May 08, 2006

posted by Daniel J. Solove

Did you put a length limit on the 24-hour exams? As a student, I found 24-hour exams with strict (both in magnitude and in enforcement) word or page limits to be the most humane examination system, followed by scheduled closed-book exams, then by scheduled open-book exams. Take-home exams without length limits (or limits that weren't very constraining) were dead last. Length limits diverted more time into thinking and less into writing, put an upper bound on the number of topics worth exploring, and forced hard (but thought-provoking) choices about which of several points were worth making.

Yes, I put a rather strict length limit on the exam -- I think it was something like 15 pages, double spaced, courier font. I've often found that longer exams aren't generally better, just wordier. My length restrictions were difficult, and they probably required students to do a bit of editing and trimming, which in my mind is a very good skill to learn.

I also established a penalty system for late exams. My policy: "If an exam is turned in late (beyond the 24 hours allotted), I will deduct a third of a grade. Additionally, I will continue deducting a third of a grade every 2 hours until the exam is turned in." Surprisingly, even under the penalty system, about 10% of the exams came in late. One even came in over 6 hours late!

I agree with most of this, but I must take issue with the notion that firms value billable hours to the exclusion of quick analytical thinking.

First, such thinking makes for better litigators, which means you can send associates to certain un-fun tasks with more confidence. Second, there is value in handling many matters at once, which can be done only with efficiency. Third, a lot of work is last minute, and if the work isn't getting done, billable hours are useless. Fourth, the modern trend is that clients want efficiency and are actually looking at bills these days.

I personally preferred the three-hour exam for the most part. Quick and over quickly. I tended to fill the time alotted working, so 24 hours = 24 hours of work.

MR -- Everything you say I agree with -- analytical thinking and getting work done efficiently are some of the most valuable skills a lawyer can have. But with the structure of many law firms these days, billables seem to be such a large part of what is expected of associates.

There are some people who can work very intensely and well in short bursts of time. They are very valuable for litigation, but after a very productive burst of work, their energy is spent. Few people can work like this for 60+ hours per week. Their billables will look terrible, and they'll probably start getting pressure from the firm to up their billables.

Of course, firms may say that they value great efficiency, but what matters are the incentives law firms create. And at least from what I've seen and read, the incentives are skewed toward the billable hour.

I think what Mr. Volokh's comments suggest is that students are being done a favor by having one exam. As a 1L(so my experience is limited) I find this to be untrue. Doesn't this approach really just make it easier for the professors when it comes to grading. Having a more accurate measure should trump any supposed increased pressure on the students. Law School is all pressure, all the time. Whether you are studying for an exam or preparing for class the pressure still exists. What should be considered is producing the best lawyers and doing the best job to accurately determine who is the most knowledgeable.

Giving the wrong grade to the wrong person because a student had a bad day or the subjective nature of a pressure packed 4.5 hour exam to determine 14 weeks of work when a better alternative exists seems to be what professors should be striving for and explaining why they MUST test multiple times despite the additional pressures because it is the most accurate way to prove who is the correct student that is exceeding in the class.

Everyone knows how much weight grades can have in a person getting a job and determining the lives and futures of the students. How could relieving stress be a proper suggestion, when a person's future could be at stake(I understand I am being dramatic),by people who have been through the system, usually at the most prestigious schools in the country?

To suggest that it is a zero sum game and you will only be rearranging the As, Bs and Cs is like suggesting that we shouldn't have the 4th Amendment because it really only protects criminals.

I find this all a little convenient and as a student it seems that the real ease of burden is on Professors, many who are teaching from the same book and notes that they have been using for years.

I guess you can tell I just finished my spring exams today.

I am a big believer in what you do--24 hours, at-home, page-limits. Not sure what to do about cheating, of course. But I like the product that results and I like taking away the time crunch. I end up spending a lot of time during the semester repeating that they should not/cannot spend 24 hours on it, that it is not that daunting so don't freak out, etc.--sometimes students even believe me.

I also have been experimenting in smallish upper-level classes with a model proposed by one of my colleagues. We might call it a paper/exam combo--a semester-long project, written as a paper, but answering one of several specific questions that require students to engage in the deep structure and application of the doctrine.

I misread "I will continue deducting a third of a grade every 2 hours until the exam is turned in," as saying, "I will continue deducting a third of the total grade every 2 hours until the exam is turned in," and wondered to myself, "Did you give the 6-hour-late exam a negative grade?"

I can see the necessity of page limits on take-homes, but for those not naturally concise, they actually created more work - I would literally spend half the allotted time editing.

What about 8-hour take-homes - i.e., basically a normal-length exam with twice as much time to write?

Dan, I'm with MR -- I did not perceive any pressure when I was at a law firm to work more slowly. Quite the opposite. I think the reason for this is related to the reason, which puzzled me at first, why cab drivers in NYC who get paid by the mile drive so fast. The reason is that, the quicker they get you to your destination, the sooner they can pick up another fare. The number of fares per hour, not the distance they travel, is the primary limit on their earnings.

Same with law firms. The number of repeat clients per year, not the hours you bill to them, is typically the limiting factor on law firm profits. Clients usually want an answer (or a motion, or what have you) as fast and as cheaply as possible. An associate who does a task in 1 hour as opposed to 2 makes the client happy on both counts. Happy clients give you more business. Also that associate is available sooner to make other clients happy. And if the junior associates are good and efficient, you can delegate more work down to them, which increases the cap on difficult work that would otherwise be imposed by the limits on partner availability. Inefficient associates, on the other hand, mean you have to hire more of them to do the same number of tasks in the same amount of time, and that work is likely to be of lower quality. Hiring more associates is a huge expense. This is why associate salaries keep going up; because of benefits and overhead, it's cheaper to pay $20,000 more per year and ask for insane hours from each associate (often way more than 60 per week -- which I assure you is possible), even if attrition rates are high, than hire more associates at lower pay and have them work fewer hours.

Hi,can i have a model of the test papers for november 2006 exams

I'm a student, aspiring prof, and three-hour law exams are threatening to ruin my career.

The purpose of a law exam should not be to assess who will the quickest litigator for a big firm. Many law students, amazingly enough, do not aspire to be litigators at big firms. At my law school, one does not need good grades to be a litigator at a big firm, but you need good grades to do things like teaching and impact litigation. Neither of those call on the "skills" 3-4-hour law exams do.

I am in favor of the 24-hr page-limited exam. It actually tests a skill necessary for lawyering: concision.