roaringeagle wrote:i have
Osgood: Crim Law
Drobak: Civ Pro
Anyone care to comment?
Gosh, what a murderer's row. All very good, all demanding.
You'll pick this up pretty quickly, but the key for Greenfield is crafting a perfect "issue statement." There are more issues than you can possibly spot on a 3-hour exam, and whoever spots the most of them and writes the best ones will win. You can get between 0 and 5 points for an issue statement. The key to a perfect issue statement for him is to have the right balance between detail and vagueness ("The issue is whether there is a valid contract" is too broad, but including every fact in the question would be too detailed.) He gives a midterm and you can go over with him to figure out exactly what he's looking for. Fortunately, most people don't pay attention to the exam until it's way too late, so if you practice writing issue statements you should be fine.
Osgood wants you to talk about the cases from class in a thoughtful way. His questions are fairly open-ended and are largely a platform for you to opine on the subject through the vehicle of the cases. I think you'd be well-served to write down his takeaway thoughts for each case and pretty much repeat those on the exam. It's hard to differentiate yourself in there, especially because he gives a narrow range of grades (94 was the highest grade in our section). People will say use Dressler, which is fairly credited, but it should be to give you a framework of understanding, not to be used on the test.
Drobak will give you the most typical law school exam. I had him for property, not civ pro, but civ pro is what he's been teaching for ages. Know the rules, statutes and key cases backwards and forwards, take a bunch of practice tests to figure out the nuance and interplay between those things and how to apply them, and then type like crazy on the exam.