Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Wills69ss

Pages: [1] 2
1
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Our "competitive spirits"
« on: May 01, 2005, 02:48:09 PM »
Oh, I was planning on having the smug look on my face not because I am comparing myself to anyone, but because I personally kicked ass and took names. The smug look is for me and me alone, just like in anything I do, I never compare myself to others. The ass that I'm planning to kick is the tests, outwitting the professors in a thorough lawyerlike analysis. To me any type of schooling is a game, one where you outwit the material and/or the professor while being one step ahead of "the game".

I didn't consider your post offending at all, it was well thought out, logical, and intriguing, no offense taken. I understand your wish to clarify where I was coming from.

"Are you asking if we, the future JD class of 2008, are intending to be hyper-competitive a-holes who will do anything to anyone in order to get ahead? We will justify any sort of behavior in order to ensure that  we win? Will the ends always justify the means? "

Yes. . . .exactly, I have the feeling that there is no way anyone will admit to it up front, wanting to keep their name clean from the get go, but as soon as that flag drops, I wonder what kind of enraged animals law school will breed. Somehow methinks this might be an intentional training method of law schools, maybe not big name schools, but maybe lower tier 1, tier 2, etc. . .want to train their lawyers to be the cutthroat, take no prisoners lawyers who will stop at nothing to win. After all, isn't the point of any contest, to win? Of course I have no documented basis for this claim, hell I'm just shooting the sh*t anyhow, but in the legal market, if you continually loose, I'm sure it doesn't spell well for the rest of your career because as you say, law review could be write on, class rank could be abolished, and so could a number of things change to foster a more academic enviornment, not the competitive one that it breeds.

I'm sure we've all heard the stories, the first few days everyone is the most cooperattive bunch you have ever seen. Everyone gets along and generally likes eachother, but when the sh&* hits the fan, people start panicking, and what happens is nothing short of "The Treasure of Sierra Madre". I mean I hope it doesnt happen, hell I hope to aviod it, but I was wondering what people's impressions were about the situation. I thought Stroop made a good point, see the atmosphere and plan accordingly.

I guess as the saying goes, walk softly and carry a big stick. . . .

2
Incoming 1Ls / Re: law school "boot camp"
« on: May 01, 2005, 12:01:22 AM »
careful you don't step in the bull. . . .

3
Incoming 1Ls / Our "competitive spirits"
« on: April 30, 2005, 11:49:44 PM »
OK. . . .so it's like this, law school breeds a sense of competitiveness, one that pitts student against student knowing that law school grades are a zero sum grade, for you to do better, someone has to do worse.

So I'm wondering, what are your plans for avioding the trap of one-upmanship?

Personally, I see law school as a competition against yourself, one that pushes you to learn the material and be the best that you can be. It would be interesting to know how people feel about this issue. Personally, I plan to aviod it alltogether, not indulging in any sort of who's better bs. I wonder what previous 1l's have to say about this as well as pre-1l's. I plan to kick ass and take names just on my own, I could give a damn what someone else does. . . .just keep that smug look on my face until exam time, and then let the grades speak for themselves. . . .

4
Incoming 1Ls / Re: UCLA Bound
« on: April 29, 2005, 02:20:36 PM »
I so don't want to stay in the graduate housing, 300 square feet is nothing, and for $875? Say it aint so! Why can't I move my 4 bedroom house (that I alone live in) down to LA, I'd be real quiet, I promise. I'm looking at culver city to live, close to the blue bus and I could probably still get a parking permit (since we'd be graduate students) but who knows, I can't afford to live in Westwood and I'm not sharing a room, thats for sure. Anyhow hope all goes well in finding a place to live, I on the other hand are getting ready for war with my evil professors. . . . .muhahahahahahah. . . .

5
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Senioritis--Who has it and how bad?
« on: April 29, 2005, 02:14:56 PM »
Ok, college is a sham. . .no way should you be able to show up for 1/3 of the classes, play on the internet when you actually do, spend 5 mintues before a midterm sifting throught the 200 page reader and 600 page book for the course and ace the midterm. . . .in fact I aced all my midterms, with the same formula. . . .something seems desperately wrong with the college experience. All this at Berkeley no less. I'm taking 22 units this semester (graduated in 3 years) and have never been so lazy in all my life. After UCLA's acceptance came, I was done, I wonder if class is still going on. . .anyhow a well deserved break. . .then when summer comes, I'll start prepping for law school. . . until then, can we have the final tomorrow? It's cool, really. . .

