Rutgers Newark

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
jbl7979
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby jbl7979 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:30 am

get it to x wrote:Hey Rutgers_1L, or anyone else with insight, is there a decent number of students who live in Newark itself outside of the dorms or do most students gravitate towards Hoboken and Jersey City? I did a cursory glance for a studio in both places and it seems like rent is very steep ($1700 and up). Are there places in both areas that one could get cheaper?


I think other people have posted this before, but Id look towards South Orange or Clifton for cheaper prices in decent areas that are still close.

bjf
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:28 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bjf » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:55 am

Blue book is a referencing tool on how to correctly cite cases.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:24 am

audrey hepburn wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
audrey hepburn wrote:Another question for Rutgers_1L: Are there any specifications for a laptop that we should use? Is a macbook okay for the exams/assignments or should we just stick with Windows?


I think we will find all of this out in due time for sure, but when I sat in on a Con Law class at RU this year there were plenty of Macs and plenty of PCs.

Also, the blue book refers to written exams no? I had a few blue book exams in undergrad that the adjunct professors (who were attorneys) used because they think they're teaching law school. I could be wrong about what a blue book refers to in actual law school though. The ones I am referring to are not dissimilar from the ones back when we started learning cursive in like 2nd grade only the pages are smaller, but normally lined pages instead of smaller, but wide lined pages with dotted lines. This is what I imagine "blue books" to mean, but you didn't ask me.


thanks for your response- that's actually what I thought blue books referred to as well but i wasn't sure so I wanted to clarify. sorry for referring that question to rutgers_1L but I thought maybe everyone else wasn't sure either. Thanks for the information about the laptops as well...good to know people were using both


Well looks like we share a similar imagination then. Imagination being the operative word haha. Blue books refers to a referencing tool according to the poster above. BTW you didn't ask me and with good reason. I didn't pretend to know for sure though...I wonder where they got their name?

We better double check on the Mac vs. PC thing too.

wizoz
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby wizoz » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:35 am

inSouthAmerica wrote:@ bernie shmegma - hmm don't know how to answer. youre definitely right; and im not trying to stand in your way. just don't let my beloved rutgers newark forum turn into a fight about the merits and demerits of necessary proportional inclusion of minority student bylaws for journal staffing! focus on how you, being who you are, can get onto a publication, and i say "investigate away". the system, however fair, is what it is. can it change, maybe, but it wont happen here, and nobody is going to win any friends in this discussion. and after all, i want this forum talking about happy things.


I couldn't agree more. The way people responded to the MSP treatment on journals speaks volumes to the contention that exists among the student body on this precise issue. It's pretty tense and way too tense for me and for here. I want a happy forum also. 8)

User avatar
audrey hepburn
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby audrey hepburn » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:35 am

bernie shmegma wrote:
audrey hepburn wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
audrey hepburn wrote:Another question for Rutgers_1L: Are there any specifications for a laptop that we should use? Is a macbook okay for the exams/assignments or should we just stick with Windows?


I think we will find all of this out in due time for sure, but when I sat in on a Con Law class at RU this year there were plenty of Macs and plenty of PCs.

Also, the blue book refers to written exams no? I had a few blue book exams in undergrad that the adjunct professors (who were attorneys) used because they think they're teaching law school. I could be wrong about what a blue book refers to in actual law school though. The ones I am referring to are not dissimilar from the ones back when we started learning cursive in like 2nd grade only the pages are smaller, but normally lined pages instead of smaller, but wide lined pages with dotted lines. This is what I imagine "blue books" to mean, but you didn't ask me.


thanks for your response- that's actually what I thought blue books referred to as well but i wasn't sure so I wanted to clarify. sorry for referring that question to rutgers_1L but I thought maybe everyone else wasn't sure either. Thanks for the information about the laptops as well...good to know people were using both


Well looks like we share a similar imagination then. Imagination being the operative word haha. Blue books refers to a referencing tool according to the poster above. BTW you didn't ask me and with good reason. I didn't pretend to know for sure though...I wonder where they got their name?

We better double check on the Mac vs. PC thing too.


Yeah I know why can't they just call it referencing tool book? I wonder when they will give us more information on the Mac vs PC thing...maybe it's somewhere on their website?

