Pop Quiz, Hotshot

As I have mentioned before, my depositions class not only teaches us how to depose unfortunate bastards, but also fulfills the "professional responsibility" requirement that every law student must complete before he is loosed upon the world.

That said, the syllabus is such that we spend about 99 percent of the class on the depositions part of the equation.

Last week, the opportunity to explore the other 1 percent relating to the ethical rules and regulations that would cover "professional responsibility" finally arrived.

I am happy to report that, in this 1 percent of the time, we not only failed to learn professional responsibility, but as a whole demonstrated that we are highly unprofessional and very irresponsible.

Our professor attempted to teach us professional responsibility through a 30-minute, ungraded, anonymous clicker quiz. It did not go well. It went so badly, in fact, that now we have to take the quiz again, for real.

If I may offer several facts in our defense:

1. The quiz about the rules was actually scheduled for the week before the quiz actually took place. We actually studied for the quiz on the original date, only to be told that we would be doing it next week instead, for no readily apparent reason.

2. The professor, in what proved to be the turning point of the game, then mentioned that the quiz would be done anonymously through the use of a clicker. Therefore, it would be impossible to grade us on our performance.

3. What do you expect will happen when you say that to a bunch of 3Ls?

4. By the time the quiz rolled around, our "studying" had happened 15 days before. Expecting any of us to retain any information for more than 15 minutes following something borders on the absurd. Today, in fact, I walked into the bathroom and had forgotten whether I needed to use the stalls or the urinals. So I just left instead.

5. The quiz itself was preposterous. For most of the questions, she would give us the text of a rule, and then ask us whether the text was in rule 26(b) or 26(d)(3).

6. Yes, those really were the questions.

7. When she asked us the substance of the rules, we actually did quite well. Unfortunately, these were the minority of the questions.

8. Some of us discovered that, although we were usually only given 3 or 4 options, all 9 buttons on the clicker worked. Some of us thought that, when asked if it was option 1,2, or 3, and we answered with option 8, it would be funny. Some of us -- most of us, in fact -- are over 25 years old.

9. It was funny.

10. She had never told us which rules to actually study. No, not the numbers. We didn't know whether we need to study the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the Rules of Professional Responsibility, or any combination thereof.

So now we face a re-quiz, in what some of us call an unconstitutional procedure, because of double jeopardy and who will uphold the Fifth Amendment and whatnot, and plus, really?

In fact, there is talk of insurrection. Some have floated the idea of a sort of protest -- we actually didn't do badly on the quiz, and did well when asked what the rules meant. We only slipped when she asked which rule corresponded to which number. Knowing this might be a good party trick, but it is largely irrelevant in actual practice.

So now, it's protest time. While I'm opposed to a hunger strike, I will gladly picket outside the classroom while chanting "We Shall Overcome."

My hope is these protests do not become violent, but if I must die in the name of a worthy cause, so be it.