Opinion: Kagan’s grades are kid stuff

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

It was no doubt intended as a light feature, but a New York Times story about Elena Kagan’s mediocre grades in her first year of law school makes a serious point: More than any other profession, the law -- at least in elite circles -- pays absurdly extravagant attention to youthful achievement.

The fact that Kagan earned only a B in criminal law and a B-minus in torts (my favorite law school subject) depends for its amusement value on the fact that people do attach importance to how a Supreme Court nominee did in law school -- and to the fact that, as with Kagan, an excellent overall record can lead to a clerkship at the Supreme Court.

Granted, a Supreme Court clerkship is a prestigious achievement. So is attaining the rank of Eagle Scout or quarterbacking a state championship high school football team. But surely a 50-year-old lawyer and law professor ought to be judged on more recent achievements. One of my cousins clerked for a Supreme Court justice, but he’s better known in his hometown (and nationally) for his adult accomplishments as a lawyer.

I know of only one other example of early laurels overshadowing later eminence. In Britain, where I was a student long ago, biographies of distinguished middle-aged authors mention that so-and-so received a ‘double first’ (two first-class degrees) from Oxford or Cambridge. Yes, that’s an accomplishment, as is earning a string of As at Harvard Law School. But the question ought to be: What have you done lately?

In all the talk about diversity on the court, one group is overlooked: students who received mediocre grades throughout law school but nevertheless developed into first-rate lawyers or judges. It’s time for a ‘late bloomer’ seat.

--Michael McGough