What amazes me is that no one -- especially not the Washington Monthly's blogger -- saw that in a second term, BushCo would be buried by scandals.

Personally, I would prefer that liberals back off on Ms. Goodling's college and law school credentials (assuming that both those schools are accredited by a national non-religious accredidation agency). IMHO there is already too much emphasis on "name school" credentialism in the world of Washington DC and it is the kind of things liberals should be on guard against, not promoting.

Her lack of other qualifications is fair game.

Cranky

To her detractors, Goodling was an enforcer of political loyalty who was not squeamish about firings -- of interns or of senior officials.

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. Kevin Drum is trying to cast aspersion on people of faith again. Goodling is just a conservative Christian who is applying traditional religious values to the world and refuses to buckle under to the liberals and the Democrats.

Link

"Goodling enrolled in law school at American University but transferred to Regent, founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson in Virginia Beach."
""the curriculum at Regent is different from other law schools. There is an attempt by professors to integrate biblical principles into areas of the law," said Dugan Kelley, who worked with Goodling on Regent's moot court."

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" apparently didn't survive the attempt.

I'm still curious has Monica past the bar? And, what was her track record before DOJ? cleve

Oh yes, student council president is ALWAYS the kind of qualification I look for in determining who gets to fire U.S. Attorneys with decades of experience. It's all that knowledge about homecoming that makes the difference, I say.

Hey, American Hick: already starting on your self-reported 15 minutes a day commenting here with your employer's approval? Strange that you seem to be second or third to post on every thread. It's pretty hard to do that and hold down a legitimate job - except at the RNC. But you'd better watch out; Al's coming up behind you and gaining. Maybe you and he have the same employer.

After all, actual experience and subject area expertise are not qualities held in high esteem within the Bush administration.

Isn't it commonly held belief that a good manager can manage anything? Is this a failed, fraternal CEO-wannabee administration? No wonder they have no ethical compunctions about mixing politics and governance. Consider how many big corporation boards are cross contaminated in a self-serving, conflict of interest laden, web of avarice.

Lovely pedigree. Messiah College undergrad; Regent University (founded by Pat Robertson) for law school.

All that Jesus-ing dovetails nicely with pleading the fifth.

I don't think I've ever agreed w/ anything A. Hawk has said before, but... I don't think the gov't should be encouraged to fire people for taking the fifth. In fact, I think it might be unconstitutional.

But still...

Personally, I would prefer that liberals back off on Ms. Goodling's college and law school credentials . . . Her lack of other qualifications is fair game. Posted by: Cranky Observer

She lacks qualifications in great part because she went to essentially non-competitive Jesus schools. Remember, my overly sensitive to Christianity friend, Harvard and Yale were begun by men of the clot'. However, they saw the light and moved into the real world.

The school is one of Pat Robertson's money laundering schemes. She belongs no where near a real legal position.

Now, if her law degree were from Fordham or Gonzaga or Notre Dame . . .

As a typical Republican, this new Monica scandal doesn't bother me, because this Monica is keeping her mouth closed.

Heckuva job, Monica!

From Kevin's link to WaPo:

Greg Wilhelm, a Regent law school classmate, said Goodling also "developed a very positive reputation for people coming from Christian schools into Washington looking for employment in government, always ready to offer encouragement and be a sounding board."

sportsfan79: Of course if Monica had been hired during the Clinton administration, she'd be 'a bright young female lawyer', worthy of great praise for breaking into 'the old boys club'.

Look, over there, it's the Clenis! Stop looking at the corruption in the Bush administration and focus on the past! But don't focus on the past if it's the Bush administration.

Monica was hired during the Clinton administration and she got naughty all over her blue dress.

Geez, but wingers have a short memory!

I have seen the same post by AH and AL on other sites.Why are Al and AH posting her resume on all these sites.Or are these the rightwing talking points today.

Now, if her law degree were from Fordham or Gonzaga or Notre Dame . . .

Don't forget Georgetown or Boston College.

… she'd be 'a bright young female lawyer'… sportsfan79 at 12:40 PM

sportsfan79: Liberal = Hypocrite

Translation: It's okay for conservatives to play the race and gender card, even when it doesn't apply, but it is sacrilege for liberals to play the race and gender card, even when it really does apply.

Duh. Fire whistleblowers and promote those who were shown to be doing something wrong.

They're really very predictable.

How to Succeed in the Bush Administration:

1. Do whatever it takes to protect the Bushies.

2. Advance short-term corporate interests.

3. Feel free to use illegal and immoral methods.

4. Try to make sure that someone in the Administration recognizes your willingness to place loyalty above personal integrity.
(Whistle blowers can be useful here, as long as the media doesn't bother with the story for too long.)

"IMHO there is already too much emphasis on "name school" credentialism in the world of Washington DC and it is the kind of things liberals should be on guard against, not promoting."

I take your point, Cranky, but this one isn't about namebrand sheepskins. Well, not for me, anyway. For an evangelical -- somebody committed to spreading the truth of the Word -- to clam up for fear of self-incrimination... that's a bit much. Whatever happened to the truth setting you free?

Did Monica Goodling ever pass the bar?

As a former AUSA, I can tell you that the federal government (and state government, as well) absolutely are barred from taking an adverse employment action against a person for invoking the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on the subject. I am surprised that Sen. Whitehouse, who was previously the U.S. Attorney for R.I., did not know this.

Did I say anything about your names.I said the SAME POST ARE THESE THE RIGHTWING TALKING POINTS TODAY.I will expect you to say you are sorry.

> She lacks qualifications in great part
> because she went to essentially non-competitive
> Jesus schools. Remember, my overly sensitive to
> Christianity friend,

Are the accredited or are they not? To me that is the only question that matters, not the schools' religious affiliation.

Perhaps you mistake me for Amy Sullivan? I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state myself, and I am not much impressed by the "disrespect" arguments, but I am annoyed by the tendency of liberals to revert to imitating the class structure they presumably oppose.

Cranky

Fyereflye-- Hello, have we met?
Posted by: Google Reader.

