"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson, one of the most famous lawyers in American history, predominantly used a pen to make arguments because he had a lisp that made him a totally ineffectual oral advocate, also loved slave sex
So for those of you sorry bastards who
It has now been proven that having a legal education makes you less accurate at one of the oldest professions astrology political prognostication. For many of you who have some kind of actual education in say mathematics, social sciences, and even dare I say economics--most of whom are employed by the government--we basically suck at guessing what will happen in the future. Hamilton College, a feeder school for people who couldn't get into an ivy program for undergrad but stand a good chance of landing it for their graduate school education in Queer Studies or whatever is popular amongst the liberal arts sect nowadays, did a study of numerous pundits predicting what will happen in the immediate future.
So who is the most accurate? Paul Krugman, the sanctimonious Nobel laureate economist who admitted once in an interview that he went into economics because there was no such thing as a psychohistorian as described by Isaac Asimov in his Foundation series of science fiction books, won out as the most accurate pundit did the best (as a tangent, Asimov had a habit of banging his much younger grad students but that is neither here nor there). Here's the full article for those of you who still read.
As the article states:
The group also found a link between conditional predictions and accuracy, that is, a prediction that was conditional (“If A, then B”) was less likely to be accurate. Finally, those prognosticators with a law degree were more likely to be wrong.
Now this kinda blasts a whole in the side of what many have argued that a legal education is "intrinsically" valuable and offers graduates of such esteemed programs as the Santa Clara Law School or any other institution recently covered by Nando the opportunity to spread their wings and fly. Not so much with that actually...
My unproven hypothesis is something that I call the "1L Syndrome" where, after being exposed to legal philosophy, you begin to see liability and the kind of bullshit scenarios tested on final exams everywhere in real life (could also be the same as the popularized version of the cultural myth depicted in the movie The Number 23 with Jim Carrey where the protagonist conflates coincidence with causation).
Many of my family members commented on this when I returned for the first time at the winter break along with the end of the second semester of my 1L year where I warned them of all kinds of useless and almost certainly not going to happen bullshit. For example, if you ever start a sentence..."There was a case from Indiana where a guy..." or "You know the Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that..." The survivors of the law school scam know what I mean. I had classmates who had nightmares from reading dozens of Criminal Law cases where people would rape and murder children to wear as hats. Then there are the stoner lemmings who would hide their weed in locked mini-safes with their name & a disclaimer on it after taking CrimPro. For me, I cannot watch any kind of home improvement show or pass a construction site without imagining the countless, horrific potential personal injury claims that could arise from someone misusing a power tool.
Oh law school how you ruined my mind.
Till Next Time!!! Get some real learning!!! Go work at McDonald's!!!