Top Law Schools

Hey everyone,

Wondering if any GW students can give me insights into the following professors, namely how to get an A?

Contracts - Maggs
Torts - Turley
Crim Law - Drinan
Civ Proc - Morrisson
LRW - McDonough

Thanks very much in advance !

bosstweedfan wrote:...namely how to get an A?

Not a GW student, but you aren't going to get answers for that here. There is no magic bullet for beating out all your classmates on the exam.

Not looking for a magic bullet, I'm looking for advice.

I am well aware any advice has the underlying assumption that I will have to work hard and study - just looking for strategy, what to focus on, supplement or not, what does he/she focus on etc.

Speaking specifically to Turley: I would recommend getting a supplement (or a couple) for Torts. He will talk a lot in class about his "war stories," and sometimes they will be related to torts but rarely will he actually law out the rules. At the end of the day, though, he is going to test you on the black letter law of torts.

Thank you for the advice, I have heard that now from a few people and I have the E&E for now but will maybe get another as well.

Good luck with Morrison for Civ Pro, haha. Your best bet is to get the E&E Immeidately and work through it as you go through class. His lecture discussions are all theoretical and nonsense, but then his exam is fairly mechanical.

bosstweedfan wrote:Hey everyone,

Wondering if any GW students can give me insights into the following professors, namely how to get an A?

Contracts - Maggs
Torts - Turley
Crim Law - Drinan
Civ Proc - Morrisson
LRW - McDonough

Thanks very much in advance !

You can easily get an A in Maggs if you follow this advice: (1) download and print all final exams and their answers that he will give to you; (2) don't re-invent the wheel and try to answer the questions yourself; just read the questions and then read the answers; (3) become familiar with the answers, and you will start to notice that he asks the same questions every exam; (4) replicate those answers on your final exam; (5) get an A.

I took Maggs twice and got an A both times (the second time, I got an A+). You don't really need to know any substantive area -- just memorize his answers. I hope this helps.

cavalier1138 wrote:

bosstweedfan wrote:...namely how to get an A?

Not a GW student, but you aren't going to get answers for that here. There is no magic bullet for beating out all your classmates on the exam.

If you aren't a GW student, and don't even know these professors, how do you know there is no magic bullet for certain professors? I think this is a case where you should likely butt out.

jacketyellow wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

bosstweedfan wrote:...namely how to get an A?

Not a GW student, but you aren't going to get answers for that here. There is no magic bullet for beating out all your classmates on the exam.

If you aren't a GW student, and don't even know these professors, how do you know there is no magic bullet for certain professors? I think this is a case where you should likely butt out.

Because unless GW is a magical unicorn of a law school (it isn't), then there is no such thing as a magic bullet for any professor. Students can tell others what worked for them, but that's rarely a universal formula for success.

If there were a "trick" to success in any one professor's class, then everyone would use it, and the curve would be even more fucked than it already is.

jacketyellow wrote:

bosstweedfan wrote:Hey everyone,

Wondering if any GW students can give me insights into the following professors, namely how to get an A?

Contracts - Maggs
Torts - Turley
Crim Law - Drinan
Civ Proc - Morrisson
LRW - McDonough

Thanks very much in advance !

You can easily get an A in Maggs if you follow this advice: (1) download and print all final exams and their answers that he will give to you; (2) don't re-invent the wheel and try to answer the questions yourself; just read the questions and then read the answers; (3) become familiar with the answers, and you will start to notice that he asks the same questions every exam; (4) replicate those answers on your final exam; (5) get an A.

I took Maggs twice and got an A both times (the second time, I got an A+). You don't really need to know any substantive area -- just memorize his answers. I hope this helps.

Thank you, this is exactly the sort of answer I was looking for, I really appreciate it.

cavalier1138 wrote:

jacketyellow wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

bosstweedfan wrote:...namely how to get an A?

Not a GW student, but you aren't going to get answers for that here. There is no magic bullet for beating out all your classmates on the exam.

If you aren't a GW student, and don't even know these professors, how do you know there is no magic bullet for certain professors? I think this is a case where you should likely butt out.

Because unless GW is a magical unicorn of a law school (it isn't), then there is no such thing as a magic bullet for any professor. Students can tell others what worked for them, but that's rarely a universal formula for success.

If there were a "trick" to success in any one professor's class, then everyone would use it, and the curve would be even more fucked than it already is.

Sooooo no one here every mentioned the phrase "magic bullet" except you. Sounds like you're just butt-hurt cuz you got some bad grades. You probably should have spent more time studying instead of butting onto other schools' threads.

bosstweedfan wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

jacketyellow wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

bosstweedfan wrote:...namely how to get an A?

Not a GW student, but you aren't going to get answers for that here. There is no magic bullet for beating out all your classmates on the exam.

If you aren't a GW student, and don't even know these professors, how do you know there is no magic bullet for certain professors? I think this is a case where you should likely butt out.

Because unless GW is a magical unicorn of a law school (it isn't), then there is no such thing as a magic bullet for any professor. Students can tell others what worked for them, but that's rarely a universal formula for success.

If there were a "trick" to success in any one professor's class, then everyone would use it, and the curve would be even more fucked than it already is.

Sooooo no one here every mentioned the phrase "magic bullet" except you. Sounds like you're just butt-hurt cuz you got some bad grades. You probably should have spent more time studying instead of butting onto other schools' threads.

