In the midst of a challenging economic climate, the Rutgers School of Law–Camden is emerging as a smart investment for strong career preparation.What is their proof for this high-flown, completely contrary statement that spending $200k in real cost on a legal education is a "smart investment" when it may yield only a negligible increase in earning power for the majority of graduates?
Oh yes - surveys! First, they cite the flawed US News and World survey I've already discussed (even if the survey were accurate, it wouldn't necessary mean that Rutgers-Camden is a "smart investment" given that there's no discussion of alternatives). Second, they cite some meaningless Forbes survey ("The Best Law Schools for Getting Rich;" no, I did not make that up) that tracked mid-career earnings of people a generation or two above the current class of applicants as proof that Rutgers-Camden will bring the current class the same piles of lucre.
Folks, if that logic worked, people should forget law school and invest every dime in IBM, GE, and Microsoft. After all, if it worked for people in 1980, surely it'll work for today's kids.
Given how ridiculous such a proposition is for ordinary investing, it's preposterous that (a) anyone serious argues that because going to law school [x] made some 45-year-old rich, it'll do the same for today's 22-year-olds; and (b) anyone actually believes it.
But don't worry, Rutgers-Camden is obviously a very special institution that is clearly different than its peers on multiple levels:
“The true measure of the Rutgers School of Law–Camden is in the success of our students and graduates, the excellent scholarship of our faculty, the friendly service delivered by our staff, and our ability to help the citizens of New Jersey through our highly effective pro bono and clinical programs. Rutgers–Camden excels in each of these important areas.”Additionally, the Rutgers–Camden law school is included in the 2011 Princeton Review Best 172 Law Schools.
Whoa, can I still transfer to this magical, unique place? I'm convinced I'll be rich in 10 years.
In other news, Case-Western has been without a real dean for a while, and now one of the finalists, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, is coming under fire as some of the Case-Western community has launched a website opposing him:
"CaseAgainstSmith.com seeks to inform members of the Case Western Reserve University community about Smith's radical views and history," says an unsigned press release on the web site. "Smith has been described as the intellectual powerhouse behind efforts to roll back Watergate-era campaign finance reforms. . . . We are concerned that the appointment of a radical such as Smith to Dean of the Law School could distract from the many strengths of Case Western Reserve University."You can view the actual website here. Basically, Smith was amicus curae for the very unpopular side of Citizens United, has connections to the Koch Brothers, and has a murky ethical history when it comes to corporate-political-judicial entanglements. Frankly, I understand the concerns. It's simply impossible to separate some people from their politics when their views are so radical and antithetical that it detracts from their ability to lead a large organization, especially one like a law school that is (supposedly) committed to educating students in ethics, fairness, collegiality, and all the traits that should make the profession and its social function worth a damn; they may fail much of the time, but that's the ideal. And if students have no respect for the people running the system, the school's mission is undermined (which is another reason why schools' misleading of students is so nefarious, but I digress).
In addition to claiming the Supreme Court's adoption of his views relieves him of being a radical (need I remind him that the S.C. once adopted pro-slavery views?), Smith has responded that "One doesn't seek a deanship to advance a political agenda, and the school isn't choosing a political leader." I find that highly disingenuous and an absurdly narrow view of what "political" means, or what a deanship symbolizes to a school.
In a final piece of news, I'd like to promote the upcoming panel "JDs in the New Economy." It's going to be this Thursday April 7, 2011, at 12 eastern/11 central. Third Tier Reality's Nando will be participating along with a number of esteemed people (including Dean Closius of Baltimore, whose contradictory statements in the NYT article I discussed back in January). The group will specifically discuss the value of a law degree and law school curriculum. Unfortunately, I won't be able to listen in but it looks to be fun, it's free and I encourage my readers to do so if they're available.
This will be an informative - and perhaps heated - debate. After all, Closius is FULLY AWARE that the US News ranking scheme is bullcrap - but he gladly goes along with their nonsense. What a truly cynical person.
ReplyDeleteOh puhleeze. "In addition to claiming the Supreme Court's adoption of his views relieves him of being a radical (need I remind him that the S.C. once adopted pro-slavery views?)"
ReplyDelete- You're equating Citizens United with Dred Scott?
"Smith was amicus curae for the very unpopular side of Citizens United, has connections to the Koch Brothers"
- To use your logic from above, need I remind you which was the unpopular (and, like Smith in Citizens United, the winning) side of Brown v. Board of Education; or Miranda, or Gideon, or Chaplinsky, etc. etc.
"has a murky ethical history when it comes to corporate-political-judicial entanglements."
- Really? What is that? Where have Smith's ethics ever been questioned? Where has he done anything unethical?
"It's simply impossible to separate some people from their politics when their views are so radical and antithetical that it detracts from their ability to lead a large organization, especially one like a law school that is (supposedly) committed to educating students in ethics, fairness, collegiality, and all the traits that should make the profession and its social function worth a damn;"
- How is Smith unable to help "educate students in ethics, fairness, collegiality, and all the traits that should make the profession and its social function worth a damn"? Other than that you and a tiny number of Case students and alumni, or people who claim to be Case students and alumni, anyway, disagree with his views on free speech?
"One doesn't seek a deanship to advance a political agenda, and the school isn't choosing a political leader." I find that highly disingenuous and an absurdly narrow view of what "political" means, or what a deanship symbolizes to a school."
- Would you apply that to past and present law deans such as Gene Nichol, former very successful Dean at Colorado and North Carolina who was a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and for Congress? Former Clinton appointee Christopher Edley, successful dean at Berkeley? New Chapman law dean, former dean at Berkeley's business school, and former congressman Tom Campbell? Cal-Irvine Dean Erwin Chemerinsky? Former Catholic U. law dean and current Obama Ambassador to Malta Doug Kmiec? Would you be all worked up if Cass Sunstein left the Obama administration for a deanship?
"You're equating Citizens United with Dred Scott?"
ReplyDeleteI did no such thing.
"Where have Smith's ethics ever been questioned?"
See website I cited to.
"How is Smith unable to help "educate students in ethics, fairness, collegiality, and all the traits that should make the profession and its social function worth a damn"?"
I didn't say he wasn't; I said I understand the concerns, and I do.
"Would you apply that...[blah blah blah]..."
I wrote two paragraphs pointing to the issue and saying I agree that there are concerns. I don't know if any of those individuals had similar concerns, similar polarizing views, etc. Without that context, it'd be dumb of me to make any hard conclusions.
I don't care what Case does. I merely said that if an unnamed number of students are taking out a webpage against a dean, it's a viable concern. It might only be one loon spouting off. If that's the case, I wouldn't give it much weight. But if it's multiple faculty members, that's a problem.
That's it.