Who is at the bottom of the class? Forum

[GBPbb]

WAIT. You're not in school? LOL. You're insufferable.

... just a nervous 0L

lulz

[Ruxin1]

You're insufferable.

[iMisto]

**awkwardly excuses self from dinner table**

[071816]

**awkwardly excuses self from dinner table**

go home

[northwood]

Well now you know what to do if you decide to go. If not and you do end up going to a graduate school the same advice generally applies, just modify it for your program. But whatever you do and wherever you k you have to learn time
Management and stress/ life management as well as Exam taking and schooling stuff.

[northwood]

Well now you know what to do if you decide to go. If not and you do end up going to a graduate school the same advice generally applies, just modify it for your program. But whatever you do and wherever you k you have to learn time
Management and stress/ life management as well as Exam taking and schooling stuff.

And if you end up working, before you ask ur supervisor or help try to figure it out on ur own and ask a co worker for help. Still stuck, then go see the person that gave u the assignment.

[crumpetsandtea]

WAIT. You're not in school? LOL. You're insufferable.

... just a nervous 0L fucking gunner

here, ftfy.

[manofjustice]

I was in the bottom of my class because I didn't work quickly enough - I was overly cautious on exams and wanted to write perfect essays. Consequently I often didn't finish the exam (more so than other people who didn't finish the exam). In classes where the prof gave the exam breakdown,I would score in the A- range on the essays I did finish. So no, I'm not 'dumber.' I also finished 2nd year with honors. Yes, the 2L curve is easier, but honors amounts to about top 1/3, which means I did relatively better. I did not get any smarter. I just stopped correcting typos on exams.

I hope to holy fucking god that when I take my first exam, I do not correct typos. I can't stand typos. I almost am thinking about turning off my spell check for the rest of the semester.

[Kikero]

I was in the bottom of my class because I didn't work quickly enough - I was overly cautious on exams and wanted to write perfect essays. Consequently I often didn't finish the exam (more so than other people who didn't finish the exam). In classes where the prof gave the exam breakdown,I would score in the A- range on the essays I did finish. So no, I'm not 'dumber.' I also finished 2nd year with honors. Yes, the 2L curve is easier, but honors amounts to about top 1/3, which means I did relatively better. I did not get any smarter. I just stopped correcting typos on exams.

I hope to holy fucking god that when I take my first exam, I do not correct typos. I can't stand typos. I almost am thinking about turning off my spell check for the rest of the semester.

TCR is don't make typos in the first place. Mistyping is for proles.

[manofjustice]

On the flip side, I misspelled "possession" 17 times on my crim exam and did well. Am I smarter for guessing the professor would care more about the word count than spelling or grammar? Of course not.

I know people who did poorly because they answered the question they were asked in the classic persuasive writing format you learned in high school and college. There are people who took LRW too seriously and tried to use a rigorous LRW format on exams instead of the fast-and-loose style that gets you the most points. None of these people are dumb, they just didn't realize how the game was played until too late.

I'd say most of the bottom 20% of the class is composed of people like this. That said, on any given exam its easily possible to be bottom 1/3 even if you end up top 1/3 overall. The curve is much tighter than you think.

I hope to holy fucking hell I do not try to use a rigorous format when I take my first exam. I hate "fast and loose." I am literally thinking of practicing the I-stuff format for the rest of the semester. (Issue-then stuff.) Jesus Christ...

[manofjustice]

I was in the bottom of my class because I didn't work quickly enough - I was overly cautious on exams and wanted to write perfect essays. Consequently I often didn't finish the exam (more so than other people who didn't finish the exam). In classes where the prof gave the exam breakdown,I would score in the A- range on the essays I did finish. So no, I'm not 'dumber.' I also finished 2nd year with honors. Yes, the 2L curve is easier, but honors amounts to about top 1/3, which means I did relatively better. I did not get any smarter. I just stopped correcting typos on exams.

I hope to holy fucking god that when I take my first exam, I do not correct typos. I can't stand typos. I almost am thinking about turning off my spell check for the rest of the semester.

TCR is don't make typos in the first place. Mistyping is for proles.

