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

[LetsGoLAW]

Hey bros.

Question. My Con Law professor is notorious for giving massive issue spotters with dozens of issues in each paragraph. A true work horse exam. Anyway, I am prepping by combining my professor's preferences, reading Chemerinsky, etc. He also has a policy question, probably concerning E.P.C. Does anyone have any advice concerning this? Luckily, everyone feels doomed in this class.

TL;DR - Huge Con Law issue spotter. Bro tips?

[mephistopheles]

Hey bros.

Question. My Con Law professor is notorious for giving massive issue spotters with dozens of issues in each paragraph. A true work horse exam. Anyway, I am prepping by combining my professor's preferences, reading Chemerinsky, etc. He also has a policy question, probably concerning E.P.C. Does anyone have any advice concerning this? Luckily, everyone feels doomed in this class.

TL;DR - Huge Con Law issue spotter. Bro tips?

what have you done with EPC? i must have spent 3 weeks in class on it.

[soj]

At this point I'm tempted to just say fuck it and never read a case again out of spite. (until I graduate)

[SportsFan]

At this point I'm tempted to just say fuck it and never read a case again out of spite. (until I graduate)

I've been skimming the casebooks and reading briefs all semester. Honestly I think its the way to go. Keeps you less stressed since "oh no I have 3 hours of reading tonight!" turns into "oh no I have 1 hour of reading tonight!" and you're pretty much guaranteed to get the point of the case instantly (unless you're reading a bad brief). Depending on if I do better or worse this semester than last, I'll have different advice for future 1L's on how to prepare.

[Danger Zone]

I really feel like I take away the right information if I don't read and just show up to class unprepared. Then the professor can either tell me what's important through their lecture or through their critiques of my classmate's analyses. It's awesome because it's so much less work. Downside: I got completely embarassed in class the other night by a prof who just kept hitting me with one question after another.

[mephistopheles]

I really feel like I take away the right information if I don't read and just show up to class unprepared. Then the professor can either tell me what's important through their lecture or through their critiques of my classmate's analyses. It's awesome because it's so much less work. Downside: I got completely embarassed in class the other night by a prof who just kept hitting me with one question after another.

participation bumps are real

[LetsGoLAW]

Hey bros.

Question. My Con Law professor is notorious for giving massive issue spotters with dozens of issues in each paragraph. A true work horse exam. Anyway, I am prepping by combining my professor's preferences, reading Chemerinsky, etc. He also has a policy question, probably concerning E.P.C. Does anyone have any advice concerning this? Luckily, everyone feels doomed in this class.

TL;DR - Huge Con Law issue spotter. Bro tips?

what have you done with EPC? i must have spent 3 weeks in class on it.

Spent about a week on it. Rational basis cases, race, gender. Mostly, we focus on fundamental rights. Bro tips?

[SportsFan]

I really feel like I take away the right information if I don't read and just show up to class unprepared. Then the professor can either tell me what's important through their lecture or through their critiques of my classmate's analyses. It's awesome because it's so much less work. Downside: I got completely embarassed in class the other night by a prof who just kept hitting me with one question after another.

I've shown up to various classes completely unprepared a few times (mostly through reading the syllabus incorrectly or missing an assignment, never intentionally) and been incredibly confused. Maybe my professors just teach differently than yours, but in my experience, I need to have some sort of basic background understanding of whats going on or I really can't get anything out of the class.

[Danger Zone]

I really feel like I take away the right information if I don't read and just show up to class unprepared. Then the professor can either tell me what's important through their lecture or through their critiques of my classmate's analyses. It's awesome because it's so much less work. Downside: I got completely embarassed in class the other night by a prof who just kept hitting me with one question after another.

participation bumps are real

Not in my experience. YMMV.

[mephistopheles]

Hey bros.

Question. My Con Law professor is notorious for giving massive issue spotters with dozens of issues in each paragraph. A true work horse exam. Anyway, I am prepping by combining my professor's preferences, reading Chemerinsky, etc. He also has a policy question, probably concerning E.P.C. Does anyone have any advice concerning this? Luckily, everyone feels doomed in this class.

TL;DR - Huge Con Law issue spotter. Bro tips?

what have you done with EPC? i must have spent 3 weeks in class on it.

Spent about a week on it. Rational basis cases, race, gender. Mostly, we focus on fundamental rights. Bro tips?

focus on what the fundamental rights are and the landmark cases. what you'll probably get is some expansion and you have to decide whether the doctrine applies and how. know both majority and dissent arguments (just like all of con law). if you want something more specific, i'm not with my notes right now but i;m more than willing to answer more specific questions.

[LetsGoLAW]

Hey bros.

Question. My Con Law professor is notorious for giving massive issue spotters with dozens of issues in each paragraph. A true work horse exam. Anyway, I am prepping by combining my professor's preferences, reading Chemerinsky, etc. He also has a policy question, probably concerning E.P.C. Does anyone have any advice concerning this? Luckily, everyone feels doomed in this class.

TL;DR - Huge Con Law issue spotter. Bro tips?

what have you done with EPC? i must have spent 3 weeks in class on it.

Spent about a week on it. Rational basis cases, race, gender. Mostly, we focus on fundamental rights. Bro tips?

focus on what the fundamental rights are and the landmark cases. what you'll probably get is some expansion and you have to decide whether the doctrine applies and how. know both majority and dissent arguments (just like all of con law). if you want something more specific, i'm not with my notes right now but i;m more than willing to answer more specific questions.

