Succeeding on Law School Exams

Hello all!

I am Professor Ramy and I direct the Academic Support Program (“ASP”) at Suffolk University Law School. I’ve worked as an ASP professor for over a decade, and I have learned that my students have many of the same questions/concerns year after year. With that in mind, here are a few words of wisdom to help get you through your upcoming final exams.

• First, keep in mind that this is not your first experience with law school exams. You have been through this process before, so now you know what to expect. The unknown may cause us stress and fear, but known quantities can be planned for and dealt with in an effective manner.

• Do not rehash your exams with your classmates because it can only lead to more stress. Your classmates are not grading you, so who cares how they answered the first question! In addition, no one sees every issue on a law school exam. So, it is quite possible, even likely, that your classmates saw things that you did not see and vice versa.

• Students are notoriously poor judges of how well they did on law school exams. In fact, most students believe they performed more poorly than they actually did. So, you probably did fine even if you believe you bombed an exam.

• When you walk into your exams, know that you did everything possible to succeed. By the same token, do not let your experience with any one examination rob you of the confidence you spent a whole year developing. Your hard work has earned you the right to be confident, so do not give it up so easily.

• No one gets 100% on a law school exam, so do not beat yourself up over a question you’re sure you got wrong. Remember, most essay exams contain issues that are very difficult to resolve. At times, it does not even matter whether you believe that the plaintiff should prevail or the defendant. In fact, the final answer is often much less important than your discussion of why the issue is difficult to resolve.

• If you struggle to complete the exam in the allotted time, that’s a good thing! Exams are supposed to be hard and often take every minute of the exam period to complete. If you are running out of time and still have a few issues to analyze, consider listing the problems you did not have time to get to. I can’t guarantee that you will receive any credit for this list of issues, but you may, particularly if you did a good job with the other parts of the exam.

• Once an exam is over, let it go. Even if you could have performed better on an exam, it doesn’t make any difference once it is over. Remember, have the wisdom to know the difference between the things you can change and those that you cannot. Obsessing about an exam you just completed expends valuable energy that could be used in preparing for your next one.

Finally, it is perfectly reasonable to lean on others for a bit of support. The ASP folks at your school can give you valuable advice or just listen to your worries. It’s amazing how seemingly intractable problems are cut down to size when you share your concerns with another person.

Congratulations on completing your first year of law school and good luck on your final exams.

Prof. Ramy

Preparing for the Bar Exam - Practice Questions

Doing practice questions when preparing for the bar exam is one of the most overlooked study methods. You should start doing questions right from the beginning. Often students say they are waiting until they think they know enough law, which they never think they do, so they never practice enough questions. Doing questions, and doing them correctly, should be the mantra for students during bar prep.

Below is advice from the forthcoming book, The New York Bar Exam by the Issue (Thomson West):

You should begin practicing questions as soon as you begin your bar review class. Don't make the mistake of waiting until you think you know enough law: first, you'll never think you know enough law; second, once you've attended a class and reviewed your notes on a topic, you're ready to go to work. Working with rules as you learn them by applying them in the context of new factual situations is the most effective way to learn whether you truly understand them. It also allows you to find answers to questions that naturally arise as you practice the material — while you still have time to do so.

Why to Practice Questions

The reason to practice questions is to learn from them. While you may find this difficult to believe, you've learned as much as you are going to learn from your notes after you've read them once or twice. You've got to put them aside and move on to the questions to apply what you've learned to actual problems. This is the only way to find out what you know and what you don't. When your studying is "question-driven," it will lead you back to any gaps in your knowledge of the rules.

Teaching Assistant Application Process - FAQ's

Many of you stopped by our offices or have emailed to ask about the TA program for the Fall, including what is required to become a TA and how to apply. Below you will find the answer to many of the questions that have been asked, as well as how to apply.

What is required to be a TA?
A desire and ability to work well with others and a solid academic record.

What does a TA do?
A TA leads a small study group section in "learning how to learn the law" by showing how successful students go about the process of thinking about and integrating course material.

What is my time commitment?
You must be available to attend one of the required weekly training sessions; and you will need to be available for a TA session (100 minutes) one day a week.

How do I apply?
Please send an email to Nancy Chanin expressing why you are interested in becoming a TA. Attach your resume, and include a phone number and email where you can be reached over the summer. We accept applications now and through the summer.

What is the review process and when will I be contacted?
We review the applications following the release of spring semester grades. We contact all applicants and may ask to meet with you. While grades and class performance are very important, you must also be able to work well with others, show initiative, direct group discussions, and have a genuine interest and ability to help other students develop their analytical skills.

