Armen at De Novo has an interesting post up. He's in the midst of exams at Boalt Hall law school. In a post at his other blog about exams, some classmates started talking about the details of specific tests. The school administration got wind of this, and asked him to stop such conversations, saying they might violate the school's honor code. Armen asks, "Why should a blog be treated any differently than a casual conversation in the law school courtyard?" Commenters also raised the issue of that pesky First Amendment.

Well, to begin with, at my law school, the "law school courtyard" conversation might have violated the honor code. We were very strongly discouraged from talking about exams at all, but especially before everyone had taken the test. (We had some flexibility over when we could take them.) The concern was that if someone who hadn't taken the exam overheard you talking about it, you might as well be telling them what the questions were in advance. And that's aside from the sense that going from the stress of the exam straight to a post-mortem will be terribly demoralizing -- there's always something you missed, and it's distracting and frustrating to spend too much time picking at those scabs.

As one commenter mentioned to Armen, blogging about exams is different from the private conversation because of one's audience. If you must dissect exams with someone, and you go off to some hermetically-sealed chamber so no one will overhear, you know that the person you're talking to is in your position. But you wouldn't post exam questions on a bulletin board for anyone to see. And that's what a blog is, essentially. Armen has no way of knowing if people who haven't taken a particular test will wander by his site, and therefore should either (a) refrain from talking about an exam until everyone has taken it (if he has to talk about it at all), or (b) post prominent warnings and disclaimers for the unwary classmate.

As for the First Amendment, I agree with Armen that it won't protect someone who is essentially revealing the questions on the exam. The school's position is weaker with regard to private conversations between students, although I'd think it can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such chats. My law school was private, so it didn't have to worry about such things.

Still, I can't stress enough how bad an idea it is to re-hash these exams. My first-year Contracts exam included a question with a long fact pattern, basically tracing a man's life from birth to death via all the contracts he ever entered into. We had to discuss them all. The little tidbit I missed was that the man's birthdate, which I thought was a gratuitous detail the professor lumped in there, was important because it meant one of the contracts was signed when the man was a minor. D'oh! I was blissfully unaware, until about ten minutes after the exam, when I overheard someone mention it. It drove me crazy! I felt like such an idiot for missing it, and worried constantly about what else I bombed. It wasn't the best frame of mind to be in when I still had exams to take.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever think about these exams again. But wait until the whole exam period is over. Heck, wait until next semester! Once you get your test back, talk to the professor about it -- not to whine for more credit, but to discuss how you could have done better. Even if you're never going to see another Rule Against Perpetuities problem again, you'll get some insights for your next exam. If you had a study group, organize a meeting to go through the exams. Again, don't make it a bitch session, but rather use it to assess your group's performance as a study group -- why didn't we pay more attention to that Perpetuities reading? It's poor form to be the person who touts all the issues he or she spotted, and tries to make others feel like they screwed up. Don't do that. Even assuming law school is a zero-sum game, you don't have to be an ass about it.

So good luck to all my law student readers as they wrap up their exams. But don't tell me how you did!

I thought I would take a few minutes to look back at how wrong I was in my predictions for this year. I did pretty well with my 2004 predictions, getting seven out of ten correct. Well, I guess now I have to say six out of ten, because one of them was a prediction that a human would be cloned, but now it appears that data was faked. We'll call that half-right.

First, let's take a look at my personal resolutions for 2005:

1. Get more sleep during the week and less during the weekends.

It varies. I can't say it's been a systematic shift, though. I'll be going along fine, and then have a nap malfunction and get all messed up again. I've been better the last few months, maybe since the time change.

2. Learn a few words in a language other than Latin.

Eh, not really. Excusa.

3. Lose a few pounds, which I could probably accomplish just by cutting back on sweet tea.

I'm getting better about this, too. I switched from sugar to Splenda in my sweet tea at home, and I've been walking a lot more. I can tell a difference. Not a huge one, but steady. So that's good.

4. Be a better housekeeper, at least good enough that I'm not scared someone will want to visit.

Well, not so much with the visitor thing, but I overall I've been doing better.

5. Figure out something to write about, write a darn article, and get it published. (Topic suggestions welcome.)

I have come up with a couple of topics, but the actual writing hasn't been happening. I'm actually pretty disappointed in this whole subject, but I'm not going to get into a lament about it here.

6. Be a better correspondent to some friends I'm in danger of losing touch with.

This one I feel bad about. It was prompted by a specific friend with whom I had, well, not exactly a falling out, but a falling out of touch because of some hurt feelings. It's been about a year and a half since we've had any kind of a real conversation. I think often about trying to get back in touch, but I'm still hurting. Maybe 2006.

7. Fitz and I know we could write a decent screenplay, given some of the dreck that gets made in Hollywood these days. So I resolve that this year, if we don't get one written, we'll at least figure out what our movie is going to be about. And maybe write a "treatment," whatever that is.

This is amusing. I had forgotten all about this, but earlier today (before I decided to revisit these), Fitz and I spent an hour or more, on email and the phone, deciding to finally write a damn screenplay. I think we have a good idea -- seriously -- and we've agreed to get started. Look out Damon & Affleck!

