The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

Postby stratocophic » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:43 pm

predetermined wrote:
betasteve wrote:
superserial wrote:it's so easy to tell the 0Ls from the 1Ls ITT.

truth

Aw, found ourselves another pedestal to look down from, have we? That's nice. I remember doing that sort of thing in the 8th grade.


Identified

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

Postby vanwinkle » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:02 pm

betasteve wrote:
superserial wrote:it's so easy to tell the 0Ls from the 1Ls ITT.

truth

+1

User avatar
superserial
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

Postby superserial » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:03 pm

barrinmb wrote:
predetermined wrote:
betasteve wrote:
superserial wrote:it's so easy to tell the 0Ls from the 1Ls ITT.

truth

Aw, found ourselves another pedestal to look down from, have we? That's nice. I remember doing that sort of thing in the 8th grade.


Identified


and also, "lolwut?" to his comment.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

Postby dresden doll » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:40 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:lol you guys are giving him a pretty hard time, but im betting half of you didnt read his whole post either

i actually did, and while his rules arent like the ten commandments or anything (wait, bad example, those get broken all the time), some of them provided some good insighti think a few of his follow-up posts, his profile, are all jokes or him being an e-douche, but his original rules post isnt that bad (yeah i thought accel was hilarious too...esp. given the context)

traydeuce is providing some interesting thoughts as well -- personally, i found both posters informative, or at least they both said things i could learn from for 1L law classes

and i dont know if the OP's rules were "gunning" or not. more like working the system. i thought gunners would do the dumb things as well like give their opinions when unasked for lol.


Not having gone to LS yet, you can hardly know whether OP's advice is actually worth a damn or not.

User avatar
Mroberts3
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

Postby Mroberts3 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:58 pm

Sticky?

Best. Flame. Ever.

traydeuce
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:07 pm

Re: The Sacred Rules of Gunning.

Postby traydeuce » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:34 am

dresden doll wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:i actually did, and while his rules arent like the ten commandments or anything (wait, bad example, those get broken all the time), some of them provided some good insighti think a few of his follow-up posts, his profile, are all jokes or him being an e-douche, but his original rules post isnt that bad (yeah i thought accel was hilarious too...esp. given the context


Not having gone to LS yet, you can hardly know whether OP's advice is actually worth a damn or not.


It's not. Few professors bump, and to the extent they do, they're not going to do so for answering their generally softball questions. The point of participating in class is to help yourself learn the material, not to impress people. Almost all cases have some kind of ambiguity to them, almost all cases have, at points, somewhat questionable reasoning. These are the things you want to ask questions about. If all you can see in a case is its holding and reasoning, not its flaws or unclarities (making up a word there), you're not going to do so well on exams, because (a) most questions on exams fall in the gray areas that the cases you read aren't going to provide perfectly clear guidance on, (b) if every opinion you read convinces you, if you're not left with some questions every case you read, it's a sign that you're not very good at seeing multiple sides of a legal issue, which is a problem because on exams, you have to know where the weaknesses in your own arguments are, so you can at least acknowledge them and say why you don't think they're fatal to the position you take. A confident "yes, this is a clear-cut case of unilateral mistake" answer won't do so well as a "yeah, there's a pretty strong unilateral mistake argument here, but there are these problems, and one could argue that this is more a matter of constructive fraud or that there wasn't even a contract, but I don't think so and here's why" answer. (That said, you don't want to give tentative answers - you want to ultimately give a confident answer but be aware of the arguments against your answer.) Anyway, to the extent that bumping goes on, it's my view that professors are more impressed by a thoughtful question that shows a lot of understanding of the nuances of the cases than an ability to repeat what a court says when called on.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: burritoface and 12 guests