Yes, mostly outlines. I did read some supplements though (a few chapters of the chimerinsky con law, and a few chapters of understanding property and understanding evidence). With the outlines from people who have taken the class, supplements, and class, I felt like I was able to learn all I needed to know without ever really cracking open the case book.zeth006 wrote:Aqualibrium wrote:d34dluk3 wrote:Yeah, but they're pretty correlated to dedication.Aqualibrium wrote:I wouldnt count on that making a huge difference...Being prepared for class is useless. It's the people who are prepared for the exam who take home the top grades.
eh...not really. I read probably 20 cases total last semester; was never prepared to discuss in class. 2 months before finals though, I worked like a madman on every practice problem I could find. My semester was essentially only 2 months. Grades came out great. I dont think reading, briefing, and talking in class matter at all.
Well I suppose I proved your point though...I was still dedicated, just didnt approach it like everyone else.
How did you compensate for the lack of BLL and policy from not reading? Did supplements and outlines help out in these areas??
Additionally, the thing about practice problems (from commercially available books) is that they often have answers that also give a concise rule statement and a citation to the proper case, as well as the policy rationale behind certain rules. As a result, you get the type of "on the job learning" that you really need to be able to succeed on an exam. You end up viewing cases and bll in the context of an exam, and repeatedly applying them in that context. In each of my classes I did every question in the Lexis Q & A's, every question in the barbri books, every question kaplan provided, and every question in the Seigels books. By the time exams rolled around, I not only knew bll and policy backwards and forwards, but I could also apply it without much thought because I had done it so many times before.
