1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[FeelTheHeat]

Exams start Monday. Feeling less nervous, more....tired.

Me too. I'm pretty beat down from the semester...I feel like I'm running in place when I study.

[Extension_Cord]

Exams start Monday. Feeling less nervous, more....tired.

Me too. I'm pretty beat down from the semester...I feel like I'm running in place when I study.

Im done.

Suckers.

[stewie27]

form-fitting ear plugs. wierdest. thing. ever.

What are these? Are they very different from the regular foam-like ones?

[shock259]

My foam ear plugs are fucking amazing. They let me waltz into the exam, ignore everyone, type furiously without any distractions(I can't hear a damn thing with those things in), turn in my test, and leave without talking to anyone. They've done a number for my nerves. All of my exams have erupted into small talk, forced laugh, rehashing of the test, etc afterwards. I want no part in that crap. Just leave and start looking on to the next one.

[TheFutureLawyer]

form-fitting ear plugs. wierdest. thing. ever.

What are these? Are they very different from the regular foam-like ones?

just googled it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF7u-hle380


Damn I really gotta study.

[ilovesf]

for those of you taking con law now - which e&e did you buy? I see that there are two, I wanted to buy them before the next semester starts so I can scope it out a bit, but I'm not sure which one to buy.

I think that the ConLaw E&E is universally seen as the absolute worst E&E of the series and generally pretty worthless. FWIW.

Cool, thanks What did you use instead? I already got my syllabus and see that it's a closed book exam - really not excited for next semester.

[FeelTheHeat]

My foam ear plugs are fucking amazing. They let me waltz into the exam, ignore everyone, type furiously without any distractions(I can't hear a damn thing with those things in), turn in my test, and leave without talking to anyone. They've done a number for my nerves. All of my exams have erupted into small talk, forced laugh, rehashing of the test, etc afterwards. I want no part in that crap. Just leave and start looking on to the next one.

[ilovesf]

My foam ear plugs are fucking amazing. They let me waltz into the exam, ignore everyone, type furiously without any distractions(I can't hear a damn thing with those things in), turn in my test, and leave without talking to anyone. They've done a number for my nerves. All of my exams have erupted into small talk, forced laugh, rehashing of the test, etc afterwards. I want no part in that crap. Just leave and start looking on to the next one.

yeah, fuck having friends!

[Dany]

I'm with shock on this one.

[Kabuo]

Exams start Monday. Feeling less nervous, more....tired.

Me too. I'm pretty beat down from the semester...I feel like I'm running in place when I study.

+1. Already starting to not care about grades and just focus on getting through it.

[ilovesf]

My friends and I already agreed that under no circumstances whatsoever do we want to talk about the exams after we've taken them. After the last one we went out for a beer and relaxed, and did not talk about the exam at all. I'd rather do that than be stuck inside of my own head thinking about badly I just did.

[FeelTheHeat]

My friends and I already agreed that under no circumstances whatsoever do we want to talk about the exams after we've taken them. After the last one we went out for a beer and relaxed, and did not talk about the exam at all. I'd rather do that than be stuck inside of my own head thinking about badly I just did.

+1. I enjoyed hanging out with my buddies and we talked bball for two hours. OH NOES NOT FOCUZZED ENUFF

[pinkcamellia]

seriously considering going out for a few drinks tonight. too burnt out to study PR.

[LeDique]

I have another torts question - can you use res ipsa to prove negligence per se, or do courts frown upon this?

[BlueDiamond]

I have another torts question - can you use res ipsa to prove negligence per se, or do courts frown upon this?

i cant really imagine why youd need to argue both or what a hypo would even look like for it.. but i mean if its there id argue both

[Kabuo]

I have another torts question - can you use res ipsa to prove negligence per se, or do courts frown upon this?

i cant really imagine why youd need to argue both or what a hypo would even look like for it.. but i mean if its there id argue both

If you have something in mind, please post it. Tending to think it is impossible since to show neg per se you sort of already have proof of what the neg act was and don't need res ipsa (which is something you usually only use if you need it).

[theavrock]

I thought one of the elements of RIL was that there wasn't evidence of D's conduct. If you have evidence of D's conduct and it was N (violating a statute) why would you need RIL?

[LeDique]

I have another torts question - can you use res ipsa to prove negligence per se, or do courts frown upon this?

i cant really imagine why youd need to argue both or what a hypo would even look like for it.. but i mean if its there id argue both

If you have something in mind, please post it. Tending to think it is impossible since to show neg per se you sort of already have proof of what the neg act was and don't need res ipsa (which is something you usually only use if you need it).

yeah, this is true - I can't really come up with a good example. Overall, I was thinking about scenarios where the evidence of the per se claim gets destroyed by the defendant's carelessness, as well as causing injury.

I was thinking of a scenario where the evidence of the statutory violation is destroyed by the negligent act, as well as causing the harm to the plaintiff. The example that made me start thinking about it was a statute forbids more than 6 ppm of grain dust in a grain elevator. Let's say that grain elevators don't get over 6 ppm of grain dust without negligence, and grain elevators don't explode with less than 6ppm of grain dust (not actually true but..). The grain elevator explodes, so any proof that it was over 6ppm is destroyed too, but the explosion alone is proof that there was a statutory violation.

[theavrock]

In that case you wouldn't have any evidence of the statutory violation so you can't really say that there was a statute violation.

Basically there are a million reasons why grain elevators blow up, most often though its because of some sort of Negligence, not because of a statutory violation.

I just don't think it really applies here for that reason. It may be because of a statutory violation, but it may not as well. The stronger argument is evidence of some sort of N. If there is none point to RIL.

[shock259]

It's not about friends. I have plenty of friends, which is them trying to talk to me is an issue in the first place. I'm extremely social, but when it comes to exams, it's game time. I don't want to dilly dally about how my day is going, what I had for breakfast, or whatever else right before I take an exam. I want to focus so I can do my best. And I also want to avoid the nervous chatter afterward that will only get in my head and distract me from my next exam ("That person said they include x into their analysis, but I didn't. Were they right? Was I? Am I going to fail? AHHHH").

A boxer doesn't want to have a discussion with a friend of his about what he had for breakfast right before his boxing match. He wants to just chill, focus, visualize succeeding, and get pumped and ready to do so. Same deal. That said, I can't wait till this is all done so I get can shitfaced with everyone. ^_^

[sundance95]

I'm with shock on this one.

+1. I don't understand the law school 'you're a gunner if you're not happy/available to chat at all times' attitude. If there is ever a time where its okay to just focus, isn't it these two weeks every semester? Fortunately, at UVA there's also substantial pressure not to talk about exams after they are done.

[r6_philly]

I'm with shock on this one.

Talking about exams you've just taken is the worst thing ever especially when you don't get your grades for another 6 weeks.

[FeelTheHeat]

It's not about friends. I have plenty of friends, which is them trying to talk to me is an issue in the first place. I'm extremely social, but when it comes to exams, it's game time. I don't want to dilly dally about how my day is going, what I had for breakfast, or whatever else right before I take an exam. I want to focus so I can do my best. And I also want to avoid the nervous chatter afterward that will only get in my head and distract me from my next exam ("That person said they include x into their analysis, but I didn't. Were they right? Was I? Am I going to fail? AHHHH").

A boxer doesn't want to have a discussion with a friend of his about what he had for breakfast right before his boxing match. He wants to just chill, focus, visualize succeeding, and get pumped and ready to do so. Same deal. That said, I can't wait till this is all done so I get can shitfaced with everyone. ^_^

I'm with shock on this one.

+1. I don't understand the law school 'you're a gunner if you're not happy/available to chat at all times' attitude. If there is ever a time where its okay to just focus, isn't it these two weeks every semester? Fortunately, at UVA there's also substantial pressure not to talk about exams after they are done.

To each their own, I just don't function like that...then again, my grades are going to be dogshit so wtf do I know

[Extension_Cord]

Emanuels on Constitutional Law is pretty decent. Q & A is ok if you have multiple choice questions.

[RPK34]

I have another torts question - can you use res ipsa to prove negligence per se, or do courts frown upon this?

i cant really imagine why youd need to argue both or what a hypo would even look like for it.. but i mean if its there id argue both

If you have something in mind, please post it. Tending to think it is impossible since to show neg per se you sort of already have proof of what the neg act was and don't need res ipsa (which is something you usually only use if you need it).

yeah, this is true - I can't really come up with a good example. Overall, I was thinking about scenarios where the evidence of the per se claim gets destroyed by the defendant's carelessness, as well as causing injury.

I was thinking of a scenario where the evidence of the statutory violation is destroyed by the negligent act, as well as causing the harm to the plaintiff. The example that made me start thinking about it was a statute forbids more than 6 ppm of grain dust in a grain elevator. Let's say that grain elevators don't get over 6 ppm of grain dust without negligence, and grain elevators don't explode with less than 6ppm of grain dust (not actually true but..). The grain elevator explodes, so any proof that it was over 6ppm is destroyed too, but the explosion alone is proof that there was a statutory violation.

Well, in that case, you don't need the statutory provision at all. If grain elevators don't explode without 6 PPM of grain, and you can't get 6 PPM of grain without negligence, the fact that the grain evelator exploded is evidence of negligence by itself. You don't need a violation of statute to prove it.