law school exams

[arbitrary]

Tim,

Your best bet for the normal first year stuff is the "Answers and Explanations" series. Especially the CivPro one. They aren't "real" exams, but they are good to study from.

As for studying for "real," each professor is so different that there is often little point in studying from exams from other professors.

==arbitrary

[arbitrary]

[ QUOTE ]


Either way, you missed the point of my original post completely, which is for the OP to learn to use search engines on the internet. Different test, same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is amazingly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please don't post in this thread anymore.

==arbitrary

[joe c]

[ QUOTE ]
Tim,

Your best bet for the normal first year stuff is the "Answers and Explanations" series. Especially the CivPro one. They aren't "real" exams, but they are good to study from.

As for studying for "real," each professor is so different that there is often little point in studying from exams from other professors.

==arbitrary

[/ QUOTE ]

It's Examples and Explanations, but otherwise I agree and the series was very helpful for exams.

Getting real exams with model answers is a pain - lots of professors do not like to give out model answers. I would recommend a book by John Delaney, called something like how to do well on law exams, leews.com is good too.

and yeah, TiK is a moron.

[miajag]

OP,

4lawschool.com has a lot of stuff. I've never used the exam stuff on there, just some of the case briefs. FWIW, I think everything on there is posted by students, so use it at your own risk.

[arbitrary]

[ QUOTE ]

It's Examples and Explanations, but otherwise I agree and the series was very helpful for exams.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good catch. That's what I get for posting without looking at the bookshelf in the next room.

==arbitrary

[beenben]

+Sample questions and answers are proly not that useful.
+What you need to be able to do is

1) spot the issues

You'd be amazed at how many law students sound the same as paralegals, pro se folks when it comes to identifying a legal issue. A legal issue is the question the court is answering such as "is a window peeping cop violating the 4th amendment right against search and seizure?" or "is an e-mail message a 'writing' in term of a written offer?"

2) state the rule that applies to the issue. For example, the issue is whether it is negligent for a grocery store to have a banana peel on the floor for 55 minutes. The rule that applies is that negligence is a duty which is breached, proximately causing an injury.

3) analyze the issue using the rule. address whether the store has a duty to the plaintiff. did they breach the duty by not cleaning the floor? how often do they have to check the floor. is the presence of the banana peel the proximate cause of the injury? or was it that the plaintiff was careless and in a hurry or was the proximate cause the person who dropped the banana peel? Then reach a conclusion.

This is why you are (or should be ) reading and briefing all those cases. Learn to spot an issue. see how the court states the rule and analyzes it and then reaches a conclusion.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
+Sample questions and answers are proly not that useful.
+What you need to be able to do is

1) spot the issues

You'd be amazed at how many law students sound the same as paralegals, pro se folks when it comes to identifying a legal issue. A legal issue is the question the court is answering such as "is a window peeping cop violating the 4th amendment right against search and seizure?" or "is an e-mail message a 'writing' in term of a written offer?"

2) state the rule that applies to the issue. For example, the issue is whether it is negligent for a grocery store to have a banana peel on the floor for 55 minutes. The rule that applies is that negligence is a duty which is breached, proximately causing an injury.

3) analyze the issue using the rule. address whether the store has a duty to the plaintiff. did they breach the duty by not cleaning the floor? how often do they have to check the floor. is the presence of the banana peel the proximate cause of the injury? or was it that the plaintiff was careless and in a hurry or was the proximate cause the person who dropped the banana peel? Then reach a conclusion.

This is why you are (or should be ) reading and briefing all those cases. Learn to spot an issue. see how the court states the rule and analyzes it and then reaches a conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. I wish I read something like that when I was a 1L. They just throw you out there in a class setting that is absolutely nothing like the final exam (which in turn is absolutely nothing like the Bar Exam, which is nothing like practicing law).