WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

law school exams

Devien

discovery channel junkie
53
0
0
#1
law exams are not a measure of how much law you know, they are a measure of how good your short term memory is. i know people who know just as much law as i do, and if a qualified lawyer would be able to give as much help as i would be able to, however, because they cant remember specific cases/statutes and dates, they dont get as good an exam mark as other people. this is just wrong. i personally have a very good short term memory, and am able to cram as much as possible the night before an exam, and am thus able to get a better mark than others. but if the examiners think that people are memorising cases/statutes to long term memory and are gonna remember them long after the exam, then i can only say to them, FFS YOU COMPLETE IDIOTS!!!
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
0
0
#2
lawyers aren't employed for their memory, but for their interpretive powers, social skills and resolve.
all applicable laws and precedents are documented and are referred to.
are you doing law exams? good luck if so..
 

Devien

discovery channel junkie
53
0
0
#4
void said:
lawyers aren't employed for their memory, but for their interpretive powers, social skills and resolve.
all applicable laws and precedents are documented and are referred to.
are you doing law exams? good luck if so..
yeah but only undergraduate. but as you said laws and precedents are well documented, but we have to memorise very specific details about cases and statutes in order to pass these exams, and that is what i hate about it (and these are exams we/I have to pass to be qualified as a lawyer in England and Wales).
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,980
1,398
487
#5
law exams are not a measure of how much law you know, they are a measure of how good your short term memory is.
That assertion sums up 99% of all academic exams. Aside form that, I don't see what your point is, though. Lawyers aren't paid for their ability retain huge amounts of laws or past cases, that's why they have law libraries; lawyers are payed for their quick wit, intelligence and arguing abilities.
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
0
0
#6
Devien said:
yeah but only undergraduate. but as you said laws and precedents are well documented, but we have to memorise very specific details about cases and statutes in order to pass these exams, and that is what i hate about it (and these are exams we/I have to pass to be qualified as a lawyer in England and Wales).
i know you have a bunch of shit to go through to be qualified, i was just saying that memory doesn't factor so highly once qualified, incase you were thinking this torture would never end. :)
what are you thinking of specializing in?
 

Devien

discovery channel junkie
53
0
0
#7
junglizm said:
Lawyers are payed for their quick wit, intelligence and arguing abilities.
...all of which are not tested in the English criminal law exam. i can see your point though that my comment sums up all academic exams, i just wish that examiners, when marking exams, realise that the candidate is not going to remember these facts in so much detail for more than a few weeks after the exam.
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
0
0
#8
Devien said:
...all of which are not tested in the English criminal law exam. i can see your point though that my comment sums up all academic exams, i just wish that examiners, when marking exams, realise that the candidate is not going to remember these facts in so much detail for more than a few weeks after the exam.
exams test your calibre, your ability to retain and convey, sometimes interpret, information..
jobs on the other hand demand that you are able to think.. ;)
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,980
1,398
487
#9
Look at it this way, exams are used more as a right of passage, and a means of weeding out the absolute idiots, than they are a true test of knowledge. (at least in most cases.) Exams are where standards start, not where they end. Anyone with half a brain and a little bit of will can pass the bar, but simply passing is by no means an indication of how well said person will do in their field. To truly be successful the person has to be suited for the job, and practically, this is something that is untestable in this case.

Is this 'fair?' Maybe not, but what in life is?
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
0
0
#10
i forgot one thing that lawyers have to be..
as a few of you may have heard me say already, my wife is a partner at a law firm, as a result i have to attend functions and parties with lawyers fairly often.. it's not too bad as they always have an open bar.. we were at two last night, i drank and smiled my way through it.. which leads me to the fundamental quality that ALL lawyers have in common.. (legal dept disclaimer) IMO..

they drink, a lot, they drive, drunk, with pints of jack on the go..

lawyers seem to have the very worrying belief that they are above the law, and here in nashville it almost seems they are.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#11
Devien said:
law exams are not a measure of how much law you know, they are a measure of how good your short term memory is. i know people who know just as much law as i do, and if a qualified lawyer would be able to give as much help as i would be able to, however, because they cant remember specific cases/statutes and dates, they dont get as good an exam mark as other people. this is just wrong. i personally have a very good short term memory, and am able to cram as much as possible the night before an exam, and am thus able to get a better mark than others. but if the examiners think that people are memorising cases/statutes to long term memory and are gonna remember them long after the exam, then i can only say to them, FFS YOU COMPLETE IDIOTS!!!
True, you don't need to memorize the minutia of the case for your legal career and will probably never use it. But that type of tests do another much more devious thing. Cramming for a test the way you do teaches you how to look up unimportant information and commit it to memory so that you can utilize it in the future.

When you're done with these tests your professors aren't going to expect you to remember everything about the cases. But they WILL expect you to be able to look up a case, pick up the key points of that case that are relevant to what you're currently working on and then be able to ARGUE those points without having to dig into a reference book.

An Education rarely teaches you the specifics of a job. It teaches the skills needed to pick up and learn the specifics.