अनुलिपि 🔗
WEBVTT
00:00:00.320 --> 00:00:01.280
Hey everybody.
00:00:01.439 --> 00:00:13.119
In this episode, let's talk about one simple trick that you can use on your law school exam answers to set your answers apart when your professor is grading them.
00:00:13.279 --> 00:00:15.199
We're talking about using headers.
00:00:15.359 --> 00:00:16.800
Let's get started.
00:00:17.120 --> 00:00:23.920
Welcome to Law School Decoded, the podcast that pulls back the curtain on what it's really like to succeed in law school.
00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:25.679
Let's get started.
00:00:28.480 --> 00:00:36.240
Why am I talking about something as simple as using headers on your law school exam answer?
00:00:36.799 --> 00:00:48.960
Well, to start to understand that, I want you to imagine the process that your professor is going through as he or she is grading your exams at the end of the semester.
00:00:49.200 --> 00:00:51.280
The professor is probably a little bit tired.
00:00:51.439 --> 00:00:58.560
They have spent all semester teaching you multiple classes multiple times a week on their feet, doing and leading the Socratic method.
00:00:58.719 --> 00:01:03.359
They've written up this super complicated issue spotter exam.
00:01:03.679 --> 00:01:05.519
They've administered that exam.
00:01:05.680 --> 00:01:13.840
They've met with lots of students outside of class about how to prepare for it and how to understand a ton of course material.
00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:19.280
They've dealt with all that in their professional lives, and you don't even know what's going on in their personal lives.
00:01:19.359 --> 00:01:23.599
But in any event, they are probably a bit tired.
00:01:23.760 --> 00:01:25.200
It's the end of the semester.
00:01:25.359 --> 00:01:34.719
You've now taken the exams, and the professor is given a stack of these exams to grade against the rubric that they create for it.
00:01:34.959 --> 00:01:50.239
So the professor has to go through and see what issues each student spotted, give points for spotting the issue, give a point or two for saying the right rule, and then decide how many points does each student get for their analysis?
00:01:50.400 --> 00:01:58.400
And obviously, the more professional, common sense, creative, persuasive analyses will get lots of points.
00:01:58.560 --> 00:02:05.040
The ones that are disorganized or hard to understand or don't make any sense probably will not get many points.
00:02:05.200 --> 00:02:07.680
All of those exam grades go on a curve.
00:02:07.920 --> 00:02:12.240
The professor has to do the math, add them all up, get those grades entered.
00:02:12.319 --> 00:02:21.199
And this is the last thing between them and a few days off over a winter break or several days off over a summer break.
00:02:21.439 --> 00:02:24.080
This is the last thing that they have to do.
00:02:24.319 --> 00:02:32.960
When a professor has that stack of exams in front of them, you have to imagine that it is a daunting task ahead, right?
00:02:33.120 --> 00:02:35.680
And these exams aren't necessarily page turn.
00:02:35.759 --> 00:02:37.199
They're not necessarily well written.
00:02:37.360 --> 00:02:41.039
They're addressing the same facts over and over and over again.
00:02:41.280 --> 00:02:45.680
And law students wrote them usually in just the span of a couple hours.
00:02:45.840 --> 00:02:48.479
So they aren't necessarily impeccably done.
00:02:48.560 --> 00:02:49.919
It's not a Stephen King novel.
00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:51.439
It's not a page turner.
00:02:51.599 --> 00:02:55.919
So the professor has to get through the exams in this arduous process of grading them.
00:02:56.159 --> 00:03:02.240
Often law students wrote in kind of stream of consciousness, like a blog that really isn't well organized.
00:03:02.639 --> 00:03:04.800
So it's going to be hard for the professor.
00:03:04.960 --> 00:03:17.759
They're going to have an uphill battle to root out what issues you spotted, the rules that you recited, and an organized persuasive analysis of those issues and to what degree each law student achieved those objectives.
00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:23.840
When the professor is reading your exam answers, I want to suggest to you something.
00:03:24.159 --> 00:03:26.319
Perception is reality.
00:03:26.560 --> 00:03:38.080
In many ways, how the answer looks and how well formatted it looks is not maybe just as important as the content, but it is up there.
00:03:38.240 --> 00:03:46.639
I want you to imagine you're hiring for a job, and I've been there, and I've had 150 resumes in front of me, and my job is to pick the people who get interviewed.
