Monday, August 22, 2011

Top Three Do's and Don'ts for Taking Notes

Top Three Do's and Don'ts for Taking Notes

Don’ts
1. Don't write down everything the Professor and students have to say. Remember this is NOT college. We do not require you to regurgitate, word for word, the professor’s brilliant speeches - we want you to solve problems.

2. Don't, on the other hand, space out and not take a single note. Last year, we had a student who did not do very well his first semester. We had occasion to observe him in class where he spent most of his time, reading his cases. He didn't take a single note during the entire 50 minutes!

3. Do try to separate out the relevant information from the irrelevant. What is relevant? Think back to IRAC (Issue Rule Application Conclusion) - we want to continually focus on IRAC as our problem solving technique - therefore you should take notes in three general categories:

Dos
Case Brief - During class most professors will take you through each case and in that process they are taking you through the legal problem solving method - FIRAC (Facts, Issue Rule Application) or IRAC (Issue Rule Application Conclusion). At this time you want to correct your case brief - your brief is your attempt to understand how the court solved the problem in that case - your first order of business should be to check your brief for mistakes. Make sure you identified the relevant facts. Did you include too many facts? Too little? Did you get the correct issue? Rule? Listen for statements made in class that explain or define the rules in your brief. The note might be a better statement of the rule, or a new rule that has developed since your case. Were you able to identify the court's rationale (and understand the application)? Be harsh on yourself. Do not say, well, that's not quite it, but I was close. Precision matters in law school. Listen closely and edit your brief extensively.

Hypotheticals and examples - After discussing a case, your professor may change the facts or present a hypothetical situation - if so you want to write this information down. Hypos are additional examples of how to solve problems using IRAC - when the facts change or when you are given a new set of facts; you need to go through IRAC to solve the problem. Here the issue and the rule may be the same (as the one discussed in the case at hand) but the application or reasons why the outcome is the way it is will be different (because of the difference in the facts). Hypos and the reasoning or rationale are examples of the application part of IRAC and you should write these down to study later for the exam. Again, the law school exam does not test you on whether you really remember a case inside and out. Instead, it will test your ability to take a rule you've learned and apply it to different facts. So, when your Professor poses hypotheticals, she's doing just that - she's taking the rule you learned in a case and is asking you to apply it to a different set of facts. You should treat hypotheticals like mini-exam-like questions posed by your professor. All hypos should be written down.

Other stuff
Magic words. Some legal concepts, which take many words to explain, can be summed up in one word or phrase, for example, proximate cause or constructive eviction. When you hear one of these words or phrases used in class, write it down. These are magic words. They can be legal terms of art (res ipsa loquitor) or terms a professor uses to refer to a concept (victimless crimes). You will get points on the exam if you know what these terms mean and can use them correctly. So write them down and look them up later if you need to.



Review. Some professors begin or end the class with a summary of what happened last time. WRITE THIS DOWN. This review will be an invaluable guide to how the Prof. wants a problem to be analyzed. ORDER MATTERS. Legal analysis is very orderly. Elements must not only be analyzed separately, but in a certain order. Make sure you know both the elements, and the order of analysis.



Other Stuff (there is always more). Finally, the professor may also discuss different topics that seem unrelated to the case. These include things like social policy, insurance concerns (who pays for what) or whether this issue should be decided by the courts or the legislature. In these instances you need to stay focused and try to think - how does this relate to IRAC - how can this information help me solve another legal problem in the future (i.e. on the exam)? Does this information concern the rule? Will social policy change the rule? Does it concern the application of the rule? Are there other reasons, besides the facts, that should make the court find differently? You should think about this information, jot it down and try to make some connection to IRAC and the problem solving method.

By Charlotte D. Taylor, Assistant Dean for Student Services at Touro Law and co-author of Bridging the Gap Between College and Law School: Strategies for Success (Carolina Academic Press 2001, 2009)

No comments:

Post a Comment