This is the first installment in a series of posts listing idiotic quotes from law professors on the subject of legal education, selected from my ever-growing collection. To avoid the appearance of clutter, I will only publish ten idiotic quotes per post. I will publish a second installment very soon, and probably a few more thereafter. Notes and links to sources appear at the bottom.
A few prefatory remarks: Note that I said "idiotic quotes," not "scamming quotes." Even if a few of these quotes are somewhat scamming in intent, they are too transparently stupid to actually persuade anybody to attend law school.
When I say that I have omitted "scamming quotes," I am referring to statements designed to entice kids into law school with economic arguments about how a law degree is worth millions of dollars in future earnings, how it will become a rare and valuable asset as the baby boomers retire, and how lawyer unemployment is negligible. Such statements are worse than stupid, they are superficially appealing and highly deceptive, usually rooted in "statistical sleight of hand or methodological chicanery." To debunk a "scamming quote," rely on the Bureau of Labor Statistics projection that there will be a total of 218,800 job openings for lawyers, including both growth and replacement needs, and including part-time jobs, in the decade of 2010-2020, while law schools are primed to confer 450,000 new JDs during the same period.
So why make a list of law professors' idiotic quotes? Is there any purpose besides mockery? Yes, I think there is. Committing three years of one's life and $100,000+ to a project, such as obtaining a law degree, requires a considerable degree of trust or faith in the people managing or supervising the project. Are law school professors worthy of such trust? Before borrowing a small interest-accruing fortune and dumping it into the welcoming pockets of these, uh, educators, it may be instructive for college students, and their parents, to consider what these quotes say about their makers, and perhaps about law school honchos generally, in terms of clueless self-regard, distance from the profession, and condescension towards students.
A few prefatory remarks: Note that I said "idiotic quotes," not "scamming quotes." Even if a few of these quotes are somewhat scamming in intent, they are too transparently stupid to actually persuade anybody to attend law school.
When I say that I have omitted "scamming quotes," I am referring to statements designed to entice kids into law school with economic arguments about how a law degree is worth millions of dollars in future earnings, how it will become a rare and valuable asset as the baby boomers retire, and how lawyer unemployment is negligible. Such statements are worse than stupid, they are superficially appealing and highly deceptive, usually rooted in "statistical sleight of hand or methodological chicanery." To debunk a "scamming quote," rely on the Bureau of Labor Statistics projection that there will be a total of 218,800 job openings for lawyers, including both growth and replacement needs, and including part-time jobs, in the decade of 2010-2020, while law schools are primed to confer 450,000 new JDs during the same period.
So why make a list of law professors' idiotic quotes? Is there any purpose besides mockery? Yes, I think there is. Committing three years of one's life and $100,000+ to a project, such as obtaining a law degree, requires a considerable degree of trust or faith in the people managing or supervising the project. Are law school professors worthy of such trust? Before borrowing a small interest-accruing fortune and dumping it into the welcoming pockets of these, uh, educators, it may be instructive for college students, and their parents, to consider what these quotes say about their makers, and perhaps about law school honchos generally, in terms of clueless self-regard, distance from the profession, and condescension towards students.
1. Prof. Peter Bayer (UNLV): "We are not producing plumbers and bookkeepers, we are producing the leaders of our Society whose primary ability is the strength of their intellects. Law teachers hone the mind in a variety of ways through a variety of methods."
2. Prof. Marcia McCormick (SLU): "Students benefit from the scholar's ability to turn chaos into order and communicate both the chaos and the order to someone who hasn't done the same work. The students have to start with order and see how it is constructed from chaos and how to explain that before they can learn to do the same thing, which really, is what lawyers do for their clients."
3. Prof. Paul Horwitz (U. of Alabama): "Talking in class, and other ways of throwing yourself into the mix, is a terrific, bad-consequence-free way of actually starting to practice at being a lawyer. Take advantage."
4. Prof. Brian Leiter (U. of Chicago): "Even someone like me, at the ‘highly theoretical’ end of the scholarly spectrum, with only a bit more than a year of full-time practice experience, has often helped out lawyers and judges with problems in evidence law, a substantive law area that I've taught and thought about long enough that I can see my way through an evidence thicket that even skilled practitioners can’t."
