What the F&*( are we teaching the youth of America?

[Sharpe]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-b050803valed_lat,1,611955.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dl eftrail

Sorry guys, I've forgotten how to do the nice link thing again.

Anyhow, read the above article and cringe in pain.

Normally I would have some long winded analysis but I am too damned annoyed.

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe if it didn't make such a big difference on getting into the top colleges they wouldn't fight so much.

[Sharpe]

Maybe if it didn't make such a big difference on getting into the top colleges they wouldn't fight so much.

Eh. Sure the first level of annoyance with this situation is outrage that a high school would be suing over being valedictorian. That's the reason this made the papers after all - the whole anti-lawsuit, over litigious society journalistic hook. And the counter of course is that grades and rankings DO matter so of course she's gonna sue.

However, my annoyance with this situation goes way beyond the litigation explosion issue.

First off, I'm a workers' comp defense attorney, which means I represent employers when employees file claims of injury. One of the problem areas of work comp is the amorphous gray area of these various "syndrome" claims: there are a lot of syndromes that doctors toss around, sometimes claiming very serious disabilities arising from minor causes: chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, TMJ syndrome, RSD, thoracic outlet syndrome and a few others. While some of these can be diagnosed "for real" a lot of these fall into that gray area of "maybe the patient is depressed, or malingering, or going through menopause, etc etc". I'm not denying these conditions exist - the problem with them is that it is VERY hard to determine if someone is just *saying* they have the illness (to collect money, to get attention, to get back at a spouse/doctor/employer) vs someone who is truly ill. I do feel based on my experience with cases that once the diagnosis of one of these "serious syndromes" has been made for patients, it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Telling someone impressionable they are sick often means they become sick.

So it freaks me out to see an otherwise healthy 18 year old girl claiming chronic fatigue syndrome. (note, that although they filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disability Act, the only disability they claimed is chronic fatigue syndrome - there is no claim this girl is blind, paralyzed, diabetic or suffers from any other serious major illness). When you look at this girl's massive list of activities (honors classes, numerous volunteer and student groups, fund raising, travel to China, etc etc) you think maybe shes just overextended, not the victim of a serious disabling illness.

On top of that, I am also annoyed by what I consider the abuse of the Americans with Disabilities act. The ADA is a well intentioned law that is one of the worst examples of over-drafting imaginable. Most people would probably figure that the disability law applies to the blind, wheelchair bound and so forth but the ADA has been used for a massive variety of claims from drug use to perfume-sensitivity to obesity. Most people don't realize this but the most common type of "disability" claimed under the ADA is the good old fashioned soft tissue back injury. And now to use the ADA to sue for an active 18 year old claiming "chronic fatigue syndrome" in order to win a valedictorian ranking? I think we are WAY beyond the spirit of the law here. And the judge bought it, issuing an injunction? What the hell is that judge smoking?

Also, the whole tone of the lawsuit just pisses me off. The girl's dad goes to the superintendent and says his daughter is fatigued and needs an accomodation from the district. The Supe responds by saying, maybe shes overextended and should take a normal class load. Then the dad sues, with his lawyer describing the superintendent's proposal about the normal classload as ""malicious and intentional act" designed to reduce the girl's chances for academic success. I don't know but I get so freaking sick of legal hyperbole from these grandiose whining bastards of attorneys. Maybe suggesting that little princess take a normal classload is a reasonable response that would work for a regular kid? Maybe? Bueller?

OK so that stuff is based on my narrow little field of specialty - this lawsuit annoys me b/c of the kind of claims I deal with every day.

But there are some other more serious issues here: first, it sure sounds like this girl is manipulating the system. First, she uses a claim of "chronic fatigue syndrome" to go to school at home, where she takes classes that are honors classes at a higher ratio than offered at the high school. This school gives honors grades more than 4 grade points (they didnt say exactly how many, usually its 4.3 as opposed to 4.0 for normal classes) which means that this girl has a higher mathematical ceiling for her grades than her competitors who are doing the normal curriculum (which includes non-honors classes like PE etc). I would be very curious if this girl would still be valedictorian if you normed out her mathematical advantage for having more honors classes - according to a different article I read, thats what the school district is saying - that if you factor in the disadvantage the other students had in taking PE and other 4.0 point classes, then the other valedictorians tied her. Assuming those other students took the heaviest class load available in the curriculum, I am perfectly comfortable with the grade averages being adjusted for the ratio of honors classes.

Also, the article indicates this girl is home schooling with tutors who are paid for by her parents and only "consult" with the school - there doesn't seem to be any guarantee that they are applying the same grade curve or grade requirements that normal students have. Plus of course you have a student who is at home with private tutors competing with regular kids in a classroom.

Bottom line is, this sounds like a seriously whiny young person whose parents are manipulating the system ferociously to give every advantage to their little princess, and who are willing to sue the school (for 250 million dollars mind you) at the drop of a hat. I mean if you are a regular student with no private tutor whose dad is not a state Judge, and you are taking the heaviest load the school provides and maxing out your grades and you still get beat by this brat (b/c she has a higher ceiling on her grades than you do), how the hell do you feel?

Eh. I'm overreacting. But I am so freaking sick of whiners and self proclaimed victims manipulating the system, ESPECIALLY if the reality is that the "victim" is an especially privileged person trying to get one over on the regular kids.

occupational hazard, I guess...

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

I understand your complaint, but this isn't a whiny frivolous lawsuit. It will make a real difference on this girl's college applications whether or not she's a sole valedictorian.

The *other* people whining because they couldn't take as many AP courses strikes me as much sillier; she could just as much stuff as a homeschooler, right? Tough shit, if you don't like the grading system, maybe you should change it, or suck it up and get those off-hour AP classes yourself.

[MikeJ]

Well, it makes a real difference to the other kids too. Except they don't have parents who are willing to launch massive legal action at the drop of a hat.

[Jason McCullough]

.....but you're implictly arguing that the school should put a limit on how many AP courses it will accept, when no such limit exists.

What did having the medical condition enable her to do that other kids couldn't?

[Qenan]

Shakespeare had it right: "The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers."

OK, OK, I have relatives who are lawyers. Maybe we just limit their income to the national median.

[Desslock]

Maybe we just limit their income to the national median.

Yeah, that's all we need - more morons as lawyers.

[Sharpe]

.....but you're implictly arguing that the school should put a limit on how many AP courses it will accept, when no such limit exists.

What did having the medical condition enable her to do that other kids couldn't?

I read another article that had a bit more detail. Apparently the other kids were required to take PE courses, which are non-honors and have a max GPA of 4.0. She, because of her alleged illness and the fact she was homeschooling could take those same units as honors courses with a max GPA of 4.3. So mathematically she had an advantage.

