Top Law Schools

Does anyone know what the term "forks" are? I am a 1L (started school yesterday) and I've already heard this term be brought up a couple of times. If anyone can help or let me know if it's something I need to know in my first year, please help!

Thanks!

Sage_ wrote:Does anyone know what the term "forks" are? I am a 1L (started school yesterday) and I've already heard this term be brought up a couple of times. If anyone can help or let me know if it's something I need to know in my first year, please help!

Thanks!

Sage_ wrote:Does anyone know what the term "forks" are? I am a 1L (started school yesterday) and I've already heard this term be brought up a couple of times. If anyone can help or let me know if it's something I need to know in my first year, please help!

Thanks!

it's the way the author of Getting to Maybe describes how to write / approach exams and problems.

Ohh ok great, ordering that book now! Thank you!

Sage_ wrote:Ohh ok great, ordering that book now! Thank you!

it's not something you need to necessarily buy or read right now. maybe ~ november when you start thinking about exams. most of the knowledge will be wasted on you. it's also not a game-changer. just need to understand that when approaching a problem there are many vantage points each that present their own unique problems. each of those "forks in the road" should be explored to fully understand a problem.

Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

*caveat: although I do endorse the view that studying is not the end-all-be-all like others make it, you DO need to study "enough" (as self-defined) to be able to articulately and factually explore the various 'forks' while using some caselaw/precedent/class discussion to back it up.

toothbrush wrote:

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

*caveat: although I do endorse the view that studying is not the end-all-be-all like others make it, you DO need to study "enough" (as self-defined) to be able to articulately and factually explore the various 'forks' while using some caselaw/precedent/class discussion to back it up.

Depends what you're aiming for. I didn't buy books last semester to experiment around, perused some in a nutshell box a few weeks out, and saw if I could at least crack median on everything. It worked. I knew the raw bones law, and just used the fact patterns to say if the facts were like this then blah, blah. Once you "get it", there's a floor on how bad you can do.

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

This is very informative, thank you. We began our first class yesterday and of course I was chosen as the socratic victim on the first day. He raised so many questions and comments, I could see how one could lose sight of the big picture.

toothbrush wrote:

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

*caveat: although I do endorse the view that studying is not the end-all-be-all like others make it, you DO need to study "enough" (as self-defined) to be able to articulately and factually explore the various 'forks' while using some caselaw/precedent/class discussion to back it up.

I understand the importance of cases, but after going through them for a couple of days I can't help but wonder if/when we will be covering the actual rules.

Erm. The cases you're studying portray the "actual rules."

Sage_ wrote: I understand the importance of cases, but after going through them for a couple of days I can't help but wonder if/when we will be covering the actual rules.

if you are looking for a list of the rules, perhaps look to restatements. However, if the prof. wants you to know/use them, they will be assigned/in the case book. generally the 'rules' are distilled from the cases. give me a case name that you've studied and i'll tell you the "rule" you need to know from it

Sage_ wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

*caveat: although I do endorse the view that studying is not the end-all-be-all like others make it, you DO need to study "enough" (as self-defined) to be able to articulately and factually explore the various 'forks' while using some caselaw/precedent/class discussion to back it up.

I understand the importance of cases, but after going through them for a couple of days I can't help but wonder if/when we will be covering the actual rules.

If you're unclear on the common law concept (and it's normal to be -- most college graduates and many law school matriculants are), it is well distilled (as are many legal concepts, so don't laugh) by Wikipedia. You shouldn't need to read beyond the first two sections (Primary Connotations and Basic Principles).

#down

Sage_ wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

*caveat: although I do endorse the view that studying is not the end-all-be-all like others make it, you DO need to study "enough" (as self-defined) to be able to articulately and factually explore the various 'forks' while using some caselaw/precedent/class discussion to back it up.

I understand the importance of cases, but after going through them for a couple of days I can't help but wonder if/when we will be covering the actual rules.

PJ's advice is on the right track. A fork is figuring out where the fact pattern could result in different rules being invoked i.e. A is at a bar and see B walking in his direction and he thinks B is threatening and will attack him. A proceeds to punch B who had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm and causes B to suffer a stroke. Is A liable for battery? IIED? Is he liable for bringing on the stroke? Can A claim self-defense? Is the bar-owner partially liable for serving too much liquor to A? These are the types of "forks in the road" GTM refers to.

6lehderjets wrote:

Sage_ wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

PepperJack wrote:Spotting a fork is good, but most of the credit is in following them without losing the bigger picture. This concept is a big part of the reason that studying is neither sufficient nor necessary to doing well, and why some complain grading is random. The reason it's not a game changer is because most people will be aware of it, or the general concept.

*caveat: although I do endorse the view that studying is not the end-all-be-all like others make it, you DO need to study "enough" (as self-defined) to be able to articulately and factually explore the various 'forks' while using some caselaw/precedent/class discussion to back it up.

I understand the importance of cases, but after going through them for a couple of days I can't help but wonder if/when we will be covering the actual rules.

PJ's advice is on the right track. A fork is figuring out where the fact pattern could result in different rules being invoked i.e. A is at a bar and see B walking in his direction and he thinks B is threatening and will attack him. A proceeds to punch B who had an undiagnosed brain aneurysm and causes B to suffer a stroke. Is A liable for battery? IIED? Is he liable for bringing on the stroke? Can A claim self-defense? Is the bar-owner partially liable for serving too much liquor to A? These are the types of "forks in the road" GTM refers to.

Thank you that clears up a lot!

toothbrush wrote:

Sage_ wrote: I understand the importance of cases, but after going through them for a couple of days I can't help but wonder if/when we will be covering the actual rules.

if you are looking for a list of the rules, perhaps look to restatements. However, if the prof. wants you to know/use them, they will be assigned/in the case book. generally the 'rules' are distilled from the cases. give me a case name that you've studied and i'll tell you the "rule" you need to know from it

I think I may have started my first day with many assumptions of law school, and found that I was completely off. It makes better sense now as to what to get out of the cases. Thanks a ton!

Generally, the cases that you learn in law school are the ones that created the rules or changed them. For any general rule that you learn there's probably 10,000 cases. It's also not hard to see what the rule is. Honestly, if you can't pick up on what the rule is then you're having comprehension problems. It's definitely better to read and understand a commercial brief then read and not understand a case. You're learning relevant rules every day, but there's normally not going to be a list. Again, knowing the rules is by itself useless. If that was it then people would google everything when they had a legal problem. Y