1L Exam Q&A Forum

[thesealocust]

I don't think any of my 1L professors gave us model answers? Not a big deal.

For your average essay exam, your framework should be that there are an unlimited number of potential points, and you don't have to produce a single uniform set of arguments. Exams that get As will often look very different from one another, since you can pick up points all over the place.

Also, there are model answers and then there are model answers. I've seen all of the following served up as model answers:

(1) The best student-produced answer to the question. This is an extremely valuable resource.

(2) A good student answer, often with little disclaimer that it's not the best. This can actually be misleading, but professors often want to show a solid example of an exam instead of 'scaring' people by showing the one that earned the highest number of points.

(3) A 'perfect' answer written by the professor. This is super misleading, because they can spend all the time in the world preparing it, and so it will lack the rough edges of a real answer and probably be far more comprehensive than what you'll be aiming to produce.

(4) A summary of issues. These are also super misleading - the prof will spot some, but not all, issues, and maybe discuss a few things students did well or poorly as a group. Not helpful for sort of the opposite reason as #3 - it's likely to be way under-inclusive, and probably not even written with effective technique.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

still man. at least with a model answer i can get a better sense of wtf she wants on an exam answer, instead of playing 20 questions and hide the ball socratic bullshit during class lectures

[thesealocust]

Wrong attitude. All professors write exams to test the exact same skill and reward it when they see it.

(spoiler: it's application of law to fact)

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

bu.. bu.. but what about telling the prof what she wants to hear?

[thesealocust]

They want to hear careful application of law to fact. This isn't college, you don't get extra credit for sharing their view - all the credit comes from building up the arguments to get to their view, and from making counter arguments along the way...

[A. Nony Mouse]

What they want is application of law to fact. Their particular spin on it, you figure out from going to class. A model answer isn't going to magically provide it (mostly for the reasons TSL already laid out).

Edit: when I say spin, I mean their preferences in showing that application, not their political preferences.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

okay... fine.

i don't even know why profs do word limit exams. isn't it much harder to discern A+,A,A-,B+ so on grades on a strict word limited exam? at least when it's no word limit the prof can say "okay an A+ exam response spotted 100 of 150 total issues and the next best spotted 70" and so on. i get that application is where the points are but I'm just having a hard time seeing how there can be that much variance in application on exam day with people essentially applying the same rules to the same issues. i don't even know wtf I'm talking about anymore.

[thesealocust]

okay... fine.

i don't even know why profs do word limit exams. isn't it much harder to discern A+,A,A-,B+ so on grades on a strict word limited exam? at least when it's no word limit the prof can say "okay an A+ exam response spotted 100 of 150 total issues and the next best spotted 70" and so on. i get that application is where the points are but I'm just having a hard time seeing how there can be that much variance in application on exam day with people essentially applying the same rules to the same issues. i don't even know wtf I'm talking about anymore.

Word-limited exams are graded the exact same way, and produce the exact same curve.

This shit is hard, even with lots of time and/or a constraint on how much you can write. You have to know the law cold and be well versed in analyzing new fact patterns to produce a good exam, and most people will do alright and wind up in a big clump around median. The 'hide the ball' bullshit means a lot of smart, prepared people will totally wiff on the exam.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

hmm ok. let me ask a more practical question then.

assuming the prof uploads exams early like she said, should i look at them throughout the semester and try to work on them or should i not look at them at all and save them until the end of the semester. again, she's not giving out model answers.

[BVest]

Word limit exams weed out the students who identify the truly relevant issues and address them clearly and concisely from those who do not. And even though much of LS is unrelated to the actual practice of law, making your argument within strict space constraints is a very real and very important part of the practice of law. For example on a torts question, word limits favor those who recognize what torts are implicated and which are not, rather than those who list the element for every tort covered in class in the hopes of racking up a few more checkmarks.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

is it ever appropriate to assume facts not stated

[thesealocust]

Basically no, but that's a loaded question. A lot of policy arguments are going to be rooted in your knowledge of how society works, how humans react to incentives, how things have worked in the past, etc. So on some level the exam will presume a basic understanding of, well, society? But otherwise you can't earn points for making an argument based on a fact that you have assumed but that wasn't stated, because there's no way to grade people on a curve if they get to make up their own facts.

If there's something that probably should be true or that is more or less necessary to a thorough analysis, you can make mention it while being very explicit about your assumption, but at that point you've strayed from the path of actually earning points making arguments about the facts presented - so don't dwell on it.

If you want to be pretentious about it, I believe LEEWS suggests the phrase "Assuming, arguendo." Which is Latin for "Assuming"

[RSN]

A lot of policy arguments are going to be rooted in your knowledge of how society works, how humans react to incentives, how things have worked in the past, etc. So on some level the exam will presume a basic understanding of, well, society?