There are multiple issues here: the whole insane "super yuppie-spawn achiever" thing, the supremely competitive battle for the top schools, the litigation explosion, manipulation of the system, misuse of the ADA, etc etc.

I consider the whole thing a mess: this girl should have accepted the honor bestowed on her and gotten on with her life.

What happened to the whole idea of character in education?

Dan

[Sharpe]

Maybe we just limit their income to the national median.

Yeah, that's all we need - more morons as lawyers.

Frankly the weakness in the American legal system IMO is that judges don't throw out crap lawsuits early in the process: there are a variety of legal, statutory, procedural and cultural reasons this is true, but I continue to believe that the best remedy to most of the ridiculous lawsuits is to simply have them laughed out of court.

What shocks me about this case is that not only did the judge allow this suit, she made a ruling on an injunction in FAVOR of the plaintiff. I don't really understand it, unless the judge completely bought into the whole idea that this girl is disabled at the age of 18 due to chronic fatigue syndrome.

(As an aside, one of my real issues with this case is that i just don't believe that an 18 year old girl who is as otherwise healthy and active as this girl should be considered "disabled" under the law - its a good example of how grossly misused the ADA has become. I mean if you follow the logic in some of these case, then we are ALL freakin' cripples.)

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

"She, because of her alleged illness and the fact she was homeschooling could take those same units as honors courses with a max GPA of 4.3."

Would a parapelegic have to take PE?

There's three issues here:

1) Whether her medical condition was ADA-worthy.
2) Whether any medical condition should allow you to get out of taking a non-honors course in favor of an honors course, thereby getting a leg up on GPA.
3) Furthermore, the whole honors/non-honors classes having different maximum GPAs thing is extremely messy.

They don't appear to be arguing 1), which I could see.
They're arguing 2), which is just goofy.

I suspect this is because the school came to the decision originally on 1) and it'd be extremely ugly for the school to revoke that, arguing that "she's not really sick." Much easier to think up a new exception at the last minute that violates their previously established grading principles.

I fail to see what lawyers, or the ethics of kids today, have to do with this.

[DennyA]

One would hope that the school she's so worried about getting into will use this doofy suit as a character judgement and summarily reject her.

[Jason McCullough]

If she was paralyzed, would the lawsuit be a character flaw?

[Brad Grenz]

I, frankly, can't believe that Jason has come down on the side of the girl whose parents are trying to buy a valedictorianship for their daughter. I would say the disadvantaged party in this dispute is the students whose parent can't afford an army of lawyers, tutors and note-writing doctors. Seriously, Jason, that seems like the kind of American Aristocracy bullshit that would normally get you into a tizzy.

[MikeJ]

One would hope that the school she's so worried about getting into will use this doofy suit as a character judgement and summarily reject her.

Too late, the original story mentioned that she's already been accepted at Harvard, Princeton, etc. However, not being SOLE valedictorian would be a smudge on her perfect record which would ruin her emotionally for the rest of her life.

[Aleck]

I'm with Sharpe on this one. This seems absurd. On the other hand, I've volunteered as a reader for the Discover Card tribute awards in the past, and most winners of that award do have some tremendous hardship they've overcome. So it's possible that she does have a legitimate medical case -- but you can't really tell from the limited information available.

One further thought: if the girl essentially isn't taking classes at the high school, why the hell is she considered enrolled there? I mean, seriously, she's basically a homeschooled kid for all intents and purposes, and a very successful one. The folks teaching her classes aren't paid by the district, they're paid by her parents. So why the hell is she graduating with the kids from the high school (who are actually attending the high school?)

As for the dual valedictorian thing hurting her with respect to colleges, that's just ridiculous. Admissions decisions at competitive schools are made by March at the latest, 2-3 months before the valedictorian is announced. All the college would know is her class ranking, if the school releases that information. The only colleges making admissions decisions after graduation are junior colleges (your check needs to clear) and very exceptional circumstances. Since she's already in to her choice of Ivy League schools, the complaint that dual valedictorians would damage her chances of future success are just pathetic.

asjunk

[Bub, Andrew]

What did having the medical condition enable her to do that other kids couldn't?

Not take PE, which left a hole in her schedule for the more-valuable AP course that others couldn't take. She probably shouldn't have been allowed the extra AP course and had to take something on par with PE, or, the other valedictorian students should have gotten equal exemptions.

The problem is that the other students scored perfectly in every course they were required to take. The only difference is that PE isn't worth as much as an AP course. The "unfairness" is that the other students couldn't skip PE in favor of something worth more or on par with the student exempt from PE.

Look at it this way Jason, because of this parapelegic student, there was nothing the other students could possibly do to become Valedictorian (save hope she gets a bad grade in some other class). She had it sewn up simply because she was exempt from PE and therefore able to take an extra AP course. There's no doubt that she achieved more, but the problem as I see it is that the other students weren't allowed to match her effort.

[Jim F.]

To throw in the obligatory hackle rising comment...

I wonder if Harvard is going to let her home school. If she can't handle a High School class load, I feel sorry for her trying to handle a Harvard level college class load.

Cronic Fatigue Syndrome is something that I do believe exists. However, looking at what this girl does in the course of a normal day, I find it odd that she's being allowed to claim it. That's a hell of a lot of activity, both in and out of school, that would wear down anyone who didn't have an IV drip filled with Mt Dew Amp hooked up to them 24/7.

[Squirrel Killer]

As much as the lawsuit makes this case seem to be all about the "disabled", it's not. The situation that the school administrators faced was that students who had perfect records were not going to get the honors due their perfect records. Why? Because someone else had a different class load that allowed more "extra credit".

The case is about the kids who did everything right, and would've gotten screwed because they had to take PE. It doesn't matter why the girl who was able to skip PE got that exemption. What matters is that she is trying to take away the others' achievement, even though she had an advantage. If it's a 4 point scale, then the scores should be truncated to fit within the scale, and everything falls where it may. This is the quintessential frivolous lawsuit, she's already accepted into college, and no one is suggesting that she not be one of the valedictorians. What's her harm that she can show standing to even go to court? That's she's not the only one? Pretty weak.

Jason, since you're so fixated on "What if she was paralyzed?", what if she was? Would it have had any influence on the perfect performance of the other students who did not have the opportunity to skip PE?

My wife recieved her Masters with a truncated 4.0 GPA. She actually had about a 4.1 if I remember correctly. She didn't sue, and no one is ever going to care whether her official 4.0 should have been a 4.1. My high school had 5 valedictorians, one of which was a junior who had enough credits to graduate a year early. To my knowledge, not one of them suffered because they weren't the sole valedictorian. No one even complained that Cammie Brown kept her 4.0 by taking a ton of home ec. classes (except a couple gossipy types.)

