This is all very helpful! Thank you. I’ve started handing out a little one pager called “how to read for this class,” about taking notes, making connections, etc. But I think many students don’t have the background to even recognize what I’m talking about. Seems like this might help!

I love peer review sessions. Just having students read each other’s writing is so helpful—when do they ever see what their peers are doing otherwise?

I’m so intrigued by this! (For a law school seminar.) Do they hand in the annotations for you to review?

It helps necessitate the purchasing of a new bluebook! Isn’t that enough?

Oh there's defintely precedent for it!
news.uga.edu/polish-unive...

Ah yes the elusive TOE (theory of everything), which is necessarily also wrong.

I think what Evan is trying to foment is a response and ridicule that would dissuade others from taking that position in the first place. I’m on board with that project even though obviously people who like to build out bad theories might not be enthusiastic.

Over under theorized!

I think we’re both right!

Basically this phrase expresses a bad theory of theories.

I’m snarkily agreeing with Evan though that this is now actually how theorizing works. It doesn’t actually take a better theory to see that some theory is wrong. Eg, if your empirical claims don’t fit the empirical data, we don’t need to wait for another theory to see that and reject those claims.

Or I guess you could say: If your theory just doesn’t work, it kind of beats itself. (Eg doesn’t have the empirical foundations you ground it on, doesn’t have the normative payoff you claim…)

Well when you put that way...

This is a really nice point. If rules are being rewritten, who's to say who can be a writer?

Just talking about this at dinner! The ultimate. We happened upon the "outtakes" one year; a worthy follow-up for when you can't get enough.

When I started clerking, I found a list on my office bulletin board with asylum grant rates by IJ in our circuit. They ranged from 2% to 98%.