Top Law Schools

Hi everyone,

I'm a 0L and I'm just trying to get a feel for what I'll be up against once I enter law school. I've always been good at critical thinking and analysis, and I have reasonably good writing abilities. One trait that I don't seem to have is the ability to read large amounts of text and remember everything that I've read. I was never great at AP history for example, because that was basically all memorization.

Are law school exams open notes/open book? Will the exams be more like a history exam where I will have to recall random pieces of information from the text that I've read? Is it some of both? What percentage of exams would you say are open book/notes? Can I do well in law school if I can't remember a lot of the random facts from a 50 page + reading?

How important is time on a law school exam? Do you wish you had more time, or is it like college exams where you pretty much always have more than enough time to complete the exam?

Thanks for any insight!

http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/exam.html

Regarding time, it's the single most valuable thing on an exam. You almost certainly won't have enough, but the point is to do better than others in the given time. A lot of my 1L exams could have had double the allotted time and you still couldn't have fully explained all the issues.

kalvano wrote:http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/exam.html

Regarding time, it's the single most valuable thing on an exam. You almost certainly won't have enough, but the point is to do better than others in the given time. A lot of my 1L exams could have had double the allotted time and you still couldn't have fully explained all the issues.

Thanks for your input. I just looked at the link you gave me, and that's very helpful. I'm a still a little bit unsure about whether the exams are open notes/open book or not. I'm really trying to figure out if my lack of ability to memorize random facts from large readings will hurt me.

Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

Do you feel that time not being a problem for you gives you a huge advantage over the other students in your class? Do you feel most of the students in your class wish they had more time, or do you feel they are more like you where time isn't an issue?

Princetonlaw68 wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

Do you feel that time not being a problem for you gives you a huge advantage over the other students in your class? Do you feel most of the students in your class wish they had more time, or do you feel they are more like you where time isn't an issue?

Not on the word limited exams. Everyone gets to the word limit and would write more if it didn't exist, so with those it's about understanding the issues and analyzing them intelligently.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Princetonlaw68 wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

Do you feel that time not being a problem for you gives you a huge advantage over the other students in your class? Do you feel most of the students in your class wish they had more time, or do you feel they are more like you where time isn't an issue?

Not on the word limited exams. Everyone gets to the word limit and would write more if it didn't exist, so with those it's about understanding the issues and analyzing them intelligently.

Thanks. So for what percentage of exams would you say your ability to work quickly gives you an edge over your classmates?

Sorry for all the questions. It's just interesting how much your opinion on time seems to differ from the other poster. I appreciate the responses so far!

Princetonlaw68 wrote: Thanks. So for what percentage of exams would you say your ability to work quickly gives you an edge over your classmates?

Probably all of them, but moreso on exams where everyone is furiously typing until the end. For me so far those represent 3 out of 11.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Princetonlaw68 wrote: Thanks. So for what percentage of exams would you say your ability to work quickly gives you an edge over your classmates?

Probably all of them, but moreso on exams where everyone is furiously typing until the end. For me so far those represent 3 out of 11.

Thanks a lot. I could see how you wouldn't see time as an issue considering that you scored a 178 on the LSAT. Are you sure that for the other 8 out of 11 your ability to work quickly isn't giving you more of an advantage than you think?

Anyone from any lower T14s have any opinions on this?

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Princetonlaw68 wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

Do you feel that time not being a problem for you gives you a huge advantage over the other students in your class? Do you feel most of the students in your class wish they had more time, or do you feel they are more like you where time isn't an issue?

Not on the word limited exams. Everyone gets to the word limit and would write more if it didn't exist, so with those it's about understanding the issues and analyzing them intelligently.

Some law exams are different from others. But the classic law exam has 2-3 essay questions, with at least one primarily "issue spotter," where a fact pattern presents a number of hot topics from the course and you get points for ID'ing them, citing the major background precedent on the subject, and making arguments by analogizing or distinguishing from cases you read in the course for both sides but ultimately choosing one and justifying it. Usually there's another question with a "policy" orient, where you may be asked to cite secondary scholarship in addition to instructive case law, and discuss.. here's where you can mess around with law & econ or political-philosophy (utility, ect), modestly (ex: why civil juries are good or bad, or the merits of strict liability).

My Contracts class had a totally off the wall bullshit exam with a ridiculous multiple choice section (where if you got 1/2 the questions right you were in A- territory), and an essay with a secret word limit that the professor stole from another prof at the school. He didn't end up reading many of the essays anyway.

Some exams may also be take-home. In upper years, you often just write essays.

So at a certain point, you can only plan for so much.

jbagelboy wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Princetonlaw68 wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

Do you feel that time not being a problem for you gives you a huge advantage over the other students in your class? Do you feel most of the students in your class wish they had more time, or do you feel they are more like you where time isn't an issue?

Not on the word limited exams. Everyone gets to the word limit and would write more if it didn't exist, so with those it's about understanding the issues and analyzing them intelligently.

Some law exams are different from others. But the classic law exam has 2-3 essay questions, with at least one primarily "issue spotter," where a fact pattern presents a number of hot topics from the course and you get points for ID'ing them, citing the major background precedent on the subject, and making arguments by analogizing or distinguishing from cases you read in the course for both sides but ultimately choosing one and justifying it. Usually there's another question with a "policy" orient, where you may be asked to cite secondary scholarship in addition to instructive case law, and discuss.. here's where you can mess around with law & econ or political-philosophy (utility, ect), modestly (ex: why civil juries are good or bad, or the merits of strict liability).

