Today the new 1L students arrive at Cal Western to begin their journey down the path to becoming a lawyer. I realized I had yet to fulfill my promises of the 1L review and of the internship. I wonder if politicians every experience the feelings I currently have - that feeling of saying you'd do something and then fail to do it!
Well, onto Contracts and Dean Dessent!
Contracts is a unique area. Much like most other areas of law, this topic was born from common law. If "we" are to legally recognize an agreement between two people, the agreement must fulfill certain requirements. If the agreement does not meet the minimum requirements, then the agreement is not a legal contract. This is a simple concept. But, much harder to actually apply.
Looking back on Contracts, I see how fact intensive this area of the law really is. (I love 20/20 hindsight!). I should've paid a little more attention to the facts to really understand this area. I am developing a better appreciation of contracts now as I reflect on the topic.
During last year, I would've told everyone I was worried about contracts. And I was. I found contracts not very interesting. Not exactly boring, just a topic that didn't tickle my fancy. My original desire when I came to law school was to be a transactional lawyer. That desire has changed because I don't believe contracts are my thing. But, right now, as I type away, I feel better about contracts.
So that's what I have to recommend about this subject. Pay attention to the facts and contemplate the subject more intensely than you would for other subjects. The nuances and the manner in which individual judges rule on those nuances make contracts very challenging. But not so challenging as to be impossible. Pay attention and think; and contracts will be a little easier.
I feel contracts could be very boring depending on the professor. Have a dry professor and contracts will feel like pulling teeth. Even though we had a very interesting professor, at times, contracts was like staring at a blank television screen. I wish I had thought more about contracts, then, I might have found contracts more interesting and might have received a higher grade.
I should point out, contracts is actually divided into two areas: common law and the UCC. The UCC can be very frustrating in its application. A codified contract law for the sale of goods, the UCC is more convoluted than common law in the judge interpretation of the codified rules. This makes taking an exam very difficult! If you don't how to apply the UCC, the test will not go well for you! But, Dean Dessent made the UCC interesting. If only I had listened a little closer to him!
Turning to the interesting professor now. Dean Dessent is an entertaining professor. (For those who might not know, Dean Dessent was the law school's Dean in the late 80's.) If you had asked me during the year my feelings I would've told you that he is not a great professor. I felt then he made contracts interesting but did not "teach" us anything. I would've been wrong. Dean Dessent, on reflection, is a very good professor. If you listen to him, you will learn contracts.
The key to learning from Dean Dessent is to listen to his stories and write them down. Later, analyze his stories and compare them to the contract law he has taught. He will give nuances and hints about how to apply the law to the facts. Later when you are taking his exam, you'll see his nuances and give better answers than those who did not listen.
Contracts can be very boring. Contracts can also be very frustrating. Listen, reflect, analyze, and reflect some more is the key to performing well in contracts. Of course, having an interesting and entertaining professor, such as Dean Dessent, will go a long ways to surviving contracts will some sanity!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
1L Review: Property I & II and Professor Ehrlich
As you read in last blog, my grade dropped significantly from Property I to Property II. This does not mean Property II was harder or more difficult or even significantly different than Property I, as stated last blog, it means nothing. Property I and Property II, in my opinion, are basically the same. While most of Property I was "older" law, Property II was more recent law.
One of the things I liked about Property II was a more realistic application of some of the concepts discussed. One of those was tenant-landlord relationships. As most students have a landlord, comparing the concepts learned to our own "real" world experience aided in understanding the concepts. The ability to put what was learned to use usually aids in learning the topic.
I don't feel the concepts in Property are too difficult. And I also don't think Cal Western's curriculum over burdens the topic. In one outside source I listened to, the professor stated property is one of the hardest topics in law because of the magnitude of concepts and topics to learn. Although there are a lot of concepts taught, Professor Ehrlich doesn't overburden the class. Property is not that bad.
Moving onto Professor Ehrlich. Of our classes, his classes are closer to under-grad classes than anyone else's. He stays behind the lectern and uses a powerpoint. But that doesn't mean this isn't a law school class!
Professor Ehrlich has some strict rules, not as strict as Professor Bowermaster, but still strict. Also if you ask a question in class, you had better be prepared to have the question thrown back at you. That's right, if you ask a question, Professor Ehrlich will most likely not answer it. You will.
Remember this is law school. You are learning the law and how to apply the law. The application of the law requires arguments to be made for and against how the law is to be applied. Professor Ehrlich makes you argue an answer to your own question. This is his Socratic method. Once you get used to his way, the class is very enjoyable. And the class is already enjoyable to begin with. Property class always flew by.
Now, Professor Ehrlich is not the most human of law professors. At times he will appear to treat you like just another number, as if he has no feelings for you or anyone for that matter. For example, he felt the need to put in his PowerPoint the fact he has enjoyed the past year with us. Who actually does that? But, if you go to office hours, you find a caring professor who treats you like a human. So don't be afraid of Professor Ehrlich.
Property I and II are similar in concepts but the second semester allows a better application to aid in learning. Professor Ehrlich's style of teaching, though close to under-grad, is interesting and facilitates learning. His class is over before you know it. And so it was.
One of the things I liked about Property II was a more realistic application of some of the concepts discussed. One of those was tenant-landlord relationships. As most students have a landlord, comparing the concepts learned to our own "real" world experience aided in understanding the concepts. The ability to put what was learned to use usually aids in learning the topic.
I don't feel the concepts in Property are too difficult. And I also don't think Cal Western's curriculum over burdens the topic. In one outside source I listened to, the professor stated property is one of the hardest topics in law because of the magnitude of concepts and topics to learn. Although there are a lot of concepts taught, Professor Ehrlich doesn't overburden the class. Property is not that bad.
Moving onto Professor Ehrlich. Of our classes, his classes are closer to under-grad classes than anyone else's. He stays behind the lectern and uses a powerpoint. But that doesn't mean this isn't a law school class!
Professor Ehrlich has some strict rules, not as strict as Professor Bowermaster, but still strict. Also if you ask a question in class, you had better be prepared to have the question thrown back at you. That's right, if you ask a question, Professor Ehrlich will most likely not answer it. You will.
Remember this is law school. You are learning the law and how to apply the law. The application of the law requires arguments to be made for and against how the law is to be applied. Professor Ehrlich makes you argue an answer to your own question. This is his Socratic method. Once you get used to his way, the class is very enjoyable. And the class is already enjoyable to begin with. Property class always flew by.
Now, Professor Ehrlich is not the most human of law professors. At times he will appear to treat you like just another number, as if he has no feelings for you or anyone for that matter. For example, he felt the need to put in his PowerPoint the fact he has enjoyed the past year with us. Who actually does that? But, if you go to office hours, you find a caring professor who treats you like a human. So don't be afraid of Professor Ehrlich.
Property I and II are similar in concepts but the second semester allows a better application to aid in learning. Professor Ehrlich's style of teaching, though close to under-grad, is interesting and facilitates learning. His class is over before you know it. And so it was.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Second Semester Grade Effect
Well, grades were released last Friday. I've had a week to digest the results. I am not happy with three of my grades. Of course, the comment should be said with a grain of salt because of my overall average and ranking among my classmates.
My grade actually did not change in Civ Pro or Legal Skills from first semester. Torts is new; thus, nothing to compare this class to. Both Property and Contracts dropped. And these are where the second semester effect can be seen.
In Contracts I improved my multiple choice grade and my essay had "excellent" written on it. Last semester I had "very good" on my essay. Based on these two facts, my grades should've gone up. Right? Wrong!
My grade slipped a few points. Not devastating but enough to annoy. But what does this really mean? How can I improve yet drop? Simple: everyone else improved MORE than I improved.
