Via Paul’s other place, I was fascinated to read this discussion thread, in which a law professor at Santa Clara entered what remained a largely substantive discussion and was thoroughly routed (with inevitable resorts to baseless questioning of the motives of people who presented inconvenient data.) I think my favorite of his comments, though, was this one, which reaches almost Althouse levels of “I cannot believe what I just read”:
In any case, that kind of disappointment has been part of the law school process for many decades. It has nothing to do with the 100 year storm that has left us with the overhang in the market today as it has in every other job market. It turns out, John, that for everyone just living in the United States for the last four years was a “horrible decision.” [One that does not entail 200 grand or so of debt, but moving right along. --ed.]
But this is really not the point I was (trying) to discuss. I have only maintained that a student accepted at BOTH schools [Santa Clara and Stanford] would most likely have very similar opportunities once they graduated. I feel reasonably confident, in other words, that Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati would be interested in that student, assuming they performed well, whether they took me for securities regulation or Joe Grundfest. But whether that student should go to SCU or Stanford or another school is an entirely different question depending on values, career goals, and other factors. For example, I readily admit, if you play golf, I would recommend going to Stanford.
I mean, can Diamond possibly believe that graduates of Stanford and Santa Clara law schools have similar employment prospects? That the only reason to attend Stanford is that it has a nicer golf course? Or is it that he thinks a non-negligible number of people accepted to Stanford would pay anything to attend Santa Clara? Either way, assuming he’s arguing in bad faith would be the charitable interpretation.