Exam Prep

Preparing for final exams can sometimes be overwhelming. While the process gets easier after your first semester of law school, there are things you can do to make this process easier now. Below, you will find links to three prior blog posts -- these posts will help you as you prepare for final exams:

Exam Prep I,

Exam Prep II,


and

Exam Prep III.

Specificity of Language

In reviewing your exams with your professors, you might have noticed that your exams lacked specificity or included vague and meaningless phrases. This is a relatively common error, and something that can easily be fixed. When working with hypotheticals, and when writing your exams, it is important to remember that the language of the law is precise, and your use of it must be equally precise. You must use the language of the court or the words of the statute. You should not substitute your own words.

Suppose your exam question requires that you evaluate a state’s basis for jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant and your discussion centers on an evaluation of the defendant’s “minimum contacts” with the forum state. In the course of your discussion, you’ll use such specific language as “continuous and systematic,” and “fair play and substantial justice.” This language comes from Supreme Court cases and it’s “the law.” You’re expected and required to use it – just as it is. Paraphrasing is not acceptable, so you just have to learn it.

You can avoid vague and meaningless phrases by learning legal vocabulary and using it correctly. If you do this, you won’t end up with an exam full of colorful, yet incorrect, language. But more essential to curing this problem is to truly understand the rules: if you know what the rule means, you won’t write legally meaningless sentences.

The Gap between Questions in your Classes and on Exams

By now, you have probably discovered the difference between what is discussed in class, and what will appear on your final. It’s easy enough to get lost in the theoretical and philosophical aspects of class discussions and hard to know what to expect on the exam when you spend most of your class time being questioned on cases. As you have probably discovered, you’re asked to judge the cases that you read – sometimes in your very first law school class. You’re asked whether you think the court was correct in reaching its decision or whether you would have found differently. Then you get to the exam and there’s nothing about cases. Or at least nothing that’s obvious. Many of you have stopped by our offices this semester, and asked: why does the exam seem so different from what went on in class?

The gap, if indeed there is one, comes from the style of the process more than its substance. Most law professors don’t lecture and present the law in neat little packages for you to digest. Instead, they rely on the Socratic Method and ask questions. They ask lots of questions and only sometimes give answers. Supplying the answers is your job. Professors assume that you’ll do the reading, learn the material, and put it all together in a way that’s meaningful to you. They did it when they were in law school and they expect you to do the same. Some students make the mistake of waiting all semester for the professor to tie it together and this just doesn’t happen. At least not usually. It’s pretty much up to you to make the connections.

Making these connections is the first step in learning to think critically. Law school asks you to think about things you’ve never thought about before and in ways that are new to you. This is the stuff of a legal education. It’s about figuring out how the rules work, what they mean, why we have them, and questioning everything about them. So if you think about it - what goes on in class is related to what’s on the exam. In class, you talk about the cases. You dissect them. The professor hurls questions at you to test your understanding of what you’ve read and your ability to use what you’ve learned. Then she changes the facts and asks another question. And yet another. The professor’s goal is for you to learn to ask the same kinds of questions for yourself. On the exam, the hypos are longer and more complex but they’re pretty much like the ones you discussed in class. They’re just new problems for you to solve.

The Benefits of Testing and Practicing with Hypos

Last semester, we discussed the importance of studying by writing out hypotheticals. That process of organizing and synthesizing material is what helps you remember the material, and is more beneficial than just reading over your notes and outlines.

This study approach was discussed in a recent New York Times article, and is worth reading and incorporating into your study habits. See Pam Belluck, To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test, N.Y. Times, January 21, 2011, at A 14 (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/science/21memory.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general).

Was your final exam disorganized?

Lack of organization in your answers might be another issue that led to a less than stellar grade on an exam. There are many reasons why your exam could have been disorganized, but the bottom line is disorganization probably came from disorganized thinking.

The first question to ask is If the disorganization stemmed from an issue of not knowing the law or misstating the law. If you know that was not the issue, and you’ve done all the necessary prep work, and you’ve still come away with the dreaded “disorganized” comment on your test booklet, then it wasn’t so much a question of knowing the material, but rather how you handled the presentation. So let’s take a look at how we can impose some order.