Remember the grade is not an objective grade. Your semester grade is based on your performance compared to everyone else. Answer more questions correctly, get a better grade than the person who did not. But, isn't that how it works any way? You answer more questions right you get a better grade? Well yes but not exactly the same in law school.
Your semester grade is not the number of questions you got right on the exam. Your semester grade is the number of questions you got right on the exam compared to everyone else. Thus, if everyone else scored a 90% raw score on the multiple choice exam, and you scored 85%. You FAIL. That is the difference in law school final grades versus final grades for other graduate schools and your undergrad institution.
Because everyone who was below me last semester improved more than I did, many improved the overall score to be better than me. Thus I drop in the final ranking. But that is law school and that is the way it is.
I did worse in Property. I stumbled while everyone else improved. Thus I dropped even further in Property. I dropped from #2 to #18 in the class in property because of my stumble. Again, that is the way it is.
When going to law school, you cannot slack off the second semester. People are gunning to improve to stay. You don't want them to improve more than you and put you at the bottom. You must work harder than everyone else. No matter what your grade was the first semester. That's the second semester grade effect.
My grade actually did not change in Civ Pro or Legal Skills from first semester. Torts is new; thus, nothing to compare this class to. Both Property and Contracts dropped. And these are where the second semester effect can be seen.
In Contracts I improved my multiple choice grade and my essay had "excellent" written on it. Last semester I had "very good" on my essay. Based on these two facts, my grades should've gone up. Right? Wrong!
My grade slipped a few points. Not devastating but enough to annoy. But what does this really mean? How can I improve yet drop? Simple: everyone else improved MORE than I improved.
Remember the grade is not an objective grade. Your semester grade is based on your performance compared to everyone else. Answer more questions correctly, get a better grade than the person who did not. But, isn't that how it works any way? You answer more questions right you get a better grade? Well yes but not exactly the same in law school.
Your semester grade is not the number of questions you got right on the exam. Your semester grade is the number of questions you got right on the exam compared to everyone else. Thus, if everyone else scored a 90% raw score on the multiple choice exam, and you scored 85%. You FAIL. That is the difference in law school final grades versus final grades for other graduate schools and your undergrad institution.
Because everyone who was below me last semester improved more than I did, many improved the overall score to be better than me. Thus I drop in the final ranking. But that is law school and that is the way it is.
I did worse in Property. I stumbled while everyone else improved. Thus I dropped even further in Property. I dropped from #2 to #18 in the class in property because of my stumble. Again, that is the way it is.
When going to law school, you cannot slack off the second semester. People are gunning to improve to stay. You don't want them to improve more than you and put you at the bottom. You must work harder than everyone else. No matter what your grade was the first semester. That's the second semester grade effect.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
1L Review: Civil Procedure I & II and Professor Klein
In continuing with the theme of reliving my first year of law school, I will discuss Civil Procedure.
Civil Procedure I and II are not the same (I believe I talked about this before). Civil Procedure I is about the legal theories which set the background for civil procedure in federal courts. Civil Procedure II, on the other hand, is nothing but specific rules which define how cases are performed in federal courts.
Many of my classmates liked Civ Pro II over Civ Pro I. The reason: theory. Application of a theoretical concepts can be difficult at times as compared to application of specific rules.
Of course, civil procedure II is not necessarily "easier" than civil procedure I. Civ Pro II did contain some theoretical concepts. First, the concept of Res Judicata and its cousin, Collateral Estoppel, are not necessarily the easiest concepts to apply to a fact pattern! Second, although based on a rule, the application of Twombley and Iqbal can be head spinning!
Now, I crushed Civ Pro I; but, I do not feel like I crushed Civ Pro II (still awaiting grades at this point). And it wasn't that I didn't know what I was talking about either. It had to do with the actual exam. I'm not sure I did my best or that the exam actually tested what I knew. But, as Professor Klein likes to say, "it's in the box."
So moving onto Professor Klein. He is a very nice professor. Is he the best? Probably not. Is he the worst? Most definitely not!
Professor Klein has some quirky mannerisms; but, who doesn't. When lecturing (yes he lectures more than he socratic-method teaches), he paces back and forth, puts his fist on his forehead, pauses and sits down in a chair (momentarily) and repeats. It can amusing at times.
He also likes to tell stories. But, his stories are entertaining and enlightening. His stories actually have meaning and are usually related to the message he desires to get across. His classes do not drag!
In office hours he is very open to discussing your view (he will in class too). He is easy to talk with; but, at times I think he begins to answer your question without fully understanding your question. In other words, he hears what he wants to hear and answers the way he heard the question. Like I said, he does this sometimes.
In summary, Civil Procedure I and II are not alike. Civ Pro I is more theortetical while Civ Pro II is more procedural. Professor Klein teaches by lecture more than by socratic method. He has some quirky habits but the habits make the class vice distract from the class.
Civil Procedure I and II are not the same (I believe I talked about this before). Civil Procedure I is about the legal theories which set the background for civil procedure in federal courts. Civil Procedure II, on the other hand, is nothing but specific rules which define how cases are performed in federal courts.
Many of my classmates liked Civ Pro II over Civ Pro I. The reason: theory. Application of a theoretical concepts can be difficult at times as compared to application of specific rules.
Of course, civil procedure II is not necessarily "easier" than civil procedure I. Civ Pro II did contain some theoretical concepts. First, the concept of Res Judicata and its cousin, Collateral Estoppel, are not necessarily the easiest concepts to apply to a fact pattern! Second, although based on a rule, the application of Twombley and Iqbal can be head spinning!
Now, I crushed Civ Pro I; but, I do not feel like I crushed Civ Pro II (still awaiting grades at this point). And it wasn't that I didn't know what I was talking about either. It had to do with the actual exam. I'm not sure I did my best or that the exam actually tested what I knew. But, as Professor Klein likes to say, "it's in the box."
So moving onto Professor Klein. He is a very nice professor. Is he the best? Probably not. Is he the worst? Most definitely not!
Professor Klein has some quirky mannerisms; but, who doesn't. When lecturing (yes he lectures more than he socratic-method teaches), he paces back and forth, puts his fist on his forehead, pauses and sits down in a chair (momentarily) and repeats. It can amusing at times.
He also likes to tell stories. But, his stories are entertaining and enlightening. His stories actually have meaning and are usually related to the message he desires to get across. His classes do not drag!
In office hours he is very open to discussing your view (he will in class too). He is easy to talk with; but, at times I think he begins to answer your question without fully understanding your question. In other words, he hears what he wants to hear and answers the way he heard the question. Like I said, he does this sometimes.
In summary, Civil Procedure I and II are not alike. Civ Pro I is more theortetical while Civ Pro II is more procedural. Professor Klein teaches by lecture more than by socratic method. He has some quirky habits but the habits make the class vice distract from the class.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
1L Review: Legal Skills I & II and Prof Hargrove
This upcoming week I begin my internship. This internship is for experience. I will not get paid or get academic credit. I intend on touching on the benefit of an internship to the law school experience. But for now, I will continue my review of first year courses.
Tedious and time consuming best describe Legal Skills during the 1L year.
Legal Skills I is about learning to do legal research and to write like an English professor (at least if you have Professor Hargrove). The memorandum written for the project is an objective-based writing project. In other words, you do not argue for or against a legal stand; instead, you argue both.
The gist is to write both sides of an issue to give someone else the law and the interpretation of the law. Then applying the law to the legal issue of a client, what arguments for and against the client arises. The most difficult part of the writing is the English professor portion.
