Entrance exams and issues faced.

[BurnedOut]

I'll get right down to it.
I'm preparing for my law exams. Its similar to LSAT where you have MCQs everywhere. It has 5 subjects :

English
Legal aptitude
Legal gk
Gk
Maths
Logic


Now the gravest issues I face border around CR and legal aptitude where analysis is required. I simply analyse a great deal automatically (I've a propensity to analyse in depth without requiring too much effort ). This gets me into trouble and I end up losing marks without precisely understanding why I lost so many marks. When I review those questions, I realised that many perspectives cannot be unified into one, at least according to me. I still don't understand how many people manage to do it. Most of them are Js. I've really started to give up due to this issue. Unable to create a unified answer for questions which require thorough analysis. Any suggestions ?


Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

How good an idea do you have of the intention of the examiner?

I used to have issues interpreting what they were looking for. Sometimes the question is ambiguous. Sometimes I know the answer to it, but that answer is using information I learned outside the course. Sometimes there are multiple correct answers, but some are *more* correct.

Basically, if you can't identify what the intended understanding or knowledge being measured is, in some sense you are guessing.

An examiner is always looking for information you have learned in their course. They are always looking for the most specific and relevant answer, but if you have extra time you want to flesh out your answer to fit the time allotted. Depending on the topic, this can mean supplying how the thing that you know is known (supplying reasoning or evidence, often this means walking people through experimental paradigms and results for psychology). If you've still got time you can then go through limitations of your evidence.

If you want to supply any of your own opinions, they need to be backed up by really clear and concrete reasoning. Chances are a marker will punish you if they can't immediately understand what you're saying. Their job is tiresome and their judgement is painfully human.

 

[BurnedOut]

How good an idea do you have of the intention of the examiner?

I used to have issues interpreting what they were looking for. Sometimes the question is ambiguous. Sometimes I know the answer to it, but that answer is using information I learned outside the course. Sometimes there are multiple correct answers, but some are *more* correct.

Basically, if you can't identify what the intended understanding or knowledge being measured is, in some sense you are guessing.

An examiner is always looking for information you have learned in their course. They are always looking for the most specific and relevant answer, but if you have extra time you want to flesh out your answer to fit the time allotted. Depending on the topic, this can mean supplying how the thing that you know is known (supplying reasoning or evidence, often this means walking people through experimental paradigms and results for psychology). If you've still got time you can then go through limitations of your evidence.

If you want to supply any of your own opinions, they need to be backed up by really clear and concrete reasoning. Chances are a marker will punish you if they can't immediately understand what you're saying. Their job is tiresome and their judgement is painfully human.

If this was the thing, I would have succeeded probably. However, its an OMR sheet. No justifications are given. Its right or wrong.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

Ah woops.

The intention part of it is still relevant.

For example, a lot of the time the literature isn't as conclusive as an MCQ would imply. In this case, it's probably the position most congruent with the content that was supplied you. Unfortunately this requires you to keep track of the sources of the things you learn (which I am very bad at doing).

How many marks are you losing if you don't mind me asking? Like is this the difference between getting perfect marks and merely excellent? Or is this issue so big you're genuinely struggling to keep up?

My legal exam at your age was terrible. They told us what the questions were, but expected really sophisticated answers. So it was basically just an assignment you needed to be able to rote learn and reproduce under controlled conditions. Those examiners were fkn clueless.

 

[Happy]

80/20 that shit! Just pick the 20% or so absolutely most valuable key points and stick to them, throwing in a bit of your own extra knowledge here and there like a dash of sriracha. That’s ultimately what examiners want.

Granted I only ever did a few contract law subjects at uni, not a whole law degree, but the rule still held true in those.