Top Law Schools

I did pretty well last year, but I know I need to continue to improve this year to keep good grades. That being said, one thing I have noticed from practice exams and talking with professors is that I have the habit of stating the relevant law, then stating the relevant facts from the question but I'm horrible at tying them together in the analysis portion. I feel like I am always using the same format of: "John likely did not have the necessary intent to kill because (INSERT FACTS FROM CASE). I know that is not the best way to analyze, but I am having trouble fixing this issue. If anyone has any advice I would really appreciate it. I feel like I am decent at issue spotting and know the relevant law for my exams, I just really want to work on my analysis and combining facts with law to maximize the amount of points I can get.

After each sentence you write always ask yourself (because why?)

"P may have a claim for battery.

Battery is X, Y and Z.

Here, Fact 1 occured. P will argue that this satisfys element X because... D will argue it does not satisfy element X because...

As such, P's claim for battery has/has not been established."

You have to break it down into simple pieces.

I'll be the one to ask it, and probably get a warning for asking, but why do you care so much about your 2L grades to the point you want to improve?

.

brotherdarkness wrote:

Bronx Bum wrote:I'll be the one to ask it, and probably get a warning for asking, but why do you care so much about your 2L grades to the point you want to improve?

There are a number of possible reasons OP might care about his/her 2L grades:

(1) OP is a clerkship gunner

(2) OP will be spending his or her summer with a firm that checks 2L grades (e.g., Gibson Dunn)

(3) OP did not secure a summer associate position

(4) OP may want to ensure that his or her grades are not prohibitive with regards to a possible lateral move later on down the road

(5) OP is aware that cold-offers and no-offers do happen and that, ITE, it's best to do what you can to ensure you're in the best possible position for being employed post-graduation

The list goes on...

Hence why I asked. Those reasons seem to apply to maybe 5% or less of all law students.

Edit: #3 wouldn't really apply. Gunning to improve your already decent grades really doesn't help your situation if you struck out at OCI. Should be out there getting experience at small firms.

brotherdarkness wrote:

Bronx Bum wrote:I'll be the one to ask it, and probably get a warning for asking, but why do you care so much about your 2L grades to the point you want to improve?

There are a number of possible reasons OP might care about his/her 2L grades:

(1) OP is a clerkship gunner

(2) OP will be spending his or her summer with a firm that checks 2L grades (e.g., Gibson Dunn)

(3) OP did not secure a summer associate position

(4) OP may want to ensure that his or her grades are not prohibitive with regards to a possible lateral move later on down the road

(5) OP is aware that cold-offers and no-offers do happen and that, ITE, it's best to do what you can to ensure you're in the best possible position for being employed post-graduation

The list goes on...

And a quick search of the OP's post history reveals that your list really doesn't apply to OP.

Crime X elements: A B C and D

Here, Plaintiff will argue Defendant is satisfied the elements necessary for Crime X. Defendant's conduct satisfied the elements because ... However, Defendant will respond that he did not satisfy the elements of Crime X and employ the following defenses/rebut an element(s) of Crime X.

Therefore, Defendant will likely be found guilty of Crime X.

Bronx Bum wrote:

brotherdarkness wrote:

Bronx Bum wrote:I'll be the one to ask it, and probably get a warning for asking, but why do you care so much about your 2L grades to the point you want to improve?

There are a number of possible reasons OP might care about his/her 2L grades:

(1) OP is a clerkship gunner

(2) OP will be spending his or her summer with a firm that checks 2L grades (e.g., Gibson Dunn)

(3) OP did not secure a summer associate position

(4) OP may want to ensure that his or her grades are not prohibitive with regards to a possible lateral move later on down the road

(5) OP is aware that cold-offers and no-offers do happen and that, ITE, it's best to do what you can to ensure you're in the best possible position for being employed post-graduation

The list goes on...

Hence why I asked. Those reasons seem to apply to maybe 5% or less of all law students.

What are you basing this on? At T14 schools ~10% do federal clerkships and only 40-60% get biglaw SAs. There are a ton of people who are either clerkship gunners or don't have the cushy guaranteed biglaw job locked up.

HiiPower2015 wrote:I need to continue to improve this year to keep good grades.

