Study Strategies for 1L

[Goblin King]

I'm sure there were lots of threads like this on ls.ca, but since that site's repository of knowledge is lost to the world, I'll be the first to step up and ask this dumb question. I admit that I wasn't very good at studying in undergrad. It was mostly cramming and relying on natural aptitude. Moreover, I wasn't in a program that required lots of reading, so I feel wholly unprepared for that side of law school. I'm aware that what works for one person might not work for another, but I was hoping to gather an inventory of useful strategies that I can try out in 1L.

Thanks in advance.  

Edited June 18, 2021 by Goblin King

[Dussy]

I am sure others will have more detailed advice, but these are three things that helped me maximize my potential.

1) 1L is a marathon, not a sprint. If you are disciplined and stick to a schedule, you can avoid being overwhelmed toward the end of the semester.

2) Figure out what your professors want and do that on the exam. If you develop a relationship with your professors and go to their office hours, you will be surprised by how much they tell you. Further, you can also ask something along the lines of "what do all the best exams have in common?"

3) Above all else, remember this. Luck favours the prepared.

[Pecan Boy]

My strategy is to do all the readings in the first 2 months of class, outline the course as I go (using past outlines for guidance), and then tweak the outline when we go over those readings in class later on. This maximized the amount of time I had toward the end of the semester to write practice exams and go over answers with friends. It definitely takes a fair bit of discipline to keep yourself moving at a fast pace to get ahead of the class. However, especially in 1L, getting used to law school exams is key - not only the format, but the timing - so doing multiple practice exams was super important for me. With all that time, I was usually able to do 3-5 practice tests for each course and feel comfortable going into the exam (on top of untimed practice questions I did near the start of my studying to get more comfortable with the material). I did relatively well in 1L, but not top of the class or anything, so I'll defer to the medalists among us if they have a better approach

[meandtheboys]

I wasn't the medalist or top 10%, but I did well enough to feel somewhat qualified to give some advice.  With the usual caveat that what works for me might not work for everyone, I can share some tips I found useful during 1L:

CANning:

I CANned late during term 1, which meant I didn't have enough time for practice exam review.  I found it much better to CAN every weekend instead during term 2, with the added benefit of the material being fresher in my mind and having enough time to have profs go over practice exams ~1 month before the end of class.  This also helps you pace better and not cram and burn out at the end of the term.

On CAN length, most of my CANs for my main classes ended up being in the 5-25 page range.  Any longer than that, or if it's so convoluted that you have to ctrl+f, defeats the purpose of having a CAN that you can flip through quickly and easily to write your exam with.

It's also ok to rely on past CANs, though it's better to get 5-10 of them rather than 1-2 so that you know they've all analyzed a case similarly/correctly.  In term 2 I didn't even need to use other CANs, but if you're starting out in term 1 they can be a useful reference that you can use to structure your own CAN with or to check your own notes against for facts/ratios etc.

Study groups:

Study groups can be useful!  If you get stuck you can always ask one of your friends, and during exam season it's useful to do practice exams together and go over how your answers differ/are similar.  You can also go drink with them after studying is done 🙂

Readings:

Try to do every reading, but don't burn yourself out doing all of them if you aren't used to heavy reading.  If a case is long or dense, try to skim it a bit at least so you know what the prof will be talking about next class, and note which parts of it they focus on.  You can then check past CANs to see what you missed.

Practice exams:

Do practice exams!  In term 2 I tried to submit one practice answer to each prof about a month before the end of class so that they had time to go over them with me in depth.  This allows you to see what each prof specifically wants, what you are doing ok in, what you are not doing well enough, and you can also ask for a rough ballpark of your grade range.  My best grades were in classes where I could do practice exam review, and conversely my worse grades were in classes where the prof wouldn't do review.

Briefs:

You should know how to brief, but you don't need to brief every single case if you don't feel like it.  I personally found them to be a waste of time and not directly transferable to exam writing, though I have a good memory to make up for not making reading notes/briefs.  YMMV.

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by meandtheboys

[ThreeWhiteLights]

I differed from my immediate peers but did well in first year so I'll share what worked for me. Generally, doing all the readings and making your own case briefs is best initially and then you transition into becoming more efficient as the semester rolls on. 

