Top Law Schools

I' a 0L reading a tort E&E just out of curiosity. I completed the first chapter on battery and found it incredibly interesting. I'm guessing most material in law school is far denser than the stuff found in the E&E's. I must say though that I was pleasantly surprised how light a read the first chapter was. Am I the only one who feels this way?

acdisagod wrote:I' a 0L reading a tort E&E just out of curiosity. I completed the first chapter on battery and found it incredibly interesting. I'm guessing most material in law school is far denser than the stuff found in the E&E's. I must say though that I was pleasantly surprised how light a read the first chapter was. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Intentional torts are by far the easiest subject IMO. Plus an E and E is just making it simple and readable thats kinda the point of it.

The real useful thing about E and E's is the questions at the end of the chapter.

Yea, those were pretty interesting to examine and dissect. I particularly liked the discussion on whether or not blowing smoke at someone constitutes battery.

--ImageRemoved--

NERDSSSSS!!!!!!

acdisagod wrote:I particularly liked the discussion on whether or not blowing smoke at someone constitutes battery.

this is strange

acdisagod wrote:Yea, those were pretty interesting to examine and dissect. I particularly liked the discussion on whether or not blowing smoke at someone constitutes battery.

Take into account some torts profs Don't even teach Int. Torts. I know one of our sections didn't even mention them the whole year.

But yeah the smoke example adn then I think there was an example with shining a light in a cardrivers eyes, are both the kind of examples torts profs love.

Yeah, it's interesting because you spent 30 minutes with it under absolutely no pressure.

Wait until you've spent three years spending 8-10 hours a day parsing the difference between "knowingly" and "purposely" and other such inane, but potentially case-turning, disputes, and then get back to us.

TheBigMediocre wrote:--ImageRemoved--

NERDSSSSS!!!!!!

VincentChase wrote:Yeah, it's interesting because you spent 30 minutes with it under absolutely no pressure.

Wait until you've spent three years spending 8-10 hours a day parsing the difference between "knowingly" and "purposely" and other such inane, but potentially case-turning, disputes, and then get back to us.

I figured as much lol, oh well. I was somewhat relieved to see the material wasn't dry but I'm not naiive enough to assume that most law school material is the same.

i guess it's more interesting than negligence

i found torts less interesting than... civ pro

acdisagod wrote:

VincentChase wrote:Yeah, it's interesting because you spent 30 minutes with it under absolutely no pressure.

Wait until you've spent three years spending 8-10 hours a day parsing the difference between "knowingly" and "purposely" and other such inane, but potentially case-turning, disputes, and then get back to us.

I figured as much lol, oh well. I was somewhat relieved to see the material wasn't dry but I'm not naiive enough to assume that most law school material is the same.

I'm glad you took that comment in good humor. I definitely wasn't trying to belittle you. But I'm dead serious. At first, law school is just amazing: "I can argue anything!" And after a couple semesters of that, what seemed like an awesomely fun discovery at first makes you want to throw your casebook through the blackboard.

I bought an E & E's used (Civ Pro) just to give myself an idea of the type of stuff I would be working with next year and came to similar conclusions.

Its interesting.

It will get old quickly.

It will still be more stimulating than what I currently do. (I spent 5 hours explaining iambic pentameter today - we got stuck on what syllables were)

OP,

You might as well start familiarizing yourself with the advice in this thread:
--LinkRemoved--

TipTravHoot wrote:OP,

You might as well start familiarizing yourself with the advice in this thread:
--LinkRemoved--

Lol, I'm not really a gunner. In UG I had a 3.6 gpa, clearly I wasn't studying around the clock. My goal in law school is to finish top 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2 and I don't know if I want biglaw. It's just that I'm a second semester senior who is only taking 12 credits and I thus have a shitload of free time. The torts material is just far more interesting than the bullshit classes I am taking now to fufill the rest of my graduation requirements. It's also exciting to see what material I'll be studying these next few years. I'm sure as another poster said, it will get old very fast but for now it's interesting.

acdisagod wrote:

TipTravHoot wrote:OP,

You might as well start familiarizing yourself with the advice in this thread:
--LinkRemoved--

Lol, I'm not really a gunner. In UG I had a 3.6 gpa, clearly I wasn't studying around the clock. My goal in law school is to finish top 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2 and I don't know if I want biglaw. It's just that I'm a second semester senior who is only taking 12 credits and I thus have a shitload of free time. The torts material is just far more interesting than the bullshit classes I am taking now to fufill the rest of my graduation requirements. It's also exciting to see what material I'll be studying these next few years. I'm sure as another poster said, it will get old very fast but for now it's interesting.

