LEEWS Forum

[A'nold]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

Bidding war!



Arrow- how much of your top 1% standing do you think can be attributed to the LEEWS program? If you had never done LEEWS, do you think you'd be worse off?

Ultimately it is tough to say, but I credit much of my success off LEEWS. I would have studied equally hard, but I definitely would have done worse.

I would say 80%, since I followed its methods fairly closely with only some adjustments. However, I do have a gut feeling that some people (often in the T14) find it less useful, especially if you are smart already. For people who are just completely lost when it comes to law school, LEEWS is the way to go.

Thanks. Man, I might just fork out the money because I am awful at essay formatting. I am a great creative writer but not so good on the organizational side for technical writing. Ugh.

[atlantalaw]

approximately how much time did it take to go through all the leews?

[Arrow]

The real life lecture takes one whole day (~9 hours). I did the audio version and did it over the course of 3-4 days. It is a little bit longer (like 12-15 hours), mostly because I would stop and do an exercise, as well as take time to read the entire book that comes along with the audio tapes.

[ChattelCat]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

Bidding war!



Arrow- how much of your top 1% standing do you think can be attributed to the LEEWS program? If you had never done LEEWS, do you think you'd be worse off?

Ultimately it is tough to say, but I credit much of my success off LEEWS. I would have studied equally hard, but I definitely would have done worse.

I would say 80%, since I followed its methods fairly closely with only some adjustments. However, I do have a gut feeling that some people (often in the T14) find it less useful, especially if you are smart already. For people who are just completely lost when it comes to law school, LEEWS is the way to go.

Thanks. Man, I might just fork out the money because I am awful at essay formatting. I am a great creative writer but not so good on the organizational side for technical writing. Ugh.

I think what you're after is IRAC (or whatever your school teaches - ours was CREAC - same idea) that's the technical law school writing style where you'll really learn how to organize your answer. Leews is really only applicable to straight issue spotter exams and even then, I am convinced if I had followed his advice word for word I would have done terribly (except perhaps on Torts, because it was a straight issue spotter)

The other MAJOR problem I had with Leews is that he claims that you don't need to know the substantive law to learn how to write out exam answers and I found this proposition ridiculous. It's also terrible if you don't take torts until second semester (like I did) because he uses a torts exam for the majority of the program.

You're better off writing out answers to all the questions in the E&E's throughout the semester. That's what I found most beneficial in learning how to write an exam answer.

(Again - I'm not saying DON'T listen to it, I'm just saying don't expect to get a lot out of it. All this Leews hype is from that idiot who wrote Planet Law School, not because it's some miracle method)

[A'nold]

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.

Ultimately it is tough to say, but I credit much of my success off LEEWS. I would have studied equally hard, but I definitely would have done worse.

I would say 80%, since I followed its methods fairly closely with only some adjustments. However, I do have a gut feeling that some people (often in the T14) find it less useful, especially if you are smart already. For people who are just completely lost when it comes to law school, LEEWS is the way to go.

Thanks. Man, I might just fork out the money because I am awful at essay formatting. I am a great creative writer but not so good on the organizational side for technical writing. Ugh.

I think what you're after is IRAC (or whatever your school teaches - ours was CREAC - same idea) that's the technical law school writing style where you'll really learn how to organize your answer. Leews is really only applicable to straight issue spotter exams and even then, I am convinced if I had followed his advice word for word I would have done terribly (except perhaps on Torts, because it was a straight issue spotter)

The other MAJOR problem I had with Leews is that he claims that you don't need to know the substantive law to learn how to write out exam answers and I found this proposition ridiculous. It's also terrible if you don't take torts until second semester (like I did) because he uses a torts exam for the majority of the program.

You're better off writing out answers to all the questions in the E&E's throughout the semester. That's what I found most beneficial in learning how to write an exam answer.

