TigerBeer wrote: JazzOne wrote: vanwinkle wrote:
uzpakalis wrote:What I seem to learn in class is what kind of arguments the Prof wants to see on exams. What I learn outside of class is the actual meat and potatoes of the material.
I think 1Ls should be required to take a basic jurisprudence course. There are far too many 1L professors (at least in my experience) who fail to address which types of argument they consider to be legitimate. You have to discern that on your own, which can be tricky when no one has ever explained to you (1) what are the basic types of argumentation and (2) how different philosophies of jurisprudence will affect which types of argumentation are favored or disfavored.
what are you talking about wrt to "types of argumentation," like the difference between an efficiency argument and an autonomy argument?
Originalist arguments (or intentionlist)
arguments based on historical use/practice
external-to-law arguments (policy)
arguments of justice or fairness
That is not an exhaustive list. That's just off the top of my head. I'll add more as I think of them. The point is that some professors consider some types to be legitimate and others to be illegitimate. Or, if that dichotomy is too strict for you, some professors favor certain types of arguments over others. For example, a strict originalist would not be persuaded by a policy argument when the original intent is known. A non-originalist would evaluate the same argument quite differently. That's a pretty clear example, and it's easy to spot professors who are originalists. But how are you supposed to determine whether your professor is more persuaded by realism (justice) or formalism (textualism and struturalism)? That's a more subtle point to ascertain, particularly if you aren't even aware of the differences between the two schools of thought.
ETA: Arguments by analogy