If the girl really was homeschooled almost entirely, I can sympathise with the administrators, when the junior valedictorian gave his speech, hardly any of us seniors knew who the hell he was. If he was the only valedictorian, his speech would have been fairly inappropriate since no one knew him.

[Bub, Andrew]

I fail to see what lawyers, or the ethics of kids today, have to do with this.

Because the ethical path is pretty obvious. Swallow your pride, withdraw your lawsuit. Realize that the school isn't trying to harm you, it's trying to be fair and just. Then gracefully agree to share the honor with the other students.

[copeknight]

I teach. Crap like this is why I no longer want to. First of all, a good point was made, if she couldn't frigging handle high school because of her chronic fatigue syndrome how in the name of all that's holy will she handle an Ivy League college? I assume that the reason she was allowed to graduate with the class is that her syndrome would allow her to be classified as a special ed student--Other Health Impaired. I didn't read the article, but, in my state, that would qualify her to be placed on "homebound" with the school district paying for her tutors. Now, if her parents just pulled her and paid her tutors or teachers or whatever then being allowed to graduate with her "class" is insane. I was home-schooled in grades 8-12, and I didn't participate in my local district's graduation ceremony (not that I would have wanted to participate). Life was better before lawyers were allowed to advertise on TV.

Carl

[graller]

<sigh> What a story.

I can only picture Rick Moranis reprising his role from Parenthood as the father here. We have a kid that is working 80 hour weeks to max her resume of extracurricular activities. And is supposedly so disabled she can't do this except from home with high priced tutors. She aces her courses and makes valedictorian. She has some students she probably never met treated equally to her....so she sues even though she is already in the top level schools in the country.....And the judge buys it!!!! WTF!

[Dave Long]

Life was better before lawyers were allowed to advertise on TV.

Life was even better when acting like an ass would get you a swift kick in the ass or a punch in the nose.

The colleges that accepted her after all of this should withdraw the acceptance.

--Dave

[Jason McCullough]

Admissions decisions at competitive schools are made by March at the latest, 2-3 months before the valedictorian is announced.

Good point.

I, frankly, can't believe that Jason has come down on the side of the girl whose parents are trying to buy a valedictorianship for their daughter. I would say the disadvantaged party in this dispute is the students whose parent can't afford an army of lawyers, tutors and note-writing doctors. Seriously, Jason, that seems like the kind of American Aristocracy bullshit that would normally get you into a tizzy.

Trying to buy the title? Let's look at the timeline.

1) Whether it's a real condition or not, the school decides to let her homeschool or whatever because of her chronic fatigue syndrome.
2) She then proceeds to get the highest grade average, with the final amount putting her over the top because she could take 5 point grade scale-honors classes in the place of 4 point grade scale regular classes the school agreed she shouldn't have to take, such as PE.
3) When it turns out she has a higher GPA than everyone else, the school comes up with the "co-valedictorian" thing at the last minute.
4) The girl/parents respond by suing.

I'd sum it up as "school lets girl homeschool, this gives her an unknown GPA margin due to 4 point/5 point issues (does anyone know what her GPA would be with the 4 point classes?), but when it turns out shes #1 everyone gets angry because they think her condition is made up."

No one really answered my question: if she was a parapalegic, would this be an outrage? I want to know because I'm curious if this is entirely because he disease is fake (probably, but hey, I'm no doctor), or whether this is some bizarre last-minute objection to the concept of 5-point grading. Wait a minute, you mean people can manipulate the honors point system of grading????

"There's no doubt that she achieved more, but the problem as I see it is that the other students weren't allowed to match her effort."

How much was the 5/4 thing worth? Enough to put her over the top?

[Squirrel Killer]

No one really answered my question: if she was a parapalegic, would this be an outrage? I want to know because I'm curious if this is entirely because he disease is fake (probably, but hey, I'm no doctor), or whether this is some bizarre last-minute objection to the concept of 5-point grading. Wait a minute, you mean people can manipulate the honors point system of grading????

I tried to answer that by saying that the outrage isn't really against Blair Hornstine as it is for the other students with perfect marks. Honestly, I do think the outrage may be a bit more muted, but due the politically correct effect (ie "Don't be mean to the cripple...er...differently abled person") instead of a true lack of outrage.

After reading a little more on the case, I think school districts in general would be smart to eliminate the "there can be only one" style of valedictorian selection. If you have weighted classes, truncate everything down to fit within whatever scale you're going to use and be prepared for 4-5 speeches at graduation. What's up with the hang-up that there can be only one valedictorian? Is it an east coast thing, because all the high school graduations I've been to (in Iowa and Missouri) there's either been multiple valedictorians or next year's class had multiple.

There's no doubt that she achieved more, but the problem as I see it is that the other students weren't allowed to match her effort.

How much was the 5/4 thing worth? Enough to put her over the top?

Well, if it wasn't there wouldn't be a case. Although somehow I think that if she had ended up with a 4.3 and someone else ended up with a 4.6, the judge-dad and the lawyer wanna-be would've filed suit to force the school to truncate.

I think a lot of people here are wondering Jason, if they're hearing you correctly. Are you seriously saying that a person with a clear mathmatical advantage should win out against others who were mathmatically disadvantaged? Why shouldn't a person who got 105% be as rewarded as someone who got 110%, especially when the 105%er was prevented from even attaining 110%?

[Jason McCullough]

After reading a little more on the case, I think school districts in general would be smart to eliminate the "there can be only one" style of valedictorian selection. If you have weighted classes, truncate everything down to fit within whatever scale you're going to use and be prepared for 4-5 speeches at graduation.

Oh, I agree. The whole 5 point scale is a mess anyway, and I think the entire ranking system (including the SAT) is broken.

I think a lot of people here are wondering Jason, if they're hearing you correctly. Are you seriously saying that a person with a clear mathmatical advantage should win out against others who were mathmatically disadvantaged? Why shouldn't a person who got 105% be as rewarded as someone who got 110%, especially when the 105%er was prevented from even attaining 110%?

You're right, it's a travesty. It happened, though, because the school let her get away with taking more 5 scale classes than anyone else, not because she's greedy/whatever. The school commited the original sin here by not having a working ADA policy. The school should implement a new policy capping everyone at the same number of 'em, regardless of ADA exemptions.

What the school's trying to do, unfortunately, is *retroactively* change the rules. If they want to implement for all upcoming years, fine, but to decide it applies to this year's class at the last second? Does that sound like a fair process?

I keep asking the "really disabled" hypo because I'm curious how much of this is outrage at the possibly faked disability and how much is outrage that people with disabilities can take more 5.0 classes than anyone else. If it's faked, yeah, tie her to a stake and light 'er up, but I think shocked, shocked outrage at the inequities of high school academics is a bit rich.

