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 - Thane Messinger
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47  49 50 51 52
« on: February 23, 2010, 04:27:07 AM »
They do, UVA Admissions Dean literally says - "we discount LSAT score in favor of first year law school performance".
Quite right. Grades, first year law school, and soft factors such as letters of recommendation by law profs are 90+% of the transfer application. And, yes, they are quite difficult. Except for lateral transfers, grades are *extremely* important. Check out Art of the Law School Transfer for more.
« on: February 22, 2010, 02:52:42 PM »
Thank you Thane for sharing your insight. Reading your comment clears much doubt, but it still leaves me with questions. For instance,
You are most welcome. I hope the following helps . . .
1) if law school isn't there to teach you the law, then how do you learn the law? By reading supplements? case briefs? Why do law schools then require students to read casebooks if this isn't going to help them to learn the law?
Excellent. This is exactly the right question to be asking.
If you ask them, law professors will be the first to say that they're not there to "teach" the law. What they are there to do is to hone students' skills in reasoning through the law.
To learn the law, first, don't flutter about. When we talk about "the law," we're really talking about a whole bunch of rules. But that's a mistake right there. Each class is not there to cover "the law." Each class is devoted to a NARROW area of ONE subject. Usually, it's one or two rules or a handful of rules (including exceptions and exceptions-to-exceptions). Sometimes, such as in Criminal Law where you might spend a week or more on mens rea,
it will be just one rule. That's it.
Thus, before you walk into each and every class, know what that rule (or those rules) are. If you don't know why you're walking into that class, stop and think about that. What rule is the professor talking about?
This should never be an unknown. In a sense, this makes your job MUCH easier. If you know the rule, you can then discuss the case with knowledge about why that case is important. And the discussions will make sense. More precisely, the discussions will make sense from the professor's side
. What you're in class to do is to spar, mentally, with the professor. Joust with, around, and against your prof. Prove every statement until it makes sense. (If you were to go back to a freshman class and listen to a professor, it would be like elementary school, yes? That's what you're shooting for here. If you know the rule, it WILL make sense. It will be like law elementary school. = : )
How to learn the rule? This is where your supplements come in handy. Yes, you'll rely on commercial outlines (mostly) to focus. You'll pay close attention to the syllabus (to the extent that the prof follows it) and anything else that provides the answer to the above question. NOT briefs. Those are not to learn the law, but to play with it. They're a form of a hypothetical--that happens to be true--but their primary value in law school is expository, not normative.
You'll also need to have drafted and gone over a few times that section of your outline. BEFORE class. This is absolutely essential. You must prepare before class. Not a week. Not a month. One day. The discipline part of this is in a sense very hard: you must stay on track, by one day ahead.
THAT is "participation."
2) What is the law? I understand knowing the statutes and 'important cases' are essential, but how do you draw the big picture? After all, isn't it just knowing the rules in detail and applying it when a particular situation arises?
One reason this is frustrating is that the law is everything. It is the grand philosophical debates. (How do we acquire an interest in property; should we relieve someone of criminal liablility for insanity; why should a party be held to a contract; etc.)
It is about social norms and transformations. (Did we REALLY think it was okay to . . . ?)
It is also about the minutiae. (What does Statute X say about that?)
And of course it's about the grand morass (which in law school is the bulk of how law is "studied"): What are the collective opinions of the following ten thousand judges?
This is why outlines are so important: you can have both. The structure and main sections are the forest, and the lower-level structure can include any number and manner of details and philosophical nuance. This is also why it's so important to build your own outline (twice): only then will the forest and trees (and leaves and silkworms) be clear to you.
3)According to what you say, lawyers are people who have mastered these skills of seeing the big picture. Does that mean a lawyer would always end up getting the highest grade if she re-took the first year law school class? even without listening to the lecture(because she KNOWS THE LAW?) Isn't grading subjective to a certain degree? Don't professors issue spot when they grade exams? Doesn't that mean lawyers who do not know what the professor thinks important wouldn't do so well even if she knows the law?
