Top Law Schools

So far, my Torts class is obscenely easy. At least, it seems that way to me. So, I'm afraid I'm missing something important in my approach to the class. Four weeks in, and we've only covered the duty element and some of breach - seemingly at a very basic level. What am I missing, TLS? :/

Torts is not difficult. That would be why.

You're not missing anything.

Tort is suppose to be very easy.

Even the finals will be easy.

The hard part is to not make any big mistakes on accident, as most of your classmates might find the class to be just as easy and will be just as prepared as you are for the final.

Haha, fair enough! It just seems odd that every other class has required a good bit of attention, but there's yet to be anything in Torts that didn't make me want to react with the "you don't say" face. Definitely still doing everything, plus E&E, etc.

Torts has the most simple doctrine of any 1L course. This really only makes the final "harder" in the sense that grades will tend to be more random or at least more dependent on your performance on that single day.

Yeah, rote application of extremely basic black-letter law to a given set of facts. It just seems as if the doctrines are far simpler - not to mention more inclusive of potential scenarios (fewer rules) than, say, Contracts. It just seems odd that most of law school is challenging but Torts is easier than most UG classes. Lol

Klinklang wrote:Yeah, rote application of extremely basic black-letter law to a given set of facts. It just seems as if the doctrines are far simpler - not to mention more inclusive of potential scenarios (fewer rules) than, say, Contracts. It just seems odd that most of law school is challenging but Torts is easier than most UG classes. Lol

See ya after the final.

I think torts is the easiest class so far too. Although I am starting to read about proximate causation, which is a little challenging (Damn Palsgraf). Hopefully the class gets more difficult or else, like the above poster said, the curve will be nasty

Harder stuff will come, like assumption of the risk (primary, secondary).

Yeah, wait until you see a practice exam before declaring you've got it in the bag.

Bronte wrote:Torts has the most simple doctrine of any 1L course. This really only makes the final "harder" in the sense that grades will tend to be more random or at least more dependent on your performance on that single day.

This is a good answer.

Law in general isn't very hard to understand at all--and torts is the easiest. There's a lot of hype out there that makes it seem like an intellectually challenging field, but it should really be taught in trade school.

Bronte wrote:Torts has the most simple doctrine of any 1L course. This really only makes the final "harder" in the sense that grades will tend to be more random or at least more dependent on your performance on that single day.

+1. I got a shitty grade in Torts and a good one in Contracts for that very reason.

JCougar wrote: Law in general isn't very hard to understand at all--and torts is the easiest. There's a lot of hype out there that makes it seem like an intellectually challenging field, but it should really be taught in trade school.

Yes, because a basic 1L doctrinal course is a fair barometer for the difficulty of the entire field.

I'm not gonna say that the law is magical and all that, and a lot of the scholarship is intellectual masturbation, but there are many legitimately interesting and deep intellectual questions to be tackled.

Klinklang wrote:So far, my Torts class is obscenely easy. At least, it seems that way to me. So, I'm afraid I'm missing something important in my approach to the class. Four weeks in, and we've only covered the duty element and some of breach - seemingly at a very basic level. What am I missing, TLS? :/

Cornell

TatteredDignity wrote: Yes, because a basic 1L doctrinal course is a fair barometer for the difficulty of the entire field.

I'm not gonna say that the law is magical and all that, and a lot of the scholarship is intellectual masturbation, but there are many legitimately interesting and deep intellectual questions to be tackled.

Yeah...maybe if you take Jurisprudence or something and try to incorporate economics into the field. But that's not law--that's philosophy mixed with economics.

If there's some difficult area of the field, I haven't found it yet. Corporate law, M&A, etc. is pretty basic. Securities Reg. is basically reading the statute. Employment and Labor is simple. Civ Pro/Evidence is about one of the only areas that seems a little bit strategic, but that's basically just reading the rules. I did some estate law this summer, and it seemed like a PITA, but that's mostly just because they use weird language that you have to get used to. In all these doctrines, you can basically fit the rules on one sheet of paper. And if you don't understand it beyond that, look it up.