5. Prof. Mark Fenster (U. of Florida): "The notion that classes should be entertaining, and that law school should be entertaining, and, more importantly, that it is a profession that should be entertaining (as no doubt entering law students expect), seems misplaced. Being bored and being boring is a defining feature of adulthood, of responsibility, of doing the things that need to be done in order to live and provide for others. . . .this is why I think it's our obligation to make our material dry and difficult and, where appropriate, boring."
6. Prof. Paul Horwitz (U. of Alabama): "I don't necessarily see a one-to-one correspondence between having practical skills and being good at imparting those skills; plenty of brilliant swimming coaches are not themselves Olympics-level swimmers."
7. Prof. Lyrissa Liddsky (U. of Florida): "Try not to project insecurity. In other words, fake it until you make it. Although you may be tempted to reveal to the class that you are brand new or are learning the material for the first time, you certainly don't have to and some would argue you shouldn't. Remember that the students are lucky to have a teacher who is energetic and curious and enthusiastic and can reach them at their level."
2. Prof. Marcia McCormick (SLU): "Students benefit from the scholar's ability to turn chaos into order and communicate both the chaos and the order to someone who hasn't done the same work. The students have to start with order and see how it is constructed from chaos and how to explain that before they can learn to do the same thing, which really, is what lawyers do for their clients."
3. Prof. Paul Horwitz (U. of Alabama): "Talking in class, and other ways of throwing yourself into the mix, is a terrific, bad-consequence-free way of actually starting to practice at being a lawyer. Take advantage."
4. Prof. Brian Leiter (U. of Chicago): "Even someone like me, at the ‘highly theoretical’ end of the scholarly spectrum, with only a bit more than a year of full-time practice experience, has often helped out lawyers and judges with problems in evidence law, a substantive law area that I've taught and thought about long enough that I can see my way through an evidence thicket that even skilled practitioners can’t."
5. Prof. Mark Fenster (U. of Florida): "The notion that classes should be entertaining, and that law school should be entertaining, and, more importantly, that it is a profession that should be entertaining (as no doubt entering law students expect), seems misplaced. Being bored and being boring is a defining feature of adulthood, of responsibility, of doing the things that need to be done in order to live and provide for others. . . .this is why I think it's our obligation to make our material dry and difficult and, where appropriate, boring."
6. Prof. Paul Horwitz (U. of Alabama): "I don't necessarily see a one-to-one correspondence between having practical skills and being good at imparting those skills; plenty of brilliant swimming coaches are not themselves Olympics-level swimmers."
7. Prof. Lyrissa Liddsky (U. of Florida): "Try not to project insecurity. In other words, fake it until you make it. Although you may be tempted to reveal to the class that you are brand new or are learning the material for the first time, you certainly don't have to and some would argue you shouldn't. Remember that the students are lucky to have a teacher who is energetic and curious and enthusiastic and can reach them at their level."
8. Prof. Kim Chanbonpin (John Marshall): "Law students can become more proficient legal writers when they have engaged in a study comparing the cultural products of hip hop with the cultural products of the law. Both hip hop and legal writing value an insider’s expert knowledge of the sources that comprise the basis for new work in the respective fields. In hip hop, sources include beats and rhymes; in legal writing, a primary source is jurisdictional case law. Both hip hop and legal writing utilize peculiar systems of citation to aid in a participant’s development towards expert, insider knowledge. Both are at their best when they demonstrate the author’s depth of knowledge of the subject matter by showcasing the author’s skill at weaving existing sources with new, innovative ideas and arguments."
9. Prof. Paul Horwitz (U of Alabama): "But if you would like to develop legal skills, learn how to become an A student more often than a B student, and just, you know, enjoy law school, then you shouldn't let the shortcuts become the whole story. I am just about ready to shoot any student who walks into law school with the Chemerinsky con law treatise and without the assigned con law casebook (and yes, it has happened [the business with the books, not the shooting])."
