1Ls, what's your impression thus far? Forum

[GATORTIM]

I think that I'm more surprised at how intelligent people are that work at Starbucks, Arby's and Banana Republic

[Burger in a can]

I think that I'm more surprised at how intelligent people are that work at Starbucks, Arby's and Banana Republic

Those people probably went to law school too.

[GATORTIM]

I think that I'm more surprised at how intelligent people are that work at Starbucks, Arby's and Banana Republic

Those people probably went to law school too.

do u think those employers bump the hourly rate up 10 cents or so for a JD?

[Burger in a can]

I think that I'm more surprised at how intelligent people are that work at Starbucks, Arby's and Banana Republic

Those people probably went to law school too.

do u think those employers bump the hourly rate up 10 cents or so for a JD?

No. I think if anything they probably bump it down for lack of significant retail/food service experience.

[edcrane]

Yea but even the analysis in class from many students seem like good exam answers. I didn't expect so many bright people in law school!

I had the same feeling when I started LS. As you will soon discover, though, exam analysis is vastly different from what goes on in class.

[uwb09]

today in Torts we went over a short hypo from an old practice exam with just two main torts she wanted us to spot (battery and IIED), and showed us 6 sample answers ranging from failing to A+

seeing the shock on people's faces upon reading the A+ answer, I felt a lot better about my position in the class. Basically because the A+ answer was pretty much exactly what i've been reading on here from Arrow, Talon, etc... (the awesome 1L's who have come before me)

but ya, hearing the response from other students to these sample answers, there is a huge difference between what people "sound like" in class, and how they would dissect an exam.

Also made me feel better that I at least won't end up in the bottom 25% of the class, I swear some of these people really don't get it at all, I almost feel bad

moral of the story, TLS's previous 1L "here's how I did it" posters are the shiz

[solotee]

but ya, hearing the response from other students to these sample answers, there is a huge difference between what people "sound like" in class, and how they would dissect an exam.

and

Also made me feel better that I at least won't end up in the bottom 25% of the class, I swear some of these people really don't get it at all, I almost feel bad

moral of the story, TLS's previous 1L "here's how I did it" posters are the shiz

contradiction?

[uwb09]

but ya, hearing the response from other students to these sample answers, there is a huge difference between what people "sound like" in class, and how they would dissect an exam.

and

Also made me feel better that I at least won't end up in the bottom 25% of the class, I swear some of these people really don't get it at all, I almost feel bad

moral of the story, TLS's previous 1L "here's how I did it" posters are the shiz

contradiction?

maybe if I arrived at my conclusion of "some of these people really don't get it at all", based on "what they sound like in class"

[elliej]

Yea but even the analysis in class from many students seem like good exam answers. I didn't expect so many bright people in law school!

I had the same feeling when I started LS. As you will soon discover, though, exam analysis is vastly different from what goes on in class.

So first of all, exams are different, and second of all, some of those people will not retain all the information they need. Exam notes are hugely overrated. It's way, way better to know all the rules backwards and forwards. I did the best in the classes in which I knew all the material cold and had thought through every hypothetical I could prior to the exam. It seems obvious, but it's definitely true. Do practice exams. You'll see how someone in your class' understanding of a single case that's right in front of them does not correlate to a comprehensive understanding of the way legal doctrines apply to exam scenarios.

[savagecheater]

Yea but even the analysis in class from many students seem like good exam answers. I didn't expect so many bright people in law school!

I had the same feeling when I started LS. As you will soon discover, though, exam analysis is vastly different from what goes on in class.

So first of all, exams are different, and second of all, some of those people will not retain all the information they need. Exam notes are hugely overrated. It's way, way better to know all the rules backwards and forwards. I did the best in the classes in which I knew all the material cold and had thought through every hypothetical I could prior to the exam. It seems obvious, but it's definitely true. Do practice exams. You'll see how someone in your class' understanding of a single case that's right in front of them does not correlate to a comprehensive understanding of the way legal doctrines apply to exam scenarios.

re: old exams - I've got copies of all exams for the last decade from my profs, and some come with answer outlines/keys. I can identify many issues of possible contention, but 95%+ of them are material we haven't covered yet, and thus I have no real idea about how to approach them.

I could attempt to learn each issue individually, but given that exams change every year, to do so I feel would be pointless. At this point should I simply be looking at the exams and getting a solid feel for what I'm going to be facing down the road, as opposed to knowing the specifics of how I'd attack the individual exams?

[Sakura3210]

Ok, so this is probably a really stupid question, but how does one go about getting a professor's old tests?

[de5igual]

Ok, so this is probably a really stupid question, but how does one go about getting a professor's old tests?

check with the law library; if they don't have it, you'll have to ask the prof directly

[mint-condition]

@sakura

That's not a stupid question. I, too, was wondering where to find them. I ran a search on my law library's website, and a test database materialized!

Not as many tests as I would have desired. Was anyone else disappointed with how many tests from their profs were actually available?

[savagecheater]

@sakura

That's not a stupid question. I, too, was wondering where to find them. I ran a search on my law library's website, and a test database materialized!

Not as many tests as I would have desired. Was anyone else disappointed with how many tests from their profs were actually available?