00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:55.520
Do you think I want the resumes that are kind of messy and have weird line breaks and use multiple font sizes and are disorganized?
00:03:55.759 --> 00:04:09.439
Or do I want the ones that use a well-selected, tasteful font that justify the text, that use bold and italics and small caps in tasteful, well-organized, and well-presented ways?
00:04:09.599 --> 00:04:11.199
Who do you think I'm going to pick?
00:04:11.360 --> 00:04:21.199
There's a good chance the more organized one might have a slight edge, despite the substance of the two documents and the underlying merit of the applicants.
00:04:21.519 --> 00:04:23.279
Perception is reality.
00:04:23.519 --> 00:04:27.040
The same goes for your law school exam answer.
00:04:27.279 --> 00:04:34.959
How it looks when your professor is reviewing it really does matter and will either make their job really easy or really hard.
00:04:35.120 --> 00:04:47.360
If you just wrote an entire big one block of text discussing all the issues with no line breaks, that would be super hard for your professor to identify when you're talking about which issues and give you the right amount of points for each one.
00:04:47.519 --> 00:04:50.079
They may not even spot that you spotted an issue.
00:04:50.160 --> 00:04:52.000
You might not get points for that.
00:04:52.240 --> 00:05:07.120
Of course, you break
Load full transcript
your discussion up into paragraphs because that helps you write and organize, and it helps your professor read and understand which issues that you spotted and where you are in the discussion of those issues.
00:05:07.439 --> 00:05:10.720
Again, perception is reality.
00:05:10.879 --> 00:05:15.360
How you write is about just important as what you write.
00:05:15.839 --> 00:05:38.160
So I want to suggest to you that when you are writing your law school exam answers, one little trick you can use to help set your exam answers apart is throughout your answer that you are writing in the exam software to use very simple headers each time you are discussing a new issue.
00:05:38.959 --> 00:05:41.519
Very simple headers.
00:05:42.240 --> 00:05:42.879
Think about that.
00:05:43.279 --> 00:05:47.439
Think if you read a document without headers that's twenty pages long, an exam answer.
00:05:47.920 --> 00:05:52.319
Well, it's kind of hard to easily spot where you're talking about what issue.
00:05:52.639 --> 00:05:54.800
You can't do that just by flipping through.
00:05:55.040 --> 00:06:00.319
So your professor can't just flip through the exam in five minutes and see which issues you spotted.
00:06:00.560 --> 00:06:18.879
No, but if you have those bold headers and you use them for each and every issue that you spotted, your professor could, if they wanted to, just flip through it really quick at the beginning and say, aha, I see that this student picked up on these eight issues out of the ten that I wanted them to.
00:06:19.120 --> 00:06:22.560
Okay, now I know where I'm going with this one.
00:06:22.720 --> 00:06:24.079
Let's dive in further.
00:06:24.240 --> 00:06:26.319
It's going to make their job easier.
00:06:26.480 --> 00:06:32.079
And you want the professor's job to be as easy as possible when they are grading your exam.
00:06:32.560 --> 00:06:54.079
So when you are taking an exam, each time you see a new issue in the issue spotter exam, my suggestion to you is that you write down a simple header in the exam answer software identifying that issue, and that you highlight it and that you put it in bold.
00:06:54.319 --> 00:07:03.519
Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but otherwise, don't do all caps and don't capitalize random letters of random words.
00:07:03.759 --> 00:07:08.480
Capitalize proper nouns like people's names or companies' names, and again, that first word.
00:07:08.720 --> 00:07:12.800
But if you put it in all caps, you're just making it harder to read.
00:07:12.959 --> 00:07:20.879
If you capitalize random words, ones you feel are important perhaps and not prepositions, it's just harder for someone to read.
00:07:21.040 --> 00:07:24.240
Your job is to make your exam easier to read.
00:07:24.399 --> 00:07:28.560
And a lot of legal writers, good legal writers do this when they're submitting briefs.
00:07:28.800 --> 00:07:35.040
Good legal writers often don't have all caps headers or capitalizing random words instead.
00:07:35.199 --> 00:07:36.800
They write it like we read.
00:07:36.879 --> 00:07:41.759
They capitalize the first letter of the first word and then the proper nouns after that.
00:07:42.079 --> 00:07:44.959
So that the reader has an easy time.
