UVA Class of 2012 Forum

[RVP11]

Someone at the Michigan ASW asked an adcomm about this, and they went into a long description about their overly complicated process of putting people into sections, and I was just curious if UVA did anything funky...not that it matters...im just bored at 2am

I don't know. "Constructing" each section seems like it would raise some ethical questions.

[lsatbobby]

Well...

They mentioned shaking up the mix based on stuff such as undergrad institution/race/age, which would help with the whole diversity thing. Also, it doesn't seem absurd to think they'd split people up based on their GPAs and LSATs, but I'd imagine that everyone's numbers would be too close for it to be effective.

[Cavalier]

It wouldn't be that hard for a computer to ensure that every section had an equal LSAT and GPA average either. Although I doubt UVA would do it, I'd be very curious to find out how schools can tinker with things like this, and what they would hope to achieve. After reading about that scandal at the University of Illinois's law school, it seems like there might be a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know.

A school could deliberately divide up its "best" entering students among the several sections to help them achieve higher grades, in the hopes of getting more students prestigious clerkships and such. Or a school could create a numerically inferior section and place well-connected students there. Top schools probably wouldn't have as much of a need to do this, and it also would be harder because, I'm sure, the LSAT is probably not that great of a predictor of success in law school when you're distinguishing between scores well into the 90th percentile. Despite the importance in admissions, there's hardly a difference between a 167 and a 171, for instance, so UVA wouldn't really be able to rig the sections too much anyway.

OK, enough random speculation.

[lsatbobby]

I don't think they'd do it for any shady reasons but rather to ensure an equal level of competition in each section...I'm sure if all their watchamacallit scholars all ended up in one section, they'd move some people

and what was the illinois scandal about? is there a page on here about it?

[Cavalier]

Here's the thread about it: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=76745

Read the e-mails if you get the chance - they are quite insightful.

[lsatbobby]

Wow, thanks for the link. Sadly, this incident isn't too surprising...oh politics.

[gladiator]

I'm not sure how un-random section composition is but there is a strong rumor which I'm somewhat inclined to believe that every 1L is put in a section with their "soulmate" (not in a romance context) meaning that they try to match you up with 1 other person based on some element of commonality (like Law School E-Harmony).

[Cavalier]

I'm not sure how un-random section composition is but there is a strong rumor which I'm somewhat inclined to believe that every 1L is put in a section with their "soulmate" (not in a romance context) meaning that they try to match you up with 1 other person based on some element of commonality (like Law School E-Harmony).

That's actually not at all a bad idea. Well, I'm not a huge fan of knowing that a law school would deliberately study my application to determine what sort of person I am likely to be friends with, but there are definitely some advantages. If there is another entering student that is a good friendship match, I'd rather be in that person's section than not, I suppose.

[napolnic]

I don't think they'd do it for any shady reasons but rather to ensure an equal level of competition in each section...I'm sure if all their watchamacallit scholars all ended up in one section, they'd move some people

and what was the illinois scandal about? is there a page on here about it?

I heard something about this about some less than reputable schools putting all the people with scholarships that you have to maintain a certain GPA to keep in the same section, and the curve is based on each section rather than the whole class.

[lsatbobby]

I'm not sure how un-random section composition is but there is a strong rumor which I'm somewhat inclined to believe that every 1L is put in a section with their "soulmate" (not in a romance context) meaning that they try to match you up with 1 other person based on some element of commonality (like Law School E-Harmony).

I'm picturing Trujillo and Dugas sitting around trying to do this

"Oh look, they both like puppies and the internetz <3"

[lsatbobby]

I don't think they'd do it for any shady reasons but rather to ensure an equal level of competition in each section...I'm sure if all their watchamacallit scholars all ended up in one section, they'd move some people

and what was the illinois scandal about? is there a page on here about it?

I heard something about this about some less than reputable schools putting all the people with scholarships that you have to maintain a certain GPA to keep in the same section, and the curve is based on each section rather than the whole class.

I've always thought that's sort of brilliant (and slimey) of them to do

[napolnic]

I'm not sure how un-random section composition is but there is a strong rumor which I'm somewhat inclined to believe that every 1L is put in a section with their "soulmate" (not in a romance context) meaning that they try to match you up with 1 other person based on some element of commonality (like Law School E-Harmony).

I'm picturing Trujillo and Dugas sitting around trying to do this

"Oh look, they both like puppies and the internetz <3"

BFFs4evaeva!

