<p>But not 7 HLS alumni.</p>
<br>
<p>I agree that if Harvard wants to call them alumni, then Harvard gets to call them alumni.</p>
<br>
<p>Not Harvard. The American Heritage dictionary. You're making it out like this is some kind of eccentricity on Harvard's part. This is what the word means.</p>
<br>
<p>However, I would be interested in seeing whether JFK shows up in the Princeton "alumni" database, or whether Dick Cheney shows up in the Yale "alumni" database.</p>
<br>
<p>I have no idea, but if you don't see any practical difference between earning zero credits in one partial semester and then going elsewhere are starting over from scratch, versus completing 2/3 of your degree at a school, well, then, so be it. I do.</p>
<br>
<p>then we have to compare it to situations where other previous judges matriculated at some law school, but never graduated.</p>
<br>
<p>Feel free. This situation is becoming more common now, as many law students transfer and others spend 3L as visiting students, but it was highly exceptional until quite recently. So I don't think you'll find many (any?) justices of the past in Ginsburg's position. It speaks volumes about the kind of student she was that Columbia (and its Law Review!)cut her that kind of slack back in the day.</p>
<p>At least 9 Harvard degrees, since Souter and Roberts, at a minimum, are also graduates of Harvard College!</p>
<p>
[quote]
but if you don't see any practical difference between earning zero credits in one partial semester and then going elsewhere are starting over from scratch, versus completing 2/3 of your degree at a school, well, then, so be it. I do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aha, but you yourself pointed out that, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, it doesn't matter if you earn zero credits in a partial semester.</p>
<p>Throwing your own quote back at you:</p>
<p>** alumnus ** 1. A...former student of a school, college, or university.</p>
<p>I don't see anything in there about earning any credits. All I see is that you have to be a former student. It seems to me that JFK was in fact a former student at Princeton, and Dick Cheney was in fact a former student at Yale. Hence, it would seem to me that they are "alumni". Which is why I would like somebody to check.</p>
<p>Heck, I don't even see any requirement in there about matriculation. All you have to be is a former student. So I guess French President Jacques Chirac is a Harvard alumni - after all, he did take a class at Harvard Summer School, hence he was a former Harvard student, hence he's an "alumni". Heck, that means that I and anybody else can take online classes at Harvard Extension School (like Hilary Duff), and become Harvard "alumni", if all you have to do to be an alumni is be a 'former student'.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>I agree that if Harvard wants to call them alumni, then Harvard gets to call them alumni.</p>
<p>Not Harvard. The American Heritage dictionary. You're making it out like this is some kind of eccentricity on Harvard's part. This is what the word means.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So I've just spent some time doing some checking up on my own, and I see that, of the alumni databases that I have access to, none of them include people who never graduated. I know people who went to a particular school, and never graduated, either because they transferred out, or flunked out, or ran out of money, or found something more interesting to do with their lives, or so forth. None of them are in the alumni databases of their matriculated schools. </p>
<p>Hence, I see that there's no hard and fast rule. Some schools, like apparently Harvard, apparently use the definition of an alumni as a former student. Others, use the definition of an alumni as an actual graduate. So clearly there is great inconsistency here. </p>
<p>Hence, it is entirely possible that this is some eccentricity on Harvard's part. Which is why I would like to hear of the practices at peer schools. I know that at least one peer school, which shall remain unnamed, does not do what Harvard does.</p>
<p>Here's my quote again, emphasis added:</p>
<p>"If you don't see any PRACTICAL difference"</p>
<p>In other words, I'm pointing out that while there is no rhetorical difference between groups of non-graduates, common sense suggests that in the real world, someone who dips one toe in a school's water is much less likely to remain involved in the life of the school and sign up to be listed in the directory than someone who invested years of his/her life in the place. I said this in order to point out that while there's no rhetorical difference between Dick Cheney and Ginsburg, there's a very good real-world reason -- a PRACTICAL reason -- why he might not be in Yale's alumni directory, while she would be in Harvard's.</p>
<p>Your entire post is about rhetorical categories, not practical ones, so it really didn't respond to my point at all.</p>
<p>Then see my latest post (#45). I believe that deals with your point directly.</p>
<p>Precisely what your <em>point</em> is eludes me.</p>
<p>Byerly, it's nice to see that you're politically involved. On the wrong side of the table, yes, but still good. I admire Romney's lack of serious connections to the evangelical right. He also did an excellent job with the SLC Olympics and the various companies he run.</p>
<p>That being said, Warner's DLC-style credentials will ensure a serious Democratic contender and a sunny-faced contrast to whatever the nutcase the Republicans nominate. It's a shame Romney has no chance of winning the nomination, as he represents what would be a good start toward the center, but it's good for the Dems. Romney's national potential shouldn't be wasted on a losing 2008 ticket (nor should Hagel's, for that matter). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4134046%5B/url%5D">http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4134046</a>
"He stresses his opposition to abortion, stem-cell research (though it might help his wife, who has multiple sclerosis) and, especially, gay marriage...</p>
<p>Mr Romney's reaction [to the gay marriage court decision in Massachusetts] has impressed family-values types. First, he revived a forgotten 1913 law barring out-of-state couples who cannot legally wed in their home states from marrying in Massachusetts. (The law was originally drafted to stop inter-racial couples from the South from coming to Massachusetts to tie the knot.) Had he not done so, gay marriage might have spread to other parts of the country, since a marriage licence granted in one state is usually valid in others. </p>
