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 - Maintain FL 350

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 89
I guess people's perceptions and assessments vary according to their strengths or weaknesses. I found the PTs to be fairly straight forward, just time consuming. Conversely, I had to practice like crazy for the essays.

As far as being a realistic representation of what lawyers actually do, I'm not sure that it's any more or less realistic than the essays. I understand that drafting motions and client letters is a huge part practicing law, but I've never had a boss say to me "Here's a case you never heard of and a mountain of docs. Draft a Motion for Summary Judgement. You have precisely three hours." Just I've never had one hour to spot all the issues in a particular case, as the essays require.

I agree that losing one essay sucks, it's a mistake. Maybe keeping a three day exam schedule but with more essays or short answer questions along with one 3-hour PT would make more sense. But I won't bemoan the loss of two 3-hour PTs, it was overkill.

Holy cow, I come back from vacation and get greeted by THIS!

Like just about everyone here, I'll admit that I'm flat out jealous. Anyone who spent three days of feverish, stressful writing in some stupid convention center is bound to be jealous. It sucks.

But putting our jealousy aside for a moment, what is the actual substantive difference?

We're talking about the loss of one essay, and way less time spent on PTs (1.5 hrs vs 6 hrs). As far as I know, grading and the percentages required to pass will remain the same.

I'm against the loss of even one essay. They test substantive knowledge of the law, issue spotting, and the ability to form a cogent argument.

The PTs, on the other hand, are pretty much a waste of time in my opinion. It's just complicated busy work. Someone who has never attended law school but is reasonably smart could probably pass the PTs. Most of my law school classmates considered the PTs a gift, and figured they would help make up for the more difficult essays and MBE. I think most of us probably spent way less time preparing for the PTs than the essays.

The main issue here is simply TIME. Is it a better test because it's longer than others? If it was three full days of substantive legal testing, then I'd say yes. But when six hours are devoted to PTs I think you can trim that back and still have a good bar exam.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 14, 2015, 01:26:13 PM »
Obama appointed Julian Castro, the Mayor of San Antonio, to a Cabinet position last year. This was widely viewed as a move to help prepare Castro for national office. Now, Castro is highly likely to be chosen as Hillary Clinton's VP. The idea being touted by Henry Cisneros and many others is that a Latino candidate will energize Latino voters. The Clinton campaign is very warm to this lobbying effort.

I assume you believe the campaign is mistaken in this assumption?

If so, then I commend you for having greater political insight than either the Obama administration or the Clinton campaign, that's very impressive. 

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 14, 2015, 12:45:22 PM »
"In 2008 we obviously had a historic candidacy", said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Center. "That's certainly a plausible explanation for the spike in African American turnout."

It is not insulting to acknowledge that people who have been marginalized would find renewed interest when the system finally produces a candidate who they believe can sympathize with their particular issues. This isn't especially difficult to understand, nor controversial, nor does it ignore other contributing factors.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard time grasping it. The Pew Center gets it, the Democrats get it, maybe one day even the Republicans will get it.   

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 14, 2015, 12:06:36 PM »
Yes, a decrease in white voters PLUS an increase in minority voters combined to work in Obama's favor.

I wouldn't say that it's merely an argument based on abstract tokenism, however. The Democratic campaign actively sought to make full use of the excitement generated by the first black candidate, and it worked. They gained votes with black, Hispanic, Asian, and young (18-24) voters. I mean, do you honestly think that the increase in black voters was unrelated to Obama's status?


News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 14, 2015, 10:49:23 AM »
It is worth noting, however, that black voter turnout in 2008 was up by 2 million. I think it's safe to say that this was due to the fact that a black candidate was running and the Democrats were able to build on that fact.

Given that the total number of voters was something like 130 million this may seem small, but it made the difference in states like North Carolina. 

Pie may have put it, er, a bit bluntly, but people who have been denied participation in the system for a long time are bound to get excited when they feel a connection to the candidate. All those Irish Catholics who voted for Eisenhower lined up around the block to vote for JFK, then voted for Nixon in '68.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 13, 2015, 07:16:50 PM »
Uh...without going into the analysis above, I'll mention this: electoral math. It, and demographics generally, favor the Democrats.

No doubt about it.

Many pundits believe she starts with as many as 247 electoral votes. That seems a little high, but even if you knock out a couple of states she's still starting with around 220-230. She can afford to lose a couple of swing states, but a Republican has to take the bigger ones.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 13, 2015, 10:14:05 AM »
If you believe that people that are currently supporting Sanders won't vote for Clinton in the general, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Of course most will vote for Clinton anyway, but others simply won't vote at all because to a lot of very liberal Democrats Clinton is no better than Bush. They think she's a globalist, corporatist war monger.

That, combined with lower minority turnout (because no matter what either party blathers about diversity, this is White Millionaire vs White Millionaire), will likely result in a few less Democratic votes.

Most swing states were not won by huge margins. A few less votes can make the race considerably tighter.   

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 12, 2015, 04:08:36 PM »

Here are the polls I referred to. The link is to Breitbart which is heavily partisan as is the commentary on the polls, but it contains links to the individual polls themselves. It was just easier than tracking down each poll.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: July 12, 2015, 03:53:56 PM »
Obviously, any prognostications this far out are bound to be fraught with unknown variables. The economy, foreign policy crises, scandals, you name it.

It's sort of irrelevant what your personal definition of "independent" is, however. What matters is how they are accounted for in polling data. I agree with you that most independents skew either left or right, and the better polling data accounts for this by distinguishing between Democratic and Republican leaning independents. I also agree (and stated in my previous post) that Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican.

Here's the difference I see between 2016 and 2008/2012. In most battleground states Obama did pretty well among independents. He even did well in Colorado, where independents skew right.

The most recent polling data from ABC and CNN suggests that Hillary Clinton does not enjoy the same popularity among those designated as "independents". In states like Colorado and Ohio where the margin of victory could be as low as 2-3%, this is potentially impactful.

So, if 90% of Republican leaning independents vote for a Republican (as opposed to the 86% in 2012), and there is lower than 2012 minority turnout, you could see a much tighter race. That's all I'm saying.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 89