[Rainmaker11]

I don't think it is implausible for a law school to have shady motives for grouping their students, although it would be awfully difficult to correctly do it without some kind of interview. No one can really know what goes on behind closed doors, but like others were saying I think it would be a colossal waste of time to try and predict who will get along, etc.

[jasofbase2001]

sorry to go back to Law School Confidential. I fear in disclosing the following information that I will be forever branded with the G word. I just wanted to get some idea of how to study, what to expect, etc. I was totally clueless and just needed something to satisfy my curiosity.

I read LSC, Getting to Maybe, the Bramble Bush, and a book called Acing Your First Year of Law School.

Of all these books, I found LSC the least helpful. Acing Your First Year of Law School is only 100 pages or so, very readable, and explains basically how to do things. It was useful if only to understand the different aspects of 1L.

The Bramble Bush was interesting but didn't offer any practical "how to" advice except on case briefing and when to apply or not apply precedent.

Some may disagree, but I found Getting to Maybe quite helpful, and feel it gives a good idea of how to study, outline, and read cases. Out of the books I read, I found it by far the most engaging and I would predict it will be the most useful.

That said, I've never been to law school so I really can't say for sure.

Now someone go through my post and bold some letters to cleverly spell "I'm a gunner and hate life" or something. FWIW, I'm really not. I promise.

[thesealocust]

Edit: n/m

[gladiator]

Did you 0Ls just get the Cary Bennett course schedule email? If not I'll post some info when I get a chance later tonight.

[Cavalier]

I didn't get that e-mail.

[jasofbase2001]

sorry to go back to Law School Confidential. I fear in disclosing the following information that I will be forever branded with the G word. I just wanted to get some idea of how to study, what to expect, etc. I was totally clueless and just needed something to satisfy my curiosity.

I read LSC, Getting to Maybe, the Bramble Bush, and a book called Acing Your First Year of Law School.

Of all these books, I found LSC the least helpful. Acing Your First Year of Law School is only 100 pages or so, very readable, and explains basically how to do things. It was useful if only to understand the different aspects of 1L.

The Bramble Bush was interesting but didn't offer any practical "how to" advice except on case briefing and when to apply or not apply precedent.

Some may disagree, but I found Getting to Maybe quite helpful, and feel it gives a good idea of how to study, outline, and read cases. Out of the books I read, I found it by far the most engaging and I would predict it will be the most useful.

That said, I've never been to law school so I really can't say for sure.

Now someone go through my post and bold some letters to cleverly spell "I'm a gunner and hate life" or something. FWIW, I'm really not. I promise.

Done!

Lol... thanks for doing that for me. I should also add that I only work 10 hours a week and have nothing to do, if that salvages my reputation at all.

Did you 0Ls just get the Cary Bennett course schedule email? If not I'll post some info when I get a chance later tonight.

I did not get that... but am now curious.

[thesealocust]

Edit: n/m

[CE2JD]

I didn't get that e-mail.

[Cavalier]

Just a random thought, I hate how some places (like UVA's LawWeb) have odd password requirements for. I can handle knowing two or three different passwords, but each time I have to come up with another password because none of the passwords I currently use satisfy those requirements, things get more and more complex. Thankfully Firefox remembers my passwords, otherwise I'd be screwed.

[gladiator]

This won't mean much to you all yet since you don't have sections but here's the schedule...

Fall:
Section B has no Friday classes
Section C has no Friday classes if Mahoney chooses not to teach on a given Friday
All other sections have 1 or 2 Friday morning classes, none in the afternoon

Spring:
ConLaw will be the 10 AM slot
Property will be the 2 PM slot
B, G, and L have Property 2 PM Fridays
A, C, F, and J have ConLaw 10 AM Fridays
A, C, and F have LRW 2 PM Fridays, B, G, and L have LRW 10 AM Fridays (which really sucks for them)
The other 5 sections have Fridays off if they can find non-Friday electives in the Spring

The professors with * next to their names are the ones I'd consider "all-stars" but obviously I haven't had most of them and there are differing opinions so don't take them too seriously.

