4,435 research outputs found
Getting Started as a Medical Teacher in Times of Change
No full textMedical school teaching is a skill that is very often learned on the job. The faculty comprised of researchers and clinicians are expert in many biomedical disciplines, but familiarity with learning theories and pedagogy are usually not included in their knowledge and skill sets. The pressure to see patients and acquire extramural funding leaves little time for faculty to learn how to teach. When coupled with the natural attrition of senior faculty it is necessary to start junior faculty on the correct path to being effective medical educators who are capable of lecturing and facilitating. Institutions cannot afford to have medical educators learn through trial and error. The standards set by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) are also creating an urgency to produce competent teachers as quickly as possible. Novice teachers need to be able to use these standards to align their teaching with goals, objectives and the appropriate pedagogy. This article is designed to be a self-directed guide describing some essentials that a newly hired faculty member can quickly use to get started. An institutional faculty development program can then serve to build upon and enrich the experience for the new faculty member.This is the authors' accepted manuscript of the article. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s40670-014-0098-y.Peer reviewe
[Newspaper Clipping: Author Claims Evidence of Second JFK Assassin #1]
No full textNewspaper article titled "Author Claims Evidence of Second JFK Assassin." The article states that author Richard J. Whalen concluded "that there is circumstantial evidence to support the theory of a second assassin in the shooting of President John F. Kennedy.
Some Recent Developments in Canadian Constitutional Theory with Particular Reference to Beatty and Hutchinson
No full textThis article provides a critique of recent books by two prominent Canadian constitutional theorists - David Beatty\u27s Constitutional Law in Theory and Practice and Allan Hutchinson\u27s Waiting for CORAF: A Critique of Law and Rights. Devlin begins with a brief overview of the various positions that have been staked out in writing on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freed oms during the last decade. He identifies three broad constituencies: Charter advocates who assume that rights are an unqualified human good and that judicial review is an important check on majoritarian zealotry; Charter critics who emphasize the undemocratic nature of judicial review and who doubt the beneficence of a rights-dominated regime; and progressive deviationists who are somewhat nervous of both rights discourse and judicial review but who seek to make the best of an imperfect set of constitutional institutions. According to Devlin, Beatty and Hutchinson represent the first and second of these positions, Beatty being a fervent advocate of the Charter and judicial review and Hutchinson an unapologetic critic of both. Beatty argues that a constitution can insulate basic rights from contamination by the contingencies of politics, and that the courts should use the principles of rationality and proportionality, rather than perceptions of legislative intent, in scrutinizing government action for compliance with the constitution. Hutchinson, in contrast, argues for what he calls a dialogic model, maintaining that because political decision-making is rooted in electoral democracy, it is more legitimate than judicial decision-making. Devlin places himself closer to Hutchinson than to Beatty, but he questions the ability of Hutchinson\u27s dialogic model to provide a sufficient means to move from rights talk and social inequality to democratic and social equality
Recommended from our members
Some Recent Developments in Canadian Constitutional Theory with Particular Reference to Beatty and Hutchinson
No full textThis article provides a critique of recent books by two prominent Canadian constitutional theorists - David Beatty\u27s Constitutional Law in Theory and Practice and Allan Hutchinson\u27s Waiting for CORAF: A Critique of Law and Rights. Devlin begins with a brief overview of the various positions that have been staked out in writing on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freed oms during the last decade. He identifies three broad constituencies: Charter advocates who assume that rights are an unqualified human good and that judicial review is an important check on majoritarian zealotry; Charter critics who emphasize the undemocratic nature of judicial review and who doubt the beneficence of a rights-dominated regime; and progressive deviationists who are somewhat nervous of both rights discourse and judicial review but who seek to make the best of an imperfect set of constitutional institutions. According to Devlin, Beatty and Hutchinson represent the first and second of these positions, Beatty being a fervent advocate of the Charter and judicial review and Hutchinson an unapologetic critic of both. Beatty argues that a constitution can insulate basic rights from contamination by the contingencies of politics, and that the courts should use the principles of rationality and proportionality, rather than perceptions of legislative intent, in scrutinizing government action for compliance with the constitution. Hutchinson, in contrast, argues for what he calls a dialogic model, maintaining that because political decision-making is rooted in electoral democracy, it is more legitimate than judicial decision-making. Devlin places himself closer to Hutchinson than to Beatty, but he questions the ability of Hutchinson\u27s dialogic model to provide a sufficient means to move from rights talk and social inequality to democratic and social equality
