Courtesy of Above the Law.
I have not read for class today. It was because (check all that apply):
____ I’m not feeling it today.
____ The assignment was too long so I decided to not read any of it.
____ There was a law review function. I was
drinking working hard.
____ I procrastinated on a paper and pulled an all-nighter last night.
____ The reading was too difficult.
____ The commercial outline inadequately substituted for the reading.
____ I really expected that talkative student would show up prepared again.
____ I was maximizing my absences yesterday and didn’t know how far we got.
____ Used casebook’s previous owner stopped book briefing at this case.
____ The case we are covering is more recent than last decent outline for your course.
____ On your past exams you never tested on this case, so it was a waste of time to read it.
____ I Netflix binged last night. Sorry.
____ Every time I tried to read it, I developed a sudden-onset Narcolepsy.
_____ I read so far ahead that I forgot what the reading was about.
_____ I am too sad about job interviews, or lack thereof.
_____ What you teach in class seems completely unrelated to the reading anyway.
I promise I’ll read tomorrow. Unless one of the above applies then, too.
A dream I had:
Me: Hey, Colleague, do you mind erasing the dry-erase board after you finish teaching? I have class after you.
Colleague: Actually, there is some discussion in the literature about who is the most efficient person to erase the board. If you are after me, you may or may not use the board. So it makes sense that the entering professor wipes the board clean.
Me: Did it account for the informational barriers it will create for my students who will be distracted by what you have on the board?
Colleague: I believe they accounted for that.
Me: Did it account for the five minutes out of every class I’m going to use to ridicule what you wrote on the board, including its instructional merit, your penmanship, and your marker color choice?
Me: Okay. That’s good for now. Next week we can talk about putting the caps back on the markers and putting them back on the board ledge.
The people you might encounter on your job talk, and how to deal with them. Via Above the Law.
For those of you traveling to AALS Faculty Recruitment conference next week to interview candidates, it is important to find ways to articulate, in a non-hypocritical fashion, how much you hate the candidate’s scholarship.
There’s just one problem: The candidate is a lot like you.
No worries! I have some language that will still allow you to boast about your accomplishments while crushing the candidate’s hopes and dreams.
Your article: Published in prestigious journal
Theirs: Student editors can’t be trusted.
Your article: I’m a prolific author
Theirs: Quantity suggests something negative about quality
Yours: My reviewers said I was amazing
Theirs: Candidate’s reviewers were biased
Yours: The editors were responsible for the footnotes
Theirs: I found a typo! Candidate is a careless writer
Yours: Beyond the scope of the article
Theirs: Candidate failed to consider obvious paths
Yours: I publish in specialty journals
Theirs: Candidate can’t publish in traditional law reviews
Yours: I publish in peer-reviewed journals
Theirs: Candidate likely will have trouble getting tenure in a law school
With a little practice, your colleagues will still think as highly of you as they already do, and you’ll be able to destroy candidates that you don’t like. Good luck!