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

[Raiden]

I should have specified, but say this hypo is from the perspective of the Buyer. So the K price was 150, FMV fell to 130. The buyer benefited from the sellers breach since they bought the product for a cheaper value. Since the purpose is to put the non breeching party in the situation had the performance occured, they can just pocket the extra 20 that that is not factored into the calculation, correct?

What was the contract and who breached?

There are incidentals you have to add in somewhere.

A hypo wouldn't be that simple since a non-breaching party profiting from the breach will simply walk away, as a rational agent.

What's the full hypo?

I see what you mean for the non-breeching party to want to walk away in this situation, but don't they still have an incentive to capture the incidental costs, even if it is nominal?

The full hypo is MC question 30 in Crunchtime for K's. I would paste it but I just clicked a terms and agreement from TLS. Don't want to breech a K with TLS while talking about breeching, hardy har har.

[SportsFan]

Just finished a torts practice test and feel pretty good about it after comparing it to the sample answer. I feel like I'm definitely thinking the way my professor wants me to, I just need to actually learn the BLL more. Good way to head into the weekend, I think.

[Raiden]

It goes without saying that the most important part of our exams is the analysis portion. What is a systematic approach we can take towards analysis?

Here is what comes to my mind:

1) Common sense
2) Cases/precendents
3) Policy

I think the common sense portion can be expanded upon (circumstances, words, norms in society) and is sensitive for each course.

Team, what do you think should be added to this list? Let's rock this.

[splittermcsplit88]

Hey, does anyone have negligence hypos I can work with? I'm being tested on just duty and breach, and my prof doesn't give out any practice hypos

[005618502]

It goes without saying that the most important part of our exams is the analysis portion. What is a systematic approach we can take towards analysis?

Here is what comes to my mind:

1) Common sense
2) Cases/precendents
3) Policy

I think the common sense portion can be expanded upon (circumstances, words, norms in society) and is sensitive for each course.

Team, what do you think should be added to this list? Let's rock this.

Honestly I think this is right! just add general doctrines and your good. I mean my professor said make sure you bring your common sense lol. A lot of it is the comparisons you can make and the arguments you can come up with (am I wrong?)

[ArtVandelayy]

So I have three vastly different exams, though all are open book/open notes:

all multiple choice in property
standard short answer & hypo issue spotter in crim
full-day take-home in torts

Should I approach each differently?

[swimmer11]

I need help with outlining and handling an 8 page long, single spaced, dense torts hypo.

Does anyone have any tips or strategies? Particularly outlining?

[SportsFan]

I need help with outlining and handling an 8 page long, single spaced, dense torts hypo.

Does anyone have any tips or strategies? Particularly outlining?

Wow. That's rough. Longest hypo I have for any of my exams is ~3 pages. What I do is just underline every issue I see as I read through. In your situation, I'd write margin notes, and maybe read the very end first so you can see what happened and what you're actually being asked, exactly?

[ArtVandelayy]

Also, I don't really have time to order and read Getting to Maybe, LEEWS (whatever the hell that is) or the Eight Secrets to Top Exam Performance (or whatever it's called), can anyone offer a brief, bullet-point synopsis of the most important tips? Or do they just further the suggestion to use basic IRAC structure?

[swimmer11]

I need help with outlining and handling an 8 page long, single spaced, dense torts hypo.

Does anyone have any tips or strategies? Particularly outlining?

Wow. That's rough. Longest hypo I have for any of my exams is ~3 pages. What I do is just underline every issue I see as I read through. In your situation, I'd write margin notes, and maybe read the very end first so you can see what happened and what you're actually being asked, exactly?

Wow 3 pages. I would die. I try to use the LEEWS method but there are so many parties, and the parties negligent act can start on page 3 and end on page 6 so it makes it a complete clusterfuck. It just leaves me feeling ashamed and violated after each one.

[apollo2015]

I had my first final today (Torts). It went okay, I guess. No one in the class seemed too emotionally traumatized by it, so its hard to tell where we'll all fall on the curve.

Not doing much in the way of studying this morning, and getting a ton of sleep the night before helped a lot.

Time to get back to CSWS mode.

[Raiden]

I had my first final today (Torts). It went okay, I guess. No one in the class seemed too emotionally traumatized by it, so its hard to tell where we'll all fall on the curve.

Not doing much in the way of studying this morning, and getting a ton of sleep the night before helped a lot.

Time to get back to CSWS mode.

Good job man! Keep on pushing through and make it worth it.

On a side note, I shelled out 1340 words for a 55 min exam question. Is this way on the low end? It's suppose to be a shorter question, only two issues, so I tried to stretch the analysis

[ArtVandelayy]

Any help with my two recent posts?

[swimmer11]

Also, I don't really have time to order and read Getting to Maybe, LEEWS (whatever the hell that is) or the Eight Secrets to Top Exam Performance (or whatever it's called), can anyone offer a brief, bullet-point synopsis of the most important tips? Or do they just further the suggestion to use basic IRAC structure?

Someone can add to this.

The key points that I got out of them were to 1) allocate my time properly, 2) Use lots of headers and sub-headers to guide the professor, 3) Spend less time on the minor issues and more time on the larger issues, 4) always look for different ways the law could go on the facts at hand and analyze each possible fork, 5) outline your answer before you write, 6) for a policy question consider how your answer will shape society, affect fairness, and be administered, and always analyze the same considerations for both sides of the argument, 7) Organize your answer in a logical and coherent fashion, and CSWS PROFIT

[ArtVandelayy]

Also, I don't really have time to order and read Getting to Maybe, LEEWS (whatever the hell that is) or the Eight Secrets to Top Exam Performance (or whatever it's called), can anyone offer a brief, bullet-point synopsis of the most important tips? Or do they just further the suggestion to use basic IRAC structure?

Someone can add to this.

The key points that I got out of them were to 1) allocate my time properly, 2) Use lots of headers and sub-headers to guide the professor, 3) Spend less time on the minor issues and more time on the larger issues, 4) always look for different ways the law could go on the facts at hand and analyze each possible fork, 5) outline your answer before you write, 6) for a policy question consider how your answer will shape society, affect fairness, and be administered, and always analyze the same considerations for both sides of the argument, 7) Organize your answer in a logical and coherent fashion, and CSWS PROFIT

Thank you!

[shredderrrrrr]

Man, you guys are all pros. I'm way behind and have no clue what I'm doing.

Outside of reviewing my outlines/class notes and taking/reviewing old exams, what should I be doing? I'm assuming doing practice hypos from books? If so, are there any that are highly recommended (for Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, or Criminal Law)?

[swimmer11]

Man, you guys are all pros. I'm way behind and have no clue what I'm doing.

Outside of reviewing my outlines/class notes and taking/reviewing old exams, what should I be doing? I'm assuming doing practice hypos from books? If so, are there any that are highly recommended (for Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, or Criminal Law)?

I will give you my recommendations.

Torts-> E&E (It is just fantastic) and I have the Crunchtime as well (It is also good for the BLL, short answers, hypos, and MPC).
Contracts -> Depends on your professor. I liked the E&E and the Crunchtime for the questions. I did not get much out of Chilenstein.
Criminal Law -> Da God Dressler

[LetsGoLAW]

When you guys talk about duty owed, do you refer to Cardozo/Andrews/foreseeable plaintiff? Or just save that for proximate cause?

[shredderrrrrr]

Man, you guys are all pros. I'm way behind and have no clue what I'm doing.

Outside of reviewing my outlines/class notes and taking/reviewing old exams, what should I be doing? I'm assuming doing practice hypos from books? If so, are there any that are highly recommended (for Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, or Criminal Law)?

I will give you my recommendations.

Torts-> E&E (It is just fantastic) and I have the Crunchtime as well (It is also good for the BLL, short answers, hypos, and MPC).
Contracts -> Depends on your professor. I liked the E&E and the Crunchtime for the questions. I did not get much out of Chilenstein.
Criminal Law -> Da God Dressler

Thanks! I'll Amazon those ASAP with some expensive shipping to make up for my procrastination.

[Raiden]

Man, you guys are all pros. I'm way behind and have no clue what I'm doing.

Outside of reviewing my outlines/class notes and taking/reviewing old exams, what should I be doing? I'm assuming doing practice hypos from books? If so, are there any that are highly recommended (for Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, or Criminal Law)?

I will give you my recommendations.

Torts-> E&E (It is just fantastic) and I have the Crunchtime as well (It is also good for the BLL, short answers, hypos, and MPC).
Contracts -> Depends on your professor. I liked the E&E and the Crunchtime for the questions. I did not get much out of Chilenstein.
Criminal Law -> Da God Dressler

Thanks! I'll Amazon those ASAP with some expensive shipping to make up for my procrastination.

Your library Should have it to save you some money

[shredderrrrrr]

Man, you guys are all pros. I'm way behind and have no clue what I'm doing.

Outside of reviewing my outlines/class notes and taking/reviewing old exams, what should I be doing? I'm assuming doing practice hypos from books? If so, are there any that are highly recommended (for Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, or Criminal Law)?

I will give you my recommendations.

Torts-> E&E (It is just fantastic) and I have the Crunchtime as well (It is also good for the BLL, short answers, hypos, and MPC).
Contracts -> Depends on your professor. I liked the E&E and the Crunchtime for the questions. I did not get much out of Chilenstein.
Criminal Law -> Da God Dressler

Thanks! I'll Amazon those ASAP with some expensive shipping to make up for my procrastination.

Your library Should have it to save you some money

Well damn, thanks for this advice too! Just checked the catalog and they do.

Man, why did I wait so long to participate ITT?!

Anyone start finals yet? Good luck to everyone else preparing!

[SportsFan]

Man, you guys are all pros. I'm way behind and have no clue what I'm doing.

Outside of reviewing my outlines/class notes and taking/reviewing old exams, what should I be doing? I'm assuming doing practice hypos from books? If so, are there any that are highly recommended (for Torts, Contracts, Civil Procedure, or Criminal Law)?

Honestly all I am doing/have done so far is make outlines, then make attack outlines, and take some practice exams (luckily I have like 8 for each of my classes, so leading up to my exams I'm just gonna do 1 a day). Starting this weekend I'm gonna memorize my outlines, but thats it.

For civ pro, I HIGHLY recommend the Glannon E&E.

[Benjamin1987]

I need help with outlining and handling an 8 page long, single spaced, dense torts hypo.

Does anyone have any tips or strategies? Particularly outlining?

Wow. That's rough. Longest hypo I have for any of my exams is ~3 pages. What I do is just underline every issue I see as I read through. In your situation, I'd write margin notes, and maybe read the very end first so you can see what happened and what you're actually being asked, exactly?

Wow 3 pages. I would die. I try to use the LEEWS method but there are so many parties, and the parties negligent act can start on page 3 and end on page 6 so it makes it a complete clusterfuck. It just leaves me feeling ashamed and violated after each one.

Dude! First things first, get your head screwed on straight. Every person in your class is taking the same exam. You don't need to beat the exam, just your peers. The LEEWS approach is great conceptually but don't drink the coolaide and think its going to work verbatim in all settings. The point is to wrap your head around the hypos situation, as best you can, so you can hit as many issues as possible.

Don't make the mistake of trying to absorb that entire hypo. Take it piece by piece. Also, don't make the mistake of spending too much time outline. On a race-horse hypo like your's the person who spots the most issues wins. No time to waste outlining an answer.
First, read through the hypo, creating a heading for each party in exam soft as they appear and listing the major issues you see. Then go back through the hypo, party-by-party and re-read the fact carefully for that party. Write an answer for that party and then move on. If you realize you've missed something while you are writing about a future party go back and add a secition at the end (e.g. "Note: we may be able to argue negligence per se as well" or "Note: D may try to invoked heeding presumption, we must argue that D wouldn't have had ability to comprehend warning even if provided," etc.).

The point is, the huge hypo could work to your advantage if you go in with a game plan, a positive attitude and attack. Guarantee you will spot more issues, and conduct more analysis than 90% of your peers with this approach.

[swimmer11]

I need help with outlining and handling an 8 page long, single spaced, dense torts hypo.

Does anyone have any tips or strategies? Particularly outlining?

Wow. That's rough. Longest hypo I have for any of my exams is ~3 pages. What I do is just underline every issue I see as I read through. In your situation, I'd write margin notes, and maybe read the very end first so you can see what happened and what you're actually being asked, exactly?

Wow 3 pages. I would die. I try to use the LEEWS method but there are so many parties, and the parties negligent act can start on page 3 and end on page 6 so it makes it a complete clusterfuck. It just leaves me feeling ashamed and violated after each one.

Dude! First things first, get your head screwed on straight. Every person in your class is taking the same exam. You don't need to beat the exam, just your peers. The LEEWS approach is great conceptually but don't drink the coolaide and think its going to work verbatim in all settings. The point is to wrap your head around the hypos situation, as best you can, so you can hit as many issues as possible.

Don't make the mistake of trying to absorb that entire hypo. Take it piece by piece. Also, don't make the mistake of spending too much time outline. On a race-horse hypo like your's the person who spots the most issues wins. No time to waste outlining an answer.
First, read through the hypo, creating a heading for each party in exam soft as they appear and listing the major issues you see. Then go back through the hypo, party-by-party and re-read the fact carefully for that party. Write an answer for that party and then move on. If you realize you've missed something while you are writing about a future party go back and add a secition at the end (e.g. "Note: we may be able to argue negligence per se as well" or "Note: D may try to invoked heeding presumption, we must argue that D wouldn't have had ability to comprehend warning even if provided," etc.).

The point is, the huge hypo could work to your advantage if you go in with a game plan, a positive attitude and attack. Guarantee you will spot more issues, and conduct more analysis than 90% of your peers with this approach.

I like the sound of this. A lot

So are you saying that I should read through the fact pattern and find the conflict pairings and their possible claims. Then, go through the fact pattern with each conflict pairing in mind and find the facts, claims, etc that support only that conflict pairing, and then repeat?

[apollo2015]

When you guys talk about duty owed, do you refer to Cardozo/Andrews/foreseeable plaintiff? Or just save that for proximate cause?

My professor told me to stop focusing on what Cardozo and Andrews believed, and to just use the current majority Duty Rule and our state specific Duty rule. It might be a professor specific thing, depending on how he plans to test you on Palsgraff.