We aren’t sure that a dot-com billionaire (even if he has in Madonnaesque fashion reinvented himself more than once) fighting with the SEC over an insider trading issue is going to have much public appeal in the present anti-capitalist hang-the-richies-high environment. We are even less sure that drawing a pile of “Ivy League professors” to the warmth of your bosom is going to have much public appeal in the present anti-formula hang-the-Gaussians-high environment. If you can’t kill the math, and someone has to pay, where does that leave “Ivy League professors?” I’m not sure. Neither is DealBook, but they do report on Cuban’s latest antics. To wit:
Mark Cuban has lined up a roster of Ivy League professors to take his part in his battle against the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has accused the investor of trading on insider information.
The Dallas Morning New reported that law professors from Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago, the University of California, Los Angeles and Southern Methodist University filed a brief on Mr. Cuban’s behalf Monday, arguing that the S.E.C. made a legalistic land grab when it sued Mr. Cuban.
The first commenter who points out that John Wilkes Booth, UCLA and SMU aren’t “Ivy League” wins a prize. (Hint: It’s not a good prize).
Professors Come to Cuban’s Defense [DealBook]
John Wilkes Booth, UCLA and SMU aren’t “Ivy League”.
What do I get?
Too Kennedy, didn’t Ted
Very state schoolish.
what? brendan sullivan wouldn’t take the case?
what about the first person to point out that booth isn’t the law school?
I wonder if he picked UCLA and SMU because whoever is assigned to the case is an alumni of one of the schools.
If he were my client, I would have found out who was on the other side and hired one of his/her professors to submit a brief on our behalf.
what about the first person to point out that no one cares about 5?
Yeah, but SMU has the most talent.
Law School Rankings:
#1 Yale
@8 –> Winner. You obviously went to SMU. It is unrivaled.
Booth is the worst school in Amerika.
@7 dad?
SMU = local counsel. No real responsibility whatsoever.
@11
Why do they have a school named after the guy who killed Lincoln? I’m glad it’s not a law school.
A bit of clarification:
Harvard and Yale are the attorney’s on the case…
Chicago and UCLA calculate “billable” hours or whatever model they’re using to bilk Cuban out of hundreds of thousands of dollars…
and SMU is the stenographer.
Glad I could help.
why no Georgia State?
@10, I think he meant “talent” as in “very attractive girls.”
@17 – No kidding…
@17 – 10 here. Yeah, I know. That’s what I was talking about.
#14,
I don’t know if you’re trying to be funny or if you don’t get it.
But the “Booth School of Business” at U.Chi isn’t really named after John Wilkes. Shockingly enough, it is named after a wealthy benefactor, David Booth.
Here’s a link:
http://www.dfaus.com/media/pdf/university_of_chicago.pdf
@20
jesus h. christ. i do believe they are aware. sarcasm. . .
#20
Thanks, JWB was mentioned by ep, thought that was not a joke. Sounds like ep doesn’t like the Booth name given to that school to even mention it even when we are talking about Law Schools, not business schools.
Now, why didn’t they name that school after Friedman, or Fama (though EMH is bunk)? I think that the David Booth fellow must be a douchebag for wanting his name on it, no matter how much money he gave. It’s a shame.
I’ll risk the banning to note the Dallas Morning-News trying to set precedent by throwing the local Republican home of Bush’s new Presidential Library in as “Ivy League”
@23
SMU likes to call itself the Harvard of the South. It’s therefore the rich kid’s Texas Ivy League, in their own mind. It’s a Republican paradise where if you fail a course, you can pay again to take it one more time, and the F goes away forever, no matter what.
I hear the W library foundation is desperately “hiring” fund raisers for the W library, and that the name of the donors will be kept strictly secret.
In my opinion, the closest thing to an Ivy League school in Texas would be Rice University.
@24 – You are incorrect with regard to the “pay again to take it one more time” statement. BTW, take a look at the Forbes national university rankings this year: SMU – 13.
That said it’s obviously not as prestigious as any other school on this list except UCLA.
Texas + Ivy League = Oxymoron.
@25
Nice try. Forbes listed SMU at #186 (August 2008).
(The Forbes rankings are insane, but they do rate Rice University as the top college in Texas, which is consistent with USNWR rankings, and my own high opinion about Rice.)
@24 SMU will have to fight Ole Miss tooth and nail for the rights to claim Harvard of the South. A pity both can’t lose.
12 and 15: Nice.
@25
SUM’s Forbes ranking was negative 13?