I have posted my current understanding of what went wrong on my tax blog, http://understandingtax.typepad.com/understanding_tax/ If I've missed something important, please let me know. This is very much a work-in-progress.
It is not too early to be thinking about implications for law schools. Among other things, most readers of this blog are paid by schools that get their operating funds from loans taken out by students. If credit markets really do dry up, times may get lean indeed, in an immediate and personal way. Federally guaranteed loans are likely to continue to be available. Supplemental loans, however, may become harder to get and/or more expensive. Students who need supplemental loans to attend school may be forced to defer their educations until the crisis blows over. Schools whose students are local and can live at home are less likely to be hard hit.
State schools are already feeling the crunch, but should anticipate more severe cutbacks in the next few years. State tax revenues are likely to fall much further before they begin to improve. Schools with large endowments will face an unpleasant dilemma: whether to eat into principal or live on tuition. Remember that prior to the Great Depression, Harvard's and Yale's endowments were equal. Yale sold. Harvard held. Yale never recovered parity.
Student evaluations, revisited
It has been some time since MoneyLaw explored the issue of student evaluations. The Chronicle of Higher Education's On Hiring blog has just published a very brief two-part series. The discussion there, though focused on Rate My Professors, a tool with wider application in undergraduate settings than in law school, has generate some interesting comments. This one takes the prize for (justified?) cynicism:[Students] want to do as little work as possible, get the highest grades possible, and be entertained the entire time.And this comment may score the highest rating for insightfulness:
[I]f professors have themselves good evaluations, they attach positive meaning to them, and if they have bad ones, they think that only bad teachers get good evaluations.Thinking, however briefly, about this issue has led me to contemplate two modest reforms of student evaluations.
First, as an antidote for the widely held and probably well supported belief that student evaluations correlate strongly with the perceived ease of a course, perhaps we can add a single question to our evaluations: "What grade do you expect to receive in this course?" This is a question for all seasons and all reasons; it does not require that the school in question suggest, let alone enforce, some sort of grading curve.
Second, to the extent this is feasible, I would poll students at some interval, perhaps five years beyond graduation, about courses and instructors they knew while they were enrolled. Some teachers who were popular, precisely because they were thought to be easy, may appear in retrospect to have imparted less value. Or their pedagogy was as enduring as it was entertaining. Or their toughness turned out to have benefited the students, and the most honest graduates are willing to confess that they should have given more positive evaluations. Whatever the case, we can ask.
In the interest of full disclosure, I propose all this as a classroom teacher who (1) did try to entertain students (albeit without success), (2) was rightfully perceived as demanding (even though I most often issued grades under a mandatory curve and therefore could not have been more or less lenient than less demanding colleagues), and (3) sincerely believe that my value as a teacher was not fully appreciated till my students had a chance to work on real problems and to serve real clients. After all, my view of student evaluations is influenced by my historically informed expectation of how kindly I myself will be graded.
Hooray, The Bailout Was Defeated
Hooray, the bailout was defeated. But don't expect the likes of Nancy Pelosi and our own Barney Frank to do any soul searching.
This defeat shows that politics certainly makes strange bedfellows. Many Republicans joined with some Democrats in opposing this horrible bill. Of course there were only three Congressman in Massachusetts who voted against this horrible bill - John Tierney, Bill Delahunt and Stephen Lynch. And they are to be commended. The others should be condemned for their cowardice.
Now let's see if the sky falls. More likely, the housing bubble will continue to burst, as it should. If Congress really wants to help the situation they should do what Obama has said we should do (despite his similarly shameful, cowardly support of this horrible bill), and stimulate the economy "from the bottom up" rather than from the top down.
But don't hold your breath. I doubt this is the end of corporate welfare as we know it. This particular kind of welfare is far too important to the large campaign contributors.
My previous posts on this bailout attempt:
A Shameful Suck Up
Just Say No To The Bailout
This defeat shows that politics certainly makes strange bedfellows. Many Republicans joined with some Democrats in opposing this horrible bill. Of course there were only three Congressman in Massachusetts who voted against this horrible bill - John Tierney, Bill Delahunt and Stephen Lynch. And they are to be commended. The others should be condemned for their cowardice.
Now let's see if the sky falls. More likely, the housing bubble will continue to burst, as it should. If Congress really wants to help the situation they should do what Obama has said we should do (despite his similarly shameful, cowardly support of this horrible bill), and stimulate the economy "from the bottom up" rather than from the top down.
But don't hold your breath. I doubt this is the end of corporate welfare as we know it. This particular kind of welfare is far too important to the large campaign contributors.
My previous posts on this bailout attempt:
A Shameful Suck Up
Just Say No To The Bailout
A Shameful Suck Up
Another shameful moment for our Congress is coming in its suck up to Wall Street. Once again we have bad leadership in the Democratic party, and that has and will result in more ass-kissing of the power elite, including the Bush Administration, whose incompetent Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will now have incredible power over taxpayer money to aid the unworthy on Wall Street.
As I feared in the bailout there will be no meaningful restrictions on executive pay, despite what is being generally reported, even on NPR this morning. We are also wrongly being told that we taxpayers, who will be expected to foot the bill for this further giveaway to the rich, may actually profit from this bill eventually.
Today's latest article by economist Dean Baker, TPMCafe | Economist Dean Baker| Why Bail? The Banks Have a Gun Pointed at Their Head and Are Threatening to Pull the Trigger, explains why we should not accept the banking community's propaganda, which is being disseminated by the government "leaders" - both in the White House and Congress.
Here is our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:
Wow, I think this is her most shameful moment in office, probably akin to Colin Powell's most shameful moment of his career, when he presented false intelligence information to the UN to justify the invasion of Iraq.
And here, with Dennis Kucinich, is what our Speaker of the House should be saying today instead:
As I feared in the bailout there will be no meaningful restrictions on executive pay, despite what is being generally reported, even on NPR this morning. We are also wrongly being told that we taxpayers, who will be expected to foot the bill for this further giveaway to the rich, may actually profit from this bill eventually.
Today's latest article by economist Dean Baker, TPMCafe | Economist Dean Baker| Why Bail? The Banks Have a Gun Pointed at Their Head and Are Threatening to Pull the Trigger, explains why we should not accept the banking community's propaganda, which is being disseminated by the government "leaders" - both in the White House and Congress.
Here is our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:
Wow, I think this is her most shameful moment in office, probably akin to Colin Powell's most shameful moment of his career, when he presented false intelligence information to the UN to justify the invasion of Iraq.
And here, with Dennis Kucinich, is what our Speaker of the House should be saying today instead:
Cirino Gonzalez Sentanced to 8 Years in Prison
Why you ask, because he stood with the Browns in support of their inquiry as to what law makes them liable for an income tax.
Current Mood: Depressed
Why: Most of my heroes are dead, or in Jail.
The Elite Beast of Burden
The following three paragraphs are taken from The Disadvantages of An Elite Education by William Deresiewicz. It is from the Summer 08 issue of American Scholar.
"Elite schools pride themselves on their diversity, but that diversity is almost entirely a matter of ethnicity and race. With respect to class, these schools are largely—indeed increasingly—homogeneous. Visit any elite campus in our great nation and you can thrill to the heartwarming spectacle of the children of white businesspeople and professionals studying and playing alongside the children of black, Asian, and Latino businesspeople and professionals. At the same time, because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it. Witness the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry: one each from Harvard and Yale, both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate."
"But it isn’t just a matter of class. My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me. We were “the best and the brightest,” as these places love to say, and everyone else was, well, something else: less good, less bright. I learned to give that little nod of understanding, that slightly sympathetic “Oh,” when people told me they went to a less prestigious college. (If I’d gone to Harvard, I would have learned to say “in Boston” when I was asked where I went to school—the Cambridge version of noblesse oblige.) I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to college at all."
