Cold Call Close Call

Only one of this semester's Profs uses the old cold call method to elicit class participation. ProfContracts is sticking with his wonderful method of simply moving methodically up and down each row, calling on each person in turn, so you can always know well in advance if you're going to be one of the people called on in the next class. ProfProperty uses a completely volunteer system, at least until he gets down to that frightened little core that can't bring themselves to ever raise their hands, at which point he's assured us he'll cold call, if necessary. ProfConLaw uses a fairly inefficient row-by-row method, so you can know if your row is going to be "on call" on a given day, but you don't know if you'll get called on that day or not. It's inefficient because she doesn't seem to be able to keep very good track of who she has and hasn't called on, and I don't think we're moving through people at an adequate pace to get to everyone this semester (which is fine by me). But whatever. It's ProfCivPro who's sticking with the straight cold-call method, leaving us all wondering, every single day, if this could be our day to be in the hotseat.

Apparently, yesterday was my day.

Somehow I wondered if it might be. I had a feeling. I don't know why, but it may have had something to do with the fact that I skipped the last class last Friday (there were reasons!) and hadn't looked at the material at all in about a week. That's always a good way to put your name at the top of the cold-call list: Go to class completely unprepared. So I'd prepared a good response if she called on me. It was going to go like this:

ProfCivPro: Mr. ambimb, could you tell us what Justice Harlan was thinking in his Hannah dissent?

Me: Well, um, is failing to read a criminal offense?

ProfCivPro: (baffled) What? Why do you ask?

Me: Because I'd like to plead the fifth.

Wouldn't that be really funny, ha ha? But of course, when ProfCivPro called on me, I didn't say anything like that. Instead, I read from the book. Luckily, I had read the material she was asking about; it had just been so long since I'd read it or looked at it that I didn't remember what it was about. So ProfCivPro would ask a question, I'd scan the sentences I'd highlighted sometime last week or the week before, and just start reading one that sounded like it might be on the topic of her question. At the end of the sentence, I'd raise the tone of my voice so it would sound like I was asking a question, i.e. "is that the answer you were looking for?" I hoped this would signal ProfCivPro she better not press me too hard because I didn't really know what I was talking about, and mostly it worked. She'd just start talking and fill in the explanation that she'd really been looking for from me. Overall, the strategy worked, and by the time she'd finished questioning me, I actually understood what we'd been talking about. My final bit of luck came when ProfCivPro moved on to her next respondent at precisely the point where my previous reading (and highlighting) had ended. She even congratulated me on a job well done.

Not bad, considering I'd entered class planning to just throw myself on her mercies if she called on me. I'm thinking I better be extra careful for a while because my personal storehouse of luck is now completely empty. I guess that means my mock trial opponents this Saturday are going to have a pretty easy time of it.

Posted 06:59 AM | Comments (4) | law school

Shifting Gears

What is there to say that hasn't been or isn't being said? The Columbia-Union rounds up a number of responses to Dean's withdrawal from the race, and here's the actual withdrawal speech where Dean asks supporters to stick together and do whatever it takes to get Bush out of office. At least two publications (here and here) have published stories entitled "Howard's End." The latter editorial is from John Margolis, who writes:

In Vermont, Dr. Dean was never a very good politician. He was quite a good governor. He was a prudent steward of the state's finances. He expanded social services while reducing taxes. During the debate over civil unions in 2000, he not only kept his word but he also kept his cool.

On the campaign trail, though, Dr. Dean was a dud. Here was a man with neither a thirst for the political jugular nor a sense of timing.

I understand that to some people, this is what made Dean "unelectable" in this race -- he's just not a very good politician. The irony is that this is exactly why so many people like me supported him. Imagine: A politician who's not a politician, but a person. Yeah, imagine that.

I voted Nader in 2000. I never registered as a Democrat before this year. Prior to Dean's candidacy, I detested the Democratic Party only slightly less than I abhored the Republican Party. I thought a third party was the only solution to the hopeless mess that is national politics today. Dean and his campaign made me rethink all that; I started to hope again that maybe, instead of having to rely on something entirely new, we could just fix what was broken -- the Democratic Party -- and get American politics back on a sane path again.

And perhaps we can. Should Kerry get the nomination, I'll certainly vote for Kerry as a lesser evil than Bush. And should Edwards get the nomination, I'll vote for Edwards as a lesser evil than both of them. Neither offers much hope for real change in the Democratic Party, but hey, I guess we'll have to worry about that later. Right now it's back to the bottom line: (all together now) Redefeat Bush.

Posted 06:46 AM | election 2004