Top Law Schools

So I never really encountered a policy question yet in law school and was wondering how you are supposed to approach it?

U can try to guess it and pre write. Or just bs it like an essay/ rant

Policy question usually requires you parrot whatever policy approaches your professor has emphasized all semester. For example, in Torts, you would harp on retributivism, deterrence, etc. in analyzing the issue. So the idea is you use common sense to apply these broad principles to reach the sensible conclusion.

I've had success treating them just like issue spotters. IRAC, that is. (YMMV, of course). It's just that your R is a policy preference rather than an actual rule or standard.

As to what your R's are, generally throughout the course professors emphasize certain themes. I make a list of these themes in my outline, with examples and all, just like for the rest of my outline. Then, when I get to the question, I go through that list and think about how it might (or might not) apply.

For example, my list for property included:

Highest value user
* tragedy of commons/anticommons
* externality and internalization
* bargaining
* private vs collective interests
* moral hazard

For the policy question on the exam, I literally went through this list, as well as the rest of the list, and explained how it might apply (for those that did). And on the exam, I might have been like (I didn't, because this didn't apply):

Option one is preferable. Generally, the goal of property law is to put land in the hands of the highest value user. Here, if we apply option two, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, and a tragedy of the commons will occur. By choosing option 1, blah blah will force the landowner to internalize the injury he is inflicting on his neighbor. While such and such case reflects an emphasis on private interests over the collective, the law must provide some base protection for property in order to preserve stability and avoid chilling investment. That is a good option here, because as in case 1, such and such applies, rather than the other such and such. Blah blah blah. Of far more concern is the fact that option two would result in a moral hazard, that would cause blah blah blah and further chill investment and deadweight losses. Because option one will place the land with the highest value user, that is the ideal rule.

Generally, the key thing you have to remember is that you're looking at things ex ante. How is this rule going to affect future cases? Get that point across, and be sure to actually answer the question (even if you're unsure) rather than dancing around its core.

I agree with Robby Boy above .
The worst thing you can do is assume the Professor cares what you think. If there is a policy question then you must have talked policy in class and read cases and articles on policy, just use those as you would a case illustration for an issue-spotter. You CAN add what you think, but really only to choose between otherwise equally compelling policy choices that you have backed up and explained thoroughly with class material.