Top Law Schools

While every professor is different there are some tricks of the trade that apply to a great many 1L Con Law courses. One example is Marbury v. Madison. Most professors will spend a good amount of time on this case at the beginning of the semester and it is pretty common for this case to actually be tested on the exam as a policy question. Generally the call of the question is about a proposal before congress to end judicial review and you are asked to pretend to be an aid and prepare a memo on why or why not this is a bad idea (there are other scenarios but they or more or less the same). The way to be prepared for this sort of question is to have already mapped out the several arguments for why judicial review is a good or bad idea (arguments and counter arguments). Basically take whatever arguments supporting and opposing judicial review that were laid out in your class and organize them into discrete headings that can be easily recalled and written on to an exam that calls for such an analysis. Having already mapped out the core of what you will write will leave a good amount of time to write better and more organized analysis that explains and gives examples under each heading. Since the policy question is generally at the end of a con law exam most students will be burnt out by the time they get to it and/or not have very much time left. However, you would have already outlined your exact arguments and will not be so hard pressed for time. I mention this because setting up your outline or exam skeleton now in a way that is targeted at how to answer likely exam questions is a good way to get a head start on exam prep. I point this scenario out because other areas of your con law course are candidates for the issue spotter portion of the exam while this area is a highly tested policy question. Moral of the story: if your class has covered Judicial Review visa vi Marbury v. Madison (including Hunter Lessee and McCulloch v. Maryland) it's a good idea to prepare this part of your outline for a policy question where you are asked to argue for and against judicial review. Happy studying!

What? I have no idea what you just said. Were you offering advice or hoping to get some help?

How many con law profs actually have policy Qs on their finals?

this is the dude that talks about his mentees all over the place. he gives a lot of unsolicited advice

Thank god I had an awesome con law prof who spent as little time as possible on Marbury and certainly didn't mention it on the exam.

Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Why don't you ask your prof?

2014 wrote:Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Does not compute.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

2014 wrote:Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Does not compute.

correct

bk187 wrote:How many con law profs actually have policy Qs on their finals?

mine did. it was worth a quarter of our grade.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Thank god I had an awesome con law prof who spent as little time as possible on Marbury and certainly didn't mention it on the exam.

My professor spent a day on Marbury and still didn't mention it on the exam.

my prof didn't even show up the day we were supposed to go over that case

bk187 wrote:How many con law profs actually have policy Qs on their finals?

Judging by past exams, mine will.

We did like five or six con law topics, supremacy, commerce, etc., then had a final covering those thing plus one policy Q worth about 1/3 of the points. It was weird and everyone pretty much got a B+.

2014 wrote:Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Ours was too... until the start of my 3L year. No grandfathering. So now we have a bunch of 3Ls in their last semester(including myself), who weren't interested enough to take it in the first place, taking Con Law 3 times a week at 830am.... gahhhh.

.

iShotFirst wrote:

2014 wrote:Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Ours was too... until the start of my 3L year. No grandfathering. So now we have a bunch of 3Ls in their last semester(including myself), who weren't interested enough to take it in the first place, taking Con Law 3 times a week at 830am.... gahhhh.

Wow. I can't believe they didn't just grandfather you in. They should at least open up another section or two, not at 830 am.

Can you look at your con law professors past exams? From what I have seen, they can be drastically different.

ph14 wrote:

iShotFirst wrote:

2014 wrote:Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Ours was too... until the start of my 3L year. No grandfathering. So now we have a bunch of 3Ls in their last semester(including myself), who weren't interested enough to take it in the first place, taking Con Law 3 times a week at 830am.... gahhhh.

Wow. I can't believe they didn't just grandfather you in. They should at least open up another section or two, not at 830 am.

Yeah its almost like they are trying to punish us hah

iShotFirst wrote:

ph14 wrote:

iShotFirst wrote:

2014 wrote:Con Law is optional here, I will not be partaking

Ours was too... until the start of my 3L year. No grandfathering. So now we have a bunch of 3Ls in their last semester(including myself), who weren't interested enough to take it in the first place, taking Con Law 3 times a week at 830am.... gahhhh.

Wow. I can't believe they didn't just grandfather you in. They should at least open up another section or two, not at 830 am.

Yeah its almost like they are trying to punish us hah

Han shot second.

FranklinSims wrote:While every professor is different there are some tricks of the trade that apply to a great many 1L Con Law courses. One example is Marbury v. Madison. Most professors will spend a good amount of time on this case at the beginning of the semester and it is pretty common for this case to actually be tested on the exam as a policy question. Generally the call of the question is about a proposal before congress to end judicial review and you are asked to pretend to be an aid and prepare a memo on why or why not this is a bad idea (there are other scenarios but they or more or less the same). The way to be prepared for this sort of question is to have already mapped out the several arguments for why judicial review is a good or bad idea (arguments and counter arguments). Basically take whatever arguments supporting and opposing judicial review that were laid out in your class and organize them into discrete headings that can be easily recalled and written on to an exam that calls for such an analysis. Having already mapped out the core of what you will write will leave a good amount of time to write better and more organized analysis that explains and gives examples under each heading. Since the policy question is generally at the end of a con law exam most students will be burnt out by the time they get to it and/or not have very much time left. However, you would have already outlined your exact arguments and will not be so hard pressed for time. I mention this because setting up your outline or exam skeleton now in a way that is targeted at how to answer likely exam questions is a good way to get a head start on exam prep. I point this scenario out because other areas of your con law course are candidates for the issue spotter portion of the exam while this area is a highly tested policy question. Moral of the story: if your class has covered Judicial Review visa vi Marbury v. Madison (including Hunter Lessee and McCulloch v. Maryland) it's a good idea to prepare this part of your outline for a policy question where you are asked to argue for and against judicial review. Happy studying!

Now that I am actually taking the Con Law I and am one of those 3L's who put Con Law off till their last year, this all makes sense. Our Prof even went so far as to show a video of supreme court justices commenting on the merits of the case. I can totally see this scenario you laid out transpiring. Thanks for the input

3|ink wrote:

iShotFirst wrote: Yeah its almost like they are trying to punish us hah

Han shot second.

Guessing you're not an "Originalist"

iShotFirst wrote:

3|ink wrote:

iShotFirst wrote: Yeah its almost like they are trying to punish us hah

Han shot second.

Guessing you're not an "Originalist"

Oh yeah. Its been a while since I've seen the untarnished version.