After Grades - What did we learn? Forum

[vanwinkle]

It surprises me every time I hear someone say that he cited a bunch of irrelevant law because of a supplement.

Agreed here. People tend to forget that come test time, the applicable law is essentially all common law in the jurisdiction of "My Professor Land"

Haha, this is an excellent way of putting it. The one supplement I used most was for Civ Pro, and that was great for figuring out how to use the rules, but I made sure to never mention a case that we didn't discuss in class, if I brought up any at all on the final.

[rayiner]

It surprises me every time I hear someone say that he cited a bunch of irrelevant law because of a supplement.

Agreed here. People tend to forget that come test time, the applicable law is essentially all common law in the jurisdiction of "My Professor Land"

In the one class I didn't build my outline directly and completely from the casebook (I used Dressler heavily), I ended up writing a lot about stuff that was "irrelevant" and "weird" (quotes from my prof) in "My Professor Land". Maybe other people had an easier time distinguishing between what was taught and what wasn't during the exam itself, but it was all kind of a soup in my head...

[rayiner]

It surprises me every time I hear someone say that he cited a bunch of irrelevant law because of a supplement.

Agreed here. People tend to forget that come test time, the applicable law is essentially all common law in the jurisdiction of "My Professor Land"

YMMV. My contracts professor taught from the Restatement + UCC, ignoring conflicting common law and not giving points even for using it as a reference. My torts professor taught from a book that covered a specific set of current case law, ignoring conflicting law in the Restatement, again giving no points for mentioning other law. My crim professor's exam was MPC + alterations he set forth in the exam itself, and he repeatedly pointed out that wasted time by making comparisons to common law ("it's irrelevant in an MPC jurisdiction!").

I feel like this basically re-affirms what I said....

Yeah, see my edit. I missed where you were coming from.

[mac.empress]

It surprises me every time I hear someone say that he cited a bunch of irrelevant law because of a supplement.

Agreed here. People tend to forget that come test time, the applicable law is essentially all common law in the jurisdiction of "My Professor Land"

Yep. +1

[apper123]

It surprises me every time I hear someone say that he cited a bunch of irrelevant law because of a supplement.

Agreed here. People tend to forget that come test time, the applicable law is essentially all common law in the jurisdiction of "My Professor Land"

In the one class I didn't build my outline directly and completely from the casebook (I used Dressler heavily), I ended up writing a lot about stuff that was "irrelevant" and "weird" (quotes from my prof) in "My Professor Land". Maybe other people had an easier time distinguishing between what was taught and what wasn't during the exam itself, but it was all kind of a soup in my head...

Yeah, and this reinforces why you should use supplements either your professor recommended or that are written by your casebook author (or by your professor himself).

And even THEN pay close attention to what is covered in class and what is not. I even take special care to highlight in my supplement table of contents what is covered in class and/or in the casebook and not, this way I don't forget before finals and learn the wrong stuff.

[Snooker]

No not sucking at life at all, this term definitely conformed to my expectations (model answers included). Moreover I practiced my westlaw skills over the break to see if there's any empirical evidence & theory to explain all of this. There is, and it seems like the typical strategies don't actually correlate up with grades - it's been studied.

Why would there be a correlation between study strategy and grades? The end product is what matters - how you get there doesn't.

It's really not rocket science. You apply the law to the facts. Occasionally, you justify your conclusion with a public policy argument (but only occasionally unless you have a professor you know cares about policy). You explore the contours and ambiguities in the law itself, guided by what highlights the professor noted in class. How you learn the law is irrelevant as long as you have internalized it. I used mostly the casebook, with supplements only for verification*. I know several people who have had good success wih supplements, on the other hand. The key is to figure out what works for you, then do it.

What do you think a study will prove?

*) The one class were I did use a supplement to make my outline (crim) I ended up bringing up all sorts of irrelevant law, and my professor specifically mentioned that I probably got the stuff from a supplement when I went over the exam with him.

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material. That this trend doesn't follow in law school is a bit perplexing to say the least. The different study methods shouldn't all result in basically one big tie. My hypothesis is that the various study methods are basically student-made, and until the last few years, there'd been very little interest among law professors in legal education.

[rayiner]

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material.

Since when?

[prezidentv8]

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material.

Since when?

ditto.

[Snooker]

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material.

Since when?

Since around the early 20th century.

[vanwinkle]

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material.

This is so, so true. For example, once I tried studying for a history exam by osmosis, putting the book under my pillow while I slept and trying to absorb all the information. This particular study strategy led to an F, teaching me that the right study strategy for the class is truly important.

[mac.empress]

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material.

This is so, so true. For example, once I tried studying for a history exam by osmosis, putting the book under my pillow while I slept and trying to absorb all the information. This particular study strategy led to an F, teaching me that the right study strategy for the class is truly important.

I too discovered the need for a good study strategy after attempting the same exercise before a Philosophy exam.

[Inygma]

In other fields, the particular study strategy that's adopted has a significant impact on the student's ability to master the material.

