Advice for 1Ls: What If You Don't Know the Answer?:
Many first-year law students worry about being called on in class. What might happen if the professor asks a question that the student just can't answer? Here are a few thoughts on what to do, depending on the nature of the question.
1) Reciting the case. Sometimes a professor asks a question about the facts or the analysis in the case. They're trying to get students to identify and wrestle with the key parts of the opinion, and they're asking the student to remember what the opinion said. As a student, sometimes you just can't answer: You read the case earlier on, but you don't remember the part your professor has in mind.
What to do? If you really don't know the answer, I think you should just say so. You might say, "I don't recall that from the opinion" or just "I don't remember that." The alternative is to pretend that you know the answer. You could just guess, or you could start scanning the opinion in the unlikely chance you'll see the point in a second or two. But these alternatives usually don't work. If you guess incorrectly you'll probably look a bit silly, and everyone can tell when a student is staring at the page for a long time. Just be straightfoward and acknowledge politely that you don't know the answer.
2) Applying the rule. Sometimes a professor will ask students how a legal rule would apply to a hypothetical case. You know the rule and you understand the facts, but you're just not sure how the facts would apply.
What to do? I think you should explain your uncertainty. To the extent you can, articulate why you're unsure. You might say, "I'm not exactly sure how the rule would apply. On one hand, it seems that the rule would apply like this [fill in details]. But on the other hand, there's a detail that seems to point the other way because [fill in details]." Articulating why a hypothetical is hard is a really essential skill: It's the same skill you'll need to show on an exam to get a high grade.
3) Normative questions. Sometimes a professor will ask a student to take a position about what is the best rule. As a student, you might be unsure of what is the best rule. You'll have instincts about which rule you like, but you're just not confident that your instincts are sound.
What to do? Different people will have different advice here, but I think the best approach is to just pick a position and run with it. When a professor asks a normative question, the goal is to engage in a discussion of the pros and cons of different legal rules. The questioning should bring out those pros and cons, and a student needs to take a position for the process to begin. Sure, it may happen that the questioning reveals a problem with the initial choice: Upon seeing the drawbacks to your position more clearly, you may want to change your mind. But that's a good thing, not a bad one. It means that you're learning how to think through the consequences of different rules. Further, no one should be embarrassed by changing their mind after expressing a normative view. While a student may feel embarrassed to not know the facts, as it suggests lack of proper preparation, there is no shame in learning.
Anyway, those are my two cents. I trust readers will chime in if they disagree.
1) Reciting the case. Sometimes a professor asks a question about the facts or the analysis in the case. They're trying to get students to identify and wrestle with the key parts of the opinion, and they're asking the student to remember what the opinion said. As a student, sometimes you just can't answer: You read the case earlier on, but you don't remember the part your professor has in mind.
What to do? If you really don't know the answer, I think you should just say so. You might say, "I don't recall that from the opinion" or just "I don't remember that." The alternative is to pretend that you know the answer. You could just guess, or you could start scanning the opinion in the unlikely chance you'll see the point in a second or two. But these alternatives usually don't work. If you guess incorrectly you'll probably look a bit silly, and everyone can tell when a student is staring at the page for a long time. Just be straightfoward and acknowledge politely that you don't know the answer.
2) Applying the rule. Sometimes a professor will ask students how a legal rule would apply to a hypothetical case. You know the rule and you understand the facts, but you're just not sure how the facts would apply.
What to do? I think you should explain your uncertainty. To the extent you can, articulate why you're unsure. You might say, "I'm not exactly sure how the rule would apply. On one hand, it seems that the rule would apply like this [fill in details]. But on the other hand, there's a detail that seems to point the other way because [fill in details]." Articulating why a hypothetical is hard is a really essential skill: It's the same skill you'll need to show on an exam to get a high grade.
3) Normative questions. Sometimes a professor will ask a student to take a position about what is the best rule. As a student, you might be unsure of what is the best rule. You'll have instincts about which rule you like, but you're just not confident that your instincts are sound.
