Monday, February 13, 2012

Profiles in Academic $elf Intere$t and Patent Dishonesty: Neil H. Buchanan, “professor of law” at George Washington University

Intellectual Deception in Action:

On February 9, 2012, some Ass-Clown called Neil H. Buchanan wrote a blog piece entitled “The Long-Term Damage From the Assault on Law Schools.” Here is a sampling of his drivel:

“My overall reaction to the public discussion is that far too many people are launching broad, baseless, ill-informed attacks on an institution that is both fundamentally well designed and essential to the maintenance of a civilized society.

This raucous atmosphere might have the effect of reducing the number of people who are potentially interested in attending law school. We have, in fact, seen a pronounced drop in law school applications this year, which could certainly be a response to the idea that law school is nothing but a "scam" or a waste of students' borrowed money. Of course, there are multiple explanatory factors at work, most obviously the continued recession-level employment prospects for far too many law graduates. Potential students need not believe any of the nonsensical attacks on the case method, nor pay any heed to the false claim that law professors are writing useless articles, to conclude that their individual best choice today is to delay applying to law school (or even to choose never to attend).”

Consider the following, ball-less shill: when people have constantly been told, since infancy, that “higher education” is the key to their future - and they then end up unemployed or marginally employed after they spent SEVEN YEARS in post-secondary institutions, and incurred a mountain of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - you should expect that MANY of them will be hostile, bitch. Rat-face concluded his asinine, intellectually dishonest article with the following:

“In short, [t]he New York Times and other news sources are doing serious damage to the long-term prospects of the legal academy, and ultimately to society as a whole. That damage, however goes far beyond the possibility that our future client pool is being drained on the basis of over-hyped claims. The future of intellectual inquiry is at stake, and there is good reason to fear that the damage being done now will have serious consequences well into the future.”

If you believe that ABA-accredited law schools/diploma mills are essential to the maintenance of a civilized society, then you must be blind, deaf, stupid, or a pathological liar.

The Facts Refute Paid Mouthpiece and Deceiver Buchanan:

On June 13, 2010, Brian Tamanaha wrote a blog entry at Balkinization, entitled “Wake Up, Fellow Law Professors, to the Casualties of Our Enterprise.”  He came out swinging:

"This dismal situation was not created by the current recession—which merely spread the pain up the chain into the lower reaches of elite schools. This has been going on for years." [Emphasis mine]

Buchanan’s insistence on blaming the lawyer job market entirely on the current “recession” is comical and delusional.  When you annually continue to over-produce JDs and attorneys, for decades, then once an economic downturn - or fundamental restructuring - takes place, this will lead to disaster, mental midget.

According to the ABA chart “Enrollment and Degrees Awarded 1963-2010,” between academic years 1980-1981 to 2009-2010 - a span of thirty years - ABA-accredited law schools awarded 1,161,863 law degrees. Yes, that is correct: these diploma mills collectively produced one million, one hundred sixty-one thousand, eight hundred and sixty three law graduates - in 30 years!! Do you still want to defend this sick $y$tem, you filthy swine?!?!

Based on the NALP Class of 2010 National Summary Report - which was compiled from information submitted by ABA diploma mills - 44,258 law graduates competed for 28,167 jobs “requiring bar passage.” Do you see a problem with that, moron?!?!

Regarding legal “scholarship,” John G. Roberts, current leader of the Supremes, has now TWICE publicly ripped into the uselessness of law review articles. Hell, he was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review - and he still bitch-slapped this supposed bedrock of “legal education.”

On February 10, 2012, Neil H. Buchanan felt the need to change his tampon, regarding Roberts’s views on legal “scholarship.” It must be tough knowing that your “work” is considered garbage, by the very people that you are desperately trying to impress. Anyone who has been to law school knows that these academic pinheads often view article III “judges” - and especially the Supremes - as rock stars.

On April 20, 2011, Karen Sloan authored a piece for the National Law Journal, under the headline “Legal scholarship carries a high price tag.” Here is a sampling:

“What is the total cost of a law review article written by a tenured professor at a top-flight law school?

