onionsoupmix ([info]onionsoupmix) wrote,
@ 2008-10-05 22:28:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:law school

Top Five Reasons to Drop Out of Social Sciences and Go To Law School:
This post is long overdue, but now I have a break for about a week.

So, it turns out that I love law school.
What's even worse is that I love it unconditionally. That means that even if I flunk my exams and score in the bottom 5% of my class and never find employment in the legal field, I will still have to admit that I loved law school.

Law school gets a bad rap. Many people hate law school. That is because they have never attended any other type of graduate program. So this here post is dedicated to all my classmates at the school psychology programs that we have endured together. 

Top Five Reasons to Drop Out of Social Sciences  and Go To Law School:

5. Remember how the first day of classes was spent playing ice-breaker games and reading the syllabus word by word?
Well, in law school, the syllabus is posted on line and you are expected to show up having read the first assignment and prepared to discuss the assigned cases. No classes end early on the first day. Or any other day.

4. Remember how you could miss a week, even two of social science classes and come back and they'd all still be talking about the same thing?
Well, in law school, if you miss a day or two, you are in big trouble and better get the notes and even better yet, arrange to have the classes taped. Moreover, you just feel like you are missing stuff. Like you are missing out on all the great discussions.

3. Remember how there were no tests in graduate school? Only endless powerpoint projects that you did in groups and spend entire classes presenting to each other? Remember the end term papers that you copied from class to class and how the professors never seemed to catch on or care that you used the same damn paper for 5 classes already? 
In law school, there are exams. They are scary and they are open book, but the books don't help because you don't have time to open them. You have to know the material inside-out, how to apply it and which issues the jurisdictions might possibly disagree on. You only have three hours for each exam.

2. Remember how the professor would speak and no one would challenge him? Remember how the word of the professor was the word of God Himself and may He have mercy upon the student who begged to differ?  
Yeah, in law school, our professors ask us each day to come up with an opposing argument. They openly tell us that they prefer those perspectives that challenge theirs. When I ask a question in class now, the professor is very likely to ask me what I think about my own question and then play devil's advocate against my opinion.  Or he might ask the person sitting next to me to say what he thinks about my question and then ask someone else to argue against both of us.

1. Remember how you would look at the clock and desperately will the hands to move faster? Remember how each class was endless and you had to fill up the empty space in your head by planning dinner menus for the next three weeks?

In law school, we barely delve into a topic and the professor tells us that our time is up.  And then a crowd of ten-fifteen people stays after each and every class to debate and discuss whatever cases the professor didn't assign but they read anyway.  

So yes, we are all nerds. But we are happy nerds. Drop out of social sciences and come to law school with us.




(47 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]bringing_peace
2008-10-06 03:39 am UTC (link)
glad you're having fun!

(Reply to this)


[info]llennhoff
2008-10-06 03:54 am UTC (link)
Reading this makes me feel happy. I'm so glad things are working out.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 04:04 am UTC (link)
I suppose I should go do social sciences now, so I can fully appreciate the law school experience ...

BTW, our Torts exam is closed book ... and we're actually getting most of the way through the casebook ... it shall be wild!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 04:05 am UTC (link)
-The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 04:12 am UTC (link)
Yes, you should spend five years in a psychology program and then come back to law, lol. Be like me and waste half your career before you figure out what you should have been doing in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 05:07 am UTC (link)
I'm really glad that you're liking it (and I'd feel guilty if you didn't). I'm almost jealous, wondering why I kept falling asleep in my law classes. Maybe Canadian law schools are more boring because we spend more time on archaic English law, including upteen rambling decisions of Lord Denning and discussions about the Statute of Uses.

JRKmommy

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 11:30 am UTC (link)
We have a girl who keeps falling asleep in torts, right after lunch, but I think she has a disorder:)
Thanks for all your encouragement!

Edited at 2008-10-06 11:34 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 01:13 pm UTC (link)
Don't worry, we American law student also read boring English cases ... but then we read the cases that subsequently overturn them and subtly call their Lordships ill-experienced ignoramuses with the legal equivalent of sexual innuendo.

It's these fun little things that give us our kicks ...

-The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 01:15 pm UTC (link)
The absolute best case so far was Leonard v Pepsico in contracts. I was literally in tears from laughing at the opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 04:39 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, it was funny how Wood, J., analyzed the commercial, but I disagree with her ...

