classes
First of all, I want to get something unrelated off my chest. Why, why, why can't people learn how to dial a phone number? Okay, I admit, once every five or six months I'll dial a phone number wrong. But I receive a wrong number call at least once every two weeks, and probably closer to once a week; so I'm definitely a net consumer, not producer, of wrong number calls. This morning some lady who wasn't speaking any recognizable language called my cell phone twice in a row. I want some way of charging her for calling me, or of recording the first 10 seconds of calls and issuing a license to use a phone that gets revoked if more than 10% of your calls are to a wrong number. Grr.
Whew. Feel better now. Anyway, I've had three of my four classes already; Torts doesn't start until next week. Contracts is unquestionably my favorite. The reading material is the most interesting; it's my small group which means more individual attention (I'm always a sucker for that); and the professor is definitely my favorite so far. The reading material he assigns is just cases, which is infinitely more interesting than the reading material in Civil Procedure (unless you really like affidavits). The professor himself is incredibly precise and correct, which didn't really strike me so special until I thought about how bad being imprecise and/or incorrect is for a professor. Beyond that, though, he talks faster than I do when I lecture, which is mighty fast indeed. But when I lecture, I make some mistakes, and use unnecessary words, and other rookie mistakes like that. He speaks clearly enough to be working from a script, only of course it's all improv.
Constitutional Law seems good too. The professor seems the nicest and least demanding of the three, though that could change in time. He ran the class discussion fairly well. I wasn't completely sold on the reading, but it was Marbury v. Madison, so it was appropriate if nothing else. It's just a little disillusioning to read that and analyze it and realize that the foundation of judicial review that we law students worship is based on questionable ethics (why Marshall didn't recuse himself), an arguable misinterpretation of statutes, and pure power struggles.
The jury's still out on Civ Pro. I need more than one class to decide my opinion of it. The professor was a little imposing, which doesn't really bother me, since I have more self-confidence in my academic abilities than any five people combined ought to have. He assigns a lot of reading, but some of it is fairly quick, so I wouldn't say it's too burdensome, it's just more than any of the other classes. But some class always has to assign the most reading. The thing that amused me most about Civ Pro is that he largely picks out people to answer questions by simply saying their last name. What's really funny about that is that on Tuesday in class he apparently decided to call students in alphabetical order by last name, beginning with 'J'. I won't list the names here, but there were a couple 'J's, followed by a 'K', then a couple 'L's. Once I figured that out I sat back and relaxed a little more. Now today in class if he starts randomly with 'R' I'll have to worry, because I'll be second or third. If he continues with 'M' I should be good until next week.
Last and completely unrelated: How 'bout them Sox? I think they've won 14 of their last 15 games now, or something ridiculous like that. Division title, here we come.
Whew. Feel better now. Anyway, I've had three of my four classes already; Torts doesn't start until next week. Contracts is unquestionably my favorite. The reading material is the most interesting; it's my small group which means more individual attention (I'm always a sucker for that); and the professor is definitely my favorite so far. The reading material he assigns is just cases, which is infinitely more interesting than the reading material in Civil Procedure (unless you really like affidavits). The professor himself is incredibly precise and correct, which didn't really strike me so special until I thought about how bad being imprecise and/or incorrect is for a professor. Beyond that, though, he talks faster than I do when I lecture, which is mighty fast indeed. But when I lecture, I make some mistakes, and use unnecessary words, and other rookie mistakes like that. He speaks clearly enough to be working from a script, only of course it's all improv.
Constitutional Law seems good too. The professor seems the nicest and least demanding of the three, though that could change in time. He ran the class discussion fairly well. I wasn't completely sold on the reading, but it was Marbury v. Madison, so it was appropriate if nothing else. It's just a little disillusioning to read that and analyze it and realize that the foundation of judicial review that we law students worship is based on questionable ethics (why Marshall didn't recuse himself), an arguable misinterpretation of statutes, and pure power struggles.
The jury's still out on Civ Pro. I need more than one class to decide my opinion of it. The professor was a little imposing, which doesn't really bother me, since I have more self-confidence in my academic abilities than any five people combined ought to have. He assigns a lot of reading, but some of it is fairly quick, so I wouldn't say it's too burdensome, it's just more than any of the other classes. But some class always has to assign the most reading. The thing that amused me most about Civ Pro is that he largely picks out people to answer questions by simply saying their last name. What's really funny about that is that on Tuesday in class he apparently decided to call students in alphabetical order by last name, beginning with 'J'. I won't list the names here, but there were a couple 'J's, followed by a 'K', then a couple 'L's. Once I figured that out I sat back and relaxed a little more. Now today in class if he starts randomly with 'R' I'll have to worry, because I'll be second or third. If he continues with 'M' I should be good until next week.
Last and completely unrelated: How 'bout them Sox? I think they've won 14 of their last 15 games now, or something ridiculous like that. Division title, here we come.
2 Comments:
The problem with incredibly precise commentary on law is, that unless it's been a ruling handed down from the supreme court, it's all a matter of interpretation. At least as far as I understand law, but I'm not the one in law school.
Dan
No, you're absolutedly right, it is all a matter of interpretation. But there's a lot of interpretation of judicial opinions involved too, not just interpretation of statutes. There's also a lot of comparison between different, seemingly opposite, opinions, and a lot of analysis of dissenting opinions to understand their point.
So while he's clear in helping you understand the point he's trying to convey, I wouldn't say he's dominating or closed-minded or anything like that. Of course, I've only had one class. We'll see what happens later.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home