I have always been incredibly weird on this point. I spell terribly because when I write I think of the words....prolly somewhere in like the part of my brain that processes sound...like, not like normal people (just a theory)...so when I type, it's just misspelling, misspelling, misspelling...now, when I am forced to think about spelling, I actually do all right. In, I think 10th grade, I maxed out my spelling aptitude test and could not believe it.

although...I have been at least TRYING to make fewer typos, and it is working, I think. It also forces me to type slower so at least I am thinking about the way I am organizing my thoughts.


TL;DR don't read if you don't care about my problems.

[minnbills]

I hope to holy fucking hell I do not try to use a rigorous format when I take my first exam. I hate "fast and loose." I am literally thinking of practicing the I-stuff format for the rest of the semester. (Issue-then stuff.) Jesus Christ...

IRAC bro, get with the program.

[mr.hands]

WAIT. You're not in school? LOL. You're insufferable.

... just a nervous 0L

are you kidding? You're asking about academic advisors in law school and you're still in college?

Stop. just stop

[swimmer11]

Can someone provide an example of a "fast and loose" exam response? I have been typing up answers to the hypotheticals in the E&Es to practice typing up exam responses analyzing issues and now am concerned I am including to many facts (or not enough).

Or if you have any tips with typing up responses to issues that would be very much appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance.

[Icculus]

I was in the bottom of my class because I didn't work quickly enough - I was overly cautious on exams and wanted to write perfect essays. Consequently I often didn't finish the exam (more so than other people who didn't finish the exam). In classes where the prof gave the exam breakdown,I would score in the A- range on the essays I did finish. So no, I'm not 'dumber.' I also finished 2nd year with honors. Yes, the 2L curve is easier, but honors amounts to about top 1/3, which means I did relatively better. I did not get any smarter. I just stopped correcting typos on exams.

I hope to holy fucking god that when I take my first exam, I do not correct typos. I can't stand typos. I almost am thinking about turning off my spell check for the rest of the semester.

I think it's important to note that rayiner did not write that original quotation. I was very confused momentarily since I knew there was no way he was at the bottom of the class 1L year.

[manofjustice]

I was in the bottom of my class because I didn't work quickly enough - I was overly cautious on exams and wanted to write perfect essays. Consequently I often didn't finish the exam (more so than other people who didn't finish the exam). In classes where the prof gave the exam breakdown,I would score in the A- range on the essays I did finish. So no, I'm not 'dumber.' I also finished 2nd year with honors. Yes, the 2L curve is easier, but honors amounts to about top 1/3, which means I did relatively better. I did not get any smarter. I just stopped correcting typos on exams.

I hope to holy fucking god that when I take my first exam, I do not correct typos. I can't stand typos. I almost am thinking about turning off my spell check for the rest of the semester.

I think it's important to note that rayiner did not write that original quotation. I was very confused momentarily since I knew there was no way he was at the bottom of the class 1L year.

edited. sorry. tried to edit the quote nesting.

[manofjustice]

I was in the bottom of my class because I didn't work quickly enough - I was overly cautious on exams and wanted to write perfect essays. Consequently I often didn't finish the exam (more so than other people who didn't finish the exam). In classes where the prof gave the exam breakdown,I would score in the A- range on the essays I did finish. So no, I'm not 'dumber.' I also finished 2nd year with honors. Yes, the 2L curve is easier, but honors amounts to about top 1/3, which means I did relatively better. I did not get any smarter. I just stopped correcting typos on exams.

I hope to holy fucking god that when I take my first exam, I do not correct typos. I can't stand typos. I almost am thinking about turning off my spell check for the rest of the semester.

[rayiner]

Can someone provide an example of a "fast and loose" exam response? I have been typing up answers to the hypotheticals in the E&Es to practice typing up exam responses analyzing issues and now am concerned I am including to many facts (or not enough).

Or if you have any tips with typing up responses to issues that would be very much appreciated as well.

Thanks in advance.

This is from an 'A' torts exam:

Daily Planet:
Danielle has a negligence claim against Daily Planet for placing the newspaper box on a sidewalk that was too narrow.

