I have done no prep for law school. Am I screwed? Forum

[Geist13]

There's some stuff in g2m I just dont think most 0Ls really get, even if they think they "get" it, until they actually balls deep in actual classes.

I've read this sentiment a number of times and have never really understood where it comes from. Every time the authors bring up a specific ambiguity, e.g. an fork between competing statues, they explain the law (or facts) in question which allows the reader to understand why there is an ambiguity. What do you think is hard for 0Ls, like myself, to grasp about this book? I've read it (twice) and think it is very straightforward. Obviously I have not yet seen an exam or practiced "identifying forks" and thus my reading of the book could be wildly off base. However, I really do not think it is difficult to understand what the authors are talking about and why the issues they discuss are issues (in fact I think it is a pretty easy read).

edit: I am a 0L so, by definition, I don't understand where this sentiment, which comes from actual law students, comes from. However, I'd love some explanation of what it is that 0Ls just can't get about GTM.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that it's very hard to learn or apply law in discrete chunks. In a law school course, things like the fork of whether or not to apply the UCC for the sale of a Winnebago will come as the result of reading a lot of cases often without obvious relation to one another. The application of the law for an exam is contextualized by the breadth and depth of the material you cover, so the things the book (correctly) flags for strong examsmanship and study won't make perfect sense until you actually try it out. It would be like reading a manual for good fielding practice vs. playing your first game of baseball. Nothing that is described will sound particularly difficult or foreign, but until you have a bat or a glove in your hand no amount of extemporization on the topic will really allow you to "get" it.

This is coming from somebody who read GtM 3 times - once before law school, once during the first weeks of law school, and once a few weeks before exams. I whole-heatedly endorse a similar approach, if only because GtM will help you focus on the important parts of law school more than any umpteenth supplement will.

Right, so it's just a matter of practice, which the books emphasizes repeatedly. I always got the impression that some people thought there were aspects of the book's content that would be difficult for 0Ls to grasp simply because they are 0Ls. It makes perfect sense that 0Ls are utterly icnapable of immediately translating GTM into superior performance.

Thanks for the reply.

[Bumi]

I wouldn't wish the bramble bush on my enemies. It's relevant and somewhat interesting, but incredibly dry, and only about the first 20 pages or so are probably worthwhile. It's just very, very dated.

Then again, this is precisely what many people say about the study and practice of law!

[Warhawk]

I wouldn't wish the bramble bush on my enemies. It's relevant and somewhat interesting, but incredibly dry, and only about the first 20 pages or so are probably worthwhile. It's just very, very dated.

Then again, this is precisely what many people say about the study and practice of law!

The "relevant and somewhat interesting" part, or the "dry and very dated" part?