Setting the Stage: Or, How to Do Law School Wrong Forum

[Thane Messinger]

* * *

I assume most of the nice folks on TLS want to go to "top" law schools and graduate in the top 10% of the class so they can get jobs working in "big law" so they can bill 2300 hours a year and make big bucks. So I assume they are not adverse to the capitalist system.

Now, you are not forcing anyone to buy your book, look at your book or even touch your book. You have no power to make anyone follow your advice or even read your advice. To add insult to injury, you probably don't even make much money from selling your book and yet you come here for all sorts of insults and abuse.

Why the animosity? Perhaps you could write a book about that! It would be fun.

Thanks, RUQRU, and I had to laugh. Would you believe that the "top" part is why I decided to venture back? I must say, this is invigorating. A great excuse to avoid work, too.

T.

[Thane Messinger]

As for my classmates well, people were busy, people were stressed, people were confused. In other words it was like any other rigorous academic class where there's also lots of competition. But my section also had a very healthy contingent of volleyball players and there were lots of trips out to sing karaoke and nobody was terrified of being called on except those who hate public speaking in general and nobody was praying for just a single H to save their 'dignity.' as if report cards measure dignity.

You said to ask anyone who's been there. I've been there. I asked me. My answer is that your paragraph is full of cliches and overdramatizations and the mystification of law school and very light on describing what my experiences and those of my classmates seem to have been.

I had to laugh here again. What you say is quite true, but rather than disproving the passage, goes (to me at least) to the underlying point. In any event, for those looking for an opposite perspective, there's Juan Asconape's Slacker's Guide to Law School. Not that that's anyone here, but Asconape has some funny stories to tell that reinforce these points, sometimes by showing how much the reverse (not caring, or at least pretending not to care) is true.

And now to Call of Duty!

Psst: anyone wanna' know how to play and learn? Oh, wait. That's pimping. = : )

[philosoraptor]

A great excuse to avoid work, too.

He stumbled in the perimeter of wisdom! Run!

--ImageRemoved--

[danidancer]

I can guarantee you he wrote all 8 of those reviews on Amazon

Yeah, but check out this page of reviews! http://www.amazon.com/Young-Lawyers-Jun ... addOneStar

This book is nothing more than the author's attempt to act smarter, and more well educated, than he actually is. From his blatant use of a thesaurus on every other word, to his analogies with Confucius, the Hitler Jugend, the Soviet Komsomol, and hundreds of others; the author tries to sound like a genius.

Although there is some useful information, I urge you to save your money for other law books. In this one, you won't find more than two informative sentences before the author deviates to three paragraphs of useless cliches, quotes in foreign languages, and endless rigmarole. The author has desperately tried to make this book much more than it actually is. As a result, the 225 pages actually contain only 20-25 pages of useful information.

[Cleareyes]

you won't find more than two informative sentences before the author deviates to three paragraphs of useless cliches, quotes in foreign languages, and endless rigmarole. , the 225 pages actually contain only 20-25 pages of useful information.

Hmm. So there's a good chance Thane Messinger actually IS a professor of law and writer of casebooks. That's worth noting.

[solidsnake]

This. And the solutions he recommends are questionable. And he never establishes credibility (at least not here). Being an "editor" on UT L. Rev. doesn't necessarily speak to his academic performance if he wrote on.

Say, this is fun! You're right! There is that write on. Let's see . . . if he graded on, that means he's pretty smart. Oh and we might just have to give him some credit. But if he just wrote on, well, that means he convinced some mostly grade-on editors that he could write. Hey, wait.

Oh, bother.

TLR must've really gone down hill after the War.

So "convinc[ing] some mostly grade-on editors that [you] could write" is indicative of being competent to teach persuasive, legal reasoning? Is that your argument? Or did you grade on? Just come out with it. You market yourself as an authority on "getting the gold" in law school, yet get defensive when people ask you to substantiate your claims with, at the very least, anecdotal evidence of your own success.

Legal reasoning (what 'gets you the gold' in law school) is a very narrow skillset, which you purport to teach by virtue of publishing some book on the topic and marketing it to nervous 0Ls. As others pointed out, you use cheap tricks to help fuel their anxiety. When you publish a "how-to" book, your audience will likely assume that you are holding yourself out to be an expert on the subject matter. I'm curious about how well you did at UT. Being an editor on the LR there tells me very little. Please state your class rank, preferably 1L and graduating.

[Thane Messinger]

you won't find more than two informative sentences before the author deviates to three paragraphs of useless cliches, quotes in foreign languages, and endless rigmarole. , the 225 pages actually contain only 20-25 pages of useful information.

Hmm. So there's a good chance Thane Messinger actually IS a professor of law and writer of casebooks. That's worth noting.

This is one of the most insightful comments in rebuttal. Nicely done.

PS: As to the review, I protest! There are at least 30 pages of useful information there.

[Thane Messinger]

This. And the solutions he recommends are questionable. And he never establishes credibility (at least not here). Being an "editor" on UT L. Rev. doesn't necessarily speak to his academic performance if he wrote on.

Say, this is fun! You're right! There is that write on. Let's see . . . if he graded on, that means he's pretty smart. Oh and we might just have to give him some credit. But if he just wrote on, well, that means he convinced some mostly grade-on editors that he could write. Hey, wait.

Oh, bother.

TLR must've really gone down hill after the War.

So "convinc[ing] some mostly grade-on editors that [you] could write" is indicative of being competent to teach persuasive, legal reasoning? Is that your argument? Or did you grade on? Just come out with it. You market yourself as an authority on "getting the gold" in law school, yet get defensive when people ask you to substantiate your claims with, at the very least, anecdotal evidence of your own success.

Legal reasoning (what 'gets you the gold' in law school) is a very narrow skillset, which you purport to teach by virtue of publishing some book on the topic and marketing it to nervous 0Ls. As others pointed out, you use cheap tricks to help fuel their anxiety. When you publish a "how-to" book, your audience will likely assume that you are holding yourself out to be an expert on the subject matter. I'm curious about how well you did at UT. Being an editor on the LR there tells me very little. Please state your class rank, preferably 1L and graduating.

Curiosity is good! Tell you what, if those who have been critical of the substance of the original post, if not its style, are willing to post their 1L grades, sure, why not? Might be, ah, educational.

[Thane Messinger]

All -

There was a post in another forum (Nontradlaw) in which a member who is also a professor in another field posted a response to this topic.

I include it here, unedited, for a simple exercise: if anyone would like to know why professors become secretly quite contemptuous of law students (not individually, but as a whole), and why senior attorneys become contemptuous of new attorneys (as a whole and often individually, and often not all that secretly), I offer this:


Well I'm a OL and I've just been lurking on this particular thread for that very reason. I wanted to glean what I could from other view points, but Thane has inspired me to chime in by mentioning a point on which I very much agree with him. American education has gone very, very wrong. Please don't anyone thing I'm arguing with any individual here-- I'm cantankerous in general it's not targeted. I am, however, skeptical of the notion that guides or methodologies are usesless because everyone is different.

I have spent all of my adult life trapped in some higher education context or another. For me this next three years, I hope, will take me away from the wretched mess once and for all. Although I'm sure my partner's career will continue to slop over into my consciousness now and again. I am reminded, more often than is healthy, of poor Addie Bundren in As I Lay Dying teaching in a country school house and yearning to flee her students and run down a hill to the spring, "where I could be quiet and hate them." When it comes to today's undergraduate students, I declare in quiet seclusion the same sentiment. I hate them.

Now before you panic, and contact the authorities, let me explain. I don't hate them as individuals. Most often I like them as individuals. But as a group they have a set of expectations that are repugnant, they are so steeped in postmodern relativism, that cannot conceive of objective criteria as fair.

I once had a student protest the fact that I had graded her paper based on the same standards I had applied to her classmates papers. This, she explained, was unfair because she had missed so much class and she didn't know the same things they knew. How was I supposed to evaluate her paper? Well, see it was really her opinion about a certain poem, and you can't grade an opinion, so why not just give her an A. That would be the fair thing to do, as it would account for her special circumstances as a person with a poor attendance record, and a uniquely ungradeable world view. It did not matter that she had confused Ann Bradstreet with Anne Hutchinson, read what was obviously a Wikipedia biography of Hutchinson and used that woman's life experience as a lens through which to interpret Bradstreet's poem. To hold her accountable for a factual historical error was to grade her on her opinion.

Sooo. . . what's this got to do with studying? Well I guess it's just that I hereby resolve to use the expression "for me" less often. I don't know if there's one best way to study, but I do believe that EVERYONE could have written a better paper than the above described student by coming to class.

I don't yet know what method I'll use, but I am determined to find it by evaluating the logic and efficiency of different methos-- and I guess that includes taking into account my own history as a learner, but I refuse to believe I am "special" in that obnoxious way that so many of today's undergrads do.

