Friday, March 09, 2012

The value of the "Rutgers" brand; Christie calls Brown an idiot

From NewJerseyNewsroom: Calling Brown an “idiot” as an after-thought, the Governor shot back in true Chris Christie-style, "Let me tell you something after you graduate from law school, you conduct yourself like that in a courtroom, your rear end is going to be thrown in jail, idiot."

As to the brandname issue:

Brown testified before the Rutgers Board of Governors last month, arguing the Christie proposal to re-brand the South Jersey campus under the Rowan name, according to the Star Ledger, would rob students of opportunities afforded by Rutgers’ reputation.

“I really think it is a disserve to southern Jersey that we are going to lose a great university and one of the things that is true is that Rutgers is always going to be the state University and so what will happen is those who can go up to North Jersey or go to Philadelphia or somewhere else, they will, instead of going right here. And that’s just the truth,” Brown told reporters outside Roebling Volunteer Fire Company No. 3 in Burlington County.

As to the reputation of Rutgers, in the recent US News ranking of law schools in 2011, Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden appeared at number 84. Villanova and Hofstra were also in the tied ranking at position 84. Seton Hall, ranked at 61, was more highly ranked than either Rutgers school, so neither Rutgers school is the "best" law school in New Jersey.
Would a Rowan law school fare worse in the rankings than Rutgers/Camden? Likely yes.

**Separately, as to collusive efforts (as in law school rankings), note a New York Times article on Fukushima:

One of those whose warnings were ignored was Kunihiko Shimazaki, a retired professor of seismology at the University of Tokyo. Eight years ago, as a member of an influential cabinet office committee on offshore earthquakes in northeastern Japan, Mr. Shimazaki warned that Fukushima’s coast was vulnerable to tsunamis more than twice as tall as the forecasts of up to 17 feet put forth by regulators and Tepco.

Minutes of the meeting on Feb. 19, 2004, show that the government bureaucrats running the committee moved quickly to exclude his views from debate as too speculative and “pending further research.” None of the other 13 academics on the committee objected. Mr. Shimazaki’s warnings were not even mentioned in the committee’s final report two years later. He said the committee did not want to force Tepco to make expensive upgrades at the plant.

“They completely ignored me in order to save Tepco money,” said Mr. Shimazaki, 65.

Mr. Shimazaki and others say the fault lay not in outright corruption, but rather complicity among like-minded insiders who prospered for decades by scratching one another’s backs. They describe a structure in which elite career bureaucrats controlled rubber-stamp academic policy-making committees, while at the same time leaving it to industry to essentially regulate itself.


Post a Comment

<< Home