OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[LetsGoLAW]

I banked my fall semester on LEEWS and I was not impressed. Although I happily hit top third, secured a job, etc., I feel it did not provide proper analytical skills. As a result, I'm using the LEEWS outlining and issue spotting method, but taking advantage of GTM's fork analyses. Thoughts?

And don't forget, squad, I have that GTM outline for you all.

[stillwater]

I banked my fall semester on LEEWS and I was not impressed. Although I happily hit top third, secured a job, etc., I feel it did not provide proper analytical skills. As a result, I'm using the LEEWS outlining and issue spotting method, but taking advantage of GTM's fork analyses. Thoughts?

And don't forget, squad, I have that GTM outline for you all.

I would say I subscribe to the forks method. You need to find the fact(s) which cause the law to potentially break in 2 or more directions. I like to think of them as resistance points, where the fact pattern resists is where you can make 2 or more substantive arguments of law. That is where you rack up the points. Don't spend time writing about the shit that's given and unambiguous.

[Bronck]

I banked my fall semester on LEEWS and I was not impressed. Although I happily hit top third, secured a job, etc., I feel it did not provide proper analytical skills. As a result, I'm using the LEEWS outlining and issue spotting method, but taking advantage of GTM's fork analyses. Thoughts?

And don't forget, squad, I have that GTM outline for you all.

I would say I subscribe to the forks method. You need to find the fact(s) which cause the law to potentially break in 2 or more directions. I like to think of them as resistance points, where the fact pattern resists is where you can make 2 or more substantive arguments of law. That is where you rack up the points. Don't spend time writing about the shit that's given and unambiguous.

Agreed. Just argue those facts both ways and you're golden. Mine was a lot of "X may argue _____, but Y may argue ______".

[LetsGoLAW]

Oh, I wanted to ask you all. One of my exams has a policy questions. What is a good way to prepare for this?

[stillwater]

Oh, I wanted to ask you all. One of my exams has a policy questions. What is a good way to prepare for this?

Policy questions are all about being voluminous and being a great bullshitter. For each substantive class, there are principal types of policy arguments. For example, in crim think utilitarian v retributivist, etc. etc. Just know the arguments for each and fit to the situation. Again, policy arguments I think really depend on what kind of plausible arguments you can manufacture within the broad confines of certain policy schools.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[Pleasye]

And don't forget, squad, I have that GTM outline for you all.

PM please?

[Bronck]

Oh, I wanted to ask you all. One of my exams has a policy questions. What is a good way to prepare for this?

Policy questions are all about being voluminous and being a great bullshitter. For each substantive class, there are principal types of policy arguments. For example, in crim think utilitarian v retributivist, etc. etc. Just know the arguments for each and fit to the situation. Again, policy arguments I think really depend on what kind of plausible arguments you can manufacture within the broad confines of certain policy schools.

My crim exam was 1/2 policy, for which I relied on Understanding Criminal Law by Dressler. Credited.

Good to know. I think my Crim exam is gonna be 1/3 policy. I'm prolly gonna make a separate section on my outline with bullet points where I can just bring out bullshit points

[Nova]

Policy questions are all about being voluminous and being a great bullshitter. For each substantive class, there are principal types of policy arguments. For example, in crim think utilitarian v retributivist, etc. etc.

Any other common ones I should be thinking about?

[brotherdarkness]

.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[stillwater]

dudes, how long will it take me to learn to apply RAP? I'm a pretty quick study but I've been procrastinating learning this last piece. Any tips before I embark on this project?

[smaug_]

dudes, how long will it take me to learn to apply RAP? I'm a pretty quick study but I've been procrastinating learning this last piece. Any tips before I embark on this project?

I'm probably not understanding it, because it seems pretty simple to me: an interest must vest within a designated life (or lives) in being + 21 years.

[stillwater]

dudes, how long will it take me to learn to apply RAP? I'm a pretty quick study but I've been procrastinating learning this last piece. Any tips before I embark on this project?

I'm probably not understanding it, because it seems pretty simple to me: an interest must vest within a designated life (or lives) in being + 21 years.

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

[squid2211]

Here are some basic crim policy arguments - they need to be elaborated on obviously, but here are a few of the basics I covered:

Utilitarian
- Deterrence
--Punishment must be greater than the benefit the D received
---General deterrence – punishing for crime will deter others from committing the crime
---Specific deterrence - D's punishment should deter D in the future
--Critique – most criminals don’t think they’ll get caught, how do you prevent this?
-Incapacitation
--Incarceration takes those who make commit crimes out of society
---Critique – many crimes are market driven, locking up a drug dealer wont stop drugs, just a new dealer
- Rehabilitation & reform
--We punish so we can reform and release as law abiding citizens
---Critique – how do we know if someone is rehabilitated?
Define societal boundaries
-Punish to show some level of societies moral standard and guide society to stay within those
Retribution/justice
-Societal retribution
--Because the ∆ harmed society, society needs to punish him for that social wrong regardless of any other goals
-Protective retribution
--Punishment is not to cause harm to the wrongdoer, but it is to restore the moral balance in society
-Individual /victim retribution
--A person who breaks the law deserves to be punished
--Critiques
---Societies goal should be to reduce harm and suffering, not to impose more of it
---Retribution is founded in emotion and anger not serving society or justice
---Societies goal should be to reduce harm and suffering, not to impose more of it

Also, for crimes like solicitaiton, attempt, conspiracy, etc... easy policy argument is always to allow charges for these early to help police prevent crimes from occurring rather than delegating police to only a reactionary role.

[smaug_]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think it depends on the jurisdiction, but again, I probably don't understand it. You can probably milk Symphony Space for everything wrong (or right) about it. I think the "wait and see" application makes more sense than the hardline rule used in Symphony Space, but that could just be me.

[Nova]

Thanks brother & squid

[Bronck]

Sweet, thanks for that!

BTW, how do you guys recommend organizing outlines?

1) nesting both policy and rules under one subject matter heading
or
2) first "half" of outline just dedicated to rules; second "half" just a massive checklist of arguments for policy, sorted by subject matter as well

[stillwater]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think it depends on the jurisdiction, but again, I probably don't understand it. You can probably milk Symphony Space for everything wrong (or right) about it. I think the "wait and see" application makes more sense than the hardline rule used in Symphony Space, but that could just be me.

haha, I have purposely been avoiding reading Symphony Space. May have to belly up to it.

[Bronck]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think one of the keys is taking NOTHING for granted. If the measuring life is valid, and you're left with "and to X's grandchildren, upon graduation from HS", you could be dealing with idiot kids who never graduate, so you have no way of knowing whether it'll vest within 21 years.

[stillwater]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think one of the keys is taking NOTHING for granted. If the measuring life is valid, and you're left with "and to X's grandchildren, upon graduation from HS", you could be dealing with idiot kids who never graduate, so you have no way of knowing whether it'll vest within 21 years.

Right, in that case, it wouldn't be sufficient because it MUST vest with +21 years, right?

[smaug_]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think one of the keys is taking NOTHING for granted. If the measuring life is valid, and you're left with "and to X's grandchildren, upon graduation from HS", you could be dealing with idiot kids who never graduate, so you have no way of knowing whether it'll vest within 21 years.

If the kids are alive at the time it shouldn't matter though, right? It isn't 21 years or a life in being, whichever is shorter, it's life in being + 21 years. The clarity problem is more toward the fertile octogenarian rule (not specifying which kids) or something like that.

[stillwater]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think one of the keys is taking NOTHING for granted. If the measuring life is valid, and you're left with "and to X's grandchildren, upon graduation from HS", you could be dealing with idiot kids who never graduate, so you have no way of knowing whether it'll vest within 21 years.

If the kids are alive at the time it shouldn't matter though, right? It isn't 21 years or a life in being, whichever is shorter, it's life in being + 21 years. The clarity problem is more toward the fertile octogenarian rule (not specifying which kids) or something like that.

I know its measuring life +21 years, not OR, but I am saying you can't say for certainty they'll graduate. Thus it fails.

[smaug_]

I know its measuring life +21 years, not OR, but I am saying you can't say for certainty they'll graduate. Thus it fails.

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but maybe it never vests, but it could still be valid under the RAP. If it were for future descendants not yet born, there would be no guarantee that it would vest in time (and would thus be invalid) but if the grandkids are the measuring lives, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Bronck]

That much I get. Measuring life + 21 years. Is applying it straight forward?

I think one of the keys is taking NOTHING for granted. If the measuring life is valid, and you're left with "and to X's grandchildren, upon graduation from HS", you could be dealing with idiot kids who never graduate, so you have no way of knowing whether it'll vest within 21 years.

If the kids are alive at the time it shouldn't matter though, right? It isn't 21 years or a life in being, whichever is shorter, it's life in being + 21 years. The clarity problem is more toward the fertile octogenarian rule (not specifying which kids) or something like that.

If it's something like "O conveys Blackacre to O's grandchildren upon graduation from HS", then the measuring life would be O's children right? That part is perfectly OK, because upon O's death, all of O's children will have been born. But, it's still possible that upon the death of O's last child (measuring life) + 21 additional years, the grandchild will have never graduated from HS, right?