The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
1Ls: The finals you are about to take will have massive implicat
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 5th, 2008 10:56 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag implications for the rest of your life. If you go anywhere but HYS you had better finish in the top half if you want to be assured biglaw in the current hiring market. If you are not in the T14 your grades are all the more critical. Your performance over the next couple of weeks will determine whether you have a successful legal career or will be an also-ran working a shitty job for the rest of your life. You might think this is flame, but you know it's true. HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470152) |
 |
Date: December 5th, 2008 10:57 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman TITCOP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470164) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:04 PM Author: silver voyeur ticket booth T14 can still make a comeback 2nd semester.
I was decidedly below median 1st semester and top 10% second semester and got all the firms I wanted this past OCI even IN THIS ECONOMY. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:05 PM Author: Shaky Corn Cake yes, but at least half your section will be trying to make that comeback as well. take this opportunity to get a head start. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470245) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:14 PM Author: silver voyeur ticket booth Very true. The problem for most of them wasn't the same as it was for me.
The vast majority of them studied their asses off 1st semester. I did not.
I didn't take studying too seriously and treated law school like undergrad i.e. barely did the reading, studied for finals a few days before each one. I went balls to the wall 2nd semester.
In some regards I regret not working my ass off from the get go. But as long as I keep up the hard work and good grades, I didn't really precluded myself from anything (can still make coif, wrote on to law review) besides probably SCOTUS which wasn't happening for me anyway. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:15 PM Author: Shaky Corn Cake this reminds me of the halo guy: "I didn't really precluded myself from anything" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470327) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:07 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag next fall's OCI will be significantly worse than this year's. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470254) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:19 PM Author: silver voyeur ticket booth It may be worse but significantly, I doubt. Many firms cut their summer classes 50% from last year. That's fucking insane. This year was rough as fuck.
This statement assumes we don't go into a depression. All bets are off for EVERYONE in that case. If it's just a deep recession, we probably will be starting a slow recovery by then. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:23 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag As shitty as it was this year, even minor additional reductions, combined with a shitload of newly unemployed laterals in the market, would constitute a significantly tougher hiring market. Either way, the message is the same. 1Ls will seal their own fates for the rest of their lives over the next 2 weeks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470401) |
|
Date: November 17th, 2009 11:58 PM Author: Exhilarant red heaven mood HA HA HA -- look who was right!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13295765) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 3:40 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag *bows* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13485629) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 3:13 PM Author: deranged love of her life LULZ CLS students DO NOT have to be top half IN THIS ECONOMY, you stupid faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472967) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 3:30 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag wow, are you really back or just a sad sack of shit imposTTTer? anyway, will ppl in the bottom half of CLS get biglaw? of course. should anyone in the bottom half feel completely confident they will land biglaw through OCIs? i don't think so, but troll away. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10473061) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2011 4:39 PM Author: Coral costumed national FUK U (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#17924860) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 3:12 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag can anyone confirm/deny this is SY? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10491711) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2009 4:35 AM Author: Aphrodisiac Territorial Theatre (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#11592558) |
|
Date: November 16th, 2010 12:53 PM Author: Concupiscible amber pisswyrm trailer park *is c/o 2013 bro*
*shows up to finals drunk*
*gets v20 with submedian grades* |
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:06 PM Author: Heady jade theater stage I would add that these finals will literally be worth millions and millions of dollars. Imagine the life of a legal aid attorney's lifetime earnings versus those of a biglaw attorney's. $25M is not an understatement.
$25M AT LEAST! |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:07 PM Author: Shaky Corn Cake show the kids some figures (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470255) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:09 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag Sounds about right. The NPV of the earnings difference between someone who does well on 1L finals and someone who does poorly is probably into the 8-figure range. Think of it as getting a check for $10M if you do well on your finals and a steaming pile of shit if you do poorly. Because that's basically what will happen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470278) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:43 PM Author: insane doobsian roommate This is largely false. Most people don't last more than a few years at a big firm and almost nobody makes partner.
|
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:51 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag credited, but think about what these people do after leaving biglaw. They don't take some shit $35k PI job. They lateral into other prestigious, if slightly lower-paying, positions. They will work in top positions for the rest of their career because the first item on their resume after law school will be biglaw. The people that start out doing shit work similarly stay in shit. It's not as if the people that get biglaw and leave after 3 years are in the same boat as those who couldn't get biglaw to begin with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470635) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:55 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks a lot of ppl i know who flamed out of biglaw went into PI or shitlaw jobs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470675) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:58 PM Author: supple sex offender Same here, that's why I felt that DOJ/prestigious agency was the way to go. Good govt work, 40 hour weeks, and after a few years I can easily lateral over to a firm or into some other sick position doing things that actually interest me.
I will miss that extra $100k my classmates will be getting though. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:01 AM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks i'm planning on going into gov't after 3-4 years in biglaw. i hope i don't completely flame out and leave the profession entirely before i can transition into a sweet gov't gig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470728) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:25 AM Author: supple sex offender I'm hoping that having 30 days of paid vacation a yeah + great hours + job security while doing interesting work will make it a pretty sweet gig.
Then I can lateral over to Biglaw if I want to do so and skip all of the BS at years 1-3. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:56 PM Author: insane doobsian roommate Most people who leave big firms after 3 years will probably leave the profession entirely. Most of them will have no real skills that a smaller firm can use.
People who work in shitlaw do so because they don't have the brainpower to do high level work, not because of their first job. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:06 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag I don't have the stats to back it up, but I doubt your first point. As for smaller firms, it would depend on what the dood did in biglaw and what teh small firm does.
RE: your last point- brainpower and shitty resume lines are both sufficient to shut out these people from prestigious positions, but if they had a good resume line their lack of brainpower wouldn't become apparent for awhile. If they had brainpower but the shitty resume line they'd never get the chance to prove it. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:10 AM Author: insane doobsian roommate I can't tell you how many 2nd year litigation associates I've met who have never even attended a deposition. Not that they've never deposed anyone, they've never even seen someone get deposed.
These people would be absolutely useless in a smaller firm.
People with a good initial resume and low brainpower are typically minority AA admits. They leave the profession faster than anyone. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:16 AM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks damn that's pretty depressing. my summer firm let me attend a few depos, so i've seen some. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470837) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:16 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag I don't dispute any of this. I still maintain a good initial resume line will pay big dividends for the rest of one's career.
EDIT: even if it didn't, as some biglaw people undoubtedly end up with shitty careers, an initial shitty job virtually assures a shit career. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:50 AM Author: Purple Kitchen A halfway decent transactional 3rd year should be able to run a small deal on his own. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471495) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:06 AM Author: insane doobsian roommate Would small firms be handling such a deal in the first place? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471593) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:06 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman Midlaw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471599) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:21 AM Author: Purple Kitchen I gotta think small and midsize firms do deals like Mom & Pop LLC getting a couple million dollar line from Wells Fargo or XYZ Receivables Finance Corp. Small companies are bought and sold too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471684) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:08 PM Author: blathering location national security agency Pressure.
It changes everything. Pressure.
Some people, you squeeze them, they focus.
Others fold.
Can you summon your talent at will?
Can you deliver on a deadline?
Can you sleep at night?
|
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 7:35 PM Author: Passionate useless incel is this from the devil's advocate? sounds familiar (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13491417) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:14 PM Author: Provocative internet-worthy boltzmann In other words, sometime in the middle of August next year, some of your classmates will be walking confidently with their heads held high, a bit of a swagger, and some extra phone numbers in their black book.
Others will be hunched over, nervous, glum, and worried.
Which do you want to be? |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:17 PM Author: Heady jade theater stage HINT: if you answer, then it means you aren't studying. prepare to hunch! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470343) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:04 AM Author: comical area Well done. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472116) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:16 PM Author: irradiated office Don't listen to the others. You'll all get jobs. Go out and party.
*1L staying home to study* |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:06 AM Author: Vigorous lavender church hairy legs Good post. Do not let your classmates fool you. Half will be complaining/bragging about how long they've been in the library, and the other half will be complaining/bragging about how they've done hardly any studying. All of them are saying whatever they think will fuck with your head. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471592) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:17 PM Author: supple sex offender I will chime in that this is ABSOLUTELY the the case for most of you, unless you're at HYS, maybe CCN. If you're at Boalt or lower, you may be fucked.
These exams suck ass, they will be tough and take tons of your time for prep. You HAVE TO DO WELL. You have to. If you don't you WILL NOT get any respectable job during the beginning of 2L and you will be hustling until Spring of your 2L year to get a 2L Summer job. You may not even get one. NO ONE CARES ABOUT 2L GRADES EVER. EVER.
If you do bad, YOU ARE FUCKED. This is completely serious, especially given the recent hiring market. I know people on the LR at my school who are losing their 2L summer offers b/c of the economy and such.
Your 1L exams, ESPECIALLY FIRST SEMESTER will completely define how easy/hard your legal career will be from here on out. If you do bad, you will struggle and be forced to play catch up in one of the hardest legal hiring markets of all time, and it unlikely that you will be able to catch up.
Take practice exams, do your LEEWS. Spot the fucking issues and make your exams CLEAR, ORGANIZED, and READABLE. Use page numbers. Label different questions and different sections of your answers. Spend the first 25-33% of the time allotted for each question outlining your answer to the question on a piece of scrap paper and ADDRESS COUNTERARGUMENTS. For every point, do a back and forth of the different views and cite cases supporting each view whenever possible. Mimic the style your prof used in class. When you run out of time on a question, MOVE ON. DO NOT KEEP WRITING. MOVE ON TO THE NEXT FUCKING QUESTION.
You don't have to know every fucking little thing to do well. If you can rattle off every point from the whole semester and every case/holding/dissent, you will likely do median because EVERYONE can do this. All of your classmates know AS MUCH AS YOU DO ABOUT THIS SHIT. No matter what supplements you are using or how long your outline is, you have ZERO informational advantage over your classmates. It ALL comes down to how well you spot everything and address counterarguments. This is why the fucking gunners who spent the semester memorizing every minute detail of everything will likely end up at the median and be crying when grades come out.
This advice applies to you if you're a 1L. If you're a 2L/3L and did bad 1L, consider dropping out, even if you improve, it will not help you get that ID job you're now gunning for.
You have been warned 1Ls. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:20 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks what should 2Ls with jobs do i don't want to do shit right now :-( |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:21 PM Author: supple sex offender Give advice to 1Ls like I am. I haven't outlined shit after sitting here for 5 hours. :/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470378) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:23 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks i've done nothing the past 3 days. i had a productive 2-3 days before that, then i just broke down.
EDIT: i played gunstar heros for 3 hours |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:24 PM Author: supple sex offender Same. I cannot bring myself to do ANYTHING. Anything. I know if won't affect my job this coming Summer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470414) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:26 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks maybe i will play duck tales NES game tomorrow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470426) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:28 PM Author: supple sex offender Tomorrow I will try to do work. However, Ducktales does sound like a good idea... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470446) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2009 1:48 AM Author: Cruel-hearted alpha The fucking secret areas on the moon and in the haunted castle. FUCK YEAR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#11591622) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:35 PM Author: supple sex offender I FUCKING LOVE GUNSTAR HEROES!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470519) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:15 AM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks i just finished the level with the die/board game. i love that level. i switched to strider and got completely PWN3D. i can barely make it past the first boss (russian senate turning into centipede thingy) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:16 AM Author: supple sex offender I was playing this last month. I always liked the level with the train where you can go on the ceiling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470843) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:19 AM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks the underground mine level? i feel like that boss is harder than the other ones. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470882) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:23 AM Author: supple sex offender Yeah, same here. But I always play GH 2 player, just so much more fun. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470919) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:25 AM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks who do you play it with? friends? bro? i don't know anyone interested in playing old school console games. can you play 2 player co-op on emulators with netplay functionality over the internet? |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:27 AM Author: supple sex offender No clue, we play it on the Wii. Used to play it on the Genesis (?). Old school console games are where it's at. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470955) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:21 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag titcr. I wouldn't want to be 30th% at CCN though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470385) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:27 PM Author: irradiated office "I know people on the LR at my school who are losing their 2L summer offers b/c of the economy and such."
Because their firms went under? Or are you talking about rescinded offers before they accepted? |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:28 PM Author: supple sex offender Both. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470445) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:33 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks i wish ppl would post which firms are rescinding offers. i've been hearing about it and reading about it online, but no one is naming names. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470503) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:35 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag abovethelaw. sorry rach... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470516) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:36 PM Author: irradiated office Above the law has mentioned some firms that rescinded offers before people could accept. But I haven't heard about rescinding accepted offers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470526) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:37 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman TTTs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470532) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:37 PM Author: supple sex offender Not exclusively... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470534) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:38 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman I have heard of no V10s rescinding (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470539) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:39 PM Author: supple sex offender V20s are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470545) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:39 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman who?
White & Case? |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:40 PM Author: supple sex offender Don't remember offhand. I'm doing DOJ Honors and agency work, haven't been following firms at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470551) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:40 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman You are extraordinarily unhelpful (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470557) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:45 PM Author: Fantasy-prone Brilliant Wagecucks care to give us a few hints? maybe a narrower vault range? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470592) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:53 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag Just search around ATL for awhile. Virtually every firm in the country is susceptible, but you could find out in a hurry which firms have already succumbed and rescinded offers or engaged in other TTT practices. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470653) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 3:15 PM Author: deranged love of her life so basically you have no idea... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472984) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:46 PM Author: Bat-shit-crazy vivacious abode In this vein, the only type of studying that really, truly helps is doing practice exams in exam conditions (or even handicapped, e.g., closed book). If you don't have a model answer, a study group is very helpful (but make sure your group has at least some smart people so you don't get led astray).
Also, outlines are of questionable value and seem almost like a way for some people to procrastinate without feeling like total garbage. |
|
Date: December 14th, 2011 11:14 AM Author: Black fiercely-loyal legend epic post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#19566871) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:22 PM Author: blathering location national security agency i'm making this thread my homepage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470394) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:26 PM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470424) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:26 PM Author: supple sex offender You don't know shit. Give your opinions in a year you stupid faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470433) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:29 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag lulz. you are a good poster. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470454) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:29 PM Author: Shaky Corn Cake i know you only mean to help, but i don't see how hurling epithets will persuade him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470460) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:31 PM Author: supple sex offender Not trying to persuade him, trying to persuade any lurkers that this guy is a 1L. Every 1L thinks they have it down, which is odd given that they have never taken an actual exam, don't know what it's like at all, and most importantly, haven't ever had an exam graded on a curve like this.
No 1L is qualified, under any circumstances, to give advice on taking law school exams. ESPECIALLY during Fall semester. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:40 PM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470556) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:41 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman This thread was a secret attempt to find gunners. You won. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470561) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:42 PM Author: supple sex offender lol. You sound JUST like me a year ago. EXACTLY.
Please bump in a month with your grades. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:43 PM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470576) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:46 PM Author: orchid home feces Holy fuck, this is awful Leave xoxo immediately |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:47 PM Author: supple sex offender Cosigned. The funny thing is the poster will nervously laugh to himself thinking we're being dicks and his heart will sink around the third week of January, especially if he writes this garbage down on an actual exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470611) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:56 PM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470681) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:59 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman Remove the cutesy language. "Luckily for her," "ornery"
You're a lawyer |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:01 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470725) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:03 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman Your writing is terrible. I can't comment on the 7th-amendment right to a jury trial because I'm not a 1L anymore (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470740) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:06 AM Author: supple sex offender Also, you didn't explore both sides. You think you did, but you didn't. Don't give a cursory sentence thinking you gave another side of the problem. Use a different paragraph for each side and expand on it a little. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470765) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:09 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470782) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:16 AM Author: supple sex offender A monkey could do it. It is not hard at all once you get used to it. It's just that no one knows what they should be doing and they drone on about stupid shit that has no bearing on the question.
Every prof will try to make it sound clever by having some sort of "interesting" lead in.
Also, if you didn't know, everything is graded on a point scale. They will just look to see if you mentioned an issue, check it off for 3 points. See if you discussed one subpart of an issue, you get 2 more points. etc. Literally, this is how it is done. That's why you just use short sentences and pack in the issues in a concise way where the prof can see them. Using jokes or flowery language will net you ZERO points. Refrain from using it. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:04 AM Author: supple sex offender First, shorten that bitch and don't use commas as much:
P asked for a jury trial for the trespass cause of action. Trespass entitled P to a jury under common law. Under 7th amd, P is entitled to a jury action if this is over $20. We don't know whether there is a relevant statute that expressly allows for a jury trial in trespass cases.
D will probably realize that a jury trial is not in his best interest. Thus, D will not allow both parties to agree to it under 39(c)(2). D may argue that injunctions are equitable relief. B/C P seeks equitable relief, P falls within the 7th amendment category of non-jury trials.
I just edited what you wrote. I don't know the accuracy of it whatsoever, just trying to give an example of how much your writing can be more concise and sound better. Do not use the fucking cutesy writing, even if your prof did. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:07 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470774) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:12 AM Author: supple sex offender Change your quick prose then. Try to not use commas, use short and choppy sentences with nothing else added except what is needed.
Add more policy to both sides, but only if it helps further an argument. Don't just throw it in because it sounds good. Also, I'm not saying you did this, but never throw in extra facts or points of law if they are not needed.
It sounds okay, but probably should be expanded upon. Also, try to hedge everything, don't say anything definite unless you're summing up everything. Say P will LIKELY... or D will PROBABLY.... |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:13 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470814) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:14 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman Impossible to tell. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470820) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:17 AM Author: supple sex offender Can't tell ever. You have no clue what everyone else is doing. Sorry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470855) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:19 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470879) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:13 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman "Say P will LIKELY... or D will PROBABLY...."
This cannot be overstated |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:16 AM Author: Shaky Corn Cake i retract my prior statement. it looks like you persuaded him, and for his own good. you get bonus points in heaven. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470838) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:20 AM Author: supple sex offender Yeah, well, I was in this position last year and thought that I would get extra points by being cute with my writing and expounding on hypos to show off my legal knowledge.
I remember going over my graded exams and whole paragraphs I had written on tangential subjects netted me zero points. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:22 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470914) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:08 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman until that last paragraph I was wondering HOW THE FUCK you remembered any of that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470776) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:11 AM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470796) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:13 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman I was talking to the 2L, who has no business remembering any of that shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470812) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:18 AM Author: supple sex offender Yeah, just edited his work. At the moment, I don't think I could name all the intentional torts from last year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470869) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:21 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470893) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:43 AM Author: cracking unhinged telephone macaca Any answer that doesn't have "BUT WHERE IS THE LINE" is below median. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472198) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:47 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman lol he's editing his posts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470612) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:48 PM Author: orchid home feces I'd be ashamed of myself too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470615) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:55 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag The thread was designed for people like him. A false sense of security will only serve to fuck people over, and people that fold under the pressure of facing reality are going to be careerpwn3d anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470672) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:33 PM Author: sooty resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470496) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:34 PM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman BETTER CLEAN UP THAT WRITING BEFORE THE EXAM
EDIT: lol pwned |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:26 PM Author: geriatric box office hunting ground This thread has succeeded in making me more nervous than I was before. TY. I will go study. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470425) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:30 PM Author: irradiated office Torts is about how many issues you can spot and how fast you type. It's pretty different from every other 1L course. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470467) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:32 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag yw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470493) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:38 PM Author: cyan stage jew Shotguns, Canned Ham, and Potable Water.
Your performance doesn't mean sit IN THIS ECONOMY. You're going to stress out over exams, do well, get a job, then get your offer rescinded before you even start.
You have two choices:
1) Actually learn the law so you can survive in a small firm or by yourself
2) Shotguns, Canned Ham, and Potable Water. |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:43 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag this schtick has potential (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470580) |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:44 PM Author: insane doobsian roommate Can't you do both?
What should Jews substitute for Canned Ham?
tyia |
|
Date: December 5th, 2008 11:56 PM Author: cyan stage jew 1) Of course. In fact it might be necessary. At worst its not mutually exclusive. But its often best to focus on one achievable goal, especially during exams.
2) Spam? |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:10 AM Author: turquoise mediation puppy I thought tcr was christian babies? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470790) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:14 AM Author: lake french chef hell Thanks for the motivation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470818) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 12:18 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag yw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10470861) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 7:44 PM Author: lake french chef hell Hello, me from LY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13491498) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:31 AM Author: frozen hilarious corner immigrant This has to to be the infamous 1L Chicago gunner from LSD.
And if he weren't such a fag, I'd guess he was nervous T10 1L too. But he couldn't pull that off. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 9:30 PM Author: Exhilarant red heaven mood Go fuck yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13492367) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:46 AM Author: Shimmering Nursing Home If our profs only give us one practice exam, how should we be spending the rest of our time? Studying outlines and hornbooks? Taking other profs exams? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471462) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:54 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag hornbooks>>>>>outlines
other profs practice exams are helpful if available. model answers are even more helpful. I'd rather have one practice exam w/ model answers than 5 practice exams alone.
But yeah, read one good hornbook for each class. As a 1L you should be reading larger ones like E&E. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:57 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman Good last minute materials: Chirelstein on Contracts Torts E&E Civ Pro E&E (though if you didn't know this already you are fucked) Gilbert's property or crunchtime -- good sample questions too
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:06 AM Author: Milky Toaster E&E are not hornbooks, dood. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471596) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:19 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag ok. in my mind books i read to prep for finals that aren't casebooks are hornbooks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472566) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:52 AM Author: Carnelian stimulating giraffe Why didn't you faggots make this thread when I was a 1L? Every thread I saw then was about how people studied 5 hours and got As. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471508) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:55 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag I'm still in law school too dood. I agree with you and that is why I made the thread. See also my "xoxo is unquestionably the best resource for clueless 0Ls" or something like that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471524) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:56 AM Author: Carnelian stimulating giraffe you are doing a very important public service. i honestly wish i had seen this thread as a 1L, seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471531) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:01 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag ty. me too, i was lucky enough to get biglaw anyway, but i got lucky. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471563) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 1:55 AM Author: pungent school lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471525) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:03 AM Author: Provocative internet-worthy boltzmann Is Glannon's essential for Civ or is Emanuel enough? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471572) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:04 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman Glannon Civ Pro is a gift from G-d (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471578) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:04 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag no matter what else you do, read glannon. seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471581) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 10:19 AM Author: supple sex offender Only read what the prof taught though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472032) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:24 AM Author: Carnelian stimulating giraffe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471692) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:24 AM Author: fragrant mewling space skinny woman 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10471694) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 10:58 AM Author: Spectacular chapel Honestly, I can't imagine getting below the median. I have experienced how stupid people are in class all year, and I can't swallow a semester-long universal con.
I am still trying to do some prep, unlike for UG, but it's all open book tests, so I don't really know what there is to do. I am taking some practice tests for each class, but that's only a few hours, and I don't know what the people who spend all day in the library are up to. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:00 AM Author: supple sex offender Maybe you should spy on them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472111) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:03 AM Author: Boyish juggernaut karate What school do you attend?
The people at the library are probably memorizing things even though it's open book. That way, they can hit issues faster. |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:15 AM Author: Spectacular chapel MVPB.
