Law School Discussion

for those that have started law school

Yeah, me.

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2006, 10:36:15 AM »

you're too altruistic.  most of those students are not you or anyone you know.  screw them.

I know lots of people, and they're not so different from me. They want to know things, to be able to do things properly. I really believe that. Last year's crowd, for example, had a healthy percentage of people who wanted to help people with law; this year they'll think that they're well on their way to doing so, to being skilled. They'll bandy about "unjust enrichment" and think it means something. Would you want a lawyer like that if you were in trouble? 'course not.

And change your damned name.

of course unjust enrichment means something.  it means that we can sue.  that's what matters, not what matters at the philosophical level, right?  no of course not. 

and if i'm ever in trouble, i fully expect you to help me.

i've had this name for a very long time.  you missed it when i was black.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2006, 10:41:51 AM »

you're too altruistic.  most of those students are not you or anyone you know.  screw them.

I know lots of people, and they're not so different from me. They want to know things, to be able to do things properly. I really believe that. Last year's crowd, for example, had a healthy percentage of people who wanted to help people with law; this year they'll think that they're well on their way to doing so, to being skilled. They'll bandy about "unjust enrichment" and think it means something. Would you want a lawyer like that if you were in trouble? 'course not.

And change your damned name.

of course unjust enrichment means something.  it means that we can sue.  that's what matters, not what matters at the philosophical level, right?  no of course not. 

and if i'm ever in trouble, i fully expect you to help me.

i've had this name for a very long time.  you missed it when i was black.

Not at the 'philosophical level'. I mean that when you look at the story of some dude's dealings with another guy and you want to sue for breach, you can say unjust enrichment whenever you want, except that you can't: they don't mean 'unjust enrichment', they mean something else. Law schools should help students identify how to find out what that something else is, and how to appeal to it on behalf of a client. Now, they don't. They say unjust enrichment - 4 elements, here's two examples, and leave it at that. Students say "ah, okay", memorize the 4 elements, the names of the examples, and vomit it out when exam time rolls around. That cannot be learning or skills acquisition, can it?

Yeah, me.

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2006, 10:43:48 AM »

you're too altruistic.  most of those students are not you or anyone you know.  screw them.

I know lots of people, and they're not so different from me. They want to know things, to be able to do things properly. I really believe that. Last year's crowd, for example, had a healthy percentage of people who wanted to help people with law; this year they'll think that they're well on their way to doing so, to being skilled. They'll bandy about "unjust enrichment" and think it means something. Would you want a lawyer like that if you were in trouble? 'course not.

And change your damned name.

of course unjust enrichment means something.  it means that we can sue.  that's what matters, not what matters at the philosophical level, right?  no of course not. 

and if i'm ever in trouble, i fully expect you to help me.

i've had this name for a very long time.  you missed it when i was black.

Not at the 'philosophical level'. I mean that when you look at the story of some dude's dealings with another guy and you want to sue for breach, you can say unjust enrichment whenever you want, except that you can't: they don't mean 'unjust enrichment', they mean something else. Law schools should help students identify how to find out what that something else is, and how to appeal to it on behalf of a client. Now, they don't. They say unjust enrichment - 4 elements, here's two examples, and leave it at that. Students say "ah, okay", memorize the 4 elements, the names of the examples, and vomit it out when exam time rolls around. That cannot be learning or skills acquisition, can it?

i just assume you mean philosophical stuff whenever you talk.

and i just remembered that i don't know anything about unjust enrichment because we haven't gotten to it in class yet.  ;)

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2006, 10:45:23 AM »
i just assume you mean philosophical stuff whenever you talk.

and i just remembered that i don't know anything about unjust enrichment because we haven't gotten to it in class yet.  ;)

I laughed. That was good

Alamo

  • ****
  • 2544
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2006, 10:51:16 AM »

you're too altruistic.  most of those students are not you or anyone you know.  screw them.

I know lots of people, and they're not so different from me. They want to know things, to be able to do things properly. I really believe that. Last year's crowd, for example, had a healthy percentage of people who wanted to help people with law; this year they'll think that they're well on their way to doing so, to being skilled. They'll bandy about "unjust enrichment" and think it means something. Would you want a lawyer like that if you were in trouble? 'course not.