* * *
"But if you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual. This will seem counterintuitive. Aren’t kids at elite schools the smartest ones around, at least in the narrow academic sense? Don’t they work harder than anyone else—indeed, harder than any previous generation? They are. They do. But being an intellectual is not the same as being smart. Being an intellectual means more than doing your homework."
Deresiewicz's article is most relevant for law schools at recruiting season. After all, once someone is hired, they are typically signed up for life. The last paragraph quoted is followed by a description of elite school students that portrays them as the rough the equivalents of grade grubbing drones. My sense is that this is a relatively recent thing. At some point in time, attending an elite school could contribute to the development of real intellectual curiosity and a love for ideas. I am sure that still holds for many graduates of elite schools today but that is more a testament to their resistance to the elite education than anything else.
From my perspective, and it is an admittedly narrow one, I am surprised at how anti intellectual newer -- last 15-20 years -- elite grads are, especially the double elites. In fact, in many instances they seem to have little or no knowledge of history, philosophy, art, etc. Nor do they find much that is interesting outside of their personal niche. Instead of ideas it is about gaming the system. They may boast about getting good placements for articles not because of the substance but because of the "form" the work in is, the names dropped, and connections. Numbers of downloads is the new version of making an A. Who cares about the substance of what is downloaded? It is not about the what is intriguing or important, but numbers of lines on a resume.
I know that correlation is not the same as causation but if legal education has taken an anti intellectual turn, how can it not be traced to the backgrounds of those who dominate faculties?
"Elite schools pride themselves on their diversity, but that diversity is almost entirely a matter of ethnicity and race. With respect to class, these schools are largely—indeed increasingly—homogeneous. Visit any elite campus in our great nation and you can thrill to the heartwarming spectacle of the children of white businesspeople and professionals studying and playing alongside the children of black, Asian, and Latino businesspeople and professionals. At the same time, because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it. Witness the last two Democratic presidential nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry: one each from Harvard and Yale, both earnest, decent, intelligent men, both utterly incapable of communicating with the larger electorate."
"But it isn’t just a matter of class. My education taught me to believe that people who didn’t go to an Ivy League or equivalent school weren’t worth talking to, regardless of their class. I was given the unmistakable message that such people were beneath me. We were “the best and the brightest,” as these places love to say, and everyone else was, well, something else: less good, less bright. I learned to give that little nod of understanding, that slightly sympathetic “Oh,” when people told me they went to a less prestigious college. (If I’d gone to Harvard, I would have learned to say “in Boston” when I was asked where I went to school—the Cambridge version of noblesse oblige.) I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to elite colleges, often precisely for reasons of class. I never learned that there are smart people who don’t go to college at all."
* * *
"But if you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual. This will seem counterintuitive. Aren’t kids at elite schools the smartest ones around, at least in the narrow academic sense? Don’t they work harder than anyone else—indeed, harder than any previous generation? They are. They do. But being an intellectual is not the same as being smart. Being an intellectual means more than doing your homework."
Deresiewicz's article is most relevant for law schools at recruiting season. After all, once someone is hired, they are typically signed up for life. The last paragraph quoted is followed by a description of elite school students that portrays them as the rough the equivalents of grade grubbing drones. My sense is that this is a relatively recent thing. At some point in time, attending an elite school could contribute to the development of real intellectual curiosity and a love for ideas. I am sure that still holds for many graduates of elite schools today but that is more a testament to their resistance to the elite education than anything else.
From my perspective, and it is an admittedly narrow one, I am surprised at how anti intellectual newer -- last 15-20 years -- elite grads are, especially the double elites. In fact, in many instances they seem to have little or no knowledge of history, philosophy, art, etc. Nor do they find much that is interesting outside of their personal niche. Instead of ideas it is about gaming the system. They may boast about getting good placements for articles not because of the substance but because of the "form" the work in is, the names dropped, and connections. Numbers of downloads is the new version of making an A. Who cares about the substance of what is downloaded? It is not about the what is intriguing or important, but numbers of lines on a resume.
I know that correlation is not the same as causation but if legal education has taken an anti intellectual turn, how can it not be traced to the backgrounds of those who dominate faculties?
Just Say No To The Bailout
Once again we are being asked to trust the liars and fools who run Washington. First we were asked to take the Bush Regime's word that suddenly terrorism was such a threat to us that we needed to give up some of our civil liberties. And thus we got the abominable Patriot Act.
Shortly thereafter we were asked by Bush, and the foreign policy duo of Dick Cheney and Cheney's pal and longtime mentor and partner-in-crime Don Rumsfeld - who together have screwed up foreign policy in their work for several different presidents, from Ford to the present Bush - to trust them about the need to go to war against Iraq because it supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. They asked for, and got, from Congress a blank check to go to war if and when these liars chose to go to war. And what a shameful disgrace this war against Iraq has been.
And now, Bush and the banking elite, for whom the Bush family has worked for decades, have asked Congress for a blank check for "$700 billion" (who knows how much, really?) to bail out Wall Street. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, current Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, have overseen the stock bubble and/or the housing bubble, and have continuously either lied about one or both of these bubbles, or stupidly and irresponsibly told us everything was fine while doing nothing to prevent or ameliorate the predictable problems so many other economists, not similarly blinded by the elite's narrow Wall Street agenda, could and did foresee. And now we are being asked to believe these liars and incompetents once again? And let them stay in charge?
As they attempt to bail out unworthy Wall Street, will these incompetents and/or liars also do the things they should do, such as adopt strict conditions (caps on executive pay, for example) in exchange for appropriating our taxpayer dollars? Will they democratize the Federal Reserve?
Not a chance. They were happy to expand in an instant the role of the Federal Reserve with the Bear Stearns bailout, but would they actually put it more directly under the control of the people? No way.
Sometimes, we should just say no. No to the incompetents, the liars, the crooks, the thieves, the criminals in high places, and no to the greedy capitalist pigs who have sucked lots of the lifeblood of the economy from the ordinary people who truly keep the economy working. No to the incompetents who have screwed up the economy while telling us all is well. The banking and economic elites who pretend to manage our economy for the greater good, while actually and primarily serving the narrow interests of the greedy on Wall Street, have been the tyrants of our economy for decades.
They need to get a strong message from the people that there will be no more business as usual. Will the Democrats step up to the plate? Sadly, that is not likely, because they are far too much aligned themselves with the same economic elite so undeserving of their power. So far they appear to be wimps. I have no confidence that our spineless Congress will engineer a bailout with the kind of conditions, and structural changes, that are really needed, and which would benefit the vast majority of us in the long run. I think, then, that we should instead insist that there be no bailout at all.
Bush and Company told us all was well, but suddenly now the sky is falling. We've been there before with these clowns. It's too bad the media is going along with the latest lies and manipulations and not exposing these phonies and questioning their motives. Instead, we should listen to one of the economists who was right about both the stock bubble and the housing bubble while the economic elite were irresponsibly full of happy talk. Dean Baker is one of these, and he says we should not reward incompetence and should not give these elites the bailout they now seek: No Bailout: Stop Rewarding Incompetence, by Dean Baker.
To understand better what is really going on (as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal frequently do not get it right), see Dean Baker's blog Beat The Press | The American Prospect: Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. And, now more than ever, it's a fine time to read his tome The Conservative Nanny State - How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer.
LSAT-Free Law School Admissions
The University of Michigan School of Law recent announced an innovative program to admit 1L law students who have never taken an LSAT exam. Under the Wolverine Scholars program, potential admits with especially good undergraduate records from the University of Michigan—Ann Arbor campus may apply for admission to the law school without having taken the LSAT. That is not just an option, either; it is a requirement. "In order to be considered for the Wolverine Scholars program, applicants must not yet have taken the LSAT," explains the law school.
