PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Gemini
Posts: 1943
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:23 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Gemini » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:35 pm

Rule11 wrote:
Gemini wrote:How about this: we'll continue this discussion over PMs.


I can't see why we would do that. I like posting where everyone can see what I'm saying and evaluate it. But if you have something to say that you don't want to share with others, I'm happy to take a look and try to respond in good faith.


No, at this point, we're pretty much derailing the thread.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby alumniguy » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:48 pm

Rule11 wrote:
Gemini wrote:
Rule11 wrote:And that difference amounts to cheating in what way? Can you explain the reasoning here? I certainly would not expect the line between permissible/cheating to be the degree to which the help-seeker offered insights to others beforehand. For what it's worth, a more sensible line seems to me to be any discussion vs. no discussion, but that would make your assertion even more puzzling, as offering one's own insights (in addition to soliciting others' insights) would then become a greater violation than the solicitation alone.

So, as you can see, I'm struggling with your argument. Could you help me out here?



In my opinion, the fact that OP never offered up his own analysis but asked for others treads the line of cheating. Sure, he says he's using it to bounce ideas around, but you never know.

If someone wants assistance on an internet forum like this, they should be willing to extend their own opinions first. If you read this entire thread, you'll notice no one here actually contributed to OP's question.

How does anyone know that OP actually has some analysis worked out? Maybe he really IS looking for some answers. How would you know?

And yes, OP probably has a lot more credited resources he can look into for this. Including his own classmates.


I don't really think this is responsive. You claimed OP's behavior was cheating, and you said that the salient difference between permissible conduct and the OP's conduct was the OP's failure to offer up his/her own insights first. Best I can figure, you're saying that this difference is important because OP's conduct suggests that he or she wanted "answers" rather than "ideas." If that's not your argument, let me know.

If that's your argument, I remain confused. First, the OP's request was for help finding "issues" he or she might have missed. So, I'm not sure why we should credit your strained inference over the clear meaning of the request. But that aside, so what if the OP had asked for a detailed exegesis of the case and the surrounding caselaw, and a detailed analysis of all of the legal issues presented? Sure, that would be a gauche request, and one that few would jump to fulfill, but what I'm interested in is your claim that it's "cheating." We don't know what the professor prohibited--let's assume, in line with what we know, that the professor was silent on whether discussion of the case was prohibited, and the honor code is the same. If so, the only potential cheating I could see coming from the OP's request would be if he or she plagiarized verbatim a post made in response to the request. But that would only be cheating when it happened on the test--reading such a helpful post wouldn't strike me as "cheating" any more than reading the westlaw casenotes, or asking a friend for her analysis.

But what you've said is even more strange! You've suggested that it wasn't necessarily cheating, but became cheating because the OP failed to bring anything to the table. Merely asking wasn't the problem, it was asking without first giving. But, your latest post suggests that not providing his or her own analysis was problematic mostly because it was a breach of internet etiquette, not because it constituted cheating.

So, I ask again: why did you think it was cheating? Do you still think that? I'm not asking: why do you think OP's conduct is stupid, or bad, or rude. I'm asking why you think we should consider it--and by it, I mean the OP's question alone, asked as it was--academic dishonesty. Can you explain that, beyond mere assertion?


+1

No professor tells law students the underlying case on which the exam question is based and doesn't expect those students to immediately start discussing the case with classmates. Similarly, OP sought out a discussion from TLS posters. OP does not even know the exam question. This is fundamentally different from asking for the answer to a known exam question.

So not cheating based on the limited facts in front of us.

User avatar
Gemini
Posts: 1943
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:23 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Gemini » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:52 pm

blah
Last edited by Gemini on Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dj_spin
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:12 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby dj_spin » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:54 pm

Gemini wrote:
alumniguy wrote:No professor tells law students the underlying case on which the exam question is based


Just FYI:

Ineedhelpplease wrote:my professor gave us the case (Walker v. Harrison) he is basing the final exam on.


If this post weren't as stupid as I know it is (based on your earlier TL;DR) I'd swear you were trollin' ;)

Manash
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:49 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Manash » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:55 pm

SBL wrote:
Kretzy wrote:So you're a URM Latino who previously worked in the Kings County DA office enrolled in Cardozo's May Program. Sure hope this doesn't violate the honor code; bet there aren't many who fit your description...

/assistance from someone good at Contracts.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't use tls to cheat on your finals.

I went ahead and locked the first post too, just in case op was thinking about editing it.


