Top Law Schools

Hello all-

My teacher is in his second year here. I haven't found too many people who have given me specific advise on how to approach his exam.

For those of your students who have gone through this, found success and maybe have even graduated I was hoping you could tell me the best way to approach this type of writing.

I have read GTM, and I think it might be the best way. But I am open to begging for suggestions.

[NOTE: Copyrighted material has been redacted.]

how about you take initiative and try it before asking for suggestions

trial and error is the best way to learn.

I have done the exam...and looked at it a few times after taking it. I felt that GTM was the best methodology, but I was hoping to get feedback to my opinion.

lucblayne wrote:I have done the exam...and looked at it a few times after taking it. I felt that GTM was the best methodology, but I was hoping to get feedback to my opinion.

What about GTM do you like so much? How would you use it to attack the problem?

I am not really sure what I like about the GTM except that I feel that with such a crazy fact pattern that it gives a chance to address everything in a through manner. Some of the issues are so ambiguous that I feel that you need to address both sides of the issue to the full extent and explain that depending on how the court might be feeling that day that it might go one way or the other.

In fact I think I would do it the analysis by each person and each claim they had and then I would incorporate GTM into each individuals fact pattern. But if people have other models they care I would luv to hear about them.

lucblayne wrote:In fact I think I would do it the analysis by each person and each claim they had and then I would incorporate GTM into each individuals fact pattern. But if people have other models they care I would luv to hear about them.

Don't do it by the person and then the cause of action. You end up with headings without analysis. Your headings should be meaningful.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

lucblayne wrote:In fact I think I would do it the analysis by each person and each claim they had and then I would incorporate GTM into each individuals fact pattern. But if people have other models they care I would luv to hear about them.

Don't do it by the person and then the cause of action. You end up with headings without analysis. Your headings should be meaningful.

I've been told by my professors that this is exactly what they want (how beta described it above). I guess it's different with each prof?

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Does anyone know a good place to get old tort exams? Our library only has like two on file and I have already looked at those.

..