Law School Discussion

To Prep or Not To Prep

To Prep or Not To Prep
« on: June 24, 2010, 05:45:27 PM »
This is the second of three posts (the other two being “Setting the Stage: Or, How to Do Law School Wrong” and “To Prepare or Not To Prepare, Part II,” both in Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold).

Again, this is from the manuscript, so there might be slight changes in the book itself:

To Prep or Not To Prep

One debate of sorts that rages--well, simmers--among advice-givers is whether a student should prepare before starting law school, and, if so, how. One camp, which might be labeled the Don’t Worry, Be Happy school of jurisprudence, argues that it’s pointless to study and that it’s more important to be fresh and ready for the adventures to come. The other camp--filled with Type-A overachievers (which includes much of law school populations)--proclaims the opposite: “Goodness, you have to prepare! You’ll be lost!! Why aren’t you done yet!!! Where’s my Prozac!!!!”

The first camp is not the camp to be in. If you decide not to prepare you will be way, way behind and lost. It might be useful, however, to discuss why this is true, so that the importance of preparation will make sense, and so that you’ll know what and how to prepare, in a way that is manageable and beneficial. You should enjoy your summer before law school (as you should enjoy all summers). But you absolutely should not blow off preparing for what’s to come.

Advice-givers of this camp assert, often strenuously, that any pre-study is pointless. “You won’t know what to study!” “You’ll study the wrong things!” “Everything you need to know you’ll learn when you get there!”

Wrong on all counts.  First, you will know what to study. How? Because that is the way of the law. Any good attorney can tell you at least the main points of every first-year subject. Look at the table of contents of any commercial outline, hornbook, or casebook, and you will see…exactly the same major concepts, for every course. The law, to be the law, must be predictable. It must be structured. This is (or should be) the essence of the study of law too.

So, as to points one and two (“You won’t know what to study!” “You’ll study the wrong things!”), you will know exactly what to study, and you will not study the wrong things. If, for example, we look at Contracts, you will find that every single contract undergoes the same basic tests: formation, legality, breach, damages--leading to the insight that, gee, wouldn’t it be useful to begin thinking about these topics, at least in the most overarching of ways.

To those who say, “…But your profs might focus on different areas of the law!”  First, no they won’t. Law professors are not only uniformly trained at the top law schools, they are expected to cover the major areas of each discipline. Second, these major areas are “well-settled,” a term of art in the law meaning that everyone knows what’s what, and everyone also knows what is to be covered. They are the legal “canon,” or near-sacred text of what is accepted as basic among the profession. Third, might a professor deviate on one point or another? Sure. The answer? It doesn’t matter. Even if they do deviate, it’s not likely to be more than a minor difference of emphasis. Actually, even this doesn’t go far enough: especially if they deviate, “pre-study” becomes more, not less, valuable. The more you know about the general framework of that area of the law, the more you will recognize the differences--and deviations. It is the difference between a novice and intermediate player. Not yet expert, but a world of difference between the two.

So, in short, you should begin preparation in a careful way: you should begin laying out the major headings for your master outlines. You will have six: Contracts, Property, Torts, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, and Constitutional Law. Even if there is a difference in your first-year courses, which is unlikely, it would be highly unlikely that any of these will go to waste. Even if your law school pushes one to the second year, let’s say, you’ve “wasted” perhaps a few dozen hours’ time. We’re not talking about a huge amount of work. It’s less time than you’ll spend on the LSAT, by far.

An example of a first-level heading for, say, Contracts is Formation. Once you have the first-level headings, you should being the process of delving into the second-level headings, which begin to flesh out the subject. So, under Formation you might have Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, and Legality. The third-level headings under Offer will run through a number of tests, such as (1) Commitment (2) communicated to an (3) Identified Offeree with (4) definite terms. Each of those terms will be fourth-level headings, so, for example, a commitment is an objective test in which the question is whether a reasonable person hearing words under similar circumstances would believe the sender intended a contract.

Notice what is happening. In just a few minutes you’re laying the groundwork for an understanding of black letter Contract Law. As you move forward in the course, you will add detail to explain each of those phrases and terms. Moreover, when you define the term objective test, for example, you will be defining a term that applies across legal disciplines. You will, to put it bluntly, be learning a foundational definition for dozens of exams.

Yeah. Preparation is important. And what you are learning in class will make far more sense because it will fit within a framework you have already built, and have re-chewed a few times. Before your very first class, you already know, for example, there’s a basic question in Contract Law of how a contract is formed. So, if your professor delves immediately into a discussion of, say, Texaco v. Pennzoil, you won’t be lost wondering what on Earth an oral contract has to do with a billion-dollar dispute. Instead, you’ll be saying (silently!) to yourself, “Of course! How could they have been so dumb?”

