Here are the drafts for officer elections and new member selection as presented by the Member & Officer Selection Committee. Please review these drafts carefully and comment on anything and everything you see fit.
We will hold a proxy vote this Thursday, February 5. 16 YEA votes (simple majority) constitutes passage and adoption. Anything less than that will require amendment and a revote.
Click here > Bylaws drafts
– Andres
Posts
32 comments:
Thank you to the committees who produced these drafts. My only concern, however, is the requirement for gpa's. I'm wondering if anyone else has the same concern that I do, which is that I'm not sure that meeting these gpa requirements signifies whether you are a qualified student to compete on the board. But on the other hand, because there are three different thresholds you can meet to qualify, it is possible that it is broad enough. Anyone else?
We thought of your concern. For a long while we were going to just have an LRW requirement. Some people had concerns though that we'd be eliminating otherwise smart kids just because they had a horrible LRW prof. The top 50 percent only provides more options.
Officer selection - I like well enough to vote for it.
Member selection - will this procedure be getting a trial run this year? Even if not, maybe we should see what the results would be under the proposed rule system. Basically, I think that this rule section will live or die based on the real results that are returned from it.
Is the IMCB scoring sheet available (the one proposed to judge briefs in the rules)? Has this been written yet?
My only concern is that the writing section may be disproportionate to its importance, depending on how the scoring sheet is written. This is especially true if the material that they are being graded on is strictly the LRW brief. I wouldn't mind seeing the 50 writing points split into 35 for LRW brief + 15 for statement of interest / background statement. I think a candidate who is proficient in writing but demonstrates interest is more valuable to the Board than a great legal writer with no genuine interest.
I'd be open for a trial run, certainly if we got horrible returns common sense would dictate a change.
Scoring sheet - the recruitment committee is going to make up the scoring sheet. It's going to be fairly basic. We played around with just using Jessup's (and I'm still open to that idea) but we ultimately decided that we would take the common elements from all the competition score sheets, so as to be more reflective of all our competitions. We have no intention of simply making up categories.
I strongly disagree with the idea of a statement of interest. I agree that it's important to have someone dedicated, but I don't think that dedication is something one can validly critique before they are in the thick of a competition. Anyone can write a statement of interest and bullshit about how they love international law. No one is going to write a statement of interest where they say "well I'm don't really care about international law or litigation, I just want something on my resume."
After my oral rounds, I was questioned about my dedication because my statement of interest was lackluster and litigation focused. Now I'm putting in more than 6 hours a week practicing for Jessup with my team. I'm not saying that effort is 'special', but I think the last 6 months have proven I'm dedicated, despite a BS statement of interest.
So basically, Kyle, you bullshitted us last Spring...LOL.
Kyle, I understand your concern, but I agree with Brian. I think that the statement of interest can be useful to know the potential member's background and interests. It may be used as talking points in the interview and it also shows their writing skills and interest level. We must assume that not all of us are as evil as you are. ;) Although, I do agree with you that statements of interest and cover letters are tedious, but in the end I think that they serve a legitimate interest.
Kyle,
I am not in any way saying that YOU should not be on the board, or that anyone else with anything less than a total 100% interest in international law. I just think that it will be nice to know what their interests and goals are in joining our club. You know, something beyond "it looks good on my resume."
CONCERNS: I put together some of my concerns and possible solutions to those problems. Thanks to everyone who put this ISH together.
(1) 5(d)(iv): 2L's must submit their 1L brief for written scoring -- PROBLEM: rewarding students who might have been a superior writer while producing their 1L brief while punishing someone who may have progressed and surpassed that person as a legal scribe in a years time.
SOLUTION: Allow 2L's to submit ANY writting sample they have.
(2) 5(b): scoring of the written briefs. -- PROBLEM: Myabe Im reading this wrong, but I feel like we lose standardization in scoring and open the arbitrary door by distributing the briefs to everyone [I feel that this is an issue that comes up in the grade requirements and I will address that as well.] SOLUTION: Have the selection committee grade them. Understandably this is more work, but if they're anonymous then it shouldnt bias a decision.
