The beginning of the end.

This is, by design, a law school blog and thus has, by implication, a predictably finite lifespan.

Postings here will be less frequent during 3L for two reasons:

1) I’ll be turning my attention to the for-profit aspects of legal education. That means diverting energy away from noncommercial efforts such as this. However, I will report on my new ventures here with links etc.

2) Right now it’s not clear to me how much different a 3L blog would be from a 2L blog. By common consent, 3L isa repeat of the 2L year, but with lower levels of student engagement.

I may have to repeat 2L year, but I don’t need to subject you to the same fate. I’ll restrict myself to writing about truly novel conflicts among students, faculty, et al.

06 Jul 06

Comments

If you were able to discover any truly novel conflicts among students, faculty, et al., I would be amazed. Aliens would have to be involved.

Posted by: PGA at July 7, 2006 08:01 AM


Nominee, worst writing of 2006.

One thing you learn to let go of in law school early on is any affection for quality writing. Lawyers are often bad writers, but law professors really take the cake.

I’ve recently gotten a copy of Garner’s Modern American Usage, which is a work of art. If you like good writing, get this book, because it will have two effects. First, it will improve your writing immediately. Second, it will give you permission to indulge your irritation at those who make absolute claims that prepositions cannot end sentences, that sentence fragments are never acceptable, or that contractions have no place in formal writing.

Garner–who, by the way, is also the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary–emphasizes relaxed, clear, simple writing as the ideal. He approves of the practices above (when done appropriately, and in moderation). The innermost circles of Garner’s hell are reserved for those who add words, phrases and dependent clauses needlessly, and who use long, formal, pompous or euphemistic terms when simpler words would do.

To Garner, the hallmark of great writers is their ability to make complex ideas simple through language. Conversely, the hallmark of terrible writers is their insistence on encrusting the simplest idea with superfluous words. Of course, this makes life more difficult for readers, but he goes one step further: bad writing conceals the subtleties of the subject matter to the writer, who is then limited in their* observation and analysis of the topic.

Anyways. This was prompted by a letter that arrived from UCLA professor David Ginsburg about the Entertainment Law Program.

I am pleased to introduce myself as the Executive Director of the Entertainment and Media Law and Policy Program, a curricular specialization which has become one of the most comprehensive, advanced and innovative programs dedicated to the study of entertainment and media law in the country. The intention of the faculty is that students who fulfill the Program’s requirements will have a solid grounding in the law, custom, theory and policy attendant to the practice of law in the motion picture, television, music and other industries involved in creative and artistic matters....

We have fashioned a required curriculum that includes electives from three tiers of courses in the Law School, a research paper, and the opportunity to choose from a variety of appropriate and approved interdisciplinary courses from outside the Law School. We anticipate expanding the possibilities of practical experience in an internship setting attendant to either an appropriate seminar or course of independent study...

So that all upper-division students will have adequate notice to commence the selection of courses with a view toward completing the Program by graduation, we thought it best to provide the course tier structure as they make decisions with respect to registration for Fall 2006.

* He endorses the use of the third-person plural singular as a means of curing the gender-neutrality problem. Sorry, haters.

25 Jul 06


Nominee, worst writing of 2006.

One thing you learn to let go of in law school early on is any affection for quality writing. Lawyers are often bad writers, but law professors really take the cake.

I’ve recently gotten a copy of Garner’s Modern American Usage, which is a work of art. If you like good writing, get this book, because it will have two effects. First, it will improve your writing immediately. Second, it will give you permission to indulge your irritation at those who make absolute claims that prepositions cannot end sentences, that sentence fragments are never acceptable, or that contractions have no place in formal writing.

Garner–who, by the way, is also the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary–emphasizes relaxed, clear, simple writing as the ideal. He approves of the practices above (when done appropriately, and in moderation). The innermost circles of Garner’s hell are reserved for those who add words, phrases and dependent clauses needlessly, and who use long, formal, pompous or euphemistic terms when simpler words would do.

To Garner, the hallmark of great writers is their ability to make complex ideas simple through language. Conversely, the hallmark of terrible writers is their insistence on encrusting the simplest idea with superfluous words. Of course, this makes life more difficult for readers, but he goes one step further: bad writing conceals the subtleties of the subject matter to the writer, who is then limited in their* observation and analysis of the topic.

Anyways. This was prompted by a letter that arrived from a UCLA professor, whose prose made me dizzy and disoriented.