I had to chuckle, as I just finished a response (it's good to play hookey) . . . before I read yours . . . on what happens if an attorney takes a law exam.
Yes, there is a subjective component to grading. But it's not the crapshoot that many assume it to be. Moreover, when reading an "A" paper and comparing it to a "B" paper, it might not be immediately apparent just why it's so different . . . until one has mastered the law. That's when the essence of legal reasoning is clear.
First, there is zero room for the mushy, emotional thinking that is part of everyone's life. Just listen to the talking heads sometime. If we could have an electric shock for every unsubstantiated, misleading, or outlandish statement, we'd have a shortage of electricity (and, likely, a more civil society). On a law exam, this is a trap. If the prof sets up a sweet, innocent party, chances are many students are going to miss point after point because they WANT that person to win. And so, they'll shade the analysis, thinking that they're getting to the "right" answer. Nope. Likewise, the bad guy will cause students to miss legitimate claims, and thus points.
(Does this help explain why a lawyer would not miss issues, regardless of whether he had spent ten minutes in class?)
Second, a lawyerlike analysis requires structure. A "B" paper (or worse) will meander. An "A" paper will run through the tests with seeming mechanical precision.
Third, proper English can be a hindrance. This is a hugely unfortunate side effect of law exams. But it's important to condition oneself *in a law exam* not to write in full, flowery sentences. An "A" exam is almost choppy, because it is precise.
I hope the above helps. Law school is important. Class is important. Friends are important. The key is to make sure each is given the proper weight and treatment. Don't assume you're in class to "learn" the law; you're there to master what you've already learned (via your outline the night before). Don't rail against law school, the system, professors, (me?), or anyone or anything else. At least not yet. It is what it is. And enjoy the positive reinforcements and good karma of being nice. (As you no doubt are by your posts.) Take care of your friends, respond courteously and with genuine compassion, and know that everyone is experiencing what you are.
« on: February 22, 2010, 02:14:32 PM »
I depart with you a bit on the practice exams & hypos. I took one practice exam in fall of 1L year and haven't touched one since. I still find it inefficient (chances of running into the same fact pattern relatively low) and I think it can even be harmful (I think some people have a tendency to say "Oh, I've seen this before!" when they recognize something rather than looking at the nuances of that particular question, doesn't help you get in tune with the particular professor, and some of the books--E&Es, especially--are so simplistic that they'd help you rock a below median GPA at best at some schools). Plus, they in no way prepare you for significant policy/theory questions that are popular at top law schools.
I still read over the professor's previous exams, if available, but only because they tell me something about the professor rather than the law. I've had a pretty successful run, but I also don't want to suggest that everyone should do what I did. The biggest piece of advice is to FIGURE OUT YOUR PROFESSOR, then figure out the law and how to study. Think about the endgame (the exam or paper) on Day 1 and everything else should be the means to the end.
Aloha, Nose & All -
I very nearly deleted my post (several times). Not because it's not true, but because it raises a rather difficult psychological specter for many. Most have read one or more pre-law books with the generic advice (notes, color-coding, etc.) that comports with what feels comfortable, based on years and years of it having worked. Yet it worked not because it was a good way to study, but because it was the only way teachers had to reach the vast middle. You did well because you were smart. Here I come, saying that in law school that's all nonsense. It is nonsense, but it's likely that few will actually break those habits. And, rather than get mad at themselves for having ignored advice (which, of course, will only be clear once it's too late), they'll lash out, at nearly everyone. Very sad.
As to study aids, to a large degree I agree. "Study aids" are exactly that. They're a supplement. They're not the main course. The main course is anything that ties into learning black letter law and learning how to use it. It's like studying how to hit a ball. At some point, you need to just hit it. And to get good, you need to hit it many, many times.