Cold blooded. :shock:

OP should quit while he's ahead and stop posting. First thing that popped into my mind was.. "ehh.. is this allowed?" ... If other current/past law students can feel the same way then I think that should make OP rethink his stance that he is doing absolutely nothing wrong. Me thinks that OP's responses are becoming futile efforts to save face. The more pages this thread generates..well, the greater likelihood someone from Cardozo might stumble on this.

Cliff Notes to OP: Bail on this thread.

All the best.

My worthless $.02.

User avatar
Gemini
Posts: 1943
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:23 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Gemini » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:59 pm

dj_spin wrote:
Gemini wrote:
alumniguy wrote:No professor tells law students the underlying case on which the exam question is based


Just FYI:

Ineedhelpplease wrote:my professor gave us the case (Walker v. Harrison) he is basing the final exam on.


If this post weren't as stupid as I know it is (based on your earlier TL;DR) I'd swear you were trollin' ;)


Don't get this. What's the issue with the post?

edit: nvm, I got it, but in my defense, the sentence was awkwardly phrased! :oops:

schooner
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby schooner » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:11 pm

Let's just settle this. Here is Cardozo Law's student manual (LinkRemoved):

B. Specific Grounds: Student conduct for which disciplinary action may be taken shall include,
but not be limited to, commission of any of the following acts:

1. Engaging in prohibited conduct with respect to a law school examination. Prohibited
conduct includes, but is not limited to:
a. Obtaining unauthorized information about an examination prior to its
administration
b. Communicating by any means whatsoever, including, without limitation,
orally, in writing, telephone (cell or otherwise), or through any electronic
medium, with another person, except the instructor or the instructor’s
designees, during an examination;
c. Conversing with another person in the same course with respect to an
examination that one conversant has taken and the other has not;
i. Engaging in collaboration on a take-home examination without the prior
express permission of the instructor;
j. Consulting outside sources with regard to a take-home examination without
the prior express permission of the instructor, or, where such consultation is
permitted, failing to cite outside sources relied upon.


2. Plagiarizing the work of another person in any area of a student’s work, including but
research projects, and competitions sponsored either by the law school or an outside
organization, business or agency. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
a. Representing work completed by or with the assistance of another person as
the student’s own work;

b. Failing to attribute to its source any quotation, paraphrase, particular facts or
information, or ideas taken from that source.

User avatar
Gemini
Posts: 1943
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:23 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Gemini » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:14 pm

Thanks, schooner! <3

User avatar
Corwin
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Corwin » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:29 pm

schooner wrote:Let's just settle this. Here is Cardozo Law's student manual (LinkRemoved):

B. Specific Grounds: Student conduct for which disciplinary action may be taken shall include,
but not be limited to, commission of any of the following acts:

1. Engaging in prohibited conduct with respect to a law school examination. Prohibited
conduct includes, but is not limited to:
a. Obtaining unauthorized information about an examination prior to its
administration
b. Communicating by any means whatsoever, including, without limitation,
orally, in writing, telephone (cell or otherwise), or through any electronic
medium, with another person, except the instructor or the instructor’s
designees, during an examination;
c. Conversing with another person in the same course with respect to an
examination that one conversant has taken and the other has not;
i. Engaging in collaboration on a take-home examination without the prior
express permission of the instructor;
j. Consulting outside sources with regard to a take-home examination without
the prior express permission of the instructor, or, where such consultation is
permitted, failing to cite outside sources relied upon.


2. Plagiarizing the work of another person in any area of a student’s work, including but
research projects, and competitions sponsored either by the law school or an outside
organization, business or agency. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
a. Representing work completed by or with the assistance of another person as
the student’s own work;

b. Failing to attribute to its source any quotation, paraphrase, particular facts or
information, or ideas taken from that source.

This is stretch of epic proportions. 1(c) doesn't apply because neither he nor any of us have taken the exam yet. It's not a take home exam as far as I can tell, so 1(i) and 1(j) is out. I don't think asking for advice is enough to meet 2(a), anymore so than reading a casebook or supplement. You're just trolling right? It may be cheating, but not based on the facts we have.

Transferthrowaway
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Transferthrowaway » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:33 pm

I am late to the party, but I'm just checking in to say I was great at 1L contracts.

schooner
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby schooner » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:50 pm

Corwin wrote:This is stretch of epic proportions. 1(c) doesn't apply because neither he nor any of us have taken the exam yet. It's not a take home exam as far as I can tell, so 1(i) and 1(j) is out. I don't think asking for advice is enough to meet 2(a), anymore so than reading a casebook or supplement. You're just trolling right? It may be cheating, but not based on the facts we have.


Hyperbole much? :) I like the lawyerly way you defend the OP's conduct in light of the technicalities of the rules, though as a matter of policy he is arguably violating the principle driving the rules. (And getting specific help from live humans is not the same as passively consulting a casebook or supplement that doesn't offer any help specific to the OP's exam.) That is why the school's handbook also says "including but not limited to."

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby alumniguy » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:51 pm

Corwin wrote:
schooner wrote:Let's just settle this. Here is Cardozo Law's student manual (LinkRemoved):

B. Specific Grounds: Student conduct for which disciplinary action may be taken shall include,
but not be limited to, commission of any of the following acts:

1. Engaging in prohibited conduct with respect to a law school examination. Prohibited
conduct includes, but is not limited to:
a. Obtaining unauthorized information about an examination prior to its
administration
b. Communicating by any means whatsoever, including, without limitation,
orally, in writing, telephone (cell or otherwise), or through any electronic
medium, with another person, except the instructor or the instructor’s
designees, during an examination;
c. Conversing with another person in the same course with respect to an
examination that one conversant has taken and the other has not;
i. Engaging in collaboration on a take-home examination without the prior
express permission of the instructor;
j. Consulting outside sources with regard to a take-home examination without
the prior express permission of the instructor, or, where such consultation is
permitted, failing to cite outside sources relied upon.


2. Plagiarizing the work of another person in any area of a student’s work, including but
research projects, and competitions sponsored either by the law school or an outside
organization, business or agency. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
a. Representing work completed by or with the assistance of another person as
the student’s own work;

b. Failing to attribute to its source any quotation, paraphrase, particular facts or
information, or ideas taken from that source.

This is stretch of epic proportions. 1(c) doesn't apply because neither he nor any of us have taken the exam yet. It's not a take home exam as far as I can tell, so 1(i) and 1(j) is out. I don't think asking for advice is enough to meet 2(a), anymore so than reading a casebook or supplement. You're just trolling right? It may be cheating, but not based on the facts we have.


The highlighted text certainly doesn't apply to the facts of this issue. Pending any additional rules, the only way this is cheating is if the professor gave explicit instructions not to discuss this case with anyone else until the conclusion of the exam period. I'm guessing that isn't the case since the original post would then clearly be in violation of the professor's instructions.

I am not suggesting that I particularly agree with soliciting information from an internet forum when I could simply go to Westlaw and/or hornbooks, but this isn't cheating. Anyone have a change of heart, yet?

User avatar
Corwin
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 1:12 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Corwin » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:54 pm

schooner wrote:
Corwin wrote:This is stretch of epic proportions. 1(c) doesn't apply because neither he nor any of us have taken the exam yet. It's not a take home exam as far as I can tell, so 1(i) and 1(j) is out. I don't think asking for advice is enough to meet 2(a), anymore so than reading a casebook or supplement. You're just trolling right? It may be cheating, but not based on the facts we have.


Hyperbole much? :) I like the lawyerly way you defend the OP's conduct in light of the technicalities of the rules, though as a matter of policy he is arguably violating the principle driving the rules. (And getting specific help from live humans is not the same as passively consulting a casebook or supplement that doesn't offer any help specific to the OP's exam.) That is why the school's handbook also says "including but not limited to."

Justice Scalia would slap you silly. :P

And I'm not really defending him. His conduct isn't the best, but neither is the witch-hunt that is going on here.

schooner
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby schooner » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:00 pm

Corwin wrote:
schooner wrote:
Corwin wrote:This is stretch of epic proportions. 1(c) doesn't apply because neither he nor any of us have taken the exam yet. It's not a take home exam as far as I can tell, so 1(i) and 1(j) is out. I don't think asking for advice is enough to meet 2(a), anymore so than reading a casebook or supplement. You're just trolling right? It may be cheating, but not based on the facts we have.


Hyperbole much? :) I like the lawyerly way you defend the OP's conduct in light of the technicalities of the rules, though as a matter of policy he is arguably violating the principle driving the rules. (And getting specific help from live humans is not the same as passively consulting a casebook or supplement that doesn't offer any help specific to the OP's exam.) That is why the school's handbook also says "including but not limited to."

Justice Scalia would slap you silly. :P

And I'm not really defending him. His conduct isn't the best, but neither is the witch-hunt that is going on here.


