"Because law school teaches students not only what the law is but also what it can be," writes Harvard lawprof Noah Feldman.
Yeah, but do law schools teach subject-verb agreement?
Or am I thinking only of grammar as it is and not also as it can be?
Maybe "law’s power and ubiquity" are — in a subtler manner of thinking, in a truer, better world — really just one thing: the big amazingness of law.
२२ मार्च, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
"the big amazingness of law."
said the lawyer.
I'm sure money and power, or the hope thereof, is in there somewhere, for both law schools and lawyers. That is the sorry world we are stuck with for better or worse.
"Probably because the thing is, is that the law is comprised of power and ubiquity," as Obama would put it, ungrammatically.
I don't get the complaint. "The law is" works just fine even if you've recently referred to the law's power and ubiquity.
In any case, his defence of law school is hardly sufficient to justify the cost.
"We teach our students to understand that law is power. That power is never being exercised accidentally or abstractly, but always by real people who are competing with other real people. We teach students to understand that the quest for justice is an irreducible part of legal reasoning."
Law school! Because we need more people teaching amateur sociology, political science, and philosophy, and charge $60K for it!
Somehow, other countries manage just fine with law as a (second-tier) undergraduate major + apprenticeships.
Perhaps power and ubiquity are a unitary indivisible concept in his mind? That's what I, as a lawyer, would argue in his defense.
::Giant Wanking Gesture::
Interesting. The mistake didn't jar me when I read it (until I got to the point where Althouse pointed it out.) When you correct it, it shifts the focus from "law" to "power and ubiquity" (the actual subject.) My guess is that he wanted the focus on "law," but he chose the wrong structure to do it.
T'were blasphemous to refer to an entity possessing both ubiquity and power with any but the singular verb form (of course, the biblical "doth" avoids the problem).
They found that smart, edjumicated, grammatical lawyer putting up those stickers in Austin...
This is the second time this week you have blogged about Noah Feldman.
As if the normal person wouldn't think about these questions?
To educate lawyers to understand that the law is a living thing, we necessarily draw on the tools of other academic disciplines. Legal history teaches what the law has been and how it has evolved in conjunction with society. Legal philosophy teaches students to ask whether and how the law is moral. Legal economics teaches students to ask whether the law is efficient, and who wins or loses when the rule is set. Legal sociology and anthropology explore how the law is shaped by our social practices and cultural beliefs, and how law shapes those in return.
If you don't understand your field of law, of course your thinking may be mistaken. But it is highly, highly unlikely that most law professors really understand what is happening in the world, and profoundly unlikely that as they prate to their students, any workable results emerge. The classic example has been Elizabeth Warren, who wrote long articles about why credit card disclosures were meaningless and confusing EVEN AS FEDERAL LAW/REGULATOR CODE DICTATED THE CONTENT, WORDING AND FORMAT OF THOSE DISCLOSURES. Notably, she has achieved less than nothing in the real world. That's because she's got a lot of philosophy and ethics, and frighteningly little knowledge.
The linked article seems to me to be the worst defense of law schools as an institution that I have ever encountered. Boiled down, it reads as "we have to teach the students the goals."
If law schools were more efficient at teaching students, the students would do better in the real world. As the ethics/legality/philosophy crap has crept into law teaching, the ability of graduated lawyers has declined.
So lawyers are just activists.
Another recent stunning example of ethics/power/social/philosophical law in action was Elizabeth Warren's proposal to fix student loans at discount window interest rates, thus completely ignoring the time value of money and the fact that discount rate loans are secured by posting collateral. It's a liquidity facility only.
If the students HAD the collateral, they would be better off just selling it, paying their current obligations, and putting the rest on deposit or buying shorter term securities so that they would earn at least nominal interest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/elizabeth-warren-student-loans_n_3240407.html
It's called notional agreement.
It is the arrogance combined with ignorance of Feldman's approach that may well install Walker as our next president.
Politics without any connection to the people rarely works well.
Okay, I'll bite. Law's scope does require ...
He used a phrase intended to mean something like that. He is not talking about two things, the law's power and the law's ubiquity. He is talking about one thing, the law's scope, characterized by its power and ubiquity. And singular subjects take singular verbs.
Rhhardin has it exactly.
"My bed and breakfast is open year round."
Feldman is the guy who embarrassed himself by suing a restaurant because its online menu prices were wrong? Or do I have him mixed up with some other asshole Harvard law prof?
