There is one thing about law school that I hate. One thing that is a total bait and switch.
For an institution that is famous for rigorous academic debate, extreme amounts of homework, and unending studying, very few of those things matter. Your grade in law school is generally based on one thing, and one thing alone: your final exam.
That wouldn't be so bad, I suppose, except that your final exam looks nothing like the rest of your entire school year. Your final is usually based on an issue spotting hypothetical that prizes application of the law about mere knowledge.
I actually think the "issue spotting" exam is great. It is a reasonably good test of lawyer-like analysis. The problem is that no one teaches you how to do it. And professors don't tell students that class participation won't help on the exam. Students don't find out until it's too late.
Well, I'm here to tell you that you need to start preparing for this idiosyncratic test now. You CAN learn how to do issue spotting exams. You CAN get better. Good grades are possible if you know what to look for.
If you’re interested in learning the system that I created (one that is guaranteed to get you better grades in law school) you can check out the link below. In my spare time, I teach current law students how to kick ass in law school. I’m not special. I just systematized a better way. And you can get that system. Learn from my mistakes and triumphs.
Get our Checklist for Crushing Finals (FREE): https://www.legaleagleprep.com/finals Learn the way to study 3x more efficiently, how to get your outline in shape, and how to crush those issue spotting essay exam and more . . .
★ Got law school questions? Ask in the comments!
★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleagleprep
★ Tweet at us on Twitter @LegalEagleDJ
Yeah really though, it's something I figured out this year, in my second year of law school. Unlike last year, where I tried to read the whole readings for cases, I tried this new thing this year where I briefly skimmed the facts, focused on the actual legal analysises and skipped the "application to this case" section altogether. At the end of the day, the facts of these cases were almost useless on exams with the exception of cases that were supplied to us for the fact that their facts were noteworthy, and most of the exam was on applying the legal analysis.
I wonder if that's not intentional as training for the court, where only the verdict matters. There are no bonus points for anything you do in a court that doesn't help you get the verdict you're aiming for. They train you in law school to have that mindset. Only the verdict matters.
Virgin law students: participated in class; does extra credit that doesn’t even count towards your grade; brown nose the professor just gets sexually harassed; fails the class
Chad Law Student: Skips class to study real law cases; scoffs at extra credit; sexually harasses the professor and sues him, wins the case; Aces finals and becomes successful real lawyer while giving advice to people on YouTube for free.
As someone who graduated law school and got nothing to show for it other than being admitted to the bar? I agree... law school is bull****.
There was no job available for me when I got out; over 300 resumes out, and no offers. Not even unpaid internships.
I would say: wish I had this when I was going to law skool...but, I’m pretty sure if I was on YT in law school, I was probably fucking off.
Another tip: don’t stress about creating your own outline. Take the syllabus and go from there, because that’s literally their outline for the course.
I'm too stupid to realize that until I'm stuck to 2:2 in my final year in England
But not anymore in my LLM. I only listen to lectures that matter to my essay/final and the rest of it? Utter bullshit
Even though I attended all of them, that's just because I need a place to do my research essay and my crib's too small to have a big enough desk for me
I'm not a law student (nor do I plan to be one), but I have to wonder: what is the point of giving midterm exams if they have no impact on the students' final grades? Is the teacher trying to gauge the students' comprehension up to that point, or do they just like to make you jump through hoops for no particular reason?
In your professional opinion counsellor Eagle, would you say that a system where students are required to take 5 different exams, each worth 20% of your grade and spread out over the schooling duration would be a more fair and accurate assessment method? I've always felt that putting 90% value on a single day or examination is an inherently flawed strategy for determining real talent and ability. Everyone can have an off day, but the likelihood of 5 "off-days" over the course of months or years (however long the schooling period is) is incredibly low.
P.S. I also need you to convince my parents that I'm not lawyer material :P
I've won nearly every argument I've had with nearly every member of my family and they somehow thought this means that I'm cut out to be a lawyer. Just because I'm a contrarian who loves winning arguments and frustrating his opponents in debates doesn't mean I'd do well in law school let alone an actual courtroom, but of course they think being argumentative and goddamn stubborn is all it takes...
This video is pretty true. I spent so much time studying and doing readings in first year and my marks were not great. I went into second year discouraged, and started to cut back on everything. My marks actually went up. Third year I cut all reading. I actually didn't read a single case all year, with the exception of ones I needed for term papers. I also stopped studying for any exams that were open book. I would read through my notes once, and then spend my time making a good table of contents. A lot of my finals were in some ways like the bar exams. It's not about knowing everything, it's about how fast you can find it. My marks went up even more. I've always thought it was insane that I was actually rewarded for being an objectively worse student.
