“There is a system for handling the law school essay exam well. It's the single most important key to law school success. Its creator is Wentworth Miller, founder of LEEWS. A friend who made law review discovered that every one of his fellow editors had taken LEEWS in their first semester of law school, as had he. Other than this book, LEEWS is the best thing you could possibly have going for you.”
— PLANET LAW SCHOOL (1998), pp. 83, 89.*
(* Read our review of this provocative book and the full text of its description of LEEWS; also a review of PLANET LAW SCHOOL II.)
Sure. Law school requires hard work. Exams pose a different,
BETTER GRADES • COMPETE FOR A'S • B's MINIMUM
… OR YOUR MONEY BACK!**
For less than the price of a case book (live program; about the same for the audio program [incl. shipping]), why not march confidently from day one toward grades commensurate with effort?
Live Program + Book OR equally effective Audio CD Program + Book
BECAUSE (RARE) LAW SCHOOL A's ARE POSSIBLE, EVEN PROBABLE
*See "Sample Exams." LEEWS enables an orderly, lawyerlike response.
**Click on "Guarantees" for the best assurances of satisfaction anywhere.
“It's not often that advice is easy – especially advice on a subject as endlessly distressing as law exams. Here it is easy. (The advice, anyway.) The answer? In a word — LEEWS.”
— LAW SCHOOL — GETTING IN, GETTING GOOD, GETTING THE GOLD (2008), p. 302
“We recommend ... preparing for law school with the Law Essay Exam Writing System ('LEEWS')--in addition to lots of hard work and lots of practice exams.”
– THE ART OF THE LAW SCHOOL TRANSFER, A Guide to Transferring Law Schools (2010), p. 8 (In the context, “... what should you do to get the great grades you are going to need to transfer?”)
“I wasn't going to come. I made that choice last semester. Three weeks ago I ran into one of the A's in my class, and I was surprised to find that 7 of the 10 A's attended LEEWS. Needless to say, I signed right up!”
— Art Jarrett, Temple '91 (Who then raised every grade a full point and made dean's list.)
Guarantee of satisfaction: How confident are we that, whether pre-law, 1L, 2L, 3L, or prepping for a bar exam, you'll find the audio version of LEEWS interesting, meaningfully different and useful, even transformative?... certainly well worth the modest price ($175, incl. shipping)? ... Return it, as received, within ten days following receipt for a full refund! You'll pay only return shipping.
The Basic (unacknowledged!) Problem Respecting all Law Schools
(Why “A” grades are so hard to achieve. Why you should consider LEEWS.)
From the outset law school confuses and intimidates. (If viewing this website, you have concerns. ... They are well founded!)1
The problem in a nutshell? So-called “case method,” Socratic instruction, featured in all law schools, especially first year – i.e., sitting in yet another classroom being quizzed about legal cases –, is ineffective in transforming academic thinkers/learners (virtually all entering law school) into legal thinkers/learners – lawyers or reasonable facsimiles thereof.2
All-important exams require that one perform “as a lawyer.”
The words “lawyer” and “attorney” are rarely heard in law school classrooms!3
The disconnect between (academic) instruction and practical, “perform-as-a-lawyer” exam requirements is what confounds the smartest, most hard working law student, even at Yale, Harvard, Stanford – everyone!
[Note: A's are rare gold in law school. At other than top-rated schools, at least one A is often required to qualify for law firm job interviews in fall of second year. However, 80-85 percent of students at all law schools don't receive a single A (the entire) first year. Not one!]
The student who successfully transitions from academic thinker/learner to [reasonable facsimile of practicing] lawyer thinker/learner, and in addition acquires effective approaches for addressing and managing confusing law essay exams (described, 5th footnote below) will do well, and rather easily. She may even enjoy law school!
NOTE: Conventional (largely "IRAC"-centered) advice respecting exam taking and preparation (offered by law schools, professors, all other sources! [including expensive, 1-2 week summer law school simulations]), utterly fails to recognize the foregoing problem. It therefore does nothing to remedy it. No instruction apart from LEEWS addresses the disconnect between classroom and exams. Nothing approaches the precise, A-Z science of exam taking and (day-to-day, week-to-week) preparation we have evolved during 30+ years.
Why LEEWS is so much more effective
than (all!) other law exam taking/preparation advice
(They're not even close!)
Because, as noted, we alone recognize the problem described above. We alone address it, and far more effectively than any law school, professor, or other study aid.
(E.g., students of famed Harvard criminal law professor and [rare among elite law school professors!] practicing attorney, Alan Dershowitz, exhibit the same wonderment, then excitement, as they evolve – finally! – from student/academic thinker to facsimile of [client] goal-oriented, pragmatic legal problem solver/thinker.)
