calls ’em like he sees ’em, Dude.
I seem to recall you bagging on Sic for referring to himself in the third person?
TBG believes, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. “
You could even go them one better:
“The TBG believes. . . .”
As for the “libertarian” bit, you wish you had a clue as to what real libertarianism is – you’re content has nothing to do with being fiscally conservative and you are clearly socially inept.
TBG is a libertarian. Joined the LP in 1986. Has a signed copy of Harry Browne’s “Why Government Doesn’t Work”. Voted for Ron Paul twice.
If you don’t think we are socially inept…you haven’t been attending the meetings!
For the record, gay marriages have been *banned* for most of human history with no known negative effects. Also the women voting thing doesn’t seem to be the panacea that you seem to think it is.
You bashed libertarians, gays, & women all in one concise post.
My congrats to you!
If this were bowling it’s like you rolled two strikes in two lanes with one roll.
Thanks.
TBG just calls ’em like he sees ’em, Dude.
I seem to recall you bagging on Sic for referring to himself in the third person?
TBG believes, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. “
You could even go them one better:
“The TBG believes. . . .”
“You guys hide behind these screen names like a bunch of uncloaked Klansmen.”
If we were hiding wouldn’t we be cloaked (and clansman generally wore hoods and robes – not that the Klan was ever really that active in South Carolina)?
“…who think that by putting on a bow tie and expressing an opinion that it somehow makes them more intelligible…”
You may have a point – it didn’t make you more “intelligble”.
“…You guys do yourself and the southeast a favor, stop trying to step on each other because it’s that same Civil War mentality that got you in this place in the first instance…
We’re not trying to step on each other just carpet baggers like you appear to be. Have a day.
Fuuunnny. Most intelligibelist? BBBWwwwahahahahahahhahah Fuuuuuunny
Yeah, what he said!
“You guys hide behind these screen names like a bunch of uncloaked Klansmen.”
If we were hiding wouldn’t we be cloaked? (For the record Klansman generally wore hoods and robes – and the Klan was ever really that active in South Carolina.) Oh, Is Anonymous your real name or a nom de plume, (cloak much)?
“…who think that by putting on a bow tie and expressing an opinion that it somehow makes them more intelligible…”
You may have a point – it didn’t make you more “intelligible”.
“…You guys do yourself and the southeast a favor, stop trying to step on each other because it’s that same Civil War mentality that got you in this place in the first instance…
We’re not trying to step on each other, just carpet baggers like you appear to be.
Have a nice day, just do us a favor and have it somewhere else.
Fuuunnny. Most intelligibelist? BBBWwwwahahahahahahhahah Fuuuuuunny
Yeah, what he said!
Jesus. H. Christ. That was sad. Is this person a graduate of the CSOL?
Hint: LOL and :) are not allowed for those wearing big boy pants.
My guess is our anonymous letter-writing bard is not among CSOL’s “top students” who will be offered transfer admission to USC.
Yes. He/she will not be “poached”, as they are apparently already “scrambled”.
*TBG sadly notes that he missed breakfast, again.*
I know, right?
Jesus. H. Christ. That was sad. Is this person a graduate of the CSOL?
Hint: LOL and :) are not allowed for those wearing big boy pants.
My guess is our anonymous letter-writing bard is not among CSOL’s “top students” who will be offered transfer admission to USC.
Yes. He/she will not be “poached”, as they are apparently already “scrambled”.
*TBG sadly notes that he missed breakfast, again.*
I know, right?
I have noted elsewhere the irony I see in a situation where a bunch of CSOL students and graduates are apoplectic about the possible sale of the school to a (gasp) for profit company. The CSOL has always been a for profit school. Look it up. A bunch of law professors and retired judges saw that more people wanted to attend law school than USC could handle and formed CSOL as a for profit LLC. They made a bunch of statements about their altruistic motives, but the bottom line was that they wanted to live in Charleston and make money.
Wait a minute….. are you actually saying that there are *some* lawyers out there who care only about money and their lifestyle and really don’t give a rat’s ass about the effects of their actions on other people or on society as a whole?
In a word, yes. That’s what I’m saying. But it isn’t all of us. So don’t put “some” in scare quotes as if to imply that all lawyers fit your description. They don’t.
