BigZuck wrote:I like the formula that AReasonableMan's posts take, without exception.
First sentence is (at least somewhat) responsive to the post/topic at issue
Second sentence is the beginning of an off the wall analogy
Then an attempt to bring it back around to the topic at hand that usually falls flat on its face but is occasionally really insightful
I just wish they were consistently funny
Fair insight. The hope is that the more colorful the analogy the funnier it will be. But the general idea that grades should be based on practical application, and not understanding of the law is crazy.
At lowly ranked schools, we'd want to cut out everything like Fed Courts, Con Law, everything in criminal law except reckless driving and intoxication. We'd also want to assign points for exams that go back and forth b/w English and another language (boosts potential clientele), award points based on attractiveness and ability to manipulate the google formula so their solo practice shows up on Page 1. You also always want to give extra points based on how to be just sleazy enough to break every PR rule in the book with the subtlety to never get caught.
Also, the value of grades is being very overrated. Normally it's the only way to distinguish b/w candidates.