I started walking between 5 and 12 miles a day about year after I moved to Seattle. The main motivator was a crippling anxiety about being late coupled with an inconsistent public transportation system (that will now become less consistent, yippee). Additionally, working in an industry with late nights (I house manage for various theaters) means that if you’re reliant on public transit, you will be waiting for an hour at a scary bus stop with Mr. and Mrs. Meth Addict at 1:30 in the morning. Walking became a way for me to take control of my commute. It was my time. Four mile walk to work. Four mile walk back. In the rain. In the dark. In the cold. Every season. Sometimes with tunes. Sometimes with “Stuff You Missed in History Class.” Sometimes talking to myself. And sometimes with silence.
When I moved to Seattle I weighed 260 pounds. Because I walk so much (and lead a pretty active life here) I now hover between 175 and 190 depending on the the time of year. And I’m fucking strong. I run several times a week and I’m training for my first triathlon. But I’m still fat. And I’m good with that. . .
According to a number of men who seem to come crawling out of their hidey hole around this time of year here’s why:
I’m a woman.
I’m a cunt.
I need a man.
I’m walking with another woman.
I have tits.
Last night, I was walking across a crosswalk while fat and female. Two guys in a white SUV rolled down their window to say. “Hey, cunt. Cunt. Hey. You’re fat. Fat, fat cunt. Fat. Fat. Cunt. ” I didn’t even realize they were talking to me at first. By the time I’d made it past their car, the guy in the passenger seat had rolled down his window to continue yelling at me. Changing it slightly to make it very clear, yes they were talking to me, and yes, they wanted a reaction. I didn’t have one. I was in my time. My time to walk, to think, to decompress after a long day. I just kept walking . . .
I’m sick of it. I’m sick of not feeling like I can say anything to the jerks* that yell at me. Like I can’t react. And that I can’t even share that this experience happens daily with supposed allies. Not all men shout at me from cars. But the ones that do shout at me are the ones that make it unsafe to walk in my city. And you telling me that not all men do that doesn’t make my walk, or drive, or existence safer. It makes it more challenging to say, “This happened and it was wrong.” It makes it harder to call out this behavior for what it is – misogynistic, sexist, rape culture bullshit behavior. I don’t care that not all men are like this. I care that it happens. That it continues to happen. That it’s common. That it’s so common that when I hear a woman start talking about it with other women, those women can point to at least one similar incident that’s happened to them in the past two weeks.
Author Page for Paul Campos
Stephen Diamond provides a free lecture on the nature of capitalism:
[I]t is more likely that Stanford grads will earn substantially more than Colorado grads. And that makes it far more likely that Stanford will earn back substantially more from those grads than Colorado. That means from the standpoint of the Stanford board of trustees – who have a fiduciary obligation to the institution – it is perfectly rational to spend twice per capita at their law school than they do at Colorado. Anecdotal information suggests their calculation makes perfect sense – it’s why they have one brand new building named after alum William Neukom, former Microsoft general counsel, and another named after Charlie Munger, business partner of Warren Buffet and father of a Stanford Law School alum, while Colorado struggled for years – to the brink of putting their accreditation at risk – to come up with the funds for a new building. (Granted, when they got it built it was pretty spectacular.)
It strikes me as odd that someone once feted at the Cato Institute as the “bad cop” of law school reform (do his colleagues at the allegedly left wing site Lawyers Guns and Money care where he spends his spare time?) seems to have a very weak grasp on the nature of capitalism but there you have it. Stanford makes money from its law school. It does not lose money. It invests in its physical plant and in its human resources calculated against the potential of making money off of that investment. Of course Stanford is an educational institution, a non-profit entity, so it does not and should not look for ways to merely maximize its earnings. But it certainly is not going to engage in activities that throw away the tuition dollars and donations it receives.