What to do? Different people will have different advice here, but I think the best approach is to just pick a position and run with it. When a professor asks a normative question, the goal is to engage in a discussion of the pros and cons of different legal rules. The questioning should bring out those pros and cons, and a student needs to take a position for the process to begin. Sure, it may happen that the questioning reveals a problem with the initial choice: Upon seeing the drawbacks to your position more clearly, you may want to change your mind. But that's a good thing, not a bad one. It means that you're learning how to think through the consequences of different rules. Further, no one should be embarrassed by changing their mind after expressing a normative view. While a student may feel embarrassed to not know the facts, as it suggests lack of proper preparation, there is no shame in learning.
Anyway, those are my two cents. I trust readers will chime in if they disagree.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Advice for Entering Law Students:
- Advice for 1Ls: What If You Don't Know the Answer?:
At a school famous for the Socratic method a particular civil procedure professor was known for being particularly Socratic and egotistical and VERY intolerant of students who did not prepare. Once day he called on a young woman sitting near the back.
She burst into tears. Weeping, she explained that the night before she had left her backpack with her books and notes and etc. on the train, and had not been able to prepare, and she was soooo sorry, and she ALWAYS prepared, and this would never happen again, and she felt terrible.
The professor stared at her for a very long and uncomfortable time. Finally he shook his head and moved on to the young man sitting next to her, who was sitting with his head in his hands. The professor repeated the question to the young man, who responded, "Whoah, I was on the same train."
Everyone laughed. Everyone except the professor. He stormed out. (Which he was known to do on occasion.)
Presumably the geekier students make use of eyeglasses with a heads-up display.
Learn to be an independent thinker. Don't be afraid to be abused. Use that abuse to become knowledgeable about the law. Your text book is just the starting point. Get online and research the issue independently. Even college professors can be wrong. You don't have to make a straight "A" to become successful. Get passionate about the law. Care.
Yours in the Defense of Fellow Human Beings,
Glen R. Graham, Attorney at Law, Tulsa Criminal Defense Lawyer, Tulsa, Oklahoma (Yeah, I blog too.)
ARM always stormed out once a year, if I recall correctly.
In my experience, students usually have some sense of which rule seems better: they're just hesitant to say so, for fear that their instincts are not sound. Maybe I should clarify that in the post?
Also, if a student really has no normative preferences, I suspect most profs will just assign them to a side.
Writing a bar exam essay is easy. Identify every issue you can locate. If you have a choice between two different issues and you don't know which is correct, give both (e.g., A court could find that the defendant's confession was voluntary, based on facts x, y, z, on the other hand, it could find that it was coerced, based on facts a, b, c). Then, apply the facts the issues. Then, come to a conclusion.
--PtM
What I recall far more vividly is the student so convinced of the rightness of an arguable position that he or she would condescend to the rest of the class. One particularly noxious New Yawker would start her comment with "I'd like to remind my fellow colleagues that...", followed by some recitation of a rule or precedent that was barely relevant and certainly not dispositive.
No, she's not on the federal bench now, thankfully.
I disagree with the a priori assumption of your post.
Everyone knows that 1Ls already have all the answers, so your advice isn't needed.
This is by far the best strategy. Better to be considered wrong than to appear uncertain. Be persuasive; argue for your position.
The law does not make allowances for learners.
Nick
Professor, do you think this might have something to do with your inability to keep students' attention in class without instituting draconian rules?
It depends on the class and the professor. My IL contracts professor was pretty hardcore about someone seeming unprepared. If you admitted you were unprepared, you had to call on another student to be your "lawyer" and answer for you, and if it happened a second time you would not be allowed to sit for the exam. And, after the first time you were caught unprepared, you also had the consequence that he would pick on you virtually every class for the foreseeable future. You also had the added problem that he made us stand up when called on, making it rather hard to skim thru notes or the casebook while being questioned. The one generous thing he did, however, was to allow us once each semester to tell him before class that you were unable to read the assignment and he'd give you a pass from being called on that day.