[Aleck]

I'd sum it up as "school lets girl homeschool, this gives her an unknown GPA margin due to 4 point/5 point issues (does anyone know what her GPA would be with the 4 point classes?), but when it turns out shes #1 everyone gets angry because they think her condition is made up."

I agree with your point here that we're missing some information here. However, I'd sum it up as: health issue (whether real or imagined) puts girl in a position where her parents are able to give her an unfair advantage over other students (i.e. buy her access to more AP classes). This puts her at an unfair advantage vis-a-vis other students.

How much was the 5/4 thing worth? Enough to put her over the top?

With grade inflation these days, virtually every high school has at least one student with straight A's who has taken all the AP classes available, and generally there are a number of students in that arena. When I graduated from HS a decade ago, there were 3 valedictorians -- all of whom had taken the maximum available AP classes and all of whom had straight A's throughout high school.

Other information that we should have before rendering judgement: what are the criteria for determining valedictorian? It is solely GPA, or are there other factors at work here?

What annoys me most is that there's no harm here to having multiple valedictorians, except that she needs to share the honor. It's not going to affect college admissions (as I mentioned above), which is the last time anyone looks at your high school grades anyway. I don't understand what possible grounds the judge would have for not laughing the suit out of court. Psychological harms? The harm to those students who got straight A's and took the most challenging courseload available (assuming they did) would outweigh the harms to this girl, I would think.

Again, I'm not sure we have the whole story here, but on the face of it I'd say this is one of the dumbest lawsuits ever.

Also: $250 MILLION for having to share the valedictorianship? Christ, that's the entire annual budget of most school districts. No wonder our schools are in bad shape if they need to put up with this kind of crap. Should such a judgement go through, I'd love to see every property tax bill in the area have a special $250 levy for the next six years listing the home address and phone number of the parents.

If I were the Supt. (and king of the world), I'd find a reason and fail her out of school or disqualify her for graduation -- invalidate some of her credits or something. Make her take summer school in order to go to college. Then there would be some harms... From all the kids in summer school who kicked her ass. :twisted:

asjunk

[Squirrel Killer]

What the school's trying to do, unfortunately, is *retroactively* change the rules. If they want to implement for all upcoming years, fine, but to decide it applies to this year's class at the last second? Does that sound like a fair process?

Is it fair to work hard for four-years, doing everything right, and then getting shafted because someone else was able to skip PE?

While retroactive changes are usually bad (indeed in criminal cases, such ex post facto changes are unconstitutional), such a change to correct an unfair flaw in the process of awarding an honor may be better than awarding the honor unfairly.

I would say a retroactive change to award two deserving people instead of just one is more fair than shafting someone because of PE. It's not like anyone was trying to take anything away from Blair. Her claims that they'd be taking away her sole valedictorian status are asinine. Based on the "least harm" rule, sharing an award is less harmful than screwing one of the two.

[Squirrel Killer]

Also: $250 MILLION for having to share the valedictorianship? Christ, that's the entire annual budget of most school districts.

I haven't read the LA Times report (I refuse to give that much personal information for web site just to read a story), but the NY Times reports it as $200,000 million compensatory and $2.5 million punitive.

I was really upset by Blair's lawyer though, when he said, "I feel it's a shame that it took a federal lawsuit to get a disabled student what she is entitled to..." No one was trying to take anything away from her, just allow someone else, who was required to take classes that lowered his GPA, to share the award. It's not like the other kid was stealing food from her mouth.

[graller]

I don't get the whole thing. I am sorry but what the heck is a 4.3? Last time I checked an A was an A even with grade inflation. Ok so its an AP course...thats nice. I took a bunch of these and you know what when I got an A it counted as a 4.0 - by the way this was an East Coast school and I went to Yale .... and my GPA was no better then a 3.6. If your scale of grading goes from 1 to 4 then 4.0 is a perfect score. The whole argument seems like quibbling over trivialities. We did not even have a valedictorian in my high school - the top x percent students were Cum Laude and that was it... The fact that they are suing for millions, wasting taxpayer money and forcing a school system to waste money on legal fees is just a travesty. If my comments above did not make it clear I think that each of the perfect students should be co-valedictorians. It should always have been that way.

Its like saying CGW scores on a scale on 1 to 5 stars...but if your game does multiplayer you can win an extra star...so Half-Life can be a 5.5 star game in a 5 star maximum world...its just stupid.

On top of which I think someone should sue the family for child abuse. Clearly a child with this disability can't possibly manage all these activities...but the poor dear on a plane to China in her "tender" state? Horror...Family Services should stop off and check the slave conditions in that house

<tongue firmly in cheek>

I know there are real disabilities out there and I am certain that this is one. To tie into Jason's anology...Lets say she was parapalegic. While most people would applaud a parapalegic who was able to get on with life her schedule is the equivalent of being a World Class Olympic track athelete while being a parapalegic. There is a scent to me of falsehood there....it does not change my opinion outlined above regarding grading but it is definitely there

[Jason McCullough]

Based on the "least harm" rule, sharing an award is less harmful than screwing one of the two.

Hmm, ok. I still say that hyperventilating about the state of the US legal system or the morality of kids today because of this is a *bit* overblown.

[Aleck]

I don't get the whole thing. I am sorry but what the heck is a 4.3? Last time I checked an A was an A even with grade inflation. Ok so its an AP course...thats nice. I took a bunch of these and you know what when I got an A it counted as a 4.0 - by the way this was an East Coast school and I went to Yale .... and my GPA was no better then a 3.6. If your scale of grading goes from 1 to 4 then 4.0 is a perfect score. The whole argument seems like quibbling over trivialities. We did not even have a valedictorian in my high school - the top x percent students were Cum Laude and that was it... The fact that they are suing for millions, wasting taxpayer money and forcing a school system to waste money on legal fees is just a travesty. If my comments above did not make it clear I think that each of the perfect students should be co-valedictorians. It should always have been that way.

I'm assuming you know how this works, but just for those that don't:

"Regular" classes are still graded on a regular 4 point scale (A=4, B=3, C=2, etc.) However, to recognize the higher caliber of effort required for AP classes, schools all over the country are now essentially giving every AP class a bump of one point (e.g. A=5, B=4, C=3). As a result, most honors students around the country now graduate with GPAs ranging from 4.2 to 4.6 or so, depending on the number of AP classes offered.

I was talking with my fiance's 16 yr. old cousin about this. A lot of kids at her high school take AP classes because the grades are just as easy to "make" <shudder> as a regular class, and you effectively get a free GPA bump for it. If you don't take the AP test at the end of the year, there's no penalty to your GPA or anything.

I now return you to your regular argument....

[Bub, Andrew]

Hmm, ok. I still say that hyperventilating about the state of the US legal system or the morality of kids today because of this is a *bit* overblown.

