Just finished my first semester like many of you. I did LEEWS, read GTM, PLS, LSC, etc...

I was surprised how little I was able to utilize LEEWS. Civ Pro is so rules heavy that it's not really a matter of being creative in thinking of premises that might apply. Contracts turned out to just be a huge issue spotter where the conflict pairs were obvious and it was just a matter of spotting as many issues as possible. Torts skipped intentional torts....which is where LEEWs might shine. CrimLaw...is just crimlaw.

Overall, I don't think LEEWs had much of an impact. Neither did GTM, PLS, LSC aside from providing some basic background information on law school.

I'm not saying that doing these things will hurt you, just that I felt like their benefit was very minuscule.

Anyone feel the same?

I thought LEEWS was ok at making me realize that (generally) all exams, regardless of the call of the question, are asking for the same analysis. I think LEEWS viewpoint on outlining was also helpful. There are some points to be taken from LEEWS, but I think the methodology, if followed perfectly, is only relevant to torts exams.

Well put. In general LEEWS advice on not getting too hung up on cases served me well except in 1 exam where for some reason the prof went heavy on case references.

I think LEEWS can be pretty effectively summed up like this:
1. Who's against whom? What do they want?
2. What legal premise could they use?
3. What are arguments for and against establishing the premise?

That is pretty much the bedrock of every exam...of course the hard part is knowing when to use all the premises and how to argue with them.

While I largely agree with this, I found the study techniques, and little tips like organization test wise were extremely helpful. The book is quite helpful especially towards the end.

However, to add to my previous post, I did find that some people are pretty good at applying what looks to be the LEEWS approach.
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/c ... stics.html
Those California 1L Exam answers listed on that page almost exclusively use a LEEWS approach

I'm reserving judgment about what "worked" until grades come out.

LEEWS only really seems to apply to torts and none of my torts essays were issue spotters. Waste of a day.

I totally felt that way at first. But after more and more practice I was able to apply it to every class. Civ Pro was the big exception, obviously. But still it helped identifying issues and FRCPs that were applicable.

I don't know what half the torts questions were.

my prof essentially called any/everyone who uses LEEWS a douche..
he said he sees right through it, and that it's worthless..and usually the people who have used it in his class don't do so well..

Same. It was like 'what torts would she be liable for?' I just sat staring at the page thinking that she was liable for absolutely nothing that we covered.

Yes, I found it less useful than what I thought it would.

My civpro final asked specific questions, looking for one real answer. With a strict word limit. Zero use.

It was somewhat helpful on the issue spotters for some other classes, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I'm just going to re-read GTM over the break.

I did it near the end of the semester to get an edge, especially in Crim. I'll see if it helped in January.

Upside, I now know words like "colourable" .

I did most of LEEWS (never finished the last CD). I found it useless. IIRC, it's basically RAC (IRAC minus the issue statement). My school, though, had an "intro to law" one-week course before regular classes, and we learned the basics of how to synthesize cases, outline, and take an exam. The only useful thing I got from LEEWS was that you don't need to state the issue explicitly; I usually just used headings/subheadings to key the prof into what topic I addressed. But I also had one prof who specifically said "use IRAC, including the issue statement." One of my other profs wanted CRA (conclusion, rule explanation, rule application).

I thought GTM was a much better use of my time. It's more abstract and less of a "process," but it really helped me understand what professors are looking for in an exam answer (rather than how to structure an exam answer in a format that not all professors necessarily like--LEEWS). I also read GTM before LEEWS, so maybe that's why I thought all the fork-like discussion (who's against who, and what argument can they use) in LEEWS was not very helpful. Maybe it's helpful if you didn't read GTM.

I did LEEWS before GTM. And aside the Czars of the Universe chapter I thought LEEWS was better. I think this, like a lot of things, depends on the situation. My school had barely any direction the first week beyond such things as diversity training, personality tests, and the regular orientation stuff. Also I think it depends on the person, what you already know, and how good at test taking you are. A lot of folks in my school did LEEWS to some level of success. The true test will be when grades come out. But overall I think it was worth it. Although I must say Wentworth drags that thing out into 9 hours of droning when he could probably do it in like 4 or 5.

I also got the whole LEEWS program and found that it did nothing for me. As far as finding all of the pairings -- My Torts Prof asked certain questions like: "Analyze C's claims and defenses against B" so the whole part about getting all of the conflict pairings down was useless. Further, the part about reading over the exam first to see how many points and how much time etc. was pointless because we were given enough practice exams, and instructions by our profs that we already knew the breakdown.

LEEWS is just random, generic advice, and can no way be tailored to individual profs; which is the only thing that matters --knowing your profs.

Overall, I think the E&E's, Planet Law School, and LEEWS were a huge waste of money for me. My library already has all of the crunch time books, E&E's and any other horn book you could ever want.

If I could do it all over again, I'd probably just read GTM and call it a day.

PLS and Law School Confidential gave me a better understanding on what to expect from law school, but their study habits/test taking strategies didn't do anything for me. Seemed redundant and additional work I didn't need. LEEWs gave me some tips, but was overall useless. GTM explained a better way to take a test, while LEEWS and his 'blender' of crap really didn't seem to work for most of the tests any section of the school.

Now, grades could come out and it turns out we all needed LEEWS, but it seems like his advice/system really isn't that insightful, especially considering you end up doing it that way mostly through your own intuition. (or at least I felt like I did).

If I had to do it all over again, I'd browse PLS and Law School Confidential's overall chapters for an idea on law school life, read GTM, call it day.

LEEWS is just way too long, and it pretty much states the obvious. You are better off reading the booklet that comes with the LEEWS CD than listening to the dude ramble on for 9 hours about how to spot an issue. For my money, the best book that you can get to help you with exams is the Mastering the Law School Exam book by Thomson-West.

You mean our CivPro professor, or someone else? If it was the former, all I can say to him is "kettle, meet pot."

nope. someone else, in private..

and isn't it: pot, meet kettle?

oh well.. tomayto, tomahto.

I didn't find LEEWS useful either--too focused on how to take a torts exam (doesn't help if you need to take a contracts, civpro, con law exam, etc.)

I'd like to say I found LEEWS pretty helpful. If anything, hearing about how the typical exam experience is and knowing what was coming was the biggest help. Like the author says, you will be able to feel confident because you have a system for breaking down and analyzing any hypo. I used LEEWS for torts, crim law, and contracts and found it very helpful. It gives you a way to organize information that most people don't instinctively follow. As far as how much it helped, grades haven't come out yet.

p.s. how long after finals does it typically take to receive your semester grades?

At our school we've been told professors are instructed to have grading completed by February 1. So, I'm not expecting anything before I get back from winter break.

I think all these techniques/strategies are predicated on one thing: how fast you type.

If you can type 8000-9000 words in a 3-hour exam, you can do GTM or LEEWS. If you type way slower than that number, a general IRAC with arguments on both sides would be better.

Yes.
We need more anti-LEEWS threads. Although, if you haven't found GTM's policy section useful... unless you're getting As already, I'd take a second look.