Anyone do law preview?

[ericptk2000]

Why did this board get so heated and side tracked.  I just want to know from those who did the law preview class whether or not it is worth the money.  Would it give me even a slight advantage that I would not get by reading PLSII and Law School Confidential.  Again, I am more concerned about keeping my full tuition scholarship than spending the 1,000-2,000 even if it is a slight advantage.  I don't want the class to simply tell me law school is a lot of work and that it is difficult.  However, if the class is able to explain how to work more efficiently and what pitfalls I should avoid then I think in my particular case it might be worth it.  If you would rather PM me, that is fine.  Thanks for the help.

[leostrauss]

It got heated and side tracked, because I'm an idiot who doesn't like being condescended to. I apologize and won't post in this thread again so that it can get back on track.

[Chibundu]

What are some other books that can be used if in fact as a substitute for Law Preview. I am a little set in what I am doing, but I would like to hear of various opinions like the OP. I need to be in the top 5%. So I would like to use any and all assistance to get me there.

[kmpnj]

I did law preview last year.  I took it right before the fall semester and found it helpful in getting my brain back in working order after the summer off.  The professors were fantastic.  It is expensive, but its an opportunity to sit in on lectures given by some of the best law professors in the country and to get your brain working in the type of way that it needs to in law school.

I can't impress upon you enough that law school is completely different than anything I've ever done.  Different from undergrad, the military or law enforcement.  Its not necessarily more stressful, just stressful in a different way.  Any tool that you can use to get your brain working in that kind of way, take it.  Think of law preview as a kind of law school boot camp.  You can start to work in that different kind of way there, where there are no grades so you can make as many mistakes as you want and it doesn't cost you.

One caveat though, for exams I would use "Getting to Maybe."  That book is awesome.  It really breaks down the exams and was helpful to me.

Good Luck in whatever you decide.

[Oliver]

I did Law Preview, and I don't recommend it.  Here's why:

You can't learn an a semester of Contracts in one day.  It's not possible.  You will never remember.  The notes and case briefs I had from Law Preview were useless.  The only thing that Law Preview tells you that will help you to be successful is the study schedule they tell you to keep.

They will tell you to treat each day of the week like a day at work, and go to school from 8 am to 6 pm.  When you're not in class, study in the library.  The exception to that is Fridays, when after your last class you can take the rest of the day off.  Then study 4-6 hours a day on Saturday and Sunday.

Follow that schedule until mid- to late-October.  Then start treating Fridays like any other day of the week and spending 8 hours in the library on Saturday and Sunday.

It doesn't matter who the professors are at Law Preview or what they teach you, or even if you spend time with E & E before classes start (although I would suggest that, I wish I had).  If you can follow a study schedule like that, unless you are a complete idiot you have no choice but to do well in law school. 

So there you go, $1,000 worth of information.  The fancy professors don't matter, that's the only helpful thing they tell you.

[TeresaPinfold]

As to your argument that since you were smart enough to get in, you don't need to prepare, I would respond that because intelligence is innate, your argument could be pushed to birth . . . a little baby with the potential to do well in law school need not prepare . . . need not learn english, go to elementary school, etc  . ..  just plop them down at harvard and let their natural abilities take over.

Right, that's perfectly analogous, because just like law schools assume you start at zero knowledge of law, they assume you start unable to speak English...

[leostrauss]

As to your argument that since you were smart enough to get in, you don't need to prepare, I would respond that because intelligence is innate, your argument could be pushed to birth . . . a little baby with the potential to do well in law school need not prepare . . . need not learn english, go to elementary school, etc  . ..  just plop them down at harvard and let their natural abilities take over.

Right, that's perfectly analogous, because just like law schools assume you start at zero knowledge of law, they assume you start unable to speak English...

See . . . this is an argument. You're right; I'm wrong.

Now, what about the second argument that goes as follows: It is alleged that one need not prepare because one's capability of success is evidenced by his acceptance into law school. However, the nature of law school is such that success is measured in terms of one's rank among other students in one's class. Everyone in one's class was accepted. Thus, everyone meets the alleged prerequisite for success . . . however, it is clear that not everyone in the class will be successful. At least a quarter of those people who got in (and thus needed no preparation to succeed) are going to "fail" in law school terms: not be remotely near the top of their class.

Allow me to argue against myself first to help everyone else - I've been thinking about this, and think I very well may be wrong about it.

The argument is not about GUARANTEED success. Rather, it is about capability for success. Thus, the people in the bottom 25$ may be there not due to a lack of preparation, but because they got very sick during the semester, they refused to study, they went through a divorce, they found they hated law school etc. Under all of these scenarios, their acceptance into school could still be an indication of capability to succeed with zero preparation.

See, now I think I'm wrong . . . maybe. I think in the end, I could back and forth on it all night. I've obviously made people mad. I don't know if I'm right, but here is what I suspect about ppl's general hostility to the argument which seems to be baseless - I think people hate when someone is more prepared than they are/ when someone works harder than they do/ when someone refuses to partake in the debaucherous/mischievious activity they are etc. People don't like to have their own unpreparedness/laziness/immorality/guilt etc rubbed in their faces. That's fine. I think that is what is driving many of the hostile posts.

That being said, I remain unconvinced that my original argument is correct, because as you can see above, I have reconsidered it, and now see a great argument against my original reply and thus, a nice supporting argument for the original anti-preparation poster (lawmama). Apologies for ruffled feathers.

[Ronald Hyatt]

if you want to prep, go for it. it certainly isn't going to hurt you. the only real debate is whether it will significantly help you. i personally think helped me a little bit, even if only to lessen my anxiety level at the beginning of the year. pre-law school prep is certainly not going to help you so much that it is worth stressing out over.

do what you want. do what you can. for some people that may mean doing a lot and for others it may mean doing nothing.