Um, ok. But you don't think a cash heavy lawsuit asking for "damages" over this is not a bit overblown?

[Qenan]

Maybe we just limit their income to the national median.

Yeah, that's all we need - more morons as lawyers.

You prefer we kill them? I was just trying to drive folks out of the field...

[Jason McCullough]

Hmm, ok. I still say that hyperventilating about the state of the US legal system or the morality of kids today because of this is a *bit* overblown.

Um, ok. But you don't think a cash heavy lawsuit asking for "damages" over this is not a bit overblown?

In this country? People sue when the neighbor's dog goes after their garden.

[Desslock]

Maybe we just limit their income to the national median.

Yeah, that's all we need - more morons as lawyers.

You prefer we kill them? I was just trying to drive folks out of the field...

Sure, but you'd drive the good ones out and leave the stiffs.

[Brad Grenz]

In my mind it is this lawsuit which puts the validity of the disablitiy in question. It seems clear to me from this suit over *Not* having to share valedictorian status that pulling the girl out of PE and home schooling her was designed to give her a mathmatic advantage over the other students. And that is, frankly, bullshit.

The claim for damages is ludicrous because they haven't demonstrated that this girl has incurred any. Where are the 200 million worth of lost income or property?

[Qenan]

Maybe we just limit their income to the national median.

Yeah, that's all we need - more morons as lawyers.

You prefer we kill them? I was just trying to drive folks out of the field...

Sure, but you'd drive the good ones out and leave the stiffs.

No, I'd drive those out who were primarily in it for money. Not the same thing at all.

[Desslock]

Sure, but you'd drive the good ones out and leave the stiffs.

No, I'd drive those out who were primarily in it for money. Not the same thing at all.

Your proposal would result in lawyers consisting 94% of dumb guys, and 6% alruistic souls who love the law. Quality people are paid based upon how the market values their skills.

The ambulance chasers you seem to hate are often the dumb ones that you wouldn't chase away with your master plan - who rely on crazy contingent fee tort claims because they're not capable enough to have a sustainable practics otherwise.

[Brian Koontz]

Where are the 200 million worth of lost income or property?

I thought the amount was $200,000, with the rest being punitive (and not going to the girl and/or family). It does seem a little harsh on the punitive side of things when the decision made by the superintendent seems quite reasonable to me. I think penalties of that level are only in order when its CLEARLY a wrong move.

If this thing goes through, my only wonderment is whether the superintendent will be committing suicide. Either that or we'll see him working at McDonald's. Talk about a bum rap. He can write a book entitled "I'm the unluckiest guy in America".

What I don't understand is that if the school system is public it doesn't have a cash fund at that level, right... so would they pay the 200 Million by having it taken out of their state-funded allowance every paycheck, or what?

[voltaic]

I'm assuming you know how this works, but just for those that don't:

"Regular" classes are still graded on a regular 4 point scale (A=4, B=3, C=2, etc.) However, to recognize the higher caliber of effort required for AP classes, schools all over the country are now essentially giving every AP class a bump of one point (e.g. A=5, B=4, C=3). As a result, most honors students around the country now graduate with GPAs ranging from 4.2 to 4.6 or so, depending on the number of AP classes offered.
When did this change? When I was serving my time in the clink... uh, I mean when I was in high school AP classes were still on a 4.0 scale but at the end of the semester whatever your grade was in the class they added a 0.025 (or so) to it. So an A in a regular course is a 4.0, but in an AP course it is a 4.025. Thus over time as you accumulate say eight AP courses (which was about the max back in my day) you would have your regular whatever-you-earned GPA plus 0.20. We had 7 valedictorians in my graduating class (basically 7 people with straight-As and the max number of AP classes) and one salutorian (straight-As, one less AP course).

[Aleck]

I'm assuming you know how this works, but just for those that don't:

"Regular" classes are still graded on a regular 4 point scale (A=4, B=3, C=2, etc.) However, to recognize the higher caliber of effort required for AP classes, schools all over the country are now essentially giving every AP class a bump of one point (e.g. A=5, B=4, C=3). As a result, most honors students around the country now graduate with GPAs ranging from 4.2 to 4.6 or so, depending on the number of AP classes offered.
When did this change? When I was serving my time in the clink... uh, I mean when I was in high school AP classes were still on a 4.0 scale but at the end of the semester whatever your grade was in the class they added a 0.025 (or so) to it. So an A in a regular course is a 4.0, but in an AP course it is a 4.025. Thus over time as you accumulate say eight AP courses (which was about the max back in my day) you would have your regular whatever-you-earned GPA plus 0.20. We had 7 valedictorians in my graduating class (basically 7 people with straight-As and the max number of AP classes) and one salutorian (straight-As, one less AP course).

Well, my high school did this, and I just skipped my 10 year reunion.

I work with about 40 school districts around the country right now, and I think pretty much all of them do it this way. It falls into the whole grade inflation area, since it allows you to give students higher GPAs.

Interestingly enough, many colleges now recalculate your GPA as part of the admissions process to adjust for the distortions caused by AP classes.

asjunk

[Aleck]

If this thing goes through, my only wonderment is whether the superintendent will be committing suicide. Either that or we'll see him working at McDonald's. Talk about a bum rap. He can write a book entitled "I'm the unluckiest guy in America".

Being a school superintendent absolutely sucks, at least unless you're married to your job. The pay is good, but the hours are lousy, stress is high, and you're constantly responsible to a board of elected yo-yos, members of the general public, your staff, and the students. Not a job for the faint of heart...

What I don't understand is that if the school system is public it doesn't have a cash fund at that level, right... so would they pay the 200 Million by having it taken out of their state-funded allowance every paycheck, or what?

Nope. You take out a loan or float a bond (unless you're lucky and insurance covers it). One of the districts I work with is actually paying back a $75 million loan after a lawsuit. Their annual budget is just over $40 million, and it's going to take then almost 20 years to pay back the loan (they used virtually the entire district as collateral).

The one problem with having insurance cover it is that you're likely to get dropped by your carrier immediately thereafter, and getting coverage for a school district is a pain in the rear.

asjunk

[Brandon Clements]

We had 8 co-valedictorians when I graduated, all with the maximum number of AP classes that they qualified for. With a 3.9 GPA, I graduated 33rd in my class. Interestingly, the school that I attended had another AP class, but it required that a student be in ROTC since the 8th grade and pass a test to even qualify for it. Only 1 student that I know of even qualified for it (the class was Advanced Leadership and Strategy), and he quit it at the semister break saying it was waay too hard and time consuming (lots of field trips and seminars to attend out of class, along with a "boot camp" during the Christmas/New Years break).