This is from a section discussing a plaintiff Danielle's various claims. Note the heading identifying the potential defendant. This preamble simply identifies the issue, without giving any summary of why Danielle has a claim--at this point you haven't thought that far ahead yet. This is probably worth a point or two for identifying the issue.

Daily Planet had a duty to Danielle. Putting a newspaper box on a sidewalk creates a foreseeable zone of risk encompassing those walking and driving by the box, and threatening them with the general harm of a large physical impediment in their way.

The first element of a negligence claim is duty. Note that the paragraph just gets to the point without excess setup. The paragraph interleaves the rule (duty exists when the plaintiff is within the foreseeable zone of risk) with the application of the rule to the facts (the newspaper box creates a zone of risk by threatening pedestrians with a large physical impediment) to avoid writing two separate sentences. Most of the points here are for the application. There are weaker ways to write this that will get fewer points:

"Daily Planet had a duty because Danielle was within the foreseeable zone of risk of the newspaper box." -> This doesn't explain how the newspaper box puts Danielle in a zone of risk.

"Daily Planet had a duty because Danielle was within the foreseeable zone of risk." -> This is even worse, it doesn't mention the specific fact of the newspaper box.

The second element of negligence is "breach" which has two sub-elements: establishing the standard of care for the defendant's actions, and showing that the defendant breached the standard of care. On this exam, breach was discussed in the context of this defendant earlier and was thus omitted here (since it doesn't involve the specific plaintiff, analytically). These sorts of shortcuts are okay, but there probably should have been a "breach discussed above" just to remind the professor.

Daily Planet’s actions were probably a factual cause of Danielle’s harm. But-for their placement of the newspaper box, Danielle would not have had to drive up on the curb, would not have hit the scaffolding, which would not have collapsed and damaged her truck.

The third element of a negligence action is causation. Causation has two sub-elements: factual cause and legal cause. Again, this sentence interleaves the rule (a defendant's action is the factual cause when but-for his negligence the plaintiff's injury would not have happened) with the application (describing the chain of causation that would not have happened but-for the defendant's action). Note that this paragraph is precise about exactly what the defendant's action was (placement of the newspaper box), what the specific chain of events was, and what the harm was (damage to the truck). Precision in describing chains of causation is necessary to get maximum points.

This paragraph probably lost a point or two because it didn't capture a subtlety of the law which is that the focus is on the defendant's negligent not just the defendant's action. The writer should have said: "But-for their negligent placement of the newspaper box on the sidewalk..." This requires you to, to an extent, mentally explore whether the harm would've happened if the defendant had done the same thing in a non-negligent way.

Daily Planet’s actions were possibly a legal cause of Danielle’s harm. It is foreseeable that a large impediment on the sidewalk might prevent someone from passing by in a crowd, but it’s not necessarily foreseeable that it might result in damage from a collapsing scaffold. While the exact mechanism of the harm, in this case a truck riding up on a curb and hitting a scaffold, need not be foreseeable, the general type of harm must be, and DP has a good argument in this case that the nature of Danielle’s harm was not foreseeable. It is also arguable whether Daily Planet’s placement of the newspaper box was a substantial factor in Danielle’s harm. The other factors, the negligent construction of the scaffolding, the defective scaffolding material, etc, were probably more substantial factors.

The second sub-element of causation is legal cause (proximate cause). There are several tests for proximate cause, and this paragraph applies two: foreseeability, and substantial factor. The discussion of foreseeability isn't great, but at least it talks about the specific facts (truck riding up on the curb; collapsing scaffold). You get no points unless you talk about the law in terms of the specific facts. The substantial factor discussion is better: it mentions the defendant's specific action (placement of the newspaper box), it mentions the test (whether the action is a substantial factor in the harm), and it discusses, with specific facts, a necessary part of the substantial factor test: what other factors contributed.

Danielle can try to prove causation using a negligence per se argument. (1) DP had no excuse for putting the newspaper box where it did; (2) placement of the newspaper box caused Danielle to ride up on the curb too close to the scaffold; (3) the ordinance was designed to prevent accidents resulting from the constriction of sidewalks; (4) people on the street and the sidewalk were the sorts of people the ordinance was designed to protect. This is a questionable argument, largely because of factors (3) and (4). The ordinance was likely designed to protect people on the sidewalk, not passing drivers. Since the ordinance does establish a specific standard of care (don’t put newspaper boxes on sidewalks narrower than 10 feet), then if the factors are established has a prima facie case of breach.

