Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: Jennifer10 on September 05, 2004, 12:46:44 PM

Title: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Jennifer10 on September 05, 2004, 12:46:44 PM
One of my friends was telling me that you get called on unexpectedly only once throughout the semester.  And another friend said that the professor can call on you (from his list of students in the class) as many times as he wants but he makes sure to get every student at least once.  Which is it??  Or does it depend on the school and the professor?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jeffjoe on September 05, 2004, 12:54:16 PM
It depends on the teacher.  There is no hard and fast rule that I know of.   They want you to be prepared and hold this over your head.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: elo on October 31, 2004, 12:11:59 AM
I was called on 32 consecutive days in my torts class. I'm serious! People were asking "what did you *do* to that guy?"
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: baseballjones on October 31, 2004, 05:55:13 PM
I was called on 32 consecutive days in my torts class. I'm serious! People were asking "what did you *do* to that guy?"


oh yeah well i was called one gillion times in a row in my made up numbers class
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jeffjoe on October 31, 2004, 05:56:45 PM
I haven't been called on at all, yet.  I guess I'm balancing out the odds for you guys.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: DOWNY on November 23, 2004, 09:06:29 PM
DOWNY gets called on all the damn time in Constitutional Law. That is a female dog!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: slacker on November 27, 2004, 09:20:13 AM
Depends. I have one class that's all volunteer. Another that calls on people in alphabetical order, so you have an idea of which days to be exceptionally prepared on. The others vary.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: lipper on November 27, 2004, 03:19:41 PM
civil procedure - 13 times
torts - 1 time
Contracts - 0 times
Property - 2 times

It varies. but god do i hate civ pro.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: law543 on November 27, 2004, 03:51:26 PM
Quote
oh yeah well i was called one gillion times in a row in my made up numbers class

*laughs* First time I've ever laughed out loud here. I needed that.  :D
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: swifty on December 04, 2004, 03:24:45 AM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc.  Spill it.  Anybody pee their pants?  Just freeze up?  I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me.

You spill the stories, I'll reveal the trick.  Deal?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: DOWNY on December 04, 2004, 11:45:51 PM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc.  Spill it.  Anybody pee their pants?  Just freeze up?  I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me.

You spill the stories, I'll reveal the trick.  Deal?

Yeah, this one kid in my class was called on and he looked all scared and his eyes got real wide. He didn't say anything. Then, all at the same time, he pissed his pants, shat himself, and vomitted all over the back of a girl's head who was sitting in front of him. The disgusting display caused the people next to him and the people who were hit by the puke to vomit as well. This caused a chain reaction whereby 10 or 15 people all started throwing up everywhere, all over laptops, on people's heads, everywhere

HTH
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: slacker on December 05, 2004, 07:27:57 AM
Yeah, this one kid in my class was called on and he looked all scared and his eyes got real wide. He didn't say anything. Then, all at the same time, he pissed his pants, shat himself, and vomitted all over the back of a girl's head who was sitting in front of him. The disgusting display caused the people next to him and the people who were hit by the puke to vomit as well. This caused a chain reaction whereby 10 or 15 people all started throwing up everywhere, all over laptops, on people's heads, everywhere

HTH
Dude...I loved that part of "Stand by Me".
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: kristin1644 on December 05, 2004, 05:15:57 PM
Most of my professors go by the seating chart and make sure they call on everyone once before they start back through it again.  Professor contracts if very methodical.  He goes down rows, so you know if your row isn't called on first you are safe for the day.  Professor Civ Pro would slyly get someone to volunteer at the beginning of class on an easy question, then he would grill that person for the rest of the class.  Professor Property only calls on you once, but it is haphazard, so until you've been called on, you never know when your turn is coming. Professor Torts randomly calls on people, even those who've already had their turn, so we can never be sure when its coming. 

One thing that keeps me sane is that we have blind grading at our school, so I could do horribly in class and end up fine in the end. 

I've never seen anyone actually freeze up and not be able to say anything, but I have seen people just bull$*it their way through and the prof has called them on it--nothing too serious comes of it, and the whole class gets to have a good laugh.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: swifty on December 06, 2004, 04:14:00 PM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc.  Spill it.  Anybody pee their pants?  Just freeze up?  I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me.

You spill the stories, I'll reveal the trick.  Deal?

Yeah, this one kid in my class was called on and he looked all scared and his eyes got real wide. He didn't say anything. Then, all at the same time, he pissed his pants, shat himself, and vomitted all over the back of a girl's head who was sitting in front of him. The disgusting display caused the people next to him and the people who were hit by the puke to vomit as well. This caused a chain reaction whereby 10 or 15 people all started throwing up everywhere, all over laptops, on people's heads, everywhere

HTH

You are starting to annoy me DOWNY.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: SLJ0720 on December 06, 2004, 04:42:52 PM
Torts - 4 times
Property - 2 times
Criminal - 4 times
Contracts - 7 times

Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: DOWNY on December 06, 2004, 06:59:19 PM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc.  Spill it.  Anybody pee their pants?  Just freeze up?  I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me.

You spill the stories, I'll reveal the trick.  Deal?

Yeah, this one kid in my class was called on and he looked all scared and his eyes got real wide. He didn't say anything. Then, all at the same time, he pissed his pants, shat himself, and vomitted all over the back of a girl's head who was sitting in front of him. The disgusting display caused the people next to him and the people who were hit by the puke to vomit as well. This caused a chain reaction whereby 10 or 15 people all started throwing up everywhere, all over laptops, on people's heads, everywhere

HTH

You are starting to annoy me DOWNY.

STFU
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: lawgirl on December 06, 2004, 08:31:42 PM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc.  Spill it.  Anybody pee their pants?  Just freeze up?  I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me.

You spill the stories, I'll reveal the trick.  Deal?

Yeah, this one kid in my class was called on and he looked all scared and his eyes got real wide. He didn't say anything. Then, all at the same time, he pissed his pants, shat himself, and vomitted all over the back of a girl's head who was sitting in front of him. The disgusting display caused the people next to him and the people who were hit by the puke to vomit as well. This caused a chain reaction whereby 10 or 15 people all started throwing up everywhere, all over laptops, on people's heads, everywhere

HTH

Downy, you made me laugh and I needed it. I was a little stressed tonight.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: SLJ0720 on December 06, 2004, 08:37:54 PM
What did everyone think before they started law school about the socratic method?  I envisioned being called on almost every day.  I know this wasn't reasonable due to the # of people in the class, but I thought the worst.  Plus at orientation I think 2nd years made it sound much worse than it really is.  I didn't imagine before starting that there would be some classes where I would only be called on a few times through the entire semester.  
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: SLJ0720 on December 06, 2004, 08:42:50 PM
Lawgirl, since reading this board I have seen all the great advice you have given.  I know everyone studies differently and different things work better for different people, but I am curious as to your approach to finals.  How many days do you devote to memorizing and how much to practicing exam answers?  Do you have any advice about how to best approach/prepare for writing good exams answers and yet be able to finish within the time alloted?  I felt really good about the first half of my answer on an exam today but not so confident on the last portion because of the time crunch. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: lawgirl on December 06, 2004, 08:44:09 PM
I thought it would be worse than it actually is. I thought I would get called on more than I did. I normally only get called on once (twice at the most) during the semester. I've had probably one or two classes where I never got called on to do the Socratic method. Anymore, it seems like the only time it can turn into a nightmare is if you just don't prepare or when you piss the prof of for some reason. I saw that happen once to someone, it wasn't pretty.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: lawgirl on December 06, 2004, 08:59:04 PM
Lawgirl, since reading this board I have seen all the great advice you have given.  I know everyone studies differently and different things work better for different people, but I am curious as to your approach to finals.  How many days do you devote to memorizing and how much to practicing exam answers?  Do you have any advice about how to best approach/prepare for writing good exams answers and yet be able to finish within the time alloted?  I felt really good about the first half of my answer on an exam today but not so confident on the last portion because of the time crunch. 

As far as memorizing, it usually takes me about three days per class. I have a final this Wednesday and I started studying my outline on Sunday. This technique is just for one subject at a time. On the first day, I carefully go through each section of the outline for one subject. I separate it out into main topics, focus on one topic for understanding and then focus on it again to see if I can start reciting that one topic from memory (ex: Criminal Procedure, pre-trial release). I do this several times until I feel like I have a good grasp on the material, can see where the subtopics break up, and have a fairly good recall of my outline. It also helps to make notes out to the side to pare down the main idea from a paragraph to a few sentences or a few poionts.

Then I move onto the next topic and do the same thing for all topics. I only try to memorize one topic at a time until I get through the entire outline. On that day, I don't try to recite the whole thing from memory yet, just each individual section

The second day, I go back through and practice memorizing the topics again separately, but toward the end of the day, I try to recite the entire outline from memory. I do this by thinking about it, writing it down, typing it, charting it, etc. (whatever helps you). The third day I just work on reciting the whole thing from memory, again thinking about it/typing/charting, etc.

I haven't tried it yet, but I did hear about a technique for memorizing. It involves memorizing the rooms in your house and attaching a memory to rooms and physical objects in the house. Ex: memorize all of the things in the living room. Use that room for one subject (Criminal Procedure), attach the memory of the sections of your outline to specific physical things in the living room. Ex: an entertainment center might hold all of your memories for 6th Amendment trial rights, and all of the stuff you have in/on the entertainment center might make up the parts of that specific section. I may try it for another final I have later. It is supposed to let you visually walk through the room and recall things easier. I don't know. I'll let you know how it works out.

