In the world of law school exams where everything is graded on a curve and
the competition is fierce because you are directly competing against
everyone else in your class for the A.
How do you break out of the middle of the pack and go from a B
exam, answer to an A exam answer?
Well, that's exactly what we are diving into in today's video.
So if you're excited to get started, smash that like button and let's go.
The first thing that I see happen all the time in law school final exam
answers that leaves a ton of points on the table is simply restating the
facts from the fact pattern instead of using them to create arguments.
So let's back this up a little bit.
When we're talking about law school final exams, the most common type of law school
final exam is called an issue spotter.
And in an issue spotter, you get a long hypothetical fact pattern
with a lot of people doing a lot of things to each other causing.
Problems.
And it's your job to identify what legal issues are being triggered and then
analyze each of those legal issues.
And so what a lot of students will do when they begin their analysis, it is
they will simply restate the facts.
So for example, they might say, Dee walked up to p, said, I want
those, and yanked at p's, earrings.
But when you say that, you're not telling the professor why those
facts are there, or what argument you're actually connecting them back
to, so you will get zero points.
Instead, what we wanna do is actually use the facts and the
fact pattern to create an argument.
So remember, Facts plus rule equals argument.
So we need to connect those facts back to a rule of law to create an argument.
So one of the ways we can do that is in that factual scenario, maybe
we want to analyze the rule of intent, and so we need to connect
the facts back to the rule of intent.
To create an argument.
So one of the ways that could look is P will argue that Dee intended to make
contact with P because Dee walked over to P pointed at p's, earrings said,
I want those, and then yanked on P's, earrings, thereby causing the consequence.
That D desired.
So what we're doing is we're identifying a rule of law, then we're using the facts
to argue that that rule of law was met or that that rule of law wasn't met.
Another really powerful way to take your exam answer from an A exam,
answer to a B exam answer is to use.
, the cases that you guys have studied in class.
So what does this mean?
What does this look like?
Well, throughout the semester you guys are studying different cases, right?
And in those cases, they are judicial opinions in lawsuits where
the judge has determined a holding based on a set of facts and a
legal rule that the judge applied.
And so for a lot of us, we do extract the rule and we learn
the rule and we know the rule.
Known as Black letter law, and that's great, but then we don't
do anything with what's left over these juicy facts from these cases.
And so what you can use these facts to do is to analogize or to
distinguish the facts from the fact pattern on a final exam scenario.
So what might that look like?
Well, let's say that you guys read about a case in class called
Harry versus Wilson, and in that.
Harry walks up to Wilson and looks him dead in the eye, says, I want
your t-shirt and Yanks on his t-shirt.
And in that scenario, the court found that Harry was liable for battery.
So if we wanted to analogize that case to the facts of our grocery
store fact pattern, we could say P will argue that just like in Harry
versus Wilson, where Harry walked up to Wilson, looked him dead in the
eye, said I want your T-shirt yanked on it, and the court found a battery.
Here too.
A court will find that where D walked up to pee in a grocery store aisle said, I
want those earrings and yanked on them.
A court will similarly find D liable for battery.
And so what we're looking for is a case with similar facts and a holding
that would benefit one party or the other that we could then use to argue.
from that party's perspective how a court should rule in this fact pattern.
This opportunity doesn't come up all the time when you are in a final exam
situation, so when you find facts that are similar to a case that you've read in
class, it is a totally golden opportunity.
To analogize or distinguish those facts and use them in your analysis.
Another thing that can really uplevel your final exam answer
is the use of formatting.
And I know this sounds incredibly superficial, but
it is very, very powerful.
And the reason is because when you get into that exam room, you're going
a hundred miles per hour, typing as fast as you possibly can, getting
down issues and arguments on the.
At lightning speed, right?
And so as you write, it tends to kind of create this brain dump sensation.
And so on the receiving end of that, when your professor's actually reading
your final exam answer, it just looks like this wall of black text and your
professor is grading like a hundred of these things on a very short timetable.
So he or she is not going to be inclined to go digging through your
answer to try to find you points.
And so you are going to have to be the person that really sets
your answer up to be easily read and easily allocated points.
So what does that look like?
Well, when we talk about formatting, we're talking about.
Headings and sub-headings.
