He told me about that exam, before he knew who wrote it–it woke him up, he said. Which was a GOOD thing, since my grade jumped a whole letter between first and second semester in that class.

Was it because he was more awake? No idea, since 1st semester property was also my worst law grade of law school, so I probably had to do better, right?

And for what it’s worth, I actually appreciate the student who throws in a sentence that riffs off the pop-culture fact-pattern. It shows that she is having a little bit of fun with things and that she is able to see through the haze of the exam process a little bit. It also breaks the monotony of reading 120 identical essays on personal jurisdiction. But it does nothing to affect the grade, either.

Kevin G — Initials that correspond with legal roles may work sometimes, but it depends on the subject. In civil procedure, for example, there may not be such clear-cut roles beyond plaintiff and defendant, and even then there can be all kinds of cross-claiming and impleading that may flip those roles. But in other courses I agree it can be useful.

Bruce — Good point about the instruction — though sticking to the facts as they are given without making extraneous assumptions is actually a skill we want to teach students, so maybe that’s an argument in favor?

David S.C. — So far I have not encountered more than a passing nod to the pop culture stuff. I have given very time-pressured exams so that may be part of the reason. If you are using precious time for your pop culture riff instead of substance it is likely to hurt you. But yours is a valid concern.

If Rumpelstiltskin walks onto the land of Karabelkinhoff and injures himself by tripping over the chainsaw manufactured by Confederated Hardware Enterprises, which was left on the property by SuperDuperRotoRooter Tree Trimmers Aktiengesellschaft…

then I think you can still get an A on the exam by discussing the potential claims and liability of R, K, CHE and Super.

Then again, the NJ bar is also in the habit of asking politically hyped pending Supreme Court cases as questions for con law. Awkward, especially considering that you suspect they want the liberal answer.

I like the gimmickiness of law profs that doesn’t manifest itself in exam hypos or awful, punny article titles. Then they’re just normal pecadilloes like everyone else has. It seems as though law professors like to collect stuff. Perhaps it makes them feel like their life has some other purpose. One of my profs in law school collected bobblehead dolls, and so we had one made of him as a class present. I have heard of another prof who collects slinkys. Y’all are weird. Loveable, but weird.

When it came to the exam, Alice and Bob were back, and the semester up to that point made us smile. If necessary, Carol and Dave also made appearances, but rarely.

It may go without saying for professors, but not for students. I had a couple of students on one (fortunately, practice) exam answer a question differently because of facts about a Simpsons character that even I didn’t know. So it may be worth an instruction not to read more into the characters than is provided in the question.

I do use cultural references myself, sometimes from comedy routines (e.g., old Saturday Night Live skits), but I usually try to keep them a bit obscure to avoid the Simpsons problem. Either that, or I appropriate the names only but everything else about the question is unrecognizable.

One more complication relevant to your comments. At least at my school we are not allowed to use the name of any student enrolled in the class, even “John.” I think Dorcas would usually be OK, though I guess I would have to check the roll before I used it!

And, yes, Belle, we are indeed a gimmicky bunch, as will you be when you join us some day soon… don’t you sort of love us for it?