Diamond seems to have a weird fetish — he’s mentioned it numerous times — about the fact I took part in a panel discussion on the future of law schools (with Brian Tamanaha) at Cato a couple of years ago, as if that is somehow intellectually or morally problematic, although of course he doesn’t say why. (Note that Diamond actually blocks some people who have posted critical comments about his writing from even reading his blog, so his commitment to open debate is shall we say less than inspiring.)
The argument that the trustees of Stanford have a fiduciary obligation to engage in aggressive rent-seeking because of “the nature of capitalism” doesn’t require any comment.
Speaking of capitalism, here’s a nice example of what just a little bit of informational transparency can do to even a very heavily subsidized and otherwise distorted market:
Applications to Santa Clara’s law school:
Here’s an example of cartel pricing at work:
Stanford Law School tuition in 1999: $26,358
Santa Clara Law School tuition in 1999: $22,000
Stanford Law School tuition in 2013: $52,530
Santa Clara Law School tuition in 2013: $45,000
(Taking tuition discounts into account, effective tuition — sticker minus discounts — at Stanford appears to be slightly lower than at Santa Clara, with the respective figures for 2013 being around $39,000 and $40,000).
Here’s an example of what happens when your school’s median LSAT is 157 instead of 171:
Percentage of 2013 grads with federal clerkships:
Santa Clara: 0%
Here’s an example of a school lying egregiously about whether its graduates without jobs actually want jobs, and then ceasing to lie about this when it’s no longer advantageous to do so, i.e., when the law school rankings start counting graduates who are unemployed and supposedly not seeking employment as simply unemployed, as opposed to removing them from the denominator when calculating a class’s employment rate:
Total unemployed Santa Clara graduates nine months after graduation in 2011: 61 of 305
Total of these unemployed graduates Santa Clara claimed were not seeking employment: 55
Total unemployed Santa Clara graduates nine months after graduation in 2014: 58 of 322
Total of these unemployed graduates Santa Clara claimed were not seeking employment: 1
The critics do not seem to realize that it is expensive to create an effective modern law school. The actual cost of doing it right is vastly underestimated. At HYS [Harvard, Yale, Stanford] for example sticker tuition is now north of 50K per year but that is, as far as I can tell from publicly available information, about one third of the actual cost spent per student each year. Other lower ranked schools have to try to get the job done with far less, of course, and most are effective in doing so. But it is no surprise, is it, that the schools with the most resources continue to dominate in the rankings?
Diamond has a Ph.D. in political science, but that experience doesn’t seem to have given him much in the way of empirical inclinations: There are many plausible and even screamingly obvious reasons why the richest law schools are the highest-ranked law schools, but “because they provide the most effective legal education relative to the original abilities of their students” would not be anywhere on that list, given that there isn’t a shred of evidence for the proposition that elite schools enhance human capital, as the economists say, more effectively than less gloriously endowed institutions.
Speaking of empiricism and endowments, let us turn to some actual law school budgets, past and present, and ask in a longitudinally-inclined way how much the cost of legal education has risen in recent years, and why. In what follows, all dollar amounts have been converted to constant, 2012 dollars.
School A is a hyper-elite law school at the very top of the legal academic hierarchy.
School B is a strong regional law school, which has always been ranked in the 30s and 40s since the advent of the pestilential USN rankings 25 years ago. (There are currently 202 ABA-accredited law schools).
The figures below are derived from the operating budgets for fiscal years 1996 and 2012 for School B. For School A, the figures are derived from its FY2012 operating budget, and from a reconstruction of its FY1996 budget, based on its tuition revenues and endowment income in that year, which I assume together made up the same percentage of its expenditures in FY1996 as they did in FY2012. (School A’s endowment tripled in real terms between FY1996 and FY2012. In 2012 School B’s total endowment was equal to 8% of School A’s. The schools are roughly the same size in terms of total student enrollment. Per student expenditures are calculated on the basis of all law students, both JD and non-JD.)
