rayiner wrote: nealric wrote:
I like the idea of multiple outlines. I actually just got an awesome outline from a 3L that did very well and his outline has literal paragraphs built into it--everything was worded perfectly so it could literally be lifted wholesale out of there and put into exam answers.
Multi-tiered outlines can be a good idea. It's always a good idea to have a one page issue spotting checklist- just something to glance at to make sure you discussed everything.
But I would caution against lifting full paragraphs. You need to be analyzing the facts at hand- not random generic facts. It's rare that the precise wording is important. Not sure about your school, but my school straight-up prohibited pre-written answers anyways.
I agree. I think writing out practice exam answers carefully is useful for this reason. You can develop a stylized phrasing for each issue and on the exam just start typing it inserting the relevant facts from the fact pattern as you go. It's also a great help to have a good idea how you'll structure your analysis.
yeah i mean obviously it will need to be adjusted a little bit. But from what I have gathered (from leews) is that you need to first have the rule stated in coherent and precise words. so for ex...for intervening causes, i have this in my outline:
(b) Intervening Cause is an independent force that operates in producing social harm, but which only comes into play after the ∆s voluntary act has been committed or omission has occurred.
(i) The issue here is, at what point should ∆, who acts with the requisite mens rea and commits a voluntary act which is the cause-in-fact of the social harm, be relieved of criminal responsibility because of an intervening cause.
I would then begin my analysis.
Is that horrible? [honestly asking, since I am clueless]