Hierarchy of Concepts in your Outline

Several students have stopped by our offices this week to get advice about outlining. Sometimes, students include a wealth of information that is in paragraph form, and I suggest they use a traditional outline format instead of paragraphs because this format differentiates between levels. The structure of an outline forces you to rank concepts and identify main topics and sub-topics. Remember, the law is essentially a set of categories: each principle you learn belongs “somewhere” in the scheme which you need to create.

A failure to properly understand and define the hierarchy of concepts in your outline often manifests on the exam with difficulty in identifying and sequencing issues for discussion. There is a logical sequence to follow in analyzing a problem based on the construction of the rule and it’s essential that this hierarchy be worked through in the process of creating your outline. The ranking system inherent in an outline format forces you to arrange the material in a hierarchy.

One way to get started in creating your hierarchy is to look at The Table of Contents in your casebook. It’s written in outline form. Some casebooks include a Summary of the Table of Contents which is even better for your purposes since it contains only the main topics and sub-topics, eliminating the cases and notes. From here, you can really see the big picture.

It also might be useful to coordinate the Table of Contents with your syllabus to find your starting point and use it as a template to form your skeleton outline. Of course you’ll need to make adjustments based on how your professor presents the material, but the Table of Contents provides the overview you need to begin putting things together. This should give you the major headings.

You may also want to consider a hornbook to help you identify the sub-headings. This is the real work of outlining: synthesizing the material so that you can differentiate between main and sub-issues. Don’t be afraid to go outside your casebook and class notes for help in this regard. Most of us need the help to be found in hornbooks. A hornbook will explain the material in a way that is incredibly valuable in helping you understand it.

Once you have a sense of the main topics and sub-topics, you can begin to fill in the pieces to provide substance and meaning.

Studying with Hypotheticals

Writing out hypotheticals is an important way to study during the course of the semester – not just during finals time. As you prepare for class by reading and briefing the assignment, you need to prepare for exams by writing out essays. Familiarity with the structure of essay questions and how to respond to them will go a long way in alleviating your anxiety on exam day. The key to success on exams is to engage in this practice on a regular basis and to begin well before the final examination.

By now, you should know that your law professors expect an exam answer that is a well-reasoned and well-organized, and should contain an articulate analysis of the relevant rules of law with respect to the facts. This demonstrates your mastery of the material covered during the course of the semester and your ability to write in the language of the law. The best way to do get adequate preparation is by writing out and practicing from prior exams – this is why many professors have copies of their old exams on file. You should begin writing sample answers as soon as you have covered enough “law” to analyze a factual situation. This practice should continue throughout your law school career; it is not simply for first year law students.

When asked if it is too soon to start working through hypothicals, remember:

1. Don’t delay. Begin working with practice questions as soon as you have covered a topic.

2. Start simple and build to the complex. Begin with single issue problems and work your way to increasingly more complex problems until you have covered every principle that has been studied in your course.

3. Vary the type of essay that you answer when practicing. Be sure to work with both short essays and long, complex fact patterns with multiple issues and parties. Each presents a different challenge in issue spotting and organization.

4. Use exam questions to let you see the relationships between concepts and how topics come together. As you proceed through each area of doctrinal law, you’ll often find it necessary to take a very narrow, focused approach because there is only so much information you can assimilate at a time. But the same tunnel-vision that lets you navigate enormous amounts of knowledge limits your consideration of other perspectives. Here’s where hypotheticals can help by showing you the connections where all you’ve been focused on are the distinctions.

5. Develop your reading skills as carefully as your writing skills. Pay attention to the directions that accompany exams – specifically with respect to what you are asked to do in the question. The only way to know exactly how your professor expects you to address a question comes from experience in reading your professor’s exams and in asking what she expects in an answer.

Research Study

Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus is seeking participants for her research study. Below is the flyer containing all of the pertinent information.

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).

Spring Teaching Assistant Program

The First-Year TA program will continue this semester for day and evening students, beginning the week of January 31st. Much like last semester, the TA program will have a small group dynamic, and your TA group will focus on the first year doctrinal classes - specifically, contracts, torts, civil procedure, and property.

For the students wishing to continue, you can sign-up for your Spring TA group beginning Monday, January 24th at 9:00 a.m.; registration will remain open until Friday, January 28th at 3:00 p.m. on TWEN - register for "First Year TA Session Sign-Up - Spring 2011" and select your group. All registration will be handled first come, first served, and all information is confidential. We will send an email confirmation to your Touro email account with the room assignment for your group before the first day of TA sessions.

We look forward to working with you again this semester!

Preparing for the Bar Exam - Essay Questions

The essay portion of the bar exam is another important aspect of the bar exam, and you are the one in control of the question when you write. Unlike a multiple choice question where you have to match up your analysis of the problem to fit one of the answer choices, here you have some flexibility. While there are limits determined by the issues set up in the facts, you can take a slightly different path and still accrue significant points.

