all that learnin'

The other day I was thinking about the bar exam and how I don’t remember a single thing I learned in my first year of law school and how that's not good but that I'm not going to worry about that now even though my wife's cousin said I should start studying for the bar an hour a day after spring break.

Anyway, a day or so later, I was doing something at work where the parol evidence rule and statute of frauds came up. I’m not claiming to be a legal scholar or a genius but in the context of what I was doing, these concepts made perfect sense and seemed almost self-evident.

So why did they seem so foreign and difficult to grasp back then? Maybe because everything is so new? I’m hesitant to blame Professor Contracts although he was masterful at making everything as confusing and unwieldy as possible.

I don’t know. Maybe this isn't a great revelation. I just think it’s interesting that what seemed so overwhelmingly complicated two years ago now makes sense on an intuitive level. I guess that means that I’ve actually learned something over the last 2 ½ years…