(3) Threshold Academic Requirements -- I would like to mirror the concerns that Eloris presented. (b) &(c) PROBLEMS: - I would contend that there is very little if any correlation between GPA and the ability to present an oral arguement. A GPA requirement may hold back some very talented oralists from becoming members. SOLUTION: NO GPA requirement. COMMENTS: I will vote down anything with a GPA requirement. I understand that it was used here to broaden the requirements beyond the LRW grade standard which is my next concern.
(a) PROBLEM: While I do feel that writing is extremely important as any of us who have competed on a team have found out, but the same issue presented above in regard to arbitrariness and a lack of standardization exists. There are dozens of LRW classes and teachers, all with different grading styles. A "B" in one LRW class could easily be a "C" in another. SOLUTION: If we as a board, or the selection committee are reading the briefs anyway, I feel that we should judge what brief is superior to another.
COMMENTS: Ive recently read a brief written by one of our competition team members. That person would NOT have met the LRW requirement due to what I would consider arbitrary grading or perhaps an in class bias. I would challenge you to read their brief and honestly tell me that you wouldnt want that person writting for each and every team that competes for this school.
GENERAL SOLUTION: No threshold requirements
Andres,
1) allowing 2Ls to submit ANY writing requirement is an idea that was brought up. The problem, it's alot easier to be a good writer for 2 paragraphs in a motion to suppress you may have written for the Public Defender one summer, than a 10 or 20 page paper that you write when you also have to concentrate on all your other classes. It might be like comparing apples and oranges.
2)Clearly scoring difference among the board would be a problem. The thing is we felt the solution was even worse. If there are 50 candidates, who among us would want to be on a relatively small committee responsible for reading them all, with every person getting maybe 10 briefs. What if in another 5 years we have 100 1Ls submitting 10 page briefs. I'd hate to be on that committee. If we do that, I don't think we can 'recruit' the selection committee but rather we need to take volunteers. Remember just because we get volunteers this year doesn't mean that if in 5 years there are 100 briefs, there will be sufficient volunteers. I agree that arbitrariness will be a problem, I'm just not sure this is the solution.
3) Threshold - honestly I don't care about the threshold anymore. Too many people have demanded too many different things. I personally think that it's tough labeling ourselves as an honor society without a respectable threshold, we would be the only ones on campus, but it's not something I feel strongly about.
Sorry for the confusion Kyle, AG is for Adam Greenfield.
1) Agreed on comparing apples and oranges, so how about a minimum page requirement or explicitly stating no motions?
2) Again I feel that this is a valid concern. So how about something like a two-level process for the selection committee. The first level is made up of members set to an appropriate ratio of briefs per person such as 5:1. For example, if 50 people apply then we have 10 readers with 5 briefs each, if 100 apply then we have 20 readers with 5 briefs each. That initial group can then get together and discuss grading standards and specific things to address. From there, the 4 person committee can do their thang. Just want to try and reduce the lack of standardization. Kind of a pet peeve of mine that has sprung up after my time at this University, haha
3) You care Kyle, more than most obviously since you, lil E, Andres, and B-Murph are the only other people with comments up here. Im sure its been a frustrating topic but this blog was created to work through these issues. ----- First off, just beacuse everyones doing it doesnt mean we need to go down that path. Secondly, I think the honor and respect this society garners will and should be based on our achievments and accolades NOT our threshold grade requirements. I feel that this requirement could in the end actually take away from our honor and respect by precluding worthy people. If people are truly BAD candidates then they shouldnt and wont make it past our selection committee. If were going to have a selection committee lets have some faith in them. If the people with the best grades truly are the best writers and oral advocates, in addition to their interest in international, then the creme will rise to the top regardless of a minimum requirement. I just personally cant support something that I dont think correlates to success in our arena.
-- Adam Greenfield
Adam, Sorry about the Andres confusion man, clearly I don't read complex things like the second letter in initials closely enough.
