vamedic03 wrote: JCougar wrote:
Younger Abstention wrote:You guys make it sound so difficult; even at my T10, many exam answers are absolutely terrible. Some people don't learn the law, others cannot apply it. Many can't do either. (I'm a 3L)
Yet a lot of people both understand the law and can apply it, and get average grades because they don't type enough words.
There's also a few uber gunners that don't have a clue as to what they're talking about that still can succeed on exams due to refined outline copying/outlining skills.
Law exams reward superfluous "analysis" and throwing unnecessary things from your outline in there not because they have practical value, but because they proved that you studied stuff.
It's not about typing the most. It's about doing a thorough analysis. There's no reason to crank out 2000 words / hour, but a good few thousand words are typically necessary for a decent exam. If you're writing super short stuff then you're probably giving issues short shrift and being conclusory.
To reiterate the point - a good exam has a good analysis. This means not just giving the conclusion, but saying why. If there's not a lot of X because Y type sentences in your answer, then you're probably being conclusory.
Are you giving me a lecture about how to answer law exam questions?
I've gotten some pretty fantastic grades, and I've gotten some pretty shitty ones. The best I've ever done on an exam was when I just stopped caring and thinking and just copied basically everything that was on my outline onto the exam without even looking at the question. I've looked at model answers, and that's basically the story. Even the people who do finish in the top 5% basically admit that it's mostly typing speed and writing down everything even if it's mostly irrelevant.
I am not conclusory in my answers. Honestly, though, you could pretty much sum up a 10-issue question with one decision tree-like diagram and a few bullet points manipulating the facts to argue each way. Kind of like how you could sum up everything in Getting to Maybe in a 3-page pamphlet, or sum up your entire 1000-page casebook with a 10-page outline.
The rest is just extraneous bullshit invented by people with jobs where you excel not by producing practical and efficient results, but by producing more and more pages and paperwork. If you're a partner and you want to hire an associate, both who know the law cold and can apply it perfectly, which one do you want to hire? The one that can sum up the legal problem in three pages and bills two hours, or the one that bloviates on and on about marginally relevant policy issues, etc. and takes 30 hours to do the same work? You'd hire the latter, of course, because you bill the client $300/hour, pay the associate $75/hour, and make a huge profit on the remaining $225.