Law library.

[de5igual]

@sakura

That's not a stupid question. I, too, was wondering where to find them. I ran a search on my law library's website, and a test database materialized!

Not as many tests as I would have desired. Was anyone else disappointed with how many tests from their profs were actually available?

i was with one professor originally, but then i found out she publishes and sells her old exams

[dailygrind]

@sakura

That's not a stupid question. I, too, was wondering where to find them. I ran a search on my law library's website, and a test database materialized!

Not as many tests as I would have desired. Was anyone else disappointed with how many tests from their profs were actually available?

i was with one professor originally, but then i found out she publishes and sells her old exams

not gonna lie, this sounds like a racket.

[clintonius]

I'm really confused.

All this stuff seems fairly straightforward, and the majority of it common sense. Especially Torts and to a great extent Contracts as well.

Man, your contracts class is not my contracts class. I am more lost in there than I've ever been in any academic setting to date. It's fucking absurd.

[JCougar]

I'm really confused.

All this stuff seems fairly straightforward, and the majority of it common sense. Especially Torts and to a great extent Contracts as well.

Man, your contracts class is not my contracts class. I am more lost in there than I've ever been in any academic setting to date. It's fucking absurd.

I think it's cause I like my Contracts professor the best. She's really focused and on-task, doesn't let stupid questions sidetrack the class, and she's just very clear and organized with her presentation. Reading Chirelstein's book on Contracts this summer kind of helped give me a big picture before class even started.

Property, for me, is harder to figure out, because we've mostly been focused on policy so far. We've only gone over a few cases.

[spondee]

I'm really confused.

All this stuff seems fairly straightforward, and the majority of it common sense. Especially Torts and to a great extent Contracts as well.

Man, your contracts class is not my contracts class. I am more lost in there than I've ever been in any academic setting to date. It's fucking absurd.

Gillette?

[Burger in a can]

Contracts is also really simple for me, but people in the other section (with a different professor) seem baffled. On the other hand, Civ Pro is pretty scary for me, but seems pretty easy for the other section. I guess it really depends on the professor.

[BobSacamano]

I'm really confused.

All this stuff seems fairly straightforward, and the majority of it common sense. Especially Torts and to a great extent Contracts as well. Property not as much so far...but we're heavily focused on policy in that course. I don't understand yet how the curve is going to sort this out. If everyone's as smart as they seem in class, I feel like everyone's going to get an A. There's not a lot of people who don't seem to get it yet.

Perhaps it's just a matter of succinct yet comprehensive exam notes and typing speed.

2L here... this is EXACTLY how I felt about a month in last year, and it scared the crap out of me. Everyone seemed so smart and everyone seemed to be more on top of things than me. I'll just say that things will work themselves out. Everyone is overly prepared for class right now, but I can guarantee you that this will peter out as the semester winds down.

Also, this may be contrary to popular opinion but I definitely think my typing speed helped on the exams. The best grades I got were in the classes where I was typing furiously the entire 3 or 4 hour exam period. Here's the catch, though: this only probably works if you really HAVE a lot to type about. I know that in the classes I was typing furiously for I was typing furiously because there was a LOT I could talk about and 3 hours didn't seem like much time to write about it. Puking everything you know about a topic on your computer screen is not a recipe for success, but analyzing a hypo up and down IS.

[savagecheater]

Yea but even the analysis in class from many students seem like good exam answers. I didn't expect so many bright people in law school!

I had the same feeling when I started LS. As you will soon discover, though, exam analysis is vastly different from what goes on in class.

So first of all, exams are different, and second of all, some of those people will not retain all the information they need. Exam notes are hugely overrated. It's way, way better to know all the rules backwards and forwards. I did the best in the classes in which I knew all the material cold and had thought through every hypothetical I could prior to the exam. It seems obvious, but it's definitely true. Do practice exams. You'll see how someone in your class' understanding of a single case that's right in front of them does not correlate to a comprehensive understanding of the way legal doctrines apply to exam scenarios.

re: old exams - I've got copies of all exams for the last decade from my profs, and some come with answer outlines/keys. I can identify many issues of possible contention, but 95%+ of them are material we haven't covered yet, and thus I have no real idea about how to approach them.

I could attempt to learn each issue individually, but given that exams change every year, to do so I feel would be pointless. At this point should I simply be looking at the exams and getting a solid feel for what I'm going to be facing down the road, as opposed to knowing the specifics of how I'd attack the individual exams?

anyone?

[BobSacamano]

People will maybe disagree with this but I think practice exams are most helpful a week or two before you take the exam. At this point it's really only important to know HOW your professor's exams work. If you've looked over some exams you've got enough of an idea for now. Take the exams when you know the material and can really hammer it home. You want to be in the "reinforcing" stage right before exams and that's where I think practice exams help.

[clintonius]

I'm really confused.

All this stuff seems fairly straightforward, and the majority of it common sense. Especially Torts and to a great extent Contracts as well.

Man, your contracts class is not my contracts class. I am more lost in there than I've ever been in any academic setting to date. It's fucking absurd.

Gillette?

No. The Big Cheese. Dude is insanely brilliant, but everything just goes way over my head.

[keg411]

Law school softball is awesome.