Succeeding on a law school exam is about the following:

1) Pay close attention in class.

2) Apply what you learned in class to the exam fact pattern, which will – conveniently – replicate *exactly* the kinds of questions you examined in class. Analyze the questions the way you spent 40 hours of class time listening to your professor analyze them. Try to be somewhat nuanced and imagine what all parties would argue in litigation. But don't be too nuanced or you'll outsmart the exam (actually fairly easy to do) and split too many hairs and work against yourself. It's really not super complicated. The prof just wants to know if you can think the same way he does about everything, including thinking from the various parties' perspectives, without getting too nit-picky (he doesn't want to read all your metaphysical hair-splitting, OK?). After 40 hours listening to him, you should be able to. If you can't (and for various reasons many people can't), I don't know what to tell you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2871427&forum_id=2#27819476)

What school do you go to?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2871427&forum_id=2#27819693)

Bottom line is clarity and organization are worth a ton. And approaching exams as though they are objective exercises where you are trying to shine with novel insights or analysis, rather than an exercise is deciphering the basic issues that the prof is trying to feed to you, would be a catastrophic error. Pretty straightforward once you appreciate the nature of the exercise, but worth slowly absorbing the implications of this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2871427&forum_id=2#27831272)