Do people who over study for the LSAT do worse in law school Forum

[beepboopbeep]

Depends on the prof and the exam, but many law school exams are very time sensitive - the person who can write down more points/spot more issues in 3 hours wins.

I get the sense it's something that differs a lot school to school and professor to professor. Only one of my exams has been really racehorse so far. Most of the others, the quality mattered much more than the quantity. You can type as fast as you want, but it doesn't matter if you're spending that time on things that aren't getting points.

[Nova]

pretty much all my exams have been 3-4 hr race horse issue spotters

[Straw_Mandible]

So based on what you're saying about law school exams, it seems that far and away the most important skill that determines a student's success is her ability to write clearly, quickly, and persuasively under timed pressure. Do you see how the LSAT and law school exams are testing radically different cognitive skills? Of course, in order to succeed on law school exams, a student must have "strong" reading and reasoning skills, in the broadest sense. But at the end of the day, it is the student's writing which is being evaluated. They are given an entire semester to read cases and master the material, and then they are asked to convey that mastery, in their own language, under timed conditions. The only place where the LSAT even comes close to evaluating that skill is in the writing portion--which is, ironically, the part that literally no one cares about.

This really isn't like the difference between Sudoku and another logic puzzle. This is like the difference between Sudoku and, say, parliamentary debate. Of course a person has to be "intelligent" in some sense in order to demonstrate natural ability in either of these activities. But it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a person could be naturally excellent at one, but not the other.

[beepboopbeep]

So based on what you're saying about law school exams, it seems that far and away the most important skill that determines a student's success is her ability to write clearly, quickly, and persuasively under timed pressure. Do you see how the LSAT and law school exams are testing radically different cognitive skills? Of course, in order to succeed on law school exams, a student must have "strong" reading and reasoning skills, in the broadest sense. But at the end of the day, it is the student's writing which is being evaluated. They are given an entire semester to read cases and master the material, and then they are asked to convey that mastery, in their own language, under timed conditions. The only place where the LSAT even comes close to evaluating that skill is in the writing portion--which is, ironically, the part that literally no one cares about.

This really isn't like the difference between Sudoku and another logic puzzle. This is like the difference between Sudoku and, say, parliamentary debate. Of course a person has to be "intelligent" in some sense in order to demonstrate natural ability in either of these activities. But it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a person could be naturally excellent at one, but not the other.

Hate to play the 0L card, but wait until you've taken a law school exam to talk about what cognitive skills they test. In no particular order:

-The more you look at model answers, the more you'll realize that many of the top scorers are actually terrible writers (though not all top scores end up becoming model answers). I had no idea how much some people hated paragraphs before I started doing sample exams.

-IME, most of what separates a good exam from a mediocre exam is knowing what kind of arguments a particular professor wants to hear. My lowest grade was Civ Pro and I just didn't really get that profs preferences, while others did. It's a learnable skill, but also something you can intuit. Being able to grasp this for one prof doesn't guarantee being able to grasp it for another.

-If I had to pick one most valuable "skill" w/r/t law school exams, it would be the ability to intellectually masturbate all over the page. And trust me, lots of your classmates will be naturals at this. Is this a skill tested by the LSAT? Not really, but there's probably some correlation between sitting cold for a high LSAT score and ability to make the kinds of actually-bullshit-but-plausible-on-their-face arguments that get points on an exam.

-An underrated component is being able to wade through a two-page fact pattern and figure out which issues are important and worth spending multiple paragraphs on, and which are easy, but will only merit a sentence or two to get full points for that issue. I wasn't a big LSAT studier but it does seem like this is a skill that crosses over with doing well on RC.

It does sound like exams at T6/T14 are different from those at T2/etc (much less the variation between schools within those bands, and between professors within the same school), so who knows. Maybe it's different elsewhere and there's certainly room for disagreement. But this has been pretty uniformly true so far at UofC. I'm not totally sure which way it cuts, but I am sure that lawl school exams test a different skill set than simple writing ability.

[A. Nony Mouse]

So based on what you're saying about law school exams, it seems that far and away the most important skill that determines a student's success is her ability to write clearly, quickly, and persuasively under timed pressure. Do you see how the LSAT and law school exams are testing radically different cognitive skills? Of course, in order to succeed on law school exams, a student must have "strong" reading and reasoning skills, in the broadest sense. But at the end of the day, it is the student's writing which is being evaluated. They are given an entire semester to read cases and master the material, and then they are asked to convey that mastery, in their own language, under timed conditions. The only place where the LSAT even comes close to evaluating that skill is in the writing portion--which is, ironically, the part that literally no one cares about.

