I just failed a test. How do I take exams? Forum

[TobiasFunke]

.

[Always Credited]

I know Civ Pro pretty well, and I wrote a damn good outline. But when the exam came... I failed, HARD. It was mostly panic, but also I just didn't understand a fucking thing on the test.

The hypo was about joinder by an unorganized P against multiple Ds, and the question was how each D would respond to the charge against them. How do you answer that? I have a pretty limited section on joinder, and didn't know what else to write besides stuff on permissive joinder.

My friend (who didn't take the same exam) suggested that I should've gone through the whole shebang for each D -- jurisdiction, venue, etc etc. Is that true?

I feel like dying right now. If this were a straightforward undergrad exam that asked me each thing, I could've handled it. But I have no idea how to apply the laws I memorized to facts. Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

Doesn't matter much now, does it?



But, yes. When in doubt, do everything to every party - at least the first party - and you can almost feel the confusion melt away.

[mnolen]

I know Civ Pro pretty well, and I wrote a damn good outline. But when the exam came... I failed, HARD. It was mostly panic, but also I just didn't understand a fucking thing on the test.

The hypo was about joinder by an unorganized P against multiple Ds, and the question was how each D would respond to the charge against them. How do you answer that? I have a pretty limited section on joinder, and didn't know what else to write besides stuff on permissive joinder.

My friend (who didn't take the same exam) suggested that I should've gone through the whole shebang for each D -- jurisdiction, venue, etc etc. Is that true?

I feel like dying right now. If this were a straightforward undergrad exam that asked me each thing, I could've handled it. But I have no idea how to apply the laws I memorized to facts. Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

Doesn't matter much now, does it?



But, yes. When in doubt, do everything to every party - at least the first party - and you can almost feel the confusion melt away.

I agree. Separating out the claims and viewing them each individually can give a lot of clarity about what's actually happening. Sometimes it helps me to draw a little diagram of the different claims. Sorry things didn't go as you'd hoped, but sometimes it takes a little while to find the right method for you. Did you look at many practice exams?

[ZXCVBNM]

you may have done better than you thought. i thought for sure i failed contracts and aced it. other than that the above advice is credited.

[eandy]

My friend (who didn't take the same exam) suggested that I should've gone through the whole shebang for each D -- jurisdiction, venue, etc etc. Is that true?

I feel like dying right now. If this were a straightforward undergrad exam that asked me each thing, I could've handled it. But I have no idea how to apply the laws I memorized to facts. Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

It depends on the exact question your professor asked you. Have you tried doing the E&E practice questions? It should help you make the individual parts of your answer. Then just work on making a framework that works for each question.

And always draw a diagram.

[thebookcollector]

You might do better than you think. You don't have to outrun the hyena; just the other lions.

I may have bombed criminal law today, despite months of fairly meticulous preparation. (I didn't discuss the MPC; every one of my classmates did.) It happens.

Just start preparing for the next test...

[TobiasFunke]

.

[hoopsguy6]

You might do better than you think. You don't have to outrun the hyena; just the other lions.

I may have bombed criminal law today, despite months of fairly meticulous preparation. (I didn't discuss the MPC; every one of my classmates did.) It happens.

Just start preparing for the next test...

Why are lions running away from a hyena.

[BaiAilian2013]

Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

This depends to some extent on your professor, I think. Ours, according to our TAs at least, will have, say, a personal jurisdiction question and a subject-matter jurisdiction question, and he will want you to talk about the appropriate issue at the appropriate time.

[eandy]

You might do better than you think. You don't have to outrun the hyena; just the other lions.

I may have bombed criminal law today, despite months of fairly meticulous preparation. (I didn't discuss the MPC; every one of my classmates did.) It happens.

Just start preparing for the next test...

Why are lions running away from a hyena.

They've seen too much The Lion King, clearly.

[BlueDiamond]

I know Civ Pro pretty well, and I wrote a damn good outline. But when the exam came... I failed, HARD. It was mostly panic, but also I just didn't understand a fucking thing on the test.

The hypo was about joinder by an unorganized P against multiple Ds, and the question was how each D would respond to the charge against them. How do you answer that? I have a pretty limited section on joinder, and didn't know what else to write besides stuff on permissive joinder.

My friend (who didn't take the same exam) suggested that I should've gone through the whole shebang for each D -- jurisdiction, venue, etc etc. Is that true?

I feel like dying right now. If this were a straightforward undergrad exam that asked me each thing, I could've handled it. But I have no idea how to apply the laws I memorized to facts. Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

Doesn't matter much now, does it?



But, yes. When in doubt, do everything to every party - at least the first party - and you can almost feel the confusion melt away.

I agree. Separating out the claims and viewing them each individually can give a lot of clarity about what's actually happening. Sometimes it helps me to draw a little diagram of the different claims. Sorry things didn't go as you'd hoped, but sometimes it takes a little while to find the right method for you. Did you look at many practice exams?

I didn't do any practice tests, which was a HUGE mistake. I basically have no idea how to take law exams. I'm going to do fifty before my next exam.

