Top Law Schools

apper123 wrote:I can't study outside the library. To each his own.

I also have really serious problems with paying attention and focus. Literally anything can distract me.

This also applies to me.

Outside the library = no productivity whatsoever.

vanwinkle wrote:I can sum up a winning exam strategy in four words: Apply law to facts. Apply law to facts. Apply law to facts!

Nice work.

I concur with this advice.

First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

edit: n/m

.

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

I don't know what else people think they're supposed to be doing on exams...

superserial wrote:

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

I don't know what else people think they're supposed to be doing on exams...

They probably think they're supposed to write a treatise on the law or something. That's the impression I get from some people at least.

edit: n/m

.

superserial wrote:

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

I don't know what else people think they're supposed to be doing on exams...

They state the rule, apply the facts in their head, then write their conclusion.

steve_nash wrote:

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

God bless the souls of those 60%.

+1. We were told this for just about every class, and yet after the contracts midterm most people were still not applying the law to the facts. I imagine the same thing happened after finals.

According to my K professor some people were doing this: "A court will most likely rule in favor of P. there was an offer and an acceptance, therefore there was a K and by not performing his part of the deal D breached the contract. P is entitled to damages."

Where is you explanation of what is an offer and how you arrived to the conclusion that there was one? What about the acceptance? Has the offer lapsed... etc... While we were not required to memorize the restatements and while these are not binding I found it extremely helpful when it came to articulating the rule

edit: n/m

.

steve_nash wrote:

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

God bless the souls of those 60%.

apper123 wrote:

superserial wrote:

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

I don't know what else people think they're supposed to be doing on exams...

They state the rule, apply the facts in their head, then write their conclusion.

Yep. This is easy to fall into if you don't know the BLL 100% or the class has just never clicked for you. I looked at my exams and I did this on most of the questions on my Contracts exam (first law school exam evar, super sleep deprived = my only excuses). I am fully expecting a B-.

By overly conclusory, do you guys mean a statement along the lines of, "A is guilty of B," without mention of what facts applied to the law informing that statement? Or even stating what action made him guilty without addressing the elements of the law applied?

I mean, if I said (in summary), "A is guilty of B because actions x, y, z corroborated to fulfill elements a, b, c of law B," would that be an appropriate response?

vanwinkle wrote:Those folks will burn themselves out by the time it's really time to study. Also, if what they're studying is material for their spring classes and not their exams and why they did so poorly on them, they're not going to do anything differently on exams this time either and get poor grades again no matter how much BLL or policy they memorize between now and finals.

50% of my success last semester was studying exam-taking in small doses, over and over, beginning in week one. I had collected enough info on how to take exams that I knew what I was doing on the finals even for classes I hadn't taken any practice tests for. Not all my grades are back yet but I think they'll continue to vindicate this strategy. I'm confident that continuing to do the same thing will help me get even higher grades, the grades I really want, next semester.

How did you effectively do this?

mistergoft wrote:

apper123 wrote:I can't study outside the library. To each his own.

I also have really serious problems with paying attention and focus. Literally anything can distract me.

This also applies to me.

Outside the library = no productivity whatsoever.

This.

Also, I apparently cannot deal with studying alone. It was very helpful for me to have a study buddy who would sit quietly with me at a table and crack a joke every now and then.

sayan wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:Those folks will burn themselves out by the time it's really time to study. Also, if what they're studying is material for their spring classes and not their exams and why they did so poorly on them, they're not going to do anything differently on exams this time either and get poor grades again no matter how much BLL or policy they memorize between now and finals.

50% of my success last semester was studying exam-taking in small doses, over and over, beginning in week one. I had collected enough info on how to take exams that I knew what I was doing on the finals even for classes I hadn't taken any practice tests for. Not all my grades are back yet but I think they'll continue to vindicate this strategy. I'm confident that continuing to do the same thing will help me get even higher grades, the grades I really want, next semester.

How did you effectively do this?

