Metaread wrote:delusional wrote:On the other hand, essay exams are learnable. First semester 1L, I had all the tips, but didn't know how to apply them. After the first set of exams, I went over the lower grades with professors, and there was actually a lot of improvable stuff on it. Methodologically, you can get better at outlining, and then recalling and arranging the information on the exam for better results, and substantively, you can go over "A" answers or practice with classmates which reveals the parts of the law that you aren't as aware of. Don't be misled by the small proportion of law school exams that is luck.
You mentioned there are essay exam tips? Beyond the resources stickied in these forums, what others would you recommend? I've been having trouble getting past initial interviews. I interview well, though not as well as I could. But I think maybe I'm having trouble because my grades are just mediocre (median). More often than not, I don't even get interviews, though all my past summer experiences and field work came out of interviews where I did well.
Some tips that worked for me were:
- Using the syllabus as an issue checklist. This is something that a professor suggested in reviewing a 1L fall exam.
- Follow the law to the bitter end, invoking all the tests along the way. Don't say "In this case, jurisdiction seems fair and substantially just because the defendant had a store nearby." Start as early as possible and follow every step that could be relevant. Is there general jurisdiction? What is required and how do the facts relate to the rule? Is there specific jurisdiction? What is the legal test and how do the facts apply? First, are there minimum contacts, second does the claim arise from the contact, etc. One professor described it as a hierarchical menu (and that is a useful way to structure an outline); click on general jurisdiction, and "continuous and systematic" drops down. Click on specific jurisdiction and "minimum contacts" drops down. Click on minimum contacts and the factors for fair play and substantial justice drop down. But don't stop clicking until you've gotten to the bottom of the menu.
Another professor described it as a zoom lens - you keep zooming in closer and closer, applying more and more detailed tests.
- Practice tests help hone the above skill. Another important thing you realize from practice exams is that all exams are essentially the same in terms of issues that they'll address and organization. If you're taking Civil Procedure, there's going to be PJ, SMJ, Venue, etc. and you will have to figure out whether you're going to structure it by party, by issue, by claim, etc. know it in advance. If you're taking Criminal Procedure, there's going to be a series of police actions that are of dubious legality. You're going to have to address whether x is reasonable and if not when it became unreasonable. You're gong to have to address whether something was in Plain View or not. Whether the professor fills in the mad libs with "Acting on a tip from an anonymous informant, police peeked through the window and discerned the silhouette of someone possibly disposing of drugs" or "After seeing the perpetrator's face clearly on the surveillance video, police listened through a vent outside his home and heard the echoes of someone possibly destroying evidence of a bank robbery" the analysis is the same (though not the result). Determine in advance when you will break it up by party and when by action and when by violation.
- Someone posted the following on TLS, and it's been on a sticky note on my desktop ever since:
Sure, apply law to the facts. Know your stuff. But there are three factors that will really make or break you:
1. Understand what your professor is looking for. Old exams are important, but even more helpful is getting your hands on model answers that earned an A or an H on the exam.
2. Quantity over quality. I'm not kidding. This doesn't mean you should write garbage or that you can afford to make multiple typos or grammatical mistakes either. But in my experience, professors will reward you for writing more, not less. Since grading is typically performed on a rubric, you will be better served by hitting every conceivable issue you spot. Being a fast typist is also obviously an asset here. I don't think I've ever had a 3-hour exam where I churned out fewer than 4000 words (assuming no word limit). Of exams in that vein, only once have I earned a P. Everything else was an H. All-day take-home exams or exams with word limits, on the other hand, have been my Achille's heel.
3. Organization counts for a lot. Each paragraph should address a single idea. Make sure the order in which you assess issues makes sense. Emphasize dispositive issues over secondary ones. Use headings and other markers to break up the answer into digestible portions.
Other things that have worked for me are studying in groups so that if I'm weak in an area, I find it out when everyone else is focusing on it. Also, doing old exams and checking them against available answers.