Legal Skills II is more writing like an English professor plus the aspect of writing a persuasive appellate brief. The project is an appeal of a ruling and you, as the lawyer, are trying to persuade an appeals court to rule in your favor on the issues. This is very challenging.
The other different aspect of the course is the 1L Legal Skills competition. Everyone is required to stand in front of a three-person panel and argue a side of the issue. I should point out, the legal skills project is the same for all the sections. This competition is very challenging. But rewarding, even when you don't win, place, or show.
Many of my classmates hated the competition. These classmates were predominantly those who have no desire to be a trial or appellate lawyer. They desire to be transactional lawyers or something else. Do not fear the competition. It is a lot of fun.
The brief was time consuming though. I rewrote my brief more times than I did my LS-I project. A word limit existed for the project. Paring down the arguments so that the arguments were strong but not wordy was challenging. The most infuriating aspect of this process was when this process occurred. The edits of the project occurred while studying for finals. Last semester I felt it was easier to finish the legal skills project while studying than this semester.
Maybe one of the differences was the length of the project. Last semester we word limited but the limit was less than this semester. Last semester's project was approximately 10 pages. This semester's project was 2 to 3 times that length. The project required a cover page, table of contents, list of authorities used in the brief, and other formatted-style pages. Did I mention this was time-consuming?
Moving onto Professor Hargrove. She is a trip. A recovering comedian, she attempts to bring humor to law school to make learning interesting. Her attempts are not appreciated by all of the students. I found her classes informative and fun. It's all in the perspective.
Now some will say she seems scatter-brained. Her classes sometimes don't flow, she seems to be behind her syllabus (if she actually follows it), and her posts in the forum sometimes seem mean or aggressive.
If you speak to her during office hours, you will find a very bright and intelligent professor. Her passion is teaching young lawyers how to write, and not how to write like lawyers and judges of the past, but, instead, how to write like lawyers should. She is not scatter-brained; she is not boring; she is not crazy. She is very enjoyable to learn from.
Some of my classmates complained about how she doesn't give good feedback to them. You can talk to them and find out what feedback they sought. Realize some things don't have feedback. See if they were asking about something which doesn't require feedback. I received a lot of feedback and felt I improved in my writing and my legal analysis. I can attribute this to her feedback and her teaching.
Another complaint about her is her tendency to play favorites. But she doesn't do that. Okay, maybe she does, a little. If you do not visit her during office hours or converse with her via email or speak during class, she is not apt to respond to you. If you want help, seek her help. Some people don't understand this. If you don't seek help and don't do the things she asked you do, you cannot complain about her when your grade doesn't reflect what you thought it should.
Realize, this is my opinion about Professor Hargrove. I like her; others may not. Not everyone is perfect and she does have her flaws. But if you work with her, she will work you. And you'll be better for it.
In summary, Legal Skills is time consuming and tedious and frustrating at times. The legal skills competition is fun. Professor Hargrove can be eccentric at times, but is fun to learn from, if you're willing to seek her out.
Tedious and time consuming best describe Legal Skills during the 1L year.
Legal Skills I is about learning to do legal research and to write like an English professor (at least if you have Professor Hargrove). The memorandum written for the project is an objective-based writing project. In other words, you do not argue for or against a legal stand; instead, you argue both.
The gist is to write both sides of an issue to give someone else the law and the interpretation of the law. Then applying the law to the legal issue of a client, what arguments for and against the client arises. The most difficult part of the writing is the English professor portion.
Legal Skills II is more writing like an English professor plus the aspect of writing a persuasive appellate brief. The project is an appeal of a ruling and you, as the lawyer, are trying to persuade an appeals court to rule in your favor on the issues. This is very challenging.
The other different aspect of the course is the 1L Legal Skills competition. Everyone is required to stand in front of a three-person panel and argue a side of the issue. I should point out, the legal skills project is the same for all the sections. This competition is very challenging. But rewarding, even when you don't win, place, or show.
Many of my classmates hated the competition. These classmates were predominantly those who have no desire to be a trial or appellate lawyer. They desire to be transactional lawyers or something else. Do not fear the competition. It is a lot of fun.
The brief was time consuming though. I rewrote my brief more times than I did my LS-I project. A word limit existed for the project. Paring down the arguments so that the arguments were strong but not wordy was challenging. The most infuriating aspect of this process was when this process occurred. The edits of the project occurred while studying for finals. Last semester I felt it was easier to finish the legal skills project while studying than this semester.
Maybe one of the differences was the length of the project. Last semester we word limited but the limit was less than this semester. Last semester's project was approximately 10 pages. This semester's project was 2 to 3 times that length. The project required a cover page, table of contents, list of authorities used in the brief, and other formatted-style pages. Did I mention this was time-consuming?
Moving onto Professor Hargrove. She is a trip. A recovering comedian, she attempts to bring humor to law school to make learning interesting. Her attempts are not appreciated by all of the students. I found her classes informative and fun. It's all in the perspective.
Now some will say she seems scatter-brained. Her classes sometimes don't flow, she seems to be behind her syllabus (if she actually follows it), and her posts in the forum sometimes seem mean or aggressive.
If you speak to her during office hours, you will find a very bright and intelligent professor. Her passion is teaching young lawyers how to write, and not how to write like lawyers and judges of the past, but, instead, how to write like lawyers should. She is not scatter-brained; she is not boring; she is not crazy. She is very enjoyable to learn from.
Some of my classmates complained about how she doesn't give good feedback to them. You can talk to them and find out what feedback they sought. Realize some things don't have feedback. See if they were asking about something which doesn't require feedback. I received a lot of feedback and felt I improved in my writing and my legal analysis. I can attribute this to her feedback and her teaching.
Another complaint about her is her tendency to play favorites. But she doesn't do that. Okay, maybe she does, a little. If you do not visit her during office hours or converse with her via email or speak during class, she is not apt to respond to you. If you want help, seek her help. Some people don't understand this. If you don't seek help and don't do the things she asked you do, you cannot complain about her when your grade doesn't reflect what you thought it should.
Realize, this is my opinion about Professor Hargrove. I like her; others may not. Not everyone is perfect and she does have her flaws. But if you work with her, she will work you. And you'll be better for it.
In summary, Legal Skills is time consuming and tedious and frustrating at times. The legal skills competition is fun. Professor Hargrove can be eccentric at times, but is fun to learn from, if you're willing to seek her out.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
1L Review: Torts I and Prof Bowermaster
Continuing with the 1L year in review:
Torts I
What to say about this class? This has to be the most hated of all the classes of 1L students. Many will complain about Legal Skills; but, LS is tedious; Torts is torture.
The first portion of Torts was not that bad. Intentional torts are close to their counterparts in criminal law, so much of intentional torts was review. A new concept was introduced but because it is similar to another concept, difficulty did not lie too much in the new concept. (Of note, the new concept was called "conversion." I'm sure you can gain a good picture of what it deals with.)
Where the difficulty arose was in the multiple choice questions. Professor Bowermaster conducted a review session at the end of the intentional torts section with some multiple choice questions. And these questions were borderline between difficult and extremely difficult. The painted picture at the end of the review session basically told everyone, "you don't know torts."
Then negligence came into the picture. And everyone was turned onto their heads. Conceptualizing the new concepts was a chore. Trying to understand what the judges were getting at was a chore. Understanding torts is a chore.
And to be honest, I'm not sure the casebook and the course were developed to help understand the concept. I used the Criminal Law theory taught by Professor Campbell to help with Torts. I tried to put the concepts into organized boxes. Unfortunately, trying to organize the boxes was difficult because the course was not structured to do this. I eventually was able to box the concept but it took some time and a lot of effort.