I never meet with people who can't spell my screen name. You must have graduated from Regent University.

cranky,

Regent is ABA accredited (since 1989) but don't pretend that a school that exists to promulgate a Xian spin on the law is a real law school:

"the curriculum at Regent is different from other law schools. There is an attempt by professors to integrate biblical principles into areas of the law," said Dugan Kelley, who worked with Goodling on Regent's moot court.

Sounds little different than Maharishi University of Management, which teaches courses from a transcendental meditation point of view. MUM is also accredited.

Kinda what I figured, Ephus. Thanks for clarifying that.

Regent University Law School is accredited by the ABA. According to their website, Regent succeeded Harvard as the National Winner of the ABA 2006-2007 Negotiation Competition.

Don't underestimate the enemy, people. These guys are not dumb.

Goodling chose to go to Regent University. She transferred from American University, which is in the first tier of law schools according to US News and World Report. She's very bright, obviously.
Posted by: American Hawk

As getting into law school, even American University's (which is not considered first tier by law firms and the like), is pretty damn difficult, no one transfers unless they are failing the program he or she is already in.

That her BA is from a second rate Jesus school is further proof that American U's program can't be all that hot.

Don't forget the West Coast, with the U of San Francisco, Gonzaga, Santa Clara and the U of San Diego - all well-regarded law schools in Roman Catholic universities.

Graduating from a Jesus college isn't the same thing as graduating from college.

These places exist for people to avoid college.

JeffII: That her BA is from a second rate Jesus school...

Hey, hey, hey. I doesn't matter that she came from a Jesus school as much as the Jesus curriculum didn't seem to stick. Bushie loyalty trumps religious faith it seems.

What amazes me is that no one -- especially not the Washington Monthly's blogger -- saw that in a second term, BushCo would be buried by scandals.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on March 30, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

You weren't paying attention. I'm not going to cite for you, and if I commented it was in hope.

I distinctly remember a number of people on this thread saying exactly that, so, even if Kevin missed it, you could have heard it here!

"... no one transfers unless they are failing the program he or she is already in."

This is wildly inaccurate. This is but one reason somebody might transfer to another school.

I'm tempted to say that anyone elected student council president should be forever barred from working in government.

This is wildly inaccurate. This is but one reason somebody might transfer to another school.

True. She might have also transfered schools because she had gotten pregnant and had an abortion at the previous school....

Whoops. Thought I stopped it in time.

"on this thread" should read "on this blog".

Since she's 33 years old and apparently never married (it's not mentioned in the article), someone needs to ask her if she's still a virgin. I'm sure there is now someone at DOJ who's job is to check such things.

Are the accredited or are they not? To me that is the only question that matters, not the schools' religious affiliation. Posted by: Cranky Observer

Unfortunately, accreditation in the U.S. is meaningless. Falwell's Liberty College, a full-on racist institution where they (un)intelligent design, is accredited.

The keys to judging the academic credibility of any institution is curriculum and the faculty.

dave: Don't underestimate the enemy, people. These guys are not dumb.

But they are self-destructive, as is any individual or group of people wedded to a narrow and radical ideological vision that demands vicious reprisal against any and all critics.

Regent is ABA accredited (since 1989) - Disputo

During the twilight of the previous Bush administration? You could knock me over with a feather.

"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
--Louis D. Brandeis

Or Reagan...same same

Regent University Law School is accredited by the ABA. According to their website, Regent succeeded Harvard as the National Winner of the ABA 2006-2007 Negotiation Competition. Don't underestimate the enemy, people. These guys are not dumb.

Perhaps not, but they sure know how to dishonestly spin a win into more than it is. Harvard didn't compete this year, so to say that they succeeded them is pretty irrelevant. As for their competition this year, here's the schools that came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th:

John Marshall Law School
Creighton University School of Law
Western New England School of Law

This is obviously not a top tier competition.

Disputo, for the record, I think when they say the "succeeded" Harvard they mean they were champs directly after Harvard was -- not that they "bested" them.

Another loyal Bushie bites the dust
Friday, March 30, 2007
Eric Keroack Resigns
He was the latest Bush administration pick for the wingnuts to run women's health and reproductive concerns, in his case to run the federal family planning program under Title X. Now he has resigned his post:...
"Yesterday, Dr. Eric Keroack alerted us to an action taken against him by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Office of Medicaid. As a result of this action I accepted his resignation," Dr. John Agwunobi, assistant secretary for health, said in a terse statement Thursday evening....

Every day a new delight.

It is amazing to me, and ironic, that these folks were hired to bring Christian values to the Bush adminsitration, yet apparently didn't bring "thou shall not lie" and "thou shall not steal" with them.

And when did "honor thy father and mother" get replaced with "honor thy Bush?"

> John Marshall Law School

A lot of business people in the Chicago area will tell you that if you want a law professor you of course hire a Northwestern graduate, but if you want a lawyer who can actually get work done you hire a John Marshall gradute.

Another data point on the excessive school credentialism theory...

Cranky

"After all, actual experience and subject area expertise are not qualities held in high esteem within the Bush administration."

Kevin, that's a fairly silly statement given that our own beloved Hillary has already gone on record stating that she plans to fire all of the attorneys. Are you suggesting that none of the current attorneys have the expertise or qualities worthy of their positions?

Hold on here.

Goodling is a hack -but not because she went to Messiah College. I went to Messiah College and then to an Ivy League grad school. Messiah has produced at least one Rhodes Scholar that I know of, and for 2007 is ranked 4th by U.S. News & World Report in the "Comprehensive Colleges North" Category.

Regent University Law school is a different story.

> What amazes me is that no one -- especially
> not the Washington Monthly's blogger -- saw
> that in a second term, BushCo would be buried
> by scandals.

Kevin had 3-4 columns in December 2004 - January 2005 predicting exactly what is happening now. He used a pendulum theory rather than a "they are inherently corrupt" theory but regardless his predictions were just about spot-on.

Cranky

I mean no insult toward JM. It is a legit law school that excels at what it does (providing an opportunity for those employed fulltime to get a law degree). However, it is not a top tier school by any means.

