1L Exam Q&A Forum

[PeanutsNJam]

Figured I'd make a thread to consolidate general questions specific to 1L exams. I understand that the expectation and grading methods vary from school to school, course to course, and professor to professor. But here goes nothing.

When "applying the law to facts", do you score points for even the most rudimentary analysis? For example, in civ pro, is there a point for just saying "there is no question of personal jurisdiction for the plaintiff because he has choice of forum and is voluntarily submitting himself to the court", or is that so obvious it does't need to be said?

Or are those things easy points to grab at?

Do you get points for policy arguments in issue spotters?

A mistakenly believes some of B's land is his, builds a fence around what he believes to be his property, uses the land. 30 years later, B sues.

Do you get points for saying that the governing statute should be interpreted in favor of B because property is sacred and you shouldn't encourage people to try and adversely possess things, A should be held to a higher standard of evidence, yada yada?

If you want to argue both sides, there's the whole equity thing, B acted in good faith, etc. Points for this?

I'm 3 weeks in, be gentle. Just trying to determine what is and isn't important for exams while taking notes in class.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

i support this thread

[Hikikomorist]

i support this thread

[mister logical]

The #1 Rule is: Ask your professor and do whatever they want you to do and ignore everyone else. There will be a lot of differing advice, so the below advice worked for me (top 10-15%, V10 SA next year blah blah)

When "applying the law to facts", do you score points for even the most rudimentary analysis?

You will usually get points for 1) spotting the issue to begin with, then 2) saying the rule that is applicable, and applying it somewhat, 3) then more points if your application is on point, and then 4) some more points for arguing the other way.

When I was answering a question, I held the examiners hand through every single little point of every element, so they couldn't not
give me all the points.

Of course you can make up for not hitting an issue as deep by simply covering more issues, which is probably the best way to go, as the more issues you spot, the more likely it is you'll catch something someone else doesn't.

Never ever forget to state a conclusion at the end on the way you think it'd come out. Many forget this part and just leave the two ways an issue can come out floating in the air.

Do you get points for policy arguments in issue spotters?

This is very professor specific. Some professors love it, some will give points if it's an outstanding policy point, and some just don't care and you'll have wasted time you could've spent finding another legal issue. I would just straight up ask your professor. I did and they were all very straight forward with me. One professor said they didn't care, but if two exams had the exact same # of points, they'd bump up the one that maybe threw in some policy here and there.

Some professors will also want you to hold off on policy because they have a separate policy question where you can do all your policy writing.

If you want to argue both sides, there's the whole equity thing, B acted in good faith, etc. Points for this?

Yes, you need to touch on both sides of an argument. Easy points most people in your class will drop. But don't keep going back and forth between arguments, there's only a few points for this, just touch on the two sides, and move on.

[thesealocust]

When "applying the law to facts", do you score points for even the most rudimentary analysis? For example, in civ pro, is there a point for just saying "there is no question of personal jurisdiction for the plaintiff because he has choice of forum and is voluntarily submitting himself to the court", or is that so obvious it does't need to be said?

Generally speaking nothing is too obvious, and a lot of people trip themselves up and leave points on the table by leaving analysis unstated/assumed. You really have to walk through each and every step of the process, each and every element. I call it "elemental thinking" or "elemental reasoning" - it's the fundamental unit of legal analysis you want your writing to reflect. "A will sue for X. To win, A must meet elements 1, 2 and 3. A will argue that element 1 is met because [fact specific analysis]. B will argue that element 1 is not met because [fact specific analysis]. The court will likely conclude [element is met/not met] because [policy analysis]." Rinse and repeat with each element and issue.

While professor grading rubrics vary, generally speaking you get the most points on thorny issues where you can provide detailed arguments, counter arguments, and policy arguments - but you'll always be rewarded for hitting the basics along the way.

Or are those things easy points to grab at?

Necessary points to grab at.

Do you get points for policy arguments in issue spotters?

Usually. The two most common approaches are to just give them checkmarks like any other argument, or else to give issues an additional point if it includes policy arguments at all. You'll professor will get checkmark fatigue if you decide to write a two page policy essay for every issue though, so it's not an unlimited fountain of points.

A mistakenly believes some of B's land is his, builds a fence around what he believes to be his property, uses the land. 30 years later, B sues.

Do you get points for saying that the governing statute should be interpreted in favor of B because property is sacred and you shouldn't encourage people to try and adversely possess things, A should be held to a higher standard of evidence, yada yada?

Policy arguments work best after rule-based legal analysis. If you lead with policy, it looks like you're arguing what's fair/correct/right and might not know the law. Policy arguments bolster your legal analysis when the facts are close or there are technical arguments on both sides, they can't stand on their own outside of policy questions.

