The NFL is masterful at marketing and engaging the 24/7 news cycle. For years, former college football players gathered in Indianapolis for a condensed NFL combine, which is a workout for teams to evaluate incoming players. The NFL turned the combine into a week long TV event at the end of February to grab headlines. The tactic is working. Analysts, experts, armchair quarterbacks, and everyone in between comment on a 300 pound offensive lineman's ability to sprint 40 yards. The hype is so large that some analysts argue the combine is being overly scrutinized. An offensive lineman will never sprint 40 yards down the field. Why does that measurement along with a quarterback's hand size and a punter's bench press matter when playing football?
A few years ago, Orlando Brown performed extremely poorly in nearly every drill. He won numerous accolades in college, but he was drafted later due to his combine performance. Now, he is a critical starter for the extremely successful Baltimore Ravens. The combine assessment cost him millions of dollars, and that assessment isn't what he does on a daily basis. The counter example is John Ross. Ross ran 40 yards in 4.22 seconds, a record at the combine. He was drafted extremely high and has been a disappointment in the NFL. The assessment poorly predicted his ability because straight-line running isn't sufficient for playing football.
I believe some of our classes in law school are similar to the NFL combine. Students read cases and try to prepare for every question the professor may ask. Immediately before class, they re-read the cases. Particular students will then sound amazing in class by knowing all the information about a case. I have heard students even say they spent significant time outside class pulling the full case from Lexis or Westlaw to read everything about it. Some students perceive the fact heavy recitations as the best students in class. Due to oral questioning in front of others, the perception can snowball to others focusing only on the cases.
The focus on the cases leads to final exam preparation problems. The amount of time spent on perfecting cases could be spent on practice and understanding instead. Also, students construct outlines that are chronological lists of cases because reading and class discussion focused on what a particular case said. I have numerous meetings each semester where students tell me the intricacies of a case, but the student can't explain the process for analyzing the doctrine on a final exam.
The true assessment of skills and the grade will come from the final exam. The best way to prepare is to know what is necessary for the final and work backwards. If the final includes a long story with a question asking what Torts occurred, then knowing the intricacies of a case is only helpful in addition to knowing the steps in the analysis. Obviously, students should read every page of an assignment and brief every case. However, I encourage students to focus on what matters in the end. After reading for a class, ask the following questions:
- How does this case (or cases) fit with the previous cases in the class?
- Is the case (or cases) consistent with the previous reading?
- Which step in the analysis does this case describe?
- Is this a new concept?
- Does the case also define, explain, or illustrate a small piece of a rule?
- How does the case help clarify when this doctrine is at issue?
- How will this help me analyze a problem on the final exam?
The questions are good for after class as well. Students should combine reading and class notes either the night after class or the next day. When combining, ask the same questions.
Law school final exams may not test the same skills as some professors expect in class. Classes focus on understanding small parts, while finals require knowing the big picture. Knowing cases is similar to breaking 40 yard dash records. It is an amazing skill and can be a good foundation for success, but cases (and running) alone will not be sufficient for good legal analysis.
(Steven Foster)
