Who else feels like they failed all their finals? Forum

[smokyroom26]

Here are the rules for the period of time after finals and before grades are released:

1. Drink.
2. Feel nothing. Your subconscious will take care of that with the dreams. (You'll see.)
3. ???
4. PROFIT.

Seriously, just stop. You have no idea how you did, I promise.

This is tragic and true. 1L winter break requires a lot of scotch.

Also I am so glad you're still using my avatar.

Who let you out of your cage?

Welcome back, poast moar

Also this avatar shall live forever.

[law777]

Should every issue covered in class be mentioned on the exam?

Also, I've only taken one exam but I think I may have fallen into the trap of just listing relevant law (at least predominantly). Are there any 2L/3Ls out there with any advice on how to give a more satisfactory answer?

[dailygrind]

Odds are high that I get the beetus during a law school finals period. Could be this semester. I eat nothing but shit during exams. Can't remember the last piece of fruit I ate. Can't even remember the last vegetable I ate that wasn't smothered in sauce/butter/sour cream or stuffed into a giant burrito/sub sandwich/burger.

Also may get some sort of brain tumor from staring at a computer screen/TV for 15 hours a day, but that's another story.

This pretty much sums up my exact situation.

+1. Also, I am worried that the amount of caffeine I am consuming may either give me a heart attack or set me on a terrible pathway to success that will give me a heartattack before 40.

[vanwinkle]

Should every issue covered in class be mentioned on the exam?

Also, I've only taken one exam but I think I may have fallen into the trap of just listing relevant law (at least predominantly). Are there any 2L/3Ls out there with any advice on how to give a more satisfactory answer?

This is the secret to doing well: Apply law to facts.

Don't list laws; instead, describe how a law applies to these facts. Cover issues that would realistivally apply to those facts. Don't cover issues that are irrelevant. Your exam likely has multiple questions, and something may not be worth raising the first question but be important in a later one.

Decide what law is relevant to the exam hypo auestion, and then apply that law to the hypo facts. Lather, rinse, repeat. Most exams have more issues than you could possibly cover, so just focus on the ones you can identify and describe how it affects the outcome.

And then your time runs out and you worry anyway, but that's life.

[FeelTheHeat]

Odds are high that I get the beetus during a law school finals period. Could be this semester. I eat nothing but shit during exams. Can't remember the last piece of fruit I ate. Can't even remember the last vegetable I ate that wasn't smothered in sauce/butter/sour cream or stuffed into a giant burrito/sub sandwich/burger.

Also may get some sort of brain tumor from staring at a computer screen/TV for 15 hours a day, but that's another story.

This pretty much sums up my exact situation.

+1. Also, I am worried that the amount of caffeine I am consuming may either give me a heart attack or set me on a terrible pathway to success that will give me a heartattack before 40.

(about to go eat chipotle for probably the 6th time in december)

[dailygrind]

Shit happens.

[law777]

Should every issue covered in class be mentioned on the exam?

Also, I've only taken one exam but I think I may have fallen into the trap of just listing relevant law (at least predominantly). Are there any 2L/3Ls out there with any advice on how to give a more satisfactory answer?

This is the secret to doing well: Apply law to facts.

Don't list laws; instead, describe how a law applies to these facts. Cover issues that would realistivally apply to those facts. Don't cover issues that are irrelevant. Your exam likely has multiple questions, and something may not be worth raising the first question but be important in a later one.

Decide what law is relevant to the exam hypo auestion, and then apply that law to the hypo facts. Lather, rinse, repeat. Most exams have more issues than you could possibly cover, so just focus on the ones you can identify and describe how it affects the outcome.

And then your time runs out and you worry anyway, but that's life.

Thanks for the help. I have the remainder of my tests this next week, so I'll definitely approach them with this in mind. I think I was so concered with producing a high word count (which should be less of a concern?) that I just started repeating law instead of focusing exclusively on applying. Thankfully, I have some time to adjust my test taking approach before I close out the semester.

[Sapientia]

Pretty sure I failed my criminal law final yesterday. We'll see, though!

[lisjjen]

...is this a standard 1L feeling?

Rather it is or not, I definitely am feeling it

[prezidentv8]

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Always repeat.

