More about being embarrassed about not knowing more....

In law school I had a professor who was fantastic, but he made your head hurt. Classes went really slowly -- often they were mostly silence, as he or a student he had called on considered each word carefully. He emphasized precision, and taught us to be extremely accurate with every word. He was notorious for one sentence exams: "Explain how the concept of the duty of care underlies negligent torts. Please be precise and concise in your answer." And of course he was stingy and severe with his grades. We loved and feared him.

I sweated all semester on torts, and the class recognized me as having a pretty good understanding, although there were huge concepts I found grey and baffling and inconsistent. But people would call me for answers or seek me out after class, and I thought I was doing a pretty good job learning the material. I knew that for the exam, whatever the question, I would need to have a Grand Unified Theory of Torts. I got there, kind of, although to do so I sort of glossed over all the areas that didn't make sense to me. I concentrated on the things I was pretty sure I knew for sure, figuring that my confidence in those arenas would make up for the things I didn't get. On the exam I kind of froze, spewed out what I could remember from my outline, and was disappointed but not surprised at my lousy grade.

The following year I took Admiralty from the same professor. Talk about strange -- Admiralty is really out there. At my school it met the "perspectives" requirement, that normally only international law classes meet, presumably because it is so different from traditional legal disciplines. Fascinating stuff. Anyway, the semester again was full of headache-inducing bewilderment. How can these cases be consistent? From where does this doctrine arise? I loved it, was intrigued by all the grey areas, but after every class knew less than when I'd arrived. Again, I looked at old exams and knew I would face one sentence asking me to illuminate some principle of Admiralty with economy, precision and clarity. I knew how I had failed when I tried it in Torts and I felt doomed.

So I sort of gave up. On the exam: "Why is the in rem action the unifying theme in admiralty law?" my answer was basically "I don't understand admiralty law at all." I wrote about how puzzling it was -- why is a different duty of care owed to sailors than to paying passengers than to workmen loading the ship, why are ships responsible for the torts of seamen on leave, why does admiralty seem to value goods more than human life, and a bunch of other questions I hadn't resolved even after studying my head off. I must have said something about the in rem action, but mostly I just admitted defeat and my own inability to recognize ANY unifying theme, or the limited utility of whatever themes I could discern in explaining the grey areas.

I got an A on the exam. It is my most prized grade. You'd think the lesson of that class would have stuck with me better. Sometimes, after thinking really hard about something, it is still confusing. It's okay to admit it. In fact, it's better to admit it than to feign certainty, gloss over the grey areas, and attempt to divert attention to those things I do know. That's neither impressive nor honest. Why, then, do I still spend so much energy trying to appear smart and certain?

Comments

[Michael Toy]

What a great story, somehow you lifted the fog a little for my Monday morning train ride. Thanks.

[z.]

What a great post!

[J. Churchill]

Amusing essay. Admiralty law is not difficult stuff though. Basically just "torts on the water" as one of my professors noted. And tort law is not really that complicated either.

Commercial litigation or securities regulation...that's the stuff of headaches.

[B.B.]

it's obviously been a long time since you posted this, but i just stumbled across it. i'm a 1L, and to hear someone say that this shit doesn't make sense is like bright sun on a field of daisies: of COURSE it doesn't make sense, and our job is to dig deeper into this ridiculousness--to try to form the impossible rule. we will Never meet all of the needs, and to try to do so is self-defeating. and law students and lawyers will try to do so anyway. thanks!