This really isn't like the difference between Sudoku and another logic puzzle. This is like the difference between Sudoku and, say, parliamentary debate. Of course a person has to be "intelligent" in some sense in order to demonstrate natural ability in either of these activities. But it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a person could be naturally excellent at one, but not the other.

To what extent your writing ability matters also depends on the professor. I have had one professor actually tell us she graded on quality of writing in a traditional 3-hour exam. One other gave a take-home because he wanted us to write better. But plenty of other profs will give you full credit for the material if you end up bullet-pointing everything and writing in incomplete sentences, as long as you identify the issues they want you to spot. I had a professor thank me for writing well on my exams for him but tell me that it wasn't going to get me a higher grade.

As for this:

Most of the others, the quality mattered much more than the quantity. You can type as fast as you want, but it doesn't matter if you're spending that time on things that aren't getting points.

I agree with this - you don't get credit just for putting stuff down, you have to put down the right stuff. I just know that some profs purposefully put in more issues than you can spot/discuss in 3 hours, because it becomes a way to create a curve - if no one can finish, you can ID the people who did better by who got more material in. If everyone can cover all the material in 3 hours, then you get a lot more people clustering around a very narrow band of grades, and creating a curve gets difficult.

[beepboopbeep]

As for this:

Most of the others, the quality mattered much more than the quantity. You can type as fast as you want, but it doesn't matter if you're spending that time on things that aren't getting points.

I agree with this - you don't get credit just for putting stuff down, you have to put down the right stuff. I just know that some profs purposefully put in more issues than you can spot/discuss in 3 hours, because it becomes a way to create a curve - if no one can finish, you can ID the people who did better by who got more material in. If everyone can cover all the material in 3 hours, then you get a lot more people clustering around a very narrow band of grades, and creating a curve gets difficult.

Right - I didn't mean it to say that everyone was covering the same amount of material and quality of analysis was the only difference. More that people may superficially address the same raw number of issues, but some are devoting too much space to unimportant issues or glossing over harder, more important things. In other words, it doesn't really matter if you can type 5x faster than everyone else if you don't know how to prioritize the time/space given. Spending three paragraphs on a throwaway issue means less time for the meaty stuff that the prof has assigned more points to.

Also, I guess I've felt like it wasn't the time constraint that made me miss issues - generally the things I've missed were just very non-obvious or required putting parts of the fact pattern together in ways that I wouldn't have noticed even with a 24h exam period.

[09042014]

This is an A test at a T14. Note the lack of diagrams and logical fallacies.

