I am back

So it is the same day of my CivPro exam. I watched TV, actually I watched only the frame of TV without knowing what was going on there. I have read some blogs and now I calmed down and want to chat about the law school, its exams and what actually the purpose of studying there.

Of course, my thoughts will be in connection with past exam. Actually with two of them, because the property was the taugh one too with the question what do you think about that and that case and opinion and why do you think the court is right or not. So far from my previous experience and also from realistic expectations, I assumed that the law school is teaching the law. Of course, the law is such a vague substance that you cannot learn all at once. Perhaps I even do not need to learn it but understand its principles. Maybe this is the reason why professors wants us to think as a lawyer looking into the substance of opinions and the regulations, into their purposes and goals and whatever else you want to add to this list. My question is why do I need to know whether the civil procedure regulations are good enough to find the truth from the parties, and whether they are strict enough to limit federal courts jurisdiction, or why the court made a mistake in its opinion?

Here how I think at it. The opinion was made and it is now the precedent, me or another party will apply it to win its own claim and it can work quite well to win. Many people may disagree with me and I will understand them. I think the deep substance of the opinion is useful to know for the understanding of the law and its application. But is it so important to put it on the test? Now look at this fact. I studied hard and learned the sections of the FRCP and property cases. But then another did nothing and came with the textbook and hopes that he/she will have enough time to look it up. Next, that person and I get general question about the goals of the procedure and other general stuff that you may come up with much of the knowledge. The person knows how to "pour water" and I have no idea. Who wins? I may assure the reader that not me. This is what frustrates me a lot. I jeopardize my own grades because I am punished for being not creative and for not thinking about things I did not study. yes, the work of the lawyer is grounded into creativity, but I see that creativity in the using the law regulations and strategies based on it. Not on the phylosophical doctrine.

Why to put such questions for the law students on the test? What is the purpose? Will it be helpful in law practice? Or will it be more helpful to be the professor? Do professors really think we need it?

All those questions seem to have sense and the answer "yes, you need to know this because you are the future lawyer and you have to think about it and know how to put it on the paper" may be persuasive. But is it? I am afraid I will find out after I begin the practice but it will be too late, because my grades will suffer unbearably. How will I explain to my employer that I think that those questions are not so significant to know? And even if it comes up that they are, how will I prepare myself to answer such questions?

Although I began the exams with light mind and a lot of hopes, now I have a feeling of dispair and the fear that I came back to the educational system where you learn what you need to get a good grade on the exam by knowing what the professor wants to hear from you, but not by the knowledge of law, that I think much more interesting and applicable in our life than mooshy doctrines and theories.

God help me to survive torts that also will have the question of policy.