As for practice exams. I hate to say it, but I do them if I have time, usually the last day. I should spend more time on them and I would say it is a good idea, I just don't always have time.

As far as timing on your exams. At the beginning of the exam, write down your start and end times. Then look at how many sections you have and the points alloted for each and divide up your time according to how the sections are weighted. Write those times down and STICK TO THEM. No matter what, get out of a section when you need to. You will have a better chance of having time left that way rather than just winging it. I have done that from my very first exam and I have never run out of time. I would always like to have more time, but I always finish.

Hopefully, that will help you.
If you need anything else, let me know.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: SLJ0720 on December 06, 2004, 09:10:23 PM
Great advice.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jeffjoe on December 07, 2004, 08:59:36 AM
Last night in contracts, two people who had briefed before were called on.

I have yet to be called on in any class.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: DOWNY on December 07, 2004, 04:41:04 PM
That's absurd Joe. Maybe everyone hates you? I mean look at your popularity on this board- soon you could be as despised as the nefarious DOWNY. Are you excited?


Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Burning Sands on December 07, 2004, 06:15:13 PM
I think I've been called on the most in Crim, just b/c the professor is like that with everybody. 

My property professor is very random and when she calls on you, she stays on you for the entire day.  If she gets you into a ping-pong situation and you don't know the answer she'll wait on YOU and will tell everybody else to put their hands down.  so needless to say, I stayed prepared for property throughout the semester.

K never called on anybody, thus I learned the least in that class.

Torts - he keeps it pretty active so usually there are a lot of hands to any question he asks.

Take my first law school exam (K) thursday so tell you how it went on friday...
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: IHEARTLS on December 07, 2004, 07:44:12 PM
I think I've been called on the most in Crim, just b/c the professor is like that with everybody. 

My property professor is very random and when she calls on you, she stays on you for the entire day.  If she gets you into a ping-pong situation and you don't know the answer she'll wait on YOU and will tell everybody else to put their hands down.  so needless to say, I stayed prepared for property throughout the semester.

K never called on anybody, thus I learned the least in that class.

Torts - he keeps it pretty active so usually there are a lot of hands to any question he asks.

Take my first law school exam (K) thursday so tell you how it went on friday...

Contracts: Twice and he stayed on me the whole time.

Torts: TOO many times to name.  Sometimes she'd just be talking, "The blah blah blah blah...what do you think Whitney?" 

Crim: I was 1 of 10 people called on throughout the semester.

Property: 3 times and they were very short questions.  A "co-counsel" question and a FI problem.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jeffjoe on January 14, 2005, 08:37:10 PM
More then four months into the process and I have not been called on even once in any of my classes. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: DOWNY on January 14, 2005, 10:31:39 PM
More then four months into the process and I have not been called on even once in any of my classes. 

Sorry, but if this is true your law school is doing you a disservice. I have been called on at least 3 times in every class, and more than 10 times in one class. I can't imagine the classes at NSL are so large as to render being called on rare. Maybe the Socratic Method is not as widely used there?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jeffjoe on January 15, 2005, 08:13:47 AM
We started with over 100 in each 1L section.

We use the socratic method all the time.  I don't know why I haven't been called to brief, but -- as you might imagine -- I've spoken in class a number of times.

More then four months into the process and I have not been called on even once in any of my classes. 

Sorry, but if this is true your law school is doing you a disservice. I have been called on at least 3 times in every class, and more than 10 times in one class. I can't imagine the classes at NSL are so large as to render being called on rare. Maybe the Socratic Method is not as widely used there?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Coregram on January 15, 2005, 08:22:07 AM
I can imagine Prof. Kingsfield:

"Downy....Fill this room with your intelligence!"

LOL

Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: DOWNY on January 15, 2005, 02:29:19 PM
I can imagine Prof. Kingsfield:

"Downy....Fill this room with your intelligence!"

LOL

DOWNY happens to be quite intelligent, when he's not being an a-hole on law school boards. And, Kingsfield's daughter is hot.

HTH
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: rapunzel on January 16, 2005, 10:13:27 PM
jeffjoe- it might be because you volunteer, the profs figure that they don't need to surprise you, you're clearly engaged.  My contracts prof was so hard to follow and so negative when he thought you where an idiot that I was like Hermione Granger trying to get called on to answer a question so as to avoid doing a case.  Especially since I was habitually behind in my reading.  Worked for me.  He started uses me for all his hypotheticals because he only ever learned 4 or 5 of our names.  I never had to do cases.  This did not work for me in property, but what the hey.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: LawJockey on September 19, 2005, 07:34:25 PM
Definitely depends on the teacher. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: nesty on September 30, 2005, 01:57:07 PM
Ignore him the second time aroun'
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: cuteprincess on October 07, 2005, 01:34:01 PM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc.  Spill it.  Anybody pee their pants?  Just freeze up?  I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me.

You spill the stories, I'll reveal the trick.  Deal?
I know what you mean about "I used to be so afraid of being called on that I couldn't even focus on the lecture, let alone the question asked of me."
How do you overcome this?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jacy85 on October 07, 2005, 02:21:30 PM
I think the only way to get over this is to get called on.

Once it happens a couple of times, you realize that you survived afterwards.  Also, if you haven't been called on yet, take a risk and raise your hand to answer a question.  Put yourself out there.  It can be terrifying, but I found that until you've gone through it a couple of times, it's still an unknown terror.

Also try to keep in mind that class performance has little to no effect on your grade.  That doesn't really help, but it can't hurt.  ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Mon Ami Gabi on October 07, 2005, 02:25:51 PM
Several of my friends adopt another strategy if called on but are unprepared: they just sit there without saying a word so that the pro will think they're absent.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jacy85 on October 07, 2005, 04:01:13 PM
that doesn't really work with a seating chart, as the prof knows who you are and whether there's someone sitting in your seat.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: tresbuchon on October 09, 2005, 07:20:21 PM
Interesting, Jacy.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: ru on October 13, 2005, 05:59:04 PM
that doesn't really work with a seating chart, as the prof knows who you are and whether there's someone sitting in your seat.

Not all professors use a sitting chart (I've heard some professors gave to each student a piece of paper in which is printed his name -- labels that students simply throw away after a certian number of classes), not to mention that you can take a certain class with another section, not yours. In that case, neither the professor nor your classmates know who you are.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: jacy85 on October 13, 2005, 07:05:52 PM
I never said all profs use seating charts.  FWIW, every one of mine does, and they have our student ID pics on there as well.  I've heard of many other schools that have seating charts, and more and more with pics included after a few weeks of classes.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: cheetsheet on October 13, 2005, 08:36:45 PM
I never said all profs use seating charts.  FWIW, every one of mine does, and they have our student ID pics on there as well.  I've heard of many other schools that have seating charts, and more and more with pics included after a few weeks of classes.

jc, the OP on top says his hypo would work in case the non-responding student would be taking a class not with his section ... which means that the professor would not have his picture in the section catalog

However, I don't think it's a viable idea for the reason that the professor can examine the attendance sheet to see if the student he called on was present but did not respond or he was really absent that day.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: wasp on October 13, 2005, 08:42:15 PM

However, I don't think it's a viable idea for the reason that the professor can examine the attendance sheet to see if the student he called on was present but did not respond or he was really absent that day.


Ha, this is really funny! The professor has to be really stupid to do that! 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: mona on October 13, 2005, 08:46:20 PM

However, I don't think it's a viable idea for the reason that the professor can examine the attendance sheet to see if the student he called on was present but did not respond or he was really absent that day.


Ha, this is really funny! The professor has to be really stupid to do that! 

I agree, the professor would waste his time to engage in such a check! After all, the unprepared, supposedly-absent student could wait to sign the attendance sheet at the end of the class, giving himself time to see whether his name was called that day or not.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: enrage on October 13, 2005, 08:50:41 PM
HEY, all you here -- why don't you better prepare for the class instead of spending so much time to find ways so that you do not answer when called on? Why can't you be a f**cking man and answer the question you are asked?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: rococo style on October 13, 2005, 08:55:00 PM
HEY, all you here -- why don't you better prepare for the class instead of spending so much time to find ways so that you do not answer when called on? Why can't you be a f**cking man and answer the question you are asked?

Engaging in law school class discussions is a waste of time. Not to mention that you'd be spending an inordinate amount of time to prepare for class to be ready to answer to your professor's questions. You could spend that time to prepare your rules of law outlines and practice hypos.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: lipper on October 14, 2005, 12:31:17 PM
i agree with enrage. rococo style, grow up.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: gh@yahoo.com on October 16, 2005, 06:24:34 AM
Quote
Why can't you be a f**cking man and answer the question you are asked?

Kinda awkward sentence ...
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: touro1979 on October 18, 2005, 08:38:12 AM
some classes I got called on every day/others I never got called on/others once or twice a semester. depends on prof.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: lushy on October 18, 2005, 06:06:55 PM
Quote
Why can't you be a f**cking man and answer the question you are asked?

Kinda awkward sentence ...

LOL! ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: dft on October 18, 2005, 06:58:44 PM
I got called on today before/as I was walking into class. All I heard was my last name as I walked in the door (the prof says Mr. __ or Ms. ___ when he calls on us).

It kinda sucked because it took me like 5 minutes to get my laptop out so I could get my brief.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: trouble on October 19, 2005, 06:52:15 PM
Aye, being called on sucks, but I don't think participating in class discussion is a waste of time whatsoever.  And it seems pretty ridiculous that one would go through what we all undoubtedly had to go through to get into law school and then put forth such an enormous effort to not get called on.

