Can someone please help me figure out what I did wrong?

[lalalander]

www.leews.com

I'm not sure why more people don't take advantage of this.

Because the majority of what people read say that it is a waste of time. That's pretty much all I can find on it. I'm going to try it anyways, but if you just search for leews on google, you'll find that the majority of law discussion posts talk about how it's all useless common sense.

[McLovin]

www.leews.com

I'm not sure why more people don't take advantage of this.

Because the majority of what people read say that it is a waste of time. That's pretty much all I can find on it. I'm going to try it anyways, but if you just search for leews on google, you'll find that the majority of law discussion posts talk about how it's all useless common sense.

I'm pretty sure the majority of people don't say it's a waste of time.  At least you won't find many people on here who say it.  I already took it and it's certainly not a waste of time; after taking it I did extremely well and am in the top of my class.  You're the one who needs help, so shutup, stop whining, and take it.  Ok?

[lalalander]

www.leews.com

I'm not sure why more people don't take advantage of this.

Because the majority of what people read say that it is a waste of time. That's pretty much all I can find on it. I'm going to try it anyways, but if you just search for leews on google, you'll find that the majority of law discussion posts talk about how it's all useless common sense.

I'm pretty sure the majority of people don't say it's a waste of time.  At least you won't find many people on here who say it.  I already took it and it's certainly not a waste of time; after taking it I did extremely well and am in the top of my class.  You're the one who needs help, so shutup, stop whining, and take it.  Ok?

Because the majority of what people read say that it is a waste of time. That's pretty much all I can find on it. I'm going to try it anyways, but if you just search for leews on google, you'll find that the majority of law discussion posts talk about how it's all useless common sense.

[resipsaloquitur]

As for the history thing, it was something that the prof spent A LOT of time on. He discussed negligence and proximate cause and the differences between the wagon mound approach, and the contrasting palsgraf approaches. Because he had focused and spent so much time on this issue, I was pretty sure that he wanted to hear how the issue may be resolved depending on whether it was looked at through, say, Cardozo's view/ Andrews's view/Wagon Mound approaches. I simply put those discussions in chronological order.

Can you get an outline from a 2L or 3L who took this course?  That might help you distill all the history into the relevant rules.

[McLovin]

I know you're trying it.  I just told you to shutup and stop whining.

[jacy85]

Yeah, I emailed my prof, unfortunately he hasn't responded and is on sabbatical.

As for the history thing, it was something that the prof spent A LOT of time on. He discussed negligence and proximate cause and the differences between the wagon mound approach, and the contrasting palsgraf approaches. Because he had focused and spent so much time on this issue, I was pretty sure that he wanted to hear how the issue may be resolved depending on whether it was looked at through, say, Cardozo's view/ Andrews's view/Wagon Mound approaches. I simply put those discussions in chronological order.

See, the problem with history is that it's not the law.  It has shaped the law, no doubt, and can be absolutely relevant.  But the key is knowing WHEN it's relevant.

I'd hazard a guess that MOST torts professors go through Wagon Mound, Andrew and Cardozo.  I'd also hazard a guess that most professor don't test for it in an ISSUE spotting question.  When you take an exam, and have a proximate cause issue, you APPLY the TESTS, you don't run your mouth off on the history of the test.

If, however, your professor puts a policy question on the exam dealing with proximate cause, then that's a very different story.  But since that wasn't what your professor wanted, that's yet another example of you vomiting on the page and wasting time.

Lessons learned here:

1.  History of a law is not relevant and should not be put on an exam unless I am asked about it.
2.  Just because my professor spends a lot of time on something doesn't necessarily mean it will be on the exam in my issue-spotting question.

[smujd2007]

I agree with the other posters, for the most part.  The best way to bring your grades up is to go see ALL of your profs and talk to them individually about your grades.  That way, you can see what mistakes you made all across the board, and then, see what mistakes you made by professor.  Some things are general, such as doing a lot of applying the law to the facts, and others, such as stating the rule, might be different (depending on the teacher, whether or not the test is open book, etc.) 