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:05 AM Author: Self-absorbed Range Do you go to a T14? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472118) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 11:46 AM Author: cracking unhinged telephone macaca It doesn't matter how dumb they sound in class. Law school is largely monkey work. If they can spot more issues and apply the law & policy to them they're going to get better grades. Since there are only so many ways you can test someone on negligence or mutual mistake, even the water heads can figure it out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10472206) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 10:12 PM Author: lake french chef hell Well crafted flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10475307) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:32 PM Author: Talented Sinister Crackhouse Elastic Band exams start next week right? it's probably too late to be working on your outlines this weekend. if you're still outlining, go with what you have and get a recent outline from someone and start taking exams. since the search is down, i'll post some posts i found helpful last year and saved into a word file. ---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my advice on how to succeed in law school. I knew this when i was a 1L and got good grades; somehow I forgot it during 2L and 3L years and my grades went down the tubes. After going to barbri, I relearned what i had once known. It may seem obvious, but nobody will come out and tell you, so here you go. 1. No matter what anyone says (including your prof), it's all about the black-letter law. DO NOT worry about whatever bullshit you talk about in class. Your torts exam will make no mention of Calabresi's "The Cost of Accidents," and you will not get any points for applying law and economics principles to the case at bar. What you need to do on the exam is (a) correctly state the issue(s), (b) correctly state the law (the elements for a battery are 1,2,3,etc.) and (c) 'apply' the law to the facts, which simply means picking out a fact or two from the question, and saying "here, [element x] is met because [fact y]," and finally (d) state your conclusion That is what is meant by "IRAC." The 'A' part is supposedly the most important. IMO both the 'R' (Rule) and the 'A' (Analysis) are equally important. If you don't know the rule, you won't get the issue. You must state the rule completely and accurately. Then, you just have to pick out a fact or two and say because of the stupid fact, the element/rule is met. That's it. They key is to write as if both you and your audience were morons. State obvious issues and rules. Even if it's clear that, say, defendant comitted a battery, state the issue (the issue is whether D committed a battery), the rule (the elements for battery are...), the analysis (element 1 is met because D...; element 2 is met because D...), and then your conclusion (because D met all the stupid elements, he has committed a battery). Again, state the obvious. This is counter-intuitive, b/c normal humans only think of things as "issues" when there is a colorable argument that the claim could be in dispute. For example, say I punch you in the face for no reason. That's a battery. To a normal human, there's no issue about whether or not I have committed a battery; it's completely freaking obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law. There's no way I could say I haven't. But law school is not for normal humans. It is for morons. So, even though both you and your prof and everyone else already knows the answer, you must write as if the person you are speaking to has no knowledge whatsoever of the law (and is incredibly daft to boot). In the above example, you would lose points for not discussing why I have committed a battery, stupid as that may sound. 2. In light of #1, use study aids. Your prof will NOT teach you the black-letter law. Instead, he will prefer to BS about policy, government, his politics, his bitch wife, whatever. He doesn't care. He's clueless. That was how he was taught, and he's not an educator anyway. He's a scholar. Scholars don't care about law, they all are policy wonks who want work in think-tanks (only problem is think tanks are not prestigious enough for the prof's giant egos). 3. Learn how to write a law school exam (even though I have already told you). DO PRACTICE EXAMS. Maybe get LEEWS, whatever. But def look at old exams, and whenever possible, best student answers. This is extremely important. 4. Given 1 and 2, don't worry that much about class and the bs that spews out of your prof's mouth. If he says the rule is 'X' then you say the rule is 'X' even if the study aid says the rule is 'Y.' Chances are he won't ever tell you the rule, given what I said in 2. But in the rare case that he does, make sure that you know exactly what he said the rule was. Write an email after class in you're not sure. But, for the most part, he won't tell you the rules (that's the 'beauty' of the Socratic method - you're supposed to figure them out for yourself!). So get and use study aids from day 1. What I have prescribed is the recipe for success in all American law schools, b/c they all use the same crappy pedagogical method (socratic lectures followed by a giant issue-spotter exam which accounts for 100% of your grade). A torts exam at harvard looks the same as a torts exam at podunk u; it will be a giant fact-pattern, and you will need to apply black-letter rules to the facts. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, the harvard exam will have a teeny-tiny policy question that's worth 15% of the grade or so (they're usually only 30 minute Qs on a 3-hour final; so 1/6). So, if one of these Qs shows up (and chances are it won't), that means that 95% of what you learned in class accounts for only 15% of your grade. Again, chances are you won't even get a policy Q on the exam, and if you do, knowing the black-letter law cold will prepare you for that stupid question anyway. People like to say "you're not learning torts...you're learning professor X's torts." That's extremely misleading. All this means is that (1) your prof will not cover every conceivable topic in the law of torts, and (2) if and when your prof thinks the rule is different from what the study aid says (not often, but sometimes) then use his rule. What it certainly does NOT mean is that what your professor bs's about in class is what you will see on the final. Bottom line - the law of torts is the law of torts is the law of torts. there's a goddamned restatement which spells it out, and that's why it can be tested on a multi-state bar exam. that's the shit you need to know cold, regardless of how much class time you spend on 'loss spreading' or 'efficiency vs. fairness.' People also like to say, "in law school, there is no 'right' answer." that is also bullshit. The simple fact of the matter is that professors generally write exams that, for the most part, have clear answers (even if you think they don't). Professors have to grade upwards of 100 exams per class. When the semester is over, they want to go on vacation as soon as possible. Every minute they spend grading exams is a minute they're not on the beach sipping my-tais. Thus, a prof is not going to waste his time giving any exam a thorough read to see 'what your arguments were.' instead, he writes the exam with a grading key, and the people who get good grades are the one who give him the conclusions and the reasons he wants to see. Again, he doesn't put question in there so you can go nuts and impress him. He's looking for something in particular; basically, he's looking for the answer he's already thought up. That said, don't worry about getting the conclusion wrong. As long as you state the correct rule, and throw in the right facts, you'll get some points. You might not get full credit, but you'll get some.
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:34 PM Author: Talented Sinister Crackhouse Elastic Band Subject: Fiver's Exam Tips, Part 1: Why IRAC sucks I'm getting really tired of writing this disclaimer, but here goes. This is not advice. It's what worked for me. I define "worked for me" earlier, mostly with reference to "I did this and I liked law school". You may not be me. You may not like law school if you act like me. You may have different goals for law school than I did. This is all fine. That is why this is not advice. Besides, if you were me, you'd insist on figuring this out for yourself anyways. Because you'd be stubborn. But if you were me, you'd also post stuff that wasn't advice on your blog, and hedge it about with all sorts of disclaimers. Exam Tips, Part 1: Why IRAC sucks There are a lot of sources that tell you that the way to write a law school exam is IRAC. Depending on your source, this means that you Identify the Issue, you Repeat the Rule, you Analyze the Rule (or Apply the rule, depending on who you talk to), and you Come to a Conclusion. People who defend IRAC often say things like "every good exam uses IRAC" and "read any judicial decision, and you'll see that they IRAC, too." In my opinion, IRAC sucks. Not because those statements are false--good exams IRAC, court opinions IRAC. Of course they do; it's part of a logical argument. It's not that IRAC is wrong; it's just not useful. Imagine that I tell you to make me a souffle. And you say, "But I do not know how to make a souffle!" I answer, "use eggs, milk, flour, butter and cheese. Then I bake it." And the truth of the matter is, you've never seen a souffle, nor tasted one, nor read about one in a book. What do you do? Well, if you're like most people, you take a quantity of flour and add some eggs and butter and a pinch of milk, bake, and then toss cheese on top. Then you come back. "Is this a souffle?" you say. "No," I respond, "that is a brick. With cheese on top." So you experiment and come up with something else. "How about this? Is this a souffle?" "No," says me, "those are biscuits. With cheesy gravy, which is kind of gross. I asked for a souffle." IRAC sucks because it's an ingredient list, not a recipe. IRAC sucks because it makes it seem like you follow a progression -- issue then rule than analysis than conclusion -- when in actuality, the issue is bound up with the analysis is bound up with the application of the rule and it's all bound up with the conclusion. IRAC sucks because it makes it seem that I, R, A and C are co-equal in importance, when in actuality, A is the big screaming winner. And let's get to the heart of the matter: A is also the most fun to write about. I, R and C are boring. Okey dokey. So if IRAC sucks, what do you do instead? Well, mostly, you analyze. ("Apply" sounds far too mechanical for my tastes--you have to do some mechanical application, but those are kind of boring). It's very easy to mention issues and rules and come to conclusions. Analyzing them is hard. So the trick is to mostly interweave the issue and the rule into your analysis, and to point your analysis at the conclusion at the end. What do I mean by that? Let's take an example: "The issue is whether Jane was negligent. Negligence is when you do not take reasonable care. Jane did not take reasonable care. Therefore Jane was negligent." This, my friends, is a brick. It is not a souffle. Why? First of all, it takes too much time to write all that down. Second, although the issue was identified and the rule repeated, there was no real application, and so the conclusion was, well, conclusory. And how can we tell the conclusion was conclusory? Because, ta da! There are NO FACTS in the above analysis. And because the analysis lacks the word "because". The following sentence is not a rule, or even a general rule, but a good way to start training to include facts: A good sentence identifies pertinent facts as they pertain to the law. This means: analysis wraps around issues and rules. So let's try that again: "Jane failed to look both ways before crossing the street, which no reasonable person would have done. So she was negligent." This, my friends, is a pancake. It is not a souffle. But at least it is better than a brick. And why is that? Well, there's not quite enough analysis. Usually, your professor will hand you a page and a half of facts. You can bet your bottom souffle that there will be more than one fact that matters to your negligence analysis. And so the problem with this particular entry is that -- well, souffles are tricky when it comes to baking. This next sentence is not a rule, but it's a darned good habit to be in: Your sentences should argue with each other. Your second best friends, next to "because" are "however", "despite this", "on the other hand", "nonetheless", "in the alternative", "suppose not", "although" and other fine synonyms. Thus: "Jane failed to look both ways before crossing the street, which generally no reasonable person would have done. However, the street was a one-way street; we think you need to look both ways to protect against bidirectional traffic. John's coming the wrong way down a one-way street may have been wholly unexpected. John might argue nonetheless that she should have heard him coming, as he was driving a large noisy tractor, and that reasonable people use senses other than sight to identify potential dangers. However, the proximity to the airport makes it likely that Jane would have ignored loud noises. Jane's probably not negligent here." Note that the above doesn't beat you over the head with the issues, nor does it declaim the rule. Instead, the issues are identified by highlighting relevant facts, and explaining how the facts interact with the rules to lead you to a conclusion. And this is a lot closer to souffle-dom."
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:35 PM Author: Talented Sinister Crackhouse Elastic Band Subject: Fiver's Exam Tips 2: Approaching the Question So last time, I told you that I thought that IRAC was necessary but by no means sufficient for law school exams. This post will try to explain how to fill in the gaps in IRAC, and how to organize a law school exam. So, you've probably heard professors say something like "don't start writing your exam right away. Take your time. Think." You'll hear figures saying that you should spend somewhere between one-third and one-half your time preparing to write. Yippee! Advice! From law professors! About how to take exams! Yay! Um, so, what are you supposed to do with that time? The typical answer is something like, "Spot issues!" This is where your blueprint comes into play. So you have this blueprint, and you go through it -- you will go through it, point by point, line by line, potential trick by potential trick. And if you're me, which I am and you are not, what you do is you jot all these down on a separate piece of paper. (Incidentally, if you are me, your paper is color-coded to your class. You've been taking notes on colored paper all semester. One class, one color. This is most definitely not advice; it is just me being anal.) You end up with a big jumble of issues. A side-note. When I say "issues" I do not mean causes of action. I mean "things to opine about". For instance, spotting an issue is not restricted to noticing that Jane can argue that Bill was negligent. How was Bill negligent? There may be three theories. Did he violate the statute? Was the point of the statute to protect against the kind of harm that Jane suffered? Was there an intervening cause? Can we argue that Bill was negligent because he should have taken a particular precaution? Does he have a duty to take that precaution? Why might courts balk at that duty? Was it foreseeable that not taking the precaution would cause that kind of harm? Does it depend on whether you describe the harm that occured broadly or narrowly (hint: yes)? Those are your issues. Your blueprint gives you a series of questions that you must ask; you note on your paper which questions arise from the fact pattern you are given. You come up with lengthy and confusing jumble. [Note: IRAC, of course, does not help you come up with the things in the jumble. One way in which IRAC is not helpful.] Ah yes. What I just said? Good thing it's not advice, because it sucks as advice. You don't actually want to go through your blueprint point by point to see if you're hitting all the relevant law. You actually only want to do that for the first few times, when you're doing practice exams (more on that next week). What you really really want to do is go through the hypothetical point by point to see if you're hitting all the relevant facts; you should know your blueprint well enough that you never have to look to see how the blueprint covers the facts. Let the facts drive your answer; the law provides the structure that you need. There are almost never irrelevant facts. Very very occasionally, there will be an irrelevant fact (there was one on my torts exam. I asked Don afterwards. He said so. I wept, just a little bit. Well, not really). This is very rare. Almost everything on the exam can be picked up, caressed, shaded, and used to make an argument. On the other hand, if you can't think of a way to use a fact, don't make up something wrong just because you think it's not relevant. I don't know if I've emphasized that enough. Maybe I should repeat it. Your job on an exam is not to repeat all the law you know. There's a reason why your professor doesn't just tell you the black-letter law in class, and it's not because she's trying to hide it. It's because she's trying to emphasize that what matters is not your knowing the law, but your applying the law to facts. Facts are where it's at. You drape facts over the law; law provides form, but really, without facts, law is naked. It is now your job to impose order on that jumble. [Note: IRAC, of course, won't help you here. You have lots and lots of issues. You need to decide how to order them.] Some things are obvious. First of all, it often makes sense to group related issues together. Thus, you might want to lump all the ways that Bill is negligent together. (It's easiest, if when you're writing, you kind of have little areas of the page mentally blocked off for things.) You'll put damages together. You'll put contributory negligence together. In fact, chances are pretty good that you'll want to separate things exactly like the professor did in class. For instance, suppose -- and this is entirely hypothetical -- that you had a professor who wrote an outline on the board every day, and that outline would say something like "I. Source of Right A. "Penumbras" B. Discrete and insular? C. Textualism II. Breadth of Right" and so on. This is a hint -- a big hint -- about how you should be organizing your answer. First, you should talk about the source of the right. You should mention several theories, and how it comes out under those theories, and what you think would happen. Then, you should talk about the breadth of the right. So if you're lucky enough to have a professor who does that kind of organization, steal his organization for your exam. If nothing else, the general groups that are used on the syllabus are fine. Okay, fine. So now you know you're talking about all the negligence claims together. How d'you organize those? This is a noncomprehensive list, but there are three ways to organize a group of arguments. Trees These are the easiest to talk about, because they're the most intuitive. If you had a flow-chart for the possible arguments, your answer would essentially go through the tree, in order, point by point. In my experience, this sort of thing worked best for my Contracts class. Although it may have been my particular professor, too. This lends itself well to an actual outline, with lettered and numbered points. I. Consideration A. Illusory Promise B. Legal Duty? and so forth. Trees are very straight-forward. Stacking This is, by far, the most fun. Sadly, it doesn't always work as an organization device. I found it worked the best (again, for me; this may depend on your professor!) in Contracts discussions of whether there's some kind of contract and in Torts discussions of whether someone was negligent. Here's how it works. You have several theories as to why there's a contract (or why someone's negligent). Now, if you're really going through all the facts, you also have a lot of counter-arguments. Some of those counter-arguments will only apply to some theories. In fact, thinking of the counter-arguments may make you think of better theories of negligence or contractual obligation. So you have: theory of obligation, counter-argument, theory of obligation that side-steps counter-argument, counter-argument, new theory that side-steps that counter-argument, counter-argument. So the arguments stack on top of each other, and the one you end up with -- the last one, which is either a theory of obligation or a counter-argument, is the one that you can't get around. The arguments get successively stronger and stronger as the stack gets higher and higher. There really is very little that's more fun than a good stacking argument. Um, very little more fun in the law school exam arena. But honestly, it's a total blast. Unraveling Sometimes, you get a fact pattern that's really complicated. One thing feeds into another feeds into another. This happens a lot in torts when you have multiple parties. A argues that B is negligent because of 1. C also wants B to be negligent, but 1 makes C negligent as well. So C wants to argue 2. B does not want to argue 2. B wants to argue 3. The best way I can think of to set this up is to take all the arguments, see how everyone falls out on each argument, and then start with an argument. Say something like "A and B want to argue blah." Now identify a party that doesn't like blah. Explain why they don't like it, how they'd argue against it, and what they'd argue instead. Identify who agrees with them. Identify who doesn't, what they don't like about it, and what they'd argue instead. Repeat. Grab hold of an argument, see what parties connect, pull it out as far as you can, and notice that you're pulling on another argument. Pull until there are no more arguments left (or until you've pulled out all the arguments that are connected to each other in this ridiculous fashion). Unraveling is a big mess. It can sometimes be fun. It can sometimes be a real drag. Note that I haven't said anything about how you make these arguments. How you phrase each individual argument, how you analyze each issue--well, that's all about irAAAAAAc."
|
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 1:51 AM Author: Irate Twinkling Pocket Flask tyft (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10491303) |
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:36 PM Author: Talented Sinister Crackhouse Elastic Band Subject: Fiver's Exam Tips 3: What you should get out of practice exams This is not advice. And the reason it's not advice will be very clear to anyone who goes to the meta-blog that Ambivalent Imbroglio has just set up, called Blawg Wisdom, which compiles discussions of how people approached law school and what they did during law school. Lots of people there give advice on anything you can imagine -- transferring, reading cases, and so forth. If you read it, you'll find some conflicting points of view. "Hand-write your notes." "Type everything in the computer." "Don't talk unless you're called on." "Talk as much as you feel like." "Law school is just school, about law." "Law school is like nothing you've ever done before." "Outline early." "Wait until the semester is almost over to start outlining." "Don't outline at all." What this should teach you -- and this is the only piece of actual advice here -- is that many many people have successfully approached law school in a large number of ways. Trust yourself. If you've never learned well by working in groups, don't join a study group. If you learn best by discussing with other people, do that. Know what you want, and do what you have to to get it. Because ultimately, even the people who write big expensive books that charge lots of money are not really giving advice. They're just saying, "hey, this worked for me!" Hopefully you'll learn to trust yourself. And next year, maybe you'll be able to say "Hey, this worked for me!" too. So if it's not advice, why bother doing it? Because law school is, no matter whether you find it that way or not, hyped up to be a scary arbitrary random frightening tiring experience. Potential misery loves anecdote. So read away, and realize that for some people, law school is fun. Maybe it'll be fun for you, too. Drop the fear, and remember that your professors are not trying to kill you. This is the final entry in my not-advice series, and I must finish it today, before I leave this town. I also have to pack. So the disclaimer is light: even if this sounds like advice, it is not advice. Got it? Exam Tips 3: What to get out of practice exams So, if you've paid attention through this whole thing, you'll remember that I finish my outlines within hours of the class being finished. This means that I essentially have the entire exam period to focus on honing my exam-taking skills. And to goof off. Let me emphasize the goofing off part for a little bit. The last thing you want to do, and by you, I mean me, is walk into an exam feeling burned out. You will not perform at your peak. You will miss issues. You will get bored while writing your exam, and your exam will not be particularly interesting to read. This is Not a Good Thing. So, for me, the worst time of the semester is about two weeks before classes end, when I'm pushing to understand the last few concepts and finish my outlines. After classes end, I take an afternoon off and do little to nothing, and then work for maybe three to five hours a day thereafter. More if I meet with people. This goofing off period, for me, is vital to enjoying what I do. Now, if my outline is finished, what am I spending my time doing? The answer is: practice exams, practice exams, and more practice exams. Ideally what you want is exams written by your professor, with sample answers, also written by your professor (remember that even a student who does very very well on the exam will miss some interesting and important points). In fact, ideally you want a practice exam, a sample perfect answer, a sample "B" answer, and a sample "C" answer. The reason is that you want to do negative hypothesis testing: if you say "this exam is superlative because it does X" you want to make sure that the "C" exam is not also doing X. I have never gotten anything other than sample perfect exams from professors, though. The first time you take an exam -- the very very first -- you need to time yourself, but don't hold yourself strictly to the time guidelines. That is: know how much time you took, and how much time you should have taken, but take all the time you need to make your answer as good as possible. Within reason, of course; you shouldn't spend days on it. Now take your exam, and compare it with the sample answer. If you don't have a sample answer, get together with your friends and talk about the answers you got. You're looking for two things here. First, you're looking for things you didn't see. Mark down the things you didn't see with a pen on a separate piece of paper; we'll come back to that. Second, you're looking for organization. Ask yourself: How could I have organized this better? What could I do to make this appear more logically? Okay. Now you've taken your first practice exam. What you should have at this point is a diagnostic. You know what you're missing, and you know what the problems are with your organization. You also know how long you take to write an issue. Now you need to work on all these things. First, how do you start getting the things you were missing? You'll find that you have some systematic errors, like not noticing potential illusory promises or forgetting about contributory negligence. You'll also notice that some of your friends are particularly good at seeing ways of resolving a particular kind of conflict. What you need to do is convert these missed issues into questions where, if you asked yourself that question, you would get the answer. Thus: "Is there any way that this person could escape this contract?" might highlight a particular illusory promise issue, or "What best preserves the rights of the non-breaching party?" Take this list of questions, and after you read the fact pattern and before you start writing, ask yourself those questions. If you systematically force yourself to ask questions about things you typically miss, you will train yourself to get them. How do you fix organization? Practice and redos. After you take that first exam, tear the organization apart. Figure out how you could have best organized it -- how you could have spent less time on this important issue and more time on this less important issue, how you should have talked about this next to this next to this -- and come up with an effective organizational scheme for that exam. Now, rewrite the exam -- yes, rewrite it! -- using that organizational scheme. You must teach yourself to write the right way, the first time. The only way I know to do that, at least for me, is to reinforce the feeling of "organizing right" in my head. And finally, how do you fix time problems? You learn to be organically connected with the clock on your computer as you write. You must learn exactly how long it takes to write a certain issue -- to within thirty seconds -- and be able, once you have drafted out what you're going to say, to roughly allocate time and finish your answer exactly within the allotted times. After the first practice exam, stick to your time limits. If the question says "thirty minutes", take thirty minutes. Stick to your internal time limits as well. If the question says thirty minutes and it raises two major points, each of which is approximately as important as the other, spend fifteen minutes on each of those points. Period. Some slight variation is allowed, but err on the side of less time rather than more. Time is not your friend in exams. In addition to knowing your clock, you must also learn to write quickly, without great pauses for thought. And you must do so intelligently. It's nice to write in complete sentences. The easiest way to do this, by far, is to write simple sentences with words that you normally use. The best thing I did, first year, as far as getting myself to write quick uninhibited prose was to keep a blog. And my exams pretty much were written in the same style as my blog posts -- I write quickly, I glance once-over, and that's it. It's not always perfect, but that's okay. On the other hand, you do not want to write as if you are semi-literate, even if that would be faster for you. Your professor may say that he or she does not take off for misspelled grammatically twisted sentences. But if your professor has to read your sentence two or three times just to figure out what the heck you meant -- and if your professor than has to read the previous sentence to see where the heck you're going -- and if your professor has to read a hundred exams and twenty pages each . . . . I'm sure you see where this is going. You're not going to get credit for a concept your professor doesn't see. If it's actually head-achingly painful to read your prose, your professor just might not see everything you said. Write simply. Write quickly. And write with some semblance of grace and style. While we're on this subject, I should mention a Very Bad Habit of mine, which is to make sly, sometimes sarcastic, asides. Never more than one or two per exam (although there are far more in my practice exams -- if I didn't make those snide comments, I'd get seriously bored doing practice exams). Really, they just slip out. But like I said, I'd get bored if I didn't do them during practices, I'd get bored, and what I practice, I end up doing in the real thing. So far as I can tell, it has never hurt me. So: don't try to be funny during an exam, or snide, or crack jokes; there's no reason to waste brain power on something that gets you no points. But do be comfortable; any delegitimizing effect that might accrue when you tongue-in-cheek point out that "rational basis" and "president" may not belong in the same sentence will be balanced by your increased comfort level. If you write comfortably, as you would on a blog, you'll be writing at the right level. Informal but passably written is far superior -- at least in terms of time management and ease of reading -- than stilted prose with big words. Do this over and over again. You have not practiced enough if your time allocation is awry. Time must, must, must come out right (but look on the bright side: once you learn that skill, you'll have it for all your classes, for ever more. The first semester of exams will be the hardest, because you'll have to learn time allocation). You will not ever get all the issues. Sorry. You will not even get all the issues that you know that you systematically miss. So you just have to do your best and try and get more every time you practice. Most importantly, write comfortably and have fun. If you enjoy writing your exam, it's more likely that your professor will enjoy reading it. That's a win-win situation for everyone. And that's it!"
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:37 PM Author: Talented Sinister Crackhouse Elastic Band Subject: Fiver's An incomplete list of generalized tricks Targeting tricks The first trick that I learned in law school is what I call a targeting trick, and I learned it in torts (although you see it lots and lots of other places). I call it a targeting trick because (if you haven't noticed) I have a very visual way of approaching the world, and I imagined it thusly: first, you think you're trying to get a spear through two hoops, one entitled "breach of duty" and another entitled "cause of injury". The problem is that you must get through both hoops with one spear throw. The hoops are spaced so that this isn't an easy task: you must throw the javelin so that it passes through the first hoop, the "breach of duty" hoop at just the right angle, with just the right velocity, so that it also goes through the "cause of injury" hoop. (Note that my mental analogy does not extend to talking about killing two birds with one stone. Poor birdies.) So an example of an insufficiently targeted discussion: You did something bad. The thing you did caused an injury. Therefore, you're a negligent weasel. And you can see with ridiculous examples that this won't do: you negligently didn't change your brakes. This caused the local brake-changing person to lose $10 of your business. Pay up, you negligent weasel! Of course it doesn't work like that, because we care about why it is negligent to do something. That is: the negligence has to match up with the injury. You have to throw your javelin so that the "why" of the negligence matches up with the "how" of the injury. This targeting trick is actually used just about everywhere, especially if you're considering extending known law to new situations. Why do we have this law? What are we trying to achieve? What happens in the new situation? If the javelin passes through both hoops -- if the why matches up with the how -- you've got yourself a reasonably good argument. Breadth tricks Another favorite trick of mine. Luckily, everyone learns how to do this when they're two. You just have to remind yourself to do it in when you're in law school. As I'm sure you remember from when you're a child, something that a parent tells you not to do must be construed as narrowly a possible. Thus, when your mother tells you "don't leave your clothes on the floor!" you realize that she is talking specifically about the clothes that you are wearing at that instant, and really, she only means the kitchen floor. Fine, fine, you say, I won't leave these jeans on the kitchen floor. But the dress is fine, and these jeans can go in the living room. And on the other hand, anything your parent tells you you can do is construed broadly. "You can go to Amy's house to play after you finish your homework" becomes "Take the afternoon off and hike to the moon. Don't bother calling if you skip dinner." (The relationship between parent and child, as construed by the child, is somewhat similar to the relationship between insured and insurer.) And that's all there is to the trick. Broad descriptions encompass more; narrow descriptions encompass less. Take, for instance, some people arguing now about war powers. Some people say, for instance, "the president has expanded powers when we're at war, and the judiciary shouldn't interfere." This is a very broad description of what's going on. Others say, "the president shouldn't be allowed to hold citizens without cause indefinitely while beating them about the head and neck with rubber hoses." This is a very narrow description. And you see the difference that breadth makes? Each of those descriptions sounds somewhat reasonable. It doesn't sound anywhere near as reasonable to negate either of those sentences. (And I don't insist that all people describe things this way. Of course they don't. And I don't endorse either description. Except I'm lying. I endorse the second one, that the president can't hold citizens indefinitely without cause while beating them about the head and neck with rubber hoses.) This trick interacts with the previous one: the bigger you draw your hoops, the easier it is to throw your javelin through them. Thus, if someone says that the reason not changing your brakes is negligent is because you want to prevent accidents, and you side-swiped that car because you were day-dreaming about how you needed to get your brakes changed, you negligent weasel, what they're doing is drawing the original hoop, the "why" hoop of negligence, very very broadly. On the other hand, someone who says that the reason not changing your brakes is negligent is because you don't want to rear-end a car, and you actually just couldn't slow down on the curve and hit oncoming traffic head-on, so you're not negligent is drawing the initial "why" hoop of negligence very very narrowly. And of course this illustrates that we do believe that there are some guiding principles for how we choose the proper breadth. At this point, I have to admit I'm pretty bored of writing this entry. So I'm going to mention a few without being quite as complete as I was above. Besides, they're in Getting to Maybe. Which really deserves a read. (And that one sentence is advice, for everyone.) Point-of-View tricks Think of the many different ways to characterize the facts. Facts are your friends. I'll have more to say about facts when I start meandering on about exams. Choice-of-Law tricks You learn several different ways to approach this, depending on time, jurisdiction, or setting. Trend tricks See where things were, why they changed, and where they're going to. Note that none of this talks about things like process theory or law and economics. I don't consider that stuff a "trick"--they're often used as ways to resolve the correct breadth (think: should we be applying strict scrutiny here, and why?), or the correct choice-of-law (when you have a choice). The use of subjective knee-jerk reactions in law school Your professors will try and beat it out of you the first time someone says "It's not fair!" You'll realize after a while that it's reasons that matter. Reasons. Reasons. Only reasons, and arguments, and appeals to efficiency and history and precedent and discrete and insular minorities .... Yeah. There are a lot of reasons out there. But your professors will work hard to drum your subjective knee-jerk reactions out of you. "But it isn't fair!" "But they're morally blameworthy!" "But they're babies!" "But it's just wrong!" "But that's completely backword!" "But the poor chickens!" This series is not generally advice, but yeah, this next sentence really really is advice. NEVER WRITE ANY OF THAT ON A TEST. If you find yourself using mental italics and exclamation points, if you find your sentences starting with the word "but" and not using the word "because" you are not writing a sentence which belongs on a law school exam. Trust me. So you read the facts in a case, or hear a hypothetical, or read a fact-pattern on an exam. And part of you, well ... it responds. That part says "I feel sorry for A" or "God, C is such an idiot" or "Somebody should do something about Y." That part of you is not good for articulating things you say or do in class. But "thinking like a lawyer" doesn't mean discarding those subjective knee-jerk reactions. Learn to use them. So you read a fact pattern, and you think "Man, we should be able to do something for poor A here." Then you make an entirely intellectual evaluation, holding that subjective evaluation to the side. Damn, you think. I'm thinking like a lawyer, and it looks like there's nothing to be done for A here. Oh well. The law is a bitch, aint she? No. The law is not. The disjoint between the emotional and the intellectual tells you one of two things. It may tell you that you're missing an argument, and a good one. You've gotten the obvious ones, but there's something else still there. Or it could tell you that you're missing a characterization, that you've read something into the facts that isn't there, and if only you change the way you look at what happened, you'll find that poor old A maybe isn't quite so deserving as you initially thought. Your subjective reaction generally doesn't give you information to articulate, but it can help you point yourself in the direction of articulation. It is very easy to get caught up in the argument. In fact, I do it -- much more now than I did before law school started. Possibly more than I should. But if you hold your emotions to the side and say "these matter, and if I don't agree with myself, I'll have to figure things out" you'll have one more way to find gaps in your arguments. The first practice exam I ever took was in my torts class. I got the hypo; I read it; I felt sorry for the girl and listed a couple of ways that she was the victim of battery and/or negligence. And after I finished the exam, I realized that I'd done a shockingly bad thing: because I *knew* the plaintiff should win, I'd forgotten to look for her best arguments. The ones, you know, that sweep aside the objections and make it obvious, obvious intellectually as well as emotionally, that she should win. And this is why your emotions shouldn't dominate what you do--because you have to make your best arguments, bar none. You cannot be so entranced with your ability to win and your moral vindication that you fail to convince anyone else. On the other hand, intellect is a powerful tool, sharp and incisive. And yet without anyone there to direct it, it can't do much more than gash indiscriminately. Love. Hate. Feel. Rage. Don't believe that the law is dispassionate; it's not. You can't steer with your emotions, but you can't be driven by your intellect.
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 2:38 PM Author: Talented Sinister Crackhouse Elastic Band Subject: Fiver's The Mechanics of Writing Law School Exams Because I'm grading a handful of law review competitions, I have had the chance to see how some people write. And I am reminded that some things I think should be obvious to people are not. There are a few mechanical things that I think you can do to improve your chances of getting good grades. Let me repeat: these are mechanical. They are not substantive. That means, this has nothing to do with spotting issues, writing answers, arguing well, or whatever. Nonetheless, I think all of these skills help improve grades. Is this advice? Probably not. Advice would imply that I told you to do something, and I won't. I'll tell you what you skills you should try and have. But on the other hand, it is advice in the sense that I might advise you to cultivate these skills. And I don't think that mileage vary much on these. Continued below the fold. Law school exams usually are some combination of limiting factors. From a purely mechanical standpoint, exams are limited by paper, time, or both. Likewise, there are two important skills you need to have in order to maximize your performance on those exams. It's really simple: everyone has the same amount of time, or words. If you want to do better than others, you need to do more with your time -- or your words -- than they do. My other bits of not-advice can help you with that substantively, if you're like me. But there's also stuff that's purely mechanical. Quite simply, you can do more if you need less time -- or words -- than your classmates. 1. Typing speed. The more time you spend thinking, as opposed to typing, the better your answer will be. The faster you type -- and by "type," I mean, "get your thoughts on paper," the more time you have to formulate those thoughts before they must be transcribed. The fastest way to increase typing speed is to increase your words-per-minute. Take a class. Get some software. Something like that. It goes without saying that if you type slowly, you will not be able to say as much. So the first thing to do is increase literal typing speed. Of course, if it takes you a long time to think of a sentence, or to phrase what you mean, you're going to run into problems even if you can type hundreds of words per minute. So you also need to learn to keep it simple, stupid. Short sentences are good. Convoluted sentences are harder to write, and so take longer. Likewise, they are harder to read, and more likely to make your grader's head hurt. (You hear that, writing competition people? Long sentences make my head hurt. Ouch!) So, if you want to say more than your classmates, it helps to literally be able to say more than your classmates. End of story. 2. The second half of saying more is simple. Concision. Most people are really crummy at editing for length. (At least, so I judge by what I read.) Again, it really helps to use relatively short sentences. It also helps to use vocabulary that you would use when talking. If you use short, familiar sentences, it becomes really obvious when you are repeating yourself. Use fewer adjectives. Replace complicated clauses with single verbs. Don't fear contractions. Start sentences with "and" and "but" (over the past three days, three people have told me not to start sentences with connectors, but I checked the Chicago Manual -- and it says that it's just fine). Write concisely. Write as if you were talking. And eliminate redundancies. As a general rule, I can usually reduce my word count by 30% from my original writing without removing issues. So there you have it. Given two people with otherwise equal skills -- knowledge of law, skill in application -- the person who can write faster and more concisely will get a better grade.
|
|
Date: December 6th, 2008 10:08 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10475285) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 12:52 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10490962) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 3:08 AM Author: khaki slap-happy temple I started studying for finals today. My first one is on Wednesday. Thank God I have a full ride; connections and experience that guarantee me either finance, in house at one of the largest corporations in the world, or V100 biglaw; and a tiny pink dick. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10491694) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 3:12 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10491706) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 11:58 AM Author: Angry Rigor Walking around school this morning, I can't imagine what 1Ls are feeling ITE. Our OCI was before the meltdown, and even then people were noticing that firms were taking smaller classes, douchebag behavior was rampant, and people were worried. Next year, the firms who got screwed by overhiring from our non-T14 and not being able to take as many H students once they cut down their class will be merciless. I expect many firms to show up without any intentin of hiring, like they did for 3L recruiting this year. I'd be surprised if more than 5-10 1Ls get firm jobs this summer. Sure, current 2Ls will have to deal with gunner summer classes, high no-offer rates, and non-existent 3L opportunities, but at least we weren't taking 1L exams during a time of rescinded offers, massive layoffs, half-bonuses, rumors of a 2009 bloodbath, and firm collapses. Good luck, dooders. Drop out if you're below the median. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 12:02 PM Author: Aquamarine 180 mad-dog skullcap native lol @ 'non-T14' (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10492538) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 12:08 PM Author: Angry Rigor Circumstances are dire for idiots like me. Still, I don't expect it will be much different for 10-14. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#10492551) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2008 12:10 PM Author: Aquamarine 180 mad-dog skullcap native good thing i'm at #9.
*whistles*
*wipes brow* |
|
Date: April 29th, 2009 9:11 PM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#11588117) |
|
Date: April 29th, 2009 9:28 PM Author: Floppy site titcb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#11588311) |
|
Date: April 30th, 2009 7:15 PM Author: Spruce crawly hall x1000
tytyty for this thread |
|
Date: November 17th, 2009 11:57 PM Author: Exhilarant red heaven mood Lest we forget . . . . (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13295748) |
|
Date: November 18th, 2009 12:03 AM Author: nofapping water buffalo timely (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13295825) |
|
Date: November 18th, 2009 12:04 AM Author: curious out-of-control property "top half" - lulz. This thread turned out to be way too optimistic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13295848) |
|
Date: November 18th, 2009 12:05 AM Author: Exhilarant red heaven mood WAY too optimistic. 1Ls: heed every word in this thread very carefully. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13295860) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 8:07 PM Author: Multi-colored Pozpig Not really. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13491632) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 3:37 AM Author: swashbuckling stag film nowag bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13485596) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2009 9:12 PM Author: thriller tanning salon therapy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#13492187) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: indecent gaming laptop base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#14934694) |
|
Date: May 8th, 2010 12:59 AM Author: learning disabled maniacal plaza mad cow disease saving my spot in legendary gunner thread kthxbai (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#14934909) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2010 7:10 PM Author: Saffron violent house chad Excellent! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#15377296) |
|
Date: November 16th, 2010 7:03 AM Author: Bateful Aqua Degenerate Jewess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#16562659) |
|
Date: November 16th, 2010 11:02 AM Author: Black fiercely-loyal legend I remember reading this thread before my 1L finals and heeding the advice. I dominated and am now headed to a V5. Thanks xo! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#16563402) |
|
Date: November 16th, 2010 11:53 AM Author: indecent gaming laptop base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#16563816) |
|
Date: November 16th, 2010 11:57 AM Author: Marvelous persian casino holy shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#16563840) |
|
Date: December 7th, 2010 3:15 PM Author: Indigo Lettuce Dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#16749687) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2010 8:13 AM Author: Floppy site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#16772966) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2011 3:59 PM Author: Floppy site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#17924682) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2011 4:12 PM Author: Sickened infuriating trust fund background story Lol, I read this about 10 minutes before I left for my first 1L final.
Thanks to this advice, I will be starting a COA clerkship this August.
|
|
Date: May 4th, 2011 4:27 PM Author: at-the-ready histrionic travel guidebook stage you must've studied very urgently on the way to your final (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#17924802) |
|
Date: May 4th, 2011 4:36 PM Author: Floppy site it's actually a rare gem of a thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#17924845) |
|
Date: December 14th, 2011 9:11 AM Author: Snowy whorehouse Bump for the newbies. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#19566564) |
|
Date: December 14th, 2011 9:59 AM Author: Painfully Honest Lay It's shocking and a perhaps ridiculous, but this advice is credited. These are unquestionably the most important exams. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#19566642) |
|
Date: December 14th, 2011 11:16 AM Author: motley rehab roast beef So glad that I'm beyond them and can coast. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#19566878) |
|
Date: December 14th, 2011 1:50 PM Author: Bronze library hissy fit you people are stupid (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#19567568) |
|
Date: December 14th, 2011 1:55 PM Author: Bronze library hissy fit (lawyers and law students who will be unhappy for the rest of their lives) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=895156&forum_id=2#19567601) |