OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[SportsFan]

Started reading Dressler today to supplement my crim outline. Wow, I can already see why its so highly recommended. Its definitely helping clear up stuff that I didn't seem to catch in class.

+1. My CB (Kadish) and professor are pretty useless in describing the law. My outline is VERY Dressler driven now. Obviously, still have content from the CB, but this is way more focused

We use Kadish too. My least favorite textbook so far in law school because I hate how its organized. Also, as I read through Dressler I realize that its basically exactly how my professor has (tried to) organize my class (with a few things in a different order). Shame I think a lot of other people in my section are using it, so reading through it is more like catching up than gaining an advantage.

[stillwater]

Ok I haven't even started reviewing RAP but let me throw one out there. If I will my property to my grandchildren what RAP issues come up if any?

Are your grandchildren alive?

Then it's complicated. Because we would have a vested remainder subject to open and we'd have to cut through the shit.

If your grandchildren aren't alive, then its a springing executory interest and you retained a present interest in fee simple. This violates RAP because we cannot say for certain this will vest. The measuring lives will be the grantor, if you don't yet children, and also the grantor's children if alive and they don't yet have children.

[SportsFan]

Finding Ks class to be super straightforward and am getting worried I won't be able to find the tough issues on the test. Anyone have advice on forks, etc? I have Chirelstein, any other suggestions?

Can anyone recommend the Barbri lecture?

Personally I think it'd be best to just get a bunch of old exams from a bunch of different professors, and sit down and spend 10-15 minutes on each just writing down all the different issues you spot, and then compare it to a model answer.

[mephistopheles]

Finding Ks class to be super straightforward and am getting worried I won't be able to find the tough issues on the test. Anyone have advice on forks, etc? I have Chirelstein, any other suggestions?

Can anyone recommend the Barbri lecture?

Personally I think it'd be best to just get a bunch of old exams from a bunch of different professors, and sit down and spend 10-15 minutes on each just writing down all the different issues you spot, and then compare it to a model answer.

what's your textbook?

with no other information, i HIGHLY recommend principles of contract law by hillman. i had the hillman textbook for class, but even without that book i'd still buy the supp. that thing is pure gold.

[BlueLotus]

Any advice for objective ?s for Con Law? What supp would you recommend for those?

[mephistopheles]

OH and re: con law, this outline was helpful for a good quick read through on the basic rules in place for each subject matter area:

gilbert outline by choper

i had a lot of class notes and what not, but i liked to read through this every now and then. it also cites cases, so it's good for understanding everything's place.

[Nelson]

Started reading Dressler today to supplement my crim outline. Wow, I can already see why its so highly recommended. Its definitely helping clear up stuff that I didn't seem to catch in class.

+1. My CB (Kadish) and professor are pretty useless in describing the law. My outline is VERY Dressler driven now. Obviously, still have content from the CB, but this is way more focused

We use Kadish too. My least favorite textbook so far in law school because I hate how its organized. Also, as I read through Dressler I realize that its basically exactly how my professor has (tried to) organize my class (with a few things in a different order). Shame I think a lot of other people in my section are using it, so reading through it is more like catching up than gaining an advantage.

Kadish is so, so bad. I'm not sure why everyone uses it. Our crim prof has Dressler as a required text.

[SXphillyfloater]

Started reading Dressler today to supplement my crim outline. Wow, I can already see why its so highly recommended. Its definitely helping clear up stuff that I didn't seem to catch in class.

+1. My CB (Kadish) and professor are pretty useless in describing the law. My outline is VERY Dressler driven now. Obviously, still have content from the CB, but this is way more focused

We use Kadish too. My least favorite textbook so far in law school because I hate how its organized. Also, as I read through Dressler I realize that its basically exactly how my professor has (tried to) organize my class (with a few things in a different order). Shame I think a lot of other people in my section are using it, so reading through it is more like catching up than gaining an advantage.

Kadish is so, so bad. I'm not sure why everyone uses it. Our crim prof has Dressler as a required text.

Longtime lurker/reader of TLS in need of some motivation after slacking through most of my SB. After reading through this thread I know I've come to the right place.

My professor has focused explicitly on the MPC, is Dressler still worth using? Or does anyone have any other recommendations?

[crumpetsandtea]

I need help with motivation too. Someone please teach me property

[GSCgold]

I need help with motivation too. Someone please teach me property

I'm no property wiz, but I snagged an A last semester. I've got a pretty good outline I made using the CB (Dukeminier... spelling? Oh well) and BarBri lectures (highly recommended for property even though Paula is annoying as hell). If you're interested PM me your e-mail.