My Contracts class had a totally off the wall bullshit exam with a ridiculous multiple choice section (where if you got 1/2 the questions right you were in A- territory), and an essay with a secret word limit that the professor stole from another prof at the school. He didn't end up reading many of the essays anyway.

Some exams may also be take-home. In upper years, you often just write essays.

So at a certain point, you can only plan for so much.

Thanks a lot for the input. Do you agree more with Splitter or Kalvano on the subject of time?

jbagelboy wrote:My Contracts class had a totally off the wall bullshit exam with a ridiculous multiple choice section (where if you got 1/2 the questions right you were in A- territory), and an essay with a secret word limit that the professor stole from another prof at the school. He didn't end up reading many of the essays anyway.

Haha wow I guess nothing changes. Makes me feel better. I included that one in my 3/11.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:My Contracts class had a totally off the wall bullshit exam with a ridiculous multiple choice section (where if you got 1/2 the questions right you were in A- territory), and an essay with a secret word limit that the professor stole from another prof at the school. He didn't end up reading many of the essays anyway.

Haha wow I guess nothing changes. Makes me feel better. I included that one in my 3/11.

Kraus gonn' Kraus

Re: timing - Kalvano and TS have both taken a lot more law school exams than I have so I defer to their judgment.

Thinking quickly is an advantage at just about anything, not just a law school exam. The skills to do well on a law school exam are pretty much exactly what you would expect they are--analyze fast, analyze well, write fast, write well. The reason to expect not to do as well as you think you will (and instead to expect median) is because everyone overestimates their own abilities relative to their peers.

I had been finishing tests early all my life and I think it played a large part in my law exam success my first semester but all my exams had no word limit and were basically just rack up the points style exams. As others have said thinking quick and writing quick help.

.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Exams are generally open note/book. Memorization still helps, because you don't want to constantly be referring to your outline or trying to teach yourself the material in such a short period of time. That said, most of my exams have had word limits and I haven't found the limited amount of time to generally be a problem.

I think when all is said and done I will have had only 1 out of 6 of my 1L exams be open book. Maybe they usually are open book but that won't have been my experience.

I should clarify that most of my 1L exams were absurdly long (I think my Torts fact pattern was like 14 or 15 pages and my Contracts professor was a former Presidential economics advisor who loved to give 10-15 medium-length questions), so that's probably why mine were very time-crunched.

It's going to vary by professor and class and school. Each professor has their own way of doing things.

Issue spotters are usually open book, but memorization important because you don't have time to search through your outline to find issues. If you don't have the elements of some tort memorized, you won't see the issue in the fact pattern. That hurts, even though once you spot the issue you can quickly check your outline to make sure you have the elements right. Time is the most important thing. Nearly anyone could get an A if they had enough time. It also helps to be able to memorize well enough to keep the 1-2 page fact pattern in your head. If you keep having to reread the fact pattern, it will cost you time. In some classes, being able to remember things from the 500 pages of reading you did will also help. Recognizing that a hypo has aspects of a case you studied can be critical.

That said, knowing all this, if memory isn't your strength, you can adjust your exam strategy. Using checklists to summarize your outline, etc.

Re: varying professors. 6 of 8 of my 1L exams were traditional time crunch issue spotters. Its all about seeing issues in the fact pattern, quickly doing a cursory analysis, and moving on racking up points. Its a twitch shooter, not an RPG.

Current 1L - all of my exams were pretty standard issue spotters. The only exam I was typing to the last second was my Ks exam, but all of them had me pretty close to the time limit before I felt comfortable, and I used the time anyway to double-check things.

It's a completely different beast than the LSAT, so get any comparisons to that out of your head. Generally, the majority of exams are open book (my Civ Pro professor went as far to say that it didn't matter if he made the exam open book or closed book - if you wasted time looking at your notes you weren't going to do well). Honestly, I don't think there are many ways to prepare for a law school exam without taking a law school exam. You'll find out soon enough.

Thanks a lot for the input everyone!

FYI - just to add to what others said, being able to work quicker means nothing if you can't spot the issues, and then apply fact to law, law to fact.

I'm about medium for speed but I'm top 20% because some of the quick people seriously miss half the issues. Typing three pages on one issue is pointless and does nothing for your grade. I just worked on having the most concise sentences I could.

Tl;dr if you can't be quick, work on concise and perceptive

Another little tip that worked well for me and was confirmed by a few others who did very well first semester. Bring a pad of paper along, before you type a single word jot down a quick outline and organize your thoughts. It will help make sure you get all the points you can and don't accidentally miss a big issue cause you were too concerned about time. It might look something like this...

Issue 1
- cases for (smith, jones, parker)
- cases against (davis, williams, ploof)
- Decide for cause blah blah (policy discussion) - (this one kinda depends on professor how much time you want to spend)

Issue 2
- cases for (davis, gibson, coker)
- cases against (green, lupo)
- Decide against blah blah

repeat for each issue.

hth

Oh, and find out if your prof cares about citing cases or if they just want the rule of law. It's not a huge difference in approach - my Torts prof really wanted case names though, so I just made a sheet of paper with the case name and a brief (I mean VERY brief - 1/2 short sentences max) of the facts so I could go through the normal approach, and at the end of the sentence add "Like in Ploof v. Putnam".