Ding Dong Wedding Bells

Congratulations to Raquel, my friend and fairly frequent commenter here. She's getting married to a wonderful boy named E! The two of them have promised not to let the marital industrial complex grind them down, which bodes well for their future, I think.

Posted 05:53 PM | Comments (4) | life generally

BlawgCoop & WordPress

Welcome to Legal Fictions, a new 1L member of the BlawgCoop! Legal Fictions is currently undergoing the finals process along with many of us, but he's keeping a healthy perspective on the whole thing. If you have time, wander over and say hello. Incidentally, BlawgCoop (or Co-op) is open to all, and now supports WordPress as well as Movable Type, thanks to the generosity of Dreamhost, which just tripled our bandwidth allowances and added one-click support for installing WordPress. Pretty cool. I've played a little with WordPress and found it to be a very nice and robust blogging platform. It seems to have just about all the functionality of MT, and then some. For example, it allows you to post “private” or “secure” posts to which you can control access—might be nice for when you want to rant about your professors or fellow students, but don't want all the world to see. I fear that could cause some trouble, though. What if I posted a “private” rant to which I gave you access, then you quoted my rant and blogged about it on your own site? I'd still be in the same trouble as if I'd just made the post public in the first place, wouldn't I? My thinking is that any idea of posting “private” stuff online—material you don't want other people to see—is just asking for trouble. But that's a tangent. The really cool thing about WordPress is that it's released under the GPL, which means no one will ever be able to tell you what you can or can't do w/your installation of it, something Dive Into Mark called Freedom 0. That's certainly something to think about if you hope to be blogging for more than a little while. I know some people (like Dive Into Mark) jumped from MT to WordpPress when MT started its new licensing scheme a few months ago, and some of those people wrote extensive comparisons of the two programs. Here's one from Burningbird, another discussion here, a comparison of the template systems in WordPress, MT, and Blogger, and an essay by the same person on why he decided not to switch from MT to WordPress. In all, it sounds like the consensus is that WordPress remains a bit more difficult to customize than MT, but may be easier for newbies to manage apart from fiddling with templates and stuff.

Posted 12:18 PM | Comments (1) | law school meta-blogging

Conlaw Too

Two-L final two was . . . Well, I don't know, actually. The only thing certain is that it's over. I got to the final and started looking through my outline and realized I'd printed it out with some of the items collapsed.* Oops! This meant my outline was incomplete for two questions and I had to rely on a downloaded outline I'd brought with me to fill those gaps. I don't think that was a big deal, but who knows? It felt mostly fine, but I finished 15 minutes early, which is an ambiguous sign. There were 9 questions, some with subparts, and the directions informed us that most questions could be answered in 2-3 sentences. I wrote a lot more than that for most, but not for all, so we'll see what that means. Generally my post-exam thinking (and not just for this exam, but for all of them) is something like: Initial euphoria—It's over! —followed fairly shortly by a period of increasing concern that I totally failed, followed by a period of not caring/not thinking about it, followed by learning the actual grades and dealing w/whatever the reality ends up being. Concidences: This was a ConLaw II exam, and it was in the same room as my ConLaw I exam. I also finished that one early and got my best grade so far in law school. I'm not going to interpret that to mean anything. The ConLaw I final included a multiple choice section, and I was a pretty good edumacated guesser, I think. On to Corporations, the class I took so I could “know my enemy.” I'm just kicking myself now for not taking it pass/fail. The exam is Monday morning. Here's a sample question from an old exam in that class:

Assume that Ellie Mae has won. She moves to include Mayberry, inc. in the valuation of Clampitt Oil Co. to determine the value of her shares in dissolution. Please write your opinion disposing of this matter.

Ha! That makes me laugh! I have no clue even where to begin with something like that. It's going to be a loooong weekend. * I take notes and assemble outines in NoteTaker, which is—tadah!—an outliner! The image above and right shows you what it looks like. The arrows pointing down mean that section is “expanded,” showing you all subsections, while the arrows pointing to the right mean that section is “collapsed,” with all subsections hidden. This is super-convenient when you're sorting through information b/c you can “hide” what you don't need at the moment and focus on just what you're dealing with. It's also nice for making study outlines b/c you can put all the extraneous stuff in the “collapsed” part, and just print out the essentials. Of course, that only works if you remember to expand the right sections before printing...