[stillwater]

I need help with motivation too. Someone please teach me property

I'm no property wiz, but I snagged an A last semester. I've got a pretty good outline I made using the CB (Dukeminier... spelling? Oh well) and BarBri lectures (highly recommended for property even though Paula is annoying as hell). If you're interested PM me your e-mail.

I gotta get that A this semester in property.

[SportsFan]

Anyone know any good ways to study for con law other than just doing PT's? With my other classes I can do MC problems or read through the supplements I have, but I'm not really sure how to approach con law other than just outlining/memorizing Chemerinsky and spending hours on PT's.

[RodneyRuxin]

Anyone know any good ways to study for con law other than just doing PT's? With my other classes I can do MC problems or read through the supplements I have, but I'm not really sure how to approach con law other than just outlining/memorizing Chemerinsky and spending hours on PT's.

I created a group thread in facebook with friends and we each took turns coming up with hypos and arguing about them. It's pretty helpful because there's always a Scalia in the group, and when taking PTs I always know both sides of every tiny issue.

[GSCgold]

Anyone know any good ways to study for con law other than just doing PT's? With my other classes I can do MC problems or read through the supplements I have, but I'm not really sure how to approach con law other than just outlining/memorizing Chemerinsky and spending hours on PT's.

Depending on your prof, it may be helpful to think of current issues relating to Con Law. My prof has MC, a couple short answers, then one long essay that is always about a current topic in Con Law. For example, I'm thinking through ways to approach a long essay based on something like Prop 8/DOMA and potentially one on the use of drones. Stepping back and looking not just at the facts of those particular issues, it might be helpful to kinda outline an approach to a question on these topics. Really, though, this goes in line with what you already said (PTs).

[SportsFan]

Anyone know any good ways to study for con law other than just doing PT's? With my other classes I can do MC problems or read through the supplements I have, but I'm not really sure how to approach con law other than just outlining/memorizing Chemerinsky and spending hours on PT's.

I created a group thread in facebook with friends and we each took turns coming up with hypos and arguing about them. It's pretty helpful because there's always a Scalia in the group, and when taking PTs I always know both sides of every tiny issue.

Thats interesting, maybe I should try getting something like that together.

And that made me think, for con law, should I spend any time learning the general different ways of interpreting the constitution (like, I know my professor has said he's a textualist, should I know how to interpret everything in a textual way?), or should I only focus on how each specific issue has been interpreted before? Not sure if this is really clear, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.

Anyone know any good ways to study for con law other than just doing PT's? With my other classes I can do MC problems or read through the supplements I have, but I'm not really sure how to approach con law other than just outlining/memorizing Chemerinsky and spending hours on PT's.

Depending on your prof, it may be helpful to think of current issues relating to Con Law. My prof has MC, a couple short answers, then one long essay that is always about a current topic in Con Law. For example, I'm thinking through ways to approach a long essay based on something like Prop 8/DOMA and potentially one on the use of drones. Stepping back and looking not just at the facts of those particular issues, it might be helpful to kinda outline an approach to a question on these topics. Really, though, this goes in line with what you already said (PTs).

I'm thinking about doing some pre-written answers for the big issues I expect to pop up (like commerce clause and equal protection clause), but besides that, I'm not sure what to do. I think I'm worried partly because last semester this is basically all I did (read, outline, and take PT's) and finished at median (and obviously I want to do better), and partly because I just don't want to sit here for 2-3 hours and take PT's.

[RodneyRuxin]

Sportsfan: focusing on only one way to interpret something is a loser's game.

Now that you know what your teacher likes, you still want to mention everything, but make sure you don't misstate/oversimplify the textualist position and make sure your argument against it is well-grounded.

If he scoffs at things like "evolving stds of decency" then make sure that you mention it but it might be smart to include his critique of it.

Also, as far as time management goes, if you notice an argument that he will consider weak/strong, spend less time on it. Look at everything from his position and focus on the issues you think he will see as "tough" (practice exams will help you with this).

[RodneyRuxin]

I'm thinking about doing some pre-written answers for the big issues I expect to pop up (like commerce clause and equal protection clause), but besides that, I'm not sure what to do. I think I'm worried partly because last semester this is basically all I did (read, outline, and take PT's) and finished at median (and obviously I want to do better), and partly because I just don't want to sit here for 2-3 hours and take PT's.

It's not always how you work, it's how you take a test. If you landed around median you should work on dissecting fact patterns and finding the issues others in your class won't see. That's what separates the good/average from the great.

