Law School Discussion

Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2008, 01:39:09 PM »
Nobody said anything about intelligence.  I'm merely suggesting that our professor tends to design very complicated hypos that Glannon doesn't even try to explain.  I understand that 12(g) and 12(h) restrict the four motions that can be filed in the first response, thank you; I don't need nine questions hitting that topic.

Glannon's not supposed to do the difficult thinking for you. It's mean to make the basics extremely clear before you try to work through complicated hypos yourself.

However, I am also not a supplement person and didn't find it super useful either. But that's not because my prof gave more difficult questions than everyone else's, or because I had so much more of a sophisticated understanding of the interplay between rule 12 and rule 56 than everyone else. It's because that's not the way I learn. Come on, listen to yourself before you post, dude.


c'mon goals, glannon doesnt even try to explain his professor's hypos, you'd be upset too!   :P

goaliechica

  • *****
  • 6178
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2008, 01:42:38 PM »
Nobody said anything about intelligence.  I'm merely suggesting that our professor tends to design very complicated hypos that Glannon doesn't even try to explain.  I understand that 12(g) and 12(h) restrict the four motions that can be filed in the first response, thank you; I don't need nine questions hitting that topic.

Glannon's not supposed to do the difficult thinking for you. It's mean to make the basics extremely clear before you try to work through complicated hypos yourself.

However, I am also not a supplement person and didn't find it super useful either. But that's not because my prof gave more difficult questions than everyone else's, or because I had so much more of a sophisticated understanding of the interplay between rule 12 and rule 56 than everyone else. It's because that's not the way I learn. Come on, listen to yourself before you post, dude.


c'mon goals, glannon doesnt even try to explain his professor's hypos, you'd be upset too!   :P

::joins Tasha's party::

I miss Civ Pro and Property jokes. There just don't seem to be any good admin jokes....

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2008, 01:58:07 PM »
Nobody said anything about intelligence.  I'm merely suggesting that our professor tends to design very complicated hypos that Glannon doesn't even try to explain.  I understand that 12(g) and 12(h) restrict the four motions that can be filed in the first response, thank you; I don't need nine questions hitting that topic.

Glannon's not supposed to do the difficult thinking for you. It's mean to make the basics extremely clear before you try to work through complicated hypos yourself.

However, I am also not a supplement person and didn't find it super useful either. But that's not because my prof gave more difficult questions than everyone else's, or because I had so much more of a sophisticated understanding of the interplay between rule 12 and rule 56 than everyone else. It's because that's not the way I learn. Come on, listen to yourself before you post, dude.


c'mon goals, glannon doesnt even try to explain his professor's hypos, you'd be upset too!   :P

::joins Tasha's party::

I miss Civ Pro and Property jokes. There just don't seem to be any good admin jokes....


torts!  there is always fun to be had there. 

admin law.....gah.  er..."did you here about the guy who had rule 557 stuck in his pants?  no, i didnt.  he received deference!"

that just doesnt do it for me, although my admin law prof would find that hilarious.  it was cancelled last night, thank god.  3 more monday nights of torture and i still have one absence.  sweet.

goaliechica

  • *****
  • 6178
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2008, 02:02:39 PM »
admin law.....gah.  er..."did you here about the guy who had rule 557 stuck in his pants?  no, i didnt.  he received deference!"

that just doesnt do it for me, although my admin law prof would find that hilarious.  it was cancelled last night, thank god.  3 more monday nights of torture and i still have one absence.  sweet.

 :D

I laughed!

I am actually signed up for advanced admin next semester, god help me.

::makes whitefish botulism joke::

Thistle

  • *****
  • 6324
    • View Profile
Re: Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2008, 02:11:56 PM »
admin law.....gah.  er..."did you here about the guy who had rule 557 stuck in his pants?  no, i didnt.  he received deference!"

that just doesnt do it for me, although my admin law prof would find that hilarious.  it was cancelled last night, thank god.  3 more monday nights of torture and i still have one absence.  sweet.

 :D

I laughed!

I am actually signed up for advanced admin next semester, god help me.

::makes whitefish botulism joke::


oh you poor thing!

the prof doesnt allow computers in his classroom because he is SO BORING that he knows nobody would pay attention.

i usually bring the nyt crossword or play hangman with the people sitting next to me.  most people surf on their iphones instead.  awful stuff.  however, he has given the same take home exam (1st day of exam period, due the last day) for 3 years, and never gives lower than a B so we tough it out.

i actually litigated a clean water act case, so i know the stuff CAN be interesting, he just fails to make it so.

Re: Is It Just Me or Is Glannon's CivPro WAY too Simplistic?
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2008, 02:34:22 PM »

I don't really understand why Glannon's book is an issue for you.  If it isn't helpful for you then don't use it.  What does it matter why other people use it or what they get out of it?

And contrary to your assertion that "nobody said anything about intelligence," you did say you believe the supplement is designed for stupid people.  If you "get" it, yay for you, but SO WHAT?

You really are coming off as trying to make yourself sound smart.  It's just kind of funny.  :D 

Why would I try to make myself sound smart in front of anonymous internet tipsters?  If anything, my previous posts show a variety of questions about topics like concurrent ownership, reasonable person standard, and the statute of limitations.