Let's him and you fight!
Law school is starting to feel, among other things, like a kick-down, drag-in, all-out fight. Our professors are always telling us to argue (the legal counterpart to fighting) with each other.
It's like some kind of academic throw-back to the most primitive instincts of man which have led to such unsavory recreational activities such as cock-fighting and bear-baiting.
But our professors love it. Their legal blood-lust seems to be insatiable.
In class after class, we hear this typical professorial goading:
"Suppose you were the plaintiff's lawyer. Mr. Chen, what would your best argument be?"
(prof rubs his hands together)
(Student says something)
"Ok, good, then Ms. Craw, how would you counter that?"
(prof salivates)
(Ms. Craw says something).
"And then what would you say to that Mr. Chen?"
(prof's eyes gleam)
Etc...
Back and forth the verbal tennis match goes. Brains churning, arguments forming. An endless litany of he argued, she argued.
And that is what good lawyers are supposed to do. That is how they think. That is the backbone of American Jurisprudence: The Adversarial System. (You know, that's not the way they do it in Europe). But it's a time-honored tradition which, as Prof. H reminds us, goes all the way back to the "ye olde adversarial system" of jousting in King Arthur's court.
But alas for me, I am a lover, not a fighter. I'm a peacemaker. I'm a merger, a synthesizer, a "why can't we all just get along" kind of gal. When I hear an argument my first thought is not: How can I shoot that down and utterly discredit it? It's usually more along the line of: Hmmm...that's interesting...I think that person has a valid point.
Needless to say, this non-confrontational attitude is not serving me well in law school. It's like putting a dove in the ring with an angry cock. Watch out. Carnage and bloody massacre. Trust me, my in-class performances are not pretty. They're a massacre. Pure, bloody, rated-X for violence, massacre.
It's like some kind of academic throw-back to the most primitive instincts of man which have led to such unsavory recreational activities such as cock-fighting and bear-baiting.
But our professors love it. Their legal blood-lust seems to be insatiable.
In class after class, we hear this typical professorial goading:
"Suppose you were the plaintiff's lawyer. Mr. Chen, what would your best argument be?"
(prof rubs his hands together)
(Student says something)
"Ok, good, then Ms. Craw, how would you counter that?"
(prof salivates)
(Ms. Craw says something).
"And then what would you say to that Mr. Chen?"
(prof's eyes gleam)
Etc...
Back and forth the verbal tennis match goes. Brains churning, arguments forming. An endless litany of he argued, she argued.
And that is what good lawyers are supposed to do. That is how they think. That is the backbone of American Jurisprudence: The Adversarial System. (You know, that's not the way they do it in Europe). But it's a time-honored tradition which, as Prof. H reminds us, goes all the way back to the "ye olde adversarial system" of jousting in King Arthur's court.
But alas for me, I am a lover, not a fighter. I'm a peacemaker. I'm a merger, a synthesizer, a "why can't we all just get along" kind of gal. When I hear an argument my first thought is not: How can I shoot that down and utterly discredit it? It's usually more along the line of: Hmmm...that's interesting...I think that person has a valid point.
Needless to say, this non-confrontational attitude is not serving me well in law school. It's like putting a dove in the ring with an angry cock. Watch out. Carnage and bloody massacre. Trust me, my in-class performances are not pretty. They're a massacre. Pure, bloody, rated-X for violence, massacre.
posted by Alice in Wonderland at 9:23 PM
2 Comments:
this is terrible stina. you've been getting smarter at law school. your vocabulary is increasing and thought process increasing in depth. seeing how memorizing vocab was not required for the GMATS, i will soon fall hopelessly behind. i will no longer understand what the heck your saying. therefore, to protect my sense of intelligence and self-worth, i demand that you write a dumbed down version of every post titled 'for laymen edition' so i don't feel like it's dumbed down. this is a pre-emptive strike at the collapse of my belief in my college education. then i can simply laugh at your real incomprehensible thoughts and dimiss it derisively as 'legal jargon, lawyer babble and such nonsense.'
No, any detriment to understanding is probably not because of my increased mental capacity, but rather my increased incoherence, which is sadly what happens to you when you study all day long, every freaking day, for months on end. It's like that "your brains on drugs" commercial with the fried eggs. "your brain at law school" would look exactly like those pan fried eggs. See, I bet that didn't make any sense at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home