Tuesday, December 07, 2004

i can count to g

For the past two and a half years, I have made it my personal goal to prove the fact that just because you're in law school, it doesn't mean that you're smart. It just means that you had an easy major in undergrad and that you're a sadist. As much as I feel that my mere presence in this grand establishment is a silent testament to this contention, most of my peers are not swayed. I'm in law school, so I must be smart.

Enter Exhibit A: A paper about the Community Reinvestment Act written by a classmate in my Banking Law course, and distributed among the other students. Every student in the class wrote short papers as a part of group projects on various subjects within the realm of banking legislation and litigation. All of the papers were recently handed out to the class for use in studying for the final. The paper at issue was not written by me, as my group tackled the devisive, hot-button issue that is federal preemption of state banking regulation.

I don't know who wrote this paper. It seems that our professor, in her boundless mercy and grace, white-outed (or whatever the past tense of the verb "white-out" would be, assuming you're comfortable using "white-out" as a verb in the first place) the person's name before copying the paper and distributing it to the class.

So let's examine this so-called "paper", the penultimate proof that enrollment in law school doesn't necessarily correspond to intelligence.

The stated objective was to ensure that moderate to low income neighborhoods had access to credit by recquireing banks and lending institutions to write loans and extend credit specifically to those communities.

Recquireing? I was so dumb-founded by this that I almost missed the part about loans. You know, those loans that you write. Who writes loans? But don't let this incident of abysmal verb choice distract you from the main issue: recquireing.

In November of 1978, the Unites States Congress enacted the Community Reinvestment Act, or the CRA.

Actually, it was 1977. But that's splitting hairs. It's not like this person was supposed to research like, the Community Reinvestment Act or anything.

In an era where racial awareness was a hot political topic...

An "era where..."? That's like saying, "in a town when". "Racial awareness" is also a peculiar phrase. Like it took until 1977 (or 1978, depending on who you ask) for people to look around and say, "whoah... black people!"

Banking is a business; the ultimate goal of which is to realize a profit.

Really? Because the ultimate goal of a semi-colon is to introduce an independent clause. It's important to have goals.

Current Congressional mandate as established in the Graham-Leach-Bailey Act of 1995 sets the benchmark for a small bank as those banks having assets totaling less that $250 million

That sentence needs an article, whether it be definite, indefinite, or genuine, just please give it an article. Oh, and it's actually the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act". But we only briefly addressed this statute in class for a month and a half, so no biggie. And it was passed in 1999, but who's counting.

The CRA imposes a burden of which a small bank is ill equipped to cope.

Hmm... Seems like "ill equipped" is missing a hyphen. Where could it have gone...

...and there-by reduce the financial burden placed on any otherwise prudently operated enterprise

There it is! Crazy hyphens. Always gettin' all up in the grill of perfectly acceptable compound words.

Well, that's all the errors I could hunt down in this massive 5-page (double spaced) paper. At least all the ones that either didn't illicit any sarcasm, or that I don't see repeated every day in some of your blogs. (Hint: theirs a dieffereince between plural noun's and possessive nouns).