Law School is a Marathon . . .

[botbot]

More like six sprints really...

[armyjag]

More like six sprints really...

180.  But it's probably more accurate to say 7 sprints, and 1 standing long jump (MPRE).

[getfit]

I'm considering applying to law school, is it really as bad as you all make it sound?  What do you have to do, mostly writing?  I heard somewhere, can't remember where now, that you don't take exams in law school, you do research, or write, or something.  What was your goal when you signed up?  just trying to pick some brains, that's all.  I know the market is flooded with attorneys now, but I would think a lot of baby boomers would be hanging it up like all the other fields according to the media.

[CTL]

It is very incorrect that you don't take exams in law schools.  In fact, with the exception of a few courses, your grades are solely determined by your exams.  Your career prospects are largely determined by a) your school, b) your class rank (grades), c) your ability to network, and d) luck. 

[getfit]

Okay, I figured as much I wish I could remember who said that.  I can't remember, are you a lawyer now, or still in school?  How much time is spent in class vs working outside of class as in writing, studying, etc.  I know they say to not work during school, which would require more loans, but depending on if I went to the one of the 2 closest schools, I would have a minimum of 1 hour drive 1 way.  I would not move closer, I would commute each day.

Does that sound crazy?  I drove 1 1/2 hours one way every day for my undergrad, and I did okay.  My GPA was a 3.25 overall because I had one bad sememster from trying to do too much at once, while dealing with a terminally ill family member.  But other than that I thought I did pretty good.

I would think life experience would be a good thing for getting in, rather someone right out of high school then college, who's greatest experience was moving to college and not having parents over your shoulder.  No offense to those in that age range, but I would think you would agree with me if you think about it. I guess time will tell for me though. 

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

Legal writing is the backbone of the profession.

Law school, however, is all about issue-spotting.  What is a legal issue?  It's a question of fact or law (or both) that must be resolved in order to decide the case.  Here is a famous example from a 2nd Circuit Opinion:

Did John's dumping of vials of urine samples into the Hudson River violate section 1362 of the Clean Air and Water Act? 

Sub-issues:

Did he dump into a navigable river?  (Apply facts -- yes, this is not much of an issue.  The Hudson is pretty navigable.  But maybe you could argue they meant navigable in terms of commerce, not flowing waters.)

Did he discharge pollution? (Apply facts -- probably, this is more debatable as an issue.  Are vials pollution under the Act?  We can look to legislative history.  We may look at how other courts have looked.  We might lose and Cert this, if there are circuit splits on whether such vials are pollution.)

And so on.  (If all of these issues are meet with an affirmative yes, then we can say he violated Section 1362 and is subject to the attendant penalties, as prescribed by Congress.)

In order to do well, you need to write clearly, with this understanding.  You should not take this to mean that you should write brilliantly in a creative sense.  You can be a dull writer.  If anything, you're encouraged to be a dull writer, because then you can focus on being systematic.

[sheltron5000]

You should not take this to mean that you should write brilliantly in a creative sense.  You can be a dull writer.  If anything, you're encouraged to be a dull writer, because then you can focus on being systematic.

YAY for systematicity!!

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

The question presented in this thread is whether life experience should be considered a relevant factor for the purpose of Law School admissions.  Although this is a case of first impression in this thread, there have been countless judgments on other Law School Discussion (herein "LSD") threads in the past.

LSD has ruled, in the case of SFLSD v. Troll, that life experience "means that you understand why you're there."  SFLSD v. Troll, OTB 35 SFLSD (MBW, Cady, Goaliechica concurring).  Understanding why you're there in law school has also, countless times, been considered one of the paramount reasons for enrolling in law school.

Petitioner getfit argued that time will tell for him.  He has also argued that, in comparison to applicants whose lack of parental supervision has been the primary accomplishment of their life, he is demonstratively better and everyone will agree with him if they think about it.  This court has, in fact, thought about it, but will leave time to tell and TLS to determine whether we will understand him.

Remanded, with instructions to TLS and nation-wide admissions officers to apply whether getfit has life experience and to consider that in his application.

. . . .

And so on.  This is legal reasoning in the context of a case.  It's IRAC, but more elaborate.

[Matthies]

Legal writing is the backbone of the profession.

Law school, however, is all about issue-spotting.  What is a legal issue?  It's a question of fact or law (or both) that must be resolved in order to decide the case.  Here is a famous example from a 2nd Circuit Opinion:

Did John's dumping of vials of urine samples into the Hudson River violate section 1362 of the Clean Air and Water Act? 

Sub-issues:

Did he dump into a navigable river?  (Apply facts -- yes, this is not much of an issue.  The Hudson is pretty navigable.  But maybe you could argue they meant navigable in terms of commerce, not flowing waters.)

Did he discharge pollution? (Apply facts -- probably, this is more debatable as an issue.  Are vials pollution under the Act?  We can look to legislative history.  We may look at how other courts have looked.  We might lose and Cert this, if there are circuit splits on whether such vials are pollution.)

And so on.  (If all of these issues are meet with an affirmative yes, then we can say he violated Section 1362 and is subject to the attendant penalties, as prescribed by Congress.)

In order to do well, you need to write clearly, with this understanding.  You should not take this to mean that you should write brilliantly in a creative sense.  You can be a dull writer.  If anything, you're encouraged to be a dull writer, because then you can focus on being systematic.

Is this from a real case? Becuase both of those terms are pretty well defined in the CWA

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

Yeah, it's a real 2nd Circuit case, but it's old.  A Brooklyn resident dumped a bunch of blood and urine samples in the Hudson, and they argued about "point source."  So I scrambled the case a little, but you get the idea.

I'm a little bored toward the end of the year, so I'm reading up on white collar crime.  (I'm really interested in Crim Law, especially white collar stuff like net worth calculations for tax evasion.)