Practice exams are useful not because they'll give some secret into the prof's mind. Truth is, it really doesn't matter what the prof's mind is. (Yes, one should certainly pay attention to a professor's biases and thoughts. But be VERY careful how you incorporate these into an exam.) Why do I write yet another heresy? . . . Pick any reasonably good attorney, give them an exam, and they're going to do very, very well. Not because they're smart--they're no smarter than you. And not because they're experienced. Well, not exactly. They'll do well because the fact pattern simply touches upon basic concepts that are part of that subject. They had to study it in first year. They had to study for the bar exam. And they live it nearly every day. Yes, there are differences and nuances and subtleties and so on. All true, and all irrelevant. Actually, those differences make the underlying truth all the more important: those games in law school are a grand distraction. The basics are true, and are needed, in EVERY exam. It has to be.
Think about it. You're drafting a Contracts exam for your students. What are you going to go over? Idaho potato futures?
Every Contracts exam is going to deal, in some way, with some combination of formation, breach, remedies, etc., and perhaps a fun diversion into unconscionability. It's no secret. The only secret is what will be the specific fact pattern (including odd facts, irrelevant facts, and red herrings). Those won't change the answer. They'll dictate just what each sentence says. But the structure of the essay is going to be remarkably the same. (Yes, unlike law practice in an exam one also needs to specify and then discount everything that does NOT apply, to show that you know what it is and why it doesn't apply.)
The "secret" to hypos (i.e., practice exams) isn't that they'll give you an inside track. It's that they'll etch that track into your mind: the ways of thinking through a fact pattern in Subject X. New fact pattern? Big deal. It's pretty much the same set of analyses. You're going to run through the same set of tests regardless of the actual exam.
To all, I hope I've not completely stopped up the works. Well, that's not entirely true. I hope I have . . . and that you are able to take whichever pieces of the above can help you to ace those exams, and thus law school. In the meantime, please don't waste your time on busy makework just because everyone else seems to think that's the way it has to be.
(Just to be clear, were it me I would completely restructure law school so that 90% would be getting "A's" . . . by producing real lawyerly work. The system as it is composed now is horribly unfair to the majority of students. Don't get me started . . . = : )
« on: February 22, 2010, 03:44:19 AM »
"2) Teachers can go to the dean to get your ass booted out if they notice your not doing what they ask and require"
Seriously? Pretty sure Thane wasn't advising folks to flip their professor the bird when asked a question in class.... and if you even skimmed the cases, you should be able to give a competent answer without having read each case three times, highlighted in 7 different colors, taken notes, and practiced your questions in front of the mirror. Thane doesn't advise people NOT to participate in class, but just says that if it takes you that much effort to be prepared to say something in class, then you're putting your effort into the wrong activities. If you like to waste your time, have fun. But the advice was for a OP who is overwhelmed, so clearly this method isn't working for them.
"but at least at my school the Profs call on briefs like clockwork and mostly random in the class."
Maybe that's at your school, but most people I know quit briefing after week 2 of 1L year. Briefing is to help you learn to identify the important parts of a case; if you can already do that, there's no point in writing a brief or using crazy highlighters and sticky tabs. You don't need a photographic memory, just basic reading comprehension.
Many thanks, S.Y.N, and indeed so.
(Excellent interpolation of my statements. One reason law exams are disorienting is that there is little either/or thinking in the law. The facts are, individually, usually either/or, and the result is often either/or, but the reasoning? Almost never. And S.Y.N.'s post gets to the meat of why law students struggle so. (No, I don't know S.Y.N., but I do like his (or her) handle.))
To all, this thread had me thinking. Dangerous, I know.
Here goes . . .
It's now late February. That means, what? Ten weeks or so before exams? Ten weeks. Most are stressed even thinking about this . . . a stress that is bound to get worse. This stress is normal, and there's not much that can be done to alleviate it. What can be done is to use this stress, and one's time, more effectively.
If you're doing the following . . .
1. briefing cases with more than 2-4 lines about the holding, facts, and rationale;
2. taking extensive notes;
3. color coding;
4. asking lots and lots of "clarifying" questions;
5. asking *any* questions designed to impress the professor or, well, anyone else;
6. sabotaging the efforts of any of your classmates, including attempting to psyche anyone out; or
7. playing just about any other type of game
. . . you will almost certainly fail.
Sorry to be brusque, but, as the saying goes, mark my words. This is the truth from the prof's (and hiring partner's) perspective.
"Fail" doesn't necessarily mean "F" . . . but it does mean your dreams of a big law job (or the type of job you would like, or the choice of a job you would like) go bye-bye. In this market, that's what, a "B" or even an "B+"?
So, what to do? First, think about what the prof needs to ascertain. They must test students' ability to reason through a complex fact pattern. A hypothetical. Note: not "test knowledge." Not award points for brown-nosers. Not anything we have grown used to for 16 years. THE reason this is so stressful and disorienting (and even worse in the summer when grades come in), is that everything we learned about how to please a prof is tossed out the window in law school. Moreover, everything we learned about how to learn was downright sloppy. It only worked because . . . sorry . . . your competition was so relatively light. Not any more.
Truth be told, law professors love blind grading . . . because it insulates them from these traps, and because it's a chance to safely separate the attorneys from, well, everyone else. In a nutshell, your final exam should read as if written by a practicing attorney. These are surprisingly easy to spot.
Alright. What to do? After you have stopped doing any of the above, you need to re-focus on what will help with what it is that profs are testing for. An ability to reason through a hypothetical. Hint: This is EXACTLY the skill that a lawyer needs; thus law firms are happy to go with profs' assessments.
Okay. How to build a lawyerlike analysis? Learn black letter law. Not just "learn" it, but LEARN it. That means that when someone is talking about x, in your mind you can practically waltz through the various prongs of the outline in that area. This is not something you will gain through memorization. It is not something you will gain through notes. Nor color-coding, nor any of that nonsense. You will gain it ONLY through internalizing it, which in turn requires that you WORK THROUGH what it is that jurists past have worked through. You must re-create the law. An outline. You must then cement that internalized knowledge by USING it. Hypotheticals.
Everything else is bunk. (Note: Nowhere does this imply that one is rude, or disrespectful, or slovenly, or any other negative descriptor.)
Participation in class? That's not talking, or at least not talking much. What it is doing is ACTIVE listening. This is listening so intense that you're nearly falling out of your chair. You're hanging on to each word, and are in a blazing contest with each statement. True? Not true? You will challenge everything. And in so doing you will do FAR better than anyone who has actually briefed the case. Why? Because that's how the law is really lived. You will be *tired* after each class . . . but you will immediately update your outline to reflect what you have learned.
Never borrow an outline. (In first year.) That is work YOU must do. Once you've done your outline (no later than, say, mid-March), you need to create a second, condensed outline, of no more than 1-2 pages. (This will come in handy for the bar exam.)
Then you need to spend as much of the remaining weeks working hypotheticals. Many, many hypos.
Dozens and dozens of exams. Every one of these hypos and exams will cause you to go over and over and over your outline, again and again and again and again and again. You will KNOW it as well as you know 2 + 2. The law? And how.
Take LEEWS if you can. But don't just take it. Live it. (And, no, I don't receive a penny for this endorsement.)
Take more practice exams. Be strict. Time yourself short. Take more practice exams. Eat, breathe, and sleep hypos. Eat, breathe, and sleep hypos with your team. Eat, breathe, and sleep hypos with your dreams. THAT is law school. (And, believe it or not, the law becomes fun.)
Be courteous to everyone. No one wants to share clients with an a**hole. No one WILL share clients with an a**hole.
* * *
To all, this really can be done. And it can be done with less work. And it can be done with less stress.
