AG
On Monday it was my turn with the group lead. I had time to create a custom solution sketch, but read only the solution of the case book and looked up a few things. In the AG, the difference became clear to me - I was prepared for much worse than the two hours before, in which I had created in each case completely defined solutions.
The case was "laserdrome" from the casebook of Degenhart. The solution there is decent but not perfect - I made them really but only in an hour than the other two critical questions were asked.
Next time I make another independent solution map (of course, the given solution-oriented).
We had actually planned for this hour and a feedback session. As an AG member was sick, we have indeed changed shortly, which would also make it not just as a trio. Finally, a feedback session is pretty meaningless if not able to express all group members. After all, it looks now as if we were to some extent we agree. We have for example, decided to get up to next Monday to consider the plan again AG if he makes so much sense. I have noticed one thing that should change what we, and indeed we have provided relatively late again fundamental rights, MMN too late and too little. I would propose that the hour of 9 February, provided on the fundamental rights equal rights need to be amended, in speech and freedom of assembly (or so), because the fundamental rights equal rights seem to me a little less important, and especially the proposed there on "Justice as lawful judge" was coming on Monday already in laserdrome- case before.
0 comments:
Post a Comment