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 - lovelyjj
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
« on: June 12, 2010, 12:37:07 PM »
Thanks everyone for responding. What do you think is the best way to study after getting the rules and reasonings written down in your outline? I usually try to summarize the already summarized canned briefs so that I could write 4~5 sentences per case (issue-triggering facts, and issue statement and rule application). After doing this, I usually just read and re-read these summaries so that I can remember some of these and try to issue-spot on the past exams. If you could, could you give some advice on how to study efficiently?
« on: June 10, 2010, 05:40:26 PM »
Thanks for your detailed response.
I think your answers to my 1st and 3rd question makes a lot of sense, but I am still a bit confused as to why it is so absolutely necessary to read SOME cases in full. (again, I'm not saying I wouldn't do this, and I agree that it's strange and even shameful such statement is being made by someone who is studying law)
1. Why do I feel like it's a waste of time? Maybe this is because my experience in the first semester was such a miserable one. Reading case after case only confused me, whereas when I actually read the supplements first (law written down in words/letters), I actually WANTED to read case briefs (law in action based on facts/stories) then because I wanted to find out what my professor wanted me to learn out of all these rules and how such a rule would apply to particular situation. Could you, if possible, explain how it would be more beneficial for me to read cases instead of case briefs? Am I not going to be lost like how I was before? The funny thing is, even when I read case briefs, I find irrelevant information in there. (sometimes policy discussion is way too long or detailed, and I know what I need to do to do well on exam is spot more issues, not discuss policy in great details)
2. This is more of a personal question, but... how do you deal with people who strongly disagree with you? Maybe this is more of a life question than law stuff, but law school is so different from what I expected when I was in college. Before, when I thought about law school, I always thought of a place where people would be supportive with each other and help would be available (how naive, right?). What I experienced in my first year was exactly the opposite. People were too aggressive, bluffing/lying all the time and truly helpful advice was rare. Even when I tried to share my studying technique with another person, I was very disappointed because that person would 'act' like he knew what he was doing (most of the time, reading cases in full and remembering unnecessary details to show off, etc...) How can I, be a good lawyer and still maintain my personality as a good human being? The thing is, I like law students. I do want to stop being bitter/selfish. Isn't it only natural for us to like those who share common goals and want to share our knowledge?
I'm sorry if I got too emotional again, just wanted to hear what a wise lawyer has to say about that, and thank you as always.
« on: June 09, 2010, 11:20:19 PM »
What do you think about reading cases v. reading case briefs?
After all, isn't doing well on exam all about knowing why a certain case is there and what rule applies to certain facts? I think this could be done just as well by simply reading briefs. I don't necessarily find cases confusing, but I just think it's an awful way of studying and preparing for exams because it has too many extraneous facts that interfere with my attempt to focus on important issue triggering facts. Any thoughts?
« on: June 09, 2010, 05:45:43 AM »
Thanks always for your work on this board. I had few questions if you don't mind.
1. From my experience as a first year student, I think I learned better when I tried to learn the BLL by reading the supplements first
and then reading each case assigned for each doctrine. This way, I think I was better able to learn how a rule/subrule/exceptions apply to different situations. Studying this way was actually fun. Too bad I realized this so late in my 2nd semester and I just had not enough time to do this for every case we covered. So my question is, what can I do from this point on? Do I just re-read all the rules from each case and familiarize myself with them?
2. Reading casebook from cover to cover is stupid. I get that. But, isn't reading each case also foolish? assuming you didn't prepare for law school before, can't you spend your time better by actually trying to understand what each case means and what the issue was in that case? I mean, after all, each case represents a rule of law (at least the cases for 1st year courses) under specific doctrine or its element, so isn't it better if I just read case briefs and try to take notes when the professor mentions some other important things in class? WHY IS READING CASE NECESSARY AT ALL if you can get the important issue/rule/rationale by simply reading case briefs online? (Please understand I'm asking this for law school studying technique, not as a lawyer/real practitioner)
3. When the professor drills us about minor facts and procedural history of each case, I sometimes feel like yelling out 'So what? Why do we even need to know all those irrelevant facts? Isn't it, after all, just about an issue of whether a rule should apply or not?' You get my point. So, as long as I know what the issue and rule was, I should feel confident right? I am asking you this because the professor once made me feel terrible and when I couldn't answer a simple (but irrelevant) question about some minor facts. I felt like he was purposely trying to humiliate me by making me look like I didn't know what I was doing. In fact, I was consciously not trying to focus on the minor facts so that I could concentrate on what was really important. What do you think about this?
« on: April 28, 2010, 07:04:21 PM »
So assuming a student is working at the most efficient rate, how many hours of studying one should do to successfully pass law school? Would 30 hours be enough per week? 40? I know there are individual differences, but I also believe there are minimums and maximum numbers. For instance, no matter how smart you are you probably won't be able to learn everything necessary if you put in less than 10 hours per week. Any ideas?
« on: April 28, 2010, 06:53:38 PM »
I think you are right on the lack of feedback/being efficent comments. It's probably what causes the most problem.
