An interesting article in The Economist is all about a recent paper and research by Dan Houser (George Mason Univ.) and Robert Kurzban (Penn). The Economist articles summarizes that the population is 13% cooperators, 20% free riders, and 63% reciprocators. One could have fun classifying their colleagues in this manner.

Now that we have formal educational programs in video game design (and the first graduates now), it seems only a matter of time before these evolve into full-fledged graduate degree programs. And why not?!? As the citizens of the world move into virtual identities through role-playing games, we'll need to have formal educational and certification requirements for cyber-world engineers just like the in the analog world--right???

Rereading the Massachusetts "Gay Marriage Case" (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)), I've encountered a sentence that strikes me as being rather peculiar, even absent a discussion of the merits of the case:

"Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's 'avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship.'"

Regardless of the issue raising a question fundamental rights--be it marriage, voting, or travel, I find this wording rather odd. Clearly, the rhetoric employed is very carefully chosen; this is not only apparent upon reading, but is expressly indicated ("or more properly..."). But, isn't a right always alternatively, yet equally, expressed as a right to choose to? If not, then the so-called right is not really a right at all, but an obligation. Surely no one involved in this case actually thought that marriage is obligatory to all citizens of a state! Surely we aren't required to bear arms!

So why don't we call lawyers doctors? The English word "doctor" does indeed come from the Latin "doctor," meaning teacher, yet we don't call Juris Doctors by said title. Sure, the primary meaning has evolved into "physician," but we quite commonly refer to Ph.D.'s as "Doctor So-And-So." Yes, the history of the Juris Doctor degree is fairly recent, but so what? In terms of actual curricular requirements, the full three years of American law school coursework exceeds that of both M.D. and Ph.D. programs, as much of their education is not coursework, and law students typically take more classes each semester than Ph.D. students.

The American Bar Association has a formal statement on the matter:

2. J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency.
WHEREAS, the acquisition of a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree requires from 84 to 90 semester hours of post baccalaureate study and the Doctor of Philosophy degree usually requires 60 semester hours of post baccalaureate study along with the writing of a dissertation, the two degrees shall be considered as equivalent degrees for educational employment purposes;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all appropriate persons be requested to eliminate any policy, or practice, existing within their jurisdiction which disparages legal education or promotes discriminatory employment practices against J.D. degree-holders who hold academic appointment in education institutions.

I suspect that as the number of those holding LL.B.'s dwindle, the usage might eventually come into fashion. Someone graduating in the last couple of years told me that all letters sent to alumni are addressed with the 'correct' title.

So, here's my proposition: let's use the proper title. Always. Starting today, call all your local J.D.'s by their proper title, and let's give them their due!

The new (since July) dean of U of California at Berkeley law school (Boalt Hall) is calling for the privatization--at least partially--of the law school. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education article on the subject, California only provides 30% of the school's budget, which shows a decline from 60% in 1994. What I found most surprising was that even the in-state tuition rates at Boalt Hall are ~$22,000 and ~$34,000 out-of-state, which strikes me as high for a public school.

But the high tuition makes me wonder: even with a fairly low level of support from the state (i.e. 30%), doesn't the high tuition even further the classic problem of subsidizing education? Especially at elite schools like Berkeley, the typical pedigree of an incoming One-L is one of elite undergraduate and often private secondary education. Yet California taxpayers--rich and poor alike--are subsidizing the education of law students that often had other, fairly elite choices for law school, had fantastic undergraduate educations, and may or may not stay in California after graduation.

In short, I say this to Dean Edley: Privatize all you can--in fact, what about secession?

So we apparently now have conclusive proof that money doesn't buy happiness, but so what? In the annual "What they should have said" year-end editorial by U.S. News Editor-in-Chief Mortimer Zuckerman (the 10 January edition), he speculates on what Donald Trump might have quipped: "Why should I care about happiness? It can't get me money."

Other highlights from the editorial:
"Bush on Kerry's campaigning: 'He went around the country stirring up apathy.'"
"The press on the country's reaction to the choice between Bush and Kerry: 'It was the evil of two lessers.'"