Subscribe via RSS Feed

“Did You See How They Were Living? How Can You Delude Yourself?”

[ 114 ] April 11, 2014 |

Many people, here and elsewhere, have responded to Lisa McElroy’s first combination of strawman burning and blaming-the-victim. But I might be even more amazed by one of the follow-ups:

I don’t understand why it is deplorable. The students enrolling in law schools have the information about job placement, bar passage, etc. Presumably, they have decided that they will fall on the positive side of the statistics. They make the choice to accept the offer of admission. The law school makes a commitment to educate them to the best of its ability. If the law school is so terrible and lacks judgment in admitting students, why would a student then choose to go there? It’s all in the student’s control.

Even leaving aside how strenuously law schools have acted to hide or fudge things like job placement statistics…just wow. Shorter Lisa McElroy: “Why would anyone buy real estate at Glengarry Highlands if it wasn’t extremely valuable?”

I think we can see why the comments were closed…

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Not sure if I have a dog in this hunt really, but is the argument being put forth something along the lines of “You can’t blame us for our product being crap if you didn’t already do the research and know it was crap before you signed on”? That’s taking “let the buyer beware” to obnoxious levels, if so.

    • Murc

      I’m not a lawyer, but if I recall some of the law classes I’ve taking, that’s actually a colorable argument a lot of times, especially in contract law.

    • BBA

      That’s taking “let the buyer beware” to obnoxious levels, if so.

      Sounds like a Matt Levine column (without the footnotes).

    • Barry

      Matt t: “Not sure if I have a dog in this hunt really, but is the argument being put forth something along the lines of “You can’t blame us for our product being crap if you didn’t already do the research and know it was crap before you signed on”? That’s taking “let the buyer beware” to obnoxious levels, if so.”

      Not only that, but it also includes ‘You should have seen past the frantic spinning and raw BS which we put into the published numbers. You should have known that we used one group for employment rates, and another for salary stats. You should have known that whenever we didn’t know something about a respondent, we made the most favorable assumptions. You should have known that we goosed the numbers by hiring our own grads for one-month temp positions. You should have known that ‘JD Advantage’ jobs are whatever we think that we can get away with.’

  • no name

    Yay go me. I was the guy who posed the question that she was responding to with that comment. And I agree, pretty ridiculous.

  • rea

    That is the argument by a merchant selling a product, not a scholar or teacher.

    • Merchant’s Ass’n

      Hey, don’t paint all merchants selling a product that way. Some actually stand behind their products and offer a refund or exchange if they don’t function as advertised.

    • Anonymous

      She’s not a scholar, she’s a law professor at a bottom-tier school. As for being a teacher, by now it’s clear what the standard is for teaching ethics.

      Somebody once said that after the top 20 or so schools, it’s no longer ‘academia’, or ‘legal education’, bu the ‘legal education industry’, like a truck driving school or a beautician’s ‘college’. She definitely shows that.

      • JoyfulA

        No, law schools are not at all practical. They do not teach students to practice law, like beauty college grads know how to cut hair.

        Lawyers have to clerk or apprentice somewhere to learn lawyering.

      • NewishLawyer

        I think there is a certain amount of snobiness that puts the cut off at the top 20.

      • Chocolate Covered Cotton

        I’m pretty sure truck driving schools have a much better record of job placement for their grads. Most are directly contracted by the big trucking firms to provide recruits after all.

  • They knew what they were getting in to
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw

  • elevate the discourse

    Scott, you are smart and I like your blog posts. There is nothing wrong with your post. And I agree that there is a legitimate argument/discussion to be had here.

    Your co-blogger Paul Campos is encouraging ad hominem attacks on Lisa McElroy. Can you in good faith defend the JD Underground thread, or the fact that he is sending commenters to a site where there are few rules and an incredible number of personal attacks? No one deserves this kind of personal abuse. Not Lisa. Not anyone. I think that 99% of the readers of this blog would appreciate very much if you would publicly disown what your co-blogger has done here.

    • Ken

      An even higher percentage would probably be interested in your real name, but I doubt that we’ll see that either.

    • I’m not following this that closely, so it’s kind of hard for me to tell if this is parody or an amazing case of not being self-aware.