This paragraph applies an alternative rule for showing negligence: negligence per se. It actually misstates the rule, because negligence per se is an alternative to duty+breach, not causation. Negligence per se is based on a four-factor test, hence the numbering. This paragraph leaves the explanation of the factors implicit in the application of the factors to the specific facts. E.g. the fourth factor is: "the ordinance was designed to protect people similarly situated to the plaintiff." The professor who wrote this exam made it clear he was not big on rule statements. Unless you know that to be the case, you'd be more explicit: first state the factor then apply the factor to the specific facts of the hypothetical. Note that this paragraph "argues both sides." It argues from Danielle's perspective, that the ordinance was designed to protect both people on the sidewalk and passing drivers, and from the defendant's perspective, that the ordinance was just designed to protect people on the sidewalk.

This paragraph probably should specifically mention that the negligence per se was based on an ordinance against obstructing the sidewalk, for the sake of being explicit. The existence of the ordinance is a specific fact, and leaving out specific facts is a great way to lose points.

This paragraph also highlights how the law can be complicated, and that a good exam answer accurately tackles the complexity. Negligence per se replace some parts of the basic negligence test (duty, breach), but not others (you must still show causation and harm). The law in question must establish a standard of care by providing for specific interdicted behavior.

The rest of the exam was just basic repetition of this form, with very little higher-level synthesis. Note how different this structure is from your typical undergrad persuasive essay. The paragraphs are structured more or less according to your outline, which will more or less correspond to the structure of the professor's rubric. You're not getting points for high level synthesis, introductory and conclusory paragraphs, etc. Just spit out the analysis in the order of your outline. Though, you should structure your outline to fit the order you'll talk about things on the exam... E.g. the elements of negligence are: duty, breach, causation, and harm, but I always discussed harm and causation first because that forces you to be precise up-front about exactly what the ostensibly negligent action was and what the harm was.

[ksllaw]

Professors generally will not tell you this information, no. I actually got lucky. I had a torts professor who graded our practice midterm and released a model answer that showed where all the points were allocated. I practiced doing the same midterm several times to get a feel for how to structure my answer to get the most points. I tied out different ways of phrasing things to maximize my typing speed.

For example, some people recommend starting with a conclusion up front: "X is probably liable for battery... someone is liable for battery when... in this case X did..." I started out writing in this format, but then realized it was very slow. You need to think through the elements to determine your conclusion, but if you write your conclusion first you need to think through the elements in your head, write your conclusion, then write about the elements. If you use the format: "there is a question whether X is liable for battery... battery is when... in this case X did..." then you can write about each part as you're thinking about it, in a stream of consciousness sort of way. This maximizes your writing speed.

So I did the same thing with my other exams as I did for torts, and it worked out really well. Except in Con Law, which isn't about elements at all, and in which I did pretty badly. Nobody will teach you this stuff, you just kind of have to figure it out. The only thing I can say is that you need to be in the mindset of "how do I game the system?" Figure out what sort of testing the material lends itself to. If you were trying to be an objective teacher, how would you grade things?

Well, I must have ignored this thread when it was first being discussed. I saw that I asked you a question and then never bothered to check back! Ack! But, having said that, this is quite an eye-opening thread. Thank you guys for taking the time to sort of "open up your playbook" so to speak on taking law school exams.

In terms of how to structure and organize your response for speed, I found that interesting. I wonder if it would be different for different people, though? You preferred going with elements up front, whereas others went with conclusions first. I think that could also come down to how one's individual brain works.

I remember the great physicist, Richard Feynman, discussing an interesting experiment and task (it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8sVailoLw ) of trying to internally count to 60, while doing something else outwardly. He found he could read while counting internally and stop at exactly 60 seconds. But Feynman couldn't speak aloud while doing that reading and internal counting or it would mess up his count. But a colleague of his remarked that that was absurd and that it would be easy to speak aloud and do the internal count. But how?