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:53 am

Rutgers1L_10 wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
inSouthAmerica wrote:@ bernie shmegma - hmm don't know how to answer. youre definitely right; and im not trying to stand in your way. just don't let my beloved rutgers newark forum turn into a fight about the merits and demerits of necessary proportional inclusion of minority student bylaws for journal staffing! focus on how you, being who you are, can get onto a publication, and i say "investigate away". the system, however fair, is what it is. can it change, maybe, but it wont happen here, and nobody is going to win any friends in this discussion. and after all, i want this forum talking about happy things.


For your convenience I refrained from responding to Rutgers 1L last post addressed to me, although it was tempting not to give in to your request. Let me rephrase, I refrained from POSTING my response. I figured, for the slight chance that discussions may be perceived as offensive or as a fight vs. a good discussion with a confrontational bite, I might as well avoid that chance (especially if Rutgers 1L would fit that description, being how generous he's been and I wouldn't want to offend).

Happy things... Like clouds?



This is your guys' thread. It's not my intention for you to think I'm being confrontational. I'm just trying to give you a little bit of advice because I think sometimes things don't always come out in written form they way they are meant. I didn't think you meant anything negative, but people perceive things differently. These are your classmate, and 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 don't think you're being confrontational at all. I was referring to my response confronting an implication or two in what you said. I, personally love engaging in discussion and do not avoid them or view them negatively but for the fact that others do. Even then, I often persist regardless. I agree that we would be in a better place to verbalize our discussions on this thread, but I'd rather not argue reasonably over something that won't change everyone's emotional reactions to the very nature of the topic notwithstanding the truth of the matter. Thus, at least someone individual will, regardless of the validity of the arguments made in the discussion, let their emotional inclination dominate the reaction of the discussion and make me the asshole no matter how accurate, right, or truthful what I say actually is. Again such a reaction does not usually stop me, but because of the nature of the topic... the inevitable perception, no matter the substance is what I am currently choosing to avoid. I am pretty sure I repeated the same point several times here.

Rutgers1L_10
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby Rutgers1L_10 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:44 am

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.

pink_law14
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:10 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby pink_law14 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:18 am

hoping for a decision today or this week or ever.

complete as of 2/2 WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH MY APP? lol

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:14 pm

Fine.
Last edited by bernie shmegma on Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

champ33
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby champ33 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:12 pm

eh.. give him a break please. take what he's giving us for what it is, informal and well-intentioned advice, not a strict instruction manual. trying to manipulate his advice into some sort of puzzle in order to expose a mistake in logic really serves no purpose here. nothing that you perceive to be a misstep in his advice is going harm anybody.. we'll find out how to be a law student when we get to school.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:37 pm

champ33 wrote:eh.. give him a break please. take what he's giving us for what it is, informal and well-intentioned advice, not a strict instruction manual. [strike]trying to manipulate his advice into some sort of puzzle in order[/strike] I think to expose a mistake in logic really serves no purpose here. IMO no[strike]thing that you perceive to be a[/strike] misstep in his advice is going harm anybody.. we'll find out how to be a law student when we get to school.


SORRY, COULDN'T RESIST! Had to fix the spin, it provoked me.

But I listened to you anyway and took it down. Though now, these corrections have no context.

Still, its funny because you accused me of trying to manipulate his advice, which is a manipulation of the truth and then I manipulated your post. HAHA, I find this type of shit either funny or a good exercise, but really well intended also. This one was funny. The other one, a well-intended good exercise. If everyone else finds it controversial, then I don't know what the hell I'm going to do at RU.

Wait Am I on the Master's in international diplomacy thread?
Last edited by bernie shmegma on Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ESQuisite
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:38 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby ESQuisite » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:01 pm

I am an URM A-A, female. I was wait-listed to Rutgers Newark and am still waiting for Rutgers-Camden's response. Should I assume to get either rejected or wait-listed there as well?

Abrikos
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:58 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby Abrikos » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:25 pm

bernie shmegma wrote:
champ33 wrote:eh.. give him a break please. take what he's giving us for what it is, informal and well-intentioned advice, not a strict instruction manual. [strike]trying to manipulate his advice into some sort of puzzle in order[/strike] I think to expose a mistake in logic really serves no purpose here. IMO no[strike]thing that you perceive to be a[/strike] misstep in his advice is going harm anybody.. we'll find out how to be a law student when we get to school.