1) I could embrace a page requirement, and in principle I agree that I would hope 2Ls would have improved their writing.
2) A ratio would reduce the arbitrariness of the grading. I would be down with that too.
3)I don't care was perhaps the wrong phrase. A better thing to say would be, alot of people had alot of opinions on this issue, the B in LRW expanded by the top 50% we thought was a good compromise. The only thing I feel really strongly about concerning the GPA is that it can't be any kind of C. If we are not going to have a B or a 50% then we shouldn't have anything.
Kyle - your point is well taken about the statement of interest. It is something that we can be easily fooled by, but maybe we should reserve those points in the same way that law professors seem to reserve participation points. For example, if we use a point allocation where 50 writing points = 35 brief + 15 statement of interest, we could basically give everyone a presumed 5 points. If someone is just unmistakably committed and excited to join the group, then they can go up...but they should have to earn this by submitting a credible statement of interest that is backed up when the panel asks them about their interest after their tryout round. Likewise, if someone's statement of interest seems manufactured and they can't express interest in the oral section, then they should lose points.
Lastly, this all depends on how we define "interest" anyways. If someone comes up like you who says that their primary interest is litigation without specific reference to international topics, I see no reason to disadvantage such a candidate so long as other important elements like enthusiasm and commitment to group work, work ethic, and desire to compete are present.
I have already spoken to Kyle on some of the issues raised in this comment section. I agree with some of the comments made by Brian and Eloris, but I think the bylaws are fine and I will vote for it.
CONCERNING OFFICER SELECTION:
I think that the total bylaw is great, EXCEPT for the last article. I will vote against this becuase I would like to edit this last article. I don't think that current team members should choose a chair. I think that the Board as a whole shoud choose one chair who competed on that particular competition the year before. The chair does not have to compete, and CANNOT compete in Jessup. I just think that it is wise to have at least one member on each team, competing or not, that is familiar with the competition and can advise the new competitors. We can discuss the selection process at a later date, but this is extremely important to me, having been on the Jessup team. I will vote against this solely for that reason.
I understand adam's arguments and agree that his views have some merit. However, I believe that there should be some sort of threshold. The last thing that I want is the the IMCB to be seen as the second-tier moot court, the easy one to get into, the one with no requirements, while the PAPY is the prestigious moot court. Some people who are good advocates might be left out, but under the circumstances nothing is perfect, and we have to make the best decision for IMCB not one or two people that might be left out.
Just adding to what I said earlier. Example: "The Law Review v. International Law Review" When I was a 1L I did not know the difference between the two except that one might focus on international law. I did not know what awards they had won, or what papers they had published. Nor did any other 1L, for the most part. However, people knew that "The Law Review" was more prestigious than "The International Law Review" because it had a higher threshold. Therefore, if you want to do a law review and you get a chance to get into either almost everyone will choose "The Law Review" because it is harder to get into, and therefore it must be more prestigious. I don't want the best candidates to choose PAPY over IMCB because they feel that PAPY is more prestigious. We need to say that even though we are new, we are just as prestigious, we are looking for the best, have high standards, and we compete in interesting and fun competitions around the world.
Thomas,
I understand your concern regarding the "prestige" factor however I think that IMCB should not get ahead of itself. Our selection process last year yielded a quality lot of board members who have raised interest in IMCB just by word of mouth and participation. We are not Papy and have not developed enough to institute such strict recruitment standards in my opinion. (Especially for 2ls) If you do not satisfy the threshold requirements by the time you become are a 2L it is unlikely that you will qualify in time to substantially participate in IMCB.
Further have we developed a score sheet yet? I don't see how we can require in our laws a score of 80 for 2Ls and not have a point sheet yet. If we do have one, or when we get one, I would advocate allowing any student, even a "C" student that could score in the 80 percent range for oral and written advocacy.