Just do the reading...spend a little time preparing for class...if you get called on, it's more of a learning experience for you as a student than it is anything else.  Nobody's ever going to be 100% right all of the time.  The Socratic method is all about making you realize that you don't understand.  The fun is in the challenge.

To sit in silence while you're being called on is much more idiotic than getting a wrong answer in front of the class.  People won't remember that "Ms. X got the answer to International Shoe wrong in Civ Pro," but they will remember that "Ms. X was too big of a p*ssy to answer when she was being called on."
Title: Pictures Catalog Thing,,
Post by: andjustice4all on October 20, 2005, 03:38:39 AM
I never said all profs use seating charts.  FWIW, every one of mine does, and they have our student ID pics on there as well.  I've heard of many other schools that have seating charts, and more and more with pics included after a few weeks of classes.

jc, the OP on top says his hypo would work in case the non-responding student would be taking a class not with his section ... which means that the professor would not have his picture in the section catalog

However, I don't think it's a viable idea for the reason that the professor can examine the attendance sheet to see if the student he called on was present but did not respond or he was really absent that day.

This would not work thou if you are kinda "conspicuous" or your professor has a crush on you ... ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: theothertwin on October 23, 2005, 05:55:12 PM
Quote
but they will remember that "Ms. X was too big of a p u s s y to answer when she was being called on."

I believe the hypo above assumed that nobody in that particular class knew your name or who you were ... But I agree, submitting to the sadistic questioning the Socratic method involves builds character and makes a better puppy out of you!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: trouble on October 25, 2005, 12:01:57 PM
"I believe the hypo above assumed that nobody in that particular class knew your name or who you were ..."

I don't care about the finer points of the hypo.  I'm talking about real life, as in sitting in class with people that you usually get to know over the semester and even speak with occasionally.

But I'm glad you agreed with my point overall.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: dvdvdvdvd on October 25, 2005, 04:08:57 PM
Quote
But I'm glad you agreed with my point overall.

And you call yourself a woman?! Do not you know how a woman is supposed to behave, speak and act in the 21st century America?!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: {}{} on October 30, 2005, 05:38:28 PM
Quote
but they will remember that "Ms. X was too big of a p u s s y to answer when she was being called on."

I believe the hypo above assumed that nobody in that particular class knew your name or who you were ... But I agree, submitting to the sadistic questioning the Socratic method involves builds character and makes a better puppy out of you!

Socrates was nothing else but a despicable pederast who was put to death for that!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26494.msg810072.html#msg810072
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: 20-20 on November 02, 2005, 08:15:01 PM
LOL {}{}! Great username, by the way!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: trouble on November 03, 2005, 03:35:08 PM
Regardless of what Socrates was, his teaching method is alive and well in almost every law school in America.  If you want to become a licensed attorney, chances are you will be confronted with the Socratic method, pederast or no.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: am on November 04, 2005, 04:20:02 PM
Quote
If you want to become a licensed attorney, chances are you will be confronted with the Socratic method, pederast or no.

Exactly what the OP was saying, female private part, our society is fashioned along pederastic ways of  teaching! It's called "pederastic pedagogy"!

The question to be answered, though, is what is a female private part like you doing amidst pederasts? Or is it that you cant figure out that pederasts do not like females?! It is because of this that people say that law ain't for girls ...
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: LawJockey on November 07, 2005, 04:56:26 PM
Lately, I get called upon in class on the days I'm the least prepared or the most confused. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: runaroundrachel on November 14, 2005, 01:29:47 PM
I got called on 3 times in 3 class periods... I think my teacher liked what I had to say, and kept pressing me to change my mind... after 3 class periods of him trying to convince me to back down he said "and the MPC agrees with you" and that was that... i love crim...
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: yon on November 27, 2005, 07:46:25 PM
Several of my friends adopt another strategy if called on but are unprepared: they just sit there without saying a word so that the pro will think they're absent.

LOL ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Trancer on November 28, 2005, 03:55:50 AM
Well they have a seat chart and usually they do it at random, sometimes it doesnt seem to random though... my Torts professor conforms to your previous experience... we have an RN in our class so whenever something really technical about medicine comes up he always calls on him.
Title: Sappho: famous Greek poetess of lyric poetry. Only a few fragments survive.
Post by: usinu on November 29, 2005, 08:14:23 PM
Quote
If you want to become a licensed attorney, chances are you will be confronted with the Socratic method, pederast or no.

The question to be answered, though, is what is a female private part like you doing amidst pederasts? Or is it that you cant figure out that pederasts do not like females?! It is because of this that people say that law ain't for girls ...

(http://www.livius.org/a/1/greeks/sappho_cm.JPG)

Sappho (Attic Greek Σαπφώ Sapphô, Aeolic Greek Ψάπφα Psappha) was an Ancient Greek lyric poet from the city of Eressos on the island of Lesbos, which was a cultural centre in the 7th century BC. She was born sometime between 630 BC and 612 BC. The bulk of her poetry is now lost, but her reputation in her time was immense, and she was reputedly considered by Plato as the tenth Muse.

Sappho, daughter of Scamander and Cleïs, was married (Attic comedy says to a wealthy merchant, but that is apocryphal) and had a daughter also named Cleïs. She became very famous in her day for her poetry – so much so that the city of Syracuse built a statue to honor her when she visited. Her family was politically active, which caused Sappho to travel a great deal. She was also noted during her life as the headmistress of a sort of Greek finishing school for girls. Most likely the objects of her poetry were her students. Sappho had three brothers, married and had at least one daughter, was exiled to Syracuse for political reasons, returned in 581 BC, and died in old age.

She was one of the canonical nine lyric poets of archaic Greece. Older critics sometimes alleged that she led an aesthetic movement away from typical themes of gods, to the themes of individual human experiences and emotions, but it is now considered more likely that her work belongs in a long tradition of Lesbian poetry, and is simply among the first to have been recorded in writing. Some of her love poems were addressed to women. The word lesbian itself is derived from the name of the island of Lesbos from which she came. (Her name is also the origin of its much rarer synonym sapphic).

In ancient and medieval times she was famous for (according to legend) throwing herself off a cliff due to unrequited love for a male sailor named Phaon. This legend dates to Ovid and Lucian in Ancient Rome and certainly is not a Christian overlay. The 3rd Century philosopher Maximus of Tyre wrote that Sappho was "small and dark" and that her relationships to her female friends were similar to those of Socrates:

Quote
"What else was the love of the Lesbian woman except Socrates' art of love? For they seem to me to have practiced love each in their own way, she that of women, he that of men. For they say that both loved many and were captivated by all things beautiful. What Alcibiades and Charmides and Phaedrus were to him, Gyrinna and Atthis and Anactoria were to the Lesbian"
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: obviously on November 30, 2005, 08:12:56 AM
Quote
but they will remember that "Ms. X was too big of a p u s s y to answer when she was being called on."

I believe the hypo above assumed that nobody in that particular class knew your name or who you were ... But I agree, submitting to the sadistic questioning the Socratic method involves builds character and makes a better puppy out of you!

Socrates was nothing else but a despicable pederast who was put to death for that!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26494.msg810072.html#msg810072

Please do not be judgmental!

And yes, Socrates was heavily into gay sex! In fact, it was through Plato's Symposium and Phaedrus that Socrates has exercised his most potent influenceon the gay imagination. In these two dialogues, Socrates examines how love begins in the erotic passion of an older man for a beautiful boy.

Socrates, as represented in Plato's writings, appears to have favored chaste pederastic relationships, marked by a balance between desire and self-control. He pointedly criticized purely physical infatuations, for example by mocking Critias' lust for Euthydemus by comparing his behavior towards the boy to that of a "a piglet scratching itself against a rock" (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.29-30). That, however, did not prevent him from frequenting the boy brothels, from which he bought and freed his future friend and student, Phaedo, nor from describing his erotic intoxication upon glimpsing the beautiful Charmides' naked body beneath his open tunic (Plato, Charmides 155c-e).

Socrates' love of Alcibiades, which was more than reciprocated, is held as an example of chaste pederasty. His desire for the boy is commented upon in several texts. In Plato's Gorgias,481d, Socrates asserts that he is "in love with two objects — Alcibiades, son of Clinias, and philosophy." In his Protagoras, 309a, Socrates is teased for his infatuation, "Where have you come from Socrates? No doubt from pursuit of the captivating Alcibiades ... He's actually growing a beard." Socrates replies, "What of it? Aren't you an enthusiast for Homer, who says that the most charming age is that of the youth with his first beard, just the age of Alcibiades now?" But in the Symposium it comes out that despite his love for the youth, and despite the desperate advances of Alcibiades, who craves to have Socrates as a lover in every sense of the word, Socrates spends the night in bed with Alcibiades without satisfying his beloved's desires, and their mutual love remains chaste.

Plutarch and Xenophon, in their descriptions of Spartan pederasty, state that even though it is the beautiful boys who are sought above all others (contrary to the Cretan traditions), nevertheless the pederastic couple remains chaste. In his Lacaedemonian Republic (II, 13), Plutarch goes so far as to assert that for an erastes to desire his eromenos would be as shameful as for a father to desire his own son. Nonetheless, the opinion on the Athenian street was at variance: The sexual character of Spartan pederasty was a running gag in the repertoire of Athenian comedians, and the verb λακωνίζς / lakônízô ("to do it the Lacedaemonian way) took on the meaning of "to sodomize."

Although philosophers have - even to this day - studiously attempted to ignore the forthright homosexual love that is the basis of the Phaedrus and Symposium, gay readers have always found their way to these texts. What they have discovered there has often struck them with the force of revelation. Socrates was born in 469 B.C. in the Greek city-state of Athens. In 399 B.C. he was tried on charges of corrupting the morals of Athenian youth and for religious heresies. He steadfastly denied guilt and was executed by poisoning.