It's in the neighborhood of $100,000, according to Hofstra University School of Law professor Richard Neumann. His estimate factors in the salary and benefits for a tenured professor at a high-paying school who spends between 30% and 50% of his or her time on scholarship and publishes one article per year.” [Emphasis mine]

After seeing a list of his “scholarly” articles, on his curriculum vitae, I can see why Buchanan wants to keep this system running.

Conclusion: Apparently, this pig is not concerned with how the GLUT of attorneys is affecting current law students, recent graduates and the public. He only sees this issue” from the institution’s viewpoint. Neil H. Buchanan is simply trying to sell others on the alleged “benefits” of a law degree. Before buying into this sewer rat’s “argument,” keep in mind that his school charges $45,750 in tuition - for the 2011-2012 academic year.  Why should you believe such a used car salesman?!


  1. broad, baseless ill-informed attacks? What is this boy smokin'?

    All I've seen is a bunch of broad, insightful, well informed views backed up by a lot of facts. By the people with really nothing to gain by exposing the law schools. Meanwhile the ones defending this shitty system have a financial stake in the matter.

  2. In the fashion of a pompous academic, Neil dismisses attacks on the caselaw method with a single word: "nonsensical" and attacks on the overproduction of law review articles with a single word: "false." He assumes these points are self-evidence, and does not deign to elaborate.

    But how would he know? Neil has never represented a client, it seems, or held a law job, except for a single judicial clerkship in 2002-2003.

    Maybe Neil should have a heart-to-heart with some of his ex-students-- the shrinking minority who actally find a law job-- and ask them to assess the caselaw method for its value in teaching doctrine efficiently or in preparing them for practice. He should also ask those same students how often they have cited one of his many law review articles in a brief or pleading.

  3. He just writes that so his employer thinks he is actually working to justify his paycheck(not that employer cares as they only look up to stop counting money). Getting published in any publication even with an op ed that he spent 15 minutes writing is the legal faculty equivalent of a threesome with Salma Hayek and Sofia Vergara.

    This dude is simply a douche who offers nothing that anyone who has ever practiced law knows is entirely worthless. Keep those law students in awe and chasing that carrot with such indepth analysis. Hell, this might even justify a tuition increase.

    Those who can, do, those who cant, teach law at GWU.

  4. “In short, [t]he New York Times and other news sources are doing serious damage to the long-term prospects of the legal academy"

    Nothing is doing as much damage to the legal academy as the graduates themselves who day by day are refusing to be silent about their poor job prospects.

    I have two friends in law school right now (at OSU) and they'd jump for joy getting a 40k salary. Take a look at Nando's profile to see how much debt they're in -- I'll give you a hint, it's much more than 40k.

  5. 'Those who can, do, those who cant, teach law at GWU.'

    instant classic. That brought joy to this world weary soul.

  6. You are right about Buchanan, but Richard Neumann is a pig too. He teaches at one of the worst offenders, Hofstra. Do you think he does anything to help the students at Hofstra? No! he just wrote the article because he knew it would get his name out there.

  7. Let's be real here. If Buchanan were a car salesman, would you buy a car from him? If you have to think about it, just look at his picture and take in his smarmy and creepy smile. Now why should you trust this man to know what he is talking about when discussing the abysmal state of legal "education?" Personally, I wouldn't buy water from this lout if I was thirsty and crawling on the Sahara desert.

  8. I wouldn't buy a coat from this creepy bastard if I was in Siberia in the middle of winter!

  9. If you haven't covered GW law, I think it should be your next entry. Prof. Campos has a good article on "trap schools" and cites GW, which is an overrated and overpriced heap of shit that boasts trumping Catholic and American in the D.C. markets.

  10. What about me? I don't count? What about my student loan debt?

    What about how my student loan debt is going to grow to close to a million dollars?

    What about how I will carry my student loan debt for fifty years?

    Where was the legal profession that allowed student loan usury and the law school scam?

    My life is OVER.

    Kids, your life doesn't have to be.

    People like Buchanan are anything but "Civilized"

    He is barbaric in the true sense that the late Philosophy Profesor Allan Bloom would have described.

  11. ^^^Correction:

    It will grow close to 2 Million dollars. Cast in stone and honest to gods truth unless I win the lottery.

