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 - cassise

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 176
Job Search / Re: Chicago Firm Choice
« on: November 09, 2008, 06:53:55 PM »
GO to Winston, you can move to PA later.

Job Search / Re: Sidley v. Kirkland
« on: November 09, 2008, 06:42:36 PM »
I'm torn between these two also. 

Hopefully more thoughts to follow.

For what its worth, my take on HL Central outlines is this:

Sometimes, they are great.  Teachers that teach the same thing over and over tend to do the same things.  If you pull outlines from three differnt years and they all cover about the same material, there is a good bet the outline might be useful.  If you pull a few and they seem all over the place, look at them and compare to your sylabus, if they match, good for you.

My view on how to use them was this:

I would take large parts as the basic framework for my own outline, then add in my thoughts, the thoughts of the hornbook I was using, and anything else I thought would be useful in answering questions.  Usually I relied on the outlines to lay out the basics and remind me what cases stood for.

I outline very different from a lot of people (my outline is designed to be used by me as an aid DURING the exam moreso than as a way to study for the exam) so this method worked out really well for me.  Plus it takes away some of the frustrations that comes with sitting down to a blank screen when you start outlining.

As a side note, a lot of times outlines from other professors for the same course may be extremely useful.  I found this to be especially true with torts and contracts, but this varies professor to professor.  For example, if you have Hanson, nothing from anybody else will be even remotely useful (unless you find a sonnet about how Posner is evil, that would probebally do the most to help your grade on an exam).

So, here's the low down as I see it:

Greiner: He's awesome, and young.  He has some pretty cool ways to run his class.  Also, because he is young, he is willing to take suggestions regarding the way he teaches his class.  He's going to be a rockstar one day!  Quite a few of my friends are going to TA for him.

Meltzer:  Meltzer is love-hate.  He is certainly one of the "old school" professors, but has toned it down in recent years.  You'll notice his rhetorical flourishes come out when he said witty things to students like:  "What's a Shorter, better answer than Yes?"  He teaches you quite a bit (with very complex hypotheticals), but is a 'tough' grader generally. To be sure, you can't be that tough on a curve, but still on the low end of the curve grading.  Make sure that you follow the directions on his exams very carefully (see e.g., do not abbreviate EVER!).  He is a legend in Federal Courts and is known as having one of the Top GPA's from HLS ever.

Triantis:  The opposite of Meltzer.  People love him. He's canadian and very very laid back.  He is also a superstar in the law and economics approach to the law.  You would be wise to take a look at some of his writing (later in the semester) on Options contracts.  But don't do that until you have some idea of what law school is like. 

Since this appears to post collecting section 2 profs from last year.......

Greiner: Sharo nailed this one.  Nice guy, uses a random number generator to cold call people, then changes the liklihood they will be called on again.  Did some really neat stuff (had people argue an injunction he argued for DOJ in class as a way of teaching injunctions, the random number generator, etc.)  Reminds me of teh Civ Pro teacher from 1L, minus the bad stuff.  Has a very good understanding of what we are going through (knows we are playing online and chatting on AIM, but doesn't care).  He is pretty up front with what he thinks an funny in the nerdy sort of way.  Great dude,though I thought his exam was sort of random compared to what we did in class (a huge chunck was base on a topic we talked about for half a day, but then, nobody will agree on what a good exam is). 

Meltzer:  Definately love hate.  I was on the "less than thrilled side" but as I look back, I think that was more about me not liking Crim.  He is a nice guy that really does try to make you like 1L.  He is liberal and it will come out, although he will prod both sides in the style of a good socratic professor.  Very socratic, lots of hypos, no laptops allowed.  Very traditional, and yes, sometimes whitty.  "Can you give me a shorter and more accurate answer" is one of my lasting 1L memories.  His exam is 1 part issue spotted, 1 part theory, 1 part hodgepodge (ours was kind of like an applicant of one legal argument to a fact pattern he drew from a book footnote).  His exam this year was nowhere near as intimidating as the past few years, I hope that continues for you. 

Triantis:  I didn't much care for his class, but he is definately a nice guy.  My impression was that he is way more interested in Bankruptcy and wasn't exactly enthusiastic with our contracts class.  A few things stick out:  He is really into modern rather than past application of doctrine to cases, he is big on law and econ, and he really likes rules v. standards.  Areas that he seems particularly interested in relatve to a traditional contracts class are option contracts and construction contracts.  His exam was sort of out of left field but did fit with what he said it would be.  I can't complain too much because he was kind enough to give me a good grade.  For what its worth, I know a few female students who thought he was very attractive.  His Canadian-ness comes out in various ways throughout the semester and is somewhat entertaining.  My main complaint, he is VERY dry.  I spent LOTS of time making sure my fantasy baseball roster was set and reading above the law. 

Also, I think I saw somebody had Stephenson (I assume for legreg)

He is a super brilliant young professor (Kennedy Clerk) that does a great job of teaching you to think like a lawyer when it comes to leg reg.  When I went to his class, he was engaging (though he talks VERY quickly) and interesting.  After you listen to his lecture, you really understand the material.  More than any other class, I thought he put the material togther in a way that left me thinking "Oh, that makes sense."  He will call on LOTS of people each day (probebally gets though the class roster every 1-2 weeks) ad if you start skipping classes (as I did because it was god aweful early), he will call on you even more.  Likes to ask questions then treat your answers like they said what he wants, even if they didn't.  If you get lost in his question, ask for clarification and he will lead you down the right path.  I thought his exam was fair (again, there is post grade bias here).  It was one question that asked you to brief/summarize a case as if you were a clerk (this case really didn't require you to know much about the subject and seemed to me to be something any 1L could do, whether they had leg reg or not) and 1 question that was a traditional issue spotter.  Don't remember if there was another part or not?  Its been a while.

