have you ever done well in a law exam even though you thought you stuffed up badly? (1 Viewer)

[Marmalade.]

I had a terrible exam today, so I'd appreciate any hope.

 

[L]

nope, xorry

 

[hfis]

Thought I bombed administrative law, got a D. Same with Law of Business Organizations and Property Law (although the last one was only a credit - I was thankful to not fail!)

Don't abandon hope until you see the results. In the meantime, forget about them; it's not like you can change them after doing the exam.

 

[Frigid]

all the time. but try, try, try to focus and keep your eyes on the prize. it's not over til it's over.

 

[Suvat]

I've had many many law exams where I walked out wanting to cry, and holding on to my notes just in case I failed, but I haven't come close to failing yet *touch wood*

 

[Strawbaby]

I generally get opposing marks. I thought I had done all right in Dispute Resolution and I bombed; I walked out of the Obligations exam convinced I had failed horribly and ended up with a top mark.
You never know.

 

[Lara1986]

Re: have you ever done well in a law exam even though you thought you stuffed up badl

I thought I bombed out in Family Law but ended up getting the highest mark in the exam and overall.

Thought I really failed in Equity Trusts & Remedies 1 as well but ended up with a credit.

So you never know

That said, I absolutely know I will walk out of Equity Trusts & Remedies 2 on Monday night prepared to receive a mark no higher than 50%.

 

[\/anessa]

Think I've just flunked this morning's paper. Fingers crossed.

I'm usually pessimistic but haven't failed thus far [although I don't actually do well either lol].

 

[Freakin600]

i thought i completely failed and made up about 80% of the legal trial exam, and then i ended up doing really well! =]

lol, i think even my teacher was surprised! =P

 

[MichaelJackson2]

last semester i got 51% for my copyright mid-sem take-home exam which was worth 40%, it was quite devastating. miraculously, i got an HD on the 60% final exam and ended up with a credit for the course overall. i seriously thought there was a good chance i might have failed - there is a chance something miraculous will happen to you too .

 

[Marmalade.]

I did fine.

 

[ephemeral]

yay

 

[pete shearman]

i'm doing quite poorly at law. at melb uni, 60 in constitutional and 59 in contracts. i don't understand why i am so hopeless. i work quite hard and feel like i understand the law.

at the same time i achieved a 90 average in history/politics without bothering to buy the readers and that was lowered by the fact i don't hand things in on time. other law students doing the same combination tend to get H2Bs in law and high H2As/low H1s in arts. a 30 mark discrepancy does seem greater than normal.

i never wanted to practice law in the first place and i'm looking to do postgrad work in arts but my question is whether it's worthwhile just getting the degree.

 

[Frigid]

i'm doing quite poorly at law. at melb uni, 60 in constitutional and 59 in contracts. i don't understand why i am so hopeless. i work quite hard and feel like i understand the law.

are you at the early stages of your degree?

i suspect it may be something to do with your exam technique. have you ever had discussions with your lecturers about why you did not get a higher grade? how do you answer problem questions?

until the third year of my combined degree, i was getting pretty average marks for law (high credits, low 70s). then a lecturer suggested that i really start focussing on refining my learning towards answering exam questions, and my marks have jumped about 10% since then. exam technique, in my experience, makes a substantial difference.

 

[RogueAcademic]

i'm doing quite poorly at law. at melb uni, 60 in constitutional and 59 in contracts. i don't understand why i am so hopeless. i work quite hard and feel like i understand the law.

It sounds like your exam technique, as Frigid said above.

I find it really easy to understand the law as well, there really is nothing to it.* It's exam technique that I've had to work on because understanding or knowing the law is one thing, applying it is a whole other mountain you've got to climb. Once you get that part down, it's relatively smooth sailing until you graduate.

Look through past exams and model answers. I also find the Butterworth Q&A books helpful, as well as the problem Q&A at the end of every chapter in the Butterworths Tutorial Series books.

From looking at past/practice exam questions, learn to spot the issues and then apply the correct law to the issues. There was a bunch of us hanging around and talking after an exam one time, we were all talking about the exam questions and how we answered them. As we slowly dispersed and went home, one of the students spoke up and was absolutely convinced we were all wrong, she had more or less spotted the same issue but applied/argued the completely wrong area of law in her answer.

When looking at model answers, analyse and break down how the model answers are structured and why they are high scoring answers. Put yourself in your lecturer's mind as to how he/she would mark your answer, point for point.

Go into your (open book) exams with your own summarised definitions of the law and a very short paragraph of relevant cases so that once you spot the issues in the exam question, all you need to do is copy exactly what you've got in your summary as to what the relevant law is. This should be the quickest and easiest part of your exam.

Then, from what you've just written down, apply it to the exam question by explaining how the law and/or cases can be argued, is similar to, or fits into, the current exam problem. It may be necessary to argue from the perspective of all parties in the exam problem.

State which party has a good/bad case and why, and come to a very brief conclusion.

*The hardest part is making sense of badly written or convoluted judgments or legislation, or trying to follow a very bad lecturer. But in essence, I find that the principles of law is actually quite straightforward.

 

[Strawbaby]

i'm doing quite poorly at law. at melb uni, 60 in constitutional and 59 in contracts. i don't understand why i am so hopeless. i work quite hard and feel like i understand the law.

I did badly in contracts too (63) though I got 80 in obligations and usually get around ~75 or a bit more.
I asked my lecturer what happened but even after his explanation, I still don't know how I ended up messing up so badly :S

 

[RogueAcademic]

I asked my lecturer what happened but even after his explanation, I still don't know how I ended up messing up so badly :S

If he can't give you a coherent explanation, that 'could' be a sign that it may be because your lecturer is very bad at teaching and so it's 'possibly' not your fault.

 

[ephemeral]

I think it's normal to get a much higher score in Obligations. It's more a brief intro to different obligations rather than anything in real detail. Contracts seems a lot more 'in depth' so it's probably more testing of exam technique than obs is

 

[MichaelJackson2]

for the first time, i've done badly in two exams which i thought i had nailed. i'm currently appealing to have these exams re-marked and gosh it is a slow and painful process. pretty much gotta write an essay explaining why it should be remarked and then it'll take at least a month for them to decide, the end result of which being a possible dismissal of my application.

should i take this to the AAT to have my law school judicially reviewed? hmm or perhaps i should sue my law school for their arbitrary marking practices. that would make a great boston legal episode.

 

[Frigid]

should i take this to the AAT to have my law school judicially reviewed? hmm or perhaps i should sue my law school for their arbitrary marking practices.

the short answers are:

1. lack of jurisdiction.
2. struck out for want of apparent cause of action.