From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:39:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.145129.18327@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.140918.17178@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>Neither.  I've taught at the university level and witnessed, in the
>>period 1970-, a wide decline in writing and thinking ability.
>
>You've "taught at the university level"? Does this mean you are a
>professor? What subjects did you teach? How many years have you "taught
>at the university level"? I'm asking because you make this the basis of
>your generalization about "elite law schools." 

If I was a professor, I would have said so.  Nope, I have taught
philosophy (logic) and computer science off and on for twenty years,
inside and outside universities.  And I have perceived a drop-off in
overall literacy, as well as morality (which is necessarily connected
with precision in writing and thinking.)  The students of my generation
of 1968 were far more willing to articulately differ with their
professors, whereas when I attended classes here at Princeton (as a
student in a small program for local residents) the students were too
busy writing what the professor said to engage him in dialog.  

>
>
>The claim that the decline in SAT scores signals a decline in the general
>population is predicated on the assumption that the SAT-taking population
>is representative of the population, and has been representative during
>the history of the SAT. This assumption is highly questionable.

But it's a safe bet that every law student took the SAT, and scores have
declined.

>
>>I have also seen accounts of life at Stanford Law in
>>which it is said that students don't feel they have to work hard, since
>>admission to Stanford Law is admission to the elite.
>
>Which accounts were these? How many of these accounts were there? Who
>wrote them?


Scott Turow's One L describes frustration at a pressure level which is
only high in the first year, and the "pressure" he describes is not the
pressure of learning per se.  It's the pressure of anticipating what the
professor wants to hear and of competing with students who will stop at
nothing (including cheating) to get their admission ticket to the upper
middle class.  Contrast this false pressure with the very real pressure
felt by a night school student at John Marshall or East Jerusalem
College of Law; not only must this student work at a day job (Harvard
requires full time residency) s'he also does not have the assurance that
s'he has been admitted to any sort of inner sanctum, and s'he cannot
coast in any year of law school.
>
>>After 20 years in computer science, I considered returning to law school
>>because of an interest sparked by the critical legal studies movement
>>(giving the lie to their reputation as academic hothouse flowers, just
>>as the praise of the practicing attorney Gerry Spence for the CLS
>>movement gives the lie to this reputation.)
>
>Ah, the authority of Gerry Spence, famous jurisprudential theorist.  

...and all around good old boy.  Actually, the guy was a trained whore
for the insurance companies until he sickened himself and changed his
life, and I bring his name up only to refute the popular charge of
obfuscation to which the crits are subject.

>
>>But the combination of
>>toadying and bullying that goes on in law school is, to put it mildly,
>>off-putting.
>
>What toadying and bullying are you referring to?

You give a very good example. The Socratic method of teaching law is
another example.