Rachel Shelden

SIGN ME UP I MAY NEVER LEAVE

Same, seeing how different programs structure(d) comps is always fascinating.

1. US Political History 1787-1877
2. US History to 1877
3. US History 1877 to the present
4. Modern France

Written & oral exams. 3/4 written exams closed book/closed note.

Totally agree w/ the broader point b/c it’s a very conservative sport but shout out to Andrew McCutchen, Sean Doolittle, Liam Hendricks, Spencer Strider, and a few others for some variety.

I know lots of folks who love Scrivener for different reasons & mine are actually about research container possibilities. Ability to create thousands of organized easily-searchable & tag-able folders that hold clipped newspapers, photos, pdfs, etc. A+ functionality when using those to write.

Love Scrivener! This is very cool.

Like Anna, I'm not sure about the law profs but a small historian sample size: I've taught it in my history of SCOTUS class, Chuck McCurdy taught it in the second half of his history of American law class, and I first learned it as an undergrad in @jrakove.bsky.social's Constitution & Race class.

Probably sometime in June/July! I will for sure post a link!

Many thanks!!

Thank you!!

Thanks so much!!

Lots of great advice in this thread! Other JOURNAL thoughts:
1) It's a long process: *at least* 2 years from 1st submission to publication
2) Not all journal editors are created equal: really good editors will assess the reader reports for you--pay attention, this is a pathway to publication!

This essential 🧵 well worth your time is a walk through of the plethora of amici filed in Trump v Barbara (birthright citizenship) by a scholar of statelessness.

If I could replace every sports betting ad with 4 junk food ads I would take that deal.

Funny thing, the 18th edition of the CMS uses lower-case supreme court for SCOTUS. But I know of one scholar (who shall remain nameless) who has complained historians don't know how to use proper capitalization when referring to that particular body.

Ellis does a disservice by repeating a common misinterpretation of this letter. She is talking about protecting wives from abusive husbands.

So very lucky to know @unlawfulentries.bsky.social and this is good advice whether you have a publicist or not!

#Lawprof hivemind!

I'm looking to read some truly superb law review articles as inspiration. I'm seeking examples of pieces you finished reading (or writing!) and thought, "Wow. Smart, insightful, beautifully written."

Any recommendations? Area-agnostic!

#lawtwitter #scholarship #academy

There is still time to yeet your Academia dot edu profile into the sun.

A bit misleading b/c Buchanan was president-elect, writing from Wheatland. Consider how easy it was for justices to chat *in person* w/ presidents in DC; not necessary to write letters. But a slightly different ex: Justice Swayne discussing the Prize Cases (& others) in person w/ AG Bates in 1863.

Lots of discussion around Dred Scott from many quarters! It’s a great example though in some ways just par for the course. Another good book on this kind of cross-branch discussion is Kevin Arlyck’s recent The Nation at Sea: The Federal Courts and American Sovereignty, 1789-1825

You know who really has a good vantage on what universities can and should be? Faculty. Not always the organizational structure and operation, because that's not the job, But what it takes to educate? Yep. Yet the overwhelming media coverage is by and about ppl w very little to no experience.

Thanks for this, Linda, but I think Smith’s narrative is not only wrong but wildly misleading! My new book, The Political Supreme Court, which comes out this fall, is about the relationship between justices & politics and offers a very different interpretation.

Hey! Scholars! If you're using someone's work in your class, sometimes it's nice to email them and tell them, because then they might feel good about their research instead of entirely crushed by the academic humanities' ongoing descent into the grave

Looking forward to it!

Congrats!! Looking forward to reading this! 🎉

Among the critical points @jgienapp.bsky.social reiterates here is that many early Americans were anti-legalists, but even early lawyers saw the Constitution as different from ordinary law, requiring "a different interpretive style and conceptual toolkit." An important (& highly entertaining) read!

Oh no!!!

Even older than the Republic…

It’s always fascinated me how little Sumner recognized Story’s faults! It’s really evident in their correspondence in the 1830s and early 40s. But Story clearly acted as a sort of surrogate father figure to him.