Top Law Schools

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102367564/SLU ... ter-8-8-12

Anyone know anything more about this? It on ATL? (I can't access at work.)

Rut roh.

ETA: Kind of interesting that the college unilaterally transferred over $1 million to fund other pursuits. Supports the conventional wisdom that law schools are naked moneymakers for their parent universities.

Yeah it's on ATL

tfleming09 wrote:(ragequits deanship due to ethical objections directed at institution)

(remains tenured professor citing contractual rights)

Typical shitboomer behavior.

Your terrible management of money is forcing me to resign. But Ima need to keep dat six figures you're paying me. Kthanks

Another law school piggy bank.

tfleming09 wrote:(ragequits deanship due to ethical objections directed at institution)

(remains tenured professor citing contractual rights)

Typical shitboomer behavior.

Universities (and the professors who uselessly populate them) are fine with strong liberal activism when it's someone else making the inevitable sacrifice. But look at how they handled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when that was the policy: "we would never allow you homophobes to recruit here; then we'd be no better than homophobic corporations! . . . oh, wait, you're going to withhold our free federal money if we don't; well okay then"

Law profs have wonderful ideas--that they think and talk about all day long--about how other people should be running the world. And yet the one thing that they are ACTUALLY in control of, legal education in America, is universally agreed to be a festering TTT caused by managerial incompetence.

flcath wrote:

tfleming09 wrote:(ragequits deanship due to ethical objections directed at institution)

(remains tenured professor citing contractual rights)

Typical shitboomer behavior.

Universities (and the professors who uselessly populate them) are fine with strong liberal activism when it's someone else making the inevitable sacrifice. But look at how they handled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when that was the policy: "we would never allow you homophobes to recruit here; then we'd be no better than homophobic corporations! . . . oh, wait, you're going to withhold our free federal money if we don't; well okay then"

Law profs have wonderful ideas--that they think and talk about all day long--about how other people should be running the world. And yet the one thing that they are ACTUALLY in control of, legal education in America, is universally agreed to be a festering TTT caused by managerial incompetence.

Thanks for stopping by, Sean Hannity

bankruptedcasino wrote:

flcath wrote:

tfleming09 wrote:(ragequits deanship due to ethical objections directed at institution)

(remains tenured professor citing contractual rights)

Typical shitboomer behavior.

Universities (and the professors who uselessly populate them) are fine with strong liberal activism when it's someone else making the inevitable sacrifice. But look at how they handled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when that was the policy: "we would never allow you homophobes to recruit here; then we'd be no better than homophobic corporations! . . . oh, wait, you're going to withhold our free federal money if we don't; well okay then"

Law profs have wonderful ideas--that they think and talk about all day long--about how other people should be running the world. And yet the one thing that they are ACTUALLY in control of, legal education in America, is universally agreed to be a festering TTT caused by managerial incompetence.

Thanks for stopping by, Sean Hannity

Shitlib, here, bro. I support the gays, and thought the university response was hilariously chickenshit.

I'm also someone who's in favor of shutting down schools by ABA fiat. Doesn't get much libber than that.

flcath wrote:

bankruptedcasino wrote:

flcath wrote:

tfleming09 wrote:(ragequits deanship due to ethical objections directed at institution)

(remains tenured professor citing contractual rights)

Typical shitboomer behavior.

Universities (and the professors who uselessly populate them) are fine with strong liberal activism when it's someone else making the inevitable sacrifice. But look at how they handled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when that was the policy: "we would never allow you homophobes to recruit here; then we'd be no better than homophobic corporations! . . . oh, wait, you're going to withhold our free federal money if we don't; well okay then"

Law profs have wonderful ideas--that they think and talk about all day long--about how other people should be running the world. And yet the one thing that they are ACTUALLY in control of, legal education in America, is universally agreed to be a festering TTT caused by managerial incompetence.

Thanks for stopping by, Sean Hannity

Shitlib, here, bro. I support the gays, and thought the university response was hilariously chickenshit.

I'm also someone who's in favor of shutting down schools by ABA fiat. Doesn't get much libber than that.