What practical solution do you have for these problems? Since you claim you are doing well, would you mind sharing your techniques to overcome these difficulties? I would really appreciate any help.
« on: April 26, 2010, 11:31:42 PM »
Hello Mr. Holiday
First of all thank you for taking time to explain these things to us(or me)
. I wanted to ask you few questions...
1) Can you share your insight regarding how i should go about doing the case analysis? I know when lawyers argue(try to prove elements), they often cite cases and say that the court should decide this element is present because facts are similar/different from the previous case(and in that case, this element was satisfied/not satisfied), etc. In doing this, how do you know which fact is important and which is not? To put it simpler, how can you know how one case fits in or not? I know this question is very random, but I don't know how to put it more accurately, what I want to know is, HOW DO YOU DRAW ANALOGY from a previous case? simply compare every facts and just argue facts are similar/dissimilar?
2) I asked this question in the other thread, but what can a lawyer do, other than prove elements, to make his case stronger(if there is such things). To put it more understandably, is proving elements the only thing a lawyer can do? Does every single legal argument have to involve proving elements? (please understand I'm still new at law and do not know what legal reasoning really is)
3)I often hear, citing case is essential for every attorney to win (which is obvious I guess) but, on law school exam, citing things is largely omitted. For instance, on a tort exam, in proving offensive element in battery, we just state the rule:reasonable person standard applies...etc. What I find really interesting is, how lawyers go about proving each element. What exactly is involved in proving each element? Is this largely individual thing/talent? I know lawyers aren't supposed to say things that are pure guess/unreasonable assumptions, but where do you draw the line? and also, how is that different from what we do on an exam? Is a model answer to a tort exam, for instance, a lot lower quality than a typical lawyer's memo regarding a battery claim for his client?
4)What seperates a good exam answer from the bad ones? spotting as many issues as you could? explaining each element in detail? what goes in in the process of explaining elements?
Again, thank you for taking time to answer these questions. I know many of these may be very obvious to those who are experienced, but I(and many other first year students) are not and we find these questions very difficult. If my questions are too vague, please point it out. Thank you so much and have a great day!
« on: April 24, 2010, 01:21:45 AM »
Thanks for giving your insight. Even though I am hesitant to believe people about whatever GPA they say they got(not saying you are lying, but i find it quite funny how nearly every 2L and 3L I talked to said they got 4.0 and told me so much useless stuff), I still think you are right on many points, especially, importance of trying to find as many issues as you could and casebook method being seriously flawed. I also think your exam approach (trying to find relevant case, and distinguish it from facts at hand) to be very good. But, isn't this only one way to approach law school exam (analogy reasoning, which could be a form of a legal analysis)? Sometimes, finding relevant cases isn't easy. Professors of course know this when they make exams, and deliberately try to create difficult fact pattern that doesn't relate to any cases we've learned. Any insights regarding this matter would be very much appreciated. (Thane, Please help!)
« on: April 21, 2010, 08:29:31 PM »
To Thane, a question...
So I understand what lawyers do is to try to establish each element of a claim, and since casebook (which is largely appellate decisions clarifying/explaining each element in detail) focuses on how each element should be applied under detailed circumstances, it alone wouldn't be effective in learning the BLL.
1.Would you say using someone else's outline (instead of creating your own) could actually hurt you more than help you? I already have an outline for the class I'll take next semester. I plan to use the headings and title of cases as guidance as to what I need to read on E&E. Do you think this is ok?
2.This girl I got the outline from claims to have gotten an A. When I looked at her outline (about 40 pages) it was filled with case briefs and bunch of rules. (Promissory estoppel, ___ v. ____, rule) If what I understand is correct, these rules (40 pages of info) are mainly to clarify/explain the elements of each law. So if I added information about the BLL (general rule about other elements of each law, history, rationale etc) I assume that will be A LOT of information. Considering what I need to do on an exam is legal analysis (prove each claim/ argue against it), making such outline is essential right? (I will of course try to trim it down and make it as set of applicable rules containing elements to be proven)
3.This may be a stupid question, but... does every law have its own elements? I figure primary purpose of most lawsuits is to recover and what lawyers do is proving each element of the law/doctrine. Could there be any doctrine/law that has no elements? or to put it more correctly, can a lawyer do something else in a courtroom other than proving elements? (please understand this question comes from a (legally) uneducated lay person
4.What sources of CO would you suggest? What is good for laying out elements of each doctrine?
As usual, I am deeply grateful for your help. Thank you for enlightening me and many others.
« on: April 15, 2010, 11:30:53 AM »
Hi Thane, just a quick question...
What are your thoughts on missing classes? During my 1st semester, one of my friend had to attend her grandmother's funeral and had to miss a good 2 weeks of classes. I was surprised by how everyone started talking like 'there is this girl who never comes to classes' When she came back and asked me if she missed a lot of things/ how much trouble she was in. I told her she didn't miss all that much (I was probably wrong on giving such careless answer, as I was confused about the whole law school thing myself) So my question is, how much trouble was she really in? assuming she continued to make her own outline according to the contents of syllabus? Just curious... Thanks for answering in advance!
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 8