Doubting Donald: A Reply to Professor Donald Galloway\u27s \u27Critical Mistakes\u27
No full textIn a recent article Professor Galloway has argued that supporters of the Critical Legal Studies perspective make five fundamental errors in their analyses of liberal theory and as a result have failed in their deconstructive agenda. In this essay Professor Devlin replies to these criticisms and posits that Galloway\u27s essay in retrieval is itself subject to the very same errors of which he accuses the crits . Moreover, it is argued that the nature of Galloway \u27s partial defence of liberalism confirms rather than denies the accuracy of critical assessments
Recommended from our members
Doubting Donald: A Reply to Professor Donald Galloway\u27s \u27Critical Mistakes\u27
No full textIn a recent article Professor Galloway has argued that supporters of the Critical Legal Studies perspective make five fundamental errors in their analyses of liberal theory and as a result have failed in their deconstructive agenda. In this essay Professor Devlin replies to these criticisms and posits that Galloway\u27s essay in retrieval is itself subject to the very same errors of which he accuses the crits . Moreover, it is argued that the nature of Galloway \u27s partial defence of liberalism confirms rather than denies the accuracy of critical assessments
Recommended from our members
Regulating judges ::beyond independence and accountability /
No full textRegulating Judges presents a novel approach to judicial studies. It goes beyond the traditional clash of judicial independence versus judicial accountability. Drawing on regulatory theory, Richard Devlin and Adam Dodek argue that judicial regulation is multi-faceted and requires us to consider the complex interplay of values, institutional norms, procedures, resources and outcomes. Inspired by this conceptual framework, the book invites scholars from 19 jurisdictions to describe and critique the regulatory regimes for a variety of countries from around the world. This innovative and provocative analysis of the many different ways that judiciaries around the world are regulated covers common law, civil law and other legal systems, and the developed and developing world. Contributors include a diverse talent pool of established scholars and new voices for a globally inclusive comparative examination of judiciaries in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania. The overall conclusion is that the regulation of judges is very much a work in progress, and that a variety of actors bear responsibility for moving the project forward. Scholars in the fields of law, social sciences, regulation theory, and public administration will find Regulating Judges an impactful read, as will regulators, public policy makers and analysts, and judges themselves
Regulating judges ::beyond independence and accountability /
No full textRegulating Judges presents a novel approach to judicial studies. It goes beyond the traditional clash of judicial independence versus judicial accountability. Drawing on regulatory theory, Richard Devlin and Adam Dodek argue that judicial regulation is multi-faceted and requires us to consider the complex interplay of values, institutional norms, procedures, resources and outcomes. Inspired by this conceptual framework, the book invites scholars from 19 jurisdictions to describe and critique the regulatory regimes for a variety of countries from around the world. This innovative and provocative analysis of the many different ways that judiciaries around the world are regulated covers common law, civil law and other legal systems, and the developed and developing world. Contributors include a diverse talent pool of established scholars and new voices for a globally inclusive comparative examination of judiciaries in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania. The overall conclusion is that the regulation of judges is very much a work in progress, and that a variety of actors bear responsibility for moving the project forward. Scholars in the fields of law, social sciences, regulation theory, and public administration will find Regulating Judges an impactful read, as will regulators, public policy makers and analysts, and judges themselves
On the Road to Radical Reform: A Critical Review of Unger\u27s Politics
No full textTwo aims drive this essay. The first is to provide the reader with an accessible, yet relatively comprehensive, introduction to Roberto Mangabeira Unger\u27s social and legal theory. The second aim is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Unger\u27s most recent scholarship and to make some suggestions as to where he goes awry. In particular, the author draws several parallels between the Ungerian enterprise and that of some feminists. The central motivation of the essay is to keep the critical conversation between male radicals and feminists open. To this end, the author posits the possibility of mutually beneficial contributions
The End(s) of Self-Regulation?
No full textSelf-regulation is a sacred cow of the Canadian legal profession. The authors question this assumption on several levels and ask whether, in a liberal democratic society such as Canada, self-regulation really is in the public interest. The advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation are discussed in the context of other Commonwealth nations who have moved away from this type of regulatory structure. Though the self-regulation debate has been traditionally viewed as a "one way or the other" argument, calibrated regulation seems to be a possibility in Canada and, in fact, steps have already been taken in this direction. Devlin and Heffernan conclude by proposing the creation of a Task Force — The Sponsors’ Table on the Regulation of the Legal Profession — to reconsider the present state and future possibility of recalibrated regulation in Canada
- …