[RUQRU]

Ah, but if you were truly mercenary you would tout his advice. Assume that everything Thane says guarantees the law student will end up at the bottom of his class. If you believe that, and want every possible advantage in making the top 10%, you would let all the noob 1Ls think this the greatest stuff ever. Then you could relax and ride the curve to victory, no?

A) I never claimed to be truly mercenary. I'm not.

B) I never said anything along the lines of Thane's advice guaranteeing anything. I don't think it will actually effect someone's law school performance much in either direction. Maybe it would be slightly helpful but reading the various free posts on TLS about how to do well in law school would probably offer MORE help.

C) I am going to be a 2L when the next crop of 1Ls hits. I won't be in their classes. It may shock you but I actually WON'T be repeating any classes from 1L year. I at least low passed everything. That means even if the advice were bad instead of neutral I would get one year of curve Pwn@ge, assuming that I was in class with anyone who had read the book, which seems unlikely just based on various probabilities.

D) Obvious question. Are you a Thane alt?

RE: "D"

Let's not be paranoid. I was merely posing a hypothetical. I was not accusing you, or anyone, of the scenario I proposed. Just stating the obvious. Why would our hypothetical TLS member not want to take advantage of what they believe is crazy talk from Thane? If it meant droves of 1Ls trashing their future law careers, you would think the incentive would be to convince the innocent to follow the piper! It is a harsh job market out there, why not eliminate the competition!

I do not believe this. I think Thane is sincere in trying to help future and current 1Ls form suffering overwork, burnout and failure. You may not think his advice is helpful, but I leave that to each to decide.

While many accuse him of coming here to sell his book and pay off the huge note on the Gulfstream IV, the astute would note that he gives away essentially the entire middle section, "Getting Good," in the posts he makes here. Sorry Thane, don't want to dissuade anyone from investing in your book, but you do give away most of it!

[KmissP]

I maintain that regardless of whether it's like law school or not, I refused to read it because it looked like 1500 words of blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah blah blah.

... if you know what I mean.

Thane,

I appreciate your contributions here and on LSD. However, that was one of the longest single paragraphs I have ever seen written in the English language. Really and truly, it should have been six or seven paragraphs.

--ImageRemoved--

Really and truly, a proficient writer could convey the same meaning and emphasize the point more effectively in one standard paragraph. Maybe two, if he or she is feeling verbose.

To both and all, I agree, but this is the whole point. The paragraph is designed to mirror the classroom environment that actually exists. But don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who's been there.

By the way, the guide I used as to this section was not I (certainly not he), nor was it a proper English gent, nor was it anyone who had not yet been through law school. It was current law students and lawyers long out of school, and the general reaction was "Wow. Nailed it." I leave it to you to decide on the reliability of these words, or on my statement of others' reactions, or to debate the literary merits. It either speaks to you or it doesn't.

Either way, a concise statement such as is conventionally done by a proficient writer would, in my opinion, simply not have properly conveyed the purpose: giving the readers some sense of the reality they are about to enter, that they might challenge their own preconceptions of what they think law school is going to be all about.

Thane.

[edcrane]

All -

There was a post in another forum (Nontradlaw) in which a member who is also a professor in another field posted a response to this topic.

I include it here, unedited, for a simple exercise: if anyone would like to know why professors become secretly quite contemptuous of law students (not individually, but as a whole), and why senior attorneys become contemptuous of new attorneys (as a whole and often individually, and often not all that secretly), I offer this:


Well I'm a OL and I've just been lurking on this particular thread for that very reason. I wanted to glean what I could from other view points, but Thane has inspired me to chime in by mentioning a point on which I very much agree with him. American education has gone very, very wrong. Please don't anyone thing I'm arguing with any individual here-- I'm cantankerous in general it's not targeted. I am, however, skeptical of the notion that guides or methodologies are usesless because everyone is different.

I have spent all of my adult life trapped in some higher education context or another. For me this next three years, I hope, will take me away from the wretched mess once and for all. Although I'm sure my partner's career will continue to slop over into my consciousness now and again. I am reminded, more often than is healthy, of poor Addie Bundren in As I Lay Dying teaching in a country school house and yearning to flee her students and run down a hill to the spring, "where I could be quiet and hate them." When it comes to today's undergraduate students, I declare in quiet seclusion the same sentiment. I hate them.

Now before you panic, and contact the authorities, let me explain. I don't hate them as individuals. Most often I like them as individuals. But as a group they have a set of expectations that are repugnant, they are so steeped in postmodern relativism, that cannot conceive of objective criteria as fair.

