Many say that engineers are cut out for law school better than students with business and arts backgrounds. I concur. Among the many things that I'll eventually touch on to support my view, tonight I choose to discuss legal research and writing.
Let's start with the research. To support your case, you must find previous case law similar to the topic at hand. As time goes by, the common law evolves and judicial decisions tend to shift from earlier years. You start with cases that are binding on your case. Cases decided under the same jurisdiction will have precedent. Other jurisdictions can be very persuasive, but Judge Billy Bob from Arkansas ain't gonna tell ya wut ta do when it comes to cases decided in New York. Engineering is much the same. You perform your research to determine which mathematical theories and/or previous solutions will govern and/or guide you to the solution of your problem. You build on these theories, possibly creating new ones, to advance the state of the art. For lack of a better example, Gear Head theories produced by Mechanical Engineers will not likely be binding on the development of theories in electromagnetic fields. However, their methods may provide some insight.<--Ok, so maybe not; but you get where I'm coming from. Do you really need to know the ending of fantasy novel to write your own? This is why the arts folks are busy playing catch-up in the first year of law school.
Legal writing is another area in which engineers have the upper-hand. Of course, this only applies to the 1.5% of engineers that can actually construct a coherent sentence. For those who can, however, the process in legal writing is the same. On the other hand, English and history majors write fairytale-like documents. They don't present the meat of document until the end. Instead they feed you full of a bunch of B.S. and then randomly slap on a conclusion when they run out of ideas to blabber about. In the law, you state the conclusion from the get-go working backward to support your view. Engineering is similar...we know the problem we're trying to solve; now let's figure out how to get there. We're not going to hold you in suspense and then all of sudden tell you Mr. Potter fall off his magic carpet. We'll give you the solution and then present how we arrived there. He fell off of the carpet. It can be shown that this was due to a few too many cheeseburgers.
Then again, this is just how I see things. Power to the N3rDz.
4 comments:
Your post definitely rings true with me. Most of the people that I debate theology with on the web are very right-brained. They use incredibly subjective arguments that immediately break down when you apply analytical principles to their statements.
People assume that since it is theology that they can be 'fuzzy' about it. Granted I do realize there is more wiggle room than in the sciences, but that doesn't mean that postmodernism (everything is a matter of perspective) is right all the time either. Theology builds on what has come before much like in engineering, so if you innovate you better have a damn good reason for doing so that transcends mere 'feeling'.
BTW, Harry Potter flew on a broomstick and not a magic carpet :)
I completely agree. Analytical reasoning shoots down even those most in-depth arguments that seem to be well thought out. In the same way as you mentioned, the theological "feeling" that tends to steer one to a possible solution is present in the study of law as well. Many people in law school apply their feelings to cases, or more specifically, how they "think" a case should be ruled on. In doing so; when it comes to determining how to apply the rules of law, these same folks allow these feelings to overrule the idea of applying the analytical thought process to the case at hand. Then it's a surprise to them as to why they don't understand the multiple ways courts interpret a particular law or statement in various ways. In addition, what most people don't realize is that words themselves can't always dictate an opinion. The ability to construe words to form multiple views is a tool that is valuable in many aspects in life. Most people jump to conclusions ignoring holes in their argument. Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes it's stubbornness, and sometimes it's simply to inability to analytically reason.
As for Harry Potter...I use the magic carpet phrase to spark excitement in the Harry Potter fans. I like to poke fun, especially at Derrick because I know it's near and dear to his heart:)
Wow! I just realized how bad that discussion was organized. I typed that really fast. Ignore the bad grammar and repetitiveness. I'm sure you understand what I was trying to say.
Would you mind providing some more insight into this LARPing you take part in? Sounds Hentai-ish somewhat.
Post a Comment