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 - Burning Sands

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21
Current Law Students / Re: Dating while in law school
« on: February 21, 2005, 06:58:45 AM »
I would forsee a problem hanging around the undergrad girls because, in my experience, they  tend to be immature and less intelligent than grad school girls. They also have different priorites (i.e. dating the popular frat boy instead of dating the guy who's gonna end up having a lucrative career). Oh well...

This is absolutely correct. This is why its important to limit your exposure to the undergrads.  Remember, they're on your agenda, not the other way around.  Let them date the popular frat boy if they want to, that's their problem.

Allow me to repeat myself from another thread:

The only preparation you should be doing before your first year is general reading.  Books like Planet Law School give a good idea of what it is like to be in law school.  Of course, nothing prepares you for the experience like the experience itself, but at least you won't be walking in blind.

Now, the top 5 reasons on why it is a bad idea to "prepare" or study the law before you go to law school.

#5. You just flat out do not know what to look for. Even if you were to pick up an Examples & Explanations and read it cover to cover (which you won't even need to do once you get in law school) all the legal terms of art will fly past you b/c you've never heard of most of them, perhaps any of them.  You don't know what the difference is between Pleading, Impleading, Interpleading or Intervention and unless mom or dad are lawyers with a lot of free time, its just best to wait until you see these concepts within the context of actual cases.

#4. You need to have as much fun as you can BEFORE law school.
   1st year is the hardest year of law school.  That being said, 1st semester is the hardest semester of law school.  You will learn the importance of Time.  It will be more valuable to you than you ever thought possible.  You will pass up more invitations to parties, send more phone calls to voicemail, and turn down more dates with supermodels than you ever thought possible. A social life is still possible during your first year, but when I say social life I mean you get to go out a couple times per month.  This is of course when you figure out that you just have to stop what you are doing and take a break, because there are not enough hours in the space-time continuum to finish the amount of reading that is about to be thrown at you in one semester.

#3.  You need as much MONEY as you can get your hands on before law school.    If mommy and daddy pay for everything, then discard this reason.  If you're not a silver spoon kid, pay special attention to this caveat.  For you working people who will be leaving a career, this is especially important.  You will be living off of one month's take home for 9 months straight. Start saving now.

#2.  You don't want to have to UNLEARN legal conepts. Without the guidance of a law professor, the true meaning of many legal concepts is difficult if not impossible to ascertain.  Going back to reason #5, a particular concept itself may not be difficult to understand, but you may be learning it incorrectly.  For example, you might read a concept book that tells you about property obligations for tenants. It will more than likely tell you that a property owner is liable for all Invitees that are injured on his icy sidewalk but not for people who are Liscensees.  And then you carry this "understanding" with you into law school, where you may or may not discover before the exam that what you read during the summer before your first year USED to be absolutely true, however over the development of case law during the past 50 years, courts have done away with the distinction of liscensee/invitee and just hold land owners liable for anybody who is not a trespasser.  But the concept book is not going to tell you that because they are just trying to list all the basic concepts in as short amount of space as possible.

#1.  Law School is all about what your Professor wants.
In the end, it is your professor who determines your grade.  It is the professor who separates the A's from the B's.  It is the professor who you have to please, and it is the professor who you have to listen to.  You can know every law and legal concept ever created in the US, but if you do not know the type of analysis your professor is looking for, then you're f*cked.  This is also why 4.0 students are shocked when 1st year grades are posted b/c many of them get their first B or C ever in their entire academic lives in law school.  NOT because it is any reflection of their intelligence as a student.  Its because they didn't provide the analysis specific to thier professor.  I had 4 finals last semester from 4 different professors with 4 different styles.  My property professor just wanted to see both sides of each issue argued. She didn't want an answer b/c she feels there are no answers in the Law, just arguments. My torts professor wanted a strong analysis for one side, discounting the claims that the other side might make, with a definite answer at the end.  Now imagine if you did the exact same writing style for all of your professors.  You'd get a report card that looks like the scrolling ticker tape on the stock market.

Since you have no idea who your professors are, or more importantly, what areas they want to focus on and how they want their exams written, it is d**mn near pointless to spend the time during your summer trying to prepare for anything.  Another 1L's property professor harped on the Rules Against Perpetuities for 2 classes, my professor talked about that mess for 2 minutes and moved on.  Its all subjective.

Our advice on the summer before 1L...  Make lots of money, party till 3 am every night, have lots of sex, drink lots of alcohol, take a vacation in Hawaii and go watch the sunset or something like that.  Don't be one of these dillusioned cats who thinks that learning how to brief a case in June is going to make a d**mn bit of difference come August.

Current Law Students / Re: March Madness
« on: February 20, 2005, 10:13:30 PM »
dangit I was working on an LRW paper all weekend and missed everything.  somebody else is gonna have to solve the riddle

Current Law Students / Re: Need creative arguments
« on: February 20, 2005, 10:11:44 PM »
scratch the respondeat superior comment, but you knew what I was getting at with the parents/kids relationship. kids who haven't reached the age of majority have to be represented in court by their parent or guardian blah blah blah

we need more facts though

O.P. where are those facts?