IMO, however, the school should have seen this coming. You have a student that is homeschooled, taking a high number of AP classes, and asking for a waiver not to take a PE class (presumublay to take another AP class that other students couldn't take). Alarm bells should have gone off in an administrator's head when this happened. The school should have not given her the ability to take another AP class that other students could not take, but required her to take some other class in lieu of the PE credit. They could have made up some independant study class on her trip to China alone.

That said, she's already been accepted into the schools of her choice, so I don't see any wrong that the school has caused her (not like she's going to get a merit scholorship to an Ivy League school anyway).

And to answer Jason's question from earlier: I couple of my classmates had physical disabilities, and they took PE. They just sat there and watched everybody. When I asked them why they were there, they said that the school told them they had a choice of either taking a "study hall" period, or taking PE and just sitting there. They both chose PE, because they could bring CD players to it, and not to study hall

[Brian Koontz]

Sure, but you'd drive the good ones out and leave the stiffs.

No, I'd drive those out who were primarily in it for money. Not the same thing at all.

Desslock is right. And if you would like another way to think of it...

Why would you want to become a lawyer UNLESS it was for the money? Lawyers would leave their practices *in droves* if their salaries were slashed and Law Schools would collapse. Those left would be those with few other skills that can't get another better paying job, not so much as your implied "pure spirit".

Non college-level (and even some college-level) teachers get paid a mild salary (good perks though) and are garbage as a result. I saw a bulldozer headed for a school on Saturday and I told him to come back on Monday afternoon when he can do a better job.

Why can't Desslock be wrong again? Agreeing with him is NO fun at all.

[Jason McCullough]

And to answer Jason's question from earlier: I couple of my classmates had physical disabilities, and they took PE. They just sat there and watched everybody. When I asked them why they were there, they said that the school told them they had a choice of either taking a "study hall" period, or taking PE and just sitting there. They both chose PE, because they could bring CD players to it, and not to study hall.

Yeah, that's how they handled it at my school also. Not sure what to think of it.

[XPav]

Why would you want to become a x UNLESS it was for the money? xs would leave their practices *in droves* if their salaries were slashed and x Schools would collapse. Those left would be those with few other skills that can't get another better paying job, not so much as your implied "pure spirit".

Where x =
Engineers
Doctors
Computer Programmers
MBAs

Please name a profession that requires years of schooling that you couldn't put into that sentence. I've had people say after hearing I'm a programmer, "I'm sorry". Perhaps Brian, you don't realize that some people actually have different ideas about what jobs are interesting, huh?

[Desslock]

Desslock is right. And if you would like another way to think of it...Why can't Desslock be wrong again? Agreeing with him is NO fun at all.

Welcome to the dark side, grasshopper.

By the way, I have no idea when you ever thought, foolishly in hindsight, that I was wrong about something.

[Brian Koontz]

Why would you want to become a x UNLESS it was for the money? xs would leave their practices *in droves* if their salaries were slashed and x Schools would collapse. Those left would be those with few other skills that can't get another better paying job, not so much as your implied "pure spirit".

Where x =
Engineers
Doctors
Computer Programmers
MBAs

LOL. I know several doctors personally who became doctors primarily because they want to heal/help people, although I won't deny there are many more that did it primarily for the money.

Computer programmers like to make the computer do things that they tell it to do. There isn't a guaranteed lucrative payout for them, so many of them do not do it primarily for the money.

Engineers... some of both.

MBAs... like to do it and/or the money.

Please name a profession that requires years of schooling that you couldn't put into that sentence.

The percentage of lawyers that like their job OUTSIDE of the money that is in it is much lower than for doctors, and lower than for computer programmers or engineers or MBAs or just about anyone else. That's my point. My point is not to say that everything is peaches and cream for everyone who is not a lawyer and that every lawyer has an IV tube filled with liquified cash running to his body.

[Brian Koontz]

By the way, I have no idea when you ever thought, foolishly in hindsight, that I was wrong about something.

LOL. I know you're paranoid about being wrong, which is why you fought tooth and nail and were looking around for Wolverine's claws in our discussion concerning money and the movie industry.

I can't even remember all of the details (it had to do with gross earnings of movies I think). This might have been 6 months ago or so (possibly a bit longer). It was a trivial thing, I corrected your statement, and then we fought for a while.

To be fair, you *might* have just chosen some poor words. I don't know if your error was ignorance or just poor use of the English language. I was trying to get a clarification of that at the time but of course since your position is always "Desslock is never wrong about anything" you weren't very cooperative.

You pass your words through Quality Control more than probably anyone else does on this forum. Your words as a result are cuddly and safe. You don't allow yourself to be responsible for pushing people in bad directions, which is good.

But you also don't allow us to BE your Quality Control. You don't allow us to slay your monsters. Perhaps you do so in order to be vain enough to let us think you don't have any. Perhaps you don't think we could handle the task. Perhaps you're protecting us. Or perhaps you're protecting yourself.

I remember telling a good friend of mine that he is such a good friend partially because he is a mirror for me. I look at him and see myself. He asked me why that made him such a good friend and I said...

"It tells me where to plant the blade".

[Matthew Gallant]

By the way, I have no idea when you ever thought, foolishly in hindsight, that I was wrong about something.

LOL. I know you're paranoid about being wrong, which is why you fought tooth and nail and were looking around for Wolverine's claws in our discussion concerning money and the movie industry.

I can't even remember all of the details (it had to do with gross earnings of movies I think). This might have been 6 months ago or so (possibly a bit longer). It was a trivial thing, I corrected your statement, and then we fought for a while.

To be fair, you *might* have just chosen some poor words. I don't know if your error was ignorance or just poor use of the English language. I was trying to get a clarification of that at the time but of course since your position is always "Desslock is never wrong about anything" you weren't very cooperative.

You pass your words through Quality Control more than probably anyone else does on this forum. Your words as a result are cuddly and safe. You don't allow yourself to be responsible for pushing people in bad directions, which is good.

But you also don't allow us to BE your Quality Control. You don't allow us to slay your monsters. Perhaps you do so in order to be vain enough to let us think you don't have any. Perhaps you don't think we could handle the task. Perhaps you're protecting us. Or perhaps you're protecting yourself.

I remember telling a good friend of mine that he is such a good friend partially because he is a mirror for me. I look at him and see myself. He asked me why that made him such a good friend and I said...

"It tells me where to plant the blade".




Looks like the search for #27 (http://webpages.charter.net/iskydive/main/fancy_lads.htm) is over.

[Qenan]

Sure, but you'd drive the good ones out and leave the stiffs.

No, I'd drive those out who were primarily in it for money. Not the same thing at all.

Your proposal would result in lawyers consisting 94% of dumb guys, and 6% alruistic souls who love the law. Quality people are paid based upon how the market values their skills.

