Jump to content

mazzystar

Members
  • Content Count

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Decent People

About mazzystar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3373 profile views
  1. Agreed on this. Courts will always be behind, but technophobia of this field however won't last especially as the field shifts towards the digital natives. There are some great papers on this, but teaching emotional intelligence and technological competence as parallels to theory is a start. There are a lot of papers out there now coming out, my favorites are the Delta Competency Models and T-Model of Law. Shifting away from deep digestion of caselaw and strict pedagogy where 70% of your time is ensuring there are no typos, is a backward view which some schools still practice. At my school, literal font and font size was the difference between a C and an A for one of my courses and I hated every second I spent having to do this sort of double-checking.
  2. Its already taking the low-hanging fruit for a few years, e.g. automation of document discovery, due-diligence and so-on. There is increasing automation of contract review already exists. Machine learning for example can already automate the task of tax law and predict tax court rulings, exists to generate predictive portfolios of judge decision making and so-on. All this stuff you mentioned already exists. Machine learning being able to abstract patterns from thousands of cases at once, is not super difficult compared to its broader uses else where. E.g. with relative ease it can analyze fairly consistent disease patterns and so-on. Well no, this is wrong though. Machines can parse patterns humans cannot understand when we talk about big-data insights. Its why its fundamentally changing business operations, and I've personally seen it alter science disciplines and fields more complicated than law. Natural language processing as an offshoot does not need to understand cognitive aspects of grammar but it can replicate human understanding in its weird machine way. Neural networks as a process is beyond our understanding yes, but understanding the theory and process behind it is understandable and necessary to fully grasp it. Interpretation of insights will require humans, I do agree. Human elements from law cannot be replaced. Technological competence will be necessary, its just unavoidable in order to ensure parameters and outputs aren't faulty. Deep technical skills are not necessary but understanding underlying theory will be at some point necessary. There is strong talk that the field of law will bifurcate, there will be a rising group of technolawyers or legal tech professionals who provide auxiliary support much like how it is in other industries. The trend if anything, will just create more specializations within law, especially once predictive analytics starts getting deployed widely.
  3. Its mostly hyperbole for the pace of it part, I don't really see myself holding a tin can and a sign that reads "Will review contracts for Food". There is nothing wrong of course with teaching fundamental skills. Just borrowing a page from say, physics. They teach fundamental theories and its very important to. But its laterally supplanted with learning how to use sophisticated machinery, and now supplanted with learning how to design and program simulation models. We spend like, an hour a week learning to use Westlaw and Quicklaw which are the tools of yesterday. We learn nothing about how these tools are going to operate. But yes, case summaries have not changed. It literally went unchanged for over a decade. Not for criminal law obviously, but the summaries I looked at were virtually identical to mine in teaching ratios and so-on with the same cases used. My point wasn't that it isn't useful; but the way of teaching it has not adapted yet and this is IMO problematic. Sorry I seem very bitter and so-on, but I am just kind of frustrated with how archaic some of the curriculum for law schools generally seems to be entering my second year.
  4. Okay since I am getting laughs here. Fine, here's a fairly "primitive" model of how natural language processing algorithm can be used. Read this, its an open-source Python library designed for building legal tech software: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3192101 This is an easier to digest thing describing how AI is reshaping law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381798
  5. Believe what you want. The kinds of things a lawyer can do or the type of thinking they engage in is not really any different from fields already going through turmoil and disruption. Its already starting to disrupt harder fields like medicine which requires a lot more skill-based learning and already started changing banks and the financial industry. Law will not be immune and the big-team hierarchy models cannot expect to survive. Dunno why so many people close their eyes to how much our economies are changing in law especially as its a service profession dependent on other industries.
  6. Law schools are essentially teaching us things that they taught a decade ago, in the same way as a decade ago. I literally have used summaries from 2003 and they are almost always the same. It was a straight up walk backwards going from how they taught us in my previous programs which did integrate 21st Century curriculum. Law is a service profession and we are going to be subject to strong external pressures to adapt. Ryerson is promising to be ahead of the curve by doing away with old school ways of teaching. How well they do it; who knows.
  7. There is fairly good evidence that we're walking to a Brave New World of law given that venture capital has started mobilizing into our field and most companies would gladly do away with opaque pricing models by law firms. Most of what an ordinary lawyer does; in reading endless amounts of texts and crunching things together and memorizing things are skills that are easily replaceable by machine learning, and the most treasured skills like issue-spotting, piecing together caselaw, writing memos, are things which can and are being automated. Meanwhile you have a dozen companies promising to use data analytics to predict judicial decisions; alter how litigation is done, etc. Ryerson Law promises to teach coding, technology-integrated and essentially designing everything from what people are saying the future of law will be like. No idea what it will be like but if folks here believe they chose a tech immune field and only prestige matters then boy will they be surprised. I can really imagine a future scenario were some Ryerson Law 2023 grad just starts having like 5 screens and doing law work like a financial trader meanwhile the law student from elsewhere including myself will still try to pitch our ability to memorize case law and legal tests to the dinosaurs.
  8. You should be in at most places. 173 cannot be ignored and hitting the 99% percentile of what's essentially a gauge of working memory and your ability to learn, is a fairly good gauge of the type of cognitive abilities that lets one do well in law school. This is why its universal despite naysayers saying it doesn't mean anything. If you have some deep pocketed parents you could hit up a T14 too, 173 will see you in at NYU and a few others, possibly Columbia.
  9. This is so pointless to argue about especially when some dude just starts making stuff up. Especially when the manufacturing process is almost exactly the same. Some people here needing to justify getting fleeced by department stores. I bet you're the type of dude to prominently walk around with the logo showing on your business wear like you're a billboard.
  10. Didn't want to be publicly identifiable. I am pretty much the only person I know who works on this area from a cleantech/climate finance/policy angle.
  11. alot of schools have computer exams. so yeah get a fast one. skip the ultrabook. get one you are comfortable with using to type.
  12. what's your testing scores? 170+ will place you competitively within the T14s since they don't really care about GPA as much (except Berkeley). Canada is not as LSAT weighted. You should be hitting this bracket and you will be fine afterwards.
  13. A clip is fairly necessary in business dress and the difference between a 40 dollar clip from HBC and a 20 dollar one is fairly minimal, anyways. Pocket squares too where the differences are even more slim between ordering it and buying it, and you won't find good coloration in a store these days.
  14. Here you go. Poor job of advertising so it seems, but the website is now running again after being on a hiatus my year. I remembered I literally had to find the google drive link to get these and I just shared it with friends of mine while most people didn't know about it. Could be that this school is unusually insular, could be that people just don't know about it. http://www.aeclss.ca/summaries
  15. But yeah Aschenbach, true gentleman and scholar and so-on by hooking LSAT Preppers into Russian lit, which is IMO a hardcore and actually great thing to be interested in. 😄
×
×
  • Create New...