Top Law Schools

0L. I've read from a couple different sources (including TLS) that some 1L courses lean more towards rule-based, case-based, or principle-based law. In terms of learning the law and applying it.

i.e. that Con is principle-based, Crim is rule-based, and Ks is case-based.

With the understanding that each course uses all three of these approaches... Which approach does each 1L course favor? Will this vary from prof to prof? Do you think this taxonomy is irrational? Or is there another category that should be added to the mix?

And, I did search for this answer before posting.

edit: n/m

thesealocust wrote:Here we go:

Civ pro: Case based
Con law: Case based
Torts: Case based
Crim: Case based
Ks: Case based
Property: Case based
LRW: Case based
Elective(s): Case based

HTH

haha. still my fav poaster

Thanks and noted.

I understand that casebooks are the medium through which the subject matter is taught. I saw a comment here on TLS about how con law is more principle driven compared to crim law. And I just read a quote from Chirelstein where he said contracts is more case-oriented than torts or crim (which are more rule focused).

I must have read too much into it.

madmartigan wrote:Thanks and noted.

I understand that casebooks are the medium through which the subject matter is taught. I saw a comment here on TLS about how con law is more principle driven compared to crim law. And I just read a quote from Chirelstein where he said contracts is more case-oriented than torts or crim (which are more rule focused).

I must have read too much into it.

yeah, it's not that he's wrong, per-se, it's just that it prolly won't buy you much in terms of 1L success

madmartigan wrote: And I just read a quote from Chirelstein where he said contracts is more case-oriented than torts or crim (which are more rule focused).

Why in god's name are you reading Chirelstein as an 0L? Do you really think that of all things is going to get you teh A. "Ohhh, if only i understood what an offer was, victory would be mine!!!~~ "

Relax, have a beer; there will be plenty of time for Chirelstein et al come September.

doyleoil wrote:

madmartigan wrote:Thanks and noted.

I understand that casebooks are the medium through which the subject matter is taught. I saw a comment here on TLS about how con law is more principle driven compared to crim law. And I just read a quote from Chirelstein where he said contracts is more case-oriented than torts or crim (which are more rule focused).

I must have read too much into it.

yeah, it's not that he's wrong, per-se, it's just that it prolly won't buy you much in terms of 1L success

gotcha. I figured it would help to know if there were different angles I needed to approach with each class. i.e. keeping a big picture view in con law because principles have more impact, vs crim where i should focus more on the black letter because of the emphasis on rules, etc.

...

solidsnake wrote:

madmartigan wrote: And I just read a quote from Chirelstein where he said contracts is more case-oriented than torts or crim (which are more rule focused).

Why in god's name are you reading Chirelstein as an 0L? Do you really think that of all things is going to get you teh A. "Ohhh, if only i understood what an offer was, victory would be mine!!!~~ "

Relax, have a beer; there will be plenty of time for Chirelstein et al come September.

It was a quote from Chirelstein in a book I'm reading called 'Thinking like a Lawyer' by Schauer. Some current students on here recommended it because it's a light, non-substantive survey of law school.

Don't worry, I'm enjoying my summer... no need for another thread on why 0Ls shouldn't do substantive prep... I got it.

Allow me to make a State of Affairs here on TLS. PLEASE TLS, let’s keep this an intelligent forum for discourse. I’m tired of seeing this; let’s step it up, knowledge is power. See below for TLDR of this thread…

OP: “Rational, original, well-articulated question, with nuance.”
RP1: “2L talking point to 0L” (score, 1 more post)
RP2: (What a stupid 0L) “lowbrow burn”
RP1-2: ditto meme “see above” (damn... I couldn’t even improve on that stupid comment)
RP3: “I would love to see RP2’s penis”
OP: Sigh… “Wow, ya’ll are so smart, and I am not. Let me reword my question with a source that is known as a preeminent scholar. Again, my mistake, my penis is not as big as yours.”
RP4: “Well, the question is mostly legit, but please insert $1.75 to continue Miss Cleo’s advice.”
RP3-2: “Standard burn, but I said it less eloquently.” “How about you have sex, because I never have.” (*Cry* I’m bound for Personal Injury and living with relatives)
OP: “Goddam, ya’ll are so fuckin smart.” “here’s my question again in <150LSAT language. And, a cat in the hat example.”
RP5: (To make the first semi-intelligent response to your original post) “easy way out… that you already acknowledged in your OP.”
OP: “Here’s a quick response you don’t understand, but it kind of hurts doesn’t it, that’s because it makes you feel stupid in the smart part of your brain.” “Once again, you guys have such big law school peni.”

Maybe ya'll can compete for the most predictable, unintelligent reply. Let’er rip, bottom 66% tards.

...

madmartigan wrote:0L. I've read from a couple different sources (including TLS) that some 1L courses lean more towards rule-based, case-based, or principle-based law. In terms of learning the law and applying it.

i.e. that Con is principle-based, Crim is rule-based, and Ks is case-based.

With the understanding that each course uses all three of these approaches... Which approach does each 1L course favor? Will this vary from prof to prof? Do you think this taxonomy is irrational? Or is there another category that should be added to the mix?

And, I did search for this answer before posting.

Even though you may not like the answer, sealocust is right. Law is primarily rule based. Your distinction that Crim is rule based and Contracts is case-based is wrong. Both are rule based. Perhaps you meant that the rules for Crim are primarily based on statutes and the rules for Contracts are primarily based on cases. Even that distinction is arguable though, see the UCC for example.

I don't understand what you mean when you refer to Con Law as principle based. You could argue that the rules of Con Law may be influenced by principles, but you could make that argument about any area of law, even technical areas like corporations law, patent law or tax law.

madmartigan wrote:Allow me to make a State of Affairs here on TLS. PLEASE TLS, let’s keep this an intelligent forum for discourse. I’m tired of seeing this; let’s step it up, knowledge is power. See below for TLDR of this thread…

OP: “Question that shows he thinks he knows more about law school than he really does”

More accurate.

madmartigan wrote: gotcha. I figured it would help to know if there were different angles I needed to approach with each class.

The most important angles to keep in mind have nothing to do with the substantive material of the class. It's knowing your professor's style. Understanding what each professor wants, and how they want it, is incredibly important.

For example:
Prof 1 - no need to cite any cases at all. Explain your answer, the possible outcomes, and why it's appropriate, given the possible impact such a decision would have. Heavy on policy and procedure (not CivPro).
Prof 2 - needed to actually use the cases on the exam, to answer questions. I don't mean cite them as authority, but take a position and distinguish all the major cases for the relevant issue, and justify your position using other cases (and why they should be used).
Prof 3 - no issue-spotting, a lot of thinking - and then classic style of written answer. Remember your cases, and cite them.
Prof 4 - rules. Period. Too much detail (i.e., no more than 2-3 sentences per issue), and you're losing time. Issue-spotting sans cases.

Etc., etc.

HTH.