--ImageRemoved--

[JusticeHarlan]

Also, I am worried that the amount of caffeine I am consuming may either give me a heart attack or set me on a terrible pathway to success that will give me a heartattack before 40.

Or obtain superhuman powers.

[dailygrind]

Significant expansion of upside potential. Intriguing.

[law777]

Should every issue covered in class be mentioned on the exam?

Also, I've only taken one exam but I think I may have fallen into the trap of just listing relevant law (at least predominantly). Are there any 2L/3Ls out there with any advice on how to give a more satisfactory answer?

This is the secret to doing well: Apply law to facts.

Don't list laws; instead, describe how a law applies to these facts. Cover issues that would realistivally apply to those facts. Don't cover issues that are irrelevant. Your exam likely has multiple questions, and something may not be worth raising the first question but be important in a later one.

Decide what law is relevant to the exam hypo auestion, and then apply that law to the hypo facts. Lather, rinse, repeat. Most exams have more issues than you could possibly cover, so just focus on the ones you can identify and describe how it affects the outcome.

And then your time runs out and you worry anyway, but that's life.

Thanks for the help. I have the remainder of my tests this next week, so I'll definitely approach them with this in mind. I think I was so concered with producing a high word count (which should be less of a concern?) that I just started repeating law instead of focusing exclusively on applying. Thankfully, I have some time to adjust my test taking approach before I close out the semester.

Is it best not to cite the relevant law at all? Just dive right in and start applying?

[Grizz]

Is it best not to cite the relevant law at all? Just dive right in and start applying?

Some profs like it, some don't, and some might want you to say why some other law might not apply.

[td6624]

how would you apply it without pointing out what it is

[Grizz]

how would you apply it without pointing out what it is

Just looked at a crim pro a model exam where the model answer for my class that just looked like an analogy to a bunch of cases. Absurd.

[danget bobby]

okay i need to get this out somewhere so i can move on ffs.

had crim law last thurs, my first final. i was SO nervous to start lol my hands were trembling when i started typing.

anyways i feel pretty meh about it and i keep thinking of things that i missed. our prof gives really short and dense fact patterns with really bizarre facts (oh really?) that make no sense until two days later when you're on the can and you think 'fml, so THATS why D wasn't wearing any boots when he ran outside.'

i keep trying to convince myself that no one else got this shit and it literally is driving my crazy...

sigh i have never trolled tls so much as i have since the exam...gl all

[thesealocust]

how would you apply it without pointing out what it is

For starters, you're really just learning about the law in general and rarely learning specifics (civ pro and con law being obvious exceptions). You'll see example cases and example laws, and when exam time comes generally your hypothetical is in a hypothetical location and you just apply law like your life depended on it. It's really not imperative to state that consequential damages are not recoverable because of Hadley v. Baxendale, which is a case from a million years ago anyway. It might be useful (i.e. points generating) to discuss why the scenario on your exam resembles (and doesn't resemble) the scenario in hadley as you make arguments about whether or not the damages requested are actually consequential or not. But that's just one method of analysis.

Hypo: I made a contract with you to fix my car on Sunday. When we made the contract, I told you that I needed my car to drive to a job interview on Monday and you charged me a higher rate than usual. You didn't finish in time and I missed my interview.

Answer: On its face, plaintiff would not be able to recover damages relating to the missed job interview because consequential damages are not recoverable in contract law. [Optional and likely not worth any points to many professors: put the phrase Hadley v. Baxendale in parens after that sentence]. In this case, however, the parties may have specifically contracted for the service to be done in time making the harm to the plaintiff more foreseeable than in a traditional consequential damages case. [More analysis about the facts] [Optional: compare this fact pattern to Hadley, pointing out why the parties being informed of the potential damages should or should not change the analysis]. [Optional: reach a conclusion].

Basically you're just toying with legal concepts, and the cases you read are interesting examples of them much mroe frequently than they are THE LAW.