      • Actually, now that I think about it, I’m sure students who are Jewish or Chinese and Cuban-American would know better than to make a bad law school decision. At least that’s what someone thinks who’s a tenured law professor at the highest-rated law school in America.

        • [And yes, I know that’s a coarse application of her thesis, but that’s the price she has to pay for writing something that might have made Houston Stewart Chamberlin nod in partial agreement.]

    • no name

      My best guess is that this is Brian Leiter concern trolling, but who knows. The focus on ad hominems is my clue.

    • Scott Lemieux

      I strongly discourage any ad feminam attacks on McElroy and would not tolerate them here. I don’t understand how Paul can be read as encouraging them either.

    • Warren Terra

      I don’t know that I’ve ever visited this JD Underground site you name. Maybe it is the hive of villainy you describe. But all I’ve seen here at this site or exposure of the ridiculous, craven, self-serving argument McElroy made, repeated in her own words. The response has been disrespectful, but I haven’t noticed anything crudely personal or off color – just outrage that she would say those getting scammed have no-one to blame but themselves, that they should have read the small print and been realistic.

      • Scott Lemieux

        And I note as well that the comments thread in question was cut off, although all of the engagement with her points was substantive.

        • no name

          I think that ‘elevate the discourse’s comment is a good example of what Krugman was talking about a few weeks ago.

        • rea

          “Ad hominem” is often misused. “You said something stupid and disgusting” isn’t ad hominem

    • maxx785

      Ela,

      I’d appreciate your thoughts on the following quote from the JD Underground thread:

      “The high cost of legal education coupled with the crushing effect of non-dischargeable student loans are the problem. And the law schools aren’t addressing this. Instead, they’re trying to hide this fact from prospective students.

      If law school debt was dischargeable in bankruptcy, the JDs who couldn’t get jobs would not be destroyed. Prospective students deserve to know that this is the risk they are taking, especially when going to a school like Drexel.”

      municipald1 (Apr 11, 2014 – 12:35 pm)

    • The JD Underground thread is here, for those that want to make up their own mind regarding the appropriate tone and character:

      http://jdunderground.com/all/thread.php?threadId=68027

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        “elevate the discourse” makes a good point. for an internet comment section, there is indeed an incredibly low number of personal attacks

        • Ordinarily, I’d say “I’m your man” but the flu has me down.

          • Hogan

            Feel better, fuckface.

          • Ronan

            yeah, get better. you bastard

            (shit, ive probably not been around long enough to be on these kind of terms. better tone it down)

            get better dude

            • No, my parents were married. Not to each other mind you, but I’m not sure that matters.

              • Ronan

                It matters to God.

                And Theo.

                • My family has the same relationship with god that Jenbob and Theo have with logic: never been in the same room.

                • Nietzsche

                  God? That loser blew town rather than give me the fifty bucks he owed me.

                • Hogan

                  So he’s dead to you?

          • Ronan

            you shit head

        • Ronan

          already by their name, ‘elevate the discourse’ is a pain in the ass

          whereas I put in the effort

          at least

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            true… we do have to actually read one of your comments to know when you’re being a pain in the ass

            (ducks)

            • Ronan

              ducks? where ?

              they’re geese

              • Ronan

                im sorry

              • Ronan

                ive little idea what this means

              • MAJeff

                If they’re gray ducks, it means you grew up in Minnesota.

                • Regional humor is hilarious. I only understood this reference because I grew up in Iowa and was stunned — stunned! — when I learned about this particular peculiar colloquialism.

    • Alex Hall

      Hey, fancy law school guy, that’s not what ad hominem means. Let me explain in small words:

      “Prof. McElroy is a terrible person, therefore she’s wrong.” = ad hominem

      “Prof. McElroy has ruined people’s lives by lying to them to preserve her cushy lifestyle. Therefore, she’s a terrible person.” != ad hominem

      Your comment gets a D-. See me after class.

    • Anonymous

      To: Thers

      From: The Internet

      Re: elevate the discourse’s comment

      Please nuke this from space

      Yours,
      The Internet

      • Col Bat Guano

        It’s the only way to be sure.

    • Royko

      I think that 99% of the readers of this blog would appreciate very much if you would publicly disown what your co-blogger has done here.