First, you might want to ask yourself if taking a minute to outline your answer before you started writing would have helped you organize your answer. Even though it’s appropriate to jump right into the analysis once you start writing, it’s never a good idea to jump right into the writing without a plan. As Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus discussed in the chapter in Mastering the Law School Exam on exam writing, this means that you must spend some time outlining your answer beforewriting it. You need a few minutes after reading the problem to outline the issues and come up with an approach for handling them. In your exam, it might be obvious that the you had not spent the time necessary to construct a working outline, and it will be obvious from all that’s missing in the answer.

Next, it is important not to commingle parties or issues. Never, ever, commingle your parties or your issues. Each deserves and demands separate treatment. Also, it’s a sure bet your professor included multiple parties to test multiple areas of the law. You’re just missing the point (in more ways than one!) if you overlook this frequently used test strategy. Another reason you should avoid commingling is the possibility for error.

Another question you might want to ask is whether you used a "he said, she said" analysis that went horribly wrong. While this might be effective when used by an expert, the ping-pong patter of “he will argue, then she will argue” can be disastrous for inexperienced law students. The going back and forth between parties inevitably leads to problems since the writer has to
juggle as well as engage in legal analysis. These problems can be avoided by using subheadings, which would encourage separate discussions of each party with respect to the issues and the parties - in the beginning, it is important to focus on one point of view at a time and rely on the rule of law to organize your answer.

Remember, using the rules as an organizational tool leads to a more focused and complete analysis.

Avoiding Conclusory Statements

In our last blog post, we gave the basic framework for what you should do if you got a disappointing grade last semester - in the post, we discussed that one of your professor's comments might be that your analysis was conclusory. What does this mean, and how can you fix it?

Typically, if your work suffers from a conclusory-style analysis, you’ll just see the comment “conclusory” on your paper. But there are really two types of “conclusory” statements. It’s important for us to distinguish between them because each presents a different problem for the student and requires a different response.

• The first kind of conclusory statement is one that states a legal conclusion. This occurs when there’s an insufficient legal foundation to provide authority to support the statement.



• The second kind states a factual conclusion. This appears as either a restatement of the facts in the hypothetical or a judgment about what the facts mean without explaining the basis for the judgment.

Typically, however, the lines between the two blur and the sentence is conclusory for one or both reasons. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s one or the other except to recognize why it’s conclusory and to fix it.

For example, does your analysis start with a "yes" or "no" answer? If you hadn’t already figured out, it’s not the conclusion you reach, but the way you get there that’s of interest to your professor. It’s a pretty safe bet your professor isn’t looking for a “yes” or “no” response unless you’re answering a short answer question. Even assuming this problem called for a direct answer, it would be unlikely you’d begin with one. Instead, you’d have to work your way through an analysis of the facts in light of the relevant rule before you could even suggest a possible outcome.

Remember, without the legal definition to provide a context, there’s no legal basis to form your analysis; and second, without applying the facts to show how the law applies, all you have is an assertion. Using facts instead of merely reciting them can be a remedy to this problem. Be aware not to simply make declaratory statements, and also beware - it’s rarely a good idea to begin a sentence with such words as word “clearly” or “obviously.” Typically, the facts in your exams are so purposely ambiguous that nothing is ever “clear.” Chances are if you’re finding clarity, you’re missing the real issue!

Like our last blog post pointed out, by following our suggestions, as well as making use of the suggestions in Mastering the Law School Exam, you’ll be able to make the changes necessary to achieve the success that your hardwork deserves.

What to do if you get a Disappointing Grade

It’s hard to be on the receiving end of a poor grade, and there’s nothing more frustrating than trying to figure out what went wrong. It’s hard to understand and even harder to explain how hundreds of hours spent in attending classes, reading required materials, diligently writing case briefs, and preparing a course outline could possibly result in a low grade. But it can and it does, leaving you feeling bewildered, disheartened, and somewhat betrayed. So we're not about to minimize your disappointment if you received a low grade – it really hurts – but what matters now is what you learn from the experience. It’s okay to take a couple of days off to console yourself, but absolutely no more. We must get back to work. Only now, we work differently.

It’s not enough to go through the exercise of looking over the exam with your professor or comparing what you’ve written to a sample answer – you need to know why what you wrote on the exam that didn’t earn the grade you think it deserved. To do this, we need to get inside your head to see where what you were thinking departed from what you should have been thinking.

