3.2 just seems ridiculously high. i'm at 3.0 right now (praying it will only go up), and according to the handbook that's a "with honors" gpa. so basically, about 60% of the class is in "with honors" standing. crazy.
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 - nate
« on: January 20, 2006, 05:36:58 PM »
BTW I just got all my grades but one:
no that's not awful at all. that puts you somewhere around the median. of course "median" means different things at different schools in terms of employment etc., but i don't see why being in the middle of the class is bad at all. congrats.
well you definitely should consider transferring. i understand the situation you're in with your girlfriend is difficult. my own girlfriend will be in a semi-similar situation next year. do you happen to know if it's possible for grad students to transfer?
but i was just going to say, there are "early action" opportunities that you can take advantage of having only this semester's grades.
i guess what i want to know is, why do schools continue to place such a strong emphasis on socratic method? why don't schools get more creative and pressure their professors to give their students periodic tests throughout the semester, or write papers for grades during 1L classes?That is the way it has always been and always will be. Remember, this method teaches one to think.
I'm going to have to disagree. Granted I'm only a 1L, but I've already noticed a HUGE difference between last semester and this one. Last semester we were called on radomly- were expected to know all of the facts, the legal rule, all of the legal reasoning, the holding, etc, on the spot. It put so much pressure on us that we almost couldn't learn.
This semester, however, most professors have switched over to calling on people in alphabetical order. Obviously, it's more relaxed. However, those who are truly concerned with learning are able to read cases in order to learn, rather than read cases in order to get called on. Now our conversations in regards to the law, in my experience anyways, are much more lively and engaging before and after class. We're actually dedicated to what we learn, rather than being nervous about being put on the spot.
The socratic method is the way it's been, not always, but for a long while. And yes, being put on the spot teaches one to think, in some regards. But being put in a positive and cooperative environment also teaches one to think; often in a more efficient manner. In fact, I'd be willing to say that most people in my school would say that the Socratic method is more of a hinderance to learning than other alternative methods. What that's worth, I honestly don't know.
Is there no possible compromise or balance among such competing views? Must it always be purely socratic?
many have criticized the "elitist institution" of legal academia. they have claimed that professors continue the (arguably) inefficient and negative teaching-model that is the socratic method, purely because it's how they succeeded in law school, and thus feel all that are going to succeed should do so through the same system that they do.
i am sympathetic to this argument, though i will admit, if it doesn't change i can deal with that just fine too.
i guess what i want to know is, why do schools continue to place such a strong emphasis on socratic method? why don't schools get more creative and pressure their professors to give their students periodic tests throughout the semester, or write papers for grades during 1L classes?
from what you say about people "joking" about your school, i'm assuming it's a lower-tier school, so that raises another question. why don't lower tiered schools get more creative with this stuff? is it an over-arching desire to be as much like the higher ranked schoools, as possible?
« on: January 19, 2006, 02:43:24 AM »
the school might not find out, but the bar association will. i hear they've got quite the background-check/research abilities. whether it's true or not, i don't know, but i wouldn't be messing around. why go through law school just to find out that you can't become a certified lawyer?
Yes this is pretty routine for big law firms. Especially if you've made it past the grunt work and training of a new hire.
so not right when you start, then?
and any idea about "midlaw"?