00:07:45.199 --> 00:07:48.560
So every time you spot an issue, you're gonna put a header.
00:07:48.639 --> 00:07:55.600
So say you're reading your contracts exam and you see there's an issue about whether one party offered a contract to another.
00:07:55.839 --> 00:07:57.199
You do a bold header.
00:07:57.360 --> 00:08:01.279
Say the parties in that problem are named Jack and Jill.
00:08:01.360 --> 00:08:08.639
And the issue is whether Jack offered a contract to Jill to buy 10,000 widgets.
00:08:08.959 --> 00:08:09.519
Boom.
00:08:09.759 --> 00:08:10.720
There's the issue.
00:08:10.879 --> 00:08:14.879
You can tell your professor played around with the facts related to the offer.
00:08:14.959 --> 00:08:17.199
It's ambiguous as to whether there was an offer or not.
00:08:17.279 --> 00:08:18.160
There's an argument.
00:08:18.319 --> 00:08:20.240
Maybe Jill wants to get out of it.
00:08:20.399 --> 00:08:26.000
She doesn't want to have to buy what she agreed to, or Jack doesn't want to sell it to her.
00:08:26.160 --> 00:08:30.079
So one of them is going to want to get out of that contract maybe that they made.
00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:34.799
And an issue is going to be whether a contract ever formed in the first place.
00:08:35.039 --> 00:08:38.080
So you're going to put a bold header.
00:08:38.159 --> 00:08:46.000
And that bold header might say, whether Jack offered a contract to Jill for widgets.
00:08:46.320 --> 00:08:50.480
Whether Jack offered a contract to Jill for the widgets.
00:08:50.799 --> 00:08:53.440
That is a really simple header.
00:08:53.679 --> 00:08:57.279
You can bold it, you press enter, and you're on a new line.
00:08:57.519 --> 00:09:00.960
That header is one line long, right?
00:09:01.120 --> 00:09:04.159
It's not going to be super lengthy or hard to read.
00:09:04.320 --> 00:09:18.159
And your professor can, the second they flip to that page, within about three seconds, they know, aha, this student is going to get some points on this page because they spotted that contract formation issue that I wanted them to.
00:09:18.639 --> 00:09:21.200
So they're going to get some points.
00:09:21.440 --> 00:09:25.679
And then you go ahead and discuss that contract formation issue.
00:09:25.919 --> 00:09:36.720
You discuss whether Jack offered a contract to Jill and what the arguments are that Jack would make and Jill would make based on the positions that they're going to want to take.
00:09:36.960 --> 00:09:45.200
And you analyze those issues robustly using the facts and the problem and the facts that you're not seeing, as we'll talk about in other episodes.
00:09:45.360 --> 00:09:51.759
But that header is going to get you some points really quick and make your professor's life a little bit easier.
00:09:51.919 --> 00:09:56.080
You will keep writing until you see a new issue.
00:09:56.320 --> 00:10:04.080
When you see a new issue in the exam problem that you're reading, you draft a new header and it's in bold and you highlight it.
00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:21.120
So when I was getting really good at exams in law school and was really acing them towards the end of my law school career, the way I would proceed when reading an exam, one of those lengthy issue spotters, is as I read through the first time, I was actively reading.
00:10:21.200 --> 00:10:25.440
So I'm outlining, I'm circling, I'm making some notes in the margin.
00:10:25.840 --> 00:10:36.960
But every time I saw an issue, I went ahead right then and there, as I'm reading for the first time, I typed out that header in the exam answer software.
00:10:37.200 --> 00:10:40.159
Every time I saw an issue, I'd just go ahead and type it out.
00:10:40.240 --> 00:10:43.519
So I said to myself, aha, okay, I see an issue there.
00:10:43.679 --> 00:10:45.120
I know I'm gonna get some points for it.
00:10:45.279 --> 00:10:46.320
I need to go back to it.
00:10:46.480 --> 00:10:47.600
Let me type it out now.
00:10:47.679 --> 00:10:56.639
I'm gonna keep on reading, and then I will go back and I will start writing about that issue once I'm done reading the entire thing and outlining all the issues.
00:10:56.879 --> 00:10:58.639
I didn't outline on paper.
00:10:58.799 --> 00:11:02.399
I didn't write the headers on paper or scratch paper next to me.
