Academic & Scholarly News

If financial education classes and lab-tested disclosures are unlikely to help consumers in their real-world financial decisions, what about field-tested targeted education/disclosure? Exciting work by Marianne Bertrand and Adair Morse shows that information given to payday borrowers can reduce their future borrowing, holding payday lender behavior static.

Consumer financial education, disclosure, and defaults all dispensed with in my prior posts, shall we move on to “substantive” regulation, dare I even say “usury”?

Separate from the question of whether we should have financial literacy education for law students, there's the question of what should be included. I'm curious what readers think is important. Comments are open. I'd merely ask that if your comment relates to the "should," rather than the "what" that you post in response to the "should" post, and not here.  To get the ball rolling, let me throw out a few thoughts, that are not at all meant to be a complete list, but just ice-breakers:

Although not always acknowledged expressly, exceptionalism is pervasive in bankruptcy scholarship. Some work makes no attempt to contexualize bankruptcy within the federal courts, apparently assuming its unique qualities (for example, the disinterest in most bankruptcy venue scholarship about venue laws applicable to other multi-party federal litigation). But other projects are more deliberate in their exceptionalist pursuits.