Thursday, July 26, 2012
Profiles in Academic Swindling: Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Dung Heap University of California, Irvine School of Law
Chemerinsky Defends the Cost of “Legal Education”:
On July 23, 2012, the National Law Journal printed Chemerinsky’s self-serving drivel. The piece was entitled “You get what you pay for in legal education.” It was intended to be a retort to Brian Tamanaha’s new book, Failing Law Schools. Here are some key excerpts:
“Tamanaha is correct that law professors are paid significantly more than university faculty in disciplines like English, philosophy and history. Imagine that a law school tried to pay at that level, say roughly half of current faculty salaries at top law schools. Who would come and teach at a school where they got paid half what other law schools would pay them, and who would stay there when other opportunities arose?”
Nice straw man argument, douche-bag. You can thank the American Bar Association for engaging in price-fixing of tenured “professor” salaries. Without these controls in place, tell me that someone re-hashing Carbolic Smoke Ball or Pennoyer would inherently be worth $190K per year. Recall that the U.S. Department of Justice sued the ABA for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, via the law school accreditation process - in 1995.
“The Complaint alleges that the ABA restrained competition among professional personnel at ABA-approved law schools by fixing their compensation levels and working conditions, and by limiting competition from non-ABA-approved schools.”
Ass-hat Chemerinsky continued:
“Cutting a law faculty in half would require relying far more on relatively low-cost adjunct faculty. Tamanaha's assumption is that relying on practitioners rather than professors to teach more classes won't compromise the quality of the education students receive. Here I think he is just wrong. There are certainly some spectacular adjunct professors at every law school, and they play a vital role. But as I see each year when I read the student evaluations at my school, overall the evaluations for the full-time faculty are substantially better than they are for the adjuncts. It is easy to understand why. Teaching is a skill, and most people get better the more they do it. Moreover, full-time faculty generally have more time to prepare than adjunct professors who usually have busy practices.
Adjunct faculty are available far less for students than full-time faculty. Tamanaha gives no weight to the substantial learning that occurs outside of the classroom. I think he tremendously underestimates the amount that most faculty are around the school and available to students.” [Emphasis mine]
Erwin, most tenured “professors” are too busy reading the Wall Street Journal and watching Youtube videos to be bothered during office hours. By the way, the very best instructors at my third tier law school were adjuncts. They knew how to explain the nuts and bolts of practice. As you stated in your article, moron: most people become better at the tasks that they perform regularly. You can’t expect those who practiced law for 12 minutes to be able to teach students how to become lawyers.
Coverage of Chemerinsky’s Garbage Defense:
On July 24, 2012, Paul Campos punched UC Irvine in the ass with an entry labeled “The absurdity of UC Irvine.” Look at this killer opening:
“A few years ago, somebody decided it would be a good thing for the University of California to open another law school. Now even a few years ago this was obviously a terrible idea. Today . . . well.
So it has come to pass that UC-Irvine's dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, has taken to the pages of the National Law Journal to explain why it's actually a good thing that the dumpster fire that is the California market for new (and old) attorneys has now been supplemented by another law school. And not just another law school, but one that will charge nearly $47,000 this year in resident tuition and fees, and $53,000 to non-residents, while conveniently located smack in the middle of one of the most expensive places to live in the USA…
But a funny thing happened on the way to the apologia: Chemerinsky's article is around a thousand words long, and exactly none of them are dedicated to explaining either why California needs a new law school or whether that school is worth anything like the cost of attending it.
Instead, the article is dedicated to the proposition that it's impossible - literally impossible - to provide a "quality" legal education for much less than the mind-boggling price UCI is charging for this increasingly less in demand product.” [Emphasis mine]
The Swine’s Background:
Prior to becoming dean at the new turd, Chemerinsky was best known as the editor of the five pound piece of trash casebook Constitutional Law. At least, if you were ever confronted by an assailant in the parking lot, you could pull out that text and beat them to death with the damn thing. The man is also recognized as someone who believes the legal $y$tem can produce "social justice." Take a look at this quote from his faculty bio page:
“I was inspired to go to law school by the civil rights lawyers of the 1950s and 1960s and how they transformed society. I continue to believe that law is the most powerful tool for social change.”
One wonders whether strapping young people down with $170K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt fits under the bastard’s definition of “social change.” If anything, such outcomes merely serve the status quo – as indentured debt slaves are unlikely to ever challenge their pig-headed bosses or social constructs.
Conclusion: In the last analysis, Erwin Chemersinky is FULLY AWARE that many law schools are having difficulty filling their seats for the upcoming Fall semester. He knows that his school is an expensive joke. Furthermore, California did not need one more ABA-accredited trash pit. Yet, the school was approved and opened its doors. In his op-ed, Chemerinsky also attempted to justify the cost of law school by noting that it reflects the increase in undergrad tuition. However, for $ome rea$on, he failed to mention that most universities are relying more heavily on adjunct and associate faculty. Chemerinsky also did not inform his readers that law schools do not require massive infrastructure costs, as most research is performed online. Also, when one simply utters “I think he is just wrong,” you KNOW that the person has no real case and no argument. This rat had carefully built up a reputation as an outspoken liberal intellectual. In the end, it always comes down to money with these academic pigs.
Posted by Nando at 6:30 AM