And change your damned name.

of course unjust enrichment means something.  it means that we can sue.  that's what matters, not what matters at the philosophical level, right?  no of course not. 

and if i'm ever in trouble, i fully expect you to help me.

i've had this name for a very long time.  you missed it when i was black.

Not at the 'philosophical level'. I mean that when you look at the story of some dude's dealings with another guy and you want to sue for breach, you can say unjust enrichment whenever you want, except that you can't: they don't mean 'unjust enrichment', they mean something else. Law schools should help students identify how to find out what that something else is, and how to appeal to it on behalf of a client. Now, they don't. They say unjust enrichment - 4 elements, here's two examples, and leave it at that. Students say "ah, okay", memorize the 4 elements, the names of the examples, and vomit it out when exam time rolls around. That cannot be learning or skills acquisition, can it?

I think that your concern in this case is valid, but at least in my classes, we're given hypothetical cases that don't mirror those we read in the book.  Just because unjust enrichment contains X# of elements doesn't mean that the elements will be weighed identically in every unjust enrichment case.  Indeed, the fact that it must be "unjust" opens it to criticism from almost any angle.  Only the weakest concepts (impossibility defense doctrine, for example) are defined solely by their examples.  I really doubt that vomiting precedent will get you an A on the exam.  Granted, some people will slack for the semester, buy some commercial outlines right before finals and pass.  I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I have a hard time seeing as to how it can be avoided.  The students who really want to learn it the right way have full opportunity to do so.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2006, 10:53:35 AM »
Okay, look at negligence: what is it? Oh, it's not taking a precaution that a reasonable person would take under the circumstance. Oh, okay. What's a reasonable person? Oh, it's someone who wouldn't act negligently. Oh? Umm. Hmm.

Yeah, me.

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2006, 10:56:11 AM »
Okay, look at negligence: what is it? Oh, it's not taking a precaution that a reasonable person would take under the circumstance. Oh, okay. What's a reasonable person? Oh, it's someone who wouldn't act negligently. Oh? Umm. Hmm.

this is ridiculous.  a reasonable person is what the judge/jury says a reaonable person is.  there are no standards in law.  it's all made up.  the only parts that are considered "true" are the parts that sound good or are espoused by prestigious thinkers. 

(the cynic's view)

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2006, 11:00:31 AM »
Okay, look at negligence: what is it? Oh, it's not taking a precaution that a reasonable person would take under the circumstance. Oh, okay. What's a reasonable person? Oh, it's someone who wouldn't act negligently. Oh? Umm. Hmm.

I tend to assume that the reasonable person standard exists to allow judges to enforce their personal preferences while still believing, or at least claiming, to merely be correctly applying the law.

Okay, look at negligence: what is it? Oh, it's not taking a precaution that a reasonable person would take under the circumstance. Oh, okay. What's a reasonable person? Oh, it's someone who wouldn't act negligently. Oh? Umm. Hmm.

this is ridiculous.  a reasonable person is what the judge/jury says a reaonable person is.  there are no standards in law.  it's all made up.  the only parts that are considered "true" are the parts that sound good or are espoused by prestigious thinkers. 

(the cynic's view)

Well, that's what the crits say. But there's more to it than that: they (the judges) are constrained by what they know and what they don't, what they think an court above them will say and won't, what they can imagine, hw they've been told the story of the two people in this conflict, etc. Someone should teach that since that's what matters.

Yeah, me.

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2006, 11:02:22 AM »
Well, that's what the crits say. But there's more to it than that: they (the judges) are constrained by what they know and what they don't, what they think an court above them will say and won't, what they can imagine, hw they've been told the story of the two people in this conflict, etc. Someone should teach that since that's what matters.

that's why i said it was the cynic's view.

better narrative, yeah yeah.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2006, 11:04:57 AM »
Well, that's what the crits say. But there's more to it than that: they (the judges) are constrained by what they know and what they don't, what they think an court above them will say and won't, what they can imagine, hw they've been told the story of the two people in this conflict, etc. Someone should teach that since that's what matters.

that's why i said it was the cynic's view.

better narrative, yeah yeah.

You think it's an accident that law school kids learn from appellate cases?