<p>Second, Mr Romney has backed a campaign to reverse the court's decision. Two state referendums are mooted. One proposal would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions, so that gay couples (or, for that matter, two spinster sisters living together) can receive the same tax breaks and health benefits as married couples, without their relationships being recognised as equivalent. A second, which Mr Romney prefers, would simply ban gay marriage. Kris Mineau, a retired fighter pilot who heads the Massachusetts Family Institute, is very pleased: The governor has been upfront about his values."</p>
<p>Interesting analysis. His opposition to gay marriage is on the wrong side of history, I think. His moderate credentials are perhaps less than the public may thinl.</p>
<p>Byerly, my 'point' is that I think it is entirely possible that Harvard is in the minority of how it uses the definition of 'alumni', in that I know that other peer schools use it to mean only graduates. However, I obviously don't have access to all the alumni databases of all the schools, which is why I would like for people who do to check it out. Hence, you can see my confusion when I was first presented with the definition of alumni, which I took to mean only graduates (because after all, that's how the schools with which I am most familiar choose to define the word 'alumni'). </p>
<p>None of this is to take away from the fact that Harvard is allowed to use the definition of the word 'alumni' in any way it sees fit. I have conceded that point. However, I suspect that Harvard might be out of the mainstream in this regard. They have the right to be out of the mainstream, of course. But it does seem a bit unfair for Harvard to claim Ginsburg using a highly expansive definition of the word 'alumni', if other schools can't or won't do the same because they're use a narrower definition.</p>
<p>LOL! You have changed your "point" each time Hanna has shot you out of the saddle.</p>
<p>As the OP in this thread, let me remind you of <em>my</em> point: Harvard dominates the United States Supreme Court to an astonishing - and unprecedented - degree.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there is at least a 50/50 chance the <em>next</em> appointee will be a Harvardian, too (ie, Gonzalez).</p>
<p>Each time, she has shot me out of the saddle? I don't think so. I will wait for Hanna's latest response to post#45 - which, rephrased, is that if alumni really are just former students and not necessarily graduates, then why is that all other schools don't see it that way? Why do those schools choose to define alumni as only graduates? Are they wrong? Do they not know how to read the dictionary? Perhaps you'd like to answer that one. Come on, why not shoot me out of the saddle? </p>
<p>As to your point, is it amazing? Yes. Is it unprecedented? That still remains to be seen. The jury is still out on that one, as far as I'm concerned, no pun intended.</p>
<p>LOL! Don't hold your breath!</p>
<p>HLS has had a good run at the Supreme Court, Byerly. Well done. I'm sure you had a huge part in ensuring that not only did the the best students FROM FIFTY YEARS AGO attend HLS (and leave, in case of Ginsburg) but also that they were nominated to the Supreme Court. Hooray for mindless boosterism! </p>
<p>HLS's dominance is merely a statistical anomaly. This is no way shows that HLS is the premier law school, nor does it show that HLS graduates are the best thinkers. And it shows nothing about the school now--all of these types graduated many years ago. YLS still ranks higher in USNEWS, for one. Moreover, most of the SC people were nominated by presidents I and many others don't care to like. Graduating from HLS doesn't make one "qualified" if one insists on overturning precendent and trampling on well-establish edsecularism, the right to privacy, the first amendment and so on. Many of your so-called "qualified" justices have done just that, and in my mind HLS suffers for it. Some of them, namely Thomas (albeit a Chicago alumnus) and Scalia represent the worst in constructionism, Scalia's vote in favor in the right to burn flags notwithstanding. </p>
<p>Frankly, what school they graduated from is irrelevant other than the fact that HLS seems to be graduating a high level of social conservatives who insist on destroying the local applications of Rawl's Harm Principle.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I will wait for Hanna's latest response to post#45 - which, rephrased, is that if alumni really are just former students and not necessarily graduates, then why is that all other schools don't see it that way?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Sorry Sakky, but Stanford follows Harvards practice of claiming students who did not graduate as alumni. Tiger Woods is constantly referred to as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods '98 on alumni websites and magazines. See this article for an example:</p>
<p>They claim the Google founders as alums too. So it's nothing unique to Harvard.</p>
<p>Zepher:</p>
<p>Two points: </p>
<p>(1) both of Bill Clinton's nominees had the benefit of a Harvard Law School education; and</p>
<p>(2) Justice Thomas - who you villify - was a graduate of Yale Law School, not Chicago.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>However, I would be interested in seeing whether JFK shows up in the Princeton "alumni" database, or whether Dick Cheney shows up in the Yale "alumni" database.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Looks like Yale is proud to claim Cheney:</p>
<p>Somehow I don't think the feeling is mutual!</p>
<p>Byerly, you follow the Bush II tactic of simply ignoring anything that happens to have a smidgen of the truth. I acknowledge my errors. I will even concede that my "favorite" justice, Souter, when to HC and HLS. Congratulations all around for you and your school personally ensuring that he reached the Supreme Court. I, unlike you, perhaps, don't like or dislike people where they went to school. </p>
<p>In Lincoln-Douglas debate, if someone makes a major point and the opponent simply ignores it, the point is conceded. Shall I assume similar circumstances here?</p>
<p>Yale specifically states that dropouts are considered to be alumni. They only require completion of one semester for the alumni designation:</p>
<p>Sorry, Sakky. This one isn't going your way.</p>