Am wondering if anyone could respond to the following question. I am in week 1 and feel pretty good about what I am doing thus far. My biggest area of confusion / concern is as follows:

What is the best way to take notes that are logically organized and that will be easiest to whittle down into a good outline for exam time? For instance, in Civ Pro we have the FRCP, the main text, a second text, supplemental materials, and the Glannon as recommended. Reading assignments seem to jump around a bit from these books and, so far (and I understand it is early) I am not seeing the linkages or how the course will develop. In reading the Glannon, it seems to make the most sense as it seems logically organized in its chapters in the same way (I am assuming) the course develops and is taught.

I guess one question I have is how much should I include in terms of what I read from the various texts in my written notes I am making? If I read 60 pages in the text that jump around and I have highlighted what I found to be the seemingly relevant material within those pages - is it a good idea to transcribe all of the highlighted portions into my running "notes / outline" document? I guess I am trying not to do work merely for the sake of feeling as if I am doing something worthwhile and to make sure that what I am putting in my notes is relevant and has some organization. Clearly I understand that as the semester progresses, you do chop out parts of your notes to develop a streamlined outline for the exam but I would like to start working as efficiently as possible from the onset.

If this makes any sense at all and you have any suggestions, I would be grateful. Thanks in advance.

I'm also in my first week of class, so I don't exactly have a finely tuned system. But based on talking to older students and what little studying I've had to do so far, I think my methods will develop along these lines:

1) Do the reading for the class. Read once & highlight, go back and put together outline-style notes, hopefully you can find a running theme. (This may very well devolve into skimming the reading and doing either highlighting or note-taking, haha).
2) In class, take notes in the same document, either modifying an existing portion of the notes or just tacking it on to the end until you've figured out how to incorporate it.
3) I haven't gotten to this part yet, but I intend to go back through my notes / any briefs for each class at least once a week and try to create a separate document (that will hopefully evolve into my comprehensive outline) using the most important parts of the more detailed notes.

So basically, when a reading section doesn't really seem to make much sense, take notes as best you can - if there seem to be two completely different topics, I would have two separate documents with notes on each. I'm thinking of these as "micro" documents. Then, once the relationship becomes clear (or at least fuzzily apparent), I'd put them into a more concise document highlighting the most important parts and noting broader concepts (what I'd call a "macro" document).

Like I said, this is based on a whopping two days of class, so it may not work out this way, and I look forward to hearing from some 2/3L's. Seems like it'll be a highly individualized thing too... so maybe you want to come up with a couple different possible ways of doing things, try them out, and pick one that works for you (or make an amalgam with the most effective aspects of each).

Thanks, Joe. That is pretty much what I am doing - I just add actual class notes into the master document that are taken from the professors hypo's and relevant class material in another color font to distinguish it from the notes I take on my own from reading. Have also been keeping a separate document with short case briefs for each case in the assigned reading (especially for Torts). It may be overkill but helps me recall the details of each case very well and what the issues were. I then put just the holding / rule of law from the case into my master outline under the relevant section. Good luck, man.

Yeah sounds pretty close... I just wonder how long I'll actually do this, haha.

I'm a 1L, so I guess take it with a grain of salt, but it seems unnecessary to put notes in outline form prior to class. Based on my conversations with students, it seems optimal to prepare just enough for class that you seem to know what you are talking about and won't be humiliated if called upon in Socratic dialogue. [It is perhaps that most students over-prepare for class, in fear of being called upon, but class participation except on a stellar or dismal level rarely has an effect on grades]. Many points in the reading are confusing and won't be clear to you until the professor elaborates upon them, so from a time-management perspective, it may be better to emphasize post-class work rather than pre-class work; for example, it seems 3 hours of post-class work (in which you are able to utilize the perspective of both your text and your professor - who writes the exams) and 1 hour of pre-class reading is preferable to 2 hours of pre-class work (where you may misunderstand concepts) coupled with 2 hours of post-class work.

Again, I've only had three classes so far, but the logic of this approach seems clear to me even just from those three classes. I wasn't cold called, but I feel I could have competently handled the prof's questions asked of other students with about half the prep I put into the assignment. Also, although I didn't take any substantive notes beforehand, primarily focusing on highlighting and margin notes, if I did take substantive notes I know they would have required major revisions.

Any other more experienced TLSers, please call bullshit on me if so inclined, since I'm still learning myself.