  12. Check out this article from Jess Bravin. His Wall Street Journal Law Blog entry, from April 7, 2010, is labeled “Chief Justice Roberts on Obama, Justice Stevens, Law Reviews, More.” The piece shows that even Roberts does not find legal “scholarship” very useful:

    “Perhaps relatedly, Roberts said he doesn’t pay much attention to academic legal writing. Law review articles are “more abstract” than practical, and aren’t “particularly helpful for practitioners and judges.”

    In case Dumbass Neil H. Buchanan and his ilk want to argue that this is a blip, check out this July 11, 2011 blog entry, from the American Constitution Society.

    “Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. at the recent Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference grabbed a few relatively easy applause lines – by knocking the work of law professors.

    Specifically Roberts claimed that legal scholarship is not relevant to the work of lawyers and judges, saying he is on the same page with Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who believes there is a great “disconnect between the academy and the profession.”

    Roberts continued, “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.”

    Roberts added that he doesn’t necessarily think anything is wrong with such an approach, albeit a relatively irrelevant one. “If the academy wants to deal with the legal issues at a particularly abstract, philosophical level,” Roberts continued, “that’s great and that’s their business, but they shouldn’t expect that it would be of any particular help or even interest to the members of the practice of the bar or judges.”

    Perhaps the audio will clear up any confusion that academic cockroaches may experience. Head to the 30:30 mark, to hear his commentary on this topic.

  13. Law professors live in a fantasy where they believe lawyers and judges are hanging on their last breath waiting for their latest article to be published and read. Having clerked for a judge, I can tell you that judges do not care much for law review articles or treatises. I was a bit shocked to learn this especially since in law school these windbag professors act like they can walk on water and are gods of the profession. My judge explained that law professors would like to believe they influence legislation and how law is interpreted when in fact they know better than to rely on the constructions of "academics" who could not hack the practice of law.

    I had a professor who used to talk about his days at Cravath and how he was instrumental in the ConocoPhillips litigation of the early '80s. In reality, that fucker was a doc review monkey who was confined to the law library. But when you heard this professor talk, he would act as if he secured the settlement himself single handedly. These profs are a fucking joke. But guess what? THey are laughing to the bank as kids continue to get saddled with non-dischargeable debt to be sold a useless bill of goods.

  14. William Randolph Hearst is a cocksuckerFebruary 13, 2012 at 8:02 PM

    Shit, judges are influenced more by the outcome of a baseball game than they are by any of the shit these professors conjure up. No one has any use for law reviews. I suppose you can use them to prop open a door. Or as a fucking coaster.

  15. Even current students at GW law know that the place sucks...

  16. How many students must be indentured for this guy to get a chinlift?! I mean look at him, either he got some work done or somebody's pulling from behind. Terrible work, not even a first semester! Shameful!

  17. Who is pulling this man's skin behind his skin?! I wanna know!

  18. I mean LOL @ LOOK AT HIM! Unless he's talking about how to sue your plastic surgeon, then he's full of MALLLLLLLPRACTICE!!!! LOL

  19. Maybe a segment on law professors that have obviously had plastic surgery work done . . . Wow! Look at this guy. Look's like a poltergeist from behind...

  20. Useless articles? Never! Professor Buchanan is right to scoff at such a "false claim." Law professors provide the practicing bar with invaluable scholarly guidance. I would never file a brief or motion without consulting, and probably citing, the following titles (by Brian Leiter):

    *"Incommensurability: Truth or Consequences?" 146 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1723

    * "Why Quine Is Not a Postmodernist." 50 Southern Methodist University Law Review 1739 (1997).

    * "Heidegger and the Theory of Adjudication." 106 Yale Law Journal 253 (1996).

