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 - Chris Laurel

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
31
Look, all students deserve respect, and you deserve to demand it from your professors, from the administration, from your fellow students, from your exam proctors.

Stop pussying out - you all are paying for the education.  Once they let you into the school, demand respect, if not solely because YOU GOT IN!  You deserve it!  Demand it!  What?  You think they'll kick you out or something? 

Why do law students acts like sad slaves who must put up with how they are treated?  You people are some of the best and the brightest in the country, and yet you all act like you deserve this disrespect.  I don't get it.  When you really think about it, do you?

And demand Accuracy in Grades!  Demand more tests.  Demand TAs.

http://accuracyblog.blogspot.com

32
Current Law Students / Re: Demand more tests! Demand teaching assistants!
« on: January 16, 2006, 10:51:42 PM »
No offense, but you guys have no idea what the practice of law is like. 

First, both of the last comments only apply to those who plan on litigation careers.  That is a very small percentage of lawyers who ever argue in front of a judge.

Second, for the last comment, what you advocated NO WAY MIRRORS THE PRACTICE OF LAW for the majority of those who go on to practice.  Even at smaller firms you have a senior partner or a senior attorney overlooking your work, available to comment on your mistakes or answer any questions that would prevent mistakes.  By the time you are judged on your work, you've had people with far more experience checking it.  Typically, not always.  But for most of us, that will be the case.  Unless you are a solo practitioner, something NOBODY fresh out of law school undertakes, unless they are retarded.   

Regardless, between corporate law, arbitration, mediation, and all the other varieties of law, having to prepare a case you present to a judge is a very small percentage of those who practice of law, and most of us will never experience it in our careers. 

Even if we did, we would not be left to fumble endlessly and compete for one person's attention with 100 other students/lawyers.  It makes no sense.

I've worked in law at the second largest law firm in the world for six years.  I know how it goes out there.  Law school makes no sense.  You'll find that out if you do not know it yet.

http://accuracyblog.blogspot.com

33
Definitely.  The standing goes *way* too far; I know many people who could not handle that, and I'm surprised the Dean of your school hasn't told him to stop.  That sucks!  Additionally, it is another example of how little respect is paid to law students by professors, admin and exam proctors.  By din of our admittance to law school, we deserve respect - it is difficult to get in, and many of us are proud of our own accomplishments.  It matters not they pale in comparison to someone thirty years our senior. 

But the random calling on a student, changing and refining the facts to get them to critically think about it, encouraging other students to talk and debate.  Very little of that goes on.  I do not mean to say it never happens, but rarely. 

Yet that method of instruction is best suited to how we are tested.  Frankly, I think professors have become too lazy with teaching.  The only way they are measured is by their research and the articles they publish.  It rarely matters if a brilliant mind makes a crap teacher.  As long as the name is there, the school is happy.  As long as their research gets them tenure, the professors are happy.  The ones paying insane amounts of money are the least considered in the mix.  As long as we pay our tuition.

The ideas I propose--TAs and more tests--are meant to alleviate pressure, not to lessen work.  Testing us more better educates us - it incentivizes preparation.  If your first test is only 25% of your grade, then doing poorly is a red flag to find out what went wrong, without sacrificing your career options before you can figure out what you did wrong.  Law school exams are unique, and it is illogical our grades rest on our first "real" attempt at them.  The brightest will continue to do well.  We all know the feeling that we don't know if we really get the material at times, especially if a supplement contradicts the prof.  TAs are more approachable and can spend more time explaining the concepts.  Especially since they will not TA for other classes.

I don't want things easier, I want them more accurate.  More tests is the only way to do that.  One test, at one moment in time, is inherently flawed.  It is absolutely ridiculous in year-long courses. 

In my first year no professor held a broad, substantive review of their year-long course.  Of course, that takes preparation and time away from research.

34
I think my writing is anything but a rant or a rave - you are using those words incorrectly.

You can attack Wikipedia, and it certainly has its flaws, but the "Fake Civ Pro" entry says more about the kind of people you and your friends are than it does about the sources I rely upon.

I do not blindly follow Wikipedia, I actually read the entries critically. 

