Top Law Schools

yay or nay?

My professor is super funny/sarcastic...he has used funny ways to explain policy and I am considering writing my exam in a non-formal way incorporating notes to him in the exam itself, especially after I steal his policy jokes.

Im scared of doing this because he might be one of those people that is all funny but then gets straight to business on exams and whats a professional kind of answer. The pro I see here is that he wouldn't be bored reading it and thus less likely to miss points..and also an overall happy-feeling can only help.

I'm confused, are you in UG or LS?

UG? Maybe. Depends on the prof.

LS? I vote no. Most people aren't as funny as they think they are.

goosey wrote:yay or nay?

My professor is super funny/sarcastic...he has used funny ways to explain policy and I am considering writing my exam in a non-formal way incorporating notes to him in the exam itself, especially after I steal his policy jokes.

Im scared of doing this because he might be one of those people that is all funny but then gets straight to business on exams and whats a professional kind of answer. The pro I see here is that he wouldn't be bored reading it and thus less likely to miss points..and also an overall happy-feeling can only help.

NO. Jesus, no. Just, no. On so many levels no.

rayiner wrote:

goosey wrote:yay or nay?

My professor is super funny/sarcastic...he has used funny ways to explain policy and I am considering writing my exam in a non-formal way incorporating notes to him in the exam itself, especially after I steal his policy jokes.

Im scared of doing this because he might be one of those people that is all funny but then gets straight to business on exams and whats a professional kind of answer. The pro I see here is that he wouldn't be bored reading it and thus less likely to miss points..and also an overall happy-feeling can only help.

NO. Jesus, no. Just, no. On so many levels no.

so it should be formal, strictly business?

goosey wrote:

rayiner wrote:

goosey wrote:yay or nay?

My professor is super funny/sarcastic...he has used funny ways to explain policy and I am considering writing my exam in a non-formal way incorporating notes to him in the exam itself, especially after I steal his policy jokes.

Im scared of doing this because he might be one of those people that is all funny but then gets straight to business on exams and whats a professional kind of answer. The pro I see here is that he wouldn't be bored reading it and thus less likely to miss points..and also an overall happy-feeling can only help.

NO. Jesus, no. Just, no. On so many levels no.

so it should be formal, strictly business?

Yes. You can never tell when a joke will go over badly, and every word you use typing a joke is a word you're not using to get points. Just don't do it.

Last year, my Property Professor was a hoot, so I worked in some humor here and there on his exam because he seemed like he wouldn't count it against me. I tried not to force it, but I thought it had its funny points. I ended up with an A+ in that class. I felt really prepared for the exam going in though, but I'm also freakin hilarious.

Long story short: I don't think it really matters as long as you don't look like you're forcing it.

Why worry about that? Just hit the issues and elements. You'll never be able to tell how it'll go over anyways.

I wonder if you got that idea from the LEEWS audio thing? I was listening to it while I walk to school and he discussed using humor in an exam. It ain't worth it.

1L myself, so no grades to back this up yet, but I think it probably depends on the class. Torts? Maybe, esp. if you get some insane hypo. Civ Pro? Probably not. Although it sounds like you just want to pull things that were discussed in class? I think once a professor says it, it's fair game...

missinglink wrote:Why worry about that? Just hit the issues and elements. You'll never be able to tell how it'll go over anyways.

I wonder if you got that idea from the LEEWS audio thing? I was listening to it while I walk to school and he discussed using humor in an exam. It ain't worth it.

i heard it in leews, but I got it more from when I was doing a practice hypo he gave us, which involved a certain joke of a celebrity---and while typing the answer, I got to the factors to consider in appyling specific person jurisdiction, one of which was the burden on the defendant to litigate there. So in my arguments on both sides, I addressed how she can argue travelling to the middle of nowhere will interfere with her career and would thus be very burdensome [and then i thought to myself "or what she CALLS a career"] and pretty much...I feel like if he were discussing that issue right then and there, he'd probably say the same thing. He's really sarcastic. And yes, I am mostly just talking about repeating things he's said in class

I occasionally threw in subtle jokes in LS exam. I've gotten A's on exams that had included jokes.

As long as you aren't spending much time thinking about them/typing them, and they are not offensive, I see no harm in it. But don't expect it to change your grade.

goosey wrote:

rayiner wrote:

goosey wrote:yay or nay?

My professor is super funny/sarcastic...he has used funny ways to explain policy and I am considering writing my exam in a non-formal way incorporating notes to him in the exam itself, especially after I steal his policy jokes.

Im scared of doing this because he might be one of those people that is all funny but then gets straight to business on exams and whats a professional kind of answer. The pro I see here is that he wouldn't be bored reading it and thus less likely to miss points..and also an overall happy-feeling can only help.

NO. Jesus, no. Just, no. On so many levels no.

so it should be formal, strictly business?

while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

the only humor i intend on using on the exam, are remarks my profs made. i've got a list of catch phrases each of my profs likes to use, and i'm gonna drop a few of them on the exam.

gwuorbust wrote:
while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

Not necessarily, my civ pro teacher wants IRAC on our final.

beach_terror wrote:

gwuorbust wrote:
while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

Not necessarily, my civ pro teacher wants IRAC on our final.

obv you should do what your prof wants. all of mine are all about racking up points any way possible.

while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

You should do IRAC. Otherwise, it's going to be a jumbled mess. You won't get the points is the prof doesn't know WTF you are talking about. Also, in 3 years of law school, only 2 of my exams were legit races to the finish line. All the others had plenty of time to make it reasonably well organized if you knew what you were doing.

nealric wrote:

while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

You should do IRAC. Otherwise, it's going to be a jumbled mess. You won't get the points is the prof doesn't know WTF you are talking about. Also, in 3 years of law school, only 2 of my exams were legit races to the finish line. All the others had plenty of time to make it reasonably well organized if you knew what you were doing.

