Top Law Schools

Obviously a perfect test would have both, but in the event that there is limited time, and no person could possibly spot every issue and analyze everything perfectly with the correct conclusion, and the test is closed book, what would be weighed more heavily, a test that spotted every issue and stated every rule perfectly but fumbled a few analyses/conclusions due to silly mistakes, or a test that correctly analyzed perfectly a few subtle issues?

You should get an idea from the class what matters more to the professor. If they don't tell you, ask how they grade the exams, and what they look for - then, ask upperclass students, the truth is somewhere in there. In all likelihood, though, poor analysis of 20/20 issues is just as detrimental to your grade as excellent analysis of 7/20 issues.

Almost all professors grade with check marks. There are more check-mark possibilities with analysis than there are with spotting issues.

Yea, that makes sense. If it's the check mark approach I'm good. The majority of my analysis was solid, the organization was perfect, and I spotted every issue, I just missed little details here and there due to time crunch, and drew a few wrong conclusions. I don't think anyone could have been completely on point in the time we had which was 140 minutes, for two major issue spotters, after HARD multiple choice questions, all closed book. Almost everyone in our class had different answers, although many of the same issues. I think this was a test that was hard, and any other opinion about it, would mean you missed the point of the test. Hopefully the curve will be in my favor.

If he takes a holistic approach then I have doubts.

RobertGolddust wrote: I spotted every issue

Not trying to be a dick, but in all likelihood you did not spot every issue. That's okay because its not necessary for an A.

but in all likelihood you did not spot every issue

All of them that matter and then some.

If I were guessing, I'd say spotting the issue and stating the rule is most important. Analysis then just flows naturally from there. But miss the issue, or get the rule wrong, everything down the line fails. That is why I embraced the notion that on an issue spotter, you take apart the fact pattern by transaction or issues (a v. B, b v. C, etc.) and outline each answer to each transaction with issue and rule, and once ALL done outlining EVERY possible transaction and issue, only then start writing. If you get pinched on time, your outlines show the prof you saw the issue and knew the rule, which will get you points even if you don't flush out the analysis. (Of course though, if you've managed your time properly, you won't let yourself linger on any one issue longer than it's proportionally worth).

RobertGolddust wrote:All of them that matter and then some.

calling flame

calling flame

Not quite sure what that means, but if your suggesting misrepresentation, then I can say with reasonable certainty that you are mistaken.

Update when you get your grade back. It may be great, horrible, or somewhere in between. But the bottom line is that at this point, you have absolutely no idea... Also, you have no idea what "issues" were important to your professor.

This is a dumb question.

It definitely depends on the professor, one of ours gave us a midterm so we could understand how he graded and doing spectacular analysis on a few issues gave a fraction of the points of just spotting all of them, which I see the logic of in a way, it's more useful as a lawyer to be able to identify all the possible problems in a case and work out solutions later then to be a lawyer with a few solutions in mind but completely miss one of the major issues

just my two cents

Yea, in hindsight I think I did fine. Only blunder during finals was stressing out about this test post facto, and infecting classmates with my stress by interrogating them about this difficult test.

I'll report back mid January with the results.

Update: A- lowest grade so far but I am fine with it.