0L Disclaimer: Anyone enjoy their summer prep? Forum

[Miniver]

...

[prezidentv8]

...it seems like legal writing is a lot more succinct and to the point in comparison to academic journals.

I lol'd.

Here, another gem from Civil Procedure that you're guaranteed to come across (Pennoyer v. Neff): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

"Succinct" is hardly the word I'd choose.

That case is the biggest waste...

[JCougar]

...it seems like legal writing is a lot more succinct and to the point in comparison to academic journals.

I lol'd.

Here, another gem from Civil Procedure that you're guaranteed to come across (Pennoyer v. Neff): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

"Succinct" is hardly the word I'd choose.

Well, fine. Then that answers my question of whether the cases in Delaney's are even a remote representation of the cases I'll be going over in class.

[myq]

Alright, I'm a dork...please don't hate.

I've halfway done with GTM and Delaney's, and I've speed read Law School Confidential and PLS in the library. Anyways, I'm really enjoying Delaney's Learning Legal Reasoning, and GTM makes law exams seem pretty exciting actually. I'm reading through the opinions on there and picking out the key issues seems to come naturally for me. I really think I will enjoy reading cases and putting them together to understand the law. I can also see how initially, briefing a few cases would be helpful, but down the road, it could be a waste of time. Yes, I know I am a loser.

My question is, are these cases representative of the ones you read once you get going in class? Or are these easy cases Delaney picked out just for beginners? All the horror stories about how hard law school is suddenly have less weight right now, but I don't want to get my hopes up. I've even read the first three chapters of Glannon's Civ Pro E&E, and it seems like fairly easy stuff to grasp.

I've read a little of GTM and enjoyed it, but man, I hope you're not in my section JCougar!

[SwollenMonkey]

0Ls: You think you understand GTM. You think you understand the Civil Procedure E&E. Newsflash: You don't. Don't believe me?
Try taking a real exam: http://www.wcl.american.edu/exams/exam_ ... ourse_id=8

Go ahead. Utilize your profound knowledge of Civil Procedure acquired from your diligent reading of the E&E. And apply those insightful techniques given to you by GTM and Delaney to tackle those problems!

...Or realize you don't know jack. And next, realize that particular exam covers only half the material taught in most Civil Procedure classes.

Now please, stop telling us how much you enjoy "learning" the law.

Maybe you should ask what people mean when they say they "understand' or find something "informative".

I don't think anyone stated they were doing diligent reading. Some of us are simply reading.

Or realize you can log off.

[dlac]

My summer prep has been to shed the fat I gained from 2+ yrs of working in a stale office environment. It's going great so far....thanks?

[SwollenMonkey]

My summer prep has been to shed the fat I gained from 2+ yrs of working in a stale office environment. It's going great so far....thanks?

Same here! Liquid diet works!

[prezidentv8]

Time to quote myself:

... law school is not difficult in terms of understanding things, but the volume of material, teaching style, and curved grading creates some stress.

[PSLaplace]

...it seems like legal writing is a lot more succinct and to the point in comparison to academic journals.

I lol'd.

Here, another gem from Civil Procedure that you're guaranteed to come across (Pennoyer v. Neff): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

"Succinct" is hardly the word I'd choose.

Well, fine. Then that answers my question of whether the cases in Delaney's are even a remote representation of the cases I'll be going over in class.

Look, I'm probably being meaner than necessary. There will be opinions that are clear, concise, and logical -- a pleasure to read. There will also be opinions that still won't make sense after fifty minutes of class time is spent dissecting it (just about anything written by Justice Kennedy, for example). I've not read his book, but I'd imagine Delaney would prefer to select from the former if he's trying to teach someone legal reasoning.

Nothing wrong with finding your prep fun (well...), just don't be misled into thinking that what you're doing now is even remotely like law school.

Maybe you should ask what people mean when they say they "understand' or find something "informative".

I don't think anyone stated they were doing diligent reading. Some of us are simply reading.

Or realize you can log off.

When applied to the topic of law, to "understand" implies the ability to apply. If you can't apply it, you don't understand it. Indeed, what other meaning can "understanding" have in the context of law?

And if you're not reading to understand the subject - why are you reading the E&E at all? There are far better ways of getting an overview of law school than delving into a subject-specific treatise.

[JCougar]

Time to quote myself:

... law school is not difficult in terms of understanding things, but the volume of material, teaching style, and curved grading creates some stress.

I suppose I'll soon grasp this.