I once had a student protest the fact that I had graded her paper based on the same standards I had applied to her classmates papers. This, she explained, was unfair because she had missed so much class and she didn't know the same things they knew. How was I supposed to evaluate her paper? Well, see it was really her opinion about a certain poem, and you can't grade an opinion, so why not just give her an A. That would be the fair thing to do, as it would account for her special circumstances as a person with a poor attendance record, and a uniquely ungradeable world view. It did not matter that she had confused Ann Bradstreet with Anne Hutchinson, read what was obviously a Wikipedia biography of Hutchinson and used that woman's life experience as a lens through which to interpret Bradstreet's poem. To hold her accountable for a factual historical error was to grade her on her opinion.

Sooo. . . what's this got to do with studying? Well I guess it's just that I hereby resolve to use the expression "for me" less often. I don't know if there's one best way to study, but I do believe that EVERYONE could have written a better paper than the above described student by coming to class.

I don't yet know what method I'll use, but I am determined to find it by evaluating the logic and efficiency of different methos-- and I guess that includes taking into account my own history as a learner, but I refuse to believe I am "special" in that obnoxious way that so many of today's undergrads do.

Interesting, but not on point.

I think law students generally recognize that, as a consequence of blind grading and the efforts of professors to be fair, the exam answers that receive the highest grades in any given class are likely to have a lot in common. This means that there are many wrong ways to study and write exam answers for any given class. But it doesn't mean that there's a single, optimal method of preparation or exam writing (putting aside organization, of course). As posters who have hung around this forum have discovered, there are many different ways of making it into the top 10%. Some people start studying on day 1. Others cram. Some use supplements religiously. Others do not. etc.

What people here object to, I think, is your insistence that you know what will and will not work for every student. See, e.g., your insistence that failure to prep during 0L is "suicidal," that anyone who starts outlining 1/2 way through the semester will be lucky to make it into the top 1/3, and that all students should outline before class.

[Mal]

Interesting, but not on point.

I think law students generally recognize that, as a consequence of blind grading and the efforts of professors to be fair, the exam answers that receive the highest grades in any given class are likely to have a lot in common. This means that there are many wrong ways to study and write exam answers for any given class. But it doesn't mean that there's a single, optimal method of preparation or exam writing (putting aside organization, of course). As posters who have hung around this forum have discovered, there are many different ways of making it into the top 10%. Some people start studying on day 1. Others cram. Some use supplements religiously. Others do not. etc.

What people here object to, I think, is your insistence that you know what will and will not work for every student. See, e.g., your insistence that failure to prep during 0L is "suicidal," that anyone who starts outlining 1/2 way through the semester will be lucky to make it into the top 1/3, and that all students should outline before class.

This, but more. TLS has several articles that are so exceptional on this topic. Free advice from Arrow, and Xeoh in particular. That is the benchmark we are using to compare Thane's advice to. Not only does it come up short, but it is often just completely out to lunch.

I am not sure that Thane's advice would hurt, but this 1500 word paragraph exemplifies what is wrong with it. It creates this illusion of law school that preys on the fears of 0L's. It takes forever to get a simple point across. It is arrogant and written poorly.

[Thane Messinger]

Let's not be paranoid. I was merely posing a hypothetical. I was not accusing you, or anyone, of the scenario I proposed. Just stating the obvious. Why would our hypothetical TLS member not want to take advantage of what they believe is crazy talk from Thane? If it meant droves of 1Ls trashing their future law careers, you would think the incentive would be to convince the innocent to follow the piper! It is a harsh job market out there, why not eliminate the competition!

I do not believe this. I think Thane is sincere in trying to help future and current 1Ls form suffering overwork, burnout and failure. You may not think his advice is helpful, but I leave that to each to decide.

While many accuse him of coming here to sell his book and pay off the huge note on the Gulfstream IV, the astute would note that he gives away essentially the entire middle section, "Getting Good," in the posts he makes here. Sorry Thane, don't want to dissuade anyone from investing in your book, but you do give away most of it!

Indeed so, and what's worse, it's not merely a set of bad tricks against potential competitors (which isn't all that unreasonable, depending upon the law school), but also gratuitous bad tricks againt everyone else. In arguments with Atticus Falcon over the years, I argued that this was rare, and otherwise was often well-intentioned. No matter, the result is the same. As you have read the book, you know that what they say I say is not what I actually say. My advice is, in many respects, the diametric opposite of the silly false dichotomies here. Ah, well.

As to giving away the goodies (as in "Getting Good"), well, that wouldn't be too commercial of me, yes? = : )

Thane.