[squid2211]

Finding Ks class to be super straightforward and am getting worried I won't be able to find the tough issues on the test. Anyone have advice on forks, etc? I have Chirelstein, any other suggestions?

Can anyone recommend the Barbri lecture?

I don't think many people liked the Barbri lecture, but I found it really helpful. I think it covers some topics much better than others. And while doesn't go in especially in depth, it gives you a very good outline for how to approach fact patterns in an organized manner. I found the offer, acceptance, consideration, PER, and SofF to be very helpful.

[redsox550]

Sportsfan: focusing on only one way to interpret something is a loser's game.

Now that you know what your teacher likes, you still want to mention everything, but make sure you don't misstate/oversimplify the textualist position and make sure your argument against it is well-grounded.

If he scoffs at things like "evolving stds of decency" then make sure that you mention it but it might be smart to include his critique of it.

Also, as far as time management goes, if you notice an argument that he will consider weak/strong, spend less time on it. Look at everything from his position and focus on the issues you think he will see as "tough" (practice exams will help you with this).

to further this, I Aced Conlaw by basically writing out every coneivable counter arguemtn and coutnerargument to the counterargument that i could think of. For instance, if SS then P will say he wins, but D will sya he wins. but P doenst even need to argue SS because he can argue ntermediate scrutiny but then P will say he wins and D will still sya he wins.... and i just wrote ALOT bc my additive system and I type fast so even if i spent a couple hundred words on something that only got me 1 point, the points just added up . and honestly I did not come close to mastering the material until I read other classes model answers my friend gave me (my teacher did not give out any) and read other model answers findable online

[brotherdarkness]

.

[stillwater]

Sportsfan: focusing on only one way to interpret something is a loser's game.

Now that you know what your teacher likes, you still want to mention everything, but make sure you don't misstate/oversimplify the textualist position and make sure your argument against it is well-grounded.

If he scoffs at things like "evolving stds of decency" then make sure that you mention it but it might be smart to include his critique of it.

Also, as far as time management goes, if you notice an argument that he will consider weak/strong, spend less time on it. Look at everything from his position and focus on the issues you think he will see as "tough" (practice exams will help you with this).

to further this, I Aced Conlaw by basically writing out every coneivable counter arguemtn and coutnerargument to the counterargument that i could think of. For instance, if SS then P will say he wins, but D will sya he wins. but P doenst even need to argue SS because he can argue ntermediate scrutiny but then P will say he wins and D will still sya he wins.... and i just wrote ALOT bc my additive system and I type fast so even if i spent a couple hundred words on something that only got me 1 point, the points just added up . and honestly I did not come close to mastering the material until I read other classes model answers my friend gave me (my teacher did not give out any) and read other model answers findable online

My prof won't be giving us either past exams or model answers, so I'm stuck trolling the internet for model answers. I've been using other law schools' (e.g. Berkeley, Columbia) model answers thus far, but if you have any additional recommendations as to where to find some good model answers I'd love to hear them.

ya I am real confused on how to approach an exam for conlaw.

[redsox550]

Ask classmates in other sections if their Con law prof gave them model answers + there's a decent chance 2 con law teachers at same school may teach similarly

[SportsFan]

ya I am real confused on how to approach an exam for conlaw.

Basically this haha. I've started reading through some old exam answers from other professors though, so hopefully I'll have a better idea soon.

[RodneyRuxin]

Finding Ks class to be super straightforward and am getting worried I won't be able to find the tough issues on the test. Anyone have advice on forks, etc? I have Chirelstein, any other suggestions?

Can anyone recommend the Barbri lecture?

I don't think many people liked the Barbri lecture, but I found it really helpful. I think it covers some topics much better than others. And while doesn't go in especially in depth, it gives you a very good outline for how to approach fact patterns in an organized manner. I found the offer, acceptance, consideration, PER, and SofF to be very helpful.

I just listened to the first two hours (I downloaded it on my smartphone so I could listen while I work out). I agree that it seems like a super organized approach to a K exam. Did you structure your outline on their format? (my professor jumps around a lot, so I'm thinking it might be a good idea).

[RodneyRuxin]

ya I am real confused on how to approach an exam for conlaw.

Basically this haha. I've started reading through some old exam answers from other professors though, so hopefully I'll have a better idea soon.

To me, it seems like every other exam, except with less BLL to go off of. Something else I felt was helpful is to navigate through the history of the doctrine, constantly applying the fact pattern to the progression of law. Ex: with freedom of speech's expansion, previous (now basically void) cases tell you how that case might apply under Brandenburg, etc.