1) Keep up with the material. Exam periods are stressful and falling behind will just make it worse. We're all prone to procrastination but do what you can to stay ahead.

2) If I found an updated (last two years or so) summary for the same professor, and it appeared the course hadn't changed considerably, I relied on that summary. I heard a number of times it would be best to make my own, but I disagree with this immensely.  With the time people spent creating theirs, I had read mine about 20 times. It was also SUPER helpful for my engagement to have the summary open during class, making adjustments and adding my own notes as necessary. 

3) Know the material in and out, but also spend time learning how the exams are graded. This includes looking at the professor's past exams and asking them directly. Some will prefer concise answers and mark based on issues spotted, whereas others may be more interested in the strength of your arguments.   

4) Doing practice exams was the best studying tool for getting better grades. It is likely you will not have any useful instruction on exam writing before midterms. Being comfortable with the time constraints and format can set you apart from your peers obsessing solely on the material.   

5) Studying alone or with a group is highly personal to you. I fretted because I didn't work with a group, but it was probably to my benefit. Alternatively, some people will learn much better in a group setting.

[SlytherinLLP]

I think you'll find that common among all the suggestions here is the importance of actually sitting down with past exams/exam answers and preparing an effective exam strategy. Tunnel vision on that because for most classes it will be 100% of your grade.

Take this with a grain of salt (I did Dean's List well but not gold medalist or nearly as well as some people on this forum) but my advice is to think more in terms of how not to waste your time in law school. I had colleagues that spent so much time making these beautiful summaries and case briefs only to find they struggled with exams because they didn't think enough about applying the law / having a sweet and short analytical framework to apply to fact patterns. Honestly I don't think I touched my summaries for most of my exams. There wasn't any time.

Not to discount the importance of making summaries generally. It is a helpful exercise.

Edited June 18, 2021 by SlytherinLLP
clarification

[LSTrailers]

A few strategies that worked for me:

Briefing: brief with your map in mind. I focused most on my “holding” sections, making sure I had concise, accurate statements of the doctrine coming from each case. That way, when I went to map, all I had to do was copy and paste all of my holding sections into another document and organize them into a little manual. It made mapping pretty painless.

Mapping: I know people do well without mapping, but for me, it was critical. Once I organized my holdings, I went through my class notes, upper year maps and, crucially, textbooks (usually unassigned but easy to find on library websites) and added in any relevant information that I had missed. I pretty much never looked at my maps during exams, but the process of making them gave me a strong grasp of the material, especially how the different sections of the course related to each other.

Practice tests: do as many as possible. Exams are all different, but there are definitely patterns, and the same legal issues will come up. The more PTs you do, the more issues you’ll learn to identify and address. If you make a legal error on a PT, that’s one less legal error you’re going to make on the real exam. If you’re burnt out and physically feel like you can’t write a timed PT, then write it untimed. That’s better than skipping over that PT. Can’t stress it enough- try to exhaust all the relevant practice material you can find, even if that means lying in your bed and moving through it slowly.

Class notes: my class notes varied, so I can’t say whether they were make-or-break, but the one thing I would recommend is to write down any comments your professors make about why a case was rightly or wrongly decided. That’s (obviously) not something you can get from the case itself, and knowing key objections to a decision will help you write a nuanced exam answer, so it’s a really good thing to pay attention to.

Edited June 18, 2021 by LSTrailers

[Ben]

Some stuff that worked for me:

Briefing: don't brief with your map in mind. I focused most on my "facts" sections, making sure I had long, drawn out statements of the facts coming from each case. That way, when I went to map, I had to read all the cases again so that I properly understood the doctrine arising out of each case. It made mapping much more educational.

Mapping: I know people do well without mapping. I was one of them. I never organized my holdings, looked at class notes or upper year maps, and I certainly never bothered with textbooks. They were not assigned and it is hard to find them on library websites. I never missed any relevant information so there was nothing to add. Even though I did well without mapping, I would still look at my maps all the time during exams. That was the part that helped - the process of putting them together did not give me a strong grasp of the material. 