[XxSpyKEx]

Are you high on crack? Because you certainly must be if you think I'm going to read a 1,500+ words paragraph.

[Renzo]

As you have read the book, you know that what they say I say is not what I actually say.

And someone published your book, huh?

[Thane Messinger]

Are you high on crack? Because you certainly must be if you think I'm going to read a 1,500+ words paragraph.

Ah, just wait for those cases.

= : )

[Thane Messinger]

As you have read the book, you know that what they say I say is not what I actually say.

And someone published your book, huh?

Amazing, isn't it?

[Thane Messinger]

This book is nothing more than the author's attempt to act smarter, and more well educated, than he actually is. From his blatant use of a thesaurus on every other word, to his analogies with Confucius, the Hitler Jugend, the Soviet Komsomol, and hundreds of others; the author tries to sound like a genius.

Although there is some useful information, I urge you to save your money for other law books. In this one, you won't find more than two informative sentences before the author deviates to three paragraphs of useless cliches, quotes in foreign languages, and endless rigmarole. The author has desperately tried to make this book much more than it actually is. As a result, the 225 pages actually contain only 20-25 pages of useful information.

Hmm. So there's a good chance Thane Messinger actually IS a professor of law and writer of casebooks. That's worth noting.

This is one of the most insightful comments in rebuttal. Nicely done.

PS: As to the review, I protest! There are at least 30 pages of useful information there.

Ah, "...endless rigmarole." Kinda' like law school. (And the law.)

Rather interesting that this critique was chosen, now that I think of it. While the context of these examples in The Young Lawyer's Jungle Book is different (relating to success in law practice), it strikes me that these three are excellent representations of this thread. In particular are the Red Guards, whose virulent anti-intellectualism was directed not at breaking the established order, but rather in squelching any possible threat to that order, namely, those who knew: intellectuals, the educated, the propertied.

In any event, what this thread speaks to even more is Lord of the Flies. Come to think of it, if anyone is primed to goof off for the next two months, that might be a good book to waste time with. This discussion might take on just a wee bit different tint.

[Thane Messinger]

This, but more. TLS has several articles that are so exceptional on this topic. Free advice from Arrow, and Xeoh in particular. That is the benchmark we are using to compare Thane's advice to. Not only does it come up short, but it is often just completely out to lunch.

I am not sure that Thane's advice would hurt, but this 1500 word paragraph exemplifies what is wrong with it. It creates this illusion of law school that preys on the fears of 0L's. It takes forever to get a simple point across. It is arrogant and written poorly.

Indeed so. There is superb advice here. Believe it or not, I was about to post a note on just how good some of this advice is when this fun kicked up. Such good advice, when mixed with (if not swamped by) less-than-superb advice and really, really bad assumptions and prejudices, well, that's where we part company.

The grand joke in this is that students spend mountains of money on materials, much of which is wasted by bad habits and worse presuppositions. Ah, well. I suppose we'll chalk this up to a fundamental disagreement about what sharing is all about.

PS: 0Ls ought damned well to be fearful. And they need not go to me for the reasons why. The shame is that this is unnecessary, which is my main point.

[Tautology]

Alright, I actually read through that abomination of a paragraph, and those following, and this is what I got out of it:

If you find yourself in law school and not understanding what you're doing, rather than mindlessly doing anything and everything anyone suggests to you, you should not do that.

Am I missing anything, or is that basically it?

[Renzo]

As you have read the book, you know that what they say I say is not what I actually say.

And someone published your book, huh?

Amazing, isn't it?

I guess it keeps copy editors' kids in diapers, so there's a silver lining.

[yinz]

Alright, I actually read through that abomination of a paragraph, and those following, and this is what I got out of it:

If you find yourself in law school and not understanding what you're doing, rather than mindlessly doing anything and everything anyone suggests to you, you should not do that.

Am I missing anything, or is that basically it?

Your username couldn't be more apropos.

Disclosure: I have no horse in this race.

[zeth006]

Are we allowed to spam/promote our products on TLS forums?

Nonetheless, the poor diction and the excessive use of parentheses probably shows the book is a

[luckyduck]

Alright, I actually read through that abomination of a paragraph, and those following, and this is what I got out of it:

If you find yourself in law school and not understanding what you're doing, rather than mindlessly doing anything and everything anyone suggests to you, you should not do that.

Am I missing anything, or is that basically it?

That's what I got out of itoo. But then I was left wondering, what AM I supposed to do? How is this post helpful?