Top Law Schools

beepboopbeep wrote:

FinalFour wrote:

Regulus wrote:Hahaha you also are good with the ninja delete, midwest17. I really want to post that thing because of how derpy it was, but I am also afraid of the repercussions it might have. It is almost ATL worthy.

Also, please post the full letter mentioned above. And wtf is this speech you have to write? Do you all actually have to give speeches during orientation? Need details!

We have to give a 5 minute speech without any notecards or visual aids/powerpoint because having notecards would not permit our natural "style" to come through (according to UChicago).

Like... to the whole rest of your class? Or just to some OCS person?

Jesus Christ I would totally just not do this. What are they going to do. "No, we don't want your $70,000 for each of the next three years."

Regulus wrote:I had been to enough lunch talks that I figured I might as well get it, and orientation alone was over half the points anyway.

I actually regret getting it though because 1) that ceremony was boring as hell, and 2) I think it actually hurt me during interviews because like five firms asked what it was and even with a proper explanation, it still sounded like a derpy thing to have.

c0llegeStUd3nt wrote:Anyone have any clue how to set up direct deposit for loans? Did I miss that in one of the letters?

c0llegeStUd3nt wrote:Anyone have any clue how to set up direct deposit for loans? Did I miss that in one of the letters?

2014 wrote:

c0llegeStUd3nt wrote:Anyone have any clue how to set up direct deposit for loans? Did I miss that in one of the letters?

my.uchicago.edu --> "Finances" Tab --> "Direct Deposit of Refund"


Try not to groan at the tuition bill most likely hanging out there

dm1919 wrote:Section assignments are out. Strauss for Elements, Buss for CP, Baird for Contracts, and Henderson for Torts. how did I do?

dm1919 wrote:Section assignments are out. Strauss for Elements, Buss for CP, Baird for Contracts, and Henderson for Torts. how did I do?

Gryffindor wrote:Im in section 2- So Stone, Buss,Baird, Henderson, and then for Legal writing Nadia Nasser

Comments? Anything I should be concerned about?

Overall: The book is borderline useless for its advertised purpose. The cases are poorly edited, not just the cases from pre-US either, modern cases are edited in such a way that you will read pages and pages and page trying to figure out what the judge is trying to say only to realize they really didn't say anything because the editors edited out the important bit. Even a simple case like Nichols v. Raynbred (a case it which the contract is dead simple, a cow for 50 shillings) is edited so poorly you'll be confused as to what the agreement was until you read a supplement. During the course you'll find the book more useful as a paperweight. After the course (assuming you haven't thrown it off a cliff or burned it at the stake by then) you'll find it most useful to put on your bookshelf to make yourself look smarter when friends and relatives visit.

just skim the cases and read chirelstein and farnsworth. this casebook is an absolute joke and will teach you more about the market for whaling oil in nantucket (seriously - see the section on gardner v gray) than the law of contract, whatever that may in fact be

nedstarksbastard wrote:Where are you all planning on getting your books?