Teach yourself a class and.... Forum

[TigerBeer]

What I seem to learn in class is what kind of arguments the Prof wants to see on exams. What I learn outside of class is the actual meat and potatoes of the material.

+1-fucking-80.

I think 1Ls should be required to take a basic jurisprudence course. There are far too many 1L professors (at least in my experience) who fail to address which types of argument they consider to be legitimate. You have to discern that on your own, which can be tricky when no one has ever explained to you (1) what are the basic types of argumentation and (2) how different philosophies of jurisprudence will affect which types of argumentation are favored or disfavored.

what are you talking about wrt to "types of argumentation," like the difference between an efficiency argument and an autonomy argument?

[JazzOne]

What I seem to learn in class is what kind of arguments the Prof wants to see on exams. What I learn outside of class is the actual meat and potatoes of the material.

+1-fucking-80.

I think 1Ls should be required to take a basic jurisprudence course. There are far too many 1L professors (at least in my experience) who fail to address which types of argument they consider to be legitimate. You have to discern that on your own, which can be tricky when no one has ever explained to you (1) what are the basic types of argumentation and (2) how different philosophies of jurisprudence will affect which types of argumentation are favored or disfavored.

what are you talking about wrt to "types of argumentation," like the difference between an efficiency argument and an autonomy argument?

Originalist arguments (or intentionlist)
textual arguments
structural arguments
arguments based on historical use/practice
external-to-law arguments (policy)
consequentialist arguments
arguments of justice or fairness
etc.

That is not an exhaustive list. That's just off the top of my head. I'll add more as I think of them. The point is that some professors consider some types to be legitimate and others to be illegitimate. Or, if that dichotomy is too strict for you, some professors favor certain types of arguments over others. For example, a strict originalist would not be persuaded by a policy argument when the original intent is known. A non-originalist would evaluate the same argument quite differently. That's a pretty clear example, and it's easy to spot professors who are originalists. But how are you supposed to determine whether your professor is more persuaded by realism (justice) or formalism (textualism and struturalism)? That's a more subtle point to ascertain, particularly if you aren't even aware of the differences between the two schools of thought.

ETA: Arguments by analogy

[NoleinNY]

What I seem to learn in class is what kind of arguments the Prof wants to see on exams. What I learn outside of class is the actual meat and potatoes of the material.

+1-fucking-80.

I think 1Ls should be required to take a basic jurisprudence course. There are far too many 1L professors (at least in my experience) who fail to address which types of argument they consider to be legitimate. You have to discern that on your own, which can be tricky when no one has ever explained to you (1) what are the basic types of argumentation and (2) how different philosophies of jurisprudence will affect which types of argumentation are favored or disfavored.

It definitely feels like schools should be require jurisprudence; thankfully, my torts professor recognized this and has taken on that role, spending a good chunk of class time making sure we can make effective arguments, know different types of arguments, how to prioritize, etc.

[snowpeach06]

I taught myself contracts and got a b+ on the final. Literally never paid attention in class. Ever. A couple weeks before the final I read the e&e and did the CALI lessons. Considering how little I did, I mean, I was pretty happy with my grade.

[A'nold]

I taught myself contracts and got a b+ on the final. Literally never paid attention in class. Ever. A couple weeks before the final I read the e&e and did the CALI lessons. Considering how little I did, I mean, I was pretty happy with my grade.

Sweet. What is the curve?

[cornellbeez]

I don't know about getting a good grade, but I have literally skipped classes for over a month period, read 20% of the material, and pulled near median (B+) by using other people's outlines in "real," hard classes like Sec Reg. Not a "good grade" like an A or A minus, but I did not expect a good grade considering I was still learning new concepts a couple hours before the final. It's somewhat shameful, but I was so behind that I didn't learn a couple weeks worth of material and had to search outlines/other people's notes during the exam to write answers to questions I had no idea how to answer. This may not work for every class, it really depends on how your professor tests.

I plan on working a lot harder this semester though. It's not fun going into a final knowing that you haven't even looked at a couple weeks worth of material AT ALL for a substantive course.

[keg411]

JazzOne, we're doing a bit of that in ConLaw (though we haven't talked about any of the argumentation as illegitimate; it's just the Bobbit Modalities thing). It's one of those things that I understand why it's helpful and useful, but learning it is painful to me.

[Aqualibrium]

Taught myself contracts 1 --> A. Did the same thing for contracts two, and actually missed 12 days (thank GOD prof didn't pay attention to the attendance sheet) --> A.

Christelstein, Cali, Lexis Q&A, and other people's outlines ftw.