Top Law Schools

TobiasFunke wrote: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?

Always Credited wrote:

TobiasFunke wrote: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.

TobiasFunke wrote: 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?

theantiscalia wrote:You might do better than you think. You don't have to outrun the hyena; just the other lions.

I may have bombed criminal law today, despite months of fairly meticulous preparation. (I didn't discuss the MPC; every one of my classmates did.) It happens.

Just start preparing for the next test...

TobiasFunke wrote: Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

hoopsguy6 wrote:

theantiscalia wrote:You might do better than you think. You don't have to outrun the hyena; just the other lions.

I may have bombed criminal law today, despite months of fairly meticulous preparation. (I didn't discuss the MPC; every one of my classmates did.) It happens.

Just start preparing for the next test...

Why are lions running away from a hyena.

TobiasFunke wrote:

mnolen wrote:

Always Credited wrote:

TobiasFunke wrote: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.

TobiasFunke wrote: 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.

solidsnake wrote:Ah 1L...

1Ls, it's THIS pain of constantly second-guessing yourself and going from high to low every 10 minutes for the next 6 weeks

TobiasFunke wrote:

mnolen wrote:

Always Credited wrote:

TobiasFunke wrote: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.

MTal wrote: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.

MTal wrote: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.

Bildungsroman wrote:

MTal wrote: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.

I told this to a friend of mine as he went into the hospital for a blood test.

I miss him every day.

Bildungsroman wrote:

MTal wrote: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.

I told this to a friend of mine as he went into the hospital for a blood test.

I miss him every day.

Kobe_Teeth wrote:

MTal wrote: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.

solidsnake wrote:Ah 1L...

1Ls, it's THIS pain of constantly second-guessing yourself and going from high to low every 10 minutes for the next 6 weeks that will harden you as we make our journey into becoming self-loathing lawyers. After this, you will never be able to talk to an 0L again about anything substantively law school related.

MTal wrote: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.

swc65 wrote:

MTal wrote: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.

LoL. Best advice ITT