Indeed. A billion-dollar dispute (and a billion-dollar bankruptcy) because a roomful of bigwigs forgot a first-year law school lesson in what makes a contract. That is the level of comprehension you should aim for, and your outlines--which you should start before law school--are a key to getting there.

Also, isn’t this more fun? Isn’t it better to know what the professor is talking about, and to be able to appreciate it…rather than slinking from class to class in a fog? If you neglect your outlines for even a few days, a fog it will be.

Note from a Top 2 [Yale Law School] reviewer: “And a fog it was. Boy do I wish I had done this.”

Note #2: there is not a single right way to build your outline. You might, for example, have Consideration as a first-level heading, or another second-level heading Termination Before Acceptance?, or some such. That doesn’t matter. It’s on a computer. You can switch it around if you don’t like it. And your professor will appreciate the sophisticated structural question you’ll ask if you do need to ask.

How to get started? Follow the primers and commercial outlines. Note #3: Your job is not to simply copy it. Commercial texts will have lots of detail that won’t make sense (such as cases and tertiary rules). Skip that, for now. You need, instead, to build the framework, into which you will later add the wiring, walls, outlets, paint, and so on. This isn’t so much “getting a head start” as it is getting ready to start off right. Once law school starts, you’ll have very little time to backtrack. And, by definition, backtracking is a poor use of time.

I will recommend, again, that you read Planet Law School. In fact, I feel so strongly about it that this is one of two sources I will recommend you use multiple times. For your preliminary work, focus on chapter 16 (especially pp. 432-42; 452-56; and 458-468). Follow the advice there and read, or ignore, whichever parts of the book don’t apply (yet). This advice--to go to another book for advice--might be viewed as a bit odd (and, no, I’m not the author of Planet Law School), but that misses the point. This is part of a broader lesson of efficiency: take advantage of the best of what is already out there. The materials recommended in Planet Law School are the materials you should have--and read; it would be pointless to simply restate them and the points he makes, less well, here. (Not to mention unethical.) The broader point is that Planet Law School is correct: preparation is important. It need not and should not be extreme, but it should be substantial, and concerted.

One other source you might look at, and this one I did have a hand in, are the Great Law Books pages at These include a number of references that you might find interesting or useful as to prepare for the LSAT, application process, or law school itself. In most cases, I suggest you borrow these books from the library--there’s no point to waste money better spent on future pizzas, yes?

Okay then. Ready for law school?

Copyright: Thane Messinger, Law School: Getting In, Getting Good, Getting the Gold.  All rights reserved.

Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2010, 03:10:24 PM »
I have been preparing by spending my summer reading. I try to read 1000 pages a week, it was advised by a professor when I visited the campus

Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2010, 05:50:24 PM »
I have been preparing by spending my summer reading. I try to read 1000 pages a week, it was advised by a professor when I visited the campus

trudawg & All -

This can be fine, but it's important not to focus on "reading."  Law school is not (just) a volume event.  There is no credit for number of pages read.

So, if I might add to the prof's advice, what's most crucial is to understand the concepts that will be covered in class (and on exams).  This often comes with relatively modest reading, taken in bites, rather than a "slogfest" approach.  Once you're in law school, if it's just about the drudgery of reading 100,000 pages over the semester, it will be (a drudgery that is), and it won't help nearly as much as most assume it will.  Law school is about quality of thinking, not quantity of seat time, drudgery, or anything else.


Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2010, 08:18:57 PM »
Good Point Thane!


  • ****
  • 1473
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2010, 08:48:14 PM »
I don't know if I agree with that 100%. It is very possible you could learn something the wrong way and be set in it before it is introduced to you. For example RAP is extremly complicated and you could study that for hours and learn it wrong somehow making up rules that are completely wrong. I think without the guidance of a professor you can hurt yourself. 

Some concepts are pretty basic consideration, negligence etc. Those basic things might be worth exposing yourself to just to have a grasp of it, but I think some of it could be learned the wrong way if you do independent study.  That is just my opinion, but you make good points like you said it is a controversial issue and I am sure there are people that succeed using that method and others that don't. 

I personally think the most important thing you can do is learn the IRAC formula before starting school and how important issue spotting is.  I think so many people focus on learning the law and not how to properly answer a question that sometimes the brightest people don't get the highest grades. IRAC and Issue Spotting is not even very complicated, but learning to properly organize your answers and just writing a law school exam is the most beneficial thing you can do in my opinion.

Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2010, 06:19:07 PM »
Big -

You're right.  Attempting to "learn" the Rule Against Perpetutities is an example of poor preparation, because that's not what preparation should be.  We often focus on the details--assuming the big picture will emerge--when we should instead be focused on understanding the big picture, first, and then delving into the details.

As to waiting until we hit that in law school, what I've seen is the worst of both worlds:  students overwhelmed and *still* not getting rules such as RAP down right, even when it does come into play in the classroom.  This is not an either/or proposition.

As to IRAC, there have been many criticisms of this.  Suffice it to state that IRAC should not be the end-all of one's exam preparation.   Issue-spotting is indeed important, and intelligence (or even quantity of study) have a low correlation with grades . . . which should be reason enough to challenge our preconceptions.

Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2010, 11:56:42 AM »
I'll add a plug for Thane's "Getting In, etc." law school book. 

Most of the law school guides I have read (after law school - it didn't occur to me to read one before going) assume that the reader already has a clue.  As it turns out, many incoming law students (and I was one of these) don't have a clue, and even a discussion of IRAC will be useless unless preceded by funda-fundamentals.  This is one of the things I like about Thane's book - it is helpful also for those who truly have no freaking clue what they are in for.  And he still manages to come up with a meaningful approach to law school that can benefit everybody.

I think many people underestimate the extent of the ignorance of many incoming law students - including the law students themselves.  Unfortunately, the specific nature of the ignorance varies among students.  We all have different backgrounds, and ought to prepare based on what we are missing.  The trick is figuring out exactly what that is. 

The same applies to books.  All law school guides are not the same.  They recommend entirely different approaches to law school.  You should read many, and go with what works for you. 

Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2010, 01:26:59 PM »
I'm a big advocate of having a good outline of a course before you start. Having all of the BASIC legal rules mapped out gives you the ability to read the cases more for nuance than to glean a rule. This allows you to focus on the contours of the rules, which are most likely to be tested on exams, during your basic reading and class prep.

I would not recommend reading cases or treatises prior to law school, though. Get a good commercial outline like Emmanuels or a the Examples & Explanations. Even the Glannon Guide is great. You basically want a broad overview of a subject with some hypos to show you how the material is applied. Make a basic course outline of major themes or rules from this material. This way, you can modify the outline on a weekly basis to incorporate what you actually study in class. The prime advantage of this is that by exam week, you will have memorized your outline from periodic review and the intense review during dead week. I think that is your best prep strategy. By November of your first semester, you want to be working mostly on practice exams. Dead week should be spent almost exclusively on practice exams. If you can do ten practice exams per final, you'll probably get an A or very close. It's just a matter of seeing all the different ways a particular question can be tested and getting practice at analyzing those fact patterns.

Law school exams are alot like fighting: you can know everything there is to know about boxing, but if you don't actually get into the ring and spar, you'll never be a good fighter. Think of class prep as speed bag, heavy bag, or road work. Those things don't make a fighter, but you can't be a fighter without them. They give you the skills necessary to succeed at sparring. Sparring is where you learn to fight. Class prep helps you get the tools to do well on an exam, but class prep alone won't help you on an exam. You'll need to get lots of practice exams in. So, you're prep before a semester should be geared to allowing you to get the most amount of time during the semester to work on practice exams. Having a good outline beforehand will help. Memorizing that outline as you go will help. If you can spend the majority of time in November, outside of what is absolutely necessary for class prep and/or legal writing assignments, on practice exams, you'll be in the best position to succeed on a final exam.

Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2010, 05:53:50 PM »
 ;D obvv its probably different going into yale than swls like I did, but i highly believe quality preparation is the key in all cases. the amount of material at any law school (especially at first when you're not used to it and towards the end when you start studying for the bar) will seem immense  >:( >:( >:( >:(.

But the bottom line is that what is going to get you through the trials and tribulations of law school and the bar (which i just did this novemberrrr!!!! 8) 8) 8)) is to remember that you have to pace yourself-and just like in university-do the absolute minimum you have to in order to ascertain the key information. A case in point of this is that the first time i studied for the bar i prepared by using BarBri outlines which were long and toooo fuckinnggg convoluted for me to really grasp. The end result was a lot of time studying-too muchhh in fact, and even more time stressing over how much information i haddd to cover. The 2nd time around on the MBE in cali (this last november) I used tony breeden's attack sheets. They were a lot simpler and more concise covering the key information and creating links between the disparate outlines. The end result was i passed-narrowly, but peopppleeee-remember that is a minimum competency exam. That should dictate how you prepare for the test, and for that matter-your approach throughout the full 3 years of law school-which again, if you think about it guyssss  ;D ;D ;D ;D, is just a build up for the bar  ;)



Re: To Prep or Not To Prep
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2010, 12:43:50 AM »
So its ok to almost fail if its to prove minimum ability? Isn't that like saying its ok to almost drown as long as its in a kiddy pool? ???