      I guess I’m in the 1%.

      Funny, I thought there would be more champagne and caviar. And monkey butlers to regale us with jungle stories.

      • J R in WV

        In this case, should “butlers” be speled[sic] buttlers[sic]?

        Just askin’ ;-)

    • MacK

      You know what is genuinely hilarious about this posting is that it is by someone who regularly posts at the Faculty Lounge – a website that leaked posters names, IP addresses and e-mails to Brian Leiter and it would seem Steve Diamond and probably Nancy Leong – and the poster is relying on the fact that this website never has.

      Now looking at a likely candidate – if this is Steve Diamond he went so far as to not just launch ad hominem attacks on me personally – but also on my recently deceased father, suggesting for example that he supported a terrorist organisation. If it Leiter, he has launched numerous ad hominem on Campos, Tamahama even me – including suggesting that other are mentally ill, combined with determined efforts to silence those who disagree with him – by for example contacting and threatening to contact their employers. Nancy Leong has shown a willingness to take her attacks to an astonishing level – while Dan Filler has actively facilitated all of this by leaking from TFL like a sieve (and I was contacted by a guest poster fairly recently to tell me that IP addresses and e-mail addresses were still open at the Faculty Lounge.

      The Faculty Lounge inter alia is hosted by Drexel University – when I wrote to the dean of the law school to protest Filler’s behaviour – he wrote back telling me that it was a wild place on the internet – and he was not going to do anything. So if it is him ….

      May I suggest that when Filler, his dean, Diamond, etc. are inevitably trying to move – people make a point of telling any law school considering them of their ethical lapses, etc.

      • Anonymous

        “May I suggest that when Filler, his dean, Diamond, etc. are inevitably trying to move – people make a point of telling any law school considering them of their ethical lapses, etc.”

        Why should we *help* them get a new job? :)

    • Chocolate Covered Cotton

      Speaking for the 1%, I don’t give a damn if you publicly disown Campois or not. I wasn’t previously aware that you had any responsibility for what h writes, believing him to be a grown-up.

    • Barry

      “Your co-blogger Paul Campos is encouraging ad hominem attacks on Lisa McElroy.”

      Wrong. Go look up ‘ad hominem’.

  • Warren Terra

    She’s just repeating the old truism, he who trains himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.

    • Usually at this point in a public controversy the central figure is told by her attorney to stop making public statements and direct all communications through the attorney.

      I guess it’s not her but someone else who teaches those lessons to her attorneys-in-training.

  • Brendan

    Ms. McElroy is a terrible person. Her argument is that I should have done the research. Oh really, funny story.

    I did do the research. I was told by the law school I attended that 90% of graduates have a full time job after law school. Turns out it was around 50%.

    But yea fuck me right?… for trusting an institution of LAWYERS who are not suppose to commit fraud.

    They are a bunch of snake oil salesmen robbing us of our future.

    I’m completely fucked. I’m glad I have Ms. McElroy to tell me what an ungrateful, lazy, piece of shit I am on top of that.

    • Brendan

      Oh I and I just want to add,

      Fuck the concern about ad hominem attacks.

      The first refuge of the scoundrel is an appeal to tone; The real bad guy isn’t the criminal, its the victim possibly getting somewhat enraged by their actions.

      Insults are nothing compared to the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by these fucking immoral assholes.

      • maxx785

        Tens of thousands of young lives have been destroyed by the ball and chain of non-dischargable debt, and people like McElroy have aided and abetted, and EARN THEIR LIVING, from the scam that has destroyed these lives.

        And then, in between updating their travel blog, they whine about the tone of people who have done nothing more than than quote them.

        Surreal……

        • Pat

          The bankruptcy law is just that. It’s a law. It can be changed.

          • Jake

            Uh, Pat, have you seen the current makeup of the legislature that would be tasked with implementing that change?

            They’re not exactly bending over backwards to help the young people (aka “the Obama voters”).

          • maxx785

            Where’s the campaign by the loan beneficiaries – the law schools and their scammer deans etc – to change the law and make student loans dischargable like, say, gambling debts?

            • EthanS

              That’s the answer! Gambling!