    * "Determinacy, Objectivity, and Authority." 142 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 549 (1993)

  21. Go to Buchanan's CV. He's written some pretty useless shit. Just look at his blog entries defending higher ed.

  22. This guy is another Brian Leiter. He is an economics professor teaching in a law school. The curious thing is that a PhD in economics from Harvard would lead to plenty of job opportunities. Why then go to law school after completing a PhD? Reasons include: 1) he easily tripled his salary; 2) he gets to teach a cushy 2/2 teaching load; 3) he gets to teach more mature students in a professional environment, not macroeconomics to 500 18 year olds at a state university; 4) as a law school professor he has many more outlets to publish his articles, since every law school has like two journals. If he was on an economics faculty, he would have to produce rigorous, empirical research that would face stern competition to get published in a prestigious journal. If you look at his CV, none of his publications are in anywhere good. All in all, Professor Buchanan made a brilliant cost-benefit analysis and figured out law school teaching was the gravy train for him. Of course, the poor students at GW are the ones who have to subsidize his comfortable lifestyle.

  23. Defending the American tradition since May 14, 1607.


  25. Here is a sampling of this hag’s “work”:


    Published and Forthcoming Articles The (Severe) Limits of Efficiency Analysis in Taxation, in David Brennen and Karen Brown, Beyond Efficiency (2012) (forthcoming)

    Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt, __ Louisville L. Rev. ____ (2012) (forthcoming) Good Deficits: Protecting the Public Interest from Deficit Hysteria, 31 VIRGINIA TAX REVIEW 75 (2011)

    What Kind of Environment Do We Owe Future Generations? 15 LEWIS & CLARK LAW REVIEW 339 (2011)

    Medicare Meets Mephistopheles: Health Care, Government Spending, and Economic Prosperity, 29 MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE LAW REVIEW 319 (2010)

    Four out of Four Panelists Agree: U.S. Fiscal Policy Does Not Cheat Future Generations, 77 GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1402 (2009)

    What Do We Owe Future Generations? 77 GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1237 (2009)

    “Generational Theft”? U.S. Fiscal Policy Does Not Cheat Future Generations, CHALLENGE: THE MAGAZINE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS [peer-reviewed], Volume 52, No. 5, September - October 2009, pp. 44-54

    How Realistic Is the Supply/Demand Equilibrium Story? A Simple Demonstration of False Trading and Its Implications for Market Equilibrium, JOURNAL OF SOCIO-ECONOMICS [peer-reviewed], Volume 37, No. 1, February 2008, pp. 400-15

    Social Security and Government Deficits: When Should We Worry? 92 CORNELL LAW REVIEW 257 (2007)

    Is It Sometimes Good To Run Budget Deficits? If So, Should We Admit It (Out Loud)? 26 VIRGINIA TAX REVIEW 325 (2006)

    The JEC’s Estate Tax Report: Myths and Legends, 111 TAX NOTES 1133 (2006)

    The Case Against Income Averaging, 25 VIRGINIA TAX REVIEW 1151 (2006)

    Social Security, Generational Justice, and Long-Term Deficits, 58 TAX LAW REVIEW 275 (2005)

    The Uses of the Concept of Efficiency in Tax Analysis, 98 NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION PROCEEDINGS 441 (2005)

    Playing with Fire: Feminist Legal Theorists and the Tools of Economics, in Feminism Confronts Homo Economicus, Martha A. Fineman and Terence Dougherty, editors, Cornell University Press, 2005

    Who has time to read this putrid filth?!?! By the way, notice how Ass-Clown highlights which articles have been peer-reviewed.

  26. Good Lord, this guy's law review articles are as rotten as the Seton Hall Law Toilet!

  27. When did Freddy Kruger become a law professor?

  28. I noticed that a lot of Buchanan's writing has to do with issues of generational theft and intergenerational justice and what is owed to future generations. Sadly, I only went to a TT law school, so I don't have Prof. Buchanan's stellar academic resume. If I was a little smarter or better credentialed, I might be inclined to think there is something ironic about a law professor who gets paid by student loans that put his students into debt they will never get out of writing articles about intergenerational theft and what is owed to future generations.

    Maybe his next academic paper could have a title like, "Living with Cognitive Dissonance," or "Mr. Pot, Please Meet Mr. Kettle," or "I Take you Fuckers Money and Get Paid Six Figures to Write this Shit. Ha Ha!"

    I can't wait for the day when the student loan gravy train derails and scumbags like Buchanan have to go find real jobs.

  29. ^I can't picture this asshole holding down a real job in this lifetime. Can you?