Bonnie could be charged with murder; manslaughter; negligent homicide; or involuntary manslaughter.
The first issues is of actus reus. Bonnie was at the party, organized it but never ordered Jackie to drink the water. It could be argued that her omission of stopping the ordeal is an voluntary act, and would be mens rea. In order for an omission to be an act, the defendant must have a legal duty to the victim. This would be hard to find before Jackie is falls ill from the water. There is a legal duty, when the statute imposes one, which it doesn’t in this case, or when one has s certain status relationship with the victim. There could be an argument that Bonnie acted as a parent in loco to Jackie because she was a soritity president, and should look out towards pledgeds, but that argument is a very big stretch. Jackie isn’t a child, though she is a minor. There could also be a statute giving a legal duty to soritity members, but that’s unknown. There could also be a contratical duty when joining the soritiy, but again it’s unknown. I think it’s unlikely that she had a legal duty but it is arguable.
Next there is a causation issues. Did Bonnies inaction directly cause the death. It was clearly a but for causation. Bonnie could have stopped the forcing of drinking. The next component is proximate cause. To be a proximate cause, the harm must be forseeable and sufficiently closely connected to the action. Here, not stopping a girl from being forced to chug a very large amount of water does cause her to die. It is a medically known fact, and it’s not highly extraordinary. In fact it is almost a certainty if you force someone to drink a lot of water they will have this condition. Under a standard like Acost, where an air collision was forseeable, the direct result of death from drink a lot of water would be foreseeable. There is however and issue of Jackie being an interceding or a superceeding cause to her own death. IT can be argued that she willing choose the keeping drinking, and thus breaks the causation. On one hand it can be argued that she violitionally choose to engage in the behavior like the drag racer in root. However, courts have also found that even if it was volitional, if the result was foreseeable, like in McFadden, that the def endant can still be found to be the cause. It was forseeable that having people engage in that game would lead to one of them killing themselves. There is also a case where Atencio, where playing a dangerous game doesn’t cause a superceeding cause because they all created the situation together. In this case it’s not even clear Jackie created the situation. They used coercision to force her to play the game. It can be argued that this is more like Stepheson, where the person commits suicide while being kidnapped. Bonnie had Jackie in a basement, with an implicit threat of explusion from the sority. They used fear, and peer pressure to get her to play. It could be argued that Jackie was acting irrationally and that it wasn’t an intentional choice to play the game, making it not a superceeding issue. It could also be argued that Jackie, knowingly choose to drink the water, and that her choice was rationally made and she caused her own death. If the court found that, there would be no causation and Bonnie couldn’t be found guilty. However, I believe the former arguments would prevail and Bonnie would be found to have caused the death, and proximately caused the death.
The next issue is one of mens rea:
Muder: Under the MPC the mens rea for murder is purposely, knowingingly or recklessly with extreme indifference to human life. I think there isn’t much evidence that Bonnie had purpose to kill Jackie. Changing from liquor to water is a sign that she had some care for the pledges safety. There really seems to be no intent here to cause the death so I don’t see any way to claim she ment the knowing mens rea guidline. She had to have conscious objective to cause the dealth. That would also defeat the common law claim of murder which requires intent. If the court or jury found she did have intent then under common law they woud have to determine if there was premitation, or maliace aforethought. Bonnie planned to have the pledges chug the water, which would probably indicate that she weight the decision under the standard in Gutheie. Udner that standard they look to planning, evidence or the nature of the killing and other facts. There is a minority view in common law, from Carroll that any intent is premeditation. If premeditation was found then it would be first dregree murder, and second if it was not. However, since I don’t believe there can be any intent, I don’t believe that Bonnie could be found guilty for either, first or second.
It also could be argued that she knew that drinking that Bonnie knew that drinking the water would cause the dealth. The standard for knowing is a aware that isi a practically a certaniity that conduct will cause a result. The first issue is whether drinking one gallon would create practical certantity. Drinking water with no stop would practically certainly cause death but this was only 1 gallon. Even if it was enough to cause dealth in most,, there is also an argument that Bonnie assumed people would stop before they got to that limit. However, it could be argued that it was knowable that one gallon of water would cause the death.
However, Bonnie wasn’t actually aware of this. She was probably ignorant of the fact that water can cause death. This is a mistake of fact. Under MPC, even a reckless mistake would negate the knowledge mens rea. So I don’t see how Bonnie could be found to be knowing unless she wasn’t actually mistaken. Under common law only a reasonable mistake would exonerate, but common law doesn’t allow knowing mens rea for murder. If the court finds that she was reckless with draved indifference to human life then under common law only a reasonable mistake would overturn. It could be argued that it isn’t general knowledge that dirnking water in large amounts kills and therefore it was a reasonable mistake, but it did should that she was at least negligent in that she didn’t follow the standard of care and the mistake was unreasonable. If unreasonable she could be charged with murder.
Next we see if she could possibly be found to have been reckless. The Mens rea standard for recklessness is conscious disregaurd of substantial and unjustifiable risk. An that that there was a gross deviation from the normal standard of conduct. I think the case here is strong. Bonnie disregarded any risk that drinking water could kill. The risk was substantial, it kills frequently, and the risk wasn’t very remote. And the was no justification for forcing a person to drink it. Again though mistake would negate the mens reason, but only f the mistake was negligent or reasonable. As argued earlier it could be reasonable, or negligent, but it could also be reckless mistake. She probably knew that drinking water had some risk, and still allowed that game to go on.