How, then, can the law school trust that the Wolverine Scholars program will bring in qualified students? It doubtless helps that only students of the University of Michigan, an excellent undergraduate institution, qualify. To hedge its bets, though, the law school also requires that students applying as Wolverine Scholars have and maintain a cumulative UM grade point average of at least 3.80. (By way of comparison, the law school last year reported that its 1Ls had a mean GPA of 3.64.)
The Wolverine Scholars program doubtless has many virtues. I wonder, though, if the University of Michigan law school counts among them an opportunity to improve its performance in the U.S. News and World Report rankings. After all, the law school can hardly report LSAT scores for its IL Wolverine Scholars if no such scores exist. Yet those same students offer the school a chance to greatly improve the mean GPA of its IL class.
I predict that many more schools will soon emulate the University of Michigan's Wolverine Scholars program—unless, of course, USN&WR changes its ranking methodology to take away the advantage that LSAT-free admissions offers. USN&WR probably will not do so, however, because it relies in large part on ABA-defined categories of data. So unless the ABA reacts to LSAT-free admissions programs by changing how it measures GPAs, USN&WR will probably not rock the boat.
(HT: My Chapman colleague, and UM law school alum, Denis Binder.)
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia, MoneyLaw, and College Life O.C.]
How, then, can the law school trust that the Wolverine Scholars program will bring in qualified students? It doubtless helps that only students of the University of Michigan, an excellent undergraduate institution, qualify. To hedge its bets, though, the law school also requires that students applying as Wolverine Scholars have and maintain a cumulative UM grade point average of at least 3.80. (By way of comparison, the law school last year reported that its 1Ls had a mean GPA of 3.64.)
The Wolverine Scholars program doubtless has many virtues. I wonder, though, if the University of Michigan law school counts among them an opportunity to improve its performance in the U.S. News and World Report rankings. After all, the law school can hardly report LSAT scores for its IL Wolverine Scholars if no such scores exist. Yet those same students offer the school a chance to greatly improve the mean GPA of its IL class.
I predict that many more schools will soon emulate the University of Michigan's Wolverine Scholars program—unless, of course, USN&WR changes its ranking methodology to take away the advantage that LSAT-free admissions offers. USN&WR probably will not do so, however, because it relies in large part on ABA-defined categories of data. So unless the ABA reacts to LSAT-free admissions programs by changing how it measures GPAs, USN&WR will probably not rock the boat.
(HT: My Chapman colleague, and UM law school alum, Denis Binder.)
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia, MoneyLaw, and College Life O.C.]
Utility player
MoneyLaw loves utility players. From the New York Times' profile of the Chicago Cubs' any-position factotum, Mark DeRosa:
Further evidence, albeit again from the world of sports, that instinct often / usually / always outweighs intelligence.DeRosa, 33, is the major leagues’ only former all-Ivy League quarterback and the only player with a degree from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Yet he remains less white-collar Wharton than blue-collar Jersey. He is a thinking-man’s player not thinking too much, a late bloomer who has graduated from reserve to utility man to an everyday, versatile player.
* * * *
DeRosa rarely arrives at the ballpark knowing where he will play, although second base and right field will be the primary spots when the Cubs begin the postseason next week. A natural shortstop, he plays down the mental preparation his nomadic existence requires; he has relied as much on survival instincts as athletic ones.
* * * *
The few Ivy League graduates who reach the majors are usually greeted by barbs equally playful and suspicious, from Professor to Pocket Protector. DeRosa pre-empted that by playing hard wherever he was told and being the first to joke about his background. He flaunts his smarts only while figuring out pot odds in poker games.
“He’s a little self-conscious about the Ivy League thing,” Cubs outfielder Reed Johnson said with a smile. “I figured he’d be a straight-edge guy, not as funny or hard-working. He said to me, ‘What, did you think I was a geeky, sweater-tied-around-my-neck Ivy League guy?’”
New York, New York
 | One New York team has been mathematically eliminated from postseason play in 2008:O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!Now it's time to focus on eliminating the other one. |
Layoffs Can Lead to Unlawful Termination Claims
Down Economy: Layoffs Can Lead to Unlawful Termination Claims
What Businesses Need to Know to Protect Against These Lawsuits
By Jessica Hawthorne, Special to California Business Law Blog
By any measure, it’s a pretty rough economy out there and inevitably, there have been and will continue to be layoffs – a process that’s an emotional and complicated procedure, and no less so than during tough economic times.
So what do employers need to know to protect themselves from wrongful termination lawsuits before they are forced to lay off members of their workforce?
The truth is that no one procedure guarantees businesses freedom from exposure to wrongful discharge liability or, even in the absence of liability, prevention of the filing of a wrongful termination action by an employee. But there are a number of things that can be done to mitigate potential issues:
• Businesses should have all new employees sign agreements at the very beginning of employment that protects their status as an at-will employee.
• Standardize termination procedures in a way that maximizes company protection from wrongful termination suits, and ensures that the procedures are consistently applied.
• Train supervisors thoroughly in the area of protecting the at-will nature of employment and to follow all company policies especially related to terminations and layoffs.
• If your company is considering a layoff, be sure to establish objective, nondiscriminatory criteria for selecting the employees to layoff.
• If termination of an employee becomes necessary: do not make the employee's situation so miserable that he or she resigns just to get away.
If an employee feels singled out during a layoff or was unaware of performance issues before being terminated, they may also file a suit for wrongful discharge in violation of an express state or federal government public policy.
Further, be careful and consult with legal counsel before laying off employees with actual or perceived disabilities, those who have just returned from a protective leave of absence, and even those who have reported inappropriate activity such as harassment or safety violations. These employees may have or believe they have more rights than other employees. And angry employees or ones who feel wronged are more likely to sue.
In addition, the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and comparable state law require businesses to provide written notice to employees before laying off a significant portion of their workforce.
Unfortunately, there are literally layers of laws that deal with layoffs and terminations, which can make navigating this area of employment law a potential minefield. But if employers act in good faith, make their policies clear and offer ample notification of pending action, the likelihood of a wrongful termination lawsuit succeeding is minimal.
Jessica Hawthorne is an employment attorney the California Chamber of Commerce. More information on terminating employment and many other workplace issues can be found at www.HRCalifornia.com.
What Businesses Need to Know to Protect Against These Lawsuits
By Jessica Hawthorne, Special to California Business Law Blog
By any measure, it’s a pretty rough economy out there and inevitably, there have been and will continue to be layoffs – a process that’s an emotional and complicated procedure, and no less so than during tough economic times.
So what do employers need to know to protect themselves from wrongful termination lawsuits before they are forced to lay off members of their workforce?
The truth is that no one procedure guarantees businesses freedom from exposure to wrongful discharge liability or, even in the absence of liability, prevention of the filing of a wrongful termination action by an employee. But there are a number of things that can be done to mitigate potential issues:
• Businesses should have all new employees sign agreements at the very beginning of employment that protects their status as an at-will employee.
• Standardize termination procedures in a way that maximizes company protection from wrongful termination suits, and ensures that the procedures are consistently applied.
• Train supervisors thoroughly in the area of protecting the at-will nature of employment and to follow all company policies especially related to terminations and layoffs.
• If your company is considering a layoff, be sure to establish objective, nondiscriminatory criteria for selecting the employees to layoff.
• If termination of an employee becomes necessary: do not make the employee's situation so miserable that he or she resigns just to get away.
If an employee feels singled out during a layoff or was unaware of performance issues before being terminated, they may also file a suit for wrongful discharge in violation of an express state or federal government public policy.
Further, be careful and consult with legal counsel before laying off employees with actual or perceived disabilities, those who have just returned from a protective leave of absence, and even those who have reported inappropriate activity such as harassment or safety violations. These employees may have or believe they have more rights than other employees. And angry employees or ones who feel wronged are more likely to sue.
In addition, the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and comparable state law require businesses to provide written notice to employees before laying off a significant portion of their workforce.
