tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post4780093363197930534..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: If you can't do the time . . .LawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-70749753496477313032012-03-07T05:23:02.397-08:002012-03-07T05:23:02.397-08:00The insular culture between the judiciary, law sch...The insular culture between the judiciary, law schools, etc... is the heart of the problem. Not dissimilar to the crony capitalism that has infected America. Until the disease of fraud and injustice is routed from the body politic, there will be no foundation upon which the profession can build. I predict that it will take 30-40 years to re-establish law as a profession. The damage done is beyond repair in most of our life times.Free Legalhttp://www.legaladvice.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-81456560853297220342012-03-03T01:03:02.231-08:002012-03-03T01:03:02.231-08:00Very interesting post. Brilliantly stated.
Questi...Very interesting post. Brilliantly stated.<br /><br /><a href="http://questionnaire.com/" rel="nofollow">Questionnaire</a>jaylen watkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246576951108532477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-78883519414641299742012-02-29T18:23:26.521-08:002012-02-29T18:23:26.521-08:00He's not alone, there is also DJM. As an unde...He's not alone, there is also DJM. As an underemployed alum I like to give Ohio State a hard time in these comment threads, but DJM has won my respect. She should be applauded for being brave enough to endorse Campos' message. And to my knowledge, nobody has a single bad thing to say about her. Her endorsement is significant.<br /><br />She deserves a better platform to present her thoughts than these comment threads. Maybe Campos could offer her a spot as a guest blogger, I think that would be newsworthy and probably result in many links from other legal blogs, probably even Prof X's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-89686530428659540372012-02-29T18:09:04.510-08:002012-02-29T18:09:04.510-08:00"What I'd like to know is why LawProf has..."What I'd like to know is why LawProf hasn't convinced anyone else in that faculty cafeteria to get on board enough to guest-write an entry once in a while...still the lone wolf after all of these many months?<br /><br />If so, that really isn't a good sign."<br /><br />Tell us, Prof. X, what would you write about if LawProf asked you to guest-write here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-17673026909187782342012-02-29T15:04:22.062-08:002012-02-29T15:04:22.062-08:00Where has Kerr gone? Did he get scared away by the...Where has Kerr gone? Did he get scared away by the rebuttals to his weak defense of the law school scam? <br /><br />I'd love to see him respond to the criticisms of his position. If not here, then hopefully he'll address them on his future VC post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-46960212694795124042012-02-29T14:15:11.490-08:002012-02-29T14:15:11.490-08:00@1:53 Actually Kerr is that dumb and that clueless...@1:53 Actually Kerr is that dumb and that clueless about practice. The defence that Kerr raises - as he explains himself:<br /><br />"Anonymous at 8:50, your legal analysis is poor. You argue that the schools are engaged in a scheme to obtain money or property because they want to raise prices for law school. But as you know, one of the major problems with legal education (which this blog has rightly criticized) is that every school has nearly the same tuition. That is, better schools *don't* charge more money. So the factual basis for your argument seems to be missing. Do you have another argument that might better match the facts?"<br /><br />What this comes down to is an argument that an individual indentified law school could not have gained because all of the law schools were also "cooking" their numbers - lying - and therefore the individual law school could not raise its prices anymore than its peers. What stuns me is that someone can be a law professor and make such an assinine and hopeless argument. It is a little like a drug dealer saying to the judge - "but your honor, it's not fair to punish me when ther other dealers did not get caught."<br /><br />The idea that any court is going to accept that a defendant who used material false statement to induce their victim to pay them hard cash can as a defence argue that "my material false statements don't matter because they left me no better off than my competitors because they too made material false statements and I therefore made no net gains vis-á-vis those competitors" is so unbelievably stupid that I actually find it hard to know where to start taking it apart. But let's start with the childhood "but everyone else was doing it" whine to your parents - guess what - its not a defence in court either. Next, lets consider the question of whether the action meant no net gain - this is entirely postulated on the idea that there was: (a) no net increase in the number of students going to law school overall from the collective behaviour; (b) no broad increase in the tuition chargeable as a result of the collective behaviour. That is an argument that is pretty impossible to sustain given the huge growth in law student numbers since the introduction of the USNWR Law School surveys and the massive supra-inflation growth in law school tuition, revenue per student and legal academic pay in real terms over the same period.