Will profs give points for issues they never covered? Forum

[JackOfAllTrades]

This has been driving me crazy, because I've read so much of the E&Es and other supplementals that I know I'm going to see issues on an exam that weren't discussed (or maybe very, very briefly mentioned but glossed over) in class.

Some of my professors are older and/or a bit absent-minded, so they might not even remember if they discussed something in class.

Anyway...

For example, let's say your torts professor never covered false imprisonment. He mentioned the tort once or twice in passing, but never went into any depth or explained any of its elements or assigned any reading on it.

Now suppose on an exam, you get a fact pattern in which you are trying to determine whether someone committed assault, but some of the facts show that a false imprisonment argument could be made too.

If, time permitting, you add the false imprisonment issue on your exam, would most professors give points for that?

[WahooLaw24]

This is a really good reason not to have read through E&Es in mid-September. Moving forward in the semester, I would highly recommend you focus more on tailoring your study habits to what the professor has focused on in class and what they seem to emphasize and find important.

That being said, if a professor mentioned something a few times and you think you see it on an exam, by all means go ahead and flag it. If they haven't discussed it at all and you're just bringing it in from out of class materials, then it's probably a waste of time. I doubt any professor would take points off, assuming you were right in the analysis, but I doubt you could get points for something that no one in the class was expected to know.

The phrase that has me most worried in your approach is "time permitting." If there were 15 issues on the exam and you got all of them and had 10 minutes left? Sure, make the false imprisonment argument. But the odds of that happening are so slim on a given law school exam that you're probably much better served re-reading the exam one more time, consulting your exam spotter checklist one more time, and making a few more arguments on something that was thoroughly covered in class than you are raising minor issues that the professor didn't deem worthy for class time.

[lawhopeful10]

Yea I agree with making all the arguments you covered in class first. I was a fast typer / thinker and finished all my exams like 30 minutes early and had to just keep coming up with more arguments to make. There is always more you can say and if you get to that point then very briefly throwing in some outside stuff to try to pick up a couple points here and there could be useful but the returns on studying material outside what your class covers are going to be very small so make sure you are on your shit as far as everything else first.

[beepboopbeep]

I've definitely gotten bonus points for stuff on exams, but it's generally something that was mentioned in passing once or twice, or issues that were raised by note cases in the casebook but not really discussed.

Spending time on an exam on something you didn't read OR talk about in class is a dangerous game and one likely to lead to disappointment, IMO. Agreed with Wahoo on basically all points.

Do some practice exams before you get tempted to write this kind of stuff on the test. There's almost always enough material to cover, and if there isn't - the problem is you, not the exam. Find more issues and discuss them more fully. Even if you hit everything, you could probably hit it better.

[BVest]

It depends on the prof, IMO. Some profs only want the issues that have any merit. Other profs want everything. My torts prof wanted the latter and, funnily enough, one of the issues I did not get credit for was a false imprisonment issue which was without merit. All the same, she wanted it raised and discounted.

(That prof even gave points for people who spotted issues that did not address the call of the question; the fact pattern involved an assault and unwanted sexual advances by one employee against another employee on business trips and in the office that continued even after complaints to HR. The victim later was in a car accident driving to see her attorney and injured herself and a construction worker. Call of the question was what causes of action does the employee have against employer. In the "best answers" that the prof let us review you could see where people got points for discussing claims that the employee had against the fellow employee and claims that the construction worker had against both the employee and the employer. That was my worst grade in law school.)

Lesson, if the prof doesn't have old exams with model answers on file, ask former students what s/he looks for. As mentioned, most profs don't take points off for spotting additional issues, even if it doesn't get you additional points. There might be a few who do, but this is something else you should be able to learn from former students.

[A. Nony Mouse]

There were profs at my school who took points off for stuff they hadn't covered in class. It wasn't many, but I agree, check on what your professor does before you start doing this.

And honestly just read the stuff in the supplements covered in your profs' syllabus and you'll be fine. You don't need to be drowning in E&Es and supplements.

[drive4showLSAT4dough]

I'm nearly certain that it is a bad idea to analyze a legal issue you did not cover in class on an exam. At least 3 reasons:
1. Your professor likely doesn't care that you know law she didn't teach you. She administers the exam to test how well you (a) know and (b) apply the law as she taught it to you. So the additional legal issue is a nonstarter.
2. Opportunity cost. On a traditional issue-spotter, there are more issues than you will have time to cover. The test is built that way on purpose. So, the time to spend analyzing the issue you never learned about is better spent on something you actually discussed in class. (If, somehow, you analyze every issue on the exam, you will probably be setting the curve anyways, so the untaught issue will be irrelevant anyways).
3. You could state the law wrong. It's obvious why that would be a bad idea.

Conclusion: Master the doctrine and the analysis of the stuff your professor teaches.

[NotMyRealName09]

Pro tip - professors often have an outline they made of the exam keyed to what they taught in class. They score by checking off their outline to see if the student hit all issues. So you don't get bonus points for going outside the syllabus. This is also one reason amongst thousands for why you should make your own outlines following your class syllabus and not rely on those made by others.

[JackOfAllTrades]

Wow! Thanks to everyone for the very helpful (and speedy) replies!

I definitely will focus my outline on only issues covered in class or in the reading.

[It's A Lion]

The E&Es may also have terminology or definitions that your professor may flatly disagree with.