Papers: Modules

(February 21, 1997)

(1) Although I want to provide you the maximum possible freedom in designing the scope and execution of your seminar papers, it also seems only fair to give you a little guidance as to what I think you might want to include.

There may well be reasons why you would not include some of these "modules" in your memo to GTME, Inc., but, if there are, you should make those reasons clear rather than just omitting the sections.

Obviously, there is no requirement as to length. If you think you can dispose of one of them in a paragraph or footnote, while another takes a couple pages, that's for you to decide. Don't forget that a half, to three-fourths, to more, of your paper should involve legal analysis rather than merely descriptive material.

(2) As modules, these sections also make useful "mileposts" in your PERT/GANTT-chart schedule of paper completion. That is, each of these sections is, to some extent, stand alone. You could get it to me as you complete it. This not only gives you more time to concentrate on the really difficult parts of the project, improves your end product, and eases the stress on you, it also gives you feedback along the way, and tends to lock me in to a higher evaluation of your final paper. (It enables you fairly to say, "But if you didn't like what I did in that section, why didn't you say something about it at the time?" The effect is to make me feel guilty rather than defensive.)

(3) Finally, as I look at the list, I realize that most of you are already in a position to complete most of these items (that is, all but the most difficult last portions!) right now. So I urge you (for your own sake) to do that. (That is not to say that you won't see ways of modifying the sections based on your additional research and reflection (and my comments) before turning in your first full draft, but it will put a big chunk of the work behind you. It reduces the natural inclination to spend more time on the easy stuff than it's worth, and then not have enough time for the hard stuff.)

The modules I now see are:

(a) Country description. This is simply a written variant, and possible expansion, on what many of you presented last Wednesday evening. Some of you have, in fact, already submitted this to me (as was suggested earlier in the semester).
(b) Major businesses operating in your country. This includes (1) dominant economic entities (if any), (2) companies in the telecom-media-electronic sectors, and (3) in your proposed line of business.
(c) Billion-dollar bonanza. A description of your proposed business.
(d) Potential market. What is the potential market for your proposed business; the need, the demand, the lack of supply?
(e) Legal/policy background. You may want to include a brief overview of the range of legal/policy issues raised by your proposed business. You will want to indicate why you selected the one your did. And you'll want to give the reader at least a little overview of this area of the law in general.
(f) Law/policy of country. If there is legal/policy material from your country that you found on the Web, Lexis or Westlaw, or our law library, you will want to say something about that. If not, drop an endnote explaining why: Where did you look? What did you find? What could you not find?
(g) Law/policy of the U.S. This is the heart of your paper.
And in the course of discussing (f), and (g), above, you will need to attach an appendix of sources, or bibliography, or endnotes, indicating
(h) Sources of law/policy within your country, and
(i) Sources of law/policy from the U.S.
(j) Finally, you will have, hopefully, built to some ending. It may be a proposal for legislation, litigation, further academic study, or other law reform. It may be a cautionary note of some kind. It may be a revision to your initial proposal. Whatever.

Based on what I heard Wednesday evening, in our one-on-one conferences, and other conversations, I think virtually all of you could now begin writing (a)-(d) above, and most of you could take a stab at (e) as well. Some of you are far enough along to dispose of (f) (and, therefore, (h)).

Whether you follow this suggestion or not, I do what to have something from each of you early on, not just (a) first draft, and (b) final draft. OK?

Return to CLS Home Page