Humanities desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 8[edit]

Law professors who ended up on SCOTUS?[edit]

Other than Elena Kagan, did any law professors ever end up on SCOTUS? FTR, I'm talking about people who were law professors before they became SCOTUS Justices. Futurist110 (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity you're asking about anyone who was a full tenured professor of law sometime before they became a SCOTUS justice? This doesn't sound like it's something that would be particularly uncommon. From a quick look of those still alive I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg [1] is one. There may be more, a lot of the articles mention someone was professor of law or similar, but from the time frames most of these may simply be the US tendency to refer to everyone who lectures at university as a professor, even those who aren't even tenure tract. (Some at least say stuff like adjunct professor.) But some of them were around for long enough that they could have received tenure. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I should clarify if you aren't interested only in full tenure, probably about half of those I looked at (all of those still alive and a few of the other recent ones) had info suggesting they were professors or some such. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. At least in recent decades, virtually every likely SCOTUS pick has a side gig teaching while they’re also a trial or appellate judge. Amy Coney Barrett for instance (though she was tenured before her elevation to the 7th Circuit). People who were actually tenured are going to be less common given there’s a preference for justices (and judges) who actually have significant practice experience rather than primarily working in academia. So what often happens is you get judges who have teaching gigs rather than professors who are also judges. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. taught at Harvard. William Howard Taft taught at Yale. I am sure there are others. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Pew Research Center breakdown states 23 had "prior experience" in "higher education". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taft was basically a full-time law professor for eight years before he was appointed Chief Justice.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonin Scalia actually wanted to be a professor, not a judge, apparently. Quoting that article: Scalia began his legal career at the international law firm Jones, Day, Cockley and Reavis (now Jones Day) in Cleveland, Ohio, where he worked from 1961 to 1967. He was highly regarded at the law firm and would most likely have been made a partner but later said he had long intended to teach. He became a professor of law at the University of Virginia in 1967, moving his family to Charlottesville. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[post redacted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)][reply]

In the U.S. system, there are differences between "lecturer", "adjunct professor", "assistant professor", "associate professor" and "professor". Generally speaking tenure track in the U.S. consists of three ranks: assistant, associate, and full professor, that a person generally does in order. Tenure-track professor positions generally require a doctorate degree or equivalent. A lecturer and an adjunct professor are generally non-tenure-track positions, where a lecturer may not require a doctorate degree (it may instead require only a master's degree or professional certification) whereas an adjunct professor may require a doctorate (as the name professor implies) but is not considered a regular tenure-track faculty (as "adjunct" implies). --Jayron 32 17:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayron32, as a side note, let me add that for non-tenured positions PhDs are required more and more. There are some institutional factors here at work, including one related to accreditation: the higher an institution's percentage of PhDs is, regardless of the employment status of these PhDs (tenured, tenure-track, or just year-by-year lecturers), the more likely they are to get points towards accreditation. Meaning, for instance, you're screwed if all you have is a Master's. One of my colleagues retired recently: she, I believe, was the last one at our institution to be tenured as a professor without a PhD. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note... Remember that (at least on the US) Law Schools and Medical Schools don’t do things the way the rest of academia does. ALL law school graduates earn the equivalent of a PhD... so every lawyer (from a respected judge to an ambulance chasing hack) has a doctorate. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The J.D. is not the equivalent of a Ph.D. The Ph.D. ordinarily requires an "original contribution to human knowledge", which the J.D. does not. The legal-studies equivalent to a Ph.D. is an S.J.D. or in some countries an LL.D. --Trovatore (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every lawyer who's graduated in recent decades, but not every lawyer. See Bachelor of Laws#United States; Yale was offering LL.B.s into the early 1970s, in particular. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hold a Juris Doctor degree, but I don't think it's equivalent to a PhD. If it is, I'll change my name to Dr Wehwalt but I suspect it's no deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would make you very mysterious, Dr. Gottfried!---Sluzzelin talk 23:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and I'm filled with sadness, just like Dr Wehwald.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What fraction of a mile is a kilometer??[edit]