I rank Socrates as the most influential gay person in history because of the essential philosophic underpinnings he provided - and has continued to provide - for gay men and women's search for identity and self-knowledge.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: primadonna greta garbo on December 08, 2005, 11:36:18 PM
Obviously, please don't make us love law more than we already do! Please! ;)
Title: To Our Law Professors With Love: What The @ # ! * Do You Want, A s s h o l e?!
Post by: denna on December 10, 2005, 06:36:48 PM
(http://radio.weblogs.com/0001015/images/2002/08/19/ninotchka.gif)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: cherry coke on December 15, 2005, 04:30:05 AM
good idea denna
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: cuteprincess on January 08, 2006, 12:52:08 AM
Love?  Dang, I LOVE law school. Why you don't?  I just can't wait to read my cases into the wee night until my eyes burn red.  I love to ditch my friends and family to greet Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Emmanuel in our wonderful conversations.

I love growing bald from stress.  Hair, who needs it?  Especially on a woman.

Yeah, law school is the best.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Roadscholarus on January 13, 2006, 09:48:52 PM
My property professor once called on 45 students in one hour! His norm was around 15. One guy was called on EVERY CLASS except twice from Aug-May! If a student wasn't prepared > he/she could expect to be called on for two weeks straight > at the exact second the clock struck 9am when class started > and the question would be regarding some minor fact buried in the case "If this were 1500 in England, how would a court apply the law to the housekeeper 'finding' the bracelet in a room unoccupied the past 20 years"?

Real answer: "I was up till 3am doing my legal research assignment, and I could care less"

Usual answer: "I apologize professor, but I'm not quite sure."

Professor: "You are unprepared, show me your brief"!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: 1sweetworld4136 on January 25, 2006, 11:52:33 AM
My torts professor from last semester called on me six times, four of which were consecutive.  Also, it was traditional socratic method and not modified, which is actually used throughout most law schools.  Traditional is where you are called on for the ENTIRE class.  The professor will usually allow you a minute or two to compose your thoughts.  In my case, I'm quite sure this professor hated my guts (for what reason, I do not know).  The questions got to a point that they were overly rhetorical and almost irrelevant.  Someone told me that the reason that I was called on so many times was that I was one of the better speakers in the class and knowledgeable.  I doubt that.  In addition, I was the only student she used the traditional socratic method on for the entire semester.  The room would always get very quiet when she called on me.  I rather liked it...it's almost of preview of things to come in the real world.  Bring it.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: anaphasis on April 12, 2006, 05:11:03 PM

Socrates was nothing else but a despicable pederast who was put to death for that!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26494.msg810072.html#msg810072

Please do not be judgmental!

And yes, Socrates was heavily into gay sex! In fact, it was through Plato's Symposium and Phaedrus that Socrates has exercised his most potent influenceon the gay imagination. In these two dialogues, Socrates examines how love begins in the erotic passion of an older man for a beautiful boy.

Socrates, as represented in Plato's writings, appears to have favored chaste pederastic relationships, marked by a balance between desire and self-control. He pointedly criticized purely physical infatuations, for example by mocking Critias' lust for Euthydemus by comparing his behavior towards the boy to that of a "a piglet scratching itself against a rock" (Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.29-30). That, however, did not prevent him from frequenting the boy brothels, from which he bought and freed his future friend and student, Phaedo, nor from describing his erotic intoxication upon glimpsing the beautiful Charmides' naked body beneath his open tunic (Plato, Charmides 155c-e).

Socrates' love of Alcibiades, which was more than reciprocated, is held as an example of chaste pederasty. His desire for the boy is commented upon in several texts. In Plato's Gorgias,481d, Socrates asserts that he is "in love with two objects — Alcibiades, son of Clinias, and philosophy." In his Protagoras, 309a, Socrates is teased for his infatuation, "Where have you come from Socrates? No doubt from pursuit of the captivating Alcibiades ... He's actually growing a beard." Socrates replies, "What of it? Aren't you an enthusiast for Homer, who says that the most charming age is that of the youth with his first beard, just the age of Alcibiades now?" But in the Symposium it comes out that despite his love for the youth, and despite the desperate advances of Alcibiades, who craves to have Socrates as a lover in every sense of the word, Socrates spends the night in bed with Alcibiades without satisfying his beloved's desires, and their mutual love remains chaste.

Plutarch and Xenophon, in their descriptions of Spartan pederasty, state that even though it is the beautiful boys who are sought above all others (contrary to the Cretan traditions), nevertheless the pederastic couple remains chaste. In his Lacaedemonian Republic (II, 13), Plutarch goes so far as to assert that for an erastes to desire his eromenos would be as shameful as for a father to desire his own son. Nonetheless, the opinion on the Athenian street was at variance: The sexual character of Spartan pederasty was a running gag in the repertoire of Athenian comedians, and the verb λακωνίζς / lakônízô ("to do it the Lacedaemonian way) took on the meaning of "to sodomize."

Although philosophers have - even to this day - studiously attempted to ignore the forthright homosexual love that is the basis of the Phaedrus and Symposium, gay readers have always found their way to these texts. What they have discovered there has often struck them with the force of revelation. Socrates was born in 469 B.C. in the Greek city-state of Athens. In 399 B.C. he was tried on charges of corrupting the morals of Athenian youth and for religious heresies. He steadfastly denied guilt and was executed by poisoning.

I rank Socrates as the most influential gay person in history because of the essential philosophic underpinnings he provided - and has continued to provide - for gay men and women's search for identity and self-knowledge.


There's certainly no "class" gay people take, or "rule book" they are given, to "train" them to be gay. They are not abused in any way when they were younger, it was completely natural, they just prefer another man as opposed to a woman. Have those who are sickened by two men kissing each other in public, or holding one another's hand, ever considered how their heterosexual "flamboyance" might be perceived? All gay men see, everywhere, are heterosexuals flaunting their "straightness" -- it gets to be rather old after a while ..........

The point with that above ... before straight people as majority start spouting off about those damn "fags" ... why don't straights consider how THEIR BEHAVIOUR appears first? .......... Gays are not going to throw a fit when they see some overt display of heterosexuality in public, so straights best not spaz out if they happen to see gays kissing their boyfriends at the museum ........ otherwise ........ Again, gays have to deal with heterosexuals fawning upon one another, straight people will have to deal with men who decide to show affection. Well, as you see, gay people don't support the double standard in which heterosexuals can do whatever they'd like together in public, but gays are supposed to "keep it at home" ............

Gay pride parades are disgusting; and many gay people would never find themselves attending one. Those people are very atypical of your average gay/lesbian. Oh, and being gay isn't a "lifestyle." People ignorantly confuse the "club lifestyle" that a small percentage of gay people partipate in, and viewing that as how every gay behaves. This is simply not true. You want to know what lifestyle the majority of gay people have? You may want to think, e.g., of the office guy, telecomuting, what have you, you know, typical grey collar sort of person. There's nothing at all there that is different from probably a vast majority of other people here. You want to know that ONE difference? At the end of the day, his loved one is a guy.

Those who scream about "special rights" are sadly uninformed. It's all about being afforded the same rights under the law that any heterosexual man would be given. A gay man doesn't want any special treatment. He wants to be able to have a legally binding commitment, just as heterosexuals would. Imagine, you love someone greatly, and there's an auto accident. The hospital REFUSES to allow you to see your loved one, because "legally" you are not family. You see, without the genders and the sexuality involved, it's an awful situation. You want to be able to extend your health insurance to your "spouse" just as a heterosexual man would be able to do with his wife. And, sure, you'd like to have the tax relief that married individuals have too. There's nothing at all special there. It's just receiving the SAME rights that heterosexuals have.

If a gay man could take a pill to magically make him straight, would he take it?

Most likely no.

If he were given a choice at birth, or before puberty, whatever, would he have chosen to be heterosexual?

Most likely no.

You see, many gay people are proud of themselves. They're proud of who they have become too. The basic thing is, you know far more gay people than you think, you probably just don't know they're gay. The majority of them are just plain folks, they just choose to love someone of their own gender. Gays agree not to be revolted when they see heterosexuals flaunting their straightness, can straight people agree to leave them do the same?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: PSUDSL08 on April 13, 2006, 07:47:01 AM
My property professor once called on 45 students in one hour! His norm was around 15. One guy was called on EVERY CLASS except twice from Aug-May! If a student wasn't prepared > he/she could expect to be called on for two weeks straight > at the exact second the clock struck 9am when class started > and the question would be regarding some minor fact buried in the case "If this were 1500 in England, how would a court apply the law to the housekeeper 'finding' the bracelet in a room unoccupied the past 20 years"?

Real answer: "I was up till 3am doing my legal research assignment, and I could care less"

Usual answer: "I apologize professor, but I'm not quite sure."

Professor: "You are unprepared, show me your brief"!

Damn dude that sucks. I've never heard of a prof checking to see if you've briefed the case. Are a lot of your professors like this? I've been called on 4 times last semester in torts, and once in each of my other classes, basically taking me off the hook for the remainer of the semester. At my school, if you don't know something, you take a pass and most teachers dont ask questions...and while they have the option of docking your attendance, I'd be inclined to say that almost all the first year teachers dont do this. Does anyone else have any real a-hole profs?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: homosexual congress on July 21, 2006, 05:22:58 PM

Several of my friends adopt another strategy if called on but are unprepared: they just sit there without saying a word so that the pro will think they're absent.


