Law skewl

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

civil procedure (boooooooorrrrring).

You'll be back to that well, guaranteed. Take all the procedure courses, criminal, federal courts, etc. Never mind that substantive shit. You'll see enough of that every day. Procedure and writing & research are your most important courses. And make sure you do a research elective in administrative law or something crazy like that.

[vremya]

I loved Con Law - my prof was kind of like George Carlin, so that may be why. Contracts was okay, kind of dry.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yah I feel like a learned a lot of stuff in Civ Pro. Important things like jurisdiction and Erie*, cool-sounding things like issue preclusion, and also that I don't want to take Conflict of Laws.

[/size]

I think the emphasized portion is a conclusion that the majority take away from civ pro.

You'll do fine on your exams. I would recommend that you take as many classes as possible with the professor that you liked. My contracts prof was terrifying, but I learned a great deal in his class and chose to take his con law classes as well. It was a good choice. (At UGA, 1st years don't take con law, you can choose to take it in two semesters later on.)

[maddog]

Back in MY day ....

All first year classes were year-long classes, except that they chose two as an experiment to make one-semester classes. Half my class had one-semester Torts, and half had one-semester Contracts. I was in the half that had one-semester Contracts, and the guy was teaching it with handouts, no textbook. We wondered for the longest time how he was going to teach Contracts in only one semester, with no textbook, and then we found out: it couldn't be done. In subsequent years they offered Torts II to make up for the kids who got cheated out of Torts, but they never offered Contracts II to make up for those who got cheated out of Contracts. Over half the subjects on the bar exam I learned on the Bar Review, not from law school.

My advice, ALWAYS take a class because of the teacher, not because you think you need X subject. If it comes down to taking X subject from a crappy teacher, you'd be better off choosing something else and not taking that class. (In the end, I never took Evidence because of this very thing. I decided I'd rather not know Evidence by not taking it, than not knowing it because I had taken it from the same guy I didn't learn Torts from and didn't learn Con Law from. Evidence made MUCH more sense learning it in the Bar Review.)

#2313

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yah I feel like a learned a lot of stuff in Civ Pro. Important things like jurisdiction and Erie*, cool-sounding things like issue preclusion, and also that I don't want to take Conflict of Laws.

Oh, come on! For entertainment value, nothing beats a Death Match in the ol' steel cage between conflicting laws!

[Listener]

I can't speak about law but I strongly support what maddog said about teachers.

Planning to go into pharmacy I needed a good grasp of biology.

At school I gave up history to take "Ordinary level" biology. The teacher was crap! So much so that I wasn't entered for the O-level exam.

To study pharmacy I needed Advanced level biology. I could have stayed on at school for two years with the same teacher.

The local technical college did a one-year course leading to advanced level biology. I left school!

The lecturer was an enthusiast who made biology (evolution and all) an exciting subject. After a single year I had no difficulty getting chemistry, physics AND biology at advanced level.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by maddog

My advice, ALWAYS take a class because of the teacher, not because you think you need X subject.

I agree with that too. Fortunately the best teachers were doing the classes I recommended above. In retrospect while the cases are interesting and fun (the substantive law stuff), the goal of law school is to learn the frameworks of law and the style of reasoning -- such as it is, sometimes -- that the law accepts and encourages within that framework. IMHO, obviously.

[ChuckF]

I did this advance signup thinger for BarBri's 2012 bar prep course. For a hundred buck deposit I could lock in the tuition at 2009 rates, get a free law summary book, and access to online lectures and outlines on 1L courses. It was totally worth it just for the online lectures. (Erwin Chemerinsky does the Con Law one.) I'm working my way through the 8 hours of property lectures and outlining de novo. It is really useful. In other words, another exciting Saturday night at ChuckF's.

[Qingdai]

That is sooooo hot.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

It was totally worth it just for the online lectures. (Erwin Chemerinsky does the Con Law one.)

I know, Chuck, and imma let you finish, but Chem is the BEST TEACHER OF ALL TIME. OF ALL TIME.

#2315

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

but NO FEDERALIST SOCIETY MEETINGS, not even to point and laugh.

Haha this is funny because today the Federalist Society hosted a speaker. The topic was racism. It did not go well.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Today the Federalist Society hosted a speaker. The topic was racism. It did not go well.

Substantive report or gtfo.

[ShottleBop]

Was it a fond retrospective of the best hits of the "affirmative action is reverse racism" cases (the progeny of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)?

[ChuckF]

Well there is not a great deal to report. Basically, employment discrimination is because, uh, black guys can't read. Also, won't someone please think of the children, because they can't play in the streets for all of the black folk. I don't know what kind of crowd they were expecting, but the Federalist Society contingent was in the minority (). They were probably nervous because of all those minority types in the same place. Between them and the white liberals, it's lucky we didn't have a communist revolution right then and there. A few people, including some professors, walked out, but after a while everybody just laughed at the crazy lady.

[Qingdai]

Nuts, it wasn't "What is Judicial activism: whatever ruling we disagree with." or anything.

[D. Scarlatti]

I remember we had Phillip Johnson speak one time, and a professor got very irritated by Johnson's vacuity.

[ShottleBop]

Johnson was an assistant dean at Boalt when I attended there. I knew he was conservative, but I was surprised when he wrote Darwin on Trial. He wrote an advocacy piece--the kind of thing where you have bad facts, but have to make them fit the outcome you want to reach. Totally inappropriate to the issue of evolution.

Boalt has John Yoo, now, too. I went to my 25th reunion hoping that he would show up to demonstrate how water-boarding is not torture. But he didn't.

I'll just be sitting here, over in the corner, with a bag over my head. New Orleans currently has a surplus.

[D. Scarlatti]

It's funny, because when I heard Johnson was coming, I asked the professor, 'Why are you bringing that tool here? He has nothing to contribute to any debate.' The professor said, 'We should include all the viewpoints.' Then he was the one most annoyed after Johnson rambled about absolutely nothing for more than an hour.

[ChuckF]

It's a month into the second semester now. Contracts, con law, criminal law. I honestly cannot even believe how much I hate this.

[Clutch Munny]

On the other hand, you get to do it your whole life!

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

On the other hand, you get to do it your whole life!

[D. Scarlatti]

Listened to a guy today who said he'd had a gun put to his head to make him suck three dicks, so there's always that.*

* Sex crimes, like funerals and taxes, appear to be a staple of the human condition.

[Stephen Maturin]

Okay, so I guess we won't be teaming up on that $50 million product liability case anytime soon, huh?

[D. Scarlatti]

Ha. Friend of mine's trial; the defendant is charged with several counts of kidnapping and sexual assault (some involving children) and who ill-advisedly decided to take the stand. I watched his cross-examination for awhile (which the DA was enjoying thoroughly). I felt like I was at a bowling alley, what with the eye-rolling among the jury. Some of the jurors were actually visibly laughing at the defendant's testimony. Combative and effeminate is a weird combo in a hostile witness.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Friend of mine's trial

So who was the third guy whose dick got sucked?