It might be my Top 5 law degree and Top 10 firm pedigree talking, but there is a reason that grads from Harvard and Yale (or Stanford out west or Chicago in the midwest) are held in such high esteem--IN GENERAL, THEY ARE SMARTER THAN MOST OTHER LAWYERS. These schools spend a great deal of time and money screening out applicants so that their grads really are much brighter than the average law school grad. That's why a lot of top firms hire 90% of their associates from them. They know they're getting a very smart kid who is willing to work like a dog. They wouldn't continue doing it if it didn't work.

Sorry if I've offended anyone, but it's true. There certainly are individual exceptions in every law school class, but those are just that--EXCEPTIONS. Give me a random team of 10 lawyers from the top 10 schools and a random team from third tier institutions to work on a particular case, and I bet the top 10 lawyers win 99 times out of 100.

I don't know how to find it, but there has to be a way to find out the identities of the 'talented, career people who were moved out of main Justice' and the people who replaced them.

Who those people are and what they were/have been working on might tell an interesting story...

Cranky,

I don't care what law school Monica Goodling attended. At her age nearly every other lawyer in America is working his or her ass off trying small cases or otherwise learning her craft. Admission to the Bar merely means you have an opportunity become a lawyer. Real lawyering doesn't much happen before a lawyer has ten or so years experience as a second chair under his or her belt.

Now having said that JAG lawyers, small town/county prosecutors and public defenders (both small town and big city) often make their way into courtrooms right out of school. That is what makes those low paying jobs attractive to young lawyers.

Every day a new delight.
Posted by: Mike

Brightened my morning considerably, I can tell you.

Disputo, for the record, I think when they say the "succeeded" Harvard they mean they were champs directly after Harvard was -- not that they "bested" them.

Yes, of course that is what they mean. It's a little like saying that in the 1980 Olympics the US succeeded the Soviets in nearly every event.

If you want to read about this guy, another Bush abomination, here:

Eric Keroack resignation

> At her age nearly every other lawyer in America
> is working his or her ass off trying small cases
> or otherwise learning her craft. Admission to the
> Bar merely means you have an opportunity become a
> lawyer. Real lawyering doesn't much happen before
> a lawyer has ten or so years experience as a
> second chair under his or her belt.

OK, good. There is a solid basis for questioning Ms. Goodling suitability for the job: lack of foundational experience and subsequent progression under evaluation.

Cranky

the DOJ hack

Well said.

OK, good. There is a solid basis for questioning Ms. Goodling suitability for the job: lack of foundational experience and subsequent progression under evaluation.

Liberals are hilarious! So a female goes out into this man's world, gets promoted, shows loyalty, works hard and gets ahead in her job--what in the name of all that is holy is wrong with that? Oh, that's right! We want to detract from her successes because the job she was given was the job of firing people who weren't loyal to the Justice Department. Well, darn the luck--if she had been prosecuting cockfights and policemen who were a little too rough in apprehending child molesters, you liberals would champion her cause and celebrate her ascension.

I suppose if she was turning tricks in a backalley brothel you'd be happy, yes? Well, the hypocrisy smells from way, way over here. Yes it does.

> there is a reason that grads from Harvard
> and Yale (or Stanford out west or Chicago
> in the midwest) are held in such high esteem--IN
> GENERAL, THEY ARE SMARTER THAN MOST OTHER LAWYERS.
> These schools spend a great deal of time and
> money screening out applicants so that their grads
> really are much brighter than the average law
> school grad.

There is no doubt that there is an element of truth to that statement. There is also an element of self-perpetuating insiderism to it as well.

Gradutes of MIT are smarter than other engineers; sometimes it seems that many of them are actually from other planets. And in the right situation they can be more succesful than just about anyone else.

But when I hire engineers to do real work in the real world, I generally look to the regional public schools with a lot of immigrants' children and night students, because those people are in my experience far more likely to get the job done under real-world constraints and politics. And many of them go on to achieve great things as well. And that is leaving out that fact that 90% of the jobs in the world can be done by 90% of the people regardless of what school they attended.

This belief that there is a defined and finite source of people who are "superior" and who are the only ones qualifed for certain key positions is pernicious IMHO and liberals would do well to steer away from it.

Cranky

Kevin, that's a fairly silly statement given that our own beloved Hillary has already gone on record stating that she plans to fire all of the attorneys. Are you suggesting that none of the current attorneys have the expertise or qualities worthy of their positions?

no, you obtuse jackass. For the billionth time, it's routine for an incoming administration to replace many, if not all USAs at the beginning of a term, or even second term.

I don't know the first thing about Messiah College or Regent U Law School, but I have taught my fair share of evangelical Christians in my time, and they do divide into two groups. Some are simply dogmatists and cannot function unless there is an authoritative position to repeat, and which is in principle immune to criticism. Others, however, are actually really good at rational argumentation -- there is a subset of evangelicals that are actually interested in reasons for their faith. These students are actually interested in being critically challenged so they can strengthen their own arguments. They tend to be quite good students. Would I want them to help run the DOJ? That depends. I think there is a deep constitutional issue in thinking about how the law is faith based. This country was founded to separate issues of church (religious law) and state (secular law), and expressly disavows the state institution of religion. If infusing religious doctrine into US law was and is a political priority, then yes, I have a huge problem. If staff separate their religious commitments from their governmental ones, the issue is simply competence to do the job.

"here's the schools that came in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th:

John Marshall Law School
Creighton University School of Law
Western New England School of Law

This is obviously not a top tier competition."

it's like saying you beat Kathy Bates in a beauty pageant.

.. but these guys apparently did it in retribution for not complying with orders to investigate Democrats just before elections.

"I guess taking the 5th is OK as long as you're a loyal Bushie."

That's like saying: "I guess obeying the code of Omerta is OK as long as you're a made guy."

This belief that there is a defined and finite source of people who are "superior" and who are the only ones qualifed for certain key positions is pernicious IMHO and liberals would do well to steer away from it. Cranky

I don't believe anyone has been making that point. The point being made here is that Goodling graduated from a second-rate undergraduate program and a fifth-rate law school. She's probably perfectly capable of doing some tax or estate planning for small net-worth folks in a some small rural outpost or handling the odd DUI. But she did not attend schools of sufficient rigor nor does she have the practical experience to rate a high level position in the highest legal agency in the U.S.