But wait, really? So for each D (all were in different states, one was a corporation, one was an individual, one was something else) I'm supposed to say that they'd address the P's attempt to join them by 1) talking about personal jurisdiction, 2) venue, 3) subject matter, 4) pre-trial pleadings, 5) etc etc? It just seems a ton of fluffy bullshit, the only issue is obviously if they can be properly joined.

Then again, given how much everyone else wrote, I'm guessing I'm wrong and everyone else is right. Fuck.

I'm still only a 0L.. in fact I bombed the LSAT today so feel free to ignore this.. but I'd say that even things that you feel are already well-known or implied should be written anyway. Anything you show that can get you some kind of points. Even if you wrote all the points out for every one there is no way you'd lose points for it.. so why not?

[solidsnake]

Ah 1L...

1Ls, it's THIS pain of constantly second-guessing yourself and going from high to low every 10 minutes for the next 6 weeks that will harden you as we make our journey into becoming self-loathing lawyers. After this, you will never be able to talk to an 0L again about anything substantively law school related.

[mnolen]

I didn't do any practice tests, which was a HUGE mistake. I basically have no idea how to take law exams. I'm going to do fifty before my next exam.

But wait, really? So for each D (all were in different states, one was a corporation, one was an individual, one was something else) I'm supposed to say that they'd address the P's attempt to join them by 1) talking about personal jurisdiction, 2) venue, 3) subject matter, 4) pre-trial pleadings, 5) etc etc? It just seems a ton of fluffy bullshit, the only issue is obviously if they can be properly joined.

Then again, given how much everyone else wrote, I'm guessing I'm wrong and everyone else is right. Fuck.

I think it makes sense if they're all from different states, yes.

[goosey]

Ah 1L...

1Ls, it's THIS pain of constantly second-guessing yourself and going from high to low every 10 minutes for the next 6 weeks

you live in my brain, clearly.

[MTal]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

[uzpakalis]

I know Civ Pro pretty well, and I wrote a damn good outline. But when the exam came... I failed, HARD. It was mostly panic, but also I just didn't understand a fucking thing on the test.

The hypo was about joinder by an unorganized P against multiple Ds, and the question was how each D would respond to the charge against them. How do you answer that? I have a pretty limited section on joinder, and didn't know what else to write besides stuff on permissive joinder.

My friend (who didn't take the same exam) suggested that I should've gone through the whole shebang for each D -- jurisdiction, venue, etc etc. Is that true?

I feel like dying right now. If this were a straightforward undergrad exam that asked me each thing, I could've handled it. But I have no idea how to apply the laws I memorized to facts. Am I supposed to check off jurisdiction/venue/pleading/preclusion on every question?

Doesn't matter much now, does it?



But, yes. When in doubt, do everything to every party - at least the first party - and you can almost feel the confusion melt away.

I agree. Separating out the claims and viewing them each individually can give a lot of clarity about what's actually happening. Sometimes it helps me to draw a little diagram of the different claims. Sorry things didn't go as you'd hoped, but sometimes it takes a little while to find the right method for you. Did you look at many practice exams?

I didn't do any practice tests, which was a HUGE mistake. I basically have no idea how to take law exams. I'm going to do fifty before my next exam.

But wait, really? So for each D (all were in different states, one was a corporation, one was an individual, one was something else) I'm supposed to say that they'd address the P's attempt to join them by 1) talking about personal jurisdiction, 2) venue, 3) subject matter, 4) pre-trial pleadings, 5) etc etc? It just seems a ton of fluffy bullshit, the only issue is obviously if they can be properly joined.

Then again, given how much everyone else wrote, I'm guessing I'm wrong and everyone else is right. Fuck.

You go to Columbia???

[Kobe_Teeth]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

You'd think the older you get the more you'd realize how ridiculous it is that you still post here.

[Bildungsroman]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

I told this to a friend of mine as he went into the hospital for a blood test.

I miss him every day.

[ninano]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

I told this to a friend of mine as he went into the hospital for a blood test.

I miss him every day.

ru being funny?

[Baylan]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

I told this to a friend of mine as he went into the hospital for a blood test.

I miss him every day.

No offense... but overshare, my friend, overshare. If its true.

[MTal]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

You'd think the older you get the more you'd realize how ridiculous it is that you still post here.

If there are aspects of my posts that you disagree with...please....let me know.

[saladfiend]

You really don't know that you failed. Maybe everyone though it was really tough. I'd wait until you get your grade back before you stress about this.

[ogurty]

Ah 1L...

1Ls, it's THIS pain of constantly second-guessing yourself and going from high to low every 10 minutes for the next 6 weeks that will harden you as we make our journey into becoming self-loathing lawyers. After this, you will never be able to talk to an 0L again about anything substantively law school related.

I don't think I should say +1 or QFT or whatever because I'm a 1L but......this post made me happy.

[swc65]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

LoL. Best advice ITT

[Flanker1067]

The older you get, the more you realize how ridiculous is the notion that the rest of your life hinges upon the outcome of 1 test.

LoL. Best advice ITT

I don't think I could feel that it is any more ridiculous than I do right now. (written as I glance back to my con law notes)