McBlogmick

This originally appeared in August of 2009:

As we all get back into the swing of things, I wanted to share some links for useful information on organizing, note taking, and productivity. First, one don’t: Don’t try to multitask. It turns out that we’re not good at it. Second, one do: Do write about what you are reading or have heard. Writing and otherwise manipulating ideas, is learning.It’s not easy, but it’s worth it.

Here is a link to an overview of some cognitive psychology–it’s called Bloom’s taxonomy of learning, and it describes the different kinds of learning we do, and the difficulty level. Most people who come to law school are excellent at the knowledge and comprehension levels and expect that these are what they need to continue to do well in law school. That is true, but only as a first step. We’re trying to get you to become experts at all of the other levels that follow, and it is those kinds of learning you must demonstrate on exams.

So how do you get there? Here is one link about note taking and different ways to do it, and here is another (yes, I’m addicted to lifehacker). Here is another link about a particular method–one that I was actually taught in junior high school. Craziness, but it’s particularly useful for reading assignments.

Here is a general productivity description in the model of David Allen’s “Getting things Done.” And just to round things out, here is a good link on stress management.

Happy new semester!

This was originally posted in July of 2008:

Jeff Lipshaw, a professor at Suffolk Law School has a nice post about choosing a litigation or transactional career here. He explains things in a way that lots of professors really can’t.

This originally appeared in May of 2008:

I know it’s completely unhelpful for the exams just finished, but yesterday, at Prawfsblawg, Rick Hills had an interesting post on essay exam writing–his advice was to focus on the facts more, and I agree wholeheartedly. In my classes, I’ll keep giving similar advice, but feel free to come talk to me more if you’d like.

This originally appeared in May of 2008:

Today’s New York Times has a story about improperly appointed judges. The judges are patent judges and the issue is not whether they may be article I judges. That is settled because of the plenary power Congress has over patent issues. The issue instead is about the appointments clause, which requires that “inferior officers” be appointed by “department heads” which is universally thought to be cabinet-level heads. Since 2000, the director of the Patent and Trademark Office, rather than the Secretary of Commerce, has appointed these judges. And the S. Ct. has held that judges are “inferior officers” and not mere employees.

“But the Justice Department has already all but conceded that Professor Duffy is right. Given the opportunity to dispute him in a December appeals court filing, government lawyers said only that they were at work on a legislative solution.”

“They did warn that the impact of Professor Duffy’s discovery could be cataclysmic for the patent world, casting “a cloud over many thousands of board decisions” and “unsettling the expectations of patent holders and licensees across the nation.” But they did not say Professor Duffy was wrong.”

“If it was a legislative mistake, it may turn out to be a big one. The patent court hears appeals from people and companies whose patent applications were turned down by patent examiners, and it decides disputes over who invented something first. There is often a lot of money involved.”

This is as big as the bankruptcy issue in the late 70s, early 80s.

This originally appeared in December of 2007:

Try this if you like philosophy.