I have aspirations to get to law school when I'm out of college. I'm in eighth grade and these videos make me get a sense of like "ooh better study my cases!" and then I remember I'm 13. Also, any tips on how to prepare myself early? I'm already planning on skipping two years of high school through a dual enrollment program junior and senior year. I know i need to take speech and debate and I've been studying latin through google and romance languages for the past 2 years until I can take a real class in high school. There's a local program for teens under 17 to take da training and be on a jury to see what it's like and I've been looking into that for the next 4 years. Anything else I should do to maybe boost my GPA or credit for high school?
Surely this would be different at different schools ? Maybe some schools will give you grades based on class participation or other crap ? I can appreciate that you are lawyering your way out of law school but I feel like that advice should come with some big asterisks
What you are talking about in this video is actually a really interesting thing called The Hidden Curriculum. I did a lot of research into this for my Theoretical Physics degree and it seems to be present in almost every subject. I am very interested to learn about what you think on the matter. Do you believe this hidden curriculum is actually a flaw in the education system, more specifically the examination system, or do you think that this system is fine as it is?
Wouldn't it be possible to ask your professor if you are doing well and are on the correct path?
Also issue spotting and the actually understanding parts. Hell yeah. Only way my brain works. Just can't remember a list of words. That's why my languages fail and my science stuff exceeds.
I honestly don't know why i am watching this. I am not american and will not go into law school
Wow- so different to Aussie law school! We usually have one or two assignments during the term (eg attend court and write a report, or, write up legislation for this issue), and then we also have a final exam. So for example- assignment 1 might be worth 20% of your grade, assignment 2 is worth 30% of your grade, and then the final exam makes up the other 50%.
I’ve never had a class where ALL of your grade comes just from the final exam. Hell, we even had classes where 10% of our grade was made up of weekly quizzes (usually done online). And I’ve also had a couple of classes where (as long as you weren’t a long distance student), class participation did form part of your grade: 10% I think it was- there was another small assignment for the long distance students- and distance ed is massive here- and it’s also partly why we can access lectures online- they’re always posted to the class website, so those studying by distance don’t miss out because they can’t attend lectures in person. It also works really well if, like me, you’re physically disabled and simply can’t go in, no matter how close you live to your uni. But also- we don’t usually live at the uni we go to.
Here at USyd, I’m fairly certain Law has to be studied in conjunction with another degree (like commerce or economics or something) and it’s a minimum of 5 years, And certainly access to the lecture recordings is freely given on the course website.
Disclaimer: I don’t study law, this is what my friends who study law have told me :)
It’s similar in Ireland, we normally have an assignment that might be worth 20-40% of the final grade, however I did have a few classes where all the marks came from the final grade, those were mainly only for one semester, apart from my first year criminal exam. 100% of the final grade came from the exam at the end of the academic year, most stressful exam I’ve done yet haha.
+Tingle Whispers I'm also studying in Melbourne and it's the standard 4 year course. However, requiring you to represent a doctors certificate to access the online lecture recordings sounds a tad harsh. At deakin our lectures are online for everyone to access but as for the seminars (tutorials), you have to be registered as an online student or have a special need.
Its strange that a lot of universities have have different systems and requirements
That's an interesting system. I study law in Russia and here the system is something between what's described in the video and in your comment.
In short - only the final matters, BUT you can get a pass on the exam without showing up if you study hard all year-round and show up to all of the classes well prepared. There are no percentages and set points so all of the professors have their own criteria, but usually around 5-10% of the students get a pass.
With that said sometimes getting a free pass is harder than passing the exam itself so it's not always worth it. And some (let's say 1/4) of the professors don't give passes and everyone has to go to the exam.
Also, in Qld you only have the choice of PLT- and they refer to the practical placement part of the PLT as a clerkship.
Maybe Queensland unis are so much better for distance ed because Qld is much bigger and more spread out? And the idea that you’d have to provide a dr certificate is wild! The only time I would have needed one is IF I was an on campus student, and IF class participation was part of your grade- which only happened twice in the entire degree, as I recall. Otherwise, you’re an adult. If you don’t want to show up, then don’t. And like I said, the lectures were always posted on the uni website afterward anyway, so you wouldn’t miss out. The recordings are put up and available to everyone.
I did prefer to go in when possible, because I felt it was a better learning experience, and I wanted to meet my fellow students.
Did you have any law school friends who already had families/dependents? What was their experience like? I wasn’t ready for the work straight out of undergrad, but now after some life and work experience I’m considering law school again.
Doctors say humans need to sleep eight hours per day. But very busy people like law students dont have the luxury of time so they are sleep deprived. Some people i know only sleep three hours. How bout you?