(Again - I'm not saying DON'T listen to it, I'm just saying don't expect to get a lot out of it. All this Leews hype is from that idiot who wrote Planet Law School, not because it's some miracle method)

So.....Planet Law School 2 = dumb? Worth a read? Also, did you use "Getting to Maybe" at all?

One more thing: Is there anyone that followed LEEWS on here that didn't finish their 1L year in the top 1/3 (actually used it exactly how they were supposed to?).

[seeker63]

LEEWS is a waste of time and money.

To succeed on a law exam, this is what you have to do:

1) Spot the issues/problems your professor wants you to analyze (sometimes the prof will tell you).
2) Analyze the issues in an orderly, understandable (and correct) way.
3) Write well.

LEEWS only helps with the second part, and only on the broadest of levels. You want a topic sentence and a concise analysis, and you have to proceed quickly. There is no robotic way to do this, since the issues are hard and time is tight. Adopting a robotic writing style can consistently get you decent grades, but it won't get you to the top.

[A'nold]

LEEWS is a waste of time and money.

To succeed on a law exam, this is what you have to do:

1) Spot the issues/problems your professor wants you to analyze (sometimes the prof will tell you).
2) Analyze the issues in an orderly, understandable (and correct) way.
3) Write well.

LEEWS only helps with the second part, and only on the broadest of levels. You want a topic sentence and a concise analysis, and you have to proceed quickly. There is no robotic way to do this, since the issues are hard and time is tight. Adopting a robotic writing style can consistently get you decent grades, but it won't get you to the top.

Arrow seems to have used LEEWS to a t and finished in the top 1%.......

[ChattelCat]

So.....Planet Law School 2 = dumb? Worth a read? Also, did you use "Getting to Maybe" at all?

One more thing: Is there anyone that followed LEEWS on here that didn't finish their 1L year in the top 1/3 (actually used it exactly how they were supposed to?).

Planet Law School is an ENORMOUS waste of time (and paper). Getting to Maybe was a really good read IMO. It's a little bit general (i.e. it's not a 'method' so much as a compilation of good little tidbits of advice) but really gets you thinking about different ways to attack an essay exam.

[edcrane]

LEEWS is a waste of time and money.

To succeed on a law exam, this is what you have to do:

1) Spot the issues/problems your professor wants you to analyze (sometimes the prof will tell you).
2) Analyze the issues in an orderly, understandable (and correct) way.
3) Write well.

LEEWS only helps with the second part, and only on the broadest of levels. You want a topic sentence and a concise analysis, and you have to proceed quickly. There is no robotic way to do this, since the issues are hard and time is tight. Adopting a robotic writing style can consistently get you decent grades, but it won't get you to the top.

Demonstrably false.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Add me to the chorus of pro-LEEWS people. It really helped my approach to issue spotters. I went through LEEWS three times: the beginning of the fall semester, right before fall exams, and right before spring exams. I'll go through it again right before Autumn quarter exams, if it seems like the prof is going to have issue-spotter-esque finals.

I'm pro-GTM, too.

I read PLS, but decided that the approach he advocated was completely over-the-top. However, I did go through most of the materials he suggested *during* law school.

Edit to address ed:

I will say, however, that my professors credited my organization and writing style as what pushed me to A+s, instead of just As.

[edcrane]

1. Organization is obviously crucial.
2. "Writing well" might give you a sufficient boost, particularly on a tight curve, to move from an A to an A+, but I don't think it's necessary in many cases. Moreover, I think most people would consider A's to be top grades.

[seeker63]

1. Organization is obviously crucial.
2. "Writing well" might give you a sufficient boost, particularly on a tight curve, to move from an A to an A+, but I don't think it's necessary in many cases. Moreover, I think most people would consider A's to be top grades.

It depends on the course and the school. At a bad school in a torts issue-spotter test, robotic analysis may grant a top score. At a top school, where tests routinely require analysis of issues without clear answers, LEEWS does not help at all.

Strict adherence to a robotic system is a great way to set up a glass ceiling for yourself, though.

