1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[ilovesf]

Really? Do none of your schools have GPA requirements for law review? I would be pissed if I did like a weeks worth of stupid bluebooking during the summer only to find out my grades dropped and I didn't qualify...

My school gives a grade-on for the top 4 students in each section (~top 5%.) 16 people are admitted through a combination of the write-on memo grade + GPA. 16 people are admitted purely through the write-on memo grade. A few special snowflakes are admitted based on a more holistic approach.

This way all students can maintain the illusion of having a chance of getting onto law review... and then finding out, IN AUGUST, that we didn't make the cut. YEAH, we don't even know if we're on the journal until right before OCI.

Yeah, super bullshit.

[Addy]

Really? Do none of your schools have GPA requirements for law review? I would be pissed if I did like a weeks worth of stupid bluebooking during the summer only to find out my grades dropped and I didn't qualify...

My school gives a grade-on for the top 4 students in each section (~top 5%.) 16 people are admitted through a combination of the write-on memo grade + GPA. 16 people are admitted purely through the write-on memo grade. A few special snowflakes are admitted based on a more holistic approach.

This way all students can maintain the illusion of having a chance of getting onto law review... and then finding out, IN AUGUST, that we didn't make the cut. YEAH, we don't even know if we're on the journal until right before OCI.

Yeah, super bullshit.

+1. Schools really do play dirty.

[Extension_Cord]

Whats best way to format Criminal Law Essay answer?

I've changed it to:

A v. B.
Homicide - (Murder I/II, Manslaughter...)
1. Define and state the actus reus.
2. Talk about actual and proximate causation, then do analysis.
3. Give statutory requirment for homicide, then do analysis to determine what mens rea(s) we are looking for.
4. Start from most culpable mens rea and work way down in analysis in comparing facts to mens rea (ruling out homicide crimes as I go) until I find most culpable option.
5. Show there was a concurrence between mens rea and actus reus, crime was met.
6. Then go through lesser homicide crimes and show whether there is concurrence between mens rea and actus reus.
7. See if the defendant was justified or excused
8. Conclude

Thoughts?

What kind of policy arguments can I make?

[Gettingstarted1928]

I just realized that on my recent con law exam I went through a whole substantive due process and also an equal protection analysis for a question and I don't remember ever mentioning "Oh, btw, these are clauses in the 14th Amendment." That's bad, right? FML.

Shit. I did the same thing. How much of an error is that? If your equal protection analysis is solid (this is where I forgot to say Section 1 14th amendment blah blah blah), how much of an error do you think this is? (I know it's professor dependent, but is it huge?). Currently freaking out now.

Is this a joke? Maybe it's a problem if your professor grades like a high school teacher.

[jess]

.

[hijodehombre]

I just realized that on my recent con law exam I went through a whole substantive due process and also an equal protection analysis for a question and I don't remember ever mentioning "Oh, btw, these are clauses in the 14th Amendment." That's bad, right? FML.

Shit. I did the same thing. How much of an error is that? If your equal protection analysis is solid (this is where I forgot to say Section 1 14th amendment blah blah blah), how much of an error do you think this is? (I know it's professor dependent, but is it huge?). Currently freaking out now.

Is this a joke? Maybe it's a problem if your professor grades like a high school teacher.

My Civ Pro prof is big on "forum-shopping". She posted the exam from last year and an example of a model answer. In the fact pattern, the plaintiff was from State X, filing a claim against the defendant in State X, on a State X cause of action. The student wrote something about how the fact that the plaintiff didn't sue in federal court could be seen as forum-shopping. The prof obviously wet herself when she read it. She wrote "excellent" next to that sentence with an exclamation point and a smiley face.

[bk1]

Last exam tomorrow. Insomnia setting in.

[ilovesf]

Last exam tomorrow. Insomnia setting in.

so jelly. good luck!

[Gettingstarted1928]

I just realized that on my recent con law exam I went through a whole substantive due process and also an equal protection analysis for a question and I don't remember ever mentioning "Oh, btw, these are clauses in the 14th Amendment." That's bad, right? FML.

Shit. I did the same thing. How much of an error is that? If your equal protection analysis is solid (this is where I forgot to say Section 1 14th amendment blah blah blah), how much of an error do you think this is? (I know it's professor dependent, but is it huge?). Currently freaking out now.

Is this a joke? Maybe it's a problem if your professor grades like a high school teacher.

My Civ Pro prof is big on "forum-shopping". She posted the exam from last year and an example of a model answer. In the fact pattern, the plaintiff was from State X, filing a claim against the defendant in State X, on a State X cause of action. The student wrote something about how the fact that the plaintiff didn't sue in federal court could be seen as forum-shopping. The prof obviously wet herself when she read it. She wrote "excellent" next to that sentence with an exclamation point and a smiley face.

Yeah, but this is different in my opinion. There's not need to not that those clauses are in the 14th Amendment. You might as freak out for not stating that those clauses come from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[hijodehombre]

Yeah, but this is different in my opinion. There's not need to not that those clauses are in the 14th Amendment. You might as freak out for not stating that those clauses come from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I agree. I don't think its necessary to mention anything beyond the name of the clause. I guess I was just making the point that professors have their quirks when it comes to what they expect to see on an exam.