<br /><br />Finally, I would also point out that I do not think that a judge would allow a defendant to introduce the evidence this (half-assed) defence would require of similar "bad acts" by other law-schools in any criminal action - it would fail on the first hurdle of relevance, and unless it was direct evidence from those other law-schools on grounds of hearsay - and I think any effort by one law-school defendant to secure it from another would fail - with a subpoena likely being quashed on a wide array of grounds.<br /><br />In short the sort of piffle I would expect a typical out of touch law professor to produce. PIFFLE & NONSENSE I SAY MR KERR.<br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-18637180949977411182012-02-29T13:53:48.446-08:002012-02-29T13:53:48.446-08:00"Assuming a school misrepresented its numbers..."Assuming a school misrepresented its numbers to get a higher U.S. News ranking, how is that a scheme to obtain money or property?"<br /><br />This statement or question has got to be one of the most asinine I have ever seen. It should be plain as day that lying about student prospects would directly lead to "obtaining money" via enrollments and tuition dollars.<br /><br />If, say, a law school misrepresents is numbers tobe 99% employment at $160k median salary, then students will be induced to attend even if it costs them $200k total to do it and the school can then fill all its seats with suckers.<br /><br />But if a law school gave its REAL employment numbers (i.e. 50% employment at $30k median salary), then it will have a lot more trouble filling its seats meaning a lot LESS dollars.<br /><br />The misleading numbers aren't so much to improve in US News rankings per se but to simply mislead naive students in the value of going to their law school.<br /><br />Is Mr Kerr really this dumb not to understand something that is so plain on its face???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-29949412081625417362012-02-29T13:07:55.501-08:002012-02-29T13:07:55.501-08:00"Dybbuk@10:01pm, FWIW, I also filed a brief i..."Dybbuk@10:01pm, FWIW, I also filed a brief in the Supreme Court of Ohio last month, filed another brief in the 5th Circuit last week, did a BNA web seminar with a few judges two weeks ago, and gave some free advice to some lawyers who practice in my area earlier today. But obviously I am out of touch, as I'm a law professor. ;-)"<br /><br />Professor Kerr - pardon my sarcasm, but you are really stroking yourself.<br /><br />Lets be clear - I am a practicing lawyer - I have filed briefs in court after court, a few Supreme Courts as it happens in a number of countries and - just to be clear - in the last month I have given free legal advice to peers who sought it from the US, UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Japan and a few more - and paid advice in the US, UK, Netherlands, Japan and a few more. Now, speaking from grim experience, professor's free advice is generally available at a cocktail party - and worth less than the cocktails (rail). My "free advice"is not really that free (except pro bono) but rather is a quid-pro-quo driven by the fact that I may need to ask a question later of my peer - and the fact that I really don't want to bother raising a bill for the time (and I bill at about $800) - oh yes - I also do that for clients quite a lot, especially when they call me late at night. And yes, I have written articles and books - one of my books oddly enough did not sell that well, but Thomson told me was one of their most stolen books from the counter at conferences (those lawyers, or is it professors) - it was apparently thin but useful and easily concealed. In any event I would not be too impressed with yourself - some of the audience here are law students you may think you can overawe - but a good few are senior practitioners - and I for one am most unimpressed with your preening - since I can preen so much better.