Finally did she have the mens rea for negligent homicide. Under common law it would be involuntary manslaughter. Which is either reckless, as discusses above, or negligent. Under both MPC and common law, there must be criminal negligence. That means she should have been aware of the substantial and unjustified risk would cause the result. I think the state has a good case. A normal person would be aware that drinking water could cause a large risk of death. And even if they didn’t know the risk, it is likely they know that some hard would occur. There is also an argument that this cause of death is fairly unknown and that a normal person wouldn’t know and therefore it’s not negligence. However, Bonnie was engaging in clearly dangerous behavior, and even if she didn’t know of the risks, she should have. There will probably be mens rea for neglence, allowing convinction for negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter under common law.
If the court didn’t find the actus reus for bonnie compelling, they can impute it with complicity to Betsey’s actions. Udner MPC the actus rues is aid or attempt to aid, and common law is only to aid. She aided by helping prepare the game, collecting the girls, and by encouraging by yelling and chanting. Though it could be argued that encourage won’t be enough, howver, the other actions would be enough on their own. For MPC she clearly attempted to aid, even if it wasn’t actual aid, though I believe she actually aided.
The mens rea for complicity is must intent to aid. She purposely aided Bestsey by creating the gathering, and by encouraging it verbally. However, it could be argued that if encourage wasn’t enough, that Bonnie only knowingly aided. However, she was purposeful in creation of the game, so she would have purposeful mens rea to aid.
The mens rea for result would be the same as the analysis I did earlier for MPC because the same mens rea is use for the actual crime. The common law uses two approaches, the same mens rea as the crime, like previously discusses, or the Luparellow, natural and probable consequences. Under this standard she would be liable for any natural, forseesable and probable consequence. Since the drowning was natural and forseeable this is basically using the same mens rea as the actual crime and the above analysis for homicide would still apply. It certainly wouldn’t bar a homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
Qiuestion 2
Since bonnie wasn’t the person who attemped rape we have to use complicity for attempted rape to charge Bonnie. To impute the actus reus for attempted rape bonnie needs to have done the actus reus for complicity.
Under MPC she needs to aid or attempt to aid the principle. Under common law she must actually aid. Whether she actually aids is a up for debate. Howver a good case can be made that by letting Betsey know that there was interest in sex, that she aided in commiting the crime. She also offered her room, as a place to commit the conduct. She creates the opportunity. It isn’t relevenant that the principle fails, she still aids. It could also be considered aid by encouragement. Although that isn’t always enough. But even if not, making the principle aware of the opprunity is clearly aidding. There could be argument that Betsey already knew Jill liked her, and that Bonnie’s intented aid wouldn’t have mattered, and that Betsey would have attempted anyway. But even that isn’t relevant because in Tally, an act only has to facilitate a result, and it doesn’t matter if it would have happened already. The only way to not be aid is if Betsey somehow already knew exactly was Jill had said to Bonnie by some other method. But even that would only work under Common law, under MPC by conveying the message she still itends to help, even if it didn’t.
Next Bonnie needs the mens rea to aid, and this is under both MPC and common law. There is a a strong case that she purposely intended to aid. She voluntarily told Betsey that Jill liked her and would probably have sex with her. She also offered her room up, showing that he had intent to help Betsey, by securing her a place. It could be argued that she only did these things knowingly, or recklessless. But offering her room up, and conveying the knowledge really shows intend to aid Betsey. If she told the information only after being questioned by Betsey maybe it would fall to knowing. But that isn’t what happened.
The mens rea for circumstance is the major issue. Under MPC and most common law there is no mention of circumstance for policy reasons.There are two approaches you use the mens reas from the crime, or use knowingly. Under knowingly Bonnie doesn’t meet the standard. She didn’t know her age. If you use the mens rea from the crime there is another issue. The statute doesn’t provide the mens rea for the circumstance, in this case the age of the girl. Under MPC, if any mens rea was mentioned youd apply to apply, but there isn’t any in this statute, and if there is none, you supply recklessness for all. However, under common law there are a wide variety of ways to deal with the mens rea for circumstance in rape. For statutory rape though, many if not most do apply a strict liability mens rea standard. That means liability is imposed without any mens rea. Though usually talking about consent, another circumstance element, states use negligence like in Sherry, or recklessness.
The big issue is there is a mistake of fact. Bonnie is mistaken about her age, because she told Bonnie her age was 18. If the state uses strict liability this is irrevelant because even a reasonable mistake doesn’t negate strict liability. Though 20 states do permit mistake defense if the age of the consent is over 14, and the difference in age is small. The question would be is the difference of Betsey and Jills ages – 7 years, small? Probably not. Judges imposes strict lialbilty in Olson, and Garnnett. If the applied mens rea requirement was negligence like some states do, then a reasonable mistake would negate the mens rea, under both common law and MPC. Was the mistake reasonable? Jill did say her age was 18, and there is nothing in the facts about her giving any reason to believe otherwise. It could be argued it is reasonable to take a person at their word. However, it could be argued that she failed to take any precaustions to find her true age. That would be a negligent mistake and thus would only negagate the mens rea if the state used a reckless mens rea standard. It could even be argued that lying to get onto college campuses is so prevalent and so widely known that not checking her age was a conscious disregaurd substantial risk that the circumstances where that way. Though it would hard to claim that a common law abiding citizen would check the age of a person, but it could be argued that they would while attempting to engage a very young women in sexual activity. It could also be argued that even if she wasn’t aware of that risk, she should have been would would have been a negligence mistake. That wouldn’t be a defense in common law because it wasn’t reasonable, but it could negate reckless under MPC. Though reckless is a standard not usually used. IT could also be argued from a policy perspective that society should deter having sex with a minor by not allowing such a mistake, but that would be more applicable to applying a strict liability in the first place.
