Is Law School Work Hard? Forum

[mephistopheles]

I thoroughly agree with the bolded, which is why I'm confused by your post;s insistence about how much time is required. Law school classes (usually) do not require you to know or understand all that much information. Grades are more about ability to spot issues.

Because the best ways to learn to spot issues are by reading cases and taking practice exams.

Of course, I could be wrong... I'm not a 4.0 student

meh, everyone is different. i know people who read every case and did poorly. i read every case and did well. i know people who only read supplements and did very poorly. i know people who only read supplements and did well.

the work is not hard in and of itself, but it is time-consuming.

Do you guys find it enjoyable at all? Like you would a favorite subject?

i absolutely loved contracts. torts was a joy, reading about dumb people and all. con law was infuriating, if only for the lack of intellectual coherency.

and all of my exams were open note, and i used my notes for all of them, and it wasn't a timesink.

[jwinaz]

They definitely tell you it's closed/open book way beforehand right?

[Tiago Splitter]

You girls done?

Are either of us getting "catty?" We clearly disagree, but I don't think were sniping at each other.

It is a difference of opinion. I know 2 people at my school who are probably 1 and 2 in their section and they have VASTLY different styles. It is about finding out what works for you.

I think to a large amount that's true. But I also think, to an extent, people who do well and really bust their ass could potentially still do as well if they worked less. I've never gotten someone to agree to be my experiment, though.

Haha. Based on my level of motivation so far, I might be your guinea pig this semester.

They definitely tell you it's closed/open book way beforehand right?

Yeah

[dingbat]

But you do memorize the rules themselves no? Like how many rules/laws would you need to memorize for a single class?

eh.
You can probably fit all the rules on a single page. Most exams are open book so you don't need to memorize them, although you should know what you're looking for when you're reading the question.

I had 2 closed book and 1 open book. I never looked at a note on all 3. I think open notes is for the most part a false crutch. You should be slashing out as much as possible. Bring notes if your mind like collapses upon itself like dwarf star.

mostly it was just a big pile sitting next to me during the exam. I did create a checklist of issues for one class, which was kind of helpful (but probably didn't affect my grade) and in crim it helped because I missed the classes on the topic of one question due to sloppy sandy

[uvabro]

If you learn the real value of money before school (not hookers and sports cars) but the difference in life 100k/yr will bring vs 30 vs 0 in terms of how others view you, the women you'll have access to, the way loved ones know you'd be there if you struggle and the stability you'll have the work ethic irrespective of feedback. My friends with specific goals did the best. The work isn't interesting, the people are great to be around and there's a million distractions. Just focus on something concrete but don't go nuts about it. It's better to "get something" than read 500 pages.

You can def read cases to spot issues. That's bullshit. If something is in a certain section it's there for that issue. I still think cases once you learn the basics is the best way to go bec u can then think of how the judges would argue if the facts were different (like an exam q) which profs jizz on. For con law I'm lost so I'm kind of not sure there.

[stillwater]

This is a debate of titanic proportions. On one side you have the traditionalist ("thou shalt brief and brief always") and the new age mavericks ("what a brief brah?").

[jwinaz]

This is a debate of titanic proportions. On one side you have the traditionalist ("thou shalt brief and brief always") and the new age mavericks ("what a brief brah?").

What IS a brief?

[splitmuch]

If you learn the real value of money before school (not hookers and sports cars) but the difference in life 100k/yr will bring vs 30 vs 0 in terms of how others view you, the women you'll have access to, the way loved ones know you'd be there if you struggle and the stability you'll have the work ethic irrespective of feedback. My friends with specific goals did the best. The work isn't interesting, the people are great to be around and there's a million distractions. Just focus on something concrete but don't go nuts about it. It's better to "get something" than read 500 pages.

You can def read cases to spot issues. That's bullshit. If something is in a certain section it's there for that issue. I still think cases once you learn the basics is the best way to go bec u can then think of how the judges would argue if the facts were different (like an exam q) which profs jizz on. For con law I'm lost so I'm kind of not sure there.

Bolded is my point. You know what the issue is generally just from where it is in the book and then the case comes right out and tells yous a it, that's quite different than "here's a set of facts"...what are the issues from the entire universe of shit we've covered this semester?

Getting good at the second is by far the most important thing to do in terms of grades. I think doing the first is of questionable (sure there might be some) utility in terms of getting good at the second.

[stillwater]

This is a debate of titanic proportions. On one side you have the traditionalist ("thou shalt brief and brief always") and the new age mavericks ("what a brief brah?").

What IS a brief?

I am right there with you. I've never briefed.

[jwinaz]

Are the readings you guys do written in a very esoteric kind of legal prose? ...fancy words, possibly old/archaic vocab, convoluted writing structure...etc.?

[mephistopheles]

This is a debate of titanic proportions. On one side you have the traditionalist ("thou shalt brief and brief always") and the new age mavericks ("what a brief brah?").

What IS a brief?

I am right there with you. I've never briefed.

i've always thought about this, but i still brief every case. i don't really know why.

[stillwater]

Are the readings you guys do written in a very esoteric kind of legal prose?

Sometimes I have to dig up Cicero.

[splitmuch]

This is a debate of titanic proportions. On one side you have the traditionalist ("thou shalt brief and brief always") and the new age mavericks ("what a brief brah?").

What IS a brief?

I am right there with you. I've never briefed.

You're more new agey than me. I briefed twice.

[Tiago Splitter]

i've always thought about this, but i still brief every case. i don't really know why.

