- Trolling the Harvard Law Review Competition
- Books Bound in Human Skin; Lampshade Myth?
- Gender Disparities in Law School Participation Remain
- Letter to the Editor: Further in Defense of Dershowitz
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About Reining In Corporate Welfare
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About the Torture Lawyers: What Will They Tell Their Children?
- Reflecting on a Weekend of Resistance in Ferguson, Missouri
- 20 Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime
- What Harvard Law Students Should Know About the Recent Supreme Court NC Dental Case: Arguably the Most Important New Precedent for Public Interest, Administrative, Antitrust, and State Government Law Since 1943
Search Results for: Darren Gardner
Opinion / November 15, 2012
Several months ago a friend and I discussed the differences between Harvard Law School and our undergraduate universities. One story he told me involved an answer he gave to a professor’s question during his 1L year at HLS—one that was not bulletproof, but one which his undergrad classmates would have accepted or dismissed without protest. At HLS, another student responded and proceeded to dismantle the argument, picking apart every piece of porous reasoning. That was the major difference, he and I decided, between HLS and our previous schools. Here, half-baked arguments don’t get a pass and faulty analysis gets called out. For that reason, HLS students tend to think before they speak or, more commonly, share on Facebook. For some, however, such self-restraint becomes an impossibly herculean task during election season. In one scene from Disney’s “Finding Nemo,” Bruce and two other sharks raise their fins and pledge “fish are … Continue reading