I agree and disagree to a certain extent on a couple of points. Obviously do what works for you.

I think there is a certain value into figuring out the cases before class, even if it means a second / third read. For tough concepts, I found that doing the mental legwork upfront without using the professor's lecture as a crutch was a huge help. For the most part, I found class time pretty worthless, except for that ephemeral crap you pick up just by being in the classroom. While I think being exam focused is crucial, and you both seem to pick that up early (when your classmates won't), I think the Socratic structure of the class just reinforces the "learn it yourself" style of law school learning.

I think reading and organizing your notes into an outline form is pretty intuitive. I also took notes in class in outline form. There were some who transcribed word for word, but I don't learn that way. I need be one abstraction layer removed from the material in order to digest it better. The girl who sat next to be transcribed, and I took notes in outline form. We swapped notes all the time and it worked out well for both of us.

Starting 1L in about a month. Just wondering if anybody had any other solid advice they wanted to add to this short but good thread?

My system is as follows (its not for everyone, but I found it pretty efficient and I did well during 1L year):

1. Don't worry about highlighting/marking up your book to any significant extent. Some people highlight the facts, holding, and rationale in different colors, often painstakingly going through each case a few times. I don't recommend reading any case more than twice, period. This is just unnecessary busy work. The facts of a particular case are usually only important for being prepared for Socratic questioning in class. If a professor lingers on the facts of a particular case for an entire class (which has rarely happened in my experience), you can go back and pick out whats important in relation to policy points that are being made. When it really comes down to it, the only information you are going to be using for writing exams is the black letter principles and the policy arguments that relate to each doctrine. Citing cases has not been particularly important in any of the exams I've taken, and when you do cite, you won't have enough time to delve deep into the facts of an individual case.

2. My method - instead of wasting time highlighting the different sections of each case and making sure I "understood" each one, I read with my laptop and book in front of me, and write brief case briefs as I go. For class and for outlining time, I have a succinct summary of each case as well as any corresponding notes in the casebook. I think the main benefit of this approach is that you save time. I've never fallen flat on my face during Socratic (although if you do, it doesn't really matter), and I'm able to get my reading done with enough time to spare for a social life and chill-out time. Regardless of how many times you read each case and how extensive your highlighting is, you aren't usually going to get everything from a case that the professor highlights. Its not too difficult to get the general gist of a legal rule with one or two quick reads, and taking notes as I go in my own words helps me to understand. Also, when your notes are on the computer, its much easier to put them into outline form and give yourself more time to take practice exams.

3. Lecture notes - of nominal utility. Don't worry about writing down everything the professor says. Its more important to attend class as much as possible, write down the big points that the professor hammers, and try to figure out how the prof thinks and what he/she cares about. Reading past exams at the beginning of the semester (ideally with model answers) is a bitch, but incredibly useful in developing a strategy for each class. For example, we read a ton of cases in my crim law class, but the Model Penal Code was the only thing tested on, and the cases proved completely useless. However, this was evident from the start of the class based on the prof's lecture style and his past exams. You have to figure out what class you are taking in order to craft an effective strategy, which will be different for each class.

Main takeaway: highlighting, in my humble opinion, is mostly a waste of time. So is reading each case multiple times before class or before outlining time. This isn't to say that you will do badly if you employ this approach, just that you will not be making the most efficient use of your time.

On the days that I've been able to understand everything being discussed and take minimal notes, what I have done to prepare was as follows:

-Read through assignment.
-Read assignment again and brief in the book.
-Try to figure out the issue in each case that pertains to the class, and from this do my best to figure out the doctrines/theories that you will learn. Learn the point that your teacher is trying to teach you before you go to class. Write everything (thoughts, ideas, questions, plus the issue, holding, and rule for each case) on paper. This is probably the most important part, and is what PK was hinting at. The more time you take here, at this step, the easier class will be. The better you understand the material going into class, the more twists and turns (I think) you will be able to pick up in class. You will be able to anticipate your professor's line of reasoning, and you should be able take minimal notes while getting maximum benefit.
-Review flashcards.
---Go to sleep---
-Skim the day's assignment over breakfast.
-Type prior day's class notes and prior night's study notes into computer (help maximize recall by functioning as a review). My notes take this format:
--Main topic (so, Accomplice Liability)
---Main points about topic. This includes different doctrines and theories, which reference the case they are drawn out of.
---Briefs. These take the form of Issue, Holding, Reasoning (very briefly, only the main points), and the Rule/Black letter law.
----Any of my own questions, thoughts, or observations (good to write these down so you can see if the Prof. answers them
-Read Examples and Explanations and do hypos or read the Hornbook.
-Go over flashcards from prior days.
---Go to class---
-Take notes on paper.
---Go home---
-Make flashcards based on the day's lectures. Include doctrines/theories and vocabulary.
-Go back to start.