I have noted elsewhere the irony I see in a situation where a bunch of CSOL students and graduates are apoplectic about the possible sale of the school to a (gasp) for profit company. The CSOL has always been a for profit school. Look it up. A bunch of law professors and retired judges saw that more people wanted to attend law school than USC could handle and formed CSOL as a for profit LLC. They made a bunch of statements about their altruistic motives, but the bottom line was that they wanted to live in Charleston and make money.
Wait a minute….. are you actually saying that there are *some* lawyers out there who care only about money and their lifestyle and really don’t give a rat’s ass about the effects of their actions on other people or on society as a whole?
In a word, yes. That’s what I’m saying. But it isn’t all of us. So don’t put “some” in scare quotes as if to imply that all lawyers fit your description. They don’t.
1) CSOL has always been for-profit. It has always had a crappy reputation. It has always been unselective. It has always been way overpriced for the job prospects and starting salaries available to graduates. A sale to Infilaw is not going to change any of those things.
2) South Carolina does not have enough entry-level legal work to absorb the graduates of two law schools. Not by far. All the state needs is a single cheap law school option. It shouldn’t be trying to bail CSOL out. It should be trying to shut the place down.
Dear James, there’s an old saying: “what you eat don’t make me $hit.”
In the law, there such a thing called standing. You know, locus standi, where there must be some sufficient connection between the proposed harm suffered and the party’s participation in such a case? Finding it terribly difficult to find where you have standing in this case James, just saying.
As a caveat, I believe we can all honestly agree that your opinion will not matter to even one CSOL student or graduate, ever. But since you felt it necessary to bless us accordingly, let’s consider a reply for the purposes of amusement only because Jerry Springer just went off and this web-site is the next best thing:
– For one, who cares if CSOL has always been for-profit? Really, who cares?
– Who are you to say that it has a crappy reputation; perhaps you or even your law school has a crappy reputation by someone else’s standards – but it probably doesn’t because you graduated number one from the number one law school ever. So you are the best.
– How does being “unselective” have anything to do with you? It probably has a lot because you are the one who calculates the admission numbers right?
– Have you been paying the overpriced student loan payments?
– Are you out seeking a job and can’t find one because of attending CSOL?
– Are you worried that you might lose some career opportunity to one of those stupid CSOL grads?
Number two (and I do mean your arguments are worth just as much as number two – remember our cliche we led with), is South Carolina the only place graduates from CSOL can take the bar or even work? Because if not, then that means South Carolina is not the only state to absorb the graduates.
Also, who died and made you governor of the state because last time I checked, only people in these sorts of positions actually have the state’s budget sitting in front of them to analyze – but you probably wipe with the state’s budget so it is likely to be right underneath you, literally.
Let’s reassess. The state of South Carolina doesn’t need more inanely opinionated “intellectuals” who make arguments about things that absolutely do not affect them based on assertions that they have no ability or even capacity to prove. Not only do you lack standing, you lack mental capacity.
But let’s just say you’re right. You should be happy CSOL sucks, because you will always get the job you want because you are smart. Those CSOL guys won’t stand a chance to challenge someone of your intelligence and education. You are a righteous dude and fate always favors the righteous.
While you are at your response, because I’m pretty sure you are going to post one telling us how these paragraphs were not constructed correctly, why not tell us what else about the state should be improved according to your opinion because after all, your baseless opinion really matters.
Actually, your opinion came from the same hole everybody has, and I don’t mean your mouth.
We’ll await your much anticipated reply…
Hey, fitsnewsgfy, there’s this thing called “a court of law.” You know, the big building at the center of town with marble columns. Last time I checked, we’re not in one, so “standing” doesn’t apply. And I pay taxes to the federal government that makes loans to CSOL students who take out six-figure sums to go there, so I do have a bit of self-interest in this topic. This might be strange to you, but a person is allowed to have an opinion on a school without actually having paid $37,000/year to go there.
1) If CSOL had a good reputation, then it would be able to put more than 51% of its graduates in FT legal employment. Again, I’m not sure why the CSOL alumni and students are up in arms about the potential sale when it doesn’t appear to change anything about the school. Maybe you can enlighten me.