              After gambling their future on a low-odds chance of a big job, its time to arbitrage the risks! Atlantic City isn’t too far from Philly – heck even Philly is getting local gambling. Go for the big casino payout and if it fails, at least you can discharge that debt and try again… in seven years… you’re bound to break even by the third time thru BR, and you’ll still be better off than if you paid the whole school loan.

              And if not, well, you’ll have an insiders knowledge of BR law that boutique firms would love to see on a resume.

      • Unhinged Liberal

        ITT Tech

        • Would help you get a job and off of disability, taker.

          • Unhinged Liberal

            Would help you get a job and off of disability, taker.

            If I were a ‘taker’, I’d be voting and rooting for the Democrats who promise to give takers more and more.

            • MAJeff

              But the GOP is the Party of the parasitic 0.1%. Your comment makes no sense.

      • gmack

        Fuck the concern about ad hominem attacks. The first refuge of the scoundrel is an appeal to tone.

        No, the first refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism, you Goddamned anti-American, Islamo-fascist communist.

  • Jake

    Professor McElroy’s arguments are kind of reminiscent of that one time when only 30% of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s graduating class was able to pass the bar one year, and the school explained it away by noting that bar passage is an “individual achievement,” and that, you know, the graduating class was unusually dense.

    There’s at least a glimmer of truth in that argument, but, still, maybe not the argument you want to be making if you’re in her position.

  • Anonymous

    Oh man that scene is so so apt.

    Shelley: “I’ve got the check . . .”

    Williamson: “Forget it frame it it’s worthless.”

    S: “The check’s no good?”

    W: “Stick around, I’ll pull the memos for you, I’m kinda busy now.”

    S: “The check’s no good? . . . ”

    W: “You wanna call up the bank? I called them. I called them four months ago when we first got the lead. The people are insane. They just like talking to salesmen.” *smirk*

    Williamson knew he gave Shelley a lead going nowhere but still did his whole “go out there and sell, it’s your own fault if you can’t” song and dance anyway.

    Just like Lisa McElroy and the rest of the shameful greedy defenders of this broken system.

  • Linnaeus
    • Kto?

      Shorter Faculty Lounge response to an unemployed law-school graduate:

      Unemployed Graduate: “The JD is weak.”

      Faculty Lounge: ” ‘The JD is weak.’ Fucking JD is weak? You’re weak.”

    • Warren Terra

      First in their class gets an interview with a big law firm. Second place gets this lovely set of steak knives. Third place, you’re unemployable and permanently burdened with nondischargeable debt.

      A. B. totC. Always. Be. Top of the class.

      • Scott Lemieux

        You get befuddled by a middle-class morality? Get shut of it. Shut it out. You cheated on your wife? You did it, live with it. You tell prospective law students that they will be the special snowflake who will get a decent job after borrowing $200K to attend your eighth-tier law school? So be it.

  • Kto?

    If I were an unemployed Drexel graduate, I would not respond well to the travel parts of McElroy’s blog (which she cross-posts to the Huffington Post).

    Sample: “I have the travel bug. Several times a year, I set out on my own, visiting Kenya or Palau or Chile or Belize.”

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      the unemployment office is insufficiently exotic

      • It will be: when the repubs regain federal control, there will be tigers patrolling the unemployment offices, eating slackers.

        • Warren Terra

          Your bias in favor of charismatic carnivorous megafauna is well known.

          • N__B

            Don’t hate me for being charismatic.

        • Helmut Monotreme

          Charismatic megafauna don’t work cheap an people get upset when they die of food poisoning. I expect the heavy lifting in regard to disposing of the unemployed will be done by Venomous snakes, tsetse flies an guinea worms.

    • Bored Guy

      Hopefully she’s not starting law schools there.

      • rea

        Cooley already has that covered.

    • cpinva

      “Sample: “I have the travel bug. Several times a year, I set out on my own, visiting Kenya or Palau or Chile or Belize.”

      in palau, there’s always the possibility she’ll step on a wwII landmine.

  • MacK

    There are so many issues in McElroy’s posting – and even more Steve Freedman’s.