This crime doesn’t appear to have a results element so there isn’t any mens rea for result. IT cold be seen that the sexual activity is a result of the statue. That would require under MPC and one standard of Common law that you use the same standard as the crime. This would be recklessness if you used the MPC. The common law could use a number of standards. At the least Bonnie was reckless to the result. Her telling Betsey about Jill liking her, while also offering the room shows a conscious objective to cause the sexual activity. Even if you didn’t see intent in that aruge, you can find she recklessly disreguarded the substantial risk of it happening. But it appears she actually wished it to happen. The only other way would to argue that it was very unlikely to happen, but I don’t think that argument is persuasive. Some common law states use a test, like luparello, that she is liable for anything that is a natural/foseeable and probable consequence. In this case atleast, that appears to be reckless, or possibly even negligent. Like I analyzed before, there is most likely purpose, almost definitely knowledge, and almost definitely recklessness. It would be hard to argue that sex wasn’t a natural and probable consequence. The one argument is that it wasn’t probable. However that standard seems pretty wide when applying probability. I believe the state could easily argue it was probable.
Question 3
Doe could be liable for attemped homicide either by his own actions or by imputing the actions of Bestey by complicity.
Actus Rues for Doe’s act by omission. The first question is does Doe have a legal liablility to aid Jill. There could possibly be a law or common law that says in this state he has duty as a president of a university. Moral duty isn’t enough. He could have some kind of contractual duty, possibly from a contract the students sign to attend. There is an argument that he could be found to be in loco parent. Jill is young, a minor and without her parent. You can make a claim that this case is like Jones, where a child was left in someone elses care. The judge in Jones however, only made the jury instructions say there had to be a legal duty. So it’s not entirely clear that would count. However, this is probably closes to Pope, where the person didn’t have legal duty because the mother was there. However, Pope says someone responsible for the supervision of a minor child has a legal duty, they just distinguished by sayin the mother was there. In this case there parents were not there. You could argue he was responsible for her while on campus. However, you can also argue that you aren’t responsible for every college attendee. That would be going to far. Also you can argue that Jill isn’t really a child anyway. She is 15, which is far different from an infant. Finally you can argue that her parents were still alive and hadn’t given up responscilibty. Finally you can have duty if you caused the circumstances. This is hard to argue unless you allow causing circumstances by omission, which would be beging the question, allowing omission to cause omission would charge the meaning of the rule. I think the most pressuave argument is that he had a duty, because he was respinsbile for children under his care as President.
The question becomes does this aid the conduct of the principles? I think it is clearly yes. He could have stopped the harassment and the intiations. The MPC explicitly allows aid thorugh omission. Common Law, at least from what we read, is silent, but it doesn’t explicitly diallow it either. Even if you claim that the initiation couldn’t have been stopped because the sority would find a way to hide it, under the Tally rule, where the act only has to facilitate the result, it doesn’t matter whether it would have happened anyway.
There is an issue about whether his omission is a proximate cause of the attempt. However, he would likely be the proximate cause because he knew that they were using water. That means the death is foreseeable under the same anaylsis I used for Bonnie in part 1. If he hadn’t known about the water, it might not be as foreseeable. However, some risk of death would still be forseeable under the standard in Acost, where he was liable for helicopters crashing, merely because some terrible result was foreseeable. In this same was Doe should have foreseen some ill results from allowing the initiations to go on.
There is an issue of intervening/superceding cause. I analyzed this under Bonnie in question 1 and I think it holds for Doe because he would be charged for complicity under the same actus reus bonnie was.
Mens Rea: Under the MPC and Common law the defendant must intend to aid the principle. This will likely be the biggest bar to the state’s claim. The standard is conscious objective to aid the conduct that will be impuned. The fact pattern says he dislikes the initiations but tolerates them for other reasons. It could be argued that he consciously aided them by omission because he thought they were popular and profitable lacrosse players. His intent was to help them because of his feelings towards them. He also had a don’t ask don’t tell policy which might be shown to purposely aid them by not asking questions. Questions he might have a duty to ask as an administrator. However it could also be argued he didn’t any any intent to help them have initiations. He obviously didn’t like the initiations. He knew they were happening, so that would meet the knowing standard, but for complicity he must have purpose/intent.
If they find purposeful mens rea, they can impute the actus reus for attempted homicide. This brings up an issue of whether there was even enough to get attempt. We have to analyze the behavior of Bestsy. Under MPC there must be a substamital step that corroborates the actors criminal purpose. In this case, Betsey had forced them to drink the water for a while, and it was only luck, that Jackie died, that Jill escaped. This goes so far as to meet the common law standard of last proximate step from Rizzo. Where the commission must be reasonable likely without interference. It was likely until the death. IT would also meet the equivocality test by looking at how preparation corrobates intent. It’s clear that again the standard would be met because she is just about to commit the crime. It was a luckly break that ended it.
There is also a possibility that the actions themselves were attempted murder without imputing Bestey’s actions. There the actus rues would be was his actions enough under MPC And common law. Because like the pervious paragraph, his actions were only not successful because of a lucky intervention.
We would have to analyze his mens rea for conduct/result. For attempt he needs purposely engage in the conduct or knowingly. Since his conduct is the same I used to claim complicity, the analysis is the same. However, if you found knowledge in that section, it would be enough to meet the MPC for conduct, because knowledge is enough. For common law, only purpose is enough, and if you didn’t find intent it can’t be met.
For charges for attempting homicide, the mens rea requirement is the same for complicity and the actually attempt himself so the analsis only requires one pass. For Attempt you need purpose or knowledge for MPC and purpose for Common law. It is hard to argue he wanted Jill to die. There is no evidence of it. It is slightly easier to argue that he knowingly was awarea of the practical certainty. But that hinges on showing that he knew it was certain, instead of just likely. Under common law even that wouldn’t work. I don’t think that argument is a good one. Under attempt there is no liability of recklessness, or negligence because of this men rea rule.
There is a chance the court uses common law, “natural probable conquences” test for the complicity theory of attempt. It could be argued by allowing initiations with drinking water, led to the natural probable consequence of death. He knew that drowning was a possibility. It was forseeable. In Luparello, it basically makes the accomplice liable for the mens rea of the accomplice. However, I think it can be distinguished based on this being attempt. Liparello used it for actual homicide.
Question 4)
Jills liability for Besty.
The actus reus is clear, she struck Besty. The causation is clear, it was direct, and proximate. This is a question of provaction, EED and self defense.
The mens rea for homicide under MPC is purposeful, or knowingly. I think it is clear that Jill purposely swung at Bestey. This would meet the standard of mens rea for conduct for all the homicide crimes under MPC. There is a question of whether she was purposeful, or intent on causing the harm. But again, she smashed a hard object on someone’s head. That goes beyond reckless, for both MPC and common law. For common law you just need intent, and there might be an issue for whether her actions intended to kill, or were just done knowing it would kill. I believe there is a strong case that she fully intended the harm. She purposely swing, hitting her on the head. If that isn’t intent, nothing is.
In common law muder is separated by first degree and second. First degree requires malice aforegthough. Under the standard of Carrol, any intent is premeditation, no time too short. Though I lieve the court would the regular standard, outlined in Guthrie, which requires evidence to support premeditation. That standard requires evidence suffience to support premeiditation like planning, facts about prior relationship, and the nature/manner of the killing. While it is possible jill sat and plotted about murdering Betsey, there is no real evidence to show it. The state could claim she had the time to while being forced to drink the water, but the real provocation started when the other girl died. I doub thtey could prove it to beyond a reasonable doubt. The factors against premed is there is no evidence of planning, the prior relationship was friendly, though soured during the iniation, an the manner of murder is indicative of no planning, and a rash judgment.
The next issue was does the murder get mitigated because of the other factors. Under common law the crime can be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter with provocation. The things that can provoke are seriously physical injury, mutla combat, and illegal arrest. A case could be made for those three. Keeping the girls in a basement and yelling could be described as a form of illegal arrest. Especially if they used fear and coerscion to keep them there. One huge factor in that arugments favor is that this probably the envire motive for the crime. She struck Bestey to escape. Forcing her to drink the water shows physical injury, though ticoud be argued that it was voluntary, and actions to yourself don’t count. The weak argument is for mutal combat, because there was no prior violence, though you might construct an argument based on detention. The other requirements are 1) the defendant acted in heat of passion. This is clear, she was young, afraid, and angry at Betsey for detaining her, and for killing the other girl. Though fear alon eisn’t enough for Common law. 2) adequate provocation. Words aren’t enough. There could be a case that since all that Betsey did was yell, and tell them to stay, that this factor might fail. Though, the use of ceoriscion isn’t merely words, and goes beyond being strictly verbal. This uses a reasonable person standard. A case could be made that a reasonable person might not be angry beucase of their choice to stay, but I think that doesn’t hold well. 3) Caual link, can’t kill a third person, this is clear Betsey was the tormentor. 4) No cooling period, again clear, this was in the middle of the initation, immediately after the girl fell ill.
Under MPC to mitigate to manslaughter you have to show extreme emotional distress, and that there must be a reasonable explanation, from the view of the defendant. A strong case could be made that she was extremelty emotionally distressed. She was someone dies, was force to drink extreme amounts of water, and was afraid for her life. Under this fear counts unlike common law. The reasonableness is another issue, but who in that position wouldn’t be afraid.
There is alos a self defense issue. Under MPC it is allowed when the actor believes force is immediately necessary to protect aginst unlawful force. Here Jill did believe that force was necessary to protect against unlaw force. The force could have been more dirnking water, or the threat of continued detention. There could be a mistake of fact, but it was fairly clear the older girls were holding them there. Though and arugment could be made that the girls could in fact leave at anytime. Though it’s not clear that was true. If it was that would also open up an arugmetn that she could have retreated, but she couldn’t if she was being detained illegally by force.
Under common law, there must be an actual or apparent threat of the use of deadly force. There threat must be unlawful and immediate, and the defender must believe he is in imminent peril. Her belief must be reasonabl, and I think it was. She was somelese else die at their hands, what could be more reasonable. The force used by the older girls was already deadily to the other girls, which causes an apparenent threat to her.
The force is actual and apparent. The girls yell and told them they can’t leave, and she just saw them involved with another girl dying. The threat is immediate, and is in fact unging, and Jill thought she was in imminent peril.

[rayiner]

So based on what you're saying about law school exams, it seems that far and away the most important skill that determines a student's success is her ability to write clearly, quickly, and persuasively under timed pressure.

A typical law school exam is graded from a checklist. For each issue, you get points for identifying the issue, identifying the relevant rule including the elements of that rule, and analyzing how the facts fit into each element, including how ambiguities in the facts or the rule could cause things to come out a different way.

This literally gives rise to a structure like this:
A might have a negligence claim against B. The elements of a negligence claim are E1, E2, E3, E4. Here, fact F1 satisfies element E1, fact F2 satisfies element E2. Fact F3 is ambiguous, it could go for or against element E3. Element E4 is ambiguous, and fact F4 could go for or against element E4. Therefore, A's negligence claim against B will probably succeed, or not, the conclusion doesn't matter.

Your writing matters in the sense that you have to type fast enough to get all this out. Clarity matters only to the extent the professor has to be able to understand when you're talking about element E1 or fact F3. You can achieve this by writing at a fourth grade level. Persuasiveness doesn't matter, because the professor doesn't care about your conclusion.

[Straw_Mandible]

This is an A test at a T14. Note the lack of diagrams and logical fallacies.

Exam

Thanks for posting this, DF. It gives us a very clear picture of the kind of reasoning, issue spotting, and writing involved in law school exams.

You're right: It's remarkable how little that activity has in common with the LSAT. That difference lends support to both of our arguments, albeit in different ways.

For yours, it means that someone who spends time learning skills that only apply to the LSAT is not developing skills that will help them perform better in law school.

For mine, it means that a person who is naturally good at the type of skills tested by the LSAT will not necessarily be naturally good at the type of skills tested by law school exams. And the person who does not have a natural aptitude for the LSAT will not necessarily be disadvantaged when it comes to writing law school exams.

[CardozoLaw09]

This is an A test at a T14. Note the lack of diagrams and logical fallacies.

exam.

The spelling and grammar doe

[MrHabeas]

I want to say I find this thread fascinating. Bravo to both Desert Fox and Straw_Mandible.

[09042014]

This is an A test at a T14. Note the lack of diagrams and logical fallacies.

exam.

The spelling and grammar doe

It's a 3 hour race. Spell check is for B+.

I'm sure it hurt me occasionally, but not super frequently.

[Balthy]

Yeah, seriously, thanks DF for posting that and Rayiner for explaining the general template. I'm surprised that in all my tls lurking/posting this is my first time reading an actual exam answer and better understanding what goes on. The spelling and grammatical issues scare me..seems like you do have to process and write very fast.

[rayiner]

Yeah, seriously, thanks DF for posting that and Rayiner for explaining the general template. I'm surprised that in all my tls lurking/posting this is my first time reading an actual exam answer and better understanding what goes on. The spelling and grammatical issues scare me..seems like you do have to process and write very fast.

On my crim final, I spelled "possession" wrong 17 times. I turned spell check off because I'd see the squiggles and go back to fix them, and that cost me time.

[Pragmatic Gun]

The time management skills on the LSAT could arguably transfer to these law school exams then, even though time management isn't directly tested (although it's a major component of success on the LSAT).

[09042014]

The time management skills on the LSAT could arguably transfer to these law school exams then, even though time management isn't directly tested (although it's a major component of success on the LSAT).

It's a totally different kind of time management. Though I could buy that someone who PTs a lot for the LSAT would PT more for law school exams, which does help with time management.

[Theopliske8711]

How far into class would it make sense to start prepping for a final by taking practice tests?

[09042014]

How far into class would it make sense to start prepping for a final by taking practice tests?

After all the material is taught. Maybe Ray can answer, he's way better at this stuff.

[Tiago Splitter]

Keep in mind that not every exam will be a race horse issue spotter. Most of mine have either had fairly strict word limits and/or were 8 hour take-homes. There's also multiple choice, short answer, etc., and many finals will often be a mix of these.

[A. Nony Mouse]

How far into class would it make sense to start prepping for a final by taking practice tests?

I agree with DF - I know some people start earlier, but it never helped me to look at practice tests until we'd covered all the material (especially first semester when you have so much less of a clue than later). If you get all your reading and outlining (to the extent you do either of those things) done by the end of the semester, you have plenty of time to take practice tests during reading period. It's not quite like the LSAT where you can do tens of practice tests - some classes have a gazillion practice tests floating around, but some will have maybe 3-5, so there's only so many you can do, and it's sort of a waste to do them too early. (Practice tests from profs other than your own only have limited usefulness, I found.)

I mean, you could look at them, as in just reading the questions to get a sense of what they're going to ask, maybe halfway through the semester, once you have enough to be able to follow some chunk of the fact pattern. But I don't think it makes sense to try to take them at that point.

[ScottRiqui]

DF - Assuming it's not any kind of a violation, could you post the question that goes along with that answer?

[sighsigh]

I think how much you are able to improve by studying for the LSAT tells something important. There's tons of stories on this forum of people who have good cold scores (160+), but can't break into the 170s no matter how much effort they put in. There's also tons of stories on this forum of people who get average cold scores (150s) and get into the 170s. Who is smarter in these cases? Who would you rather compete with on a LS exam?

[09042014]

DF - Assuming it's not any kind of a violation, could you post the question that goes along with that answer?

You aren't allowed to keep them.

[09042014]

I think how much you are able to improve by studying for the LSAT tells something important. There's tons of stories on this forum of people who have good cold scores (160+), but can't break into the 170s no matter how much effort they put in. There's also tons of stories on this forum of people who get average cold scores (150s) and get into the 170s. Who is smarter in these cases? Who would you rather compete with on a LS exam?

Pure cold score are IMO not extremely representative. IIRC most test takers aren't taking it cold. They do some small amount of prep.

[Straw_Mandible]

I think how much you are able to improve by studying for the LSAT tells something important. There's tons of stories on this forum of people who have good cold scores (160+), but can't break into the 170s no matter how much effort they put in. There's also tons of stories on this forum of people who get average cold scores (150s) and get into the 170s. Who is smarter in these cases? Who would you rather compete with on a LS exam?

Again, this question really misses the point. We shouldn't be asking who is "smarter" in some broad, mystical sense. We should be asking who can perform X, Y, and Z tasks necessary to succeed on law school exams.

It's reasonable to say that a person who is capable of moving from the 150s into the 170s has a level of self-awareness, flexibility, and discipline that the other person does not. But the extent to which those qualities are useful in preparing for a law school exam, remains in question.