| Subject | Literature | Pages | 5 | Style | APA |
|---|
Question
- RESEARCH: In lecture, your professor highlighted some benefits of the common-law tradition. However, there are many potential drawbacks to this tradition, as well. Using an academic source, present an argument for how and why the common-law tradition comes with many drawbacks.
[Helpful hint: some chapters from Archie Zariski’s Legal Literacy (a book used throughout this module) can be used to answer this question.]
SOSC 2350 - Learning Portfolio
At the end of each of the 4 modules in this course, you will submit a learning portfolio to your TA for grading. Your learning portfolio is meant to demonstrate your best examples of content mastery, reasoning, critical thinking, and research ability.
Although you assemble the portfolio itself at the end of every module, this is actually something you should be working on every week. This is because every week you are provided with “guided notes” and, at the end of these, you will find the “expansion questions.” Not only are these expansion questions right there in your notes, but many of them will also be focused on in tutorial. At the end of your module, you submit what you think your top 4 expansion question answers are in a learning portfolio.
There are specific parameters for the kind of answers you can include in your learning portfolio:
- Each of the 4 answers must be from a different week.
- 2 of the answers need to be “analysis” answers and the other 2 need to be “research” answers (these are marked on the weekly guided notes).
What you submit, therefore, is a portfolio that demonstrates 2 examples of your ability to apply class content to analyze something new and 2 examples that demonstrate your ability to reason about class content using outside research.
You may be thinking that you have not done an assignment quite like this before. However, although your other classes might not have asked for “learning portfolios,” this assignment is simply combining things you have definitely done: short essays and reports. If it helps, you can think of this assignment as a collection of those things, graded in similar ways to short essay answers and reports. Details on how these will be graded appear at the end of this document.
Stylistic Considerations
Each answer in the portfolio you submit should be around 750 words. Formatting should be 12pt font, Times New Roman, double-spaced text. Although you can include a title page, all that is required is that your name, student number, and your TA’s name appear somewhere on the first page.
The answers in your learning portfolio all require citations. Please just use in-text citations with author’s last name and page number when citing things in your answer. For example:
Legal realism is distinct from artistic realism (Smith p. 103).
Your learning portfolio also requires a works cited page. Any style of citation on this page is acceptable as long as it is consistently used. Moreover, you should indicate under “Works Cited” what style this is so that your TA can double-check it. For example:
Works Cited
(Formatted in ASA Style)
Caveats
Your TA will only grade submissions that meet the parameters outlined above. For example, if multiple answers for the same week are submitted in the same portfolio, only one of these will be graded.
Choose wisely when it comes to what you include in your learning portfolio. There are no do-overs. In other words, if your portfolio doesn’t get the grade you expected, your TA can still only accept the answers that you submitted. Your grade for that module is final.
However, each of the 4 learning portfolios in this class is designed and graded the same way, so you will always have a chance to improve in the next one. This is especially important to keep in mind with the first and second learning portfolios. If, for example, your research answers in your first learning portfolio need improvement, the second learning portfolio is where you can demonstrate that improvement with strong research answers to the new questions.
Important Policies
There is a one-week “grace period” before late marks will be deducted. Papers submitted up to a week late will still be graded as “on time”; however, your TA will not provide detailed comments on late work. Therefore, it is in your best interest to submit on (or very close to) the due date. Moreover, work submitted past the one-week mark will lose 2% per day (including weekends).
In this course, we strive to maintain academic integrity to the highest extent possible. Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of academic integrity by completing SPARK’s Academic Integrity module at the beginning of the course. Breaches of academic integrity range from cheating to plagiarism (i.e., the improper crediting of another’s work, the representation of another’s ideas as your own, etc.). All instances of academic dishonesty in this course will be reported to the appropriate university authorities, and can be punishable according to the Senate Policy on Academic Honesty.
You may disagree with how your work has been graded. To appeal a grade, you must provide written evidence that corresponds to criteria on which your answers were assessed.
Grade appeals must first go to your TA before they can go to the professor.
An example of a grade appeal can be found here.
How will this be assessed?
Each of the 4 answers you provide in your learning portfolio is worth 20% of your overall portfolio grade. The additional 20% of your portfolio grade comes from overall “style.”
Numerical grades for each question or component (i.e. the things marked out of 20) are awarded according this scale:
Crucial element(s) missing | Less than 10 |
Needs significant improvement | 10 |
Needs improvement | 12 |
Standard met | 13 |
Standard marginally exceeded | 14 |
High competence demonstrated | 16 |
Excellence demonstrated | 18 or higher |
The “standard” for analysis questions is met by these three, equally-important criteria:
- Reasoning and argumentation are present, cogent, and non-contradictory
- Connection to original reading and/or object of analysis is evident from some specifics referred to
- Evidence of correct comprehension of topic and other class material is competently demonstrated through specific references (e.g. citations, exact terminology, etc.)