The ambulance chasers you seem to hate are often the dumb ones that you wouldn't chase away with your master plan - who rely on crazy contingent fee tort claims because they're not capable enough to have a sustainable practics otherwise.

You may be right, for lawyers. In the sciences, I think most of the good ones would stay regardless. What extra money does is attract a lot of so-so folks who can then get funding. (My father was a physicist.) Having lived through boom and bust in the software world, I think much the same applies there. If most lawyers are just in it for the money, I think it reflects badly on the law as a profession -- but that's just my bias.

Hate is a strong word; I don't hate lawyers. I hate the adversarial legal system, which basically gives huge advantages to those with the money to acquire the best lawyers. Ambulance chasers are a problem, but they aren't what bugs me the most.

[milo]

Please name a profession that requires years of schooling that you couldn't put into that sentence.
Roman Catholic Priest.

Regarding the whole "extra points for AP" thing, that's the way it worked when I was in high school - Class of '85. I seem to remember my GPA was 4.53, narrowly beating a girl who had taken basically the same course load except for AP Physics (a class reserved for the suicidal in my high school - the teacher gave a twelve-hour final exam after the AP exams were finished). So I was ranked number one in my class, but as no one wanted to hear me blather on at the graduation ceremony, a vote among the top five percent of the class awarded dual class-speakership to the number two and number three students. As far as I know, no one sued anyone over any part of this.

I was asking my wife about this story last night. She is an educator, and spends a lot of time writing Individual Education Plans for special ed students. She agreed that CFS would fall under the "Other Health Impairment" category in the IEP and that this could excuse her from actually attending the classes at school. However, she should still be required to take the same exams and be graded by the same teachers as the students who are attending the classes at school.

She also said that the registrar should never have allowed the student to substitute an AP class for PE. If they were going to make that kind of substitution, it should have been for an equivalent class.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[Desslock]

You may be right, for lawyers. In the sciences, I think most of the good ones would stay regardless.

I think that's largely true -- scientists rarely go into their fields for money, although there's no shortage of egos in that field either. There's (gasp!) lots of ethical, intelligent lawyers as well -- most lawyers who work outside of tort litigation and two-bit fields like real estate and wills & estates, and low end criminal cases, fit into that category.

If most lawyers are just in it for the money, I think it reflects badly on the law as a profession -- but that's just my bias.

Money, challenge, seeing your name in the papers associated with major transactions or legal rulings, helping people in difficult or adversarial circumstances or to raise money and carry on business -- those may not necessarily be altruistic reasons, but they're the rationale for tolerating ridiculous hours and sacrificing a lot of other things in life.

What other motivations do you want to acribe to lawyers - sense of justice? That certainly should be the case for criminal lawyers, yet that's a field where the vast majority of practitioners are frankly dummies (at least compared to other professionals, like doctors and scientists), because there's few barriers to entry. Should more capable defense lawyers try to be less persuasive because they're against crown attorneys who are paid dirt and therefore are generally comprised of people who barely passed law school?

In terms of other legal fields -- it's all advocacy, and whether or not you're negotiating a transaction, litigating a civil case, etc. -- the better advocate can have a huge impact on the transaction/case, regardless of the objective "merits" of each side's position. It's really annoying that everyone isn't entitled to an equal chance to defend themselves in criminal law, and that people can't realistically access the same reources in resolving disputes -- lawyers should act ethically within that system, but the nature of the system doesn't even permit "justice"

[Jason McCullough]

Nothing like the phrase "crown attorneys" to point up some the legal differences across the border, heh.

[Met_K]

Someone really should leave a nice, big, burning hole in the ground where these court-rooms used to be. Anytime a useless lawsuit is allowed to go by, BAM! Instant beef-works already cooking on the grill. Kill the judges, the juries, the lawyers, and especially the jackass pursuing the lawsuit. Let the defending party walk.

Kill 'em all. Sorry, don't like it? This system is fucked. It's not fair. It doesn't work in civil court, claims court, etc. The justice system barely works, but at least it does to a degree.

I say be done with the lower courts and just fuck everyone who thinks they're entitled to something. If someone deserves to have their lights punched out, go for it, and consequences be damned. That's how it should be.

You can feel free to yell at me, call me wrong, blah blah blah now.

[Robert Sharp]

I think there are two major things that need to be done to lower the ridiculous rate of litigation suits in the U.S. First, and foremost, anyone who sues someone and LOSES should be forced to pay whatever they were asking for. I guarantee that would slow it down, and it has been done in other societies. This would do two things: prevent many cases outright, especially those that are frivolous and lower the amount of damages sought to a less excessive, more reasonable, number.

Second, the judges need to side with the defendent more. This one is much tougher to enact because of the fuzzy boundaries in these cases. For instance, Jason mentioned suing over a neigbors dog. I think that is a completely legit lawsuit. If someone else's pet destroys your property, that is neglect on their part. They should have to repay you for that damage. I have no idea why Jason would disagree with that..he didn't say. OTOH, a woman is (or has) suing a store because her own son was allowed to run around the store and damage things. In other words, she sued because the store did not babysit her son for her, while she was there! That's an obviously bad lawsuit. Whatever she is asking for, she should have to pay that amount to the store involved, with a minimum of twice their court costs.

I think these two changes would help a lot, but I don't see them happening soon. In the meantime, our legal system is very much fucked up and unfortunately it encourages the poor morality that we see in the American people. We may be the most selfish and self-absorbed culture of all time. And then we have the nerve to think we are better than other countries?

[Jason McCullough]

.....except that the rate of civil suits by private individuals hasn't tracked the increase in the population; the "explosion in litigation" is entirely due to increased corporate filings. You'll have to take my word on this; I can't find the source at the moment.

[Sharpe]

.....except that the rate of civil suits by private individuals hasn't tracked the increase in the population; the "explosion in litigation" is entirely due to increased corporate filings. You'll have to take my word on this; I can't find the source at the moment.

Hmm this contradicts my subjective impressions as a civil litigation attorney. I'd like to take a look at the numbers if you can find the source. If it's true, its VERY interesting....

Dan

[Mark Asher]

.....except that the rate of civil suits by private individuals hasn't tracked the increase in the population; the "explosion in litigation" is entirely due to increased corporate filings. You'll have to take my word on this; I can't find the source at the moment.

I've heard this too. Corporate filings exceed filings by individuals. Corporations are litigation-happy. Of course, I doubt they'd ever want anyone to limit their ability to litigate.

[Mark Asher]

"In other words, she sued because the store did not babysit her son for her, while she was there! That's an obviously bad lawsuit. Whatever she is asking for, she should have to pay that amount to the store involved, with a minimum of twice their court costs."

This is kind of crazy. Why should someone have to pay twice in costs what he or she was asking for in damages? Just to discourage lawsuits? All you'd be doing is discouraging poor people from suing. This would just further give the rich more advantages.

