The favorite thing I've learned about the law so far is how much of a game it is. If you walk the walk and talk the talk, you already get pretty far. The game gets complicated, however, once we start to bring policy and preference into the mix. I find it confusing, for example, that the law will arbitrarily place special significance on factors in some cases, and then completely disregard a discussion of those same factors in others. I guess its just the nature of the analysis, but sometimes I get pretty annoyed.

Reminds me of James Joyce!

So far, I think the problem they are articulating is one of awareness. Unfortunately I think I have that problem. I find it pretty easy to just grab and go for what I need in research papers, and I don't know that I've had a professor who took the time to tell me if it was correct. I always felt weird about taking a portion from an unrelated section, but sometimes it just fits so well! I think now that context is so important I have been more cautious about where I am pulling from, but I know I will encounter problems if I am rushed for time.

Is there such a thing as being too specific? I feel like the problems with the law and the lack of understanding derive from getting so granular that the wording begins to lose focus. Certain topics require specificity, but I can't quite agree with language that is so unreachable. Why not write like Hemingway?

I look forward to figuring out my own pattern of approach. I think it is important to have a guideline for how to conduct research, but at what point does your pattern of approach become more defined? And when do we get to be able to understand when it is useful to employ specific search techniques ?