SORRY, COULDN'T RESIST! Had to fix the spin, it provoked me.

But I listened to you anyway and took it down. Though now, these corrections have no context.

Still, its funny because you accused me of trying to manipulate his advice, which is a manipulation of the truth and then I manipulated your post. HAHA, I find this type of shit either funny or a good exercise, but really well intended also. This one was funny. The other one, a well-intended good exercise. If everyone else finds it controversial, then I don't know what the hell I'm going to do at RU.

Wait Am I on the Master's in international diplomacy thread?


very funny... at least you fail at humor.

Abrikos
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:58 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby Abrikos » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:26 pm

ESQuisite wrote:I am an URM A-A, female. I was wait-listed to Rutgers Newark and am still waiting for Rutgers-Camden's response. Should I assume to get either rejected or wait-listed there as well?

what are your stats?

Rutgers1L_10
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby Rutgers1L_10 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:37 pm

bernie shmegma wrote:Fine.


Something you want to say?

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:38 pm

Abrikos wrote:
bernie shmegma wrote:
champ33 wrote:eh.. give him a break please. take what he's giving us for what it is, informal and well-intentioned advice, not a strict instruction manual. [strike]trying to manipulate his advice into some sort of puzzle in order[/strike] I think to expose a mistake in logic really serves no purpose here. IMO no[strike]thing that you perceive to be a[/strike] misstep in his advice is going harm anybody.. we'll find out how to be a law student when we get to school.


SORRY, COULDN'T RESIST! Had to fix the spin, it provoked me.

But I listened to you anyway and took it down. Though now, these corrections have no context.

Still, its funny because you accused me of trying to manipulate his advice, which is a manipulation of the truth and then I manipulated your post. HAHA, I find this type of shit either funny or a good exercise, but really well intended also. This one was funny. The other one, a well-intended good exercise. If everyone else finds it controversial, then I don't know what the hell I'm going to do at RU.

Wait Am I on the Master's in international diplomacy thread?


very funny... at least you fail at humor.


At least you don't.

champ33
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby champ33 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:50 pm

Hi Rutgers_1L... bernie had just gone off on a kind of tangent about how he thought LSAT type logic would actually be very useful in law school, or something along those lines. It wasn't very offensive or anything, I may be interpreting him wrong, so I will just let him answer if he likes. Let me say though, RU-N is the only school I sent a deposit to and I've been checking this thread regularly since you started posting. You have been such a valuable source of information on so many aspects of this process and the school, and it is doubly great that I don't even have to get off the couch to learn these things (I'm lazy.) If you don't mind I've got a sort of question for you about Rutgers Law:

Across the board, i mean in any school, a majority of applicants seem to have taken at least a year away from undergrad before applying. That's not to say that a significant number don't come straight from undergrad. Rutgers seems to cater to a larger extent than other schools to older students, and by older I mean one or two or three or more years out of undergrad; in my estimation people who know why and for exactly what reasons they're going to school. I think i remember you saying that you're not straight out of undergrad, but do you know a lot of students who are? Is it difficult for such students to feel comfortable? I mean do you find the environment more professional, or leaning more towards established adult types than other schools? Thanks in advance if you have any time for this!

Rutgers1L_10
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby Rutgers1L_10 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:08 pm

champ33 wrote:Hi Rutgers_1L... bernie had just gone off on a kind of tangent about how he thought LSAT type logic would actually be very useful in law school, or something along those lines. It wasn't very offensive or anything, I may be interpreting him wrong, so I will just let him answer if he likes. Let me say though, RU-N is the only school I sent a deposit to and I've been checking this thread regularly since you started posting. You have been such a valuable source of information on so many aspects of this process and the school, and it is doubly great that I don't even have to get off the couch to learn these things (I'm lazy.) If you don't mind I've got a sort of question for you about Rutgers Law:

Across the board, i mean in any school, a majority of applicants seem to have taken at least a year away from undergrad before applying. That's not to say that a significant number don't come straight from undergrad. Rutgers seems to cater to a larger extent than other schools to older students, and by older I mean one or two or three or more years out of undergrad; in my estimation people who know why and for exactly what reasons they're going to school. I think i remember you saying that you're not straight out of undergrad, but do you know a lot of students who are? Is it difficult for such students to feel comfortable? I mean do you find the environment more professional, or leaning more towards established adult types than other schools? Thanks in advance if you have any time for this!


