Returning Lessons Learned

So, for anyone who comes across this blog and is thinking to themselves, I'm lost, I don't know what I am supposed to be doing, etc.... All they tell you is that you should read and brief cases, create your outlines and just learn everything..... What they don't tell you is below.....

First of all, I am a returning student because I didn't quite get it the first time around so now I am required to take an extra class on Friday evenings that basically teaches you everything they didn't teach you in law school. So here it goes....

• When they say to read and brief cases they mean it.

Don't just get the canned outlines and think it is going to be enough. Don't get me wrong, canned outlines can be helpful, though I personally do not use them, they can be a good guide for what you are supposed to get from the case, but you need more. You need to be able to determine how each case expands/modifies/clarifies the general rule of law. You need to be able to use that information to synthesize that rule of law (something you should be learning about in your legal research and writing class as well).

• Don't think that the general rule of law is enough

Expand upon that rule of law. Apparently just stating the general rule of law will get you a C or maybe a B on the final. Being able to expand upon that on the final will get you the A.

• Outlines

An outline is not what you normally think of an outline being very very brief. Outlining means taking the main topics, i.e. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, puting the general rule of law and then giving examples of what constitutes IIED and what does not and then formulating the more specific rule of law from that. The outline should get down to exactly what you would write on the final so that you can memorize that rule of law with factual patterns and then be able to apply it to the situations presented on the final

• Both sides

This is actually what got me in the most trouble the first time around. In Torts I totally understood that you should write the claim that may exist, the definition of that claim, how you can prove that claim and then the defenses and what supports those defenses. Though I only got a B the first time around in Torts that relates to not having a more specific rule of law written out I believe. But where I failed was in Contracts because I didn't state the different points of view on the contract questions, I just went with one view. So keep in mind for all tests that there will be contrasting points of view for every class in which you have essay exams. So for example in Contracts, it would be the Traditional view, Modern View, and any defenses available.