Last Friday we went to my daughter’s first Halloween party. My daughter is 10-month old, so she did not know anything about Halloween before the party and she still does not know much about it. We dressed her in a cute pumpkin outfit: bright orange rompers with matching boots and a hat with green leaves on top. There were lots of kids and noise at the party. She clung to Mommy and Daddy while watching the room with a bit of suspicion. I am sure, she took in and learned a lot at that gathering, like all babies do all the time, but it was not about Halloween. She was unfazed by a little boy in a Spider-Man’s costume and a tiny Ladybug. We learn by building on what we already know and making new connections among familiar concepts. Halloween was not a relevant concept to her.
Law students know all about relevancy. This little Halloween scenario is played out quite often at law exams. You sit in a classroom, stare at a fact pattern in a Spider-Man’s costume, and wonder: Why is it here? What’s the legal significance of it? How is it relevant to what I know about this subject? I just can’t spot the issue. Now, that is a scary thought!
Go study and I will fill the candy baskets.