Current Law Students / Re: Need creative arguments
« on: February 20, 2005, 04:17:23 PM »
Could you argue that the children have standing, but not the parents?  When Michael Newdow sued about "under God" (the first time), the Ct said he didn't have standing b/c he didn't have custody of the kid that was being "forced" to say the pledge. 

I think that would mean that the parents DO have standing thru respondeat superior. As long has they are the partents (ie. have custody) they can bring suit on behalf of their child.

Current Law Students / Re: grades-how screwed?
« on: February 19, 2005, 06:38:07 PM »
Sorry to hear about the grade situation.  If you are at a top 20 school however, there may be hope for you afterall.  You may be able to land a firm job with a smaller office or a large office in a city other than NY or LA who recognize the name of your school.  There are too many factors to throw in the towel just yet. 

If you're like many of us, motivation is really low for this spring semester.  use that to your advantage and kick ass this semester while everybody else is struggling to crack a book.  If you understand the material then you can get better grades this semester and show improvement on your transcript.  Employers know that our first semester is the roughest.  Worse case scenario a C+ can be explained away during an interview.

Current Law Students / Re: Dating while in law school
« on: February 19, 2005, 06:29:50 PM »

This is comedy.

jdmba, I'm hearin ya loud and clear on the undergrad tip.  No disrespect to the ladies in law school, but that's too close to home.  I've been approached and propositioned by 3 girls in my law school and have successfully avoided getting involved with any of them up to this point.  And they're all 3 attractive, which makes it very difficult because I see them everyday. But that's just the see the people in your school EVERYDAY, 24 hours  a day 7 days a week.  There is no room for error like in undergrad.  You could date somebody on campus in undergrad, and if things didn't work out, hey, you move on and you may not see that person again until the next big party (depending on the size of your college).  Law School, not possible. 

Let me back up...

FIRST OF ALL you don't have time to be worrying about relationship issues in law school anyway.  That's fact #1.  Fact #2 is that word spreads through law school faster than a T3 connection.  You don't want that kind of attention if things should happen to go sour with another law student.  Fact #3 is that if you have the luxury of an undergrad campus attached to your law school, those students will be out of the loop of the law school, respect the fact that you are busy, and will generally require very little maintenance. Plus they get to brag that they're dating a law student to their other undergrad friends and make themselves feel special. Its a win-win.

This is not to suggest that married couples cannot meet in law school, but those are few and far between.  The exception, not the rule.

Your primary concern in law school is to get the best grades you can.  Clingy and needy relationships will get in the way of that.  You can call that fact #4.

Some of my female classmates I notice had alterior motives upon coming to law school.  Some of them, quite frankly, are here to get their M.R.S. degree along with the J.D.  I actually ran across two of my female classmates in the library one day who were depressed and complaining about the fact that they had not been able to find a boyfriend yet in our class.   ???

- No Comment.

Current Law Students / ?
« on: February 19, 2005, 02:57:07 PM »
Sands, a moment of silence for KU, in fact, two...

They are still a #1 seed (unless Zona takes it :)

Thank you. That was a well needed moment of silence after the stunt they pulled.  Self has disgraced the sanctity of Allen Field House.

I'm keeping an eye on that team who's name we do not say when the play Washington on the 26th

Current Law Students / ?
« on: February 19, 2005, 10:16:52 AM »
its true that only one person needs to have standing to sue on behalf of the PTA but i'm wondering if the facts tell us if those few individuals are going to adequately represent the rest of the "class" per Rule 23.  If a substantial amount of the PTA members agree that its not a problem, they may not even have a class action standing.

Beyond that point, getting down to the Con Law issues, the establishment clause in the 1st ammendment was created to prevent the government from making laws regarding or regulating religion.  So what law has been made here?  If we're just talking about taking kids to a building so they can play I don't see a law violation there. (I'm assuming this is a state school)  Unless there's some facts we're missing, the school group has no ground to stand on.

Assuming for the moment that the state in your fact pattern passed some state law requiring the kids to play in this religious building, then this becomes a substantive due process issue, as in, does the state have the right to do such a thing?  I think you could make an argument against the PTA that the state's compelling interest in this case is for the kids, and we all love the kids, and that their educational experience is a legitimate ends which this law serves as the means to helping reach that ends.

Something like that.

Need more facts...

Current Law Students / duke schmuke
« on: February 19, 2005, 09:40:43 AM »
Duke is not deep enough to get this attention.  Honestly, look at Zona that last 5 games.  Look at Salim, compared to Reddick, yet  Duke gets all the hype, and they are not even that good.  Did you know Zona has tried the last 2 years to get non-conference games with Duke, but Duke will only agree if they play one game on their court, and one game on a neutral court in the east coast!  Lute said, One game at Duke, One game in California (which is still pretty  neutral), and they said no.  They get no respect from me.  Salim is better across than Reddick, and where is his ESPN segment reciting poetry?  They will be a three seed, and probably will lose to Wake on Sunday.

Okay, enough ranting.

no you're right. the ACC always gets the most publicity whether they're good or not.  there's a lot of east coast bias that dominate the networks. the only problem is nobody out of the midwest or the west is stepping up to prove otherwise

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21