Law School

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AXiD670

I really wish I had never heard of International Shoe.

I liked the writing style of the opinion even less in Pennoyer, although the bright line rule was nice.

I'm kind of liking this jurisdiction stuff though - I think that makes me somewhat psychotic. That, and my CivPro professor is awesome.

KLPDaisy - I'm guessing it will hurt her, since law schools see every time someone takes the exam. I'm not sure if they see every time a person no-shows. I can't imagine it's a good thing, but I'm not sure just how bad it is in the eyes of law schools.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I liked the writing style of the opinion even less in Pennoyer, although the bright line rule was nice.

I still have nightmares about Pennoyer. Second week of law school in Legal Process (basically Civ Pro I) our prof (whom I still dislike severely) made us go around the LARGE room, take turns and read it paragraph by paragraph then explain what was said in the paragraph. I was terrified. I was so concerned with trying to read my paragraph (of course I had a loooooong paragraph) without sounding like an idiot that I had no idea what I just read.

To this day I hate Pennoyer. How about I never really understood Civ Pro until Barbri class in preparing for the bar?

Funny how much I didn't understand or really learn in law school... but then learned it for the bar.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by kddani

I still have nightmares about Pennoyer. Second week of law school in Legal Process (basically Civ Pro I) our prof (whom I still dislike severely) made us go around the LARGE room, take turns and read it paragraph by paragraph then explain what was said in the paragraph. I was terrified. I was so concerned with trying to read my paragraph (of course I had a loooooong paragraph) without sounding like an idiot that I had no idea what I just read.

To this day I hate Pennoyer. How about I never really understood Civ Pro until Barbri class in preparing for the bar?

Funny how much I didn't understand or really learn in law school... but then learned it for the bar.

The writing in Pennoyer is unreal; I had to go through it a couple of times at least to figure things out, and even then I was fuzzy until class.

I think it's mainly my professor, because most people I've talked to have disliked Civ Pro. My professor is tough, but she's very good and makes concepts seem a whole lot easier.

I used to work in a bar association with a bunch of lawyers, and one of the things that I heard from each of them was that they learned the most when they were studying for the bar. I guess that's just the way it goes in the profession.

[deadbear80]

While some of my friends at other law schools think my school is nuts...

...we only take 1 semester of Civ Pro (don't hate me). And we get it 2nd semester after we've already taken Contracts, Property, and Torts (like I said, don't hate me!).

So I never thought Civ Pro was that bad. Granted, because it's also virtually statutory based (and therefore much more black & white than other 1L classes) I did much better in it than my other classes.

But I don't know how I would've understood it 1st semester either. I think having other classes first and then jumping into Civ Pro helped. I actually understand it much better than most of my friends in law school (and eek! some current attorneys).

Sadly though, Evidence at my law school is poorly taught (so much so that 90% of us teach it to ourselves) and that was the class that had me freaked. Worst grade in law school (and not a reflection of what I really did, and still do know). I only felt somewhat redeemed when I took my Trial Practice and Procedure course and could actually remember Evidence better than people who did better on the final than I did.

[_Opi_]

Originally Posted by deadbear80

While some of my friends at other law schools think my school is nuts...

...we only take 1 semester of Civ Pro (don't hate me). And we get it 2nd semester after we've already taken Contracts, Property, and Torts (like I said, don't hate me!).

No, I dont hate you. Mainly because we take Civ Pro I in the second semester, and the CP II 3rd semester. The only thing that sucks about my current professor is that he taught the material completely backwards. He taught us pleadings first instead of PJ and SMJ material. Joinder was smack in the middle of the semester, and then we had to go through that material again after PJ and SMJ so we can have a better grasp of the material. Every other professor is doing it the opposite way. So we'll see after finals how well his "method" worked.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

No, I dont hate you. Mainly because we take Civ Pro I in the second semester, and the CP II 3rd semester. The only thing that sucks about my current professor is that he taught the material completely backwards. He taught us pleadings first instead of PJ and SMJ material. Joinder was smack in the middle of the semester, and then we had to go through that material again after PJ and SMJ so we can have a better grasp of the material. Every other professor is doing it the opposite way. So we'll see after finals how well his "method" worked.

My professor actually taught us pleadings first as well; I like the way she's taught things so far. I had heard that the order is reversed most places, but it seems to be working out for my class. I figure as long as we get to all the material, the order isn't so important to me.

Plus, the order has worked well; we went from pleadings to Due Process to Jurisdiction, and it's made a lot of sense that way.

[shinerbock]

We learn remedies before consideration and bargaining, not sure if thats a localized thing or not.