We do not create geniuses of the law. ["Genius of the law," "gift for the law," "innate aptitude for the law" is all myth, nonsense, an excuse for ineffective instruction. See footnote 2 below.] However, our students make the transition to legal thinker/learner while classmates don't. This provides an enormous advantage.
For example, LEEWS instructs that legal precepts – rules, principles, statutes, policy considerations (the why behind the law) – must not be thought about in abstraction (academically). Rather, all are potentially “tools” to assist (hypothetical) clients achieve practical goals – e.g., win a money award (or avoid same); obtain clear title to property; stay out of jail (put someone in); overcome a government regulation; fend off a hostile takeover; etc.
This shift in perspective and thinking is transformative and critical. (It is what law school should accomplish, but does not!)
[Note: Client goals are certainly implicit in cases read/briefed. However, professors never frame discussion in practical terms of "What did the client want? What was the client objective? What legal precepts (tools!) did the lawyer advance to achieve the client objective?" Rather, it's "What was the (legal) issue? What was the outcome (holding)? What do you think about that?" "What change in facts might have altered the outcome?" (The latter question is designed to stimulate "lawyerlike thinking." It assists some somewhat. However, as students have not been properly instructed in how, exactly, lawyers think, most fumble. They take notes they won't have time to review, nor make much sense of if they do.)]
In addition LEEWS inculcates several innovative, proven effective (for over 30 years!) systems. Each system is applicable to all law exams, especially the problematic "essay hypothetical" featured in virtually all first year courses (and many upper level courses).5
There is much much more. Most important is acquisition (finally!) of a lawyer's perspective and analytic approach. (This mindset is necessary to comprehend and effectively apply the systems.)
The result is a rush of confidence, of "ah-hah!," of even eagerness going forward. Given this new perspective, law school can be the stimulating, even enjoyable intellectual experience it should be (but isn't for most).
"He can't know what I want on my exam!" This is a typical criticism voiced by law professors. (“He” refers to LEEWS founder/instructor, Wentworth Miller.) Our response: "Professor. Do you want to see, coming off an exam page, someone knowledgeable in your subject, attuned to your preferences, paying close attention to facts you took the trouble to create, analyzing issues you want analyzed … as a competent lawyer might?" (What else would a professor want?)
Another unique LEEWS insight: All legal problem solving exercises – cases, briefs, motions, trials, essay and other type exams (everything!) – can be understood and approached in exactly the same way. (I.e., there is a common denominator afoot!) The only variable is the nature of legal tools – procedural, substantive – to be applied in solving the problem. (E.g., contracts versus property versus tort law, etc.)
Once this pivotal insight that gave birth to LEEWS is grasped, all legal problem solving becomes a predictable exercise to be approached in exactly the same way. (Yes. What we instruct is deep, different, wholly new. Also eminently practical and, with practice, easily applied to all exams in all subjects, no matter the professor, question, exercise posed.)
Lacking LEEWS instruction and insight, the great majority of law students – hard working, some perhaps smarter than LEEWS grad classmates (On paper! However, also too skeptical, too arrogant to investigate what we're about?!), but still academic learners/thinkers – stumble, fumble, expend energy in unproductive busywork. Ultimately, they write (type!) exams that are but a shadow of what a competent lawyer (or LEEWS grad!) would produce.
Thus does LEEWS impart not just advantage, but grossly unfair advantage. And students know it. (Which is why they tell "only a close friend" or underclassman about LEEWS. Or a relative. 30+ years later the children, nieces, nephews of former students [now entering law school], are being referred to us!)
We take advantage of the ineffectiveness of law school teaching! (Hence, Gaming Emperor Law School.)
Any good lawyer exploits an advantage where an advantage is to be had.
1. The unfortunate scenario in all law schools (no exceptions!): Almost all entering law students ("1Ls") are smart (very!) and hard working. They are excited, eager to become lawyers. (Becoming a lawyer is a big deal!) Within days (often the first class!) intimidation takes hold. Reading/"briefing" cases proves tedious and – no one wants to admit it – boring. Class discussion confuses. (Resulting in copious notes to "make sense of later," but there is no "later.") Few professors give midterm exams to alert of a disconnect between what is required for class and what is required on all-important final exams. The vast majority, "A" students all their lives, predictably flounder on exams. Nevertheless, B's, even B+'s are awarded for sub-par effort. Exams are so confusing, intimidating, "impossible," that students are grateful for B's. "A" grades seem a pipe dream. (Any, including LEEWS, who tout the possibility of A's are not believed.) All now fault themselves (not law school or professors) for not "getting it," for not "having [or getting] what it takes to be a great legal mind." Indeed, there is little sense of becoming a lawyer. Law school becomes a chore, a necessary, expensive, required passage to the profession. 2 1/2 more years! Ugh!