[JCougar]

Let me also clarify -- it seems exciting to me because it will be a challenge putting all this stuff together. I've spent the last 3.5 years of my life doing mind-numbing office drone work for mostly incompetent middle-managers. Even Pennoyer v. Neff looks better than the shit I've been assigned over the last year.

Anyway, I'm sure there will be points this fall where I will wish for a quicker, less painful death, but I'm now virtually sure it will be better than my last three years.

[SwollenMonkey]

...it seems like legal writing is a lot more succinct and to the point in comparison to academic journals.

I lol'd.

Here, another gem from Civil Procedure that you're guaranteed to come across (Pennoyer v. Neff): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

"Succinct" is hardly the word I'd choose.

Well, fine. Then that answers my question of whether the cases in Delaney's are even a remote representation of the cases I'll be going over in class.

Look, I'm probably being meaner than necessary. There will be opinions that are clear, concise, and logical -- a pleasure to read. There will also be opinions that still won't make sense after fifty minutes of class time is spent dissecting it (just about anything written by Justice Kennedy, for example). I've not read his book, but I'd imagine Delaney would prefer to select from the former if he's trying to teach someone legal reasoning.

Nothing wrong with finding your prep fun (well...), just don't be misled into thinking that what you're doing now is even remotely like law school.

Maybe you should ask what people mean when they say they "understand' or find something "informative".

I don't think anyone stated they were doing diligent reading. Some of us are simply reading.

Or realize you can log off.

When applied to the topic of law, to "understand" implies the ability to apply. If you can't apply it, you don't understand it. Indeed, what other meaning can "understanding" have in the context of law?

And if you're not reading to understand the subject - why are you reading the E&E at all? There are far better ways of getting an overview of law school than delving into a subject-specific treatise.

I'm reading to avoid the shock factor. I get excited when I read some legal concepts and it blows my mind. I don't want to get my mind blown in law school. I understand, but then again, I'm understanding things as a 0L. There are different levels of understanding. I don't have a law prof, class discussion, nor outlines, so my understanding is not as sophisticated as say a "1L 1/2's" understanding. I don't have a venue to apply what I am reading. I can only entertain things in my mind. I haven't tried applying what I've read, but i have a month left. I may dabble with an exam or two.

You don't always have to understand with the intent to apply. What happened to understanding for the sake of understanding?

[PSLaplace]

When applied to the topic of law, to "understand" implies the ability to apply. If you can't apply it, you don't understand it. Indeed, what other meaning can "understanding" have in the context of law?

And if you're not reading to understand the subject - why are you reading the E&E at all? There are far better ways of getting an overview of law school than delving into a subject-specific treatise.

I'm reading to avoid the shock factor. I get excited when I read some legal concepts and it blows my mind. I don't want to get my mind blown in law school. I understand, but then again, I'm understanding things as a 0L. There are different levels of understanding. I don't have a law prof, class discussion, nor outlines, so my understanding is not as sophisticated as say a "1L 1/2's" understanding. I don't have a venue to apply what I am reading. I can only entertain things in my mind. I haven't tried applying what I've read, but i have a month left. I may dabble with an exam or two.

You don't always have to understand with the intent to apply. What happened to understanding for the sake of understanding?

Having an "understanding" of a legal subject is inseparable from being able to apply it. Yes, there are different levels of understanding - because there are different levels at which one is able to apply their knowledge of the law.

You'd best not represent that you "understand" copyright law if you can't apply it -- at least not if you want to maintain your credibility as a lawyer.

Indeed, this point is lost on many 1Ls their first semester. They feel that, by studying the facts and holdings of the cases they read and discussed in class, and some general legal theories, they adequately "understand" the law. If you've read GTM, you ought to know better: law exams (and legal practice) are about application, not memorization. This is also why (most) E&E's are invaluable: they allow you to practice application of the law.

[SwollenMonkey]

When applied to the topic of law, to "understand" implies the ability to apply. If you can't apply it, you don't understand it. Indeed, what other meaning can "understanding" have in the context of law?

And if you're not reading to understand the subject - why are you reading the E&E at all? There are far better ways of getting an overview of law school than delving into a subject-specific treatise.

I'm reading to avoid the shock factor. I get excited when I read some legal concepts and it blows my mind. I don't want to get my mind blown in law school. I understand, but then again, I'm understanding things as a 0L. There are different levels of understanding. I don't have a law prof, class discussion, nor outlines, so my understanding is not as sophisticated as say a "1L 1/2's" understanding. I don't have a venue to apply what I am reading. I can only entertain things in my mind. I haven't tried applying what I've read, but i have a month left. I may dabble with an exam or two.

