wakefield wrote:disco_barred wrote:apper123 wrote:somewhatwayward wrote:^
that second link says it is for T2 schools, and i'm going to a T-14....do you think that matters?
(i assume that was a joke... if not... wow)
*whaps apper123* be nice!
Back to my penitence: somewhatwayward, all law school exams are identical. Which is an overstatement, but only slightly - all law professors have very similar credentials, the first year curriculum is nearly standardized, and almost every exam is some variation on an issue spotter. Doing well at any law school in the country requires largely the same steps, skills, and aptitudes - as evidenced by the fact that transfer students often remain at the top of the class at their new schools.
I've heard rumblings that there are subtle differences - like applying the LEEWS method may be more helpful at a T2 than a T14, for example. False? Or are the differences just so minuscule that it doesn't really matter?
Somewhere between false and the differences don't matter.
Kicking around the law students forum, I get the impression that 'better' schools are slightly more likely to have policy questions and slightly less likely to have multiple choice questions. But T14 students still face MC questions and T4 students still see policy questions.
Without a doubt, the vast majority of your law school exams will be issue spotters.
A lot of people chastise LEEWS as being overly formulaic and inapplicable to their fancy T14 exams. it's just posturing. LEEWS is overly formulaic, because trying to collapse the entire spectrum of law school exams into a neat formula... will be... formulaic. But people who extrapolate and learn from LEEWS instead of indoctrinate themselves with and attempt to implement LEEWS still credit it with success, all the way up to the top of the top law schools.
Keep in mind that a huge plurality of law professors came from Yale or YHS, and an overwhelming majority from the T14 or so. The exams they took are going to look a lot like the exams they give. Very inbred system.