Dean Mitchell's Response to Criticism Forum

[stillwater]

You know the more I read about the law school scam the more I start to think we would be better off if we went back to reading the law.

reading =/= understanding

You know better than that. That is a bogus reading of "reading." LOL at law school imparting some sort of practical understanding that actual practice couldn't.

[uvabro]

the issue is there'd be no case unless there are actual misrepresentations. non-disclosure isn't enough because the info is directly available. if things like LST did not exist and it wasn't widely known then maybe.

[dingbat]

You know the more I read about the law school scam the more I start to think we would be better off if we went back to reading the law.

reading =/= understanding

You know better than that. That is a bogus reading of "reading." LOL at law school imparting some sort of practical understanding that actual practice couldn't.

yes, I do. I also know that the law has gotten a lot more complicated, and that there are enough barely competent lawyers out there that we don't want them to be allowed to "teach" the next generation.

[dingbat]

the issue is there'd be no case unless there are actual misrepresentations. non-disclosure isn't enough because the info is directly available. if things like LST did not exist and it wasn't widely known then maybe.

been there, done that

[Anonymous User]

What a shitboomer.

So much this, brother. Listen to the Captain everyone.

[uvabro]

the issue is there'd be no case unless there are actual misrepresentations. non-disclosure isn't enough because the info is directly available. if things like LST did not exist and it wasn't widely known then maybe.

been there, done that

oh, yeah i mean there's enough righteous people in the law school world that if there really was some fraud going on, one person from these shitfest's would come over and be a witness.

[spleenworship]

You know the more I read about the law school scam the more I start to think we would be better off if we went back to reading the law.

reading =/= understanding

You know better than that. That is a bogus reading of "reading." LOL at law school imparting some sort of practical understanding that actual practice couldn't.

yes, I do. I also know that the law has gotten a lot more complicated, and that there are enough barely competent lawyers out there that we don't want them to be allowed to "teach" the next generation.

I agree that reading alone won't do it. But 2 years plus an apprenticeship isn't a bad idea.

[UVAIce]

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!

[timbs4339]

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 make up the difference 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 rest of your post basically screams caveat emptor, which is just dumb. Video cards aren't the same thing as law schools- President Obama isn't on TV talking about how everyone should go into debt to get a graphics card because high framerates will save America. And nobody's giving you money to buy the best graphics card either.

[stillwater]

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.

[crazycanuck]

I agree that reading alone won't do it. But 2 years plus an apprenticeship isn't a bad idea.

In Canada, we have 3 years + nine months articling period. The numbers of graduates per year are restricted to the number of articling positions available in any given year.

[Citizen Genet]

The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably make up the difference through the interest on their endowment.

The top 3 law schools could cut tuition entirely and pay through their endowments without ever touching the principal. Stanford might be an exception.... I'm not sure. Last I remember, most reports of Harvard and Yale's endowments are past a dozen billion dollars.

Not saying the school should do this, just saying that Harvard and Yale's (and I assume Stanford's) tuition structure has little do with making ends meet.

[timbs4339]

The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably make up the difference through the interest on their endowment.

The top 3 law schools could cut tuition entirely and pay through their endowments without ever touching the principal. Stanford might be an exception.... I'm not sure. Last I remember, most reports of Harvard and Yale's endowments are past a dozen billion dollars.

Not saying the school should do this, just saying that Harvard and Yale's (and I assume Stanford's) tuition structure has little do with making ends meet.

Law school endowment and university endowment are separate. But I recall a series of videos that Campos and Deborah Rhode did where Campos estimated the SLS endowment at around $700 million. 5% on that's $35,000,000 per year, and 35 mil/600 students is $58,333 per year. Even at 3% it's still a $35K scholly per student per year.

Harvard's endowment must be much bigger, probably CLS too. Don't know about Yale.

[dingbat]

The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably make up the difference through the interest on their endowment.

The top 3 law schools could cut tuition entirely and pay through their endowments without ever touching the principal. Stanford might be an exception.... I'm not sure. Last I remember, most reports of Harvard and Yale's endowments are past a dozen billion dollars.

Not saying the school should do this, just saying that Harvard and Yale's (and I assume Stanford's) tuition structure has little do with making ends meet.

