UnderrateOverachieve wrote:Cellar-door wrote:Connor Benz wrote:I'm just really concerned. I had to shorten my analysis for my contracts exam and get straight to the point because the exam software kept crashing on my computer so I had to write the test. The multiple choice for my civ pro was very difficult and my Torts test, I don't think I got all the issues. I'm just really stressed this holiday season. I think I am going to complain about the software system at my school because I felt like i could have said a lot more had I been typing the test. FML!!!!!
Unless your professor sucks at writing Hypos not a single student got all the issues. Most probably didn't give full analysis to more than 70%.
Your job is to get the major issues then start working out. As long as you feel like you hit the major issues, you will probably be at least in the B range (if not better). The peripheral issues are what separate that upper end of the curve. It is also up to you to decipher whether your teacher gives more points for hitting all the issues with light analysis (like my contracts professor) or if they prefer a deeper analysis.
MY contracts teacher literally had a check list and if you mentioned enough to make it sound like you knew the issue and how to address it, he would award you points. Figure out these things before the exam and you will feel more confident and comfortable.
Some profs favor depth over just issue spotting, and it's all based on grading style.
For example, if the plaintiff and defendant had 1 glass of wine to celebrate closing the deal in which substantial compliance is the major issue, some profs would award the student who has the paragraph bringing in why intoxication isn't an issue and has a decent substantial compliance discussion while others would award the student who spends that time with a deeper substantial compliance analysis. Profs normally say their preference BEFORE the exam.