My favorite case so far was a torts case, not so much for the analysis, but for what an ass the defendant must feel like. Defendant-cop confiscates a fish that he assumed was caught illegally, took it home and filleted and ate the thing. I guess he never figured someone would sue him, but when he had to produce the evidence at trial, there was only 8 lb. left of a 40 lb. fish. Dickens v. Debolt, 602 P.2d 246.

-The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 05:28 pm UTC (link)
Why do you disagree with her? You think it was reasonable of him to assume he would get the jet? I think the kid knew all along that this was just a game- otherwise why would he have an attorney even before he sent the check?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 09:30 pm UTC (link)
No, it was clearly unreasonable, even subjectively, but I don't think it should be a reasonableness standard. If that were so, every alleged contract would be voided and people wouldn't be responsible for their stupid mistakes. There are other cases where the offer was completely in jest, but the courts held the offeror to it because they objectively showed seriousness. The facts seem to support that there was an offer (assuming you can get past the catalog discrepancy), and the judge is being sympathetic to Pepsico for their blunder.

I think that Leonard got an attorney only shows that he knew it would be challenged. It was certainly unreasonable: the price was way too little for the price of a Harrier jet and it's improbable that Pepsi would, or even could deliver.

But that's Pepsico's problem; not Leonard's. If they can't deliver the jet, they should be forced to make amends at law ($$).

Just my thought,

-The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 01:16 am UTC (link)
The catalogue discrepancy was a big part of it b/c my take on it was that advertisements do not create power of acceptance unless the ad is so clear, definite and explicit and leaves nothing open for negotiation. The commercial specifically said the details are in the catalogue and there is no jet in catalogue.

There are other cases where the offer was completely in jest, but the courts held the offeror to it because they objectively showed seriousness.

Also you gotta give commercials a little leeway, me thinks. If they all now are going to have to advertise only realistic results, it's gonna be pretty boring. No more bikini girls next to new cars for example :( only tzniusdike yiddishe mamas.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-07 03:16 pm UTC (link)
You're right about the commercial/offer aspect, but the joke, methinks, should have been better thought out.

It's almost like putting a $100 price tag on a car to get people to come in to your dealership and saying that you must be crazy to think that you could actually buy a car for $100 ...

But $100 was the offer, wasn't it?

- The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 06:10 pm UTC (link)
you are describing bait & switch and in a sense every commercial is like that- you are not going to get the lovely house and wonderful children just because you buy Jiff peanut butter instead of the store brand:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-08 12:18 am UTC (link)
Hardly the same case; Jiffy commercials don't make the proposition that you will receive those items by buying their product.

Pepsi and car dealer both make explicit statements to the effect that the goods can be yours if you pay the [outrageously great] price.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-08 12:34 am UTC (link)
true, i guess this is why it even got to court in the first place:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 09:43 pm UTC (link)
I'm not saying that the decision was wrong. It would be pretty messed up if this guy walked off with a plane, or with millions of dollars in expectation interest (let's say he had a buyer lined up already).

I'm just saying that the method used to determine the results might be a little shaky.

-N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 01:06 am UTC (link)
Oh, you wanted the jury to be members of the "pepsico generation"...lol.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 04:45 pm UTC (link)
We actually watched the commercial in class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdackF2H7Qc

In response to the litigation, Pepsi changed a small detail in the commercial. Instead of 7,000,000 Pepsi Points for the jet, they changed the price to 700,000,000 points.

The funny thing is that I remember this commercial from TV growing up, although when I was 10, it didn't occur to me then that I could actually get the Harrier.

-The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 05:25 pm UTC (link)
yeah, we also watched it in class.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 05:26 pm UTC (link)
I must have missed this commercial somehow when I was young, maybe I was in my TV-IS-KLIPPAH stage.

Edited at 2008-10-06 05:28 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 09:31 pm UTC (link)
Or maybe you didn't watch afternoon kiddie-TV in 1997 ...