    I’m going to start with the question of whether these ‘professors’ have ever taught a subject that every lawyer who is going to teach one of what McElroy probably regards as the ordinary public should take in law school (presuming it is taught) and that is consumer lending, consumer credit and truth in lending laws and lemon laws. Were they familiar they would no doubt be congratulating themselves on the existence of say this clause in the Federal Truth in Lending Law 15 U.S.C. § 1603(7) – Exempter Transactions:

    This subchapter does not apply to the following:
    ***
    (7) Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.].

    Indeed were Mr. Freedman a used car salesman offering credit, rather than the an assistant dean of admissions offering credit – he actually could be in trouble for the sort of nonsense he has been peddling. It is a bizarre reality that 18-23 olds with no life experience are allowed to sign up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans and entitled to less protection than the buyer of a used car!

    It is not bizarre that the Ms. McElroy defends this situation – since the former Ms. Tucker of Choate, Dartmouth, Texas->Harvard, both from the lifestyle she regularly published boastful travel articles about – and the very expensive private education she enjoyed (a year at Choate costs the same as a year at Harvard – now consider sending someone there for high school) – while an assistance prof at Drexel – enjoys considerable independent means. In other words it is vanishingly unlikely that she borrowed a cent to finance her education. Curiously, being born wealthy has the odd effect (as Molly Ivins put it) that “[S]he was born on third and thinks [s]he hit a triple.”

    One could also note the odd detail that in advising transfer students McElroy states that UT was a better law school than Harvard. Why then did she transfer – was it because she wanted her resumé to read Choate, Dartmouth, Harvard (she does not mention UT there) – could it be that someone who feels the need to mention their exclusive prep school 2-3 decades after they graduated would have found UT just too declasée. I don’t mention the high school I went to (to be fair it’s name perplexes) which has graduates as famous, if not more famous than Choate (and I don’t own an old boys’ tie (in part because it is ghastly.))

    In any event – it might be something for Ms. Tucker to post the inane comment she made if she was teaching at a T-12 or T-20 school, but she is teaching at Drexel, a law school with truly terrible outcomes for its students – and a law school with very bad outcomes for its students. Drexel University – its parent institution was sued for its revenue sharing agreements by the state of New York a few years back (it made a single lender its underwriter and received 75 basis points (0.75%) opt the loan interest). Given the repetitional damage it is already suffering, you’d think its GC would be trying to rein in the law professors’ public comments.

    • Former Editor

      “Given the repetitional damage it is already suffering, you’d think its GC would be trying to rein in the law professors’ public comments.”

      Oh, he couldn’t do that. Academic Freedom! GCs of schools may not want to even try because it could end up being counter productive:

      GC: Could you please tone it down a little Bob? We have enough trouble right now without exaggerating potential employment outcomes.

      Prof. Bob: You are oppressing my basic civil rights! I’m taking this to the blogosphere, starting a union, and writing the ABA! I will not be silenced!

    • Lee Rudolph

      I don’t mention the high school I went to (to be fair it’s name perplexes)

      Governor Dummer, perhaps?

      • MacK

        Strangely more prosaic

        • anon

          Well, JFK went to Choate, so I actually doubt your high school has graduates *more* famous than that…

          • MacK

            Maybe – but he did not boast about it.

            There is really something irritating about people who think their prep school or high school is an important thing to put on their resumé when they are in their 30s to 50s – it also suggests an utter lack of real accomplishment

    • JoyfulA

      President Bush the younger was denied admission to UT Law School yet has degrees from Harvard and Yale. Wouldn’t you think that having attended UT Law would be something to brag about?

    • Unemployed Northeastern

      ” I don’t mention the high school I went to (to be fair it’s name perplexes) which has graduates as famous, if not more famous than Choate”

      ‘Its name perplexes’ makes me think of the “Should we continue to call it Governor Dummer Academy or change it to Governor’s Academy” kefuffle some years ago.

      • MacK

        It’s tautological

  • Orpho

    Indeed. As I was reading the Globe this morning, an add popped up for NE School of Law that read, “Our students graduate with the most skills and the least depth. Case closed.”

    You can smell the truth in advertising from here.

    • Anonymous

      WTF does that even mean?

      • Lee Rudolph

        I assume that it means a typo (by Orpho?): “depth” for “debt”.