  30. Buchanan urges us not to "pay any heed to the false claim that law professors are writing useless articles."

    I thought I would do a little test to shed light on the alleged falsity of this claim. How much guidance has Buchanan and Leiter's scholarship provided to courts and practitioners? Fortunately, my Westlaw Next subscription provides an easy way to measure.

    First, I did a google search and found Neil H. Buchanan's and Brian Leiter's CVs and list of publications.

    Leiter has written or co-authored a total of 58 journal articles. Neil H. Buchanan has written a total of 18 journal articles.

    I then did a keywork search of these prodigious scholars on Westlaw Next to determine how often their work has been cited in decisions by reviewing courts or administrative agencies. I searched the All State & Federal database and then checked the tabs for "cases" and "administrative decisions & guidance."

    The result: Of Leiter's 58 journal articles, a grand total of one has been cited by a reviewing court somewhere in the nation, representing a total of 1.7% of his articles (and the solitary article by Leiter that was cited was one he merely coauthored, and the coauthor is, unlike him, a genuine legal scholar, Ronald J. Allen). According to Westlaw Next, Leiter's work has never been cited in a published administrative decision.

    I actually expected Neil Buchanan to fare a bit better than Leiter. Leiter pretends that his ruminations on Nietszche and postmodernism have something to do with practicing law, but some of Buchanan's publications pertain to tax law-- a genuine legal practice area.

    However, of Buchanan's 18 published articles, a total of zero have been cited by a reviewing court somewhere in the nation. I then clicked on the administrative decision tab. Buchanan's work has been cited a total of one time--one of his articles is mentioned in a footnote in a GAO report.

    Conclusion: These guys are as useless to courts and practitioners as they are destructive to their students. Whatever the merits of their respective work in philosophy and economics, they have no business being law professors.

  31. 3:11 PM.

    You are so right.. These people could never make it in the real world. Could you see any of them lasting even 3 mos in shitlaw?

    Nando profiles the schools and the people behind them for a reason: To hold them and their philosophy up to the light. Organizations after all are nothing but groups of people. They have no life of their own.

    The more people in education he profiles, the more we see a pattern.

    Unfortunately, students and potential students, blinded by the glossy brochures and once inside the treadmill of law school are conditioned not to see that its all a scam. That they are subsidizing the lifestyle of these people while forfeiting their own.

    A bad economy exacerbates the situation. People prolong attempting to work in a low-paying job by gambling on more school.

    These academics don't care and the long-time practitioners don't care either, nor can they even understand in many cases.

  32. @10:47 pm,

    EXCELLENT work, in researching the uselessness of Buchanan's "legal scholarship." Thank you. Keeping in mind that his primary area appears to be tax law/economics, this further undermines his "argument" that his writing serves a valid purpose. I suppose that a law clerk or judge may use a hard copy of a law review as a coaster, when he cannot find one for his morning cup of coffee.

    Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Taylor Branch - whose works have actually been read by many people - backhanded this old hag across his weak chin, with this February 7, 2012 piece. It was entitled “Reply to Law Professor Neil H. Buchanan.” An excerpt:

    “Buchanan makes three essential points. First, he dismisses my work as the product of “righteous anger,” extremism, compromised judgment, and a “morally repugnant” analogy between big-time college sports and the slave plantations of old. To do so in passing, he ignores substance and context along with my explicit qualifications.

    Second, Buchanan declares a primary goal of reform to be the protection of college athletes from exploitation. I agree. From there, however, he focuses on physical exploitation (concussions, injuries, etc.) to the exclusion of other kinds of abuse. He glosses over the potential for economic, sexual, academic, or legal exploitation.

    Most oddly, for a law professor, Buchanan never discusses legal redress. Not once does he discuss any rights by which college players could or should protect themselves like other citizens. Buchanan treats them as helpless ciphers rather than participants. Indeed, no baby in diapers could be more dependent, excluded, and voiceless than college athletes in his design for their welfare.

