Holly Golightly wrote:At this point in the semester, would any of you recommend trying to memorize anything, or just continue developing our reading/studying habits and save memorization for outlining time?
I love your avatar.
Memorization - I've asked profs about this (am a 1L) and they seem fairly unanimous in saying that writing out the entire restatement section or anything more than the relevant elements of the crime/tort is absolutely not necessary. If memorization works a la the Arrow strategy, I would go for it. It's just a huge time commitment to something that may not be particularly useful. But it will save you a little time. I will probably do this because I am good at it and have used it in the past, but here it is only a small tool, not an end in itself. That said, I'm not doing it yet.
This is a good thread, and I especially like edcrane's comments on exam writing. I have been forcing myself to write like a robot; it's hard. I enjoy words and flourishes of language, and part of my brain is constantly thinking about quality of prose, not substantive analysis. There will almost certainly be a bad pun somewhere on one of my exams.
I think there's going to be major differences regarding the 'laundry list' approach. Certainly all profs will want good, detailed analysis of the main points. Some profs will allocate points to explaining why other statutes don't apply, even ones far removed, but at least one of my profs has explicitly stated that if something is not relevant, on a common sense basis, it will almost certainly not get any points. Insightful points - 'extras' need to come after an exhaustive dissection of the main question, and should be brief. That's what I've gotten from my profs. Upperclassmen have said "JUST THROW EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN ONTO THE PAPER AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, ARRRGHH!" and these are people with good grades. Lovely.