The trial team has been selected, and I made it, which I’m happy about. I’m an alternate, which is obviously not as good as being first-string, but what can you do? There were a lot of extremely talented people at the mock trial competition who did very well, and I didn’t do as much prep as I probably should have. The process, though, has made a few things clear in my mind…
First, it’s obviously possible to make trial team if you aren’t in Tanford’s section of Trial Ad. Statistically speaking, based on this year alone, your odds are actually BETTER. To the best of my knowledge, everyone who competed in the tournament, but wasn’t in Tanford’s section, was invited to join the trial team, whereas only 1/3 of the folks from Tanford’s section who tried out made it. Now, granted, I’m the only one who tried out, so the statistics are a little weak, but one thing it does say is that there’s still no empirical evidence that there’s any real disadvantage.
Second, I don’t know that I agree with the way the team is selected. Now, I realize that I don’t have a whole lot of room to complain, since it yielded good results for me personally, but there is at least one person who didn’t advance out of the first round and didn’t receive any sort of honors for performance at the trial and yet she was selected for the team over people who DID advance or receive honors (possibly even both). This, to me, makes the whole competition sort of a sham. Why not just have auditions in front of Tanford for the people who were not in his class but want to be on Trial Team? The course description for Trial Competition Team says that selections are based on performance at the mock trial competition. It does not say “advancement” or “scoring”, it says “performance”… so there’s some wiggle room there as Tanford might not necessarily be looking for the same things for the team as he looks for to advance in the tournament, but it seems more likely that he’s using performance in his class as well as performance at the competition. If that’s the case, why not just invite the people who have already made the team by virtue of their classroom performance, and then make it very clear exactly how many spots are left to those competing in the tournament?
Maybe a better option is to do what Moot Court is doing this year. You can be selected for the Moot Court Board by getting writing honors, oral honors, or advancing to the octofinals… is it really so bad to expect people who are supposedly good enough for the trial team to work hard enough to be impressive in SOME capacity at the tournament? If that’s not acceptable, why make them do ANY work if they can get by with some half-assed “also ran” performance?
It’s really nothing personal against the person/people who got onto the team that way, I just think there are better, more forthright, ways of selecting the team that would meet everyone’s objectives and not make some people who get selected look like they don’t really deserve to be there.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Is it possible that the person who made trial team without advancing in the tournament actually scored higher than some of those who did advance but was in a tougher bracket?
(The correct answer is yes, by the way)
January 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Possible but irrelevant. Let’s examine:
There were really only four “brackets” and those “brackets” were (1) All of the P1s, (2) All of the P2s, (3) All of the D1s, and (4) all of the D2s.
There were 7 competitors in each bracket. 3 advanced. Joe is in bracket P1. He does not advance. That means there are AT LEAST 3 people that performed better than he did Possibly more.
The team comprises eight people, assume 10 had to be invited to get those eight. Assume the people are selected solely based on their scores at the tournament. Assume Joe gets invited. Further assume that Joe did not receive an outstanding performance award.
The three people who did better than Joe in his bracket are all invited. Seven invites left. There are nine other people who advanced, and four MORE who received individual honors. 13 people, seven invites, one Joe.
Joe would’ve had to get higher scores than more than HALF of those people, and he would’ve had to do it with no outstanding scores. The ‘outstanding’ awards, by the way, were not just the X highest scores, as different numbers of outstanding awards were given, and none of the finalists received outstanding awards, suggesting that they weren’t even elligible for them.
So Joe had NO HIGHER than the 4th best open and direct and his close and cross scores could’ve been 3rd best, but were clearly not high enough to get an award… and all of that excludes the four people who went on to the finals.
So the three finalists who were not in Joe’s original bracket get invited onto the team… leaving 4 invites and 9 people with some sort of credential… plus Joe.
So now Joe, you are saying, with no outstanding scores, and such a low composite as not to advance, is supposed to have done better than 6 people with high composites or individual scores?
…riiiight. (And THEN you have to assume that comparing scores between brackets is sound, despite the fact that each had different material to work with.)
The more likely reason, per Occam, is that Joe actually did quite well during Tanford’s class, has the talent to be on trial team, but just bombed his tournament trial.
Does he deserve to be on the team? That’s subjective, but the only opinion that matters is Tanford’s, and he says yes. Does it look fishy? Yes. Was the selection process misleading? Yes.
…so, again, cute theory… but it requires an awful lot of construction to make it work, and considering this sort of thing happens basically every year, the odds of it being a weird confluence of facts is almost zero.
And, again, to be clear, I saw only a very small number of people actually compete, I saw them compete in a very small number of the trials they actually competed in, and I really can’t say who does or doesn’t deserve to be on trial team… and I’m not trying to. All I’m saying is that the selection process yields consistently different results than you’d expect based on its description.
…we could also, if you want, talk about other things that are possible… maybe a miscalculation of scores initially that was found after it was too late to change anything? I bet that’s it!