Unfortunately, there are literally layers of laws that deal with layoffs and terminations, which can make navigating this area of employment law a potential minefield. But if employers act in good faith, make their policies clear and offer ample notification of pending action, the likelihood of a wrongful termination lawsuit succeeding is minimal.
Jessica Hawthorne is an employment attorney the California Chamber of Commerce. More information on terminating employment and many other workplace issues can be found at www.HRCalifornia.com.
NOLO, Its New Divorce Blog, and Do It Yourself Divorce
Nolo, the very reputable publisher of legal forms, books, and other aids for those with legal problems they can handle on their own ("Do It Yourself" or "DIY") has recently sponsored blogs in various legal areas.
Since April of this year, Nolo’s Divorce, Custody & Family Law Blog has been in operation. Although the blog has not had very many posts to date, the quality is excellent, as the blog is written by California family lawyer Emily Doskow, who is the very author of Nolo's Essential Guide to Divorce.
While on the subject of DIY divorce, I want to say two more things:
1) DIY divorce is not for everyone, and it is best actually to get an initial consultation with a divorce attorney in your state to discern whether you can and should in fact handle your divorce on your own, or whether you need to hire an attorney, mediator, or other professionals. OK, you can stop laughing now. Honest to God, I myself have told many individuals, at their initial free consultations with me, that they should not hire me or anyone else, and should instead consider handling their divorces themselves. Of course, DIY is generally only appropriate when there are few, if any, unresolved issues between the parties, that is, when there is little or nothing in dispute, and also when there are no matters of any complexity.
2) The Nolo book is a good book for general reference and a general understanding of divorce, but one should actually find, if possible, a more specific book applicable to the laws of one's own state. Divorce and family law are governed by state law, and each state's laws, while similar in many respects, are in fact oftentimes quite different.
When I see a good candidate for DIY here in Massachusetts, I show them my copy of How To File For Divorce In Massachusetts, a book written and published by the founders of Divorcenet.com, Massachusetts' own divorce attorney Sharyn T. Sooho, and Steven L. Fuchs.
Full Disclosure: I am not just an ardent admirer of the book and especially the website, divorcenet.com, for which these two are responsible; I am also a longtime member/advertiser on their website, http://www.divorcenet.com/. But I get no benefit from this plug, of which the authors have had no advance notice from me, nor have I even informed them that that I have been quietly promoting their book for years. (As for the Nolo book, I do not even know its author nor have I ever communicated with her.)
Now, my own edition of the Massachusetts book is quite old and I am not sure if it has been updated. But it is still the best book - even the old edition I have - which I have seen for DIY divorce on the market in Massachusetts. I have recently seen another book in several of the big bookstores and it seemed reasonably good as well, but the Sooho-Fuchs one is the best.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Since April of this year, Nolo’s Divorce, Custody & Family Law Blog has been in operation. Although the blog has not had very many posts to date, the quality is excellent, as the blog is written by California family lawyer Emily Doskow, who is the very author of Nolo's Essential Guide to Divorce.
While on the subject of DIY divorce, I want to say two more things:
1) DIY divorce is not for everyone, and it is best actually to get an initial consultation with a divorce attorney in your state to discern whether you can and should in fact handle your divorce on your own, or whether you need to hire an attorney, mediator, or other professionals. OK, you can stop laughing now. Honest to God, I myself have told many individuals, at their initial free consultations with me, that they should not hire me or anyone else, and should instead consider handling their divorces themselves. Of course, DIY is generally only appropriate when there are few, if any, unresolved issues between the parties, that is, when there is little or nothing in dispute, and also when there are no matters of any complexity.
2) The Nolo book is a good book for general reference and a general understanding of divorce, but one should actually find, if possible, a more specific book applicable to the laws of one's own state. Divorce and family law are governed by state law, and each state's laws, while similar in many respects, are in fact oftentimes quite different.
When I see a good candidate for DIY here in Massachusetts, I show them my copy of How To File For Divorce In Massachusetts, a book written and published by the founders of Divorcenet.com, Massachusetts' own divorce attorney Sharyn T. Sooho, and Steven L. Fuchs.Full Disclosure: I am not just an ardent admirer of the book and especially the website, divorcenet.com, for which these two are responsible; I am also a longtime member/advertiser on their website, http://www.divorcenet.com/. But I get no benefit from this plug, of which the authors have had no advance notice from me, nor have I even informed them that that I have been quietly promoting their book for years. (As for the Nolo book, I do not even know its author nor have I ever communicated with her.)
Now, my own edition of the Massachusetts book is quite old and I am not sure if it has been updated. But it is still the best book - even the old edition I have - which I have seen for DIY divorce on the market in Massachusetts. I have recently seen another book in several of the big bookstores and it seemed reasonably good as well, but the Sooho-Fuchs one is the best.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Want Your School to Rise in the Rankings? A Best Practices Survey For Law Schools
You might not want your school to rise, I don't know. But if you do, you might encourage your dean or associate dean to fill out this survey on your school's use of best practices in legal education, which along with information on bar passage rates relative to entering credentials, and student satisfaction, will be used to compile a list of law schools that provide exceptional "value added" for students.
Who's doing this? A couple of Moneyball-oriented law professors -- myself and Dave Fagundes of Southwestern Law -- with a dream: of law schools competing on educational quality, and a Race To The Top that improves legal education across the board. We're joined by a terrific Advisory Board, still in formation, that includes fomer deans like Daniel Rodriguez, former San Diego dean now at Texas, and fellow MoneyLaw blogger Nancy Rapoport, former dean at Houston and Nebraska/now at UNLV, as well as leading scholars on legal education and other topics like Susan Sturm (Columbia) and Bill Henderson (Indiana).
After compiling the list of "value-added" schools, we're going to deliver the information to U.S. News survey respondents, and encourage them to use it in filling out the survey in November. One possibility is that the value-added data will show that certain schools that have not historically received high ratings ought to receive a "4" or "5" from both law professors and lawyers. Given the current lack of information about the relative quality of law schools, and the weight given to the survey responses in U.S. News's methodology (40%) we believe that this additional information will have a significant — and positive — effect on the U.S. News rankings for those schools that we highlight.
Are you a dean, associate dean for academic affairs, chair of the hiring committee, most recently tenured professor, law firm hiring partner, state AG, or federal or state judge? That's who gets the U.S. News survey, and you can sign up for our Voter's Guide in a second at our new website, designed by UGA 2L Jerad Davis. We'll email it to you in November when the USN survey comes out, and if you have other ideas as to how we can help you do the survey, please let us know. For example, we may put on our website a spreadsheet where you can sort the schools by region to compare within the relevant markets.
Even if you're not one of the USN voters listed above, maybe you know one, and suspect they may not be a regular MoneyLaw reader — please, forward them this link to our site, and encourage them to sign up! Future law students will thank you, and so will we.
MoneyLaw readers might recall my blogging over the summer on this idea of value-added assessment, and now we're trying to make it a reality. It's a distinctively Moneyball concept — using performance, not pedigree, in assessing law schools — and we owe some serious thanks to Jim Chen for launching this blog in the first place, and then for hosting us here. Other godparents of the project include, of course, Paul Caron and Rafael Gely, whose classic article applying Moneyball principles to legal education got many of us thinking in this direction.
We hope you'll join the continued discussion about how best to assess relative educational quality, and specifically which schools ought to be rated particularly high or low — and encourage law professors and lawyers to use this kind of approach in doing the survey. Welcome your ideas.
Cross-posted at Prawfsblawg and Race to the Top
Who's doing this? A couple of Moneyball-oriented law professors -- myself and Dave Fagundes of Southwestern Law -- with a dream: of law schools competing on educational quality, and a Race To The Top that improves legal education across the board. We're joined by a terrific Advisory Board, still in formation, that includes fomer deans like Daniel Rodriguez, former San Diego dean now at Texas, and fellow MoneyLaw blogger Nancy Rapoport, former dean at Houston and Nebraska/now at UNLV, as well as leading scholars on legal education and other topics like Susan Sturm (Columbia) and Bill Henderson (Indiana).