Bar examiners have the same expectations when reading an essay as did your law professors: one that demonstrates your ability to engage in legal thought and analysis. This doesn't mean there is a right or wrong answer, just that you provide a well-reasoned argument based on the analysis of the relevant issues and application of the law to the facts, followed by a legal conclusion. In fact, as you review sample candidate answers, you will find examples of answers that reach opposite conclusions yet have been selected as above average answers. You should pay particular attention to such examples because it’s tangible proof of what we’ve been saying all along – that it’s the reasoning that counts and not the bottom line conclusion.

The following are the steps you’ll take for writing “bar-right” essays:

1. Know Your Audience

Bar exam graders read a large number of essays and evaluate them according to strict criteria. They know what they are looking for and the easier you make it for them to find it, the more points you will accrue. Generally, you can count on writing clear, concise, and focused exam answers which conform to the basic structure of legal analysis — in other words, IRAC. This may require you to make certain adjustments in your style and presentation if you are more accustomed to broad, generalized discussions.

It is important to review released essays from the state’s bar examiners. While your bar review course includes a good number of simulated practice tests and essay writing exercises, there is no substitute for the real thing.

2. Know Exactly What is Tested and How

Some questions will lead you to the issues to be discussed and others will leave it open and require you to “issue-spot.” Only thorough preparation will let you know what to expect.

3. De-construct Exam Questions and Sample Answers

You might be wondering how “de-constructing a question” differs from “reading a question.” Generally, your focus when reading a question is to determine what is required of you to answer it. You are concerned with the information relevant to your task — evaluating whether the defendant committed felony murder, whether the statement was admissible, whether a contract was formed, and so forth. But when you are studying and trying to learn from the questions, your purpose in de-constructing a question is to analyze its organization and content for patterns and consistencies. There is a natural connection between certain topics and with preparation, you will become familiar with the questions and able to recognize the issues. Bar examiners are adept at weaving procedural questions with substantive issues in ways you might hardly notice — that is, unless you were looking for them.

Remember, the bar examiners are incredibly efficient at using a single word or short phrase to convey enormous meaning. Only careful reading of essay questions will allow you to recognize key words and phrases. The bar examiners are similarly adept at using language to signal non-issues. Only the careful, observant reader will know not to discuss such matters, saving time and effort for the real issues.

Now that you have de-constructed exam questions, it’s time to de-construct exam answers — an equally important part of your preparation. Here, rather than studying past exams to see what you can expect from the bar examiners, your goal is to learn what they expect from you. As you review sample candidate answers, you may find examples of answers that reach opposite conclusions. This is proof that it’s the reasoning that counts and not necessarily the bottom line conclusion. Certainly, the correct answer gets the most points but it is possible to get points if your argument is based on law and grounded in the facts.

4. Follow a Formula: Write IRAC

It should be clear from the de-construction process that your answers will follow a basic IRAC structure and it’s okay to be obvious about it. IRAC allows you to organize your response and remain in control, whether addressing a narrow issue-driven essay or a general question. With slight variations to account for the type of questions in your jurisdiction, you can make IRAC your blueprint for answering any essay question.

Begin your sentence with “The issue is whether.” It’s okay to be obvious; use the “whether, when” construction to lead you to connect the legal question with the specific facts in controversy. When you use this approach to formulate an issue, you avoid overly general statements and provide a path to follow in your analysis. This leads to an essay that connects the rules with the questions presented rather than one that rambles.

After your identification of the issue, your statement of the rule of law is probably the single most important part of your exam essay. First, it lets the reader know that you have identified the legal problem and second, it shows that you know the relevant law. And in writing the relevant law, be sure to write the law of your jurisdiction. Even if you could answer the question using the common law, if there is a state rule on point, you want to be sure to apply that law. Never forget that you are seeking admission to practice in a particular jurisdiction: you want the bar examiners to know that you know the applicable state law. Writing the rule consists of two parts: first, writing enough of the rule, and second, writing the rule in a logical order.

The whole rule is enough rule to provide the context to analyze the facts. The rule and the facts are inextricably linked. Your analysis of the facts will not make sense unless you have first identified the rule which determines the relevance of those facts. You must use the facts of the problem to guide your discussion of the law, and you should strive to present your statement of the law in its logical order. Generally, there is a “natural” order to writing the rule which is based on a hierarchy of concepts. This means that when you write the rule, you work from the general to the specific. Your analysis should begin with a statement of the general rule and then move to the exception, not vice versa. The general rule provides a context for understanding and appreciating the role of the exception or distinction.

