I've just finished teaching a law subject on privacy, law and AI governance over summer (here in Australia it's summer right now). It was a great experience. As I provided feedback to students on their assessments for this subject, my thoughts converged on some general advice to law students on how to do well at law school.
Below is an excerpt from the email I sent out to students at the end of the course summing up this advice.
Almost all of you have the potential to be receiving High Distinction (HD) grades (Americans might call this an 'A') in your remaining assessments at law school.
The key to an HD or an A is getting to grips with the areas of tension, difficulty and contention: the grey areas where there is no clear right answer, and there are competing interests, considerations, rights or objectives. If you can show that you're comfortable weighing competing considerations, acknowledging uncertainty, acknowledging the 'other side' of an argument, but then explaining why in this instance you've chosen to come down on one side, you have a very good chance of getting an HD or A.
Of course, you do also have to get the basics right. In general, accurately describing the law and stating a plausible conclusion about how it applies gets you a pass. Normally the description of the law should be brief unless the law itself is actually uncertain or contested. Many of you have a bad habit of spending literally pages rehashing irrelevant background and details about a law, principle or source text. Suuuper boring and annoying to read, trust me...
To get a Credit (C) or Distinction (B), you need to use close reasoning to link up the law (or source text, if we're not talking about law) with the salient facts and details. The more effectively you do this, the more you are able to step the reader how you got from X to Y in a logical, granular way, the more likely you are to cross the threshold into a Distinction grade (B). And part of what gets you the Distinction (B), is good writing and clear structure. Likewise, bad writing can drag you down even if your analysis is on point.
Most of you (and almost any person who spends any time writing in any area of endeavour) can make improvements in signaling early and clearly in a piece of writing what your basic point is. You can make the point in a very general way. It doesn't have to be detailed. It doesn't have to be situated in a long bit of descriptive, factual background waffle about the general area you're writing about. Try to signpost your main point within the first page. If you communicate the gist of this key argument clearly and well, you will instill trust in the reader that you are going to explain more fully later. Almost all readers (not just markers) have very limited time and attention, and if you aren't clear about what your point is right away, they will just unconsciously fill in the blanks and make assumptions. Once the reader makes an incorrect assumption, it's very hard for you to unmake it, and readers may end up confused or taking the wrong message away.
The more efficiently you can do all of this, and the more space and time you can devote to competently traversing the contested territory, the more likely you are to get an HD (A).
Good luck in your remaining studies.
Comments