        • Orpho

          Yep, that was my autocorrect fucking with me. “The most skills and the least debt.”

          • dmsilev

            Too bad; that would have been a great slogan. “Come be a student here; we’ll teach you stuff that’s a mile wide and an inch deep! Learn one trivial fact about absolutely every subject ever!”.

      • Barry

        (sorry, that was me)

    • Unemployed Northeastern

      That ad is for the unaccredited Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, not New England Law Boston – which cost 1/2 of Suffolk/BU/BC/NU ten years ago and now costs the same amount as them.

  • BH

    Prospective students have a much better picture than students in the recent past had of the state of the legal profession and the problem with relying on brochures in making a decision to go to law school. Is the complaint now about the very existence of non-elite law schools?

    • Former Editor

      I think it’s less a problem with the very existence of those schools and more a problem with when those schools play with employment outcomes in ways that are reminiscent of the good old days when you could report 90% employment if 70% of your class was waiting tables.

    • BoredJD

      Some do, some don’t.

      The question now is about cost. Why should society continue to allow law schools to charge whatever they want, just so Professors like McElroy can live it up on the dreams of broke kids and their government loans?

    • Unemployed Northeastern

      My alma mater still claims that 40% of its graduates get FT, LT, JD-required legal jobs from a co-op employer. Well, sometimes they say 48% – they can’t even keep their fictional stats straight – but according to their ABA disclosures, the last three graduating classes only had 49.4%, 43.2%, and 45.8% of grads land FT, LT, JD-required legal jobs at all. So either only 5 to 15 kids out of a class of ~200 can actually get a real legal job in the open market, or the stat is nonsense – but they still push the stat, as they did ten years ago.

      • Underpaid Northeastern

        You know how Northeastern gets that figure? I don’t, but I’m willing to guess: They count placements that other schools would consider “on campus recruitment” as “co-op” (you know, because there’s no difference between being a bona fide summer associate somewhere and scoring an eleven week co-op at Big Jimmy’s House’ O’ Insurance Defense); they count who gets a job clerking in the Superior Court as getting a job with a “co-op” employer. And the rest are coincidences.

  • BH

    I think the word is out about the depressed state of the legal market and the problem of law student debt. And law schools have been under sustained attack for a number of years now. The downward trend in applications has not come from nowhere.

  • Pingback: Do or should universities have fiduciary obligations toward their students? - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

    • BH

      Is that a reply to the question whether non-elite law schools should exist?

  • Ajaye

    I graduated from low tier law school 22 years ago and the market was already saturated. My 15 yo dd wants to be a lawyer and I have told her a. It is a very difficult profession with a level of responsibility not always commensurate with its compensation. b. It is hideously expensive. c. An inexperienced law grad coming out of a non-elite school without some serious credentials (i.e. graduating #1 in class, clerking for federal judge, having an undergrad degree in science, having a serious mommy/daddy/family business connection) is akin to an actor with a hick college theatre degree trying to make it in Hollywood. Much depends on luck, the majority will struggle to get any work at all, some will be able to survive on acting alone and a few will make it big. Odds against you and half of all people with law degrees never practice or drop out of the profession. Maybe more.

    Caveat emptor indeed. Since the ABA is a joke and law schools are full of folks who just don’t give a shit, it is up to us to get the word out and keep pushing to decrease the number of victims. The professor quoted seems completely out of touch, analagous to Mitt Romney.

  • BoredJD

    Secretly recorded at a recent AALS conference held at a swanky hotel in Midtown Manhattan:

    “There are 47 percent of the students who will not get jobs no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are lazy, socially inept, dependent upon the law school, who believe that they are victims, who believe that the law school has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to a decent salary, good loan repayment terms, lots of job opportunities, honest employment statistics, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the law school should give it to them. And they will read Campos no matter what. And I mean, Campos starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay nothing on their loans. Forty-seven percent of students pay nothing on their loans. So our message of caveat emptor and scholarship doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about lower tuition and faculty salaries. I mean that’s what they sell every three years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their careers.”

    • Unemployed Northeastern

      You win the blawgosphere today. And you really need to post this over on FL…

      • no name

        Awesome.

  • Pingback: Everybody hates a tourist - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()