Both my Civ Pro and Crim classes are going to be organization > speed. My fucking crim exam answers are only graded out of 20 points per question, with a whopping 3 total.

goosey wrote:I addressed how she can argue travelling to the middle of nowhere will interfere with her career and would thus be very burdensome [and then i thought to myself "or what she CALLS a career"] and pretty much...I feel like if he were discussing that issue right then and there, he'd probably say the same thing. He's really sarcastic. And yes, I am mostly just talking about repeating things he's said in class

Just write a serious answer and end with "You betcha!"

nealric wrote:

while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

You should do IRAC. Otherwise, it's going to be a jumbled mess. You won't get the points is the prof doesn't know WTF you are talking about. Also, in 3 years of law school, only 2 of my exams were legit races to the finish line. All the others had plenty of time to make it reasonably well organized if you knew what you were doing.

all of mine have at the possibility of, at minimum, 60 points; with K there is up to 160 points and last year the top score got 69 lol. at least for me, speed is the fucking king.

edit: that doesn't mean its not organized, it is just that there a looot of topics I need to go through.

goosey wrote:

missinglink wrote:Why worry about that? Just hit the issues and elements. You'll never be able to tell how it'll go over anyways.

I wonder if you got that idea from the LEEWS audio thing? I was listening to it while I walk to school and he discussed using humor in an exam. It ain't worth it.

i heard it in leews, but I got it more from when I was doing a practice hypo he gave us, which involved a certain joke of a celebrity---and while typing the answer, I got to the factors to consider in appyling specific person jurisdiction, one of which was the burden on the defendant to litigate there. So in my arguments on both sides, I addressed how she can argue travelling to the middle of nowhere will interfere with her career and would thus be very burdensome [and then i thought to myself "or what she CALLS a career"] and pretty much...I feel like if he were discussing that issue right then and there, he'd probably say the same thing. He's really sarcastic. And yes, I am mostly just talking about repeating things he's said in class

My first thought was no, no NO don't do it, but I think the example you gave isn't that bad. However, it's not going to win you any points and there's the risk of a joke falling flat, so I'd avoid it.

I did it on two of my exams (meaning like one joke in 6k words). I got A's on both.

Dude, save the humor for your memo.

I definitely wrote some clearly sarcastic/jokey comments on my crim exam last year. Turned out fine. But it was in response to a completely nuts teacher and even more nuts hypo. I certainly wouldn't have done that in any other class.

Just like with the personal statement, humor is not worth the risk. On a rare occasion, an adcomm/professor may be won over by levity and humor. Nothing to bank on though.

gwuorbust wrote:

goosey wrote:

rayiner wrote:

goosey wrote:yay or nay?

My professor is super funny/sarcastic...he has used funny ways to explain policy and I am considering writing my exam in a non-formal way incorporating notes to him in the exam itself, especially after I steal his policy jokes.

Im scared of doing this because he might be one of those people that is all funny but then gets straight to business on exams and whats a professional kind of answer. The pro I see here is that he wouldn't be bored reading it and thus less likely to miss points..and also an overall happy-feeling can only help.

NO. Jesus, no. Just, no. On so many levels no.

so it should be formal, strictly business?

while 1L newb just as you, IMHO it should be as much as you can fucking reguritate onto that page as fast as possible. no humor. no IRAC. just keep applying facts to the law, rake up the points and keep moving.

Based on your practice exams, you should basically know how to organize your analysis. Eg: In a negligence claim you discuss harm, then duty, then breach, then causation, and within those you discuss standard of care, etc, etc. On the exam you can then just churn through all the things you need to talk about in that known order. That way you'll write a coherent paper where the professor can easily see your analysis and give you points. Plus it'll be easier to see issues when you know what aspect of the law you're discussing at that point in the answer.

As for IRAC, I personally use a modified I/CRAC format. Professors are picky about how you apply the law to the facts. You don't get points for regurgitating the rule, but you need to show that you know the rule precisely and can figure out where each fact plugs into the rule. The I/CRAC format forces you to do this. Without it its easy to fall into a mode where you're either glossing over the rule or making conclusions without mentioning the operative facts.

Just don't do it. You may think you are funny, but in all likelihood you probably aren't, and it really could do a hell of a lot worse than good. Will it get you points? NO. Will it possibly piss the professor off and make them more critical of your exam, which you seem to think is a time to practice your career as a stand up comedian? YES. So why do it?

OP - I actually had a friend who tried to make a few jokes on his/her crim law midterm 1L year. The professor e-mailed him/her after the exam (never had spoken to this person before) JUST to tell him/her he didn't appreciate the jokes and an exam is not the forum to try to show off you humorous mannerisms and he demanded more professionalism in the future or it would adversely impact his/her grade. Nuff said.