Notetaking Help Forum

[NoBladesNoBows]

[Clearly]

FWIW, I've found the best way to take notes is not to. I basically close my laptop and listen. I read this shit, and I have good outlines. I'd rather process the teachers thoughts on it then tirelessly reinvent the wheel thats on the outline.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[Clearly]

FWIW, I've found the best way to take notes is not to. I basically close my laptop and listen. I read this shit, and I have good outlines. I'd rather process the teachers thoughts on it then tirelessly reinvent the wheel thats on the outline.

So you don't think it's necessary to construct your own outlines?

Personally, I didn't. More people will disagree than will agree in all likelihood, it also depends on the quality of starting outline and the person's individual style.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, personal style is a big thing here. I know someone who finished top 5% of her class who literally never took notes; I guess she did the "sit and listen" thing. I am a transcriber, and have been my entire academic career. (I also didn't outline separately from taking class notes after 1L, I studied from my notes.) There was a panel at my 1L orientation where one prof explained why she banned laptops, which was in part because typing encourages straight transcription without processing; the other prof said he has always been a transcriber and could never ban laptops for that reason.

(This is only in class; I can't take notes on readings because I end up trying to transcribe them, so I don't bother, I just underline and star things in the margins.)

I don't know if this is helpful, but: take a look at your syllabus (or casebook TOC) and see what the course structure is, and think about where what you're reading/hearing in class fits. Even being able to go into class saying "today is about proximate cause, which is part of causation, which is part of negligence" helps you place the material in relation to the rest of what you're learning. Think about if you were putting your notes into an outline, where would they go?

[NoBladesNoBows]

[NotMyRealName09]

For taking notes while reading, just book brief - identify issue, rule, application, maybe jot down a few notes, but just write into the margins. For class, don't transcribe - then you're not listening while you're furiously writing. Just listen in class and see if your book brief notes (such as "rule") match what your professor focuses on. If so, great. If not, take notes on why what you thought was important wasn't actually what was focused on in class. Then at end of year, as you go back over the course, you open your book and your notes and go through it all, condensing everything down to what you need to know. That's how I basically did it - but you gotta do what works for you.

[totesTheGoat]

I don't take notes while reading.... I find that I tend to focus more on the things that I don't know much about, which tend to have nothing to do with the 1 sentence legal rule and 2 paragraphs of accompanying support that got the case into the casebook. I skim cases enough to be able to recite in class, but not an iota more.

In class, I'm looking to associate a sentence to maybe a paragraph with the case. The rest (details, policy motivations, disagreements between circuits, etc) may be good to know, but rarely makes it into my notes. I'm taking notes with the exam in mind. The exam isn't going to have a bunch of "what was the holding in XYZ case? What policy considerations influenced the holding in XYZ case?" I'm listening specifically for those hints that the professor drops such as "while case XYZ came out this way, do you think that changing factor A would result in a different outcome?" The answer to that question is "I have no f'in clue, but I'm sure as hell typing at 150wpm while you explain it!"

Then, when exams come around, I shoot for a 15-20 page outline (which is ridiculously low based on feedback I get from classmates). It needs to be detailed enough to capture the metes and bounds of rules and policy, but not so detailed that it could double as the casebook. I want my outline to actually be usable in the exam, and that involves having things partially memorized so that I know that joinder is on page 6 and res judicata is on page 8. Generally, my outline follows the table of contents of the case book.

Everything is about getting to a usable outline on the exam. Nothing else matters.

[PeanutsNJam]

Do you non-note takers have exceptions recall or something? Or are you saying that specific details discussed in class are much less important than just internalizing how to analyze facts and law and things.

[orangecup]

I didn't take notes while reading. I just looked up canned briefs and dumped them into a Onenote page. I then listened to the lecture and fleshed it out with anything useful the professor said (e.g., clarifying the rule; or, policy if the final included a policy analysis section). I then developed outlines later in the semester based on supplements and the notes.

I highlighted while reading but never opened my casebooks up a second time.

[Trippel]

Do you non-note takers have exceptions recall or something? Or are you saying that specific details discussed in class are much less important than just internalizing how to analyze facts and law and things.

Don't understand how ppl just "sit and listen." I would have failed the shit out of 1L without notes.

[RedGiant]

Yeah, personal style is a big thing here. I know someone who finished top 5% of her class who literally never took notes; I guess she did the "sit and listen" thing. I am a transcriber, and have been my entire academic career. (I also didn't outline separately from taking class notes after 1L, I studied from my notes.) There was a panel at my 1L orientation where one prof explained why she banned laptops, which was in part because typing encourages straight transcription without processing; the other prof said he has always been a transcriber and could never ban laptops for that reason.

(This is only in class; I can't take notes on readings because I end up trying to transcribe them, so I don't bother, I just underline and star things in the margins.)

I don't know if this is helpful, but: take a look at your syllabus (or casebook TOC) and see what the course structure is, and think about where what you're reading/hearing in class fits. Even being able to go into class saying "today is about proximate cause, which is part of causation, which is part of negligence" helps you place the material in relation to the rest of what you're learning. Think about if you were putting your notes into an outline, where would they go?