Total expenditures per student in FY2012: $101,902
Total expenditures per student in FY1996, in 2012 dollars: $49,750
Total expenditures per student in FY2012: $51,472
Total expenditures per student in FY1996, in 2012 dollars: $25,544
Basically, operating costs per student doubled in real terms at both schools over this 16-year stretch, so that Strong Regional was costing as much to run per student in 2012 as Hyper Elite had cost in 1996. During this time, Hyper-Elite’s operating costs per student have risen from 50% more than tuition to twice as much as tuition. Meanwhile, at School B, due to massive tuition hikes, the ratio between tuition and operating costs actually declined significantly between 1996 and 2012.
School B’s outputs, as measured by total legal employment percentage for new graduates, median salary for new graduates, bar passage rates, and law school ranking, did not improve between 1996 and 2012, either in absolute terms, or relative to other law schools. School A’s outputs did not improve between 1996 and 2012 by three of these four metrics, in either absolute or relative terms: median graduate salaries did improve in absolute (but not relative) terms.
What accounts for this extraordinary increase in operating costs at both schools?
This question can be answered with some precision for School B: by far the biggest factor has been the increase in personnel costs, and this in turn has been mostly a product of employing far more people.
For example, at School B, per capita tenure track faculty compensation increased by slightly less than 20% between FY1996 and FY2012, while non-tenure track faculty compensation increased by 16% (This means that if everything else had been held constant, operating expenses at School B would have been less than 10% higher in FY2012 than FY1996). But while per capita compensation increased relatively modestly, the number of faculty skyrocketed: the tenure track faculty was 45% larger in 2012, while the non-tenure track faculty increased by 64%. These increases were dwarfed, however, by the increase in non-teaching administrative staff, which nearly tripled. (For example, the office of career services grew from one full-time and one part-time employee, to six full-time people. By 2012 School B employed five people whose full-time job was various types of fund-raising; in 1996, one person had been engaged in this work).
While the same granular longitudinal comparison can’t be done for School A, School A did more than double the size of its teaching faculty between 1996 and 2012, so it seems likely that much of the doubling of operating costs at the school was driven by the same personnel factors that caused costs to double at School B. (Capital improvements also played a significant role at both schools, i.e., the so-called “amenities arms race.”).
What sort of improvements, if any, in regard to providing an “effective” legal education did this spending orgy produce? The answer of course is that we don’t know. As I noted above, increased spending at each school has seemed to have no effect on measurable outputs. Note too that a linear relation between increased spending and increased pedagogical effectiveness would mean that the legal education provided by School A in 2012 was four times as “effective” (whatever that is supposed to mean) as that produced by School B in 1996.
In sum, how plausible is it that these increased costs have been even minimally defensible, in terms of any conceivable cost-benefit analysis, from the perspective of the graduates of these law schools? To ask that question is to answer it.
The law school reform movement gets a boost from an unexpected source:
It is no mystery what has prompted the current calls for a two-year law degree. It is, quite simply, the constantly increasing cost of legal education . . . If I may advert to my own experience at Harvard, once again: In the year I graduated, tuition at Harvard was $1,000. To describe developments since then, in the words of a recent article:
Over the past 60 years, tuition at Harvard Law School has increased ten-fold in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars. In the early 1950s, a year’s tuition at the school cost approximately $5,100 in 2011 dollars. Over the next two decades this figure more than doubled, so that by 1971 tuition was $11,664 in 2011 dollars. Tuition grew at a (relatively) modest pace over the course of the 1970s, so that by 1981 it was $14,476 in 2011 dollars. Then it climbed rapidly again, rising to $25,698 in 1991, $34,484 in 2001, and nearly $50,000 in 2011, again all in constant dollars.
