Pre-figuration and evaluation / Pierre Schlag.
In this response to Professor Rubin, Professor Schlag argues that a prescriptive theory of evaluation does not free an evaluator from the bias inherent in his own pre-figurations. On the contrary, the belief that better evaluative criteria will advance the cause of fairer evaluation is itself an eff...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other title: | California law review. Colorado Law faculty scholarship collection. |
| Format: | Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[Berkeley, Calif. :
School of Jurisprudence of the University of California],
1992.
|
| Series: | California law review ;
v. 80, no. 4 (July 1992) |
| Subjects: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | lb644450 | ||
| 003 | CoU-L | ||
| 008 | eng | ||
| 035 | |a Brief bib | ||
| 035 | |a .b6444507 |b lrare |c - | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Schlag, Pierre. | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Pre-figuration and evaluation / |c Pierre Schlag. |
| 260 | |a [Berkeley, Calif. : |b School of Jurisprudence of the University of California], |c 1992. | ||
| 300 | |a Article on p. 965-977. | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a California law review ; |v v. 80, no. 4 (July 1992) | |
| 500 | |a Article contained in the Vol. 80, no. 4 (July 1992) issue of California law review. | ||
| 520 | |a In this response to Professor Rubin, Professor Schlag argues that a prescriptive theory of evaluation does not free an evaluator from the bias inherent in his own pre-figurations. On the contrary, the belief that better evaluative criteria will advance the cause of fairer evaluation is itself an effect of flawed and unrationalized pre-figurations of conventional legal thought. Professor Schlag argues that the evaluation question and its attendant disputes arise from a more significant development-the unraveling of the dominant paradigm of legal thought, the decomposition of normative legal thought. | ||
| 524 | |a Citation: Pierre Schlag, Pre-Figuration and Evaluation, 80 Cal. L. Rev. 965 (1992) | ||
| 540 | |a Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. | ||
| 650 | 0 | |a Law |x Methodology. | |
| 730 | 0 | |a California law review. | |
| 730 | 0 | |a Colorado Law faculty scholarship collection. | |
| 773 | 0 | |t California law review. |g Vol. 80, no. 4 (July 1992) | |
| 830 | 0 | |a California law review ; |v v. 80, no. 4 (July 1992) | |
| 902 | |a 230606 | ||
| 999 | |b 0 |c 111231 |d m |e a |f - |g 0 | ||
| 994 | |a lrare | ||
| 945 | |l lrare |a FACULTY PUB Schlag Article 1992 | ||
| 999 | f | f | |i fb4761cc-1c8b-5458-b3f5-f970b09bfa52 |s f0e0da86-d8b9-5b7c-9fef-37ecbd2c221e |
| 952 | f | f | |p Cannot circulate |a University of Colorado Boulder |b Law Campus |c Law |d Law Library - Rare Books basement |e FACULTY PUB Schlag Article 1992 |h Other scheme |i journal |m U182004823816 |n 1 |