audrey hepburn wrote:thanks everyone for your information on MSP.
I have a question for Rutgers_1L: What is this "blue book" that you are referring to? Also, do you recommend any readings to help prepare for law school or just to relax the summer before?
Mac and PCs are 50/50 around the school, and maybe even 60/40 Macs
Bottom Line--it doesn't matter for classes or test
Bluebook--the "Bluebook" is the short name for the Bluebook Uniform System of Citation
It is actually a project of the various Law Reviews from Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and Penn.
But, it is actually the "formal" way to make legal citations. It is the law school version of the APA, or Chicago Manual of Style
You will be required to purchase it for LRW. You will be taught every week how to decipher it, use it, and apply it. Your LRW TA's will be the people that teach you how to use the BB throughout your first semester. The Bluebook is the most common citation form of legal writing done in the US legal system, however, not all schools use the Bluebook. Some used a slightly more antiquated citation tool known as AWLD. I know Temple Law still uses AWLD, but Bluebook is the standard.
Yes there are bluebooks that you can write your exams in, but when people say Bluebook in law school they're talking about the little spiral bound, LRW bible.
Recommended reading--Getting to Maybe.
Why? It's a good read, and it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside like you're actually going to understand law school.
Read the newspaper!!!
Why? Law school is about real life. Those of you that are straight from undergrad and in the 21-24 range are going to lose a lot of context for some of the legal cases because you weren't born. But, the more you know about the world and the state of thing the more the cases will seem to carve out a path in your brains. Law school cases are about real people, real event, and real problems. The newspaper is full of "cases" if you will. Read them for historical purpose, entertainment, general knowledge, and read them and see if you can pick out two sides of every story. See if you can find a way to be passionate and argue for one side, and then do the exact same thing for the other side.
STOP reading logic games--or anything that resembles the LSAT. Law school is not a logic puzzle. You will rarely even hear the word logic used. At least not in a way that it's used for the LSAT. You logic is less useful in law school than you think.
I'm sorry in advance for questioning you. This is not to be disrespectful or confrontational for the sake of a good time. I just want to make sure that your advice doesn't mislead anyone because we all take it seriously and appreciate your great intentions. Please do keep it coming. I am writing this in part because you said:
"I think if you guys learn to verbalize your thoughts and expressions here you'll be in a better place.
Your position and responses are what they are, I think as long as they come from a place of respect for your classmates then you should feel free to respond. Respect is key and so is accuracy. 99% of the things said on TLS come from people that are being ignorant and repeating inaccurate information fueled by their own insecurity.
So post away!!"
I would like to think of you as one of my classmates because of your participation and guidance on this thread, especially since it involves myself and a group of my classmates. So I find a response appropriate.
I think their is a bit of irony in your last piece of advice and just wanted to bring it up.
"See if you can find a way to be passionate and argue for one side, and then do the exact same thing for the other side." and "STOP reading...anything that resembles the LSAT. You logic is less useful in law school than you think."
Technically, and just hear me out... that is contradicting advice and its about logic nonetheless. Logical reasoning in particular is very important for arguing. If arguing is important for law school (implied by the advice to read news and advocate for sides) and logical reasoning is something that resembles the LSAT, then I reach a different conclusion than what your advice indicates and that is: We should not STOP reading anything that resembles the LSAT.
But, I understand you may have been exaggerating or that you are saying not to expect school to be all related to the LSAT. I am merely pointing out that logical reasoning, which is something that resembles the LSAT is still very useful if not crucial for law school, arguing, LRW, Law Review, everyday life etc.. I think sharing that I disagree or point out that was an exaggeration might possibly affect someone's plans for exercising their mind before, during, or even after law school with something that resembles the LSAT. I guess no one else is my problem, accept if everyone stops using logic. I'd rather not live in that world. So I guess it comes back to self-interest after all. What doesn't? But, whether true altruism even exists is another discussion.
For example, what comes to mind is being able to question case law and not just accept it as the rule of law for stare decisis sake. As we know or many would argue, judges most often behave on more than good legal decisions and make decisions on extralegal considerations. This means its possible that the outcome of a case, was not in fact the best legal outcome. If this is true of at least some case law, then it is important to be able to distinguish between the arguments of a case. If law school has fallen into this world of ignoring proper reasoning by developing its own reasoning or encouraging that of others because it was decided that way, then its no wonder it may seem like we don't need to read anything resembling the LSAT. However, every individual will contribute to school with their own approach to the law or specific cases, no matter how knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced professors or peers may be, especially when keeping in mind the lineage of certain paradigm. After all, if judges are influenced by extralegal considerations, who says professors or their professor who taught them weren't? Logical reasoning is essential to interpretation and questioning conflicting schools of thought or sides to an argument. Students having the tools for a time when their mind is to be formed and developed during their studies is, I think, very important. Otherwise, one would just absorb whatever they are being taught without question and that is dangerous. At least one of those tools is being able to keep up with the legal model approach and requires the armament of the type of sound logical reasoning taught on the LSAT. Its being able to switch to either side of any argument. If one argument is bad, and you have no choice then take up the flawed arguments or the non-resembling-lsat approach or keep repeating "precedent" over and over even if its holding has been undermined. But, at least understanding logic as its taught on the LSAT will help increase versatility.