So indicating to a professor when you're talking about a particular
issue and when you're moving on to another issue, it also has to do with
really generous paragraph breaks.
So really breaking up your answer so it's easier to read and follow.
And the most important one that a lot of people leave behind, which
is numbering the pieces of the rule.
So what do I mean?
Well, when we talk about different legal rules, most
legal rules have multiple parts.
And so let's use the example of battery, which is what we've
been using throughout this video.
And the definition of the rule of battery is intent to make harmful or
offensive contact, and then actually harmful or offensive contact resulting.
So those are two separate pieces, and when we analyze battery,
we wanna analyze those two.
Separately.
So instead of just analyzing the rule of battery, we get to analyze the
intent element and we get to analyze the harmful or offensive contact element.
So when we literally remember them one, two, not only does that remind us to
analyze them separately, but it also visually signals to the professor to give
us points for analyzing piece one and to give us points for analyzing piece.
And speaking of professors, another really important way to move your answer
from a B answer to an A answer is to figure out what your professor likes to
see in his or her final exam answers.
Because pretty much across the board, all law school professors like the
Iraq approach, which stands for issue, rule analysis, conclusion.
It's a really, really structured foundational base to build out your
analysis and make sure that you're hitting all of the parts that you.
. That being said, every professor is going to have slight tweaks or pre preferences
or personalizations that they like to see, and if you can find out what those
are, then you are going to be able to tailor your answer to those tweaks.
And so what tends to happen is professors are all over the board on this.
A lot of them will keep their cards very close to the vest, meaning they
won't come out and tell you what it is they like unless you either ask.
Or you're able to get a model answer that you can then deconstruct to
figure out what it is that they like.
And so this doesn't work a hundred percent of the time, but if a professor
is not being forthcoming with telling you the kinds of things that they
like, go to their office hours and ask them, be upfront, be straightforward,
and ask them what they like to see.
And the best way to actually understand this, regardless of
what actually comes out of their.
Is to get a model answer or an a answer from a past exam so you can see what
they have given points for in the past.
So some of the things that I've heard professors like or dislike
in their final exam answers are things like not wanting to see any
issues or rule statements at all.
Wanting you to state the conclusion both at the beginning of your
analysis and at the end, otherwise known as the creak approach.
I've also seen professors say that they don't like the argument, counter-argument
styling, and some professors are really big into policy arguments and others
are very much not into policy arguments.
So there are a lot of these different nuances that again, if we can find
out ahead of time, either from the professor's, Or from a deconstruction of
a model answer or a past a answer, we can really use to our advantage in tailoring
our answers specifically to them.
Now, everything that we've talked about up to this point are absolutely
important, powerful pieces that you can use to up level your final exam
answers, but without a doubt, the number one thing that I see make real movement
for people is to stop looking for the.
Answer.
So what do I mean by this?
When we're in a final exam scenario and we have that fact pattern that we're
analyzing, it's really important to understand that law school professors
write those facts intentionally, ambiguously, and what they're doing
is making it possible for you to argue every single legal issue you spot from.
Sides.
And so what we don't wanna have happen is that we go into a fact pattern.
We try to decide who wins, and then we craft our analysis based on that decision.
Because when we do that, we basically close our brains off
to all other potential outlooks, perspectives and arguments.
And just try to, I identify issues and facts and rules that support the
conclusion that we have decided is the quote unquote correct conclusion.
And what we wanna do instead is for every issue that we spot, come up with creative
arguments for why this party could win.
And creative counter arguments for why this other party could
win, because you get points.
For both.
And what tends to happen a lot is that those counter-arguments, those nuanced
arguments, those weaker arguments get left on the table because so many of
us have decided that Party X should win, and that is the way that we're
gonna write our final exam answer.
So definitely when you are going into a fact pattern scenario, make
sure you're keeping your vision open so that you can identify all of
the arguments on the table and get.
For all of them.
All right guys.
I hope that was helpful to get you started thinking about ways to
up-level your own final exam answers.
And if you are in it or if you're in the weeds in the trenches and
you won a dose of good vibes and motivation, definitely check out our
Law School Network Facebook group.
It's filled with over 3000 law students and pre-law students all in their cheering
each other on motivating each other and giving each other a dose of confidence.
So I hope to see you guys in there soon, and best of luck with your final exams.