6
Incoming 1Ls / Re: UCLA Bound
« on: April 28, 2005, 03:55:14 PM »
I'll see ya'll in Westwood August 22.

Will

7
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Planet Law School II
« on: April 15, 2005, 12:10:21 AM »
OK, first of all a little background.

I am a third year senior at UC Berkeley. My gpa is a 3.77, LSAT 164. I will be attending UCLA law school in the fall.

I went to the bookstore one saturday and looked through several "soon to be law students" type books. I read all the big name ones and then came across PLS II. I saw this mammoth thing, over 800 pages, and thought what the hell can you say about law school in 800 pages? So I picked it up and couldn't put it down.

Heres my take, he's right.

Now before you all start bashing me for supporting such a statement hear me out.

Before I went looking for books I talked to many current law students (at Boalt)> I grilled them about law school life, asking about exams, assignments, papers, and the like. My major, Legal Studies, has its sections taught by GSI's, all of whom are law students, so I've talked to my fair share. Most of them said the same things, you can't prep, there's no way to learn what you need to learn, just relax your summer before, they teach you what you need to know. So I visited law classes. They usually don't care if you slide into the back row in a first year class, its easy to get lost. So I sat and listend and took in all I could. I found the discussions about cases fun and interesting, not wanting to wait any longer to get there.

I also have access to the law library. Since I'm writing an honors thesis, I get to roam around all I want. I found the old exams.

There was no mention of cases whatsoever. No reference to case citations, who wrote the majority opinion, what was the holding in X v Y, etc. . .

It was a standard hypo, just like in the Aspen E&E series (I know because I have them).

Here's my take on the law students, they have not read PLS, or have they been introduced to it. They have bought into the idea (much like some of you) that there is no way to prep. Maybe they did well, maybe they didn't (if you expect a law student to tell you their "real grades" your kidding yourself) the point is what if Atticus is right?
What if there's a way to prep for law school, what if the Aspen E&E series teaches you how to spot the issues and/or the tensions of law?
What if he's right about most law school professors? What if they do play "hide the ball?" What if they don't teach you the elements of black letter law that are essential to examanship?

Im not trying to scare you, nor am I trying to create something of a conspiracy theory about law school, just do me this favor: go to a law school, any law school, sit in on a class, then find old exams and figure out if what you heard had anything to do with whats on the exam. In most cases, there's nothing that resembles what was said in class.

Most of us are used to undergrad where professors tell you what to read, give you some form of a study guide, and then test on what they covered in class as well as the readings.

Law school is not like undergrad. Law school is a game. A game that rewards those who can figure out the game the quickest and then kick ass and take names on the final. The professors are in on it, the students are in on it, the administration is in on it, because no one is going to hold your hand and tell you what to do. No one is going to tell you what you need to know. No one is going to tell you that success on exams depends on your ability to disect a hypothetical "case" finding the tensions from your knowledge of BLL, using commercial outlines to suppliment your own personal outline, and your constant practice of hypos through the aspen series and your study group. Its not memorization like undergrad, there's no formula like math or science, no expert opinion by the leading author on political theory, its the long established codified rules through things like the UCC, legislation, and case law. This is what BLL is. A set of guidelines that help lawyers, judges, and jurists try to apply a broad, open ended guidelines to specific problems and circumstances. There is no "right" answer, the analysis is the answer. Of course when you're being paid to take a side, there is a right answer, but in law school there's not, you spot the issues and discuss the tensions. Those who spot the most issues, discuss the tensions completely, get the best grades. They make law review, they transfer to Harvard, and they get the kick ass jobs at big firms that most law students covet so dearly (this is another bad thing, but thats another posting). THe aspens teach you how to spot the issues, they give you BLL, then give you a hypo, and then ask you to apply the BLL to the scenario. This is the exact same thing as a law school exam, although teachers do not give you BLL.

Well then why can't you just get the commercial outlines, the aspen series, etc. . .in the school year and learn it then?

Yeah, ok, then add reading for class, trying to prepare to get grilled by a professor about some random case, writing assignments, etc. . .all while trying to go through a 700 page book (the aspen) at the same time. Not going to happnen.

So when do you learn BLL? The answer is you dont, you struggle to keep up. While the professor is asking you questions about adverse possesion in a squatters rights case, grilling you about the elements that your suppose to learn from only one case (that probably deals with only one issue or tension of the law, i.e one element of BLL associated with adverse possesion) your going to look like an idiot. (remember Hart in The Paper Chase?)