[ToTransferOrNot]

1. Organization is obviously crucial.
2. "Writing well" might give you a sufficient boost, particularly on a tight curve, to move from an A to an A+, but I don't think it's necessary in many cases. Moreover, I think most people would consider A's to be top grades.

It depends on the course and the school. At a bad school in a torts issue-spotter test, robotic analysis may grant a top score. At a top school, where tests routinely require analysis of issues without clear answers, LEEWS does not help at all.

Strict adherence to a robotic system is a great way to set up a glass ceiling for yourself, though.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of law school exam issues don't have clear answers, regardless of what school you're at.

[edcrane]

1. Organization is obviously crucial.
2. "Writing well" might give you a sufficient boost, particularly on a tight curve, to move from an A to an A+, but I don't think it's necessary in many cases. Moreover, I think most people would consider A's to be top grades.

It depends on the course and the school. At a bad school in a torts issue-spotter test, robotic analysis may grant a top score. At a top school, where tests routinely require analysis of issues without clear answers, LEEWS does not help at all.

Strict adherence to a robotic system is a great way to set up a glass ceiling for yourself, though.

Partially true. If you blindly apply IRAC/LEEWS, without considering your profs stated preferences, you're setting yourself up for median grades. On the other hand, there are plenty of exams, even at a "top school," that can be approached in a fairly rigid/formulaic way without fear of hitting a glass ceiling.

[A'nold]

1. Organization is obviously crucial.
2. "Writing well" might give you a sufficient boost, particularly on a tight curve, to move from an A to an A+, but I don't think it's necessary in many cases. Moreover, I think most people would consider A's to be top grades.

It depends on the course and the school. At a bad school in a torts issue-spotter test, robotic analysis may grant a top score. At a top school, where tests routinely require analysis of issues without clear answers, LEEWS does not help at all.

Strict adherence to a robotic system is a great way to set up a glass ceiling for yourself, though.

Good thing I won't be going to a "top school" then, lol.

[edgarderby]

Ultimately it is tough to say, but I credit much of my success off LEEWS. I would have studied equally hard, but I definitely would have done worse.

I would say 80%, since I followed its methods fairly closely with only some adjustments. However, I do have a gut feeling that some people (often in the T14) find it less useful, especially if you are smart already. For people who are just completely lost when it comes to law school, LEEWS is the way to go.

Thanks. Man, I might just fork out the money because I am awful at essay formatting. I am a great creative writer but not so good on the organizational side for technical writing. Ugh.

I think what you're after is IRAC (or whatever your school teaches - ours was CREAC - same idea) that's the technical law school writing style where you'll really learn how to organize your answer. Leews is really only applicable to straight issue spotter exams and even then, I am convinced if I had followed his advice word for word I would have done terribly (except perhaps on Torts, because it was a straight issue spotter)

The other MAJOR problem I had with Leews is that he claims that you don't need to know the substantive law to learn how to write out exam answers and I found this proposition ridiculous. It's also terrible if you don't take torts until second semester (like I did) because he uses a torts exam for the majority of the program.

You're better off writing out answers to all the questions in the E&E's throughout the semester. That's what I found most beneficial in learning how to write an exam answer.

(Again - I'm not saying DON'T listen to it, I'm just saying don't expect to get a lot out of it. All this Leews hype is from that idiot who wrote Planet Law School, not because it's some miracle method)

So.....Planet Law School 2 = dumb? Worth a read? Also, did you use "Getting to Maybe" at all?

One more thing: Is there anyone that followed LEEWS on here that didn't finish their 1L year in the top 1/3 (actually used it exactly how they were supposed to?).

Mark me down for somewhere above that, although without ranks or cutoffs I can't narrow it down too much. I went over LEEWS in the summer before law school, and reviewed the little book the weeks before exams. It's hard to say if i studied less than people with similar grades, but I can't imagine someone studying too much less. I was pretty casual about studying up till 2 weeks out or so from exams. I'm of the camp that there are greatly diminishing returns after a certain point.