-The Letter N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 01:07 am UTC (link)
Oh yeah, I was just married in 1997, maybe had better things to do in the afternoon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bringing_peace
2008-10-06 07:56 pm UTC (link)
now, I want to know what happened there!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 01:23 am UTC (link)
Basically, pepsi bottles used to have points. You could save up the points and buy t-shirts, baseball caps, etc. If you were a little short of the points, you could pay ten cents a point and buy your t-shirt that way. The commercial for this program featured a kid arriving in a Harrier jet in school, worth about 23 million dollars and implied that the kid got this jet through the pepsi points program. Someone linked to the youtube commercial earlier in this thread. So this kid tries to send in 15 points plus a check for 700K for the jet and then sues Pepsi when they tell him it was just a commercial. The funny part was the way the court opinion was written. It was like : this is a joke. Do you know what a joke is? Let us explain it to you. Here's why this commercial was funny. You would have to drink 190 bottles of pepsi a day... etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-07 03:23 pm UTC (link)
I didn't get the impression that he was a kid at all.

I would've also assumed he didn't have a job, seeing as he has time to watch (and analyze) kids' TV commercials, but then, he was apparently able to afford the litigation.

BTW, I'm thinking that it's not such a big deal that he hired lawyers when he first sent in his points. Would you go about any big purchase, whether it's $700K or $23m without the counsel of a lawyer?

-N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 06:08 pm UTC (link)
We bought a house w/out a lawyer. No it wasn't 700K, ha-ha.

I think he is a kid b /c the opinion says: inspired by this commercial, plaintiff set out to obtain a Harrier jet. Plaintiff explains that he is :"typical of the Pepsi generaltion"... he is young, has an adventerous spirit, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-07 06:58 pm UTC (link)
Would you expect to be able to buy a car by mail order?

-N

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 07:59 pm UTC (link)
would you expect to be able to buy a house on ebay?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-08 12:24 am UTC (link)
Good point, but:

A. people often retain lawyers for real estate purchases
B. buying a jet plane is very different than buying a car or house. It's not a regular consumer purchase, and a reasonable person thinking they just got a ridiculously good deal on a jet plane would certainly hire a lawyer to make sure the jet is delivered.
C. The fees for hiring a lawyer for the transaction is insignifigant when you consider that the product is resalable for $22m more than its purchase price. It's only sensical, and hardly expensive, to hire a lawyer to guarantee a smooth transaction.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-08 12:33 am UTC (link)
Based on your use of the word "ridiculously", I would guess that you agree that he clearly did not have reasonable expectations in this transaction. Which was the point of the opinion, no?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-08 03:12 am UTC (link)
That was the equitable catch that the judge used.

But then what of the "objective" standard to interpretation?

And what if Pepsi gipped itself by offering something a little closer to the value of 700,000 points, like a Buggati Veyron ($1.2m), but also unreasonable because 15 year old kids don't have drivers licenses; the car may not be street legal; it's a very rare and limited car; no one would allow a kid to drive such a car; it would be impossible to drink that many bottles of Pepsi; and the kicker, that it's worth $500,000 more than the amount of Pepsi points?

Is it still so unreasonable? It's commercially available; the price isn't millions of dollars more than the points ...

-N

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ilana_frombklyn
2008-10-06 06:33 am UTC (link)
Ohmigosh that sounds amazing!

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 12:24 pm UTC (link)
Glad to hear you're enjoying. I'm in undergrad and #5 and #3 especially would be so refreshing.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-10-06 12:36 pm UTC (link)
My undergrad history program is more like law school than the standard social sciences program in terms of rigor, but I should probably go to law school instead of history grad school anyway. Pays better.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-06 12:50 pm UTC (link)
the sad thing is, I went to very good schools in the field for my graduate programs...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zev_ari
2008-10-06 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Glad to hear you're enjoying law school. As someone who is currently in grad school (going for an MBA), I can certainly relate to most of the points you make. :)

(Reply to this)

Off topic
[info]bringing_peace
2008-10-06 07:54 pm UTC (link)
Off topic ,but you will like this: http://nomen-nescio.livejournal.com/658759.html

(Reply to this)


[info]ymarkov
2008-10-06 10:54 pm UTC (link)
Ура! Долой туфту!