<br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-49216143095588546362012-02-29T12:52:34.951-08:002012-02-29T12:52:34.951-08:00One weakness in the article that I did note - and ...One weakness in the article that I did note - and it has a bearing on mail fraud and wire fraud. The law schools are also typically the arrangers of the student loans, that is to say that you apply for the loans through the law school's own financial aid office. This may raise issues of fiduciary duty to the student as a borrower in some states. More significantly, until a series of cases were brought in 2007 and 2008 it was not unusual for many private lenders to enter into revenue sharing deals with colleges and law schools - these were regarded as creating an incentive for schools to steer students towards often less competitive lenders. <br /><br />Even now, despite Mr. Kerr's rather asinine posting, it is apparent that if false information leads law students to overpay for services and worse allows the school to arrange loans whose proceeds (even without revenue sharing) the law school will promptly receive, this is a pretty significant issue. My recollection is that in one or two of the precedents cited in the article (the one relating to land sales near/far from a lake) the guilty party had also arranges loans to buy the land - and that arranging purchase loans may have been a factor in more Mail/Wire Fraud and RICO cases I reviewed in the past (time shares come to mind.) <br /><br />MacKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-72444103225212347852012-02-29T06:54:21.712-08:002012-02-29T06:54:21.712-08:00Kerr's whole schtick is to show up and poke li...Kerr's whole schtick is to show up and poke little holes in arguments. It's supposed to identify him as one of the reasonable people. It's bullshit. Kerr has never cared about saving unemployed law grads, absolutely nothing he has written in the 5 years I've been following VC indicates that he gives one shit about this. He is definitely one of the people who belongs in jail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-74292894107074110872012-02-29T06:17:10.706-08:002012-02-29T06:17:10.706-08:00I should add that I'm sure that law schools ma...I should add that I'm sure that law schools market to prospective employers. I don't understand however what value USN&WR gives them that their own efforts does not. <br /><br />In other words, if their motivation is what Kerr states, why do they need to do so through USN&WR? <br /><br />The clearly think that influencing the public assists them in getting their graduates hired, if his argument is to be believed. <br /><br />Well, they can't accept the good (getting students hired) without the bad (convincing students to enroll when they have no reasonable shot at getting a job post graduation) when they chose to report their deliberately misleading statistics to USN&WR.<br /><br />In fact, if they report misleading information, they may actually hurt their students' prospects for employment because the schools could properly question the credibility of any information the school provides.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-40614299730719665462012-02-29T06:11:01.446-08:002012-02-29T06:11:01.446-08:00"In my experience, one of the major motivatio..."In my experience, one of the major motivations to have misleading stats has been to help current students and recent graduates get jobs."<br /><br />This is not credible. We can test this by asking and deposing the people who hold this "motivation." <br /><br />Further, if this were the case, one would expect that the law schools and USN&WR would engage in extensive marketing to prospective employers. And it would seem that they would have a different presentation or special report that highlights the employment data, as they are seeking to influence prospective employers. Much of the other information in the USN&WR magazine is less relevant to employers and if there are specific questions, employers can ask the schools directly.<br /><br />Clearly they market their best schools magazines to the general public and not to the employers who may be hiring graduates of the schools. <br /><br />It would seem that discovery would help us test whether Kerr's assertion is indeed the case. <br /><br />(Do schools really want to go through depositions or produce documents though? I doubt it.)<br /><br />Even if some school had good intentions in reporting misleading data, does that excuse them from legal responsibility when they "knew or should have known" that the public was relying on that data to a greater degree than potential employers?<br /><br />0Ls are not sophisticated consumers, they are just as gullible as any other member of the general public (they may have greater egos or think themselves smarter, but there are many who assume that what is reported in USN&WR is accurate and reliable). <br /><br />Potential employers are much more knowledgeable and sophisticated and can not be expected to give the same level of credence to information reported there by the schools. <br /><br />It is not convincing to simply state that the schools' reported false information with the students' best interest in mind. There were certainly better ways to influence potential employers than knowingly reporting misleading employment information to USN&WR. <br /><br />If "one of the major motivations to have misleading stats has been to help current students and recent graduates get jobs" is the case, it does not overshadow the many other MAJOR motivations the schools have to ensure that misleading stats are published. <br /><br />Clearly the schools will emphasize this "MAJOR" motivation and plaintiffs will emphasize the many others that exist, chief among