A) it's called signalling. If a school lowers their price, it creates a perception that the quality of the education has decreased. In the '90s UPenn lowered their tuition and applications dropped significantly. The next year tuition increased and so did applications
B) just because they have an endowment doesn't mean they should give free rides to everyone who applies. They do give fantastic LRAPs so that grads don't need to enter indentured servitude just to pay off their loans - so if you get a high paying job, you're on the hook for repayment, whereas those who don't get it waived (at SH with some limitations)

[manofjustice]

Dingbat and I have covered the cost of law school extensively in a prior thread. If I recall, I argued that the increasing cost of tuition was "rent-seeking"--essentially "taking a cut of"--of future income streams of students' active investments and as such was an improper but natural market distortion, such distortions typically requiring correction by a market supervisor, usually the government (but in this case, the ABA would do just fine.) I contrasted this with "rent-seeking" of another's passive investment, like a stock, with which the investor has nothing to do but buy it to gain a profit, which is not improper. In the case of law school, a student has plenty to do on his own to reap the profit of his education and so has a right to pay only for the fair value of the services that comprise his education, and no more.

(Dean Mitchell seems not to have quite understood my argument and contrasted law school with a "passive or active" investment, if I recall...perhaps he reads TLS?)

But, before we start giving the shitboomers what they want, a rowdy crowd of Millennials sounding cranky that someone isn't paying their way, I think we should organize our initial sally in this fight on common ground. What can we say that will ring strong in the ears of all three relevant groups--ourselves, Deans and faculty, and the general public? Drop class sizes: supply has outstripped demand. What will happen to tuition prices? Well, either they'll fall on their own, as schools decrease faculty hiring and other costs in the face of smaller class sizes, or they'll stay the same. In the unlikely later case, we'll still have won a very important battle: stanching the glut into our profession. And our careers, and the quality of legal services in America, will be better for it.

[dingbat]

Dingbat and I have covered the cost of law school extensively in a prior thread. If I recall, I argued that the increasing cost of tuition was "rent-seeking" of future income streams of students' active investments

and my entire argument was that you are misusing the term "rent-seeking" and that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to finance.

Dean Mitchell seems not to have quite understood my argument and contrasted law school with a "passive or active" investment, if I recall...perhaps he reads TLS?

Of course he didn't understand your argument - apart from the fact that the dean never read it, your argument had more flaws than a 3 dollar diamond

[manofjustice]

Dingbat and I have covered the cost of law school extensively in a prior thread. If I recall, I argued that the increasing cost of tuition was "rent-seeking" of future income streams of students' active investments

and my entire argument was that you are misusing the term "rent-seeking" and that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to finance.

Dean Mitchell seems not to have quite understood my argument and contrasted law school with a "passive or active" investment, if I recall...perhaps he reads TLS?

Of course he didn't understand your argument - apart from the fact that the dean never read it, your argument had more flaws than a 3 dollar diamond

Now, see, we had this debate. And the term "rent-seeking" is put in quotations for a reason, but functionally, it's a proper application, if an unorthodox one. But more important, you should be on board with my attempt to organize the troops. It's for the greater good.

edit: hope and change.

[dingbat]

the term "rent-seeking" is put in quotations for a reason, but functionally, it's a proper application, if an unorthodox one.

no, it isn't. Every time I see the incorrect usage it makes me cringe. Do not use well-established technical or academic terms incorrectly. Saying it's a proper application doesn't make it so. It's not unorthodox, it's wrong.

[Elston Gunn]

The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably make up the difference through the interest on their endowment.

The top 3 law schools could cut tuition entirely and pay through their endowments without ever touching the principal. Stanford might be an exception.... I'm not sure. Last I remember, most reports of Harvard and Yale's endowments are past a dozen billion dollars.

Not saying the school should do this, just saying that Harvard and Yale's (and I assume Stanford's) tuition structure has little do with making ends meet.

A) it's called signalling. If a school lowers their price, it creates a perception that the quality of the education has decreased. In the '90s UPenn lowered their tuition and applications dropped significantly. The next year tuition increased and so did applications
B) just because they have an endowment doesn't mean they should give free rides to everyone who applies. They do give fantastic LRAPs so that grads don't need to enter indentured servitude just to pay off their loans - so if you get a high paying job, you're on the hook for repayment, whereas those who don't get it waived (at SH with some limitations)

I think HYS have really been part of the problem in all this. When Yale raises their tuition it gives everyone else tacit permission to do so. Yeah, Yale is worth it, but considering they're a bunch of pinko lefties, you'd think they'd see it as something more than a business they're running and consider that their actions have ripple effects throughout the industry. If HYS all charged $30-35K, there's no way NYLS would charge $50K (or whatever it is). And it's not like any of HYS would really feel the pain.

[Elston Gunn]

The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably make up the difference through the interest on their endowment.

The top 3 law schools could cut tuition entirely and pay through their endowments without ever touching the principal. Stanford might be an exception.... I'm not sure. Last I remember, most reports of Harvard and Yale's endowments are past a dozen billion dollars.

