Teaching the Law School Curriculum - Institute for Law Teaching ...

Property 341
hitting practice shots on the driving range and putting green (pre-class preparation, including case briefing);
watching current tour players both in person and on television or video (hornbooks); studying Power Golf, a
book by Ben Hogan (a study aid, such as a commercial outline); and receiving tips from each other (outlines
made by other students). Three times each year, they will play in a tournament against each other, and those who
do not make the “cut” will be dismissed from the academy and will not be eligible for the pro tour. At the end of
three years, all remaining students will play in a final tournament. Those competitors who shoot a certain score
will join the tour, and those who do not can join the tour only if they shoot a certain score at a later tournament.
I use this obvious analogy to help new students see the relative value of the study methods available to them.
It would be ridiculous for an aspiring pro golfer to rely solely, or even heavily, on watching professionals play,
reading Power Golf, and/or receiving tips from other aspirants. Yet, law students often take this substandard approach
to their studies, cutting corners by relying solely on study aids and outlines prepared by other students
without putting in the practice time necessary to develop their own skills. In short, just as a golf student will need
significant practice time both alone and with an instructor, law students must put in significant pre- and postclass
time studying, dissecting, applying, and reviewing the material. Otherwise, they will not be properly prepared
for the rigors of their exams, the bar exam and, most importantly, the practice of law.
A few years ago, I had an important revelation while imparting this lesson to my students. We give students
challenging material to read and learn. We have rigorous discussions in class, giving the students the opportunity
to develop and refine their legal analytical skills. We give challenging exams at the end of the semester, which
test, in writing and in a time-pressured environment, the students’ knowledge and ability to apply what they have
learned. Finally, we give students the grade they earned, which assesses the quality of their performance, principally,
if not exclusively, on the final exam. Although this traditional law school methodology is indispensable, it
includes two significant gaps: we wrongly assume that the class experience adequately prepares students to take
written exams and that students will learn the proper lessons from their exams despite receiving little or no substantive
feedback on them.
Regarding the first gap, the class experience alone does not adequately prepare students for exam taking. Both
experiences involve legal analysis, but analyzing material in a group setting is not the same as taking a written
exam. Some students excel in one context and struggle in the other. Moreover, in most classes, particularly large
ones, each student is called on perhaps no more than twice a semester and spends the rest of the time observing.
Although the students receive writing instruction in their legal writing course, that course typically does not
address or test exam taking, which is a skill related to but different from objective and persuasive writing. We
nevertheless throw all students into the exam fire with little direct preparation for the experience. This is akin to
forcing the golf academy students to play tournaments every three months after playing only one or two practice
rounds and receiving very little individual attention from the instructors. Law students, particularly those in
their first semester, need to be tested more often than in one final exam per course.
I have identified and implemented three possible solutions to this problem. The first option is to require firstyear
students to take at least one midterm exam that is graded and returned to them, with feedback, before the
end of the semester. The second option is to give first-year students a practice exam that the professor reviews in
class. These first two proposals will help new students learn the art of law exam taking. The third option involves
having the professors who teach first-year courses submit essay questions and answer keys to the legal writing
professors, who will require the students to submit answers for a grade in the legal writing course. These papers
should be graded on both style and substance. Although the papers will not be submitted in the substantive
course, the students can make appointments to discuss the papers with the professor who submitted the paper
to the legal writing program. (To avoid needless complaints, the school must implement a policy that the substantive
professor will not review or comment on the grade given by the legal writing instructor.)
Regarding the second gap, students often do not know the errors they committed on their exams or how they
could have improved their performance. Students who are unaware that they repeat correctable errors unwittingly
develop bad habits, such as frequently making assertions without adequate analysis. For such students, a