Here’s a good quote from Nietzsche that sums it up pretty succinctly:

“History teaches that the best preserved tribe among a people is the one in which most men have a living communal sense as a consequence of sharing their customary and indisputable principles….The danger to these strong communities founded on homogeneous individuals who have character is growing stupidity, which is gradually increased by heredity, and which, in an case, follows all stability like a shadow. It is the individuals who have fewer ties and are much more uncertain and morally weaker upon whom spiritual progress depends in such communities, they are the men who make new and manifold experiments. Innumerable men of this sort perish because of their weakness without any very visible effect, but in general, especially if they have descendants, they loosen up and from time to time inflict a would on the stable element of the community….those who degenerate are of the highest importance wherever progress is to take place; every great progress must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures hold fast to the type; the weaker ones help to develop it further.”

Scalia’s tautology extends well beyond law schools and the firms that sponge up their issue; the administration of my university, while bragging about the accomplishments of its faculty at every opportunity (particularly when research dollars are attached as a handy gauge of excellence), nevertheless suffers from the inverse of the Scalia Syndrome (if I can put it that way). Where the Justice claims that, if an aspirant weren’t one of the “best of the best of the best”, then he wouldn’t be attending an elite school, the administration of my university is nagged by the sneaking suspicion that if its faculty members were really any good at all, we’d be teaching somewhere else — at a good (or at least better) school. It’s the same set of assumptions, but read back to front. And it’s just as wrong — about faculty, about students, and about the quality of education on offer.

It’s hard to keep a good mind down; you really do have to work hard to ruin that silk purse. By the same token, a smart student will flourish in any number of educational environments, since ultimately the alchemy of learner, teacher, environment, curriculum, and style of teaching can’t be reduced to an equation or formula. How do I know that’s true? Because if it was that easy, anyone could do it, and any institution could guarantee the quality and success of its graduates, independent of their (or its) connections, status, prestige, and pull.

Great post, as ever.

In Australia for example, geographical distances and jurisdictional differences serve as an effective counter-weight.

Although graduating from Monash University in Melbourne can be impressive, it’s not of too much impact in Queensland, since most people study locally. Likewise, most law graduates tend to look for work in their local area first. Therefore, many law firms and judges tend to recruit locally, greatly reducing the competition between different law schools for the “best and the brightest”.

This might be down to that a lot of law is handled at the State level – the Federal jurisdiction in Australia, while important, is not overly-dominant, and so it is harder to practice across borders. I don’t know that we actually have the equivalent of a Yale or Harvard.

I have no real insight into how big law firms here recruit however. It just seems in Australia we don’t have two dominating law schools as a function of a different geograpical and jurisdictional situation.

Students at top-tier schools U.S. might be the best at writing the LSAT, or perhaps even cheating in school. They are certainly not the best or the brightest, and as most practicing attorneys will tell you, the best lawyers come from all kinds of unexpected places.

The reality is that Scalia is using the same method that most law firms use. They get so many applications that it’s easier to set thresholds and stratify within a more selective group than to search through piles of paper for some real talent.

Maybe, just maybe, one day SCOTUS will review an online resume or blog writing as part of their application.