LEEWS- helpful?

[skeeball]

I've had so many profs say things about what they want on exams that are counter to what the guy in LEEWS recommends that I think people should just do what their profs recommend above anything else. Go into their office hours and ask if they're not telling you in class. I also think people should go talk to academic advising (if they have it at your school) before consulting a commercial exam-taking system.

I also think the people who did well with LEEWS were going to do well anyway.

[The Artist]

I've had so many profs say things about what they want on exams that are counter to what the guy in LEEWS recommends that I think people should just do what their profs recommend above anything else. Go into their office hours and ask if they're not telling you in class. I also think people should go talk to academic advising (if they have it at your school) before consulting a commercial exam-taking system.

I also think the people who did well with LEEWS were going to do well anyway.

Did you use leews or is that based on hearsay of what somebody said LEEWS was?

[Mina]

Well I have nothing against the whole program, but even if someone gets "discuss" or a certain test that seems susceptible to LEEWS, its application might be detrimental, since while you are wasting time conflict parring & imputing a plethora of issues, which are NOT on the professor's checklist (sadly no issue points), you could have been just thinking about the question & focusing on the precise issues being sought & a quality discussion of those isses, instead of mere quantity.

Eever Notice that LEEWS & "LOSE" sound exactly the same?

[jacy85]

Well I have nothing against the whole program, but even if someone gets "discuss" or a certain test that seems susceptible to LEEWS, its application might be detrimental, since while you are wasting time conflict parring & imputing a plethora of issues, which are NOT on the professor's checklist (sadly no issue points), you could have been just thinking about the question & focusing on the precise issues being sought & a quality discussion of those isses, instead of mere quantity.

Eever Notice that LEEWS & "LOSE" sound exactly the same?

And where does LEEWS suggest creating issues ("imputing a plethora of issues") that aren't on the professor's checklist?  I used the program, and don't think Miller says to do that.  Yes, he says consider every possible issue, but you should be doing that ANYWAY.  He also recommends identifying the vital element of a problem and focusing on that analysis.  (so if you have two different negligence claims btwn 2 different sets of people, and one is mainly a duty issue, and one a causation issue, you should spend most time analyzing duty and causation, respectively).

If you did the program, and you actually interpreted the program to be recommending "wasting time" with conflict pairings (which really doesn't waste ANY time once you become familiar with it - even people who DON'T do LEEWS do this in exams like torts - it's part of issue spotting) or making up issues, then perhaps you didn't listen closely enough or are just interpreting the program differently than most people who used LEEWS interpret it.  Either that, your maybe you just have bad judgment.

[skeeball]

I've had so many profs say things about what they want on exams that are counter to what the guy in LEEWS recommends that I think people should just do what their profs recommend above anything else. Go into their office hours and ask if they're not telling you in class. I also think people should go talk to academic advising (if they have it at your school) before consulting a commercial exam-taking system.

I also think the people who did well with LEEWS were going to do well anyway.

Did you use leews or is that based on hearsay of what somebody said LEEWS was?

I paid for it and listened to it all the way through before classes started.

[Mina]

Listen Jacy, your really smart, and like you observed, I don't seem to be on par with your intellegence, after all I go to Brooklyn Law, and your at Emroy. I just don't get LEEWS, I tried it, and I have personally found that its deadweight & instills false confidence, which is risky during exam time.

I find the LEEWS program to be a way for Miller to indoctrinate gullible, afraid, and confused 1Ls. This is how the man came off to me, as if, he had to prove himself not wrong; or placing the burden on the students to prove him not an idiot. The fun catch phrases (UBE/Blender etc.)&  super-structure seems to be an unneccesarily complex substitute for reading a transaction, & simply asking "why did the Prof. put that there? hmmmm...?" coupled with a cold-knowledge of the law with practice on hypos/exams.   

I like to spot issues as I see them, sometimes there are no conflicting parties, sometimes there is no time to outline 4 Q.'s wasting 40 minutes of exam time planning, sometimes the issues you "Blender" up will be given to you at the end of a long convoluted hypo. Like I said, LEEWS has the potential to make you "Lose" big, its a material risk that requires careful heed, even you conceded that "it doesn't work for non-linear" thinkers. Thats my two cents.

Best of luck on exams, plz no more animus, peace & love  

[MahlerGrooves]

tag