LOL ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: slacker on July 22, 2006, 11:31:42 AM
One class where a prof. would move quickly, people would say "excuse me, I didn't hear the question", hoping that she'd move on to another person who possibly did 'hear' the question.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: fuisse on July 25, 2006, 06:56:55 PM
You also get "Let me look that up after class and I'll get back to you."
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: manilafullof on July 27, 2006, 12:56:17 AM
hahaha
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: i on August 14, 2006, 04:10:03 PM


Socrates was nothing else but a despicable pederast who was put to death for that!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,26494.msg810072.html#msg810072


Socrates suffered from ADD -- his penchant for gay sex may well be attributed to his disease ..
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: schooly on August 15, 2006, 12:41:51 AM
LOL I! ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: beckett on August 31, 2006, 11:08:18 PM
our profs singled out one guy and put him on call for every single class within the first week. When we protested, they denied conspiracy. Bull. Their purpose was to put everone on notice.  :-X
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: robmelone on September 03, 2006, 07:42:14 AM
What have you people seen happen when somebody gets called on, they are not prepared, etc. 

Funniest thing I ever saw was a buddy who got called on in Ks and had actually brought a commercial brief to class.  The Prof did a double-take and said, "Is that a commercial brief?  I have never seen someone bring one to class."

Ouch!

Rob
http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug (http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: SplitFinger on September 05, 2006, 11:35:08 AM
I have three classes where the professor goes all Socratic on people randomly, 2 or 3 people per class.  So far I've gotten called on in two of those three classes, and the semster is six days old.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: 4DClaw on September 11, 2006, 01:29:48 PM
Wow, I hope you have relatively small classes. If not, you have very bad luck!

I have three classes where the professor goes all Socratic on people randomly, 2 or 3 people per class.  So far I've gotten called on in two of those three classes, and the semster is six days old.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: SplitFinger on September 11, 2006, 06:55:55 PM
About 35 in one, and about 70 in the other.  And yeah, I just have bad luck.  :)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: slattekm on November 20, 2006, 01:09:11 PM
It's now the end of the semester... I've gotten called on once in each class.

Seems like the more you raise your hand, the less you get called on.

Contracts is the worst. He calls on one person for the entire class period (1 hour and 45 minutes) and has them stand up. He then asks only that person questions and has them brief about five cases.  :o That was fun.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: TDJD84 on November 20, 2006, 01:39:42 PM
I been called on once in torts for about 30 minutes, 5 times in civ pro, and havent been alled on in property or crim law
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: exe on November 23, 2006, 06:05:10 PM

Socrates suffered from ADD


Can anyone confirm this?
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: T. Durden on November 24, 2006, 12:04:52 PM
leave your name off the seating chart - u'll never get called on - profs rarely reference the seating chart against the class roster
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: kmpnj on November 24, 2006, 02:31:21 PM
I have yet to get cold called (two of my three doctrinal profs don't do cold calls), but I have to say that when my civ pro professor calls on others and they're not prepared, it is one of the most uncomfortable feelings there is.  She doesn't yell, she just stands at the front of the room.  Meanwhile, the silence in the class is absolutely deafening.  Finally, after about a minute or two, she asks "Are you prepared today?" As if it wasn't obvious that the moron is not prepared.  I think I'd much rather have a screamer.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: xferlawstudent on November 28, 2006, 09:59:46 AM
As a 2L all of my professors tell you the day before you will be called on.  This is nice to ease some of the pressure but you have to be extra motivated to read daily.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: m34ch on February 24, 2007, 10:34:29 PM
i subscribe to the "man up" theory of law school.

i raise my hand all the damn time, and after two or three classes, the professor is burnt out on me
and won't call on me again all semester.

after that, i just go about my business
maybe raise my hand to "volunteer" one every couple weeks

it's the perfect crime
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: oopslaw on May 13, 2007, 11:33:32 PM

leave your name off the seating chart - u'll never get called on - profs rarely reference the seating chart against the class roster


One day, not too long after you start practicing law, you will sit down at the end of a long, tiring day, and you just won't have much to show for your efforts in terms of billable hours. It will be near the end of the month. You will know that all of the partners will be looking at your monthly time report in a few days, so what you'll do is pad your time sheet just a bit. Maybe you will bill a client for 90 min for a task that really took you only 60 min to perform. However, you will promise yourself that you will repay the client at the first opportunity by doing 30 min of work for the client for "free." In this way, you will be "borrowing," not "stealing." And then what will happen is that it will become easier and easier to take these little loans against future work. And then, after a while, you will stop paying back these little loans. You will convince yourself that, although you billed for 90 min and spent only 60 min on the project, you did such good work that your client should pay a bit more for it. After all, your billing rate is awfully low, and your client is awfully rich.

And then you will pad more and more -- every 2 min telephone conversation will go down on the sheet as 10 min, every 3 hrs research project will go down with an extra quarter hr or so. You will continue to rationalize your dishonesty to yourself in various ways until one day you stop doing even that. And, before long -- it won't take you much more than 3-4 years -- you will be stealing from your clients almost every day, and you won't even notice it. You know what? You will also likely become a liar. A deadline will come up one day, and, for reasons that are entirely your fault, you will not be able to meet it. So you will call your senior partner or your client and make up a white lie for why you missed the deadline. And then you will get busy and a partner will ask whether you proofread a lengthy prospectus and you will say yes, even though you didn't. And then you will be drafting a brief and you will quote language from a Supreme Court opinion even though you will know that, when read in context, the language does not remotely suggest what you are implying it suggests. And then, in preparing a client for a deposition, you will help the client to formulate an answer to a difficult question that will likely be asked -- an answer that will be "legally accurate" but that will mislead your opponent. And then you will be reading through a big box of your client's documents -- a box that has not been opened in 20 years -- and you will find a document that would hurt your client's case, but that no one except you knows exists, and you will simply "forget" to produce it in response to your opponent's discovery requests.

Do you see what will happen? After a couple years of this, you won't even notice that you are lying and cheating and stealing every day that you practice law. None of these things will seem like a big deal in itself -- an extra 15 minutes added to a time sheet here, a little white lie to cover a missed deadline there. But, after a while, your entire frame of reference will change. You will still be making dozens of quick, instinctive decisions every day, but those decisions, instead of reflecting the notions of right and wrong by which you conduct your personal life, will instead reflect the set of values by which you will conduct your professional life -- a set of values that embodies not what is right or wrong, but what is profitable, and what you can get away with. The system will have succeeded in replacing your values with the system's values, and the system will be profiting as a result.

It is true that not every lawyer knowingly and blatantly lies on his time sheets. But there is a reason why padding time sheets has been called "a silent epidemic." Lots of lawyers pad time sheets in ways that are less obviously dishonest and more socially accepted. For example, a lawyer who needs to fly from L.A. to N.Y. for one client may do the work of another client during the 5-hr flight, and bill both clients 5 hrs -- the first for 5 hours of travel, the second for 5 hours of work. Another common practice is for lawyers not to fill out their time sheets until the end of the day - -or end of the week -- or even end of the month. When a lawyer sits down on July 31 and tries to remember how much time she devoted to a client's work on July 9, 272 it is only natural that she will underestimate the amount of time wasted on coffee breaks and personal phone calls and overestimate the amount of time devoted to the client's work. Another widely accepted way of padding time sheets is to bill in minimum increments of, say, .25 hours or .30 hours. This permits the enterprising lawyer to engage in four 2-min phone calls and bill 1 hour.
Title: Billable hours
Post by: toomuchwork on May 14, 2007, 12:35:02 AM
Lawyers charge for their services, just like everybody else, and a billable hour is the basic unit of service. Each lawyer has an hourly rate, which clients pay. In big cities like Chicago, rookie lawyers usually charge about $200 per hour. Most lawyers charge their clients in tenths of an hour, or six-minute increments. For example, 1.1 hours (66 minutes) of time from a rookie lawyer costs about $220. For every year that a lawyer has been practicing, her rate goes up. By her 5th year as a lawyer in Chicago, for example, a lawyer will typically charge about $300 per hour. Veteran lawyers (or very prominent ones) can get away with hourly rates as high as $800 per hour.

There are two ways to charge people for your products. The first is a service-based model, like the billable hour, where clients pay for the amount of time it costs to perform the service. The second is a product-based model. Candy bars, for example, are sold as products. A Snickers bar these days costs about eighty cents. That cost covers the whole process: manufacturing the Snickers, shipping it and even advertising for it. A portion of your eighty cents even goes toward stuff like the annual Christmas party at the Mars company headquarters in Virginia. In today's legal world, a billable hour is the same thing as a candy bar. It's the lawyer's "product." Lawyers are not alone in charging service-based fees; auto mechanics, home cleaning services and many types of doctors do the same. A billable hour is simply a product, like a candy bar.

Bad for clients

The biggest problem with billable hours is that it puts the incentive for a lawyer in the wrong place. Lawyers charge clients for their time, not for their work, which means that as a lawyer, the longer I spend working on a project, the more money I make. Think about that for a minute. Let's say I spend ten hours writing a brief. At a billable rate of $250, the cost of that brief is $2500. Suppose the brief could have been written in 5 hours instead of 10. But spending 5 hours on the brief earns the lawyer only $1250. In other words, as a lawyer, the longer it takes you to do something, the more money you earn. Compare this to mowing your lawn. Suppose I were to pay you $10 to mow your lawn. Nobody really likes to mow the lawn, so you try to do it as quickly as possible. Let's say it takes you an hour. But, now suppose I were to pay you $10 for every hour it takes you to mow the lawn. That hour would turn into 2 or 3. The incentive would be to take as much time as possible to finish mowing, even if it could be done a lot faster. When you charge for your time, the incentive is to go slow.