LRW sucks for most people. I have handed in several different papers for many reasons and all have been graded or received with high regard. I only state this as an example because I believe others had the same reservations about their writing that I had after LRW but I only know my story. We are a different group and I don't think we should abandon our intake process completely and turn our noses up at those who are not elite from the starting gate. Most of us agree on 2 things: LRW was arbitrary and Elements is the biggest waste of time. So why accept these LRW teachers assessment of students when we don't accept them as assessing our abilities properly. There are some on this board that took their shot at Papy and were not admitted; we know purport to treat others withe the same regard.
Chris,
I agree Elements was a joke and LRW was BS. I had two LRW professors because the first sucked so bad that she was dismissed/quit (there is some dispute as to this fact). However, right now we are a second rate moot court board. When I competed in NY this past week we were the only team not to get credit for our competition. If we have no requirements to get on we will be reinforcing the view that we are a second rate moot court..."If you can't get on Papy do IMCB because they are easy to get into. " I want it to be an honor to get on IMCB, I want it to be something people strive for and hold in high regard. Otherwise, we will not be looked at seriously by the other students or the administration.
I agree with Tommy. Until we start WINNING competitions, we can't be an honor society without grade requirements. I was trying to sell IMCB to an LRW class today, it went alright but I could see some people dismissed me straight away. Imagine if there was a law review that said "we're concerned just we writing, so we don't care about your grades, including LRW." They would become nothing more than a joke on campus.
Second of all, I think it's extremely arrogant of us to say, there are SOME bad LRW professors, so we're in a better place to critique writing then a lawyer with several years of experience. I don't believe that for a second, which isn't to say we shouldn't review writing samples, but just to say that a second level of scrutiny wouldn't hurt.
We want smart people to want to get onto the board, not to think that it's some sort of joke.
I fail to see how being restrictive will somehow make it an honor to be apart of this board. A basic principle has been forgotten, we need numbers in order to make and send teams to the various competitions. Second, just because we impose a GPA requirement doesn't mean that students will suddenly covet a position on the board. There are several ways for students who desire to compete to do so. They can try Papy, join the mock trial team etc. The only one that is considered prestigious is Papy, and not because they are hard to get in to, it is because of how successful they are. Do we really want to be a board that hardly anyone can get in to yet accomplishes nothing?
Besides, becoming prestigious because you say you are, only works for undergrad frats. We have all long since left those days behind.
Ron,
We are hardly asking for alot.
You say we are pushing to become a board that "hardly anyone" can be a part of, however we are necessarily allowing more than half the 1L class to qualify since some people who have B or higher in LRW are going to be below 50%
Secondly we only let 15 people in because we are trying to establish a firm number of thirty at least for a few years. Yes we need to get people into competitions, but we have 30 people now, and even without the e board I'm pretty sure there are people who aren't competing or doing anything else of importance. Third, people know how well Papy does this year because they received that number 6 ranking, however last year it was my impression that most people in the 1L class didn't know how papy did in their competitions, sure there are some awards in the library but that's over a significant span of time. A big part of it is perception. Perception becomes reality.
Kyle,
Maybe I am wrong, but I don't remember there being a class rank and/or LRW average requirement last year. The arbitrary aspects of these considerations have be explained so I will refrain from rehashing them. That said, I only see them as helpful elements in deciding between two equally talented oralists who have demonstrated there interest and commitment.
By they way, perceptions built solely on words last only as long as it takes those words to travel between your ears.
Ron - touche, well put. Kyle- They are 1L's, they look at everyone like that, regardless. Thomas- I HATE the word prestige. We are an insitution dedicated to education and opportunity, not reputation. That's all I will say on that.
Ron,
You remember correctly, however the whole idea of writing new rules is that we are not subject to how things were done last year. Quite a few things have been changed from last year.
Eloris,
Law school is an institution dedicated to education and opportunity. Agreed. However, recruitment (getting the best students into IMCB next year) is all about prestige and reputation. Without it we will be considered a joke, getting Papy's sloppy seconds, a second rate organization with no standards. Perception is important.
People want jobs, period. Traveling for competitions is great, international legal issues is great, but people want jobs after they graduate. That is the number one reason people do law review, moot court, etc... Going to a prestigious school, getting a prestigious internship, getting into a prestigious organization in law school will make their resume stand out, which will help them get a job.