Think about it, wouldnt it be nice if when the professor is getting into a discussion about adverse possession you know exactly what he's talking about? That you read the case beforehand, That you already know its a process by which a person who uses property for a statutorily determined period of time becomes the owner of the property and defeats all rights of the person with legal or record title. So you review your hypos from the aspens Property book, you reinforce what the elements are so they are fresh in your mind for class. Furthermore, you have worked extensive hypos solidifying the elements (BLL) in your memory and could provide a thorough analysis when the professor changes an element that negates such a claim (because while doing one of the hypos, you learned the trick that the professor is using was an issue you missed in the practice problems and learned your lesson the first time) How cool would that be? How much more enjoyeable would law school be than the constant grilling you would have received while looking like an idiot?

Here's my final thoughts, don't take my word for it, don't take these postings word for it, don't take atticus's word for it, go figure it out for yourself. How you might ask? Go to a law school, go to the bookstore, look at a casebook, read a case or two or seven. Then find some old exams. Then try and figure out why it seems that the cases inadequately would prepare you for exams, then think to yourself what could help me tackle this problem? Well first off you need to know the rules (BLL), then you need to know how to apply them (a strong lawyerlike analysis) and then you need to be able to spot the hidden issues and tensions that the professor diliberately put on the exam (here my friend is the promise land to points, points, and more points on an exam). What if there was a way to teach you this? What if the only way to do this is the summer beforehand because once you get there you are bombarded with busywork? What if?

He's right, he's been to law school, take a look at the yahoo group, take a look at the book. This is the difference between the haves and the have nots. The haves dont listen to anyone, they investigate the process themselves (you can go to Boalt's website to get the exams, free of charge no less) and they come up with their own conclusions. The have nots listen to others, they take someone elses advice, they decide not to prep, they believe law school students and professors believing that they will hold your hand during law school, they think that the cases will teach them, they believe that briefing cases is the way to aviod looking like an idiot, and they believe that they are smart enough to figure out the system.

Of course prepping is alot of work. Of course it will eat up your summer, of course you will get fustrated at the hypos. Most of you are discussing this beacuse you want to do well in law school.

Think about it, which student would you rather be? The one who looks like and idiot? Or the one who just knocked the socks off the professor because they've seen the rabbit in the hat trick before, and they are not going to be fooled again.

It's your choice. I've left a ton of information out of here, alot of investigation in ensuring the legitimacy of what's been said. If you have any questions feel free to email me at Wills69ss@berkeley.edu. I will be happy to answer them. If you think I'm wrong hey thats cool, I could care less, but please, don't be left in the dark, check it out yourself, look at the old exams on Boalts website, look at casebooks, visit classes, and then see how "wrong" I am.


8
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Still haven't heard from UCLA, USC, or UVA
« on: March 29, 2005, 01:23:21 PM »
Those numbers seem pretty close to mine 3.77, 164 and I was accepted to UCLA, didn't apply to USC (didnt really want to go to University of Spoiled Children) however you should be hearing soon. They usually go through similar numbers around the same time, at least thats the impression that I get. Would you go to UCLA if they said yes?

I'd have to go visit, but i'm fairly sure i'd go if I got in (from what i've heard/read about the school)  May I ask when you heard?  And were you out of state?

Thanks for the info!



Sure, I heard about 3 weeks ago. I live in CA, but in the bay area (northern CA). UCLA's campus is awesome, I fell in love with it the minute I stepped on to it. Nice grounds, law school, gym, food court, etc. . I can't wait to get there. I talked to a few current students and I get the impression that everyone is real friendly, non-cutthroat types. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with.

9
Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Boalt Hangers On
« on: March 28, 2005, 08:52:50 PM »
Just thought I could cheer up the mood.

Berkeley is a sh#*hole

The law school building is ugly, the library is ugly, the area is ugly. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to law school here.

I'm an undergrad and I can't wait to start at UCLA in the fall.

Trust me. . . you are not missing anything at Boalt.

Besides, the admissions dean is a jerk, you try and ask questions and the like, be ready for the cold rude shoulder.

Thought it might cheer you guys up!

10
Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists / Re: UCLA need $
« on: March 28, 2005, 08:45:38 PM »
Is anyone going to UCLA for sure?

Pages: [1] 2