Practice tests: don't bother. Exams are all different and there are no patterns, and different legal issues come up every time, so it's hard to see how practice tests could help. The more PTs you do, the more tired you will be of working on this stuff, and you won't want to do it anymore by the time the exam rolls around. If you make a legal error on a PT, that's fatal, because you will be demoralized and unable to continue working.

Class notes: my class notes were all the same, and I can say for sure whether they were make-or-break, but I won't comment on that here. The one thing I would recommend is to ignore whether your professors think cases are wrongly decided. They are not judges and they don't make the law. You should be able to judge for yourself whether the cases is wrongly decided, plus it doesn't matter anyway - good exam answers are about saying what the law is. There's not a lot of nuance to it. 

[LSTrailers]

1 minute ago, Ben said:

Some stuff that worked for me:

Briefing: don't brief with your map in mind. I focused most on my "facts" sections, making sure I had long, drawn out statements of the facts coming from each case. That way, when I went to map, I had to read all the cases again so that I properly understood the doctrine arising out of each case. It made mapping much more educational.

Mapping: I know people do well without mapping. I was one of them. I never organized my holdings, looked at class notes or upper year maps, and I certainly never bothered with textbooks. They were not assigned and it is hard to find them on library websites. I never missed any relevant information so there was nothing to add. Even though I did well without mapping, I would still look at my maps all the time during exams. That was the part that helped - the process of putting them together did not give me a strong grasp of the material. 

Practice tests: don't bother. Exams are all different and there are no patterns, and different legal issues come up every time, so it's hard to see how practice tests could help. The more PTs you do, the more tired you will be of working on this stuff, and you won't want to do it anymore by the time the exam rolls around. If you make a legal error on a PT, that's fatal, because you will be demoralized and unable to continue working.

Class notes: my class notes were all the same, and I can say for sure whether they were make-or-break, but I won't comment on that here. The one thing I would recommend is to ignore whether your professors think cases are wrongly decided. They are not judges and they don't make the law. You should be able to judge for yourself whether the cases is wrongly decided, plus it doesn't matter anyway - good exam answers are about saying what the law is. There's not a lot of nuance to it. 

**sorry ya this is what I meant

[QueensDenning]

2 hours ago, meandtheboys said:

On CAN length, most of my CANs for my main classes ended up being in the 5-25 page range.  Any longer than that, or if it's so convoluted that you have to ctrl+f, defeats the purpose of having a CAN that you can flip through quickly and easily to write your exam with.

 

OP: It really depends on your learning style, so keep in mind that what might work for us might not work for you. Disclaimer: I also was not on the dean's list, but I was pretty close I think - certainly the top 20% or so with all B+s/A-/As.

Each of my CANs were 90+ pages. I found the shorter ones useless, because when it came time for the exam I knew the material well enough that I didn't have to refer to what I thought were more basic principles, such as the elements of a certain tort or whatnot. I found the long CANS worked perfectly as I made them myself, so knew how it was organized and where I could find the information. Having detailed notes on everything allowed me to go more in depth on my analysis, which I think would have been lacking if I had a much shorter CAN. 

[MapleLeafs]

Pre-write. For every A-range grade I got, I basically pre-wrote my exam answer and applied the facts. To do this, you have to type fast. 

[QueensDenning]

On 6/18/2021 at 5:33 PM, MapleLeafs said:

Pre-write. For every A-range grade I got, I basically pre-wrote my exam answer and applied the facts. To do this, you have to type fast. 

This is a double edged sword. Make sure you actually apply to the facts. Lots of profs I had complained about copy-pasting from notes. But also the people I know who got the highest marks also did a fair amount of pre writing. Especially necessary for classes like crim and ConLaw/Public. 

[MapleLeafs]

7 minutes ago, QueensDenning said:

This is a double edged sword. Make sure you actually apply to the facts. Lots of profs I had complained about copy-pasting from notes. But also the people I know who got the highest marks also did a fair amount of pre writing. Especially necessary for classes like crim and ConLaw/Public. 