Last year is last year. We can't make this personal. We need to figure out what is best for this organization moving forward.
I respect everyone's opinion and I am glad we are discussing and talking about this rather than having no one care. I believe that having discussions will only help make us a better and stronger organization. Disagreement is natural and can be helpful, apathy is not.
WOW Thomas, as a member of the same "TEAM", I'm really glad to know that you only want me, and the rest of us, to be your "teamates" solely for the purpose of getting you a job and helping your reputation. Glad I could help. I hope you learn something from your experiences on the board. Look, having a threshold is not a bad idea. BUT having a threshold simply for the purpose of improving our reputation for our resumes seems selfish and a bad policy. I did not pick one board over the other based on thier prestige, I chose based on a thought-out decision. And in particular, I didn't want to join Papy b/c they were or were not prestigious, I wanted to join this team b/c I thought I would be granted more opportunities and I appreciated the openess of the structure of this board. We do not need to worry about OUR resumes or OUR reputation in selecting qualified candidates for the board. If a student can demonstrate to us that he/she is qualified, dedicated, and talented, quite frankly I could care less about thier gpa, reputation, prestige, or any other arbitrary measure of thier value as a member of our board.
And, as Ronnie pointed out, we don't become "prestigious" by having a threshold gpa requirement. We do that by hard work, dedication and acting in a respectable manner. Furthermore, I do NOT believe that a GPA requirement will sufficiently determine who will further YOUR "prestigious" reputation for you resume. We can attract talented students in other ways. I would like to see new members who are interested in international issues, or simply are just dedicated to our board, over some student who looks nice on paper. We all know many who have impressive resumes, but don't perform for a team in an acceptable manner.
You are right, this is not personal, I respect the opinions of all of you. But, I simply do not see any relevance btwn a threshold GPA and MY resume. I am not here for a reputation or "prestige", and I think it is important to grant other students the same opportunities we have had based on thier merits, not their status.
Ok. I think everyone needs to relax. There is no need to point fingers. This is getting us nowhere. This is not about me, and its not about you. This is about how are we going to recruit the best law students to be on IMCB next year. Good night everyone.
Folks,
These are all good comments. What's best about them is that all of you genuinely care, and that we all share a common goal here.
Just my own two cents on jobs from someone who's been there and done that. The primary deciding factors in getting jobs, aside from daddy's connections, are NOT moot court or law review... it's your grades (sadly) but also a number of intangibles, including luck. Go and look how many Miami Law Review 3Ls or Papy Moot Court members are still without jobs.
On the other hand, some us here already have great jobs. I say this only to illustrate the point I just made. My grades aren't the highest and I'm not on law review, yet I got a job that any law review geek would kill for... and my daddy had nothing to do with it either.
So no, we shouldn't be here for the job. We should be here because we're genuinely interested in becoming better advocates, because we share a passion for international law, and in my particular case, because I care... because I want to become a better leader and in the process hopefully leave some positive legacy behind.
That said, I thank all of you who have participated here. Just imagine what this process must've been like for our founding fathers who were forging a nation!
I echo Andres' comments about the relationship between extracurriculars and jobs, especially in the economy that we'll face looking for our first jobs. The formula that the administration presents to 1L's (JD degree + law review or moot court = high salary @ big firm) is not going to have the same reliability as in previous years.
I think that everyone wants the supply/demand ratio for Board membership to resemble Papy's or the law review, but I agree with Ron in the sense that we can't manufacture prestige by setting high threshold gpa's. We'll gain prestige by expanding participation and collecting awards.
Also, one comment was concerned that lowering thresholds would cast the IMCB as a second choice moot court, a joke on campus. I disagree. No matter what, we have the discretion to feed the organization with the best qualified candidates. I actually think that the more we invest in thresholds, the more we look like we're the next tier down from the Papy board.
Ultimately, I think that a threshold should only be used to eliminate candidates who have no realistic chance of making the Board, not for the sake of creating an image.
Post a Comment