I imagine what bothers you more is not so much my reference to Wikipedia, but that you can't debate the entry itself.  Did you even read it?  Or are you just lashing out at Wikipedia to discredit it, and only providing an anecdote that makes you and your friends look like law school jackasses than it does question the reliability of an encylopedia.

Since you are that lazy, I will post it here.  If you challenge the defintion on Wikipedia, it would be one thing.  Instead you just try and discredit the source.  More troll methods.  Grow up, and use your intelligence - it's time to stop arguing like a teenager.

In fact, what are you arguing against?  Do you have a point of view on this thread, or are you just on here to argue against Me?  I welcome it because each time a person leaves a ridiculous post that only attacks a postor he knows nothing about, it illustrates the ridiculous level of public discourse in the country.

Thank you for providing illustrations of what's wrong with Americans today - all attacks and no ideas.

Socratic Method:  [Supposedly] Typical Application in Legal Education


Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The student's answer stimulates other students to offer their own views, thus generating a wide range of opinions and exposing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

The answers usually become increasingly refined as each is built upon the previous ones. Then the professor moves on to the next question, often without authoritatively answering the first one, and so on. It is important to understand that typically there is more than one "correct" answer, and more often, no clear answer at all.  [This last sentence is true, they leave you wondering - but the dynamic discussion and refining of facts rarely, if ever happens] The primary goal of Socratic method in law schools is not to answer usually unanswerable questions, but to explore the contours of often difficult legal issues and to teach students the critical thinking skills they will need as lawyers.

The class usually ends with a quick discussion of doctrinal foundations (legal rules) to anchor the students in contemporary legal understanding of an issue. For this method to work, the students are expected to be prepared for class in advance by reading the assigned materials (case opinions, notes, law review articles, etc.) and by familiarizing themselves with the general outlines of the subject matter.


Chris Laurel

P.S.  I've heard that "Fake Civ Pro" thing before - be original, as opposed to claiming a shop-worn law school urban legend as your own, beyotch.

"I'm not sure if it's still there" - Because it would take sooooooo long for you to check instead of telling the entire world "I am speaking about something I do not know if it is still true."  Dude - the Internets were supposed to make it easier to back yourself up.

35
i think you are highly misguided on what the socractic method is.


Then what you should do is click on that Wikipedia link and edit the entry yourself.  I provided a definition for what the socratic method is, you did not.  So why don't you put up and define it for us, since I (and Wikipedia) are so misguided.

Otherwise, stop trolling - you add not one thing to this discussion thread, you only called your education into question.  You are not in law school, or you would learn how to debate issues and not personal attacks.  Grow up, kid.

And if you are not a kid, grow up and learn to use your intellect. These kids who pride themselves on being able to figure out where someone is from, or what their personality is, by reading a bunch of posts makes them look so...inexperienced.  I mean, come on - lashing out at where I am supposedly from, when you have no clue?  It shows you have no ideas, just that you think you are an astute observer, and you are not.  That's the problem with the internet for people who have no original thoughts - they can only GUESS at things to attack, because God knows they can't think for themselves enough to debate solutions.

You know, if you all are in law school, or contemplating it, then right now is the time to stop looking so stupid by trolling and personally attacking people on discussion boards.  Start now discussing ideas and debating them, instead of attacking someone who tries to do so. 

This is not only necessary for intelligent discourse, but is a nation-wide problem in how we treat each other and how we learn from each other.

36
I'm sorry, but I disagree.  They do not use the socratic method anymore, and not only at my New York City school.  I have friends at top schools or recent graduates.  I've worked as a senior paralegal for six years.  So I know a few things, and I am half-way through school.

They do not use socratic method, not as that term is understood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method#Typical_Application_in_Legal_Education

I urge you all to visit that description. 

You do not have to believe me.  Profs start their classes off telling you not to expect it.  Read that defintion, and keep it in mind.  And stop worrying, because in the end there is nothing you can do about it.  But I tell you, it is the the truth:  professors do not use the socratic method anymore.