This is really fantastic advice. Also, I would encourage you to form a small study group. My study group was invaluable for trading our notes in classes where the teacher went really fast or there were holes because (ahem) someone zoned out. You really need to do you, but generally, seeing briefs from other students regarding cases can be helpful. This is really where you have to distill main ideas, procedural history, holdings, and rules. In several of my 1L classes, professors were very willing to go over basic briefs of cases they taught. It can be helpful to see if you missed something critical or if you are "too far in the weeds" for your prof's style. Honestly, many profs probe whether you can read in a detailed way _in class_, but that's not what their finals are about, so that's where seeing other people's outlines comes in--you can tell what someone who has really drilled down thinks is important.

Do not be shy about asking your Student Services/Academic Dean/Writing Tutor/Upperclassmen you know from clubs for help. I know it's scary to raise your hand and say, "I'm not really sure what I am doing" but honestly, lots of 1Ls are there. Avail yourself of resources that exist and don't be afraid to borrow other people's brains!

[totesTheGoat]

Or are you saying that specific details discussed in class are much less important than just internalizing how to analyze facts and law and things.

There's a balance. I really don't care whether in Palsgraf the guy was hopping on a train carrying a stick of dynamite or whether the guy was hopping in a car carrying a sabre. All I care about is that proximate cause is a thing, and that the guard helping the guy up the steps wasn't enough to be a proximate cause of the injury.

[grizz20]

This was what I did: Book brief before class. Take notes in class. Outlined late november. I never looked back at the book.

I studied my notes religiously for the exam. Outline was never more than 10-15 pages. Really it was more decision trees. Overall, you don't have any time to look at it during the exam. It is just a good way to put it all together.

I second Nony's suggestion about the syllabus. That should be an excellent way to put it in perspective and see how things mesh together throughout the course.

Good luck.

[Gray]

.

[totesTheGoat]

I studied my notes religiously for the exam. Outline was never more than 10-15 pages. Really it was more decision trees. Overall, you don't have any time to look at it during the exam. It is just a good way to put it all together.

I'll say that the only class where I didn't have time to touch the outline was Torts. I love using the outline during the exam, because I put enough information to be able to get a few unique points based on a note in the case book or a random tangent by the prof. Most profs (in my experience) would rather have a smaller essay that properly spots issues than a word-vomit of the entire class. That means spending a significant portion of the time understanding the issues involved and the intricacies therein. An outline makes sure you didn't forget some small concept or case.

Nothing feels better than when you can say "Just like happened in Case X, the plaintiff slipped in the produce aisle and there was no wet floor sign within a ten foot radius of the puddle of water. The fact pattern differs from Case X in one material manner. In the fact pattern, the plaintiff was the one who previously spilled the water, and thus should have been aware of the puddle. Because of that, the court would likely rule differently than in Case X because the plaintiff had notice of the hazard."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I doubt I'm going to remember enough detail of a specific case covered 6 weeks beforehand to be able to recall those details on an exam. The outline is what brings those details back fresh in my mind (partly from writing the outline, but partly from having the details in front of me).

[grizz20]

I studied my notes religiously for the exam. Outline was never more than 10-15 pages. Really it was more decision trees. Overall, you don't have any time to look at it during the exam. It is just a good way to put it all together.

I'll say that the only class where I didn't have time to touch the outline was Torts. I love using the outline during the exam, because I put enough information to be able to get a few unique points based on a note in the case book or a random tangent by the prof. Most profs (in my experience) would rather have a smaller essay that properly spots issues than a word-vomit of the entire class. That means spending a significant portion of the time understanding the issues involved and the intricacies therein. An outline makes sure you didn't forget some small concept or case.

Nothing feels better than when you can say "Just like happened in Case X, the plaintiff slipped in the produce aisle and there was no wet floor sign within a ten foot radius of the puddle of water. The fact pattern differs from Case X in one material manner. In the fact pattern, the plaintiff was the one who previously spilled the water, and thus should have been aware of the puddle. Because of that, the court would likely rule differently than in Case X because the plaintiff had notice of the hazard."



I don't know about the rest of you, but I doubt I'm going to remember enough detail of a specific case covered 6 weeks beforehand to be able to recall those details on an exam. The outline is what brings those details back fresh in my mind (partly from writing the outline, but partly from having the details in front of me).

I agree. I neither advocated wod vomit nor not strategizing an answer before typing. My point was that you should have most everything in your head before exam. If you know what case you want, look it up in the outline. Did that many times. That is why I had decision trees where you can look at your chart while you are thinking about the answer. Not to be a boasting fuckface, but it helped me graduate law school in the top 5.

Further points: If you think your outline will get you an A on exam day, you are f***ed. If you don't know where things are in your outline, then you are f***ed. If you don't think about what you are writing and just word vomit, good luck.

Basically people can depend way too much on an outline and it will hurt their performance. Preparation, good and workable outline, and thinking - all critical to good exam performance.

Thanks Totes, I should have been more clear.

[totesTheGoat]

Yep, you're hitting on the difference between outline as a tool and outline as a crutch.

An outline is a great study tool that doubles as a great exam tool for recalling specific details such as case names, details of cases, and a double-check that you didn't screw up the factors of a test.

That same outline is an awful crutch. If you try to teach yourself res judicata from your (copied and pasted) outline, you're getting a B- at best.