Approaching Assessment
To all the 1L’s out there. Congratulations! You survived your first term. Almost. Only one pedantic LRW paper and two exams stand between you and the sweet solace of winter break.
If you’re like I was at this time last year, daydreams of Christmas trees, rum toddies, and skiing are beginning to convalesce in your head.
Unfortunately, if you’re like I was, you’re also probably totally lost as to how to study for and write your exams. In the interest of giving you a head start, I thought I would share the method I used consistently throughout last year.
“Clarity of writing comes from clarity of thought” a mentor told me in 1L. This statement formed the basis for my study process.
My Method to Prepare
My approach to studying was to start by re-reading all of the case briefs I had made throughout the semester. I would summarize each case in three bullet points: one for the facts, one for the arguments, and one for the holding. This would usually yield a summary sheet around 20 pages long. Normally this was all the detail necessary to write an exam.
Once I had made a summary sheet, my next step was to make a map. To make my map, I would look at each case and try to figure out what issue it raised.
I would write the issues down in a document as questions. I would then record a method for answering the questions in the form of cited propositions from cases. If cases conflicted, I would figure out how to reconcile them and build the relevant distinction into my map.
Though the SLS database has lots of great maps, I found it was very important to go through the process of making both own summary and map. This forced me to learn the law and think critically about how it all fit together. Critical thinking was by far the most important step in my process.
After summarizing and mapping, I would write 2 or 3 practice exams. I found doing more to be unnecessary.
What to Bring to the Exam
When I would go to write an open book exam I would bring my summary and map with me. I brought textbooks or full briefs to some exams but I never once looked at them.
My approach for closed book exams was the same. I trusted that I would have the course content memorized after summarizing and mapping everything.
How to Write the Exam
I found that there was no special trick to writing exams if I had prepared properly. Still, I tried to adopt a systematic approach.
First, I would read the fact pattern in its entirety to get an overall sense of it. Then, I would re-read it and write out a list of every relevant legal issue on a piece of scrap paper, case, and the fact that related to the problem.
I would flag issues that presented real, serious opportunities for legal relief, as opposed to issues that were less likely to succeed.
I would typically take about a third of my exam time to make this outline and leave the other two thirds for writing. When writing I would treat the plausible issues in detail and thoroughly consider whether the facts supported those forms of relief. I would also treat the less plausible issues, but do so quickly and in less detail.
One of my 1L profs told me to never “sweep issues under the rug”. I took this to heart. I would never ignore an issue just because I didn’t have a clear answer. Rather, I would do my best to answer it with the cases I had available to me and be honest if I wasn’t sure about my conclusion.
When considering every legal issue, I would describe how my findings could provide relief to the client, and whether this relief would be useful to them.
Final Thoughts
I think of exams similarly to how I think of reading cases. When you read a case, you shouldn’t care what the judge found, you should care why they found it. An exam is the same way. Your conclusion doesn’t matter. Your reasoning does.
*Author’s Note: To preemptively pick the low-hanging fruit so tantalizing to Diversions writers, this is not the only way to study. It is merely my method. Everyone is different.
