It’s not worth reviewing the controversy about your work on law graduate earnings here, since the criticisms are well-established. But suffice it to say, I think it’s strange to respond to a claim that the economic prospects of people graduating after the recession have fundamentally changed relative to those who graduated before the recession with a study that only includes people who graduated prior to 2009.And
[Y]our point about Mr. Acosta either having enough savings to pay his tax bill, or being insolvent and not having to pay taxes, is bizarre...Even if you’re on track to have $1 million in assets when you retire, those assets supposed to last you a good 20 years. Losing $70,000 or more in a single year is a huge hit.And
Overall, your arguments strike me as odd. You don’t sufficiently take into account the extent to which graduating from a weak school in a weak job market, and failing to pass the bar, can be crippling for one’s career prospects.Strange, bizarre, odd? For a New York Times writer, these terms lack both proper civility and edification. Aberrant, mystifying, anomalistic, heteroclite. If we're arguing the value of education, let's at least pull from the absurd depths of liberal artistry, by which I mean using a thesaurus. Of course, my preferred "odd" synonyms for Professors Simkovic would be extraordinary, exceptional, and remarkable, each of which describes his pitch-perfect defense of law schools.
Overall, I believe I am most disappointed in Scheiber for publishing his rebuttals on Facebook. Facebook is not peer-reviewed. Facebook does not even have editorial controls like the bespectacled grammarians who staff the New York Times. It's the vulgar wild west, just like these easily ignored blogs. If Schreiber really wants these views taken seriously, he should consider publishing in a prestigious, long-standing academic publication like the UC Irvine Law Review, or at least having a colleague glance at his work to point out the numerous errors beforehand.