If you want to argue both sides, there's the whole equity thing, B acted in good faith, etc. Points for this?

Yep!

I'm 3 weeks in, be gentle. Just trying to determine what is and isn't important for exams while taking notes in class.

The rules and their policies are what matter. Keep an eye out for the giant chasm of difference between the rule (which is almost always easy and short!) and the holding (which is the long-winded application of the rule to the facts in the case). You'll likely spend ages tossing the holding around and discussing absurd hypotheticals in class, none of which are directly useful on the exam - all you need is the rule. Your professor might even make a big show of saying the cases was "decided wrong" by attacking the judge's holding. But on the exam, you "just" need the rules that you learned, and all of the analysis/application you do will be new (though sometimes you can make an argument by reference back to how a case was decided, that's ancillary).

[n1o2c3a4c5h6e7t]

Most, if not all, professors grade with check marks where more check marks means a higher grade. Few, if any, actually subtract points for shitty or potentially obvious analysis. Rudimentary analysis is good (to frame an answer at the beginning anyway); policy arguments are great (and are what creates an A+ answer); and arguing both sides is necessary.

If it is at all relevant, and you can type fast enough, write it down. Frequently, 20 pages of mediocre word vomit will lead to a better grade than 3 pages of concise, excellent legal analysis. Obviously this may not be true in every class, but I imagine it is true for the great majority. Ask prior students who have had your professors which is which, although it should become obvious shortly.

[thesealocust]

If it is at all relevant, and you can type fast enough, write it down. Frequently, 20 pages of mediocre word vomit will lead to a better grade than 3 pages of concise, excellent legal analysis.

Yep. One caveat: a lot of students word vomit by dumping background law and/or repeating facts, so professors will often caution against it or even rail against long exams. But if you're actually writing dense analysis and not just spewing laws/facts in a blind panic, even professors that warn about long exams generally grade them favorably.

[star fox]

If your policy talks a lot about policy in class, he or she will probably care more about it on the exam. If they give a "why are you talking policy" response to students who bring up "but it's not fairrrrr" comments in class, it's probably less so. When you get closer to the exam you can just ask directly how much they care about policy on your exam response.

[star fox]

If it is at all relevant, and you can type fast enough, write it down. Frequently, 20 pages of mediocre word vomit will lead to a better grade than 3 pages of concise, excellent legal analysis.

Yep. One caveat: a lot of students word vomit by dumping background law and/or repeating facts, so professors will often caution against it or even rail against long exams. But if you're actually writing dense analysis and not just spewing laws/facts in a blind panic, even professors that warn about long exams generally grade them favorably.

This is a great point. Professors like to say "you will not be awarded more points for writing a longer exam" but I generally assume this is bullshit and a way to discourage students from word vomiting random shit and forcing them to grade longer exams.

So long as there's no word limit, it's a grade up scale not a grade down so fire away.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

is there a specific approach for a take home exam with strict word limit? im guessing this kind of prof is someone who hates word vomit and people throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their exams

also, i need some elaboration on holding/rule point that someone made above. so the holding is not important? then are knowing cases not that important? am i gonna need to at some point during the exam go... "X could say blah blah BUT in Asshole v. Motherfucker the court held blah blah"

isn't that, like, knowing the holding?

[star fox]

is there a specific approach for a take home exam with strict word limit? im guessing this kind of prof is someone who hates word vomit and people throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their exams

also, i need some elaboration on holding/rule point that someone made above. so the holding is not important? then are knowing cases not that important? am i gonna need to at some point during the exam go... "X could say blah blah BUT in Asshole v. Motherfucker the court held blah blah"

isn't that, like, knowing the holding?

Cases are pretty unimportant. Every once in a while you can cite to a case, but don't go out of your way to do so or come in with a plan of feeling like you have to.

Something like
"Party A only gets damages that are foreseeable. Like in Hadley v. Baxendale, party B had no way of knowing the consequential damages that would result from breaching the contract" or something can be ok since it signals to the Professor you know what you're talking about on the topic. But on the other hand, you could probably say the same thing without even referencing a case at all.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

is there a specific approach for a take home exam with strict word limit? im guessing this kind of prof is someone who hates word vomit and people throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their exams

also, i need some elaboration on holding/rule point that someone made above. so the holding is not important? then are knowing cases not that important? am i gonna need to at some point during the exam go... "X could say blah blah BUT in Asshole v. Motherfucker the court held blah blah"

isn't that, like, knowing the holding?

Cases are pretty unimportant. Every once in a while you can cite to a case, but don't go out of your way to do so or come in with a plan of feeling like you have to.

