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 - gzl
« on: July 14, 2011, 01:41:24 PM »
I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with fortook's suggestion: Take an undergrad logic course. I've taught LSAT prep courses and tutored for the same. As helpful as prep classes can be, I think most of the students I saw really struggling with the LSAT would have done much better getting a thorough grasp of elementary logic.
« on: July 01, 2011, 09:00:43 PM »
I'm doing law school part time, work full time and was invited onto law review. I decided to do it. I'm ranking well in my classes, and have been offered the assistant editor in chief role on LR. I say that just to let you know that it's possible to do all of the above and do well.
Having said that though, my weekends are gone and the closest thing I have to a social life is the brief conversations I share with the counter people at the local starbucks.
« on: October 21, 2009, 04:06:22 PM »
I guess how do non citizens without permission to work get a Social Security number? And one thing more is why are Social Security numbers used as identification numbers on Medicare cards?
I have a question: Why are you effwits breathing my air?
« on: October 12, 2009, 01:37:01 AM »
Thanks for the comments, but how is it a terrible description of the Socratic Method? What about it was unrealistic or incorrect? Preparation is important for this form of class room instruction. If it's something different than that, what is it, in your opinion? Also, outlining is one of the most important things you can do. Ask anyone whether he/she didn't do one.
From the website: "The professor will ask questions about a case opinion for which the student attempts to respond with answers. Those answers may turn into a barrage of additional questions by the professor, and so on and so forth."
Makes it sound like it's a bunch of random questions, or just MORE questions about other things in the case or... any number of things. And the advice given for how to deal with it is: "be prepared." While both might be accurate, neither is very descriptive or helpful. The socratic method is usually oppositional, usually targeted at exposing underlying assumptions the student isn't aware of, and often intended to produce a self-contradiction. It's not just random questions, and the advice about being prepared is fine as far as it goes, but quite a few students are shocked to learn that thinking requires more than memorizing facts. That's why the socratic method fries some. Being prepared means more than knowing specifics about the case, etc etc... be prepared to argue the case, be prepared by knowing what assumptions underlie key statements, be prepared by __________ (fill in the blank.) "Be prepared" by itself means next to nothing. And finally, sure, outlining is a good idea for most. Everyone's heard that by their second lecture though.
« on: October 07, 2009, 07:55:36 PM »
This article touches upon handling the Socratic Method. It's entitled, "Law School First Year Tips"
Meh. Terrible description of the socratic method combined with advice that sums up as: "outline, make sure you do well, and think about pimping bar prep courses on your campus."
My advice: if your outline begins to look anything like a story with you as the story teller, scrap it and start over.
« on: September 08, 2009, 02:32:51 AM »
« on: September 07, 2009, 04:49:02 PM »
Start your outlining early. Lots of your classmates will be scrambling during the reading period, which is when you should be studying your outline, not making it.
Also, don't just focus on knowing the blackletter. Focus on how to challenge the blackletter. Blackletter appears to say so-and-so loses. How does so-and-so argue against that?
Totally agreed. Knowing the black letter law is like knowing the basic functions of addition subtraction multiplication and division for a calculus class. Every bonehead in class is expected to know it.
« on: September 07, 2009, 04:33:21 PM »
I just started law school last week, and I'm already freaking out about how I'm going to set myself apart from my classmates well enough to get one of the 30-40% of A-range grades that professors are required to give in each class. It seems like if most everyone is reading the assigned material, briefing all the cases, attending class, outlining, and going to professors' office hours if they have questions, all of the exam answers will be of approximately equal quality. Would anyone here mind sharing what they did throughout the semester and near exam time to earn A's in their classes?
Also, how in the world do I know that I'm studying enough? I keep reading about people spending tons of time every day of the week "studying." Are you all doing something besides reading the assigned material, briefing cases, and looking back over your class notes (and, later, outlining)?
Thank you for your insights!
