Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Yesterday at 03:43:05 PM 
Started by lawschoolcode - Last post by 🐍
It was pure spam, and pure obvious due to one post only with it, but since I love dr strange glove..............not snitching.

BUT STAY AWAY FROM MY BIG BOARD!!!!!!!!!!

 2 
 on: Yesterday at 03:07:10 PM 
Started by lawschoolcode - Last post by Citylaw
Agree 100%.

I always got annoyed when my classmates said they hated getting called in. In the real world a judge, client, etc will ask you questions and put you on the spot. Being a lawyer requires you to be prepared and think on your feet.

Being annoyed by the socratic method in law school is like a pilot in aviation school that hates flying. It makes no sense.

However, as your article says whether you say everything perfectly when called on doesn't mean anything in regards to your grades etc. Five years down the road when your interviewing for a job you will not say  during my 2L my professor cold called me and I knew the answer. "They won't care" However, the pressure of being called on is minimal compared to a law school exam, microscopic compared to the pressure of the bar, and non-existent compared to the pressure of actually working on a client's issue.

Anyways, good article and post.


 3 
 on: Yesterday at 11:21:46 AM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by cinnamon synonym

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

Cinnamon,

I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.

You are right 👉 this is pure entertainment. Did I forget to enlighten anyone to my delight at Hillary Clinton seriously silly folly.  Bernie sanders is now poised to win Iowa and newhampshire. His polls rise and hers falls.  Continuing to fall every single month.  The donald is a yawner to me. Too many pubs on this block at the moment. 17? 

So. I just buttered some more popcorn. Salt. Lol and I am enjoying watching partisan judges, inspectors general, Obama's doj, and the extremely partisan FBI get to the bottom of her b.s.   lmao.

So, ah yip, its enjoyable.

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 11:10:52 AM 
Started by lawschoolcode - Last post by lawschoolcode
If I were to survey law students about their biggest fears, the Socratic Method would certainly rank among the top three.

Often referred to as “cold calling," the Socratic Method ordinarily involves a law professor randomly, and without prior notice, calling on a student to answer a series of seemingly endless questions. 

The questions run the gamut from the facts of the assigned case to far-fetched hypotheticals that the student had no occasion to read or consider before class.

The Socratic Method even achieved Hollywood fame in classics such as the Paper Chase, where Professor Kingsfield reigns terror on first-year Harvard law students, and more recently, Legally Blonde, where Elle Woods is subjected to a scathing Socratic questioning on civil procedure on her first day of class.

These Hollywood portrayals of the Socratic Method only cement what law students already fear:  public humiliation as they fail to answer questions in front of their professors and classmates, who sit in judgment of their poor legal analysis skills and surely-impending drop-out from law school.

This belief has become lore. 

In this post, I debunk the myths about the Socratic Method and explain why you should stop worrying and learn to love it.

http://www.lawschoolcode.com/blog/why-law-students-should-stop-worrying-and-learn-to-love-the-socratic-method

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 12:59:58 AM 
Started by Dakota- LawSchoolMama - Last post by Dakota- LawSchoolMama
I hope this is OK to post here.  This comes with an invitation to feel free to contact me at my website (www.lawschoolmama.com) or FB page to ask questions you may have. I will do my best to answer them!

A few years, or so, ago, I was a 1L, in my late 30's, working full-time, helping raise two children and attending law school.  CRAZY!!  So, I know what you are experiencing.  :)

I am excited to announce the release of my new book, Law School Insights: An Insider's Guide for Non-Traditional Students. It is filled with advice and insights for parents who are either considering law school or who are already in law school.  I speak from experience, having attended law school in my late 30's while working full-time and helping raise two small children. 

The book is available free through September 1, then at a discounted price until September 13. Here is the link:  http://amzn.to/1PHfwbU

Check out what this Professor of Law has said about my book:

"Dakota Duncan has written the definitive book for nontraditional students. It begins with the application process and ends with successfully studying for the bar. Here’s a sampling of the issues she explores:

Chpt 1: The Pre-Admission Phase
Chpt. 2: Should You Go to Law School?
Chpt. 3: Getting Through Your First Year and Beyond
Chpt. 4: The Bar Review and Bar Exam
Chpt. 5: Beyond the Bar
Chpt. 6: Enjoy the Journey

Along the way, Duncan helps you consider both the time management and emotional management components for succeeding in law school. Her writing is witty and engaging, and she is brutally honest about identifying her own mistakes so you’re not doomed to repeat them. She is an expert in the best sense of the word because she has lived through the experience and is now using her knowledge to make life better for you. Let her be your guide. Good luck on the journey!"

Feel free to post this on your FB page and share with others!

Thank you - and best of luck to all of you!
-Dakota Duncan, J.D.
www.lawschoolmama.com

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 12:40:08 AM 
Started by LawMom_1908 - Last post by Dakota- LawSchoolMama
Good luck to you!  I was a law school mama blogger a few years, or so, ago.  It's a tough road, but it can be done!

If your blog is up, please feel free to post this information:

I am excited to announce the release of my new book, Law School Insights: An Insider's Guide for Non-Traditional Students. It is filled with advice and insights for parents who are either considering law school or who are already in law school.  I speak from experience, having attended law school in my late 30's while working full-time and helping raise two small children. 