them is financial gain. <br /><br />It is too early to say who will prevail, but it is not clear that the motivation ( to get more grads hired,claimed as major by Kerr)is correct. <br /><br />Kerr himself acknowledges that this is just one motivation. It's not hard to think of others that don't leave the law schools (or USN&WR) in such a favorable light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-22636410064863605352012-02-29T06:01:09.807-08:002012-02-29T06:01:09.807-08:00"Reading over the draft paper, the authors ap..."Reading over the draft paper, the authors appear to have overlooked the critical element needed to establish wire fraud or bank fraud: The purpose of the scheme must be to obtain money or property. It's one of the three basic elements of each of the offenses.<br /><br />Assuming a school misrepresented its numbers to get a higher U.S. News ranking, how is that a scheme to obtain money or property? Is the idea that a school has an intangible property interest in its U.S. News ranking? That seems like a stretch to me."<br /><br />I have not read the paper, but this comment seems...dumb, with all due respect. <br /><br />Law schools have initial, then ongoing accreditation standards. With accreditation comes a minimal level of prestige, such as allowing graduates to apply to sit for the bar in any state of the country. <br /><br />With prestige comes money, in the form of demand for student enrollment and alumni contributions, among other things. <br /><br />The US News stats provided by the law schools mirror those used to obtain, then maintain ABA accreditation. Maintaining accreditation by publishing false and/or misleading statistics allows schools to fundraise off of a list of things that mirror what they use to obtain, then maintain accreditation. <br /><br />Here:<br /><br />"Each law school is required to complete a comprehensive Annual Questionnaire, which inquires into facts relevant to continued compliance with accrediting Standards. The questionnaire elicits information and data regarding curriculum, faculty, facilities, fiscal and administrative capacity, technology resources, student profiles, bar passage rates, and student placement data."<br /><br />Source:<br /><br />http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/accreditation.html<br /><br />The schools will also publish this false information in glossy brochures they use to entice students to enroll. Those students end up financing a large chunk of the school's operating budget and the cushy lifestyles of the elites who run them. <br /><br />Source:<br /><br />Every fucking law school brochure evarr<br /><br />When a hypothetical law school stated 3 years ago that 89% of grads were employed after 9 months of graduation" without specifying whether these grads were employed in a career that had anything to do with the law, then that "fact" (using the term loosely) was used as a package of information to show "prestige", which was then used to fundraise off of and to publish glossy brochures to entice enrollment. This information was also provided to US News and appears as part of a school's profile. <br /><br />The fact that the ABA gave ground on this gap in "what a school reports" vs. "what a reasonable prudent person reading what the school reports would conclude from reading it" supports this argument:<br /><br />http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/12/aba-approves-new.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-82887070627639263462012-02-29T05:58:11.806-08:002012-02-29T05:58:11.806-08:00Orin,
To fail to see how the perpetrators of the...Orin, <br /><br />To fail to see how the perpetrators of the law school scam enrich themselves through fraudulent advertising requires mental gymnastics usually reserved for republican presidential candidates explaining how "freedom" means limiting the innocuous actions of consenting adults, or why corporations are people. <br /><br />I tell you if you buy my magic beans you'll grow rich beyond your wildest dreams. See, I have data from all the other bean buyers. Look at them, they are all baller rich. Now take out a non-dischargable loan for 150,000, and buy my magic beans.terry malloynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-38653751969328412172012-02-29T05:44:50.897-08:002012-02-29T05:44:50.897-08:00Though current and recently graduated students are...Though current and recently graduated students are the primary victims in the scheme, the administrators are primarily defrauding other stakeholders such as the university board of trustees, alumni (I know my alma mater trumpets each upward motion on the US News ladder and hits me for donations), and potential future employers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-27375907210689067672012-02-29T05:37:55.275-08:002012-02-29T05:37:55.275-08:00The case for law schools is not direct tit for tat...The case for law schools is not direct tit for tat, but the case against its agents – deans and senior administrators, is more so. The more prestigious the school, the higher the wages commanded by its administrators for running a “successful” school. (Also, the professors are more likely to be highly paid at “successful” schools, get good consulting gigs, and get to author extremely expensive textbooks). While the students are not being defrauded directly for their tuition (except where they went to a school without a scholarship when their stats could have gained a scholarship elsewhere), they’re lured into the school under false pretenses and then packaged as part of the “successful” school for the financial gain of law school agents.