After compiling the list of "value-added" schools, we're going to deliver the information to U.S. News survey respondents, and encourage them to use it in filling out the survey in November. One possibility is that the value-added data will show that certain schools that have not historically received high ratings ought to receive a "4" or "5" from both law professors and lawyers. Given the current lack of information about the relative quality of law schools, and the weight given to the survey responses in U.S. News's methodology (40%) we believe that this additional information will have a significant — and positive — effect on the U.S. News rankings for those schools that we highlight.
Are you a dean, associate dean for academic affairs, chair of the hiring committee, most recently tenured professor, law firm hiring partner, state AG, or federal or state judge? That's who gets the U.S. News survey, and you can sign up for our Voter's Guide in a second at our new website, designed by UGA 2L Jerad Davis. We'll email it to you in November when the USN survey comes out, and if you have other ideas as to how we can help you do the survey, please let us know. For example, we may put on our website a spreadsheet where you can sort the schools by region to compare within the relevant markets.
Even if you're not one of the USN voters listed above, maybe you know one, and suspect they may not be a regular MoneyLaw reader — please, forward them this link to our site, and encourage them to sign up! Future law students will thank you, and so will we.
MoneyLaw readers might recall my blogging over the summer on this idea of value-added assessment, and now we're trying to make it a reality. It's a distinctively Moneyball concept — using performance, not pedigree, in assessing law schools — and we owe some serious thanks to Jim Chen for launching this blog in the first place, and then for hosting us here. Other godparents of the project include, of course, Paul Caron and Rafael Gely, whose classic article applying Moneyball principles to legal education got many of us thinking in this direction.
We hope you'll join the continued discussion about how best to assess relative educational quality, and specifically which schools ought to be rated particularly high or low — and encourage law professors and lawyers to use this kind of approach in doing the survey. Welcome your ideas.
Cross-posted at Prawfsblawg and Race to the Top
The Stakeholder Impact Statement
Since before joining the Moneylaw group my individual beef (most specifically with public schools) has been the disconnect between faculty governance and the interests of law school stakeholders -- the people who pay the bills and for whom a Law School exists. I've never understood governing a Law School for the welfare of the faculty unless that welfare is a means to the end of serving stakeholders. And, I've never understood the concept of a Dean as "the agent of the faculty" unless the faculty is acting the in best interests of stakeholders.
How many law schools fit the category of "little Enrons" as opposed to actually looking out for stakeholders I do not know. I do think it probably varies from school to school and, within each school, from decision to decision.
If I had my way there would be no decisions made by a faculty without a Stakeholder Impact Statement. Anyone proposing a new program or any other activity that will draw on the resources of the School would be required to explain in fairly direct terms how the proposed activity will promote the interests of those paying the bills. I can hear people now thinking that is too much to ask or that the benefits are too difficult to assess.
Maybe it is too much to ask but it's not too much to ask for a good faith effort. I've seen too many programs started by people with a vested personal interest in the program who when pressed about its benefits mumble something like "It will provide an important opportunity for the students." That is an awful answer. The question is whether it is best opportunity for the money. Did anyone explore other programs, courses, etc. that might be more beneficial? Or is the problem that no one is actually personally interested in the programs that would provide real benefits.
Yes, some of the benefits are difficult to quantify but at least they should be identified and expressed in clear terms. Statements again, like "a richer curriculum," "more opportunities," etc. do not cut it. Setting up an L.L.M. in the growing field of Elder Law and Restitution? If you are a state school, how will taxpayers be better off as a result? (Actually, in my State that might be pretty easy sell.)
The main advantage of the SIS is that it would help faculty avoid drifting to where they usually drift -- "What does this mean for me if the faculty adopts it?"
How many law schools fit the category of "little Enrons" as opposed to actually looking out for stakeholders I do not know. I do think it probably varies from school to school and, within each school, from decision to decision.
If I had my way there would be no decisions made by a faculty without a Stakeholder Impact Statement. Anyone proposing a new program or any other activity that will draw on the resources of the School would be required to explain in fairly direct terms how the proposed activity will promote the interests of those paying the bills. I can hear people now thinking that is too much to ask or that the benefits are too difficult to assess.
Maybe it is too much to ask but it's not too much to ask for a good faith effort. I've seen too many programs started by people with a vested personal interest in the program who when pressed about its benefits mumble something like "It will provide an important opportunity for the students." That is an awful answer. The question is whether it is best opportunity for the money. Did anyone explore other programs, courses, etc. that might be more beneficial? Or is the problem that no one is actually personally interested in the programs that would provide real benefits.
Yes, some of the benefits are difficult to quantify but at least they should be identified and expressed in clear terms. Statements again, like "a richer curriculum," "more opportunities," etc. do not cut it. Setting up an L.L.M. in the growing field of Elder Law and Restitution? If you are a state school, how will taxpayers be better off as a result? (Actually, in my State that might be pretty easy sell.)
The main advantage of the SIS is that it would help faculty avoid drifting to where they usually drift -- "What does this mean for me if the faculty adopts it?"
For Law and Fun
All sorts of "law and" movments have popped up over the years—law and economics, law and literature, law and sociology, and so forth. Each has its merits, and each has its acolytes. Were I to choose a "law and" movement, though, I think I'd opt for law and fun.
For one thing, the study of law and fun would probably prove, well, fun. All else being equal, in my book, fun represents a prima facie good. Perhaps not all else is equal, granted; fun sometimes seems to come at the cost of respectability, which, though it often strikes me as overrated, seems pretty important to a lot of people.
Fun offers more than just intrinsic charms, though: It also serves Very Important—indeed, I daresay, respectable—pedagogical goals. Making a lesson fun can make it more easily understood and remembered. Yesterday, for instance, I took my guitar to school and played a couple of songs for my students. My Agency and Partnership class heard, "Sensible Khakis," a song that celebrates entrepreneurs and explains some principles of business formation. In Torts I, my students heard, "I.I.E.D.," a song that walks through the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
If that sounds a bit too wild and crazy to you, you might take consolation in the fact that I performed in a suit and tie. And instead of a laser light show, I played to the accompaniment of PowerPoint presentations—complete with explanatory notes! Geeky? A little, I guess. But it's not a "fun and law" movement I advocate; the "law" part comes first. Or, if I might coin a Jesse Jacksonism, "You've got to put the 'school' before the 'cool.'"
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia, MoneyLaw, and College Life O.C.]
For one thing, the study of law and fun would probably prove, well, fun. All else being equal, in my book, fun represents a prima facie good. Perhaps not all else is equal, granted; fun sometimes seems to come at the cost of respectability, which, though it often strikes me as overrated, seems pretty important to a lot of people.
Fun offers more than just intrinsic charms, though: It also serves Very Important—indeed, I daresay, respectable—pedagogical goals. Making a lesson fun can make it more easily understood and remembered. Yesterday, for instance, I took my guitar to school and played a couple of songs for my students. My Agency and Partnership class heard, "Sensible Khakis," a song that celebrates entrepreneurs and explains some principles of business formation. In Torts I, my students heard, "I.I.E.D.," a song that walks through the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
If that sounds a bit too wild and crazy to you, you might take consolation in the fact that I performed in a suit and tie. And instead of a laser light show, I played to the accompaniment of PowerPoint presentations—complete with explanatory notes! Geeky? A little, I guess. But it's not a "fun and law" movement I advocate; the "law" part comes first. Or, if I might coin a Jesse Jacksonism, "You've got to put the 'school' before the 'cool.'"
[Crossposted at Agoraphilia, MoneyLaw, and College Life O.C.]
