Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism Forum

[stillwater]

this dude is a crook. i like how all of you are using your "lawyer skillz" (aka sophistry) to justify this dude's thieving.

[dingbat]

this dude is a crook. i like how all of you are using your "lawyer skillz" (aka sophistry) to justify this dude's thieving.

oh, the guy is definitely full of shit and a swindler. But we shouldn't just go "law dean -> bad" like stupid sheep, then we'd be no better than he is. We should use the right arguments, the right rage, etc.

[stillwater]

what disturbs me is how out of touch the academy is. i don't find that surprising but for people who should be objectively intelligent the only thing that will awaken them is a seismic shift. academics don't deserve to get paid like they do.

[timbs4339]

First, we don't even know if that's true. Dean Mitchell claimed he's spending from his endowment--but we don't know if from interest or principal. Second, we don't know where the money goes. Third, we don't know how much he could spend. Dean Mitchell just says he has to keep the lights on, which, while a correct statement, should be stricken from the record as irrelevant and much too flippant. Forth, there is really only one thing that raises the prestige of a school--the attractiveness of the school's graduates to employers. And that is more than a little related to the prestige of the school's incoming class.

Hence, drop class sizes and maintain medians.

To emulate a famous political consultant, we should repeat over and over again to law school faculty: "it's about the dropping LSAT test-takers, stupid."

I was talking about HYS. And yeah, we do know that info.

I'm not really defending the schools, I'm just saying they've chosen to give big scholarships in the form of smaller class sizes and clinics and fancy libraries and stuff instead of cheaper tuition.

To emphasize my second point, I think those are incredibly glib suppositions, dangerous when trying to positively contribute to the debate over the crisis in the legal profession. Fancy libraries and stuff? Clinics? Smaller class sizes? These are not out-of-line points to bring up, but a) pull back a bit. Do law schools spend money wisely? If they pay just 20% more than they should on everything they buy, tuition is at least 20% higher. Is there a wide variety of spending efficiency among business, managed by people who actually know business? Yes. Some businesses spend very well, others spend themselves into bankruptcy. Would the legal academy demean themselves so much as to hire a business manager to cut costs? Probably not. They'd probably spend too much and stick their heads up their asses and tell themselves "hey, managing a business ain't so hard."

b) who the hell told law professors they could teach smaller classes? I sympathize with law professors. I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. I would surmise that the overwhelming impetus to lower class sizes (and thereby dramatically increase costs) is professor comfort, not student-advantage. In support, Professor Campos notes that class sizes at top schools have dramatically increased as recently as within the past decade. I am sure most present prospective students would willingly trade the oh-so woefully substandard education at Harvard Law of 10 years ago for substantially lower tuition at the same institution today.

OK, let's leave libraries out of this, as A) they really are essential, and B) the cost is relatively low
Now, you make 2 bad assumptions:
1) you assume that schools don't hire a business manager, or at the very least, don't have people with business sense in decision making capacity. This is probably wrong, though let's not get into a pissing contest. I'ts just a bad assumption.
2) if a school pays 20% too much on everything they buy, tuition will be at least 20% more. This isn't necessarily true because salaries are the big budget items for a law school. I will be kind and assume you've included professors, in which case your statement is correct.

However, it's not simply a matter of saying a school is paying its professors too much. There are too many factors to take into consideration and it's a bad statement. I could go on, but it's effectively the same reasons why professional athletes and movie stars make ridiculous amounts of money. But let's not digress.

As for class size, I hate large classes and I'm damn glad I don't have class with 100+ people. I don't think it's an efficient way to learn. The best academic experiences I've ever had were in classes of 10-20 students.

Libraries are neither cheap nor essential (except from an accreditation standpoint). Wexis provides everything you need and it is what you will be using in practice. You're using the law professor definition of "essential" which is simply that a program is essential a legal education if you can think of a coherent, not even rational, justification for it. Same with small class sizes and HYS/COA clerk professors.

[dingbat]

Libraries are neither cheap nor essential (except from an accreditation standpoint). Wexis provides everything you need and it is what you will be using in practice. You're using the law professor definition of "necessary" which confuses explanation for an actual cost-benefit analysis. Same with small class sizes and HYS/COA clerk professors.

define "necessary".
I mean, why not just restrict law school to CALI lessons?

