Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism

[WanderingPondering]

This thread started good.

Now this thread sucks.

[stillwater]

TLS needs to be deregulated.

[ajax]

Supply of Labor = 200% Demand for Labor

=Market Failure

=Dingbat fail

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.

Use of the word "warning" fail.

[dingbat]

Supply of Labor = 200% Demand for Labor

=Market Failure

=Dingbat fail

Oversupply =/= market failure

[Tanicius]

Use of the word "warning" fail.

The first eight times this already happened in the thread weren't good enough?

Oversupply =/= market failure

Shut. Up.

[vanwinkle]

Use of the word "warning" fail.

I'm pretty sure my use of the word "warning" was just fine. If you fail to read or heed a warning, that's your fault, not mine.

Plus, there's that big orange box above the entire "Legal Employment" forum warning you not to do it, so there's that, too.

However, this isn't a debate to be had in this forum. Anyone who wants to discuss this post or any mod behavior should do so not in this thread but in the Mod Q&A Thread. This is also a warning.

[beardown_tho]

easy to understand dingbat's frustration. hard to argue with someone who uses technical terms incorrectly and then tells you that you aren't being "creative" enough when you complain

imagine arguing about the law with someone who said that you need probable cause to win a civil case. that's basically the level of discourse.

[manofjustice]

easy to understand dingbat's frustration. hard to argue with someone who uses technical terms incorrectly and then tells you that you aren't being "creative" enough when you complain

imagine arguing about the law with someone who said that you need probable cause to win a civil case. that's basically the level of discourse.

I flatly deny I am using any technical terms incorrectly. Feel free to link me to definitions, Mr. Level of Discourse. Or, instead of meta-commenting ITT, actually contribute to this thread, Mr. Level of Discourse. This thread was great, but people like you and DingBat ruined it.

[dingbat]

easy to understand dingbat's frustration. hard to argue with someone who uses technical terms incorrectly and then tells you that you aren't being "creative" enough when you complain

imagine arguing about the law with someone who said that you need probable cause to win a civil case. that's basically the level of discourse.

I flatly deny I am using any technical terms incorrectly. Feel free to link me to definitions, Mr. Level of Discourse. Or, instead of meta-commenting ITT, actually contribute to this thread, Mr. Level of Discourse. This thread was great, but people like you and DingBat ruined it.

I did

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?

[manofjustice]

I flatly deny I am using any technical terms incorrectly. Feel free to link me to definitions, Mr. Level of Discourse. Or, instead of meta-commenting ITT, actually contribute to this thread, Mr. Level of Discourse. This thread was great, but people like you and DingBat ruined it.

I did

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?

What the fuck? Go away. I'm done with responding to you.

[dingbat]

No it isn't

^that's a link, doofus

[manofjustice]

No it isn't

^that's a link, doofus

"Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off. (The outcome is not Pareto optimal.) Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient – that can be improved upon from the societal point-of-view."

Shut the fuck up DingBat. I am using the term correctly. In five pages you have made no substantive contribution to this thread. Just shut up. DingBat, you are a massive soul suck.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mar ... z2HLYzodra

"An economic term that encompasses a situation where, in any given market, the quantity of a product demanded by consumers does not equate to the quantity supplied by suppliers. This is a direct result of a lack of certain economically ideal factors, which prevents equilibrium."

[stillwater]

someone put these two clowns in timeout

[Mal Reynolds]

Thanks to the pollfessor and dingbat for making me hate someone more than Dean Mitchell.

[manofjustice]

Thanks to the pollfessor and dingbat for making me hate someone more than Dean Mitchell.

I will not share equally in the blame for this disaster.

[dingbat]

I learned about finance and economics by obtaining a masters in it, not skimming investopedia (where the definition is, at best, woefully incomplete)
Even by that definition, however, you're still arguing wrong. The product a law school is producing isnt lawyers, it's law degrees. The consumer is the law student, not law firms. The fact that there are more JDs graduating than there are legal jobs is irrelevant as to whether or not there's a market imbalance in legal education.

There is a difference between the market for legal education (ie law schools) and the labor market for lawyers.

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; there is no real market failure, though, because new law schools are opening up to meet the demand.
I fucjing hate arguing that more law schools should open, and I wish many would close down, but that's the market you're talking about.

[dingbat]

Thanks to the pollfessor and dingbat for making me hate someone more than Dean Mitchell.

I will not share equally in the blame for this disaster.

