|
Post by theguvnor on Sept 17, 2023 8:47:13 GMT
They are somewhat institutionalized at times. I watched a video of a classic lecture of extreme 'pseuding' from my own university where a bloke was banging on at length about David Bowie being a prophet of love. I'm a big fan of Bowie but I suspect Bowie if still alive would have raised an eyebrow at some of this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 17, 2023 12:40:36 GMT
Anyway, why he had us study Hawkins v McGee despite it not being part of the course syllabus, I have no idea. By the way, one student referred to a case, I think it was that one, as "Hawkins versus McGee", to which he responded "Wrong, we don't tolerate Americanisms, that's an Americanism, it is always "Hawkins and McGee". I'm not a lawyer and not any expert on the law but I think I can safely safe that Hawkins v McGee is how it would be done in the English legal system. Surely a citation should show that this was a legal case where Hawkins and McGee were litigating against each other. Hawkins and McGee would suggest to me these two were on the same side.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Sept 17, 2023 14:15:27 GMT
Hawkins and McGee sounds like part of the citation for an article.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Sept 17, 2023 17:01:08 GMT
Hawkins v. McGee is a US state law case, from New Hampshire.
This jackazz of a professor might have the etiquette to reference it in the manner that lawyers in the country where the case came from refer to it.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Sept 17, 2023 18:54:29 GMT
I hadn't realized that. It would indeed seem simple manners to reference stuff as per the rules pertaining to the nation the case originated in. This sounds like a professor who thinks being such is a big deal and enjoys petty power games. Such idiots are found in all fields of human endeavour sadly Luke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 19:27:05 GMT
In both NZ and the UK it would be written as "Hawkins v McGee" but would be pronounced "Hawkins and McGee". Yes, in the USA it would be "Hawkins versus McGee".
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Sept 17, 2023 20:02:58 GMT
Given as Bear points out that it is an American case originally I would use the American style to refer to it. I could not see that being an example of an 'Americanism'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 23:10:02 GMT
Given as Bear points out that it is an American case originally I would use the American style to refer to it. I could not see that being an example of an 'Americanism'. I too think the lecturer was over the top in his reaction, yes. Generally though in New Zealand it is considered improper to use the American manner of reference, just as in America it would be improper to use the British / Commonwealth manner.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Sept 17, 2023 23:23:55 GMT
I somehow can't see Bear here doing anything beyond politely noting that usage varied by area. The professor sounds like a martinet and I dislike such personalities. I particularly dislike them in the case you cite because you are all fairly young and this is abuse of authority and some of that is reliant on a largish age gap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 23:25:35 GMT
I somehow can't see Bear here doing anything beyond politely noting that usage varied by area. The professor sounds like a martinet and I dislike such personalities. I particularly dislike them in the case you cite because you are all fairly young and this is abuse of authority and some of that is reliant on a largish age gap. No, tisbearself did nothing wrong! I was just pointing out that what is correct in the USA may not be in New Zealand or the UK. Honestly though, this issue is a very small one. Most lecturers wouldn't care how you referred to the case. I agree the lecturer (he's not technically a professor) went way too far.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 18, 2023 13:42:59 GMT
In both NZ and the UK it would be written as "Hawkins v McGee" but would be pronounced "Hawkins and McGee". Yes, in the USA it would be "Hawkins versus McGee". Interesting!
Whenever I have seen a case cited I've always seen it in the format Hawkins v McGee and always thought the 'v' was a contraction of versus and that is how it would be said.
If 'v' is said as "and" it must get very confusing if there is more than one litigant on each side of a case, e.g. for Lawson and Mitchell v Thompson and Williams to be described as Lawson and Mitchell and Thompson and Williams.
|
|
zerg
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by zerg on Oct 1, 2023 18:14:09 GMT
Today I went into Law School at the university I attend for my contract law lecture, as I do thrice a week at 8.30am. My lecturer is a very intense, and also a smug man. He usually wears very informal clothes to class. Today however he was wearing a three piece suit and a bowtie. At my university contract law is taught using the Socratic method. At the beginning of class he said, "I'm going to play you a video" and played the first three minutes of the 1973 American film The Paper Chase. It is about a student at Harvard University who, at his first contract class, has not read the case of Hawkins v. McGee and is humiliated by the professor when he can't answer the questions put to him using the Socratic method. After class he goes and throws up in the bathroom. When this video was finished, the lecturer turned it off and said "Now class, if you want to know why I am wearing a three piece suit today, it is because today we will start the real Socratic method." He had already been picking on people using the Socratic method, so I was unsure what the "real" Socratic method was in his view, but I would soon find out. This was the video he played us: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx22TyCge7w. My lecturer announced that we would study today the 1929 American contract case of Hawkins v. McGee, despite not having mentioned it before nor telling us to read it. He then proceeded to interrogate the class about it. If a student could not answer the question he pointed his wand at the student next in line and asked the same until he got a satisfactory answer. At this point, I shall not deny, I was quite terrified, and when finally, having chewed through a row of students, he pointed his wand at khristosvoskres and bellowed "you!" I for a moment did not know what to say. The question was "why would the measure of damages be C - A when the doctor did not use the appropriate care or skill". I hestitated and said, in a resolutely uncertain voice, "C is the promised position after the contract" to which he replied in a loud, shouty voice, "ABSOLUTELY RIGHT" before moving onto a different student with a different question. After that I felt more relieved than I ever recall having felt relieved in the last couple of years. I would not want to study law. I think that the Professor should always have respect that is due to him, even if he were to be excommunicated. Because who is going to help him repent but himself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 20:49:55 GMT
I would not want to study law. I think that the Professor should always have respect that is due to him, even if he were to be excommunicated. Because who is going to help him repent but himself? Zerg, I don't think this professor is Catholic let alone deserving of excommunication even if he was. Obviously one cannot be excommunicated for one's teaching style.
|
|