« October 06, 2003 | Main | October 08, 2003 »
ADR
It appears my partner and I stumbled into a degree of success in the ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) contest in which we participated last Sunday. As I mentioned last week, I was a little less than excited by this competition, primarily because it seemed to require "formal business attire," a.k.a. a uniform.
But after ranting against the monkey suit, I gave into the inevitable and, $252 later (thanks to a big sale at Filene's Basement), I had the full uniform (socks and shoes included). And yesterday, we got the call saying, "Congratulations, you made the ADR Board." Yay!
The competition was actually pretty fun. Briefly, it worked like this: Each team of two got a fact pattern describing a dispute between a fictional collegiate athletic association and one of its member schools accused of rule violations. In addition, each team got some "confidential information" about what their client wanted out of the negotiation. The actual contest was a 20-minute negotiation session in which the two teams came together to see if they could reach an agreement. It turned out the confidential info on both sides gave us plenty of room for meeting in the middle, which we quickly did.
Like I said, it was fun, and it's always nice to get positive feedback for the things you do. Still, I feel a little silly about making the board; I mean, after listening to one of its reps lecture me about clothes for 20 minutes, I was convinced ADR was the last thing in law school for me. What's more, I don't really know what role ADR plays in the legal world or what it means to be "on the board." (Can anyone fill me in?) Yet, the idea of ADR seems like a good one; it's supposed to be a friendly thing, as opposed to the adversarial nature of a court proceeding. How can that be bad? I guess we'll see...
Posted 06:16 AM | law school
Academic English Craziness
Yesterday Brian Leiter pointed to "Critical Mass," a blog written by Erin O'Connor, who is apparently a tenured English professor at the University of Pennsylvania. I don't have time to say all I'd like to about O'Connor's blog, but suffice to say it's a very scary thing. And then there's the Erin O'Connor Watch, which I've got to think will only make things worse.
If you're currently in English academia, you might recognize what's going on here from your own experience or from things you've seen or heard about. The bottom line is that making a profession of English at the university level requires very different types of thinking than most people will have experienced elsewhere. That thinking is not necessarily "liberal" or "conservative," it's critical. If you're unwilling to engage in critical thinking, you're likely to be shunned. O'Connor obviously exhibits an ability to think critically; some of the letters she posts from former grad students and undergrads—not so much critical thinking.
I think all academics should have blogs; if "Critical Mass" was but one among many, readers could easily evaluate its claims about academia. As it is, "Critical Mass" is like a squeaky wheel, and academics might want to take care that it doesn't get the grease.
Posted 05:18 AM | life generally