    Third, Buchanan proposes one catchall solution. He says a strengthened and resolute NCAA should divert money from high-salaried coaches and bloated athletic budgets into scholarship support for higher education. This idea sounds noble until you think. It is irrelevant to his stated goal of protecting athletes. Legally, it overlooks antitrust decisions by the Supreme Court that prohibit collusive limits on sports earnings by colleges and their employees.

    Buchanan’s proposal, even if it were practical, would do nothing but transfer funds from athletic departments into the academic reservoir from which he draws his own salary. Thus, by cant and paternalism, NCAA supporters perpetuate the abridgment of fundamental rights for college athletes.”

    It is no surprise that Bitch Neil H. Buchanan dismissed Branch’s work, WITHOUT addressing the substance of his argument. Apparently, the paid shill is unable or unwilling to engage in honest dialogue. Perhaps, he realizes that he is defending a lost cause - and that he has no moral standing.

    In the end, it is CLEAR that Buchanan simply wants to keep the gravy train rolling. He does not give a damn about college or graduate students, in general. In his sick view, they are to be exploited - for the benefit of college administrators, tenured “professors” and the board of trustees or board of regents. He is acting out of reprehensible and blatant self-interest.

  33. I am a close, personal friend of Professor Buchanan. How DARE YOU trash him like this? The man is brilliant, and has more than twice the IQ of Nando. He is a fabulous professor, friend, and mentor. I refuse to sit back and let you trash his name. FUCK you nando. I am going to bring this to Professor Buchanan's attention to see if there is any legal course of action he can take against you.

  34. To the guy who did the research on Leiter and Buchanan's work being cited in court decisions: Look up Doctor Seuss on westlaw or lexis using the federal and state court decisions index. I bet you Doctor Seuss has been cited more than both of these assclowns. I guarantee it.

  35. To the douche-bag who posted at February 16, 2012 11:24 am,

    In case you are serious, then go ahead and bring this to your supposed friend's attention. If he wants to speak on a public issue - and do so in an intellectually dishonest or lazy manner - then he should expect to be called out. By the way, if he is associating with trash, i.e. you then he should start choosing his "friends" wisely.

    Also, if his IQ is more than twice mine, then the guy is pushing 280, bitch. Bobby Fischer was well into the genius category, with an IQ above 180. Come back when you gain some common sense. Hell, Neil H. Buchanan cannot even admit that the ABA law schools are producing too many graduates - and have done so for decades. He does not seem to understand that the current $y$tem is corrupt and unsustainable. Does he want to see undergrads pay $80K per year in annual tuition alone, sometime in the next 10-15 years?!?! Those qualities do not strike one as belonging to a brilliant person, ass-wipe.

  36. Neil Buchanan does not owe ANYONE ANYTHING! He worked extremely hard to get where he is today. I have read many of his articles, and I find them both inciteful, and very applicable to the law. Stop trying to ruin the man's livelyhood! I know that Neil cares deeply about each and every one of his students, and feels terrible for those who cannot find jobs. However, he deserves every penny he makes. He spent over ten years in post graduate school to get where he is today. Furthermore, I will contend that law school is a sound investment, and once the economy recovers, JDs will have no problems finding jobs. Nando, I find it sad that you have to resort to petty name calling. I hope Neil does what Cooley is doing, and sues you for every penny your broke ass is worth!

  37. ^^^troll

    Look at all the misspellings and grammatical errors. And no one and I mean no one reads many law review articles from any one author.

  38. Your lame "argument" "when economy recovers" is fundamentally flawed. The U.S. economy will never recover and the U.S. economy is and will be in a permanent decline. The glory days of the U.S. are over. The U.S. is now in front of a glory hole.

  39. Even if the economy recovers, I doubt the glut of lawyers produced by the schools will all be able to find jobs in law. Sure, they will be able to find jobs of some kind, but many are still going to be just as disappointed as they are now.

  40. Suggesting that a law professor sue someone isn't all that threatening. It isn't like most law profs would have the slightest clue of how to file a lawsuit, or what to do in court if they did sue someone. For that, you might need to look in the phone book and find a TTTT grad.

