On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:25 PM, Mac Norton wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
This is a good example of a point I made in my earlier post: academic interests shift, following trends (translation: worth of granting tenure for). Clipper and key escrow were very hot topics around 1993-95. Today, it's stuff like ICANN and Napster (with Napster fading...).
Tim makes a valid point here, but omits a companion point of perhaps greater importance, in context. Faddish as it sometimes-- well, hell, often--is, the academic side of the law is the *only* side of the law that even begins to reward originality. Those of us who actually represent people find that original thinking is the bane of most judges, unless you can make them believe the idea started with them.
I fully agree with this point...I thought I indicated this by frequently referring to professors, academic programs, etc. The only "lawyers" who get to do any substantive research are those working for or with prestigious law professors, or for a few dozen justices. Everyone else is processing writs and regurgitating old boilerplate. Or maybe teaching young larvae who think they're about to change the world.
Any parallels in software, both as to faddishness among the "original" thinkers and leader-following otherwise?
Many parallels. Nearly all programmers and engineers are doing what they are told to do. Only a small fraction are able to strike out in new directions. While we celebrate programmers like Linus Torvalds, most programmers are doing the programming equivalent of processing wills and divorces. Drones rule, especially in a drone-dominated field like "the law." Only study law if this is the kind of dronedom you prefer. --Tim May