January 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
So you admit that it is possible?
January 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Reading isn’t your strong suit, is it?
January 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Chutch, how about you let the person you’re defending do it herself. Especially since you weren’t involved in this and have no idea what’s going on except from one person.
My 2cents.
~K
January 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Uh oh… as my sister likes to say: “Shit just got real!”
…the most entertaining thing to me is that she’s being defended, but she wasn’t attacked. Not even close to it. (and if she or Grant really think this was an “attack” they severely underestimate me)
As I’ve said several times, in several places, I’m a second year law student with zero courtroom experience. Tanford has a great deal of coutroom experience AND he’s coach of the trial team. If he says someone is good enough to be on the team, I’m not one to argue… I just think that the process ought to be more transparent and forthright.
I guess it’s really inconsiderate of me to think so.
It’s not like I accused her of earning her spot on the team with some “extra-curriculars” under his desk or something.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I don’t mean to sound hostile, Chutch’s comments just seem bizarre. And I agree with you that I wish the process was more straightforward, but on the other hand he said during our class that it’s often an intangible quality that he’s looking for, not something that’s easily quantified.
I agree with him to an extent too, I just wish he was more organized and could explain stuff better.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I definitely agree that that could also be the case, as I mentioned in the original post “Tanford might not necessarily be looking for the same things for the team as he looks for to advance in the tournament”
…but at the same time: would he really need the tournament to see if someone had the “intangible” things? Shouldn’t he already know that going in (based on his class)? I don’t know… I’m not convinced that anything needs to actually change except the way the process is explained.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Kristina, why don’t you blow it out your ass?
I’m not defending anyone, I’m having fun with Pete. I have no idea what happened, nor why. Additionally, I don’t particularly care…mainly because it has nothing to do with me. I, unlike some, do not thrive on law school drama and being constantly involved in other people’s business that has nothing to do with me. I, much like most people our age, passed that social hurdle some time between junior high and college.
I saw an opportunity to get a reaction out of Pete by questioning his thesis, which I did, and I thought my response to his comment indicated that the whole thing was tongue-in-cheek…at least for me. You’re the only one here being hostile.
Just something for you to consider, Pot, before you continue going around calling all us Kettles black.
(And for the record, yes, I only got one side of it. Then I spent a portion of the morning explaining to the person whose side I “got” that Pete didn’t attack her, he attacked the system.)
January 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Notice:
There will be nothing blown out of anyone’s ass in any comments on this blog.
Thank you,
-Mgmt.
January 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Not even once? What happened to fun Pete?
January 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Alright, I’m taking myself out of this conversation. Clearly my comments were misinterpreted by Chutch and frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. I’m far too busy to try to stir up shit.
I do however want it noted that I do not appreciate Chutch’s comments and find it ironic that he states:
“I, unlike some, do not thrive on law school drama and being constantly involved in other people’s business that has nothing to do with me.”
And immediately follows that with:
“I saw an opportunity to get a reaction out of Pete by questioning his thesis, which I did”
January 13th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Right, because having some fun with Pete, something that is, or should have been, just between he and I, is exactly the same as trying to create drama between other people.
I also don’t think trying to get a reaction out of Pete, especially in a tongue-in-cheek way, is creating drama. He is one of those rare people I spoke about who has actually matured since high school, and relishes the opportunity to expound on his ideas. If I had wanted to create drama I could have. But I have an understanding of what is and is not “drama creating” and am trying very hard to not be one of those people.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Thanks Pete. I do NOT miss law school one bit. If it is any consolation — none of this will ever have any impact on your career as a lawyer. After about 10 minutes into your first job, you’ll be as clueless as we all are at that point.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Um, Chutch, this is an open blog. I call bullshit on; “between Pete and I.” Also “Kristina, why don’t you blow it out your ass?” is far more hostile than anything I said, especially considering that I specifically said I didn’t mean to sound hostile if it was taken that way.
Somehow I’m thinking you’re just having a leetle bit of an issue with me and my involvement. Sadly for you, this is a free country and a free forum for me to post my opinions about your comments.
Now I have two famous quotes which I hope you’ll take to hear, the first of which is:
“Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go.” –Oscar Wilde
And the latter of which is:
““They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.” –Thomas Brackett Reed
January 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Jesus christ. Didn’t the two of you read the rules? No arguments are allowed unless I’m involved. What fun is it for me to sit here and watch the two of you? Gah. How rude.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Pete, you know I can never follow rules, not even my own!!
I keep checking back here because last night Ken said he was gonna get all inappropriate in your comments (and read that as dirtily as you want to) but so far nada…
January 14th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Eh, it turns out that this argument is even dumber than I thought it was when I first heard about it. Sorry to disappoint you, but I’ve got nothing.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Here, is this inappropriate enough? http://www.youtube.com/v/_VOdo-UaXs0