A Reply: The Elegant, Obvious Solution to 1L Self-Loathing

I originally posted this as a comment to Phaedrus' immediately preceding post, but it became too long to be a comment on a post:


Phaedrus, you still have it all wrong. Grades and class rank only have a HIGHLY tenuous correlation to intelligence, writing ability, and logical thinking.

The only way to make the correlation strong enough to be statistically significant, thereby making it a genuinely useful indicator of something practical (other than for employers who just want the "type" that is usually at the top of the class), is to extend the timeline over a period of many, many years (decades?). Even then, good luck controlling for all those spurious causes that arise during the intervening period.

That's all a (general) statistical way of saying "grades and class rank don't say jack shit about the individual, and they don't really even say much about the overall class." You know this.

My solution to the school-related issues these 1Ls are experiencing is simple: just. give. up. You know, as Fight Club and The Postal Service might say. Stop struggling. Accept it, and the benefits will come, including higher grades for a lot of people.

Everyone (me more than most...) is going to rage against "the system" of law school/the profession, but it's better to stop allowing it to get in your head as early as possible. Critique it, spot the flaws, whatever, because they exist in abundance...just don't allow it to drive you insane.

Bottom line: they'll get over it. Move your own ass to another table. Better yet, stop doing your non-law review work at school like a good 3L. ;)

Need Advice: New Reading Material

Since 3Ls don't believe in class or reading, I am looking for some new non-fiction material. Just assume that "fiction" doesn't even exist. Additionally, my primary interests on point are anything about military stuff, anything political, anything on economics, and most academic/"objective"-type religion stuff. Anything historical on these topics adds appeal. There, I think I threw out enough terms to encompass most information that exists.

Top 3 so far:

1. any known Sun Tzu material (obviously translated, good translation recommendations would be nice)

2. Machiavelli

3. de Tocqueville

4. Ayn Rand pieces that are not mind-numbingly redundant (do they exist?)

Always Something Good in The Economist

From The Economist, "What a way to run the world," July 3, 2008 print edition:

"Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich world—and America in particular—has a choice. Cling to power, and China and India will form their own clubs, focused on their own interests and problems. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems are shared. Now that would be a decent way to run a world."

Perspectives: Anti-Cell Phone Use While Driving Laws

Oh noes, it's another "substantive" post that goes beyond our usual sarcasm and bitching. Yesterday, I experienced an increasingly common phenomenon for the first time. While on the phone with my sister, who currently lives in New Jersey, she said, "I have to go, I'm about to start driving and it's illegal to hold the phone up to your ear while driving in New Jersey." This was the first time anyone has ever ended a phone conversation with me because the person was about to go driving.

I usually reserve my planned phone calls SPECIFICALLY for driving time so I can sort of multitask instead of having those calls take up time I could spend doing something else. I also like to spend driving time on the phone because it is an effective way to occupy my mind while performing the relatively mundane task of keeping the vehicle under control.

Many states now regulate cell phone use while driving in some form. One of the most common regulatory approaches is to require the use of a hands-free device for cell phone use while driving. However, opponents of regulation often argue that the problem lies in the distraction of the conversation, not in the use of the phone itself. While I agree with that to some extent, are those opponents willing to entertain the notion of making it illegal to talk to one's passengers? I don't think that would ever happen, but that's one logical conclusion of that argument. Here is a color-coded map of states with various levels of laws on point:

What do you guys think about this issue? Should states be regulating cell phone use while driving at all? What form should this regulation take? Do we like the hands-free requirements already adopted in many states? Do we need to go further and require drivers to bind and gag their passengers to avoid conversational distractions from backseat drivers? Please discuss in the comments. Seriously.

I anticipate a debate of epic proportions in the comments, by which I mean I expect to get at least one post from Phaedrus being a dickhead, one from El Guapo employing some good ol' boy Southern sense, and one from mootgoescow including at least one internetism.

Should There Be a "Duty to Rescue"?

This video, in which a hit-and-run driver hits a man and passers-by do nothing but gawk, sparked a conversation between me and a fellow law clerk about whether tort law should recognize a duty to rescue.

According to the Wikipedia "duty to rescue" article, many European nations at least recognize a duty to contact emergency authorities, although only a few impose a full-fledged affirmative duty to rescue.

What do you guys think American jurisdictions should do with this issue? Should we continue imposing no duty to rescue? Is an affirmative duty to rescue a good idea? Why or why not? What about an intermediate solution such as imposing a duty to contact authorities?

This is a genuine, substantive post. Let's get some comments going for once!