Dissents are very important in Con Law?

[Danger Zone]

Absolutely dude. There's a ton of things that start out as a dissent or concurrence and later become doctrine. Like applying intermediate scrutiny to gender based equal protection, or strict scrutiny to affirmative action.

[SportsFan]

So thinking about con law and How to Answer Exam Questions, we just did some stuff on the 2nd amendment. If I get a 2nd amendment question on the exam, could part of my answer to the question (just speaking in the abstract, since I have no specific question in mind, just a general 2nd amendment based question) be "the courts have always interpreted it using originalism, and here that works/doesn't work because XYZ was/wasn't part of the amendments original intent", then I could go on to say "However the court may decide to use a 'living constitution' theory, and to expand/contract the meaning of the 2nd amendment because it fits in with policy goals ABC" and "a court using textualism may find the 2nd amendment provides a broad/narrow scope of gun rights which fits in with policy ABC"? Am I still way off on how to approach con law answers, or is this more like how I should be thinking about them?

[Birdnals]

So thinking about con law and how to answer exam questions, we just did some stuff on the 2nd amendment. If I get a 2nd amendment question on the exam, could part of my answer to the question (just speaking in the abstract, since I have no specific question in mind, just a general 2nd amendment based question) be "the courts have always interpreted it using originalism, and here that works/doesn't work because XYZ was/wasn't part of the amendments original intent", then I could go on to say "However the court may decide to use a 'living constitution' theory, and to expand/contract the meaning of the 2nd amendment because it fits in with policy goals ABC" and "a court using textualism may find the 2nd amendment provides a broad/narrow scope of gun rights which fits in with policy ABC"? Am I still way off on how to approach con law answers, or is this more like how I should be thinking about them?

Maybe it is just my prof, but the major focus on second amendment is if it was incorporated to the states by the 14th. There are two decisions that deal with it, one about the DC handgun ban and the other about Chicago's which is more recent. Both hit the 2nd amendment on it's head/ give background on how to handle the issue.

[mephistopheles]

Maybe it is just my prof, but the major focus on second amendment is if it was incorporated to the states by the 14th. There are two decisions that deal with it, one about the DC handgun ban and the other about Chicago's which is more recent. Both hit the 2nd amendment on it's head/ give background on how to handle the issue.

this. and in terms of talking about things like "originalism" or "living constitution," it sounds odd to describe it as you did. something just seems off, as if you were writing your outline. i'd rather have read how the cases have actually been approached and what justices or groups of justices might say.

[LetsGoLAW]

Checking in. 5 weeks till finals. Finishing Civ Pro reading for the semester. Hopefully finishing OLing, too.

[mephistopheles]

having life direction issues and not getting work done.

[bananapeanutbutter]

Checking in. 5 weeks till finals. Finishing Civ Pro reading for the semester. Hopefully finishing OLing, too.

idk i never went more than a week ahead of reading last time and it worked for me, and was doing e&e's on everything as i reviewed. do you find reading ahead to be key? i'd be fine with repeating my grades, because they're more than what i need for my goals, but fear i need to up my game because people will get better.

[stillwater]

having life direction issues and not getting work done.

this is the time of year I feel like im on a boat thats about to land on normandy beach and i dunno if im gonna survive or get mowed down

[LetsGoLAW]

Checking in. 5 weeks till finals. Finishing Civ Pro reading for the semester. Hopefully finishing OLing, too.

idk i never went more than a week ahead of reading last time and it worked for me, and was doing e&e's on everything as i reviewed. do you find reading ahead to be key? i'd be fine with repeating my grades, because they're more than what i need for my goals, but fear i need to up my game because people will get better.

Depends, bro. I refuse to read ahead in Con Law. It's just too much. At the same time, I want to finish OLing and take practice tests. I read the E&E along the way and modify with the professor's class notes. All preference.

[stillwater]

Absolutely dude. There's a ton of things that start out as a dissent or concurrence and later become doctrine. Like applying intermediate scrutiny to gender based equal protection, or strict scrutiny to affirmative action.

you mean Metro Broadcasting isn't good law? Frontiero is out?

[JG7773]

Absolutely dude. There's a ton of things that start out as a dissent or concurrence and later become doctrine. Like applying intermediate scrutiny to gender based equal protection, or strict scrutiny to affirmative action.

you mean Metro Broadcasting isn't good law? Frontiero is out?

Wasn't Metro overruled by Adarand v. Pena?

[stillwater]

Absolutely dude. There's a ton of things that start out as a dissent or concurrence and later become doctrine. Like applying intermediate scrutiny to gender based equal protection, or strict scrutiny to affirmative action.

you mean Metro Broadcasting isn't good law? Frontiero is out?

Wasn't Metro overruled by Adarand v. Pena?

Yea Metro was overruled by Adarand. Metro was a strange departure, it tried to say Congressionally-approved affirmative action plans would only be subjected to intermediate scrutiny but local and state initiatives would presumably still be subjected to strict scrutiny. The plurality in Frontiero advocated strict scrutiny for gender classifications but Craig ultimately applied intermediate scrutiny. However, Ginsburg's "exceedingly persuasive justification" language in US v. VA sounded stricter than intermediate...

[Jsa725]

.

[gaud]

Fuck this brief.