Exam Essays – Common Mistakes Among At-Risk Students

1. Exam Essays – Common Mistakes Among At-Risk Students Robin Boyle, St. John’s Law School Assistant Dean for Academic Success & Professor of Legal Writing

2. October 22, 2011 • LSAC Academic Assistance Topical Workshop • “Finding a Way Through: Working With Students Who Have Learning Disabilities” • My experience: • Teaching LRW for 18 years • Directing ASP for 6 years • Contracts I (Conditional Admissions Program) for 4 years • Legal Analysis Practicum (At-Risk 1L) 1 year • Agency Practicum (At-Risk 2L) in progress

3. Why Focus on At-Risk Populations? • Prevalence of learning disabled students (although not all LD students are on the lower end of GPA range).* • Not all at- risk students have diagnoses. • Not all students with diagnoses inform me. • Even if I’m informed, not all LD present the same way on exams. • * See Leah Christensen, Legal Reading and Success in Law School: The Reading Strategies of Law Students with ADD, 12 The Scholar: St. Mary’s L. Rev. on Minority Issues 173 (2010).

4. About the LAP (1L course) • 36 students enrolled in total: • 17 students below 2.1 (Academic Probation) – mandatory enrollment • 10 students b/w 2.1 & 2.2 (Required to receive AS services) – mandatory enrollment • Offered to @ 30 students whose GPA were b/w 2.2 and 2.49 – of those students, 9 opted in

5. In 1st year/2nd semester LAP course • Predominant problems • Not providing enough text • Going off on tangents – stream of consciousness • Haven’t mastered IRAC (“I didn’t get it 1st semester”) • Need more careful case reading & statutory reading • Strategies to Remedy • Provided weekly writing assignments • Focused on IRAC • Explained different purposes (not just exams – “If a memo, then . . . If a brief, then . . . ”)

6. Course topics • Close Case & Statutory Reading • Outlining • Rule Synthesis • Application of Law to Fact – Analogy/Distinction • Essay Exam Writing • Learning Styles* • See Robin A. Boyle, Law Students With ADD: How to Reach Them, How to Teach Them, 39 John Marshall L. Rev. 349 (2006)

7. Emphasis • Organization of Legal Analysis: • Intro (thesis paras) • Divide by sub-issues • Rules – with and without statutes, synthesis of case holdings • Application to facts with detail (not skipping steps) • Stating counterarguments • Stating conclusions without ambiguity

8. Writing Assignment Topics • Assignment #1 Common law: • Contracts case: Sidway v. Hamer – (uncle who promised nephew not to drink/gamble until age 21 - $) • produce case brief, • summarize for a course outline, • write essay on hypothetical fact pattern.

9. Statutory Analysis • Assignment #2 • New York Vehicle & Traffic Law – • Definition of Motor Vehicle in Sec. 125 (vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power, then exceptions . . .) • Two fact questions – how would the court decide (actual cases)? • In each question – was there a “motor vehicle”?

10. Practice Separating by Issue • Assignment #3 - • Restatement 2d Sec. 90 (Promise Reasonably Inducing Action or Forbearance) • 1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action . . . • 2) on part of the promisee . . . • 3) does induce such action . . . • 4) is binding if injustice can be avoided • Two hypo fact patterns given – essay answers required

11. Rule Synthesis • Assignment #4 • Covenant not to Compete – two fictitious cases and a fact pattern • Goal was to divide by sub-issues • Synthesize rules • Apply in detail

12. More Rule Synthesis • Assignment #5 • Topic: Emotional Distress • Restatement 2d of Torts • 4 Summaries of cases • Hypothetical facts • Goal: Write an essay using IRAC

13. Course Materials • Distributed Succeeding in Law School, by Herb Ramy • Handouts

14. Results of First Year LAP course • Students who attended class and turned in assignments showed improvement in their Spring GPAs to a statistical significance level in comparison to those in their GPA cohort who did not participate. • Suggestions – try to get buy-in from students (relevant topics, offer course credit, offer course grade)

15. Improvements seen from 1L to 2L • More text in their essay answers. • Some students are using good organization to essays. • Some students are reading cases and Restatement very well. • Some 1Ls improved GPAs and are not required in 2L course.

16. Agency Practicum • Course text: J. Dennis Hynes & Mark J. Loewenstein, AGENCY, PARTNERSHIP, AND THE LLC (Abridged 7th ed. Lexis Nexis). • Two sections – 9 in Day • 9 in evening • Most of the students are required to take course (GPA’s under 2.2).

17. Agency Practicum (2L’s) • Common Problems with essays and exam answers • Issue statements lack legal terms • Rushes past the rule (reduced to bullet outline, parenthetical) • Doesn’t delve into the next level of rule (repeats the general rule) • Lacks meaningful application of law to fact • Brushes past counterargts • Mentions cases that were not covered in class

18. HW for Agency 2Ls • Writing short essays to hypothetical problems • Submitting course outline of first two chapters (I spotted over-inclusive and under-inclusive outlining) • Drafting contract provisions from the point of view of 3 different parties • Self-Assessment survey (what percentage of time last semester did you spend on briefing cases? What did you learn from meeting with your professors about exam-taking skills?)

19. In-class work • Provided an open-book mid-term • Reviewed in class the exam & assigned re-write as HW • Because it was doctrinal course, spent more class time discussing cases than in LAP course (1st year). • Small class size allowed for students to spend time on their questions about assigned readings and other topics

20. Integrating ASP skills • Learning styles assessments (online Building Excellence) • Time Management • Test Anxiety discussed • Individualized feedback – electronic commenting • One-on-one conferences

21. Any Questions - • Contact – • boyler@stjohns.edu • (718) 990-6609 • Thank you!!