Top Law Schools

I was very excited about legislation, saw who was teaching it, and decided to become very excited about literally anything else.

Has anyone taken financial statements for a grade? If so, how exactly does it work being graded when some people are pass/no pass? Thanks!

Sgt Pepper wrote:Has anyone taken financial statements for a grade? If so, how exactly does it work being graded when some people are pass/no pass? Thanks!

Would we have to indicate that before the class starts or is that a mid-semester deadline?

toothbrush wrote:

Sgt Pepper wrote:Has anyone taken financial statements for a grade? If so, how exactly does it work being graded when some people are pass/no pass? Thanks!

Would we have to indicate that before the class starts or is that a mid-semester deadline?

You get a few weeks to decide.

Thanks, Tiago.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

Sgt Pepper wrote:Has anyone taken financial statements for a grade? If so, how exactly does it work being graded when some people are pass/no pass? Thanks!

Would we have to indicate that before the class starts or is that a mid-semester deadline?

You get a few weeks to decide.

Are you graded against everyone or just the people who choose to take it for a grade? Seems like the difference would make the curve notably easier/harder depending on how it's graded.

The prof told us that he is given extra leeway with the curve because for obvious reasons the people who take it for a grade would probably do better. So you aren't graded strictly against just those people who choose to be graded. But I don't know how exactly that plays out in real life. I put exactly zero effort into the class because I took it P/F but from what I could tell you could likely get an A or at least an A- just by trying hard.

Tiago Splitter wrote:The prof told us that he is given extra leeway with the curve because for obvious reasons the people who take it for a grade would probably do better. So you aren't graded strictly against just those people who choose to be graded. But I don't know how exactly that plays out in real life. I put exactly zero effort into the class because I took it P/F but from what I could tell you could likely get an A or at least an A- just by trying hard.

Awesome, thanks.

ph5354a wrote:If you plan on doing a secondary journal note for your Major Writing Credit, do you get actual credit for that, or is it more of a checkmark thing? The registration form for the Major Writing Credit says "0 credits" but I thought I'd heard of people getting credit for a note. Do you have to register for the Major Writing Credit and also register to get Supervised Research credit? Trying to figure out how many credits I need to add tomorrow. #confused.

I think you get credit for a note through the supervised research part, but I would confirm that since I don't even have a note topic so I know nothing about this process. Definitely publication gets you a single additional credit regardless.

I love how this thread is now 2Ls asking 2Ls and 3Ls about 2L stuff, though.

I feel like there must be leg press and glute machines in Dodge that I'm just missing...

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:would taking Conflict of Laws with Monaghan be a suicidal move? Not looking to kill myself this semester and obviously haven't taken fed courts, but the subject matter does interest me & it's one of the few that doesn't clash time wise with my current schedule

CLS has effectively assigned one of the most complained-about professors to teach one of the most important classes you could learn in law school (as said so by HPM himself). The biggest problem with Monaghan is that he does not explain basic doctrine before launching into really high level discussion that just goes over students' heads. So you're pretty much stuck teaching yourself basic fed courts. It's like the blind leading the blind. And I feel like this problem is relatively easy to fix, but the fact that Monaghan makes no effort to do this shows how little he cares about students.

That was enough to frighten me off.

But then again, I signed up for another semester of Merrill, so what the hell do I know.

Can you expand on Merrill? I have him for torts this semester. And anyone have thoughts on Johnson for civ pro?

thanks

girlmonster wrote:I feel like there must be leg press and glute machines in Dodge that I'm just missing...

Leg press machine is just past the Smith machine on the second level.

As for Merrill, he is nice enough. Does cold calls by going row by row so you know when you are coming up and can be prepared. He did assign a ton of reading for property but that might have been because he wrote the book.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

girlmonster wrote:I feel like there must be leg press and glute machines in Dodge that I'm just missing...

Leg press machine is just past the Smith machine on the second level.

Thanks! Is this in the tri-level fitness area? Or that super-intimidating weightlifting area?

girlmonster wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

girlmonster wrote:I feel like there must be leg press and glute machines in Dodge that I'm just missing...

Leg press machine is just past the Smith machine on the second level.

Thanks! Is this in the tri-level fitness area? Or that super-intimidating weightlifting area?

It's on the middle level of the the tri level fitness area. Which might also be the super intimidating weightlifting area cuz I don't know any other weightlifting areas.

Tiago Splitter wrote:It's on the middle level of the the tri level fitness area. Which might also be the super intimidating weightlifting area cuz I don't know any other weightlifting areas.

I guess for some reason I was thinking of this:
http://www.gocolumbialions.com/ViewArti ... ID=1435078

Thanks for your patience!

Humbert Humbert wrote:

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:would taking Conflict of Laws with Monaghan be a suicidal move? Not looking to kill myself this semester and obviously haven't taken fed courts, but the subject matter does interest me & it's one of the few that doesn't clash time wise with my current schedule

CLS has effectively assigned one of the most complained-about professors to teach one of the most important classes you could learn in law school (as said so by HPM himself). The biggest problem with Monaghan is that he does not explain basic doctrine before launching into really high level discussion that just goes over students' heads. So you're pretty much stuck teaching yourself basic fed courts. It's like the blind leading the blind. And I feel like this problem is relatively easy to fix, but the fact that Monaghan makes no effort to do this shows how little he cares about students.

That was enough to frighten me off.

But then again, I signed up for another semester of Merrill, so what the hell do I know.

Can you expand on Merrill? I have him for torts this semester. And anyone have thoughts on Johnson for civ pro?

thanks

Johnson is fantastic.

Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

girlmonster wrote:Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

I had her. If she failed anyone, I didn't hear about it. What's nice about her final is that you literally cannot study for it. Everything you need to know will be on the exam itself (if I'm remembering correctly. It was a long time ago lol). But seriously, relax. Do the readings because it's helpful in a very general sense, but don't actually stress about Legal Methods.

arnoldpalmer36 wrote:

girlmonster wrote:Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

I had her. If she failed anyone, I didn't hear about it. What's nice about her final is that you literally cannot study for it. Everything you need to know will be on the exam itself (if I'm remembering correctly. It was a long time ago lol). But seriously, relax. Do the readings because it's helpful in a very general sense, but don't actually stress about Legal Methods.

Thank you, this is what I keep telling myself! Most of the people I know seem to think substantive information from our reading will be required (for example, we'll have to cite specific cases and doctrines). Just wanted to make sure I'm not way off base.

girlmonster wrote:

arnoldpalmer36 wrote:

girlmonster wrote:Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

I had her. If she failed anyone, I didn't hear about it. What's nice about her final is that you literally cannot study for it. Everything you need to know will be on the exam itself (if I'm remembering correctly. It was a long time ago lol). But seriously, relax. Do the readings because it's helpful in a very general sense, but don't actually stress about Legal Methods.

Thank you, this is what I keep telling myself! Most of the people I know seem to think substantive information from our reading will be required (for example, we'll have to cite specific cases and doctrines). Just wanted to make sure I'm not way off base.

It's my understanding that this may be the case for some other Methods classes, but it could not be less the case for Ginsburg. Her final is going to be a weird puzzle that requires zero substantive legal understanding of any kind.

cws277 wrote:

girlmonster wrote:

arnoldpalmer36 wrote:

girlmonster wrote:Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

I had her. If she failed anyone, I didn't hear about it. What's nice about her final is that you literally cannot study for it. Everything you need to know will be on the exam itself (if I'm remembering correctly. It was a long time ago lol). But seriously, relax. Do the readings because it's helpful in a very general sense, but don't actually stress about Legal Methods.

Thank you, this is what I keep telling myself! Most of the people I know seem to think substantive information from our reading will be required (for example, we'll have to cite specific cases and doctrines). Just wanted to make sure I'm not way off base.

It's my understanding that this may be the case for some other Methods classes, but it could not be less the case for Ginsburg. Her final is going to be a weird puzzle that requires zero substantive legal understanding of any kind.

Thank you for the reaffirmation!

girlmonster wrote:

arnoldpalmer36 wrote:

girlmonster wrote:Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

I had her. If she failed anyone, I didn't hear about it. What's nice about her final is that you literally cannot study for it. Everything you need to know will be on the exam itself (if I'm remembering correctly. It was a long time ago lol). But seriously, relax. Do the readings because it's helpful in a very general sense, but don't actually stress about Legal Methods.

Thank you, this is what I keep telling myself! Most of the people I know seem to think substantive information from our reading will be required (for example, we'll have to cite specific cases and doctrines). Just wanted to make sure I'm not way off base.

Ive never heard of anyone failing first hand, yea Im sure she does fail a couple folks the first time around because she needs to be able to say she does to retain credibility and she's quite the honest type. It doesn't matter either way though because if you "fail" the first time you just do it again and pass it then. It's not like you're expelled or it actually shows up anywhere

jbagelboy wrote:

girlmonster wrote:

arnoldpalmer36 wrote:

girlmonster wrote:Another question that may make me seem neurotic and/or mentally impaired: Has anyone here had Ginsburg for Legal Methods? I heard from a fellow 1L that she always fails at least a couple of people.

I had her. If she failed anyone, I didn't hear about it. What's nice about her final is that you literally cannot study for it. Everything you need to know will be on the exam itself (if I'm remembering correctly. It was a long time ago lol). But seriously, relax. Do the readings because it's helpful in a very general sense, but don't actually stress about Legal Methods.

Thank you, this is what I keep telling myself! Most of the people I know seem to think substantive information from our reading will be required (for example, we'll have to cite specific cases and doctrines). Just wanted to make sure I'm not way off base.

Ive never heard of anyone failing first hand, yea Im sure she does fail a couple folks the first time around because she needs to be able to say she does to retain credibility and she's quite the honest type. It doesn't matter either way though because if you "fail" the first time you just do it again and pass it then. It's not like you're expelled or it actually shows up anywhere

Very fair point. I think if I failed Legal Methods after having it drilled into my head that "everyone passes," I'd be emotionally traumatized. I'm too weak for law school.

Here's the thing about law school: everything will seem like it's the end all to be all, until you realize it isn't. Have to ace this cold call! Oh wait, it didn't matter. Have to pass legal methods, otherwise the world is over! Oh wait, it isn't. Have to get on this specific journal, have to get a certain summer job, etc. Obviously this will be dependent on your specific goals (to clerk, you may actually have to get onto a certain journal), but all things considered law school is largely about thinking every next thing is the biggest deal in the world, until things work out and you realize you spent a lot of time and energy stressing about things that didn't matter as much as you thought they did. Obviously take law school seriously and work hard, but I'm almost embarrassed to look back on things and realize how I thought certain things were the end of the world, only to have had everything work out in the end. It's Legal Methods. Relax, and enjoy things now, and go out and have fun/meet people.

Thanks for the more general advice, moonman! That's an excellent message to keep in mind, and one I'll share with some of my fellow 1Ls. To clarify, I was being (mostly) facetious when I said that failing Legal Methods would be traumatic; and I'm certainly not treating this like it's the be-all and end-all. I'm actually on the opposite end of the spectrum, and that's why the "real" possibility of failing somewhat surprised me. I say "somewhat" because I was still skeptical about it, which is why I was asking about it in my original post.

I really appreciate the advice, y'all!