[dingbat]

what disturbs me is how out of touch the academy is. i don't find that surprising but for people who should be objectively intelligent the only thing that will awaken them is a seismic shift. academics don't deserve to get paid like they do.

+1

[manofjustice]

First, we don't even know if that's true. Dean Mitchell claimed he's spending from his endowment--but we don't know if from interest or principal. Second, we don't know where the money goes. Third, we don't know how much he could spend. Dean Mitchell just says he has to keep the lights on, which, while a correct statement, should be stricken from the record as irrelevant and much too flippant. Forth, there is really only one thing that raises the prestige of a school--the attractiveness of the school's graduates to employers. And that is more than a little related to the prestige of the school's incoming class.

Hence, drop class sizes and maintain medians.

To emulate a famous political consultant, we should repeat over and over again to law school faculty: "it's about the dropping LSAT test-takers, stupid."

I was talking about HYS. And yeah, we do know that info.

I'm not really defending the schools, I'm just saying they've chosen to give big scholarships in the form of smaller class sizes and clinics and fancy libraries and stuff instead of cheaper tuition.

To emphasize my second point, I think those are incredibly glib suppositions, dangerous when trying to positively contribute to the debate over the crisis in the legal profession. Fancy libraries and stuff? Clinics? Smaller class sizes? These are not out-of-line points to bring up, but a) pull back a bit. Do law schools spend money wisely? If they pay just 20% more than they should on everything they buy, tuition is at least 20% higher. Is there a wide variety of spending efficiency among business, managed by people who actually know business? Yes. Some businesses spend very well, others spend themselves into bankruptcy. Would the legal academy demean themselves so much as to hire a business manager to cut costs? Probably not. They'd probably spend too much and stick their heads up their asses and tell themselves "hey, managing a business ain't so hard."

b) who the hell told law professors they could teach smaller classes? I sympathize with law professors. I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. I would surmise that the overwhelming impetus to lower class sizes (and thereby dramatically increase costs) is professor comfort, not student-advantage. In support, Professor Campos notes that class sizes at top schools have dramatically increased as recently as within the past decade. I am sure most present prospective students would willingly trade the oh-so woefully substandard education at Harvard Law of 10 years ago for substantially lower tuition at the same institution today.

OK, let's leave libraries out of this, as A) they really are essential, and B) the cost is relatively low
Now, you make 2 bad assumptions:
1) you assume that schools don't hire a business manager, or at the very least, don't have people with business sense in decision making capacity. This is probably wrong, though let's not get into a pissing contest. I'ts just a bad assumption.
2) if a school pays 20% too much on everything they buy, tuition will be at least 20% more. This isn't necessarily true because salaries are the big budget items for a law school. I will be kind and assume you've included professors, in which case your statement is correct.

However, it's not simply a matter of saying a school is paying its professors too much. There are too many factors to take into consideration and it's a bad statement. I could go on, but it's effectively the same reasons why professional athletes and movie stars make ridiculous amounts of money. But let's not digress.

As for class size, I hate large classes and I'm damn glad I don't have class with 100+ people. I don't think it's an efficient way to learn. The best academic experiences I've ever had were in classes of 10-20 students.

Taking your points in order:

We need libraries? We need places to study and Lexis Nexis.

Now, sure, that law schools don't hire good business managers is a bad assumption. But it's a bad assumption that they do.

And how much professors are paid is included in costs that law schools ought to spend wisely.

This comes down to burden: given that the cost of legal education has outpaced inflation at least fourfold for the last 40 years, who has the burden to offer good assumptions backed up with data? Given that legal education, when it was cheaper, was just as good, the burden, then, is on the defenders of the status quo.

I think any jury would buy that closing.

And so far, instead of "good assumptions backed up with data," we have, and I quote:

(These quotations could be wrong; they're as I recollect the statements and are designed to be illustrative, not attributive.)
"We have to keep the lights on"-Dean Mitchell
"Law school cost four times less than medical school in the 70s (???)"-Dean Mitchell
"My starting professors salary is the starting salary of a big law associate"-Dean Mitchell
"Fancy libraries and nice stuff"-TLS poster

[timbs4339]

Libraries are neither cheap nor essential (except from an accreditation standpoint). Wexis provides everything you need and it is what you will be using in practice. You're using the law professor definition of "necessary" which confuses explanation for an actual cost-benefit analysis. Same with small class sizes and HYS/COA clerk professors.

define "necessary".