First, reviewing your exam with your professor is essential to developing your written communication skills. If you think about it, your primary interaction with your professor thus far has been primarily oral – either you were called upon in class or you met outside of class to talk about the material. What you’ll learn from your written exam will probably surprise you. For example, you might learn that you “knew the law" but failed to receive credit because your answer wasn’t responsive to the professor’s question. Or you might discover that your reading of the problem was so flawed that you added your own facts or misconstrued them, either of which could have led to disappointing results. Only by meeting with your professor to go over the exam will you get a sense of how your thinking and response to the questions differed from what your professor had in mind.

From there, it is absolutely essential to learn how to help yourself. Not only are you in the best position to assess your own learning issues, but you are the only one who knows what you know and what you don’t. While it’s helpful to listen to questions asked by other students both in and out of class, it’s not always the question you need answered. Sometimes, you may find difficulty in framing the very question you need to ask. This is a very common problem. After all, articulating a question presupposes that you have a solid enough understanding of the material to identify the part you don’t understand. In short, you need to understand what it is you don’t know before you can get the help you need.

It’s possible to get sufficient insight into what you don’t understand to allow you to articulate the questions you need to ask. This requires some work on your part, but work that is well worth the effort because it puts you in control. Here, we have something concrete to work with – you can use what you wrote on your exam and your professor’s responses to it. Things to pay attention to include whether you are missing a discussion of the law, missing issues, relying on conclusory statements, lack an IRAC form, lack organization, or straying from the relevant issue. Each of these issues (and many more) can be fixed, and are discussed in depth in Chapter Eight of Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus' book, Mastering the Law School Exam.

While we might have moved quickly through what to do to improve, it is important to remember that there’s still a great deal which you can do to affect the final outcome. We know it’s not easy to get your energy and enthusiasm back after a disappointing grade but you must. By following the suggestions and approaches we’ve touched on here, as well as following the suggestions that are discussed in depth in Mastering the Law School Exam, you’ll be able to make the changes necessary in your studying, your thinking, and your writing to achieve the success your hardwork deserves. The key is that you go forward doing things differently than you did before. That’s the real point of what we’ve been doing – learning how to do things differently so you’ll achieve a different result.

And, as always, we are here to help!

Exam Prep III

Now that you are in the exam, what should you do?

1. Allocate your Time

• Have a watch somewhere in plain view;
• Set up a timetable on your scrap paper - use the point allocations provided by your professor to set the time; or if there are no allocations provided, use your best judgment based on the number of questions, length of the questions, and time given for the exam.

2. Read the Question

• Begin by reading the interrogatory at the end of the question;
• Identify what you are asked to do;
• Read the facts "actively".

3. Outline the Answer

• Identify the issues;
• Identify the rule for each issue;
• Compile the building blocks for the rule of law by considering elements, definitions, exceptions to the general rule, relevant distinctions, etc.;
• Follow a hierarchy of concepts by moving from general to specific and defining each legal term of art.

4. Write the Essay

• Begin your statement with, "The issue is whether . . ." and include "when" to ensure that you include the relevant facts;
• Commence your statement of the with, "Under the [controlling law]";
• Use "Here" or "In this case" to introduce your application;
• Use "because" to make the connection between rule and fact;
• Match up a "fact" with each "element" or "definition" in your rule and explain the significance;
• Answer the question you were asked.

For Multiple Choice Questions, remember:

1. Read actively - start with the call of the question, and then move to the fact pattern;

2. Take a moment to "recap" the material facts;

3. Identify the issue;

4. Move from the issue to articulation of your own answer;

5. Translate your "answer" to fit an available and appropriate answer choice.

Exam Prep II

Right Before the Exam: Sit calmly and do not think about anything else -- do not worry about other exams (you cannot do anything about them, but you can do something about the one you are taking now).

When Told to Begin: These minutes are critical for setting the pace of your exam experience. You want to start smoothly, work efficiently, and remain calm and focused. Here are some ways to do it:

• Write down anything that you are afraid you will forget during the course of the exam on scrap paper.
• Scan the exam: take a quick look through the entire exam to get an overview; note the number of questions and overall composition of the exam. A general sense of the exam is necessary to let you plan your time and will help you stay focused in knowing what you will be expected to do.
• Read the instructions: your professor may give you important information in the instructions, and not following the instructions may cost you valuable points.