As this story shakes out, its apparent that her sole qualification for her position is being a "good German."

getting back to the actual issue, aside from the fact that this woman did not go to a good law school, and never passed the bar exam--why was someone with absolutely no real world legal experience, no experience as a prosecutor, no experience as a federal prosecutor, placed in a position to judge the competence of experienced federal prosecutors? Clearly, since she was completely lacking the necessary background to evaluate them, she went purely by politics.

classic Bushie--failing upwards.

Regent was not accredited until 1996; Therefore, Goodling was in it's first official class. Messiah is fine, Regent is a fucking joke. This girl does not appear to be a member of the bar anywhere. She is not qualified to shine shoes from a stand in front of a podunk county courthouse.

…if she was turning tricks in a backalley brothel…Norman Rogers at 1:49 PM

Gradutes of MIT are smarter than other engineers; sometimes it seems that many of them are actually from other planets.

You're taking about me there. My wife sure thinks I'm from another planet at times.

That said: No school better prepares its graduates to do real world work better than MIT. And some problems require really smart people to solve. Just ask my employer why they keep me around.

All that and she looks like Tonya Harding.

All that and she looks like Tonya Harding.
Posted by: cld

That may be the coldest cut of all!

This could interesting. From TPM. Hope she doesn't decide to "take the fifth" as well.

Rove Aide Resigns
By Paul Kiel - March 30, 2007, 1:13 PM

Maybe it's a coincidence.

White House political director Sara Taylor is out the door at the White House, according to Washington Wire. Taylor came up a number of times yesterday during the Kyle Sampson hearing as having worked closely with Sampson (along with another Karl Rove aide Scott Jennings) to install Rove's former aide Tim Griffin as the U.S. Attorney in eastern Arkansas.

"Barry Jackson, a longtime aide to Karl Rove, also is thought to be leaving soon.... All the departures appear to be more-or-less routine turnover," reports the Washington Wire.

All the departures appear to be more-or-less routine turnover," reports the Washington Wire.

Sounds to me like Rove is digging himself a moat.

Good luck getting a job in D.C. area if your name is Monica.

Gonzales: "From time to time Kyle would tell me things that would tell me that this effort was ongoing. I don't recall being involved in deliberations involving the question of whether or not a U.S. attorney should or should not be asked to resign. I didn't focus on specific concerns about individuals," he said.

So, if the firings were critical to the smooth and effective operation of the DOJ and involved political-performance (compliance with administratio policy) and Gonzales is the chief political appointee at the DOJ with responsibility for such matters, WHY WASN'T HE INVOLVED?!

He left a highly sensitive and important job to an aggregating underlying who didn't even know the reasons any of the USAs were being fired?

That in and of itself is sufficient reason for Gonzales to be fired.

It bespeaks the incompetence of an out-of-touch nincompoop.

See Goodling's not going anywhere.
Nor... see... is Alberto the Great.
Cuz... see... I say so...
You don't like it?
Guess what.
I don't care what you think.
See...

Messiah College might not be such a bad institution, overall, but the fact remains that she chose to major in Communications. It's a major for people without the quantitative chops to handle the sciences and without the linguistic/intellectual chops to handle literature. It doesn't even rise to the level of Psychology in the academic hierarchy.

Not only is she probably not that sharp, it doesn't seem like she was that interested in learning, either.

Apologies to any communications majors out there, but this isn't exactly a field from which our intellectual class is drawn.

Gonzales: I know that the motivations for the decisions I made were not based on improper reasons.

Except that according to Gonzales, he didn't make any decisions, but merely signed off on the list.

And even if you accept that this constituted a "decision," then it means he didn't know why the USAs were on the list and therefore cannot vouchsafe whether they were fired for proper or improper reasons.

And it means that he made a decison without any analysis, verification, confirmation, or understanding of the matter he was deciding.

So, he was either involved in the details and is lying about that aspect of the matter or he was not and is lying about knowing that the USAs were not fired for improper reasons.

Rock & Hardplace, meet Alberto Gonzales, worst Attorney General ever.

Goes along with worst SecDef ever, worst SecState ever, worst VP ever, and worst president ever.

JeffII on March 30, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Actually earlier in the thread Joe said that people, like him, who attended Harvard (or some similar top tier school -- often thought to include Yale, Stanford, Michigan and Texas) are just smarter than other lawyers and as a result "better." Cranky's position was well taken.

Actually earlier in the thread Joe said that people, like him, who attended Harvard (or some similar top tier school -- often thought to include Yale, Stanford, Michigan and Texas) are just smarter than other lawyers and as a result "better." Cranky's position was well taken. Posted by: Ron Byers

I missed his post up thread. But he's probably right - the more intense the competition that greater the performance. (Though with Bush as an alumnus, it obviously doesn't hold true for the vastly overrated HBS.)

Your spin further up is correct as well, that regardless of which schools she attended, Goodling hasn't had the practical experience one assumes would be required for the job she held. That's come up time and again, especially in the second term, where punk political appointees have been pulling rank on career professionals.

"Apologies to any communications majors out there, but this isn't exactly a field from which our intellectual class is drawn."

You are right. Communications is a technical degree that guarantees a job. For folks like myself - working class, rural and without the sweet networking ties to get jobs in the "real" world - it's a safe major that guarantees a career.

As for all the elite talk, my view from the cheap seats of the state of American society under either party doesn't exactly fill me with awe at the "superior" skills of our elite class. I am at awe at the extent at which you've managed to shut the doors to us outsiders, though.

Gonzales was upset with McNulty's testimony afterwards and would have preferred that he said all eight were fired for performance reasons, according to Justice Department e-mails forwarded to the two committees.

So, the USAs were fired because they were insubordinate and didn't do what their bosses wanted, but McNulty keeps his job despite being insubordinate and not doing what his boss wanted.

And the e-mails show that Gonzales wanted McNulty to lie, to perjure himself before Congress.

Bush has since criticized the department for not giving Congress an accurate account of the firings.

But even though they performed their job incompetently, he won't fire them (Gonzales, e.g.), but he will fire the USAs even if they did perform incompetently, which can only mean that absolute loyalty to Bush and to a partisan use of government resources is the only qualification for keeping your job in this administration.

"...for some reason, Goodling is still employed at the Justice Department..."

