Optimist! Hell I would settle for one viable party at this point.
I don’t know of a law school that does Law Review spots by grades only. We had a weighted system, with journal spots based on two main factors - grades and a write on competition. There were a limited number of spots for grades only, and a limited number of spots for write-on only, with the majority of spots being awarded based on an average of the two. Showing a Law Review person’s grades were lower than those of a person who was on another journal, or on no journal at all, was therefore no indication of affirmative action.
From talking to friends from other law schools, there systems were all similar.
The birth certificate horseshit has faded like a fart, so now they’ve squeezed this new one out. Cool! I hope it’s as amusing.
Magna cum laude = “with great honors.” According to Harvard Law, the distinction is given to law grads whose grades are not in the top 1 percent of the class (that group is summa cum laude) but who are in the top 10 percent after that. Here’s the cite on Harvard’s requirements for a J.D.
The Law Review is a student publication. We’re talking about his transcript. His grades were better than at least 80 percent of his classmates. So I’m going out on a limb and saying there is no basis for this implication - and I agree that’s what they are trying to imply. Incidentally if anything, the requirements for magna cum laude may have been stricter 20 years ago.
I didnt say affirmative action WAS used. I was saying unless the ONLY thing that was used a GPA, and his was better than anyone elses, the affirmative action COULD have possibly been used, whether it actually was or not.
And, in politics, even the remotely plausible ability to argue something, whether remotely true or not, is 90 percent of the battle.
And note, I sure as hell aint saying this is right. I am just saying this is a possible angle.
No I understand - I wasn’t meaning to attack you, just to say that it wouldn’t show if AA had been used.
I’d also hope that Law Review admissions’ policies included knowing the different between “there” and “their” but I think I just proved that isn’t the case.
Fair enough.
Just trying to make my point more clear.
Their you half it.
It’s also not at all a plausible angle (in addition to the fact that the distinction on his degree tells us how good his grades were) because editor-in-chief is not a position you get because of affirmative action unless your fellow students and law review colleagues are somehow subject to an affirmative action requirement. Most likely the person who made the decision to make him editor-in-chief was the previous editor-in-chief, not a school official.
It’s a position you have to compete for, and if he had shitty grades and was given the spot anyway someone who got passed over would have had something to say about that by now (hell, it was the Harvard Law Review; they’d have filed suit by now). His grades were pretty obviously very good; I guess the real benefit of making a big deal out of them being unreleased is that you can continue to make a big deal out of it when he refuses to release them as if the absence of information is evidence that there must be something. Pretty standard tactic, the old “if you’ve got nothing to hide…”
Him having good, hell very good grades, but not the very best grades is all it takes to open up the door.
And note I am not saying its a very good arguement, or even a valid one. It just not a logically impossible one.
And as for your other point. For better or worse, if you are public official and you won’t release records for whatever reason, its gonna hurt you. Of course the same genetic fault that makes politicians believe this is generally a good idea is probably related to the one makes em deny a scandal WAY after its a known fact rather than just say “my bad” and get the damn thing behind em.
Harvard law school does not give out A thru F grades, or at least did not during the mid 80s. The grades are Pass, Pass with Honors, Pass with High Honors. Presumably there is also a not pass grade of some sort. Editor of the law review will be getting mostly High Honors. No, I did not go to Harvard, but a good friend who did was editor of the law review.
He hasn’t released his BP readings or any other personal medical information either…
He can’t prove he’s human!
obsolete
Again, law reviews are anonymous during selection. I see no possible COULD.
First, I doubt its totally anonymous. Nothing is. Maybe on paper. But in reality, no IMO. But that doesnt matter. Read below.
Second, and more importantly, you guys dont get it. Lets say it WAS totally anonymous. Absolutely anonymous.
And then lets assume 2 things happen to be found to be true. It turns out most/everyone who got that position had a 3.8 or All High honors or whatever. And it turns out Obama had a 3.6 or mostly High honors. And that was just random statistics that caused this to happen. No affirmative action, or some long term planned coupe by the Kenyan Liberation front.
Thats ALL it takes for right winger nutters to make an affirmative action/he didnt deserve it then (and therefore it now) sorta arguement.
Yeah, it doesnt pass the super critical logical makes perfect sense test. And it DOESNT HAVE TO in politics. Shit, 90 percent of political made for public consumption arguements on BOTH/ALL sides fail this test. And it doesnt when push comes to shove. Hell, in politics it just needs to not be totally gibberish and make you look good and or the other guy look bad.
Hell, Obama is lucky he hasnt been branded as matriculating thesbian already. Maybe thats what he is hidding about his transcipt
From that Daily Mirror article I linked to upthread:
billfish678, you may be right about what people are implying. But you seem to be mixing up his presidency of the law review with his grades at Harvard Law. It’s making this discussion more confusing. At Harvard Law, it looks like he was among the top 11 percent of his class. His grades were part of the reason he was chosen as a law review editor, and from there, a selection committee made up of other editors chose him as president.
Geez, these numbles are missing the obvious. If they’re trying to swift-boat him by going after his strengths, they’re wasting their time with Harvard grades.
Instead, they have to go after his jump shot and his lay-up!
Do you have a cite for this?
I mean, if this is going to be a serious debate, lets understand exactly what started it.
“It was a marathon selection process, an arcane throwback to the early days of the review. The students editors deliberated behind closed doors from 8:30 a.m. until early the next day. The 19 anxious candidates took turns cooking breakfast, lunch and dinner for the selection committee, whose members emerged with a historic decision”
Yeah, thats an anonymous process for sure.
Hell, maybe Obama got it for being the best cook.
[QUOTE=Marley23;12235698
billfish678, you may be right about what people are implying. But you seem to be mixing up his presidency of the law review with his grades at Harvard Law. It’s making this discussion more confusing. At Harvard Law, it looks like he was among the top 11 percent of his class. His grades were part of the reason he was chosen as a law review editor, and from there, a selection committee made up of other editors chose him as president.[/QUOTE]
Begeezus.
This is the last time I am going to make this point. I did not say he wasnt qualified. I did not say he didnt make damn good grades. I certainly wont say (without some evidence) that he did a poor job of actually filling the position.
What if all the WHITE people up for the job then and in all of history were in the top 1 percent? And the selection committee still selected him? Somebody (in theory) at least has some splaining to do.
All I am saying is that if his transcript wasnt perfect (and lets face it, it probably wasnt, cause who’s is?), its ammo for the right wind nutters. WTF else do you think they want his transcript for?
FTR I am no Obama fan, but on my radar this has frack all to do with anything. I am just telling you one possible angle I think the nut jobs on “my side” are pursuing.
Frack this, next time I’ll keep our playbook secret.
I think you’re confused. You get on the Law Review by an anonymous process which includes a writing competition (NOT an essay competition, everyone has to write a legal memo on the same subject, using the same sources). You become it’s editor in Chief by an election process. That quote refers to Obama’s election as Editor-in-Chief.
I was responsible for grading journal submissions, as part of my ELECTED position on a law journal (which I was accepted to by COMPETITION). I don’t know about at Harvard, but at my #100 Law school, They were triple blind with the master (that matched names with codenames used for submission) held by the Dean. If you accidentally included ANY information that tied your submission to your name, you were immediately disqualified. The journals did not see the master until they had already selected their members. Furthermore, each paper was graded by 4 different people (who each graded a section) This means that no one person could influence the outcome completely, even if they did know.
And if a person was seen to have interfered with Law Review/Law Journal selection process, they would be kicked out of school, and in New York at least, would probably never get admitted to the Bar.