Law schools roundup

  • Law profs (some of them, anyway) bristle at “impractical scholarship” critique from Chief Justice Roberts [Ifill, ConcurOp; Adler; Chiang, Prawfs; Markel]
  • Noisy exit by University of Baltimore law dean calls attention to law schools’ role as cash cows for universities [Caron]
  • There’ll always be a legal academia: redefining banks as public nuisances [Lind via CL&P] “Disability as a Social Construct” [Areheart, Yale Law and Policy Review] North Dakota’s fiscal health? Nothing to do with shale boom or budget prudence, it’s that they’ve got a state-owned bank [Pasquale/Canova]
  • “Why Does Pedigree Drive Law Faculty Hiring?” [Paul Caron] Using the accreditation process to mandate more tenure for lawprofs? [same] “ABA to Continue as Law School Accrediter, Despite Noncompliance With 17 Regs” [same]
  • “Have Law Schools Violated Consumer Protection Laws?” [Jeff Sovern, CL&P] Villanova keeps mum after embarrassing revelations [Inquirer]


  • If banks are public nuisances, surely they are attractive nuisances, since people keep going into them.


  • Re: does pedigree drive law school hiring —

    I have always thought it was funny that the legal world has, to quote Walter’s new book, “exquisitely” agreed-upon notions of pedigree that are as inflexible as anything I have ever encountered. No other profession — medicine, engineering, etc. — seems as goddamned wrapped up in the magic bestowed by Harvard, Yale and Columbia — and nothing else, no way. Maybe Chicago and Stanford, but let’s not push it. MEANWHILE, the law — and obviously, the academy — is equally obsessed with ‘equality’ at every turn: insuring it through litigation, banning discrimination based on race, religion or sex, etc.

    How can these two co-exist?

  • How about impractical Supreme Court opinions? Too long. Too many notes. Crazy. Silly. Unworkable. Goofy. …….