Law School Discussion

You'll have to actually share you numbers.

Don't go somewhere planning to transfer.

I will tell you that you will probably not need as good of a class rank coming from GW as you will from OSU.  GW is a peer school to Vandy and lateral transfers are held to lower standards.

I'm wondering if anyone has had experience transferring to BC or BU as a part-time student. I was pretty much told that BC does not accept pt transfers until after 2L, but BU still hasn't responded to me.

I have the raw transfer numbers for most of the top 30, and BU is probably the most difficult to transfer to out of all of them.  13 students transferred out and only 6 came in.  Very transfer unfriendly.  You better have a damn good reason for wanting to be in Boston combined with phenomenal grades.

How do you know it's not getting any points on a loose or nonexistent rubric?

I'm really tired of petty arguments on this board every time someone disagrees with me.  I tell people what works for me, and I've done well while putting in relatively little effort.  A lot of people on the board are giving advice on studying while they have terrible grades or middling grades. 

We do not all go to the same school, and we do not all have the same professors.  What I do know is that the number one complaint I've heard from law professors at my school is that students get the law right, but have weak analysis.  I think my profs liked the analysis that showed I'd internalized the rule and could apply it to other situations and bring in relevant policy arguments.  If yours don't, then follow my original advice and figure out what they want and give it to them.

I do not have terrible grades.  I think you're exactly right that what most people do wrong is fail to apply all of the black letter stuff and other policy considerations to the actual problem.  They just talk about the law and forget that application of the law is never obvious and clear cut.

However, using Law Review articles seems way too over the top.  I can understand how some of them could help you understand the law, or additional policy considerations, but I think it's going way too far.  Whatever.

Professors use different combinations of the following aspects:
1. Theory. If the professor includes law review articles and theory pieces from journals, there's a good chance you will be expected to incorporate it into at least one answer.
2. Policy. 
3. Complete "Issue Spotter".  Identify every issue, argue both sides.  Set up a "tree" diagram, and follow each branch to its conclusion.
4. Issue Spotter/Argument.  Usually given a word or time limit -- argue only each sides best points and focus only on significant issues.  Don't get tied up in pointing out things that professors don't really want (or didn't even mean to make an "issue" in the question!)

The best way to tell if a professor wants 1 and 2 are to look at your syllabus and listen in class.  The best way to tell if a professor wants 3 and 4 is to work through a hypothetical and ask them to go over your answer with you.  ("So you didn't really want us to go into this issue?")

Not sure how helpful that was, but it's the strategy I used.

Professors always want policy.  On most exams you are going to have close calls on a test that requires a reasonableness standard, or policy factors.  If you ignore the policy aspect you're begging for a B or worse.  As far as my 1L classes have gone, a few professors have considered theory outside the scope of a 1L survey course.

Whoever talked about recent Supreme Court cases and outside reading from Law Review articles; stop wasting your time gunner, you aren't impressing anyone.