What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepler said:
As the Resident Andy Bernard, I believe there is entirely too much Ivy undergrad dominance. While I loved my school and my classmates, there are at least a hundred other universities where I could have gotten just as good an education and met just as interesting and talented classmates. The median changes but that doesn't matter since people self-select their friends.

However. For law school, and far more especially med school, give me the best of the people there are, and those people are drawn for a variety of reasons, some good, many bad, to the top tier. By no means just the Ivies -- but probably not past the the top 25. I want that guy operating on me.

The #1 kid at 250 different undergrad colleges is interchangeable. The fact that she wound up at Ivy College or Enormous Flyover Jock Factory University or even Batsh-t Fuckwit Religious School was an accident of the birth lottery. But grad school and professional school is different. There, the filters aren't money, they are ability. Plenty of demographic diversity among their grads.
Click to expand...

Meh, it's actually the same with law school. The top x% at any law school are going to be good. The % is just higher at a top 10 school and drops down from there. The courts are stacked with Ivy/Stanford grads because they're the safe pick, not because there aren't thousands of other qualified attorneys elsewhere.

The other thing is that law is highly regional. If you want to live in Colorado, going to a law school in Colorado is going to open more doors than a higher ranked school in Minnesota, for instance. And after your first job, no one really gives a shit outside of a few rare instances (SCOTUS being the prime one).
 
Kepler said:
However. For law school, and far more especially med school, give me the best of the people there are, and those people are drawn for a variety of reasons, some good, many bad, to the top tier. By no means just the Ivies -- but probably not past the the top 25. I want that guy operating on me.

But grad school and professional school is different. There, the filters aren't money, they are ability. Plenty of demographic diversity among their grads.
Click to expand...

One reason why when I see BO was EIC of Harvard Law Reiew, it meant the guy has some serious game. EIC has to, first, get the most coveted job in law school, then manage a highly competitive board of editors, business managers, etc., review and recruit articles from law professors, judges and academics across the country, work with the dean, and be trusted by her board and outside writers to make the right editorial choices. Plus, at Harvard you have to deal with articles like "Peenis envy in the law."
 
unofan said:
Meh, it's actually the same with law school. The top x% at any law school are going to be good. The % is just higher at a top 10 school and drops down from there. The courts are stacked with Ivy/Stanford grads because they're the safe pick, not because there aren't thousands of other qualified attorneys elsewhere.

The other thing is that law is highly regional. If you want to live in Colorado, going to a law school in Colorado is going to open more doors than a higher ranked school in Minnesota, for instance. And after your first job, no one really gives a **** outside of a few rare instances (SCOTUS being the prime one).
Click to expand...

I think that's very true in medicine as well based on what my brother went through. WW obviously could give better insight than my 2nd hand info.
 
unofan said:
Meh, it's actually the same with law school. The top x% at any law school are going to be good. The % is just higher at a top 10 school and drops down from there. The courts are stacked with Ivy/Stanford grads because they're the safe pick, not because there aren't thousands of other qualified attorneys elsewhere.

The other thing is that law is highly regional. If you want to live in Colorado, going to a law school in Colorado is going to open more doors than a higher ranked school in Minnesota, for instance. And after your first job, no one really gives a **** outside of a few rare instances (SCOTUS being the prime one).
Click to expand...

100% this. Whenever I speak with people who are thinking about going to law school, I always ask them where they want to practice when they are lawyers. Wherever that is, I tell them to find a law school in that area, as it will usually open far more doors to practice in that area than a degree from a law school outside the region.

Also, FWIW, the two biggest morons who I've encountered in the practice of law were both Ivy law graduates (one Yale, one Penn). One even continually referred to his "Ivy education" when arguing a Motion before our Judge. The Judge admonished him on the record, stating something to the effect of "your Ivy Education does not substitute for the lack of legal support for your position." We were awarded attorneys' fees for our time spent responding to the Motion. The case settled for about half its value a few weeks later.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Also, FWIW, the two biggest morons who I've encountered in the practice of law were both Ivy law graduates (one Yale, one Penn).
Click to expand...

What it's worth is nothing, it's an anecdote.