The tutor for Torts was not very helpful. Although tutors did well in the subject, tutors are not always the best at teaching the subject. Now, I don't want to bash our tutor. He did the best with the subject and tried to help. Unfortunately, the setup of tutor sessions did not always lend itself to allowing him to help others understand the concepts. I'm still debating how much was him, how much was the handouts, and how much was the subject. (I'm hoping you are getting the picture: Torts blows.)
The final exam was difficult for this subject also. Professor Bowermaster believes in asking some tough multiple choice questions to cull from everyone their true understanding of Torts. She believes this will expand the distribution of grades in the class. My only complaint about the exam was the call of the question for her essay. In my opinion, the call was too broad. Prof Bowermaster limits the essay length to 11,000 characters (this includes spaces, returns, commas, etc). The call of the question was so broad that it could not be answered in 11,000 characters. You had to pick and choose the best arguments. For 1L students, this might not be the best test of our understanding of the subject. Maybe a 3L. Maybe someone taking the bar exam. But, not so sure a 1L will have the grasp of the subject to prioritize the essay question topics. (In her defense, she did give us hints and warnings about the exam. Of course, I realized this while taking the exam; not before!)
Turning to Professor Bowermaster.
I like her. Some students do not. She is very nice and she works to help you understand the course. Obviously, this works for some but not for others.
One of my complaints about her is her specificity with answers. She will ask leading questions to get you to say what she wants to hear - word for word. If she wants to hear the word "malcontent," she will attempt to get you to say the exact word. She is not satisfied with another word which means the same thing. But, if you can get used to this habit, you should do fine with her.
Her teaching method is very close to the Socratic method, but like many of the other professors at Cal Western, she strays from the typical law school teaching method occasionally. Listening to my classmates go through the motions with the concepts while answering her questions helped in my understanding.
The biggest complaint came at the end of the course. The last couple of weeks felt rushed to get through the material so I found it difficult to grasp that material sometimes. Of course, when you couple rushing through a difficult subject as Torts with the final push to finish the Legal Skills project and the amount of studying required for upcoming finals, the stress created can be over bearing at times.
While it would've been nice to slow down slightly, I'm not sure we could have. There is an agenda and we must accomplish the agenda. Much like the real world, sometimes efforts must be cut back to accomplish a task. While the task is not perfect, it is accomplished. Better to be done than to be not done trying to obtain perfection. There are trade offs in life. Get used to them.
Torts is difficult at times. You must stay on top of the subject. Outline constantly. Seek the professor during office hours (Professor Bowermaster is very helpful one-on-one). Take essays and multiple-choice questions constantly. Use the knowledge and concepts you are learning and torts will be easier. But, Torts will always be the most hated class.
Torts I
What to say about this class? This has to be the most hated of all the classes of 1L students. Many will complain about Legal Skills; but, LS is tedious; Torts is torture.
The first portion of Torts was not that bad. Intentional torts are close to their counterparts in criminal law, so much of intentional torts was review. A new concept was introduced but because it is similar to another concept, difficulty did not lie too much in the new concept. (Of note, the new concept was called "conversion." I'm sure you can gain a good picture of what it deals with.)
Where the difficulty arose was in the multiple choice questions. Professor Bowermaster conducted a review session at the end of the intentional torts section with some multiple choice questions. And these questions were borderline between difficult and extremely difficult. The painted picture at the end of the review session basically told everyone, "you don't know torts."
Then negligence came into the picture. And everyone was turned onto their heads. Conceptualizing the new concepts was a chore. Trying to understand what the judges were getting at was a chore. Understanding torts is a chore.
And to be honest, I'm not sure the casebook and the course were developed to help understand the concept. I used the Criminal Law theory taught by Professor Campbell to help with Torts. I tried to put the concepts into organized boxes. Unfortunately, trying to organize the boxes was difficult because the course was not structured to do this. I eventually was able to box the concept but it took some time and a lot of effort.
The tutor for Torts was not very helpful. Although tutors did well in the subject, tutors are not always the best at teaching the subject. Now, I don't want to bash our tutor. He did the best with the subject and tried to help. Unfortunately, the setup of tutor sessions did not always lend itself to allowing him to help others understand the concepts. I'm still debating how much was him, how much was the handouts, and how much was the subject. (I'm hoping you are getting the picture: Torts blows.)
The final exam was difficult for this subject also. Professor Bowermaster believes in asking some tough multiple choice questions to cull from everyone their true understanding of Torts. She believes this will expand the distribution of grades in the class. My only complaint about the exam was the call of the question for her essay. In my opinion, the call was too broad. Prof Bowermaster limits the essay length to 11,000 characters (this includes spaces, returns, commas, etc). The call of the question was so broad that it could not be answered in 11,000 characters. You had to pick and choose the best arguments. For 1L students, this might not be the best test of our understanding of the subject. Maybe a 3L. Maybe someone taking the bar exam. But, not so sure a 1L will have the grasp of the subject to prioritize the essay question topics. (In her defense, she did give us hints and warnings about the exam. Of course, I realized this while taking the exam; not before!)
Turning to Professor Bowermaster.
I like her. Some students do not. She is very nice and she works to help you understand the course. Obviously, this works for some but not for others.
One of my complaints about her is her specificity with answers. She will ask leading questions to get you to say what she wants to hear - word for word. If she wants to hear the word "malcontent," she will attempt to get you to say the exact word. She is not satisfied with another word which means the same thing. But, if you can get used to this habit, you should do fine with her.
Her teaching method is very close to the Socratic method, but like many of the other professors at Cal Western, she strays from the typical law school teaching method occasionally. Listening to my classmates go through the motions with the concepts while answering her questions helped in my understanding.
The biggest complaint came at the end of the course. The last couple of weeks felt rushed to get through the material so I found it difficult to grasp that material sometimes. Of course, when you couple rushing through a difficult subject as Torts with the final push to finish the Legal Skills project and the amount of studying required for upcoming finals, the stress created can be over bearing at times.
While it would've been nice to slow down slightly, I'm not sure we could have. There is an agenda and we must accomplish the agenda. Much like the real world, sometimes efforts must be cut back to accomplish a task. While the task is not perfect, it is accomplished. Better to be done than to be not done trying to obtain perfection. There are trade offs in life. Get used to them.
Torts is difficult at times. You must stay on top of the subject. Outline constantly. Seek the professor during office hours (Professor Bowermaster is very helpful one-on-one). Take essays and multiple-choice questions constantly. Use the knowledge and concepts you are learning and torts will be easier. But, Torts will always be the most hated class.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
1L in Review: Part One
I've decided to recap my 1L year. I'll review each of the course I took along with the professors. And I'll give insight to each one.
First, though, I'll discuss the lessons learned from the entire year.
One, do your own briefs. The law is taught via cases. A law school student's job is to read the cases, condense them to the important lessons, and prepare to discuss those lessons in class. Skimming over the cases, book briefing, or using some of the casebrief websites do not accomplish the task of preparing you for class or the exam.
I will admit the last three weeks of this past semester, I book briefed and I used the casebrief websites. I do not feel I had a great grasp of the material towards the end as I did at the beginning of the semester. Now, the last three weeks I spent every free moment studying so the less time I spent briefing for class, the more time I had for studying, or sleeping. So trade-offs do exist.
But, the key here is to brief each case. Understand the case and the lessons within those cases. Briefing the cases help you to accomplish those tasks. And accomplishing those tasks makes the classes and studying and the final exam that much easier. Law school is about understanding how to apply the law to a fact pattern. Law school is not about black and white law. Mining the cases for the nuggets of knowledge and understanding prepare you for the final exam. That is what each semester is about.