00:11:02.639 --> 00:11:03.120
Why?
00:11:03.360 --> 00:11:06.720
Because I only got points for what was in that exam answer software.
00:11:06.879 --> 00:11:12.720
When I saw something that was going to get me points, it wouldn't get me points to write it down by hand on some scratch paper.
00:11:12.879 --> 00:11:16.399
Instead, I wanted to write it down in the place where I would get graded.
00:11:16.480 --> 00:11:20.159
And then of course, as I read further, I could refine those headers.
00:11:20.320 --> 00:11:21.360
I could rewrite them.
00:11:21.440 --> 00:11:25.679
But at the very least, I had them in there so I knew I am not going to forget this issue.
00:11:25.840 --> 00:11:36.639
I'd type it out, I'd bold it, I'd hit enter a few times, and then I would go back to it later, once I had read the whole problem, and then I'd analyze it, and then I'd go on to the next one.
00:11:36.799 --> 00:11:40.799
And as I'm reading through the problem, I'm checking for more potential legal issues.
00:11:40.960 --> 00:11:44.240
And every time I spotted one, I'd put in the header.
00:11:44.320 --> 00:11:46.399
And that is the outline of my exam answer.
00:11:46.559 --> 00:11:50.639
So then when I'm going back, of course, I've got my outline with me if the professor allows it.
00:11:50.799 --> 00:11:53.360
If it's an open note exam, I see the issue.
00:11:53.440 --> 00:11:57.039
I've got an outlined answer already drafted for that issue.
00:11:57.360 --> 00:12:01.120
I
turn to that section of my outline, and then I've already got the header in.
00:12:01.200 --> 00:12:08.399
I refine it maybe a little bit, maybe drop in, sprinkle in some more facts because discussing the facts is going to impress your professor.
00:12:08.639 --> 00:12:11.679
The test is about whether you have a good grasp of the facts.
00:12:11.759 --> 00:12:12.879
So let's show that.
00:12:13.039 --> 00:12:16.399
And then I would drop in my pre-drafted issue statement.
00:12:16.559 --> 00:12:18.000
I'd drop in the facts.
00:12:18.159 --> 00:12:25.840
I would drop in the rule statements that mattered for that particular issue and that mattered based on the facts that I was seeing.
00:12:26.080 --> 00:12:27.919
And then we're in the analysis.
00:12:28.159 --> 00:12:32.879
Then we have a new paragraph that says, hey, this party is going to argue XYZ.
00:12:33.200 --> 00:12:34.879
And here's some facts they'll use.
00:12:35.039 --> 00:12:37.919
This other party is going to argue ABC.
00:12:38.000 --> 00:12:41.679
And here's how they'll use the facts that I'm seeing in this problem.
00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:48.080
Finally, here's who I think has the stronger argument in front of a jury and why.
00:12:48.240 --> 00:12:52.720
Here's who I think would ultimately be more convincing, just using my common sense.
00:12:52.960 --> 00:12:56.480
This professor seems to be the most persuasive fact in my view.
00:12:56.639 --> 00:12:58.320
So that's who I think wins.
00:12:58.480 --> 00:12:59.919
I'm done with that section.
00:13:00.080 --> 00:13:00.960
I scroll down.
00:13:01.039 --> 00:13:03.440
I've already got the next header written.
00:13:03.679 --> 00:13:05.679
So I'm already grounded.
00:13:05.759 --> 00:13:08.480
I'm not going to forget that that header exists.
00:13:08.799 --> 00:13:11.039
I go ahead and I start reading.
00:13:11.120 --> 00:13:22.799
And I read the exam problem and I start analyzing that issue in the same way, writing an issue statement, a rule statement, analysis, and conclusion, basic IRAC under that header.
00:13:23.120 --> 00:13:25.120
How many headers should you have on the exam?
00:13:25.279 --> 00:13:30.240
Again, I think that you should use a bold header for just about every issue.
00:13:30.559 --> 00:13:33.440
You may want to have subheaders.
00:13:33.600 --> 00:13:37.120
It really just depends on the exam problem.
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:45.759
And what is the best way to give a robust, organized answer to the problem that you are presented with?
00:13:46.080 --> 00:13:56.639
So let's say on your contracts exam, it appears there could be a contract between two parties, Jack and Jill, but there's actually offer acceptance and consideration issues.