Can this portrait be accurate? Ask any lawyer. Ask any law student beyond first term. It is why law school has the reputation of "difficult," "not fun!" Few say, "I enjoyed law school."
Read “Day One of Law School – The Ringmaster Cracks the Whip!,” a chapter in the new book, Gaming Emperor Law School, by LEEWS founder, Wentworth Miller. Indeed, read the entirety of Section Three – "Confusion, intimidation, and case method instruction lay the foundation for mediocre exam performance in Emperor Law School." [Free download at this website!]
Lest the foregoing cause discouragement, intimidation, annoyance (?), here is an alternative, more appealing scenario: Boredom continues at times. (Law practice will be far more interesting than law school.) However, there is no confusion, no intimidation. Effort points to what counts – grades on final exams, and grades are commensurate with effort. Cases are placed in a context of future practice and exam preparation. They are better grasped, and more easily. Although often beside the point (of exam performance), classroom discussion is better understood. It is more interesting. A proven science of preparation and exam taking is in hand, providing confidence. Thinking is more practicing lawyer than academic. Law school is sometimes enjoyable. (Being able to play any game well makes it enjoyable.)
It may be further noted that grade inflation in law school is reflected in 20-30 percent A's required by some grade curves. (E.g., U. Texas, U. Pennsylvania.) Although professors typically award A's to exams falling far short of lawyerly competence (see footnote 4 following), they are loathe to award 20-30 percent A's. [Even when Yale/Harvard/Stanford awarded letter grades, fewer than ten percent received A's!] The result is a proliferation of A-'s. A- is a grade that did not exist in law school a decade ago. It is the new B+! Law students are quite satisfied with A-'s.
2. This insight is wholly new! You’ll not find it elsewhere. It is one of many unique, probing, pioneering insights that sets LEEWS (far) apart. It is precisely a (far) deeper understanding of the problem of law school and especially law exams, and strategies and solutions derived from that understanding that explains the significant advantage conferred by LEEWS. It is why what LEEWS offers is not and cannot be duplicated by any other source.
LEEWS in short is nothing less than a revolution in thinking and approach. As noted above, we change everything!
Re fault for poor performance by nearly all on exams. It may be noted that law schools and law professors do not fault themselves for almost universal poor performance on exams after a term (or three years!) of their instruction. Far from it. The reasoning is that only a very select few have what is required to exhibit mastery on law essay exams.4 (Therefore, what? – no amount of instruction can enable the majority of smart, diligent persons who enter law school to write "A" exams?! ... Seriously?) This mysterious quality or "gift" is deemed innate. It is often termed "The Right Stuff" and/or "genius for the law." Moreover, it just … IS – it can't be taught, you either have it or you don't. Students lacking this quality – the vast majority who don't get a single "A" grade or equivalent, even at Yale/Harvard/Stanford – buy into this thinking and content themselves with B's.
3. Simple, telling fact. The fault again lies with the academic focus of case method instruction (CMI). CMI wholly ignores the role of lawyers. (Which, simply stated, is to achieve client goals via procedural/substantive legal strategies.) As numerous critics point out, CMI ignores actual law practice.
4. Respecting "mastery," note that a mere 35 or 45 points out of a possible 100 typically earns an "A" on a law exam! (Yes! See quote from a U. Georgia law professor and discussion in the Introduction to LEEWS. See the free, downloadable book indicated above – Gaming Emperor Law School.) Thus, far from masterful, those who get rare A's are themselves typically confused and floundering, just less so than classmates. The very good news is that, given proper instruction, there is much room for improvement. We're not surprised if our students score 65, 85, and more points out of a possible 100! As more than one law professor has said to a LEEWS grad, "I can't post your score. It's too far above the curve." (And would upset other students.)
5. A system for methodically, efficiently identifying "issues" in dense fact patterns ("hypotheticals"); a system for presenting analysis in concise paragraphs (roughly one per issue); a system of day-to-day, week-to-week preparation. (Respecting the latter, 2-4 line exam [not class!] focused case briefs; 30-50 page course outlines.)
There are lots of commercial programs and aids designed to assist law students in studying for and writing exams, but—trust us—Wentworth Miller's [“LEEWS”] is the best of the bunch. [LEEWS] is the secret behind the success of more law review members than you can shake a stick at. You really should check it out.
— THE PRINCETON REVIEW 2001 Guide to Law Schools, pp. 80, 83
An alternative to reading the extensive content at this website?