10. Prof. Roderick ("Rick") Hills, Jr. (NYU): "I have a gripe about law students' lack of what might be called a "professional ethic." But maybe my grumpiness is just the irritated ennui brought on by grading 90 exams. Consider the following interaction, and tell me whether I am wrong to think that kids nowadays are unusually callow and immature. . . . [complains for six sentences about a student who backed out of an RA position with Hills after getting a summer job with a firm]. After all, I have been left high and dry after turning down several other students who wanted the RA position. I'd expect, therefore, a gesture indicating that an obligation was broken and compensation is owed -- say, an offer to help me find a replacement or to perform some research."
____________________________________________________________________________________9. Prof. Paul Horwitz (U of Alabama): "But if you would like to develop legal skills, learn how to become an A student more often than a B student, and just, you know, enjoy law school, then you shouldn't let the shortcuts become the whole story. I am just about ready to shoot any student who walks into law school with the Chemerinsky con law treatise and without the assigned con law casebook (and yes, it has happened [the business with the books, not the shooting])."
10. Prof. Roderick ("Rick") Hills, Jr. (NYU): "I have a gripe about law students' lack of what might be called a "professional ethic." But maybe my grumpiness is just the irritated ennui brought on by grading 90 exams. Consider the following interaction, and tell me whether I am wrong to think that kids nowadays are unusually callow and immature. . . . [complains for six sentences about a student who backed out of an RA position with Hills after getting a summer job with a firm]. After all, I have been left high and dry after turning down several other students who wanted the RA position. I'd expect, therefore, a gesture indicating that an obligation was broken and compensation is owed -- say, an offer to help me find a replacement or to perform some research."
Notes and links to sources.
(Paul Horwitz has written many articles on the First Amendment religion clauses, and a couple of books as well. Not a single one of them has ever been cited in any reviewing court decision, or any published administrative agency decision. He is paid $136,145 to teach at a public law school in a relatively poor State. Go to the biographical squib on his law school directory page and see if you can find any practice experience beyond his federal judicial clerkship, which probably lasted a single year).
(comment at Aug 11, 2011 2:46:48 PM)
(That delicate balance: Paul Horwitz's careful efforts to present himself as gracious, thoughtful, and mild-mannered, while periodically indulging in disgraceful smears and digs at law school dissident Paul Campos, for instance saying that Campos "leaves a residue of disgust over everything he touches." Horwitz is frequently and favorably quoted by Brian Leiter, who leaves a residue of, well, nevermind).
(The original Hills post, at Prawfsblawg, was deleted (and Hills even somewhat apologized). However, the Hills post was discussed by Paul Campos, who quoted a truncated version in the linked post. The full version of Hills' disgraceful plaint was found in a search engine cache by the thread commenter at May 18, 2012 at 4:32 PM. Roderick Hills Jr. comes from an immensely privileged background. So that may be why he apparently regards his law students as insufficiently cringing servants).
8. http://www.saltlaw.org/blog/2011/10/03/legal-writing-the-remix/
(If her blog post has piqued your interest, Prof. Chanbonpin elaborates on the idea for 41 pages in her law review article. See Kim D. Chanbonpin, Legal Writing, The Remix: Plagiarism and Hip Hop Ethics, 63 Mercer L. Rev. 597 (2012)).
(If her blog post has piqued your interest, Prof. Chanbonpin elaborates on the idea for 41 pages in her law review article. See Kim D. Chanbonpin, Legal Writing, The Remix: Plagiarism and Hip Hop Ethics, 63 Mercer L. Rev. 597 (2012)).
(Paul Horwitz is NOT a "worthless idiot" just because he teaches professional responsibility. He will have you know).
10. http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/05/revolution-will-not-be-cite-checked.html(The original Hills post, at Prawfsblawg, was deleted (and Hills even somewhat apologized). However, the Hills post was discussed by Paul Campos, who quoted a truncated version in the linked post. The full version of Hills' disgraceful plaint was found in a search engine cache by the thread commenter at May 18, 2012 at 4:32 PM. Roderick Hills Jr. comes from an immensely privileged background. So that may be why he apparently regards his law students as insufficiently cringing servants).
No comments:
Post a Comment