How you set up the rule now drives the structure of the analysis. Your statement of the rule provides a blueprint to follow for your discussion of the facts. Work from your articulation of the rule to guide your application of the facts. Match up each element/factor you’ve identified in the rule with a fact, using the word “because” to make the connection between rule and fact. This ensures that you write facts “plus” the significance of those facts.

And after you finish the analysis, you are on to the conclusion. If the call-of-the-question asks for a specific answer, then be definitive. State your conclusion as to that issue. If there are multiple issues, then once you’ve completed your analysis of one issue, move on to the next.

5. Gain Familiarity with the Questions

The key to success in any endeavor is preparation. Familiarity with the structure of the essay questions and how you respond to them will go a long way in alleviating your anxiety on test day. You job is to practice the approach we’ve just outlined so that it becomes so automatic by test day that you move from one step to the other without missing a beat.

6. Work with Sample Answers

Finally, whether you’ve written out entire essays or only outlined the issues and rules, be sure to read the sample answers. Read all of them, even when there are several candidate samples for each question. However, be careful to read with a discerning eye toward the rules of law expressed in student papers: the bar examiners are careful to point out that they are only “sample” answers, not “model” answers. Consequently, you may find what you consider errors in statements of the law. Use this to your advantage: if you’re reading the answers “actively” as indeed you should be, then you will identify these errors and be sure to articulate the correct rule of law. Further, you should compare each sample answer to the IRAC model and fully analyze the construction. Then you should compare the sample to your own answer, element by element, taking the time to evaluate what you’ve written.

If you need additional pointers or are looking for a more in depth discussion of the bar exam, Professor Darrow-Kleinhaus' books, Acing the Bar Exam (Thomson West 2008) and The Bar Exam in a Nutshell (2d ed. 2009), are great resources.

Preparing for the Bar Exam - Multiple Choice Questions

Multiple choice questions can be tricky because your answer is either right or wrong, and the MBE poses a challenge for even the best students because there are so many questions and so little time -- the MBE tests your knowledge of the substantive law, your reading comprehension and reasoning skills, your ability to work quickly and efficiently, and your capacity to remain focused and functioning over a long period of time. But, don't worry, your bar review course should provide you with all the substantive law you need to know; and your law school education has taught you how “to think like a lawyer” -- the MBE questions require that you put the two together, and the best way to do this is to practice!

There are countless places to get practice questions - for example, your bar review courses include hundreds of practice questions, and the bar examiners also release old MBE questions for you to practice. Do not forget about the released questions because the experience in working with actual MBE questions is invaluable in helping you gain familiarity with the bar examiner’s specific use of language and framing of issues.

Practicing the questions is no substitute for knowing the black letter law. A superficial understanding of broad concepts won’t be enough to allow you to distinguish between the answer choices; instead, you will need a detailed understanding of the rules. Your analysis begins with articulation of the issue in the fact pattern, and from there you need to know the rule of law.

The more questions you answer, the more comfortable you will be with the process of answering multiple choice questions, and the more prepared you will be for them on bar day. Ideally, you should answer thousands of questions. But just “doing questions” is not enough. There is a right way and a wrong way to “do” questions and you need to know the difference.

What does it mean to “do” questions? When using the multiple choice as a practice tool, there “right way” to work with the questions. You must read carefully and actively to spot signal words and legally significant facts. Pay attention to the bar examiners’ particular use of language. The bar examiners carefully construct MBE questions to contain all the facts you need to answer the question. You must rely solely on these facts to answer the question. Of course you may draw reasonable inferences from the facts but you cannot fabricate your own or create “what if” scenarios.

In addition to keeping to the facts, don’t let yourself go off on tangents based on possible theories you see raised in the facts. This is one of the very reasons you’ll read the question stem before you read the fact pattern — to keep from going astray.

Next, just as you must remain focused on the facts as presented in the question, you must apply the rule of law to the facts without hesitation. You cannot substitute your instincts for what you know is legally correct. Your job is to follow the law and apply it to the facts mechanically.

Remember, there are four basic steps for answering a multiple choice question. You will follow this sequence for every question you practice. After a bit of practice, the process will become second nature to you to approach a question this way. You’ll soon see that it yields results.

For each question, you will:

1. Read the call-of-the-question or stem and then read the fact pattern
2. Find the issue in the facts
3. Identify the rule that addresses the issue
4. Reach a conclusion without looking at the answer choices

And don't forget, it is important to recognize that analysis of the answer choices deserves as much of your time and attention as the fact pattern. There is a lot of valuable information to be found within the answer choices.

Update: See also Preparing for the Bar Exam - The Multistate Bar Exam ("MBE").

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!