What if somebody just made an outline of Getting to Maybe? Forum

[Kobe_Teeth]

Wouldn't that be good enough? Is it out there? Does it exist?

[A'nold]

What if man....what if. Isn't that the question?

[Kobe_Teeth]

Am I uber-lame to be making one because I have the summer off (and am still getting paid) and I don't want to read or page through this book again once I'm in the midst of my 1L year?


PS....I am/was a teacher.

[mallard]

I'll outline it for you right now.

I. Law school exams ask you to argue both sides.
1. You can argue both sides as to what law should be applied.
2. You can argue both sides as to what the law actually says.
3. You can argue both sides as to precedent.
4. You can argue both sides regarding the facts of the hypothetical.
5. You can argue both sides regarding policy.

End!

[Kobe_Teeth]

I'll outline it for you right now.

I. Law school exams ask you to argue both sides.
1. You can argue both sides as to what law should be applied.
2. You can argue both sides as to what the law actually says.
3. You can argue both sides as to precedent.
4. You can argue both sides regarding the facts of the hypothetical.
5. You can argue both sides regarding policy.

End!

Basically true thus far. I just want a checklist and some helpful advice as I make my way through the year. Also, a lot of people mention they end up reading or leafing through the book again as the year goes on...I don't want to be bothered with that.

[JOThompson]

I'll outline it for you right now.

I. Law school exams ask you to argue both sides.
1. You can argue both sides as to what law should be applied.
2. You can argue both sides as to what the law actually says.
3. You can argue both sides as to precedent.
4. You can argue both sides regarding the facts of the hypothetical.
5. You can argue both sides regarding policy.

End!

I'd also add this: utilize ambiguities, don't ignore them.

[mmmadeli]

Is it weird that I actually think this book is really interesting and I'm enjoying reading it? I'm the biggest loser in the world.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Is it weird that I actually think this book is really interesting and I'm enjoying reading it? I'm the biggest loser in the world.

Its 230 am and I'm making a fucking outline of it...here's your silver medal bitch!

But yes, I am sorta enjoying it. If anything is quelling my law appetite. All I can think about is going to school this fall. I cant keep my brain interested in anything else...may as well be productive.

[JOThompson]

Is it weird that I actually think this book is really interesting and I'm enjoying reading it? I'm the biggest loser in the world.

I was pretty engrossed in it. You're not weird, or maybe we both are.

[Kobe_Teeth]

My question hasn't been entirely answered....would the outline be useful? For readers of the book and for those who haven't? Because really the book is just a well explained checklist of shit you should watch out for...

In other words, how did you use the book throughout the course of the year? Or did you at all?

[MURPH]

OUtlines are useful. Writing them is usually more usefull that actually using them, though. I really don't feel that I understand something unless I write about it.

[solidsnake]

Outlines are generally useful only to the extent they help you comprehend the material. Most people won't truly comprehend the material unless they work through it themselves and draft the outline (as opposed to simply reading a hand-me-down outline). Granted, the gist of getting to maybe is pretty simple, as mallard pointed out; but if you look at all the individual headings found in chaps 2-10 (iirc), you should be able, at the very least, to come up w hypothetical fact patterns to which you could apply each style of argumentation. If outlining gets you there (most reasonably intelligent ppl probably wouldn't need to do it), then more power to you. Why are you posting on a message board for advice on this? Are you that beta? Use a message board to post results of self-experimentation (if you want to be helpful); don't use it to ask completely subjective, vague questions, like "would the outline be useful . . . for readers of the book . . . ?"

[porkbraiser]

O.o

[Kobe_Teeth]

I understand the material. Its not complicated in the least. Ass. My original question was more centered around if an outline existed. The table of contents by itself seems almost good enough; its just nice to have a quick piece of good advice or example to go along with the headings.

Mostly though, I'm constructing a checklist of things to look for as I outline and do whatever in the heck else I will be doing this fall.

[porkbraiser]

I'm 100% positive an outline exists

[20160810]

If you can't make it through a 200-page book, you're going to have a rough time in law school. Just mix it in with your summer reading. Try to remember the gist, look over it for a few minutes before finals, and you'll be fine. GTM is a great book, but you should be outlining your courses, not it.

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Let's assume there is an outline of this book somewhere. Would you be so cavalier as to where you'll trust a stranger's outline of an examsmanship book not to miss some point that the rest of your class got through reading the actual book?

I've been making my way through it and I can see why people revisit this. The book is really good about getting the wheels turning once you've been exposed to teaching style and elements of law. I put it aside and flipped through an old E&E and the additional information does give me more to think about when I'm reading GTM. I'll still read the book in its entirety this summer, but I can tell I'll skim through it again halfway through the semester.

[thesealocust]

edit n/m

[RVP11]

Mallard's little outline is about all I got out of it. By far the most overrated and overhyped book on TLS.

[Bankhead]

The book was relevant to like, 1 class I had. Every teacher wants something different.

[JOThompson]

What the hell is wrong with you people? The book is tiny and uncomplicated, but I guaran-fucking-tee you not a single 0L out there understands it much less understands it well enough to outline it. It's farcical to assume you can do better than a foggy understanding of how to write a law school exam prior to, oh, I don't know, STARTING LAW SCHOOL.

It's undeniably good to skim GTM before LS starts, it's theatre of the absurd to outline it, post on TLS about how deep your understanding of it is, or be concerned you won't have time to read it (again) during 1L -.-

Calm down.

[2009 Prospective]

The book was relevant to like, 1 class I had. Every teacher wants something different.

It's not useful insofar as following every single piece of advice to a T as much as obtaining a larger picture on how to approach law school exams generally (eg exploiting ambiguities, considering all sides of the issues etc). I was surprised just how many other students first semester viewed issues and rules as rigid one-sided certainties and focused on memorizing every single case name, facts, holding etc. It would be a mistake of course to follow GTM exactly as if it were a precise magic formula to law exams. GTM disparages IRAC for instance though a large portion of my professors strongly preferred answers structured in that very way. One specifically had marked people down that didn't respond in IRAC. The key though was to exploit all the ambiguities during the analysis portion so that the other parts of the IRAC formula were largely secondary. Personally, I would recommend reading through it once over the summer before school just to get a perspective on how to approach exams. Going beyond this and memorizing each and every "trick" would be a waste of time in my opinion.

Also, for the other 0L gunners that are probably buying E&Es anyways, the torts E&E also has some great exam tips near the back of it which goes along the same lines of GTM.

[RVP11]

The book was relevant to like, 1 class I had. Every teacher wants something different.

Yeah, this.

The problem with GTM is it might convince people that EVERY ISSUE is an issue that can logically be argued at least two ways. Not the case. Legal analysis doesn't mean really stretching facts to make them fit the law and therefore come to a different conclusion. Generally this kind of exercise is totally unnecessary unless the prof intentionally made the relevant facts ambiguous. Picking out which issues were intentionally made ambiguous and therefore require deeper, multi-faceted analysis is an important skill on exams, and one that's not really addressed by GTM. In my experience, there are WAY MORE straightforward issues on exams than that book would have you believe.

Re: IRAC - no one should feel like they have to stick to it like glue, but writing exam answers without using something kinda IRAC-y is very difficult. And I find that profs like intro paragraphs that say "The important issues to resolve for John's claim would be X, Y, Z, and because they will probably come out such-and-such a way, John's claim should be a valid one" and then address the issues one by one in a semi-IRAC like structure. Even if profs don't consciously like this structure, it's certainly easy to organize while you're writing, and probably easier to grade.

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Legal analysis doesn't mean really stretching facts to make them fit the law and therefore come to a different conclusion. Generally this kind of exercise is totally unnecessary unless the prof intentionally made the relevant facts ambiguous.

While I can't speak to the distribution of ambiguity in exams, GTM does mention that profs will drop clues in facts, class discussion, and/or prior exams as to where there should be little more than a straightforward application of the rule. However, they definitely don't spend much time on it.

However, I hear you: Don't be a smarty-pants for smarty-pants sake.

[corporatelaw87]

I am reading GTM right now, I am only through a couple of chapters, but in terms of their examples, I am not really sure what they are talking about. I guess because i haven't sat in a Law School class yet. Is this normal?