Oh man, this is tempting.

The bottom line is that bar exams exist as a barrier to entry. A silly, ultimately useless barrier because most people with half a brain ultimately get admitted after failing once or twice.

But EW has proven herself the typical YLS douchebag - "Oh, had I gone to a lesser school, you know, one of those schools the Proles have to attend, I would probably have been prepared to fail the bar because, well, I know this sounds harsh, but as a non-Yalie I'd be used to being a loser, right?"

Good god, I hope Obama does not make HRC the Sec of State. Do we really need any more of the Clintons? They're like the Beverly Hillbillies of politics.

Let's summarize this thread:

1. EW is not a good writer.

2. EW was not qualified under the usual standards for admission to YLS but got in because of some combination of fame/cup size?

3. EW is an "above it all" personality who thinks that bar exams are for suckers & Proles.

4. Yet despite all this, EW works for David B's firm, where competent, ambitious lawyers - lawyers willing to debase themselves to actually pass the bar exam (which all admit is an idiotic barrier to entry) - make bank.

5. And notwithstanding what a superficial, spoiled, and truly clueless brat EW undoubtedly is, some clueless nitwits are willing to defend this waste of space.

Let's summarize this thread:

1. EW is not a good writer.

2. EW was not qualified under the usual standards for admission to YLS but got in because of some combination of fame/cup size?

3. EW is an "above it all" personality who thinks that bar exams are for suckers & Proles.

4. Yet despite all this, EW works for David B's firm, where competent, ambitious lawyers - lawyers willing to debase themselves to actually pass the bar exam (which all admit is an idiotic barrier to entry) - make bank.

5. And notwithstanding what a superficial, spoiled, and truly clueless brat EW undoubtedly is, some clueless nitwits are willing to defend this waste of space.

Dear 86:

Please see 20.

Muchas gracias.

Your friend,

Shortbus

Elie,

Richard Ford of SLS recently published this piece in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/pagenum/all/).

The main argument is that (1) race is not the right metaphor or frame to understand support for Prop 8 in California and (2) if we could only appreciate that some people earnestly believe that gay marriage threatens traditional gender roles (i.e., men = beat chest + scream + make money, women = smile + cook + take a lot of bullshit from men), we'd start to see that it will be very difficult to convince supporters of Prop 8 to change their minds.

I think for is right on the following:

- Supporters of Prop 8 are hard to bring over to the other side.

- There is a sense in which Prop 8 cannot be understood in terms of race, since the civil rights movement was directed specifically toward enabling rights that had historically been denied to people simply because of their skin color. (But notice, to say this is simply to say that race is not the same thing as gay marriage. How far does that get us?)

But, I think Ford - a professor from Stanford Law who is, one would assume, capable of better thoughts than those articulated in the above Slate piece - is dead wrong because:

- Denying gay marriage to homosexuals will do nothing FURTHER to erode traditional gender roles. In fact, the two biggest causes of changing gender roles arguably have already placed deep roots in our society, namely economics (men can no longer play the chest-beating, all-knowing authoritarians they once did) and modern social ethics (e.g., the notion that women should not only have the opportunity to do whatever they want, they should actually obtain roles traditionally reserved for men).

- If we do not allow gay marriage, we are allowing the State to dictate the content of gender roles. On what political theory is this an appropriate power for the State to have?

Sincerely,

Your friend ShortBus

This rating is just ridiculous.

First of all, using the number of foreign students as a criterion is absurd. Just what the world needs - more Saudi princes lowering the academic standards of the world's best institutions even further. Bullshit.

Harvard number one and Princeton nowhere to be seen in the top 10? Talked to H grads much - who in their honest moments bitch endlessly about how many clueless grad students "imparted" knowledge to them?

Stanford not in the top 10? Give me an effing break.

Nice to see CalTech, MIT and UChicago recognised as the fantastic universities they are though.

This rating is just ridiculous.

First of all, using the number of foreign students as a criterion is absurd. Just what the world needs - more Saudi princes lowering the academic standards of the world's best institutions even further. Bullshit.

Harvard number one and Princeton nowhere to be seen in the top 10? Talked to H grads much - who in their honest moments bitch endlessly about how many clueless grad students "imparted" knowledge to them?

Stanford not in the top 10? Give me an effing break.

Nice to see CalTech, MIT and UChicago recognised as the fantastic universities they are though.

135 is basically right. The only thing I'd add is that most people I know that have taken both exams say that California is a bit harder, mainly because the test is so damn exhausting (3 days vs. 2).

Another argument I've heard is that for the folks who don't do so well on the MBE the New York bar is easier. Basic idea is that if you do pretty well (say 150+) on the MBE, you're very likely to pass NY but that's not necessarily the case with the CA exam.

Have no idea whether that's true - only qualified in CA and so have no idea about how the NY exam is scored.

Sorry, edit above:

"for the folks who do well on the MBE the New York bar is easier" . . . in the sense that a pass is more likely