The difference was that Feynman's colleague was visualizing (rather than hearing himself count in his head) a tape with numbers, which could flip over and change the numbers one at a time. So, he could see in his head exactly what the count was, even though he was speaking verbally about something else. Yet, Feynman's colleague thought it would be impossible to read and do the internal count, which was what Feynman could do.

So both people approached the same tasks differently and I think one lesson we can take away is that our brains may all work very differently. So what may work for one person may not work for another. Sometimes, we just have to play around and figure out what works best for us.

But I thought it was cool that you tinkered with the same exam multiple times to experiment with what worked best for you. Very neat and smart! And that's a useful lesson for others too probably.

[Anonimo]

I will definitely read this thread thoroughly in the next few months (I'm sleepy right now). I feel lucky a friend wants to meet with me to explain how things really work in law school and warn me about all the things that he did wrong.

[typ3]

Well now you know what to do if you decide to go. If not and you do end up going to a graduate school the same advice generally applies, just modify it for your program. But whatever you do and wherever you k you have to learn time
Management and stress/ life management as well as Exam taking and schooling stuff.

Sort of. If you realize that 90% of the shit that they make you do in law school is fluff or a waste of time you don't need to learn time management because you won't give a shit about wasting time to do pointless work. For example, you can read all semester, or you can just get a good outline at the start of the semester and add class notes to it and then get a supplement with practice problems a few weeks before the exam.

Alternatively, you can have stellar time management and read every page of the casebook because they assign it and do everything you're told to do by the professors. I would argue that the people who do the first are more likely to be successful managers and business owners. The latter people make wonderful employees and worker bees.

[ksllaw]

Well now you know what to do if you decide to go. If not and you do end up going to a graduate school the same advice generally applies, just modify it for your program. But whatever you do and wherever you k you have to learn time
Management and stress/ life management as well as Exam taking and schooling stuff.

Sort of. If you realize that 90% of the shit that they make you do in law school is fluff or a waste of time you don't need to learn time management because you won't give a shit about wasting time to do pointless work. For example, you can read all semester, or you can just get a good outline at the start of the semester and add class notes to it and then get a supplement with practice problems a few weeks before the exam.

Alternatively, you can have stellar time management and read every page of the casebook because they assign it and do everything you're told to do by the professors. I would argue that the people who do the first are more likely to be successful managers and business owners. The latter people make wonderful employees and worker bees.

typ3, I found your comments interesting, yet curious as well.

What exactly is the non-useful material you feel is taught and/or read in law school? Is it particular facts that do not need to be memorized necessarily? Is it entire concepts that ultimately are not tested or applied in any way?

I confess it sounded a bit preposterous that 90% of the work of law school would be pointless for a student's education. But, of course, I am speaking as an OL only.

It some ways, it would seem like the type of attitude (assuming I'm not misunderstanding) that would make the great, late intellectual giant and purist like Richard Feynman "roll over" in his grave. Feynman exemplied in every way a purity of spirit in his intellectual pursuits that was part of the backbone of his greatness and success. He respected his work and had no patience for academic/intellectual pretense. So, while, he disliked pretentiousness, he truly found joy, beauty, and pleasure in the work that he did in physics and could seem to learn something new from almost every little thing or situation he came upon. His love of learning was infectious and his knowledge of physics inside and out was arguably unsurpassed during his time. In many ways, he stands as an exemplar of what the learned mind ought to be like.

To hear that law students would "throw away" 90% of the material they learn, in light of how other academic professionals go about their work, seems a bit ...disappointing, if true.

How could a legal education be so superficial or worth so little? How is it not possible to not be able to delve deeper into one's material and find new insights into it. Why is not mastering legal knowledge the way a physicist, for example, must master his craft not part of the law school curriculum and assessment process? Even if one does not absolutely need to have a storehouse of knowledge, is there no value at all to this voluminous amount of material being read?

[spleenworship]

Well now you know what to do if you decide to go. If not and you do end up going to a graduate school the same advice generally applies, just modify it for your program. But whatever you do and wherever you k you have to learn time
Management and stress/ life management as well as Exam taking and schooling stuff.

