Okay, definitely behind now.
Dec. 8th, 2006 04:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elwenStill barely halfway through contracts. Apparently at some point we started going through a new doctrine every day. T_T No wonder my outlines are around 30 pages: there were 40 class sessions and most sections of my contracts outline are about 3/4 page. It's just that in civ pro and crim some of the sections (like personal jurisdiction or felony murder, respectively) were really long because it took us multiple days to cover it.
Some people who started outlining contracts early were saying that we had been tricked into thinking everything made sense, but upon looking at the notes they didn't. I guess that's kind of true. Or more that I thought I wrote down a lot more than I did.
I feel like I understand all the issues and all the individual tests, and would do okay applying them on an exam, but for the life of me I don't know how to organize it in an outline. Maybe I should just follow the one I'm cribbing and give up attempts at hierarchy and avoiding redundancy. For example, I think I mostly get all the policy concerns, but I keep rearranging my outline because they're all interrelated and sometimes one subsumes the other. For example, is competitive pathology an information problem or is it about inadequate market incentives? Do inadeuqate market incentives always result because of incomplete buyer information? Does that mean I should just get rid of the market incentives section and dump it all under information? But information problems can also lead to unequal bargaining power, so maybe I should have an overarching heading of "Information" and put both under that. But unequal bargaining can also result from other things that have nothing to do with information, like wealth. Aaaargh. *tears out hair*
And this is the class that I said I liked. And I do. It's just such a tangled mess. And if I can't sort it out on my outline, how am I going to sort it out on the exam?
Some people who started outlining contracts early were saying that we had been tricked into thinking everything made sense, but upon looking at the notes they didn't. I guess that's kind of true. Or more that I thought I wrote down a lot more than I did.
I feel like I understand all the issues and all the individual tests, and would do okay applying them on an exam, but for the life of me I don't know how to organize it in an outline. Maybe I should just follow the one I'm cribbing and give up attempts at hierarchy and avoiding redundancy. For example, I think I mostly get all the policy concerns, but I keep rearranging my outline because they're all interrelated and sometimes one subsumes the other. For example, is competitive pathology an information problem or is it about inadequate market incentives? Do inadeuqate market incentives always result because of incomplete buyer information? Does that mean I should just get rid of the market incentives section and dump it all under information? But information problems can also lead to unequal bargaining power, so maybe I should have an overarching heading of "Information" and put both under that. But unequal bargaining can also result from other things that have nothing to do with information, like wealth. Aaaargh. *tears out hair*
And this is the class that I said I liked. And I do. It's just such a tangled mess. And if I can't sort it out on my outline, how am I going to sort it out on the exam?
