Dragging the law out of the professor

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby brickman » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:21 pm

If the professor doesn't necessarily and explicitly define the rule, for example: intent is..., then how the hell can I begin to even know what to do?

Edit: Knowing the BLL, the BLL that the professor wants the students to know, as different from that which is coldly laid out in the restatements or some supplement, seems difficult to acquire. It is difficult to acquire because the professor doesn't seem to have the interest in laying out the elements in the language he finds acceptable.

This seems relevant given that in order to make an argument for how a novel fact situation should turn out often turns on the language, and if we don't know the BLL then...
Last edited by brickman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kahechsof
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:26 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby kahechsof » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:22 pm

Don't sweat it.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby brickman » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:58 pm

bump b/c it seems important.

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

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby NYC Law » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:28 pm

brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.


It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.

User avatar
bceagles182
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby bceagles182 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:37 pm

brickman wrote:If the professor doesn't necessarily and explicitly define the rule, for example: intent is..., then how the hell can I begin to even know what to do?

Are office hours a reasonable place to be direct and ask how they define it or am I going to have to assume it's the restatement and then be up the creek without the paddle come grading time because all the while the professor had another definition that he was working with.


Allow me to save you the time of reading GTM:

The problem with your question is that there is no answer. There is no clear line, so provide arguments on both sides on the exam if it is a close call. If the answer is clear cut, then don't bother arguing the other side but realize that this is very rare and you're probably missing something.

hth

nigelfrost
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby nigelfrost » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:49 pm


User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby brickman » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:34 pm

NYC Law wrote:
brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.


It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.



I'm very familiar with GTM, so no worries there. I'll double check, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't address this.

User avatar
kwais
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby kwais » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:38 pm

brickman wrote:
NYC Law wrote:
brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.


It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.



I'm very familiar with GTM, so no worries there. I'll double check, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't address this.


you are in no way familiar with GTM if that is your response. This time, read the words in order and turn each page after you complete the previous one.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby brickman » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:41 pm

kwais wrote:
brickman wrote:
NYC Law wrote:
brickman wrote:bump b/c it seems important.


It isn't.


Do you have access to your professor's past exams? If so look to those to get an idea of the test format and what you need to know. Also, read Getting to Maybe, the first chapter is pretty much a drawn out answer to your question.



I'm very familiar with GTM, so no worries there. I'll double check, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't address this.


you are in no way familiar with GTM if that is your response. This time, read the words in order and turn each page after you complete the previous one.



I guess there is some ambiguity in my original post, the BLL of the course is not being explicitly stated in the course.

As an example:

Intent, an element of an intentional tort, has not even been close to defined. The language given by the professor isn't exact and he has only cursorily referenced language to it. Emphasis on TLS is placed on knowing the BLL and applying it to novel fact situations, so if I don't know my professors brand of BLL then I can't do the process that GTM lays out.

Or is this still fuzy?

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby spleenworship » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:18 pm

Why don't you go to office hours and ask them?

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby 071816 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:21 pm

This is what supplements are for.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby brickman » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:22 pm

spleenworship wrote:Why don't you go to office hours and ask them?


'Are office hours a reasonable place to be direct and ask how they define it or am I going to have to assume it's the restatement and then be up the creek without the paddle come grading time because all the while the professor had another definition that he was working with.'

I noted that earlier (though i edited it out for some reason) , so I just wanted to know if that was a reasonable thing to do. Thanks.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby brickman » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:23 pm

chimp wrote:This is what supplements are for.


Don't professors like the BLL to be in their own particular language, and having the language down seems significant when making certain determinations about how the law should play out.

User avatar
TTH
Posts: 10384
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby TTH » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:43 pm

brickman wrote:
chimp wrote:This is what supplements are for.


Don't professors like the BLL to be in their own particular language, and having the language down seems significant when making certain determinations about how the law should play out.


Maybe if your professor was Prosser ressurrected. Damn near every other torts prof will be happy with the restatement definition.

So many hysteric threads about torts this year. Relax folks. The shit is like the gym class of law school.*


* - Which means the curve will be tighter because more people will grasp the basics of it versus say... contracts, where being able to step through a battle of forms question without screwing up nets you easy points. OMGZPANIC.

maf70
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:57 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby maf70 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:55 pm

Go to your profs office hours if you're worried about it. Ask if the restatement is sufficient. Problem solved.

Younger Abstention
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby Younger Abstention » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:00 pm

The Restatement definition is fine. The law is the law. Your prof. likely didn't write it. If s/he wants something alternative, s/he will tell you. Your question seems to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of law/school. But it's still early, keep plugging away.
Last edited by Younger Abstention on Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby romothesavior » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:01 pm

+1 to TTH. Seems yo be an abnormal amount of torts stress so far. Chillax folks.

This is what supplements are for. Intent is a very basic concept with little wiggle room in the field of tort law. Your prof doesn't hold some magic definition to it, and if he did he would have told you. Re-read the cases and supplement as necessary.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby kalvano » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:28 pm

Intent for torts - you either meant to do it (you're a son of a bitch) or you damn well should have known it would happen (you're an inconsiderate jackass).

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

Re: Dragging the law out of the professor

Postby NYC Law » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:35 pm

kalvano wrote:Intent for torts - you either meant to do it (you're a son of a bitch) or you damn well should have known it would happen (you're an inconsiderate jackass).


You should write a supplement.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], twenty and 5 guests