If you are at a top 20 school, it is also possible that everyone did well on the exams.  That is one of the drawbacks of going to a top law school--it becomes even harder to distinguish yourself from the rest of the pack.  Law school grades are tricky.  They mean everything right now, but in 5 years, no one will care what grades you made, except in 5-10% of jobs. Put the problem in perspective, but still attack it head on. 

Good luck!

[babychicken]

From my experience when the professors write up the exams, they usually have a checklist answer sheet that they go through that and compare the answers we write to that. So essentially if you write something extra or fancy shmanzy that is irrelevant but sounds good, that won't be on the answer sheet checklist and no matter how good you think it was, you won't get points for it.

I didn't do so well myself and when I spoke with my professors all of them said, write concisely and clearly. And when I read over my exams I realized that I had written down everything but it was all in a big knot. I mean everything was there but I guess I could only understand it since it was not written in a structural manner.

I am desperately trying to pull up my grades this semester as well and so far I have gotten zipo OCI interviews and I applied to quite a few places on my own but have not gotten any job offers. I have a great resume but my grades suck. I am in the bottom 30% of my class. It's so sad, its making me depressed as the rejections keep coming in. sigh!

[lalalander]

Epilogue:

Well, I talked with all profs about the exams. One prof said I missed one minor issue (apparently THE issue that separated B grades from A grades, according to prof) and should have discussed another issue a little deeper to go from my B+ to an A. Oh well.

Talked with my torts prof. Evidentially I hit ALL possible issues (and the extra credit issues), but my format screwed me. Basically, it dealt with a negligence action by two people against the owner of a premises. Because the duty owed by the premises was the same analysis for both parties, I combined it (to save space/time) and said "This is why the duty is owed to all parties." Evidentially, I should have had two separate discussions saying the same thing. Showed the prof that I actually did discuss everything. He conceded and met me halfway increasing my B to an A-, wouldn't give me the A though.

Got another grade bumped from a B+ to an A-.

My B- screwed me though. The prof said that my discussions were flawless and got all points for about half of the exam. On the other half, I misread a word/sentence or two and did a great analysis on point, but the analysis was on the WRONG THING. I shouldn't have gone so fast on the exam. He kept my grade at a B-. Nuts.

So, basically, I moved from the bottom third of the class to the top third (almost). Still want to quit law school, but at least it's not as bad.

I started LEEWS a couple weeks ago and am hoping that their guarantee holds true that grades increase by a point or so. Combined with reading better/slower (I was WAYY too cocky on that exam), I'm hoping to have As and A-s next semester. I guess that's possible considering that I ended up with an A-, A-, B+, B-. I could even live with an A, A, A-, B I suppose.

[aman49]

Epilogue:

Well, I talked with all profs about the exams. One prof said I missed one minor issue (apparently THE issue that separated B grades from A grades, according to prof) and should have discussed another issue a little deeper to go from my B+ to an A. Oh well.

Talked with my torts prof. Evidentially I hit ALL possible issues (and the extra credit issues), but my format screwed me. Basically, it dealt with a negligence action by two people against the owner of a premises. Because the duty owed by the premises was the same analysis for both parties, I combined it (to save space/time) and said "This is why the duty is owed to all parties." Evidentially, I should have had two separate discussions saying the same thing. Showed the prof that I actually did discuss everything. He conceded and met me halfway increasing my B to an A-, wouldn't give me the A though.

Got another grade bumped from a B+ to an A-.

My B- screwed me though. The prof said that my discussions were flawless and got all points for about half of the exam. On the other half, I misread a word/sentence or two and did a great analysis on point, but the analysis was on the WRONG THING. I shouldn't have gone so fast on the exam. He kept my grade at a B-. Nuts.

So, basically, I moved from the bottom third of the class to the top third (almost). Still want to quit law school, but at least it's not as bad.

I started LEEWS a couple weeks ago and am hoping that their guarantee holds true that grades increase by a point or so. Combined with reading better/slower (I was WAYY too cocky on that exam), I'm hoping to have As and A-s next semester. I guess that's possible considering that I ended up with an A-, A-, B+, B-. I could even live with an A, A, A-, B I suppose.

whoa, the professor changed your grades after the fact? I thought that never happened in law school. has anybody else heard of this happening?