This is so, so true. For example, once I tried studying for a history exam by osmosis, putting the book under my pillow while I slept and trying to absorb all the information. This particular study strategy led to an F, teaching me that the right study strategy for the class is truly important.

I too discovered the need for a good study strategy after attempting the same exercise before a Philosophy exam.

Philosophy is one of the few classes where "sleeping on it" works

[prezidentv8]

Dual studying and facebook ftw

[mac.empress]

Dual studying and facebook ftw

This.

[deneuve39]

I'm sure this has been said in this thread, but knowing what the professor wants you to get out of the class is by far the most important thing. Of course you need to do all the reading, look at supplements, outline, be organized, write well, etc. But on the class I spent the most time prepping for I got the worst grade in. Likewise in the exam where I barely knew what I was writing about but went out of my way to link in concepts the professor emphasized, I got my best grade. Look up law review articles they've written and go into office hours. Also pay really, really close attention in class. In the other class I did well on one his exam questions was literally something he had just talked about randomly for 30 minutes one day that was a tangential aside from a major case. If I hadn't been taking good notes that day I would have had no idea how to answer the question on the exam.

[Unemployed]

I'm sure this has been said in this thread, but knowing what the professor wants you to get out of the class is by far the most important thing. Of course you need to do all the reading, look at supplements, outline, be organized, write well, etc. But on the class I spent the most time prepping for I got the worst grade in. Likewise in the exam where I barely knew what I was writing about but went out of my way to link in concepts the professor emphasized, I got my best grade. Look up law review articles they've written and go into office hours. Also pay really, really close attention in class. In the other class I did well on one his exam questions was literally something he had just talked about randomly for 30 minutes one day that was a tangential aside from a major case. If I hadn't been taking good notes that day I would have had no idea how to answer the question on the exam.

Bolded = not true. But your point about giving the professors what they want is TCR.

[Snooker]

Supplements recommended by the professor might be helpful. My professor recommends a particular supplement highly and I see stuff that was not covered in the casebook, or presented differently in the casebook, taken from the hornbook and then presented in class. The casebooks generally give a convoluted presentation to the various issues you'll face, though the difficulty of learning the different legal rules should not be exaggerated.

The best advice in this thread is probably to figure out what the professor wants, and then do that. But the Socratic method is designed specifically to destroy all chances of learning except as to what the cases in themselves say, which frustrates the whole law school enterprise.

[legends159]

Snooker did you end up rocking all your exams?

[prezidentv8]

The best advice in this thread is probably to figure out what the professor wants, and then do that. But the Socratic method is designed specifically to destroy all chances of learning except as to what the cases in themselves say, which frustrates the whole law school enterprise.

Nailed it.

[Esc]

The best advice in this thread is probably to figure out what the professor wants, and then do that. But the Socratic method is designed specifically to destroy all chances of learning except as to what the cases in themselves say, which frustrates the whole law school enterprise.

Nailed it.

Disagree. I think the Socratic Method is the best way of learning to think quickly, articulate rationally, and digest knowledge. The best way to learn is to teach. The best thing about it is that it doesn't teach to the test....a problem which is the bane of grade schools.

[Snooker]

Snooker did you end up rocking all your exams?

!

[prezidentv8]

The best advice in this thread is probably to figure out what the professor wants, and then do that. But the Socratic method is designed specifically to destroy all chances of learning except as to what the cases in themselves say, which frustrates the whole law school enterprise.

Nailed it.

Disagree. I think the Socratic Method is the best way of learning to think quickly, articulate rationally, and digest knowledge. The best way to learn is to teach. The best thing about it is that it doesn't teach to the test....a problem which is the bane of grade schools.

Possibly. My opinion on the matter is that if you want people to actually learn to "think like a lawyer" (I hate that phrase), then the best thing for them to do is to practice doing so. Lots of written analysis and feedback along the way would be ideal, rather than hearing classmates and professors blab on about random policy implications which may or may not be relevant while trying to separately prepare for a final which is the only thing you have an incentive to do well on in the class in the first place. Not that the Socratic method in theory is bad, but it stinks in practice because it doesn't line up with working on actual improvement or incentives that the average law student encounters.

[prezidentv8]

Snooker did you end up rocking all your exams?

um yes and why do people keep asking this question?

Snooker did you end up rocking all your exams?

[Snooker]

The best advice in this thread is probably to figure out what the professor wants, and then do that. But the Socratic method is designed specifically to destroy all chances of learning except as to what the cases in themselves say, which frustrates the whole law school enterprise.

Nailed it.

Disagree. I think the Socratic Method is the best way of learning to think quickly, articulate rationally, and digest knowledge. The best way to learn is to teach. The best thing about it is that it doesn't teach to the test....a problem which is the bane of grade schools.

Is there any evidence for that proposition?

(granted, my above proposition was hyperbole. I think it's a fine way to teach reading cases. But can singular reliance on the socratic method train effective lawyers?)

[Snooker]

Snooker did you end up rocking all your exams?

A little part of me just died!