I’ll just let this blog entry from Simple Justice tell the story for me.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 at 5:25 am and is filed under ass hat. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I responded to all of this on my blog on Jan. 15, 2008.
Adjunct Blog Prof
Who knew there was drama within the internet between blawgers?! I would like to repond the drama between adjuncts. First, why is there an arbitrary dichotomy between adjuncts and tenured professors? The line of reasoning stating an adjunct is lower in the academic hierarchy is as locgical as the difference between an associate and a partner…at the end of the day both are concerned with the same goal: in the former example educating future lawyers, judges and academics; in the latter example both are lawyers concerned with aiding their clients. I would suggest that without adjuncts the law would never change and ideas would never evolve. Tenured professors are fine for 1L classes: contract, torts, fed. civ. pro, and property. The law in these areas never really changes (though book editions do). So, a tenured professor set in his understanding of the law is perfectly suited for subjects that never change. However, I digress to address the “mandatory blawging” issue.
The first argument that the professor uses the grading criteria to generate traffic for the site should be dismissed without comment. To post this comment I am currently on the site…no where on this site does a sponsored ad appear, no where on this site does a paid site appear…in fact, the only links on the site link individuals to other blawgs (as far as I know unsolicited). If, arguendo, the professor with three names wanted to generate traffic, what would he gain? Nothing. The gain is to the students. Personally, I was not really aware of the law blawgs and the marketplace of ideas that exists in cyberspace. So as an adjunct professor he has “forced” his students to look and think outside the box. Perhaps the ridicule was an avenue for the critic to generate traffic as the criticism was posted with an obvious solicitation for responses.
The second argument, posted by an anonymous student, regarding the “race to the internet” problem is also without merit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The specific blawg in question comes with strings attached. The professor moderates each and every post on the blawg. Further, the professor has a class contract where students are made aware of the grading criteria. The blawgs are scrutinized for grammar, citation, and logical flow. As far as I know, students do not get credit for simply posting…the students receive credit for logical and well written posts. Thus, a student could receive full credit for a few well conceived posts and a student could receive no credit for many posts of nominal value. The moderation allows the professor to filter the bad posts or the low value posts. So the blawg does not become overrun by illogical posts. In the alternative, as Arnadt said, the only way to uncover truth is to allow for untruth to enter the public consciousness. Without the cold, you never know warmt. So even “bad” posts have value. The half cocked criticism is ridiculous.
The benefit of the mandatory blawg outwieghs any illusory detriment. The professor created an avenue to allow students to convey ideas and generate discussion. As every professor knows that in class discussion is limited by class time. So the blawg provides a place to continue the discussion. Further, it provides a forum for quiet and modest students to convey ideas through written word. Additionally, it “forces” that majority of students who receive no critical thinking or writing training outside of LRW an opportunity to write and think. I have run the gambit of transition words that would convey the continued benefit.
The modern marketplace of ideas lies in the internet. The interconnected tubes are the wave of the future. Professor Randazza has “forced” his students to enter the marketplace and shop around. Like the professor, I live in a glass house…however, my glass was forged from logic and reasoning, so cast your stones.
[…] Heh… Legal Satyricon Drama…. (The Legal Satyricon, 1/15) […]
This will be my second class in law school that blogging is factored into the grade. At first it seemed arbitrary and pointless, but as the semester went on, I noticed how the blog discussions would spill over into class. Where only five or six people might comment on a particular blog, those five or six would spark very lively class discussion and debate the following day.
Conversely, class discussions would spill over into the blog. Only so many people can be heard given the time limitations of class. The blog comments allowed class room debate to continue far beyond the classroom. Additionally, its an outlet for some of the people who have valuable contributions to make to the class, but are better at expressing their thoughts through writing.
As for padding the number by making his class leave comments and visit the site you must be joking. Does this guy have any idea of how vast the internet is? In the great scheme of things I seriously doubt our class participation is padding anything. Even if all 23 of us log on every single day and leave a comment, thats just 23 hits a day. I don’t know how many hits a day are required to attain prestige on the net, but I highly doubt that an additional 23 hits would make any difference.
Not to make this too much of a “brown nosing” session, but Prof Randazza’s class is one of the few I don’t dread having to sit through. Undoubtedly, this is due in large part to the lively classroom discussion sparked by the blog and it’s comments.
The Legal Satyricon is run by Randazza Legal Group Staff. Posts written by Marc J. Randazza are signed – MJR.
Blog at WordPress.com.