Reading GTM gradually, a chapter at a time, for the first few weeks of the semester. Flipping back through it again occasionally, looking at parts, after I was done. Talking to professors about what "legal analysis" is (which is a good codeword for "what you do on an exam" without saying "what do you do on an exam"). Getting a copy of LEEWS (which is overpriced, but I suppose still worth it for what few useful things it did provide me). Going into the library and just reading old exams from professors I wasn't taking, to get an idea of how exams are written. Remembering parts of what I'd read there and applying every idea discussed in class to them in my head. (I had three or four favorite exams, one for each subject I think, that I would've had an A+++ on if I got to actually take them at the end of the semester.) Going back and reading them again a week later and seeing what else I had missed. Doing it that way, I had saved the exams from my actual professors to use for taking practice tests, which I did in the last couple weeks before (and during) finals.

Chunking it, doing this in little intervals (a half-hour a day, every day or two, but over the entire semester), I kind of synthesized in my head the right way to approach things. Essentially, that's the secret: Turn to every resource you can to learn what people consider the best exam-taking strategies, and pull what you think are the best ideas from all of them to form your own. Do not trust any one source. The best studying of class material comes from using multiple sources (casebook, lectures, hornbooks, classmates) to synthesize your best understanding of the subject; likewise, the best studying of exam-taking strategies comes from using multiple sources to synthesize your best understanding of how to approach an exam.

I still need work. I'm being content with my grades but I could've done better. I've kept things to where I'm not in a bad position to start the next semester, though, and I do know exactly what I still need to work on. My biggest problem is that I'm too verbose; I say in 7,000 words what could've been said in half that. I need to work on conciseness, which is my big goal for this semester.

(Obviously I'm failing at that goal so far, but gimme time, I'll improve.)

sayan wrote:By overly conclusory, do you guys mean a statement along the lines of, "A is guilty of B," without mention of what facts applied to the law informing that statement? Or even stating what action made him guilty without addressing the elements of the law applied?

I mean, if I said (in summary), "A is guilty of B because actions x, y, z corroborated to fulfill elements a, b, c of law B," would that be an appropriate response?

This is close. Fiver made a good post about this on autoadmit, but I don't think I have the link anymore. Anyway, really what it should look like is this, in (C)IRAC version:

A is probably guilty of B. In J jurisdiction/code/etc., B requires a, b, and c. a is probably fulfilled by A doing x. b is probably fulfilled by A doing y; although A might argue p, we can respond with q consideration (see case), suggesting that {fuckery}. c may be fulfilled by A doing z. We can argue that z looks like c from m case. However, A might respond that z looks like g from n case. The judge will likely take our side because of {policy consideration fuckery}.

But of course it's impossible to go through this level of analysis on every possible charge or claim.

edited

vanwinkle wrote:

sayan wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:Those folks will burn themselves out by the time it's really time to study. Also, if what they're studying is material for their spring classes and not their exams and why they did so poorly on them, they're not going to do anything differently on exams this time either and get poor grades again no matter how much BLL or policy they memorize between now and finals.

50% of my success last semester was studying exam-taking in small doses, over and over, beginning in week one. I had collected enough info on how to take exams that I knew what I was doing on the finals even for classes I hadn't taken any practice tests for. Not all my grades are back yet but I think they'll continue to vindicate this strategy. I'm confident that continuing to do the same thing will help me get even higher grades, the grades I really want, next semester.

How did you effectively do this?

Reading GTM gradually, a chapter at a time, for the first few weeks of the semester. Flipping back through it again occasionally, looking at parts, after I was done. Talking to professors about what "legal analysis" is (which is a good codeword for "what you do on an exam" without saying "what do you do on an exam"). Getting a copy of LEEWS (which is overpriced, but I suppose still worth it for what few useful things it did provide me). Going into the library and just reading old exams from professors I wasn't taking, to get an idea of how exams are written. Remembering parts of what I'd read there and applying every idea discussed in class to them in my head. (I had three or four favorite exams, one for each subject I think, that I would've had an A+++ on if I got to actually take them at the end of the semester.) Going back and reading them again a week later and seeing what else I had missed. Doing it that way, I had saved the exams from my actual professors to use for taking practice tests, which I did in the last couple weeks before (and during) finals.

