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 - proletariat
« on: December 12, 2006, 08:21:01 AM »
I've taken two exams so far. In both cases I've been more concerned with dumping everything I know onto the page instead of formulating my answers to conform to the 'call of the question.' For example, my contracts test asked us to predict what kind of arguments the parties are likely to make. I didn't phase my answer like, "so and so will make this argument, and alternately so and so will make that argument." Hopefully it won't hurt me that much, but I was more worried about showing what I knew than crafting my answer to a particular format.
« on: December 06, 2006, 03:11:22 PM »
I would like to rant about the following:
1. There is only one exam. This can only be due to the laziness of the professors and them not wanting to grade more exams.
2. It is annoying that the exams must be wrtten in a strict / structured format or it is partially wrong. How is a free spirit like me supposed to squeeze my creativity into that confining little box? I suspect the structure is also due to the laziness of the professors.
3. It is also annoying that you have to state the "rules" in such painstaking incremental steps. If the analysis is good then the professor should infer that you know the law. My CP professor is particularly ardent about this. Somebody else on here said it best... "State that the sky is blue before explaining the theory of the universe."
« on: December 06, 2006, 03:05:09 PM »
Maybe I should go over to businessschooldiscussion.org for this question.
« on: December 06, 2006, 03:04:13 PM »
Only way you're going to get through 2.5 more years of this is to learn how to remove things from your brain when you're done with exams.
Ahhh. One of the few, if not only advantage of ADD. 5 minutes after the exam, *poof* it might as well have been 10 yrs ago.
« on: December 05, 2006, 09:35:34 AM »
I was thinking of calling up some smaller firms this (my 1L) summer to see if they would be interested in contracting out some legal research to me. Basically, they provide a westlaw password and an issue, and I provide them with a memo after a couple of days. I'd probably work for free or cheap this summer just to get some experience without having to quit my day job. Think this would work?
« on: December 02, 2006, 02:55:22 PM »
I'm an evening student that was in the same boat a week ago. Over thanksgiving I finished my contracts outline and created a civpro outline from scratch. Each are now about 40pg. at 1.5 line spacing. A thorough outline takes me about 2 days. Personally, whatever I oultined a month ago is cloudy. I derive benefit from waiting until the last minute because it is all fresh.
« on: November 05, 2006, 02:54:46 PM »
Just kidding. Good point.
« on: November 01, 2006, 08:07:36 AM »
Reasons why proletariat won't become a plumber:
Proletariat is pushing 30yo and isn't going to work for 1/3 of what he makes now to start over as a plumber.
Proletariat doesn't like handling poop-filled pipes.
Proletariat doesn't want all his friends to be plumbers.
Proletariat doesn't like Budweiser, Nascar, or other trappings of blue-collar life.
Bodies start to decline around 35ish, meaning that a manual labor job isn't the best career move at this point in proletariat's life.
Proletariat is already an engineer and would just stick with that as opposed to going the plumbing route.
Proletariat is risk-averse as far as betting it all on an entreprenurial venture.
Plumbing was just an example of any blue-collar job. Proletariat is actually more talented as an electrician, carpenter, welder, or mechanic.
Proletariat likes being a reniassance man who has book learnin' as well as mad tactile and mechanical skillz.
Proletariat likes the country lawyer image / persona because he is all about the plight of the common man; preferably rich common men who can afford to pay legal fees.
« on: October 31, 2006, 02:58:20 PM »
At the end of the day, I want to be a partner in a 20 lawyer or less firm, or a solo practicioner. Of course, I don't want to starve in the process. For starters, I'll try to get into the largest firm that will take me to get the brand recognition, but I have not desire to fight to the top to become a partner at a 200 lawyer firm. In a few years, I would like to scale down.
My intelligence is genetically limited to the point where I will probably never be one of the top 50 lawyers in the state, and as a result I will probably never be a 'superlawyer' executive large firm partner type. I've decided that it is more lucrative being in a position where you can be the best in your field, rather than just getting by in a "higher tier" field. For example, I would make a damn good plumber. I could probably be one of the top 10 plumbers in the state. As a result, If I started my own plumbing company, I could probably become a millionaire working at a lower tiered blue collar occupation. As a large-firm lawyer, I probably would be about average and be relegated to slaving away as an associate indefinitely. I don't want to be a plumber, and it's too late in life now anyway to start over at $10/hr, so I'll go for being a lawyer. As a small-firm attorney, I could probably be above average, and do quite well as a big fish in a small pond.
« on: October 27, 2006, 09:28:23 AM »
I've had a couple of practice exams lately and I seem to be getting overly hung up on how to structure my exam answer. For example, a torts exam has 3 possible torts available to the victim in the fact pattern; IIED, battery, and false imprisonment.
Do you IRAC each tort and then do little iracs for each element within the overall tort irac?
I = is there a battery?
R = battery is blah blah blah
i = is there intent
r = intent is xyz
a = intent can be defined as xyz
the policy argument for this definition is xyz
the facts in our case match the definition by xyz
c = intent is met
i = is there causation
r = causation is xyz
a = causation is defined as xyz
(not much of a policy argument for causation)
c = causation is met
irac for act
irac for injury
C = therefore battery exists