I didn't pre write for fact specific classes like contracts. As you mentioned, in Con Law you know you're doing an Oakes analysis if you're doing the Charter, so have that pre-write ready to go. I even got some of my pre-writes from upper years and made them better. To do well though, you need to know the facts of cases (or quickly flip to it in your summary) and be able to compare that to the fact pattern. I found a lot of my prof's liked that, whereas a simple B answer was merely applying the tests. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

I never pre-wrote anything for law school exams, and the idea of doing so seems absurd to me. With one exception, I finished every law school exam early. There was more than enough time to read the exam, think about my answer, and commit it to paper without needing to prepare parts of it ahead of time. 

If pre-writing works for you, that’s great. But it always struck me as a huge waste of time and rather unnecessary. 

[QMT20]

I've also never pre-written any law school exam. The only exam where I ran out of time was Business Associations and even then, I still got a pretty good mark. 

I wasn't aware that pre-writing was a common-practice until reading this thread. I knew two people who liked to do this in law school but they were B+ range students. They were the type to use an older outline and try to anticipate questions in place of doing all the readings they were assigned during the year. Not to accuse anyone in this thread of doing that, but that's just my only exposure to other students pre-writing exams. 

I think doing practice tests and going over your answers with your prof is helpful, especially early on in law school. If your school has an exam bank, you can use actual exams that your prof released in previous years for practice, and some profs are also willing to let you read A-level answers for those exams. The most helpful thing I did in 1L was doing older exams to get used to writing and organizing my thoughts under time constraints, and then comparing my answer to those older exams to see what I missed, and how I could have been more persuasive. 

At a certain point after doing that a couple times, I feel that you'll just have learned how to write a law school exam. After first semester 1L, I did all the readings that I was assigned, briefed my own cases, made my own outlines, and participated in class to make sure I knew my prof's positions on specific questions I had about the material. I didn't really do practice exams at all in second-semester 1L, 2L, or 3L and my performance was pretty much the same throughout. 

I agree with the advice above about law school being a marathon and not a sprint. In my opinion (perhaps an unpopular opinion), the best way to study in 1L and throughout law school is to set up a routine that lets you finish all the readings you're assigned and prepare your own materials (briefs/outlines) so that you've forced yourself to absorb the information. Then when you write the exam, it doesn't really matter what the prof tests on as long as it was within the materials you covered in the course. You'll know what to apply to different scenarios, and then be able to pull passages/analogies from specific cases in your outline to bolster your point. 

[historicaladvantage]

On 6/18/2021 at 11:17 AM, Goblin King said:

I'm sure there were lots of threads like this on ls.ca, but since that site's repository of knowledge is lost to the world, I'll be the first to step up and ask this dumb question. I admit that I wasn't very good at studying in undergrad. It was mostly cramming and relying on natural aptitude. Moreover, I wasn't in a program that required lots of reading, so I feel wholly unprepared for that side of law school. I'm aware that what works for one person might not work for another, but I was hoping to gather an inventory of useful strategies that I can try out in 1L.

Thanks in advance.  

I have a few thoughts: 

(1) I realize you didn't ask this, but I think it's important to say as a disclaimer nonetheless--make sure you take it easy before law school begins. There's no urgent need to worry about study techniques or anything legal in the summer before 1L. Law school is a huge grind and I'd advise you to use this opportunity to take some time off, in my opinion. You'll learn what you need to learn when you get there. 

(2) With respect to studying techniques, I found it worked for me if I: 

(a) acquired 2-4 good summaries from upper year students I befriended during 1L; 

(b) went to the lectures without doing readings and took detailed notes;

(c) after class, I'd go over my notes, using the upper year summaries, and, if necessary, the readings, to fill in any gaps in comprehension.

If there were issues in terms of intelligibility in the upper year summaries, I'd put that information in my summary in a more intelligible format for me (i.e., if the upper year summary said X, but I prefer that particular point of law to be expressed as Y so I could understand it better).

I would only use the readings where I felt there were gaps in the upper year summaries. You will get better at detecting these gaps the more classes you go to, the more summaries you read, and the more you build your own summaries. It will just seem odd or "not right" to you when a certain part of a legal test is missing, or a certain part of reasoning in a case seems to be logically inconsistent. That's you developing your analytical objectivity and legal comprehension skills. 