Chunking it, doing this in little intervals (a half-hour a day, every day or two, but over the entire semester), I kind of synthesized in my head the right way to approach things. Essentially, that's the secret: Turn to every resource you can to learn what people consider the best exam-taking strategies, and pull what you think are the best ideas from all of them to form your own. Do not trust any one source. The best studying of class material comes from using multiple sources (casebook, lectures, hornbooks, classmates) to synthesize your best understanding of the subject; likewise, the best studying of exam-taking strategies comes from using multiple sources to synthesize your best understanding of how to approach an exam.

I still need work. I'm being content with my grades but I could've done better. I've kept things to where I'm not in a bad position to start the next semester, though, and I do know exactly what I still need to work on. My biggest problem is that I'm too verbose; I say in 7,000 words what could've been said in half that. I need to work on conciseness, which is my big goal for this semester.

(Obviously I'm failing at that goal so far, but gimme time, I'll improve.)

Thanks that's good advice. After reading GTM last semester I was overwhelmed with everything I read and I don't really know if I remembered everything or if it was even helpful, except for to write until the facts run dry. Maybe I'll reread chapters one at a time this semester. I definitely need to look at old exams earlier this time around.

mallard wrote:

A is probably guilty of B. In J jurisdiction/code/etc., B requires a, b, and c. a is probably fulfilled by A doing x. b is probably fulfilled by A doing y; although A might argue p, we can respond with q consideration (see case), suggesting that {fuckery}. c may be fulfilled by A doing z. We can argue that z looks like c from m case. However, A might respond that z looks like g from n case. The judge will likely take our side because of {policy consideration fuckery}.

But of course it's impossible to go through this level of analysis on every possible charge or claim.

Tight word limits on two finals FTL.

apper123 wrote:

superserial wrote:

apper123 wrote:First day of my Torts class last semester:

"I'll tell you how to finish above median right now. Apply the law to the facts. 60 % of your classmates won't do this. 60 % of the people I am talking to in this room right now will not do it. Apply. the. law. to. the. facts. Write it down now and don't forget it."

I don't know what else people think they're supposed to be doing on exams...

They state the rule, apply the facts in their head, then write their conclusion.

TITCR. Something to keep in the back of your head: when writing the 'A' of IRAC, each sentence should contain facts mentioned somewhere in the hypothetical, or reasonable factual inferences from those facts. Any sentence that does not adhere to this principle is unlikely to net you many (if any) points.

The other thing I've noticed is completing LEEWS at the very beginning of the semester has paid great dividends. This does not seem to be the majority opinion on TLS. However, I found LEEWS helpful in at least three ways.

1. LEEWS really emphasizes the importance of avoiding conclusory statements. It's worth it as a remedy to this problem alone.
2. LEEWS puts the importance of cases and what you need to get out of them into perspective. You are mining the cases for rules, or "legal tools," which can be applied to solve legal problems. During the entire semester I was able to run circles around many of my classmates when it came to problem-solving or answering hypotheticals. I suspect this is because they got hopelessly lost in minutia; they didn't see/treat the cases as tools for problem-solving.
3. LEEWS helps you take better, concise, and more relevant notes. This is related to #2. Once you understand what you really need to draw from the cases, you'll also understand what you really need to draw from the class discussion.

I admit the LEEWS method of writing exams is hardly perfect. But really, no system is: you have to adapt your writing so as to produce what each individual professor wants to see.

mallard wrote:

sayan wrote:By overly conclusory, do you guys mean a statement along the lines of, "A is guilty of B," without mention of what facts applied to the law informing that statement? Or even stating what action made him guilty without addressing the elements of the law applied?

I mean, if I said (in summary), "A is guilty of B because actions x, y, z corroborated to fulfill elements a, b, c of law B," would that be an appropriate response?

This is close. Fiver made a good post about this on autoadmit, but I don't think I have the link anymore. Anyway, really what it should look like is this, in (C)IRAC version:

A is probably guilty of B. In J jurisdiction/code/etc., B requires a, b, and c. a is probably fulfilled by A doing x. b is probably fulfilled by A doing y; although A might argue p, we can respond with q consideration (see case), suggesting that {fuckery}. c may be fulfilled by A doing z. We can argue that z looks like c from m case. However, A might respond that z looks like g from n case. The judge will likely take our side because of {policy consideration fuckery}.

But of course it's impossible to go through this level of analysis on every possible charge or claim.

Sounds like you know how to take an exam

Thanks for the insight.