0L Question

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

0L Question

Postby brickman » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:26 pm

edit: What exactly are you getting from a professor that is relevant and what should you be looking for to make sure you do well on the exam. Further, is this a correct way of thinking about the type of things that are relevant to exams and how far and wide should this methodology be applied to the material.
Last edited by brickman on Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

lawschoolstudent85
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:10 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby lawschoolstudent85 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:28 pm

I feel for your future classmates.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:30 pm

Which part of "Forum for Law School Students" is ambiguous?

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby jpSartre » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:33 pm

hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture and recognize minutia for minutia
Last edited by jpSartre on Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby bjsesq » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:33 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?


My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8445
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby thesealocust » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:34 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon my douchitude, but I believe in little in this world but my eloquence and ferocious intelligence, and I think it would just be criminal not to share. I SHALL BEGIN TO TYPE, KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS.


KILL IT BEFORE IT BREEDS!

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19658
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby dailygrind » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:36 pm

jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture


0Ls starting threads with long winded hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

User avatar
D-hops
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby D-hops » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:37 pm

bjsesq wrote:
brickman wrote:Image


My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.


Or Sogui.

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby jpSartre » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:37 pm

dailygrind wrote:
jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture


0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?


You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?

Baylan
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby Baylan » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:37 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?


I am looking forward to hearing you complain about your LRW teacher when you get back your first memo.

And if you're thinking this much about the theory behind the teaching, you're probably going to spend too much time on this bullshit and not enough time doing the important things.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby AreJay711 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:38 pm

Wow I didn't get past the first line lol.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby bjsesq » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:39 pm

D-hops wrote:
bjsesq wrote:
brickman wrote:Image


My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.


Or Sogui.


A WE IZ GENIUS CIRCLEJERK. The huge manatee. Oh.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13589
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby Flips88 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:40 pm

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8445
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby thesealocust » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:40 pm

--ImageRemoved--

blsingindisguise
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:08 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby blsingindisguise » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:41 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?


I'm tempted to just respond sarcastically. My more gentle response is that you sound a bit confused about a lot of things about the law and law school. For example, you say "For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law." But more often than not, caselaw has nothing to do with "legislative history" because you're dealing with common law, not statutory interpretation, so there is no legislative history.

Of course even when a case interprets a statute, (1) there is often limited legislative history available (especially with state statutes), (2) legislative history is widely considered to be a fairly limited (though sometimes useful) tool in statutory interpretation for reasons too complicated to get into, (3) many cases interpreting statutes turn on applying the statute to a new, heretofore uncontemplated situation, so what the drafters of the statute meant at the time is not always that useful.

Beyond that, what I think you are maybe sort of trying to get at (although I'm not sure because your post is a little bit like a description of basketball written by a person who has only seen still photographs of the game) is something that the caselaw method already does. You read a variety of cases dealing with variations of an issue, you see all the different twists and turns it could take and how judges resolve the problems, you learn to apply the law to the facts and to find your own forks and to choose one road or another at the fork and make the best argument for the one you chose.

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19658
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby dailygrind » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:42 pm

jpSartre wrote:
dailygrind wrote:
jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture


0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?


You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?


No, but I'm a dickbag with a power complex who's this close to banning you. Talk to each other all you want, but do it in the appropriate forums. The forum for law students is reserved for law students to converse with each other, and for 0Ls to clandestinely snoop and very occasionally ask intelligent questions.

User avatar
jpSartre
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby jpSartre » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:47 pm

dailygrind wrote:
jpSartre wrote:
dailygrind wrote:
jpSartre wrote:hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture


0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?


You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?


No, but I'm a dickbag with a power complex who's this close to banning you. Talk to each other all you want, but do it in the appropriate forums. The forum for law students is reserved for law students to converse with each other, and for 0Ls to clandestinely snoop and very occasionally ask intelligent questions.


On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? I actually responded to the topic. If you're going to ban anyone, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people posting shark pictures? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."
Last edited by jpSartre on Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:38 am, edited 4 times in total.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby kaiser » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:48 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?


Lol

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby bjsesq » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:48 pm

jpSartre wrote:On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."


See ya!

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8445
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby thesealocust » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:49 pm

jpSartre wrote:On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."


ohhhhhhh shit son! First lesson in the law: It doesn't matter what it says, it matters what the person with the power to enforce it decides to do. In other words, it's best to let sleeping dragons lie. Put another way, good? bad? he's the guy with the banstick. Alternatively: HE IS THE LAW.

User avatar
AreJay711
Posts: 3406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby AreJay711 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:49 pm

jpSartre wrote:
On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? I actually responded to the topic. If you're going to ban anyone, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people posting shark pictures? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."


Yeah, tell him noob

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

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby 071816 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:50 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?


Image

User avatar
dailygrind
Posts: 19658
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:08 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby dailygrind » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:53 pm

And he's....outta here!

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:54 pm

brickman wrote:Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise...
Fresh-off-the-LSAT vocab: check

brickman wrote:For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law.
No clue what actually goes on in a law school classroom: check

brickman, all one sentence wrote:The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.
solving law school before it starts: check

brickman wrote:If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?
asking a question that would answer itself by reading any one of the LS advice threads: check


all around excellent post.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Musings of a 0L on lecture purpose and methodology

Postby bjsesq » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:54 pm

dailygrind wrote:And he's....outta here!


ON WHAT GROUNDS, YOU SUMMAMABITCH




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest