Ques. about GTM Forum

[bartleby]

will it be clearer after i start law school? i read 100 pages yesterday and probably processed like 50%.

where can i find some general background info on definitions of statutes/common law? is there a book for that? do they teach you this stuff in law school? i know absolutely nothing about the law except my run-in with the law several years ago.

[071816]

Someone created a thread exactly like this a week ago.

[09042014]

Don't concentrate on the law aspects, focus on the thought process. Constantly arguing both sides, looking for alternative answers, etc etc.

It'll probably make more sense to you in Oct. So read it then.

[bartleby]

sorry, I searched GTM and didn't find anything. thx for advice, my 0L gunning isn't going as planned.

[071816]

I would read it this summer in order to familiarize yourself with the way law school exams work as well as the "forks" concept, etc. Reread it again during one of your 1L breaks. This is what I plan on doing. I wouldn't worry if the substantive law goes over your head at this point because you will learn that stuff during 1L.

[traehekat]

read it before school starts. its not that you wont have time, but you just wont want to read it on top of other things. like others have said, its all about putting you in the right frame of mind, so as you are reading cases, taking notes in class, going through supplements, etc. you are thinking about the right things.

[Omerta]

will it be clearer after i start law school? i read 100 pages yesterday and probably processed like 50%.

where can i find some general background info on definitions of statutes/common law? is there a book for that? do they teach you this stuff in law school? i know absolutely nothing about the law except my run-in with the law several years ago.

No, don't do any background reading. Just read it through once, then read it again a few weeks into law school, then again before finals. Don't look up contracts/property/torts stuff they talk about.

[bartleby]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

[071816]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

If you do PM me the outline

[brose]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

If you do PM me the outline

[yinz]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

The Czars concept applies only if your professor or casebook often emphasized policy, otherwise, I'd drill the Forks/Applying Law to Fact concepts into your brain. In the majority of my 1L exams, I wrote a grand total of 10 or so sentences regarding policy.

[09042014]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

The Czars concept applies only if your professor or casebook often emphasized policy, otherwise, I'd drill the Forks/Applying Law to Fact concepts into your brain. In the majority of my 1L exams, I wrote a grand total of 10 or so sentences regarding policy.

Don't even go by what your prof. or casebook says. Look at their old tests. My torts class was 95% policy in class. It wasn't worth anything on the test.

[071816]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

The Czars concept applies only if your professor or casebook often emphasized policy, otherwise, I'd drill the Forks/Applying Law to Fact concepts into your brain. In the majority of my 1L exams, I wrote a grand total of 10 or so sentences regarding policy.

Your above quote didn't come from me, guy.

[071816]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

The Czars concept applies only if your professor or casebook often emphasized policy, otherwise, I'd drill the Forks/Applying Law to Fact concepts into your brain. In the majority of my 1L exams, I wrote a grand total of 10 or so sentences regarding policy.

Don't even go by what your prof. or casebook says. Look at their old tests. My torts class was 95% policy in class. It wasn't worth anything on the test.

Isn't policy often used to argue why you feel a case should/would be decided in a certain way?

I guess I'm sort of just wondering when policy arguments are used on law exams. Does it just totally depend on the professor?

[09042014]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

The Czars concept applies only if your professor or casebook often emphasized policy, otherwise, I'd drill the Forks/Applying Law to Fact concepts into your brain. In the majority of my 1L exams, I wrote a grand total of 10 or so sentences regarding policy.

Don't even go by what your prof. or casebook says. Look at their old tests. My torts class was 95% policy in class. It wasn't worth anything on the test.

Isn't policy often used to argue why you feel a case should/would be decided in a certain way?

I guess I'm sort of just wondering when policy arguments are used on law exams. Does it just totally depend on the professor?

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

[071816]

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. But did you find yourself sometimes using policy how I mentioned it above (to wrap up the analysis of a fact pattern and draw a conclusion as to why you think a court would/should decide a hypothetical case in a particular way)?

[yinz]

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. But did you find yourself sometimes using policy how I mentioned it above (to wrap up the analysis of a fact pattern and draw a conclusion as to why you think a court would/should decide a hypothetical case in a particular way)?

Hopefully you'll have developed some legal judgment by exam time or, at the very least, memorized some policy argument from your professor, and so when you spot a question that raises the issue, it never hurts to put it in an essay.

Honestly, you're worrying too much about policy. It's basically common sense. If you read a newspaper and can understand why Democrats think one thing, yet Republicans another, (but hey, libertarians, think this!) then you'll be fine.

Best advice: Learn the law. Learn to apply the law to factual situations. Write nicely and concisely.

[071816]

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. But did you find yourself sometimes using policy how I mentioned it above (to wrap up the analysis of a fact pattern and draw a conclusion as to why you think a court would/should decide a hypothetical case in a particular way)?

Hopefully you'll have developed some legal judgment by exam time or, at the very least, memorized some policy argument from your professor, and so when you spot a question that raises the issue, it never hurts to put it in an essay.

Honestly, you're worrying too much about policy. It's basically common sense. If you read a newspaper and can understand why Democrats think one thing, yet Republicans another, (but hey, libertarians, think this!) then you'll be fine.

Best advice: Learn the law. Learn to apply the law to factual situations. Write nicely and concisely.

I'm not worrying. I was just wondering how policy plays into law exams (I already know it doesn't play a huge role the majority of the time). Nothing you mentioned above was anything I didn't already know, but thanks all the same.

[Grizz]

I finished it yesterday, might go through and outline some concepts from Forks chapters and Czars.

The Czars concept applies only if your professor or casebook often emphasized policy, otherwise, I'd drill the Forks/Applying Law to Fact concepts into your brain. In the majority of my 1L exams, I wrote a grand total of 10 or so sentences regarding policy.

Don't even go by what your prof. or casebook says. Look at their old tests. My torts class was 95% policy in class. It wasn't worth anything on the test.

This. The policy-oriented profs I had didn't give a shit about policy on their tests, unless there wasn't a good resolution from the law. This is obviously prof specific, but it's a good general rule.

[Grizz]

Oh, my advice about GtM. Read it now to get a general idea about how exams work and what to listen for in class. A lot of 1Ls tend to get bogged down in individual cases, which don't tend to be important. Re-read in October. Hopefully profit.

[soaponarope]

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought. But did you find yourself sometimes using policy how I mentioned it above (to wrap up the analysis of a fact pattern and draw a conclusion as to why you think a court would/should decide a hypothetical case in a particular way)?

Hopefully you'll have developed some legal judgment by exam time or, at the very least, memorized some policy argument from your professor, and so when you spot a question that raises the issue, it never hurts to put it in an essay.

Honestly, you're worrying too much about policy. It's basically common sense. If you read a newspaper and can understand why Democrats think one thing, yet Republicans another, (but hey, libertarians, think this!) then you'll be fine.

Best advice: Learn the law. Learn to apply the law to factual situations. Write nicely and concisely.

I'm not worrying. I was just wondering how policy plays into law exams (I already know it doesn't play a huge role the majority of the time). Nothing you mentioned above was anything I didn't already know, but thanks all the same.

You're a big time douche, fyi.

[Cavalier]

Basically you should just aim to understand how law school exams work and what to look for; skimming it will be fine. You should read it more closely as exams approach, when you can actually try out the techniques in Getting to Maybe for yourself. What's most critical is that you recognize that there (usually) are no right or wrong answers, which is different than what you're used to on an exam. If on a college exam you're not sure whether to apply one theory or another, move the supply curve or the demand curve, take a derivative or an integer, etc., you're probably lost. But on a law school exam, being unsure of what to do means you're on the right track: you've recognized an ambiguity in the facts or the law, and your job is to then argue for why each possibility is right or wrong. That's the basic takeaway.

[071816]

You're a big time douche, fyi.

What did I say that was even remotely douchy?

[ITEDreamer]

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

0L here. Would policy be more geared to issues like plain language vs. author intent (where you would be devining the intent based on the policy)? Or are we supposed to do the pros and cons of contradictory rules/holdings, etc.?

[Grizz]

Sometimes there is a "policy question." It doesn't really have a fact pattern and you are suppose to argue pure policy.

And other times you argue policy inside a regular exam. This is harder to do because you don't know how much to put.

0L here. Would policy be more geared to issues like plain language vs. author intent (where you would be devining the intent based on the policy)? Or are we supposed to do the pros and cons of contradictory rules/holdings, etc.?

Wait until you get to school.