Using this technique, I would frequently get A+'s, A, and B+s, and never received a grade below B, and ended up graduating at the upper end of my class. It took me until my second semester of 1L to figure this out for myself--it was basically an amalgamation of advice I received as well as my own studying technique developed through time.

This may work for you, or it may not. Most people "find their own way." 

But, just subjectively, at least at my school, people who actually read the readings in their entirety or even in their majority didn't do as well as other students that found a way to "read smart," i.e., use summaries to streamline where you look in the readings for pertinent information. Otherwise, there's just way too much content to get through in way too little time. People may disagree with me, but that's my subjective viewpoint. 

(3) Also, do practice tests. Seriously. I would do as many as possible before my exam, usually 3-5. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by historicaladvantage

[OzLaw16]

The advice you'll often get from well-meaning upper years and faculty members when you start 1L is "do what works best for you." At the time I thought that advice was way too vague and corny to actually help, but having gone through law school, I think I now understand what people mean by it, and I'll try to reframe it in a less corny way.

The fact that even this one thread has contradictory suggestions in it should already show you that there really isn't one golden collection of tips and strategies that will help you succeed in 1L. I think the #1 thing you can do coming into 1L is to really think deeply about how you absorbed material in undergrad, what general types of study habits tended to work best, and what approaches you took to learning. Law school is very different from pretty much every undergrad program, so I don't think it's as simple as "do the same things you did in undergrad!" which is a similar generic piece of advice you'll hear. But while you may not be able to do the exact specific things you did to study in undergrad, I sincerely believe there's a lot of value in understanding the broader traits and learning strategies you used when you did those things, since those can definitely carry over into how you choose to study in law school.

A simple example of this is summaries. Some people best absorb material by reading it over and over again, regardless of who wrote it. If you're that type of person, then making summaries from scratch would probably be a waste of time for you. On the other hand, I knew from undergrad that I was the type of student who couldn't focus on learning new material if I was simply reading someone else's words. The act of writing helped me learn. So in law school, I ended up making all of my own summaries from scratch - I didn't use fancy formatting and they weren't super long, but the simple act of writing out the law in my own words was what I needed to do to understand the material. 

Since it's come up in this thread, pre-writing is another good example. Did you find you were good at predicting test questions in undergrad? Are you the type of person who's able to quickly change something you've written on the fly to tailor it more closely to a question? If so, pre-writing can be a really helpful time saver on exams. For me, I was always laughably bad at predicting what would show up on an exam, and I also knew that I was much better at coming up with an answer after I had seen a question than I was at trying to adjust a pre-written answer to fit a question. So I didn't pre-write any exam answers.

I guess my overall message would be that I don't think it's helpful to follow what "most people do" or what everyone says is the easiest/fastest/smartest way to approach law school exams. Everyone definitely means well and their advice was almost certainly true for them, but I think the absolute best students in law school are the ones who know how they study and, more importantly, are confident enough in that knowledge to block out the noise of everyone around them trying to tell them how to study. So it's definitely a good idea to hear different approaches, but ultimately you'll have to find your own if you want to do really well. I'm sorry if that's not super actionable advice, but I think it's an important perspective to share since conversations like this usually end up almost exclusively consisting of debates over particular study strategies, with not enough emphasis on just how individualized law school strategies should be.

[RRC]

On 6/18/2021 at 12:25 PM, ThreeWhiteLights said:

I differed from my immediate peers but did well in first year so I'll share what worked for me. Generally, doing all the readings and making your own case briefs is best initially and then you transition into becoming more efficient as the semester rolls on. 

1) Keep up with the material. Exam periods are stressful and falling behind will just make it worse. We're all prone to procrastination but do what you can to stay ahead.

2) If I found an updated (last two years or so) summary for the same professor, and it appeared the course hadn't changed considerably, I relied on that summary. I heard a number of times it would be best to make my own, but I disagree with this immensely.  With the time people spent creating theirs, I had read mine about 20 times. It was also SUPER helpful for my engagement to have the summary open during class, making adjustments and adding my own notes as necessary. 

3) Know the material in and out, but also spend time learning how the exams are graded. This includes looking at the professor's past exams and asking them directly. Some will prefer concise answers and mark based on issues spotted, whereas others may be more interested in the strength of your arguments.   