<br /><br />I don't think this is so different from financial fraud, where the agents of a firm induce fraudulent transactions and gain through end of the year performance bonuses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-60283041964794947842012-02-29T05:00:34.887-08:002012-02-29T05:00:34.887-08:00"@9:07: In my experience, one of the major mo..."@9:07: In my experience, one of the major motivations to have misleading stats has been to help current students and recent graduates get jobs."<br /><br />So they're lying to the students, but we just don't understand, they're doing it to benefit the students and help them get jobs. Riiiiiiiight.<br /><br />My guess is that the students rely far more on employment statistics in choosing a law school than employers rely on them to decide which schools to recruit. Firms know who the top 14, top 20 or top 25 schools are, and they don't need a magazine to tell them. Biglaw has been recruiting the same schools (and avoiding the same schools) for a century. That's the reason for the LSAT craze in the first place, to put one's self at least in the position to land one of these jobs. <br /><br />For the lowest 100, and perhaps the lowest 150 schools in the rankings, USNWR has one, and only one message that they want to make sure gets delivered: "Regardless of how low we rank, how poorly we place, or how outrageous our tuition, we're still a great investment. Why, virtually all of our students are employed, and our average salaries are so high, law school is worth the investment many times over. If you have any doubt about getting out that checkbook, just look at these stats, and you'll feel so much better about the investment you're about to make....in yourself!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-46182088857048714252012-02-29T04:49:52.071-08:002012-02-29T04:49:52.071-08:00I will say this. Mr. Kerr is one of a handful of l...I will say this. Mr. Kerr is one of a handful of law professors that I could name, and that is as a result of his contributions to the field. So I have no bone to pick with him on that score. <br /><br />Having said that, his responses do show a bit of a blind spot, I'm afraid. <br /><br />How do the misreported facts show an intent to gain money?<br /><br />Simple. If they reported the true facts, many, if not most law schools would almost certainly see a drop in applications, which leads directly to a less qualified class, which leads to even worse employment outcomes. <br /><br />Eventually, it means people might be less likely to pay $40,000 per year in tutition alone if they realize how likely it is that they might wind up checking out customers at Target or pouring coffee at Starbucks.....or for that matter, being willing to trade their right arm for a legal job that pays $37,000, and then trying to make student loan payments of $2,000 a month on that salary. <br /><br />Perhaps you find that string too tenuous, but I would bet that many reasonable people will not. After all, there is a reason the problem is so widespread amongst the law schools. <br /><br />They know full well that the minute they publish something accurate, like that they have 56, or 67% of their class employed in actual, full-time legal employment, their applications are going to drop like a rock. GW may be fine for a year or two until reality sets in. The bottom 50-75 schools will not. They will likely have trouble filling seats immediately, if the true employment outcomes were made known, and made known in time for students to make a decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-11008302095631221092012-02-29T03:48:30.874-08:002012-02-29T03:48:30.874-08:00Orin Kerr might be right that some employers care ...Orin Kerr might be right that some employers care about USNWR rankings. However I think the total influence those rankings have on employers pales in comparison to the influence it has on law school applicants, who almost universally take them seriously. <br /><br />Orin Kerr, you are an asshole. Ever since this blog launched, you have firmly placed yourself on the side of its detractors, trying to undermine its author and message. Meanwhile, your own school is the most expensive in the country and placing 17% in biglaw. You are part of the problem and I hope so badly that one day you are dealt with appropriately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-24098647666999617052012-02-28T23:29:55.155-08:002012-02-28T23:29:55.155-08:00dybbuk, sure, of course.
