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.
Topics - ,.,.,.;.,.,.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
« on: April 01, 2009, 01:14:26 AM »
The doctrine is straightforward and fits together in an incredibly satisfying way; the subject matter is near and dear to everyday life and your conceptions of fairness; and the policy isn't needlessly ivory tower (*cough* Crim and broken windows *cough*).
And let's not forget the awesome cases! See, e.g., Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox; Mindgames; Carcill; Ricketts; Chicago Coliseum; Lumley; Alaska Packers; Raffles; and my personal favorite, Frigaliment, a famous case about the definition of a chicken.
It's a non-stop hit parade.
« on: March 31, 2009, 07:58:06 AM »
I've been reading Bar review supplements like BarBri and you review all of this law before taking the bar. If anything, these books teach it more effectively than our professors. Moreover, I'm amazed by how much important law our professors don't teach us.
Thinking like a lawyer? As long as you're anal with a bit of analytical thought, you're golden.
Useless wonkery? There's plenty of it, but we're not interested in the distributive consequences of allowing subcontractors to revoke a bid before it's accepted by a contractor. I don't want to be an academic. If I really gave a damn, I would have enrolled in an Econ PhD. program and written a law-heavy thesis.
Reading cases? You can learn to read a case in two or three months. Furthermore, cases are incredibly ineffective for teaching the law, which is mostly why we use them.
Exams? Exams are a game. It's all about your performance on a one-day issue-spotter. It's the most irrelevant skill ever.
Class? Yeah, the Socratic. That's real useful. Now I can waste thirty minutes of my time daily while some kid tries to answer some unanswerable question like, "Where is Judge Traynor on your pantheon of great judges?" Or listen to my professor hem and haw about Cardozo.
Prestige? If you consider grinding through thousands of pages and reducing them to several key points to be "prestige," then be my guest. I can see why clerks hire the people with the best grades. All anyone cares about is will over skill grinders that can sit in a chair and research for hours. Yes, these people are smart, but it's a specific intelligence type that has little to do with everyday notions of intelligence, and law school simply obfuscates it by getting you to think that there's anything more to it.
« on: March 26, 2009, 11:21:01 AM »
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:16:12 AM »
I mostly like albums while outlining (I'm working on crim), so I have:
No Doubt -- Tragic Kingdom
(this album is so much better than their late work, IMO, or Gwen's solo stuff)
RHCP -- Woodstock 99 Live
(Not sure where I got this in the playlist, but it was a great performance)
Fleetwood Mac -- Tusk
(Not as famous as some of their work, but still outstanding)
« on: March 24, 2009, 12:30:02 PM »
Obviously, there's been a lot of talk lately about how 160k was over-inflated, and that recruiting hundreds of associates from lower-ranked schools was never sustainable, but was BigLaw a bubble? I mean, why wouldn't it go back to its previous bubble-like form when the economy improves? Bubbles are natural, but unsustainable, markers of rapid and sporadic economic growth.
« on: March 22, 2009, 12:43:04 PM »
I'm trying to outline provocation and grading down to manslaughter, and every minute feels like an eternity. I'm really not sure why I hate Crim so much, but I do. Maybe too much of the doctrine is intuitive, or the class discussions were a bit much (we had units that made everyone cringe), but I really really don't like Crim.
Anyway. What would the MPC say about my feelings? Objective or subjective standard?
« on: March 17, 2009, 10:23:22 AM »
I know many other school didn't do the same cases, but I need a good flow-chart that gives me the basics, like:
Was there consideration? (detriment to promisee or benefit to promisor)
Was there a bargained-for exchange? (did they come to an agreement?)
If there wasn't, can promisee prevail on a reliance promissory estoppel claim?
And so on, but hopefully in flow-chart form, which will allow me to run through this stuff really quickly on the exam. (Also, my teacher focuses on the Restatements and the Common Law, without the UCC; I know that's strange.)
« on: March 11, 2009, 08:00:22 PM »
I think so. Honorable mentions to Sheltron and that Yale-bound girl who keeps switching her avatar.
« on: March 06, 2009, 08:49:14 PM »
So? I'm curious about the MAS crowd in particular.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 10