1) The absolute minimum to pass ABA accreditation.

or in a perfect world

2) A classroom, a professor, a board, and a printer/copier. Everything you build from that must be subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

I mean, why not just restrict law school to CALI lessons?

Why not, depending on the cost?

[manofjustice]

Libraries are neither cheap nor essential (except from an accreditation standpoint). Wexis provides everything you need and it is what you will be using in practice. You're using the law professor definition of "necessary" which confuses explanation for an actual cost-benefit analysis. Same with small class sizes and HYS/COA clerk professors.

define "necessary".
I mean, why not just restrict law school to CALI lessons?

Some TTTs are just CALI lessons.

[dingbat]

Libraries are neither cheap nor essential (except from an accreditation standpoint). Wexis provides everything you need and it is what you will be using in practice. You're using the law professor definition of "necessary" which confuses explanation for an actual cost-benefit analysis. Same with small class sizes and HYS/COA clerk professors.

define "necessary".
I mean, why not just restrict law school to CALI lessons?

Some TTTs are just CALI lessons.

and they should be closed down

[Mal Reynolds]

What the hell is with the abuse of the damn anon button in this thread?

I got this. Ahem:

Warning to all posters: Don't use anon for general opinion-giving or nitpicking other posters. You may and probably will be outed if you do so. You have been warned.

I'm sure glad I haven't anon commented ITT.

[crazycanuck]

I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. .

Profs dont read that shit dude. They quickly glace over it and then assign a letter grade based on impressions. If they know who are and think you are competent, you will get a better grade. People who get good grades know how to format.

Their TAs mark it.

[dingbat]

I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. .

Profs dont read that shit dude. They quickly glace over it and then assign a letter grade based on impressions. If they know who are and think you are competent, you will get a better grade. People who get good grades know how to format.

Their TAs mark it.

really? I thought they threw the stack at a staircase, and the ones landing on the top step get an A while those at the bottom are a C

[thelawyler]

I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. .

Profs dont read that shit dude. They quickly glace over it and then assign a letter grade based on impressions. If they know who are and think you are competent, you will get a better grade. People who get good grades know how to format.

Their TAs mark it.

really? I thought they threw the stack at a staircase, and the ones landing on the top step get an A while those at the bottom are a C

Nah because then you'd have to pick them up.

[crazycanuck]

I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. .

Profs dont read that shit dude. They quickly glace over it and then assign a letter grade based on impressions. If they know who are and think you are competent, you will get a better grade. People who get good grades know how to format.

Their TAs mark it.

really? I thought they threw the stack at a staircase, and the ones landing on the top step get an A while those at the bottom are a C

The good ones do this.

[Elston Gunn]

First, we don't even know if that's true. Dean Mitchell claimed he's spending from his endowment--but we don't know if from interest or principal. Second, we don't know where the money goes. Third, we don't know how much he could spend. Dean Mitchell just says he has to keep the lights on, which, while a correct statement, should be stricken from the record as irrelevant and much too flippant. Forth, there is really only one thing that raises the prestige of a school--the attractiveness of the school's graduates to employers. And that is more than a little related to the prestige of the school's incoming class.

Hence, drop class sizes and maintain medians.

To emulate a famous political consultant, we should repeat over and over again to law school faculty: "it's about the dropping LSAT test-takers, stupid."

I was talking about HYS. And yeah, we do know that info.

I'm not really defending the schools, I'm just saying they've chosen to give big scholarships in the form of smaller class sizes and clinics and fancy libraries and stuff instead of cheaper tuition.

