Real Lawyer Reacts to Legally Blonde | LegalEagle

Americans get points for putting their hand up in class???💀💀

This was fun! And educational!

I love how invested he is on Elle's position with the firm, like was so dissapointed ahahaha

Wait, the test you need to get into law school is multiple choice!? I've never gotten multiple choice on any test, even rarely on homework that's on points.

great! now we need a reaction for "a few good men"

this is making me want to apply to harvard just to see if i get in 😂

You skipped most of the trial scene, what gives??

When I was in grade 10 in high school (Canada, west coast), they introduced Socratic Seminar. I hated it so much. Also, Cornell Notes. Don't fix what isn't broken.

So, I've always been interested in the law (I love knowing how stuff works, and the law is beautifully intricate). And I have loved Legal Eagle for a while.

But I never considered going to Law School - I trained as an Actor and I have a degree in Acting (which I love, but my career just hasnt panned out the way I thought it might. Not sad - it happens to most actors).

It wasn't until I watched THIS video that I thought, "Huh... maybe I can actually do this as a thing. " And I actually remembered the point about which degrees might be considered "more interesting" when I did my personal statement.

I leant hard into what transferable skills I could bring as an Actor to being a lawyer.... and I started my Masters two weeks ago.

Thanks @LegalEagle , from a soon to be UK lawyer 🤞

I had a professor that taught law in university that also had a firm, but was balanced out by the fact that for as good as he was as a lawyer he was an unbelievably terrible teacher.

Objection : What is your legal view about all the dumb blonde girl jokes

Had a manager that got into trouble pretending to be a lawyer to help another employee. I get that it's illegal, I don't agree that it's always bullying. It depends on the circumstances.

One of the things that really bothers me about the Socratic Method is the fact that a slightly altered version of it is probably the best "teaching" method for indoctrination, rather than teaching. It's very useful for leading people to a conclusion, and when you lead someone to a conclusion, they're much more likely to believe that conclusion than if you told them the conclusion.

"Your admissions essay is not the place to think outside the box."
Ziad Ahmed: "Wanna bet?"

Although copying and pasting a hashtag 100 times might be more not thinking at all.

In regards to pre-law vs. fashion merchandising: I was told in an introduction to engineering class that more medical students majored in engineering than pre-med. Or that engineering graduates were more likely to get into medical school. One of the two. It's been a while.

That said, I think maybe the counselor was implying that hers was more of a soft major and that things would be a lot more difficult for her both to get into Harvard and at Harvard. Which... yeah, she was kind of right. Elle was not prepared for Harvard Law.

"Why 120-180" as a former assessment specialist for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education of MA, I can (sort of) explain this: they pick weird, arbitrary scales so that you cannot try and compare the test with other tests that are invalid comparisons anyway. It's a psychometrics thing, as they want the number comparisons to be as meaningless numerically (12o is lowest? what?) as they are psychometrically (LSAT and, say, GRE Verbal have nothing to do with each other, so why are you trying to compare them?). Basically just makes trying to compare tests to other tests as dumb sounding to your brain as it is to psychometricians.

It's strange. I used the Socratic method when teaching outdoor skills (sailing, weather reading, etc) to great effect. I think the inherent stress of the environment and our vocational school system which harshly punishes ignorance/failure is the source of the stress incurred by questioning students. This is exacerbated in law school since it selects students who previously never failed, at least not on a deep and profoundly, perhaps even an existential level. The whole point of the Socratic method is to become one with your inner foolishness, that there is nothing wrong with your foolishness, and that playing/toying with it is a means to realize you know a lot more than you think you do without falling into some delusion of certainty.

Sidebar: more computer science majors should be applying to Law School, logic is our entire focus. Also it's a significant experience for a lot of current legal issues.