beepboopbeep wrote:lawschool2014hopeful wrote:Any recommendations as to how to outline for Henderson? He doesnt release any memos, but from some of the sample answers I have seen, it looks like he expects case-analogy arguments and stuff like least-cost avoider/coase, etc, is that a fair assessment?
Most of the outlines I see simply summarizes a case into its facts and take away, is this all I should do, or should I do some "attack-outline/checklist" similar to Elements.
Thanks for your help everyone, let me know if you want a free lunch on me when break is over.
Henderson's exam is a sore subject for many of the 2016ers. Has he said whether he's going back to the issue-spotter or whether it'll be the open-ended questions approach? If the latter, probably more like elements would be helpful, I guess. I mean, do what works for you. I did the normal outline approach not really knowing how strange the exam would be, and did well. Just be confident in your ability to bullshit. Your assessment of what he's looking for sounds right.
I generally agree with this. I did the normal outline approach and did well, too, but I'm not sure my doing well had anything to do with the normal outline approach. Definitely see what kind of clarification you can get from him in regards to what the exam will look like (issue spotter vs. that BS he pulled last year), and go from there.
And Emma's right. Relax, it's a long way to the finish line.