Top Law Schools

.

The book is quite good. It's not too long (though the pages are large). Read Delaney's "Learning Legal Reasoning" first though, as the author himself suggests. The book takes you through effective study habits, exam prep strategy, outlining, issue spotting and writing exam answers. It also has exam questions and model, high and low quality answers.

Some people, proponents of GTM, may not like Delaney's advocacy of CIRIP (Conclusion, Issue, Rule, Interweaving, Policy) since GTM argues against strict formulaic answers (though the authors focused on IRAC). I liked GTM, but it was good to see different perspectives and strategies. Plus Delaney and GTM don't really conflict. Delaney advocates the formulaic style because, "the formats are designed to channel you away from the meandering college-essay type answer that mostly regurgitates your knowledge, and also to channel you away from disorganized answers." Delaney mostly wants to get his readers to write lawerly answers, and he sees CIRIP as a means to that end. If you can do this without a specific form, more power to you.

.

charlesjd wrote:I will purchase both after this post and reading more on here. Seems legit. I did a program at NWU and they taught TREEAC (can't remember if that is the exact acronym).

What is your view on IRAC?

0L, no view. I'll just have figure out what works best for me.

charlesjd wrote: I will purchase both after this post and reading more on here. Seems legit. I did a program at NWU and they taught TREEAC (can't remember if that is the exact acronym).

Must've been helpful.

Edit: Quote Fail.

.

charlesjd wrote:
What is your view on IRAC?

IME the 'R' is a waste of time. Depends on prof's grading style tho so YMMV.

Aeroplane wrote:

charlesjd wrote:
What is your view on IRAC?

IME the 'R' is a waste of time. Depends on prof's grading style tho so YMMV.

By "R", you mean "Rule", right? You have to state what the rule/law is on an exam--if not, how will the professor know that you know the law on an exam?

hithere wrote:

Aeroplane wrote:

charlesjd wrote:
What is your view on IRAC?

IME the 'R' is a waste of time. Depends on prof's grading style tho so YMMV.

By "R", you mean "Rule", right? You have to state what the rule/law is on an exam--if not, how will the professor know that you know the law on an exam?

Or "Rationale", which can get murky, political, or personal.

hithere wrote:

Aeroplane wrote:

charlesjd wrote:
What is your view on IRAC?

IME the 'R' is a waste of time. Depends on prof's grading style tho so YMMV.

By "R", you mean "Rule", right? You have to state what the rule/law is on an exam--if not, how will the professor know that you know the law on an exam?

Your analysis should make it pretty clear. All my professors, except maybe 1, only cared that you used the correct rule, didn't insist on having it written out separately. I qualified my post appropriately to account for variation in teaching methods.

For those of us who are cheap, google has parts of Delaney's legal reasoning on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=M9ogFN ... &q&f=false

historyholly wrote:For those of us who are cheap, google has parts of Delaney's legal reasoning on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=M9ogFN ... &q&f=false

+1

nice, google books ftw

Ya, it isn't the whole thing, but it gives you an idea of his system for briefing and looking at cases. How to do your best on law school exams is also on google book.

historyholly wrote:Ya, it isn't the whole thing, but it gives you an idea of his system for briefing and looking at cases. How to do your best on law school exams is also on google book.

link?

historyholly wrote:For those of us who are cheap, google has parts of Delaney's legal reasoning on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=M9ogFN ... &q&f=false

+100!!!!!!!!!

historyholly wrote:Ya, it isn't the whole thing, but it gives you an idea of his system for briefing and looking at cases. How to do your best on law school exams is also on google book.

It isn't!? The Google book ends in page 132, and the description on the paperbook on Amazon.com also says 132 pages...Do you know what's missing in the google book??

tag

MapleM wrote:

historyholly wrote:Ya, it isn't the whole thing, but it gives you an idea of his system for briefing and looking at cases. How to do your best on law school exams is also on google book.

It isn't!? The Google book ends in page 132, and the description on the paperbook on Amazon.com also says 132 pages...Do you know what's missing in the google book??

The last couple of cases and his examples of good vs. bad briefs are missing. It think it ends on page 73. But the core ideas on his briefing method are all in the beginning. I haven't looked at his book on law schools exams yet, but I doubt if I bought them I would get through them entirely anyways. I am still working on GTM and the LEEWS primer. If you want the whole book with all the examples, you will need to buy it. But it you just want the jist of things, the google book works.

historyholly wrote:

MapleM wrote:

historyholly wrote:Ya, it isn't the whole thing, but it gives you an idea of his system for briefing and looking at cases. How to do your best on law school exams is also on google book.

It isn't!? The Google book ends in page 132, and the description on the paperbook on Amazon.com also says 132 pages...Do you know what's missing in the google book??

The last couple of cases and his examples of good vs. bad briefs are missing. It think it ends on page 73. But the core ideas on his briefing method are all in the beginning. I haven't looked at his book on law schools exams yet, but I doubt if I bought them I would get through them entirely anyways. I am still working on GTM and the LEEWS primer. If you want the whole book with all the examples, you will need to buy it. But it you just want the jist of things, the google book works.

Thanks!

historyholly wrote:http://books.google.com/books?id=bHVklt ... &q&f=false

tag