To emphasize my second point, I think those are incredibly glib suppositions, dangerous when trying to positively contribute to the debate over the crisis in the legal profession. Fancy libraries and stuff? Clinics? Smaller class sizes? These are not out-of-line points to bring up, but a) pull back a bit. Do law schools spend money wisely? If they pay just 20% more than they should on everything they buy, tuition is at least 20% higher. Is there a wide variety of spending efficiency among business, managed by people who actually know business? Yes. Some businesses spend very well, others spend themselves into bankruptcy. Would the legal academy demean themselves so much as to hire a business manager to cut costs? Probably not. They'd probably spend too much and stick their heads up their asses and tell themselves "hey, managing a business ain't so hard."

b) who the hell told law professors they could teach smaller classes? I sympathize with law professors. I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. I would surmise that the overwhelming impetus to lower class sizes (and thereby dramatically increase costs) is professor comfort, not student-advantage. In support, Professor Campos notes that class sizes at top schools have dramatically increased as recently as within the past decade.

I am sure most present prospective students would willingly trade the oh-so woefully substandard education at Harvard Law of 10 years ago for substantially lower tuition at the same institution today.

Why are you arguing with me so much about this? I brought all this up by way of saying HYS, while worth the money, are very much complicit with how out of control tuition has gotten.

There's no denying there are some wonderful creature comforts at Yale (like more 1 clinic for every 20 enrolled students, which is awesome), and also that these things are super expensive. AND I've been pretty clear that I don't think it's worth it.

[dingbat]

^ I see you haven't had the pleasure yet.
Elston, manofjustice
Manofjustice, new target

[09042014]

Why is anyone going to law school who doesn't have a solid means of paying even slightly any of it back before even going? Are we going to have to start paying for law school like we do mortgages on houses? I think that may be a smart strategy.

What do you mean, like down payments?

Yeah, exactly like those. Maybe it could be a smart strategy. I'm just tossing it out there as a general idea. It took me awhile, despite TLS, to get around just how bad the legal market and just how bad certain schools were. The only reason I considered going to law school (outside of wanting to be an attorney) was the fact that I had real estate that could be solid in lieu of tuition. I don't know how the average person pays tuition, rent, etc. in a larget metro and expects to have a "normal" life. Maybe down payments could be some sort of helper. Not sure.

I understand where you are coming from but unlike home ownership there is a huge problem with depriving access to people without family means, and it would be damn hard to scrape together that kind of cash without family money.

The reason you have a down payment for a house is to protect the bank from default by buffering their potential losses from it's value decreasing. You pay 10% down, and then if you default, as long as they get 90% of the houses value back when they take your house, they don't lose anything. It's so you have equity in their mortgaged house.

Student loans are unsecured. They can't take your degree and resell it. So it doesn't really matter. A down payment wouldn't decrease the risk at all.

[manofjustice]

I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. .

Profs dont read that shit dude. They quickly glace over it and then assign a letter grade based on impressions. If they know who are and think you are competent, you will get a better grade. People who get good grades know how to format.

Their TAs mark it.

Really?

[IAFG]

The reason you have a down payment for a house is to protect the bank from default by buffering their potential losses from it's value decreasing. You pay 10% down, and then if you default, as long as they get 90% of the houses value back when they take your house, they don't lose anything. It's so you have equity in their mortgaged house.

Student loans are unsecured. They can't take your degree and resell it. So it doesn't really matter. A down payment wouldn't decrease the risk at all.

That's not the point, dear. It's a matter of a barrier to entry/means-testing.

[eric922]

My biggest problem with this guy is his self-righteous attitude. It reminds me of the Emory professor who gave a speech at graduation about how students need to stop expecting so much and should be happy working in Arkansas or somewhere. I'm sorry, but you don't get to preach about public service and call other people greedy while you are making 6 figures to teach a couple of classes and grade some papers. To me that is the height of hypocrisy and I have no tolerance for it. I've met people working two shitty fast food jobs just to make ends meet so I really don't have too much sympathy for academics.

[eric922]

I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. .

Profs dont read that shit dude. They quickly glace over it and then assign a letter grade based on impressions. If they know who are and think you are competent, you will get a better grade. People who get good grades know how to format.

Their TAs mark it.

If that's true those professors need to be fired and replaced by ones who will do their job. I don't know about law school, but in undergrad TAs are usually students of some kind. I'm sorry, but unless you are grading off a key I don't think anyone, but the person who teaches the class should be able to determine someone's grade.