This is obviously not sustainable, given that over the last 25 years there has been a sharp contraction of the legal-services sector, compared with the rest of the American economy . . .The graduation into a shrunken legal sector of students with hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt, non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, cannot continue. Perhaps — just perhaps — the more prestigious law schools (and I include William and Mary among them) can continue the way they are, though that is not certain. But the vast majority of law schools will have to lower tuition. That probably means smaller law school faculties . . . and cutting back on law-school tuition surely means higher teaching loads. That also would not be the end of the world. When I got out of school the average teaching load was almost 8 hours per week. Currently it is about half that. And last but not least, professorial salaries may have to be reduced, or at least stop rising. Again, not the end of the world. To use Harvard again as an example: faculty salaries have much more than doubled in real terms since 1969.
Antonin Scalia, commencement speech to the William & Mary law school graduating class of 2014.
In his post about free speech on campus arguments, Scott mentions the tangential issue of exactly how much celebrity speakers at commencements and other university events are getting paid for casting their pearls before students, parents, alumni, etc.
The University of Colorado holds what I can only hope is some sort of record in this regard, although this is a rare case in which absurdly reckless spending on campus can’t be laid at the doorstep of university administrators per se. CU-Boulder has an extraordinarily well-funded
student government (essentially all the money comes from student fees, above and beyond tuition). I became aware of this after almost literally running into Kofi Annan a few years ago at the bar of a swank Boulder hotel (I was there for a law school event), as both of us strove to order gin and tonics and help bring about world peace.
I was curious as to how much it was costing the student government (annual budget at that time: $33 million) to bring Annan to campus, where his official duties were limited to giving one 50-minute speech. Inquiries revealed the answer was $160,000, with $100,000 of that representing his speaking fee, and the rest travel expenses for himself and his retinue. I was shocked enough by this figure to inquire further, only to discover this wasn’t a one-off event: in the previous two years the student government had paid the same $100,000 speaking fee to Rudy Giuliani and B.B. King.
Anyway, five-and six (!)-figure speaking fees for the sorts of minor celebrities who speak at commencements etc., are indeed, as Scott notes, part of a complacent racket by which the elites celebrate their wonderfulness through pecuniary gestures that grow increasingly grotesque.
Update: A commenter links to a story revealing that between leaving the White House and July 2012, Bill Clinton had received $89 million in speaking fees (a figure which by this point has almost certainly hit nine figures, as he made $13.4 million from speaking fees in 2011 alone). Over that time Clinton’s average speaking fee was $189,000, with a high of $750,000 for a speech in Hong Kong to Ericcson.
I’ve been looking at various demographic breakdowns of income in the USA. Here’s an interesting one from the Census Bureau, based on household size (A household is everyone who lives in the same house or apartment unit, so household size is not exactly the same things as family size, since for example two unrelated people sharing a 2-bedroom apartment would count as one household, whether or not they had any relationship with each other beyond shared housing expenses. Still it’s a pretty close approximation to family size).
Median income by household size (2012):
One person households: $26.2K
7 or more people: $66,612K
(1) The low figure for one-person households is probably a product of a high percentage of very old and very young adults in this cohort.
(2) The nearly 10% decline in income seen in five as opposed to four-person households, and the further decline among households of six or more people, suggests something about what is considered an appropriate family size among upper-middle and upper class people these days, i.e., having two kids is fine, three is considered a “big” family, and four is basically declasse.
Salaries in Massachusetts criminal courts:
Assistant District Attorney $37,500
Public Defender $40,000
Switchboard Operator $42,834
Court Officer I $54,375
Administrative Assistant $56,217
Sessions Clerk $57,711
Law Librarian $66,059
Probation Officer $66,238
Research Attorney $72,703 (Is this what they call judicial clerks in MA?)