Technically, the answer is 5/8. However, in practice 3/5 is often used. (This means that people will often write "x miles (x*(5/3) kilometers)" as opposed to writing "x miles (x*8/5) kilometers)" in practice. Let's compare the 2 conversions:

3/5 = .6 (5/3 = 1.666666 repeating)
5/8 = .625 (8/5 = 1.6 exactly)

Which conversion do you think is used more frequently by most people in everyday talk?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, use 5/8. Thus, when the speed limit is 55 MPH, I multiply by 8/5 and drive 88 MPH. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points: Technically, it's NOT 5/8. It's 0.62137119 plus as many more digits after the decimal point as you're interested in using. Secondly, to 95% of the world's population (you did ask about "most" people), the perspective is different. They use kilometres (please note the spelling difference) as standard, and generally only have to think about conversion when they see something from a US source that uses miles. My practice is to quickly multiply by 1.6, or multiply by 5 and divide by 8. That corresponds to your 5/8, so we're on the same track there. To be really honest, I typically round off the initial figure pretty roughly, then use my conversion "formula". Even then, if rough enough is good enough, I'll apply the sloppier rule of 100 km being 60 miles, or 10 km being 6 miles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mental conversion formula tends to depend on the number of units to be converted — for example, I'll use 5-8 for 15 miles or 24 kilometres, while if it's 24 miles or 50 kilometres, I'll use 6-10. If it's an odd number, I multiply or divide the number by 1.6. But I don't think there's going to be a solid answer; even in the USA, most people use only one type of measurement, and the exceptions either don't have reason to talk about it much to other people (e.g. me, who occasionally converts for his own interest) or they're using actual conversion formulas and won't use such rough approximations (e.g. scientists). Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: "Kilometer" is not a mistake in American English. (You could argue that m, km etc. are not in use in the US, so that most native English speakers who use those units spell metre, but numerous non-native speakers have learnt both American English and metric units at school.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While this sub-thread has little to do with the original question, I would like to point out that Americans actually comprise a comfortable majority of "native" English speakers, meaning those who learn it from their parents as their first language. By "comfortable" I mean you actually get close to two-thirds; you get there if you throw in Canadians, who use American spellings a lot of the time though apparently not in this case.

Of course there's a lot of English spoken by non-native speakers, but this is more difficult to quantify. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with the spelling used by the native English speakers who actually use the unit. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are 25.4 millimeters to an inch, and (5280*12)=63,360 inches to a mile, therefore a mile is exactly 1,609,344 millimeters. Since there are 1 ~~billion~~ million millimeters to a kilometer, and the highest common divisor of 1,609,344 and 1,000,000 is 64, therefore the exact fraction of miles to kilometers is 15625/25146, just in case you were wondering... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 5/8 or 8/5 rule is a good approximation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and the one I use, just like @SinisterLefty . It is ~0.5% accurate, quite enough. But situations where such conversion are needed are rare, and rarer. For instance when driving abroad, which is or rather was the main situation requiring conversion (to check distance on maps and speed limits), GPS devices are so much more practical. Gem fr (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example, when watching a bicycle race on TV, if they only show kilometers, you can estimate the miles quickly using that rule. 160 kilometers, 100 miles. 100 kilometers, 60 miles. And so on. Close enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is asking for responses related to "everyday talk". Conversationally, I'd never convert with any precision. I'd go with 'a bit more than half'. So if I was mentally converting 10 km, I'd instinctively think "around 6 km" and probably say "a bit more than 5 km". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That made me sit up. A kilometre is a million millimetres. No harm done here, but a mistake like that made by a pharmacist could be lethal. 2A00:23C5:3186:E600:F9C5:10D0:534:3EE8 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine not many of us give clinically vital information to pharmacists that often, and when we do, I can't imagine it's usually measured in miles or kilometres. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love the way editorial exchanges go off at these kinds of tangents!