Pissing *out* of the tent...

Does "Communications" really count as a technical field which guarantees a job? Education and Accounting, sure. Communications? Really, I wouldn't have blinked if it turned out that Goodling majored in the former two fields. The latter raised some intellectual/professional suspicions, however.

As for all the elite talk, my view from the cheap seats of the state of American society under either party doesn't exactly fill me with awe at the "superior" skills of our elite class. I am at awe at the extent at which you've managed to shut the doors to us outsiders, though.

Posted by: william on March 30, 2007 at 3:42 PM

If John Edwards had real cojones, that would be an angle of his presidential campaign: He's not an Ivy Leaguer, unlike Hillary and Obama (although, unfortunately, he sent his daughter to Princeton), and in his administration, all things being equal, he would hire people who didn't have the so-called "right" connections. People like us.

Heh.
Let's make sure no one brings up the "Ivy Leaguers can't drink like state school grads" bit.
I mean, it's true, but we don't want the voters thinking we'll be setting policy based on Tournament Quarters and Beer Pong.

Go Zoo-Mass!!!!

OT: Waxman has called Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston to testify Apr. 5 about Abramoff access to the WH per TPMmuckraker.

Vincent,
A serious problem is that when people without the Ivy League networking connections are called to Washington the Broders of the DC world go after them like white cells after a germ. In fact it was Broder himself who said of Bill Clinton's primarily non-DC team "they came to Washington and they trashed the place. And it wasn't their place". It is very hard for any new President to start out his first term facing that kind of media opposition.

Cranky

A lot of business people in the Chicago area will tell you that if you want a law professor you of course hire a Northwestern graduate, but if you want a lawyer who can actually get work done you hire a John Marshall gradute.

And if you want one who gives a crap about social justice, you hire a Loyola grad.

Cranky Observer: In fact it was Broder himself who said of Bill Clinton's primarily non-DC team "they came to Washington and they trashed the place. And it wasn't their place".

I had forgotten that. Forget the bumbling analysis, fake please for bipartisanship, kneejerk defense of the GOP and constant crying about the good old days as a Washington "newsman." This statement alone is enough reason to poke Broder in the snoot.

fake pleas for bipartisanship. Oopsie.

Let's make sure no one brings up the "Ivy Leaguers can't drink like state school grads" bit.
I mean, it's true, but we don't want the voters thinking we'll be setting policy based on Tournament Quarters and Beer Pong.

Bull. I can chug beers with the best of them. It's just that I keep my little pinky extended when I'm drinking from the bottle, and the beers are imported, not domestic.

...Communications?..raised some intellectual/professional suspicions, however.

Posted by: Tyro on March 30, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

So that's where they went wrong! Goodling should have had Sampsons job and they would have been fine. Can't even get the right serf hitched to the right plough.

"A lot of business people in the Chicago area will tell you that if you want a law professor you of course hire a Northwestern graduate, but if you want a lawyer who can actually get work done you hire a John Marshall gradute."

Very true. If the work to get done is have someone show up at your speeding ticket hearing and hope the cop doesn't show. If, on the other hand, you are talking about a multimillion dollar commericial dispute or a multi-hundred-billion dollar deal, you're probably going to want the average Northwestern grad over the average John Marshall grad.

I can't stress this enough. Of course you have a handful of John Marshall grads who are smarter and more talented than a handful of Northwestern grads every year. But what about the other 97% of the respective classes? The whole elite law school process--admission to graduation--is designed to identify a group of 200 (or 600 if you are Harvard) smart people, and then spend three years ranking them by analytical and writing skills and propensity to work long hours, so that law firms know that a particular hire is smart, can write, and will be willing to bill 2400 hours a year. The fact that the subject they study in law school is law is almost besides the point.

>Goodling displayed unblinking devotion to the administration and expected others to do the same.

Why are Bush repub's trying so hard to behave like Nazi's?

I really don't see the difference, except Bushies aren't as good at being as bad as the fascist party; But damn, Bush is trying hard to be like them.

Why does the MSM tolerate the Bush Administration?

Oops, meant "multi-hundred-million dollar deal." I had "billion dollar deal," but scaled it back a bit. Those are still a little rare.

Actually earlier in the thread Joe said that people, like him, who attended Harvard (or some similar top tier school -- often thought to include Yale, Stanford, Michigan and Texas) are just smarter than other lawyers and as a result "better." Cranky's position was well taken.

No, Joe's right. It's a false egalitarianism to pretend that, say, 10 graduates from a middle-rank law school will be as smart or as well-qualified as 10 graduates from Harvard Law. Harvard and similar (though lesser) schools such as Yale attract the best candidates and are therefore able to take the best. You may of course find graduates of other schools who may work harder, but you generally won't find too many who are smarter and/or more ambitious. It's like saying that the players on a college intra-mural team are just as good as the players on the NCAA varsity squad -- at some point, talent shows.

Bull. I can chug beers with the best of them. Posted by: Stefan

Of course you can, comrade Stefan. You're German. As can I, but it has nothing to do with my last name translating as "brew master" auf Deutsch.

Joe,

You remind me of our old partner who like you was a Harvard Law Grad. He was so Harvard nobody liked him. Nobody hired him. We got tired of carrying his self-absorbed ass. We got rid of him.

After a while you will learn that there is "smart" and then there is "get 'er done smart."

Never said I was a Harvard grad (never said I wasn't, either). And I wouldn't doubt that he couldn't generate clients if he was obviously full of himself. That's offputting, but it's not what I'm talking about in the slightest. I'm talking about the average intelligence and willingness to work very hard of the average law school class at an "elite" school (say the top 5-6 in most rankings) versus a middle-of-the-pack school. My point is that picking a (say) Harvard grad and a (say) Suffolk grad at random, the Harvard grad is going to be much smarter and much mroe hard-working 95%+ of the time. He or she just is. The schools were designed for that to be the case.

I've worked with hundreds of lawyers over the past several years, at firms ranging in reputation from the tip top white shoe firms to the slimy, borderline unethical plaintiffs' law firms in backwater jurisdictions (and I'm not being stereotypical--if you've ever been to Madison County, IL, you'll know exactly what I mean). My experience has been that the grads of elite schools are almost always better lawyers than the grads of mid-tier schools. The only exception is the grads of the mid-tier schools who work at the elite law firms--but then again, they were invariably at the very top of their respective classes, and thus are almost certainly among the "handful of students are the exception" point from above.