Objection. I would say it's the best way to become a lawyer, but depending on the country you're from it might not be the only way. For instance, in China you don't need to go to law school (although it's highly recommended), you just need to pass an exam (equivalent to the bar) and article, regardless of what you studied in university. But law school is the only way in the states.
Question: what if I’m interested in pursuing a joint degree in grad school (neuroscience PhD and law degree) - given the rigor of law school is it worth it and potential debt? I am not necessarily interested in a law career so much as studying neurolaw and the implications of neuro diseases on the legal system
Hey legaleagle, I have a question from a time I was summoned for jury duty. I forget the exact details of the case, I believe it involved fraud, but at the start of the Jury selection the defense disclosed that his client had previously been accused (and I believe convicted) of something like child molestation. I'm curious: why would he disclose this if it is not relevant to the case, and could this be considered priming or even jury tampering or is it a valid strategy?
LegalEagle was it disclosed perhaps on the basis that they believed jurors would look the guy up or think, "Hey, I recognize him from somewhere..."? The defense also asked the potential jurors if that knowledge would get in the way of an objective evaluation of the case, so I guess it could've just been a tool to evaluate the jurors.
Dear Legaleagle, I LOVE your advice and videos. However, I will be starting law school in the UK ( University of Leeds). Are all your videos still useful to me since I will be getting an LLB instead of a JD?
Your first semester of law school will be capped off by 4-5 separate exams that are (likely) at least 3 hours each. One of my first semester finals was six hours. Then you've got similar finals at the end of each semester following that.
The bar exam is also typically two full days of exam taking, usually totaling about 12 hours.
If you can't do (or do not want to do) high stakes, long exams, then law is absolutely the wrong field for you.
But if you're dead set on it, then take a prep course and invest some time into preparing for the exam. Be aware, though, that after a certain number of times, they start to average your LSAT scores together, and that 138 is going to crush you. So you'll only realistically be able to take one or two more shots at raising your score. Point being, make sure you're prepared before you take it again.
This was back in 2007 when I took it... I bought a prep book and studied while completing my last semester of undergrad... I couldn't afford a commercial class... i admit i did';t put enough effort that was required plus I just froze on test day... A 3 hour test was grueling.. I never took the test again..I applied to 5 law schools and was rejected by all.Very depressing...
138 is something like the bottom 10%. I'm sure there are law schools that would take you with that score, but they're not schools you'd want to go to unless being a lawyer is literally the only profession in which you could imagine yourself. You'd very likely struggle to get into a school ranked as low as around 140th in the country, and even then there's little to no chance you'd be getting anything in the way of a scholarship.
Did you do any prep for the LSAT? If not, consider taking some time to prep for the test (buy books, take prep courses, do loads of practice exams) and take the test again. If your undergrad grades are good, there's no reason you should struggle to get at least in the 150 range on the LSAT, which in combination with a good GPA should get you into a range of good schools and some options concerning scholarships.
If you've already done appropriate prep and 138 is an accurate representation of your ability, though, I'd strongly consider finding another path.
Hey! please make a video on Real Lawyer vs. Better Call Saul. Episode 5 of the 3rd Season is so amazing but anything you choose will be fun to watch. Opening scene on Season 1 Episode 1 is pretty good too.
Okay, I'm sure you've been asked this before. I'm sure you'll be asked again. We want to see you react to the legal scene in "The Bee Movie." Thank you, much love <3. Also 51+% final exams are in general pretty disrespectful to students time IMO.
+John Fischer as a person who lived through it as well- from the boring fucking day by day 24 hour coverage of the trial, and things surrounding the trial, and things secondarily adjunct to the trial, and the pattern of Kato Kaelin's pajama bottoms on the night before the murder...
+Katie H That recently happened to me. I'm still an undergrad but I had a perfect! GPA. One single class ruined it forever. It was too much to bear, but I guess I'm still alive. But when you're a perfectionist, it is the worst feeling.
Because we’re perfectionists. I remember the day I got my first ever Distinction (a 6 as opposed to the 7/High Distinction id always previously gotten).
I bawled! And not just over that one grade- that single slight dip in grade meant I’d lost my perfect 7.0 GPA, never to be seen again. Yeah, I still had good grades- definitely good enough to get my Honours, but it wasn’t perfect anymore. It hit me really hard.
Because commercial exam prep companies convince them that anything under being in the top 10% is bad. That way, they spend a ridiculous amount of money paying for commercial outlines and prep services that don't really help.