Keep in mind, the socratic method requires an entire class engaging in an active discussion.  How often does *that* happen First Year?  Rarely to never.

http://accuracyblog.blogspot.com

37
Dude, you obviously don't know, so there is no need to discuss it with you.  I'll give you the last word, because you are only looking to argue instead of discuss solutions.  People like you get a thrill from it, bizarrely. 

Here's Wikipedia's definition of what you guys are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean the inflammatory message itself posted by a troll or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" (the gerund) is also commonly used to describe the activity.

It's a good entry.  It includes this gem:

The main motive for a user trolling is to disrupt the community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls".

38
Every time you respond, I will respond to you.  I notice you have a -25 for your reputation.  That does make you a troll?

If people care that their grades and arbitrary, inaccurate or unfair, and that employers make decisions based solely on those grades - they 100% determine your job, trust me, I've been in law a long time.  Then you should care. 

And you should demand it be fixed.  It's not "bitching" just like saying "we need the levees fixed" is not bitching.  Where do you get the nerve to say those who propose solutions to obvious problems are just whining and bitching? 

No wonder we do not fix anything in this country. Especially if this last poster is right, "nobody cares."  If that's true, we better start caring, because what is going on around us, whether inaccurate grades or unfixed national problems, affect our lives.  If you don't start caring you may wish you had earlier, before it's too late.

Stakes is high, son, stakes is high.

And if you all don't know what is going on, you better learn, because professors test current issues almost exclusively.

39
My God, you *do* know me! 

See everybody - more personal attacks, but not one idea, not one issue, debated.  "Who cares?"  Probably professors would make great use of teaching assistants.  If teaching assistants held comprehensive reviews of the courses before finals, I think all of us would be grateful and care.  To those who want to pursue academia, I think the opportunity to work closely with a professor, grading exams (which can be disputed with the professor) under his or her close supervision, would be great for them (and us).

Students would have an extra brain to approach and pick. A brain who knows what is important to the professor, and who knows the subject well.  Who can ask the professor things that he or she can not answer.

Who cares if we have teaching assistants?  You are more interested in attacking and could care less about thinking.  That's the answer to "who cares" - not you.

Like I said, it's not the brightest who get heard, it's the ballsiest.  What school does  this guy even go to that he talks the way he talks?  That he argues the way he argues?  Is he even IN law school, or just a tenth-grader who recently had a meeting with his counsellor and decided to "check it out?"  You evidence little education. 

40
Since none of you know anything about me, you have to grasp at straws to personally attack me. 

I am arguing not to make things easier.  I am arguing for more exams, teaching assistants to help professors impart knowledge.  And I'd like to see the socratic method brought back to life.  This isn't whining or laziness, it's a fix to a broken system.

Once more, they don't debate ideas, only personal attacks - this is why nothing gets changed, folks.  Instead of discussing the merits of testing students more (my solution) and giving professors teaching assistants (my solution) instead you are treated to vitriol about how I spend my time and the type of school I "might" go to (it's a top 20).

And you wonder why levees don't get fixed?  You wonder why we aren't prepared?  Because people like the previous two gentlemen run the country.  Democrats, Republicans, they don't discuss ideas, they just attack the person trying to do so. 

Well, when our economy is ruined because we cut taxes on the wealthy in the midst of two wars, an American city choking, and lord only knows what might come our way in the next fours years, don't blame me.  As the [Conservative] Cato Institute points out, Bush spends more than Johnson during the Vietnam War AND Great Society welfare programs.  Hell, at least he was spending some of that money on Americans!  But Bush raised taxes on the middle class - so they are the ones fighting AND paying for the war. And their kids can deal with the aftermath when our prosperity crumbles under massive personal consumer debt and national debt.

But they won't debate why George Bush isn't a conservative.  They'll attack how I spend my time. I'm sure they want me to spend it another way, because they know I have more knowledge about what is going on than they do. They aren't educated enough to debate the issues.  Haha--that's why they support Bush!

Do you all see what's happening not only nationally, but in law schools?  Instead of changing things, fixing thing, discussing ideas, they just aim to shut you up?  You can use this thread as an example of how it happens. 

(It actually takes little time when you know what to look for)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5