That's a great thing. Yet his tenure is looked upon unfavorably. So what went wrong?

Who looks upon his tenure unfavorably? Certain faculty who air their grievances out to blogs?

This is not true. From the quick research I was able to do I get

Judge Reputation Score
2010 = 4.1
2009 = 4.0
2008 = 4.1
2007 = 4.0
2006 = 4.1

Practitioner Reputation Score
2010 = 4.3
2009 = 4.3
2008 = 4.3
2007 = 4.4
2006 = 4.1

There has been really no appreciable difference between pre-Plan 2008 and the present. And there is likely nothing a Dean can do to increase reputation score except maybe over a 5-10 year period, even then it is tenuous.

Essentially. I mean this is the only negative thing I've seen http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... allen.html

Is that whate youre referring to or is there another episode as well?

Legal academia in general? The dude was here for what, 20 years? Why is our reputation lower than Mich, UVA, Duke, GULC despite better employment figures?

Maybe because that is the way it has always been...

I am just curious as to if (and if so why) you think DVZ's time would have been better served to try and increase the reputation score on rankings that matter only as an advertisement to prospective students as to the quality of the school (reputations scores that seem fairly ensconced in the first place), rather than try to get the students that are paying a shitload of money to attend school a job. I think DVZ's priorities were in the right place, personally.

I tend to agree with you, and I really had no inclination that DVZ was anything less than a stellar dean until two things happened: 1) he left under seemingly odd circumstances, and 2) Allen through him under the bus.

But as far as reputation scores, I think it would be in our school's best interest to be more competitive with UVA and Mich in the non-biglaw fields of employment.

1. Being the Dean of the New School wasn't all that odd to me. I shtere something else you are referring to?

2. The Allen thing made me think less of Allen, not DVZ.

I agree with your last claim, insofar as increasing employment in any aspect is great for any school's rep.

Odd circumstances that include: getting a better job as the president of a university? lolwut?

Allen is a self-important professor who thinks his way is the only right way. There is a reason he is not a Dean.

How exactly do you increase a reputation score?

Maybe I'm giving the Allen interview too much credit, but it really opened my eyes and made me think "hm maybe the students like this guy but all the profs hate him?" Either he was very divisive as a dean or Allen is blatantly making shit up.

But really, how many law professors are over the top egotistical, aspy maniacs? It's hard to stroke all those egos.

Maybe I just thought it was weird how they sprung it on us, though I don't know the normal protocol for deans leaving and notifying students. Also (and again this might be my ignorance/naivete) I guess I'm surprised that a legal scholar taking non-legal appointment is viewed as a step up. And the New School isn't even a top college.

He got passed over for the President of Northwestern when they decided to hire Shapiro. Word was after that he was looking to bail because he wanted to move up in the academic community and had the credentials to do so. A president of a university is far more prestigious than the dean of a law school. Except maybe the Dean of Harvard, even then, I'm not sure.

Ah, good insight.

LOL

I liked in Follies when Nino changed "no wonder he was run off by angry faculty" to "no wonder he was run off by Ron Allen."

AHYUP

SHOCKING that Ron Allen would be a self-important douche. He spent a good half hour 1st semester telling me and other 1Ls all the reasons he hates DVZ. After he told us that he decided to teach civ pro because the other profs aren't good enough and he felt the 1Ls needed him.

I knew the website looked different somehow.

Brilliant scholar, but more importantly, a brilliant educator. Some of these Professors would do well to remember that. One has been mentioned recently.

Not everyone was as gaga for her as you were.

She was difficult to appraoch outside of the classroom. But did she or did she not make con law as digestible as possible, or not?

Didn't she win the 1L teaching award?

A friend of both of ours believes she didn't challenge anyone in class. I also noticed that when someone had a question that would have taken her away from the typical political script, she would deflect or ignore it. She didn't want to analyze the actual reasoning in cases to the same extent as other (ahem, JD) law profs.

Whatever, I know all about the 12th Amendment. So suck it.

And who are these suck-ups approaching their profs after class?