I don't agree with this.

mr.hands wrote:

Bronx Bum wrote:

brotherdarkness wrote:

Bronx Bum wrote:I'll be the one to ask it, and probably get a warning for asking, but why do you care so much about your 2L grades to the point you want to improve?

There are a number of possible reasons OP might care about his/her 2L grades:

(1) OP is a clerkship gunner

(2) OP will be spending his or her summer with a firm that checks 2L grades (e.g., Gibson Dunn)

(3) OP did not secure a summer associate position

(4) OP may want to ensure that his or her grades are not prohibitive with regards to a possible lateral move later on down the road

(5) OP is aware that cold-offers and no-offers do happen and that, ITE, it's best to do what you can to ensure you're in the best possible position for being employed post-graduation

The list goes on...

Hence why I asked. Those reasons seem to apply to maybe 5% or less of all law students.

What are you basing this on? At T14 schools ~10% do federal clerkships and only 40-60% get biglaw SAs. There are a ton of people who are either clerkship gunners or don't have the cushy guaranteed biglaw job locked up.

Like I said, #3 wouldn't apply. If you don't have biglaw, improving your already decent grades really isn't going to help you get a firm job or government job. Maybe fed but definitely not state. It's probably a better idea to focus your efforts elsewhere.

This may be a boring answer, but I actually go to a TTT and want to do criminal defense/PD work so I know job prospects are shit for me, so I have to do everything I can to help myself!

I'm interning at a PD's office all this year and working for a very large one this upcoming summer, but I still want my grades to be as good as possible.

Bronx Bum wrote:
Hence why I asked. Those reasons seem to apply to maybe 5% or less of all law students.

...

Like I said, #3 wouldn't apply. If you don't have biglaw, improving your already decent grades really isn't going to help you get a firm job or government job. Maybe fed but definitely not state. It's probably a better idea to focus your efforts elsewhere.

Uh you claimed that those 5 reasons applied to maybe 5% or less of all law students, not just OP. I'm saying, that's absurd. Aside from grades, mass mailing, and networking, there's nothing you can really do. Might as well do all 3 as well as you can.

OP, make sure you aren't falling in the IRAC trap where you go through the motions but don't expand on the "A" section. A ton of people use IRAC but don't actually use the facts and analyze. They state the rule and just say "it applies" therefore (conclusion).

For an ignorant 1L, why does the common line of thinking seem to be 2L grades are so <<<<<<< 1L grades. I mean I get the 1L grade importance but just curious why its such a wide disparity.

.

brotherdarkness wrote:

sf_39 wrote:For an ignorant 1L, why does the common line of thinking seem to be 2L grades are so <<<<<<< 1L grades. I mean I get the 1L grade importance but just curious why its such a wide disparity.

OCI takes place at the very beginning of your 2L year and employers only have your 1L grades to look at. If you get a summer associate position through OCI (or any other means) at the beginning of your 2L year, because most firms extend offers to the vast majority of summer associates, it's generally assumed that "you've made it." (lol moar pie please) There are some exceptions, such as firms like Gibson Dunn which look at your 2L grades and are known for no-offering summer associates on the basis of a drop in GPA, and individuals who hope to clerk or teach and therefore need to keep their grades up.

If you don't get a summer associate position at the beginning of your 2L year, the common train of thought is that you should begin focusing your efforts elsewhere, such as small firms, public interest, etc. These other options are generally assumed not to care as much about grades, so, once again, grades are more or less irrelevant.

Maybe I'm just really naive, but do grades really not matter if you want to do criminal defense or PD work? I go to a TTT and I find it hard to believe being in top 10% will really help my chances at finding one of the few spots.

I have a similar issue as OP. Very rigid answers.
I have no idea why most model answers are "great". This is obviously a bad thing..

Model answers are VERY different from mine (for all my classes). They talk less about the law.
Both the model answer and my answer have the same substance. The only thing is the argument is found in difference sections, so the model answer is more "integrated" with the facts. Mine is more rigid (like OP, I write the law, then the facts, then connect them).

For example:
My answer: The court will see if there was meeting of the minds. [Then I would define this, describe how the courts use it, etc.]. Here, it seems like there isn't because... [ I would say why, based on the facts]

Model answer goes straight to the application: there is no meeting of the minds because ....[same thing I do, but a little more legal theory]. The difference between the model answer and mine is the application is the same, but legal theory in mine is more dense and it's separate from the application. The model answer writes more about the facts itself, because it's integrated with legal theory.