Have you read your OP?

acdisagod wrote:

TipTravHoot wrote:OP,

You might as well start familiarizing yourself with the advice in this thread:
--LinkRemoved--

Lol, I'm not really a gunner. In UG I had a 3.6 gpa, clearly I wasn't studying around the clock. My goal in law school is to finish top 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2 and I don't know if I want biglaw. It's just that I'm a second semester senior who is only taking 12 credits and I thus have a shitload of free time. The torts material is just far more interesting than the bullshit classes I am taking now to fufill the rest of my graduation requirements. It's also exciting to see what material I'll be studying these next few years. I'm sure as another poster said, it will get old very fast but for now it's interesting.

It's cool. It was more the "finding it interesting" and "examining and dissecting" bit that made me giggle.

TipTravHoot wrote:

acdisagod wrote:

TipTravHoot wrote:OP,

You might as well start familiarizing yourself with the advice in this thread:
--LinkRemoved--

Lol, I'm not really a gunner. In UG I had a 3.6 gpa, clearly I wasn't studying around the clock. My goal in law school is to finish top 1/5, 1/3 or 1/2 and I don't know if I want biglaw. It's just that I'm a second semester senior who is only taking 12 credits and I thus have a shitload of free time. The torts material is just far more interesting than the bullshit classes I am taking now to fufill the rest of my graduation requirements. It's also exciting to see what material I'll be studying these next few years. I'm sure as another poster said, it will get old very fast but for now it's interesting.

It's cool. It was more the "finding it interesting" and "examining and dissecting" bit that made me giggle.

Ok true, that was probably overkill. I'm just really sick of UG classes, not UG itself, but most certainly the classes. All my classes are requirements that I have no interest in and my grades don't matter. Compared to that shit the E&E chapters on assault and battery are riveting.

With a few exceptions, mastering black letter law really is not difficult at all. Issue spotting and applying are a different story.

Yeah it's a good sign. I think most people headed for law school will find it interesting. I figure after around the first summer most people will find legal topics redundant and dull. There is sort of a spiral of misery in the legal profession. After the first semester, it's shock and depression, after the second, boredom and grind sets in, and the third year you can't care fuck all about any of this. Then you get a high paying job and sacrifice your soul to the firm, get laid off, and move on with your life.

How do you figure out what top 1/5, top 1/3 etc. are at your school anyway? All I have ever seen calculated is top 50% and top 10%.

edit: never mind

Who the fuck even visits autoadmit except trolls?

Grad_Student wrote:Who the fuck even visits autoadmit except trolls?

I like AA. For a bunch of T15 law nerds, they are all so gorgeous that they give Brad Pitt competition and they are all partners in firms. Awesome!

apper123 wrote:With a few exceptions, mastering black letter law really is not difficult at all. Issue spotting and applying are a different story.

I think this is true. And profs don't teach that latter part, though they could.

Very hard to judge law school by 1 chapter read at your leisure, but considering I did quite well and studied for exams for a week or so 1L and only lightly did the reading, yeah it can be done. The stuff becomes far less interesting though, as time goes on, you will get sick of it.

Also, you'll be reading for 4-5 different topics at a time, and the mandatory reading is some variable length case written 100 years ago designed to confuse students and expose you to bad writing and teach you to learn a basic principle (that you could learn in 2 sentences often) by reading a convoluted fact pattern/analysis written in "opinion" style...it's supposed to train you to learn from badly written opinions on any topic like you will do as a lawyer (in many situations), and to be able to learn a principle regardless of the facts that arise... so that eventually you see that a case about a bike, car, airplane, or sandwich, should get the same result, even if the rule was really originally meant to make most sense when applied to a car.

Once you learn how to do that, feel free to read outlines or E&Es to learn a class.

But yes, you are weird, and probably proud of that. You sound like a gunner.