What is the best law school exam writing book? Forum

[punklaw86]

Hello, I will be a 1L this fall and I am looking to get a head start and begin to learn how to write solid responses for law school exams. I have done my own research and still unable to determine which (if any) is the best book to study for law exam writing. If anyone has had positive or negative experiences with books of this type it would be greatly appreciated if you could share your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks

[cardinalandgold]

I'm a 0L right now, but am almost done reading through "Getting to Maybe" and have found it pretty useful.

[punklaw86]

Thanks I haven't researched that book yet. I will definitely check it out.

Thanks

[A'nold]

Getting to Maybe, LEEWS home program, Arrow's post on 1L success.

[PSLaplace]

Prior to starting law school, I think LEEWS (audio version) gives you the best overview of law school exams.

GTM is great, but it really won't make sense until you've been in law school for at least a month or two (you might feel as though you understand it as a 0L, but you don't).

[punklaw86]

I've researched LEEWS and I noticed a lot of praise for it. The only negative press I found is at

--LinkRemoved--

I am in interested in LEEWS. Is the book sufficient enough by itself or is it necessary for it to be coupled with the CD's and/or seminar?

[A'nold]

Nope, do the audio CD's. Just looking through the book would be pretty worthless IMO. Although, many of the tracks are worthless too!

I agree with the above poster 100%. LEEWS is by far better than GTM for pre law exam writing skills, HOWEVER, I think GTM is invaluable for learning right from the get go how to "think like a lawyer" in shades of gray that your classmates will likely lack for at least the entire first semester until they see their grades. Once you have taken practice exams and are into the swing of things, I'd say re-read GTM as it is one of the best law school exam books (probably the best) around. You do need some background first though, like the above poster said.

[270910]

GTM is great, but it really won't make sense until you've been in law school for at least a month or two (you might feel as though you understand it as a 0L, but you don't).

[TTH]

GTM is great, but it really won't make sense until you've been in law school for at least a month or two (you might feel as though you understand it as a 0L, but you don't).

This has been me for the past week. Thanks for crushing my hope!

[studebaker07]

Read getting to maybe, that is a decent book. BUT read it with a grain of salt knowing that what your professor says about what he/she wants trumps everything. I learned this the hard way on midterms when I tried to apply the "Getting to Maybe" method to each of my exams in some respects. Needless to say, I got a real wake-up call.

Moral of the story: talk to your professors early on in the semester, look at old exams, take practice exams, visit the professor during office hours to see what they like, etc.

[RVP11]

I'm a 0L right now, but am almost done reading through "Getting to Maybe" and have found it pretty useful.

Classic post. QFP.

Have you found it more useful as coffee table decoration or as a paperweight?

[A'nold]

I'm a 0L right now, but am almost done reading through "Getting to Maybe" and have found it pretty useful.

Classic post. QFP.

Have you found it more useful as coffee table decoration or as a paperweight?

Lulz.

[leron]

i did leews and gtm and got straight A's. i think leews was a good overview and there are maybe 2 or 3 good nuggets of wisdom in there, but i didn't try to follow the lessons precisely. i think it's far too remedial (that is, far too remedial to get A's at a t1).

gtm is more insightful and a fraction of the cost. you won't have time to put everything in gtm into play either.

[A'nold]

i did leews and gtm and got straight A's. i think leews was a good overview and there are maybe 2 or 3 good nuggets of wisdom in there, but i didn't try to follow the lessons precisely. i think it's far too remedial (that is, far too remedial to get A's at a t1).

gtm is more insightful and a fraction of the cost. you won't have time to put everything in gtm into play either.

TITCR. I did not follow them precisely but used the best parts, IMO. Then I used the overall ideas to implement professor specific answers, but maybe I just got lucky.

[Snooker]

GTM, the Delaney book, and LEEWs are commonly used. Also, a lot of professors have really particular personal opinions but will tell you how to craft answers if asked individually. Some professors really like analogies and case comparisons. Other professors really like to see you take plain text or a BLL standard, regardless of how a particular case was decided and do the whole ping ponging of arguments thing. Some professors want to see you talk not only about what the court would do, but what it should do - applying a little policy and theory. Some professors will tear pages out of your exam if you do that I usually find that each professor has a markedly different approach to analyzing legal issues and that you'll have to adapt to their style.

Note that Delaney/LEEWS are heavily slanted to torts and criminal law.

These books are definitely valuable. Law professors often paint good exam writing as thinking like a lawyer, but more specifically it is thinking like that particular law professor. In one of the Glannon books, the professor often jokes that he'd fail other civil procedure exams given by other professors at his college. Make sure the book's approach is your professor's approach. A lot of times ,they will have nothing to do with each other.