"I made the strategic decision several months ago to substantially decrease the size of this year's incoming class ... not because we have been forced to, but because it is the right thing to do," Mr. Carter wrote in a recent email distributed to Pitt Law alumni.
"The most important factor in our decision to proactively reduce the class size was the contraction in the market for entry-level attorneys," Mr. Carter said last week in an emailed response to questions from the Post-Gazette.
Since it's so into doing things because they're right in response to the dead entry-level market, obviously Pitt has proactively been reducing class sizes and slashing tuition for a decade, right? Or. Mr. Carter's previous institutions were doing it, right? Or he was at least speaking out about the need for law schools to lower enrollment given the low employment, right?
Proactive? I've read it twice and I still chuckle at the audacity of the claims these overcoat overlords can spin. I'm not worthy!
Thankfully, our nation's journalists mailed it in years ago, and I can safely assume that those e-mailed questions didn't include any targeted inquiries about why no one was cutting class size long ago, or at least in time to prevent $170k in total tuition with 50% legal employment odds.
Law schools and administrators were about as proactive as slipping on a condom after she's seven months along with mistake number two. But if it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, and now there will be no unemployed Pitt alums.