New 1L's: Any Harsh Socratic Method Profs?

[Highway]

If you didn't know you'd be subjected to the socratic method, you've been hiding in a cave somewhere.

I sat next to a gal in class yesterday who I overheard talking to somebody else. She was saying that she had just had the legal research and writing class a bit earlier in the day, and she learned about briefing. Then she said, and I swear this is true, "I've never heard of that before. I'm glad they teach it - it sounds useful."

It amazes me that some people go off to a graduate program with absolutely no idea of what it entails and having done ZERO research into it.

Guess we won't be seeing her anymore after the end of the semester.

[KayakAnyone]

Awesome. There's only been one other person on this site that recognized Darryl Isaacs. I remember his dad, but not his commercials. I wasn't in Louisville for my teenage years, and that would've been about when his dad was still running the show over there.

I've been thinking about changing my personality on this site though. Eventually I get tired of the one I have and think of something funnier (to me anyway). Today I was thinking about "Louis Skolnick". I don't know why, but that just seemed funny to me. But, my best idea lately has been "The Head Gunner." I haven't figured out what picture I'd put with that yet, but the signature line would say something like, "If you can't figure out who the class gunner is, it's probably you."

Ahh too bad mispent teenage years in louisville are highly underrated.  so you're at UL?  you could also be the tiger.. the only firm that gave isaacs and isaacs a run for the money on cheestastick ads. 

[eray01]

I'm not in Louisville anymore. I went up to Ohio for law school. I know the very commercial you're speaking of: Kaufman, Stigger, and Hughes. I always thought Cara Stigger was almost hot. I was out of town over the summer, and I saw a commercial for an attorney with that same slogan and the tiger. Everybody needs a tiger on their side. I found a website for a company that sells TV ads to attorneys.

http://www.lawguru.com/production/production.html

That part where Cara Stigger morphs in to the tiger and walks up the courthouse steps rivals George Lucas' effects anyday!

[alb]

I sat next to a gal in class yesterday who I overheard talking to somebody else. She was saying that she had just had the legal research and writing class a bit earlier in the day, and she learned about briefing. Then she said, and I swear this is true, "I've never heard of that before. I'm glad they teach it - it sounds useful."

It amazes me that some people go off to a graduate program with absolutely no idea of what it entails and having done ZERO research into it.

Guess we won't be seeing her anymore after the end of the semester.

I find it amusing that you conclude that because someone didn't know about briefing before arriving at law school that they won't be returning, particularly when the woman said that she thought briefing sounded useful (thereby implying she will practice the skill).  Law school is not like medical school -- you are not expected to have a substantive background in the field before entering.  The student said she was "glad they teach [briefing]"; that is exactly what law schools do -- they teach you some of the basic skills involved with preparing for class and reading cases.  Even if you think you know how to brief before walking into law school, you may very well not know how to brief for your particular professors.  Please relax and stop looking down your nose at other students.

[Highway]

The fact is that if you are a 1L who has "never heard of briefing," you don't belong in law school. You have obviously never so much as read an article about law school.

I agree that it's not like medical school, but I can't imagine anybody applying to a graduate program who knows nothing at all about it. To me, that says you are just applying to spend three more years in school. How would you even know you want to be a lawyer if you have no idea of what you are getting yourself into? What is she going to do when she graduates and finds out that most lawyers don't spend their entire day in court presenting evidence until the bad guy stands up and confesses?

I say we won't be seeing her around because chances are that if she's never heard of briefing, she probably has never seen a "typical" law school exam, and thinks testing will be just like undergrad. Suffice to say, as everybody here probably already knows, if you don't practice how to take a LS exam, you are most likely going to do poorly on it.

[Trancer]

The lovely thing about law school is everyone starts at the same place.  If you are a legal genius, who has been clerking for a Supreme Court judge (NYer sorry, Supreme Court is our lowest court), and has been writing legal memos for years prior to law school you get to sit through legal research and writing with the same person who just learned what a brief is.  I wouldnt be to quick to discount anyones abilities... she could rank higher than you... throw away all the preconceived undergrad notions, they no longer apply.

[eray01]

I don't want to take sides, but there are alot of apparently inept 1L's at my school. Yet, most of them have started to come around in a very short period of time. Of course some haven't though. But, I guess in order for there to be a top of the class, there has to be a bottom too. I really do wonder how some of my classmates are going to make it though. At least a few won't I'm sure.

[alb]

The fact is that if you are a 1L who has "never heard of briefing," you don't belong in law school. You have obviously never so much as read an article about law school.

I agree that it's not like medical school, but I can't imagine anybody applying to a graduate program who knows nothing at all about it. To me, that says you are just applying to spend three more years in school. How would you even know you want to be a lawyer if you have no idea of what you are getting yourself into? What is she going to do when she graduates and finds out that most lawyers don't spend their entire day in court presenting evidence until the bad guy stands up and confesses?

I say we won't be seeing her around because chances are that if she's never heard of briefing, she probably has never seen a "typical" law school exam, and thinks testing will be just like undergrad. Suffice to say, as everybody here probably already knows, if you don't practice how to take a LS exam, you are most likely going to do poorly on it.

I'm guessing that your law school, like many others, provides practice exams and other assistance to help students adjust to the academics of law school.  And if you think that briefing cases and taking exams reflects what it's like actually to be a lawyer, you are sorely mistaken. 

I can't say that I knew exactly what briefing was before coming to law school, and I can say with certainty that I had never seen a law school exam before sitting for a practice exam in late October of my first year.  Let's just say that my horrible ignorance did not have a negative effect on my grades during my first year, which were better than my grades as an undergrad (which themselves were not bad).

Completing undergrad with decent grades, earning a reasonable score on the LSAT, and being interested in law are sufficient prerequisites for law school.  Presumably this woman has fulfilled those prerequisites.  Just because you've "read an article about law school," learned what a brief is, and looked at a law school exam does not mean that you have any special edge over her.  1L is a very humbling experience, and to be successful, you need to be humble.  Which one of the two of you will learn that lesson first?  I hope for your sake you don't wait to learn that lesson until you get back your first semester grades.  You aren't doing anyone any good by mocking your classmate and displaying your own misplaced arrogance.

[tacojohn]

It seems a few people have forgotten that "law school" and "legal education" include the words "school" and "education."  More than a few threads are floating around now claiming that if you don't know everything or have all the skills already, you don't belong.  Remember that it is still a learning process, and if you were assumed to have some knowledge or skills, the LSAT would have tested for it, instead of just very general abilities and commitment.  For every person who doesn't succeed because they are overwhelmed, there's probably at least one who didn't succeed because they thought they had a better handle on what was going on than they did.

[eray01]

I majored in pol. sci. and focused alot of my coursework in legal subjects. I came to law school already knowing what the parts of the cases are, and how to brief. I already knew about weights of authority, and the whole idea of stare decisis. I knew the fundamentals of reading and interpreting statutes. In short, I had a pretty hefty amount of background. There's a very long list of fundamental skills I already had and concepts I already understood. I really thought I had done myself a favor by learning all of that stuff ahead of time.

And then it hit me like a truck: I wish I had majored in something else so I could have a more broad education. Why? I spent four years in undergrad making sure I learned all of that stuff, and they taught it all to us in the first two weeks of law school (alot of it at orientation, actually). That's right. That great big head start I thought I had given myself lasted two whole weeks!