ยป Geekfight
I’m gearing up to write the LSAT in the fall. If you’d care to play along at home, here’s a sample.
Great conversation today (before 9am even), wherein I was told:
- “You used to be smart, but it seems like you’re fading.”
- “In 20 years you’ll be 50, why would a firm hire you?” And,
- “You’re competing against 23 year old brains!“
I reckon it might still be somewhat useful to know a thing or two about technology. Okay, maybe being a barrister is out (shit!) but intellectual property is still a bit of a career, no? Or maybe that’s just all negative thinking bullshit I should ignore.
Significant hurdles, but we’ll see. I’m no mental slouch — thinking is pretty much all I do — but it’s important to be realistic. In this case I favor optimism as a strategy. First, it’s in my blood. I’m related to one of Canada’s last hangin’ judges:
John Smith, for the crime of taking in vain the name of Our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, I sentence you to hang by the neck until dead. My only regret is that this court can punish you but once.
Last night I was playing Empire In Arms, possibly the most complicated board game ever created by man. I’ve heard that they use it to teach high-level military strategy at West Point.
Like all truly good games the rules are chaptered, sectioned, sub-sectioned, paragraphed, and sub-paragraphed. Specificity is huge and still the common law builds around it — maybe appropriately, too: The game’s Napoleonic.
The ruleset is far too big to actually know, at least at first. You start by getting the gist of the rules, arguing your position with a little common sense and game theory, and relying heavily on stare decisis. If everyone zealously represents their own interests then the compromise should make all parties equally unhappy (though I still think I lost a key decision on supply source rules).
Just before the game started my opponents and I joked about writing competitive LSATs to see who would do better. We realized that was insane and played EiA instead. Anyway, the point is: I think I’ve kept the synapses warm and the metaphors potent.
Some of my powder might still be dry, sir. If not, there’s still the bayonette.
Oh, and the fantastic bonus point in the list at the top of the post:
4. “You seem to be angry all the time for no reason.”
I’ll leave the reason to y’all’s imagination. I’m feeling a lot better this week though. I understand that lists like those are how my family shows they care.
Jack
17 Aug 09 at 11:24 am
Based on the first question of that sample LSAT (just because that it the only question I’ve read so far), I am very surprised at how easy and fun the LSAT is. If it wasn’t for the whole useless-unless-you-will-go-to-law-school thing, I’d write it.
Tangential question, that I’ve been wondering about for a while: Where do Quebec criminal defence lawyers and prosecutors learn the common law? The criminal law is uniform throughout Canada and is a common law system. Civil law matters are almost entirely within provincial jurisdiction, so each province has a separate jurisdiction, laws, and procedures for civil matters — in Quebec this is a civil code system, and in all other provinces they are common law systems. Generally, every law school in Quebec offers a civil law degree only and every law school elsewhere offers a common law degree only. I believe the only exceptions are the University of Ottawa and McGill University, which each offer a joint program resulting in a civil law degree and a common law degree.
So did all the criminal lawyers in Quebec go to McGill (or some other, non-Quebec, school)? My assumption is that, in spite of their names as “civil law degrees”, the other Quebec schools also include instruction on the criminal law and its procedures. But, you know, this is the kind of question that really eats at you…
Don
17 Aug 09 at 12:57 pm
I am not a lawyer, nor Quebecois.
I think that when you learn the civil code you learn common law principles at the same time. Judges interpret the civil code in ways consistent with previous decisions, so common law tends to grow around it the same way that common law grows around statutory law “normally” (dangerous word, I know).
As I understand it the civil code is occasionally rewritten to codify legal theories that have become widely accepted in its organic common law.
Practically speaking I’d argue that the common law is just too damned important not to be taught to Quebecois law students.
Anyway: I don’t really know. Those are just undereducated guesses.
Jack
17 Aug 09 at 1:23 pm
Something psychotic is going on here. My dad just brought one of the CASB students they’re teaching here by my desk — UFEs are about the same time as the next LSATs. This is completely out of the blue, apropos of nothing:
Really. Really? “You used to be smart.” Sound familiar? Good lookin’ out, thanks for that.
This is one of those deeply textured psychological fuckjobs I’ll need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to fully understand. Hopefully it was just one of those accidental “whoops, permanent damage” parenting moments, but there seems to be something subliminal about it. “Here’s my office son. He’s writing the exam you should have been. Now that you’re looking at a different profession be careful not to CHOKE!”
I’m working on being even tempered though. I’m using Dan Savage’s best advice ever: It’s not personal, just crazy. Best to shrug — “wow, that’s messed up” — water off a duck’s back. No need to understand, I’ll save my money for poker.
Jack
17 Aug 09 at 2:09 pm