--A 1L who is determined to get straight A's
Well, here's my input for what it's worth. Unlike most, it seems, I do brief all my cases. I think it's important in the beginning to do that, but I could probably do fine now without it. I just do it because I find it's a good way to keep my thinking sharp in re: dealing with facts, finding issues and organizing my thoughts. Outlining is vital, the people who do badly are the ones who are studying from either a canned outline or from the casebook by the end of the semester instead of from their own outline. Everyone says to ignore your profs and use canned briefs and outlines, that they're helpful. I've found the opposite to be true. I generally do better than my classmates who use such. I think that's because I don't use them. Every brief and every outline bullet I study is a trace of a thought process I've gone through to get the words onto paper. I know everything on that outline inside and out because of that, and that process is what the exams really test. Granted, I might be able to do nearly as well now studying from a canned outline, but that's only because I didn't rely on such earlier.
In other words, I think just doing what the profs recommend that you do will prolly set you apart from those who are getting that "little extra" by memorizing horn books, looking at 3 different canned outlines, etc etc and dispersing their focus.
As for how far to be prepared: A) don't fall behind, I made that mistake me 2nd semester and catching up was a nightmare. A couple of your classes will likely fall behind the syllabus. I find that just keeping up with the syllabus in all of my classes means that I'm a week or two ahead of the actual lectures by the end of the semester in a couple classes. That's enough of a cushion to consolidate and finalize outline to prep for finals, etc.
Edited to add: Don't spend time set aside for studying on this board writing long-winded replies of little interest to anyone as an avoidance mechanism.
« on: September 07, 2009, 12:04:59 AM »
Stupid Article 2.
It's definitely UCC, and you have a conflict of terms to deal with. This is one of those lovely fork in the facts hypos were you'd have to argue each side. The UCC does away with the last shot fired doctrine of common law, so B may not be able to win on the argument that the last communication from A quoted .50 and it should therefore be .50. I would say the knock-out rule applies in this case and a court could apply a gap filler to work it out. You also have to look at course of dealing and course of performance.
Not that it's relevant at this point, but I'd mostly agree with the above. The prof. is probably looking for an analysis under UCC 2-207, and a knock-out application of 2-305.
I'd include the argument though that the original quote may not be an offer (the language of most quotes actually takes care to make sure that they are not offers, with acceptance reserved to the seller), that the purchase order was a counter-offer rather than making a proposal in any case, as a change in price is a "material alteration" of the putative contract (2-207(2)), and that merchant A made a binding contract of the counter-offer upon accepting it. This would remove it from consideration under (2-207(3)) as the writings of the parties DO establish a contract, with agreement on terms. B made an offer to buy, A accepted the offer, and invoiced on the same terms as B's offer.
I agree re: the original quote. It may not be an offer at all, most aren't. If it's not, then the purchase order is the first offer, merchant A accepted it, and there's no need for 2-207. I'd throw that in, certainly. I'd probably even go there before moving to the UCC 2-207 stuff.
Careful about making this scenario fit into 2-207 (2) though. Most courts (moronically, imao. Seriously, it's asinine.) actually treat "different" terms as a distinct category, not applying 2-207(2) which only talks about "additional" terms. If there are different terms that materially alter the agreement, (3) and the knock-out rule is usually applied.
« on: August 25, 2009, 02:50:55 AM »
Gonzo, are you aware that moot court teams compete against each other by going through mock appellate cases? There is no trial in an appellate case. Everything is argued from the record that the trial court made, there are NO witnesses, etc. Moot court isn't going to help you become a trial lawyer.
Also, trial lawyers learn to be trial lawyers on the job, not in law school. There are "mock trial" teams but what they do is usually pretty overdramatic and removed from reality. Like I said, you learn on the job, not in law school.
Yes, I am aware of such. I also am aware that they do have a local reputation for graduating very good trial attourneys,and for better or worse it's related to their moot court rep. Thanks for the wonderful mix of condescension and pedantry though... been away from law classes just long enough that I'd almost lost that bad aftertaste in my mouth left by the lackwits.