Posted 09:59 AM | Comments (3) | 2L law school

What Will We Miss?

Studying for finals is like writing a paper in a way—it can be an enjoyable process of discovery, learning, understanding; however, too often it gets rushed (thanks to my good friend Procrastination) and that makes it much less fun. One day between finals is just not enough when you haven't done a good job preparing ahead of time. Number two exam for 2L goes down this afternoon. As I studied last night, desperately trying to condense due process, equal protection, and free speech doctrine into my tiny little head, I had an odd thought. When this is all over and law school is long behind me, will I miss this? I know I will. I mean, I'll miss something about it, at least. Will I miss the studying for finals? I don't think so, but I'll miss things I can't even think of now, I'm sure. Life is like that. Or nostalgia is like that. Sometimes life and nostalgia merge. It's always easier to appreciate things in hindsight. I just wish I could learn to appreciate those things in presentsight. Like now. But then, it's good to want things, isn't it? Perhaps we'll miss things like this: Twas the Night Before Lawschool Finals.

Posted 07:15 AM | Comments (1) | law school

Pleasure Reading Poll

With another final coming up Friday (tomorrow!), I need to study again, or still. Therefore, I leave you with this question: What should I read over the upcoming holiday break? The choices currently on my list of possibles (recommended by friends or reviews I've run across, or just things that I've wanted to read for a long time):

“Quicksilver (The Baroque Cycle, Vol. 1)” (Neal Stephenson)

“Girl With Curious Hair (Norton Paperback Fiction)” (David Foster Wallace)

“Checkpoint: A Novel” (Nicholson Baker)

“Into the Forest” (JEAN HEGLAND)

“Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell: A Novel” (Susanna Clarke)

Please share any thoughts, comments, or additional recommendations. Thanks! Note: This post, including all links to Amazon, the images, etc., was created in about two minutes using ecto's new Amazon functionality. While I wish it allowed me to choose some other database (like Powell's, for example), it's still very very cool.

Posted 08:40 AM | Comments (15) | ai books

Is Wilder Better?

According to Wired, a new trend in traffic management and highway engineering is to remove explicit controls—such as signs and painted lines on the road, and even curbs to separate street from pedestrian zone—and replace them with implicit controls—basically the alertness and cooperation of the drivers, pedestrians, or bicyclists using the roads. One advocate of this new hands-off approach explains:

“Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it into the design of the road.”

So the idea, generally, is that you encourage community and cooperation by removing the safeguards that would keep you safe if you're antisocial or don't try to cooperate. What's interesting is the corollary argument that social safeguards actually encourage antisocial behavior; they assume such behavior is going to occur, they plan for it, they legitimize it, and therefore ensure it will exist. Does this mean that the more we regulate or try to make our world safer, the more we'll actually be making our world more chaotic, and less safe? The idea reminds me of two stories I tell all the time (and which I've probably told here before). Both are about lifelong NYC residents who visited Utah. One was a woman who stood on the edge of Bryce Canyon watching a beautiful sunrise and complained that “they should cut down all these trees—they're blocking my view. The other was another woman who stood on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and complained that there was no railing to prevent people from falling over the edge. These stories come to mind because I think of NYC as a place that's tightly controlled and regulated; the population density is so great, that people have come to rely on the ”rules“ of life in NYC to get by, so when they go someplace that's more open, less tightly controlled, they don't understand it, it makes them uncomfortable. (I'm thinking out loud here; I don't mean to disparage NY or NYers.) Those two stories, and the above article about the roads make me wonder if what we need is fewer laws, rather than more. We seem to have entered a stage of society where people will do anything, so long as there's no explicit rule or law against it, or even if there is a law but they think they won't get caught. See Enron, see the rise in plagiarism and cheating in our schools, see the general lust for wealth above all else. And I wonder if this is because people have stopped thinking about what's right, what's appropriate, what's good, and instead simply think about what they can get away with w/out breaking the rules or getting caught. As if the rules of society, or efforts to encourage better behavior, actually end up encouraging worse behavior. Does chaos encourage cooperation? I suppose it's the logic behind the Libertarian Party. Another siren singing, I think, but also there's something here that's good...