Is there a good way to build up this knowledge? I thought I had a pretty good sense of this kind of thing coming in, but I'm constantly saying "wow, I never would've thought of that" when I hear points people bring up in class that to them are clearly intuitive. Any tips on that, or is it the kind of thing that you sort of have it or you don't?

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

Tag

[thesealocust]

A lot of policy arguments are going to be rooted in your knowledge of how society works, how humans react to incentives, how things have worked in the past, etc. So on some level the exam will presume a basic understanding of, well, society?

Is there a good way to build up this knowledge? I thought I had a pretty good sense of this kind of thing coming in, but I'm constantly saying "wow, I never would've thought of that" when I hear points people bring up in class that to them are clearly intuitive. Any tips on that, or is it the kind of thing that you sort of have it or you don't?

I think it'll come with time - I'm not sure there's much you can do to force it. Just keep your eyes open and exposure to a zillion cases and a zillion hours of people arguing about where to draw the line and why should do the trick.

[FloridaCoastalorbust]

taggert

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

i wonder what makes people "naturally good" at law exams.

[star fox]

i wonder what makes people "naturally good" at law exams.

If you can think quickly, have good experience with "free response" type exams (ones with a blue book in liberal arts UG courses), mentally compartmentalize course material such that it's easier for you to identify which facts correspond with which legal issues in the course, and a strong ability to "see both sides" of potential issues then you're probably in good shape.

[thesealocust]

Also, some people with lawyer parents and/or technical backgrounds are predisposed to think and write in a very organized way, breaking things down into elements, making arguments, etc. None of which is impossible or even that hard to learn if you're pointed in the right direction or get feedback. But 1L year generally leaves people to cast about and the first major feedback is grades a month after first semester ends.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

fuck how do i train myself to think quickly bros. i can do all those things on some level, but i cant think quickly

[star fox]

fuck how do i train myself to think quickly bros. i can do all those things on some level, but i cant think quickly

Learn the course material inside and out. If you know every rule like the back of your hand, the issues you need to spot will start to appear obvious after you take some practice exams.

[totesTheGoat]

Also, some people with lawyer parents and/or technical backgrounds are predisposed to think and write in a very organized way, breaking things down into elements, making arguments, etc. None of which is impossible or even that hard to learn if you're pointed in the right direction or get feedback.

thesealocust brings up an important point. The best tip that I got for 1L exams was to outline the answers first, and fill in the details after you get the outline written.

An exam answer that is a wall of text separated by the occasional paragraph break is going to fare significantly worse than an exam answer that has headings and subheadings. For example, a basic"outline" may look like this for a certain Torts question:

Duty
Reasonable Standard

Breach
Res Ipsa Loquitor

Causation
Causation in Fact

Proximate Causation

Harm
Economic Harm

Damages/Injunctive Relief



Then you start filling in the sections with your paragraphs. That way you're not talking about injunctive relief in the same paragraph as the reasonable person,and you're not talking about proximate causation in ten different places across the answer.

[PeanutsNJam]

My contracts prof is doing a midterm and he basically told us this thread, so now everybody in my section knows this. He spent half of class telling us to:

- First, state the issue. There may be multiple issues. Sometimes, a "yes" to an issue A may reveal issues B, while a "no" to issue A may reveal issues C. (He didn't discuss how to deal with this seemingly infinite # of issues)

- Then, state the applicable rule. Rules gleaned from cases or Restatement or UCC.

- Then, if applicable, discuss cases in class. No need to know the exact name (it's closed book), but talk about the facts/holding and compare to the current fact pattern.

- Analysis. He specifically said this is the most important section. Application of the rule of law to the facts in order to answer the issue statement. Must be very methodical, going through every step along the way.

Repeat.

Since my midterm is coming up in 5 days, I was wondering if I could write a simple hypo and a simple mock exam answer and could you guys give me some feedback? You can edit my hypo to more closely resemble an exam question, as I'm flying blind here. I'm writing this without my notes or anything in front of me, so keep that in mind (it's a closed book exam anyway). I also have yet to look at any practice exams.

I have a huge problem actually with accurately stating the issue, so help with that pl0x. Big thanks to anybody willing to read this drivel. I'll buy you drankz if we ever meet in person. I'm also having trouble stretching out analysis and finding points there.

Steve hired Bob to play a role in Steve's movie, Backdoor Sluts 9. The terms of the contract are that Bob was to perform in 50 scenes over the next week, and he was to be paid $1000 per scene at the completion of the movie. After having performed 10 scenes, Bob quit his job because his Crim Law outline wasn't where he wanted it to be. When he quit, Steve said he understood how hard law school is, and promised to leave Bob a spot in his next movie, Backdoor Sluts 10. Steve was forced to hire James Deen to finish Backdoor Sluts 9, who charges $2000 per scene, despite there being PeanutsNJam available for $1,100/scene. Bob failed his Crim Law final, and struck out at OCI. When he talked to Steve about performing in Backdoor Sluts 10, Steve said his hands were tied, as the girls strongly preferred James Deen. Steve has yet to pay Bob for his 10 scenes in Backdoor Sluts 9. Bob sues.