Crockefeller's Sealed Divorce Records Released to Prosecutor
It seems whenever I miss a story in my own state, at least regarding the fascinating "Clark Rockefeller" (hereinafter "Crockefeller") case, Jeanne Hannah over in Michigan picks up on it. In her blog Updates in Michigan Family Law: Sealed divorce files?, she discusses the news of last week, here in the Boston Globe, that certain of Crockefeller's sealed divorce records were ordered released to the Suffolk County District Attorney. Although it is not ordinary for a court to seal divorce records in the first place (except for personal financial statements, Guardian ad Litem reports, and other confidential documents, divorce files are public records), it does happen, and I have had a number of cases where one or both parties successfully sought to have their divorce records sealed.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Massachusetts Divorce & Wills Lawyer Blog
I just found another good, new legal blog in Massachusetts, and this one should be of interest to my readers as it is devoted to my primary area of practice - family law - as well as estate planning: Massachusetts Divorce & Wills Lawyer. It is published and written by Gabriel Cheong, who practices both family law and estate planning from his office in Quincy, Massachusetts. I have just added it to my blogroll. Have a read, subscribe to it, blogroll it, and pass the word.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Stimulus Checks Intercepted for Child Support: My Client's Story and a Rant
While I myself have been too busy to post this past week, a few of my clients have found themselves quoted in the news. There's only one I can mention here. Cheryl Hayes, my former client, has authorized me to discuss her case after she thanked me for directing Associated Press reporter Steve LeBlanc to her this past Tuesday, thus resulting in her interview an hour later and a photo session that resulted in the following Associated Press article, AP IMPACT: Stimulus checks boost child support - washingtonpost.com, immediately published and picked up by some 300 news outlets around the world.
I find it a bit ironic that I had a hand in having my client pictured in this article, as she is a woman owed lots of child support by her exhusband and she is arguing that it is absolutely correct that the federal stimulus checks should be intercepted to pay down child support arrears. Well, I agree with her. However, up until just five or six years ago I was predominantly representing men in divorce actions. I have probably had more than my fair share of male clients who were the victims of child support orders that were too high. Indeed, I have long been both personally and professionally aware of the recent history of unfairness toward men in the Massachusetts family courts, both in custody and visitation matters and in child support determinations.
But what I now understand much better - now that I represent a larger, more representative sample of family law clients, including many more women now than before - is that family law victims are not of one gender. Too often irresponsible and even abusive individuals, whether male or female, are able to "win" in court, at least in some respects, even when the facts are against them.
When the reporter contacted me on Tuesday, and was seeking clients or previous clients who could speak to him about the issue of stimulus checks being intercepted to pay child support obligations, I immediately told him to speak with the Fathers and Families organization here in Massachusetts, and was told that he had already done so. The reporter needed, instead, somebody who was in favor of the interception of stimulus checks to pay child support arrears. Well, I certainly had someone for him. After calling Cheryl Hayes to get her approval to give her name and phone number to the reporter, I helped the reporter to make contact.
Cheryl Hayes wants even more publicity for her case, and wants me to tell even more of her story here, because it is so illustrative of the fact that there are indeed deadbeat dads out there. And boy, if there ever was one, her exhusband fits the bill. (Of course, there are deadbeat moms as well, and there are misguided, mistaken, and sometimes even incompetent court officials, and thus there exist numerous types of miscarriages of justice, leading to suffering by men, women, and children.)
The man who owes Cheryl Hayes some $30,000 somehow had the gall and the wherewithal to hire expensive attorneys to fight for the right to see his children, despite the fact that he had abused them and they were terrified of him. But this man failed to show up in court when the children's therapist and another mental health professional testified in court that the children suffered from quite egregious abuse by him while they were with him in North Dakota, and before the children moved with their mother to Massachusetts. This man has since left North Dakota and now lives in Minnesota, where he has managed to pay next to nothing in child support in the past three years, while the children have continued to struggle with therapy, and even institutionalization, as a result of his unspeakable abuse.
This man has failed to show up personally in Massachusetts to court for either of his family law cases - his visitation case (which led to a trial in which we won a ruling, after the above-described testimony, that he would have no contact with the children) and his child support case. This man has been able to avoid, halt, or otherwise dodge investigation by social service agencies and the police by moving from one state to another, and has avoided paying child support by perjuring himself in courts of at least two states, and by hiring attorneys in this state while achieving some degree of success in manipulating the court systems in at least two, and possibly three, states.
It is "men" like this who give all of us fathers a bad name and truly deserve to be called deadbeats. And it is cases like his - no less than the cases of fathers who are paying too much child support - that point up the fact that our courts are falling far short of their responsibility to find facts and dispense true justice.
We should not demonize all men who owe child support, as most of them are good people, even many of those who fall far behind in their support. (See my previous post Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization.)
Nor should we demonize men simply because they are accused of abuse. Men are more likely to be accused of abuse, but not really that much more likely actually to be guilty of abuse (physical or mental) than women, according to the available evidence. Because men are less likely to have custody of their children, and because men are still more likely to have greater expectations for financial contributions to their families, men are also more likely to be required to pay child support than women, and there is a greater number of men than women who fall behind in their support. However, men with child support obligations are more likely than women with child support obligations to actually pay those awards, according to the evidence.
These real statistics, often covered up by feminist groups and trumpeted by fathers' advocates, point out not only the inequality, unfairness, and gender bias in our expectations of both mothers and fathers that have resulted in numerous injustices in our family courts. These statistics also point to the sad reality that the facts of individual cases often do not matter: that family law conflicts too often lead to the wrong results (too much child support, not enough child support, custody to the wrong parent, etc.) because of the unfair procedures, bias, incompetence, and other failings in the judicial system.
Each case should be judged on its own facts. Far too often, because of the problems with our court system, the facts do not determine the outcome of cases. And irresponsible and abusive individuals too often are permitted to harm others with seeming impunity. And that's just sad. And wrong.
I have faith that our courts will improve. But we need more people who have suffered injustice in the family law arena to take the time to get involved and try to change the system. People like Cheryl Hayes. And people like the good men and women at Fathers & Families.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
I find it a bit ironic that I had a hand in having my client pictured in this article, as she is a woman owed lots of child support by her exhusband and she is arguing that it is absolutely correct that the federal stimulus checks should be intercepted to pay down child support arrears. Well, I agree with her. However, up until just five or six years ago I was predominantly representing men in divorce actions. I have probably had more than my fair share of male clients who were the victims of child support orders that were too high. Indeed, I have long been both personally and professionally aware of the recent history of unfairness toward men in the Massachusetts family courts, both in custody and visitation matters and in child support determinations.
But what I now understand much better - now that I represent a larger, more representative sample of family law clients, including many more women now than before - is that family law victims are not of one gender. Too often irresponsible and even abusive individuals, whether male or female, are able to "win" in court, at least in some respects, even when the facts are against them.
When the reporter contacted me on Tuesday, and was seeking clients or previous clients who could speak to him about the issue of stimulus checks being intercepted to pay child support obligations, I immediately told him to speak with the Fathers and Families organization here in Massachusetts, and was told that he had already done so. The reporter needed, instead, somebody who was in favor of the interception of stimulus checks to pay child support arrears. Well, I certainly had someone for him. After calling Cheryl Hayes to get her approval to give her name and phone number to the reporter, I helped the reporter to make contact.
Cheryl Hayes wants even more publicity for her case, and wants me to tell even more of her story here, because it is so illustrative of the fact that there are indeed deadbeat dads out there. And boy, if there ever was one, her exhusband fits the bill. (Of course, there are deadbeat moms as well, and there are misguided, mistaken, and sometimes even incompetent court officials, and thus there exist numerous types of miscarriages of justice, leading to suffering by men, women, and children.)
