Search the Lounge


« Liz Magill Named Dean Of Stanford Law | Main | Wartime Art Repatriation Symposium at Case »

July 24, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeffrey Harrison

Is there a principled distinction between intentionally providing false information and purposely altering standards, procedures, etc, not for the purpose of improving the experience of the students but to alter the numbers on which the rankings are based?


The ABA shouldn't get on a high horse: it is pocketing the $250K fine from Illinois. Since the false information presumably misled some students, shouldn't they be the ones who see the money, in the form of a tuition credit? As it is, the ABA, a wealthy organization of lawyers, has simply become hand in law students' (and taxypayers') pockets.

Loretta DeLoggio

I think there is a "principled distinction" between changing rules that may alter the competition but in an equal fashion and cheating -- ignoring the rules, arbitrary or not. As to a tuition credit, this is no more effective than a class action suit in which each complainant gets pocket change out of Megabucks, Inc. Why not just give you the money, or the Red Cross, or the U.N.? Penalties aren't for the benefit of, they're for deterrence. Perhaps a larger penalty should have been imposed; will the tuition of perhaps three students serve to deter?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad