In many ways, this makes a lot of sense. 1L, everyone says, is about teaching a method of thinking as much as it is about teaching black-letter law. And I've certainly noticed that; whether reflecting on my day "on call" for one of my classes last week or reviewing my notes, I can see my mind working at once more efficiently to highlight the pertinent details of a case or an article and also more expansively, trying (to varying degrees of success) to test hypothetical situations where a rule, or a theory, may apply.
But exams are exams are exams. Law school exams may be a really long exercise in problem-solving, but it's not like the answers can be pulled out of thin air--they have to reference the topics covered in the class. I may take more practice exams or highlight my notes more than I have in past years, but I don't have to re-invent the wheel when it comes to preparation. Moreover, I imagine most law students are the same way, but at some point during the first year, they question, or lose, their confidence in themselves and their ability to take a test. I guess the cottage industry of how-to books, commercial outlines, and sundry other study aids would suffer if law schools reminded students of their basic test-taking abilities, but I imagine that students' stress levels would improve dramatically.
No comments:
Post a Comment