The man who owes Cheryl Hayes some $30,000 somehow had the gall and the wherewithal to hire expensive attorneys to fight for the right to see his children, despite the fact that he had abused them and they were terrified of him. But this man failed to show up in court when the children's therapist and another mental health professional testified in court that the children suffered from quite egregious abuse by him while they were with him in North Dakota, and before the children moved with their mother to Massachusetts. This man has since left North Dakota and now lives in Minnesota, where he has managed to pay next to nothing in child support in the past three years, while the children have continued to struggle with therapy, and even institutionalization, as a result of his unspeakable abuse.
This man has failed to show up personally in Massachusetts to court for either of his family law cases - his visitation case (which led to a trial in which we won a ruling, after the above-described testimony, that he would have no contact with the children) and his child support case. This man has been able to avoid, halt, or otherwise dodge investigation by social service agencies and the police by moving from one state to another, and has avoided paying child support by perjuring himself in courts of at least two states, and by hiring attorneys in this state while achieving some degree of success in manipulating the court systems in at least two, and possibly three, states.
It is "men" like this who give all of us fathers a bad name and truly deserve to be called deadbeats. And it is cases like his - no less than the cases of fathers who are paying too much child support - that point up the fact that our courts are falling far short of their responsibility to find facts and dispense true justice.
We should not demonize all men who owe child support, as most of them are good people, even many of those who fall far behind in their support. (See my previous post Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization.)
Nor should we demonize men simply because they are accused of abuse. Men are more likely to be accused of abuse, but not really that much more likely actually to be guilty of abuse (physical or mental) than women, according to the available evidence. Because men are less likely to have custody of their children, and because men are still more likely to have greater expectations for financial contributions to their families, men are also more likely to be required to pay child support than women, and there is a greater number of men than women who fall behind in their support. However, men with child support obligations are more likely than women with child support obligations to actually pay those awards, according to the evidence.
These real statistics, often covered up by feminist groups and trumpeted by fathers' advocates, point out not only the inequality, unfairness, and gender bias in our expectations of both mothers and fathers that have resulted in numerous injustices in our family courts. These statistics also point to the sad reality that the facts of individual cases often do not matter: that family law conflicts too often lead to the wrong results (too much child support, not enough child support, custody to the wrong parent, etc.) because of the unfair procedures, bias, incompetence, and other failings in the judicial system.
Each case should be judged on its own facts. Far too often, because of the problems with our court system, the facts do not determine the outcome of cases. And irresponsible and abusive individuals too often are permitted to harm others with seeming impunity. And that's just sad. And wrong.
I have faith that our courts will improve. But we need more people who have suffered injustice in the family law arena to take the time to get involved and try to change the system. People like Cheryl Hayes. And people like the good men and women at Fathers & Families.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Creating Disabilities
Within the last month the following have occurred to me or to others including some at other schools who have shared their concerns with me:1. A student asked to have a 2 year old grade changed in order to improve his class rank.
2. A mother called to complain about her son's grade in a class.
3. A student was devastated by a comment on a paper because it was followed by an explanation point.
4. Two attorneys and one judge have asked "What is going on." They say they have never encountered students who required as much "hand holding."
5. Employers visiting to interview complain about student attitudes as signified by wearing shorts and ipods to an interview, being aggressive about what they will and won't do, lateness, etc.
These types of incidents extend far beyond law students. I read somewhere -- maybe the New Yorker -- that there are now companies that formally recognize the wave of graduates who just cannot handle the ups and downs of every day life. Criticism is always personal and anything other than "That's a great job," is crushing. It's like a strange combination of entitlement, helplessness, and vulnerability. I think it comes from an entire generation of parents like myself who read whatever book we read about child rearing that said if little Molly drowns the cat do not punish or chastise her but say instead, "My goodness, Molly, that cat must have made you really angry."
If ability means being prepared to contend with the ups and downs of life, being able to shake things off, being determined, to learn from criticism, and to take the initiative to solve difficult problems, it seems like we are well into an new age of disability. If I am not just imagining this (and, if I am, I am not alone) what does it mean for law teaching? Or, more specifically, are there ways that legal education helps exacerbate the disability. (I think exacerbate would be the right word because I believe many students arrive with the disability already deeply rooted.) One way it may do that is by not communicating clearly.
I am pretty sure we play a role in the disabling. In talking to some law professor friends, none could not remember more than a time or two when he or she said in response to an classroom answer "No, actually that is wrong." Instead, the answer is something that leaves the student feeling good but likely hearing an inaccurate message. It could be something like, "Yes I see what you mean and [always say "and" instead of "but"] maybe another way to look at it is this way . . . ." The choice between making students feel good and providing accurate information may not come up that often but it seems to come up at particularly crucial times. For example, at my School we have a compulsory 3.15 average grade curve. There were many reasons for adopting it. Some of those reasons made sense. One that did not make sense was that low grades hurt students' feelings. Here again is the feeling good as opposed to accurate information problem. Students with a B- average do not realize that they are as vulnerable to failing the Bar as students with a C average were before the curve.
This may lead some to think that the disability flows from not enough adversity. I do not see how this can be the case. Today's students are likely to "sense" adversity or a lack of respect as readily -- perhaps more readily -- than their fathers and mothers. They may just react differently. If the total level of a "sense" of adversity has not changed because expectations have racheted "up," but students are less able to cope and consistently receive inaccurate information, I am wondering what has improved.
Is disabling people really a way to be kind or show your respect?
Raw intelligence is overrated
Awesome insights from Jonah Lehrer on the New York Times' "football for smarties" feature:
As with football, so with law. Don't think; blink.Three and a half seconds: That’s approximately how long a quarterback has to decide where to throw the ball. How does he survey the options while a swarm of humongous, angry men seek to pancake him? It seems obvious: a quarterback needs to think, to look at each of his receivers and make a calculation. This is one reason N.F.L. teams put so much stock in the Wonderlic intelligence test, the theory being that quarterbacks who are better at algebra will make better decisions. Unfortunately, the theory is wrong. If quarterbacks were forced to contemplate their decisions, they’d get sacked every time, a classic case of paralysis-by-analysis. What recent brain research suggests is that quarterbacks rely on their unconscious; an experienced quarterback picks up defensive details he’s not even aware of. Although he doesn’t consciously perceive the blitzing linebacker, the quarterback’s unconscious monitors his movement. When the QB glances at his receivers, his brain converts these details into fast emotional signals, so that a receiver in tight coverage gets associated with fear, while an open man triggers a burst of positive feeling. It’s these inarticulate emotions, and not an elaborate set of calculations, that tell the best quarterbacks when to let the ball fly. In the pocket, it turns out, it pays not to think.
Georgia 14, South Carolina 7
 | Georgia 14, South Carolina 7 It's always satisfying when the Bulldogs win, but the victory tastes sweetest in Columbia, South Carolina. I celebrated this evening with a meal of curried Gamecock.  |
Scholars, Scholarship, and Teaching
It is common to hear the claim that good scholars are good teachers. That may be true, but that is not the same as saying those who produce scholarship are good teachers. Some of the most interesting, well informed, and analytical law professors I know are infrequent writers or do not write at all. They may be superb teachers. On the other hand, some of the people who produce gobs of scholarship are not good scholars. Their writings reveal a political axe to grind and they play the same note repeatedly. I fear they do more preaching than teaching.I have always felt that students can learn more from good scholars than from from professors who are not good scholars. "Can" is the operative word here. This ties in with my post some months ago in which I said I would rather have a boring teacher who is well read and a great scholar than an animated-show-person teacher who is not as well informed and knows little more than what he or she teaches in the classroom. The idea was that the sky is the limit with Mr. Boring and Mr. Dynamic is good for an hour.
