Can someone please help me figure out what I did wrong?

[SJ228]

I think my school actually has a policy against that unless there is a numerical error.

[plex]

I think my school actually has a policy against that unless there is a numerical error.

Same, most schools don't want hundreds of students going in and arguing their grades. For one thing, the students will, taking up lots of administrative time, and then also, any student that then doesn't argue their grade, is screwed.

[lalalander]

So do the schools that you guys go to have policies against correcting grading mistakes on exams? If so, that sucks.

[intel]

you got a B bumped to an A-? that in itself is HUGE. and then a B+ bumped to A-?! I've never heard of such lunacy.

[LVP]

The word you're looking for is "evidently."

Congrats on your grades.  Squeaky wheel gets the greasing.

[thorc954]

So do the schools that you guys go to have policies against correcting grading mistakes on exams? If so, that sucks.

grading is so arbitrary, so what grade comes up on my transcript is the grade i earned in the course.  there are no wrong grades when it is subjective or graded by scantron. 

[KianaFran]

Good points all around, thanks.

I'm pretty certain that I applied everything in an orderly fashion, but perhaps I didn't spend enough space applying the stuff.

Thanks a lot for the advice.

It doesn't matter how orderly or coherent you are if you don't answer the question.  Don't throw things in for the sake of throwing them in.  You're not going to get points for inventing issues where they don't exist (e.g. negligence per se when a statute isn't hinted it, RIL when it cannot factor in).  I am not sure how you fit the history of proximate cause in there. What did the evolution of proximate cause have to do with the exam question? 

You really should see your professor about this.  That is your best resource for understanding where you went wrong.

Yeah, I emailed my prof, unfortunately he hasn't responded and is on sabbatical.

As for the history thing, it was something that the prof spent A LOT of time on. He discussed negligence and proximate cause and the differences between the wagon mound approach, and the contrasting palsgraf approaches. Because he had focused and spent so much time on this issue, I was pretty sure that he wanted to hear how the issue may be resolved depending on whether it was looked at through, say, Cardozo's view/ Andrews's view/Wagon Mound approaches. I simply put those discussions in chronological order.

Just because your professor spent a lot of time discussing the history, theory or philosophy behind a rule of law doesn't mean that he wants it discussed on the exam. My contracts professor taught theory behind contract law but didn't expect it on the exam. Most professors discuss it just to help you understand the topic being discussed.

[Peaches]

theory or philosophy is more likely to be relevant, because you can APPLY it to the case at hand.

history is usually just for your own knowledge.