Monday, November 25, 2013

Which is More Credible, Forbes or Salon?

Let's do a compare and contrast of two articles published on the same day.  Here's Salon:
That question, the one that is so obvious that even thinking about it is deeply painful, is this: Why aren’t law schools ashamed of themselves? Where is their sense of pity, of remorse, of human decency? After all, aren’t the very ideals that law schools purport to teach about – justice, fairness, equality – fundamentally and exactly opposed to this sort of naked capitalist exploitation? 
What a pessimistic Peter!

And now here's Forbes, through the expertise of U. of Washington Law Prof Ryan Calo:
My parents are part of a generation so large they are known as the Baby Boomers. My father retired last year and my mother plans to retire soon. Even if people work longer than in the past, will be leaving the work force in the next five to ten years.  Some of these people will be lawyers. The demographics are such that knowledgeable folks like the head of the Washington Bar Association are predicting a market gap. They worry that future demand for legal services cannot be met by a dwindling supply.
Ah, "lawyer shortage."  I needed that one.  Calo, of course, has the typical "it's not for everyone" concessions in his article, but it's refreshing to see someone lay out why the time is always right for law students who really want to be law students no matter how high the price.

Forbes is a respected economics magazine that's taken seriously by big-shot corporate finance wizards.  Salon.com is an internet publishing mill for liberal artists and stay-at-home moms.

To which one would you trust your future?

6 comments:

  1. I lost years of my life to the Law School and Legal Industry dead end chase. I'd say a decade. Not just debts owed, net income forfeited. I mean 10-14 years where I could have been doing something else more productive. I figured out where I should be, what my path was in life, and where my talent was after I'd paid off my LS loans (as large as they were)... Admittedly, this was my own fault; I was convinced I was extra special and would keep knocking home runs, that I would make it, etc. But the law school debt/tuition didn't need to be so large.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to hear that your career apparently sucks, but I have to speak up because I'm a similar age and have the exact opposite experience. I love my career. Working at sweatshops for a few years definitely sucked, but it all paid off in the end when I landed a government position at a fairly high salary. Of course I actually love the law, and have loved it from day 1. That's the only reason I went to law school.

      Delete
    2. Uh, 4:48, has it ever dawned upon you what would happen if everybody got a gubmint no-work job and there was no one left to produce goods and services that generated taxes to pay you? Grow up.

      Delete
    3. Good response.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, gov would go into producer goods and we would all have health care. Why don't you grow up!

      Delete
  2. I can't wait until Prof. Calo calls the economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics to inform them that there was a "boom" in births between 1946 and 1964, and that some of the people born during that period will retire from work in the next several years. And some of those who retire will be lawyers! Because the BLS was totally uninformed about this unpublicized and little known two decade increase in the birth rate when it projected only 21,880 entry-level lawyer jobs per year due to both growth and replacement needs through 2020 (and 45,000 new JDs competing for those jobs). Yes, when the BLS finds out about this "baby boom" they will surely do a 180 and issue dire warnings about the imminent lawyer shortage.


    ReplyDelete