|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Why do law professors think | by niwikki | 2004-12-15 11:15:05 |
|
Can I disagree and not be a poopyhead? | by McGowan | 2004-12-15 11:18:23 |
| depends on what part you're disagreeing with |
by niwikki |
2004-12-15 11:28:25 |
Are you disagreeing with the fact that I think it's possible to show your understanding and ability to analyze something when you're not forced to memorize silly things like factors?
Yes, we'll have the statutes today, but those are limited to the statutes -- not caselaw. e.g. I must have the Sleekcraft factors memorized because those come from a case, not statute.
Therefore, in order to analyze whether there's a likelihood of confusion and prove that I understand what a likelihood of confusion is and how to analyze it, I must be able to recite from rote those 9 factors (or was it 8? gotta check my notes...) before determining which of the facts apply and how courts would apply them.
The important part is being able to tell which of the facts to apply and how courts apply them. The factors can always be found by checking outside sources.
Except in a closed book exam.
And that's why any professor who insists on giving a law school exam closed book (especially on a subject not tested on the bar, so there's none of that "the bar is closed book so this will help you prepare" line of thinking going on)... is a poopyhead.
Note that this doesn't apply so well to other types of education. There are some lines of work where rote memorization is important. Law isn't one of them. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I wasn't disagreeing at all. | by McGowan | 2004-12-15 12:04:35 |
|
if you're not going to force me to take | by niwikki | 2004-12-15 12:05:25 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
