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: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:15:07 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.165744.20089@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.153952.25877@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>But it's a safe bet that every law student took the SAT, and scores have
>>declined.
>
>Have SAT scores among law students declined? What's your source on this?
>If they have declined, we may assume that that this represents a decline
>in intellectual ability among law students only if:
>
>a) SATs measure intellectual ability.
>b) the representation of the general population among law students has
>stayed the same during the history of the SAT.
>
>Even if one assumes (a) (see Gould, THE MISMEASURE OF MAN, for criticisms
>of intelligence testing), it is almost certainly the case that (b) is
>not true. It's well-established that far more students, of far more
>diverse backgrounds, apply and are admitted to law schools these days than
>was the case 20 or 30 years ago. This casts doubt on the usefulness of the
>SAT as a measure of law-student ability, since the tested population has
>changed significantly over the decades.

Clever obfuscation, Mike, but if the thing measured (intellectual
ability) has not declined, it's stayed the same or improved.  I do not
believe it's stayed the same or improved, and the evidence is in the
treatment of Frug (for morality is necessarily, for me, connected with
intellectual ability), the increase in legal malpractice and
professional burnout, and the increased use of paralegals for research.
I know of no studies concerning law student's SATs; why don't you
present some?  Yes, SATs don't measure a lot of things, but they do
measure things that lawyers advertise as their strengths (verbal
ability, and math for tax pros).  Yes, SATs may show a decline owing to
increased access to law school, but white male SATs have declined along
with all others, leading me to conclude that white male law student SATs
have also declined.

>
>>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.
>
>I asked you about accounts of Stanford Law School. Turow went to Harvard.

This excessive focus on irrelevant detail makes me believe that Mike
Godwin is in reality a sophisticated instance of Eliza, configured as a
cross examination machine.  I'll get you the reference, from an article
on Stanford in the New York Times, ASAP, in which the author states
clearly that Stanford students "coast" because their union card is
admission to Stanford law.  As one who has friends struggling to work
their way through John Marshall, this pissed me off.

>
>You had said the following:
>
>>>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.
>
>I repeat the question: Which accounts were these, and who wrote them?

Counsel is abusing the witness, who has stated that he will provide the
reference.
>
>>>What toadying and bullying are you referring to?
>>
>>You give a very good example.
>
>I don't see how I give a good example of toadying and bullying in law
>school.

This is especially Eliza-like.  

> Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that I'm toadying and
>bullying, misc.legal hardly qualifies as law school. We're not in a law
>school, Ed.

Nor are we in a court of law, so quit cross-examining me.

>
>The Socratic method of teaching law is
>>another example.
>
>What is your experience of the Socratic method of teaching law?

Let's see, the Eliza rule must be


     The $parm1 is another example -> What is your experience of $parm1?


My experience with the Socratic method of teaching law is limited,
because I avoid bullies and toad-eaters.  I am of course experienced in
teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.  My own teaching style
is permissive and ideologically non-abusive.  I am aware through reading
of the provenance of modern-day legal education and I am aware of, and
concerned-about, the widespread social tragedies that result from the
way law is taught and practised in this country.  No, I am an
inexperienced bully and an inexperienced victim.  This of course does
not disqualify me from speaking out.




From: Michael.Baumann@f60.n374.z1.fidonet.org (Michael Baumann)
Sender: postmaster@eilc.UUCP