Isn't law school about teaching that the commonly accepted definitions of words and phrases don't mean a damned thing if it interferes with some genius judge's concept of what would really, really be much better? Oh, and to disabuse people of the notion that the Constitution can be understood by the common man?
Well you can try to sell yourself on the idea that he was using notional agreement, and "power and ubiquity" is standing in for the singular concept of "scope" or (the much better) "big amazingness." I'm going with a mistake, made for the usual reason - that "do/does" was next to the singular "law['s]"
@Mary - I'm a mathematician. People have to pay me to be tightly consistent in logical matters. :)
The Althouse "big amazingness of law"
The job of the descriptive grammarian is not to correct it, but to explain why it sounds okay.
Another error in Feldman’s column: “Sure, law professors start with the cases and statutes that comprise [sic] legal doctrine.” I have to conclude that the professor is barely literate.
But here is where he finally lost me: “We need people like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,...” Seriously? Whom are these two examples supposed to persuade?
Imagine anyone reading this, and thinking, “You know, he makes a good point, we do need more people like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney!” Who on earth would ever think that? I don't even believe either Obama or Romney would agree with that proposition, and I doubt that Feldman really believes it either. It sinks his whole argument, and he comes off as less than entirely honest.
I think the error in the writing is larger. He answers the question in the question. I would have written: "why are students required to go to law school? Answer because law's power and ubiquity require a special place where students are taught not only what the law is, but what it can be.
In my opinion, the best schools teach what the law is, but more importantly why it is that way and what it would take to change it.
Are law schools necessary for the production of lawyers?
Higher education in general is one of the last bastions of self-preservation instinct for the over educated. (Please recall that I'm a professor so I have a dog in the hunt.) The strategy is a two-pronged effort to 1) restrict supply of those with the necessary credentials 2) provide demand by requiring advanced degrees for jobs that don't really require terminal degrees to effectively perform.
The fundamental problem with this strategy is that college isn't compulsory; eventually the run of the mill student is going to figure out that graduating from even a good state school with a B minus average doesn't offer opportunities enough to offset the crushing debts most students have to incur to join the club.
This sector (higher education) is working on an extremely antiquated business model; a major disruption to the sector is coming. (In fact it's already here.).
Expect to see more of these long winded but vague polemics on why Law... Medical ... MBA ... Whatever professional schools are so critical to society.
Note also that those polemics will be written either by 1) academics or 2) politicians ... But never by folks who actually hire people.
Noah Feldman is one of those people to whom when I listen I realize:
This person is smarter than I am.
None of my quirky rhetoric black holes will affect this man one bit.
Not one bit.
Yelling, after changing my name to Jessica, might be my best bet here to change the effects Harvard and HLS (unCruz) has had and will have foreseeable.
Harvard (and HLS unCruz) has had and...
Harvard and HLS (unCruz) have had and will continue foreseeable to have as is their want.
Barnett, not Dean but instead my best friend my dog, has developed his sense of thoughtful, cogitation-filled-anticipation to the extent, not just being smart enough to stop at the curb when the ball goes into the road(!), he now deliberately pushes the ball in the road--and across the street--so he can dictate the action.
It only happens when he's tired, and it took me a long time to figure all this out.
Way longer than Barnie.
Comfortable, easy, nice: all those apply to the idea of putting this quote somewhere other than a post on law, and Harvard Law nonetheless.
But the fact is: "the f*** wrong with Barack Obama?"
Whatever it is begins with Harvard socialist's evil.
Also, he ain't yo kin if you black.
Or white unLeftist neither.
And now that "un" has taken off, I'm about to go QuiteCruz yo.
No joke. I haven't determined if this will help more or hinder more yet, but I will, even if wrongly.
"enough to offset the crushing debts most students have to incur"
This is not true of college students. Average debt of graduating seniors is still less than $30K. Many have no debt.
Meanwhile the NSA, not Matrix-like costumed 1099 contractors but presumed-innocent-always-yes-even-when-they-rape-your-dog agents of our Federal government starts efforts to prove we all do commit three felonies a day, if we are saints, and therefore the IRS was right to arrest the players' (yeah that's right, the players', not only the player's) family via swat no-knock.
And Noah can sleep peacefully always knowing eggs get cracked but any real reform via Tennessee Law profs with giant balls aren't actionable due to racist corruption or, more accurately, the fact Harvard knows its prestige allows for their Royal treatment.
