Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Pre-school study plan  (Read 6724 times)

Ginatio

  • Guest
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2004, 09:55:35 PM »
hahaha. thank god penn doesn't publish gpas or rankings.

I WILL CRUSH ALL OF YOU THIS FALL!!! :)

Todd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2004, 11:47:04 PM »
I was totally convinced I should spend many hours each day studying before law school.  Then I read the book "How to Ace your first year of law school."  It said to relax and gave a very good reason why.  Because of it's recommendation I have decided to simply do a few easy things like practice a few briefs, practice a few outlines, practice a few sample exams, and read about the law in non-technical format like the book the "Brethren" or "A Civil Action."  I will also study the U.S. Constitution, not actually recommended, but I enjoy reading it.  Maybe 10 hrs/wk, but probably less.

Findedeux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2004, 12:16:36 AM »
Todd: And the reasons given were?

GA_Kristi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Whittier Law School Class of 2007
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2004, 08:18:22 AM »
I've had several friends who are current students tell me that studying before school starts doesn't help, but it can hurt.  They said you read through these commercial outlines and such and think you're learning some of the concepts, only to find out in the fall that you learned it wrong or misread the meaning.  Much easier to learn something right the first time than try and correct something you think you already know. 

As someone who was going to study up some before school, I understand the desire to get ahead.  However, I have now decided perhaps this isn't the smartest thing to do.  I've read through the table of contents and some of the headings in each of my commercial outlines just so terms sound somewhat familiar, but I haven't tried to learn any of the actual material.  I've also read "How to Ace Your First Year of Law School" and many other pre-law school books and have tried to get familiar with briefing and outlining and how to answer exam questions, but I will not be trying to learn any of the material beforehand.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is the moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle-victorious." - Vince Lombardi

Findedeux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2004, 09:17:29 AM »
GA: I understand your concern, and see how the issue could arise. However, most of the time when there are discrepancies in what you are learning and an authority is teaching, this is due to a reliance upon different authorities. For example, in torts, for a battery to have occurred, the defendant must act, her act must be intentional, the act must cause a contact with the victim, and and the contact must be either hamrful or offensive. So say you are studying the 2nd restatements view on the subject, it will tell you that "intentional" means acting for the purpose of inflicting a harmful or offensive contact, or realizing before you act that such a contact is substantially certain to occur. And then you go to law school and your teacher tells you (though he will probably agree with the more scholarly restatement) that "intentional" need only mean that the actual contact made was intended, not that it was intended for the purpose of harmful/offensive contact.
    The way to make sure you know both sides is to have opposing sources. Which I do. CALI generally sides with what courts actually do in these cases while the restatement like to do more than restate the law and writes law as it should be.
  Other variations, like the profs point of view (feminist, etc) would be easy to incorporate so I am not sure this is as big a problem as you present it to be. I am also puzzled how you could be studying to take exams if you haven't looked at any law material.

Saoirse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2004, 09:41:43 AM »
Sorry to focus on what I know is not the subject of this thread, but Findedeux - can you help me out a bit with the battery definition? I know the Restatements says that the person must act with intent to cause an offensive/harmful contact, but I had actually thought that this coincided with your other definition of intent (from the hypothetical professor). Say I walk up to a stranger on the street and start ticking and poking him and squeezing him in (ahem) certain areas. Okay, so I intend for the contact to occur, but I could claim that I did not intend for it to be harmful or offensive, nor did I expect him to find it harmful or offensive. But, a reasonable person WOULD find it offensive. Surely the Restatements is not suggesting that I could claim my 'lack of intent' as a valid defense? I think it sort of depends on how you slice out the definition - if you look at it one way, in my example, I DID intend for an offensive contact to occur, if you define WHAT I intended as an offensive contact.

Sort of like the statement "He wants a sports car." could be considered true if he wants a particular car that HE doesn't define as a sports car, but everyone else does... he does, then, want a sports car.... he just doesn't think that he does...

Do you know which way the Restatements is generally interpreted?

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2004, 09:49:40 AM »
OOOOOOOO there doing it.


Hey, Saoirse et al.  The planet law school yahoo group has a lot of discussions about these things.  There are postings by people going through the primers that PLS II recommends and they discuss the finer points.  Atticus Falcon also contributes to the discussion regularly.


But I'm gonna wait til fall.

GA_Kristi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Whittier Law School Class of 2007
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2004, 10:15:07 AM »
I am also puzzled how you could be studying to take exams if you haven't looked at any law material.

I respectfully disagree with your decision to study the subjects prior to law school.  I have worked in a law firm for over 4 years and have talked to many current students and recent graduates and not one has advocated pre-1Ls studying first year subjects.  I have to believe there is a reason for this.  I have read all the typical pre-law school books and have invested in the commerical outlines suggested in Law School Confidential and read through just to get a feel for each course.  However, I will not be trying to teach myself any of the law before law school.  I think my knowledge from being a legal secretary and paralegal will serve me well as a basis from which to build upon once school starts, but have been warned by too many people not to study the subject material before law school starts, so I will not be.

As for how I can study to take exams without looking at law material...I simply read books which discussed how to spot issues in general and how to structure exam answers.  This topic is covered briefly in most books of the Law School Confidential nature, but more in depth in "How to Ace Your First Year of Law School" and "Getting to Maybe," thus these are the methods I've reviewed.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is the moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle-victorious." - Vince Lombardi

Findedeux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2004, 10:20:07 AM »
You seem to have ignored my "or realized that such a contact was substantially certain to result" line. If someone is emptying their dishwater from their 2nd story apartment, they see a person down below , have no inent to harm, but empty their dishwater, they are guilty of a battery. In the same way, what constitutes offensive contact is determined by a reasonable person in the circumstances of the victim. Thus, yes, it is obvious that the person would be offended by such contact. And since you were substantially certain this contact would be offensive to this person it is the same (legally) as if you had performed the action with intent to harm, etc.
  The distinction between contact/ purposefuly harmful contact is for cases like the eggshell skull case (I think it's called this). Say you pat a friend you know on the head in a very gentle manner in fun. Also say that person has a medical condition whereby his skull is incredibly thin. So, in touching him you break his skull and he dies ( I don't know if this even close to how the actual case went but it shouldn't matter). If by intentional you need intent to harm then you are not guilty. Because you did not act with the purpose of inflicting a hamrful or offensive contact. If all you need is plain intent then you are guilty, because your contact was harmful even if it wasn't offensive (you were friends with the guy) and you did intend the contact made.

Findedeux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Pre-school study plan
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2004, 10:35:27 AM »
GA: Once again, the only problem I have with people telling me not to study is that there does not seem to be a control group and a group that actually did the studying. If someone who had studied before they entered law school told me I shouldn't study, I would take this advice much more heavily than someone who had not studied.