What does that mean though? I read every case and take notes, but I'm not putting together like a page long brief with the different sub-headings (posture, issue, holding, etc.)

[splitmuch]

Are the readings you guys do written in a very esoteric kind of legal prose? ...fancy words, possibly old/archaic vocab, convoluted writing structure...etc.?

Some early property cases are like that.

[stillwater]

i've always thought about this, but i still brief every case. i don't really know why.

What does that mean though? I read every case and take notes, but I'm not putting together like a page long brief with the different sub-headings (posture, issue, holding, etc.)

I just do marginalia. I notate according to some inexact system but needs to work.

[mephistopheles]

i've always thought about this, but i still brief every case. i don't really know why.

What does that mean though? I read every case and take notes, but I'm not putting together like a page long brief with the different sub-headings (posture, issue, holding, etc.)

as i read, i type notes. for each case, i do some variation depending on class of facts, procedural history, issue(s), rule, rationale, holding, notes. i have an efficient shorthand system, though, so it's not as time-consuming as it could be.

[dingbat]

Well, last semester I briefed every case, and this semester I'm virtually at the point of not briefing anything ever again, so it'll be an interesting experiment to see how I fare

[uvabro]

If you learn the real value of money before school (not hookers and sports cars) but the difference in life 100k/yr will bring vs 30 vs 0 in terms of how others view you, the women you'll have access to, the way loved ones know you'd be there if you struggle and the stability you'll have the work ethic irrespective of feedback. My friends with specific goals did the best. The work isn't interesting, the people are great to be around and there's a million distractions. Just focus on something concrete but don't go nuts about it. It's better to "get something" than read 500 pages.

You can def read cases to spot issues. That's bullshit. If something is in a certain section it's there for that issue. I still think cases once you learn the basics is the best way to go bec u can then think of how the judges would argue if the facts were different (like an exam q) which profs jizz on. For con law I'm lost so I'm kind of not sure there.

Bolded is my point. You know what the issue is generally just from where it is in the book and then the case comes right out and tells yous a it, that's quite different than "here's a set of facts"...what are the issues from the entire universe of shit we've covered this semester?

Getting good at the second is by far the most important thing to do in terms of grades. I think doing the first is of questionable (sure there might be some) utility in terms of getting good at the second.

The difference i guess is i like seeing an issue in action before using it. It's like studying question types before seeing full tests so it can help you learn when the issues com up.

You also already are being told the arguemnts to make when it does. I don't brief but listing the material points and the judge and dissent's is the most useful piece of info to have on ur outline. The classes I did this for-focusing on the judge's reasoning in a case the issue applied to and applied his reasoning to the facts - I did very well in. I'm talking miswrite a rule and stil get an A stuff.

[jwinaz]

Not that I want to get too much deeper into this, because I'm not in law school yet...But I suppose I can't help but just ask a bit more on the complexity of exams and things like issue spotting and applying rules you guys talked about.

People mentioned that knowing a rule doesn't mean you can spot an issue with it and then apply it correctly.

I guess I'm wondering how tough that is with a set of facts. This is a made up example and obviously done for super easy analysis. But suppose:

[Person A has no permit/license to carry a gun, is underage, and shoots and kills Person B in the process of a struggle during a robbery outside of a gas station. Person A doesn't flee or anything, nor lie to police later, etc. There were many witnessses and he's subdued and caught right there by let's say four civilian, good samaritan bystanders at the scene of the crime. Plus, he confesses to it all and it's caught on gas station tape.]

So, would the process just be to recognize that Person A violated a law for needing a permit to carry a gun and also violated a law that is use of a gun to commit a crime? Here it's super obvious of course that his actions fit these violatoins.

But can someone give an example of a tougher case of how it might be harder to spot a crime and also whether or not a rule/law would apply and/or how to apply that rule/law? Are these like super hard legal puzzles? I'm guessing not as straight-forward as above example, but yet still kind of curious how tough they can be?

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity on this one if anyone answers.

[PinkCow]

I am prescribing you one chill pill to be taken daily.

Unlimited refills.

[uvabro]

If you really understand the rule it's ridiculously easy to spot them. The more subtle ones are harder, and what separates people. The really hard part is making good arguments based off case law on both sides.

[cinephile]

If you really understand the rule it's ridiculously easy to spot them.

Not true at all. A lot of times you read what you want to read into an exam, reading into it things from class or practice tests that aren't really what the professor is getting at. It's like that phenomenon when you correctly read a misspelt word because your mind was just expecting it.

[dingbat]

Not that I want to get too much deeper into this, because I'm not in law school yet...But I suppose I can't help but just ask a bit more on the complexity of exams and things like issue spotting and applying rules you guys talked about.
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity on this one if anyone answers.

The problem is that your fact pattern is never that short, and can easily be two pages long. Sure, you'll spot half a dozen issues, easily, but everyone will miss at least one or two issues. Not only that, many professors will put in red herrings or facts that make no difference whatsoever. So, it really isn't a simple "guy walks into a bank with a gun and aims it at the cashier". Not only that, once you spot the issue, it's still open to interpretation, such as "flowershop delivered red tulips instead of orange tulips at 10 AM instead of 9 AM, do you still need to pay them?" (the answer: it depends)

[uvabro]

If you really understand the rule it's ridiculously easy to spot them. The more subtle ones are harder, and what separates people. The really hard part is making good arguments based off case law on both sides.

idk dude. i'm no scholar and i did pretty well.