LEEWS
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:11 pm
Did anyone attend the LEEWS seminar or purchase the audio package?
Was it helpful?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Was it helpful?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=77646
I imagine this is helpful if you're at a school where professors give prompts containing a huge number of issues/parties, where the biggest challenge is to "spot" every issue and apply the rule you've learned. At our school, however, the professors preferred to give us fewer parties and issues but more ambiguous facts to wrangle with. Consequently, LEEWS did not provide any direct advantage.Claims against Bill
1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is (1)...etc.
Claims against John
1. Assault is...etc.
Why would you need a system for categorizing different colored used cars? This isn't that different from the powerscore games bible.biber wrote:Why would you need a "system" to spot issues or analyze them?
I read Getting to Maybe and thought it was midly helpful. Maybe LEEWS is great, I wouldn't know. I guess it comes down to the fact that law exams are different enough from our previous academic experience we want some help in navigating those uncertain waters. A friend recommended LEEWS and I checked out their site and frankly it seemed really useless (maybe they just need a new site). But if you say it was helpful, then I am certain it is. The OP should check it out.sour apple wrote:I did it and thought it was really helpful. I don't know if I used everything exactly, but it calmed me down and gave me a way to approach all of my finals. I did pretty well my first year, and I think LEEWS was a part of that.
(I did the audio tapes)
lol'dedcrane wrote:Yes. Somewhat.
LEEWS teaches you to setup basic diagrams that are helpful for complex issue spotters where there are many parties and claims that can arise. It also teaches you how to structure exam answers. LEEWS suggests that for every "issue" or claim you start a new paragraph, and prescribes certain formatting conventions. In abstract, a typical LEEWS answer looks like this:
I imagine this is helpful if you're at a school where professors give prompts containing a huge number of issues/parties, where the biggest challenge is to "spot" every issue and apply the rule you've learned. At our school, however, the professors preferred to give us fewer parties and issues but more ambiguous facts to wrangle with. Consequently, LEEWS did not provide any direct advantage.Claims against Bill
1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is (1)...etc.
Claims against John
1. Assault is...etc.
That said, there's an important lesson to be taken from LEEWS: keep your answers clear and simple. Really simple. Don't think of your exam answers as essays. They're not. They are elaborate outlines which your half-buzzed professor will scan through quickly, looking to check off points that she has already allocated. Accordingly, clarity is paramount. A beautifully crafted essay with elaborate, novel analysis will lose to an answer that is uglier but better organized. The latter conforms precisely to the gradesheet to the left of her scotch. The former is troublesome, addressing too many tangential issues instead of prominently regurgitating the desired responses.
[Standard 0L disclaimer]Claims against Bill
1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.
They also caution that one should only discuss those elements necessary to analyze the fact pattern. As law profs, they contend that you'll receive little credit for regurgitating the rules but much credit for applying the rules (thereby showing that you know what they are).Since Bill's action can be said to fit [first element].
I think you're better off just finding a used copy of the CD's on Ebay or something instead of shelling out the cash for the live session. Then you can listen to it when you have time instead of having to dedicate a whole day that close to exams which is probably too late in the game to get anything out of it. The CD's are exactly the same as the live program. But like people have said, the LEEWS "method" only really works for a few classes, if that. I only found it helpful for one out of six exams, kind of.JPeavy44 wrote:The next live session for me would be late nov it says. Would that still be helpful as that is probably during fianls time?
First, note that I was describing the LEEWS method rather than the one that I use.mikeytwoshoes wrote:[Standard 0L disclaimer]Claims against Bill
1. Battery is (1) [first element] (2) [second element] etc. In this case the [facts pertaining to first element]. John will argue... [explanation and discussion of plaintiff argument]. Bill will argue...[explanation and discussion of defendant argument]... etc.
By stating the elements of battery aren't you wasting your time telling the professor things he already knows? The writers of getting to maybe caution against doing this because you can apply the law without stating it.
They also caution that one should only discuss those elements necessary to analyze the fact pattern. As law profs, they contend that you'll receive little credit for regurgitating the rules but much credit for applying the rules (thereby showing that you know what they are).Since Bill's action can be said to fit [first element].
To be fair, I don't think LEEWS advocates blindly diagramming issue spotters. Obviously you should read the questions before you start diagramming. Indeed, I usually read the questions before I read the prompts.strawberrysmoothie wrote:I didn't think LEEWS was that helpful. I did it when I hadn't yet taken torts, so maybe that is part of the reason, but the whole way that they lay out questions and answers will not necessarily accord with how your professor wants his exams written. For example, in torts, LEEWS says half the game is coming up with all of the party pairings and issue spotting within each. I was totally overwhelmed when doing this since the fact patterns get so crazy and there are at least 50 different combinations; going through each is a pain and also not a good use of time if they are really minor issues. My professor's exam ended up only asking about specific pairings, so this whole LEEWS concept of pairing fell by the wayside.
I'd be very interested in taking that off your hands, Ed.edcrane wrote:BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.
Bidding war!edcrane wrote:BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.
Ultimately it is tough to say, but I credit much of my success off LEEWS. I would have studied equally hard, but I definitely would have done worse.A'nold wrote:Bidding war!edcrane wrote:BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.
Arrow- how much of your top 1% standing do you think can be attributed to the LEEWS program? If you had never done LEEWS, do you think you'd be worse off?
thisedcrane wrote: My approach varies from LEEWS to some extent. While LEEWS prescribes the same format for every exam, I'm more inclined to adapt my format to the professor's stated preferences. In some cases, these preferences fit with the LEEWS approach. Indeed, in one statutory class, I copied rules verbatim from my outline into my exam (with citations, of course) and did cookie cutter analysis and organization. While some of my classmates inserted clever quips and produced volumes of novel analysis, I regurgitated rules and wrote ugly but well-organized analysis. I ended up (somewhat surprisingly) getting an A+ in that class. But in another class, the professor explicitly stated that his exam was not an "issue spotting contest"; instead, he was looking for "deep analysis." In that class, LEEWS/IRAC would have been a ticket to median or worse.
you have a pm.AceOfDiamonds wrote:I'd be very interested in taking that off your hands, Ed.edcrane wrote:BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a pristine copy of LEEWS that I'll part with for $90.