Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

What Makes a Good 1L Law Exam Answer

Posted on February 13, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Orin Kerr has done 1Ls around the country a great service by writing a very clear guide to distinguishing between Bad Answers, Good Answers, and Terrific Answers to 1L exams.

While the principles also have considerable applicability to more advanced courses, I think that we professors legitimately expect all this and more from 2Ls and 3Ls, including more complex issue-spotting, coping with more complex and contradictory rules, and taking account of various sorts of policy considerations (when relevant), to name just three. Actually, might we hope for some of those in the terrific 1L answers too? I should admit here that it's been far too long since I actually taught first years, and for some to-me-incomprehensible reason the day students (but, it must be said, not the students in our since-dismantled night program) said I was too scary….

Update: on the subject of exams, Paul Ohm has a thoughtful post about achieving fair grading in a common grading situation. (Personally, I grade each question separately and average them, but that's not without issues.)

Posted in Law School | 3 Comments

Two Videos That Belong Together

Posted on February 13, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

These two videos belong together: Web 2.0… The Machine is Us/ing Us


and Introducing the book:

I did have some trouble deciding which one should come first.

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on Two Videos That Belong Together

Tell the Prof to Talk Faster

Posted on February 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Prof. Ann Bartow seeks advice for some students who have what I hope is an unusual problem.

I once asked one of my students if lots of people used their laptops to goof off. No, he said, you talk so fast there's no time for that.

Posted in Law School | 16 Comments

Three As a Number to Reason About

Posted on February 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Further to my post yesterday, here's what the influential and mainstream Nelson Report (via Steve Clemons) has to say about sending three carrier groups to the Gulf:

On the other hand, increasing to three carrier strike groups would be noticeably more 'robust', belligerent and suggestive of intending or anticipating attack. The difference between two and three strike groups is huge. Two ='s strong and capable, but existing offensive intent is less probable; three ='s 'we don't care about provocation, we're preparing to fight in this new dimension'.

(An indicator would be to watch for announcements about Nimitz strike group; Nimitz reportedly has completed the routine pre-deployment work-up and is in San Diego.)

The US has eleven carriers (with #12 on the way). Sending three out of eleven to the Gulf is more than saber-rattling.

Worse, the Gulf is too small for three carrier groups to function effectively, and has one entrance/exit that is about 20 miles wide and runs along the Iranian coast. This creates a sitting duck effect — a 'target rich' environment for potential attackers. In other words, it's inviting Iran to take the bait, something that becomes increasingly likely the more that the Iranians come to believe that they are about to be attacked. (Which is undoubtedly the point of the US government media strategy.)

(And yes, the sailors on the Nimitz have been told that they are deploying “to the Middle East in April”.)

Gulf of Tonkin meet Persian Gulf.

Posted in Iran | 3 Comments

EFF Wants to Hear From (Innocent) YouTube TakeDown Victims

Posted on February 12, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Viacom got Youtube to take down 100,000 videos. Many of which were not in fact infringing of anyone's rights. EFF would like to hear from the victims:

Posted in Law: Copyright and DMCA | Comments Off on EFF Wants to Hear From (Innocent) YouTube TakeDown Victims

Talk About Burying The News

Posted on February 11, 2007 by Michael Froomkin

Deep in the middle of Newsweek's article Blowup? America's Hidden War With Iran, we find this news:

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow.

A THIRD CARRIER? That would mean, presumably, a third carrier group.

Remember when the Bush administration piled all those troops outside of Iraq and many people refused to believe they would be told to attack?

There is no way I can imagine this bunch sending three carrier groups to the Gulf unless they plan to use them. Incidentally, the Gulf is a very small bit of water for one carrier group, not to mention three. And, I worry about them being, um, targets.

Doesn't anyone remember Millennium Challenge? (Cf. Wikipedia entry)

Posted in Iran | 1 Comment