You don't always have to understand with the intent to apply. What happened to understanding for the sake of understanding?

Having an "understanding" of a legal subject is inseparable from being able to apply it. Yes, there are different levels of understanding - because there are different levels at which one is able to apply their knowledge of the law.

You'd best not represent that you "understand" copyright law if you can't apply it -- at least not if you want to maintain your credibility as a lawyer.

Indeed, this point is lost on many 1Ls their first semester. They feel that, by studying the facts and holdings of the cases they read and discussed in class, and some general legal theories, they adequately "understand" the law. If you've read GTM, you ought to know better: law exams (and legal practice) are about application, not memorization. This is also why (most) E&E's are invaluable: they allow you to practice application of the law.

GTM does highlight application and things to look out for on exams. However, I know but a small bit of law, so I cannot apply effectively. Also, I'm not doing very many examples in the EEs. I'm just reading the chapters. I want to enjoy my summer.

[PSLaplace]

When applied to the topic of law, to "understand" implies the ability to apply. If you can't apply it, you don't understand it. Indeed, what other meaning can "understanding" have in the context of law?

And if you're not reading to understand the subject - why are you reading the E&E at all? There are far better ways of getting an overview of law school than delving into a subject-specific treatise.

I'm reading to avoid the shock factor. I get excited when I read some legal concepts and it blows my mind. I don't want to get my mind blown in law school. I understand, but then again, I'm understanding things as a 0L. There are different levels of understanding. I don't have a law prof, class discussion, nor outlines, so my understanding is not as sophisticated as say a "1L 1/2's" understanding. I don't have a venue to apply what I am reading. I can only entertain things in my mind. I haven't tried applying what I've read, but i have a month left. I may dabble with an exam or two.

You don't always have to understand with the intent to apply. What happened to understanding for the sake of understanding?

Having an "understanding" of a legal subject is inseparable from being able to apply it. Yes, there are different levels of understanding - because there are different levels at which one is able to apply their knowledge of the law.

You'd best not represent that you "understand" copyright law if you can't apply it -- at least not if you want to maintain your credibility as a lawyer.

Indeed, this point is lost on many 1Ls their first semester. They feel that, by studying the facts and holdings of the cases they read and discussed in class, and some general legal theories, they adequately "understand" the law. If you've read GTM, you ought to know better: law exams (and legal practice) are about application, not memorization. This is also why (most) E&E's are invaluable: they allow you to practice application of the law.

GTM does highlight application and things to look out for on exams. However, I know but a small bit of law, so I cannot apply effectively. Also, I'm not doing very many examples in the EEs. I'm just reading the chapters. I want to enjoy my summer.

Hence my post explaining to 0Ls that they do not understand the law, despite what they may think.

And we are in agreement about enjoying summer. I'm not trying to encourage you to do more prep -- just the opposite -- I'm urging 0Ls to enjoy their summer since they will not be successful in understanding the law before law school starts anyway.

Why do you think the prevailing advice on TLS is to forgo 0L prep and enjoy the summer instead?

[JCougar]

Why do you think the prevailing advice on TLS is to forgo 0L prep and enjoy the summer instead?

I guess I think this is helping me to enjoy my summer and dissipating some of my anxiety. Just being familiar with the material, even if I can't functionally apply it yet, has helped me relax a bit. I've got a lot yet planned as far as fun goes, but for now, I split my time between slowly packing my things and reading at the library. I'm not expecting to be able to answer law school exams yet...I'm not reading in that kind of detail. I'm just reading to help myself figure out how the system of law works as a whole and to get in the frame of mind of a lawyer so I can hit the ground running when the assigned readings start. I do a lot better with stuff when I understand the big picture of how the system works right from the start. I'm not as good at learning by building piece-by-piece into a whole like a jigsaw when I haven't seen what the final result is supposed to look like. I'm better if I understand the entire system/picture first, and then drill down to detail. Thus, I feel that trying to discern how the law works by reading individual cases first without any clue or appreciation for how the system works will be disastrous for me. And that reading supplements and legal reasoning books first and then looking at the cases in detail will work best.

[SkiBumLawyer]

I agree with JC cougar. Im not trying to prep hard for 1L but I've read GTM and now reading PLS. Its interesting to get a little preview of what I will see next year. I spend about 1-2 hours a day reading this stuff. PLenty of time to do whatever the fuck I want to with my summer.

