Greenberg Traw (as in awe) rig.
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 - racheles05
« on: August 27, 2006, 12:35:20 PM »
I don't know what goes on in the employers' heads, but it hasn't come up in an interview yet and I have on my resume that I'm an editor. All they care about are grades and membership on a journal - but I haven't done the more intense callbacks yet, so I don't know.
This depends upon the professor. I took an exam where the RELEVANT facts were important, but I've taken far more exams where the professor didn't give one care about the facts of cases, or even case names. They just wanted rules. It depends. The best thing to do, as corny as it sounds, is your best and talk to your professor about what he or she wants when it's closer to exams. The biggest waste of time is worrying about this stuff.
« on: August 20, 2006, 08:39:05 AM »
A good rule of thumb is that the more space a case takes up in a casebook, the more important the case. This isn't always true, but it's generally a good idea not to do 30 pages of reading for a case that's been edited down to one paragraph. If the case is just a note or there to introduce a topic, etc. then your professor might not even bring it up in class. I don't recommend using Lexis to look up cases unless they're 1)important 2)you're interested in it, or; 3)it's con law. I think it's a rule that all con law casebooks have to be poorly edited and confusing, so I used Lexis briefs a lot.
If you look around online you can find sample outlines. Student organizations also have them. It varies by professor, though. For some classes I needed more details in my outline than others. For one class that I can think of, I didn't outline at all.
This depends on the professor. There are some professors who never test what's in the notes, but there are some who have questions on the exam that you can only answer with knowledge of the notes. Read the note until you know what your professor is looking for.
1) How many hours a week were you in class/studying/reading/tutoring?
50-60 (I spent about half that in the Spring due to other commitments and I wound up doing better than I did my first semester, so I'm not convinced this is relevant)
2) What was your class rank at the end of your first semester?
3) What tier school do you go to?
Like most things in law school, this is just something you have to figure out for yourself. I'm not trying to hide the ball or anything like that, but outlining is a process that helps some people more than others, and likewise some people benefit from outlining early and some don't. I recommend starting fairly early, maybe after the second or third week of classes, because you can always stop outlining and pick it back up later on if it's not working whereas you can't turn back time if you're one of those people who needs to start early and you put it off until the week before finals.
I outlined early my first semester and promised myself that I'd start even earlier in the Spring, but I wound up waiting until three weeks before finals to outline at all and it worked quite well for me. I learn better if I wait until a few weeks before finals to outline, as it turns out. That doesn't mean that it will work for you. I guess one thing you can consider is how you studied in undergrad - did you perform better when the pressure's on and you have to cram, or did you prefer to do a little at a time? Despite what alarmists will have you believe, the study patterns you had in undergrad are as good an indicator as any of what will work in law school.
I briefed cases until I got the hang of what I would have to know for class. I still book brief to some extent when I have problems remembering the facts of a case, just so that I don't look like a jackass in class. As far as exams, the briefs have never helped me.