Top Law Schools

For instance, when they say a question is worth 70 points:

(a) does that mean that there are 70 issues there or
(b) does it mean that whatever % of however many issues there were that you spotted and analyzed is what % of the 70 points you got?

ToTransferOrNot wrote:http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... _grad.html

Most profs I've spoken with reward analysis above all else. Issue spotting secondary.

Helmholtz wrote:

ToTransferOrNot wrote:http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... _grad.html

The analysis bit is solid. What is good analysis, citing a rule and then taking about all of the other rules that the P and D could use to bicker over the first?

I've noticed that my problem with exams is tunnel vision, I spot all the issues and write them in the margins and then get so wrapped up in a complex issue like the PE rule that I end up going spending 20 minutes analyising. Then some of the original issues I spotted get perfunctory treatment. There must be some happy medium.

Depends on your professor. Spotting more issues is always good. However, with some professors you can get away with light analysis on the minor issues while with others you are better off doing a better analysis on the central issues.

Read model answers for your prof if they are available. Make your decision based on those answers.

random5483 wrote:Depends on your professor. Spotting more issues is always good. However, with some professors you can get away with light analysis on the minor issues while with others you are better off doing a better analysis on the central issues.

Read model answers for your prof if they are available. Make your decision based on those answers.

One of my profs was good enough to go over how to answer his questions in class. He took us through proper issue spotting, analysis, and allocating coverage with severe word restrictions. This was more helpful than most anything else.

Like everyone else says, it depends on your professor. I only had a true issue spotter for Torts, and mine told me that the best grades were either by those who spotted the most issues and did light analysis or didn't spot as many issues but did excellent in-depth analysis. He also said that it was very very rare that students could do both and the model answers were a mix.

quakeroats wrote:

random5483 wrote:Depends on your professor. Spotting more issues is always good. However, with some professors you can get away with light analysis on the minor issues while with others you are better off doing a better analysis on the central issues.

Read model answers for your prof if they are available. Make your decision based on those answers.

One of my profs was good enough to go over how to answer his questions in class. He took us through proper issue spotting, analysis, and allocating coverage with severe word restrictions. This was more helpful than most anything else.

One of my professors was good enough to do this as well, she wrote IRAC on the board and called it the day. The model answers do not display the scores. Some are written by the professor, some by students. I estimate that I hit between 40-60% of the issues addressed in them (generally hitting less on the Prof-written ones then the student ones). However, its hard to know what "couts" as hitting. Somtimes I discuss the same issue but cite different cases for the rules governing it, analyize it differently, etc.

honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

solidsnake wrote:honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

I know enough to know that this is patently wrong.

Veyron wrote:

solidsnake wrote:honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

I know enough to know that this is patently wrong.

says the 1L with no grades. nice try

solidsnake wrote:

Veyron wrote:

solidsnake wrote:honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

I know enough to know that this is patently wrong.

says the 1L with no grades. nice try

It may be correct for some professors, not for the professors who say "I just want the rule" as some of mine do.

Veyron wrote:

solidsnake wrote:

Veyron wrote:

solidsnake wrote:honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

I know enough to know that this is patently wrong.

says the 1L with no grades. nice try

It may be correct for some professors, not for the professors who say "I just want the rule" as some of mine do.

Why does "I just want the rule" exclude the possibility of creativity?

solidsnake wrote:

Veyron wrote:

solidsnake wrote:honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

I know enough to know that this is patently wrong.

says the 1L with no grades. nice try

Creativity is not your friend on law school exams.

vamedic03 wrote:Creativity is not your friend on law school exams.

Then I shouldn't have ended my Fed Courts exam by arguing that the federal court system should be abolished and replaced by what I like to call "Article I Judge Judy tribunals"?

vanwinkle wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:Creativity is not your friend on law school exams.

Then I shouldn't have ended my Fed Courts exam by arguing that the federal court system should be abolished and replaced by what I like to call "Article I Judge Judy tribunals"?

181

vamedic03 wrote:

solidsnake wrote:

Veyron wrote:

solidsnake wrote:honestly, profs just award creativity. think of shit that no one else did, incl the prof, and make some fucign good arguments. bam A

I know enough to know that this is patently wrong.

says the 1L with no grades. nice try

Creativity is not your friend on law school exams.

Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

pasteurizedmilk wrote: Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

I'd have to agree. In my view, it's speed + creativity that are determinative. Everyone knows the basics. For word limited exams, add discretion and being concise.

prezidentv8 wrote:

pasteurizedmilk wrote: Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

I'd have to agree. In my view, it's speed + creativity that are determinative. Everyone knows the basics. For word limited exams, add discretion and being concise.

Most people generally don't effectively apply law to facts. Do this effectively, and you're ahead of the curve. If you have time to be creative, you should really reconsider whether you effectively applied law to facts.

vamedic03 wrote:

prezidentv8 wrote:

pasteurizedmilk wrote: Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

I'd have to agree. In my view, it's speed + creativity that are determinative. Everyone knows the basics. For word limited exams, add discretion and being concise.

Most people generally don't effectively apply law to facts. Do this effectively, and you're ahead of the curve. If you have time to be creative, you should really reconsider whether you effectively applied law to facts.

Well for me that usually seems to depend on the speed portion of that equation - if I'm in a time crunch situation, I generally do relatively poorly, whereas if I have or can make enough time to get creative I do well.

vamedic03 wrote:

prezidentv8 wrote:

pasteurizedmilk wrote: Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

I'd have to agree. In my view, it's speed + creativity that are determinative. Everyone knows the basics. For word limited exams, add discretion and being concise.

Most people generally don't effectively apply law to facts. Do this effectively, and you're ahead of the curve. If you have time to be creative, you should really reconsider whether you effectively applied law to facts.

Que?

quakeroats wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

prezidentv8 wrote:

pasteurizedmilk wrote: Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

I'd have to agree. In my view, it's speed + creativity that are determinative. Everyone knows the basics. For word limited exams, add discretion and being concise.

Most people generally don't effectively apply law to facts. Do this effectively, and you're ahead of the curve. If you have time to be creative, you should really reconsider whether you effectively applied law to facts.

Que?

When I'm going through a test, I highlight the facts in the fact pattern as I use them. If I decide they're extraneous, I cross them out. I try to make sure all of the facts in the pattern are either crossed out or highlighted before I start getting fancy with my analysis. Just make sure you actually use all of the facts provided in the pattern effectively. If you decide a certain fact is a red herring, point out why it does not influence your analysis. A lot of people just start churning through detached law without adequately addressing the facts on the page.

quakeroats wrote:

vamedic03 wrote:

prezidentv8 wrote:

pasteurizedmilk wrote: Creativity is really important. Rote analysis is fine and all, but if you're trying to really stand out from the rest you have to be creative.

I'd have to agree. In my view, it's speed + creativity that are determinative. Everyone knows the basics. For word limited exams, add discretion and being concise.

Most people generally don't effectively apply law to facts. Do this effectively, and you're ahead of the curve. If you have time to be creative, you should really reconsider whether you effectively applied law to facts.

Que?

Having been through 1L and having done well, I can tell you that it all comes down to effectively applying law to fact. None of my exam answers were creative, but they were thorough and succinct.