Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby IAFG » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:50 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Desert Fox wrote: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.

We're not talking about ways to protect the lender.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:55 pm

manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby stillwater » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:57 pm

dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^


How do you say crook in finance?

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby manofjustice » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:59 pm

dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^


Cute. I know I am making sense when DingBat...does what DingBat does...

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby stillwater » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:00 pm

manofjustice wrote:
dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^


Cute. I know I am making sense when DingBat...does what DingBat does...


This comes down to a battle of the avatars... I know who wins.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:01 pm

stillwater wrote:How do you say crook in finance?

CEO

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:10 pm

manofjustice wrote:
dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^


Cute. I know I am making sense when DingBat...does what DingBat does...

No, there's just a lot wrong with your argument. You keep throwing out terms incorrectly.
Just because a lot of people are making bad decisions doesn't mean there's market failure. I don't support the current system; I think schools charge a lot more than their employment outcomes justify and I think a lot of them should close. But I'm not gonna spout out hyperbole and spew forth clever sounding terms inappropriately.
You could argue about oligopoly or market distortion or disproportionate bargaining power, but not "market failure" or whatever term you were using on the last page. You can't use a term in an "unorthodox" manner, if it is a completely incorrect use of the term.

I understand you have an issue with law schools. It's a fair point. But don't make shit up, spit out terms you don't understand, drivel incoherently and expect people to go "yeah, great argument". That's Dean Mitchell's job

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby manofjustice » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:25 pm

dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote:
dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^


Cute. I know I am making sense when DingBat...does what DingBat does...

No, there's just a lot wrong with your argument. You keep throwing out terms incorrectly.
Just because a lot of people are making bad decisions doesn't mean there's market failure. I don't support the current system; I think schools charge a lot more than their employment outcomes justify and I think a lot of them should close. But I'm not gonna spout out hyperbole and spew forth clever sounding terms inappropriately.
You could argue about oligopoly or market distortion or disproportionate bargaining power, but not "market failure" or whatever term you were using on the last page. You can't use a term in an "unorthodox" manner, if it is a completely incorrect use of the term.

I understand you have an issue with law schools. It's a fair point. But don't make shit up, spit out terms you don't understand, drivel incoherently and expect people to go "yeah, great argument". That's Dean Mitchell's job


I really do love you DingBat.

The definition of a market failure is: the prevailing of an inefficient market price (i.e. a market price that does not equal the market value), when all actors act rationally.

Because of the "all actors act rationally" part, a "market failure" can be hard to discern, especially by a market participant who, acting rationally, has paid an inefficient market price for his education.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:42 pm

manofjustice wrote:I really do love you DingBat.

The definition of a market failure is: the prevailing of an inefficient market price (i.e. a market price that does not equal the market value), when all actors act rationally.

Because of the "all actors act rationally" part, a "market failure" can be hard to discern, especially by a market participant who, acting rationally, has paid an inefficient market price for his education.

No it isn't
But even it it were, what on earth makes you think all actors act rationally, when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary?
Image

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:19 am

.
Last edited by Myself on Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby rad lulz » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:18 am

What will people think of TLS when they get linked to this thread by ATL and they read dingbat and manofjustice

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby manofjustice » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:27 am

rad lulz wrote:What will people think of TLS when they get linked to this thread by ATL and they read dingbat and manofjustice


They will think that someone is trying to come up with a real explanation for why the law school tuition crisis has happened and why the intervention of a market supervisor, such as the ABA, is necessary.

They will also note my substantive contribution above, recommending that we all focus on class sizes. Contracting class sizes is something law schools can do tomorrow.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby stillwater » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:04 am

manofjustice wrote:
rad lulz wrote:What will people think of TLS when they get linked to this thread by ATL and they read dingbat and manofjustice


They will think that someone is trying to come up with a real explanation for why the law school tuition crisis has happened and why the intervention of a market supervisor, such as the ABA, is necessary.

They will also note my substantive contribution above, recommending that we all focus on class sizes. Contracting class sizes is something law schools can do tomorrow.


I don't think this is how it will go down. No one cares what an anonymous poster on TLS says.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby manofjustice » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:08 am

stillwater wrote:
manofjustice wrote:
rad lulz wrote:What will people think of TLS when they get linked to this thread by ATL and they read dingbat and manofjustice


They will think that someone is trying to come up with a real explanation for why the law school tuition crisis has happened and why the intervention of a market supervisor, such as the ABA, is necessary.

They will also note my substantive contribution above, recommending that we all focus on class sizes. Contracting class sizes is something law schools can do tomorrow.


I don't think this is how it will go down. No one cares what an anonymous poster on TLS says.