8. Do what I can to make BTQ good enough that we hit 150,000 visitors by this time next year.

I think we were around 50,000 this time last year, and I'm thrilled to be over 125,000 now. I think if I hadn't taken off a few months, we could have made 150,000. (Humor me.)

Now, how about our predictions? Unlike my pie-in-the-sky resolutions, these came with the BTQ stamp of certainty. Let's see how far off we were.

First, Fitz-Hume's 2005 predictions:

1. Tara Reid will get married; J-Lo will get divorced; Britney will get pregnant, then divorced, then remarried.

I don't really keep up with the tabloids like Fitz does, but I'll give him partial credit because I do know that Britney got pregnant. And of course, she still has plenty of time left in the year to take care of those other points.

2. The world will find new reasons to hate America besides Iraq, Israel, McDonald's and tsunamis.

Isn't there always something? I'll give him this one.

3. Drilling in some areas of ANWR will be approved.

They're still working on it.

4. The federal sentencing guidelines will remain, and the Supremes will find a way around the correct result in Raich.

Wow, something about the law from Fitz? I guess he wasn't absent the day they taight law in law school, after all. I'll give him credit for this one, too, because even though the guidelines aren't binding anymore, they're still with us. And, knowing what Fitz thought the "wrong" result in Raich was, he was right about that.

5. Milbarge and I will not be featured in the NY Times, nor any newspaper for that matter.

Check.

6. Michael Moore will not win the Oscar for best director or best picture. Nor should he, if the word "best" means anything at all.

Check again.

7. US Airways will survive, though undeservedly. US Airways should go down in flames, metaphorically speaking, but they won't.

Check mate.

8. I will get audited by the IRS and survive.

Wrong for 2005, although given how different Fitz's 2005 tax return will be from his 2004 return, he should be extra careful come April 15.

9. The BCS will survive, too.

Not really going out on a limb, but correct.

10. However, no new sitcoms from the big four networks will survive the year.

There were a few that made it -- "My Name is Earl" and "Everybody Hates Chris" and maybe one or two other -- but I know Fitz was mainly just hoping "Joey" died a pitiful, whimpering, humiliating death. Mission accomplished.

That's a pretty record: about 7.5 out of 10. I didn't play it as safe as Fitz, so I don't think I did as well with my 2005 predictions:

1. Sadly, both Lady Birds will leave us -- the one on "King of the Hill" and the one who was married to LBJ. (I hope I'm wrong.)

Both still around. Nice.

2. The Supreme Court will outlaw the death penalty as applied to those who were minors at the time of the offense, and at least two states will enact moratoriums on their death penalties.

Check as to minors, and New Jersey is working on a moratorium. Partial credit.

3. As promised, my prediction on who will be the next Chief Justice: Clarence Thomas.

Okay, I was wrong about that. But, I was the first person on any blog I read to correctly predict that John Roberts's nomination would be switched from Justice O'Connor's seat to the Chief's spot.

4. A sports team travelling for a game will be involved in an air crash.

Also wrong, thankfully. I'm actually pretty amazed this doesn't happen, given the conditions in which some of these teams fly. Small planes, bad weather, small airports, late at night, etc.

5. We will struggle to comprehend the stardom of Paris Hilton. She will be bigger than Oprah and Madonna combined. She'll be the Elvis of our generation. Bono will pay money to see Paris in concert, and Paris will speak to the United Nations. The city of Paris, France will win the 2012 Olympics based on its pledge to rename itself "Paris Hilton." Statues of her will be erected, and there will be a movement to put her image on the ten-dollar bill, which will be seen as symbolic, since it is the table-dance bill.

Maybe Paris wasn't that big in 2005, but I do struggle to understand her popularity, or infamy, or whatever people think of her. Or that they think of her at all.

6. At this time next year, we will struggle to comprehend why televised poker was so popular.

The poker fad seems to be chugging right along. I'll admit it makes great television, and I guess I underestimated the viewing public's collective delusion that it can play the game well without knowing the other players' cards, which leads viewers from the tv to online poker games. Still, I don't think we'll be seeing the launch of an all-poker channel like "ESPN All-in" during 2006.

7. The year in blogging: Juan Non-Volokh will be outed, and the President will utter the word "Wonkette." (Yes, I'm trolling for links, but if it happens, you heard it here first!)

Well, I was close on the non-Volokh thing. And, although I don't think the President mentioned any blogs publicly, his spokesman Scott McClellan did say, "Sorry, I haven't blogged today, so I haven't seen some of those reports [of post-Katrina lawlessness]." I'm giving myself that one. Those were both pretty far-fetched, and I came closer than I thought I would.

8. American troops will fight within the borders of Iran.

Not yet -- that we know of. Stay tuned.

9. Duke will win the 2005 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship. (Hey, even I gotta have faith in something!)

Duke lost a tough one to Michigan State in the round of 16. It was a great season, though, and I think it made this year's seniors hungry for more.