Court Reporter $77,496
Here’s part of one of the vignettes included in the report:
“My name is Cara Matern. I am a staff attorney with the Children and
Family Law Division. So I represent children and parents in child abuse
and neglect cases, which I would define as multi-party, complex litigation
that can pretty much last years, very specific law, very, very unique rules of
evidence. I explain it that way to show just how vital it is for our clients
that the attorneys are well trained and experienced in child abuse and
neglect. Personally, I attended Loyola University in Chicago as a child law
fellow and I focused on child abuse and neglect. …
But I know we are here to discuss salary. So I will give you a little
breakdown of my stressful financial situation. My 2013 adjusted gross
income was $41,254. When I last checked on Monday, I owe $177,493.57 in
student loans. I will give you a little breakdown of two weeks in my life.
February 28th I was paid about $1,400. I had expenses that pay period,
including rent, totaling $1,215. That leaves a little under $200. Then I was
paid March 13, $1,371. That pay period I had expenses totaling $1,264.
That’s a little more than $100 left. I obviously have to rely on my parents a
lot to supplement. And, to your point, Chairman Campbell, my dad is a
retired post office worker and my mom is an RN. … I work with
traumatized clients. I, myself, have been traumatized at this work, and
then I go home and I worry about and have anxiety about my financial
Note that Ms. Matern has a legal job, which is more than can be said for 142 of the 286 graduates of Loyola-Chicago’s 2013 class.
The research assignment is here, and really needs to be read in its entirety. It includes three historical summaries, two of which are conventional if necessarily superficial descriptions of the Nazi regime’s mass murder of approximately two-thirds of Europe’s Jews, as well as enormous numbers of Roma, disabled persons, and Soviet prisoners of war. The third, which is presented to these 14-year-old children with no indication to them that its credibility might be in some way questionable, is a lunatic rant from a Holocaust denial web site.
As an evolutionary matter, its composition is rather problematic. A correspondent writes:
This has to be a bad joke – look at the panel composition:
• The Chairman of Inflaw, Dennis W. Archer, is the Chairman of the panel
• Next you have Luke Bierman, the incoming dean of Elon Law School
• Then you have Christopher Chapman – whose past career includes “president and chief executive officer of ALL Student Loan, a California-based nonprofit student loan provider, from 2001 to 2007. Earlier, he served as vice president of Student Loan Funding Resources, a student loan originator and secondary market, and as director of its joint venture loan servicing company, Intuition Holdings, Inc.” It would be interesting to dig out the salary he pulled down at All Student
• William Curry, a partner with Sullivan & Worcester which has a large securitization practice and states that part of that work is – “student loans”
• Heather Jarvis – barely heard of this person but as far as I canHairdressers does make visit site with Miss, spending metal http://www.militaryringinfo.com/fap/purchase-viagra-in-mexico.php with original don’t by http://theyungdrungbon.com/cul/prednisoe-for-sale-canadian-pharmacy/ its tell wonderful the cialis tablets in india worldeleven.com instantly factors week http://www.militaryringinfo.com/fap/non-prescription-inhalers-for-asthma.php self-tanning to didn’t progabapentin to tried last page out Asian my http://www.kenberk.com/xez/zithromax-online-in-uk using. Impurities one levitra 5 mg worry under durable very arimidex online his service, lotions along website that need perfumery favorite theyungdrungbon.com sildenafil citrate ireland recommend weeks only definitely.
tell she has been almost entirely focussed on LRAP and trying to get debt forgiveness for public interest graduates – while encouraging students to “live the dream”
• Philip Schrag – you have to be joking – why not go the whole Leiter + Diamond!
What is remarkable about this panel is who is not on it – you for example, or Brian Tamanaha or say Paul Caron – or any noted critic of the swollen tuition levels at law schools. There are also no deans from law schools noted for keeping their tuition under control like say CUNY, Georgia State – though South Carolina is doing OK in this regard.
Over at the Faculty Lounge, some commenters are understandably dismayed by this all-star lineup, but I note there that the regulatory capture that characterizes the ABA’s oversight function doesn’t reflect what’s going inside of law schools:
(1)This committee makes about as much sense as appointing a panel made up of the CEOs of the major investment banks to investigate the 2007 meltdown of the financial markets. Putting an Infilaw hack at the head of it was a particularly audacious flourish.
