I just failed a test. How do I take exams? Forum

[mbusch22]

You could try LEEWS. It's helped me at least go in with a game plan. I haven't gotten any grades back but I felt somewhat confident and I'm sure it improved upon how i would have approached exams had I not done any strategy prep.

[swc65]

^^^


LoL @ LEEWS. I have had several professors tell me NOT to ever state the rule in my answer but to just go straight to the analysis. I am sure schools/professors are different,but it took me some time to switch from the LEEWS method to what my professors were telling me. I think the lesson there is to ask your professors before practicing on method or the other.

[zeth006]

Take a 1-day LEEWS course. It'll help you out for issue-spotter exams. Pay attention to what old man Miller tells ya, take his practice hypos, and come up with your own system.

Helped me prep a bit for my crim exam.

[zeth006]

^^^


LoL @ LEEWS. I have had several professors tell me NOT to ever state the rule in my answer but to just go straight to the analysis. I am sure schools/professors are different,but it took me some time to switch from the LEEWS method to what my professors were telling me. I think the lesson there is to ask your professors before practicing on method or the other.

On the contrary, Miller during the course even said if you don't have to state the rule, don't do it. Improvise. That's what I did for my crim exam. Prof told us straight out since it's open book, he doesn't want word for word rule statements, just analysis.

[nealric]

LoL @ LEEWS. I have had several professors tell me NOT to ever state the rule in my answer but to just go straight to the analysis.

I think this is a minority of professors. You don't necessarily need to state the verbatim rule (especially in an open-book exam), but a general statement of the rule you are applying is a good signaling device to let the professor know you are on the correct track with the analysis you are about to give. The rule can also create an outline for your response. For example, in a negligence essay you can start the following way:

1. Identify the issue. Was X negligent for doing Y?
2. State the rule: Duty, breach, causation damages
3. Answer the question in the above order. One paragraph on duty, one on breach, one on causation, one on damages. It's easy to follow that way- even someone skimming the exam knows you are basically on the right track.

It's very hard to go wrong with a well-organized IRAC unless the professor specifically doesn't like that method. Just getting a basic IRAC with the rule stated and applied in a reasonable manner will almost always get you into the B range. Getting into the A range requires identifying the subtleties of the issue in your "analysis" portion.

[beach_terror]

Tobias, you blow hard.

[BruceWayne]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

You'd think the older you get the more you'd realize how ridiculous it is that you still post here.

LMAO! The one post of his that I agree with, and then you make a post highlighting the thought that runs through my mind every time I see one of his posts.

[Kobe_Teeth]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

You'd think the older you get the more you'd realize how ridiculous it is that you still post here.

LMAO! The one post of his that I agree with, and then you make a post highlighting the thought that runs through my mind every time I see one of his posts.

I don't really agree or disagree with what he said. Its just hard to put any merit into anything he says, ever.

[evilxs]

I'm still only a 0L.. in fact I bombed the LSAT today so feel free to ignore this.. but I'd say that even things that you feel are already well-known or implied should be written anyway. Anything you show that can get you some kind of points. Even if you wrote all the points out for every one there is no way you'd lose points for it.. so why not?

I'll call you out on this, just go away. You don't belong in the law school students forum until you are a law school student. You can't even possibly understand what we're going through.

Some professors do take points off for wrong analysis, and the time pressures of the exam do not allow you to just write out all of the points for everything. There is time for the correct analysis to be applied in full and sometimes not even that.

OP worry about the next exam and leave this behind!

[MTal]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

You'd think the older you get the more you'd realize how ridiculous it is that you still post here.

LMAO! The one post of his that I agree with, and then you make a post highlighting the thought that runs through my mind every time I see one of his posts.

I don't really agree or disagree with what he said. Its just hard to put any merit into anything he says, ever.

And why do you say that?

[Helmholtz]

I'm still only a 0L..

g...t...f...o

[jdubb990]

LEEWS+GTM+Taking Practice tests=success

Actually implementing all of these and knowing the material is a whole different ball game though, as I learned firsthand this semester.

[BruceWayne]

I'm still only a 0L..

g...t...f...o

What's with this "0L" obsession on here. It's like a TLS right of passage or something. Some people were saying it back in August.....

[evilxs]

0L means he is not even a student at a law school. Law school is unlike any other degree. Without being a law student it is hard to imagine how they can possibly understand. I understand they're curious, but I know I don't really care to wade through their inexperienced advice. He is in a thread for how to take law school tests giving advice when he, himself has never taken a law school exam.

I've got a few degrees under my belt. This really is different from anything else I have ever done.

[rbgrocio]

I know Civ Pro pretty well, and I wrote a damn good outline. But when the exam came... I failed, HARD. It was mostly panic, but also I just didn't understand a fucking thing on the test.