Absolutely correct. Went through one semester doing it completely wrong (briefing, etc) and then started focusing exclusively on producing the best scoring exam answers possible to the exclusion of all other prep and graduated top 10% without too much personal sacrifice. Definitely had a few awkward cold calls but they had no impact on anything really. Classroom experience is really just for trying to figure out exam content (e.g., what sorts of policy questions the professor might ask).
Would you recommend law school for someone who may not want to be an attorney? Being an attorney does not appeal to me per se, however, critical race theory and legal scholarship do. For context, I am a junior in college studying social/political theory and ethnic studies.
Quick tip for success on YouTube. Only the likes matter! Those of us non-lawyer are waiting for the full episode on Suites. I know it's dumb and I know that's kinda bullshit and your content is really good useful and informative, but focus on what really matters will ya.
People also inflate how much harder law school is than other careers or degrees. I think it's totally wrong. I found my final high school exams harder than my first year exams in my law degree. Lecturers and professors also totally over estimate course preparation time and underestimate the power of the internet. Of the £300 of Law books I was told to purchase I think I have read some parts of maybe 2? Because the information was so readily available online using the books was much slower unless you needed to iron out the fine detail on a subject. Even in that instance the university library had ample books to assist with. My advice don't buy any law books! even if your lecturer says you need them unless you have to, look for online law resources, check the library, email your lecturer and ONLY then buy the damn expensive book, maybe even get it second hand from a fellow student in the year above.
Alexei Lesukov Volkovich What kind of law school would allow a student to “pass” on cold calls? Ridiculous. The Socratic method is the standard. The professor may give one a pass (as in tell you to be prepared to respond the following class), but a student cannot decline to respond. Minimally, the student must explain why he or she is not prepared and then leave the classroom if the professor dismisses him or her due to the lack of preparedness.
I wonder if this legal eagle guy briefed every case he read. I'm in law school and I don't make comprehensive case briefs for everything. I find them to be a waste of time. I take notes, but I don't do a formally structured brief for everything.
Just became a 1L last week and have been watching your videos for awhile. What would you suggest studying day to day? I know I should do all my readings but what in the readings should I focus on exactly?
Moot Court, Mock Trial, and Law Review all help in practice to a certain degree. But usually none of those are offered first year, where your grades are the most important. See my video on extra circulars.
Seems to me that this breeds an attitude of "only final results matter". I can kinda see where that comes from. No client will be overly thrilled if you did everything right and still lost big time. But I could be oversimplifying it.
I've checked to see what I've still got.
Clark D. Cunningham, "What Do Clients Want From Their Lawyers?",
2013 J. Disp. Resol. 143
That is one article that goes into a broad examination of client satisfaction and cites other useful sources. I got access through my school's library, so I don't know if the article is behind a paywall or not.
I've read some fairly interesting studies that indicate that what clients tend to care most about is actually whether their lawyer listened to what they wanted, and whether the client felt that the lawyer communicated what was happening well and consistently to the client.
Winning sure does help, but clients can be very dissatisfied even when they win. They can also walk away very satisfied, despite losing.
“The work” may not be what you think it is. I only skimmed cases/reading before any law school class but paid close attention in classes and spent 3-4 weeks synthesizing everything at the end of each semsester. Did very well with this strategy.
For towns, each building is described, along with what and who can you can talk to, who to buy skills from, and what quests are available. For the outlying areas, the dungeons are listed.
Dungeon maps are not given -- they would be too extensive to fit easily into a web page and the automapping in the game is excellent. Also, every dungeon should be explored completely to get all of the loot, but only puzzles and hidden locations are described. I also skip most of the fighting because it isnt something that you can easily describe, nor does it matter in most places, except that you have to survive it. I do list the creatures that you will encounter in a dungeon or grid location to give you an idea of how difficult the location is.
Stores are listed with a "buy" and "sell". The "buy" value is multiplied by the items value to determine the price you have to pay for it. The "sell" value is divided by the items value to determine the price you can sell it to the store for. Higher is always worse, and a "buy" or "sell" of 1 means that you are buying/selling an item at cost.
Every location has a "reset" timer. This starts when you first enter the area, and after it "goes off", the entire grid square resets: monsters reappear and random treasure is replaced. Nonrandom treasure (including most stat-gaining liquids) is not replaced. All dungeons have a reset of 2 years (24 months), unless otherwise noted. Overland areas have reset times listed with their descriptions.
Artifacts are unique items that can be found. They come in two flavors: Minor artifacts are always benificial and have a value of 20000gp. Major artifacts always have a drawback, but their benificial powers are much stronger. They have a value of 30000gp. There are 15 minor and 15 major artifacts -- some of these artifacts are placed at specific locations; others are randomly generated.
Table of Contents.