In Other UC News...
I just noticed that the UC Regents approved Irvine's plan to open the fifth UC law school (HT: Leiter). Great news. Looking over the 190 ABA accredited law schools in the country, no other state system, let alone state, comes close to matching California. The great state of Texas has UT and Texas Tech. I don't even know what NY has (I guess SUNY-Buffalo and CUNY). This is one way of saying that I'm glad to see the Regents committed to a public legal education. I'm glad DE is heading the flagship school. And I'm definitely glad SoCal will get its second public law school. Watch out Chapman...here come the Anteaters!!! Now I just hope and pray that the state in its infinite wisdom allocates enough resources to this great university to live up to its potential.
In other news, us Bruins have an expression: "My two favorite teams are UCLA and whoever is playing U$C." Perfect weekend. I hope the Bears secure their Rose Bowl bid.
Consider this an open thread on anything.
In other news, us Bruins have an expression: "My two favorite teams are UCLA and whoever is playing U$C." Perfect weekend. I hope the Bears secure their Rose Bowl bid.
Consider this an open thread on anything.
Labels: Law School, Legal Culture
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 5:54 PM
18 Comments:
Congratulations to all 2006 graduates who passed the bar exam!
1. We don't need any more lawyers.
2. We do need smarter, better, more ethical lawyers.
So...
3. Maybe we should have higher (or just better) admission standards and devote more resources to the law schools we have and NOT have more law schools.
Hastings and Davis eventually will be hurt by this, because some SoCal people who don't get into UCLA will not go north to a UC but will stay closer to home. Maybe not this year or next, but soon.
you assume less SoCal people at hastings is a bad thing...
game on!
I'm getting sick of aspects of the UC system. They (UCLA) taser their kids. Their facilities (i.e. Boalt, maybe not UCLA) suck. The Boalt bathrooms are shitty and full of homeless people. All the "new" "state-of-the-art" rooms at Boalt are hot as hell and have horrible air circulation (what's the deal? Why can't we have AC in classrooms?). The (Boalt) registrar is full of petty meanies (they ought to remove that ridiculous "we want more wages" sign from the public area of the registrar's office! It's a psychological tactic to guilt students into not requesting top-notch service; it's offensive. Just b/c the 1st Amendment allows it, it doesn't mean it's in good taste). The faculty is too lazy and self-interested to change the system and fire the necessary administrators to get this place more student-service-oriented. And Boalt charges too much money and expects us to open up our wallets for eternity. Also, the Chancellor of UCB sends out inane, annoying emails. And the cruddy elements in this town caused Cody's Telegraph to shut down.
The weather here is nice, though.
Serious union activists or union haters aside, I think that most people's reaction to the union sign is entirely determined by the rest of their interaction with the people behind the counter. If they were a little bit nicer to people and acted more like it was part of their job to make students' lives easier (it is, by the way), I doubt many people would care about the sign. Personally, I've had mostly very good interactions with them, but a few really frustrating ones that stick in my mind. I've heard a lot of people say they had much worse experiences. I don't have strong opinions one way or the other about unions in general or their cause in particular. The sign didn't bother me or make me want to picket with them, but I did notice it and wonder whether they were hoping it would prompt greater student support. I'm thinking not.
All hail the Men of Troy! (Don't fret, you Bear fans. At least Cal will have a chance to play in the East Dubuque "Champion Sparkplug" Bowl.)
8:55--you are hereby invited to suck my bear balls. While in despair last night in the 4th quarter, watching Longshore get picked off yet again, I consoled myself by thinking: thank God, at least I didn't go to U$C.
I've gotten fine service from the registrar's office, though I know others who have gotten rotten service.
In any event, one's reaction to that "Give us more money" sign in the Registrar's Office is not necessarily dependent on the quality of one's experience there. I got fine service, and I most definitely think the protest sign should be removed. It's distracting and a slap in the face to students.
I am continually amazed by the narcisim of the students who post on this blog. Did anyone ever consider the possibility that the employee in the Registrar's Office with the sign demanding fair wages has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU?! I have been treated horribly by the Registrar on several occassions but that is a SEPARATE ISSUE from whether employees at UC should be paid a living wage. It is shameful that many of the staff who make it possible for our university to function and for us to get our education are not paid enough to support themselves and their families. But I guess many Boalt students have never been in a position where a bread-winner in their family was making poverty wages.
Actually, the two issues are pefectly related: they shouldn't be paid better until they perform better. Instead, their union has created burdensome and byzantine procedures that basically tie the hands of employers and ensure UC employees suffer no competitive pressures whatsoever. I'd be happy to raise their wages (speaking as a CA taxpayer here) if you undid some of their union protections and gave the administrators more discreton to hire, fire, promote, award bonuses, etc. Then you'd have better employees, a stronger work ethic, better responsiveness to the public ans to student -- and higher wages. Is that such a difficult trade?
The teachers unions have the same problem. They want more money but don't want to do anything that might merit it. If you want to be paid like a professional, than you have to accept the resposibility of a professional. We're administering government services here, not welfare.
7:53: Actually, I think the egg has to come before the chicken.
This thread was wandered pretty far from the "Men of Troy embarrass the second-tier-but-don't-admit-it Golden Bears" theme. Can we please stay on topic?
Louise Epstein, one of Boalt's associate deans and the officer in charge of development (fundraising), and her team of high-energy fundraisers should train Registrar and other student service employees at Boalt on how to give better service. That's right, development folks at Boalt should constantly remind Boalt employees that they are part of the frontline of student giving. If students have a less than positive perception of how Boalt service employees treat them, then those students are less likely to give to Boalt in the future.
In fact, it's likely that many of the administrators that Boalt hired over the past decade were NOT hired with student giving and fundraising in mind. Educational institutions that rely on alumni giving (and Boalt was not such an institution a decade ago) probably evaluate potential administrative hires very closely on the likelihood that they will connect well with students.
Perhaps Boalt's administrative staff, then, needs a total reboot with development and fundraising goals in mind. Just as Edley was hired from a private university, Boalt should consider hiring administrators that have worked, not in public institutions like the UC, but have signifiant administrative experience in private educational institutions that rely on alumni giving.
No, it's pretty on topic. Armen launched the thread to hype the UC system and California's "committment" to public legal education. I suppose the blogger-in-chief wanted to show some pro-UC color after launching a comment thread about UCLA that makes his alma mater seem pretty crappy. A lot of students around here have to be fairly wedded to the prestige of the UC system, given that they went here for college and now law school, so there's only so much self-whipping that they can tolerate before propping up the UC system with some press release tidbits. Anyway, respondents then attempted to deflate the hype, bringing up some serious criticisms of UC student services.
So, it's very much on topic. The sports thing is the true red herring of the thread.
Ugh, even though 8:58 talks about the condom dudes, I give her credit for using sarcasm. The above post, on the other hand, typifies the overanalyzing anal mindset that exists in some of my classmates.
Note that I said this is an open thread so nothing is "off topic."
The point of any sign is to convey a message, so who is the message for? Maybe it's just for other staff, to offer encouragement in the fight, or something. Maybe it's directed at faculty, but why them and not students too? I expect that a sign in an office where 99% of people who see it are students is probably intended to convey a message to students. My question was what is that message supposed to be? Is it to motivate students to support them? Rally those who already do? Subversively explain to those who they are ignoring why they can't expect better treatment? What? I was just wondering. Of course, I may still be a narcicist, but I think that's really beside the point.
Armen. I repeat. You are sexy.
Post a Comment
<< Home