The Most Common Law School Exam Mistake | Essay Advice 

We already did! You can find it here: www.legaleagleprep.com/masterclass

Dude, I'm working on it! In the meantime, you can get 8+ hours of law-school-crushing advice here: www.legaleagleprep.com/masterclass

Glad you liked it!

Congrats! I call it "regurgitating" information, but you might also call it "expository" writing. That is, the mode of testing in almost every class from K-12, to college, to grad school. If you write a research paper in grad school, it's really the same thing: expository/"regurgitory"/explanatory writing where you are mainly conveying information (sometimes with a slight advocacy angle). College tests are the same: show the professor that you understand the information they conveyed. My point is the law school exams are *completely* different. And they require a different mindset and different skills -- i.e. thinking like a lawyer. In our video on preparing for law school we recommend finding an issue spotting essay and just seeing how it's different. If you're interested, we offer a whole system on how to think like a lawyer and write A exams: www.legaleagleprep.com/masterclass

LegalEagle Thanks!

RIP

Jelly. I haven’t died yet.

seems similar. only difference is the curve. was there a fixed curve in your class where the average grade was either a c+ or b-?

Thanks for watching!

Unless you're a university administrator collecting tuitions.

It does seem preferable to the info dump!

We're working on more now!

In Europe, where? Because it really depends on the country, here Law was an undergraduate degree until very recently (in the UK for example still is) but in others is more similar to the US system (is a graduate degree). And that is also very true of the type of law the country you are studying has, because common law countries teach law in a different way from civil law countries. In civil law (like mine) emphasis is put more on the knowledge of the legal codes, since well, they are the law, cases are not very important, they serve as example in particular cases for which these laws are applied, (Which is what they ask you in exams, to apply the code), so the advice for law school in UK or Ireland is not really always valid for example for Germany or Spain.

Why? You have a brain and, presumably, speak the language of study. Just do it. Actually younger students often have more flexible learning skills.

Crim law was like that for me too. At least Crim I. It was my worst exam bc I did what you did, what you are supposed to do on law exams: issue, rule, apply apply apply apply apply (even more application), conclude. But I guess since crim law is so definition and elements-heavy, regurgitating mostly law and elements is what we were supposed to do. Even though every law professor specifically says not to do that. Oh well, at least we did well on our other exams.

Feels good to be back!

Ask and ye shall receive.

@@kqatsi I take it that you are a lawyer.LOL

Absolutely. If you just started and feel out of your depth or are still struggling or listen to bar exam horror stories, you're going to be terrified that you'll put in three years and not be abled to pass the bar. It's intense because you are thinking that maybe you should quit now before you waste that time and money. Being afraid makes sense. Quitting shouldn't follow. Do the work, now, and when you prep for the exam. You'll pass (and unlike in school, no one cares what your grade is, just that you passed). You just have to put in the work. Have faith that the process of going through law school and studying will have the result it's designed to have: passing the bar.

The simple answer is that you have to make some sort of valid argument. The reason there are legal disputes that go up through the court system in the first place is because there are disagreements over what the law means and how to apply it, among other things. As an attorney, if you go before a judge to argue a case, you don't get to pick the side of the dispute that you think is "right" (that's the judge's job), but you simply have a to represent your client's side. So in law school the professors just want to see that you can recognize the issues (i.e. what you would deduct if a client came to you and told you all about the dispute, and then they ask you, "what laws can I sue them on?") and make valid arguments based on these issues using black letter law (statutes, rules, constitutions) and case law (precedent from other courts) in a manner that could persuade a judge. If you answer a law school exam question using a completely irrelevant/non-applicable statute or case, the professor is going to assume that a judge would throw out your arguments and rule for the other side, so they'll give you an F. Hope this helps (I'm in law school).

You're awesome.

Isn't the law about precision? I thought so, too.

There is no one type of lawyer that makes the most money. Good lawyers can make a living in any field. And bad lawyers can be in the same field and make nothing. I'm a trial lawyer and civil litigator -- that is, I handle lawsuits between individuals and companies (as opposed to criminal law where the state prosecutes individuals for crimes).