    And if our anonymous friend is so enthusiastic about Buchanan's wonderful scholarship, good. I am sure Buchanan would fit in just fine in many universities' economics departments. The issue that no one can explain very well is why law schools need scholars who only understand the law in pointlessly abstract terms. And then write hopelessly tangential law review articles that no one outside of legal academia will ever read or care about. Law schools exist only because students take out massive amounts of student loans that keep the law schools afloat. The majority of law students will never read any law review articles, do not care about Professor Onan Weinerwanker's stunning insights into Derrida's views of post-structuralist theory and their application to 14 amendment jurisprudence, and would just like to get through law school with as little debt as possible and some clue of how to practice law.

    Students who go into graduate programs in the arts, humanities and social sciences probably have some sort of an understanding that the end result of, and the ongoing purpose of, those programs is the production of knowledge that tends toward the esoteric. So someone in the philosophy department probably wouldn't find it unusual that their professors would care about Derrida and post-structuralism.

    What no one can explain very well is why law students are expected to go into six-figure debt in no small part to subsidize the creation of legal scholarship that the students themselves have no interest in, and will probably never use. Speaking only for myself, I made it through three years at a TT without ever reading a law review article. To this day, I have no idea what sort of articles any of my professors wrote or worked on. And in the years after graduation that I have been working in law I have never had occasion to read or use law review articles. I do just fine with cases, statutes, regulations and administrative decisions. So do most people who actually work in the legal field.

    But then again, I do not have Buchanan or Leiter's extremely impressive academic resume. So what would I know?

  41. I learned about Witchcraft at Touro Law School.

    It was in a Jurisprudence class.

    No kidding.

  42. I'm a graduate student at George Washington, although not in Law, and whilst I do feel slight pain at seeing my school mentioned on these pages, I have to concede that it in fact belongs here due to what Professor Buchanan said. The weight of facts is clearly on the side of the scambloggers. This becomes more true with every tuition hike at any law school. Scamblogger arguments are very true at G-Dub. By the way, undergraduate tuition with fees comes to about $44,148 this year according to
    We're only the third most expensive, which is actually something of an improvement.

    I am detecting that Buchanan, even more than Leiter, is very much a partisan of the Academy; and will defend it despite its moral errors.
    We see that attitude in the article that caused him to be mentioned here, which is him declaring that it is wrong for smart people to be convinced not to go to law school. He betrays very little concern about the careers or even the intellectual curiosity of students. His argument is that it is a self evident good that intelligent students should waste their time with law school rather they actually would like studying law or not in order to keep the system up for reasons I cannot perceive right now.

    Much praise should go to Feb 15, 2012 10:47 PM for his research into Leiter's and Buchanan's Academic Careers and the usefulness of their philosophy to judges and administrative professionals.
    Something I would like to know though, because it would be the rebuttal, is how often academics in other fields cite law review articles. I'm imaging that the number cannot be large, but I'm having trouble wrangling down hard data.
    I do have some however, if you search EBSCOhost for everything Brian Leiter wrote and filter scholarly and 'peer'-reviewed articles, he has 22 such articles. Subtracting publications in journals titled 'law review' or similar brings this number down to 10.
    If we do the same to Neil H. Buchanan in Lexis Nexis Academic, we get 9 articles, subtracting all law reviews brings his total down to 0.

  43. @1:34

    In the same fashion that society does not owe Mr. Buchanan's unfortunate students anything, despite the fact that they too worked hard and underwent 7 years of education, society does not owe Mr. Buchanan and his ilk a system that ensures that the Federal Taxpayer assume the risk of the loans naive youngsters take out. In the present system, Mr. Buchanan makes what he makes because the taxpayer assumes the risk on the loan kids take out to attend Mr. Buchanan's classes, despite the fact that many will not realize a realize and economic benefit from said courses (or from LS in general) to pay off the loans. This will leave the taxpayer on the hook via IBR or formal default. Why is Mr. Buchanan entitled to this, whereas he does not owe his students anything?

  44. Lol at this guy. What a joker. The best part of his piece is that he says they have seen a pronounced drop in law school applications. Even at GW, which is a decent school, you need to finish in a reasonably good position as far as class rank goes to have good job prospects. Let alone the toilets that are generally profiled on this blog where you are probably screwed even if you do well there. Nice that people are finally picking up on this.


Web Analytics