Be well, hang in there, and study wisely, not spastically. Don't be overwhelmed. Be just the right amount of whelmed.
« on: February 21, 2010, 08:40:51 PM »
HORRIBLE advice! Teachers call on briefs all the f-ing time, thats why they use the socriatic method. The only way that skipping notes and highlighting makes sense is if you have 100% photographic memory, otherwise you wont be able to study for the actual test. WTF?!
What's horrible is the common "wisdom" in law school. This is understandable, but terribly misleading. And it's the reason so many law students are so miserable, and so shocked, when they get their grades back.
Mere effort is irrelevant. Classroom "participation" (as most think of this) is irrelevant. What is relevant is focused effort that will make a difference. This is anything that will help in one of two ways: (1) a mastery of black letter law; and (2) a mastery of how to apply that black letter law to a new and complex set of facts.
Everything else is a waste of time. Unfortunately, most law students spend more than half their time in ways that do *nothing* to help with either of the above two objectives.
Do notes actually help? Really? What is said in class that might possibly help with a case to be discussed in a class to follow? The only notes worth taking are those directly related to one's understanding of black letter law, or to a wrinkle in the law (see "black letter law," above) or to the professor's thoughts on any of this. All else is utterly meaningless. NEVER write down anything a fellow student says. EVER. One shouldn't even write down half of what a prof says. (Have you ever been in class where there is no conlusion--no definitive statement as to what the preceding question was about? If so, what on Earth is that doing in your mind, much less your notes?) If it cannot be incorporated *immediately* into an outline, it's worse that worthless, it's a distraction. No more than 1/2-page of notes per class. If you're writing more, beware.
Highlighting? Again, what's the benefit? If it does not help DIRECTLY with an understanding of the black letter law or of its application with a new fact pattern, its benefit is primarily the high with all those fumes.
Photographic memory? Not only not helpful, but possibly counterproductive.
The key . . . and the ONLY key . . . to doing well in law school is to do well on exams. Classroom "performance" is irrelevant. It thus makes sense to focus on what will be helpful to the exam. No notes (unless incorporated immediately into a master outline). No highlighting. No gunning. No nonsense.
This does not mean that one is passive in class. Quite the opposite. But "participation" is nothing as easy as a highligher or pen or laptop.
« on: February 21, 2010, 08:21:00 PM »
Yale and Harvard both say that they do not offer merit scholarships. I'm wondering which of the top tier law schools offer full ride scholarships. I know NYU does, but the rest are not so public about it and a little unclear. Anyone know of others?
The key is fairly basic: if you're a student that law school would be happy to have (because it makes that law school more competitive vis-a-vis HYS), then all bets are off. The more you would make them look good--which of course applies to a vanishingly small percentage of applicants--the more inclined they are to make a deal.
The lower one goes in the official hierarchy, the easier it is to make that deal . . . but the less that deal means.
« on: February 21, 2010, 02:50:06 PM »
Your numbers are good, so you should have a decent variety of options. One thing to consider is that while lower ranked schools may give you scholarships, higher ranked schools tend to have much more generous LRAPS (Loan repayment assistance programs). LRAPs will usually forgive your loans if you do public interest law for a certain number of years.
I wouldn't expect to make 60k right out of the gate, but you could eventually end up in that range if you make it your career.
What you've described is quite achievable, and I agree with Neal's comments. To add to his advice, a question: Have you worked in an adoption agency, or for a family lawyer specializing in adoptions?
Neal is quite right that your numbers are likely to give you many options. If, however, you have experience in the area, your application will be MUCH better received. This is because one's preferences are likely to change in law school. Admissions officers and deans assume so. And, in most cases, a preference is actually superfluous and even discounted, because most law graduates take positions with the expectation of being trained in an area they would never have contemplated prior to law school. But an indication of past experience and substantiated reasons for a specific preference will add weight to that, and can make the difference in a toss-up application.