[td6624]

umm ok but if you're applying "law" to facts, at some point your answer has to at least allude to what the "law" is.

i think this might just be an issue with semantics

[luthersloan]

how would you apply it without pointing out what it is

For starters, you're really just learning about the law in general and rarely learning specifics (civ pro and con law being obvious exceptions). You'll see example cases and example laws, and when exam time comes generally your hypothetical is in a hypothetical location and you just apply law like your life depended on it. It's really not imperative to state that consequential damages are not recoverable because of Hadley v. Baxendale, which is a case from a million years ago anyway. It might be useful (i.e. points generating) to discuss why the scenario on your exam resembles (and doesn't resemble) the scenario in hadley as you make arguments about whether or not the damages requested are actually consequential or not. But that's just one method of analysis.

Hypo: I made a contract with you to fix my car on Sunday. When we made the contract, I told you that I needed my car to drive to a job interview on Monday and you charged me a higher rate than usual. You didn't finish in time and I missed my interview.

Answer: On its face, plaintiff would not be able to recover damages relating to the missed job interview because consequential damages are not recoverable in contract law. [Optional and likely not worth any points to many professors: put the phrase Hadley v. Baxendale in parens after that sentence]. In this case, however, the parties may have specifically contracted for the service to be done in time making the harm to the plaintiff more foreseeable than in a traditional consequential damages case. [More analysis about the facts] [Optional: compare this fact pattern to Hadley, pointing out why the parties being informed of the potential damages should or should not change the analysis]. [Optional: reach a conclusion].

Basically you're just toying with legal concepts, and the cases you read are interesting examples of them much mroe frequently than they are THE LAW.

One can recover consequential damages in contract, the limitation in Hadley is that only consequential damages that are reasonably foreseeable are recoverable.

[AreJay711]

umm ok but if you're applying "law" to facts, at some point your answer has to at least allude to what the "law" is.

i think this might just be an issue with semantics

how would you apply it without pointing out what it is

For starters, you're really just learning about the law in general and rarely learning specifics (civ pro and con law being obvious exceptions). You'll see example cases and example laws, and when exam time comes generally your hypothetical is in a hypothetical location and you just apply law like your life depended on it. It's really not imperative to state that consequential damages are not recoverable because of Hadley v. Baxendale, which is a case from a million years ago anyway. It might be useful (i.e. points generating) to discuss why the scenario on your exam resembles (and doesn't resemble) the scenario in hadley as you make arguments about whether or not the damages requested are actually consequential or not. But that's just one method of analysis.

Hypo: I made a contract with you to fix my car on Sunday. When we made the contract, I told you that I needed my car to drive to a job interview on Monday and you charged me a higher rate than usual. You didn't finish in time and I missed my interview.

Answer: On its face, plaintiff would not be able to recover damages relating to the missed job interview because consequential damages are not recoverable in contract law. [Optional and likely not worth any points to many professors: put the phrase Hadley v. Baxendale in parens after that sentence]. In this case, however, the parties may have specifically contracted for the service to be done in time making the harm to the plaintiff more foreseeable than in a traditional consequential damages case. [More analysis about the facts] [Optional: compare this fact pattern to Hadley, pointing out why the parties being informed of the potential damages should or should not change the analysis]. [Optional: reach a conclusion].

Basically you're just toying with legal concepts, and the cases you read are interesting examples of them much mroe frequently than they are THE LAW.

[bk1]

umm ok but if you're applying "law" to facts, at some point your answer has to at least allude to what the "law" is.

i think this might just be an issue with semantics

Well I think the original responses were intended to mean that you don't really have to cite case names or R2C/UCC sections. You can just say what the law is and apply it to the fact pattern. Maybe some profs care about citing to cases or R2C/UCC sections but, in my experience, many do not.

[alicrimson]

umm ok but if you're applying "law" to facts, at some point your answer has to at least allude to what the "law" is.

i think this might just be an issue with semantics

I would just ask the prof what he/she wants. In my torts exam we had a strict word limit and my teacher said no rule statement because you can use the facts and state a claim in a way that the elements are clear. Other classes (crim and k) have rule statements built into their grading rubrics. It just depends. Ask your prof.

[jess]

.

[ilovesf]

umm ok but if you're applying "law" to facts, at some point your answer has to at least allude to what the "law" is.

i think this might just be an issue with semantics

one of my profs told us we don't have to cite to cases whatsoever, another told me today that whenever you state any kind of law, you get extra points for saying where you derived the law, be it restatement or case. just ask your prof and go over a test with him/her.