10. I will get married to a woman who reads BTQ. I remembered making this prediction, but I forgot that I had been so heteronormative. I guess that little jaunt to Massachusetts doesn't count, then.

All in all, a pretty weak outing for me. Only three, even being overly generous to myself. That kind of sums up my year, actually -- a three out of ten. On to '06!

Just in time for the holidays and New Year's resolutions, I present to you, without further comment, the great Chuck Norris' code of ethics .

I will develop myself to the maximum of my potential in all ways.

I will forget the mistakes of the past and press on to greater achievements.

I will always be in a positive frame of mind and convey this feeling to every person that I meet.

I will continually work at developing love, happiness, and loyalty in my family and acknowledge that no other success can compensate for failure in the home.

I will work for the good in all people and make them feel worthwhile.

If I have nothing good to say about a person, I will say nothing.

I will give so much time to the improvement of myself that I will have no time to criticize others.

I will always be as enthusiastic about the success of other as I am about my own.

I will maintain an attitude of open-mindedness toward another person's viewpoint while still holding fast to what I know to be true and honest.

I will maintain respect for those in authority and demonstrate this respect at all times.

I will always remain loyal to God, my country, my family, and my friends.

I will remain highly goal-oriented throughout my life because that positive attitude helps my family, my country, and myself.

I can't seem to come up with much original content (as another blogger said, it's kind of "meh" around here), so I'll let others do the hard work, and I'll just pass along the bits that interest me.

From the national desk, stunning news today that former President Gerald Ford was mauled by circus lions. Oh, no, wait...he was just undergoing tests.

After denying clemency to Tookie Williams, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has another difficult call to make. The next person scheduled to be executed there is 75 years old, blind from diabetes, in a wheelchair, and had a heart attack a few months ago. Meanwhile, New Jersey, which has a death penalty but doesn't use it, looks ready to enact a moratorium on executions in order to study the matter.

In non-death penalty crime news, Fatal Vision killer Dr. Jeffery MacDonald claims he has new exculpatory evidence (link via How Appealing). I've been fascinated by this case ever since I saw the excellent mini-series when I was a kid. CourtTV replays it every once in a while, and it hooks me every time. Also, it makes it a lot more fun to watch Gary Cole as Lumbergh in Office Space after seeing him portray MacDonald.

And I'll refrain from making a Judge Dredd joke in relation to this story about an Indiana judge pulling a gun on a guy while the judge was looking for his runaway daughter.

In science news, maybe not everything is bad for you! The New York Times had an article about studies showing that links between cancer and some environmental factors commonly thought to cause cancer are less than convincing. Also, via Prof. Althouse, news of a study showing that a high-fiber diet doesn't protect you from colon cancer, although it might still have other benefits.

From the international bureau, Iran President Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a "myth," the latest in a series of anti-Israel statements he's made. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that we heard encouraging sounds about reform in Iran. As this depressing article in the "New Yorker" discussed a few weeks ago, though, the reform movement has collapsed. Bottom line: things do not look promising over there.

In China, offenses like tax evasion and pining for freedom merit the death penalty, but apparently stalking a woman, breaking into her house, and stealing from her gets you pardoned. Fitz-Hume suggested appropriate musical accompaniment. This article talks about the plight of lawyers in China, but I'd like to meet the guy who won with the "love struck" defense.

In sports news, things haven't been so great for wrestling legend Ric Flair lately. First, he gets accused of assault arising from a road rage incident, a charge that led the Carolina Panthers to remove his sportsmanship public service announcements at games. And, on top of that, he's facing an acrimonious divorce and serious tax problems. If you ever wondered why these wrestlers keep at it until they're in their sixties, it may be because they need to pay legal fees and alimony.

I'll also take a moment to compliment my Duke Blue Devils for pasting Texas in last week's battle of basketball #1 vs. #2. It's just a hunch, but I foresee similar troubles for the Longhorns when football's #1 and #2 meet in the Rose Bowl. I predict USC will beat Texas by at least two touchdowns.

Finally, on the home front, I sent out this stack of Christmas cards. Keep an eye on your mailbox, because a few of you might even be getting one of these!

I know I have some wine-drinkers reading this, and I need their help. I want to get a gift for some acquaintances, and I'm thinking about giving a bottle of wine. Here's the thing: I don't want to spend a lot of money. Maybe I'm cheap, maybe I don't know them that well, whatever. But I'm thinking I want to spend in the $10-$15 range, and certainly not over $20. At that price, I know I'm not going to get the greatest grapes ever squeezed, but I know I can get something better than Sideshow Bob's Foot Wine (a reference to last night's "Simpsons"). I'm also somewhat concerned that I might be asked to join the recipients for a drink, so it needs to be something I can stand. I'm not a big wine drinker. I don't know the terminology. I do know that I tend to prefer whites to reds, but can drink red wine if it's not too heavy or overpowering. I want something that's easy to drink. Not too fruity, not too bitter, not too dry (I've had wines so dry they made me thirsty before, and that seems to defeat the purpose of drinking). It needs to be something I can pick up at a decent wine store, so nothing too obscure. However much this request might horrify the wine snobs out there, I appreciate your help.