[Gettingstarted1928]

Yeah, but this is different in my opinion. There's not need to not that those clauses are in the 14th Amendment. You might as freak out for not stating that those clauses come from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I agree. I don't think its necessary to mention anything beyond the name of the clause. I guess I was just making the point that professors have their quirks when it comes to what they expect to see on an exam.

Just reread my post. I'm surprised you even bothered responding. I need to start typing slowly.

[sundance95]

Yeah, but this is different in my opinion. There's not need to not that those clauses are in the 14th Amendment. You might as freak out for not stating that those clauses come from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I agree. I don't think its necessary to mention anything beyond the name of the clause. I guess I was just making the point that professors have their quirks when it comes to what they expect to see on an exam.

This is probably professor specific. For some reason my prof emphasized which amendment a claim was being brought under; so if the law in question was a federal statute this prof wanted us to say 5th Amdt Due Process or the 14th Amdt EPC via the 5th. Why? I have no idea. But like I said my prof emphasized this so if yours didn't I wouldn't worry about it.

[TTTLS]

The advice of 2Ls and 3Ls has become nothing more than a sinister 'just do clear and concise analysis bro' flame.

[Eugenie Danglars]

Last exam in a couple hours. Been a brutal three weeks, and so glad to be almost done. I now just have to muster energy between now and then to care. lol

[lifestooquick]

28 hour Con Law take home starts NOW!

[Arbiter213]

I just realized that on my recent con law exam I went through a whole substantive due process and also an equal protection analysis for a question and I don't remember ever mentioning "Oh, btw, these are clauses in the 14th Amendment." That's bad, right? FML.

Shit. I did the same thing. How much of an error is that? If your equal protection analysis is solid (this is where I forgot to say Section 1 14th amendment blah blah blah), how much of an error do you think this is? (I know it's professor dependent, but is it huge?). Currently freaking out now.

Is this a joke? Maybe it's a problem if your professor grades like a high school teacher.

My Civ Pro prof is big on "forum-shopping". She posted the exam from last year and an example of a model answer. In the fact pattern, the plaintiff was from State X, filing a claim against the defendant in State X, on a State X cause of action. The student wrote something about how the fact that the plaintiff didn't sue in federal court could be seen as forum-shopping. The prof obviously wet herself when she read it. She wrote "excellent" next to that sentence with an exclamation point and a smiley face.

If it was a federal cause of action then it actually was forum shopping and was very astute of the model answer to point out.

[crossarmant]

24 hours until my last exam and I am so goddamn burnt out. I was at the library until close last night and then hid on campus studying Crim until 1:30am when my fiancee called and yelled at me to go home. I keep telling myself that there's only one more day of effort left, but then I freak out because I only have one more day left to really understand everything in Crim and time runs too fast.

[crossarmant]

Also can anyone explain the concept of burden shifting to me in Crim? If its an affirmative defense, that means that there is not contention about the individual elements of the crime, but rather there is an outside excuse or justification (self-defense, duress), and the defendant has an evidentiary burden to establish that this defense is real and then they also retain the burden of persuasion to prove it (usually by a preponderance of the evidence, in some rare cases with clear and convincing evidence). And with other simple defenses, like alibi or intoxication, it negatives an individual element of the crime (usually mens rea) and so it is permissible for there to be an evidentiary burden to establish the defense, but then the burden of persuasion shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the element does indeed exist. That sound right?

But then there are some defenses that can be construed as either affirmative or separate defenses, like Insanity, that can either negates the mens rea needed or can admit the elements but work as a justification/excuse. Then we have to debate on which it does and if the burden can be placed on the defendant, right? But you cannot place the burden on the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, because that would violate their constitutional rights of being innocent until proven guilty.

Does this all sound right? I know it's fairly rudimentary stuff, but its been the only thing in Crim that I've felt has been very poorly explained.

[dabomb75]

24 hour con law exam starts in 40 minutes

[Hannibal]

One Day Mooooore

[gdane]

28 hour Con Law take home starts NOW!

Good luck! You're going to do great!

Just remember, Scalia's opinions are always bad law.

[3|ink]

Fuck Tranyor for making contracts more complicated than necessary.

[merc280]

torts exam starts in a little bit, like an hour and a half. Not sure Im ready for it, every question I see makes me think Its a new thing asking for a diff type of doctrine.

[Shammis]

23 Hours until CivPro - what's this whole Joinder thing? I dont think it's a big deal...lol.

[gdane]

I am sooo not into Crim Pro. This may end up being my worst exam grade simply because I'm not giving a huge fuck about it. I guess its because Crim Pro feels "easy." Its very straightforward stuff. Plus, its open book. Im doing practice questions but Im like "eh."

Closed book exams are very difficult to prepare for and I feel more pressure on them, but I need that. Open book exams give you a sense of complacency.