Bottom line is that the practice of law is mostly copying and pasting stuff into pre-written briefs and orders, and combing through boxes of documents to find evidence. It doesn't really matter what you're putting in those briefs, as long as you can bill the hours that it takes to produce them. I came across a bunch of briefs this summer that opposing counsel filed that were basically crap. I used his own citations to oppose his motion to strike. I don't think he really read the cases, but they were part of his copy 'n' paste motion. Turns out they helped our side, not his. But he got to bill the hours, and he'll probably tell his client that it was "worth a shot."

There are some difficult areas within causation, and lots of weird nuances with duty. That's what will really set you apart. Everyone will know duty, breach, actual and proximate cause, and damages. It's about sophisticated and nuanced application of doctrine using cases as applicable (i.e., point to facts that make this fact pattern similar/different to others).

JCougar wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote: Yes, because a basic 1L doctrinal course is a fair barometer for the difficulty of the entire field.

I'm not gonna say that the law is magical and all that, and a lot of the scholarship is intellectual masturbation, but there are many legitimately interesting and deep intellectual questions to be tackled.

Yeah...maybe if you take Jurisprudence or something and try to incorporate economics into the field. But that's not law--that's philosophy mixed with economics.

If there's some difficult area of the field, I haven't found it yet. Corporate law, M&A, etc. is pretty basic. Securities Reg. is basically reading the statute. Employment and Labor is simple. Civ Pro/Evidence is about one of the only areas that seems a little bit strategic, but that's basically just reading the rules. I did some estate law this summer, and it seemed like a PITA, but that's mostly just because they use weird language that you have to get used to. In all these doctrines, you can basically fit the rules on one sheet of paper. And if you don't understand it beyond that, look it up.

Bottom line is that the practice of law is mostly copying and pasting stuff into pre-written briefs and orders, and combing through boxes of documents to find evidence. It doesn't really matter what you're putting in those briefs, as long as you can bill the hours that it takes to produce them. I came across a bunch of briefs this summer that opposing counsel filed that were basically crap. I used his own citations to oppose his motion to strike. I don't think he really read the cases, but they were part of his copy 'n' paste motion. Turns out they helped our side, not his. But he got to bill the hours, and he'll probably tell his client that it was "worth a shot."

I think the distinction between our positions is that you're talking about the practice of law. I agree that could probably be taught in a trade school model. I'm talking about law as an intellectual pursuit. Is a lot of it navel gazing and total crap? Sure. But you can say the same about any discipline that isn't a hard science.

It's not the subject matter, it's your competition.

If you interview with a corporate firm, I would not mention that you think securities law is just reading the statute. Same basic advice with M&A and re-org, etc. Don't mention that you think the work is all cookie-cutter stuff.

Just something to keep in mind for the future.

sunynp wrote:If you interview with a corporate firm, I would not mention that you think securities law is just reading the statute. Same basic advice with M&A and re-org, etc. Don't mention that you think the work is all cookie-cutter stuff.

Just something to keep in mind for the future.

I agree...that would be a terrible idea.

The bll of torts isn't necessarily that complicated, but I think you will see in a few months that you have seriously underestimated the ability of your professor to create a clusterf*#k that can scarcely be unravelled, and/or the fact that easy classes= seriously tight curves. The difference between an A- and a B+ can be HALF A POINT.

Torts does "seem" basic, but I'll really have a good knowledge of that after my midterm on Monday. I'm ready to get this shit over with.

Total Litigator wrote:It's not the subject matter, it's your competition.

This. Very this.
I can't tell you how many of my peers thought they "killed" an exam, only to end up with a B or B-. Realize that this game is about being able to answer the question better than everyone else and not simply about being able to answer the question.

My best exams I felt worst walking out of.

It is September. Please watch Netflix and be happy.