Allocate Your Time: Budget your time and work within that time -- divide your time in accordance with the way the professor has allocated the points. The most points deserve the largest allocation of minutes. (Be specific -- it might be helpful to make a timetable to ensure you have properly allocated your time and have enough time to finish your exam)

After the Exam: Go home -- do not stop to chat with friends and discuss the exam. Do not relive the exam thinking about what you did or did not do. Instead, move on to the next exam where there is something you can do to affect the outcome.

For Students that take the Exam on a Computer: Make sure that you have a backup plan in case your computer crashes or if there is another mishap. Make sure you know exactly what to do in such a situation, and do not waste time trying to self-correct the problem. Also, do not forget to bring pens and pencils with you into the exam in the event you have to write the exam.

A Final Word about Open-Book Exams: You must learn the material as if you were taking a closed book exam; do not expect to have have time to look everything up! Likewise, do not waste time looking up answers that you are fairly certain are correct. Also, make sure you know what is and what is not included in your professor's definition of "open book" because it could vary from one professor to another.

Exam Prep I

Exams are just around the corner -- no matter how much you have studied, and how carefully you have outlined and done practice exams, once you get to the exam, you must be in the moment. What does this mean? You must respond to what your professor asks of you, and not what you want your professor to know (and by answering the professor's questions, you will be showing what you know). If you have prepared properly, you will be able to identifying the issue in the facts and connect the facts with the rule.

With just a few weeks to prepare, there are a few things you should remember:

1. Make sure to get enough sleep. Cramming and staying up all night doesn't work for law school exams. You have enough time to study and sleep if you plan accordingly, and plan in advance!
2. Make sure to eat -- don't forget to take study breaks to eat, and don't forget to eat before you walk into an exam. It is hard to concentrate when your stomach is growling.
3. If you are an evening student, it might be beneficial to take some time off during finals to study, especially the day of the exam. This time off will prove important and beneficial because you want to be as free from distractions as possible.
4. Make sure you have all of the necessary supplies - do you have pens that actually write; do you need pencils for a Scantron; do you have your exam number; are you going to use earplugs; etc. If your exam is open book, does the material you are planning to bring into the exam comply with the professor's guidelines and specifications?
5. Now is also the time to ask your professor any outstanding questions you have about the substantive law; you do not want to wait until the last minute to fill in any holes or gaps that you might have in your understanding.
6. And of course, make sure to allow yourself enough travel time to get to your exam!

The weeks leading up to exams can be very stressful -- make sure to stay away from those that add to your stress and anxiety. Your final exams are the culmination of all your hard work this semester, and you want to put yourself in the best possible situation to show your professor exactly how hard you have worked all semester.

Check back here in the coming weeks for more test taking tips and strategies, and, as always, stop by our offices (Suite 314) if you need additional help or have questions -- we are here to help.

Continuing Orientation Workshop - Writing a Law School Final

For students wishing to review Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus' lecture on Writing Law School Finals, the video is available on TLCWEB (password protected). Below is the handout from the lecture.

Intro to Multiple Choice Questions

Multiple choice questions are great tools to study the law, and will inevitably show up on your final exams and on the Bar Exam - the difference between the "legal version" of a multiple choice question and what you have experienced in the past is that the multiple choice questions you face in law school will test your knowledge of the substantive law, your reading comprehension, and your legal reasoning skills.


So, starting with the basics: how should you attack a multiple choice question?

• Start by reading the call of the question (what is the question asking); then read the fact pattern and find the issue;
• once you identify the issue, articulate your own answer; and
• find your "answer" in the available answer choices.

There are a few more things to remember when faced with a multiple choice question:

• You must read the question and the fact pattern actively. Make sure to pay attention to the legal relations of the parties; pay attention to significant words [i.e. "reasonably", "intended", "mistakenly thought", "deliberately", etc.]; and identify amounts, dates, quantities, ages.
• Never assume facts. You may need to draw a reasonable inference from the facts, but do not create your own facts and do not go off on a tangent based on what you think might be asked. Remember, your professor has crafted the question to contain all of the facts you need to answer the question.
• You should frame the issue to answer the questions. If you fail to identify the issue, then it makes it difficult to identify the relevant facts, and accordingly, you have no means by which to identify the correct answer choice.

Remember, after you have articulated the issue, apply the rule of law to the facts and reach your conclusion. Generally, by determining the appropriate outcome, you remain in control of the question and are not as likely to be distracted by the distractors in the question designed to throw you off course.

