More Contests
The finalists for Best Brief in the Moot Court Competition are:
#2 Ryan Searcy/Drew Peters
#5 Justin Manchester/Jeff Fisher
#7 Chris Knapp/Kaye Johnson
#9 Danielle VanDuker/Lindsay Glover
#12 Jessica Hart/Kami Keller
#18 Lindsey Cox/Dylan Springmann
#35 So-Eun Lee/Guoping Da
#37 Jennie Bauman/Abigail Toth
#38 Jonathan Clark/Alicai Flarity
#40 Stephen Bolline/Jonathan Goldberg
#43 Brent Hill/Matt Durfee
The winner will be decided sometime after the rewrites are handed in on May 11th.
In other news, I received an e-mail from Westlaw congratulating one J. Ryan Fowler on winning the "Puzzles for Points" contest. While I don't know much about the contest itself, Fowler winning anything involving puzzles and points sounds about right.
So congratualtions to all. Especially Fowler. I'm proud of you.
posted by Jon Swanburg @ 12:50 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Congrats to everyone being considered for best brief, but generally speaking...
MOOT COURT ='s RANDOM
the only people on that list that had briefs which might deserve the title best brief are manchester/fischer or lee/da. the rest were mediocre to piss poor.
Anonymous 5:58,
Put your name up if you're going to call people out, coward. Somebody's a little jealous.
BC
5:58, i take it your brief isn't being considered.
i don't agree with most the moot court rankings and results, but no need to call people mediocre to piss poor.
the brief is not random, it is graded by a teacher who is not just giving random grades out. I have read most of the briefs on the list and the ones i remember were very good. You really have no right to criticize someone else's work when yours didn't even get picked!!!
I think the grading was nothing if not uniform. Having said that, I think there were some tremendous briefs that fell outside the rubric of what was being scored.
The highest scoring briefs didn't throw curve balls or seek obscure cutouts in the law; instead they made solid, coherent arguments that started with the most possible legal path and proceeded down the most permissible legal path for the remainder of the brief.
That leaves the only question, how do you grade the third element of persuasion?
It's my opinion you can't without being totally subjective. My favorite brief conceded preservation in order to spend time dominating the other points. It persuaded me, it scared me, but on that same note it was unique.
To give that particular brief the grade it deserved would require throwing out the grading template and relying solely on one grader's gut instinct. I absolutely trust Prof. LARC and her professional judgment BUT using subjective grading on briefs with our names on them is the stuff huge complaints are made of.
I'm rooting for Fisher-Manchester. I read damn near every brief and theirs was my fav.
Winning Best Brief is awesome because you get your name up on the Baylor sign posting deals. Then it stays up for weeks and weeks and your classmates start picking on you to take it down. You don't, but you do steal the one by the library so your wife and all your friends can know how "cool" your are, because you put the notice on your refrigerator.
MLC
Can someone please tell me why Simpson is the only one who does not do blind grading? I understand the need for immediate feedback in LARC I, but that concern is not present for the LARC III brief. In yrs past was blind grading used for the LARC III brief?
i don't know why it was necessary to have our names on the briefs - i've heard lots of complaining about it.
i doubt it is really a big deal if our name is on it or not, i think simpson has enough ethics not to let it influence the grade
Post a Comment
<< Home