Section A:
Contracts (A)- George Cohen
CrimLaw (A, I, K)- Anne Coughlin*
Torts (A, B, F)- Ken Abraham*
CivPro (A, D)- Greg Mitchell*
ConLaw (A, C)- Mary Magill
Property (A, I)- John Harrison*
LRW- Karen Moran

Section B:
Contracts (B)- Michael Dooley
CrimLaw (B, C)- Richard Bonnie
Torts (A, B, F)- Ken Abraham*
CivPro (B, I)- Larry Walker
ConLaw (B, H)- Fred Schauer
Property (B, G, L)- Julia Mahoney
LRW- Karen Moran

Section C:
Contracts (C, E, J)- Paul Mahoney*
CrimLaw (B, C)- Richard Bonnie
Torts (C, D, I)- Barbara Armacost
CivPro (C)- Ann Woolhandler
ConLaw (A, C)- Mary Magill
Property (C, K)- Alex Johnson
LRW- Ruth Buck

Section D:
Contracts (D, H, L)- George Geis*
CrimLaw (D)- Rachel Harmon
Torts (C, D, I)- Barbara Armacost
CivPro (A, D)- Greg Mitchell*
ConLaw (D, K)- Julia Mahoney
Property (D, E, F)- Lillian BeVier*
LRW- Karen Moran

Section E:
Contracts (C, E, J)- Paul Mahoney*
CrimLaw (E)- Josh Bowers
Torts (E, G)- Charles Barzun
CivPro (E, K)- Caleb Nelson*
ConLaw (E, G)- Kim Forde-Mazrui
Property (D, E, F)- Lillian BeVier*
LRW- Ruth Buck

Section F:
Contracts (F)- Rich Hynes
CrimLaw (F, H, J)- Darryl Brown
Torts (A, B, F)- Ken Abraham*
CivPro (F, G, H)- Michael Collins*
ConLaw (F, J)- Thomas Nachbar
Property (D, E, F)- Lillian BeVier*
LRW- Sarah Stewart

Section G:
Contracts (G)- J H Verkerke
CrimLaw (G, L)- Peter Low
Torts (E, G)- Charles Barzun
CivPro (F, G, H)- Michael Collins*
ConLaw (E, G)- Kim Forde-Mazrui
Property (B, G, L)- Julia Mahoney
LRW- Ruth Buck

Section H:
Contracts (D, H, L)- George Geis*
CrimLaw (F, H, J)- Darryl Brown
Torts (H)- Jeffrey O'Connell
CivPro (F, G, H)- Michael Collins*
ConLaw (B, H)- Fred Schauer
Property (H, J)- Margo Bagley
LRW- Sarah Stewart

Section I:
Contracts (I)- Alex Johnson
CrimLaw (A, I, K)- Anne Coughlin*
Torts (C, D, I)- Barbara Armacost
CivPro (B, I)- Larry Walker
ConLaw (I, L)- Tomiko Brown-Nagin
Property (A, I)- John Harrison*
LRW- Ruth Buck

Section J:
Contracts (C, E, J)- Paul Mahoney*
CrimLaw (F, H, J)- Darryl Brown
Torts (J, K, L)- John Harrison*
CivPro (J)- Brandon Garrett
ConLaw (F, J)- Thomas Nachbar
Property (H, J)- Margo Bagley
LRW- Karen Moran

Section K:
Contracts (K)- John Setear
CrimLaw (A, I, K)- Anne Coughlin*
Torts (J, K, L)- John Harrison*
CivPro (E, K)- Caleb Nelson*
ConLaw (D, K)- Julia Mahoney
Property (C, K)- Alex Johnson
LRW- Sarah Stewart

Section L:
Contracts (D, H, L)- George Geis*
CrimLaw (G, L)- Peter Low
Torts (J, K, L)- John Harrison*
CivPro (L)- Kent Sinclair
ConLaw (I, L)- Tomiko Brown-Nagin
Property (B, G, L)- Julia Mahoney
LRW- Sarah Stewart

[Cavalier]

A, C, F, and J have ConLaw 10 PM Fridays

Damn, that will get in the way of Feb Club.

But seriously, thanks for posting that info. I'm glad there won't be any Friday afternoon classes in the fall, and it sounds like most of us will avoid it in the Spring if we take the right electives. I have no problem with Friday morning classes, I just like it when the weekend starts at noon or so. It's cool that each section has at least one all-star.

[RVP11]

A, C, F, and J have ConLaw 10 PM Fridays

Damn, that will get in the way of Feb Club.

But seriously, thanks for posting that info. I'm glad there won't be any Friday afternoon classes in the fall, and it sounds like most of us will avoid it in the Spring if we take the right electives. I have no problem with Friday morning classes, I just like it when the weekend starts at noon or so. It's cool that each section has at least one all-star.

Section A seems stacked with both Coughlin and Abraham.

[SteelersandGators]

the e-mail that Gladiator is talking about is only important for 2Ls and 3Ls, so I doubt you will be getting it