Anti-Poverty Pofessor makes 205k annually teaching one class

[Sweet Pea 50]

UNC Football Head Coach makes $2.13 million.

And they suck.

While I understand the tone of the thread starter, the overall hypocrisy of some ******* limp wristed douchers, 200k really isn't that much considering the job. Anti-Poverty law teacher or not.

I know owner-operators (Truck drivers) that clear more then that.

[Hous]

Do you mean he single handedly brings in 50 million for the school?

And yet, he contents himself with only 2.4 million, and donates the rest to the school?

That is quite a man.

It does beg the question, what of the unpaid athletes who wear the uniforms?

Oh, they get a scholarship. That's right.

Well, some of them do at least. Until an injury puts them out of the line up.

And yet, none of them are paid for the '50 million' in revenues which they generate through their sweat and blood.

How much revenue do you suppose the lawschool generates?

Given the qualifications of a law professor, $200k is not a lot of money.

A law professor has the same qualifications as a physician, more or less.

If things were commensurate to how much money the law school generates, this man would likely be taking home a lot more money.

You are a right tool.

You don't know what you are talking about, again. This is a earmark of your posts in general. You get frustrated and resort to name calling like a child when someone respectfully tries to help you by pointing out blatant fallacies in your argument.

Law schools stress the public interest. This is a novel idea. It benefits the students because they receive hands on experience on practicing law and are inspired to continue their mission.

While law schools stress public interest they stress the US News annual law school rankings even more. This is a tragedy to public interest because law schools play the ranking game which means they spend more and more money each year to move up the ranks. They spend more on published legal scholars salaries, events with guest speakers with "free" food (by free food I mean you actually pay for take out lunch every single day whether you want it not because its coming out of your tuition), and student funded jobs for those that are unable to find employment post graduation (these are faux jobs schools provide for the sole purpose of reporting a higher employment rate that pay peanuts but it looks good to have a 80% employment rate to US News). All of these things drive the cost of tuition up exponentially over the years. The average increase in tuition in the past decade is probably around 100% across the board, I know at my respected alma mater this is the case.

So whats the problem? Law school tuition is too expensive across the board for young attorney's to pursue public interest work because they simply cannot afford to work for $30-40k a year when they have $150-200k in student loans. Law schools stress the public interest but they derail it by frustrating those that have an interest in carrying out this valued service to the community because they game the rankings. The professors are out of touch of the current state of the legal market (which is flooded, not enough jobs and too many lawyers).

I don't expect you to understand this since you think societal values has no place in the determination of social issues.

[squealpiggy]

And brings in 50 million annually for the school.

1500 law students, tuition in excess of $22,000 per annum each, income of $33 million for UNC law.

[Sweet Pea 50]

1500 law students, tuition in excess of $22,000 per annum each, income of $33 million for UNC law.

Now talk about the basketball team.

[squealpiggy]

Now talk about the basketball team.

I never talk about basketball teams...

[Sweet Pea 50]

I never talk about basketball teams...

Which is good.

Netball isn't your thing.

And to be quite honest, how many lawyer jokes can we crack on here, eh?

Some on here are acting like the profession isn't one of the most hated in the universe.

[Hous]

1500 law students, tuition in excess of $22,000 per annum each, income of $33 million for UNC law.

He teaches an average of 3 credit hours per semester. That means he talks to students for 3 hours a week on a subject he has probably taught for the past decade without editing his script. There aren't any quizes or essays due throughout a semester in law school either. You just go to class and listen. Then at the end of the semester there is a final exam worth 100% of your grade. Wouldn't it be funny if this professor did a multiple choice exam which takes no effort in grading?

I think 205k is a gross over-expenditure on the backs of his students.

[squealpiggy]

He teaches an average of 3 credit hours per semester. That means he talks to students for 3 hours a week on a subject he has probably taught for the past decade without editing his script. There aren't any quizes or essays due throughout a semester in law school either. You just go to class and listen. Then at the end of the semester there is a final exam worth 100% of your grade. Wouldn't it be funny if this professor did a multiple choice exam which takes no effort in grading?

I think 205k is a gross over-expenditure on the backs of his students.

So you think each student should receive a $130 refund on their over $22,000 annual tuition fee?

[Hous]

So you think each student should receive a $130 refund on their over $22,000 annual tuition fee?

They should stop offering contracts for gross salary going forward. In the meantime, require him to teach a full time professors normal course load (3 classes a semester so from 2 classes to 6 classes a year). You can't force refunds, that would be unjust. If you did, it would certainly be more than $130 to his students.

In 2004, 10 years ago, tuition at UNC was 10k for residents and 22k for nonresidents.
In 2014, tuition today at UNC is 22k for residents and 39k for nonresidents.

During this same time, law school classes sizes expanded, more law schools were formed and starting salaries and employment rates decreased. Does this seem ok to you? This is alarming because it has happend at all law schools. Every year the average student loan amount to recent graduates grows at a rate much higher than inflation. Even Mark Cuban recently said we are going from a mortgage debt bubble to a student loan bubble. Law schools lead the way in student loan debt as well.

Im done talking about it because I personally haven't been impacted. My total student loan debt is under 50k (which is a lot but is nothing compared to most recent grads) for 7 years of higher education because I worked my ass off doing part time jobs during college and law school. I have zero regrets because working throughout school also set me up for the job I have lined up after I pass he bar (hopefully). But this is a real problem and UNC isn't even a great example because their students fare pretty well in the legal market because its a decent school their grads tend to find work. In my opinion, this doesn't justify the insane salaries though. The worst are private schools that offer very little opportunity of ever getting an attorney job and charge over 45k a year tuition (totaling out to 200K+ student loan debt for a JD). This happens to be the majority of law schools. I feel bad because I know a lot of people that went to other law schools and they are in a much worse position than they were in before they decided to go to law school. Its not like they can trade their JD in for student loan debt forgiveness and it is notoriously difficult to discharge student loan debt. What happens is that they will get on a government sponsored loan repayment program that will take money from their paychecks that is just enough to keep them some arbitrary number above the poverty level for the next 25 years. Then, after 25 years their debt is discharged but they are left with a tax bomb because loan forgiveness is taxable income per the Internal Revenue Code.

Sources
2004 -
2014 -

[White_Knight]

Law professor is a highly paid profession.

There's nothing to this story.

If all rich people who really cared about poverty donated much of their money to the poor there would be less poverty. Spin it any way you like but that is a fact.

This is no less hypocritical than a PETA member eating a hamburger.