Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism Forum

[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.

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.

[dingbat]

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.

^please stop talking^

[stillwater]

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.

^please stop talking^

How do you say crook in finance?

[manofjustice]

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.

^please stop talking^

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

[stillwater]

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.

^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.

[dingbat]

How do you say crook in finance?

CEO

[dingbat]

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.

^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

[manofjustice]

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.

^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.

[dingbat]

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?

[Myself]

.

[rad lulz]

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

[manofjustice]

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.

[stillwater]

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.

[manofjustice]

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]

.

[dingbat]

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

[Tanicius]

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]

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.

[dingbat]

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]

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]

.

[androstan]

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.

[justonemoregame]

I wonder what the students at Case think of this doofus

[ajax]

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.

^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

[vanwinkle]

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.