Someone mentioned the socratic method and being called on. I have heard it is not graded per se but what happens when you're called on in class and aren't prepared? Obviously it won't effect your grade but have you found this might effect your reputation, meaning make you appear in the eyes of your future colleagues to be slacker, and a slacker in the eyes of your professor, who, from what I've been told could be a great resource later when getting externships and summer jobs after 1L? Is this fear unfounded?
If participation isn't graded, it doesn't matter. But if you follow our strategy of 3-point brief using multiple sources, you'll have most of the relevant information anyway. Fear of being put on the spot results in hundreds of hours of wasted time on the off-chance (1 out of 50?) that you might get called on. I don't know about you, but I didn't have hundreds of hours to waste during the course of the semester. If you want a policy reason for this, think about it this way: it's the professor's job to educate you, not the other way around. As a pedagogical tool, the socratic method is terrible. So it's not like you're missing out on wonderful instruction.
@@LegalEagle What if participation does matter? My school marks you absent for the day if you are cold-called and can't give specific details for the case. I did the reading and the case briefs, but I didn't have the details at the tip of my tongue and I was humiliated in class. I don't want to do the case briefs, but humiliating myself like that again isn't an option either.
Hey there, love your channel! I just had a quick (and maybe pretty ignorant) question for you about practice tests. You've mentioned them a lot in your videos, and for good reason. But my question is how exactly do you know if you did them correctly? Are law professors willing to go over and grade them? From what I've gathered about law school, I can't imagine professors being willing to grade hours-long practice tests for everybody in class. I'm not sure if that's even a valid assumption to make, but how else can you get a practice exam checked to make sure they too aren't wasting your time? Thanks, and keep up the great work on this channel!
Case breifing should be second nature or common sense. You need to understand the facts, material facts, legal issues involved and the holding in order to prioritize case precedents.
In order to know whether those two cases matter equally, we’d need to know something about the procedural posture. A supreme court case’s rule is better than a trial court, right? Won’t we also have to know about the rationale to understand how new facts could challenge the rules derived from previous cases? Please explain more about why you think judicial reasoning isn’t important given that exams are basically predictions about the outcome of different arguments.
That's the funny thing, you don't really read trial court orders. You only read appellate opinions. (Except in Con Law where you only read Supreme Court opinions). On the final exam you apply the black letter law. At most, you use the story of the case as an analogy. In the exam, you're like an attorney making arguments at the trial court level. You aren't going to change the law or "challenge the rules." It's pure application. You can through all the other stuff out the window. We explain how to approach issue spotting essays in depth in our Law School Masterclass -- its the key to getting A's.
Case briefs have already eaten my soul after 4 weeks.
It happens. But there is still time! Fight the power!
Make friends with classmates who makes case briefs. :D
Why do law school professors cold call you about case facts if they don’t help you on the exams?
Someone mentioned the socratic method and being called on. I have heard it is not graded per se but what happens when you're called on in class and aren't prepared? Obviously it won't effect your grade but have you found this might effect your reputation, meaning make you appear in the eyes of your future colleagues to be slacker, and a slacker in the eyes of your professor, who, from what I've been told could be a great resource later when getting externships and summer jobs after 1L? Is this fear unfounded?
What about professors who call on students to question them about specifics of a case (e.g., issue, reasoning, etc.)? I have had this happen.
If participation isn't graded, it doesn't matter. But if you follow our strategy of 3-point brief using multiple sources, you'll have most of the relevant information anyway. Fear of being put on the spot results in hundreds of hours of wasted time on the off-chance (1 out of 50?) that you might get called on. I don't know about you, but I didn't have hundreds of hours to waste during the course of the semester.
If you want a policy reason for this, think about it this way: it's the professor's job to educate you, not the other way around. As a pedagogical tool, the socratic method is terrible. So it's not like you're missing out on wonderful instruction.
@@LegalEagle What if participation does matter? My school marks you absent for the day if you are cold-called and can't give specific details for the case. I did the reading and the case briefs, but I didn't have the details at the tip of my tongue and I was humiliated in class. I don't want to do the case briefs, but humiliating myself like that again isn't an option either.
Hey there, love your channel! I just had a quick (and maybe pretty ignorant) question for you about practice tests. You've mentioned them a lot in your videos, and for good reason. But my question is how exactly do you know if you did them correctly? Are law professors willing to go over and grade them? From what I've gathered about law school, I can't imagine professors being willing to grade hours-long practice tests for everybody in class. I'm not sure if that's even a valid assumption to make, but how else can you get a practice exam checked to make sure they too aren't wasting your time?
Thanks, and keep up the great work on this channel!
Case breifing should be second nature or common sense. You need to understand the facts, material facts, legal issues involved and the holding in order to prioritize case precedents.
In order to know whether those two cases matter equally, we’d need to know something about the procedural posture. A supreme court case’s rule is better than a trial court, right? Won’t we also have to know about the rationale to understand how new facts could challenge the rules derived from previous cases? Please explain more about why you think judicial reasoning isn’t important given that exams are basically predictions about the outcome of different arguments.
That's the funny thing, you don't really read trial court orders. You only read appellate opinions. (Except in Con Law where you only read Supreme Court opinions). On the final exam you apply the black letter law. At most, you use the story of the case as an analogy. In the exam, you're like an attorney making arguments at the trial court level. You aren't going to change the law or "challenge the rules." It's pure application. You can through all the other stuff out the window. We explain how to approach issue spotting essays in depth in our Law School Masterclass -- its the key to getting A's.
What if we are specifically told to case brief??
However, university instructors demand that you know how to brief cases whether or not we will ever do that in a professional atmosphere.
I realised this in my second semester. Case briefs eat up time
I’d like to hear this from a law school professor
99k! Do you have anything planned for 100,000?
I need to meet you and person need all the good tip
My legal opinion is that we must abolish traffic lights.
Yeah meet up on all your video
Well, gotta do it for a grade lmao
Yes I am taking all class on UA-cam ;;;; it's free and I m ain't pay for it's
I case brief everything 😥
Still briefing?
@@MilesNelgez nopeee
@@rizzzlleee3540 lol what happened?
😫😫