There are limits to this, of course. Lawyers won't charge you more than they think you'll pay, because they want to keep you as a client. So if a client will pay $2000 for a brief, the lawyer won't charge more than that. But if they can get away with it, they'll charge $2000 for the brief even if the cost of writing it was less than that. This is true not because lawyers are bad people, but because the billable hour system provides an incentive for lawyers to take as much time as they can doing a project, even if it could be done more quickly. For a lawyer, efficiency is measured by the number of hours it takes to do something versus the number of hours that get billed to the client. For example, if it takes me 20 hours to write a brief, but only 10 get billed, I'm only 50% efficient. But if it takes me 5 hours to write the brief, that's even better, right? Actually, no. If I spend only 5 hours writing the brief, then only 5 get billed. If I could have spent 10, then I've just lost 5 billable hours. At a $250 price tag per hour, 5 hours is a lot. If a client will pay for 10 hours, then spending 5 hours is 50% efficient.

But wait. I thought 20 hours was 50% efficient. So is 5? Yes. And that's the problem. Efficiency is not speed; it's how close you are to what you think the client will pay. The incentive for lawyers is therefore not to do things quickly, but to spend as much time as possible working on something without going over the amount of time you think the client will pay for. Most lawyers will swear up and down that they don't do this. And for good lawyers, that's actually more true than not. But in the era of the billable hour, it's little wonder that the legal profession has such a bad reputation. We're not paid to work quickly, or even to work hard; we're paid to spend time.

Bad for lawyers too

Believe it or not, the billable hour system hurts lawyers too. A law firm is a business. And like any business, the goal is to make money. Lawyers are therefore judged on the amount of billable hours they generate per year. In most big law firms today, lawyers are expected to bill about 2000 hours per year. Suppose you're a great lawyer, and you're just quick. Suppose you can do in 5 hours what it takes the average lawyer 10 hours to do. Because you're so fast, you only bill 1500 hours in a year. That's good, right? You're faster than the guy in the office next to you and your clients are happy because their bills are lower. Awesome, right? No, because congratulations, you're fired. If you fail to meet your annual billing requirement, you get shown the door. This is true even if you're a great lawyer who can simply do things faster than everyone else. The product of a law firm is billable hours, and the goal is therefore quantity, not quality. In an industry where time is the economic unit of trade, good work done fast is actually bad work.

In any law firm, lawyers are measured by the amount of time they spend working. The more billable hours a lawyer has, the more valuable she is to the business. Whether she's a good lawyer or not is a secondary consideration. Sure, it matters, but it doesn't matter that much. Good lawyers — particularly good and fast lawyers — are consistently passed over for promotions and bonuses at the end of the year. This is a bad thing for the legal profession, because the most valuable lawyers end up being the ones who work a lot, not the ones who are the best.

An attorney at a big firm gets assigned to review some documents in preparation for a trial. The documents are stored on a CD-ROM, and there are thousands of them. His job was to review the documents in search of a particular name. We'll call the name "Bob." He uses a computer search program to run through all the documents, and then he reads through the hundred or so documents the computer identified as including the name "Bob." The whole process takes about 2 hours. Another lawyer at the same firm doesn't follow that process. Instead, he prints out the thousands of documents and reviews all of them by hand. His process takes about 18 hrs, and he ends up with the same hundred or so. His work takes longer, and is therefore more valuable. Not surprisingly, he has billed his 2000 hours at the end of the year, and is rewarded for a job well done.

Time, not skill, is the object of the game. This does not bode well for young lawyers who also want to have a life outside of work. Reaching 2000 billable hours per year is actually quite hard. A recent survey by ABA found that lawyers on average spend 3 hours at work for every 2 hours billed. To bill 2000 hours per year, the average lawyer will therefore need to spend 2667 hours working. That's 7 and a half hours per day, including weekends and holidays. 29% of every year is occupied by weekends. In other words, if you work Monday through Friday every week for one year, you'll spend 259 days working. To bill 2000 hours as a lawyer, you'll need to spend 10.3 hours working every day if you want to have a life on the weekends. And that's assuming that you work on all holidays and never take a vacation.

In 1958, when billable hours were just beginning to come into vogue in the legal profession, the American Bar Association concluded that there were 1300 billable hours in any calendar year. (They were assuming, by the way, that every lawyer will work half a day on Saturdays.) If you tried billing that much as a lawyer today, you would be fired, and quickly. Not only do most big firms today require 2000 hours per year, but the currently popular thing to do is to increase the requirement to 2200. Sure, associates at these firms make gobs of money; the market average in big cities has now reached $135,000 just for the rookies. But having a life? Forget about it. Do the math, and you'll realize that that massive salary comes at a massive price. The billable hour system increases the price clients have to pay, passes over good lawyers in favor of slow ones and destroys the lifestyle of lawyers who are caught up in it. Great system, huh?

Instead of selling their knowledge and skill in chunks of time, lawyers could sell their knowledge and skill according to some kind of product.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: fill-in-the-blanks on May 16, 2007, 01:03:32 AM

Suppose you're a great lawyer, and you're just quick. Suppose you can do in 5 hours what it takes the average lawyer 10 hours to do. Because you're so fast, you only bill 1500 hours in a year. That's good, right? You're faster than the guy in the office next to you and your clients are happy because their bills are lower. Awesome, right? No, because congratulations, you're fired. If you fail to meet your annual billing requirement, you get shown the door. This is true even if you're a great lawyer who can simply do things faster than everyone else. The product of a law firm is billable hours, and the goal is therefore quantity, not quality. In an industry where time is the economic unit of trade, good work done fast is actually bad work.

In any law firm, lawyers are measured by the amount of time they spend working. The more billable hours a lawyer has, the more valuable she is to the business. Whether she's a good lawyer or not is a secondary consideration. Sure, it matters, but it doesn't matter that much. Good lawyers — particularly good and fast lawyers — are consistently passed over for promotions and bonuses at the end of the year. This is a bad thing for the legal profession, because the most valuable lawyers end up being the ones who work a lot, not the ones who are the best.


So basically with the passing of time you learn how to slow yourself down, how to become a moron?!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: grand slam on May 16, 2007, 05:11:59 AM

One day, not too long after you start practicing law, you will sit down at the end of a long, tiring day, and you just won't have much to show for your efforts in terms of billable hours. It will be near the end of the month. You will know that all of the partners will be looking at your monthly time report in a few days, so what you'll do is pad your time sheet just a bit. Maybe you will bill a client for 90 min for a task that really took you only 60 min to perform. However, you will promise yourself that you will repay the client at the first opportunity by doing 30 min of work for the client for "free." In this way, you will be "borrowing," not "stealing." And then what will happen is that it will become easier and easier to take these little loans against future work. And then, after a while, you will stop paying back these little loans. You will convince yourself that, although you billed for 90 min and spent only 60 min on the project, you did such good work that your client should pay a bit more for it. After all, your billing rate is awfully low, and your client is awfully rich.

And then you will pad more and more -- every 2 min telephone conversation will go down on the sheet as 10 min, every 3 hrs research project will go down with an extra quarter hr or so. You will continue to rationalize your dishonesty to yourself in various ways until one day you stop doing even that. And, before long -- it won't take you much more than 3-4 years -- you will be stealing from your clients almost every day, and you won't even notice it. You know what? You will also likely become a liar. A deadline will come up one day, and, for reasons that are entirely your fault, you will not be able to meet it. So you will call your senior partner or your client and make up a white lie for why you missed the deadline. And then you will get busy and a partner will ask whether you proofread a lengthy prospectus and you will say yes, even though you didn't. And then you will be drafting a brief and you will quote language from a Supreme Court opinion even though you will know that, when read in context, the language does not remotely suggest what you are implying it suggests. And then, in preparing a client for a deposition, you will help the client to formulate an answer to a difficult question that will likely be asked -- an answer that will be "legally accurate" but that will mislead your opponent. And then you will be reading through a big box of your client's documents -- a box that has not been opened in 20 years -- and you will find a document that would hurt your client's case, but that no one except you knows exists, and you will simply "forget" to produce it in response to your opponent's discovery requests.

Do you see what will happen? After a couple years of this, you won't even notice that you are lying and cheating and stealing every day that you practice law. None of these things will seem like a big deal in itself -- an extra 15 minutes added to a time sheet here, a little white lie to cover a missed deadline there. But, after a while, your entire frame of reference will change. You will still be making dozens of quick, instinctive decisions every day, but those decisions, instead of reflecting the notions of right and wrong by which you conduct your personal life, will instead reflect the set of values by which you will conduct your professional life -- a set of values that embodies not what is right or wrong, but what is profitable, and what you can get away with. The system will have succeeded in replacing your values with the system's values, and the system will be profiting as a result.

It is true that not every lawyer knowingly and blatantly lies on his time sheets. But there is a reason why padding time sheets has been called "a silent epidemic." Lots of lawyers pad time sheets in ways that are less obviously dishonest and more socially accepted. For example, a lawyer who needs to fly from L.A. to N.Y. for one client may do the work of another client during the 5-hr flight, and bill both clients 5 hrs -- the first for 5 hours of travel, the second for 5 hours of work. Another common practice is for lawyers not to fill out their time sheets until the end of the day - -or end of the week -- or even end of the month. When a lawyer sits down on July 31 and tries to remember how much time she devoted to a client's work on July 9, 272 it is only natural that she will underestimate the amount of time wasted on coffee breaks and personal phone calls and overestimate the amount of time devoted to the client's work. Another widely accepted way of padding time sheets is to bill in minimum increments of, say, .25 hours or .30 hours. This permits the enterprising lawyer to engage in four 2-min phone calls and bill 1 hour.