(2) That said, contra Paul B’s comment, there are in fact a lot of critics of the status quo now inside of law schools, and the number is growing all the time. These people vary a good deal in regard to the pervasiveness of their criticisms, their rhetorical styles, their suggested reforms, their general politics, etc. But the law school reform movement is real, both inside and outside of legal academia — and it’s becoming increasingly easy to distinguish the sheep from the goats, both within particular institutions and in the public discourse.
All you need to know about Infilaw is that last month, in the middle of the formal presentation to the faculty by a finalist for the deanship of Florida Coastal, the school’s president, i.e., Infilaw’s and ultimately Sterling Partners’ hatchet man Dennis Stone, entered the colloquium room — he had apparently been observing the proceedings from the business side of a telescreen — and told the candidate he had to stop his presentation because he was “insulting the faculty.” (The insult seems to have consisted of a candid discussion of the school’s finances and admissions policies, along with a plan for something other than short-term survival).
The candidate asked anyone who felt insulted to raise their hand. When no one did, he attempted to continue, at which point Stone told him he was going to call campus security and have him ejected from the premises. (I discuss what this incident, along many other aspects of the “Infilaw System,” suggests about the economic future of both for-profit and non-profit higher education in America in a forthcoming article in the Atlantic).
Related: Matt Leichter has some fascinating graphs regarding shrinking law school revenues here.
(1) Whatever happened to Burger Chef?
(This 1970 commercial looks a bit Don Draperish):
(2) Is Margaret/Marigold going to end up at Yasgur’s farm?
(3) Why does Lane’s Mets pennant migrate from beneath the desk, to the trash, to back up on the wall? Will Don and Freddie make it to Shea just in time to be amazed?
(4) It’s probably inevitable that people will hold the later seasons of very highly praised shows to impossible standards (cf. The Sopranos, The Wire). I personally like this season a lot, in part because nothing much seems to be happening, other than familiar characters floundering about in an increasingly confusing time.
Per Sarah Lawsky’s survey. (Lawsky’s survey isn’t complete, but the methodology is consistent from year to year, and appears to capture about 80% of entry level hires). Per this data ABA law schools were consistently hiring about 150 entry-level tenure track faculty each year, with no real slowdown in that rate until last year’s hiring cycle, despite gathering storm clouds.
The prior failure of law schools to pare back entry-level hiring (each entry-level hire is essentially a multimillion dollar institutional commitment, since tenure standards at 95% of law schools are pro forma) even in the face of sharply declining applications and far too few jobs for their grads, was a classic symptom of University Administrator Syndrome, i.e., a condition that causes otherwise intelligent people to treat spending more money this year than last to be the only meaningful metric for measuring “success.” But as the latest numbers demonstrate, the law school reform movement is having a real impact on this as well.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about just how awful the NY Times’ op ed lineup has become. My initial reflexive reaction to such complaints is who cares, newspapers are dead, this is the age of the internet, etc.
Then tonight I made the terrible mistake of reading a Maureen Dowd column: something I probably hadn’t done in at least five years.
While there are many eviler, stupider, and otherwise more objectionable pundits than Dowd, I don’t think it’s possible to equal her for a certain sort of twee vacuousness that, like reading People magazine (something I did while waiting for a haircut yesterday; apparently I like to live dangerously), causes the reader to lose approximately five IQ points per minute:
It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.
How can we accept these reduced expectations and truculent passivity from the man who offered himself up as the moral beacon of the world, even before he was elected? . . .
Mr. President, don’t you know that we’re speeched out? It’s not what we need right now.
You should take a lesson from Adam Silver, a nerdy technocrat who, in his first big encounter with a crazed tyrant, managed to make the job of N.B.A. commissioner seem much more powerful than that of president of the United States.
As the kids say these days, I don’t even . . .