Two, be in a study group. I conduct campus tours for incoming and potential students. During these tours I tell them study groups are an individual decision. If they don't work for you, don't do them. But, I have since decided that position might not be quite right. A study group helps you immensely.
Your study group members provide other perspectives which can help you see the issues and solutions. They can also be the sounding board for your ideas. And together, you can hone your arguments which can then be replicated in your writings and on your exams. A study group is very beneficial in this arena.
Another benefit of the study group is you become a team. And as a team, your goal is to make it through the first year and survive the exams. Your "team" becomes a support group for each other - a support wall for the emotional and psychological roller-coaster which is law school. The support, at least for me, helped in keeping the stress levels down.
For those reasons, I recommend a study group. And because of the closeness of the group and the possible results for you from the group, I must quote a line from a 90s era movie. "Choose wisely."
Third, treat law school like a job. Get up at the same time every morning. Get to school at the same time every morning. Go home at the same time every evening. Set a schedule and stick to it.
Your body will get into a groove so you won't feel tired during class. You'll tend to do more school at school vice at home. At school, the distractions are less. Minimizing the distractions is a key to preparing for law school. When you go home in the evening, try to relax. Watch some television, then go to bed at a decent hour for some good rest. Then, in the morning start all over. Your mind and your body will thank you. And your grades should reflect the same.
Four, outline early and often. Outlining is not a product. While most people will think an outline is a condensed bullet-style format for your notes, your outline is more much than that. Outlining is a process - a very important process. Outlining is you taking your notes and the briefs and your thoughts and putting them into a coherent form for you to study. Think about your notes while you do this. What was the professor attempting to get you to see? Put that in your outline. What was the purpose of the cases? Put that in your outline. Outlining is the process for you to grasp the material, understand the material, and then remember the material for the exam. Outline early and often.
Lastly, be involved. Join clubs. Be on the SBA (student bar association). Compete in the competitions your second semester. Law school is more than just studying and taking exams. Get to know your classmates and other students. These relationships will help you and will aid in reducing stress.
The first year of law school is filled with unknowns. But, those unknowns are experienced by all 1L students. A 1L student is learning how to study, how to brief, how to outline, and, in the process, how to think like a lawyer. The road is arduous, but not impassable. A little hard work and a little from your friends will help you survive. Your first year of law school instills lessons and habits for the next 2 years. I look forward to my next two years.
First, though, I'll discuss the lessons learned from the entire year.
One, do your own briefs. The law is taught via cases. A law school student's job is to read the cases, condense them to the important lessons, and prepare to discuss those lessons in class. Skimming over the cases, book briefing, or using some of the casebrief websites do not accomplish the task of preparing you for class or the exam.
I will admit the last three weeks of this past semester, I book briefed and I used the casebrief websites. I do not feel I had a great grasp of the material towards the end as I did at the beginning of the semester. Now, the last three weeks I spent every free moment studying so the less time I spent briefing for class, the more time I had for studying, or sleeping. So trade-offs do exist.
But, the key here is to brief each case. Understand the case and the lessons within those cases. Briefing the cases help you to accomplish those tasks. And accomplishing those tasks makes the classes and studying and the final exam that much easier. Law school is about understanding how to apply the law to a fact pattern. Law school is not about black and white law. Mining the cases for the nuggets of knowledge and understanding prepare you for the final exam. That is what each semester is about.
Two, be in a study group. I conduct campus tours for incoming and potential students. During these tours I tell them study groups are an individual decision. If they don't work for you, don't do them. But, I have since decided that position might not be quite right. A study group helps you immensely.
Your study group members provide other perspectives which can help you see the issues and solutions. They can also be the sounding board for your ideas. And together, you can hone your arguments which can then be replicated in your writings and on your exams. A study group is very beneficial in this arena.
Another benefit of the study group is you become a team. And as a team, your goal is to make it through the first year and survive the exams. Your "team" becomes a support group for each other - a support wall for the emotional and psychological roller-coaster which is law school. The support, at least for me, helped in keeping the stress levels down.
For those reasons, I recommend a study group. And because of the closeness of the group and the possible results for you from the group, I must quote a line from a 90s era movie. "Choose wisely."
Third, treat law school like a job. Get up at the same time every morning. Get to school at the same time every morning. Go home at the same time every evening. Set a schedule and stick to it.
Your body will get into a groove so you won't feel tired during class. You'll tend to do more school at school vice at home. At school, the distractions are less. Minimizing the distractions is a key to preparing for law school. When you go home in the evening, try to relax. Watch some television, then go to bed at a decent hour for some good rest. Then, in the morning start all over. Your mind and your body will thank you. And your grades should reflect the same.
Four, outline early and often. Outlining is not a product. While most people will think an outline is a condensed bullet-style format for your notes, your outline is more much than that. Outlining is a process - a very important process. Outlining is you taking your notes and the briefs and your thoughts and putting them into a coherent form for you to study. Think about your notes while you do this. What was the professor attempting to get you to see? Put that in your outline. What was the purpose of the cases? Put that in your outline. Outlining is the process for you to grasp the material, understand the material, and then remember the material for the exam. Outline early and often.
Lastly, be involved. Join clubs. Be on the SBA (student bar association). Compete in the competitions your second semester. Law school is more than just studying and taking exams. Get to know your classmates and other students. These relationships will help you and will aid in reducing stress.
The first year of law school is filled with unknowns. But, those unknowns are experienced by all 1L students. A 1L student is learning how to study, how to brief, how to outline, and, in the process, how to think like a lawyer. The road is arduous, but not impassable. A little hard work and a little from your friends will help you survive. Your first year of law school instills lessons and habits for the next 2 years. I look forward to my next two years.
Monday, April 25, 2011
First Year Done
I know I haven't written in over a month. But, I have a good reason. The last month and a half were very stressful and pressure packed.
First, the Legal Skills project this semester was harder than last semester. Last semester we wrote a memo. The memo was written to a lawyer. This semester we wrote an appellate brief. And, the brief was on a difficult subject: free speech in public schools.
Second, last semester Torts was not a course taken. Of course, we had Criminal Law but, at least with Crim Law, we could take one sheet of notes in with us to that exam. The Torts professors do not allow any notes to be brought into the exam. Those who know the nuances of negligence should understand the angst associated with this notion. Negligence concepts can be tough.
And for those who are outraged about the ability to bring notes into an exam, would you rather a lawyer who realizes totally on memory or one who consults the books? For those who answered memory, good luck to you.
But, now the semester is over. The stress ended this past Saturday. And now it is time to prepare for the summer internship.
After the exam on Saturday, many students met at a local bar and blew off steam. The relief of finishing the school year was something else. Felt like riding a bike down the hill with the air blowing your hair back and trying to fill your cheeks because your smile is so wide from joy. What a joyous feeling to be done with the first year of law school! Now we wait for grades.
First, the Legal Skills project this semester was harder than last semester. Last semester we wrote a memo. The memo was written to a lawyer. This semester we wrote an appellate brief. And, the brief was on a difficult subject: free speech in public schools.
Second, last semester Torts was not a course taken. Of course, we had Criminal Law but, at least with Crim Law, we could take one sheet of notes in with us to that exam. The Torts professors do not allow any notes to be brought into the exam. Those who know the nuances of negligence should understand the angst associated with this notion. Negligence concepts can be tough.
And for those who are outraged about the ability to bring notes into an exam, would you rather a lawyer who realizes totally on memory or one who consults the books? For those who answered memory, good luck to you.
But, now the semester is over. The stress ended this past Saturday. And now it is time to prepare for the summer internship.
