would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses Forum

Tsispilos · Post by **Tsispilos** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:53 pm

if you're not pursuing a clerkship?

this course is insanely gunnerish. thinking of dropping it.

revolution724 · Post by **revolution724** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:54 pm

I don't plan to take it. Most of my interests are governed by state law. Are you interested in doing things that involve a lot of federal law?

Post by **vanwinkle** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:55 pm

It is insanely gunnerish, since it is pretty much a prereq for clerkships; on top of that (and I'm saying this just a few weeks into it myself) it's some of the most confusing subject matter you'll ever have to deal with. It's all the subjectiveness of Con Law with added uncertainty since you're mostly discussing hypotheticals that have never been tested at the Supreme Court level before.

It's a course I wouldn't take if I didn't have to.

bigben · Post by **bigben** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:59 pm

I would put it on the list of must-NOT-take courses if you're not pursuing a clerkship.

I don't know though, it may be pretty useful for litigation. Though you can always learn on the job too. I'm not doing litigation.

ToTransferOrNot · Post by **ToTransferOrNot** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:40 am

I got a clerkship without taking it 2L year.

I'm now taking it my 3L year for no apparent reason. I also enjoy walking over hot coals, and being waterboarded.

bigben · Post by **bigben** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:43 am

ToTransferOrNot wrote:I got a clerkship without taking it 2L year.

I'm now taking it my 3L year for no apparent reason. I also enjoy walking over hot coals, and being waterboarded.

Ever tried bamboo shoots jammed under the fingernails? Recommended.

ToTransferOrNot · Post by **ToTransferOrNot** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:46 am

bigben wrote:
ToTransferOrNot wrote:I got a clerkship without taking it 2L year.

I'm now taking it my 3L year for no apparent reason. I also enjoy walking over hot coals, and being waterboarded.
Ever tried bamboo shoots jammed under the fingernails? Recommended.

Should I put salt and/or beeswax on the bamboo first?

Richie Tenenbaum · Post by **Richie Tenenbaum** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:48 am

1L tangent:

If you ARE interested in trying to pursue a clerkship, would it be better to take 2L fall or spring?

LurkerNoMore · Post by **LurkerNoMore** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:17 am

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:1L tangent:

If you ARE interested in trying to pursue a clerkship, would it be better to take 2L fall or spring?

Safest route would be fall 3L -- you'll be able to say you are taking it, without having the tragedy of the grade you might get mar your transcript. Some judges are bothered by this trick, though (though usually only the ones that ubergunners have a chance at).

ToTransferOrNot wrote:I got a clerkship without taking it 2L year.

I'm now taking it my 3L year for no apparent reason. I also enjoy walking over hot coals, and being waterboarded.

You'll probably be glad you took it. Its amazing how much the stuff becomes relevant when you are clerking (especially if you are doing a COA).

johnnyutah · Post by **johnnyutah** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:15 pm

Dude, Fed Courts is fun and interesting. It's definitely not must-take, but it'll keep you awake in class and you'll feel smarter at the end of it. I took it and have no interest in or shot at a federal clerkship, and I'm glad I did.

ToTransferOrNot · Post by **ToTransferOrNot** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:19 pm

johnnyutah wrote:Dude, Fed Courts is fun and interesting. It's definitely not must-take, but it'll keep you awake in class and you'll feel smarter at the end of it. I took it and have no interest in or shot at a federal clerkship, and I'm glad I did.

Burn the witch!

nealric · Post by **nealric** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:35 pm

It depends on what you want to do with your career. If you want to do transactional stuff, it's all but useless. If you plan on doing certain types of litigation, it's all but essential.

From my understanding, it's not that the material is all that hard, it's just that the class ends up getting filled with gunners.

johnnyutah · Post by **johnnyutah** » Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:36 pm

nealric wrote: From my understanding, it's not that the material is all that hard, it's just that the class ends up getting filled with gunners.

I thought the material was more complex and abstract than most law school stuff. Also, some of the late-1700s cases are really obnoxious to decipher.

would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses Forum

would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Register for access!

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Re: would you put fed courts on the list of must-take courses

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.