4) Doing practice exams was the best studying tool for getting better grades. It is likely you will not have any useful instruction on exam writing before midterms. Being comfortable with the time constraints and format can set you apart from your peers obsessing solely on the material.   

5) Studying alone or with a group is highly personal to you. I fretted because I didn't work with a group, but it was probably to my benefit. Alternatively, some people will learn much better in a group setting.

Can you tell where to find the summary from the previous years?

[ThreeWhiteLights]

5 hours ago, RRC said:

Can you tell where to find the summary from the previous years?

The best ones will likely come from upper year students. Our school had an online "summary bank" but they were outdated compared to the 2Ls who had just finished the course.  

[Renerik]

1 hour ago, ThreeWhiteLights said:

The best ones will likely come from upper year students. Our school had an online "summary bank" but they were outdated compared to the 2Ls who had just finished the course.  

Not sure what the dynamic is in lawschool, but unless I knew someone who personally took a course in undergrad, I wouldn't approach someone I didn't know and say "Hey, can you send me a copy of the past assignments for MATH2031?" Is asking for outlines non-chalantly commonly done, or is there some ettiquete like getting to know an upper year through a social/club and sliding into their DMs for their outlines?

[QueensDenning]

9 minutes ago, Renerik said:

Not sure what the dynamic is in lawschool, but unless I knew someone who personally took a course in undergrad, I wouldn't approach someone I didn't know and say "Hey, can you send me a copy of the past assignments for MATH2031?" Is asking for outlines non-chalantly commonly done, or is there some ettiquete like getting to know an upper year through a social/club and sliding into their DMs for their outlines?

It's not like asking for an assignment, if you're taking to an upper year about a course they took, they'll probably offer you an outline if they're not a douche. Or at least won't be offended in any way if you do ask.

Edit: The way I did it was to ask an upper year who was a friend to talk to their friends and see if anyone had an outline they could send. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by QueensDenning

[historicaladvantage]

4 hours ago, Renerik said:

Not sure what the dynamic is in lawschool, but unless I knew someone who personally took a course in undergrad, I wouldn't approach someone I didn't know and say "Hey, can you send me a copy of the past assignments for MATH2031?" Is asking for outlines non-chalantly commonly done, or is there some ettiquete like getting to know an upper year through a social/club and sliding into their DMs for their outlines?

This is 100% not the dynamic in law school. It's encouraged to go up to upper years and ask for their summaries if you establish a good connection with them. There are even summary banks put out by internal law student governance bodies. It's a little awkward asking people in your same class for their personal summaries, but asking upper years/people who have taken your course before but are not in your current class for a summary is 100% OK and is actually encouraged. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by historicaladvantage

[ThreeWhiteLights]

4 hours ago, Renerik said:

Not sure what the dynamic is in lawschool, but unless I knew someone who personally took a course in undergrad, I wouldn't approach someone I didn't know and say "Hey, can you send me a copy of the past assignments for MATH2031?" Is asking for outlines non-chalantly commonly done, or is there some ettiquete like getting to know an upper year through a social/club and sliding into their DMs for their outlines?

There exists a much more collegial environment in law school compared to undergrad, a sort of mutual respect that we're all doing something difficult.  From my experience, upper years will happily help out if they can and sharing summaries is commonplace. They are, after all, not competing with you for grades, and the summaries they share are sometimes not even theirs.

As the above noted, it is less typical to ask someone in your class for their summary. It doesn't make sense to put all the work into it and allow people they're competing with grade-wise to benefit. 

  

Edited June 28, 2021 by ThreeWhiteLights

[PePeHalpert]

Everyone has their own style, so your mileage may vary, but this is what worked well for me:

• Do the readings and brief the major cases before class.
• Participate in class discussions.
• Make your own CANs. Do not rely on someone else's CANs.  You can't always account for the quality and what worked for someone else might not work for you.  Writing your own CANs helps solidify the concepts in your mind.
• Get a small, trusted study group and meet regularly to review together.  I found talking about the concepts and cases and sometimes "teaching" them to my study group better helped me understand and remember the nuances.

Bottom line, being actively engaged and prepared throughout the semester will set you up for success come exam time.