Top Law Schools

I didn't do as well as I hoped last semester, and there is one thing I don't get. So, there are 2 parts to an exam (A=100, B=100). Rather than writing a good answer for both, I figured writing an "A" answer for part A and writing a mediocre answer for part B would have the same effect. In theory, this should have worked, but I did worse than I thought. Mathematically it should make sense, but I get the feeling that I should have gone the "cover-everything-with-a-b-answer" approach. Is this correct?

Yeah, it's a matter of time management. If you have two parts worth equal value, spend equal time on each. Time is points. Set your stop watch, and when you hit the half-way point, stop writing in part A and move immediately to B. The hard points you might squeeze out by polishing the answer in part A will be outweighed by the easy points you lose in part B because you ran out of time. This is also why you should outline your entire answer before you begin writing - that way, you can see how fast you are going and adjust how much time you are devoting to each part of your answer. Also, if you do run out of time, having your outline answer written down still shows your professor that you knew what the issues were.

1. What evidence do you have that it should have worked out mathematically? Maybe even though you devoted a huge chunk of time to Part A, you still wrote a mediocre answer. Just because you spent more time on it doesn't mean you did better relative to everyone else.

2. I have had a few professors say that for exams styled like this, they wanted you to spend roughly equal time on both sections, and would dock you points if they felt you didn't put in a good faith effort to do so. This was stated ahead of time, though.

It definitely doesn't have to work out mathmatically, and in fact it probably turns out the other way. Points aren't linearly awarded. Most professors give a fair amount of the points for just spotting the issue and stating the law. I saw two of my professors rubricks and just doing the IR part of IRAC got you like 2/3rds of the points.

So there are a lot of easy points everyone gets. And getting analysis points is harder to separate yourself. You fought the entire exam for just the analysis on 1/2 the test, and forfeited the other half with tons of easy points. You might have scored an extra 10 on the first half, and missed 20 easy on the other side.

You get diminishing returns the longer you spend on each section.

And since the scores max out, it's hard to do clearly above everyone. If median is around 70, and A is around 90. Even if you wrote a brilliant exam, so much that he cried when he read it. You still only get a 100. That's only 10 better than the lowest A. By half assing the second half, you can lose A LOT more than ten points. You might get a 50. And then you only get a little better than median.

Even if all effort was equally rewarded, why would you pick this strategy. At best you break even, with a fuck ton of risk. You fucked up son.

It's an interesting mind puzzle just to think about all of the reasons why the original post is dumb, then mull over which are the strongest/most blatantly obvious reasons why its dumb, how much time one could dedicate to each, what order to list the reasons it's dumb, if any reasons aren't even worth mentioning, what level of sarcastic asshole tone to take, etc.

Very meta, when you come right down to it.

thesealocust wrote:It's an interesting mind puzzle just to think about all of the reasons why the original post is dumb, then mull over which are the strongest/most blatantly obvious reasons why its dumb, how much time one could dedicate to each, what order to list the reasons it's dumb, if any reasons aren't even worth mentioning, what level of sarcastic asshole tone to take, etc.

Very meta, when you come right down to it.

I'd love to see what you come up with.

Desert Fox wrote:

thesealocust wrote:It's an interesting mind puzzle just to think about all of the reasons why the original post is dumb, then mull over which are the strongest/most blatantly obvious reasons why its dumb, how much time one could dedicate to each, what order to list the reasons it's dumb, if any reasons aren't even worth mentioning, what level of sarcastic asshole tone to take, etc.

Very meta, when you come right down to it.

I'd love to see what you come up with.

You covered most of the ground. I think you could flesh out a pretty good line of argument centered around "what makes you think you could actually successfully pull the strategy off?" beyond the mathematics of it.

I'd also probably have quoted "In theory, this should have worked," heavily, maybe with some funny reaction images afterward.

thesealocust wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

thesealocust wrote:It's an interesting mind puzzle just to think about all of the reasons why the original post is dumb, then mull over which are the strongest/most blatantly obvious reasons why its dumb, how much time one could dedicate to each, what order to list the reasons it's dumb, if any reasons aren't even worth mentioning, what level of sarcastic asshole tone to take, etc.

Very meta, when you come right down to it.

I'd love to see what you come up with.

You covered most of the ground. I think you could flesh out a pretty good line of argument centered around "what makes you think you could actually successfully pull the strategy off?" beyond the mathematics of it.

I'd also probably have quoted "In theory, this should have worked," heavily, maybe with some funny reaction images afterward.

I think we should create a TLS meme about this. When someone does something retarded, we can respond, "In theory, this should have worked."

I'm game. Does it need image support, or will it just work as a text only thing?

It's going to get really meta when people reply to your usage of the meme with "In theory, this should have worked."

What's funny is that I remember first semester 1L professors specifically telling us not to do this.

thesealocust wrote:I'm game. Does it need image support, or will it just work as a text only thing?

Text only.

Desert Fox wrote:

thesealocust wrote:I'm game. Does it need image support, or will it just work as a text only thing?

Text only.

THIS CONTRACT IS SEALED. Post here when you find places to use it.

cinephile wrote:What's funny is that I remember first semester 1L professors specifically telling us not to do this.

To be fair, though, the way most professors grade isn't the only possible way. I had one professor who specifically told us that you could get the best grade in the class using OP's method. He didn't have a max number of points for each question--so as long as you kept coming up with good points about the first one, you could theoretically just keep writing about it and never even get to the second one. Of course, in reality there's practically no way you'd get enough of the hard points on A to overcome skipping all the easy points on B--but it was theoretically possible, at least.

Also just think about it psychologically from the professor's perspective. Here is a student who didn't even fully answer the two questions I had so he either mismanaged his time, has a problem following directions, or some other issue. You want to make things as easy as possible for a professor to give you a good grade.

Theoretically, you could write the most disorganized, sloppy, disjointed exam essay and get the same number of points as if you put the same content in an organized and well-structured exam answer, but I bet the latter will get more points most of the time.

Poor guy........it must hurt to get slapped with reality's dick.

This is the most splitter thing I've ever heard of btw.

Fuck it, I'll just do half the test.

lolol i'm sort of indifferent to the hate here, but thanks guys useful information. Btw, I got a B+ whereas on the midterm I got an A, so that's why I'm wondering.

splittermcsplit88 wrote:Btw, I got a B+ whereas on the midterm I got an A, so that's why I'm wondering.

In theory, this should have worked.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p6420618

Am I doing it right?

shock259 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p6420618

Am I doing it right?

Yes. You even shamed him into deletiion.

Desert Fox wrote:

shock259 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 8#p6420618

Am I doing it right?

Yes. You even shamed him into deletiion.

+1. Good work soldier.

Still testing the waters... this might be a marginal case or a little forced, but especially considering the prior two responses I think it works: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=204355

OP...I'd love to hear your mathematical theory behind this and how you came to this decision.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0#p6433190


Correct?