As a third-year, law school exams are now getting predictable. I still remember the tutor for my criminal law class saying, “Well, she’ll never ask a question about that…it wouldn’t lead to any analysis.” I sat there thinking to myself, “Holy shit, she’s right. I shouldn’t spend much time studying strict liability.” That moment, combined with “Getting to Maybe,” have helped form the way I think about exams. In contrast to undergrad, law school exams aren’t about what you know; its about how you apply it. This is why all the professors for the 1Ls say, “Its all about the analysis.” Too many focus on spitting out what the U.C.C. Statute of Frauds stands for, instead of applying the SOF to the facts in problem.
I don’t claim to ace every exam now, far from it, but I think there’s a reason why all the 3Ls are bored. We’ve learned the game of law school exams, and are ready to do something more substantive than come up with primary and alternative arguments for some hypothetical fact pattern.
Below is my biggest tip. However, borrowing from “Getting to Maybe,” its helpful to know three primary ways that law professors construct tests. First, there is commonly a “forks in the facts.” This is where Fact X leads to result #1, and Fact Y leads to result #2. Look for this, argue both sides and then move on. Sprinkle in some policy on why one result is preferred to another and rack up the points.
Second, there is often a “fork in the law.” This is where Law X will lead to result #1, while Law Y will lead to result #2. A classic example is the difference between contractual “offer” under the common law and U.C.C. Recognize this when you’re outlining. Criminal Law, Property and other cases with multiple jurisdictions are prone to this method. Finally, and most common, is the third approach: a hybrid of a fork in the law and facts. These are the more difficult questions where it can be easily confused.
Crucial to the above is knowing the material. This is what takes everyone so much time. You have to know the applicable law to realize the importance of the facts.
My biggest tip: look for numbers or dates. After my exam today, I’m convinced this is the easiest to pick out. I’ll peg Huntington, Fleischer and now Fineman among the profs who use this method. In our final for Venture Capital the other day, there was an event in “October” and then another in “March.” This is important for a law with a 6-month threshold, as was applicable. If something happened on October 1 and then March 31, then the 6-month threshold is likely satisfied. In contrast, if the event occurs around Halloween and the beginning of March, it doesn’t. Huntington had the same months in her exam for Immigration last year.
Second- and third-years look for these types of things in exams. There are countless other examples, such as: variations on hypos in class; new application of an old statute; imaginary statutes, etc. Of course, there are the open-ended policy questions, but these are nearly impossible to prepare for. You just wing it and hope for the best. As for the others, its something to think about when you’re sitting there wondering why something’s in your exam question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Good tips Bolder. But do you have any tips for a multiple-choice exam written by a first time professor (and thus the first exam they have ever written) covering a wide variety of law (common law, statute and restatements)?
And just to show you how easy it is to become lost in a fact pattern, I totally missed the numbers. Didn't even see them at all on Fineman's exam (except in the first question). Hope you aced it. Oh, which brings up another good point: You don't have to hit everything to get a decent grade. If you miss something here and there but generally spot most issues and do the proper analysis, you will probably do okay. No one gets everything on a law school exam. The complex fact patterns and the time crunch ensure that this doesn't usually happen. However, you *will* think of what you forgot later and it will torture you until grades are released. It's part of the fun of law school!
Advice for Policy: Last year, I was awful at policy questions b/c I "sprinkled" policy into my substantive outline, and didn't separate it out. A perfect example is Torts. Create an outline for the substance (i.e. how to determine negligence), and then have a separate policy section immediately following that section. (Discuss different interpretations "foreseeability") That way, you bust through the black letter, and then the policy is there just in case you need it. The best exams are the ones where you have 2 fact questions and 1 policy. You are wasting your time if you put too much policy (read any) in the first two questions. More points for black letter for those, very few for policy. Perfect example is Davidson's Property exam. Breaking up my outline made that exam a breeze.
And since all you have left is Civ. Pro., Waggs doesn't dig on policy, so don't waste your time.
Blaw, I was referring to the 1st question on Fineman's exam. I think a fair number of people could've easily overlooked the significance.
I totally agree that you don't have to hit everything and do especially well.
As for policy, I usually have a section under each topic (example: strict liability) with policy arguments (pros/cons).
I haven't ever really been big on putting policy into my exams. I do it if it's really natural, but I don't do it just to do it, and mostly it's worked out fine. Property may be the exception. I might have talked about it a little bit in Fineman's first question yesterday.
my advice is not to talk about questions on exams that have already happened, other than "wow, that sucked." even though you answered differently than everyone else, you might be right. no good can come from discussion. so just don't do it. wait until after grades come out.
something i always did was to answer all of the questions with a short answer. then go back and and add more information to the answers if you have time. that way, you have at least answered all the questions.
Post a Comment