2) If you read any news article on the topic in the last five years, you’d know there are too many law schools. There are too many in NC, too many in GA, in FL, in MS and AL, in TN and KY. There are too many in NY and CA. If a school cannot place in its home market, then it’s not going to go into NC and compete with graduates from the seven schools there, or into GA and compete with the five there. According to Law School Transparency about 7% of CSOL grads got jobs in those two states.
Not everyone should be allowed to borrow astronomical sums of money from the government to get more letters next to their name if the job market can’t support it. The result is more young people in debt they’ll never get rid of. If that means schools will close, so be it.
Alright James, I applaud you on making these points because now you are seemingly less judgmental and apparently articulating actual arguments. I’ll try to engage you without the sarcasm.
Regarding where your tax dollars are spent and in terms of loans, CSOL has been private so to my understanding these loans are mostly private coming from Bank of America or South Carolina Student Loan (which is non-profit, offers private loans, and has a relatively low default rate). In any case, provided that any CSOL loans are actually issued from the federal government, I’d like to know how this directly and/or negatively affects you. I’m open but we have to establish this first. “Standing” was a figurative way of implying that it’s hard to understand how your contentions regarding your taxpayer dollars and CSOL students and graduates negatively (or even positively for that matter) impact you.
Secondly, I cannot enlighten you about the potential sale because I am not privy to such information;however, there are certain issues based on essentially pragmatic considerations. For one, your community comments are highly offensive to some pretty smart students, treats CSOL as if it offers nothing to those students, ignores the fact that CSOL professors come out of the top of their classes and out of some of the top law schools, and as if the resources that have been expended count for nothing more than a failed attempt at a less than educational and progressive law school. When in fact, the troubles associated with this new law school exist in every new school and CSOL is no exception, yet the school has actually performed quite remarkably in spite of schizophrenic community support. I guess my question is why are you so hesitant to give the school a chance? If you could spend half your time seeking ways to improve the process instead of attempting to bring down the institution, it might very well work out better for the entirety of the state.
Thirdly, point well taken in terms of too many law schools. You wouldn’t be the first to take this position though. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Citing a March 2013 Time Magazine article, in “2007, 91.2% of law school graduates got jobs and salaries were soaring. After the 2008 meltdown, the employment rate was far lower — and the quality of jobs a lot worse. In 2009, just 65.4% of law school graduates got jobs for which they needed to pass the bar.” Everyone likely agrees it has since gotten much worse. So in line with this notion, most would probably agree with the contention that the poor performance in the economy has led to more problems with the legal community in terms of graduates finding jobs. In the alternative however, there is a contention that the setback is temporary. Accordingly, too often there is too much discussion about the negative implications of an increased number of law school graduates and less about the potential whereby the former discussion doesn’t actually help anyone find a job. How does a pessimistic viewpoint further existing graduates’ careers? How does shutting down a law school (or more than one law school), which negatively impacts those graduates, assist in anything other than serving the purpose of a generational curse to graduates of law schools whose institutions are no longer open?
Furthermore, who decides which law schools to close and how? The overarching question is which conversation is really more productive?
Finally, your response is about the only real libertarian premised response in a bad batch of other irrelevant and unrelated posts. Notwithstanding, libertarianism is often times quite clinical in nature and falls short of usefulness in real world application. I believe you guys’ challenge is always going to be showing how letting things fail actually helps people despite the hurt that it causes; at least that’s been my experience.
I also guess you can see there is a fine line here between hatred and pragmatism.
“Regarding where your tax dollars are spent and in terms of loans, CSOL has been private so to my understanding these loans are mostly private coming from Bank of America or South Carolina Student Loan”
A school does not need to be public or even non-profit to receive federal loan eligibility, and students can borrow from the federal GRADPLUS program up to COA. This COA is set by the school. In fact, the private student loan market is actually a very tiny share of law school loans, because federal loans are extremely easy to get and have fixed interest rates that apply regardless of your future repayment prospects.
“For one, your community comments are highly offensive to some pretty smart students, treats CSOL as if it offers nothing to those students, ignores the fact that CSOL professors come out of the top of their classes and out of some of the top law schools, and as if the resources that have been expended count for nothing more than a failed attempt at a less than educational and progressive law school.”
I have seen little evidence that CSOL has been trying to be progressive, since it is charging astronomical tuition to students and leaving them six-figures in debt. Charging young people almost $150,000 to get a degree is not progressive in my mind. Perhaps we disagree over that definition.