The world is moved by a thousand jabs.

edit: hope and change.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:22 am

.
Last edited by Myself on Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:59 am

manofjustice wrote:
rad lulz wrote:What will people think of TLS when they get linked to this thread by ATL and they read dingbat and manofjustice


They will think that someone is trying to come up with a real explanation for why the law school tuition crisis has happened and why the intervention of a market supervisor, such as the ABA, is necessary.

They will also note my substantive contribution above, recommending that we all focus on class sizes. Contracting class sizes is something law schools can do tomorrow.

unless they're even vaguely familiar with the terms you vomited, in which case they'll think you're a moron

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby Tanicius » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:07 pm

dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote:
rad lulz wrote:What will people think of TLS when they get linked to this thread by ATL and they read dingbat and manofjustice


They will think that someone is trying to come up with a real explanation for why the law school tuition crisis has happened and why the intervention of a market supervisor, such as the ABA, is necessary.

They will also note my substantive contribution above, recommending that we all focus on class sizes. Contracting class sizes is something law schools can do tomorrow.

unless they're even vaguely familiar with the terms you vomited, in which case they'll think you're a moron


Dude, no one has even a remote idea what you guys are arguing about anymore, let alone what side either of you are on.

BearsGrl
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby BearsGrl » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:14 pm

Can't a moderator block the two posters above who are contributing the least (most) from this thread? I don't see why they are allowed to continue to post ITT.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dingbat » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:15 pm

Tanicius wrote:Dude, no one has even a remote idea what you guys are arguing about anymore, let alone what side either of you are on.
sounds about right.
Synopsis: manofjustice is against law school administrators and reason
I'm against TTTs, overcharging, and idiocy

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:19 pm

dingbat wrote:
Tanicius wrote:Dude, no one has even a remote idea what you guys are arguing about anymore, let alone what side either of you are on.
sounds about right.
Synopsis: manofjustice is against law school administrators and reason
I'm against TTTs, overcharging, and idiocy

That really wasn't an invitation for you to continue this nonsense.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:35 pm

.
Last edited by Myself on Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
androstan
Posts: 2546
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby androstan » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:30 pm

stillwater wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
UVAIce wrote:Not really, but you are going to find it difficult to implement an apprenticeship system in the US unless it ends up being some kind of unpaid internship for a year.

People keep thinking that the law schools are the problem, but the reality is they are basically doing what the rest of the educational system is doing in the USA. Do we really need 4 years to get a college degree? Probably not. Three years of law school would also not be so bad if the cost wasn't so high. Also, imagine a top tier law school that just cut its tuition in half instead of giving out scholarships to over half the class. It would be great, but all the students with good numbers would go somewhere else. Also, imagine if 4 year colleges put out real job statistics, especially the not so great ones. There is just so much deceptive advertising in education as a whole.

Also, I just can't buy the argument that the poor law students couldn't find any good information on law schools. Google law school or law school employment prospects and see what pops up. If you can't do that sort of due diligence then at some point you almost deserve what you're going to get hit with. I won't put $100 into a video card for my PC without reading a dozen reviews and then searching through a dozen online vendors to find the best deal - okay, Newegg almost every time. It seems crazy to me that people would just jump into a career without really looking into it or just relying on brochures from an obviously biased source. I realize that a lot of people may simply think that they will be in the top 10%, but if you weren't in the top 10% in high school and weren't in the top 10% in your college, what makes you think that things will change!


The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably fund operations through the interest on their endowment. And half the students aren't receiving substantial schollys- I think CLS only 13% of the students get more than half.


The excess is going straight into the pockets of those overpaid shitboomer crooks. Fucking CROOKS.


When the shitboomers die you can inherit their IGG.

User avatar
justonemoregame
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby justonemoregame » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:37 pm

I wonder what the students at Case think of this doofus

ajax
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby ajax » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:46 pm

dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote:
dingbat wrote:
manofjustice wrote: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.

dingbat wrote:^please stop talking^


Cute. I know I am making sense when DingBat...does what DingBat does...

No, there's just a lot wrong with your argument. You keep throwing out terms incorrectly.
Just because a lot of people are making bad decisions doesn't mean there's market failure. I don't support the current system; I think schools charge a lot more than their employment outcomes justify and I think a lot of them should close. But I'm not gonna spout out hyperbole and spew forth clever sounding terms inappropriately.
You could argue about oligopoly or market distortion or disproportionate bargaining power, but not "market failure" or whatever term you were using on the last page. You can't use a term in an "unorthodox" manner, if it is a completely incorrect use of the term.

I understand you have an issue with law schools. It's a fair point. But don't make shit up, spit out terms you don't understand, drivel incoherently and expect people to go "yeah, great argument". That's Dean Mitchell's job



Supply of Labor = 200% Demand for Labor

=Market Failure

=Dingbat fail

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm

ajax (anonymously) wrote:Supply of Labor = 200% Demand for Labor

=Market Failure

=Dingbat fail

vanwinkle wrote: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.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.