It's such an obvious point that I have a hard time understanding why you'd dispute it. If you have an admission process that is designed to identify the smartest and (generally) hardest working college students, wouldn't it really shocking if they DIDN'T turn out better, on average, than those who didn't meet the admittance standards?

Joe is right, to a certain point.

Harvard law grads are really good at doing Harvard Law school. His fallacy is that doing Harvard law school is the same as being an effective lawyer.

Joe does recognize this issue and points out that you need the ability to work hard and effectively, possess ambition, in addition to intelligence, to be successful at Harvard. Maybe this works in the legal field, Ron was not impressed, though.

Like Cranky, I am in engineering, I have no experiences regarding lawyering, but I agree with Cranky regarding the technical field. Sure, there are limits imposed by intelligence, but the differences in real life effectiveness diminish quickly once you start to get near the top of the curve. Creativity, inquisitiveness, perseverance, and skepticism start to become much more important that raw talent at school work.

And the most important quality: ask questions, no matter who they are, they have knowledge that will be useful.

TT

Joe

Much of what you say is accurate to a point. Harvard grads are smart. Many work very hard.

Sadly, many stop working hard shortly after graduation. Some burn out. Others, although wonderful when taking reading books and taking tests, don't know the first thing about themselves as human beings. Many lack good people skills. They don't know how to deal with the secretary who knows everything about everything they are doing and whose advice they really need to treasure.

The problem is you don't have to be really, really smart to be an effective lawyer, even if you are doing a billion dollar deal. You have to be willing to work hard. You have to have very good social skills. You need great listening skills. You need a minimal level of experience so you can understand what is important and what is not important. You need a level head. A calm demeanor really helps. Above all else you need a solid sense of right and wrong. If you give your word, you keep it, even if you discover it is to your disadvantage. In the long run a solid reputation for honesty and integrity is far more important than your ability to create a clever argument.

There is an old saw that is often repeated by hiring partners at big firms: "School and class rank will open the first door, they won't open the second."

Creativity, inquisitiveness, perseverance, and skepticism start to become much more important that raw talent at school work.

Yes, but the people who get into HLS and other similar (though lesser) schools get there precisely because they have this creativity, inquisitiveness, perseverance, and skepticism (to a point -- if we had more of those qualities we never would have gone to law school in the first place.....). Harvard tries very very hard to get the best and once there to make them even better, and it generally succeeds. Of course that process is going to produce better lawyers than other schools.

I think people have a hard time accepting this argument because to to them it somehow sounds elitist or snobbish when applied to intelligence, but it's just a fact. On the other hand, people seem to have no problem with this concept when applied to sports, so think of it this way: are the players who get to the New York Yankees, say, going to be better ballplayers than the players on some minor-league team? Of course. The Yankees seek out the best and train them to make them better, and the same principle applies in legal education.

I feel really insecure and inferior with my state schools education on this thread...

I agree with Joe to a point. However, in my experience, I would argue that lawyers who graduate in the top 25% of their class from one of the top 25 law schools are about equal. Law school admissions are so competitive that most lawyers who are graduates from the top 25 law schools are really good. I agree with Joe's point, but I would just expand it to be more inclusive to top 25 law schools.

I am not being elitist, I am not closing the door on anyone, and I am not talking about networking, but in my experience, graduates from top tier schools are much better lawyers than those of lesser schools. I will disagree with one of his points regarding "hard work." I don't know how one can quantify "hard work," but I think that most lawyers and law students, regardless of where they went to school, "burn the midnight oil," and meet their billables. I know I do! It's just accepted as part of the job.

Also, in terms of personality. Most of the Harvard/Stanford/Boalt grads that I know are really nice and really personable. There are some jerks, of course. As there are some jerks who went to lesser law schools. In my professional experience, there is no direct correlation between where a person went to school and how nice/agreeable/personable that person is.

But all this is beside the point. The main point is that, as citizens, we expect our government to hire the best and most qualified people to important positions. And this administration clearly does not do this. They hire political hacks whose only qualifications are loyalty to President Bush. And our government suffers as a result.

I think people have a hard time accepting this argument because to to them it somehow sounds elitist or snobbish when applied to intelligence, but it's just a fact. On the other hand, people seem to have no problem with this concept when applied to sports, so think of it this way: are the players who get to the New York Yankees, say, going to be better ballplayers than the players on some minor-league team? Of course. The Yankees seek out the best and train them to make them better, and the same principle applies in legal education. Posted by: Stefan

Amen! comrade. (How are things in Fort Lee today?)

Most people seem to have forgotten the denotative and historical meanings of elitism and discriminating. That's why your alma mater is what it is (and why I'll never understand how I got into Columbia).

Part of the reason government in the U.S. is uniformly mediocre is that Americans, while oddly enough, feeling entitled to a lot of things, rail against elitism in general. One of the rare exception, as you point out, being sports.

Ron Byers,

I really don't know where to begin with your post.

First of all, your post seems to be at odds with many of the Harvard/Ivy League/top tier university graduates that I have met. Most of whom are very professional, very competant, and very personable. And I know a lot of people who never went to university who have minimal social skills. I have said it before, and I will say it again, I don't think there is any correlation between where someone went to school and their social skills. I think social skills are mainly a product of family, the envioronment a person grew up in, and their own personality.

Second (and I have to respond to this), secretaries do NOT know everything about law. Not even close. And don't get me wrong, I love my secretary. A good legal secretary is worth her weight in gold (and a bad secretary is, well...really, really bad). And I agree that interacting with your secretary is an essential skill in the legal field. But she is NOT a lawyer. She is not qualified to give legal advice. She knows the local rules of the court, but she does not know caselaw and statutes, she does not do legal research, she does not take depositions, she does not make legal arguments, etc. What attorneys do and what secretaries do are totally different jobs. We are different parts in a well oiled machine, and both parts need to be fully functioning in order for the machine to work well.