Yes, GW has such a cli...dybbuk, sure, of course. <br /><br />Yes, GW has such a clinic. It mostly focuses on appeals in the Maryland state court system, especially in the court of special appeals level. <br />http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/EL/clinics/Pages/FCA.aspxOrin Kerrhttp://volokh.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-39520598285575375642012-02-28T23:26:29.244-08:002012-02-28T23:26:29.244-08:00Orin Kerr,
That is okay. I prefer not to say any...Orin Kerr, <br /><br />That is okay. I prefer not to say any more about myself, though, at least now. A couple of threads ago, I learned that I have a cyber-stalker of my very own. <br /><br />Does GW have an appellate defender clinic? If not, it should. My office recruited entry-level assistant defenders from among the most promising students in the clinic. <br /><br />dybbukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-87445933416848351912012-02-28T23:05:30.034-08:002012-02-28T23:05:30.034-08:00dybbuk,
Fair enough -- sorry if that came off as...dybbuk, <br /><br />Fair enough -- sorry if that came off as obnoxious. And I agree you were horribly underpaid; the pay for public defenders and prosecutors in the state system is terrible. (Oh, and I also gave free advice to trial counsel every day when I was at DOJ; it was part of my job, too. I still do it routinely now, but I get fewer calls.) I just found the webinar online, and unfortunately BNA charges for it. Ridiculous, but so it goes. <br /><br />Just curious, why did do you leave the public defender's office?Orin Kerrhttp://volokh.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-23359013687199464352012-02-28T22:54:07.950-08:002012-02-28T22:54:07.950-08:00Orin Kerr,
If you will notice, my post was a relu...Orin Kerr,<br /><br />If you will notice, my post was a reluctant acknowledgement that your scholarship has had some value to the profession, in contrast to most of your colleagues.<br /><br />Kindly, though, don't brag about filing a couple of briefs. When I was with the appellate division of the public defender, I briefed two cases per month. Why was my starting salary, and that of my colleagues, around 1/3 of what an entry-level law professor makes?<br /><br />As for providing free advice to trial counsel, that is something that we offered every day--a totally routine part of the job. It would never even have crossed my mind, or that of my colleagues, to brag about it.<br /><br />I am sure your webinar was very very nice. If it is offered for free online, I will be sure to doze through it, as I am still a few CLE credits short. <br /><br />dybbukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-47854816189490173632012-02-28T22:41:56.927-08:002012-02-28T22:41:56.927-08:00@9:07: I should add, have you looked at the cases ...@9:07: I should add, have you looked at the cases on the "money or property" requirement? The cases I have looked at seem to require a closer nexus than you suggest. If you know of cases that support your view, I'd be interested to read them. I plan to write a blog post on this over at the VC if I have time, so if you know of cases pointing your way, that would be helpful.<br /><br />Also, allow me to apologize to Anonymous at 8:50: I said your legal analysis is poor, when I should have said something more like "I don't find your analysis convincing." Whether the analysis was poor or not is a judgment that is up to the reader.Orin Kerrhttp://volokh.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-7464379049348786992012-02-28T22:33:54.287-08:002012-02-28T22:33:54.287-08:00Anonymous at 8:50, your legal analysis is poor. ...Anonymous at 8:50, your legal analysis is poor. You argue that the schools are engaged in a scheme to obtain money or property because they want to raise prices for law school. But as you know, one of the major problems with legal education (which this blog has rightly criticized) is that every school has nearly the same tuition. That is, better schools *don't* charge more money. So the factual basis for your argument seems to be missing. Do you have another argument that might better match the facts?<br /><br />Also, while I'm at it, which chapter of the hornbook did you read? if you're referring to the Lafave Crim Pro hornbook, I only did one chapter -- the chapter on network surveillance law. If that chapter sucked, I hope you'll offer me some suggestions on how you think it could be improved. And if you have suggestions for the other chapters, I'd be happy to pass them on to my co-authors.<br /><br />@9:07: In my experience, one of the major motivations to have misleading stats has been to help current students and recent graduates get jobs. A lot of people think that the US News ranking of the school determines employers' perceptions of how good the school's graduates are. The better the numbers seem, the better the US News ranking; the better the U.S. News ranking, the more employers will want to hire the graduates; the more employers will want to hire the graduates, the more students and graduates are likely to get hired. So schools who want to help their students and graduates get jobs have an incentive to give U.S. News an overly flattering picture. I agree that schools should not give in to that temptation, though, even when they perceive that other competitor schools are engaging in the same games.<br /><br /><br />Dybbuk@10:01pm, FWIW, I also filed a brief in the Supreme Court of Ohio last month, filed another brief in the 5th Circuit last week, did a BNA web seminar with a few judges two weeks ago, and gave some free advice to some lawyers who practice in my area earlier today. But obviously I am out of touch, as I'm a law professor. ;-)Orin Kerrhttp://volokh.comnoreply@blogger.com