[...] Efficiency is not speed; it's how close you are to what you think the client will pay. The incentive for lawyers is therefore not to do things quickly, but to spend as much time as possible working on something without going over the amount of time you think the client will pay for. Most lawyers will swear up and down that they don't do this. And for good lawyers, that's actually more true than not. But in the era of the billable hour, it's little wonder that the legal profession has such a bad reputation. We're not paid to work quickly, or even to work hard; we're paid to spend time.

Suppose you're a great lawyer, and you're just quick. Suppose you can do in 5 hours what it takes the average lawyer 10 hours to do. Because you're so fast, you only bill 1500 hours in a year. That's good, right? You're faster than the guy in the office next to you and your clients are happy because their bills are lower. Awesome, right? No, because congratulations, you're fired. If you fail to meet your annual billing requirement, you get shown the door. This is true even if you're a great lawyer who can simply do things faster than everyone else. The product of a law firm is billable hours, and the goal is therefore quantity, not quality. In an industry where time is the economic unit of trade, good work done fast is actually bad work.

In any law firm, lawyers are measured by the amount of time they spend working. The more billable hours a lawyer has, the more valuable she is to the business. Whether she's a good lawyer or not is a secondary consideration. Sure, it matters, but it doesn't matter that much. Good lawyers — particularly good and fast lawyers — are consistently passed over for promotions and bonuses at the end of the year. This is a bad thing for the legal profession, because the most valuable lawyers end up being the ones who work a lot, not the ones who are the best.


Well, I guess thanks to these "tricks" and the "working slowly" principle lawyers adhere to, biglaw doesn't appear to be that scary!
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Weezer1223 on June 06, 2007, 01:32:26 PM
Torts- 1
Contracts- 2
Civil Procedure I- 1

Crim law- 0
Property- 0
Con law- 3
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: Strong on June 07, 2007, 07:17:41 PM
1L

Property - Non-socratic

Civ Pro (1 semester) - 1

Contracts - 1.5

Torts - 3

Crim Law (1 semester) - 1

Con Law (1 semester) - 1

Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: xferlawstudent on June 25, 2007, 08:49:36 PM
...and the next day you will plagerize a Vandy Professor's Law Review article and post it on a law school discussion board without attributing the true author's work  ;)

Patrick J. Schiltz, On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy,Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 871, 917 (1999)



leave your name off the seating chart - u'll never get called on - profs rarely reference the seating chart against the class roster


One day, not too long after you start practicing law, you will sit down at the end of a long, tiring day, and you just won't have much to show for your efforts in terms of billable hours. It will be near the end of the month. You will know that all of the partners will be looking at your monthly time report in a few days, so what you'll do is pad your time sheet just a bit. Maybe you will bill a client for 90 min for a task that really took you only 60 min to perform. However, you will promise yourself that you will repay the client at the first opportunity by doing 30 min of work for the client for "free." In this way, you will be "borrowing," not "stealing." And then what will happen is that it will become easier and easier to take these little loans against future work. And then, after a while, you will stop paying back these little loans. You will convince yourself that, although you billed for 90 min and spent only 60 min on the project, you did such good work that your client should pay a bit more for it. After all, your billing rate is awfully low, and your client is awfully rich.

And then you will pad more and more -- every 2 min telephone conversation will go down on the sheet as 10 min, every 3 hrs research project will go down with an extra quarter hr or so. You will continue to rationalize your dishonesty to yourself in various ways until one day you stop doing even that. And, before long -- it won't take you much more than 3-4 years -- you will be stealing from your clients almost every day, and you won't even notice it. You know what? You will also likely become a liar. A deadline will come up one day, and, for reasons that are entirely your fault, you will not be able to meet it. So you will call your senior partner or your client and make up a white lie for why you missed the deadline. And then you will get busy and a partner will ask whether you proofread a lengthy prospectus and you will say yes, even though you didn't. And then you will be drafting a brief and you will quote language from a Supreme Court opinion even though you will know that, when read in context, the language does not remotely suggest what you are implying it suggests. And then, in preparing a client for a deposition, you will help the client to formulate an answer to a difficult question that will likely be asked -- an answer that will be "legally accurate" but that will mislead your opponent. And then you will be reading through a big box of your client's documents -- a box that has not been opened in 20 years -- and you will find a document that would hurt your client's case, but that no one except you knows exists, and you will simply "forget" to produce it in response to your opponent's discovery requests.

Do you see what will happen? After a couple years of this, you won't even notice that you are lying and cheating and stealing every day that you practice law. None of these things will seem like a big deal in itself -- an extra 15 minutes added to a time sheet here, a little white lie to cover a missed deadline there. But, after a while, your entire frame of reference will change. You will still be making dozens of quick, instinctive decisions every day, but those decisions, instead of reflecting the notions of right and wrong by which you conduct your personal life, will instead reflect the set of values by which you will conduct your professional life -- a set of values that embodies not what is right or wrong, but what is profitable, and what you can get away with. The system will have succeeded in replacing your values with the system's values, and the system will be profiting as a result.

It is true that not every lawyer knowingly and blatantly lies on his time sheets. But there is a reason why padding time sheets has been called "a silent epidemic." Lots of lawyers pad time sheets in ways that are less obviously dishonest and more socially accepted. For example, a lawyer who needs to fly from L.A. to N.Y. for one client may do the work of another client during the 5-hr flight, and bill both clients 5 hrs -- the first for 5 hours of travel, the second for 5 hours of work. Another common practice is for lawyers not to fill out their time sheets until the end of the day - -or end of the week -- or even end of the month. When a lawyer sits down on July 31 and tries to remember how much time she devoted to a client's work on July 9, 272 it is only natural that she will underestimate the amount of time wasted on coffee breaks and personal phone calls and overestimate the amount of time devoted to the client's work. Another widely accepted way of padding time sheets is to bill in minimum increments of, say, .25 hours or .30 hours. This permits the enterprising lawyer to engage in four 2-min phone calls and bill 1 hour.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: legerdemain on August 12, 2007, 04:09:05 AM

leave your name off the seating chart -- you'll never get called on -- profs rarely reference the seating chart against the class roster


One day, not too long after you start practicing law, you will sit down at the end of a long, tiring day, and you just won't have much to show for your efforts in terms of billable hours. It will be near the end of the month. You will know that all of the partners will be looking at your monthly time report in a few days, so what you'll do is pad your time sheet just a bit. Maybe you will bill a client for 90 min for a task that really took you only 60 min to perform. However, you will promise yourself that you will repay the client at the first opportunity by doing 30 min of work for the client for "free." In this way, you will be "borrowing," not "stealing." And then what will happen is that it will become easier and easier to take these little loans against future work. And then, after a while, you will stop paying back these little loans. You will convince yourself that, although you billed for 90 min and spent only 60 min on the project, you did such good work that your client should pay a bit more for it. After all, your billing rate is awfully low, and your client is awfully rich.

And then you will pad more and more -- every 2 min telephone conversation will go down on the sheet as 10 min, every 3 hrs research project will go down with an extra quarter hr or so. You will continue to rationalize your dishonesty to yourself in various ways until one day you stop doing even that. And, before long -- it won't take you much more than 3-4 years -- you will be stealing from your clients almost every day, and you won't even notice it. You know what? You will also likely become a liar. A deadline will come up one day, and, for reasons that are entirely your fault, you will not be able to meet it. So you will call your senior partner or your client and make up a white lie for why you missed the deadline. And then you will get busy and a partner will ask whether you proofread a lengthy prospectus and you will say yes, even though you didn't. And then you will be drafting a brief and you will quote language from a Supreme Court opinion even though you will know that, when read in context, the language does not remotely suggest what you are implying it suggests. And then, in preparing a client for a deposition, you will help the client to formulate an answer to a difficult question that will likely be asked -- an answer that will be "legally accurate" but that will mislead your opponent. And then you will be reading through a big box of your client's documents -- a box that has not been opened in 20 years -- and you will find a document that would hurt your client's case, but that no one except you knows exists, and you will simply "forget" to produce it in response to your opponent's discovery requests.

Do you see what will happen? After a couple years of this, you won't even notice that you are lying and cheating and stealing every day that you practice law. None of these things will seem like a big deal in itself -- an extra 15 minutes added to a time sheet here, a little white lie to cover a missed deadline there. But, after a while, your entire frame of reference will change. You will still be making dozens of quick, instinctive decisions every day, but those decisions, instead of reflecting the notions of right and wrong by which you conduct your personal life, will instead reflect the set of values by which you will conduct your professional life -- a set of values that embodies not what is right or wrong, but what is profitable, and what you can get away with. The system will have succeeded in replacing your values with the system's values, and the system will be profiting as a result.

It is true that not every lawyer knowingly and blatantly lies on his time sheets. But there is a reason why padding time sheets has been called "a silent epidemic." Lots of lawyers pad time sheets in ways that are less obviously dishonest and more socially accepted. For example, a lawyer who needs to fly from L.A. to N.Y. for one client may do the work of another client during the 5-hr flight, and bill both clients 5 hrs -- the first for 5 hours of travel, the second for 5 hours of work. Another common practice is for lawyers not to fill out their time sheets until the end of the day - -or end of the week -- or even end of the month. When a lawyer sits down on July 31 and tries to remember how much time she devoted to a client's work on July 9, 272 it is only natural that she will underestimate the amount of time wasted on coffee breaks and personal phone calls and overestimate the amount of time devoted to the client's work. Another widely accepted way of padding time sheets is to bill in minimum increments of, say, .25 hours or .30 hours. This permits the enterprising lawyer to engage in four 2-min phone calls and bill 1 hour.