(Reply to this)

It's all of a piece - law school is easy and fun, but requires diligence
(Anonymous)
2008-10-07 02:35 pm UTC (link)
I guess we had vastly different experiences in graduate school - I've done graduate work in both European intellectual history and mathematical economics and can't ever recall ecountering any of the 5 items in your 'parade of horribles' about the social sciences. In history, our seminar meetings routinely went overtime and, oftentimes, the discussion would continue at a local watering hole over drinks with professors, who regarded us more as junior colleagues-to-be than anything else. In economics, we were busy working through the theorems only sketched out by other economists so that we were comfortable with their results (or not, at times). Syllabuses were routinely provided in advance and even first meetings of seminars were productive.

Don't misunderstand me, I thoroughly enjoyed law school as well. But, intellectually, it was not nearly as challenging as economics or history. The most important qualities in law school were sitzfleisch, or the abilty to gut it out, and the ability to read quickly and spot issues. Piece of cake to anyone who's done any significant amount of work in history and philosophy. The intellectual level of law faculties is nowhere near that of a good social science faculty (at least in my day in the '70s) -- it was embarrassing to have to correct nationally well-known and highly-regarded law professors who fundamentally misunderstood elementary ideas of English and American philosophers whose work is essential to the development of our judicial system, such as Hegel and Locke, or to discover that a famous professor had never read the work of philosopher upon whom he had based the article that made his reputation, admitting when pressed on his reading of the ideas in question that he based his understanding of it on a description at a faculty dinner party. I tried to teach elementary economics to a famous law professor, who couldn't accept the need to simplify reality in order to create useful models.

I survived law school by working full time and by taking joint seminars (with both law faculty and philosophy and economics faculty) all three years over and above the normal course load.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It's all of a piece - law school is easy and fun, but requires diligence
[info]onionsoupmix
2008-10-07 03:10 pm UTC (link)
I don't really see econ as a social science field. Social science to me is more psych, social work, education, maybe some history. But I'm happy that law school was easy for you. Maybe post some more and your IQ will rub off a bit on me:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: It's all of a piece - law school is easy and fun, but requires diligence
(Anonymous)
2008-10-07 03:36 pm UTC (link)
When I was a graduate student, the clever students took the position that history was a humanity, rather than a social science, and that economics was the quintessential social science. Economists, being generally lads looking to be socially mobile, were always trying to convince themselves and others that their discipline was more a science .... given their lack of social graces, they were often successful beyond their wildest expectations, though perhaps not in the way they had anticipated.

I suspect the reason I found law school easy had less to do with being an especially clever boy, than with understanding the historical context in which the law evolved, especially the Anglo-American context, and with having read most of the fundamental texts of political philosophy which it was suggested were important to the development of the common law, and to reading some of the basic books on the law, from Holmes' The Common Law to Pollock and Maitland to Karl Llewellyn's The Bramble Bush to Montesqieu and Blackstone the summer before I started. Knowing one's way around a research library was also probably a useful skill.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)
Re: It's all of a piece - law school is easy and fun, but requires diligence
(Anonymous)
2008-10-07 07:03 pm UTC (link)
I think it depends on what you've actually done in intellectual history - what I did was the traditional variety that focused almost exclusively on the high culture, my areas of specialization were the German and English (Scottish) Enlightenments, with additional work through the 19th and early 20th centuries, focusing primarily (at least in terms of reading in the original) on Germany, England and America. I suspect that if you did the more modern sort of intellectual history you might not be reading nearly so much in the philosophical, scientific and historical sources.

You also need to consider the rigor of the institutions involved.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: It's all of a piece - law school is easy and fun, but requires diligence
(Anonymous)
2008-10-15 12:35 am UTC (link)
Why does it matter if a professor doesn't know obscure dead Europeans' writing inside and out? In my view, the principles we apply today might have Hegel or Locke "at their root" or "as their foundation", but the key thing is that we apply them today based on a justification that makes sense independent of what the dead Europeans said. To me, interesting legal scholarship isn't about going backwards and finding the "true path" of the thinkers that came before us. Interesting legal scholarship is BEING the thinker who sets foundations for the present and the future.

Also, I'm troubled by your assertion that the reason you couldn't teach "elementary economics" because the law prof wouldn'tcouldn't accept "the need to simplify reality in order to create useful models."

Why do you need the model?

--a reminder that the scholarship you value isn't the only valuable scholarship.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Or become an Engineer
(Anonymous)
2008-10-12 09:00 pm UTC (link)
The same was true about my engineering classes. It's probably true of every non-liberal arts degree.

(Reply to this)


(47 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…