We can have a long discussion about whether legal employers value the proper traits in their hires, or if it is really a good business decision to hire from established or elite law schools. But that won’t change the facts on the ground, which are that CSOL costs almost $40,000 per year and the school cannot show starting salaries justifying repayment of that much in loans. That would be true if every CSOL student had a 150 IQ. A law school that does not offer decent job prospects relative to cost is failing students in its most fundamental obligation. For me that is a dealbreaker, regardless of any benefit the school provides in other areas.
Smart, driven people will succeed in many fields. I am unsure why to government should be subsidizing their choice to try and enter a field that clearly cannot support them. It would be better to let those students gravitate towards fields where their abilities are in demand.
I do not believe everyone has a right to attend a law school just because they want to and have it financed by the government, nor do I think that is good policy. If CSOL did not exist, then many of those students would choose to retake the LSAT until they got into USC. With cheap study materials and some time, most intelligent people can get the 157 required to get into USC. I think this is a reasonable requirement.
As for the professors, if they are so great they can go back into practice. I’m not going to cry for them and you shouldn’t either. They have been profiting off of naive kids for a long time.
“Citing a March 2013 Time Magazine article, in “2007, 91.2% of law school graduates got jobs and salaries were soaring. After the 2008 meltdown, the employment rate was far lower — and the quality of jobs a lot worse.In 2009, just 65.4% of law school graduates got jobs for which they needed to pass the bar.”
Remember that before 2009, there were different employment reporting standards for law schools. Many law schools reported part-time, temp, or non-law jobs (working fast-food) in their base employment rates. Therefore, statistics from that era should be taken with a large barrel of salt. It is possible that there has only been a small decrease from that era, and the statistics you quoted were artificially inflated by the above practices.
If I was a student thinking of making a 200K investment into law school, I would need solid proof that the legal employment market has not undergone a structural change. Unfortunately, proponents of law school have been unable to make that case. With the surplus of law grads from the last few years, government hiring freezes, and less money average people have to spend on legal services, I do not foresee any major positive changes in the market in the near future.
“”How does a pessimistic viewpoint further existing graduates’ careers? How does shutting down a law school (or more than one law school), which negatively impacts those graduates, assist in anything other than serving the purpose of a generational curse to graduates of law schools whose institutions are no longer open?”
I would hope that a graduate who has been practicing for a few years will not rely on their school name, but on their individual reputation and experience. Outside of the first job, or elite law firms that hire from the Yales and Dukes of the world, clients do not much care where you went to law school. CSOL alumni that have proven themselves good lawyers will continue to get clients (as I am sure many of them have), those that have not been able to break into the profession are not being helped by the degree anyway, so if the school closes they won’t be harmed. Furthermore, when a school closes, current students are eligible to discharge their federal loans- they might be better off cutting their losses.
“I believe you guys’ challenge is always going to be showing how letting things fail actually helps people despite the hurt that it causes; at least that’s been my experience.”
Unfortunately, law school has already caused harm to many people who are in six-figures of debt, unemployed, or working for very low wages. That law schools can charge so much is a direct result of the federal loan programs, which will loan unlimited amounts to students. That has allowed schools to keep raising tuition and that money has benefited a lot of wealthy people. Without this subsidy, the entire house of cards would come crashing down.
Defensive, aren’t we?
Dear James, there’s an old saying: “what you eat don’t make me $hit.”
In the law, there such a thing called standing. You know, locus standi, where there must be some sufficient connection between the proposed harm suffered and the party’s participation in such a case? Finding it terribly difficult to find where you have standing in this case James, just saying.
As a caveat, I believe we can all honestly agree that your opinion will not matter to even one CSOL student or graduate, ever. But since you felt it necessary to bless us accordingly, let’s consider a reply for the purposes of amusement only because Jerry Springer just went off and this web-site is the next best thing:
– For one, who cares if CSOL has always been for-profit? Really, who cares?
– Who are you to say that it has a crappy reputation; perhaps you or even your law school has a crappy reputation by someone else’s standards – but it probably doesn’t because you graduated number one from the number one law school ever. So you are the best.
– How does being “unselective” have anything to do with you? It probably has a lot because you are the one who calculates the admission numbers right?