Those are my summaries, hopefully any others that had these people will chime in.

Apartment question for all of you regarding location.  For those who lived off-campus your first year, how far away did you live?  And how far is too far, if you are walking? In the winter, is a 10 minute or half mile walk a pain (keep in mind coming from California, where cold - 55 degrees)?

I had a 7 minute (if I booked it) to 12 minute (leisurely stroll) walk. In the winter, there were a few days where the sheer cold and wind made my sinuses ache for hours, just from being outside for that amount of time. Thankfully, it was limited to just those few days. But there were many other days when I wore my snow boots. But most of the sidewalks got shoveled quickly, so my walk never turned into like a half hour trek or anything. I would leave five minutes early if the weather got really bad. I'd say a 15-20 minute walk would be my personal outer limit.

I agree.  Some days are as cold as everyone says they are in Boston, so even a 20 minute walk might be a bit much.  Plus, what if you get stuck with 8:30 a.m. classes 5 days a week?!  To be sure, the best sidewalks are near Harvard owned properties--because they shovel religiously when it snows.  You may want to invest in a good pair of boots before getting here (maybe they're on sale during the summer?) to avoid the dreaded Boston slush seeping through shoes.

8:30 classes five days a week?  That must suck.

Oh section 2.......

Job Search / Odds of a Big/Medium Law Job In Chicago
« on: July 25, 2007, 01:53:43 PM »
I will be a 1L at HLS in the fall.  Any idea what the odds of landing a big/medium law job in Chicago are?

What types of things help 1L's stand out since resumes will be sent before even fall exams?

Also, I'm gonna hijack this thread for a minute:

I'm trying to complete a full month of not paying for lunch.  Do any of the HLS students on here know of a free lunch event tomorrow.

Seriously 0L's, you can prolly go 90% of the year without buying a lunch.  Just go to speakers/Westlaw/Lexis/club events, its a great gig.

I'd like to hear some other people's take on this, but I think the International classes have been a huge failure this semester.  The purpose was to locate the US law in the international scene and I have only heard of one (perhaps two) of the seven classes doing that.  Overall, I feel like they rushed this component and should have held off for a year and put it in with the problem solving class.  My profs didn't even have a sylabus ready until the semester was half over

I'd be curious to hear more input on this as well.  And how did you like Torts after all?

I liked torts for a bunch of the wrong reasons.  First, prof was extremely entertaining (when I went) as you know.  Additionally, I wasn't a big fan of my crim prof (although most of the section seemed to love him, I just didn't get it) and Torts was right before that, so even though I was half asleep, it was always like "yey torts isn't crim.  And of course, looking back, its always easier to like the classes you did well in, so I'll go with that.

I have no idea who dash or saja are in real life btw.

For anybody that is curious, I'm in Brewsters International Economic class, the useful parts are all things that are covered in other classes (corps or conflict of laws) and the interest stuff is generally stuff that they would have been better served using exerpts from an Int'l trake econ text than from random scholarly articles.

I feel like we read a lot of stuff where they skimmed and said "this looks good" then threw in.  I could just be bitter, I'd like others view on this class as well.

Like I said, I don't see why this isn't still an elective only area.

I'd like to hear some other people's take on this, but I think the International classes have been a huge failure this semester.  The purpose was to locate the US law in the international scene and I have only heard of one (perhaps two) of the seven classes doing that.  Overall, I feel like they rushed this component and should have held off for a year and put it in with the problem solving class.  My profs didn't even have a sylabus ready until the semester was half over

If you want to save the world, maybe the basic "International Law" will have some use for you,but other than that, these classes seem like rushed nods to the "internationalizing legal system."

Incoming 1Ls / Re: Is this Really the Case?
« on: April 06, 2008, 08:37:52 PM »
I SHOULD have been reading admin law.  Instead I'm reading this board.

I don't think law school exams are about "luck" any more than on the margins.  I took four exams.  2B+'s ad 2 A-'s.  What was the difference between the classes?  Some luck or a small difference in performance.  That said, this seems to paint a pretty accurate picture.  I'm at the high end of average.  Makes sense, seems about right.

I think a lot of students say law school exams are about "luck" because they aren't about "work" and its tough to say you aren't good at a certan skill.  Law school exams are about how good you are at taking law school exams.  Tautological I know.  The kids that get the A's will be one of two types.  Type 1:  They are just smarter than most people (smarter meaning better at learnin and thining about law in general).  This students will have little variation.  The next group is the "works really hard and is pretty smart" group.  They will get some high grades and a lot of good grades,but there will be more variation.  This seems true from what little I can tell about how my classmates did. 

YOu can study a lot, but at the end of the day, most people know all the BLL stuff, so it largely comes down to how good you are at writing a law school exam.  I really doubt that betwen the A and B+ range there is much difference in how much about the law people know, only how well your brai works with legal questions, how well you spot issues, and how well you write.  None of these are really things you can "work" for.  Sure you can improve them with work, but at the same time, they are largely a natural skill and even the people that are "working hard" are usually working on learnig BLL which most people end up with a pretty similar grasp of.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 176