You're right, you should take the lion's share

someone put these two clowns in timeout

I'll do it myself

[manofjustice]

I learned about finance and economics by obtaining a masters in it, not skimming investopedia (where the definition is, at best, woefully incomplete)
Even by that definition, however, you're still arguing wrong. The product a law school is producing isnt lawyers, it's law degrees. The consumer is the law student, not law firms. The fact that there are more JDs graduating than there are legal jobs is irrelevant as to whether or not there's a market imbalance in legal education.

There is a difference between the market for legal education (ie law schools) and the labor market for lawyers.

I hate to say this, I really do, but there's actually a shortage in law school capacity, evidenced by students being declined; there is no real market failure, though, because new law schools are opening up to meet the demand.
I fucjing hate arguing that more law schools should open, and I wish many would close down, but that's the market you're talking about.

Not responding. Just preserving for posterity.

[beachbum]

Thanks to the pollfessor and dingbat for making me hate someone more than Dean Mitchell.

No doubt, these two are like awful caricatures of shitty, ego-driven law students. And they're making Dean Mitchell look like not such a bad guy in comparison. I mean, I'd probably grab a beer with the dude, and at least listen to what he has to say. Couldn't be any worse than watching these two clowns battle over who has the bigger e-peen/rudimentary understanding of economics.

[manofjustice]

Thanks to the pollfessor and dingbat for making me hate someone more than Dean Mitchell.

No doubt, these two are like awful caricatures of shitty, ego-driven law students. And they're making Dean Mitchell look like not such a bad guy in comparison. I mean, I'd probably grab a beer with the dude, and at least listen to what he has to say. Couldn't be any worse than watching these two clowns battle over who has the bigger e-peen/rudimentary understanding of economics.

And if, during your beer summit with Dean Mitchell, every time he tried to make a point, you took a giant shit on it with nonsense, he'd respond accordingly...

[manofjustice]

Louis CK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0rSXjVuJVg @ 1:36

[romothesavior]

Both of you shut up.

[beardown_tho]

I flatly deny I am using any technical terms incorrectly. Feel free to link me to definitions, Mr. Level of Discourse. Or, instead of meta-commenting ITT, actually contribute to this thread, Mr. Level of Discourse.

nah i'm good

carry on

[Anonymous User]

I wonder what the students at Case think of this doofus

He was very hands-on during the initial 1l year and enthusiastic about readjusting Case from the previous (not the interim) Dean's poor administration. I have mixed feelings regarding him, but those feelings are much more negative after watching the interview. I can say that he has increased the amount of scholarships substantially and reduced the 2015 class size by 1/3 in an attempt to recruit better students. He also has spent time abroad securing partnerships with Chinese law schools, although this likely only increases the law school cash flow without providing any real job opportunities for grads. I am utterly shocked at how oblivious he is to the financial crises of his students. The career development office has been seemingly pushing students towards PI, at least that's my impression. The job/internship postings are very lack luster, but I am somewhat optimistic for spring recruitment (that's how I sleep at night). Also, FWIW all of the faculty that I have talked to speak highly of him. I do think he needs to remove himself from his ivory tower and realize that Case =/= Columbia, and there is a legal employment problem for his students.

[manofjustice]

I wonder what the students at Case think of this doofus

He was very hands-on during the initial 1l year and enthusiastic about readjusting Case from the previous (not the interim) Dean's poor administration. I have mixed feelings regarding him, but those feelings are much more negative after watching the interview. I can say that he has increased the amount of scholarships substantially and reduced the 2015 class size by 1/3 in an attempt to recruit better students. He also has spent time abroad securing partnerships with Chinese law schools, although this likely only increases the law school cash flow without providing any real job opportunities for grads. I am utterly shocked at how oblivious he is to the financial crises of his students. The career development office has been seemingly pushing students towards PI, at least that's my impression. The job/internship postings are very lack luster, but I am somewhat optimistic for spring recruitment (that's how I sleep at night). Also, FWIW all of the faculty that I have talked to speak highly of him. I do think he needs to remove himself from his ivory tower and realize that Case =/= Columbia, and there is a legal employment problem for his students.

So why didn't he fuckin say that!!!!!!!

Ya know, from many conversations I have had with people who actually matter in all of this...and Prof. Campos, listen up or respond...I think Deans are probably more reasonable about this whole thing then they let on. They are political animals and need the support of their faculty. That could be the source of any disconnect between their rhetoric and reality.

But, ya. I judged Dean Mitchell's arguments harshly, and I still do. But if what you say above is true, I would judge his actions differently.