An interesting new addition to the scholars-as-teachers discussion is Benjamin Barton's article on the correlation between measures of scholarship and teaching as evaluated by students. I am sympathetic to the view that scholarship by law professors is overrated which I believe is the subtext of his article. As I wrote once before, 7200 articles a year, to what end? But, likewise, what does knowing the correlation between scholarship and student evaluations tell us? If numbers of articles and citations are not measures of whether one is a scholar and teaching evaluations by students are not measures of teaching effectiveness, I am not sure I understand what I am to conclude from the effort. On the other hand, I am equally unsure of how to design a study that would get at the issue of scholars, as defined here, as teachers. In any case, I've never assumed that the most prolific writers are better at anything other than writing things down.
Social networking for legal academics
 | |
Jim Chen's social networks | |
 | |
 |
Social networking badges, on the other hand, have struck me as extremely scarce throughout legal academia. There is no good technological reason for this. Facebook provides all sorts of ready-made Javascript that allows anyone who can edit HTML to embed her or his own badge. Other social networking applications haven't quite caught up, but it's a straightforward coding exercise to craft a badge with the appropriate URLs and a few HTML tags. I've pasted an entire table of social networking badges from my personal home page. If I do say so myself, these badges have been very effective and popular, especially with recent graduates and current students.
I'd be happy to share my coding tricks. Indeed, I already have. All you need is a little skill with the right-click function on your mouse. If you insist, I'll send you the code . . . as long as you write me through one of the social networks I've linked through my badges.
Editor's note: Cross-posted at Law School Innovation and The Cardinal Lawyer.
Closing time
Sometimes, perhaps at the end of a short week that feels paradoxically long, or perhaps when you're feeling strangely fine, the office whispers to you in semisonic tones: "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here." That's when you know it's closing time:
|
Stealing the Vote - Will the Republicans Be Able To Do It Again This Year?
Did Al Gore win in 2000? Yes, he did. The hanging chads, and the corrupt ruling of five members of the US Supreme Court were only part of the story. If thousands upon thousands of black voters had not been deliberately disenfranchised by Jeb Bush's Florida government, as documented and reported by Greg Palast at BBC and elsewhere, and if other intentional Republican cheating had not occurred (e.g., counting overseas military votes although the ballots arrived late), Gore would have been declared President in 2000. Despite Nader. Despite the hanging chads. Even despite a corrupt US Supreme Court which was willing to overturn the Florida Supreme Court in order to put Bush in the White House. Gore would have won, and those problems would not have mattered.
And then did Kerry win in 2004? Greg Palast has made a strong case that he did in fact win - specifically, that he actually won Ohio and New Mexico, and but for Republican cheating in those states, Kerry would have, and should have, been named President in 2004. In 2004, I contributed financially to Kerry's campaign and also I was one of the many lawyers who volunteered to help the Kerry campaign monitor elections in several important states. Given a choice of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, I chose Pennsylvania, and was therefore responsible for monitoring a particular voting precinct in Scranton. (Afterwards, I joked that Kerry won Pennsylvania because I was there, and that had I opted for Ohio, Kerry would not have "lost.") The discrepancies in Pennsylvania and Florida in 2004 were not so many, but in Ohio and New Mexico they were enough, arguably (see Greg Palast's reports) to rob Kerry of the presidency.
Both Gore and Kerry did the polite, establishment thing and stepped aside for the sake of their own future careers - or whatever. To me, Gore was particularly disappointing in his refusal to fight, not for himself, but for the many disenfranchised voters whose votes were stolen in Florida. Many blamed Ralph Nader for the "loss" but the real blame belongs with the Jeb Bush-Jim Crow tactics that are frighteningly a major part of the Republican playbook, and which continue to threaten our "democracy" - that is, whatever remains of our democracy, now that big business has bought and paid for most of the politicians in Washington.
The mainstream media did not timely, accurately, and fully report the real story of 2000. Instead, weeks after the real story should have been on page one, the corporate media instead made allusions to the real story, as had already been reported in England and elsewhere in Europe, typically in a shamefully short article about the NAACP's "claims" buried on page 26. Nor did the media report on the vote stealing of 2004. The corporate media (General Electric, Disney, Rupert Murdoch, et al.) has also not reported the real story on the "Help America Vote Act" (an Orwellian name for a frighteningly repulsive federal law that continues to threaten our democracy).
For the real story - as there is hardly any guarantee we will get the unvarnished truth from the corporate media just because they have the constitutional "right" of a free press - one must read Greg Palast's articles and books at www.gregpalast.com.
Now Greg Palast has teamed up with Robert Kennedy, Jr., in an effort to prevent a repeat of the Republican vote stealing that has occurred in the last two elections. See www.StealBackYourVote.org. Perhaps Obama will win in a landslide, as Kerry should have done in 2004, and thus it will be impossible for the corrupt Republican machine to steal enough votes to take the election this time. But all who care about democratic values should be vigilant. Vote stealing is a time-honored tradition, both in this country and throughout the world - both "democratic" and "non-democratic". But while Jimmy Carter may monitor the elections in other countries, we can't expect to have outside monitors with any clout monitoring our own elections. We certainly can't count on our media to monitor the election accurately; the media, and not just FOX, has been a huge part of the problem, both in 2000 and 2004.
There is a documentary, now showing in East Cambridge, at Kendall Square's landmark theater, about vote stealing - Stealing America - The Movie - which I have not yet seen but which I will see soon. From the previews, I can see that both Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast, among many others, are interviewed in the documentary.
Good sports
This morning's New York Times profiles Ben Dogra, "maybe the best football agent attracting the least attention."Dogra, working alongside Tom Condon (at right in the picture), Jim Steiner, and Ken Kremer, has led Creative Artists Agency's football division to dominance in the fast and powerful game of representing players in the National Football League. Their 130 clients, give or take, include four of the first eight picks from the most recent draft, and six of the top 21. Since 2001 this agency has represented four of the past five first-overall choices and 48 first-round picks. Far outpacing all competitors, Dogra and company "are the current champions in their mysterious corner of professional football."
Condon and Steiner became agents after careers in professional football. Their partner? Not quite:
Dogra’s background is far different. Dogra moved from New Delhi when he was 6, and his family hopscotched before opening a restaurant in northern Virginia when he was in high school. He did not play sports but wanted an N.F.L. career. Being an agent seemed a reasonable route. After attending George Mason, Dogra chose St. Louis University Law School based on its proximity to two sports agencies, for whom he hoped to work days while studying at night.MoneyLaw can't let Ben Dogra pass by without taking note of his beautifully entrepreneurial attitude and his success. There is hardly a better description than his of the multiple paths that lead out of law school into real life.
“My dad said, ‘Is that the equivalent of going to Los Angeles and being a bartender to become an actor?’” Dogra said. “I said, no, because if I don’t become an agent, I’ll be in law school.”
As this forum has noted, Scott Boras attended McGeorge School of Law. Theo Epstein went to law school at the University of San Diego. Dogra, as I just pointed out, attended SLU Law. Thanks to Bill Henderson, this forum is keenly aware that top plaintiffs' lawyers are not concentrated among the alumni ranks of elite schools, but rather come from schools all over. Successful sports agents and executives, one strongly suspects, follow a similar pattern. There are indeed many paths to success after law school, and the overwhelming majority of those paths have no connection to the 35 schools in the top twenty, let alone the three, fourteen, or eighteen truly "elite" schools that dominate gossip in legal academia.
Post Tenure Review
A friend on my faculty alerted me to this article, Post Tenure Review as If It Mattered, by Jayne B. Barnard. I do not agree with some portions of it but the importance of its subject matter and the common sense appeal of many of its proposals should not be overlooked. On MoneyLaw we write about hiring, tenure decisions, rankings and, to some extent ideals. There is not much on post tenure review. If I were to identify one area in which law school shareholder interests are given short shrift, post tenure review would be it. Professor Barnard gets into the nitty-gritty of what it would mean to have meaningful post tenure review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)