How to Be a Slacker and Make Dean's List

This (second post of the day) has nothing to do with my life, but rather is for people who search for random law-related things and stumble on my blog. Since exams are about to start or have started, here are my slacker tips for studying less than other people during these hellish two weeks and still making decent grades.

(Unfortunately, this might only work if you went to class and actually listened during the semester. You may think you don't know a concept, but if you were there you probably do.)

1. If the final is open book, make "canned answers." For example, you know that your property exam is going to ask about easements. You can't be bothered to learn what all the easements are, and furthermore you don't even really understand the difference between in gross and appurtenant. Nor do you care. So, get your supplement and your class notes, along with an old practice exam, and make a canned answer.

See what format the professor wants, and make your answer follow that pattern. Then, use your supplement to make definitions for the concepts,including any policy arguments. Profs love those.

On the test day, copy your canned answer onto the test and work the facts around them. This is a tricky but legit way to "apply" the facts to the law without actually understanding the concept. I got my best grades in classes where I did this. (Ie, crim law--I have NO IDEA how to tell a conspirator from an accessory. But I kicked that exam into the dust.)

Plus, canned answers save a lot of time flipping through an outline, and you can use this time to polish and spell check.

2. If it's a closed book exam, study old practice tests. Lots of crusty old law profs have tenure, which means they have been teaching since the Jurassic and the library probably has a pretty hefty compilation of their old exams. Realistically, there are only so many ways you can ask about justiciability. Read the prompts, and then read the student answers that got As. See if they raised a lot of policy, or were more focused on the law itself. Remember their formats and phrasing, and try to apply them to the exam prompt. There are only so many ways to analyze a concept. If you memorize an analyzation road map, that will help a lot.

3. Don't listen to other people before or after the test. They are only pretending to be smart. Actually, they are dumber than you and afraid to let on. They subscribe to the power of positive thinking in a sick combination with psychological warfare, and they are wrong. Don't let them ask you questions about calculating damages; they will just confuse you. And for God's sake don't listen to them when the exam is turned in--and that point it's too late, and you're kicking yourself for not catching that conspiracy issue, and there probably was no conspiracy issue. Don't listen.

4. Don't just say what the law could be. Say what it is not, and why. This might just be particular to my profs, but they love that. It shows that you really do know what's going on and maybe you listened to them in class, even if you sounded pretty damn dumb every time they called on you (case in point: me).

5. Most professors say they don't care about case names or restatement provisions, and this is a LIE. They do want you to throw some case names in there, and a relevant UCC provision. If your exam is totally amazing, you might not need them. But throwing them in can't hurt, just as backup for your arguments. Analogizing to cases from class is never a bad idea.

*Take all of this with a grain of salt--right now I feel really positive about my grades, but obviously earlier today and this week I was about to jump off the patio.