Tom's Sanity Test
Hello Tom! Welcome to the continuously growing set of clueless 1Ls. As I received such a warm welcome from my grandfather bloggers, I thought I ought to repay in kind.
I'm happy to see that Tom, well really just someone besides me, has noticed the rising innumeracy problem. But there's no need to go all the way to NY, signs exist much closer to home. Here's a sample.
In two of our three 1L classes, students actually asked the instructor whether we were going to have to do math on the final exam. Whhaaaaaa? Mind you, it would have been 3 for 3 if the 3rd class had been anything but Criminal Law, although that arrest profiling and death penalty bias data did get a bit racy! I was shocked. How could these people not be embarrassed to ask such a question? Could you imagine someone asking whether we would be expected to read on the exam? It's not as if they were going to ask us to do some high falutin' statistics or algebra! They were going to expect us to do ARITHMETIC. And we were all to be on an equal playing field since no one was allowed to use a . . . drum roll . . . calculator.
Let's put aside all the derivative social issues, etc., that make this kind of attitude possible let alone highly probable. Just consider the integral selfish interests of my fellow classmates at an elite law school. Do they not project that they will some day have to calculate billable hours? Oh, right, everyone is a public interest lawyer these days. Do they not think they will have to calculate how far below zero the bottom line of their "non-profit" organization is? Do they not think that they will some day have to calculate the annual rate of toxic dumping that Company X is doing and the related rate of social cost? Do they not think they will have to calculate the discounted net present value of a human life tragically ended at the age of 13 so that the barricade manufacturer (who produced a perfectly functioning traffic barricade but who has deep pockets as a result of producing perfectly functioning traffic barricades) can supplement the income of his parents who negligently bought their child a motorbike? (Oops, I seem to have gone off on a tangent.) Finally, and something that should hit very close to home for many of the people around here, do they not think that they might be a state Supreme Court justice who seeks guidance from a mathematician to understand election politics and might misunderstand the numbers to the detriment of an entire nation?
Ok, these may be extrema (I do tend toward hyperbole) but there exists an element of truth. The basis and range of my constant frustration appears infinite. I'm not saying anyone is a bad person for not knowing arithmetic. And I don't mean to be divisive. So what's my angle? I just suggest picking up a Schoolhouse Rock DVD (is it in the public domain?) and losing a little bit of the pride in our collective and multiplying functional innumeracy.
I'm happy to see that Tom, well really just someone besides me, has noticed the rising innumeracy problem. But there's no need to go all the way to NY, signs exist much closer to home. Here's a sample.
In two of our three 1L classes, students actually asked the instructor whether we were going to have to do math on the final exam. Whhaaaaaa? Mind you, it would have been 3 for 3 if the 3rd class had been anything but Criminal Law, although that arrest profiling and death penalty bias data did get a bit racy! I was shocked. How could these people not be embarrassed to ask such a question? Could you imagine someone asking whether we would be expected to read on the exam? It's not as if they were going to ask us to do some high falutin' statistics or algebra! They were going to expect us to do ARITHMETIC. And we were all to be on an equal playing field since no one was allowed to use a . . . drum roll . . . calculator.
Let's put aside all the derivative social issues, etc., that make this kind of attitude possible let alone highly probable. Just consider the integral selfish interests of my fellow classmates at an elite law school. Do they not project that they will some day have to calculate billable hours? Oh, right, everyone is a public interest lawyer these days. Do they not think they will have to calculate how far below zero the bottom line of their "non-profit" organization is? Do they not think that they will some day have to calculate the annual rate of toxic dumping that Company X is doing and the related rate of social cost? Do they not think they will have to calculate the discounted net present value of a human life tragically ended at the age of 13 so that the barricade manufacturer (who produced a perfectly functioning traffic barricade but who has deep pockets as a result of producing perfectly functioning traffic barricades) can supplement the income of his parents who negligently bought their child a motorbike? (Oops, I seem to have gone off on a tangent.) Finally, and something that should hit very close to home for many of the people around here, do they not think that they might be a state Supreme Court justice who seeks guidance from a mathematician to understand election politics and might misunderstand the numbers to the detriment of an entire nation?
Ok, these may be extrema (I do tend toward hyperbole) but there exists an element of truth. The basis and range of my constant frustration appears infinite. I'm not saying anyone is a bad person for not knowing arithmetic. And I don't mean to be divisive. So what's my angle? I just suggest picking up a Schoolhouse Rock DVD (is it in the public domain?) and losing a little bit of the pride in our collective and multiplying functional innumeracy.
Labels: Legal Culture
posted by Anonymous at 7:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home