I went to law school to try to figure out what their cases were saying.
I had early-on, even in high school, deemed myself to be a master of the English language. I had read many of its best writers, writings.
So, in 1972, it came as a shock to me, while a student in the Howard University School of Communications, to encounter a case that was written in pristine English, that I did not understand.
Why couldn't I, even I, grasp this classic English language's import? My kind professor, Paul Webber, himself a lawyer, simply smiled and said "read it again until you get it."
That class' textbook was entitled "Communications Law." I had, until then, anticipated working in the field of communications. I changed my career choice to lawyer, after encountering those occult cases!
When I enrolled and began in the Howard Law School, in 1973, where multiple texts, in multiple classes, contained even more occult language, than any before seen, I struggled to comprehend them.
Eventually, I resolved not to use "legalese," rhetorical conventions common in legal writing, owing to its difficulty for me to memorize or to retain mentality. Instead, I would use my own language to facilitate my interpreting what I was reading.
That decision greatly helped me to understand what was written and to enunciate its deduced meaning abroad, especially in class rooms, where to drill was a thrill to many of my Howard Law School professors.
As a general rule that is great advice for anyone in any field: grasp the subject matter in your own language, so that you first understand. Then, upon that basic foundation, you may garnish or embellish as may best suit your sentiments. In other words, "freak it like you want to freak it," after you get it. But never before! A master may freely break the rules, having already attained mastery of them, but not so a servant, nor a student !
Friday, December 9, 2016
WHY I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL
WHY I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL
I went to law school to try to figure out what their cases were saying.
I had early-on, even in high school, deemed myself to be a master of the English language. I had read many of its best writers, writings.
So, in 1972, it came as a shock to me, while a student in the Howard University School of Communications, to encounter a case that was written in pristine English, that I did not understand.
Why couldn't I, even I, grasp this classic English language's import? My kind professor, Paul Webber, himself a lawyer, simply smiled and said "read it again until you get it."
That class' textbook was entitled "Communications Law." I had, until then, anticipated working in the field of communications. I changed my career choice to lawyer, after encountering those occult cases!
When I enrolled and began in the Howard Law School, in 1973, where multiple texts, in multiple classes, contained even more occult language, than any before seen, I struggled to comprehend them.
Eventually, I resolved not to use "legalese," rhetorical conventions common in legal writing, owing to its difficulty for me to memorize or to retain mentality. Instead, I would use my own language to facilitate my interpreting what I was reading.
That decision greatly helped me to understand what was written and to enunciate its deduced meaning abroad, especially in class rooms, where to drill was a thrill to many of my Howard Law School professors.
As a general rule that is great advice for anyone in any field: grasp the subject matter in your own language, so that you first understand. Then, upon that basic foundation, you may garnish or embellish as may best suit your sentiments. In other words, "freak it like you want to freak it," after you get it. But never before! A master may freely break the rules, having already attained mastery of them, but not so a servant, nor a student !
I went to law school to try to figure out what their cases were saying.
I had early-on, even in high school, deemed myself to be a master of the English language. I had read many of its best writers, writings.
So, in 1972, it came as a shock to me, while a student in the Howard University School of Communications, to encounter a case that was written in pristine English, that I did not understand.
Why couldn't I, even I, grasp this classic English language's import? My kind professor, Paul Webber, himself a lawyer, simply smiled and said "read it again until you get it."
That class' textbook was entitled "Communications Law." I had, until then, anticipated working in the field of communications. I changed my career choice to lawyer, after encountering those occult cases!
When I enrolled and began in the Howard Law School, in 1973, where multiple texts, in multiple classes, contained even more occult language, than any before seen, I struggled to comprehend them.
Eventually, I resolved not to use "legalese," rhetorical conventions common in legal writing, owing to its difficulty for me to memorize or to retain mentality. Instead, I would use my own language to facilitate my interpreting what I was reading.
That decision greatly helped me to understand what was written and to enunciate its deduced meaning abroad, especially in class rooms, where to drill was a thrill to many of my Howard Law School professors.
As a general rule that is great advice for anyone in any field: grasp the subject matter in your own language, so that you first understand. Then, upon that basic foundation, you may garnish or embellish as may best suit your sentiments. In other words, "freak it like you want to freak it," after you get it. But never before! A master may freely break the rules, having already attained mastery of them, but not so a servant, nor a student !