Individuals have very little power when dealing with corporations. Take away the ability to sue, and they have virtually none. That's not a good thing. As individuals, we'd never be able to legally challenge companies for things like damaging our property for illegal disposal of toxic waste, etc. If I eat a Jumbo Jack at Jack-in-the-Box and get sick because it's spoiled and sue for $150,000 and lose, under your plan I'm bankrupt because I have to pay $300,000. That's just ridiculous.

[Sharpe]

Mark has summarized quite nicely the main argument why most of the proposed legal reforms (loser pays, penalties for frivolous suits) wouldn't work very well in our society: the wealthy have the funds to absorb the risk of losing while the poor would be largely deprived of the practical ability to sue.

That's why I continue to feel that the solution to the litigation problem lies with the liability laws themselves, and more importantly with judges who allow suits to proceed. First of all, we need to re-adress the whole issue of contributory negligence in this country and put some burden for personal responsbility on the plaintiff. Second we need to limit liability for cases where causation is too indirect or too tenuous. Third, we need to change the rules and the role of judges so that judges can throw out worthless or frivolous suits early in the process, with a right of appeal. If properly done, the poor would still have the right to use the courts, but most of the ridiculous and overblown suits would be thrown out.

The fourth thing to do of course is to address the whole culture of victimization / lack of personal responsibility idealogy but thats something for whole ' nother post :).

Dan

[Jason McCullough]

Here's (http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/1998/01/26/editorial3.html) a quickie guide backing up the declining filings thing.

There's some parallels between the media hysteria over gun crime and legal filings. Used to be you'd only hear about the ones that occured within 100 miles; now, you can hear about every single one in the US, plus the really interesting ones from overseas, and that gives a ludicriously skewed sample on first inspection.

The fourth thing to do of course is to address the whole culture of victimization / lack of personal responsibility ideology.....

If you think that's the case, then judging by filing rates things are getting better.

[Robert Sharp]

"In other words, she sued because the store did not babysit her son for her, while she was there! That's an obviously bad lawsuit. Whatever she is asking for, she should have to pay that amount to the store involved, with a minimum of twice their court costs."

This is kind of crazy. Why should someone have to pay twice in costs what he or she was asking for in damages? Just to discourage lawsuits? All you'd be doing is discouraging poor people from suing. This would just further give the rich more advantages.

Individuals have very little power when dealing with corporations. Take away the ability to sue, and they have virtually none. That's not a good thing. As individuals, we'd never be able to legally challenge companies for things like damaging our property for illegal disposal of toxic waste, etc. If I eat a Jumbo Jack at Jack-in-the-Box and get sick because it's spoiled and sue for $150,000 and lose, under your plan I'm bankrupt because I have to pay $300,000. That's just ridiculous.

Reread what I wrote, Mark. I didn't say twice what she was asking for, I said a minimum of twice their court costs, to make up for them having to pay to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit. Even so, your point is valid in another way. If you have to pay the same as what you ask for it would create a problem. HOWEVER, in the suit you cited there is almost no way the person would not win. I am not saying people should not get what they deserve...in fact, I am saying the opposite. They should ONLY get what they deserve. Right now people think they deserve to be rich just because they exist. That's absurd. They don't want to work for it..they just think they deserve it because they are "special". There are VERY few people in this world that are special, and very few of those special people would sue someone over nothing.

If you have a legitimate lawsuit, then my reforms wouldn't affect you. All you would need is proof. Will some innocent people get screwed under such a system? Yep. Every law screws innocent people at some point. But far fewer than are being screwed right now. How am I supposed to pay someone 300K because I didn't take care of her kid for her?

[Mark Asher]

Court costs can be quite expensive, if by court costs you mean the cost of the other side presenting its case. Lawyer fees, expert witnesses, etc. It can easily add up. The legal profession is good at generating expensive bills.

Regardless, I don't think making it more expensive to pursue legal action is a good idea for a society with egalitarian goals. All you're doing is removing legal options from those with meagre means.

Now, if some kind of reasonable definition of a "frivolous lawsuit" can be arrived at, I don't mind some punitive measures being enacted. Merely losing a lawsuit doesn't make a lawsuit frivolous, however. That's a harsh metric to apply to the validity of a claim.

[Robert Sharp]

Regardless, I don't think making it more expensive to pursue legal action is a good idea for a society with egalitarian goals. All you're doing is removing legal options from those with meagre means.

I agree with that. But I disagree that our society has or should have egalitarian goals. Capitalism isn't about egalitarianism. It's supposed to be a merit based system. So maybe we just have a difference of political ideology here.


Now, if some kind of reasonable definition of a "frivolous lawsuit" can be arrived at, I don't mind some punitive measures being enacted. Merely losing a lawsuit doesn't make a lawsuit frivolous, however. That's a harsh metric to apply to the validity of a claim.

Agreed, which is why I agreed that it would sometimes be unfair. Sometimes, a suit is overturned because one side has more money (which fits with your theory). Perhaps, I should modify my original claim to say that there should be a frivoloty fine that a judge can award. That way, you don't punish people JUST for losing, but for actually having a frivolous case. Where do we draw the line? Well, it is a fuzzy line, but there are some CLEAR cases out there. We can start with those. Perhaps, we can even lower the number of corporate cases. Are many of those frivolous or are most of them just part of companies trying to screw each other?

[XPav]

And because I can't lead dead horses decompose in peace...

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--valedictoriansuit0604jun04,0,6062928.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

She plaigarizes (yeah, that's probably spelled wrong) too!

[Sharpe]

I'm not really surprised at the plagiarism or at her lack of apology. The reason I reacted to this story so strongly was that the whole thing gave off the smell of someone who was intentionally manipulating the system for personal advancement.

If you guys haven't read the plagiarism article, please do. It sounds like a serious smoking gun and her excuses sound worthless.

I am somewhat heartened by the Harvard student reaction, with some students signing a petition to revoke her admission.

Dan

[Brad Grenz]

It would be cool if they revoked admission, but then her and her judge daddy would just sue the shit out of Harvard which has much deeper pockets than a public school disctrict. Hell, her dad might even be an alumnus. But Harvard could also probably mount a more powerful legal defense.

[voltaic]

It would be cool if they revoked admission, but then her and her judge daddy would just sue the shit out of Harvard which has much deeper pockets than a public school disctrict. Hell, her dad might even be an alumnus. But Harvard could also probably mount a more powerful legal defense.
But how far would that go? As a private institution they can pick and choose whoever the hell they want for admissions. And if she misrepresented even one item on her admissions information, well to quote Met_K: "kthxbye".

And if daddy is a judge, would he want to burn bridges with any of his Hah-vahd alumni peers for filing such a suit?