I just finished my first exam for the spring semester--Copyright and Other Intellectual Property. It's a class I've been looking forward to taking ever since deciding on going to law school, and now it's over. (Don't worry--I have Entertainment and Media Law next fall!) I'm glad I took it; it's been a good experience.

I'd like to just share my beef, which corresponds with just about everyone's beef, with the way law school tests you. First of all, 100% of your grade in every class is based on the exam. I think that's just a load of hooey. I would much rather have a regular slate of assignments than have my entire performance be based on three or eight hours of hard thinking. And the way the curve affects everyone's grade, everyone gets a B or B+ anyway. If they're going to do this to us, why don't they just make it all pass/fail? Yale Law School does that, at least for the first year classes. Is there really any benefit to being in the top of your class at Harvard Law School?

(Actually, there is, if you are planning on applying for a judicial clerkship (which I am). I was reading information about one particular judge (I forget who or even where) who will only consider students who are in the top 5% of their school, regardless of their school. Even when he was informed by a Harvard Law professor that someone in the top 5% at another law school might not have even gotten IN to Harvard Law School, he disregarded the information contemptuously and stuck to his guns. Weird.)

And then there's the fact that the way we are taught and the way we are tested are as different as John Cage and J.S. Bach. We go through the material (in the case of this particular class, the statutes) in a very organized fashion, presenting case by case examples of simple rules of law. The headings in our notes read, "Joint Authorship," "Reverse Passing-Off," and "Prosecution History Estoppel." Then we're presented with a two-page exam question with either no word limit or a very big one, presenting an improbable fact situation. Our grade is based somewhat on whether we can tell the professor about the rules of Prosecution History Estoppel, but more on whether Prosecution History Estoppel is even applicable in this situation. We don't learn anything about how to identify issues in class--just how to deal with them when they're presented. True, this way is more true to the way real lawyers deal with situations: a client comes and tells you a problem, and you have to see what issues it deals with. But then shouldn't we be taught a different way? I don't really have a suggestion of a better way. Maybe I'll come up with one some day, patent it, and make my millions.