September 24, 2006
Hierarchies of Legal Articles (and the Reproduction Thereof)
This week, it seems like every law blogger is offering his or her own (although actually, it's usually "his", hmm) list of the 'hierarchy of legal scholarship' [1], [2], [3]. I think there's quite a lot to be said for Eric Muller's Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship, but it's just too darn complicated.
So here's mine:
0 - Lousy articles which get the facts wrong
1 - Lousy articles
2- Good articles
3 - Articles which would have been really good except they go on too long
4- Really good articles (bonus for a snappy title)
5 - Supremely good articles (very rare)
Not only is this much simpler, but I expect it will command wide agreement.
Posted by Michael : September 24, 2006 12:00 AM | Law School | TechnoLinks
Slashdot
It!
My goodness your St. Thomas LS post below has attracted some angry and agressive commenters. Hey, if you simply add the word "feminism" to your blog title, you could draw trolls like that on a regular basis! Blech.
Posted by: Ann Bartow at September 24, 2006 09:36 AMJust a small twick:
1. Lousy articles (almost 4%)
2. Who cares articles (95%)
3. Good articles (1%)
4. Excellent articles (0.05%)
It implies to most written material, scientic, legal, blogs, etc.
Posted by: shmuel at September 24, 2006 03:19 PMJust a small twick:
1. Lousy articles (almost 4%)
2. Who cares articles (95%)
3. Good articles (1%)
4. Excellent articles (0.05%)
It applies to most written material, scientic, legal, blogs, etc.
Posted by: shmuel at September 24, 2006 03:21 PM