My understanding is that the professors want to see how much you know the law, as well as apply it. The model answers all seem to "assume" that the professor knows that they already know the law.

There's a model answer with 1/3 of what I wrote. I cannot imagine how this person got an A because it's all application and VERY little law.

Any tips? Anyone even know what I'm saying?

dj_roomba wrote:I have a similar issue as OP. Very rigid answers.
I have no idea why most model answers are "great". This is obviously a bad thing..

Model answers are VERY different from mine (for all my classes). They talk less about the law.
Both the model answer and my answer have the same substance. The only thing is the argument is found in difference sections, so the model answer is more "integrated" with the facts. Mine is more rigid (like OP, I write the law, then the facts, then connect them).

For example:
My answer: The court will see if there was meeting of the minds. [Then I would define this, describe how the courts use it, etc.]. Here, it seems like there isn't because... [ I would say why, based on the facts]

Model answer goes straight to the application: there is no meeting of the minds because ....[same thing I do, but a little more legal theory]. The difference between the model answer and mine is the application is the same, but legal theory in mine is more dense and it's separate from the application. The model answer writes more about the facts itself, because it's integrated with legal theory.

My understanding is that the professors want to see how much you know the law, as well as apply it. The model answers all seem to "assume" that the professor knows that they already know the law.

There's a model answer with 1/3 of what I wrote. I cannot imagine how this person got an A because it's all application and VERY little law.

Any tips? Anyone even know what I'm saying?

I know exactly what you mean and I think it depends on the professor. For instance, i had a contracts professor who helped write the UCC, so he said there was no reason to tell him what he already knew so he wanted us to go straight into the rule section. Usually the open book exams want less rule statements, since anyone can copy the rule.

But I've had a few close book exams where the professors loved perfect rule statements, and that was how you got a good portion of your points. I think it would be best to talk to your professor though.

The integration you're seeing does show you know the law. For instance, if you have a negligence claim, instead of saying, "Jane Doe probably has a negligence claim against corporation X. Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages [in more detail]. Here, X had a duty because.... There was a breach because..." etc., you can simply write, "Jane Doe probably has a negligence claim against Corporation X. Corporation X had a duty to [do/not do whatever] because [whatever's in the facts]. There was a breach because [whatever]. The most difficult prong to prove will be causation, because [whatever], but Doe would likely prevail because [whatever]" etc. To the extent you want to put in more detailed definitions, do it within the context of applying to these specific facts, so if you want to talk about there being a duty because the cost of the care is less to the defendant than the risk to the plaintiff, say that using the specific examples of X and Doe, not as an abstract statement.

This all shows that you know the law, because you discuss duty, breach, causation, etc., you just take up less time/space doing so, and you do so entirely in the context of the specific facts. Giving detailed statements of the BLL in the abstract isn't necessarily bad, it's just not always efficient.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The integration you're seeing does show you know the law. For instance, if you have a negligence claim, instead of saying, "Jane Doe probably has a negligence claim against corporation X. Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages [in more detail]. Here, X had a duty because.... There was a breach because..." etc., you can simply write, "Jane Doe probably has a negligence claim against Corporation X. Corporation X had a duty to [do/not do whatever] because [whatever's in the facts]. There was a breach because [whatever]. The most difficult prong to prove will be causation, because [whatever], but Doe would likely prevail because [whatever]" etc. To the extent you want to put in more detailed definitions, do it within the context of applying to these specific facts, so if you want to talk about there being a duty because the cost of the care is less to the defendant than the risk to the plaintiff, say that using the specific examples of X and Doe, not as an abstract statement.

This all shows that you know the law, because you discuss duty, breach, causation, etc., you just take up less time/space doing so, and you do so entirely in the context of the specific facts. Giving detailed statements of the BLL in the abstract isn't necessarily bad, it's just not always efficient.

TYFT Nony. This is really helpful for clueless 1Ls like me, too.

.

HiiPower2015 wrote:
Maybe I'm just really naive, but do grades really not matter if you want to do criminal defense or PD work? I go to a TTT and I find it hard to believe being in top 10% will really help my chances at finding one of the few spots.

You never know. I don't think being top 2% helped me one bit. I wish I wouldn't have wasted so much time studying.