On your third point, yes the skills that you mention are important. But being a lawyer is much more than just working hard. I am sorry to say that intelligence, particularly the type of legal intelligence that lawyers use, is essential in the profession (and the LSAT is nothing but an intelligence test). I am sorry to say that hard work and good social skills are not enough.

The problem is you don't have to be really, really smart to be an effective lawyer, even if you are doing a billion dollar deal. You have to be willing to work hard. You have to have very good social skills. You need great listening skills. You need a minimal level of experience so you can understand what is important and what is not important. You need a level head. A calm demeanor really helps. Above all else you need a solid sense of right and wrong. If you give your word, you keep it, even if you discover it is to your disadvantage. In the long run a solid reputation for honesty and integrity is far more important than your ability to create a clever argument.

That's very true...up to a point. I'm a far better lawyer now than when I got out of law school. Is it because I'm smarter? God, no, and in some ways I'm probably less keenly intelligent than when I was in my twenties. But I've developed perspective and common sense, I've learned how to deal with all sorts of people, I've slowed down enough so now I listen first and act afterwards.

On the other hand...you need intelligence. The work we do is quite complex, and the guys on the opposite end of the deal and/or case are often scarily intelligent as well, so if you don't know what you're talking about you're simply going to get steamrollered. You have to be able to read the fine print and not only know what it means, but be able to go several steps beyond to understand all the other possible permutations of what it might mean.

(How are things in Fort Lee today?)

Fort Lee? Wrong state, comrade.

Part of the reason government in the U.S. is uniformly mediocre is that Americans, while oddly enough, feeling entitled to a lot of things, rail against elitism in general. One of the rare exception, as you point out, being sports.

Yes, as always, sports is the great exception in American life. It's bizarre the degrees of elistism and entitlement we'll put up with when it comes to sports that we'd never put up with elsewhere, this thread being a case in point. Or look at schools: if you create a tracking program in grade schools to identify the intellectually gifted kids there'll always be hordes of people complaining that this is rank elitism. But try the same thing for a football or basketball program, and you'll hear nary a peep. Shows where our priorities lie.

> I think people have a hard time accepting
> this argument because to to them it somehow
> sounds elitist or snobbish when applied to
> intelligence, but it's just a fact.

Essentially everything that can be said on this topic has been said. I will just point out one small thing: the number of seats in the top 10 law schools in the US has remained essentially fixed over the last 200 years while the population of the US has grown 10x during that time. There may have been a day, say in 1900, when all the best minds of a generation were found in Ivy League schools (though I doubt that). There aren't anywhere near enough seats for that to be the case today.

Cranky

Interestingly, in medicine, as opposed to law, it matters much less where you attended. It is generally assumed that if you finished med school, you are good enough to practice medicine and that if you were accepted and completed a residency program, you are good enough to perform medicine in that given subspecialty. But then, medicine is a field where the training process is so long that your experience and accomplishment after med school count far more in terms of what positions will be available to you than which med school you attended in the first place.

Moral of the story: attend the least expensive med school you can.

the number of seats in the top 10 law schools in the US has remained essentially fixed over the last 200 years while the population of the US has grown 10x during that time.

At the same time, there are many more different job opportunities available to smart people than there were 200 years ago.

With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon.
--Albert Einstein

"On the other hand, people seem to have no problem with this concept when applied to sports, so think of it this way: are the players who get to the New York Yankees, say, going to be better ballplayers than the players on some minor-league team? Of course. The Yankees seek out the best and train them to make them better, and the same principle applies in legal education."

Not necessarily. The Yankees are selecting for good ball players. Law schools are selecting for good students. I'm sure there is some correlation, but it isn't a one to one correspondence by any means.

I am an engineer and a lawyer, and the main thing I noticed about law school is how easy it was. I don't find lawyers to be all that smart, wherever they went to school. But some of them have other abilities that inspire awe in me - like Fitzgerald's abilities as a prosecutor. Amazing. And certainly intelligence is an ingredient, but it is only a small part.

The way I find out if someone is a good lawyer is by seeing whether they are a good lawyer. Pretty much the same way I find out if someone is a good engineer, actually.

And, once again, EVERY POST I made in this thread was deleted by the liberal thought police. The mods are really getting out of hand.

Posted by: American Hawk on March 30, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

What did you say? I've said some pretty stupid stuff here and not got deleted. You, however, have had a habit of sometines saying some very atupid stuff; even more than me. You have no conscience, of course. Wha'd'ya'sa?

Try not to insult individuals, race, ethnicity or religion.

If you have a free speech issue, I will suport you.

TPMmuckraker reported at 5:22 PM:

In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) today, Justice Department official Monica Goodling's lawyer informed the committtee that she would plead the Fifth if called.

The committee struck a deal last night for the testimony of eight Justice Department officials, Goodling among them....

...But there was one interesting detail in the letter: "Ms. Goodling remains actively employed by the Department of Justice, though she is temporarily and voluntarily using some of her accrued leave time," John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer...

...Goodling hasn't really left [the DOJ] at all. And, despite having pled the Fifth, she apparently plans to return to her job as if nothing ever happened.

A thought on elite universities:

Since I'm neither a lawyer nor engineer, I can't comment on those schools. The dirty secret in humanities, though, is that schools are irrelevent. If you want to be the best in your chosen field, you select which scholars you want to study under.

If you decide to study Atlantic World history, there is nowhere in the world you'd rather have been than as a student of Philip Curtin at John Hopkins University. If you're into Native Americans, you'd love to go to UNC-Chapel Hill with Theda Purdue. Some of the leading world scholars in many, many fields are "distinguished professors" at state and small private universities.

The Ivys can hire some of these folks away, but not all. For a wide swath of disciplines, a Harvard education would be considered second rate to a PhD. dissertation from a state university bearing the name of a star scholar. You can't get to be a star scholar by putting in a hundred hours a week and commanding a multi-million salary, though. You actually have to produce star scholarship that impresses an entire field.

Perhaps the professional Ivy schools are a different beast, but I suspect there's a self-reinforcing branding effect in play. Ivy Leaguer pay a lot of money to be considered the elite and hire other Ivy Leaguers because they consider them the elite. This cycle started centuries ago when the Ivy League was the only game in town and is ingrained in the "elite" world. If money and job titles are the sole gauge of "eliteness," then they are correct.