The bread and butter of any law school is students straight from undergrad. Rutgers is no different. The majority of students are in fact 0-2 years out of undergrad. Personally, I don't consider 2 years out of undergrad to be non-traditional. It's not as if you could have embarked on a career in 2 years. Perhaps you gained better life perspective, or a better understanding of your aspirations, but you're still basically a traditional student. Rutgers does have a lot of non-trads, and by that I mean people that have "significant" work history, experience, previous careers etc. I don't think any type of student will find it hard to adjust. I found that the classroom experience was enhanced equally by both student types. I don't think the environment is more professional (in a stuffy, boring, kind of way). I've heard more people say they think Seton seems more "professional" than RU. It could be the way people dress, or it could be the general atmosphere. But I think the professionalism comes out of all students when it needs to. The rest of the time it's quite informal.

To clarify about the LSAT/logic games--I've had people ask me if they should continue to use the LSAT study material over the summer to prepare. The reason I said that is because the LSAT is designed to test for the LSAT. You will find at first there is very little correlation to what you had to do to be successful on the LSAT and what you need to be successful in class. Logic, implies that if you think through something you will ultimately come up with the correct answer. Law school has no correct answer. The LSAT test your ability to come up with the logical conclusion. Law school does not test your ability to come up with the most logical conclusion. It test your ability to come up with an alternate conclusion. It doesn't have to be logical, just plausible. That's why the book "Getting to Maybe" is so popular. That's also why it's not called "Getting to Yes/No". Law school exams don't care if you can get to a final answer or conclusion. People that end up doing the worse, are the ones that start down this path of so-called logic, and undoubtedly come up with a logic conclusion, but the professor isn't looking for your logic. So I encourage people to be less systematic in their approach and get into more of a debate of alternative views. Take people that have different opinions from yours, and instead of trying to poke holes in their argument because you disagree with the logic, try to argue it from their point of view and abandon your own logic for an alternative. When people talk about diversity in the classroom this is why. From a standpoint of logic it would be irrelevant what someone's specific background is, because, logic should override any personal conclusions. But, the truth is that logic is not as important as viewpoint. That is why I think newspapers are a better preparation than say the logic bible. With a news article you won't agree with everything, but the point in law school is NOT TO BE RIGHT!!! If you think you're right, you're probably wrong. Logic tends to leave less room for argument.

ericng314
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:45 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby ericng314 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:27 pm

Rutgers1L_10 wrote:
champ33 wrote:Hi Rutgers_1L... bernie had just gone off on a kind of tangent about how he thought LSAT type logic would actually be very useful in law school, or something along those lines. It wasn't very offensive or anything, I may be interpreting him wrong, so I will just let him answer if he likes. Let me say though, RU-N is the only school I sent a deposit to and I've been checking this thread regularly since you started posting. You have been such a valuable source of information on so many aspects of this process and the school, and it is doubly great that I don't even have to get off the couch to learn these things (I'm lazy.) If you don't mind I've got a sort of question for you about Rutgers Law:

Across the board, i mean in any school, a majority of applicants seem to have taken at least a year away from undergrad before applying. That's not to say that a significant number don't come straight from undergrad. Rutgers seems to cater to a larger extent than other schools to older students, and by older I mean one or two or three or more years out of undergrad; in my estimation people who know why and for exactly what reasons they're going to school. I think i remember you saying that you're not straight out of undergrad, but do you know a lot of students who are? Is it difficult for such students to feel comfortable? I mean do you find the environment more professional, or leaning more towards established adult types than other schools? Thanks in advance if you have any time for this!


The bread and butter of any law school is students straight from undergrad. Rutgers is no different. The majority of students are in fact 0-2 years out of undergrad. Personally, I don't consider 2 years out of undergrad to be non-traditional. It's not as if you could have embarked on a career in 2 years. Perhaps you gained better life perspective, or a better understanding of your aspirations, but you're still basically a traditional student. Rutgers does have a lot of non-trads, and by that I mean people that have "significant" work history, experience, previous careers etc. I don't think any type of student will find it hard to adjust. I found that the classroom experience was enhanced equally by both student types. I don't think the environment is more professional (in a stuffy, boring, kind of way). I've heard more people say they think Seton seems more "professional" than RU. It could be the way people dress, or it could be the general atmosphere. But I think the professionalism comes out of all students when it needs to. The rest of the time it's quite informal.

To clarify about the LSAT/logic games--I've had people ask me if they should continue to use the LSAT study material over the summer to prepare. The reason I said that is because the LSAT is designed to test for the LSAT. You will find at first there is very little correlation to what you had to do to be successful on the LSAT and what you need to be successful in class. Logic, implies that if you think through something you will ultimately come up with the correct answer. Law school has no correct answer. The LSAT test your ability to come up with the logical conclusion. Law school does not test your ability to come up with the most logical conclusion. It test your ability to come up with an alternate conclusion. It doesn't have to be logical, just plausible. That's why the book "Getting to Maybe" is so popular. That's also why it's not called "Getting to Yes/No". Law school exams don't care if you can get to a final answer or conclusion. People that end up doing the worse, are the ones that start down this path of so-called logic, and undoubtedly come up with a logic conclusion, but the professor isn't looking for your logic. So I encourage people to be less systematic in their approach and get into more of a debate of alternative views. Take people that have different opinions from yours, and instead of trying to poke holes in their argument because you disagree with the logic, try to argue it from their point of view and abandon your own logic for an alternative. When people talk about diversity in the classroom this is why. From a standpoint of logic it would be irrelevant what someone's specific background is, because, logic should override any personal conclusions. But, the truth is that logic is not as important as viewpoint. That is why I think newspapers are a better preparation than say the logic bible. With a news article you won't agree with everything, but the point in law school is NOT TO BE RIGHT!!! If you think you're right, you're probably wrong. Logic tends to leave less room for argument.


Yes Rutgers1L, thanks for all of the advice you've given to us 0Ls. I've also recently read Getting to Maybe and from what everyone has told about law school (Columbia law ppl, NYU law ppl and Rutgers ppl), law school exams are more about looking into issues with a keen awareness that there are multiple viewpoints.

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:28 pm

Rutgers1L_10 wrote:
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.

FROM EARLIER:


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.

User avatar
kissy
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby kissy » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:33 pm

i wish the camden thread was as exciting as this :(

User avatar
bernie shmegma
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby bernie shmegma » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:40 pm

Rutgers1L_10 wrote:
champ33 wrote:Hi Rutgers_1L... bernie had just gone off on a kind of tangent about how he thought LSAT type logic would actually be very useful in law school, or something along those lines. It wasn't very offensive or anything, I may be interpreting him wrong, so I will just let him answer if he likes. Let me say though, RU-N is the only school I sent a deposit to and I've been checking this thread regularly since you started posting. You have been such a valuable source of information on so many aspects of this process and the school, and it is doubly great that I don't even have to get off the couch to learn these things (I'm lazy.) If you don't mind I've got a sort of question for you about Rutgers Law:

Across the board, i mean in any school, a majority of applicants seem to have taken at least a year away from undergrad before applying. That's not to say that a significant number don't come straight from undergrad. Rutgers seems to cater to a larger extent than other schools to older students, and by older I mean one or two or three or more years out of undergrad; in my estimation people who know why and for exactly what reasons they're going to school. I think i remember you saying that you're not straight out of undergrad, but do you know a lot of students who are? Is it difficult for such students to feel comfortable? I mean do you find the environment more professional, or leaning more towards established adult types than other schools? Thanks in advance if you have any time for this!


The bread and butter of any law school is students straight from undergrad. Rutgers is no different. The majority of students are in fact 0-2 years out of undergrad. Personally, I don't consider 2 years out of undergrad to be non-traditional. It's not as if you could have embarked on a career in 2 years. Perhaps you gained better life perspective, or a better understanding of your aspirations, but you're still basically a traditional student. Rutgers does have a lot of non-trads, and by that I mean people that have "significant" work history, experience, previous careers etc. I don't think any type of student will find it hard to adjust. I found that the classroom experience was enhanced equally by both student types. I don't think the environment is more professional (in a stuffy, boring, kind of way). I've heard more people say they think Seton seems more "professional" than RU. It could be the way people dress, or it could be the general atmosphere. But I think the professionalism comes out of all students when it needs to. The rest of the time it's quite informal.

