E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Professor Tamanaha (BT) complains that Simkovic and MacIntyre (SM) have unleashed a "torrent of words" in response to his criticism. So let's focus on their core points:
1) BT claimed that 16 years of data was insufficient for their study. SM have demonstrated that "We use better (and more) data than studies Tamanaha praised in his book." BT appears to have a double standard: predictions of doom get a pass, but SM's work merited vituperative attacks immediately upon its release.
3) BT has claimed that SM's research could mislead current applicants about the current value of legal education. SM respond that "We would have to be off by 85% for our basic conclusion to be incorrect."
SM have responded to a fusillade of criticism, much of it ill-informed. BT is welcome to dismiss their work, but as he does so, he should also be more cautious about his own claims. If the "law school reform" movement simply cannot acknowledge a piece of "good news" about legal education, it risks looking like the more dubious branches of "tort reform," driven by motives far afield from its stated aim of helping consumers.