1. Did you know there's "law porn"? This is how Karen Sloan at The National Law Journal defines it: "slick mailings extolling the virtues of individual law schools meant to sway voting in the U.S. News & World Report's reputation survey, now under way."
Apparently, some legal educators are getting fed up with the stuff, and want law schools to put that money toward student scholarships, reports the NLJ.
One vocal critic is University of New Hampshire law professor Sarah Redfield, who, at a recent conference, challenged law deans and the U.S. News director of data research Bob Morse to renounce law school porn and use the money for diversity scholarships. The response she got was mixed.
But even Redfield admitted: "Some of the stuff I get is gorgeous." Who knew law porn could be so seductive?
2. When you're bottom-ranked, you better teach your students how to go solo. The NLJ reports that Pace Law School is launching "an incubator for solo practitioners," which is a school-supported law firm that will teach recent graduates about setting up their own practices. They will do so by providing low-cost legal assistance in immigration, family, and housing law.
Seriously, though, this is a great idea. Arguably, all law schools should consider it—even those in the top ranks.
3. Say it ain't true--not another law school! Just when I thought everyone had gotten jaded about legal education, this disheartening news: Another bottom-feeding law school is about to be born. This one is called Indiana Tech School of Law.
Get The Careerist in your morning e-mail. Sign up today—see box on upper right corner.
Do you have topics you'd like to discuss or tips to share? E-mail The Careerist's chief blogger, Vivia Chen, at [email protected].
This may give a new meaning to Justice Potter Stewart threshold test for pornography "I know it when I see it."
It is interesting to note that a charitable entity (CaliforniaALL) created by Prof. Redfield chose to host a lavish dinner to honor Gwen Moore, rather than allocate the money for diversity scholarships.
See
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/02/21/californiaall-part-2-concerns-mount-over-interim-executive-director-sarah-e-redfield-gwen-moore-10652852/
Posted by: TLR | November 18, 2011 at 05:17 PM
Seriously? "Law Porn"?!??!?!?!?!
Now, I am all for neologism, when it's applicable; but, that is just horrid.
The one who coined the phrase (and I doubt it was indeed Sloan) should have their college-degree rescinded.
Simply put, "porn" is "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction." (thanks Wiki).
And, candidly, the neologism employed here, aside from being absurd, is so far from the mark, it's embarrassing.
Call it "false" advertising... call them lies; but, calling it "porn" is just ridiculous.
So, Vivia, please, please, let's not perpetuate the "dumbing-down" of your readership.
And, as to the "bottom-feeding" comment about ANY law school... Come-on!?!?!?!
While prospects might be bleak, how can you hate on someone who wants to... I don't know P R A C T I C E with their law degree (regardless of where it's obtained)... as opposed to let it languish whilst they do something else...like journalism!
Love always,
Disenfranchised Neologician/Lawyer
Posted by: Disenfranchised Neologician/Lawyer | November 18, 2011 at 02:29 PM