Manhattan Buckeye;645891 wrote: Read that earlier, complete scam how well paid law professors are. Some of those salaries are absolutely shocking, and the administrative assistants get paid more than many paralegals at V-5 firms. You know who is paying for this? Current students with outrageous loans and eventually us taxpayers when they start to default. There is no *$&%ing way in holy hell that most of these professors would get anything near this in the private sector. The education bubble is simply outrageous right now.

While I don't disagree there is a bubble in education (hmmmm, notice how any time cheap capital is available asset prices inflate?), there is some truth to the fact that a good number of them probably are or would have been partners in successful firms. I'd think a GC at a Fortune 500 could pull in numbers like that. But I'll defer to you on that, and it does seem outrageous. I thought Graduate B-School profs were well-paid, but they make like half of what those guys do. And, lol, I could see 1 or 2 world-class profs getting that, but there's like 8-10 names on that list.

"there is some truth to the fact that a good number of them probably are or would have been partners in successful firms. I'd think a GC at a Fortune 500 could pull in numbers like that."

Some of them likely could, but on the other hand they'd also have to work 3X as much as they do now and their asses would be on the line every year to bring in business - and they wouldn't have cushy pensions and would have to pay for their own insurance/SS/medicare like any other business owner. Writing 1 or 2 law review articles and teaching 2-3 classes a year should not bring in a $300,000 salary, let alone a $700,000 salary - the school I attended the top earning prof is just under $400,000 and he was one of the lousiest instructors, in and out of the classroom. Students hated him and couldn't figure out why the school granted him tenure.

Tobias Fünke;645806 wrote:I've stated it on the politics forum, but I think math and science teachers should be paid more than their counterparts. Math and science are simply more important.

its funny, one of my science professors was sort of talking about this today regarding american vs chinese education. he says america teaches more of an "inch deep, and a mile wide" while china teaches "an inch wide and a mile deep". He was refering to the chinese focusing more on the more important courses such as math and science. Also said you could compare a 4th grade chinese kids education to about an 11th graders in america. He also said he is seeing more and more foreigners in the more advanced science and math classes, while less and less americans.

Looking at it, I agree, and think their needs to be a change in the education system before we get passed up more than we already are.

Manhattan Buckeye;645975 wrote: Some of them likely could, but on the other hand they'd also have to work 3X as much as they do now and their asses would be on the line every year to bring in business - and they wouldn't have cushy pensions and would have to pay for their own insurance/SS/medicare like any other business owner. Writing 1 or 2 law review articles and teaching 2-3 classes a year should not bring in a $300,000 salary, let alone a $700,000 salary - the school I attended the top earning prof is just under $400,000 and he was one of the lousiest instructors, in and out of the classroom. Students hated him and couldn't figure out why the school granted him tenure.

Good point, especially when you consider a good number had probably already made their money at private practices. UM Law costs probably $50k (including books)....Add another $20k a year for living expenses and it's $200k...Of course, they are starting at 6 figure salaries but still.

$4-$5k per class and there are probably 60 students in a class. Obscene. Then you look at Harvard which has a $25B+ endowment and you wonder why students have to pay tuition at all.

Manhattan Buckeye;645975 wrote:Writing 1 or 2 law review articles and teaching 2-3 classes a year should not bring in a $300,000 salary, let alone a $700,000 salary

So what do you think a law professor should make? If a law professor is supposed to teach "the best lawyers" and produce "the best lawyers," then shouldn't they be rewarded? If a lawyer comes out and eventually ends up making six figures, shouldn't a professor be able to make that too? If a lawyer is making $500,000, then why shouldn't their instructor be able to be as competitive?

Pick6;645981 wrote:its funny, one of my science professors was sort of talking about this today regarding american vs chinese education. he says america teaches more of an "inch deep, and a mile wide" while china teaches "an inch wide and a mile deep". He was refering to the chinese focusing more on the more important courses such as math and science. Also said you could compare a 4th grade chinese kids education to about an 11th graders in america. He also said he is seeing more and more foreigners in the more advanced science and math classes, while less and less americans.

Looking at it, I agree, and think their needs to be a change in the education system before we get passed up more than we already are.

I do believe that our American education system needs reformed (won't happen though). These arguments are always brought up. Maybe there are places that teach certain subjects better than the United States. But no one teaches EVERYONE like the United States. Not one country tests like we do, or has their curricula set up for those tests (right or wrong).

There's also NO country that is more desired for education than the United States. There's a reason why many people flock to the United States, part of it is our education (elementary, secondary, or higher education). If these other countries, say China, are so good at what they do, then why isn't everyone flocking there for their education?

Pick6;645981 wrote: Looking at it, I agree, and think their needs to be a change in the education system before we get passed up more than we already are.

I'm not so sure....I think if you compare post-college Americans do very well. And you really don't need to know calculus to put a widget on a car. To take it further, you can argue American has been built on creativity and entrepreneurial spirit, and I think the "inch deep and mile wide" approach probably suits that well. I don't know, a lot of successful business people also seem to have an almost innate ability to figure it out as they go.

