Top Law Schools

kaiser wrote:This is what we call "overthinking", a condition that can easily be cured with a big dose of "chill the hell out"

And just FYI, I want to make a point out of your observation that your classmates seem lost and confused. That is step one toward failure on your part. Step one in any competition: The moment you underestimate your competition is the moment they have beaten you. I'd tread carefully in how you assess your classmates, and how your understanding stacks up to theirs.

blendpose wrote:

kaiser wrote:This is what we call "overthinking", a condition that can easily be cured with a big dose of "chill the hell out"

And just FYI, I want to make a point out of your observation that your classmates seem lost and confused. That is step one toward failure on your part. Step one in any competition: The moment you underestimate your competition is the moment they have beaten you. I'd tread carefully in how you assess your classmates, and how your understanding stacks up to theirs.

I completely agree with your comment about classmates and competition. You're right on. I don't think I'm better than them. BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

How can you tell me to "chill out," but tell me to "not underestimate [my] competition?" If I chilled out, then wouldn't I be, in essence, "underestimating [my] competition" due to a lack of preparation? -grabs bowl of popcorn and continue to refresh page for a witty response-

blendpose wrote: BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

kaiser wrote:

blendpose wrote:

kaiser wrote:This is what we call "overthinking", a condition that can easily be cured with a big dose of "chill the hell out"

And just FYI, I want to make a point out of your observation that your classmates seem lost and confused. That is step one toward failure on your part. Step one in any competition: The moment you underestimate your competition is the moment they have beaten you. I'd tread carefully in how you assess your classmates, and how your understanding stacks up to theirs.

I completely agree with your comment about classmates and competition. You're right on. I don't think I'm better than them. BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

How can you tell me to "chill out," but tell me to "not underestimate [my] competition?" If I chilled out, then wouldn't I be, in essence, "underestimating [my] competition" due to a lack of preparation? -grabs bowl of popcorn and continue to refresh page for a witty response-

I won't try to be witty, just honest. WHen it comes to exams, you first need to spot the issue (i.e. so and so facts could very well be a battery). You would then go through the elements of battery, and examine which are met and which are ambiguous. You spend very little time on the things that are well-established. Don't force in ambiguity that isn't there (remember that a good legal analysis is one where you can say with certainty that something DOES NOT have to be discussed). You then delve deeper into the ambiguous elements. Show why its ambiguous by fleshing out the issue. Then just pick which way you think is more plausible so that you can continue with your analysis (though you can of course explain what would happen had you gone the other way, though it may not be necessary). The "answer" you pick is of little importance. Picking up on the ambiguities and analyzing them cogently is where you win points.

beach_terror wrote:

blendpose wrote: BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.

romothesavior wrote:This has to be the most insufferable post I have read on TLS in a week. I feel bad for your classmates. Go have a beer and chillax, bro.

blendpose wrote:

kaiser wrote:This is what we call "overthinking", a condition that can easily be cured with a big dose of "chill the hell out"

And just FYI, I want to make a point out of your observation that your classmates seem lost and confused. That is step one toward failure on your part. Step one in any competition: The moment you underestimate your competition is the moment they have beaten you. I'd tread carefully in how you assess your classmates, and how your understanding stacks up to theirs.

I completely agree with your comment about classmates and competition. You're right on. I don't think I'm better than them. BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

How can you tell me to "chill out," but tell me to "not underestimate [my] competition?" If I chilled out, then wouldn't I be, in essence, "underestimating [my] competition" due to a lack of preparation? -grabs bowl of popcorn and continues to refresh page for a witty response-

blendpose wrote:After reading numerous "How to Succeed in Law School" threads, GTM book, and the LEEWS primer, I think I may have figured out law school already -not the material of course, but how the system works.

Lets review my first week of Torts.

We went over battery, assault, and false imprisonment. However, each case assigned out of the casebook led to a definition, and an exception to the rule (or a rule), and the need for "further" clarification. Unfortunately, (or fortunately since we're all graded on a curve) many of my fellow classmates seemed lost, confused, and dazed.

So here I am:

I'm editing and creating an outline weekly for each class. I just completed part of the Intentional Torts section with the previous topics mentioned.. but I'm noticing the web of lies growing... the exception, the rules, the narrow and wide scope of each rule, restatement, and definition. But.... isn't that the point?

There are no black and white definitions, there are no set elements. We have elements, but only as a guide..
Is the point to make us write not a "yes" or "no" this happened, but rather, "well we might have..." and then pour into all the nuances of the law?

I'm not sure why I'm ranting this early into law school... but is this right? Am I right? There are no answers! Exam time shouldn't I, or we, highlight all of the possible explanations and eventually, need be, come down on a side?


Anyone else thinking the same thing?
brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb (LEEWS)

blendpose wrote:After reading numerous "How to Succeed in Law School" threads, GTM book, and the LEEWS primer, I think I may have figured out law school already -not the material of course, but how the system works.

Lets review my first week of Torts.

We went over battery, assault, and false imprisonment. However, each case assigned out of the casebook led to a definition, and an exception to the rule (or a rule), and the need for "further" clarification. Unfortunately, (or fortunately since we're all graded on a curve) many of my fellow classmates seemed lost, confused, and dazed.

So here I am:

I'm editing and creating an outline weekly for each class. I just completed part of the Intentional Torts section with the previous topics mentioned.. but I'm noticing the web of lies growing... the exception, the rules, the narrow and wide scope of each rule, restatement, and definition. But.... isn't that the point?

There are no black and white definitions, there are no set elements. We have elements, but only as a guide..
Is the point to make us write not a "yes" or "no" this happened, but rather, "well we might have..." and then pour into all the nuances of the law?

I'm not sure why I'm ranting this early into law school... but is this right? Am I right? There are no answers! Exam time shouldn't I, or we, highlight all of the possible explanations and eventually, need be, come down on a side?


Anyone else thinking the same thing?
brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb (LEEWS)

I am that guy that everyone rolls there eyes at and has a bookbag on wheels

shoeshine wrote:It it good or bad that I have done the same if not more prep than the op and feel the exact opposite after my first couple days?

No confidence here. Just fear and self-loathing.

kalvano wrote:Wait, you covered battery, assault, and false imprisonment in a week?

Send your professor over to my school. That was about 7 weeks for us.

FeelTheHeat wrote:

shoeshine wrote:It it good or bad that I have done the same if not more prep than the op and feel the exact opposite after my first couple days?

No confidence here. Just fear and self-loathing.

I flip flop by the hour between the two extremes

MrPapagiorgio wrote: Fear before I get cold called, then self-loathing after prof informs me that I could not be more wrong if I tried.

ilovesf wrote:

MrPapagiorgio wrote: Fear before I get cold called, then self-loathing after prof informs me that I could not be more wrong if I tried.

At least you tried, some people just say they don't know.