Posted 08:27 AM | Comments (3) | life generally

That's One

Finished with 2L Final Numero Uno (of four). Cake. Ok. Not, but I'm telling you, law school exams are way overhyped. Way. And I'm not saying that b/c I'm so smart and studied so hard and knew everything and am trying to be scary or jerky as Naked Furniture notes blawgers are sometimes wont to do. In fact, I studied very little and was pretty nervous going in. I'm just saying that it turned out that just showing up to class most of the time, writing down what the professor said, and organizing that into a quickly-referenceable (is that a word?) format was really all it took to do a passable job on that final, and that's usually all it takes. Ok, I won't get an A, but that's still me doing a public service for everyone else in my class. I wouldn't want to blow the curve for everyone else, would I? Oh, but for the record, there were some holes in my outline dealing with federal preemption in the realm of labor law, union work preservation clauses, and something else that I could tell was supposed to be an issue but I couldn't for the life of me figure out. So like I said, no A on that exam, but definitely middle-curvish, I'm thinking, and that's superfine with me. Law school really is much nicer when you stop worrying about the first letter of the alphabet. Three more to go. Onward!

Posted 08:34 PM | Comments (1) | 2L law school

Suggestion for law professors

I'm off to 2L Final Numero Uno and I just re-read an email I got from the Prof. in response to a question I'd asked. It strikes me that professors would do well to announce the following policy: If you want to ask any questions of the professor about the class via email, you must CC the entire class. The professor will then CC the entire class on the reply. This would have two potential benefits. First, it might reduce frivolous emails to professors for silly questions students can figure out for themselves. If you know the whole class will see your email, you might be more careful about what you ask and only ask questions you're really stuck on. Second, everyone in the class could benefit from the professor's response, rather than anyone getting an unfair advantage. I imagine some would say this is unnecessary b/c if you are a gunner (or just a good student) who wants to have a lot of interaction with a professor, you should reap the rewards of your efforts in asking legitimate questions and you should not have to share those rewards w/everyone else. This makes sense if you see law school as a competition. However, if you see law school as a series of learning opportunities, the “everyone shares alike” policy above seems more likely to produce more of those opportunities, generally.

Posted 12:50 PM | Comments (7) | 2L law school

Going to war with the army you have

So my first final is today, and I just learned from Mr. Dumsfeld, er, Rumsfeld, that “you go to war with the army you have,” not the one you might want. I wonder if my law professors will understand that explanation next spring when I'm digging around in local landfills (their offices) for armor for my vehicles (passing grades). (Yeah, it's a tortured metaphor, but finals will do that, ok?) UPDATE: I just noticed that Naked Furniture applied the Dumsfeld logic to finals hours before I did, and her post is much much better, so go there. Now. You won't be sorry.

Posted 09:07 AM | Comments (4) | 2L law school

Oh final exams, how I loathe you!

