"Sure, let’s have the whole 'is now a good time to go to law school?' debate again."

Teases David Lat linking to "To Apply or Not to Apply? That’s a Tough Question" in the WSJ Law Blog. Lat's implication that the very article he's linking to is not worth reading is, I think, apt.

Lat follows on with "Especially if you’re a minority, since white people are losing interest in law school," linking to The Am Law Daily's "'White Flight' Hits Nation's Law Schools," which I'd noticed yesterday and decided not to blog. Are white people losing interest in law school? There are some numbers and charts at the link, but plenty of white people still go to law school. My hypothesis would be that it's not "lack of interest" or "flight" but individuals with imperfect information assessing the risks and potential benefits.

Using the most recent U.S. News & World Report rankings—not because they measure prestige precisely but because they are widely known—it's clear that the bulk of the 6,528-person decline in white 1Ls occurred at lower-ranked schools.

So it seems that there's more of a tendency among white applicants to decide that in a soft job market, it's not worth getting a degree from a less prestigious school. Why should there be a racial difference in sensitivity about risk, awareness of prestige, and belief in the strength of the connection between your personal fate and the name of your school?

"The legal profession is 'right-sizing,' and law schools should follow suit."

Argues David Lat, rejecting the alternative of keeping up the present incoming class size by lowering admissions standards. The shrinkage model is painful:

Last week, we heard reports of one law school basically axing its entire junior faculty. All of the untenured professors received notice that their contracts might not be renewed for the 2014-2015 academic year. Ouch.

"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

Justice Scalia is out and about, antagonizing — antoninonizing — students, this time at Princeton, with "a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd.'"

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

Then he deadpanned: "I'm surprised you aren't persuaded."

[The student] said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer. He said he believes Scalia's writings tend to "dehumanize" gays.

Actually, he's humanizing you by crediting you with the capacity to comprehend rhetoric and engage in an on-the-fly verbal interchange. But it is easier to dehumanize your adversary. Afterwards.

What do they teach you at Princeton?

ADDED: Jaltcoh has 3 thoughts about this.

AND: David Lat reminds us about what Judge Posner said about horse meat: "a state is permitted, within reason, to express disgust..."