The hypo was about joinder by an unorganized P against multiple Ds, and the question was how each D would respond to the charge against them. How do you answer that? I have a pretty limited section on joinder, and didn't know what else to write besides stuff on permissive joinder.

My friend (who didn't take the same exam) suggested that I should've gone through the whole shebang for each D -- jurisdiction, venue, etc etc. Is that true?

I feel like dying right now. If this were a straightforward undergrad exam that asked me each thing, I could've handled it. But I have no idea how to apply the laws I memorized to facts. Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

Doesn't matter much now, does it?



But, yes. When in doubt, do everything to every party - at least the first party - and you can almost feel the confusion melt away.

I agree. Separating out the claims and viewing them each individually can give a lot of clarity about what's actually happening. Sometimes it helps me to draw a little diagram of the different claims. Sorry things didn't go as you'd hoped, but sometimes it takes a little while to find the right method for you. Did you look at many practice exams?

I didn't do any practice tests, which was a HUGE mistake. I basically have no idea how to take law exams. I'm going to do fifty before my next exam.

But wait, really? So for each D (all were in different states, one was a corporation, one was an individual, one was something else) I'm supposed to say that they'd address the P's attempt to join them by 1) talking about personal jurisdiction, 2) venue, 3) subject matter, 4) pre-trial pleadings, 5) etc etc? It just seems a ton of fluffy bullshit, the only issue is obviously if they can be properly joined.

Then again, given how much everyone else wrote, I'm guessing I'm wrong and everyone else is right. Fuck.

I wrote A TON for my civ. pro final. I'm a 2L so I took civ. pro a year ago. I think separating everything is a must. It is extremely time consuming, especially when the essay has a ton of people and issues, but that's just the nature of civ. pro.

In any event, I felt really bad about my civ. pro final and I booked it. Usually, how you think you did is not actually how u did.

[Teoeo]

The curve messes with my head... The easier I though a test was, the more paranoid I become about everyone else doing well also O_O

[macattaq]

I'm still only a 0L.. in fact I bombed the LSAT today so feel free to ignore this.. but I'd say that even things that you feel are already well-known or implied should be written anyway. Anything you show that can get you some kind of points. Even if you wrote all the points out for every one there is no way you'd lose points for it.. so why not?

I'll call you out on this, just go away. You don't belong in the law school students forum until you are a law school student. You can't even possibly understand what we're going through.

You're one of those self-important people who flips out on undergrads who happen to stroll through the law school on the way to class or who sit at the coffee stand and talk for a few minutes aren't you? Yes, Evilxs, you are a law student, congratulations. But congratulations on also being a douche.

[evilxs]

We have undergrads studying in our law library, no big deal.

This guy is in the law school forum giving advice on how to take law school exams WHEN HE HAS NEVER TAKEN A LAW SCHOOL EXAM. I am not a douche for telling him to gtfo. The poster in this thread needs real advice, not 0L guesses.

[inchoate_con]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

You'd think the older you get the more you'd realize how ridiculous it is that you still post here.

When did he drop out? Was it two or three years ago?

[BriaTharen]

We have undergrads studying in our law library, no big deal.

This guy is in the law school forum giving advice on how to take law school exams WHEN HE HAS NEVER TAKEN A LAW SCHOOL EXAM. I am not a douche for telling him to gtfo. The poster in this thread needs real advice, not 0L guesses.

This. A 0L giving advice on how to get through law school exams is ridiculous.

[macattaq]

As opposed to a 1L going through the first round of law school exams in his/her life, EVER?

[Kobe_Teeth]

We have undergrads studying in our law library, no big deal.

This guy is in the law school forum giving advice on how to take law school exams WHEN HE HAS NEVER TAKEN A LAW SCHOOL EXAM. I am not a douche for telling him to gtfo. The poster in this thread needs real advice, not 0L guesses.

+1

[evilxs]

As opposed to a 1L going through the first round of law school exams in his/her life, EVER?

I am actually in my second semester. I got cleared and took summer con law courses. I have already had successful law exams and gotten grades. This is my second semester and I rocked it.

[solotee]

We have undergrads studying in our law library, no big deal.

This guy is in the law school forum giving advice on how to take law school exams WHEN HE HAS NEVER TAKEN A LAW SCHOOL EXAM. I am not a douche for telling him to gtfo. The poster in this thread needs real advice, not 0L guesses.

[stayway]

I'm still only a 0L.. in fact I bombed the LSAT today so feel free to ignore this.. but I'd say that even things that you feel are already well-known or implied should be written anyway. Anything you show that can get you some kind of points. Even if you wrote all the points out for every one there is no way you'd lose points for it.. so why not?

LOLWUT?