Something like
"Party A only gets damages that are foreseeable. Like in Hadley v. Baxendale, party B had no way of knowing the consequential damages that would result from breaching the contract" or something can be ok since it signals to the Professor you know what you're talking about on the topic. But on the other hand, you could probably say the same thing without even referencing a case at all.

dude I'm like 2 weeks into LS or maybe I'm just fucking dumb. where ARE the rules? all i have is a casebook with a bunch of cases that just occasionally cite the restatement or something. where do i find the hard black letter laws of torts?

[RaceJudicata]

The word "because" is the most important word in your law school exams. As others have mentioned, explain EVERYTHING. You gain points for analyzing the issues. Profs don't care (that much) which outcome you come to so long as your analysis is spot on.

Also, organization is key. Profs have to read a LOT of exams, make sure there is some structure to yours. Use headings, roman numerals, spacing, etc. to keep things organized.

[thesealocust]

dude I'm like 2 weeks into LS or maybe I'm just fucking dumb. where ARE the rules? all i have is a casebook with a bunch of cases that just occasionally cite the restatement or something. where do i find the hard black letter laws of torts?

In every case you read, the judge is applying a rule. Those rules (and NOT anything you read in a hornbook, and NOT the holdings of the specific cases) are 100% of the material you need for the exam. The cases you read for the average common law courses are examples of the rules in action (exceptions being things like Supreme Court cases, especially in con law/civ pro, where the cases establish the rules themselves).

Supplements, E&Es, hornbooks, old outlines, etc. are all other people attempting to summarize the rules from a high level, but the guiding light is that the rules in the cases assigned & discussed in class are the ones you're responsible for on the exams.

You really shouldn't worry about it for the first few weeks though. You'll be covering background material, spending extra time on cases for generic learning or hazing, etc. A few weeks into the semester you'll be much more comfortable with the ebb and flow of case readings and start to see how they're related to one another.

[juliuscasear90]

The word "because" is the most important word in your law school exams. As others have mentioned, explain EVERYTHING. You gain points for analyzing the issues. Profs don't care (that much) which outcome you come to so long as your analysis is spot on.

Also, organization is key. Profs have to read a LOT of exams, make sure there is some structure to yours. Use headings, roman numerals, spacing, etc. to keep things organized.

1) Because - rack up analysis points
2) Organization - some profs care more than others. For some, if you don't organize it right or put it the right section you get no points. For others they say it doesn't matter but it subconsciously affects their perception of the quality of yoyr writing and analysis
3)On the one hand. On the other hand. #1 way to rack up points. Show you a) understand both sides and b) can vigorously and cogently articulate the best points for each side and your well on your way to a top grade.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

dude I'm like 2 weeks into LS or maybe I'm just fucking dumb. where ARE the rules? all i have is a casebook with a bunch of cases that just occasionally cite the restatement or something. where do i find the hard black letter laws of torts?

In every case you read, the judge is applying a rule. Those rules (and NOT anything you read in a hornbook, and NOT the holdings of the specific cases) are 100% of the material you need for the exam. The cases you read for the average common law courses are examples of the rules in action (exceptions being things like Supreme Court cases, especially in con law/civ pro, where the cases establish the rules themselves).

Supplements, E&Es, hornbooks, old outlines, etc. are all other people attempting to summarize the rules from a high level, but the guiding light is that the rules in the cases assigned & discussed in class are the ones you're responsible for on the exams.

You really shouldn't worry about it for the first few weeks though. You'll be covering background material, spending extra time on cases for generic learning or hazing, etc. A few weeks into the semester you'll be much more comfortable with the ebb and flow of case readings and start to see how they're related to one another.

thanks for that TSL. i guess i was just confused because a judge in a case i read would say "the elements of battery are x/y/z/d" and i get that that's the "rule," but what I'm wondering is where did that come from? like from what source is the judge getting that those are the elements? thats what I'm confused about.

why not just gimme a book that says elements battery = xyzd instead of giving me a 500 page tome of cases that show the application of xyzd.

[thesealocust]

thanks for that TSL. i guess i was just confused because a judge in a case i read would say "the elements of battery are x/y/z/d" and i get that that's the "rule," but what I'm wondering is where did that come from? like from what source is the judge getting that those are the elements? thats what I'm confused about.

why not just gimme a book that says elements battery = xyzd instead of giving me a 500 page tome of cases that show the application of xyzd.

In common law jurisdictions, the source of the rule the judge uses will be a mixture of prior cases, statutes/legislation, and cases interpreting statutes/legislation. A lot of the purpose of your first weeks of class will be getting comfortable with how the law works in that way generally - where the law comes from, how it changes, etc.

The mix of cases you study will form a weird fabric of law you're responsible for on the exam, not quite tethered to any specific time or jurisdiction. That's weird, but surprisingly coherent - the tort of negligence is duty/breach/causation/harm everywhere.

why not just gimme a book that says elements battery = xyzd instead of giving me a 500 page tome of cases that show the application of xyzd.