I am pleased to introduce myself as the Executive Director of the Entertainment and Media Law and Policy Program, a curricular specialization which has become one of the most comprehensive, advanced and innovative programs dedicated to the study of entertainment and media law in the country. The intention of the faculty is that students who fulfill the Program’s requirements will have a solid grounding in the law, custom, theory and policy attendant to the practice of law in the motion picture, television, music and other industries involved in creative and artistic matters....

We have fashioned a required curriculum that includes electives from three tiers of courses in the Law School, a research paper, and the opportunity to choose from a variety of appropriate and approved interdisciplinary courses from outside the Law School. We anticipate expanding the possibilities of practical experience in an internship setting attendant to either an appropriate seminar or course of independent study...

So that all upper-division students will have adequate notice to commence the selection of courses with a view toward completing the Program by graduation, we thought it best to provide the course tier structure as they make decisions with respect to registration for Fall 2006.

* He endorses the use of the third-person plural singular as a means of curing the gender-neutrality problem. Sorry, haters.

25 Jul 06

Comments

By application only.

There seems to be a greater than usual number of classes this semester that require an application to get in.

Law 364 - Motion Picture Distribution - Prof. Ken Ziffren
Law 402 - Deposition Skills (Clinical) - Prof. Stefano
Moscato
Law 407 - Mediation - Prof. Forrest Mosten
Law 426 - Appellate Advocacy - Prof. Patrick Goodman
Law 428 - Indian Law Legislation - Prof. Pat Sekaquaptewa
(rolling admission)
Law 438 - Public Policy Clinic - Dean Mike Schill and Prof.
Jonathan Zasloff
Law 548 - Legal Education - Prof. Gerald Lopez
Law 553. Seminar: Intersectionality - Prof. Kimberlé Crenshaw
Law 569 - Academic Writing Seminar - Prof. Eugene Volokh

I’ve never figured out why this is necessary. If you’re paying full fare, shouldn’t you be able to take the classes you’re interested in? You already survived the filtering process of the admissions office, isn’t that proof you’re a reasonably competent indvidual?

The only remaining purpose is to indulge a professor’s wish to hand-pick students. I guess the argument is that most of these are small classes and the quality of the class depends on the willingness of students to participate. But if that’s what the prof wants, then the prof should just announce that class participation will be a large part of the grade. That should filter out all the wallflowers.

So beyond that, I can only surmise that it’s a quest for “qualified” students, ie. people whom the prof thinks will not be especially disruptive, difficult or contrary. If true, that’s a bad reason.

26 Jul 06


By application only.

There seems to be a greater than usual number of classes this semester that require an application to get in.

Law 364 - Motion Picture Distribution - Prof. Ken Ziffren

Law 402 - Deposition Skills (Clinical) - Prof. Stefano
Moscato

Law 407 - Mediation - Prof. Forrest Mosten

Law 426 - Appellate Advocacy - Prof. Patrick Goodman

Law 428 - Indian Law Legislation - Prof. Pat Sekaquaptewa
(rolling admission)

Law 438 - Public Policy Clinic - Dean Mike Schill and Prof.
Jonathan Zasloff

Law 548 - Legal Education - Prof. Gerald Lopez

Law 553. Seminar: Intersectionality - Prof. Kimberlé Crenshaw

Law 569 - Academic Writing Seminar - Prof. Eugene Volokh







I’ve never figured out why this is necessary. If you’re paying full fare, shouldn’t you be able to take the classes you’re interested in? You already survived the filtering process of the admissions office, isn’t that proof you’re a reasonably competent indvidual?

The only remaining purpose is to indulge a professor’s wish to hand-pick students. I guess the argument is that most of these are small classes and the quality of the class depends on the willingness of students to participate. But if that’s what the prof wants, then the prof should just announce that class participation will be a large part of the grade. That should filter out all the wallflowers.

So beyond that, I can only surmise that it’s a quest for “qualified” students, ie. people whom the prof thinks will not be especially disruptive, difficult or contrary. If true, that’s a bad reason.

26 Jul 06

Comments
matthewb @ ucla
Recent Drivel
Home page
Epilogue 8: Buy my book
Epilogue 7: Recessionaires cont'd
Epilogue 6: Schill quits UCLA
Epilogue 5: recessionaires
Okay, I lied. Epilogue 4
Epilogue 3: The End (really)
Epilogue 2: Nov 2007
Epilogue
The eagle has landed
Seduced by the dark side
You've been in law school too long when...
Diplomas
I have only five more class days
The lone gunman
The last spring break is over
Someone saved your life tonight
Best advice
Alumni donations
Dean Schill & the Pussymobile
Help me yet again
How time flies
January 2011
July 2010
September 2009
July 2009
September 2008
June 2008
November 2007
July 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004