– Have you been paying the overpriced student loan payments?
– Are you out seeking a job and can’t find one because of attending CSOL?
– Are you worried that you might lose some career opportunity to one of those stupid CSOL grads?
Number two (and I do mean your arguments are worth just as much as number two – remember our cliche we led with), is South Carolina the only place graduates from CSOL can take the bar or even work? Because if not, then that means South Carolina is not the only state to absorb the graduates.
Also, who died and made you governor of the state because last time I checked, only people in these sorts of positions actually have the state’s budget sitting in front of them to analyze – but you probably wipe with the state’s budget so it is likely to be right underneath you, literally.
Let’s reassess. The state of South Carolina doesn’t need more inanely opinionated “intellectuals” who make arguments about things that absolutely do not affect them based on assertions that they have no ability or even capacity to prove. Not only do you lack standing, you lack mental capacity.
But let’s just say you’re right. You should be happy CSOL sucks, because you will always get the job you want because you are smart. Those CSOL guys won’t stand a chance to challenge someone of your intelligence and education. You are a righteous dude and fate always favors the righteous.
While you are at your response, because I’m pretty sure you are going to post one telling us how these paragraphs were not constructed correctly, why not tell us what else about the state should be improved according to your opinion because after all, your baseless opinion really matters.
Actually, your opinion came from the same hole everybody has, and I don’t mean your mouth.
We’ll await your much anticipated reply…
1) CSOL has always been for-profit. It has always had a crappy reputation. It has always been unselective. It has always been way overpriced for the job prospects and starting salaries available to graduates. A sale to Infilaw is not going to change any of those things.
2) South Carolina does not have enough entry-level legal work to absorb the graduates of two law schools. Not by far. All the state needs is a single cheap law school option. It shouldn’t be trying to bail CSOL out. It should be trying to shut the place down.
Dear James, there’s an old saying: “what you eat don’t make me $hit.”
In the law, there such a thing called standing. You know, locus standi, where there must be some sufficient connection between the proposed harm suffered and the party’s participation in such a case? Finding it terribly difficult to find where you have standing in this case James, just saying.
As a caveat, I believe we can all honestly agree that your opinion will not matter to even one CSOL student or graduate, ever. But since you felt it necessary to bless us accordingly, let’s consider a reply for the purposes of amusement only because Jerry Springer just went off and this web-site is the next best thing:
– For one, who cares if CSOL has always been for-profit? Really, who cares?
– Who are you to say that it has a crappy reputation; perhaps you or even your law school has a crappy reputation by someone else’s standards – but it probably doesn’t because you graduated number one from the number one law school ever. So you are the best.
– How does being “unselective” have anything to do with you? It probably has a lot because you are the one who calculates the admission numbers right?
– Have you been paying the overpriced student loan payments?
– Are you out seeking a job and can’t find one because of attending CSOL?
– Are you worried that you might lose some career opportunity to one of those stupid CSOL grads?
Number two (and I do mean your arguments are worth just as much as number two – remember our cliche we led with), is South Carolina the only place graduates from CSOL can take the bar or even work? Because if not, then that means South Carolina is not the only state to absorb the graduates.
Also, who died and made you governor of the state because last time I checked, only people in these sorts of positions actually have the state’s budget sitting in front of them to analyze – but you probably wipe with the state’s budget so it is likely to be right underneath you, literally.
Let’s reassess. The state of South Carolina doesn’t need more inanely opinionated “intellectuals” who make arguments about things that absolutely do not affect them based on assertions that they have no ability or even capacity to prove. Not only do you lack standing, you lack mental capacity.
But let’s just say you’re right. You should be happy CSOL sucks, because you will always get the job you want because you are smart. Those CSOL guys won’t stand a chance to challenge someone of your intelligence and education. You are a righteous dude and fate always favors the righteous.
While you are at your response, because I’m pretty sure you are going to post one telling us how these paragraphs were not constructed correctly, why not tell us what else about the state should be improved according to your opinion because after all, your baseless opinion really matters.
Actually, your opinion came from the same hole everybody has, and I don’t mean your mouth.