When conservatives pay for extreme Leftism, via entertainment or cable or University or property taxes or sales taxes or income taxes or fines or fees then they can't complain about anything with honor until they stop paying for their torment. I pay my taxes and hate myself for it, as only a coward can hate oneself.
It's tough, I use google everyday a lot.
I am Great Googly Moogly.
So I understand why I deserve the fate of slavery, as things stand.
Until I stop paying Leftists to rape me I can't bitch too loud about my bloody ass.
Sebastian define your terms after you define their terms.
What does "college students" mean?
Are you including 2 year beauty schools?
Are you including Harvard Law School?
Why or why not?
How did you determine what you were so sure was wrong without knowing how the terms were defined on their end?
I know you are wrong because of your declarations, not because I disagree with your ideology.
"Feldman is the guy who embarrassed himself by suing a restaurant because its online menu prices were wrong? Or do I have him mixed up with some other asshole Harvard law prof?"
You have him mixed up with someone else.
Who is to say what's "crushing" student debt?
To some, $200,000 in student debt is "nothing" or, at least non-crushing, because they are about to get hired at high six figures with a sweet bonus.
To others, a $50 a month payment is cause of high anxiety, if not "crushing" as you right.
Everybody poops on Freud but we all know his name not just because it's fun to spell.
Or write.
Right?
I disagree. Everyone in my family is a lawyer. All of their cronies are too. I grew up around minds that were trained by law schools to employ logic and reason.
But today? Its like they are giving it away. I routinely run across "lawyers" who are the dumbest people I've met.
What the hell happened? Have you noticed this? You've been teaching law for quite some time. What has happened to law schools?
You just don't understand, Professor Althouse. Grammar has always been meant to be a living, breathing thing — like the Constitution!
Prof. Feldman is saying that we need law schools to train society's leaders. Even if that's true, we don't need 200 law schools graduating 25-35,000 lawyers/year to do that. I say: Make the bar exam harder (include some practice tests, too) and let anyone take the bar, with or without a law degree. That will kill off most of the lower tier law schools, but will have no effect on the Tier 1 schools and a limited impact on Tier 2 schools.
I rather think the "ubiquity" of law is an unfortunate development, not something to be celebrated and encouraged with law schools.
That said, the article isn't all bad:
Before I do, however, let me make a big admission: Law school isn’t really necessary for lawyers or their clients.
Ye~s . . .
Graduating from law school, even having learned everything the professors have to teach, doesn’t prepare you to practice at a high level.
Change that "at a high level" to "at all" and I quite agree!
Then he gets to this:
Law is the set of master rules that govern every other aspect of our society and our state. Law functions as a monopoly over all other forms of decision-making. When you make a life decision without a lawyer, it’s because the law allows you to do it. Unlike art or accounting or investment banking or even medicine, law affects and governs literally every aspect of human existence -- whether you like it or not.
And . . . this is supposed to be a good thing? He has laid bare the black, nameless horror that lurks at the heart of the law -- its blind, ceaseless will to dominate all life!
Laws are the rules that are, in extremis, backed by the threat of men with guns who will ultimately kill you if you don't acquiesce. That threat of organised, murderous violence is what distinguishes law from custom.
The law protects us from the whims of tyrants, yes, but the law itself is a form of tyranny -- one to be introduced into our ordinary customary and social relations sparingly and only where absolutely necessary. Law is not a substitute for civilization -- it comes into effect in the dark, interstitial corners of civilisation, where the civilisation has broken down.
We should all hope that law be constrained to the narrowest possible field. The notion that our default assumption should be that all things under the sun are ruled to the law and that things outside the scope of law are placed there only by law's sufferance should be rejected forcefully at every turn by all free peoples.
Soundtrack for Noah:
https://youtu.be/MOV2CXB8AYE
Here's another example of a pair of things used to describe big amazingness.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, ...
"The power and the glory" describes something which is His.
I read that column yesterday. To paraphrase for those who don't want to read it:
"Law schools are needed because otherwise I wouldn't have a job. So I will now pull arguments out of my ass to support my position."
-- Noah Feldman
In all honestly, his article is nothing but an indictment of law school and illustrates why we should probably abolish the entire university system and start over, including law school. At the very least, Noah should go get a real job.
Maybe someday, the law will exclude admissions by a party opponent from the definition of hearsay. Maybe someday...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा