OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

[dannynoonan87]

it's 3:30 a.m. on a friday night and LRW still sucks

[brotherdarkness]

.

[gaud]

CAN'T STOP WON'T STOPPIN TODAY

Property Crunchtime? Check
Brief? Check
Con Law Crunchtime? Check
Crim Law Crunchtime? Check


Gonna be a stellar weekend lol

[Jsa725]

.

[SportsFan]

Last week of class coming up. Probably a good time to start memorizing my outlines instead of just updating them and supplementing them. Haha.

[Jsa725]

.

[LetsGoLAW]

Hope everyone's grinding away on this fine day. I'm finishing up my OLs and hitting up an untimed Civ Pro PT. Let's get it done.

[Bronck]

Just woke up

[RodneyRuxin]

I'm much better at studying under pressure (when in a time crunch). How do you guys motivate yourselves to study when you have time to spare?

[Jsa725]

.

[Danger Zone]

I'm much better at studying under pressure (when in a time crunch). How do you guys motivate yourselves to study when you have time to spare?

I'm the same as you, man. I try to force myself to start earlier, but... I don't know. It works better when I feel stressed.

[SportsFan]

I'm much better at studying under pressure (when in a time crunch). How do you guys motivate yourselves to study when you have time to spare?

I set goals for myself. All semester I give myself a rough plan of the things I want to accomplish every day for the next 2-3 days. I don't normally accomplish EVERYTHING I set out to do, but for me its really helpful to have realistic but ambitious goals.

[Randomnumbers]

studying while unmotivated and half-assed > not studying at all

I have to disagree with that. Study smart, study efficiently, and keep your life sane. Spend two hours relaxing and one hour studying hard over three hours of half-assed unmotivated studying.

[SportsFan]

I did a con law practice test earlier that had a 1200 word limit. Can anyone tell me if my basic analysis is right or way off?

The hypo was that there was increasing violence against women on colleges across the US, normally involving guns, so congress passed a law banning men from having guns on college campuses and requiring women to have a gun with them when on college campuses. I divided my analysis into 2 parts (parts 1 and 2, we'll call them), then divided the second part into two more parts (2a and 2b). In part 1, I talked about whether congress had the authority to pass the law, and did my entire analysis under the commerce clause (and ended up saying yes, but thats not really important). In part 2 I talked about whether either provision of the law violated the constitution. 2a (banning men from having guns) I looked at under the equal protection clause with intermediate scrutiny, and said it was maybe constitutional but then looked at it under the 2nd amendment (post Heller) and said it was unconstitutional because people have a 2nd amendment right to self defense. For 2b (forcing women to have guns), I said it should be looked at as a tax like the Obamacare mandate (and said it would be unconstitutional since it was trying to force them to do too much, basically).

Sorry its a lot of text, but does this look like it was organized properly?

Edit: And am I correct in assuming that for all con law problems about congressional acts and executive acts, my analysis should follow the "do they have the authority to do this" then "is this unconstitutional" format?

[Jsa725]

.

[stillwater]

going out last night... bad idea

[mephistopheles]

Just woke up

we all need a break every now and then.

[LetsGoLAW]

Do you boys and gals think 3-4 weeks is enough time for 3 finals? I'm curious where I stand. I finished outlines, case readings, and supplements for the semester. Any feedback would be great.

[Birdnals]

I did a con law practice test earlier that had a 1200 word limit. Can anyone tell me if my basic analysis is right or way off?

The hypo was that there was increasing violence against women on colleges across the US, normally involving guns, so congress passed a law banning men from having guns on college campuses and requiring women to have a gun with them when on college campuses. I divided my analysis into 2 parts (parts 1 and 2, we'll call them), then divided the second part into two more parts (2a and 2b). In part 1, I talked about whether congress had the authority to pass the law, and did my entire analysis under the commerce clause (and ended up saying yes, but thats not really important). In part 2 I talked about whether either provision of the law violated the constitution. 2a (banning men from having guns) I looked at under the equal protection clause with intermediate scrutiny, and said it was maybe constitutional but then looked at it under the 2nd amendment (post Heller) and said it was unconstitutional because people have a 2nd amendment right to self defense. For 2b (forcing women to have guns), I said it should be looked at as a tax like the Obamacare mandate (and said it would be unconstitutional since it was trying to force them to do too much, basically).

Sorry its a lot of text, but does this look like it was organized properly?

Edit: And am I correct in assuming that for all con law problems about congressional acts and executive acts, my analysis should follow the "do they have the authority to do this" then "is this unconstitutional" format?

Did you look at either the DC or Chicago handgun ban cases? I would assume he was expecting those to be brought up and how it basically incorporates the 2nd amendment into the 14th amendment and made it applicable to states (public university).

I would also expect the violence against women part was expecting a commerce clause analysis as well as a 14th amendment due process analysis under the Virginia Tech College Rape case.

Maybe even bring in the Necessary and Proper for the common defense clause? That is a bit of a stretch but I could see it fitting.

[mephistopheles]

Do you boys and gals think 3-4 weeks is enough time for 3 finals? I'm curious where I stand. I finished outlines, case readings, and supplements for the semester. Any feedback would be great.

you're (dangerously) too far ahead.

[LetsGoLAW]

Do you boys and gals think 3-4 weeks is enough time for 3 finals? I'm curious where I stand. I finished outlines, case readings, and supplements for the semester. Any feedback would be great.

you're (dangerously) too far ahead.

Dangerously?

[Robert Paulson]

Do you boys and gals think 3-4 weeks is enough time for 3 finals? I'm curious where I stand. I finished outlines, case readings, and supplements for the semester. Any feedback would be great.

That's where I was last semester, and I did pretty well. Caveat: I felt like I had too much time and didn't feel any nervous energy that usually helps me with exams. I'm planning on being done w/ outlines two weeks before finals (4) this semester. Just stay motivated and you'll kill all your finals!

[mephistopheles]

Do you boys and gals think 3-4 weeks is enough time for 3 finals? I'm curious where I stand. I finished outlines, case readings, and supplements for the semester. Any feedback would be great.

you're (dangerously) too far ahead.

Dangerously?

i don't know why you'd need more than 2-3 days prior to each test once your outlines are all done..

[brotherdarkness]

.

[mr.hands]

So i'm basically done with my outlines. I haven't memorized them yet and I have about 7-12 days until my exams start. I feel really behind.

Any advice on how to prep? If i'm not careful, i'll just waste a lot of time and get median pwned.

Make Flashcards?
Just take exams?
Practice questions from E&Es? barbri? exams from other schools (since my profs didn't give any out?)
Just stare at my outlines?

helllppppp