Moreover, experience (even part-time or volunteer) might lead to specific advice, recommendations, or contacts that will be VERY helpful in law school. (With a summer clerkship, for example.) These can indeed make the difference between the so-so first law job (and so-so salary) and dream job (and salary) with just the right firm or office.
Your interests are very much in need . . . I hope you do follow your dreams.
= : )
« on: February 20, 2010, 03:50:49 AM »
I see that this has been viewed several times. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. I am more curious about how much consideration is taken into the undergraduate academic institution rather than my own predicament.
As a general rule, the more qualitative factors are considered only after the quantitative factors place the applicant comfortably in the gray. So, the closer two applications are to a toss up, the more weight will be given to a factor such as this. Clearly, an obviously difficult school (Cal Tech, etc.) or major (theoretical physics with minors in differential equations and French literature) will make a difference, but only at the margins. Even those won't overcome stats that are substantially below the norm for that law school.
I hope this helps,
« on: February 20, 2010, 03:44:09 AM »
I was thinking about transferring to UF. Do you know any transfers? If so, how difficult/competitive was it for them? Thanks.
That's a good question. I know of people who transferred, but they're "merely" people I have met maybe once or twice ever. Now that I think of it, two UF law students who transferred into UF, in fact, wrote a book about the transferring process that may (or may not) help you:
(I never read the book and don't really know them, so I cannot vouch for the book's accuracy.)
As it happens I was an editor for this book. It does have stats for schools. I was unaware before reading this of the various schools that take an exceptionally large number of transfer students (relatively), which can of course make a difference in terms of acceptance probabilities. There are a few surprises, on both the high and low sides.
For UF, apparently they offer admission to 27 out of 120 applicants, with 20 of those 27 accepting the offer.
Also, FYI, transfer applications are usually reviewed by the dean directly.
« on: February 20, 2010, 03:28:22 AM »
I am pondering whether or not to enroll in law school this fall. I have been reading a number of horror stories on a blog called "Exposing the Law School Scam" which claims that the job market is overly saturated, that the demand for legal jobs is actually shrinking, and that even graduates from top schools are being forced to take insultingly low salaries (I saw one posting on Craigslist in NYC that offered $15/hr. to an "experienced litigator") or even having to wait tables since they are unable find any work. This seems like a nightmare when one has to consider taking on a debt load that approaches $100k. I would love to hear people's thoughts, especially recent graduates and 2/3L's who are preparing to enter (hopefully) the workforce. On a personal note, I have been accepted at four law schools- LSU, Ole Miss, Rutgers Camden, and Hofstra, and have been waitlisted at George Mason and American. Should I press on or choose a different career path? Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated!
You raise important questions, both as to the income side and as to the very real expense side.
There are technical answers, and then there are real answers. The technical answers are addressed ad nauseam in terms of rankings, grades, extracurriculars, etc. Yet the real answer should focus on those and on something more important. That something is your motive for going to law school.
It is natural and expected to be freaked about about law school, for any number of reasons. The real question is whether one continues to go back to the basic assumption that law school is simply for them. If so--if you are upset by the notion of not going--then that's a very good sign that you should go. If your reasons for going have to do with money, power, prestige, family pressure, and so on . . . those can be okay, but only if they're not the only reasons, and if they're not otherwise wrong for you. Even if Daddy Warbucks is paying for law school, three years is a long time anywhere if it's not where you want to be.
So, the real answer to your question is deeply personal. Do you really, truly WANT to go to law school? (Don't answer this here. This is answered in front of a mirror.) To paraphrase the Oracle in a certain matrix, this is something you have to know for yourself, balls to bones, that law school is for you and you are for law school.
Also, your selection of law schools is quite eclectic. At least one of those is very likely to lead to a good career, all else being equal. Most are, however, likely to lead to careers (roughly) in their local areas.
I hope this helps,
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47  49 50 51 52