Even though this may look like alot, I think I spend maybe 4 hours studying in total. 2 to 2.5 hours reading the assignment and figuring out the point. Maybe 10-15 minutes doing flashcards. The studying I do in the morning takes maybe an hour and a half total. Then again, I have this much time on my hands because I am only taking one class at the moment. We will see how crazy it gets when I've got five classes, a girlfriend, and philanthropy going on.

good thread

Do you have a syllabus? If so, use that to try to flesh out the major topics - Prof shouldn't be going so all over the place that it makes no sense. Surely there is some sort of rhyme and reason.

Advice

1. Do what works for you. Just b/c something worked for someone else doesn't mean it will work for you.
2. Understand how to apply facts to the law (exception to the above rule)
3. TAKE PRACTICE EXAMS/Do hypos of fact patterns (you must do this, but don't kill yourself trying to do this too early) (this is an exception to the first rule)
4. Use practice exams that have answers to them. I found practice exams with the answers from other professors more useful than the professor's exam questions w/o answer. Obviously though, use the professor's exam as a model to find similar exams that have answers. New England School of Law and Golden Gate University have these.
4. You probably should get your outlines done prior to the end of classes so that you can then just focus on practice exams


This is what I did:

I would read the cases but did not brief (stopped the first week) and did not dwell on the cases at all after reading them once. This was enough for class, although I never did remember the cases afterwards (they don't matter much for the final, so it doesn't matter). I would then read a supplement on it and try to outline that night's reading. When I outlined I would just use the rule of law (IE: no cases or facts.) I generally outlined throughout the semester as we went.

Generally, once we were done with a section (IE: Battery), I would then completely reoutline that section. It would of course be easier b/c I had previously outlined and thought about it. Throughout the semester I would periodically completely redo my outline so as to better organize it in a way that made more sense based on new things I learned. This doesn't mean rewriting the entire thing, but moving something around or rewording something if it doesn't make sense. I probably rewrote each outline about 2-3 times (it gets easier the more you do it, you know what is needed for the tests).

During finals, we generally had three days between each of them. Day 1: Going through my outline and making sure I understood everything in it. I would also try to memorize it and rewrite it into a smaller version. The smaller version was just me eliminating everything I had committed to memory or wasn't the specific elements of the law. Day 2: Finish up going through my outline and start practice problems. Day 3: Practice problems. As I said above find exams w/ answers to them and try to model your answers after them. You should have a model in your head for each possible law. If you do enough practice exams every fact pattern becomes basically the same.

IE: Sara said "You disgust me Bob." She turned, looked at Bob, and then spit at him.
IE: Battery is an (1) intentional (2) act (3) that causes (4) harmful or offensive (5) contact. (1) The act was probably intentional. Sara said Bob disgusted her. She turned towards him and then spit. (2) The act was her spitting. (3) Her spit caused whatever contact that occurred. There is no indication any further contact took place. (4) Harmful contact is contact that pain. Offense contact is contact that a reasonable person would find offensive. A reasonable person is probably going to find being spit on offensive. Sara will argue that people accidently get spit on all the time and do not get offended. This is faulty though b/c most people don't like it, and Sara spit intentionally on Bob. Most people would find this offensive. (5) Definition of Contact (I don't remember the exact definition, sorry). Sara will argue that no contact took place b/c she did not physically touch Bob. This will not work though b/c all their needs to be is harmful or offensive contact that is caused by Sara's action. Sara's action doesn't need to actually involve contact. Here, her action was spitting. The offensive contact was the spit's contact with Bob. Bob will likely win on a battery claim, although he might not recover much.
--This is a rough idea of what I did for every exam.

I found LEEWS to be a help. If nothing else it gave me a rough idea of how to structure a law exam, even though I didn't follow it exactly. GTM's fork's were also useful.

I hope this wasn't too confusing. I'm sorry I didn't organize it better.