Sifting and winnowing.

Congratulations to the Fond du Lac Cardinals, who were superior in all aspects of their game to the Spartans. It's Fond du Lac's first state championship, after feeling the pain as runner up last year and working through it.
------------

More online commentary on the embattled Wisconsin law professor, from former students who have sat through this teaching style in recent years:

I had Professor Kaplan for two classes, both during my final semester of law school. Based on my experience with Kaplan and after following these stories in the news I would bet that these two things are true: (1) He totally said the things he is quoted as saying, and (2) Anyone who believed that when he said those things he was actually expressing his opinion or belief is an idiot that doesn't deserve to be in law school.

Kaplan's teaching method isn't exactly "traditional." It isn't exactly what I'd call "good" either, but that doesn't make him a bigot. He likes to get a discussion going, and he really likes to talk. In the course, you would read a bunch of books and articles about philosophy or jurisprudence, and then go to class and talk about baseball or something like that. The discussion is rarely very linear but it does relate back to the reading material, sometimes. But Kaplan wanted you to think. He did make outrageous statements to try to get you to respond to those statements. Everyone in the class with half a brain knew he wasn't serious most of the time.

and

I had Kaplan for a class on Law and Theology two years ago, and I can attest that the "10-minute rant" is definitely his forte. And he always skirted this line between genius and crazy. His references were so oblique, and strung together so rapidly, that it was difficult to keep up, let alone comprehend. I came away thinking that Kaplan was one of the most profoundly intelligent men I'd ever met; the depth of his knowledge was staggering.

So, naturally, I find myself wondering about the larger context of his Hmong commentary. I suppose making sweeping generalizations about the violent tendencies of a people is going to be offensive, at least to someone. But I'm still curious. I'm sure he had a point in there somewhere.

Say what you will about students with immigrant backgrounds, they don't much like to waste time with silliness, and they sometimes resent having their time wasted.

Personally, I hope a more utilitarian teaching method emerges:
the best law professor I had at Wisconsin (she's now at Stanford) was capable of adapting her teaching methods in the four classes I took, in order to teach the subject material to the maximum number of students. (Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law II, Legislation, Sexuality and the Law.)

Not too much sports discussion or off-topic talk on classtime though. They were efficient classes, the lectures and discussion. The class time was structured, and let's not concede the point that structured = unchallenging, or that going off-topic and devising seeming insults disguised as conversation starters are some brilliant teaching method, rather than laziness perhaps.

Too many concessions already. Perhaps the answer is the need to adapt and upgrade, in the classroom particularly. The state law school is "home" to many, but it's always important to remember where your living room ends, and the classroom begins.