As I study for finals once again, in this, the third finals season of my law school “career,” I once again find myself having difficulty studying. I need to run an ad like this, too. Apparently, fear is a bad motivator for me. But as I try to make myself study, I'm also hoping that these stupid tests won't be as hard as I anticipate they will be. I've come up with a great rationalization for convincing myself that they won't be. I used to be a teacher; I've written and administered final exams. So I know that one of the things teachers do, collectively, almost without realizing it, is attempt to convince students that their exams are very difficult and important and must be taken seriously. This is because teachers have so little means by which to encourage students to actually study and maybe even remember some of the material covered in their classes. But I also know that my final exams were never as hard as I tried to make them sound; I knew that a smart student could get an A just by showing up in class most of the time and remembering a few of the things I'd said. I can only assume that law school exams are the same. While none of my professors has tried to make his (yes, all male profs this semester) final seem overly difficult, they don't have to; the difficulty of law school exams is legend. But that's just it—there's no way they could live up to their purported difficulty, is there? Spot a few issues, write a few essays about them. How hard can it be? ;-) One other thought on finals: This is the time when I once again become convinced that I am not cut out to be a lawyer, that I don't have what it takes, that I'm not good at the the things the legal profession requires and values, that I, in fact, hate the law, and that it hates me. I start thinking about what I will do when I drop or flunk out of law school. There's this guy who owns a little quickie mart a few blocks away where I go sometimes and he always seems happy; he just hangs out and reads books and listens to the radio and rings up a customer now and then. At finals time I start thinking, maybe I could do that, too. Maybe that would be just fine. Thankfully, now that I have a little, teensy weensy bit of experience working in legal offices, I can look at these feelings of inadequacy and imminent failure with a bit of perspective. When I was working last summer at the public defender's office, I didn't feel inadequate; in fact, I enjoyed just about every part of what I saw of that job. And when I've gone to work this semester at the civil law nonprofit where I've been working, I've enjoyed that a great, deal, as well. When I'm faced with a “real” legal task, I seem to be able to complete it just fine, and to even get some enjoyment out of the work. It's only when I'm faced with a law school final, and with all the anxiety, stress, and oh-my-gosh-my-whole-future-is-riding-on-this-grade hoohaw that goes with it—only then does my confidence crumble, my desire to complete this degree evaporate. So the lesson is simply that the cliche has proven true so far for me: Law school is not law practice, and just because you hate the school part doesn't mean you'll hate the practice part. (And btw, I don't hate the school part; I hate the finals part. The rest of the school part is ok, although it does leave a lot to be desired.) Um, but if anyone has some great study aids (I'm thinking killer concise reference charts or tables, stuff you can glance at for an overview or reference) for an introductory course in labor law or a standard sort of Con Law II survey, please do share.

Posted 10:30 AM | Comments (4) | 2L law school

DG Uncloaks

Ok, it took me a while to notice b/c I've been out of the habit of checking since the mad squirrel took over, but Ditzy Genius has reemerged, sort of, for the time being. Welcome back, DG!

Posted 10:33 AM | meta-blogging

Ruthless Emotional Demagoguery

Actus Reus says Legal Fiction knows how the Dems can win next time around:

You think you need to reach out and be nicer and make yourself more palatable. No – you need to do the opposite. You need to get meaner and stop reaching out. Your goal should be to make more people viscerally despise Republicans because they are the party of (1) scary theocrats and racists; and (2) “big corporations.”

To accomplish this, Legal Fiction, channelling Karl Rove, says to use wedge amendments and wedge votes to flush out the right wing nuts and put them on the run, then “publicize the wackos”:

. Say “the party of Falwell and Shays” every damn day. ... Say it again and again — “the party of Shays and DeLay.”

Oh, and:

Democrats should demagogue the hell out of privatizing Social Security, outsourcing, flat taxes, drug importation, and national sales taxes. Class warfare baby — again and again — every single day. Make 'em hate the rich. Make stuff up if you have to.

Do you hear the sirens singing?

Posted 07:06 AM | Comments (5) | general politics

More Law School Reform

Welcome to Don't Know It From Adam, a new blog from Adam Wolfson, a U of Michigan law student who formerly wrote Cicero's Ghost (which has now been shut down). One of Adam's early posts takes off from the recent 5-by-5 on the question of how to improve law school. Adam notes that Michigan has recently begun discussing how to improve the grading system; he supports “moving to a more sophisticated version of 'Pass/Fail,' like the ones implemented at Boalt Hall (Berkeley’s law school) and Yale Law.” He offers good reasons for why such a system would be preferable to the standard A, B, C, and plus, minus system in many law schools. Sounds great to me. One other reform I forgot to mention before: Law schools (and the ABA) should create more flexible ways for students to get academic credit for internships and externships and remove or at least qualify the ridiculous restriction that prohibits earning credit for any work that also earns a paycheck. As I understand it, law students who want to work and get practical experience during law school currently have a choice to make. They can either get paid for their work, or they can get academic credit for the work, but they can't ever get both. I'm told this is one of the ABA's rules schools must follow if they want to be “ABA-approved.” This is ridiculous for two main reasons: 1) Law school is already too expensive, so anything students can do to reduce their debt should be encouraged. 2) Practical work experience can provide an invaluable education for law students, and can be far superior to sitting in classes in terms of actually learning to practice law. What's so evil about allowing students to reduce their debt and get great practical experience at the same time? UPDATE: I just noticed that Michigan's possible grade system changes are the topic of considerable discussion over at Letters of Marque.

Posted 09:38 AM | Comments (4) | law school