LOL I have to admit I'm just dragging out this thread for fun. :twisted: (Sorry, OP)

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby alumniguy » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:02 pm

schooner wrote:
Corwin wrote:This is stretch of epic proportions. 1(c) doesn't apply because neither he nor any of us have taken the exam yet. It's not a take home exam as far as I can tell, so 1(i) and 1(j) is out. I don't think asking for advice is enough to meet 2(a), anymore so than reading a casebook or supplement. You're just trolling right? It may be cheating, but not based on the facts we have.


Hyperbole much? :) I like the lawyerly way you defend the OP's conduct in light of the technicalities of the rules, though as a matter of policy he is arguably violating the principle driving the rules. (And getting specific help from live humans is not the same as passively consulting a casebook or supplement that doesn't offer any help specific to the OP's exam.) That is why the school's handbook also says "including but not limited to."


No, the fact of the matter is that OP's conduct isn't a rule violation. You can be assured that the committee that drafted those rules knew that students in today's world consult the internet to conduct further research into challenging legal issues. If the committee had wanted to prohibit students from soliciting help on internet forums IN ADVANCE OF AN EXAM, they could have chosen to do so. They didn't though. What they did decide was to prohibit such conduct on take home exams, which doesn't appear to the type of exam at issue.

I agree that getting exam help from other people (whether live in person or through an internet forum) is fundamentally different from consulting hornbooks; however, there aren't rules against either. Again, had the professor wished to limit student discussion, then s/he wouldn't have told students the underlying case. In fact, I think the professor wants his/her students to be fully prepared on exam day and that is why s/he has clued them in on topic that will be tested. Why else would a professor clue students into the exam topic several days in advance of the exam?

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Sandro » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:02 pm

Wow. Another TLS thread where after clicking through a few pages you just shake your head and try to forget what you just saw.

schooner
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby schooner » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:27 pm

Sandro wrote:Wow. Another TLS thread where after clicking through a few pages you just shake your head and try to forget what you just saw.


Well done, TLS. Well done. <pats self on back> Another proud day.

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby NYC Law » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:28 pm

I'm disappointed no one has found the professor's email address yet.

Ineedhelpplease
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:51 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Ineedhelpplease » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:21 pm

NYC Law wrote:I'm disappointed no one has found the professor's email address yet.


I think you should.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby GATORTIM » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:30 pm

anybody that says OP is "cheating" is a self-righteous clown.

If the professor did not wish students to discuss the case then perhaps they would have not have disclosed in advance. OP never said that his only prep for the final was going to be starting a thread on TLS.

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

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:36 pm

Look dude. I'm sorry nobody else is helping you out. There are some jackasses on this forum.

I've seen issues like this on an exam before. The key is the economic due process question. This ruling would never fly today, because this was an efficient breach and imposing damages would violate the defendant's liberty of contract. There's also the reliance problem since the plaintiff and defendant both relied on the four corners of the contract, but honestly you can gloss over that or omit it completely. The due process issue is the one your professor will really be looking for, and show him you're paying attention to the underlying issues and not just the facts.

Ineedhelpplease
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:51 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Ineedhelpplease » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:38 pm

Thanks man...

Peeblepop
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:52 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Peeblepop » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:20 pm

vanwinkle wrote:Look dude. I'm sorry nobody else is helping you out. There are some jackasses on this forum.

I've seen issues like this on an exam before. The key is the economic due process question. This ruling would never fly today, because this was an efficient breach and imposing damages would violate the defendant's liberty of contract. There's also the reliance problem since the plaintiff and defendant both relied on the four corners of the contract, but honestly you can gloss over that or omit it completely. The due process issue is the one your professor will really be looking for, and show him you're paying attention to the underlying issues and not just the facts.


uhh...

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby lisjjen » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Is it cheating? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Does it look bad? Absolutely. OP, I would recommend never posting such unique facts about yourself. That way, if you do mess up, you have your anonymity intact. Trust me, I know from personal experience.

Peeblepop
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:52 am

Re: PLEASE THOSE WHO ARE/WERE GREAT AT 1L CONTRACTS. PLEASE HELP

Postby Peeblepop » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:42 pm

betasteve wrote:
Peeblepop wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:Look dude. I'm sorry nobody else is helping you out. There are some jackasses on this forum.

I've seen issues like this on an exam before. The key is the economic due process question. This ruling would never fly today, because this was an efficient breach and imposing damages would violate the defendant's liberty of contract. There's also the reliance problem since the plaintiff and defendant both relied on the four corners of the contract, but honestly you can gloss over that or omit it completely. The due process issue is the one your professor will really be looking for, and show him you're paying attention to the underlying issues and not just the facts.


uhh...

Shhhhhh


I know all the words he said... I just don't understand the order he put them in...




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], LawHammer and 3 guests