0L Question Forum

[brickman]

edit: What exactly are you getting from a professor that is relevant and what should you be looking for to make sure you do well on the exam. Further, is this a correct way of thinking about the type of things that are relevant to exams and how far and wide should this methodology be applied to the material.

[lawschoolstudent85]

I feel for your future classmates.

[vamedic03]

Which part of "Forum for Law School Students" is ambiguous?

[jpSartre]

hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture and recognize minutia for minutia

[bjsesq]

Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.

[thesealocust]

Pardon my douchitude, but I believe in little in this world but my eloquence and ferocious intelligence, and I think it would just be criminal not to share. I SHALL BEGIN TO TYPE, KINDLY TAKE YOUR SEATS.

KILL IT BEFORE IT BREEDS!

[dailygrind]

hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with long winded hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

[D-hops]

My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.

Or Sogui.

[jpSartre]

hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?

[Baylan]

Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

I am looking forward to hearing you complain about your LRW teacher when you get back your first memo.

And if you're thinking this much about the theory behind the teaching, you're probably going to spend too much time on this bullshit and not enough time doing the important things.

[AreJay711]

Wow I didn't get past the first line lol.

[bjsesq]

My god. Quakeroats. PM him. You can have some intellectual mutual masturbation.

Or Sogui.

A WE IZ GENIUS CIRCLEJERK. The huge manatee. Oh.

[Flips88]

--ImageRemoved--

[thesealocust]

--ImageRemoved--

[blsingindisguise]

Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

I'm tempted to just respond sarcastically. My more gentle response is that you sound a bit confused about a lot of things about the law and law school. For example, you say "For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law." But more often than not, caselaw has nothing to do with "legislative history" because you're dealing with common law, not statutory interpretation, so there is no legislative history.

Of course even when a case interprets a statute, (1) there is often limited legislative history available (especially with state statutes), (2) legislative history is widely considered to be a fairly limited (though sometimes useful) tool in statutory interpretation for reasons too complicated to get into, (3) many cases interpreting statutes turn on applying the statute to a new, heretofore uncontemplated situation, so what the drafters of the statute meant at the time is not always that useful.

Beyond that, what I think you are maybe sort of trying to get at (although I'm not sure because your post is a little bit like a description of basketball written by a person who has only seen still photographs of the game) is something that the caselaw method already does. You read a variety of cases dealing with variations of an issue, you see all the different twists and turns it could take and how judges resolve the problems, you learn to apply the law to the facts and to find your own forks and to choose one road or another at the fork and make the best argument for the one you chose.

[dailygrind]

hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?

No, but I'm a dickbag with a power complex who's this close to banning you. Talk to each other all you want, but do it in the appropriate forums. The forum for law students is reserved for law students to converse with each other, and for 0Ls to clandestinely snoop and very occasionally ask intelligent questions.

[jpSartre]

hello fellow gtm brother.

seems right to me. it important to know the substance of what they're saying, but seems also very important to be able to describe the way that fits into the bigger picture

0Ls starting threads with hypothesis about law school classes, and another 0L confirming his hypothesis in the forum for law students? What about this seems right?

You're right bro, 0L's shouldnt be allowed to talk to each other. Are you a Leiter groupie?

No, but I'm a dickbag with a power complex who's this close to banning you. Talk to each other all you want, but do it in the appropriate forums. The forum for law students is reserved for law students to converse with each other, and for 0Ls to clandestinely snoop and very occasionally ask intelligent questions.

On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? I actually responded to the topic. If you're going to ban anyone, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people posting shark pictures? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

[kaiser]

Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

Lol

[bjsesq]

On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

See ya!

[thesealocust]

On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

ohhhhhhh shit son! First lesson in the law: It doesn't matter what it says, it matters what the person with the power to enforce it decides to do. In other words, it's best to let sleeping dragons lie. Put another way, good? bad? he's the guy with the banstick. Alternatively: HE IS THE LAW.

[AreJay711]

On what grounds on your going to "ban" me bro? I actually responded to the topic. If you're going to ban anyone, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the people posting shark pictures? Just do your job and move the thread where it needs to go, there's no reason for "threats."

Yeah, tell him noob

[071816]

Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise of such a thread, but it's killing me going on with the theory I have and to not have it confirmed or not.

Roughly, it seems like a professor would/should/sometimes does discuss ambiguity of a legal situation to varying depths. Their methodology disguises the process, or seems to, by not making this apparent and just jumping into the discussion of a point.

An explanation by means of example:

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law. Yet, isn't this still just a subset of a point of legal ambiguity? The discussion of the legislative history, and your professors biases, are a discussion/argument for a particular interpretation that results in certain rights and duties for various parties. It isn't the only possible interpretation of the rule, and probably isn't even the only interpretation that can be distilled from the legislative history, but the professor is working with limited class time and wants to get their biases and theory for how the law should be interpreted out to you as best as she can. The professor takes their time during class to discuss it, and may even follow up the next class period with further discussion of the legislative history. They are exploring a specific point of ambiguity to a very particular depth and then moving on to exploring other particular points of ambiguity. The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

[dailygrind]

And he's....outta here!

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Pardon the absolute absurdity of the premise...

Fresh-off-the-LSAT vocab: check

For an assigned case, the professor enters into a discussion of the legislative history of a particular element of a particular rule of law. The professor discusses the committee reports and testimonies of various experts who offered their opinions as well as the real world events that inspired the law.

No clue what actually goes on in a law school classroom: check

The task, or so it seems to me, is that you have to understand that they are doing this and to follow specifically what they are doing (or be able to read supplements/read outlines well enough to see these points) and make use of these explorations of the ambiguity of law so that when exam time comes you can show them that you see the ambiguity of the law in the novel fact situation.

solving law school before it starts: check

If this is a reasonable hypothesis, and it very well may not be, then should other points of ambiguity within the substantive constraints of the syllabi be explored, and if so, to what level of depth?

asking a question that would answer itself by reading any one of the LS advice threads: check


all around excellent post.

[bjsesq]

And he's....outta here!

ON WHAT GROUNDS, YOU SUMMAMABITCH