- In a comment on Proxy battles, an anonymous commenter observes:
[T]he appropriateness of VAP programs for moneylaw purposes depends, I think, on how one obtains a VAP position. If many of the traditional pitfalls of valuing pedigree over performance are reflected in VAP hiring, then it is certainly in violation of moneylaw principles. On the other hand, if VAP hiring is based on performance, rather than pedigree, then it promotes moneylaw principles.
While I don't have much empirical evidence on this point, my guess is that it tends to violate moneylaw principles. Perhaps this empirical question is a good project for the moneylaw website.
This indeed would make a good project. The suggestion is duly noted . . . and appreciated.
- Allodoxaphobia and doxophobia is drawing commentary from anonymous law professors who once worked in practice. Suffice it to say that they are no longer impressed by the academy. One of these commenters makes a particularly keen observation: "One of the most effective methods [of committed Arschlöcher] is the concern troll approach, where the merits of a progressive idea are admitted, even praised, but all of the supposed concerns (usually of a process nature) lead to its slow death." Amen.
- The prize fight between Jeff Harrison and Orin Kerr in the commentary on Personally annoying should not be missed. Both sides have landed good blows, but Orin got in one particularly sharp jab: "I would rather have students choosing how to spend their summer than professors choosing for them." I'm sure both Jeff and Orin would agree that MoneyLaw should try to document instances in which payers of tuition outperform holders of tenure.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
MoneyLaw has been blessed of late with excellent below-the-line commentary. Be sure to take a look at these items that lurk beneath this forum's front page: