Friggin Drama UPDATE

So, there was a great backlash against the change in exam rules. Many people marched up to the dean's office to complain. Others simply stood around, complaining. Still others were jubilant that the exam would be shorter and could not see past their self interest to understand why their classmates were upset.

Isn't this the true reaction that most groups of people will have to adversity? Some complain and moan, but do nothing. Others see the change in their favor and belittle those who believe otherwise. Finally, some take action and go.

This time, I did not take action. For me, my interest lies in the shorter exam. A nine-hour exam steals my energy for two days afterward. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I prepared for a take home exam. Either way, I gain in one respect and lose in another. So, I took no action.

The amount of drama and caucusing that resulted from this last minute change amazed me. You would think that the Dems and GOPers were fighting in the House of Representatives over funding the Iraq war. Name calling. Raised voices. Frustration. Note to the world: when it is exam time, do not provoke the law students.

***UPDATE***

Now, as I post this, I just received an email from our con law professor. She has declared that the exam is back to the original nine-hour-at-home format. However, she did mention writing more questions and "changing the exam." Call me paranoid, but it appears to me like we are going to be punished via more questions on the exam for our challenge to her authority.

The fun continues.

Friggin' Drama

Today my con law professor announced a drastic change in the rules for our exam. Instead of an all-day, take-home exam, we would face a three-hour, in-class exam. Further, she was not sure if the exam would start at 8:00 or 13:15. (Side note, I use the 24 hour clock). All of this was announced at the end of class today— one week before the exam. We will only meet one more time before the exam.

To say the least, I prepare for a nine hour take-home exam much differently than an in-class exam of a third of the time. What bothered me more is how the exact exam time and length was left in the air. Since everything is in flux, I fear the exam even more. One week before exams is no time to change the rules.

If that was not enough, she refuses to answer “any questions of substance that may be part of the exam.” That means the con law professor will not answer questions about con law. One student did try to ask a question about the right to contract and the amount of judicial review the court would exercise on a law prohibiting contract provisions. He was flatly denied. Her reasoning:

“If I answer, then you will suppose that I will not ask such a question on the exam. If I refuse to answer, then you will deduce what will be on the exam by my silence. That would be unfair.”

Hopefully, we could reasonably deduce that some sort of con law doctrine will be on the con law exam. So, as long as she answers any and all questions on the substance of con law, we would still have no indication of what exactly the exam will cover. Of course, this is logical and this professor hates logic.

I am counting down the days…

One last note: I noticed that much of this blog has thus far dealt with my life at law school. This is because I literally live at the school right now as I study for the upcoming exams. Perhaps, once this semester is over, I will be able to explore other topics.

Hang in there with me.