Legal Commentary

My least favorite holiday tradition is grading my 1L exams, and it is not only the drudgery of reading many dozens of answers to the same question.  What makes me least happy about grading in-class 1L exams is the persistent nagging feeling that those who are able to think/write faster in the compressed time I give them to answer my questions do consistently better that those who may think/write more clearly but do not get their thoughts on paper as quickly.

In all my upper-level classes, I give take-home exams with strict word limits in the hope of encouraging/favoring clear thinking/writing over speedy thinking/writing.  But there are administrative challenges with giving a take-home to 1Ls, so I revert to the traditional in-class model for my fall Criminal Law class.  And, perhaps aggravated by the fact that I like giving a very hard exam with the hope of rewarding those students who know the material best, I find that the students who tend to do especially well on my traditional in-class exam tend to be those who find the time to write the most.

Perhaps I worry too much: maybe those students who are able to write the most are those who know the material best and thus are, in fact, those who are the clearest thinkers.  But figuring others in this blog arena might have thoughts on this topic, I'd like to hear other opinions on whether my concerns here are overblown or spot-on.