Fair enough. I thought the Dean's complaints were legitimate, particularly since (assuming the letter's allegations are true) it appeared as though the university was robbing the law school blind. I would have resigned my deanship and kept tenure to look for a job elsewhere, too. I didn't think it was cowardly.

bankruptedcasino wrote:Fair enough. I thought the Dean's complaints were legitimate, particularly since (assuming the letter's allegations are true) it appeared as though the university was robbing the law school blind. I would have resigned my deanship and kept tenure to look for a job elsewhere, too. I didn't think it was cowardly.

As I said in my thread title, I thought it was pretty badass. Just the right tone level in the letter, too. This'll be awkward as fuck for the president, and will hopefully make other schools think hard before doing their annual robbery of the LS.

The criticism that she stayed on board, though (which got brought up like 2 posts in), is of course valid. Same thing with that CU prof whose name escapes me right now.

nvm

flcath wrote:

bankruptedcasino wrote:

flcath wrote:

tfleming09 wrote:(ragequits deanship due to ethical objections directed at institution)

(remains tenured professor citing contractual rights)

Typical shitboomer behavior.

Universities (and the professors who uselessly populate them) are fine with strong liberal activism when it's someone else making the inevitable sacrifice. But look at how they handled Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when that was the policy: "we would never allow you homophobes to recruit here; then we'd be no better than homophobic corporations! . . . oh, wait, you're going to withhold our free federal money if we don't; well okay then"

Law profs have wonderful ideas--that they think and talk about all day long--about how other people should be running the world. And yet the one thing that they are ACTUALLY in control of, legal education in America, is universally agreed to be a festering TTT caused by managerial incompetence.

Thanks for stopping by, Sean Hannity

Shitlib, here, bro. I support the gays, and thought the university response was hilariously chickenshit.

I'm also someone who's in favor of shutting down schools by ABA fiat. Doesn't get much libber than that.

flcath, would you mind splaining ABA fiat to me?

Damn, you people are a tough crowd. She managed to verbally bitchslap her administrative superiors, cast light on their bullshit, and draw media attention to them. And all you assholes can say is "oh, you kept your professorship, therefore you're a piece of shit?"

You sound like immature pricks who never had to pay a mortgage before. In the real world, this is as close to a principled stand as one can make without going full Jerry Maguire (which, by the way, is almost always financial suicide).

JamMasterJ wrote:

flcath wrote:Shitlib, here, bro. I support the gays, and thought the university response was hilariously chickenshit.

I'm also someone who's in favor of shutting down schools by ABA fiat. Doesn't get much libber than that.

flcath, would you mind splaining ABA fiat to me?

Lol, just lol, at the ABA coming to a solution that would benefit both its members (this is undeniable) and the general public (access to legal services for the poor does not increase with more lawyers, but the public still takes on our educational debt).

They apparently view antitrust law as some insurmountable hurdle to this concept, despite the fact that the AMA, and especially the ADA, has managed this (and they're not even the profession that gets to create antitrust law). Those schools keep actual costs of operation high, so that schools can't open them up on a whim and use them to fund other depts.

So maybe the ABA should start requiring cadavers for 1Ls (you can't learn criminal law unless you've seen an autopsy of a murder victim!), expensive DNA processing equipment (forensic evidence classes), and mandatory trips to Pakistan (drone warfare) for all law students.

LST calculates non-discounted debt-at-graduation for SLU at 205K. I was going to post about sharing those 13K summer bonuses with students, but...fuck, nevermind? If the summer research program was funded annually, that would be 26 additional scholarships of 30,000 each. There's a little. small. something.

I applaud the dean for drawing attention to the Univ. President's behavior, though.

my reaction to the letter

It makes me mad that law schools see us as cash pinatas.

soj wrote:It makes me mad that law schools see us as cash pinatas.

I actually, genuinely, think that that whole cash cow thing is founded on university administrations' ignorance of how bad law has gotten as a student investment. In the old days, it wasn't a bad idea: lost cost of operation, but high salaries for grads = charge high tuition and let the LS fund other depts that are high cost and/or low-demand. I think if they knew better, they might not still do it.

