![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apr. 17th, 2003
Good exam. I think. Interesting, anyway. With a somewhat disturbing flasback to the LSAT at the end.
Four questions, four cases, each one dealing only with one element of negligence. Case 1: here`s the fact pattern, now talk about duty of care. Case 2: fact pattern, standard of care. And so on. No need to do the whole analysis for each case. Each one dealing with very specific facts and issues, with very specific cases that you could cite for each of your points. Intricate and detailed and logical. Nice.
And then...
Question 5. "Is there a common ground for all torts? Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a book answering that question. What do you think?"
Huh?!
Uh...
I just spent the last 2.5 hours doing intricate precise legal reasoning, setting up and knocking down legal analyses, comparing and distinguishing and all that... what do you mean, what do I think? I can`t _think_!!
It`s like making somebody work on very precise electronic circuitry for hours, then telling them, "OK, now show me your watercolour impression of `melody`."
It was only worth 15% of the mark, too, so I had a distinct flashback to the LSAT writing sample. Same thing - you`ve just spent hours using your mind to figure out all sorts of precise questions, then you`re faced with a blank page and a "Show us how well you can write - here`s a random silly topic. Fill the page." People have apparently been known to write the names of all of their friends, a diatribe against their parents, and a shopping list, just to look busy.
I wonder what he`ll think of our answers to that last question. I can`t be the only one to have felt this way. I weren`t no Oliver Wendell Holmes, that`s for sure.
Four questions, four cases, each one dealing only with one element of negligence. Case 1: here`s the fact pattern, now talk about duty of care. Case 2: fact pattern, standard of care. And so on. No need to do the whole analysis for each case. Each one dealing with very specific facts and issues, with very specific cases that you could cite for each of your points. Intricate and detailed and logical. Nice.
And then...
Question 5. "Is there a common ground for all torts? Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a book answering that question. What do you think?"
Huh?!
Uh...
I just spent the last 2.5 hours doing intricate precise legal reasoning, setting up and knocking down legal analyses, comparing and distinguishing and all that... what do you mean, what do I think? I can`t _think_!!
It`s like making somebody work on very precise electronic circuitry for hours, then telling them, "OK, now show me your watercolour impression of `melody`."
It was only worth 15% of the mark, too, so I had a distinct flashback to the LSAT writing sample. Same thing - you`ve just spent hours using your mind to figure out all sorts of precise questions, then you`re faced with a blank page and a "Show us how well you can write - here`s a random silly topic. Fill the page." People have apparently been known to write the names of all of their friends, a diatribe against their parents, and a shopping list, just to look busy.
I wonder what he`ll think of our answers to that last question. I can`t be the only one to have felt this way. I weren`t no Oliver Wendell Holmes, that`s for sure.