00:13:56.879 --> 00:14:04.480
Well, maybe your bold header at the beginning just says whether there is a contract formed between Jack and Jill.
00:14:04.720 --> 00:14:12.000
And then you go to a new line and you have an italicized header, whether there is an offer.
00:14:12.159 --> 00:14:16.080
And then you go to a new line and you have whether there is acceptance.
00:14:16.240 --> 00:14:22.240
And then you have a new line for consideration and so on, whatever the formation issues are that you're seeing.
00:14:22.399 --> 00:14:25.279
Now you've got subheaders and you italicize those.
00:14:25.440 --> 00:14:30.720
They're still emphasized, but a little bit lighter than the bold ones that you put at the top.
00:14:30.960 --> 00:14:40.000
And then under each of those italicized subheaders, you are going to talk about the issues that you are seeing and the arguments that the parties would make.
00:14:40.240 --> 00:14:42.879
What I would say is use common sense.
00:14:43.120 --> 00:14:47.279
Use common sense in deploying headers and subheaders like this.
00:14:47.440 --> 00:14:58.000
I think you can probably go down to three levels of subheaders or three levels total before it really starts to get convoluted and hard to read.
00:14:58.320 --> 00:15:10.799
But use your best judgment based on what the issues are on the exam and how you think it is easiest to organize an answer that will be simple and straightforward for your professor to read.
00:15:11.200 --> 00:15:13.279
Consider using subheaders.
00:15:13.360 --> 00:15:27.600
But if you don't, even just a bold header for every issue will flag for your professor that you have at least tried to organize an answer in a way that will make it easier for him or her to review it and to give you points.
00:15:27.840 --> 00:15:32.080
But consider using subheaders if you think that those will help.
00:15:32.320 --> 00:15:37.200
And obviously, every subheader under a header has to be somehow related to that header.
00:15:37.360 --> 00:15:40.720
You don't want a subheader that's a completely different issue.
00:15:41.039 --> 00:15:49.679
If your header says, hey, I'm talking about contract formation issues here, you don't want to talk about breach under that header.
00:15:49.840 --> 00:15:58.639
If there are breach issues and a dispute about whether a material breach occurred or any breach, you don't want to discuss that under that header because now you're on a different topic.
00:15:58.879 --> 00:15:59.919
That wouldn't make sense.
00:16:00.159 --> 00:16:04.879
You want a new bold header for whether there was a breach, right?
00:16:05.200 --> 00:16:18.159
And then put the party's names in, put a brief description of what they might have done for a breach that caused a breach, whatever it is that gives reasonable detail without giving a really long header.
00:16:18.399 --> 00:16:28.399
By the way, this is how lawyers in real life organize their memos and the briefs that they submit to courts on a day-to-day basis.
00:16:28.720 --> 00:16:38.480
You have to decide how do I organize these headers in a way that's going to be easiest for a judge or a clerk or both to understand my argument.
00:16:38.720 --> 00:16:44.960
And when I'm writing a brief, I've taken pretty much the same approach as
I'm suggesting here.
00:16:45.120 --> 00:16:47.440
I try to do headers pretty frequently.
00:16:47.600 --> 00:16:51.679
I try to put them in just about every page or so.
00:16:51.840 --> 00:16:55.440
And I think that's about the cadence that you should have on your exam.
00:16:55.600 --> 00:17:02.879
Every single spaced page or so, you should probably have a header saying, Professor, now I'm moving on to this other topic.
00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:05.920
Or now I'm moving on to this other subtopic.
00:17:06.160 --> 00:17:14.079
If you go longer than that, you have to ask yourself, am I still writing about things that fall under that header, or have I moved on to other topics?
00:17:14.240 --> 00:17:22.079
Or is my discussion of this topic so rambling and inefficient that at this point, I'm not getting any more points under this analysis?
00:17:22.240 --> 00:17:24.480
My professor is going to be like, where are we?
00:17:24.640 --> 00:17:26.000
These arguments are weird.
00:17:26.240 --> 00:17:28.480
I think they are just dumping arguments on me.
00:17:28.640 --> 00:17:31.920
I wanted the best arguments because that's lawyer-like analysis.
00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:33.119
That's what lawyers do.
00:17:33.279 --> 00:17:36.000
Throwing spaghetti at the wall ain't gonna help you.
