Law students, if your fall grades were inconsistently high and low, consider your ability to analyze the different rule structures common to each class. If you did well in Torts, Criminal Law, Remedies, Evidence, and Professional Responsibility, you successfully analyzed element-based rules—you understood that all claim or defense elements had to be satisfied to conclude a certain way and are likely linear thinkers. If you did well in Constitutional Law or Criminal Procedure, you were successful in applying and distinguishing cases to achieve an outcome for a new set of facts—you understood how Constitutional rights were violated or upheld and walked yourself through a roadmap approach (“if yes, then go down this route, if no then another route”) to each Amendment. It’s trickier if you did well in Civil Procedure, Contracts, Property, Community Property, Estates, or Business Associations because these classes require you to combine the above-mentioned rule structures and sometimes include balancing tests, weighing factors, and alternative rule structures. These are not absolutes but guidelines—it’s another way to think about your strengths and weaknesses on your fall exams to improve upon them this spring. And, if you did well in Legal Writing, you obviously followed the sound tips and expertise of Amanda Haverstick! #lawstudent #lawschool #lawstudents
Steven Neff
7mo
Really good stuff. Law classes aren’t monolithic. Breaking down the differences is really helpful — can also be instructive about where your law career interests lie…
Jasmine Neosh
7mo
This is a helpful way to think about it. I’m absolutely bewildered by the classes I performed very well in versus the classes I did just okay and this gives me a good way to analyze what’s going on.
My grades are actually all over the place! I find it’s a mix of how enthusiastic I am about the class and the exam format. Like exams that included a multiple choice portion (in contrast to a purely essay exam) were not my best.
Law | Strategy | Policy | Public Service | Sharing personal views only - no government endorsement implied or resources used
7moThat's an interesting approach! Personally, I tend to start the analysis at more basic levels: * Open book v. closed book * Pure essay issue-spotter v. MC/hybrid * Does the professor give basically the same exam every year and everyone had 20 years' of prior exams to study off? There can be some significant trends in this breakdown. I had an absolutely amazing crim law prof - a true legend in the field - but she gave basically the same exam every year and everyone in class had (1) a near-verbatim transcript of her lectures that a prior student had prepared and (2) at least a dozen of her past (hybrid format, closed-book) exams. These facts made the curve brutal and the grading nearly random, because most of the class pretty much hit every issue being tested. One or two sentences may have been the difference between a B and an A-. By contrast, our property exam was an open-book pure issue-spotter and half the class walked out saying, "I can't believe he didn't test future interests" (he did, of course).