If I were going to tweak the system, I'd give all students a year of basic finance, accounting, investment and legal curriculum in high school (I'd say all colleges should do that, more valuable than the ridiculous overemphasis on liberal arts, but it's too valuable for everyone not to be exposed to that). Basic stuff like understanding how to do your taxes, understanding mortgages, rental & insurance contracts, etc...

And, you know, college is a lot of fun and it's also an important part of the maturity process but I bet if you cut-out the BS students could get what they need in 2 years instead of 4. For students who go to college knowing what they want to do a lot of the coursework outside the major is a waste.

"If a lawyer comes out and eventually ends up making six figures, shouldn't a professor be able to make that too? "

I'd guess about 50% of Michigan law graduates made six figures starting out last year. I know the law school I attended (around the same rank) had about that percentage. The statistics being spewed out from schools the last 5 or so years are crap. 10-15 years ago schools were mostly honest about their employment stats. I don't know what happened in the last few years but it is borderline fraudulent. We have a good friend that is graduating this Spring from a top 50 school - he says about 10 (not 10%) TEN, of his classmates have jobs lined up post-grad. Another good friend graduated from Vanderbilt Law in '10 and says close to half of his class is still unemployed. At least in the 90's if you couldn't find a job you were looking at $50-$75K debt, these guys are looking at $150-$250K debt.

And they likely will never pay it off.

It would also help if there was any tangible benefit from the classes. There isn't. It's all a credential and networking opportunity. No one gives a shit about what some Yale grad think about the history of canine law. Everyone has to take a bar class for a reason. Law school doesn't teach anyone to be a lawyer. You need to have a mentor and work with professionals to gain the experience.

Manhattan Buckeye;646168 wrote:I'd guess about 50% of Michigan law graduates made six figures starting out last year.

I never said "made six figures starting out." I wouldn't say that because the majority of law students do not make six figures starting out. But they do have the potential to earn A LOT. So if that potential from students is there, why shouldn't a professor be able to make equal/more than what their students' potential is?

Manhattan Buckeye;646168 wrote:We have a good friend that is graduating this Spring from a top 50 school - he says about 10 (not 10%) TEN, of his classmates have jobs lined up post-grad. Another good friend graduated from Vanderbilt Law in '10 and says close to half of his class is still unemployed. At least in the 90's if you couldn't find a job you were looking at $50-$75K debt, these guys are looking at $150-$250K debt.

That's his/their fault. They should have researched their profession before embarking into it. I read that letter some Boston College (or University) law student wrote asking for a reimbursement of his tuition because he couldn't find a job. Boo hoo is what I have to say to that. No one else gets a reimbursement of their funds if they cannot find a job within their field of study, why should a law student? It's also their fault for listening to these "statistics" that institutions use to promote their own agendas...everyone knows that 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Manhattan Buckeye;646168 wrote:It would also help if there was any tangible benefit from the classes. There isn't. It's all a credential and networking opportunity. No one gives a shit about what some Yale grad think about the history of canine law. Everyone has to take a bar class for a reason. Law school doesn't teach anyone to be a lawyer. You need to have a mentor and work with professionals to gain the experience.

I totally agree with you on the "school doesn't teach one to be..." That is the case for MOST professions. Education degrees do not teach someone how to be a lawyer. You need to have a mentor and work with experienced teachers to gain the experience. But if this law professor is a "big time guy," and he ends up getting this top student of his a job worth $400,000 (or potential earnings) then why shouldn't the professor be rewarded for the earnings (or potential) of that student? I know an author of a business book who is trying to devalue an MBA...business school is the same way, it doesn't teach you to be a businessman (or woman) it gives you an opportunity to rub elbows with someone that could get you a job.

"So if that potential from students is there, why shouldn't a professor be able to make equal/more than what their students' potential is?"

No personal offense, but by that logic a kindergarten teacher should make equal/more than their best student's future earnings.

But to be more direct to the topic, here is why:

1) Law professors enjoy tenure, throughout good and bad economic times, i.e. job security - Compare to private practice lawyers, that even at the highest ranks have to switch jobs often if they don't meet their earnings. You can get a draw of $1M a year, and get shown out the door the following year. I've seen it happen.

2) Law professors don't have hourly billing goals/requirements or have to put in the time and effort to maintain their status - Compare to private practice lawyers, that at the top firms typically have to bill 2,000 hours to maintain standing (which means they are working 2,500-3,000 hours yearly).

3) Law professors are EMPLOYEES, paid by a relatively stable employer, they have these things called health insurance and pensions and have their EMPLOYER pay part of their FICA obligations - Compare to private practice lawyers that if they are a full equity owner are on the hook for all of this, and although some may have a retirement plan it is paid out of their own profits.

You can't compare the two at all. One is a glorified philosopher that gets hired by a university, the other is a practitioner that relies on their ability to generate their own wealth. If law professors are dissatisfied with their comp they can go to a firm - doesn't happen often, often partners at firms get sick of the rat race and take off for academia (most notably to my knowledge Bill Widen who was full equity at Cravath who eventually said "screw it" and left to go teach at Miami).