BearsGrl wrote:fosterp wrote:My Civ pro exam was the most bizzare thing I've ever seen. It looked nothing like any of the professors old exams, nor like any exam I pulled up from other profs at the school or anywhere else. You know the standard TLS advice to not worry about knowing the cases? The ENTIRE test was about random nuances from cases we read: "in x v x the court held that...." 30 multiple choice questions which seemed like they were written by a 10 year old since half of them could have been answered "maybe, it depends on xyz...." NO fact patterns, NO application of laws to facts, and a final essay which seemed like it was pulled straight from a history test and had nothing to do with current law.
What the fk?
Well law exams aren't really based on current law. Was it maybe a policy related question?
I take Civ. Pro next semester (assuming I pass this one). Did you listen to BarBri lectures?
Yes the barbri lectures were good but completely inapplicable to this test. Basically every question was pulled from the "notes" section in the casebook. What was even more bizzare was that the mid-term took the form of what people would expect from a civ pro exam based on his past exams, it was a collection of short answer hypos and one long hypo...and then he threw this at us. Having an outline/memorizing it was completely useless because all of the BLL was irrelevant. You were basically completely screwed if you didn't have a collection of briefs from all of the cases that were assigned. I luckily had decided to print out my unorganized notes which had mini briefs of all the cases but I still struggled to try and remember the details of the cases.