[09042014]

The reason you have a down payment for a house is to protect the bank from default by buffering their potential losses from it's value decreasing. You pay 10% down, and then if you default, as long as they get 90% of the houses value back when they take your house, they don't lose anything. It's so you have equity in their mortgaged house.

Student loans are unsecured. They can't take your degree and resell it. So it doesn't really matter. A down payment wouldn't decrease the risk at all.

That's not the point, dear. It's a matter of a barrier to entry/means-testing.

Even if I scrape up 30K that's not really enough to justify loaning me 250K. The interest alone is nearly 20K/year.

If you want to means test, you'd just require a co-signer or collateral. Some token downpayment doesn't prove shit.

[09042014]

All professors should be adjuncts. They 1) actually know the law, 2) are cheap as faurk.

And law should be a bachelors degree. 60 credits of gen eds, and then two years of lawl school.

[manofjustice]

First, we don't even know if that's true. Dean Mitchell claimed he's spending from his endowment--but we don't know if from interest or principal. Second, we don't know where the money goes. Third, we don't know how much he could spend. Dean Mitchell just says he has to keep the lights on, which, while a correct statement, should be stricken from the record as irrelevant and much too flippant. Forth, there is really only one thing that raises the prestige of a school--the attractiveness of the school's graduates to employers. And that is more than a little related to the prestige of the school's incoming class.

Hence, drop class sizes and maintain medians.

To emulate a famous political consultant, we should repeat over and over again to law school faculty: "it's about the dropping LSAT test-takers, stupid."

I was talking about HYS. And yeah, we do know that info.

I'm not really defending the schools, I'm just saying they've chosen to give big scholarships in the form of smaller class sizes and clinics and fancy libraries and stuff instead of cheaper tuition.

To emphasize my second point, I think those are incredibly glib suppositions, dangerous when trying to positively contribute to the debate over the crisis in the legal profession. Fancy libraries and stuff? Clinics? Smaller class sizes? These are not out-of-line points to bring up, but a) pull back a bit. Do law schools spend money wisely? If they pay just 20% more than they should on everything they buy, tuition is at least 20% higher. Is there a wide variety of spending efficiency among business, managed by people who actually know business? Yes. Some businesses spend very well, others spend themselves into bankruptcy. Would the legal academy demean themselves so much as to hire a business manager to cut costs? Probably not. They'd probably spend too much and stick their heads up their asses and tell themselves "hey, managing a business ain't so hard."

b) who the hell told law professors they could teach smaller classes? I sympathize with law professors. I really do: all the exams of 80 students at a top law school probably totals at least 800 pages, single spaced. That's a lot of work--but just twice a year. I would surmise that the overwhelming impetus to lower class sizes (and thereby dramatically increase costs) is professor comfort, not student-advantage. In support, Professor Campos notes that class sizes at top schools have dramatically increased as recently as within the past decade.

I am sure most present prospective students would willingly trade the oh-so woefully substandard education at Harvard Law of 10 years ago for substantially lower tuition at the same institution today.

Why are you arguing with me so much about this? I brought all this up by way of saying HYS, while worth the money, are very much complicit with how out of control tuition has gotten.

There's no denying there are some wonderful creature comforts at Yale (like more 1 clinic for every 20 enrolled students, which is awesome), and also that these things are super expensive. AND I've been pretty clear that I don't think it's worth it.

To the second bolded: Yale is a great school. Congrats.

To the first and third bolded: I'll tell you exactly why I am arguing with you, even though you are "not really defending the schools." I'm not mad. If you're "not really defending the schools," that's great.

But, fly with me to 30,000 feet of abstraction for a moment if you will. When you say "they've [the law schools have] chosen to make [some rather benign and facially minimally reasonable expenditures]" instead of keeping tuition low, you imply, or suggest, or insinuate, or otherwise give aid and comfort to, the idea DingBat and others repeat, that somehow the cost of tuition at any law school is no market failure but a market reality--because choice is the essence of the market. But with the crisis in the legal hiring market so grave, it is so essential that we ascribe to the rise in law school tuition a market failure.

Paradoxically, for people who don't really believe in the free market, this is harder to do. For people who do believe in the free market, it's quite easy to see how such a steadily increasing real cost of the same thing over time is obviously the failure of the model efficiency that is the dream of Adam Smith.