How many of you would of taken a course in undergrad without reading the syllabus or course description ? All im trying to do is a get a little preview of what is to come. I'd like to get my hands on Delaney's book to read after PLS. JC cougar let me know how it goes.

[Lucidity]

I don't see anywhere in his posts where the op claims absolute mastery of the law via his 0L prep. A little overly optimistic maybe, but it reads low on my doucebagery meter. Can we spare him the jaded cynicism?

[worldtraveler]

Why do you think the prevailing advice on TLS is to forgo 0L prep and enjoy the summer instead?

I guess I think this is helping me to enjoy my summer and dissipating some of my anxiety. Just being familiar with the material, even if I can't functionally apply it yet, has helped me relax a bit. I've got a lot yet planned as far as fun goes, but for now, I split my time between slowly packing my things and reading at the library. I'm not expecting to be able to answer law school exams yet...I'm not reading in that kind of detail. I'm just reading to help myself figure out how the system of law works as a whole and to get in the frame of mind of a lawyer so I can hit the ground running when the assigned readings start. I do a lot better with stuff when I understand the big picture of how the system works right from the start. I'm not as good at learning by building piece-by-piece into a whole like a jigsaw when I haven't seen what the final result is supposed to look like. I'm better if I understand the entire system/picture first, and then drill down to detail. Thus, I feel that trying to discern how the law works by reading individual cases first without any clue or appreciation for how the system works will be disastrous for me. And that reading supplements and legal reasoning books first and then looking at the cases in detail will work best.

The problem with your approach is making you THINK you're understanding things like thinking like a lawyer. It's better to have anxiety and be worried about what you're going to face in law school than have a false sense of security about how much you understand.

[rando]

I don't see anywhere in his posts where the op claims absolute mastery of the law via his 0L prep. A little overly optimistic maybe, but it reads low on my doucebagery meter. Can we spare him the jaded cynicism?

My douchebagery meter is actually running higher on the 1L's talking down to a 0L for not "understanding" the law. Hate to break it to everyone, but you won't "understand" the law in practice for many years to come.

[seespotrun]

I don't see anywhere in his posts where the op claims absolute mastery of the law via his 0L prep. A little overly optimistic maybe, but it reads low on my doucebagery meter. Can we spare him the jaded cynicism?

My douchebagery meter is actually running higher on the 1L's talking down to a 0L for not "understanding" the law. Hate to break it to everyone, but you won't "understand" the law in practice for many years to come.

This

[CG614]

I think 0L prep is fine, as long as you don't become the know it all raise your hand at everything gunner because you read something in an E&E during 0L summer.

[jayn3]

How many of you would of taken a course in undergrad without reading the syllabus or course description ?

this sentence makes me want to set off everyone's douchebag meters.

[Slimpee]

JCougar, don't apologize for being excited. I'm excited as well. I've read PLS and found it mostly useless except for helpful reading suggestions. I have also started GTM.

I'm not trying to learn anything but rather i'm just trying to give myself a super-broad overview of LS in general. Yeah, yeah, I know LS sucks and it's the worst decision ever but i figure doing a bit of general reading about LS is better than not doing anything at all...

Also, upcoming 2Ls, do you suppose working attorneys look down on you with as much condescension as you look down on OL's?

[98234872348]

Alright, I'm a dork...please don't hate.

I've halfway done with GTM and Delaney's, and I've speed read Law School Confidential and PLS in the library. Anyways, I'm really enjoying Delaney's Learning Legal Reasoning, and GTM makes law exams seem pretty exciting actually. I'm reading through the opinions on there and picking out the key issues seems to come naturally for me. I really think I will enjoy reading cases and putting them together to understand the law. I can also see how initially, briefing a few cases would be helpful, but down the road, it could be a waste of time. Yes, I know I am a loser.

My question is, are these cases representative of the ones you read once you get going in class? Or are these easy cases Delaney picked out just for beginners? All the horror stories about how hard law school is suddenly have less weight right now, but I don't want to get my hopes up. I've even read the first three chapters of Glannon's Civ Pro E&E, and it seems like fairly easy stuff to grasp.

I found GTM more informative after reading a few EEs. I've read the EE on Civ Pro, Property, Crim Law, Torts, and Contracts.

Also, I'm fascinated by the fact that I now know that going to the barbershop for a haircut can be viewed as a contract.

Please continue posting into your second semester when you become so burnt out that you start going out 4 nights a week and get straight Cs.