So, if you have one of these old school law profs, never ever admit you aren't prepared. It's okay to be confused. Heck, in your first semester of law school you're stilling learning how to read and brief cases properly, so the main thing is to just not be someone who doesn't know a damn thing about the case you're being questioned about. When I was in that contracts class on days I wasn't prepared, I made sure I at least was skimming a commercial casenotes brief of the next case we were gonna discuss in case I was called on next. That would give me enough to bluff my way through it without being accused of being unprepared. I didn't feel guilty about this because I thought this professor took his rules too far.
That said, a significant number of my professors back in law school seemed to take umbrage at this statement on the few occasions I saw fit to use it. I was left thinking that the professor would have almost preferred that I'd rummaged through my notes loudly, and stumble through a vain attempt to cough up a "legal-sounding" answer as does the majority of students.
Admit you don't know, aren't sure, or are confused. You might actually learn something in the class you're paying to attend, which might prevent you from facing the same situation in front of a judge 10 years hence.
Lawyers are paid to have, or more appropriately create for their clients, legal opinions on controversial issues. Start now taking a position, so when you are paid to take one you can do so competently.
**Caveat: I suppose this doesn't apply to the student who wants to document review for the rest of their career. But, who goes to law school for that?
When you pretend you have the answer, I suggest doing it in a very assertive but affected Jim Carey like voice.
In law school, I normally take the preventative "Speak up to answer the questions you want to answer" tactic. However, I always keep in mind that no matter how wrong I am, the prof is never going to get in my face and scream "F*** you!" If I give the wrong answer, the prof will tell me so, and now I know the right answer.
So, to 1Ls, my advice is simple: Be prepared in your materials, be confident in your answers, and be willing to accept the frequent correction you will get.
(Also, don't be the person who hijacks every class with personal anecdotes or bombastic political statements.)
The woman I sat next to was a very shy asian girl who did well on facts and rules questions, if being somewhat quiet, but would lock up 100% when asked an opinion or 'what if' question.
We were on the DC unconscionability case (DC resident rents a bunch of stuff over the years from rent to own, everytime she rents a new thing they reduce the payment on the other stuff to one cent so nothing is ever paid off, she misses a few payments and they clean her home out, that makes the court sad so they give her the stuff back).
The seatmate did a good job on the law and facts, prof asks her "If you were the attorney for the rent to own what would you do?" She locks like a stuck computer, he jumps to me.
I am a former MP in the army, former enlisted Marine, I have a pretty good idea what to ask and at the time lacked the social sense to not say it. "Well, lady, when your momma and grandmamma and all your aunites got all their stuff taken when they missed payments...didn't you know the deal?"
He never called on me again in the class.
As far as advice, just fess up. "I missed that in the case." A screamer or bully is going to do what they do anyway so just get it over with, and a normal prof is going to crutch you up or move on.
Don't ever take an insult, however. If a bully asks if you are stupid or something like that, just tell them you will not be talked to in that way and back it up by walking out if they persist. The U has a whole system devoted to hate speech, in the end they will back you up on a real insult and make the bully back down-- assuming the bully does not get off you on their own.
Another good strategy is to jump in on a question after someone else does the heavy lifting on facts and law. After another student chooses one of two good options argue the other good option, it's not hard the law and facts are already out there. Also, if you can't prepare the case at least skim the keynotes so you don't blither.
Research your prof's before you sign up for classes. This doesn't work for 1L's but why would any 2L or 3L take a class from LoafingOaf's "[if unprepared] a second time you would not be allowed to sit for the exam" Prof? At my law school we had a very well respected evidence professor who wrote his text book and had this attitude. All of the other evidence classes were packed and his was half full of folks who couldn't get into the other prof's class.
Hey, I remember you!
And sit in the front row. I swear that I had at least two professors who never called on me because they worked back-to-front (roughly) when calling on students. (I also answered questions that were fielded to the whole class, so that may have helped, too.)
If you're sitting in the back, you can whisper the answer to your unprepared next-seat-neighbour. "Third paragraph of the dissent." Extra points if you can do it without moving your lips.
To be more serious: if you don't know the answer, try to reason through it and explain why both options are appealing. "On one hand, the rule from the case is X; however, the principle, which also applies, Y states Z." Without fail, the professor will give a straight-up answer afterwards.