After the exam on Saturday, many students met at a local bar and blew off steam. The relief of finishing the school year was something else. Felt like riding a bike down the hill with the air blowing your hair back and trying to fill your cheeks because your smile is so wide from joy. What a joyous feeling to be done with the first year of law school! Now we wait for grades.
Friday, March 11, 2011
A True Law Lesson
At the beginning of the semester, the school gave the Legal Skills II (LS) students the scenario for the semester's project. I haven't figured out if the Professors hired a Hollywood writer from the Law & Order series or not because the scenario is something Hollywood would dream up. The scenario involves a high school student who is suspended for her internet speech. The student based her message on the Westboro Baptist Church message: soldiers dying are because God is punishing the military and America for favoring homosexuality.
This past week the Supreme Court released their ruling on a complain against the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). A grieving father sued the WBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress after the WBC protested at his son's funeral. The Supreme Court ruled on the side of the WBC. And the whining in the school began.
The ruling had an immediate impact on the LS project. And to add alcohol to the open wound, the Seventh Circuit released a ruling on a school Free Speech issue closely related to the LS project. Much like real life as a lawyer, the recent rulings affected each side's stance in the LS project.
The professors divided the classes into two groups. The professors then assigned each group a client. One group was assigned the student; the other group the school board. Only one side was whining about the rulings - the school board.
Of course, in real life, as a lawyer, times will exist where a recent ruling will be released which will affect your case. The affect could be positive, negative, or not at all. A lawyer has to deal with those situations. Why not learn that lesson in law school?
Most of us are passionate for our side of the issue. The school board side knows it would lose if this was an actual case. The two rulings hurt its side more than the student side. But, as in real life, take the punch and roll with it. A good lawyer will take the rulings and make sure his or her arguments are the best. As a lawyer, you want to win. But win for the right reasons. If you are supposed to lose in the sense the ruling is not in your favor, you must win another way.
When your side should lose, the only way for you to win while losing is to give your side the best shot - write persuasively, argue persuasively, do your best. This is what the system is all about. While one side will win with a verdict in that side's favor, the other side can win too. Win by proving the system works the way it should. You gave your side your best and you lost because you were destined to lose not because you gave a bad performance.
This past week a true law lesson came down from the Supreme Court. Some viewed the lesson correctly, others may not have. In the end, I hope all students see the lesson to be learned.
This past week the Supreme Court released their ruling on a complain against the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). A grieving father sued the WBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress after the WBC protested at his son's funeral. The Supreme Court ruled on the side of the WBC. And the whining in the school began.
The ruling had an immediate impact on the LS project. And to add alcohol to the open wound, the Seventh Circuit released a ruling on a school Free Speech issue closely related to the LS project. Much like real life as a lawyer, the recent rulings affected each side's stance in the LS project.
The professors divided the classes into two groups. The professors then assigned each group a client. One group was assigned the student; the other group the school board. Only one side was whining about the rulings - the school board.
Of course, in real life, as a lawyer, times will exist where a recent ruling will be released which will affect your case. The affect could be positive, negative, or not at all. A lawyer has to deal with those situations. Why not learn that lesson in law school?
Most of us are passionate for our side of the issue. The school board side knows it would lose if this was an actual case. The two rulings hurt its side more than the student side. But, as in real life, take the punch and roll with it. A good lawyer will take the rulings and make sure his or her arguments are the best. As a lawyer, you want to win. But win for the right reasons. If you are supposed to lose in the sense the ruling is not in your favor, you must win another way.
When your side should lose, the only way for you to win while losing is to give your side the best shot - write persuasively, argue persuasively, do your best. This is what the system is all about. While one side will win with a verdict in that side's favor, the other side can win too. Win by proving the system works the way it should. You gave your side your best and you lost because you were destined to lose not because you gave a bad performance.
This past week a true law lesson came down from the Supreme Court. Some viewed the lesson correctly, others may not have. In the end, I hope all students see the lesson to be learned.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Moot Court Competitions
Three weeks ago, I participated in a Moot Court 1L competition. The Moot Court Honors Board fields teams to participate in competitions with other law schools. The Cal Western teams are very competitive with a very good success rate.
The process to select the traveling teams is a little complicated. First, the MCHB holds a competition for student teams. The competitions ranges from mock trial to appellate to negotiation. From the competition, the judges designate certain students who have demonstrated the necessary skill set for advocacy as "Distinguished Advocates" (DA). Second, this status enables the DAs to attend the Trial Skills class. Finally, then the MCHB selects the traveling team competitors from those attending the class.
While the process might be a little lengthy and complicated, the process results in the best advocates on the teams. This ensures success for the traveling teams. While I don't have specific stats, we have been told our teams are very competitive and very successful.
The 1L competition from three weeks ago was a mock trial competition. The MCHB held a workshop to teach the basics. Held on a Saturday, we learned about how to deliver an opening and a closing statement. Some of us were even given the opportunity to try out our talents.
The workshop was very informative. We were taught the do's and don'ts for the statements. The leaders also instructed on developing a theme and a theory for your client's side of the story. We then saw an example of an opening and closing statement. The MCHB then let us loose.
We first had to sign up to be a part of the competition. A little over 85 students signed up for the competition. We were given a little over a week to prepare for our portion. The premise was simple: choose a side and choose a statement. I chose defense opening - I felt this was the hardest to accomplish.
On a Monday and a Tuesday, we each performed our statement in front of three judges. The judges not only scored us, they also provided feedback on our performance. The feedback from Monday, I incorporated into my performance on Tuesday. But, prior to Monday's performance I gave my statement to my Legal Skills professor who gave me awesome feedback. I believe she helped me a ton with my performance.
The scores from both nights were totaled and then the competition committee chose the top 15 scores to return on Thursday for the final round. From the final 15 the judges would chose the best 3 for the winners and then designate some of the participants as DAs.
Because of my Legal Skills professor, I was one of the top 15. The finals night was not like the other two nights. Besides the three judges and the timekeeper, we were now performing in front of our classmates and other professors. Talk about upping the stress and nervous levels!
In the end, all 15 finalists were chosen to become DAs. At this school, becoming a DA is held in high-esteem. You can consider it a small step towards becoming a lawyer. Not everyone gets to be a DA. Only those who actually sign up for the competition and then only those who were the best can become DAs.
The competition was a great experience. Learning how to deliver an opening/closing statement was fun. Delivering the statement in front of the judges was fun. And the final competition was even more fun. Of course, when you get selected as a DA that's even better. I had so much fun, I am considering changing the type of lawyer I wanted to be. I originally wanted to be a transactional lawyer, but, now I am drawn to litigation - court room litigation. Maybe even changing from business to criminal!
I believe all students should give the moot court competitions a try. Even though I really don't have the time and I am already a DA, I've signed up for the next competition open to 1L students. I'm going to see if I can win it this time. And, of course, be considered a DA yet again.
The process to select the traveling teams is a little complicated. First, the MCHB holds a competition for student teams. The competitions ranges from mock trial to appellate to negotiation. From the competition, the judges designate certain students who have demonstrated the necessary skill set for advocacy as "Distinguished Advocates" (DA). Second, this status enables the DAs to attend the Trial Skills class. Finally, then the MCHB selects the traveling team competitors from those attending the class.
While the process might be a little lengthy and complicated, the process results in the best advocates on the teams. This ensures success for the traveling teams. While I don't have specific stats, we have been told our teams are very competitive and very successful.
The 1L competition from three weeks ago was a mock trial competition. The MCHB held a workshop to teach the basics. Held on a Saturday, we learned about how to deliver an opening and a closing statement. Some of us were even given the opportunity to try out our talents.