[TheCure0013]

Anyone else have a copy of LEEWS they're willing to part with (preferably one with a solid lineage and helped user to top 1-5% of class )? Going rate seems to be $90, I'll match that

[legends159]

LEEWS can be a bit too simplistic and formulaic. GTM is much better but can be too abstract.

LEEWS + GTM is a great approach. If I were to choose just one, it'd be GTM, especially for policy questions, which LEEWS somewhat ignores.

The thing with LEEWS is that it's really easy to understand right from the get-go.

With GTM, the first 100 pages are very abstract and complicated, especially if you've never been to any law classes (which I never did). But after the 100 page mark, everything starts to make complete sense. I feel like one should read after the 100 page mark first and then read about all these forks to understand what the heck the author means by these forks and why they are important.

But the basic gist of LEEWS and GTM is the same: Find issues through conflict pairs, argue both sides of every issue thoroughly, pick one side that is slightly better and argue why, wrap it up by throwing in some policy-esque conclusion for what happens if that side prevails.

[mikeytwoshoes]

Anyone else have a copy of LEEWS they're willing to part with (preferably one with a solid lineage and helped user to top 1-5% of class )? Going rate seems to be $90, I'll match that

Really? You think it will rub off on you?

[n4sir1999]

has anyone started LEEWS prior to entering as a 1L?

I started it earlier this week (CDs) and I find it a bit helpful so far but pretty overwhelming because the only way to explain how to analyze a law hypo is to discuss law, and I don't seem to follow. Anyone else have a similar experience?

I went through the same feelings when I started "Getting to Maybe" and then decided to postpone reading the book until a few weeks into school... I don't want to postpone both LEEWS and "Getting to Maybe" until a few weeks into school. What to do?

[Snooker]

I am listening to LEEWS now on audio as suggested by some other poster. (I know, how gunnerish!)

My main observation at this point is that Wentworth Miller is perhaps the most unnecessarily wordy person on the planet. He could have trimmed each hour of lecture down to twenty minutes. I am about 1/4 through it, hoping it gets a bit denser later but having doubts about it.

The discussion about the mind's approach to law exam problems as being suddenly presented with one buzzing, booming confusion is very interesting so far though, and it seems worth the price of admission. Some posters with A+ averages have suggested looking at tests quite early on, so it seems helpful. Not finding myself particularly confused by Miller at this point. May happen later.

[Snooker]

LEEWS can be a bit too simplistic and formulaic. GTM is much better but can be too abstract.

LEEWS + GTM is a great approach. If I were to choose just one, it'd be GTM, especially for policy questions, which LEEWS somewhat ignores.

The thing with LEEWS is that it's really easy to understand right from the get-go.

With GTM, the first 100 pages are very abstract and complicated, especially if you've never been to any law classes (which I never did). But after the 100 page mark, everything starts to make complete sense. I feel like one should read after the 100 page mark first and then read about all these forks to understand what the heck the author means by these forks and why they are important.

But the basic gist of LEEWS and GTM is the same: Find issues through conflict pairs, argue both sides of every issue thoroughly, pick one side that is slightly better and argue why, wrap it up by throwing in some policy-esque conclusion for what happens if that side prevails.

The end point there seems pretty common-sense. In any lawsuit, there'll be plaintiffs and defendants, a competent lawyer can do both, and you need to be able to handle policy because judges also make those decisions.

But the books do clarify how that can be done a lot.

Anyone have an opinion about Delaney?

[Attucks]

Happened to pick up a used copy without a bookmark....can anyone briefly run down what's on it? Is there a critical part of the program I'm missing out on without it?

[homegr0wn]

OH HAI I'M BANNED FOR A WEEK

[edcrane]

Good start to LS. Protip: try to minimize the number of crimes you commit between now and C&F.