The book is available free through September 1, then at a discounted price until September 13. Here is the link:  http://amzn.to/1PHfwbU

Check out what this Professor of Law has said about my book:
"Dakota Duncan has written the definitive book for nontraditional students. It begins with the application process and ends with successfully studying for the bar. Here’s a sampling of the issues she explores:
Chpt 1: The Pre-Admission Phase
Chpt. 2: Should You Go to Law School?
Chpt. 3: Getting Through Your First Year and Beyond
Chpt. 4: The Bar Review and Bar Exam
Chpt. 5: Beyond the Bar
Chpt. 6: Enjoy the Journey
Along the way, Duncan helps you consider both the time management and emotional management components for succeeding in law school. Her writing is witty and engaging, and she is brutally honest about identifying her own mistakes so you’re not doomed to repeat them. She is an expert in the best sense of the word because she has lived through the experience and is now using her knowledge to make life better for you. Let her be your guide. Good luck on the journey!"

Feel free to post this on your FB page and share with others!

Thank you - and best of luck to all of you!
-Dakota Duncan, J.D.
www.lawschoolmama.com

 7 
 on: August 31, 2015, 10:58:41 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by 🐍

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

Cinnamon,

I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.
cyn, I see you Ann..........I see you girl

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ann+Coulter&Form=VQFRVP

 8 
 on: August 31, 2015, 11:07:25 AM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by loki13

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

Cinnamon,

I think that you are failing to understand. You seem outrage and/or entertained. There's only one problem- when everything is an outrage, nothing is. When we can add -gate to every controversy (quick- are you a Brady supporter or hater), then who cares? More importantly, when everything devolves into an undifferentiated mass of "Benghazi / Fast & Furious / Vince Foster / Whitewater / Birth Certificate / Lois Lerner / Unprecedented Executive Power / NSA / whatevs" then people tune out. They tune out even more when the stakes seem so ... petty and small.

More importantly, you make the common mistake of believing that other people care *the exact way* that you care. First, the people that care the same way you care is small. Second, there is another, equally small, portion of people that care an equal, but opposite, direction as you do. Finally, the vast majority of people *don't care.* The can't name the Supreme Court justices, are hard pressed to name their own (federal) Senators, and haven't a prayer of naming their own state legislators ... let alone the ones outside of their district. That's fine- they have better things to do- watch football, make money, play with their children. They will probably start tuning into the election, kinda, sometime next year.

But, sure, the keyboard commandos will have fun. One side will say, "But, but, but, X person violated the law." And one side will say, "Partisan witchhunt." And 99% of the time, it's just background noise. Guess what? Nothing will happen, people will move on, and one side will vaguely remember a partisan witchhunt, and one side will vaguely remember that Hillary Clinton broke the law and got away with it. But most people just won't care, except for the influx of stupid ads during the election.

Same as it ever was. Does that mean nothing will happen this time? I don't know for sure- unlike you, I don't make dramatic and certain pronouncements. But I make probabilistic (Bayesian) assessments based on what I know, and I'm willing to back them up. You? Eh.... It seems you're not as confident in your ability to predict. Because something tells me that deep down, you enjoy making big statements, but fear that like Charlie Brown and Lucy, you've been sold a false of goods. That you're very excited to kick that football, but .... well, you should know enough by now to know you'll end up on your behind.

 9 
 on: August 30, 2015, 09:28:46 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by cinnamon synonym
I understand what you THINK you are trying to get it.
But it all rides on her DOING it. And then them being able to PROVE it.
Where you THERE? Do you know all the rules of admissible evidence?
Did you even finish 1L yet??

Her emails, her missing emails discovered in blumenthals evidenced emails,her deleted emails.  Which we call proof.  The 2 inspector generals discovery of highly classified info in her emails.
The law 18 USC 793 e f.

So, my friend, upon initial examination there IS sufficient corroborating evidence  which appears to exist to support a case?  And guess what? A prosecutor is examining how this will be played out--the prosecutor took out a highly decorated General.  Dum da dum dum.

Percipio percepi perceptum.  ;)
inferences are not convictions.

I am not saying that a jury couldn't (in theory) decide that was enough to be circumstantial evidence and convict on it, but that is all dependent on it even going to trial (it most likely won't-learn about how politics work) and even then, even if convicted, your Nixon comparison is horrible since he was never convicted and left of his own free will. Bill was convicted, rode out his term, and would have been re-elected again but for term limits.

I know you THINK you are smart, but everything you post just keeps showing more and more how you only think so.

And stop female private part footing around it, you complete 1L yet or not??

Yawn,

Pardon, but I know nixon wasn't tried nor convicted. Not the point, either.  But he could have been put on trial.

Vos sumo non intelligere.

 10 
 on: August 30, 2015, 11:17:20 AM 
Started by sekagirl - Last post by 🐍
I do think LP makesa  point the few and I mean few lawyers that graduate from a DL and pass the bar have displayed reliance and likely have networks established.  The majority of DL attorneys I have met were non-traditional types with backgroudns similar to those described by LP. However, as I am sure even LP would admit very few people graduate from DL school it is very hard to be motivated in an online environment and for those that do get thruogh it the bar passage rates are minimal, because as LP claims they are not spoon-fed the law as ABA schools do.

The ABA model does a better of educating its students I don't think anyone is debating that. In a DL school you are paying less and getting less and the only way to succeed in that environment would be self-motivation, risk, etc which are the qualities a solo has.

I would never recommend a 23 year old right out of college choose anything other than an ABA school. However, the earlier hypo of the 37 year old living in Boise etc ABA is not actually an option.

I don't think anyone is arguing Taft is a "great" school. However, it can work for the right person, but it is a huge risk and odds are it will not work out as is the case for most DL grads, but it certainly can and does happen.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the sad part is that their target audience doesn't appear to be anyone "straight out of college" since they don't even require a full degree to enroll, and the credits can be from other quasi-accredited online schools like them (often they offer an undergrad associates of something or other-such as paralegal- for those lacking the credits as well) I can't recall if Taft does this, but I do recall seeing a few out there that do.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10