Yesterday I linked to a talk given last week by UC Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky on the future of legal education, in which Chemerinsky criticized Brian Tamanaha's claim that law.
Erwin Chemerinsky has a theory, which is his. His theory is that it's impossible to provide a good legal education at any less than the astronomical prices currently being charged.
Hillary Clinton running for president is going to be nothing but wall to wall fake "scandals," since expecting even-the-liberal-media to react any differently is equivalent to expecting a classic rock.
Once upon a time, I began to look at the financing of law school education in America, and was amazed by what I found. Recently, I've been researching the economic.
Are the people who say this dress is gold and white pulling some sort of internet-wide prank?
Earlier this week Erik flagged a NYT story revealing that one of the most prominent climate change skeptics had failed to disclose, as he was required to do, that he's.
Scott references Glenn Harlan Reynolds' column in which GHR cites Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the proposition that some sort of altruistic public service ought to be a prerequisite for.
Paul Krugman points out how arguments that claim not enough Americans have college degrees work as smokescreens to obscure the real drivers of social and economic inequality: [M]y sense is.