I thought so, but on the first day, in the first class, of my first year, the first question was: "What was the fatal error in the reasoning of Justice Holmes in his opinion in _______ v. _______?" I had no idea going in that there was a fatal error in any opinion of Justice Holmes and was totally unprepared to identify it. I was shocked to realize that the professor expected us to second guess an eminent jurist on our first day, and grateful I wasn't called on to supply the answer.
Let me note again that these types of questions do not really have a place in the "Socratic Method", at least as most outside law-school circles seem to understand the term. Inside lawyer circles like here at the VC, the "Socratic Method" seems be synonymous with "asking questions". Not sure how this came to be. Maybe lazy professors wanted to make stalling for time and/or making students do the work seem like a pedagogical method?
I would prefer a recreation of Spies Like Us.
None of my other professors were quite so blatant about it, but I did notice this general trend in some other classes.
No one EXCEPT a Politician. Every Time I hear some idiot pundit or opposing politician accuse someone of engaging in a "flip-flop" on a policy issue, I remember the old quote (I can't recall the source - was it W. Somerset Maugham?) "When I discover that I was mistaken, I change my mind - why, what do you do?" That having been said, this is good advice; it's silly to think that a One-L Student's initial thoughts on what is the "right rule" ought to be fully formed. When you discover that you were mistaken, feel free to change your mind.
On the third point, I would only answer one of these normative questions if I could make it clear that it was only my opinion, and in no way supposed to be a statement of the law. There were several professors who would try to catch students in this confusion.
And on the first point, telling the truth is always the best way. It's not worthwhile to try to lie to a professor. When you do the same before a judge, you are taking a much bigger risk. If you get caught, the judge will always, always remember that you are not credible. From my experience, a judge can perhaps forgive someone who is unprepared, but will not likely ever do the same for a lawyer who simply lies.
The fastest way to get crossed off my list is to say either "I don't have an opinion" or "I like [this language]" followed by silence.
The candidate has spent (and the student is proposed to spend) his entire adult life on the subject at hand and it is not a good sign that he is not even wrestling with its most important issues.
Were they Thais? Most Asians have very easy to pronounce surnames, either (Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese) one syllable of consonant-vowel or consonant-vowel-consonant like Liu, Kim, and Nguyen, or (Japanese) a series of easy consonant-vowel pairs (Korematsu, Yamamoto).
There's no such thing as an "American name", but certainly there are a lot of European names (especially Eastern European names) that English speakers find difficult to pronounce, often because of all the consonants piled up on each other (try "Przhevalsky" or "Sczerbinski"). Among non-English speakers, perhaps one third of the world's population would not be able to distinguish between "Volokh" and "Barack".
Heh. Absolute classic scene. Frank Oz (the voice of among others Miss Piggy, Yoda, Grover and Cookie Monster) often has small cameo roles in John Landis movies. He was good as the cop in Trading Places who busted Winthorp. ("La Boheme, it's an opera.")
Whatever you do, don't have a last name that is also a (relatively common) first name. I was called on first day, first class, and about two or three times in other classes that first week. "Miss [Phile]" was obviously something that no professor could ever, ever mess up.
Is it the best for your particular goals? Good question to ask yourself.
Actually, what's up with that? All the way through grad school, I never witnessed (nor have I ever thrown) a faculty tantrum. In law school, by contrast, I witnessed three instructors storm out; one threaten to throw chalk; another threaten to break someone's neck; and another threaten to snap someone's fingers off.
In fairness, the person being threatened in that last example was making those little air quotation marks, so he pretty much deserved it.
Anyway, given how easy law school instruction is, why are people so unstable and prone to tantrum-throwing?
Or to put it differently, volunteering is OK, but if you get to the point of being insufferable about it [one symptom: when even the prof starts ignoring you], that's not a good thing. Especially not if you want to get into a good study group before finals, or even get asked to go out for a drink with your fellow students after your last Friday class.
So none of those 35 Asian students was an American? Were they all aliens? I find that hard to believe.
They were LLM students. My school had an LLM program in IP law, and almost everyone in it was from an Asian country. As a result, many of the IP classes had a very large proportion of Asian (not Asian-American) students.