CMR wrote:Matthies wrote:Just out of curiosity those that did the write ons do you think the point of the exercise was to come up the "right' answer, the most interesting or creative argument, or explain/contrast the circuit spilt? Or did they tell you what to write about and what stance to take?
I'd assume that the vast majority are looking for cogent analysis rather than a right/wrong answer. Most appear to leave a lot of room for policy, and in those cases while there may be arguments that are consistent with existing precedent, I'd assume you could go in a dramatically different direction and still come out ok if your arguments were compelling.
By the way, Matthies, did you ever post at another forum? I think I remember you from when I started last year - I asked for tips for success, you were pretty helpful and encouraging. Thanks, man - first two terms went pretty well.
Yea I poste on LSD, been around for years. Glad things went well with you. I only did write on once, but sort of thought the point was to make the end result intrresting, readable, and something that would get published, never look at it as a right/wrong issue like an exam, but more what the readership of the jounral want to know about the issue/case/trend so that they could use it in thier practice/sholrship (since well if the issue had a right/wrong asnwer it would not really be worth writing about, i mean who wants to read a summery of the erire doctrine, its established law)