1L Exam Q&A Forum

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

nvm

[thesealocust]

That's hardly nontraditional, even if it doesn't look like a racehorse issue spotter fact pattern. You do the same thing you do for every other fact pattern: put as much coherent analysis on the page as possible.

[TetrisBlock]

Thanks for creating and going through a hypo for that contracts exams pb&j. I just had a contracts midterm with that professor and I was stressing out because I couldn't find any hypos for a midterm that just did damages and consideration.

As for the midterm, I don't think I did well, but I'm happy because my fear was not being able to answer the question at all. I'm happy as long as my score isn't so low that it drags down my final grade. This midterm taught me that I really need to pick a class and read ahead this week so that I can start taking practice exams to see what they're like.

[PeanutsNJam]

Yeah my fear was that I didn't give any novel or amazing answer. I feel like a monkey could've done what I did. It's good to get this practice run and get some feedback. I can just imagine the prof saying, when I go see him about my D-, "PnJ, a monkey could have written this exam."

Actually, I felt like the exam was a little too easy and there weren't many hidden things, which could be bad because that means the exam was completely over my head, or it could be bad because everybody would have written a pretty good answer.

Certainly did not use headings or sub headings, or present any policy arguments, so gg below median here I come. I probably wasted 20 of my 90 mins trying to find more issues or think of something, but coming up blank. 20 minutes of no typing or productive thought. At the end, I just couldn't spot any more issues or add any more analysis. Although I did have that adrenaline thing where you can't think much, and the longer you go without coming up with something the more nervous you get, and the worse it gets, etc.

[TetrisBlock]

Yeah my fear was that I didn't give any novel or amazing answer. I feel like a monkey could've done what I did. It's good to get this practice run and get some feedback. I can just imagine the prof saying, when I go see him about my D-, "PnJ, a monkey could have written this exam."

Actually, I felt like the exam was a little too easy and there weren't many hidden things, which could be bad because that means the exam was completely over my head, or it could be bad because everybody would have written a pretty good answer.

Certainly did not use headings or sub headings, or present any policy arguments, so gg below median here I come. I probably wasted 20 of my 90 mins trying to find more issues or think of something, but coming up blank. 20 minutes of no typing or productive thought. At the end, I just couldn't spot any more issues or add any more analysis. Although I did have that adrenaline thing where you can't think much, and the longer you go without coming up with something the more nervous you get, and the worse it gets, etc.

As far as hopping on the below median train, I'm fine with below median on the midterm as long as it's not so far below that it drags down my final. I think it probably was an easy exam and most people will have hit most of the major points on the exam. I think issue statements and counter-arguments will be the differentiators. I did a terrible job with issue statements, and I didn't use headings or subheadings, just new paragraphs for issues. Blah. I wish the midterm was worth nothing but still had a grade.

[Lawdork]

Does anyone know where to get a bunch of practice exams with model answers? i'm running out of E&E material.

[Effingham]

Does anyone know where to get a bunch of practice exams with model answers? i'm running out of E&E material.

Worked for me:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p8597376

[Lawdork]

Does anyone know where to get a bunch of practice exams with model answers? i'm running out of E&E material.

Worked for me:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p8597376

Thanks for that. I think i'm gonna save the best material like this for the couple weeks before finals.

[Effingham]

Does anyone know where to get a bunch of practice exams with model answers? i'm running out of E&E material.

Worked for me:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p8597376

Thanks for that. I think i'm gonna save the best material like this for the couple weeks before finals.

For the most part practice exams won't help much until those last couple weeks, you need to know all of the issues to spot em, but I wouldn't worry too much about exhausting the material, you won't get through everything there.

[RaceJudicata]

Also

Does anyone know where to get a bunch of practice exams with model answers? i'm running out of E&E material.

Worked for me:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6#p8597376

Thanks for that. I think i'm gonna save the best material like this for the couple weeks before finals.

For the most part practice exams won't help much until those last couple weeks, you need to know all of the issues to spot em, but I wouldn't worry too much about exhausting the material, you won't get through everything there.

Also would not get caught up in too much of the details of these exams. These exams are not written by your professor, and therefore do not properly reflect the material that THEY taught you. If you are taking these exams and come across material that you feel that you don't understand, or didn't go into too much detail, it is probably because you didn't. The value of these is to spot the big issues, make arguments for both sides, and move on. Use your prof's exams for in-depth, detailed oriented practice exams. Trends will begin to emerge pretty quickly.

[GreenEggs]

So I'm a bit confused on how torts works... We read all these cases from almost exclusively state jurisdictions that just have holdings within those states. When we do IRAC, what rule are we applying? Some Montana holding in 1975? Are we supposed to know which jurisdictions matter? Am I supposed to say which state this holds? Or do we care about restatements?

