HELP: Crazy model answer cites cases and conclusory Forum

[aPosseAdEsse]

Hi all, I’m concerned and somewhat shocked by my tort’s professor’s model answer. He’s a new teacher (in his second year teaching ever), and a question/model student (“A”) answer he gave this week was the FIRST he’s made available. It’s awful.

Now, I don’t purport to be an exam expert (I’m in my first semester after all.) But I have read most of the good how-to posts on this site (Arrow, xeoh, jaycutler, scribe, wahoo, etc.) + GTM + both Delaney’s + LEEWS (audio). I thought I had an idea what a model answer should look like.

It turns out this professor wants us to cite cases we read, give facts from those cases, and apply the cases as law by arguing how they’re analogous. Seriously.

I mapped his model answer sentence by sentence. It looks like this:

P1: Issues, general rule
P2: Case Ruling (CR), Case Facts (CF), element of CR, Case analogy 2 Fact Pattern (C2FP), conclusion (C)
P3: C, CR, CF, C2FP, C.
P4: C, random cite to a note in casebook, conclusory statement, random element, random case cite. C.

Out of 18 sentences totaling ~450 words, the model answer mentions the facts of the actual exam fact pattern in 2
sentences. There are arguably more facts put down from the cases we read, not the exam. The last paragraph is total garbage. (Entire sentences of “This is proven on page 213 of casebook”)

I’m feeling pretty upset about this. Any thoughts/opinions? Comforting words? Killself?

[nealric]

This is what office hours are for.

[stayway]

yikes

[gwuorbust]

prof are lose cannons

hth

[Jordan77]

Wow, good luck with that!

[Gamecubesupreme]

Maybe he's only posting that to mislead students.

Go and confirm in office hours.

[wiseowl]

this is why law school grading is arbitrary.

so sorry