The “standard” for research questions is met by similar criteria:
- Reasoning and argumentation are present, cogent, and non-contradictory
- Outside research is shown to be suitable, relevant, and appropriate, with at least one academic source confirming the points raised in the answer
The “standard” for style is met through these criteria:
- Paraphrasing is present, with direct quotations only used as necessary
- Space is used competently and judiciously (i.e. the assignment does not contain sentences that, if removed, would not detract from the overall point)
- Full sentences and paragraphs -- as well as mechanics of writing (i.e. syntax and word choice) -- communicate facts and ideas without causing difficulty for the reader
- Formal elements of assignment are present (e.g. double-spacing)
Answer
Analysis of Precedent of Swinney v. Neubert from the Legally Blonde Film Extract
The classical Legally Blonde film challenges the viewer's perspective on the meaning of being a blonde girl. This statement is evident in how Elle Woods transitions from the character of a blonde 'fashionista' to a legal expert. As an expert, the audience gets a glimpse of various legal doctrines. The clip highlights a case of clear precedence as the law student debates Swinney v. Neubert's case. Upon this backdrop, this essay analyzes how the law students in the identified clip approach the precedent of Swinney v. Neubert. The answer makes explicit reference to the readings by Karl Llwellyn and Claire L'Heureux-Dubé.
Llwellyn (2016) noted that legal experts see cases strictly depending on what they bring to it and hardly more. He insists that the experts who bring in more see more while those that bring noting see nothing. These statements align perfectly with Warner Huntington and Ellen Wood's debate as they present strong arguments in favor and against Swinney. According to Huntington, Swinney was a private sperm donor and was allowed visitation rights to his girlfriend's room as long as he adhered to the terms set by the girl's parents. In defense of his argument, Huntington notes that the defendant was responsible for siring a child with the girlfriend since, without the man's sperms, the child would not have existed. This argument is persuasive since it makes biological sense that a woman cannot conceive without male sperm. Since this argument is convincing, Professor Callahan buys into the idea.
However, Elle refutes the argument, questioning if Swinney maintained a thorough record of all the sperms he had emitted during his lifetime. When questioned about her assertion, Elle persuades the audience that unless the defendant provided proof that he was fertile and that he had made each girl he had an encounter with conceiving, then he had no parental claim to the child in question. The most intriguing part of her argument arises when she asks why this particular sperm is treated special compared to the others the defendant had issued as a private sperm donor. Elle further questions that if sperms emitted during masturbation can be considered fertile and thus, treated as reckless abandonment of unborn children? From a legal perspective, her argument holds a lot of weight, and for this reason, the professor declares her the victor in the debate.
This case does not merit as an original precedent since it is not a one-of-a-kind legal rule since before the Swinney v. Neubert case, there have been persistent arguments on when sperm can be considered a person. In such a case, Llewellyn (2016) explains that the argument and subsequent ruling for this case should be based on stare decisis, which is a term used in law studies to mean that the court had to make a ruling that promotes or stands with previous decisions made on the case by the other courts, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. The use of stare decisis in interpreting this case is essential as the debate on sperm donation has existed since the onset of philosophy (Fiser & Garrett, 2012). As a result, cases on this topic and their subsequent ruling are rarely altered over time.
This illustration affirms that the law students' case not only touches on the topic of persuasive precedence but also on binding precedents. Previous cases ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada will present critical insights to be considered in such a ruling. From the arguments presented, the higher courts' decisions made binding decisions in favor of the plaintiff as the defendant failed to produce the documents justifying the virility of his sperms (Varsava, 2019). In addition to binding precedence, Elle and Huntington's argument mostly appeals to audiences who value persuasion. This statement is backed by thoughtful and intelligent reasoning that highlights the need for critical thinking in the law profession. It enables the lawyer to challenge or dispute claims made by either the defendant or the plaintiff. Even though the arguments are not binding, the courts at the same level are likely to view the case from the strong arguments presented by Huntington and Elle. The verdict reaches in courts from other jurisdictions could also influence the judge's decision regarding the plaintiff's claims.
The complexity of making a binding ruling is further backed by the critical approach posited by Karl Llewellyn. Llewellyn, who is a legal realist and law professor, encourages critical thinking. As evident in the case, the two law students exhibit critical thinking, enabling them to ask thought-provoking questions. By encouraging critical thinking, the law students are consistently taught how to condition their brains to think from a dissent position. This statement is seconded by L'Heureux-Dubé (2000), who encourages lawyers to think of opinions that challenge commonly held beliefs.
References
Fiser, H. L., & Garrett, P. K. (2012). Life Begins at Ejaculation: Legislating Sperm as the Potential to Create Life and the Effects on Contracts for Artificial Insemination. Am. UJ Gender Soc. Pol'y & L., 21, 39.
L'Heureux-Dubé, C. (2000). The dissenting opinion: voice of the future. Osgoode Hall LJ, 38, 495.
Llewellyn, K. N. (2016). The common law tradition: deciding appeals (Vol. 16). Quid Pro Books.
Varsava, N. (2019). The Role of Dissents in the Formation of Precedent. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 14, 285.
