« January 29, 2004 | Main | January 31, 2004 »
Grade Explosion
Glorfindel of Gondolin dares to post his 1L grades—and gets kicked around for it in the comments. Yikes.
One of the more thoughtful commenters writes:
I've always considered that grades in law school (or any school) are like salaries at an office. You can bitch about them, talk about them in vague terms, but it's just impolite to talk about them. Why? Because the next guy might be doing the same job, just as well, but getting less money (for whatever reason). It's not fair, it's life, and it's polite just to leave that stuff off limits.
But see, this is the problem. So long as we keep salaries and grades secret, relegated to the realm of the "impolite" and the "personal," they'll retain their power over us. The issue of talking about income is the best example: We try to pretend that how much money we make doesn't matter, that we live in a classless society, that we're all middle class, etc. But rather than helping smooth social differences or improve our society in some other way, this willed ignorance about the huge income inequalities in the U.S. simply acts as a screen to hide the brutal effects of those inequalities from our collective "middle class" consciousness. We don't need to worry about poor people, because we're all middle class, right? And so long as we make sure we don't talk about income, we can also be sure our little "middle class" fantasy remains intact. Yay.
Grades work a little differently, I think, but they do seem to be much more powerful and influential as dark secrets we hide than they would be as bits of information we openly share. I suspect that the people who most fiercely refuse to discuss grades are those to whom they mean the most, either because those people have really high or really low grades, and either very proud or very ashamed of those grades. As with income, so with grades—the people on the extremes fear they have something to hide. If you have top grades, you don't want to tell because you're afraid people will think you're bragging, or that people will expect more from you, or that people will be afraid of you or more competitive with you or whatever. If you have bottom grades, you don't want to tell because you're afraid people will think you're stupid, they won't want to talk with you or study with you, they'll be unable to take anything you say seriously, etc.
But imagine a scenario where everyone gets their grades and then freely discusses them. Wouldn't that drain all the power from those little symbols? Wouldn't that show the world that grades are just stupid letters? Wouldn't that make law students collectively seem much smarter, much more mature, much more wise, showing that they understand that those letters have a huge arbitrary component and exist for one rotten thing only, namely, to divide law students into different brackets for employers to choose from? And most of all, wouldn't it show all those people on the top and bottom that nobody really cares half as much about their grades as they do?
Maybe. Maybe not. But after the rhetorical trouncing Carey got for publishing his grades, I'm less optimistic that people are ready to give it a try.
Posted 05:19 AM | Comments (10) | law school
Dean Machine Retooling
One way to describe Roy Neel, Dean's new campaign manager, is as "something of an old hand", but another way is simply "Washington Insider." It's that latter description that has some people ready to give up on Dean (cf, David Corn), and while jumping the "dis-endorsing" wagon might seem tempting, I'll let the option pass, joining other Dean supporters who are accepting the changes "wistfully":
"People working for the Dean campaign might be somewhat demoralized that he picked this Washington insider," [anderbilt University professor Bruce] Barry said, "but they might be energized by the fact that he's reinvented his campaign. He's not standing still."
The L.A. Times provides a few more details on the staff change, and the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz rounds up a bit of the reaction to the change, while the Daily Kos thread on the subject generated more than 400 comments from all over the map.
In Dean's new strategy, it appears he'll largely be skipping the Feb. 3 races, hoping to get wins in Washington, Michigan, and Wisconsin, instead. (Does it make any difference that the Detroit Free Press appears to have endorsed Kerry?) It appears the Dean money advantage is more or less gone, but the campaign took in over $250,000 Wednesday alone in online donations. According to Blog for America:
This race is about the next seven weeks, not the next seven states. We will not let the pundits call this race, the people will, and that means this race comes down to winning delegates. Today, Howard Dean is winning the nomination fight with 114 of the delegates.We are set to win the nomination because we have two things our opponents don't have and cannot build in the next six weeks:
1) Over 620,000 people who have invested their time and money into our campaign and who if anything are recommitted after Iowa and New Hampshire.
2) The ability to replenish. We raised $2.2 million since the Iowa Caucuses, including more than $480,000 raised online since the New Hampshire Primary.
And perhaps more important is the media's ongoing fascination with the Dean campaign:
John Kerry may be the front-runner, political analysts say, but Dean is the story.
Walter Shapiro agrees. Why the fascination? Because Dean is different. He's a different candidate who has run a different campaign. And that difference, as Martha used to say, is a good thing. The media attention can be a less good thing, but it may prove ok in the end. The major networks are now admitting that they blew "the scream" way out of proportion.
The Democratic establishment is loving Kerry right now—even Clinton is saying positive things about Kerry today, although he didn't give a formal endorsement. But the question voters should ask remains: What has the Democratic establishment produced in the last four years? Nada.
So Switch to Dean (it's cheaper than switching to a Mac and, difficult as it might be to imagine, the payback will be even greater).
Posted 05:11 AM | election 2004