This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - KianaFran
« on: April 03, 2008, 07:26:07 PM »
I think the activities you choose depend on your career goals, market and type of law you want to work in. For instance if you like to write, law review and moot court would be great choices. Whereas if you want to go into litigation you would probably want to consider Mock Trial, an internship or a clinic.
Personally, I know that the majority of the firms that are at OCI at my school look for Law Review, Moot Court or Mock Trial. They want one of the three. All other activities may help show that you are a well rounded individual, but as far as looking for oral and/or written advocacy skilss, these are the activities that most of the big firms in my area look for.
My mock trial experience helped my land my SA position at the largest litigation firm in my state. They completely looked over journal and didn't ask anything about.
But this is just my 2 cents!
« on: March 02, 2008, 11:25:03 PM »
Good points all around, thanks.
I'm pretty certain that I applied everything in an orderly fashion, but perhaps I didn't spend enough space applying the stuff.
Thanks a lot for the advice.
It doesn't matter how orderly or coherent you are if you don't answer the question. Don't throw things in for the sake of throwing them in. You're not going to get points for inventing issues where they don't exist (e.g. negligence per se when a statute isn't hinted it, RIL when it cannot factor in). I am not sure how you fit the history of proximate cause in there. What did the evolution of proximate cause have to do with the exam question?
You really should see your professor about this. That is your best resource for understanding where you went wrong.
Yeah, I emailed my prof, unfortunately he hasn't responded and is on sabbatical.
As for the history thing, it was something that the prof spent A LOT of time on. He discussed negligence and proximate cause and the differences between the wagon mound approach, and the contrasting palsgraf approaches. Because he had focused and spent so much time on this issue, I was pretty sure that he wanted to hear how the issue may be resolved depending on whether it was looked at through, say, Cardozo's view/ Andrews's view/Wagon Mound approaches. I simply put those discussions in chronological order.
Just because your professor spent a lot of time discussing the history, theory or philosophy behind a rule of law doesn't mean that he wants it discussed on the exam. My contracts professor taught theory behind contract law but didn't expect it on the exam. Most professors discuss it just to help you understand the topic being discussed.
« on: March 02, 2008, 11:12:06 PM »
Personally, I prefer the essay first and the multiple choice next. Multiple choice questions really don't take that long to me because there are a questions that will come to you right away. The essay queestions always take longer for me. I spend more time outlining my answer. I prefer to spend my time on the hardest part of the examm, which for me is usually the essay. And I always have time left to review my essay. Its just horrble feeling to be rushed on the essay portion and worry about missing an issue. I would rather take my chances quessing a MC question if I am low on time.
But this is just my 2 cents!
« on: January 29, 2008, 07:53:10 PM »
I always do the essay first and the MC next. I do very well and multiple choice and hate to feel rushed on the essay. I almost always have time leftover to review my essay once more. This is just what I do and has worked for me.
« on: January 23, 2008, 03:05:22 PM »
Hi! I am a Wayne student. I also plan on moving out of state after I graduate to New York. I don't think I will have a problem getting a job, however I also do not plan on trying to get a biglaw job either. But I think as long as you work on your resume and not just your grades you should be able to find work outside of the state. What market are you looking to work in?
« on: January 21, 2008, 08:24:04 PM »
When it comes to exams it's all about how you write it. A practice exam isn't curved, so a ton of people could have gotten A's on knowing the law. But how clear and concise you write your answer as well as whether you knew the law in comparison to everyone else determines your grade.
« on: January 19, 2008, 11:58:26 PM »
A 3.0 is definitely not hopeless. However, I do wonder what tier school you go to because I don't know many schools that have a 3.5 first year curve. I am at a 3 tier and the first year curve is 2.8/2.9, which is a B- curve. If the first year curve is really that high, it may be a little tough to get into a biglaw. Further, I also know that typically when looking for a summer associate position, networking as well as grades help you get the job. You can be the smartest person in the class, but if you don't interview well it doesn't matter.
A 3.0 first year is not bad. Hope this helps.
« on: January 15, 2008, 11:04:47 PM »
I really hate that some feel as though just because most have posted good grades that they are fake. I worked really hard for my grades. My first year grades sucked:
1st Semester: B+, B-,C+,C,P
Snd Semester: B-,C,B-,C,P
Therefore I am very proud for my 2 A-'s and a B. Whether my grades were good or bad I would have posted them because I would be able to vent/share among peers anonymously without being judged.
Thanks for killing that thought!
« on: January 09, 2008, 02:32:00 PM »
Real Estate Transactions, Finance and Development: B
Pre-Trial Advocacy: A-
Professional Responsibility: A- (this class has a B- curve)
I am freaking ecstatic! Woohoo
« on: November 07, 2007, 06:45:41 PM »
Essentially, what is the difference between an SA position and a law clerk position at a firm. The only difference I have noticed is the pay and the likelihood of employment. It seems to be that law clerks get paid less to do the same work with less benefits. What do you think