So while I don't like Con Law, I'd like to know that there is a point to my taking the damn class. This semester's prof and book are almost as bad as con law 1's from last year. I can barely use supplements this semester because it keeps talking about elements, factors, and tests that my prof never mentioned, nor did the sad book that we use. Normally I embrace the notion of reading a paragrph or two of a case and being done with it. But I am finding that the exerpts are so painfully short and so heavily edited that I honestly couldn't tell you why or how the court came to the conclusion that it did. I can however tell you want a bunch of namby pamby con law scholars said about the holding in about 47 articles. Sigh.
I really hate con law--even more so now that I understand I will have to teach the real deal to myself before the bar. Suck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment