More law review fun

My last post discussed a new -- well, new to me -- law professor publishing trick: the bait and switch.  And now for some more law review fun.  Over at Outside the Law School Scam (OTLSS), there's a post about a Kentucky law prof who not only denies that professor scholarship raises the cost of legal education for students, but who also wrote this on the twitter:

Why I am happy to be a law professor: I have spent more than a year researching & thinking about one sentence from a SCOTUS dissent & why it is interesting, but wrong.  I will write an amusing article of no particular consequence. (Emphasis added.)

That description of the prof's job might be surprising to some people.  But what has to be surprising to everyone is that the prof actually admitted it -- in writing!  We're not talking about blurting it out over one too many Kentucky Bourbon Barrel Ales after an exhausting week of teaching a full six-credit load.  Rather, this prof voluntarily admitted it in print, and it's now forever memorialized on OTLSS.  Nicely played.  

This entire scenario captures the essence of legal education and law professor publishing -- subjects I've written about here and here.  

OTLSS also has a very complementary blog post about my own law review writing, contrasting it with the work product of the typical law prof and weaving everything into a clever Game of Thrones parody.  Enjoy!