The workshop was very informative. We were taught the do's and don'ts for the statements. The leaders also instructed on developing a theme and a theory for your client's side of the story. We then saw an example of an opening and closing statement. The MCHB then let us loose.
We first had to sign up to be a part of the competition. A little over 85 students signed up for the competition. We were given a little over a week to prepare for our portion. The premise was simple: choose a side and choose a statement. I chose defense opening - I felt this was the hardest to accomplish.
On a Monday and a Tuesday, we each performed our statement in front of three judges. The judges not only scored us, they also provided feedback on our performance. The feedback from Monday, I incorporated into my performance on Tuesday. But, prior to Monday's performance I gave my statement to my Legal Skills professor who gave me awesome feedback. I believe she helped me a ton with my performance.
The scores from both nights were totaled and then the competition committee chose the top 15 scores to return on Thursday for the final round. From the final 15 the judges would chose the best 3 for the winners and then designate some of the participants as DAs.
Because of my Legal Skills professor, I was one of the top 15. The finals night was not like the other two nights. Besides the three judges and the timekeeper, we were now performing in front of our classmates and other professors. Talk about upping the stress and nervous levels!
In the end, all 15 finalists were chosen to become DAs. At this school, becoming a DA is held in high-esteem. You can consider it a small step towards becoming a lawyer. Not everyone gets to be a DA. Only those who actually sign up for the competition and then only those who were the best can become DAs.
The competition was a great experience. Learning how to deliver an opening/closing statement was fun. Delivering the statement in front of the judges was fun. And the final competition was even more fun. Of course, when you get selected as a DA that's even better. I had so much fun, I am considering changing the type of lawyer I wanted to be. I originally wanted to be a transactional lawyer, but, now I am drawn to litigation - court room litigation. Maybe even changing from business to criminal!
I believe all students should give the moot court competitions a try. Even though I really don't have the time and I am already a DA, I've signed up for the next competition open to 1L students. I'm going to see if I can win it this time. And, of course, be considered a DA yet again.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Sad Week
Well, last blog I hinted I would write about something specific. This blog is not it. Instead, I am going to write about a phenomenon which happens the week after grades are released.
Two weeks ago grades were released. Some first year students were happy, some were indifferent, some were sad. But student reflected on the prior semester to determine what he or she did correctly and what he or she did incorrectly. Unfortunately for a small percentage, the reflection led to a difficult choice: to leave law school.
The school policy sets the refund amount for students who withdraw in the middle of a semester. Usually, the school refunds 75% of the tuition for the current semester after 4 weeks. The school tends to release grades in the fourth week of the next semester (remember the school is on a trimester schedule but I use the word semester for ease of the discussion).
The school does allow an exception to the refund policy. For those students who did not perform well at all on finals, the Associate Deans Office will write a letter to these students offering the student a chance to withdraw and receive 100% of the current semester tuition back. This offer remains open for 10 business days.
I do not know when these letters are given to those students; but, I do know this past week several seats remained empty which should have held a classmate. Some students never returned after grades were released on January 28th. Others left this week.
This was a tough choice for those students. The school allows students with a 74 or higher to remain in the school. This means any first year student who performed poorly on the first semester tests had a chance to raise his or her overall average above a 74 with the second semester grades. Of course, the likelihood of this is small; but not zero.
Two of my classmates did not necessarily leave because of grades alone. Both evaluated their desires, their grades, and the effort required of them and decided to withdraw to pursue other plans. One said to regroup the brain. He/she might return to law school later, he/she just wasn't sure.
But, this week my section lost 9 students. Some I knew more personally than others. Didn't matter which category the student fell into as their empty seat brought sadness. Sad they left. Sad for them personally.
This past week was a sad week. Time to put the week behind me and move forward, just like those classmates who moved onto other career paths in their lives.
Two weeks ago grades were released. Some first year students were happy, some were indifferent, some were sad. But student reflected on the prior semester to determine what he or she did correctly and what he or she did incorrectly. Unfortunately for a small percentage, the reflection led to a difficult choice: to leave law school.
The school policy sets the refund amount for students who withdraw in the middle of a semester. Usually, the school refunds 75% of the tuition for the current semester after 4 weeks. The school tends to release grades in the fourth week of the next semester (remember the school is on a trimester schedule but I use the word semester for ease of the discussion).
The school does allow an exception to the refund policy. For those students who did not perform well at all on finals, the Associate Deans Office will write a letter to these students offering the student a chance to withdraw and receive 100% of the current semester tuition back. This offer remains open for 10 business days.
I do not know when these letters are given to those students; but, I do know this past week several seats remained empty which should have held a classmate. Some students never returned after grades were released on January 28th. Others left this week.
This was a tough choice for those students. The school allows students with a 74 or higher to remain in the school. This means any first year student who performed poorly on the first semester tests had a chance to raise his or her overall average above a 74 with the second semester grades. Of course, the likelihood of this is small; but not zero.
Two of my classmates did not necessarily leave because of grades alone. Both evaluated their desires, their grades, and the effort required of them and decided to withdraw to pursue other plans. One said to regroup the brain. He/she might return to law school later, he/she just wasn't sure.
But, this week my section lost 9 students. Some I knew more personally than others. Didn't matter which category the student fell into as their empty seat brought sadness. Sad they left. Sad for them personally.
This past week was a sad week. Time to put the week behind me and move forward, just like those classmates who moved onto other career paths in their lives.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Release of Grades
First, I have not written this blog in the last few weeks. Many reasons exist. One excuse I will use is I was lazy and succumbed to the laziness. Another reason will be discussed in the next blog entry. Now onto to this entry.
Yesterday, last semester's grades were released. At 4 pm, the campus was a ghost town for professors. At 3:55 when Torts ended, my professor bolted from the premises. Several students lingered in class waiting for 4 pm so they could sign into their account and view their grades. Other students followed the professor's lead and bolted from the campus - they headed home to view their grades in private.
I took a different route. Some employers require a copy of your grades to be provided when applying for internships. I visited the registrar last week and paid for a copy of my transcript. The transcript was waiting for me in the registrar's office. I picked it up at the stroke of 4 pm.
Throughout this week, each professor addressed the issue of grades. The tutors also chimed in with their perspective. Everyone acknowledges the Cal Western curve creates anxiety in students, especially first year students. The belief is some students will be forced to fail because of the curve. Whether this is 100% true is open for debate. We'll return to this aspect later.
One of my professors said the grade reflected your performance on the day of the exam for that small time period. The grade is not necessarily a reflection of you as a person or you as a potential lawyer. One of my tutors said while you may have done great the first semester, this is not a guarantee for the second semester. Especially when considering those students who feel the grade was not reflective of them and thus work harder the second semester. By working harder, those students raise their exam performance which makes it harder for the upper average students to maintain their average. There is truth in these statements.
Some students are lamenting their law school careers right now. They did not score as high as they would've liked. Some students are ecstatic with how they performed. This means some students will work harder next semester to raise their grades and other students might slack, thus lowering their grades. Your perspective of your grade will drive your performance the next semester. Keep the right perspective and you'll get the right grade. Of course, your perspective will drive your determination and your work output related to law school. Have the right perspective and you will have the right work ethic. Have the right work ethic and you will have the right performance on your exam. Have the right performance on your exam and you should have the right grade compared to the performance of your fellow classmates.
And that is the crux of the curve at Cal Western. You perform well compared to everyone else, you have a good grade. You don't perform well compared to everyone else, you don't have a good grade. Granted the first year, some amount of "forced" grading occurs but this is in the final tally.