Sort of. If you realize that 90% of the shit that they make you do in law school is fluff or a waste of time you don't need to learn time management because you won't give a shit about wasting time to do pointless work. For example, you can read all semester, or you can just get a good outline at the start of the semester and add class notes to it and then get a supplement with practice problems a few weeks before the exam.

Alternatively, you can have stellar time management and read every page of the casebook because they assign it and do everything you're told to do by the professors. I would argue that the people who do the first are more likely to be successful managers and business owners. The latter people make wonderful employees and worker bees.

typ3, I found your comments interesting, yet curious as well.

What exactly is the non-useful material you feel is taught and/or read in law school? Is it particular facts that do not need to be memorized necessarily? Is it entire concepts that ultimately are not tested or applied in any way?

I confess it sounded a bit preposterous that 90% of the work of law school would be pointless for a student's education. But, of course, I am speaking as an OL only.

You don't have to memorize any of it unless preparing for a closed book exam. And even then you may safely forget it the moment the test is over.

And 90% of what you learn is useless in actual application in practice. If law school were medical school they would teach you biochem for 4 years, graduate you, then hand you a scalpel and tell you to take some dude's appendix out.

[ksllaw]

Well now you know what to do if you decide to go. If not and you do end up going to a graduate school the same advice generally applies, just modify it for your program. But whatever you do and wherever you k you have to learn time
Management and stress/ life management as well as Exam taking and schooling stuff.

Sort of. If you realize that 90% of the shit that they make you do in law school is fluff or a waste of time you don't need to learn time management because you won't give a shit about wasting time to do pointless work. For example, you can read all semester, or you can just get a good outline at the start of the semester and add class notes to it and then get a supplement with practice problems a few weeks before the exam.

Alternatively, you can have stellar time management and read every page of the casebook because they assign it and do everything you're told to do by the professors. I would argue that the people who do the first are more likely to be successful managers and business owners. The latter people make wonderful employees and worker bees.

typ3, I found your comments interesting, yet curious as well.

What exactly is the non-useful material you feel is taught and/or read in law school? Is it particular facts that do not need to be memorized necessarily? Is it entire concepts that ultimately are not tested or applied in any way?

I confess it sounded a bit preposterous that 90% of the work of law school would be pointless for a student's education. But, of course, I am speaking as an OL only.

You don't have to memorize any of it unless preparing for a closed book exam. And even then you may safely forget it the moment the test is over.

And 90% of what you learn is useless in actual application in practice. If law school were medical school they would teach you biochem for 4 years, graduate you, then hand you a scalpel and tell you to take some dude's appendix out.

Is there no building up of a storehouse of knowledge that becomes useful in one's later legal career? I perhaps had this romantic preconception that great lawyers, in addition to having sharp logical and analytical skills, also had an encyclopedic knowledge of their areas of legal expertise.

Can a law student genuinely forget all of the material and become a great future lawyer? Maybe it's my academic-mindedness and genuine love of learning, but I would still find learning and mastering a particular body of knowledge rewarding for it's own sake. Learning for learning's sake.

[spleenworship]

Is there no building up of a storehouse of knowledge that becomes useful in one's later legal career? I perhaps had this romantic preconception that great lawyers, in addition to having sharp logical and analytical skills, also had an encyclopedic knowledge of their areas of legal expertise.

Can a law student genuinely forget all of the material and become a great future lawyer? Maybe it's my academic-mindedness and genuine love of learning, but I would still find learning and mastering a particular body of knowledge rewarding for it's own sake. Learning for learning's sake.

Are You trolling me? Because this love of learning crap is making me want to vomit.

While lawyers do have a good knowledge of cases and statutes that relate to their area of law that they practice, good luck getting a lawyer more than a few years out of school to know more than a few con law cases that they studied academically. It just isn't possible to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the law. Have you seen how many pages of Statutes and Regulations a State has, much less the behemoth that is the CFR? Even if you specialized you still have to look everything but your 10 or so everyday use laws to make sure you got it right. And since 90% of what they teach you in law school isn't practical for an attorney who actually practices, this means that practicing attorneys are constantly having to do at least minimal research to draft motions, briefs, and what have you.