Law School

Since I feel like a lot of you might not really understand what I mean when I say that law school requires a straightforwardness that is impossible for me, I wanted to give you an example from today's Con Law class of what I mean. There are three keys in law school, but up until I got my exams back in January, I only understood the first one:

1. Do not be intellectually creative (THIS WILL BE PUNISHED -- it will look undisciplined and give the impression that you couldn't zero-in on the issue or couldn't apply the basic doctrine)

2. Express yourself in short declarative sentences. Do not use commas.

3. NEVER underestimate the degree to which the question you are being asked is unbelievably simple. In many cases (including the one I'm about to give you), the best answer stays so close to the initial question that it almost appears to create a tautology/circular response -- going beyond that tautology risks violating the creativity principle under point #1.

Ok so today in Con Law class (and this is a class in which the professor is actually NOT as straightforward as the professors in most of my other classes) the professor presented a hypothetical piece of legislation and then asked the class to decide whether or not it was constitutional.

The professor then said that the first question we had to answer was: "How would you go about determining whether or not this statute is constitutional?"

A student raised his hand and answered: "You would first have to test whether or not such an act is sanctioned by the Constitution."

I sat there a little puzzled at how stupid the answer was (the student is a 2L transfer, so you KNOW he did really well in his 1L classes in his original institution, and he talks a LOT in class), but then the professor said: "That is precisely correct."

I thought we were chasing our own tails, but apparently we were making progress.

In any case, now you know what I mean when I say that law school requires a straightforwardness that is totally beyond me.

VC