According to Typealyzer. This puts our blog in good company: the Conglomerate and the Legal Writing Prof blog also test as INTJ. Clinicians without enough to do is INTP, “The Thinker.”
Okay, back to grading memos and conferencing, for me. If you, on the other hand, want to spend time learning more about what Typealyzer is trying to test for, you could go here, or here, or here.
I learned at yesterday’s faculty meeting that our Director of Student Affairs, Andrew Faltin, is maintaining a list of legal writing competitions on the law school web site. You can find it here. If you are a student, why not go check it out? A number of Marquette students have won prizes in these competitions.
You may also want to become a reader of the Legal Writing Competitions blog maintained by Kathryn Sampson at the University of Arkansas School of Law. It is thorough, and frequently updated. Another nice feature of that blog is that Kathryn includes nice photos with most of her posts. For instance, in her recent post about a tax-related competition, for which the prize includes a trip to DC, Kathryn includes a photo I took when I was in DC for a conference. (The conference was fantastic, and I still want to post about it, but I have not found the time yet.)
As much as I would like to single out one person who had the most influence during my law school experience at Georgetown, like Kali Murray, I am going to break the rules here a little bit.
The greatest influence on me was, in fact, the course of study that I chose to pursue in my first year of law school. While most 1L’s take the traditional torts, contracts, property, etc., I was treated to a different group of classes that included: Bargain, Exchange & Liability; Property in Time; and Democracy & Coercion, to name a few. In addition, I took a small 1L Seminar on the different schools of legal thought (Critical Race Theory, Legal Process, Law & Economics), as well as a jurisprudence class called Legal Theory (where we read books like Anthony Kronman’s Lost Lawyer and Ronald Dworkin’s Law’s Empire).
All of these classes were part of the Section 3 experimental curriculum at Georgetown Law, which was created by a forward-looking group of professors who challenged the normal way of teaching law to students. The group who taught me in this experimental curriculum included many luminaries: Mark Tushnet (Government Processes), Wendy Perdue (Process), Mike Seidman (Democracy & Coercion and 1L Seminar), Dennis Patterson (visiting that year) (Legal Theory), Mike Gottesman (Bargain, Exchange & Liability), and Dan Ernst (Property in Time).
The combined Section 3 experience had a peculiar way of binding together not only the students who took this curriculum, but also the professors and students.