To clarify about the LSAT/logic games--I've had people ask me if they should continue to use the LSAT study material over the summer to prepare. The reason I said that is because the LSAT is designed to test for the LSAT. You will find at first there is very little correlation to what you had to do to be successful on the LSAT and what you need to be successful in class. Logic, implies that if you think through something you will ultimately come up with the correct answer. Law school has no correct answer. The LSAT test your ability to come up with the logical conclusion. Law school does not test your ability to come up with the most logical conclusion. It test your ability to come up with an alternate conclusion. It doesn't have to be logical, just plausible. That's why the book "Getting to Maybe" is so popular. That's also why it's not called "Getting to Yes/No". Law school exams don't care if you can get to a final answer or conclusion. People that end up doing the worse, are the ones that start down this path of so-called logic, and undoubtedly come up with a logic conclusion, but the professor isn't looking for your logic. So I encourage people to be less systematic in their approach and get into more of a debate of alternative views. Take people that have different opinions from yours, and instead of trying to poke holes in their argument because you disagree with the logic, try to argue it from their point of view and abandon your own logic for an alternative. When people talk about diversity in the classroom this is why. From a standpoint of logic it would be irrelevant what someone's specific background is, because, logic should override any personal conclusions. But, the truth is that logic is not as important as viewpoint. That is why I think newspapers are a better preparation than say the logic bible. With a news article you won't agree with everything, but the point in law school is NOT TO BE RIGHT!!! If you think you're right, you're probably wrong. Logic tends to leave less room for argument.


Well, I think as I implied in my original response, I totally agree with most of what you said except I guess I don't view the LSAT's utility the way you do. I think it is valuable for what you described above to show that its not useful. Again, I'm getting picky with words here and in fact, I'm the one taking what you said about stop paying any attention to anything resembling the LSAT too literally. I know now you meant that there are no right answers pretty much.
Last edited by bernie shmegma on Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby keg411 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:46 pm

kissy wrote:i wish the camden thread was as exciting as this :(


No Bernie over there ;). Although there is now the equivalent of Rutgers_1L in the CO 2013 thread....

User avatar
kissy
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:08 pm

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby kissy » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:54 pm

keg411 wrote:
kissy wrote:i wish the camden thread was as exciting as this :(


No Bernie over there ;). Although there is now the equivalent of Rutgers_1L in the CO 2013 thread....

it's about time haha! hopefully he's friendly/helpful.



random question but i saw you mention something about it a few days back, how's your father doing?

Rutgers1L_10
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Rutgers Newark

Postby Rutgers1L_10 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:06 pm

bernie shmegma wrote:"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.


I appreciate you enthusiasm, and giving me something to do other than reading Civ Pro!!!

I think I may have already responded to your question.
If you haven't figured it out already, you aren't going to offend me by questioning me.
1-I'm a law student too
2-I'm already through a process you have yet to begin, and my intention is not to tell you what to do, but give you an idea of what to expect
3-I am giving my own personal advice, from my experiences, to anyone that cares to listen

If you read the post to mean that you should abandon all logic--then no, that isn't quite what I was getting at. I think you knew that, but I don't care about you bringing it up. Remember, I'm not always writing in direct response to just one person. People send me lots of questions and I try to answer them generally.

But I did mean specifically that people should stop reading LSAT preparation material, and stop doing LSAT puzzles thinking it will help them prepare for 1L. And I'm almost positive I specifically said to stop reading LSAT puzzles. Law school exams WILL NOT look anything like the LSAT so continuing to focus on them does more detriment than good.

It won't matter how logical of an argument you can make for one side, because inevitably you will have to argue the other side. If one side's argument is right because it is based in logic, it would be logical then, that an argument to the contrary must be illogical. Are you willing to argue for something that is illogical? You should be! You have to be! People get so stuck in one opinion because they are so sure that it's the logical decision. The reason the Socratic Method works so well on 1Ls is because profs know all 1Ls think they're going to outrun the line of questioning if they just use logic.
My point was that people get way too caught up in trying to argue one side only because it's the logical way for a set of facts to conclude. The logical conclusion will only get you so far, and that's not good enough
You will fair far better by putting down the LSAT books and picking up a newspaper, because law school cases are written from real life, not logic puzzles.

@kissy--the camden thread will never be this exciting! Neither will the school.
jk, not really




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aaron1621, amberb94, grandpapy360, Jgats, liuwenyu, mudiverse, potterotter, Redsfan320, tinafeyclone and 19 guests