We’ll await your much anticipated reply…
Hey, fitsnewsgfy, there’s this thing called “a court of law.” You know, the big building at the center of town with marble columns. Last time I checked, we’re not in one, so “standing” doesn’t apply. And I pay taxes to the federal government that makes loans to CSOL students who take out six-figure sums to go there, so I do have a bit of self-interest in this topic. This might be strange to you, but a person is allowed to have an opinion on a school without actually having paid $37,000/year to go there.
1) If CSOL had a good reputation, then it would be able to put more than 51% of its graduates in FT legal employment. Again, I’m not sure why the CSOL alumni and students are up in arms about the potential sale when it doesn’t appear to change anything about the school. Maybe you can enlighten me.
2) If you read any news article on the topic in the last five years, you’d know there are too many law schools. There are too many in NC, too many in GA, in FL, in MS and AL, in TN and KY. There are too many in NY and CA. If a school cannot place in its home market, then it’s not going to go into NC and compete with graduates from the seven schools there, or into GA and compete with the five there. According to Law School Transparency about 7% of CSOL grads got jobs in those two states.
Not everyone should be allowed to borrow astronomical sums of money from the government to get more letters next to their name if the job market can’t support it. The result is more young people in debt they’ll never get rid of. If that means schools will close, so be it.
Alright James, I applaud you on making these points because now you are seemingly less judgmental and apparently articulating actual arguments. I’ll try to engage you without the sarcasm.
Regarding where your tax dollars are spent and in terms of loans, CSOL has been private so to my understanding these loans are mostly private coming from Bank of America or South Carolina Student Loan (which is non-profit, offers private loans, and has a relatively low default rate). In any case, provided that any CSOL loans are actually issued from the federal government, I’d like to know how this directly and/or negatively affects you. I’m open but we have to establish this first. “Standing” was a figurative way of implying that it’s hard to understand how your contentions regarding your taxpayer dollars and CSOL students and graduates negatively (or even positively for that matter) impact you.
Secondly, I cannot enlighten you about the potential sale because I am not privy to such information;however, there are certain issues based on essentially pragmatic considerations. For one, your community comments are highly offensive to some pretty smart students, treats CSOL as if it offers nothing to those students, ignores the fact that CSOL professors come out of the top of their classes and out of some of the top law schools, and as if the resources that have been expended count for nothing more than a failed attempt at a less than educational and progressive law school. When in fact, the troubles associated with this new law school exist in every new school and CSOL is no exception, yet the school has actually performed quite remarkably in spite of schizophrenic community support. I guess my question is why are you so hesitant to give the school a chance? If you could spend half your time seeking ways to improve the process instead of attempting to bring down the institution, it might very well work out better for the entirety of the state.
Thirdly, point well taken in terms of too many law schools. You wouldn’t be the first to take this position though. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Citing a March 2013 Time Magazine article, in “2007, 91.2% of law school graduates got jobs and salaries were soaring. After the 2008 meltdown, the employment rate was far lower — and the quality of jobs a lot worse. In 2009, just 65.4% of law school graduates got jobs for which they needed to pass the bar.” Everyone likely agrees it has since gotten much worse. So in line with this notion, most would probably agree with the contention that the poor performance in the economy has led to more problems with the legal community in terms of graduates finding jobs. In the alternative however, there is a contention that the setback is temporary. Accordingly, too often there is too much discussion about the negative implications of an increased number of law school graduates and less about the potential whereby the former discussion doesn’t actually help anyone find a job. How does a pessimistic viewpoint further existing graduates’ careers? How does shutting down a law school (or more than one law school), which negatively impacts those graduates, assist in anything other than serving the purpose of a generational curse to graduates of law schools whose institutions are no longer open?
Furthermore, who decides which law schools to close and how? The overarching question is which conversation is really more productive?
Finally, your response is about the only real libertarian premised response in a bad batch of other irrelevant and unrelated posts. Notwithstanding, libertarianism is often times quite clinical in nature and falls short of usefulness in real world application. I believe you guys’ challenge is always going to be showing how letting things fail actually helps people despite the hurt that it causes; at least that’s been my experience.
I also guess you can see there is a fine line here between hatred and pragmatism.
“Regarding where your tax dollars are spent and in terms of loans, CSOL has been private so to my understanding these loans are mostly private coming from Bank of America or South Carolina Student Loan”
A school does not need to be public or even non-profit to receive federal loan eligibility, and students can borrow from the federal GRADPLUS program up to COA. This COA is set by the school. In fact, the private student loan market is actually a very tiny share of law school loans, because federal loans are extremely easy to get and have fixed interest rates that apply regardless of your future repayment prospects.
“For one, your community comments are highly offensive to some pretty smart students, treats CSOL as if it offers nothing to those students, ignores the fact that CSOL professors come out of the top of their classes and out of some of the top law schools, and as if the resources that have been expended count for nothing more than a failed attempt at a less than educational and progressive law school.”
I have seen little evidence that CSOL has been trying to be progressive, since it is charging astronomical tuition to students and leaving them six-figures in debt. Charging young people almost $150,000 to get a degree is not progressive in my mind. Perhaps we disagree over that definition.
We can have a long discussion about whether legal employers value the proper traits in their hires, or if it is really a good business decision to hire from established or elite law schools. But that won’t change the facts on the ground, which are that CSOL costs almost $40,000 per year and the school cannot show starting salaries justifying repayment of that much in loans. That would be true if every CSOL student had a 150 IQ. A law school that does not offer decent job prospects relative to cost is failing students in its most fundamental obligation. For me that is a dealbreaker, regardless of any benefit the school provides in other areas.
Smart, driven people will succeed in many fields. I am unsure why to government should be subsidizing their choice to try and enter a field that clearly cannot support them. It would be better to let those students gravitate towards fields where their abilities are in demand.
I do not believe everyone has a right to attend a law school just because they want to and have it financed by the government, nor do I think that is good policy. If CSOL did not exist, then many of those students would choose to retake the LSAT until they got into USC. With cheap study materials and some time, most intelligent people can get the 157 required to get into USC. I think this is a reasonable requirement.
As for the professors, if they are so great they can go back into practice. I’m not going to cry for them and you shouldn’t either. They have been profiting off of naive kids for a long time.
“Citing a March 2013 Time Magazine article, in “2007, 91.2% of law school graduates got jobs and salaries were soaring. After the 2008 meltdown, the employment rate was far lower — and the quality of jobs a lot worse.In 2009, just 65.4% of law school graduates got jobs for which they needed to pass the bar.”
Remember that before 2009, there were different employment reporting standards for law schools. Many law schools reported part-time, temp, or non-law jobs (working fast-food) in their base employment rates. Therefore, statistics from that era should be taken with a large barrel of salt. It is possible that there has only been a small decrease from that era, and the statistics you quoted were artificially inflated by the above practices.
If I was a student thinking of making a 200K investment into law school, I would need solid proof that the legal employment market has not undergone a structural change. Unfortunately, proponents of law school have been unable to make that case. With the surplus of law grads from the last few years, government hiring freezes, and less money average people have to spend on legal services, I do not foresee any major positive changes in the market in the near future.
“”How does a pessimistic viewpoint further existing graduates’ careers? How does shutting down a law school (or more than one law school), which negatively impacts those graduates, assist in anything other than serving the purpose of a generational curse to graduates of law schools whose institutions are no longer open?”
I would hope that a graduate who has been practicing for a few years will not rely on their school name, but on their individual reputation and experience. Outside of the first job, or elite law firms that hire from the Yales and Dukes of the world, clients do not much care where you went to law school. CSOL alumni that have proven themselves good lawyers will continue to get clients (as I am sure many of them have), those that have not been able to break into the profession are not being helped by the degree anyway, so if the school closes they won’t be harmed. Furthermore, when a school closes, current students are eligible to discharge their federal loans- they might be better off cutting their losses.
“I believe you guys’ challenge is always going to be showing how letting things fail actually helps people despite the hurt that it causes; at least that’s been my experience.”
Unfortunately, law school has already caused harm to many people who are in six-figures of debt, unemployed, or working for very low wages. That law schools can charge so much is a direct result of the federal loan programs, which will loan unlimited amounts to students. That has allowed schools to keep raising tuition and that money has benefited a lot of wealthy people. Without this subsidy, the entire house of cards would come crashing down.
Defensive, aren’t we?
What do you call 100 lawyers drowned at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
What do you call 100 lawyers drowned at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
If you think SC is bad, trying living or moving up in CA, NJ or Illinois.
If you think SC is bad, trying living or moving up in CA, NJ or Illinois.