[BVest]

So I'm a bit confused on how torts works... We read all these cases from almost exclusively state jurisdictions that just have holdings within those states. When we do IRAC, what rule are we applying? Some Montana holding in 1975? Are we supposed to know which jurisdictions matter? Am I supposed to say which state this holds? Or do we care about restatements?

It depends on your prof. If your prof likes to talk a lot about the restatements, then you care about the restatements. If your prof talks about cases being a minority or majority rule, then you'll want to talk about both. My torts prof liked us to distinguish majority/minority rules and Restatements 2d and 3d. So on any issue, there were a possible of 4 different possible outcomes to discuss (though usually not that many). You might end up saying P would win in a jdxn following the majority rule, which aligns with Rest 2d, but lose in jdxn following the Rest 3d because he would have no proof of [element required by Rest 3d]. See, e.g., differences in Rest 2d and 3d for "Abnormally dangerous activities" (Rest 2d §§519-20, Rest 3d §20). But if your prof only talks about one restatement or doesn't talk about the restatement at all, you probably don't have to care about it.

BTW, the best person to ask likely doesn't post on this board.

[Attrition]

So kind of on that same line - in criminal my prof has pretty explicitly said that we're going to be tested on the difference between how CL and MPC will handle crimes, but what's the best way to do this? On an exam that is in a mystery jurisdiction do you just split it into paragraphs where in one you describe it all in common law terms and the next mpc or do you just point out the slight differences in how it actually works as you go?

[navykev]

tag

[twenty]

So kind of on that same line - in criminal my prof has pretty explicitly said that we're going to be tested on the difference between how CL and MPC will handle crimes, but what's the best way to do this? On an exam that is in a mystery jurisdiction do you just split it into paragraphs where in one you describe it all in common law terms and the next mpc or do you just point out the slight differences in how it actually works as you go?

Nah, just do it all in one analysis paragraph. Way easier to keep track of than jumping back and forth, especially if there aren't any differences in how the analysis turns out.

"Willful blindness/MPC 2.02(7)

P will argue in a CL JD that Billy's statement to Drug Dealer "I don't want to know what's inside the box" is evidence that Billy is exhibiting willful blindness (Jewel) because he knows Drug Dealer sells drugs at his school.

Alternatively, in an MPC jurisdiction, P would argue that Billy was aware of the high probability of the existence of drugs in the box he had received (2.02 (7)) for the same reason - Billy cuts off Drug Dealer mid-sentence because he likely believes there is a very good chance there are drugs in the box, and Billy thinks he is safer not knowing about them.

In a CL jurisdiction, D will argue that Billy doesn't believe there is money in the box, but rather that there is cash in the box. Billy is behind on his mortgage payment, and it would be very easy for him to be tempted by a large amount of money, so he believes he is safer not knowing how much money was in the box.

In an MPC jurisdiction, D will argue that Billy is not aware of the high probability because he has never been asked to transport drugs before by Drug Dealer, and would likely believe that Drug Dealer would not use Billy's transportation services to move drugs unless Drug Dealer had done a more thorough background check (...)"

[Hand]

Tag for future reference--starting to get worried.

[PeanutsNJam]

A bit of customer testimony here regarding this thread. I've been reflecting on my midterm exam while making outlines for other courses. I got a top 25% (barely) score on the midterm.

Twenty is spot on about professor preferences. For the K midterm, the professor allotted up to 5 points per statement of the issue. Nobody got 5 points I think. My raw score was 21; the highest was 30. There were 5 issues, I believe. If you only stated the 5 issues perfectly and did no analysis, you would have gotten a solid A (top 10-15%). No other professor grades this way, and spending any time on the issue statement other than "Is there consideration?" is a waste of time. Personally, I never got more than 2 points for an issue statement, and I got 0 for some. All my points came from analysis, and if I didn't approach the exam the way TSL said I should, I would have probably gotten a median grade or lower.

Nailing down what your professor wants to see, and how they allocate points, is the most important thing IMO.

I also think awarding points for policy arguments or incorporating some novel idea not discussed in class is highly dependent on the professor, and you should figure that out before you try to get fancy on the final exam.

My property professor has also echoed what TSL has said in a practice problem review session. It's helpful to state the rule, but you can also simply include the rule in your analysis. You can't do analysis without a strong grasp of the law anyway, so if you have strong analysis, you necessarily understand the law. All professors have said that the analysis is the critical element. It's where they give the most points. They do not give points for stating the rule at all.

One thing that some people who did poorly did was change the hypothetical. It's worth 0 points to say "If P had instead done this, he has a strong argument for satisfying this element of this rule." You can't make up facts and apply them to the law. You can't apply every law to every question. Only stick with what's relevant.