Law School Discussion

ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #60 on: December 08, 2008, 09:10:43 AM »
ahem, tm.  shoot some reassurance my way or I will mock you like you've never been mocked before.

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #61 on: December 08, 2008, 09:13:07 AM »
is "hornbook" a genl term for a supplementary text?  or are they all actually written by a guy named horn?

"ahem, tm.  shoot some reassurance my way or I will mock you like you've never been mocked before."

Okay, if my threats won't work then perhaps I can evoke sympathy.

 :'(

dischord

  • ****
  • 1036
    • View Profile
Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2008, 09:14:21 AM »
No, we use the Farnsworth.  My prof is kinda obsessed with him, so I figured it was better not to veer off course.

The outlines were pretty good, although they're definitely outlines rather than explanations of stuff.  My notes were sort of disorganized because my prof was a terrible lecturer, but they were more detailed and I highlighted them so that should trim the fat a bit.

Whatever, I'll just go over everything.  

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2008, 09:15:26 AM »
erm, never mind.  why do I keep asking humans for information when mother wikipedia provides?

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #64 on: December 08, 2008, 09:16:48 AM »
you give good advice, foxman.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3677
    • View Profile
Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #65 on: December 08, 2008, 09:24:25 AM »
I feel so squiggy right now after botching a practice exam answer or too. 

This, among other reasons, is why I have never done practice exams ever in law school

Wait, really?  I know that hasn't worked out too badly for you, either, please explain.

I actually found taking a practice test last night comforting.  I actually knew some stuff, which I didn't think was the case.

I save it for the exam. I donít like doubting myself or comparing myself to other model answers. I study, I THINK through problems, but I have never, in 4 years, done a practice exam or even written out anything for non points given practice exams in class. I just save it for the exam and go. There is plenty of time afterwards to doubt myself, so I donít bother doing it before hand. I have no doubt there is benefit in it, but that is just not how I study. Plus I'm dyslexic, writing is a time consuming, frustrating, agonizing thing for me, i save that for when its worth something real. Iím best when I am not scripted, shoot from the hip and go with the flow. Itís just what works for me Ė donít try this at home kids.

to reiterate, this is NOT generally applicable advice.  sometimes (usually?) matthies says stuff that applies to everyone.  this is not one of those times.

Yes, like I said, donít try this at home. But I think the underlying point in this, and one I would say is applicable to everyone, is that key to doing well in law school is quickly find the method that works best for you. Everything else is secondary, most of the 1st semester, and much of 1L in my view is all about learning a new way to think and be tested, and hece how YOU best ready yourself for that. The quicker you can figure out what methods do, or do not work for you, the better off you will be. There is a lot of good advice about how to study in law school, but not all of it is going to be applicable to everyone, find what works best for you then disregard what others tell you that you should be doing if it does not. A lot of people spend a lot of time just spinning their wheels because they think they should be doing this or that because everyone around them is doing this or that. Just do what works for you (and finding what this is is what 1L is all about in my view), if thatís practice questions great, if not great, in the end the only thing that matters is that which works for the individual.  

Law school can and will, if you left it, destroy your ability to think creatively on your own. I think, for me, practice questions re-enforce that, donít be creative be the SAME. Its counter intuitive to what they are supposed to be teaching you in law school, to think like a lawyer, but it tends to lead many people to think and act just like everyone else around them. Precedent is a good thing in the law, becoming an automaton law student slavishly devoted to doing it this way purely because everyone before you did it this way is not. This is in part why I rail against the idea of placing all your eggs in the OCI basket, law students tend to follow, even a path that is counter intuitive to their own success just because that is what everyone else did. They stop thinking, if you will, outside the box, because they have become so well trained at not doing anything differently than their peers.

AGAIN< THIS IS JUST ME< BE YOURSELF

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2008, 09:30:37 AM »
I agree with everything you said, both in principle and in practice.  However, isn't it best to break away from the herd after you've paid off your law school debt?  Otherwise you might find yourself in a 5 lawyer shop in suburban Topeka enlightening local judges with your unconventional take on Kansas laws governing trailer park zoning and armadillo poaching.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3677
    • View Profile
Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2008, 09:59:38 AM »
I agree with everything you said, both in principle and in practice.  However, isn't it best to break away from the heard after you've paid off your law school debt?  Otherwise you might find yourself in a 5 lawyer shop in suburban Topeka enlightening local judges with your unconventional take on Kansas laws governing trailer park zoning and armadillo poaching.

Not necessarily. Think about this way you just spent the last semester learning about how the law has evolved. How one rule was the norm, then the court changed that law to a new law, often completely different from the law that existed before. Society changes, the rules change, and what you donít see in applet decisions that we read is case books is the original arguments lawyers made to change the law. Its very easy, even though you have just spent the entire semester learning about the evolution of the law to think that now, today, at this moment the law is static. Its not. The law is ever evolving, thatís the common law system, but we tend to ignore that and think today, the law is settled. Its never settled if it was we would not need lawyers.

Unfortunately what makes a straight A law students, the ability to recite the law as currently stands to a hypo, does not necessarily make a good lawyer. Clients donít come to you just to recite the law, they come to you to apply the law to their particular facts and make arguemnts on thier behalf, sometimes when the law is against them in all respects. Sometimes that means making arguments to change the law, for the law to evolve. Something that, if not practice on your own, law school will rob from you. How we teach the law is not how we practice the law. Good lawyers never say to themselves this is the law, it will never change, so my case will all ways end up losing or winning. That mindset forgets that the law evolves and the lawyers job is to be an advocate for that change or status quoe, as it befits their clients case. We lose that by not reading the arguments lawyers make, but the de novo review of the applenat court. We lose the advocay and see the rules, the tress but not the forest.

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2008, 10:50:58 AM »
I agree with the herd thing.  I stopped reading my Torts textbook entirely this quarter and people thought I was f-ing nuts.  Granted, I still don't have a grade in the class, but I felt just as prepared in class with my hornbooks and a 2L outline that sums up most of lectures/readings.

Re: ITT We Reassure One Another 'Bout Finals
« Reply #69 on: December 08, 2008, 11:00:18 AM »
If I understand the meaning of "hornbook," I find that preparing by reading them is far and away superior to simply reading cases.  I know that's disappointing... understanding is supposed to organically flow from original material and all that... but cases are filled with extraneous information that only serves to obscure main points.  Further, they contain lots of procedural schlock that a first year cannot yet know about and only serves to tether and obstruct the process of understanding

So, if i'm to be part of the herd, so be it.  Something tells me that you have to learn the basics before you can change them.