In law school, your grade is usually determined by your performance on a single test.
However, this class was Writing and Research, and like most first year classes, went for 2 semesters. I got an A- first semester, and got a C second semester. The grade was based on a series of papers. I'm not one to blame others for my academic failings, and I did slack off a bit during the second semester of that class.
However, a large number of people in that class saw their grades reversed - people who did really well the first semester did poorly the next semester, and vice versa, and there were some pretty loud rumors that the professor graded a little arbitrarily.
In college, I always got good grades on papers without even trying, and I saw myself as more of a paper person than a test person.
However, in law school, your final exams are basically papers with a short time limit, which I think is why I do well.
Also, rather than simply regurgitating what you were taught in class, as you usually have to do in college, you're actually expected to think in law school. Most exams consist of a fact pattern, 1-2 pages long, and you're expected to explain the legal situation, by applying the law to the facts.
One of my professors put it pretty well: You get no points for knowing the law. It's simply assumed that you know the law. It's your ability to understand and apply the law that is tested.
Also, rather than simply regurgitating what you were taught in class, as you usually have to do in college, you're actually expected to think in law school.
I'm glad I don't go to whatever college you went to...
