Personal v Real Property

I had lunch with a professor from last semester that no longer teaches at my law school. I told him that I was having some issues with property. Not that it's that hard to understand two weeks in, but more that my Professor asks questions like, "Property is acquired by......." and is looking for a very specific answer. It's not like we're in the end of a case where the point is that property is acquired in certain ways. It's just an open ended question out of left field. So, I feel a little lost. I brought this up to my old professor, and he said - "well by now you understand that there are two types of property right? real and personal...certainly you've learned that by now". And well, no, we haven't. But tonight she brought it up when discussing replevin and theories of damages in property. Which is fine, she can teach in whatever way she wants to, but I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where this all fits in. We're working through all these acquisition theories, which is the way that it's traditionally taught, but it's incredibly confusing, thus far anyway. But, with his help, to put everything in the scope of real vs personal property, it's helping a little bit....I think. :)

So, that's that. Con Law is still taught by an amazing professor with a passion for the subject. He brought us all in our own little personal copies of the Constitution because he was so frustrated one night when his was misplaced. Love. It. He's great.

Torts and Civ Pro are both frustrating. I'm mostly frustrated with Civ Pro because my professor hasn't really taught us anything yet, other than rules of evidence. We're working on summary judgment supposedly, but we spend most of our time talking about his case and the applicable law, and his frustrations in his own case. Crazy, right? But I guess that that's an argument against adjuncts. I usually love them, but this semester I'm finding them frustrating.

So, that's my semester thus far. A little dreary, and not that fun. But I am looking forward to do projects for midterms instead of tests. I think that's going to be much, much better than essay's and mbe's. :)

Til next time. :)

Professors: The difference between good and great.

I had two classes last night. Two very different classes. The first one was okay. You can tell the teacher came straight out of the box with "getting to know you" exercises and flexed her Socratic muscles right away. She was into teaching, and spent time telling us how she's been a life long teacher and has taught every age. She also went over all the mundane details of the class, start times, end times, etc. She was a teacher, through and through. Didn't get me excited about property, but you can tell she loves to teach.

The second class? Con law. Taught by someone who lives, breathes, and loves the Constitution. He loves it enough to carry a copy with a torn off cover that's seen better days rolled up in his back pocket at all times. You can tell, that even after teaching it for years, he's fascinated by the document and how its interpreted and how it plays out in today's world. He talked about wanting us to have a curiosity, and a real thirst for learning and understanding the constitution and the role it plays in our lives. He didn't come out with any ice breakers, and barely talked about his syllabus, but spent the time sharing his passion for the Constitution with us, and in turn, it made us excited to get into the material.

The difference between the two professors? I'm intrigued by Con Law, and don't really care about Property. To see someone have such a passion, such a thirst and fascination with the material can't help but spark that kind of reaction in students. To see someone who loves to teach, but isn't excited about the material? It's just another class with another professor. So, so far? Looking forward to con law, not sure where I stand with Property. We'll have to see how today's classes and the rest of the week go before I pass any real judgments.