Active Reading

When working thought hypothetical problems, multiple choice questions and during exams, you should read the questions "actively" -- but, what does it mean to read actively? “Active reading” means that you search for and identify the following:

• The sub-area of law: when you study for a specific class or walk into your exam, you know the subject matter, but there are still wide open categories and you must narrow it down specific sub-topics. A critical component of reading actively is reading in context -- on exams, it’s your job to provide the context.
• The legal relationship between the parties: it is important to pay attention to the legal significance of parties’ relationships. The nature of the relationship is often of major significance to a resolution of the problem. Often, professors will use such relationships to test your ability to note distinctions in how the law treats such relationships (you may be dealing with fiduciary duties, different standards of care, and additional obligations imposed by law).
• Amounts of money, dates, locations, quantities, and ages: be sure to pay attention to dollar amounts, dates and times, quantities of items, jurisdictional information, and any ages if they appear in the fact pattern. These details can be important for so many reasons: imagine skipping over a time sequence of events in a contractual relationship, then your analysis of the offer, acceptance, and requirements for performance may be way off. Dates also signal statute of limitations problems. Ages are generally tied to a statutory issue (consider statutory rape) or a standard of care (fiduciary duty) while money and location information tend to indicate jurisdictional thresholds. Reading carefully assures that you won’t miss critical signals.
• The words “oral” and “written”: these words figure prominently in contract, property, and evidence questions. They signal potential issues with the Statute of Frauds, enforceability of promises, transactions with respect to land, and even admissibility of certain kinds of evidence. Also, note language that signals a writing or oral conversation i.e, a letter, a fax, or a telephone call.

“Active reading” does not include:

• Adding facts to the problem: unless you are told to do so specifically by the call of the question, you are never to add your own facts. In most cases, you are given all the facts you need and should use only those facts.
• Making assumptions: never make assumptions -- this will lead you astray and into dangerous exam territory. Remember, an assumption is not the same as a logical inference, which often must be made from the facts you’re given. (When working with a set of facts, you may need to draw factual inferences and connect these inferences to the dictates of the rule.)
• Never confuse your parties: as you read and before you write, make absolutely certain that you are clear about who is doing what to whom. You don’t want to confuse the actors.

As always, you can refer to Mastering the Law School Exam for further tips on practicing your active reading skills.

Intro to IRAC

The vast majority of your exams in law school test your ability to "think like a lawyer" - in achieving this goal, you should master the IRAC structure of legal analysis; that is a structure that lays out the "Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion." IRAC can be an important guide for you because all professors want your exams to include well-reasoned arguments based on the analysis of the relevant issues and an application of the relevant facts. Generally, your answer will depend upon how you have articulated your understanding of the facts, recognized the issues, and explained the applicable rules - it is by this reasoning that you will reach the conclusion.

In essay exams, the fact pattern may be as short as one paragraph or as long as several pages; the question may include one, two, or multiple parties - at this point, these details don’t matter. Your job is always the same: address the question that is asked by giving an explanation of the law and the facts. Regardless of the form, each issue and sub-issue will be organized and analyzed individually; and you will be able to analyze each issue based on the relevant facts and law.

Below are a few points you should think about when writing an exam or practicing your exam writing skills with hypotheticals:

• Begin by identifying your issue: a construction of whether [rule of law] when [relevant facts] is often useful (i.e. The issue is whether Steve committed the tort of trespass to land when he entered the neighboring plot of land to retrieve his hat.).
• Introduce and articulate the rule: do not forget to identify the controlling body of law (i.e. Under the U.C.C. . . .), and follow a hierarchy of concepts (it is often effective to move from general to specific; make sure to include relevant legal definitions and any exceptions or exclusions, if applicable).
• As for your application (or analysis): begin by a transitional word (here, in this case, etc.) and use the word because to link your rule to the relevant fact (i.e. liability for trespass to land occurred when Steve stepped onto his neighbor's land because he fully intended to do so.).
• Offer a conclusion for each issue, and repeat your IRAC for each issue and sub-issue of the hypothetical or exam.

Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus fully walks you through a successful IRAC in her book, Mastering the Law School Exam (Thomson West 2006), which can be your guide to IRAC as it further expands on the points illustrated here.