Evidence final

[2005_2L]

This whole semester my evidence professor has been telling us that he will provide a copy of the Federal Rules of Evidence during the final.  Less than a week before the exam (right after we turned in our professor evaluation forms  ) he decides that we will NOT be allowed to have the FRE during the exam...

I guess this is mainly a chance to vent, but it also makes me wonder what the norm is at other schools - do your professors let you have this kind of stuff for the final (FRCP for Civ Pro, FRE for Evidence, UCC for Contracts, etc.)?

[MichaelK]

My Contracts professor is not letting us have a copy of the UCC with us because there are questions on the exam pertaining to the UCC (plus she always has one essay involving 2-207)

My Civil Procedure professor won't let us bring in the FRCP, but she is including a statutory handout with the exam that she says contains every statute we may find relavant in answering the questions.  In order to save time and paper, she is combining her statutory handout with another professor so the likelihood that something won't be in there at all and is needed is very small

[lincolnsgrandson]

First of all, your professor is a male private part.  But he's probably sending a message that it's not important for you to cite the rule numbers.  Make sure you find out.
My evidence final was the only closed book exam I've taken, but the FRE was distributed.

[Goldy]

My evidence professor made it completely closed book. No FRE. It was a bit of a killer.  It is the only one of my classes that is closed book this semester

[smujd2007]

Open book . . .but we don't know what the format is going to be.  I'm a little worried about that.  It is either short answer or multiple choice. Multiple choice I think I could deal with.  But short answer?  Looking at his old exams, 30 short answer questions in 3 hours is a bit much, I think.  Especially when he won't let us do our exam on our laptops.   

[squarre]

Sorry to hear the professor would do that. 

As far as my exams - We can't have FRE for our evidence exam.   My professors allowed FRCP for Civ Pro and the UCC for Contracts both semsters.

[JoJoBaker]

The reason your professor isn't giving you the FRE is so that you can prove that you learned something this year and will not just recite the rules back to him on the exam.  Rules change from year to year, its the concepts and policies that you need to understand.  You could potentially argue against every rule in that book and still get an A if you can articulate a compelling reason and policy to support it. 

Be thankful, the kids who would have probably made a C on that exam will now do even worse and your grade will improve. 

[lincolnsgrandson]

First of all, the point isn't that the professor is a male private part because the exam is totally closed book (although I think that's lame enough) - the prof is a male private part becaue he told the students throughout the sememster what would be provided, and students rely on that. Then he changes his mind a week before the exam.  That makes him a serious male private part.  The professor cannot be trusted - so OP has to think about if the prof continues to discuss anything about the exam.

Second of all, JoJo - have you even taken evidence?  It's about applying the Rules of Evidence - not general policies.  It's not Torts.  You have to know the rules and how to apply them.  If hearsay fits within an exception, you have to know the exception.  I could go on about how inane your comment about "arguing against every rule in the book" is, but I don't think anyone will take it seriously anyway.

Third, as to the supposed value of closed book exams.  I think my securities professor put it best: I've been practicing securities law for 30 years, and I always read the law.  Always.  And no client ever calls me and asks: 'I've got a problem, can you help me - but don't read the rules!' 

[2005_2L]

I've never had an open book exam - closest thing to it is that my Civ Pro professor let us bring a short outline and the FRCP.  I think the majority of exams should be open book - I think I would be less stressed if they were...

[smujd2007]

This is exactly why I hate closed book exams . . .and I have one on Monday!

My evidence exam was 60 multiple choice questions in 3 hours.  I think it was fair, I think I did okay, but you never know with multiple choice . .  .

First of all, the point isn't that the professor is a male private part because the exam is totally closed book (although I think that's lame enough) - the prof is a male private part becaue he told the students throughout the sememster what would be provided, and students rely on that. Then he changes his mind a week before the exam.  That makes him a serious male private part.  The professor cannot be trusted - so OP has to think about if the prof continues to discuss anything about the exam.

Second of all, JoJo - have you even taken evidence?  It's about applying the Rules of Evidence - not general policies.  It's not Torts.  You have to know the rules and how to apply them.  If hearsay fits within an exception, you have to know the exception.  I could go on about how inane your comment about "arguing against every rule in the book" is, but I don't think anyone will take it seriously anyway.

Third, as to the supposed value of closed book exams.  I think my securities professor put it best: I've been practicing securities law for 30 years, and I always read the law.  Always.  And no client ever calls me and asks: 'I've got a problem, can you help me - but don't read the rules!'