Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.  (Read 1234 times)

one4theteam

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
I used see anytime I paraphrased in any way, including facts.  I used id (or a direct quote) everytime I quoted word for word. 

Apparently this is not the write method.

I think I totally blew it, particular on the cases where I summarized a good deal of the background. 

ANY law review graders have any insight how significant this blatant understanding will affect scoring.  I know ever school is different - I'm just totally bummed I worked my a*!@ to miss such an important point! 


botbot

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2009, 06:23:01 PM »
Did you take LRW as a 1L?

(serious question)

nbf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2009, 07:51:30 PM »
Former Articles Editor here.


Messing up some of the most basic citation forms is really, really bad. 



vap

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Attorney
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2009, 08:13:52 PM »
From your explanation, I still don't understand what you did.  If you're saying you used "see" every time you paraphrased and [no signal] when you directly quoted, then you probably did an OK job.  The line between "see" and [no signal] is very gray when you are paraphrasing.  BB says you use no signal when the source "directly states" the proposition.  But if you're paraphrasing facts, usually that will not need a signal.  If using "see" when paraphrasing facts was your worst mistake, then I wouldn't discount your paper very much.

Naked Promise

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2009, 08:46:34 PM »
Apparently this is not the write method.

The signal thing may not be your biggest problem.

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2009, 09:14:17 PM »
Apparently this is not the write method.

The signal thing may not be your biggest problem.

Agreed.

And yeah, you totally dropped that one. Better luck next time.
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.

Naked Promise

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2009, 09:31:15 PM »
Ninja...you're like my new best friend.

M_Cool

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2009, 09:38:52 PM »
The see signal is retarded and I refuse to use it.

Naked Promise

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2009, 09:54:13 PM »
Let's be honest, the bluebook as a whole is retarded. Stupid elitists.

Ninja1

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3089
  • ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Wow. I think I really screwed up See and See id. on Law Review.
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2009, 10:17:42 PM »
All 3 of the above posts are spot on. :)
I'mma stay bumpin' till I bump my head on my tomb.