The ABA, on the other hand, has no such excuse.

flcath wrote:

soj wrote:It makes me mad that law schools see us as cash pinatas.

I actually, genuinely, think that that whole cash cow thing is founded on university administrations' ignorance of how bad law has gotten as a student investment. In the old days, it wasn't a bad idea: lost cost of operation, but high salaries for grads = charge high tuition and let the LS fund other depts that are high cost and/or low-demand. I think if they knew better, they might not still do it.

LOL

I think you're giving them a little too much credit...

doomed123 wrote:

flcath wrote:

soj wrote:It makes me mad that law schools see us as cash pinatas.

I actually, genuinely, think that that whole cash cow thing is founded on university administrations' ignorance of how bad law has gotten as a student investment. In the old days, it wasn't a bad idea: lost cost of operation, but high salaries for grads = charge high tuition and let the LS fund other depts that are high cost and/or low-demand. I think if they knew better, they might not still do it.

LOL

I think you're giving them a little too much credit...

Maybe. I tend to give educational institutions the benefit of the doubt up until the point when it is no longer remotely plausible. It's kinda like the 12(b)(6) factual standard. ABA still fails, tho.

I imagine a lot of admins are completely clueless, but they have no excuse for being ignorant about employment outcomes at this point. I know TLS is a bubble, but there is a ton of info. floating around out there, so it will be interesting to see what happens going forward, especially w/r/t the number of people who choose to attend shithouse law schools this fall.

I think that's the only thing that can stall or reduce tuition rates - people simply have to refuse to pay sticker outside the T13 (looking at you Georgetown), and even within it, depending on one's goals / situation.

justonemoregame wrote:I imagine a lot of admins are completely clueless, but they have no excuse for being ignorant about employment outcomes at this point. I know TLS is a bubble, but there is a ton of info. floating around out there, so it will be interesting to see what happens going forward, especially w/r/t the number of people who choose to attend shithouse law schools this fall.

I dunno, man, have you ever gone to a prof about job advice? I went to a much-loved prof and Assoc. Dean (a high enough position that he's probably one the very people who should be at the university admin building advocating/educating our employment situation) once, and I was mortified at the stuff he ended up telling me. I wanted to be like "please don't tell other students that, because god forbid one of them happens to rely on your advice."

justonemoregame wrote:I think that's the only thing that can stall or reduce tuition rates - people simply have to refuse to pay sticker outside the T13 (looking at you Georgetown), and even within it, depending on one's goals / situation.

Maybe TLSers all went to awesome UGs and elite prep high schools and haven't been around regular people, but I know many people who ended up going to TTTs. Good, worthwhile people, who if they posted on TLS their legitimate reasons for attending LS, would be called out as flame and banned.

The market protects these people from most stupid choices of this magnitude--"oh, you think buying an Aston Martin is a tenable financial decision? sorry, we're not giving you a loan for that, because we'll never see our money back"--but this is one that, not only does the gov't allow, our culture generally encourages.

Yeah I agree with all that, and fwiw, I'm very pessimistic about the actual impact of scamblogging, tls, etc. I know a lot of people will get encouragement to attend LS, and have myself received some shockingly awful advice regarding employment (from an attorney).

About admins - I was thinking more of Univ. presidents, deans, etc.. but your anecdote about the associate dean is depressing. I would expect the employment data wind to start blowing through the hallways a little more.

justonemoregame wrote:Yeah I agree with all that, and fwiw, I'm very pessimistic about the actual impact of scamblogging, tls, etc. I know a lot of people will get encouragement to attend LS, and have myself received some shockingly awful advice regarding employment (from an attorney).

About admins - I was thinking more of Univ. presidents, deans, etc.. but your anecdote about the associate dean is depressing. I would expect the employment data wind to start blowing through the hallways a little more.

Yeah, I mean it's really easy to lump the LS employment stuff in as a "well, everyone's having problems ITE" thing. The scamblogs just preach to the choir, and the tone is way to offensive to appeal to kids who would be turned off even by the tone of TLS.

It's kind of a crappy stalemate situation.

paging campos and merritt... a certain ex-dean may be willing and able to guest blog at ITTLSS.