QFP

I guess I am a little late to this thread, but I found it was better not to get an E&E for Turley's class. He goes in and out of stories so it is easy to get complacent and not take notes. However, if you do take good notes on content throughout the course then the notes and slides are all you need to study for the exam. That doesn't mean the E&E might not be useful, but it is a misnomer that Turley doesn't cover the material.

For Morrison it is important to know the material before coming to class. Morrison spends most of the lecture talking about the gray areas where the rules break down. If you are lost entering class, you will be more lost leaving. However, if you know the basics going in the classes do a good job rounding out what is ambiguous.

Maggs is an extremely clear teacher, but do not get lulled into a false sense of security. His exams are serious. Luckily, he has more example exams on the portal than almost any other professor. Consequently, it is easy to see what you are in store for.

For all LRW classes, show your professor as much material as they allow. Each professor has their own unique requirements and you will not know yours until you see their feedback multiple times.

Good luck, I hope you enjoy your first year!

CountingBlue wrote:I guess I am a little late to this thread, but I found it was better not to get an E&E for Turley's class. He goes in and out of stories so it is easy to get complacent and not take notes. However, if you do take good notes on content throughout the course then the notes and slides are all you need to study for the exam. That doesn't mean the E&E might not be useful, but it is a misnomer that Turley doesn't cover the material.

For Morrison it is important to know the material before coming to class. Morrison spends most of the lecture talking about the gray areas where the rules break down. If you are lost entering class, you will be more lost leaving. However, if you know the basics going in the classes do a good job rounding out what is ambiguous.

Maggs is an extremely clear teacher, but do not get lulled into a false sense of security. His exams are serious. Luckily, he has more example exams on the portal than almost any other professor. Consequently, it is easy to see what you are in store for.

For all LRW classes, show your professor as much material as they allow. Each professor has their own unique requirements and you will not know yours until you see their feedback multiple times.

Good luck, I hope you enjoy your first year!

No problem, I subscribed to the thread so I wouldn't miss anything! This all seems consistent with what I have heard so far, and I agree about Turley he hasn't been as off-topic as some initially indicated, but I have been told that things you think aren't important like legal theory (Kant etc.) can be on the test, he even said as much once.

For Morrison, I agree about the lectures but what about the exam? One person said it is actually more straightforward than his gray area lectures would suggest.

And for Maggs I appreciate the warning and will be sure to check out all the exams.

Thank you again!

Hey all any supplement advice or advice in general for Schoenbaum-Torts and Gabaldon-Contracts?

bosstweedfan wrote: No problem, I subscribed to the thread so I wouldn't miss anything! This all seems consistent with what I have heard so far, and I agree about Turley he hasn't been as off-topic as some initially indicated, but I have been told that things you think aren't important like legal theory (Kant etc.) can be on the test, he even said as much once.

For Morrison, I agree about the lectures but what about the exam? One person said it is actually more straightforward than his gray area lectures would suggest.

And for Maggs I appreciate the warning and will be sure to check out all the exams.

Thank you again!

I tried to take notes on everything Turley said though did not always succeed. Nevertheless, I was pretty happy with the content I had to study from. Actually, when first studying for the final I was like "wtf, I do not even know what a tort is." In the end though, I felt very comfortable with the material and enjoyed the class.

Yes, Morrison's exam was order of magnitude easier than Maggs. For comparison, in Morrison's exam I misread a question and answered a whole section wrong. Yet, because the exam wasn't too dense still had time to fix it well within the word limit. In contrast, on Maggs exam it took me 4 practice exams to get within the word limit and time limit (much less get the right answers). The curve even things out but I still think the floor is a lot lower if you under prepare for Maggs.

As a last bit of advice, allow yourself to enjoy the material. I think the stress of getting good grades reduces some of what is cool about learning what the law is. You have a great professor list if you approach the material with a healthy bit of curiosity.

CountingBlue wrote:

bosstweedfan wrote: No problem, I subscribed to the thread so I wouldn't miss anything! This all seems consistent with what I have heard so far, and I agree about Turley he hasn't been as off-topic as some initially indicated, but I have been told that things you think aren't important like legal theory (Kant etc.) can be on the test, he even said as much once.

For Morrison, I agree about the lectures but what about the exam? One person said it is actually more straightforward than his gray area lectures would suggest.

And for Maggs I appreciate the warning and will be sure to check out all the exams.

Thank you again!

I tried to take notes on everything Turley said though did not always succeed. Nevertheless, I was pretty happy with the content I had to study from. Actually, when first studying for the final I was like "wtf, I do not even know what a tort is." In the end though, I felt very comfortable with the material and enjoyed the class.

Yes, Morrison's exam was order of magnitude easier than Maggs. For comparison, in Morrison's exam I misread a question and answered a whole section wrong. Yet, because the exam wasn't too dense still had time to fix it well within the word limit. In contrast, on Maggs exam it took me 4 practice exams to get within the word limit and time limit (much less get the right answers). The curve even things out but I still think the floor is a lot lower if you under prepare for Maggs.

As a last bit of advice, allow yourself to enjoy the material. I think the stress of getting good grades reduces some of what is cool about learning what the law is. You have a great professor list if you approach the material with a healthy bit of curiosity.

Agreed, I happen to usually enjoy most of the stuff we are learning, except maybe some of Civ Proc at the moment, and I think that will go a long way. Thank you for the follow up help.