00:17:36.240 --> 00:17:52.160
So I tend to think that at least about a header a page or subheader a page is going to help you ensure that you are roadmapping your argument for the professor using those bold headers in a way that's easy to read.
00:17:52.319 --> 00:17:56.000
You should also have roadmaps of arguments around the headers.
00:17:56.160 --> 00:18:08.880
So if you do a bold header and then you're gonna have subheaders underneath, under the bold header, you should discuss and and roadmap what it is that you're going to talk about in that section under the subheaders.
00:18:08.960 --> 00:18:21.839
So if it's contract formation issues, under that bold header, you want to write something like one issue is whether Jack and Jill formed a valid contract.
00:18:22.319 --> 00:18:27.920
Specifically, the issues are and then roadmap them, right?
00:18:28.160 --> 00:18:34.960
Whether Jack offered Jill a contract, whether Jill accepted a contract, and whether there was consideration.
00:18:35.359 --> 00:18:39.119
You can also, in that roadmap, start getting more specific.
00:18:39.279 --> 00:18:46.640
For example, if there's clearly only one or two things that Jack did to offer a contract, go ahead and drop in those facts very briefly.
00:18:47.519 --> 00:18:54.160
Whether Jack offered a contract to Jill when he wrote down terms of sale on a napkin, right?
00:18:54.319 --> 00:18:59.599
Whether Jill accepted the contract when she said, okay, and put the napkin in her pocket.
00:18:59.839 --> 00:19:04.240
If those are the only facts, you can start weaving them in, right?
00:19:04.480 --> 00:19:11.200
Into that roadmap because your professor is gonna say, aha, I see that you see the issue because you are using the facts from my problem.
00:19:11.359 --> 00:19:11.839
Thank you.
00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:13.279
You read my problem.
00:19:13.519 --> 00:19:16.799
I am so touched and honored that you paid attention.
00:19:16.880 --> 00:19:18.480
And I'm gonna give you some points for that.
00:19:18.640 --> 00:19:20.880
I've got my pen out and I'm ready to drop points.
00:19:20.960 --> 00:19:24.480
Let's get into that analysis because you've already got some issue points here.
00:19:24.720 --> 00:19:26.319
Drop that in really, really quickly.
00:19:26.480 --> 00:19:36.160
Make that secondhand nature and use common sense in doing so exactly as if you were writing the issue out to a judge to whom you needed to explain it.
00:19:36.400 --> 00:19:53.119
So there's no exact rule of thumb, but having a header every one or a couple pages is going to help your professor read your exam and specifically make it easier for that professor to put in points for spotting the issue.
00:19:53.359 --> 00:19:57.440
This is not going to get you points for the most important thing, which is your analysis.
00:19:57.680 --> 00:20:09.039
Your lawyer-like, creative, persuasive analysis for each party and the arguments that you raise for each party like a lawyer would is what's going to get you points that set you apart from your classmates.
00:20:09.279 --> 00:20:12.400
But identifying the issues is foundational.
00:20:12.640 --> 00:20:16.799
If you don't identify the issue, I can guarantee you won't get points for it.
00:20:17.039 --> 00:20:18.160
Here's the other problem.
00:20:18.319 --> 00:20:32.400
If you identify the issue, but you don't make it obvious enough to your professor that you did, the professor might gloss over your part of the answer that discusses that issue in a way that deprives you of points, perhaps unfairly.
00:20:32.559 --> 00:20:38.960
But if you make it obvious and easy for your professor, then that will make it easier for the professor to award you points.
00:20:39.200 --> 00:20:43.440
One other tip I have, let's say you finish your exam early.
00:20:43.680 --> 00:20:44.960
You get it done.
00:20:45.200 --> 00:20:47.279
I don't think you should ever leave the exam room.
00:20:47.440 --> 00:20:49.440
And I'll do another podcast on that.
00:20:49.599 --> 00:20:59.279
But at the end of the exam, you should go back, take a breath, take a drink of water, use the restroom, and then go back and read the problem again.
00:20:59.519 --> 00:21:01.359
Read the problem again, right?
00:21:01.680 --> 00:21:10.960
Spot other issues potentially that you totally missed, or spot facts that the professor dropped in there that you hadn't used and asked, gosh, how would one part or the other use that fact?