Not saying the school should do this, just saying that Harvard and Yale's (and I assume Stanford's) tuition structure has little do with making ends meet.

Law school endowment and university endowment are separate. But I recall a series of videos that Campos and Deborah Rhode did where Campos estimated the SLS endowment at around $700 million. 5% on that's $35,000,000 per year, and 35 mil/600 students is $58,333 per year. Even at 3% it's still a $35K scholly per student per year.

Harvard's endowment must be much bigger, probably CLS too. Don't know about Yale.

You're not taking into account that all these schools are spending way more per student than they charge. In that sense, including grants, they probably are giving an average scholarship of $35K per student. Granted, I'd rather have another $45K than all these awesome clinical opportunities...but these clinical opportunities are pretty sweet, and they're the kind of thing that raises the prestige of the school.

[stillwater]

ManofJustice = ManofFinance

[manofjustice]

the term "rent-seeking" is put in quotations for a reason, but functionally, it's a proper application, if an unorthodox one.

no, it isn't. Every time I see the incorrect usage it makes me cringe. Do not use well-established technical or academic terms incorrectly. Saying it's a proper application doesn't make it so. It's not unorthodox, it's wrong.

You're just being uncreative. And if I recall correctly, I believe I put the sword through the heart of your opposition to my argument by equating it with the "charge what the market can bear" principle. Now, Dean Mitchell used the same words. But since the market can bear both a higher cost (propelled by students seeking a lifetime of increased earnings) and a lower cost (propelled by out-of-work former associates seeking jobs as law professors), your principle is inferior to mine, which yields a singular market price: the fair value for the services that comprise the education.....

....but enough of that...(probably not)

What if I agree to use a different term? Will you agree to entitlement spending cuts?

[dingbat]

the term "rent-seeking" is put in quotations for a reason, but functionally, it's a proper application, if an unorthodox one.

no, it isn't. Every time I see the incorrect usage it makes me cringe. Do not use well-established technical or academic terms incorrectly. Saying it's a proper application doesn't make it so. It's not unorthodox, it's wrong.

You're just being uncreative. And if I recall correctly, I believe I put the sword through the heart of your opposition to my argument by equating it with the "charge what the market can bear" principle. Now, Dean Mitchell used the same words. But since the market can bear both a higher cost (propelled by students seeking a lifetime of increased earnings) and a lower cost (propelled by out-of-work former associates seeking jobs as law professors), your principle is inferior to mine, which yields a singular market price: the fair value for the services that comprise the education.....

....but enough of that...(probably not)

What if I agree to use a different term? Will you agree to entitlement spending cuts?

big jargon =/= big idea, but feel free to keep using terms you don't really understand and spouting off things that don't make sense (the market can bear both a higher cost and a lower cost - say what?)

[manofjustice]

The top law schools have so much money that they could cut tuition in half and probably make up the difference through the interest on their endowment.

The top 3 law schools could cut tuition entirely and pay through their endowments without ever touching the principal. Stanford might be an exception.... I'm not sure. Last I remember, most reports of Harvard and Yale's endowments are past a dozen billion dollars.

Not saying the school should do this, just saying that Harvard and Yale's (and I assume Stanford's) tuition structure has little do with making ends meet.

Law school endowment and university endowment are separate. But I recall a series of videos that Campos and Deborah Rhode did where Campos estimated the SLS endowment at around $700 million. 5% on that's $35,000,000 per year, and 35 mil/600 students is $58,333 per year. Even at 3% it's still a $35K scholly per student per year.

Harvard's endowment must be much bigger, probably CLS too. Don't know about Yale.

You're not taking into account that all these schools are spending way more per student than they charge. In that sense, including grants, they probably are giving an average scholarship of $35K per student. Granted, I'd rather have another $45K than all these awesome clinical opportunities...but these clinical opportunities are pretty sweet, and they're the kind of thing that raises the prestige of the school.

First, we don't even know if that's true. Dean Mitchell claimed he's spending from his endowment--but we don't know if from interest or principal. Second, we don't know where the money goes. Third, we don't know how much he could spend. Dean Mitchell just says he has to keep the lights on, which, while a correct statement, should be stricken from the record as irrelevant and much too flippant. Forth, there is really only one thing that raises the prestige of a school--the attractiveness of the school's graduates to employers. And that is more than a little related to the prestige of the school's incoming class.

Hence, drop class sizes and maintain medians.

To emulate a famous political consultant, we should repeat over and over again to law school faculty: "it's about the dropping LSAT test-takers, stupid."

[dingbat]

it's about the droppings, stupid