Paul L. Caron

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Journal Of Legal Education Publishes New Issue

Journal of Legal Education (2018)The Journal of Legal Education has published Vol. 68, No. 3 (Spring 2019):

From The Editors

  • Jeremy Paul (Northeastern), Margaret Y.K. Woo (Northeastern) & Hemanth Gundavaram (Northeastern), From the Editors, 68 J. Legal Educ. 505 (2019)


At the Lectern

Book Review

Legal Ed News, Legal Ed Scholarship | Permalink


It's, uh, interesting that these articles still mostly use NALP data for salaries even though the Department of Education's salary aggregator collects far more data points, i.e. everyone's tax return. I wonder why? Surely it can't have anything to do with the Dept. of Ed's median starting salary for lawyers being about $15,000 than what the NALP claims...

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 8, 2020 12:56:46 PM

That should read $15,000 LESS" in the prior comment.

One more point: w.r.t to Glater's "Law School, Debt, and Discrimination," it is posited that "To the extent that lenders associate education-related variables with a greater
propensity to default, they may well penalize those who pursue particular
courses of study associated with lower earnings; who attend colleges, universities
and law schools associated with lower earnings or higher default rates..."

In bears mentioning that in the pre-GradPLUS days, private law school loans had some of the highest predicted default rates in all of higher education. For example, Nomura Securities predicted 1 in 8 Access law school loans would default, way back in 2005, when law school was far less expensive than today, the economy was at least superficially good, and corporate law firms were busy marching from $125k up to $160k starting salaries. In a potential future sans GradPLUS or federal loans, as Glater hypothesizes, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that private lenders will simply hose law school students - or not be willing to lend at all to the bottom N institutions.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 8, 2020 1:06:38 PM

Unemployed Troll:

Please cite your data, specifically the third party source website.

Otherwise, I see absolutely no reason why anyone should believe a word you say on anything.

Still waiting for your response, or rather your excuse, on the Harvard endowment issue:

Posted by: MM | Jul 9, 2020 6:02:00 PM


Those who believe me do, those who don't, don't. As we're on a website ostensibly for lawyers and tax professionals, and as I know from experience that html links often relegate comments to a black hole, well, look it up yourself, if you can.

As for the Harvard endowment, let me spell it out for you:

1) The discretionary portion of Harvard's endowment is... 20%. About $8 billion

2) The entire endowment currently generates about $1.9 billion in annual revenue.

3) ALL of that revenue gets ploughed back into Harvard's operating budget

4) The endowment revenue only covers about 1/3 of the operating budget

5) Harvard is staring at a fairly substantial operating budget shortfall right now

6) So spending down the discretionary endowment is going to greatly diminish the endowment revenue (which is already on pace to be down considerably because of chaos in the markets), which will only further exacerbate that operating budget shortfall.

7) There is a cost to borrowing from the endowment. That cost of that borrowed money is exactly what the endowment funds would have returned if left alone. That was 6.5% last year and considerably higher in the years prior. Given that Harvard can almost certainly borrow from lenders at a lower rate, it makes no sense whatsoever to raid their endowment.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 11, 2020 10:53:23 AM

UT: "look it up yourself"

Thanks, just wanted you to admit again that you never cite any evidence for your screeds, which validates my point. You shouldn't demand the same of others, because that makes you hypocrite. And if you can't do the absolute minimum, why should anybody else waste their time? It's not like I honestly care. Your rants about marginal topics around here is a personal problem, not an act of professionalism. At least, not in any profession I've ever worked in.

On the Harvard endowment, a lot of that stuff you rattled off I already cited, specifically from Harvard. Good to see you finally admit you were wrong, because you clearly objected to the idea that Harvard could tap into the endowment any more than it already was.

You still left the most important part unaddressed, which I'll again quote right out of Harvard's own financial statements from last year:

"Endowment and GOA returns liquidated from investments and made available for operations over the course of the fiscal year are distributed to University department and program budgets to spend, subject to donor restrictions where applicable

While the University has no intention of doing so, there are additional investments held by the University and the endowment that could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption. While a portion of the endowment is subject to donor restrictions, there is $7.1 billion in endowment funds without donor restrictions and $3.7 billion of General Operating Account investments (GOA) that could be accessed with the approval of the Corporation and subject to the redemption provisions."

They clearly admit they don't want to, but could tap into additional resources in extraordinary financial circumstances like we're seeing today.

Posted by: MM | Jul 11, 2020 8:33:08 PM

"You shouldn't demand the same of others, because that makes you hypocrite."

That you don't know the difference between "hypocrite" and "hypocritical" is possibly the least wrong thing about your post, angry boy. But sure, why not raid money from a high-return investment instead of borrowing money at next to nothing and keep the high-return investment intact? Derp derp derp derpity derp, said MM.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 13, 2020 8:47:50 AM

UT: "Why not raid money from a high-return investment instead of borrowing money at next to nothing and keep the high-return investment intact?"

Well, at least you admit you never read the citations I laid out. Harvard admitted it had billions of dollars in unused credit lines.

So in review, you claimed Harvard's discretionary endowment was spoken for. You were wrong, and I said you were wrong. You demanded I cite the evidence. I did, and you not only never responded, you never even bothered to read the citations from Harvard's financial statements.

And then you proudly refuse to cite anything to back up any of your rubbish.

Dude, just be a man and admit it. You're a hypocrite AND a troll. It's obvious to everyone who can read...

Posted by: MM | Jul 14, 2020 7:50:33 PM

If you are implying I have more to do with my life than remember whatever imagined slights or arguments I had with some random commenter from months in the past, well, yeah. I think about you far less than you think about me, it would seem. In fact you leave almost no impression at all.

But I do recall you saying Harvard should spend out of its unrestricted endowment, and I laid out why that's a terrible investment decision. It remains so now, despite your raving, which frankly I'm not bothering to read in any great detail. Because you simply don't merit it.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 15, 2020 8:17:57 AM

UHT: "But I do recall you saying Harvard should spend out of its unrestricted endowment."

No, sir, I said they could, and laid out in detail how they could.

Not only do you not remember what YOU say, you don't remember what anybody says. I could speculate as to why you persist in making false statements just to save face, but I won't.

Anyway, by avoiding my points, you've validated every single one of them.

Posted by: MM | Jul 17, 2020 9:23:25 PM

"Not only do you not remember what YOU say, you don't remember what anybody says."

You do seem to care much more about what I write I care about whatever you now claim you wrote, that's for sure.

Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Jul 18, 2020 11:51:13 AM