As the postmodernists might note, though, this makes a nice, self-reinforcing discourse that doesn't necessarilly signify what those in the discourse believe it signifies.

How long does Monica think she can stonewall the congressional judiciary committees? Tick, tock.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 30, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Right up tell somebody calls her bluff.

She doesn't want to talk. My guess she is scared shitless. If she is required to answer truthfully, unlike Sampson, she will feel compelled by her religious beliefs to answer honestly. Once she does, all hell will break lose. Give that woman immunity, then take her statement in private. I bet that will take us right to the heart of the scandal.

I wonder if anybody on either of the judiciary committees has the balls to pull back the curtain. The scandal could move from an embarrassment to a Constitutional nightmare.

Good points, Ron. Immunity appears to be the path of least resistance. I would hope that the judiciary committees are weighing all of the pros and cons of the available options to decide the wisest way to proceed. I would define the "wisest" as that which delivers the verifiable truth.

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know... It's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain

Speaking of Monica's alma mater Regent University... Digby notes (Mar. 30, 2007, 02:34:00 PM) that "more than 150 Pat Robertson U (Regent university) graduates had been hired by the [administration]." How did this come about? Turn to the book, A Country Ruled By Faith:

The head of the White House Office of Personnel was Kay Coles James, a former dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University and a former vice-president of Gary Bauer's Family Research Council,[2] the conservative Christian lobbying group that had been set up as the Washington branch of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. She knew whom to put where, or knew the religious right people who knew. An evangelical was in charge of placing evangelicals throughout the bureaucracy. The head lobbyist for the Family Research Council boasted that "a lot of FRC people are in place" in the administration.[3] The evangelicals knew which positions could affect their agenda, whom to replace, and whom they wanted appointed. This was true for the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and Health and Human Services—agencies that would rule on or administer matters dear to the evangelical causes.[4]

The White House was alive with piety. Evangelical leaders were in and out on a regular basis. There were Bible study groups in the White House, as in John Ashcroft's Justice Department. Over half of the White House staff attended the meetings. One of the first things David Frum heard when he went to work there as a speech writer was: "Missed you at the Bible study."[5] According to Esther Kaplan:

Aside from Rove and Cheney, Bush's inner circle are all deeply religious. [Condoleezza] Rice is a minister's daughter, chief of staff Andrew Card is a minister's husband, Karen Hughes is a church elder, and head speechwriter Michael Gerson is a born-again evangelical, a movement insider.[6]

Other parts of the administration were also pious, with religious services during the lunch hour at the General Services Administration.[7]

Leads me to wonder, would Monica if granted immunity, tell the whole truth? Wouldn't an immunity deal have conditions that Monica not give false statements or perjure herself? Not an attorney here but that seems appropriate. True?

Monica would not be shielded from any lies she spoke while testifying, only from having her testimony used against her for prior acts. That is what the 5th is really all about. The arguments raised in her lawyer's letter about partisanship and having her truthful words twisted are pure nonsense.

The law provides ways for making her talk. They might not be as much fun for people like Alberto and George as waterboarding, but they are generally effective.

Apollo: Something scary about so much piety and so much corruption all in the same administration. Leads me to wonder, would Monica if granted immunity, tell the whole truth?

They're not just pious (and not just corrupt); they're of a mindset that says that the end justifies the means, coincidentally just like the terrists they see hiding under every bed. Combine that with their need to constantly demonize those who don't agree with them and their propensity for claiming that god's will (as conveniently revealed to them alone) trumps the laws of man--and you get people who may view lying to a Democratic Congress as a virtuous defense against the machinations of Satan.

Interesting thoughts on this thread regarding academic elitism. While I agree that not recognizing the usually superior intellectual firepower of those attending the most elite law schools is a false egalitarianism, I think a related point is being missed.

Joe's rather contemptuous oversimplifications notwithstanding, the vast majority of legal work falls between the two extremes of fixing a speeding ticket and putting through multi-hundred-million-dollar deals. The fact is that attorneys who graduated from many, many law schools below the top tier are perfectly competent to take on significant and high-stakes work of all sorts in both the private sector and in government. I see no reason why this discussion had to promptly devolve into "Harvard lawyers don't have real-life skills" vs. "If you're not from the Ivy League, you're a hack."

Shortstop,

As a rather chasened participant on the side arguing the excreatment of Harvard grads really does smell bad and most of them are not able to walk on water, I want to thank you for bringing a breath of fresh air to this thread.

The point you make in the previous post about Loyal Bushies demonizing everybody who opposes them on any position is dead on point and a mindset that is very troubling.

In a democracy political parties all have to agree to a common set of rules and must believe that loyalty to those rules and to the good of the entire society trumps party loyalty. If a signficant political party refuses to agree to the common set of rules and places party over the country what you have might be called communism, it might be called fascism, it might be called monarchy, but it isn't democracy.

> If she is required to answer truthfully,
> unlike Sampson, she will feel compelled by her
> religious beliefs to answer honestly.

I haven't really seen any evidence that the brand of Christianity practiced by Bush Administration members requires any committment to honesty or its flipside, humility. Can you cite any examples? Ashcroft perhaps, which is a pretty scary thought in itself.

Cranky

Joe sounds like he just passed the bar. Way to go, Joe! Keep underestimating those who, for whatever reason, did not go to a top tier law school. You just keep right on doing that, sonnyboy.

Ron Byers on March 31, 2007 at 8:33 AM

Thanks, Ron. That's what I thought but good to hear from an attorney.

shortstop on March 31, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Of course, you're right, shortstop. Why the question arose in my mind. Thanks for articulating the reason for my unease... "the end justifies the means" of authoritarian followers... viewing "the other" as their persecutors given their mindset.

I don't know how it applies to post-grad and professional schools, but there are studies on Ivys v. top state schools. Folks who get into Ivys but choose the state school succeed more than those who go to the Ivys.

Again, that is for undergrads, which, for most Ivys, is unfailable: 40% of HarvYaleStan's grades in any given semestar are A's, and there is less than a 1% failure rate. They claim that their 99% success rate is because of top-notch admissions; but there ain't nobody that good at picking talent.