...and the next day you will plagerize a Vandy Professor's Law Review article and post it on a law school discussion board without attributing the true author's work  ;)

Patrick J. Schiltz, On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy,Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 871, 917 (1999)


That's where you step in, xferls! ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: basha on January 15, 2008, 03:05:38 PM
hahaha, you're so funny, leger! ;)
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: aXXo on January 18, 2008, 09:44:01 AM
Every single time I got called on in class, I got PWNED because I wasn't paying any attention.  Several times I bet I got called on because it was clear that I was the only kid playing online poker, slouched in the back row.  Plus I don't brief. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: LVP on February 22, 2008, 08:55:42 PM
Every single time I got called on in class, I got PWNED because I wasn't paying any attention.  Several times I bet I got called on because it was clear that I was the only kid playing online poker, slouched in the back row.  Plus I don't brief. 
It's okay, at least you realized you got called on.  1L Fall one guy was so engrossed in his IM/online poker/fantasy football/whatever he was doing that he didn't even realize the professor was saying his name.  He repeated himself a couple of times, and everybody was staring at the kid, but the kid was oblivious.

I don't remember what happened next - I think the prof just called on someone else and moved on.
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: crazymofo on February 22, 2008, 09:11:13 PM
Every single time I got called on in class, I got PWNED because I wasn't paying any attention.  Several times I bet I got called on because it was clear that I was the only kid playing online poker, slouched in the back row.  Plus I don't brief. 
It's okay, at least you realized you got called on.  1L Fall one guy was so engrossed in his IM/online poker/fantasy football/whatever he was doing that he didn't even realize the professor was saying his name.  He repeated himself a couple of times, and everybody was staring at the kid, but the kid was oblivious.

I don't remember what happened next - I think the prof just called on someone else and moved on.

lmfao.  So that's the secret. 
Title: Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
Post by: PixyLaw on February 23, 2008, 08:27:44 AM
...and the next day you will plagerize a Vandy Professor's Law Review article and post it on a law school discussion board without attributing the true author's work  ;)

Patrick J. Schiltz, On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy,Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession, 52 Vand. L. Rev. 871, 917 (1999)



leave your name off the seating chart - u'll never get called on - profs rarely reference the seating chart against the class roster


One day, not too long after you start practicing law, you will sit down at the end of a long, tiring day, and you just won't have much to show for your efforts in terms of billable hours. It will be near the end of the month. You will know that all of the partners will be looking at your monthly time report in a few days, so what you'll do is pad your time sheet just a bit. Maybe you will bill a client for 90 min for a task that really took you only 60 min to perform. However, you will promise yourself that you will repay the client at the first opportunity by doing 30 min of work for the client for "free." In this way, you will be "borrowing," not "stealing." And then what will happen is that it will become easier and easier to take these little loans against future work. And then, after a while, you will stop paying back these little loans. You will convince yourself that, although you billed for 90 min and spent only 60 min on the project, you did such good work that your client should pay a bit more for it. After all, your billing rate is awfully low, and your client is awfully rich.

And then you will pad more and more -- every 2 min telephone conversation will go down on the sheet as 10 min, every 3 hrs research project will go down with an extra quarter hr or so. You will continue to rationalize your dishonesty to yourself in various ways until one day you stop doing even that. And, before long -- it won't take you much more than 3-4 years -- you will be stealing from your clients almost every day, and you won't even notice it. You know what? You will also likely become a liar. A deadline will come up one day, and, for reasons that are entirely your fault, you will not be able to meet it. So you will call your senior partner or your client and make up a white lie for why you missed the deadline. And then you will get busy and a partner will ask whether you proofread a lengthy prospectus and you will say yes, even though you didn't. And then you will be drafting a brief and you will quote language from a Supreme Court opinion even though you will know that, when read in context, the language does not remotely suggest what you are implying it suggests. And then, in preparing a client for a deposition, you will help the client to formulate an answer to a difficult question that will likely be asked -- an answer that will be "legally accurate" but that will mislead your opponent. And then you will be reading through a big box of your client's documents -- a box that has not been opened in 20 years -- and you will find a document that would hurt your client's case, but that no one except you knows exists, and you will simply "forget" to produce it in response to your opponent's discovery requests.

Do you see what will happen? After a couple years of this, you won't even notice that you are lying and cheating and stealing every day that you practice law. None of these things will seem like a big deal in itself -- an extra 15 minutes added to a time sheet here, a little white lie to cover a missed deadline there. But, after a while, your entire frame of reference will change. You will still be making dozens of quick, instinctive decisions every day, but those decisions, instead of reflecting the notions of right and wrong by which you conduct your personal life, will instead reflect the set of values by which you will conduct your professional life -- a set of values that embodies not what is right or wrong, but what is profitable, and what you can get away with. The system will have succeeded in replacing your values with the system's values, and the system will be profiting as a result.

It is true that not every lawyer knowingly and blatantly lies on his time sheets. But there is a reason why padding time sheets has been called "a silent epidemic." Lots of lawyers pad time sheets in ways that are less obviously dishonest and more socially accepted. For example, a lawyer who needs to fly from L.A. to N.Y. for one client may do the work of another client during the 5-hr flight, and bill both clients 5 hrs -- the first for 5 hours of travel, the second for 5 hours of work. Another common practice is for lawyers not to fill out their time sheets until the end of the day - -or end of the week -- or even end of the month. When a lawyer sits down on July 31 and tries to remember how much time she devoted to a client's work on July 9, 272 it is only natural that she will underestimate the amount of time wasted on coffee breaks and personal phone calls and overestimate the amount of time devoted to the client's work. Another widely accepted way of padding time sheets is to bill in minimum increments of, say, .25 hours or .30 hours. This permits the enterprising lawyer to engage in four 2-min phone calls and bill 1 hour.

Ouch!
Title: Re: Pictures Catalog Thing,,
Post by: charming, so on April 09, 2012, 02:33:15 PM
I never said all profs use seating charts.  FWIW, every one of mine does, and they have our student ID pics on there as well.  I've heard of many other schools that have seating charts, and more and more with pics included after a few weeks of classes.

jc, the OP on top says his hypo would work in case the non-responding student would be taking a class not with his section ... which means that the professor would not have his picture in the section catalog

However, I don't think it's a viable idea for the reason that the professor can examine the attendance sheet to see if the student he called on was present but did not respond or he was really absent that day.

This would not work thou if you are kinda "conspicuous" or your professor has a crush on you ... ;)


Oh boy, someone has a crush on oneself!
Title: Re: Der Besuch der Alten Dame
Post by: Stephanie K. on April 12, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
Quote


"The Visit of the Old Lady" is a 1956 tragicomedy by the Swiss dramatist Friedrich Dürrenmatt. The location of the drama is Gúllen, a once flourishing small town that lost its ancient bloom when its industrial plants closed down and business took a plunge. The forgotten, poverty-stricken inhabitants of Gúllen are by now used to a modest life, spending the major part of their days reminiscing about better times, until one day the arrival of the "Old Lady" alters the Gúlleners' existence at a stroke. Claire Zachanassian, a native of Gúllen whose profitable marriages to oil magnates, artists and industrialists have made her extremely rich, and her strange court consisting of two blind servants, two former gangsters, a butler and Husband Number 7, are met with sincere enthusiasm by the citizens of Gúllen at the railway station. And they are not disappointed. Claire promises to donate a billion to the township on one condition - Ill, a merchant of Gúllen, must be killed. In years gone by, Ill had a love affair with Claire. Claire became pregnant and claimed that Ill was the father. But with the help of two friends - now her two blind servants - Ill was able to escape responsibility.

(http://www.boosey.com/images/opera/EinemTheVisitCarolRoseggL.jpg)

Claire had to leave Gúllen and live as a prostitute, until she met her first rich husband. The stipulated murder is a planned revenge against Ill and the Gúllen inhabitants. In the course of time, Claire has acquired the industrial plants and the entire town, in order to ruin them. The first reaction of the Gúllen citizens is water-tight solidarity with Ill, but gradually it begins to spring leaks. Their opinions change from "poor soul, guilty of a childhood misdemeanor" to "irresponsible, immoral evil-doer". At the same time, the people of Gúllen indulge in new, luxury goods — on credit — represented by new, yellow shoes, which are soon worn by all citizens, including even police officers and the mayor. Even his own family are not spared the attraction of increasing lucre. His wife buys a fur coat, his son a car, and his daughter takes lessons in tennis. Only the teacher evokes the humanist tradition, and attempts, at first timidly, to interpose himself before the death sentence that has, by now, come to be seen as immutable. In the end, even Ill accepts his fate. In a climactic town gathering, Ill receives his sentence, which is immediately carried out by the people of Gúllen.

The fundamental underlying point of the play is that money can allure people's minds, especially those weakly determined. It also notices how money creates the power to control the world around. As the arrival of Claire Zachanassian shows, the promise of money can lead people to hate and even murder. It can pervert the course of justice, and even turn the local teacher, who is one of the few who manage to warn Alfred Ill of his impending doom. The teacher is a self-declared humanist, and his moral collapse, as well as that of the priest, demonstrates the power of money to overcome both religious and secular morality. It suggests that greed can turn anyone.The usage of this theme also develops around the main idea of "money-hungry".

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3004098.msg5225273#msg5225273



This yellow thing - very creative on the part of the Durrenmatt - I mean, you can just imagine smth like that happening for real!