And don’t we all admire the way sports commentators refer to kah-lah-mah-tahz instead of kee-lo-mee-terz, seemingly not realising that 1 kilometre = 1,000 metres (= “mee-terz”). Of course, it’s all because of these prevalent, pesky instruments called barometer and thermometer! But wait! Maybe a kilometer is a device for measuring kilos!

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old fashioned!)} 21:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whose nation's sportscasters say "kah-la-mah-tahz"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Baseball Bugs

. You have to say it quickly to get close to the way some people say kilometres here in the UK. Perhaps a closer transliteration might be ku-LO-mu-turz, where the 'u' is the same sound as in the word curb and the 'lo' is like the word 'law'. Quite a few TV commentators covering cycling or F1 races say it that way, although Carlton Kirby and Sean Kelly (at the Eurosport TV cycling channel) both pronounce it logically as KEE-lo-MEE-turz, i.e. with exactly the same sounds as the word kilo followed by the word metres. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old fashioned!)} 19:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pdebee -- having main stress on a different syllable in "kilometer" than in "meter" is perfectly ordinary in English. The main stress is on a different syllable in "photography" than it is in "photograph"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't think of any other unit that's stressed differently because of a power-of-ten prefix. I suspect that the second-syllable-stress version of kilometer does indeed come from analogy with speedometer and such, and it does seem to be losing ground to the first-and-third-stress version. (In the case of micrometer, you can actually disambiguate between the unit of length and the measuring device by how you stress it, though personally I use micron for the unit of length.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it change if you used micrometre for the unit of length, as I would? HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I say micron, which is convenient and time-honored. I see no need to bow to the whims of the SI decision-makers. --Trovatore (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AnonMoos

. Except, of course, that when pronouncing all the other metric units of measurement that have four syllables, one wouldn't say: mee-LAH-mah-tahz, cen-TAH-mah-tahz, de-SSAH-mah-tahz, hec-TOH-mah-tahz, but: mee-lee-MEE-terz, cen-tee-MEE-terz, de-ssee-MEE-terz, hec-toh-MEE-terz, etc. I'd venture to suggest that it's probably because the US (and possibly other users of imperial UOMs) adopted only the (misspelt) kilometer (not kilometre) pronounced like barometer etc., that the stress has been relocated from the third syllable, and such usage then became more generally adopted in other forms of English. Having said that, I am sure someone will prove me wrong...

With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old fashioned!)} 14:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 1609 meters in a mile. That's close enough to 5/8 of a mile per kilometer (or 8/5 of a kilometer for a mile) for most purposes. --Jayron 32 13:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So 1,609 divided by eight and multiplied by five gives 1,005.63, which is probably good enough for most purposes. Using 3/5 gives 965.4 which is a lot less accurate, but usable if you only want a quick guestimate I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It [the 8:5 approx] is less than 6 parts per thousand, or less than 0.6%, error. That's not too bad. --Jayron 32 17:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3:5 approx make a ~3,5% error. Slightly worse, but still good enough for most purposes, too. The ease of calculation will make the choice; and this may even depend on the initial number to be converted (eg, if the number of miles is a multiple of 3, going for the 3:5 is good; if it is a multiple of 5, 5:8 it will be). Gem fr (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

miles->km "add a half and a tenth" (5:8) is easy enough for in the head calculation, and so are km->miles "cut in half, add a tenth" (5:3) or "add a quater then cut in half" (8:5)Gem fr (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even easier, type "convert 5 miles" (or whatever) into Google on one's smart telephone thingamabob. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rather use my head than the Evil Company. Gem fr (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can multiply or divide by numbers such as 1.609 in your head, you might want to include that knack in your resumé. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have better thing to include (yes, seriously) ;-) Gem fr (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just think, you could be the next Human Calculator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of continued fractions gives this sequence of approximations: 1:1, 1:2, 2:3, 3:5, 5:8, 18:29, 23:37, 64:103, 471:758, 535:861, 1006:1619, 15625:25146. Hope this helps. —Tamfang (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]