00:21:11.039 --> 00:21:16.240
But another thing you can do with your headers is to go ahead and number them.
00:21:16.480 --> 00:21:26.000
You can put Roman numerals in front of your bold headers, Roman numeral one, two, three, four, and in caps
with a period after them.
00:21:26.400 --> 00:21:30.319
That is going to make your answer look even more refined.
00:21:30.640 --> 00:21:33.920
Your professor is going, oh wow, this isn't a disorganized answer.
00:21:34.079 --> 00:21:37.839
This person was so intentional about what they're presenting to me that they have sections.
00:21:38.079 --> 00:21:39.680
I am so impressed.
00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:44.559
So do Roman numeral one, two, three in your subheaders.
00:21:44.799 --> 00:21:46.079
Do A B C.
00:21:46.400 --> 00:21:50.240
Do one, two, three, the Arabic numerals, right?
00:21:50.480 --> 00:21:56.319
Do whatever you have to to make it really obvious that you organized your answer impeccably.
00:21:56.559 --> 00:21:57.519
You can do that.
00:21:57.680 --> 00:22:02.559
That may not necessarily set your answer apart much, and of course, make sure you're doing it accurately.
00:22:02.720 --> 00:22:11.279
If you move things around, make sure you're doing it in an organized way so that you don't mess with the flow and make your professor wonder, hey, where's section two?
00:22:11.519 --> 00:22:12.000
I don't see it.
00:22:12.160 --> 00:22:13.039
That wouldn't be good.
00:22:13.200 --> 00:22:15.039
But you could go back and number them.
00:22:15.279 --> 00:22:17.359
That is how you'd write a brief for a court.
00:22:17.519 --> 00:22:22.480
You would number the sections because it makes it easier for the judge to read your brief.
00:22:22.640 --> 00:22:29.599
Since you do it for a court and since it makes it easier to read, you should also consider doing it for your professor.
00:22:29.759 --> 00:22:37.039
And hey, every textbook you've ever read, they've gone ahead and put those numbers in there for you to make it easier for you to read, right?
00:22:37.359 --> 00:22:49.839
So when you're handing your professor some academic content, maybe do the same thing to make it easier for them to read and to understand where they are in analyzing your answer.
00:22:50.079 --> 00:22:52.240
So here's the bottom line.
00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:56.559
Headers aren't going to knock your exam answer out of the park.
00:22:56.640 --> 00:22:58.799
It's the analysis that matters most.
00:22:58.960 --> 00:23:03.279
But you've got to spot the issues and you need to show your professor that you spotted your issues.
00:23:03.440 --> 00:23:09.680
Your professor needs to perceive that you spotted the issues and get in order to give you points for it.
00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:12.880
Perception is reality.
00:23:13.119 --> 00:23:18.400
You want to make life as easy as possible for the professor as they read your exam answer.
00:23:18.720 --> 00:23:32.640
Using headers in your answer that you bold and keep very simple, but weave in some of the facts of the problem is going to make it much easier for your professor to give you points for spotting issues.
00:23:32.799 --> 00:23:37.759
It's going to make it much easier for your professor to read your exam answer.
00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:38.880
So do it.
00:23:39.119 --> 00:23:44.559
Take the time, do it carefully, consider doing it as you read the problem for the first time.
00:23:44.720 --> 00:23:58.000
That way you'll be outlining your answer as you go and making sure that you drop in the information in your answer so that you can go back and write a robust analysis that's going to get you awesome points for that.
00:23:58.160 --> 00:24:07.519
And then when you scroll down, you've got all the other issues already written out and bold headers so that it's easy to go back and write about those two.
00:24:08.160 --> 00:24:23.200
Headers won't solve all your problems in law school exams, but again, they can set your answers apart in a way that can help you write not just a great answer to your professor's issue spotter exam, but an exceptional one.
00:24:23.359 --> 00:24:31.839
So consider doing it as you practice, consider doing it when you walk into the room, fire up the exam software, and start writing.
00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:33.839
I hope this was helpful and insightful.
00:24:34.000 --> 00:24:35.680
We will see you next time.
00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:40.000
That's it for today's episode of Law School Decoded.
00:24:40.160 --> 00:24:44.640
Visit us online at Lawschooldecoded.com and make sure to subscribe.
00:24:44.799 --> 00:24:49.359
Until next time, keep decoding the law one step at a time.