Nobody is saying every tier 1 grad > every non-tier 1 grad. But we're saying there's a reason most of the people at CERN and JPL and NASA -- the ones in the back room doing the bleeding edge work -- are from MIT and CalTech and Planck (sorry Stanford... oh, but your outfit is very bespoke).

Now, is that what you need on SCOTUS? Meh, probably not. TBH I'm not entirely sure you even need just lawyers on it. As long as they are brilliant and, more important, kind, it wouldn't hurt to throw a couple scientists, economists, and philosophers on it.

+6 to save the Court, and have none of them be lawyers! And they can come from Cletus and Brandine Land as long as they're to the Left of William Douglas.
 
Kepler said:
What it's worth is nothing, it's an anecdote.

Nobody is saying every tier 1 grad > every non-tier 1 grad. But we're saying there's a reason most of the people at CERN and JPL and NASA -- the ones in the back room doing the bleeding edge work -- are from MIT and CalTech and Planck (sorry Stanford... oh, but your outfit is very bespoke).

Now, is that what you need on SCOTUS? Meh, probably not. TBH I'm not entirely sure you even need just lawyers on it. As long as they are brilliant and, more important, kind, it wouldn't hurt to throw a couple scientists, economists, and philosophers on it.

+6 to save the Court, and have none of them be lawyers! And they can come from Cletus and Brandine Land as long as they're to the Left of William Douglas.
Click to expand...

I can get on board with +6. Absolute hard pass on the rest of your post as it pertains to the legal system.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I think that's very true in medicine as well based on what my brother went through. WW obviously could give better insight than my 2nd hand info.
Click to expand...

Medical school really does not matter much. It is all relatively uniform, and if you have a good work ethic, you will be fine.

Residency and fellowship, on the other hand, really do matter. That is where you learn to be a doctor. Medical school is where you learn to speak the language, residency is where you move to that country and get immersed.

But if you are an asshole or lazy, does not really matter where you came from.
 
Kepler said:
What it's worth is nothing, it's an anecdote.

Nobody is saying every tier 1 grad > every non-tier 1 grad. But we're saying there's a reason most of the people at CERN and JPL and NASA -- the ones in the back room doing the bleeding edge work -- are from MIT and CalTech and Planck (sorry Stanford... oh, but your outfit is very bespoke).

Now, is that what you need on SCOTUS? Meh, probably not. TBH I'm not entirely sure you even need just lawyers on it. As long as they are brilliant and, more important, kind, it wouldn't hurt to throw a couple scientists, economists, and philosophers on it.

+6 to save the Court, and have none of them be lawyers! And they can come from Cletus and Brandine Land as long as they're to the Left of William Douglas.
Click to expand...

No, they need to be lawyers. What you want is a senator, not a justice.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Jesus. Was he insane?
Click to expand...

No. Just a moron. Which is unfortunate. The legal system works best when you have good, intelligent legal representation on both sides, in front of a qualified judge. I have unfortunately had too many cases where the other side was either a moron or woefully unprepared (or worse, pro se) to practice in the niche that I do. Not as frequently (but still happens on occasion), I get a judge that is unfamiliar with the area and starts making shit up. That is horrific, and but for the appellate system, would completely upset the apple cart. To have judges that are not properly educated and/or qualified at the top would cause absolute chaos in the legal system.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
No. Just a moron. Which is unfortunate. The legal system works best when you have good, intelligent legal representation on both sides, in front of a qualified judge. I have unfortunately had too many cases where the other side was either a moron or woefully unprepared (or worse, pro se) to practice in the niche that I do. Not as frequently (but still happens on occasion), I get a judge that is unfamiliar with the area and starts making **** up. That is horrific, and but for the appellate system, would completely upset the apple cart. To have judges that are not properly educated and/or qualified at the top would cause absolute chaos in the legal system.
Click to expand...

At least federal justices get two, sometimes three, clerks who were typically gunners.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Senator Kennedy with a revolting comment on sc nominees

https://twitter.com/michaelsteele/st...428470784?s=21

jfc
Click to expand...

Jeez, Michael Steele. He knows and he won't disavow them. It is obvious when he speaks on the subject he understands the American conservative movement is, root and branch, white supremacist, and yet he will still not cut the cord.

Behold the power of ideology. At least Clarence Thomas has the excuse of craven mendacity. But Steele is a principled man. His tragedy is on par with Colin Powell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top