A healthy mix of hazing, creating a 'pure' competition for the 1Ls, and teaching you the nuts and bolts through direct exposure to how it works in the real world. It's deliberately inefficient and obscure, that's for sure. Supplements can help, especially to prime your brain for how all of the cases are supposed to relate to one another as you move through the course instead of just in hindsight.

Of course in the real world most people are going to start with a treatise summarizing the law, but at some point you'll be digging through primary sources (cases/statutes) and trying to figure it all out too.

[DJM]

Any suggestions for finals that are closed book/closed note (nothing but your brain)? This is for contracts and torts. I have supplements the professors wrote to study from, would these be more or less important than the case books (also written by the professors). Any study techniques your guys recommend?

Also fro civ pro is E.E. the way to go? For civ pro I get to bring anything to the exam. Is a 'pre-written answer' outline the best option or is it too time consuming to make one?

[star fox]

Any suggestions for finals that are closed book/closed note (nothing but your brain)? This is for contracts and torts. I have supplements the professors wrote to study from, would these be more or less important than the case books (also written by the professors). Any study techniques your guys recommend?

Also fro civ pro is E.E. the way to go? For civ pro I get to bring anything to the exam. Is a 'pre-written answer' outline the best option or is it too time consuming to make one?

Closed book you'll end up studying the same way. You just gotta add an element of memorizing to your study. But by the time the exam roles around you should have most stuff internalized anyways. You don't want to waste time scrolling through your outline because you know there's something about that type of topic somewhere in there...

I actually liked closed book. It's the same for everyone and if you really prepare well and know your stuff it will work out in your favor as there will be more separation in the curve.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

so if basic legal rules and doctrines are all that matter... then are supplemental readings that prof lists for the course pointless? and i mean supplemental readings as in like actual books by other academics, not like PDF copies that the prof just uploads on blackboard or w/e

[RaceJudicata]

Any suggestions for finals that are closed book/closed note (nothing but your brain)? This is for contracts and torts. I have supplements the professors wrote to study from, would these be more or less important than the case books (also written by the professors). Any study techniques your guys recommend?

Also fro civ pro is E.E. the way to go? For civ pro I get to bring anything to the exam. Is a 'pre-written answer' outline the best option or is it too time consuming to make one?

Closed book you'll end up studying the same way. You just gotta add an element of memorizing to your study. But by the time the exam roles around you should have most stuff internalized anyways. You don't want to waste time scrolling through your outline because you know there's something about that type of topic somewhere in there...

I actually liked closed book. It's the same for everyone and if you really prepare well and know your stuff it will work out in your favor as there will be more separation in the curve.

Agree. Definitely have to add an element of memorization, but do your best to study the same way. Working closely w/ old exams and working on applying the material will prove far more important than rote memorization

[thesealocust]

so if basic legal rules and doctrines are all that matter... then are supplemental readings that prof lists for the course pointless? and i mean supplemental readings as in like actual books by other academics, not like PDF copies that the prof just uploads on blackboard or w/e

Mostly. If you're gunning for straight A+s those kinds of things can help you get in the head of the professor, predict exam questions, write policy arguments that they think are especially compelling and clever, etc. But for just getting good grades on exams, it all boils down to Joseph Glannon's "sophisticated application of basic doctrine." And yes, as you've figured out, learning precisely what that basic doctrine is does take some sifting through the masses of cases and notes and squibs and hornbooks, but at the end of the day it's actually quite simple. You'll do better if your attitude is "the law is easy, all of these insane hypos are only "hard" because people love to hear themselves talk."

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

so if basic legal rules and doctrines are all that matter... then are supplemental readings that prof lists for the course pointless? and i mean supplemental readings as in like actual books by other academics, not like PDF copies that the prof just uploads on blackboard or w/e

Mostly. If you're gunning for straight A+s those kinds of things can help you get in the head of the professor, predict exam questions, write policy arguments that they think are especially compelling and clever, etc. But for just getting good grades on exams, it all boils down to Joseph Glannon's "sophisticated application of basic doctrine." And yes, as you've figured out, learning precisely what that basic doctrine is does take some sifting through the masses of cases and notes and squibs and hornbooks, but at the end of the day it's actually quite simple. You'll do better if your attitude is "the law is easy, all of these insane hypos are only "hard" because people love to hear themselves talk."

i wish you were my older brother. or my friend. ty bro.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

i really really really really hope i don't get any multiple choice questions on exams

[thesealocust]

Fear is the mind killer etc.

M/C questions are still just applying law to fact. You prep for them the same way and the prof writes them to test in the same way. You'll be ready.