While grading the essays, the grade is subjective. This means the grade is based on the viewpoint of the professor and not on some objective standard. For example, on a math exam there is only 1 answer for 2+2. Either you know it or you don't. Objective. But on essays, which are based on interpretations of the law applied to the fact pattern, objective standards CANNOT work. Here is why.
In the courtroom, the two opposing sides will tell their "story" to either the judge or the jury. The jury then uses the standard of the law applied to the facts of the cases as told by each side. The more persuasive side wins. This is how law school exams are graded.
The most persuasive student essay will get the highest grade. The least persuasive student essay will get the lowest grade. Just like in real life! Make better arguments on the exam, make a better grade on the exam.
After the essays are graded, they are ranked. The ranking then determines the final grade based on the "curve." So the lowest scored essay will get the lowest curved grade. If the essay with the lowest grade would not win in court, why should it win in class?
If a student gets low grades in most of their classes, they will not be asked back next year by the administration. This is where much of the anxiety comes from. People do not want to be failures. But is it really failing?
I wouldn't mind playing football. I, however, do not have what it takes to be a football player. I know if I tried out, I would "fail." But, is this really failing if I wasn't meant to be a football player? The answer lies in one's perspective.
The student, who makes the least persuasive arguments in class and on exams, will usually be the lawyer who will make the least persuasive argument in court. Do you want them as your lawyer? This tells me, this student was not meant to be a lawyer. Only a failure fails at something they could do or were meant to do. Someone who fails at something they shouldn't do in the first place, cannot "fail."
The curve has meaning at Cal Western. Your perspective will determine how you view the curve and its outcome. Your perspective also determines how you perform. How you perform determines your grade on that curve. I want my perspective to align with the curve.
Grades were released yesterday, many student perspectives have changed - hopefully, changed for the better.
Yesterday, last semester's grades were released. At 4 pm, the campus was a ghost town for professors. At 3:55 when Torts ended, my professor bolted from the premises. Several students lingered in class waiting for 4 pm so they could sign into their account and view their grades. Other students followed the professor's lead and bolted from the campus - they headed home to view their grades in private.
I took a different route. Some employers require a copy of your grades to be provided when applying for internships. I visited the registrar last week and paid for a copy of my transcript. The transcript was waiting for me in the registrar's office. I picked it up at the stroke of 4 pm.
Throughout this week, each professor addressed the issue of grades. The tutors also chimed in with their perspective. Everyone acknowledges the Cal Western curve creates anxiety in students, especially first year students. The belief is some students will be forced to fail because of the curve. Whether this is 100% true is open for debate. We'll return to this aspect later.
One of my professors said the grade reflected your performance on the day of the exam for that small time period. The grade is not necessarily a reflection of you as a person or you as a potential lawyer. One of my tutors said while you may have done great the first semester, this is not a guarantee for the second semester. Especially when considering those students who feel the grade was not reflective of them and thus work harder the second semester. By working harder, those students raise their exam performance which makes it harder for the upper average students to maintain their average. There is truth in these statements.
Some students are lamenting their law school careers right now. They did not score as high as they would've liked. Some students are ecstatic with how they performed. This means some students will work harder next semester to raise their grades and other students might slack, thus lowering their grades. Your perspective of your grade will drive your performance the next semester. Keep the right perspective and you'll get the right grade. Of course, your perspective will drive your determination and your work output related to law school. Have the right perspective and you will have the right work ethic. Have the right work ethic and you will have the right performance on your exam. Have the right performance on your exam and you should have the right grade compared to the performance of your fellow classmates.
And that is the crux of the curve at Cal Western. You perform well compared to everyone else, you have a good grade. You don't perform well compared to everyone else, you don't have a good grade. Granted the first year, some amount of "forced" grading occurs but this is in the final tally.
While grading the essays, the grade is subjective. This means the grade is based on the viewpoint of the professor and not on some objective standard. For example, on a math exam there is only 1 answer for 2+2. Either you know it or you don't. Objective. But on essays, which are based on interpretations of the law applied to the fact pattern, objective standards CANNOT work. Here is why.
In the courtroom, the two opposing sides will tell their "story" to either the judge or the jury. The jury then uses the standard of the law applied to the facts of the cases as told by each side. The more persuasive side wins. This is how law school exams are graded.
The most persuasive student essay will get the highest grade. The least persuasive student essay will get the lowest grade. Just like in real life! Make better arguments on the exam, make a better grade on the exam.
After the essays are graded, they are ranked. The ranking then determines the final grade based on the "curve." So the lowest scored essay will get the lowest curved grade. If the essay with the lowest grade would not win in court, why should it win in class?
If a student gets low grades in most of their classes, they will not be asked back next year by the administration. This is where much of the anxiety comes from. People do not want to be failures. But is it really failing?
I wouldn't mind playing football. I, however, do not have what it takes to be a football player. I know if I tried out, I would "fail." But, is this really failing if I wasn't meant to be a football player? The answer lies in one's perspective.
The student, who makes the least persuasive arguments in class and on exams, will usually be the lawyer who will make the least persuasive argument in court. Do you want them as your lawyer? This tells me, this student was not meant to be a lawyer. Only a failure fails at something they could do or were meant to do. Someone who fails at something they shouldn't do in the first place, cannot "fail."
The curve has meaning at Cal Western. Your perspective will determine how you view the curve and its outcome. Your perspective also determines how you perform. How you perform determines your grade on that curve. I want my perspective to align with the curve.
Grades were released yesterday, many student perspectives have changed - hopefully, changed for the better.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Back at It
After only two weeks, classes resumed this past Monday. The break was not long enough. I, as well as most of my fellow classmates, feel at least one more week was necessary. But this is the reality of the law school we chose.
Most other law schools have a longer break. Cal Western's is shorter because the school runs a trimester system vice a semester system. This allows flexibility for students who desire to enter law school at non-standard times while also allowing students a chance to finish law school earlier than three years. Obviously, this flexibility has a con in shortened break periods.
While wishing I had had more time off, the shorter break does have a plus - not losing school skills obtained during the prior semester (I know we have trimester but "semester" is the term most people understand). The time to "get back into the swing of things" was short. The routine I used last semester was easy to re-establish within a day of returning. While I can't say that the same would not have occurred coming off a longer break, the feeling is it would've taken longer to get back into the swing of things. So for that, I'm grateful for some down time, but not a lot of down time.
This semester, Criminal Law has been replaced with Torts. The other four classes (Property, Civil Procedure, Legal Skills, and Contracts) remain. This means four classes building on what was learned from last semester and one new class. But, similarities exist between torts and criminal law. We'll see how those work out for us as the semester progresses.
For now, the break is over and school is in full swing. Right back at it.
Most other law schools have a longer break. Cal Western's is shorter because the school runs a trimester system vice a semester system. This allows flexibility for students who desire to enter law school at non-standard times while also allowing students a chance to finish law school earlier than three years. Obviously, this flexibility has a con in shortened break periods.
While wishing I had had more time off, the shorter break does have a plus - not losing school skills obtained during the prior semester (I know we have trimester but "semester" is the term most people understand). The time to "get back into the swing of things" was short. The routine I used last semester was easy to re-establish within a day of returning. While I can't say that the same would not have occurred coming off a longer break, the feeling is it would've taken longer to get back into the swing of things. So for that, I'm grateful for some down time, but not a lot of down time.
This semester, Criminal Law has been replaced with Torts. The other four classes (Property, Civil Procedure, Legal Skills, and Contracts) remain. This means four classes building on what was learned from last semester and one new class. But, similarities exist between torts and criminal law. We'll see how those work out for us as the semester progresses.
For now, the break is over and school is in full swing. Right back at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)