My comments are in italics.

The first issue at hand is when an employee breaches an employment contract after only partial performance, what remedy, if any, is he entitled to?

(This isn't a rule specifically discussed in class, but do I get points for saying that a breaching party has no claim in contracts for damages?)

A plaintiff may forego a claim in contracts for a claim in restitution. Restitution involves the interest of a party in the value of the work conferred on the other party through performance of a contract. The formula for calculating restitution is the value of the benefit conferred less the injury to the non-breaching party. In an employment contract, the remedy is calculated as the pro rata portion of the contract price minus any additional expenses incurred by the employer through replacement.

In the case where the plaintiff cut short his work on a farm and sued for his salary, the court held that the recovery was the contract price minus the cost of completion. This formula was incorrect because it may result in overcompensation of the employee if the cost of completion is very low.

The doctrine of avoidable consequences places the responsibility of minimizing damages on the non-breaching party, and that the non-breaching party may not recover for damages that need not have been incurred.

Bob was the breaching party, and therefore has no claim in contracts. If he wishes to recover, he must bring suit in restitution. The measure of recovery in Bob's case is his pro rata contract price, which is (10 x $1,000 = $10,000), less the excess expenditure to the employer for replacement. The employer had to pay an extra $1,000 for the remaining 40 scenes, meaning the excess expenditure to the employer was (40 x $1,000 = $40,000). Bob's recovery cannot be negative, so even under restitution, he recovers nothing.

While the non-breaching party is not bringing suit and not seeking remedy, the doctrine of avoidable consequences may still be argued by Bob (unless I'm 100% wrong here). Bob may argue that Steve could have simply hired PeanutsNJam, in which case Steve's injury would be merely (40 x $100 = $4,000), and Bob would recover $10,000 - $4,000 = $6,000. While Steve does not have a duty to mitigate (my prof REALLY emphasized that parties DO NOT have duty to mitigate), the additional expenses by Steve need not have been incurred. (This counter-point feels like shit, would I get any pts for it?)

The second issue at hand is whether Steve's gratuitous promise to Bob is enforceable.

(Do I get points for talking about consideration even though it's clearly not present? My prof clearly states never to use any adjective for consideration, so "sufficient consideration" or "valid consideration" are all no-nos.)

Consideration requires mutual reciprocal inducement. In order for a promise to be consideration, it must induce the other party's promise.

Restatement Section 90: When there is no consideration, a promise may be enforceable if the promisor reasonably expects the promise to induce action or forbearance from the promisee, and the promisee does so to his detriment, and injustice may only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. (For whatever reason, my professor really wants us to separate Restatement 90 from promissory estoppel so idk man I just don't fucking know). Promissory estoppel may be used if the defendant claims that no contract was formed, as he is estopped to claim no contract by his promise if it reasonably induces action or forbearance from the promisee.

(I don't remember the details about the cases so I guess I'm fucked.)

Steve's promise to bob was gratuitous and without consideration; it was not induced by anything Bob promised. Therefore, in order for Bob to enforce the contract, he must demonstrate that Steve would reasonably expect Bob to rely on the promise, and that Bob did indeed rely on the promise, and that injustice may only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. In the present facts, it would be tenuous to claim that Steve intended for Bob to rely on his promise to his detriment. One cannot conclusively state that Steve expected Bob to forego any future employment opportunities in order to partake in Backdoor Sluts 10. Bob did not even necessarily rely on the promise. He merely failed his exam and had no other options; he did not forego any other opportunities in order to appear in Backdoor Sluts 10. If Bob did not rely on the promise to his detriment, nor did Steve intend for Bob to relinquish future prospects as a result of his promise, then no injustice may be done. Steve's gratuitous promise is therefore unenforceable.

Bob is also unable to claim promissory estoppel because he did not rely, to his detriment, on Steve's promise. Steve is therefore not estopped to claim no contract was formed.

(I can't think of a counterargument. Maybe my hypo is just too shitty.)

TL;DR Bob is shit out of luck, and should have studied harder. I may be joining Bob in the Vale.

This is closed-book so I'm writing this without looking at my notes, and I know in my bowels I'm missing a ton of shit. I still have a few days to study and outline. But I feel like everything I said was child's play, and this will be no better (possibly worse) than other peoples' exams. I obviously need a lot of help and am very concerned so pls halp.

And as I post this I just realize I have 0 policy arguments. Do I get pts for policy arguments? I do don't I.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

if we start doing this kind of shit, you just know some dumbass is gonna post his mid-term or final exam on here and ask for help

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

and IRAC isn't some big secret bro. fucking practically everyone in my school at least lurks TLS and thinks they are gonna crush LS with this supplement/outline, not realizing virtually everyone is reading the same supplement and outline.