« Limits on Congressional Power in the General Welfare Clause | Main | How much should I worry that in-class exams reward speedy thinking and writing more than clear thinking and writing? »
Monday, December 27, 2010
'Tis the season... for grading gems
I am knee deep in exam grading, snowed in with stir crazy kids, so maybe I am laughing a bit too hard at some of my exam "gems."
For your consideration:
"A good argument could be made that the agent had no authority." That's the end of the discussion on that point. I agree that a good argument could be made and would further add that a good argument should be made.
“This vote was not valid because you need a majority of the disinterred directors to approve it.” It’s hard enough to get the disinterested directors on board- after they have actually been buried and dug up, I am guessing your odds drop even more.
“The Restatement provides many, many rules on this, too many to mention.” Curious choice- go ahead and mention a few…
Can you top those?
Happy holidays to all who celebrate and happy grading to all who grade.
Posted by Miriam Albert on December 27, 2010 at 08:29 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0147e10d3291970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Tis the season... for grading gems:
Comments
I've got a couple:
“There could be an inefficiency of counsel complaint if the lawyer did not sufficiently advise Defendant of his chances to win.”
Because we are worried about inefficiencies in the system, rather than ineffectiveness...And...
“Under Strickland, there is a two part test: Defendant would first have to prove that counsel was inefficient, and then he would have to prove that those inefficiencies resulted in a trial outcome unlike that which would have been reached in their absence.”
Posted by: Stew | Dec 28, 2010 4:51:49 PM
It might be a good idea for this thread to be focused on exams from past years rather than current ones, since prawfs.com is not a site for prawfs only...
Posted by: Anon | Dec 28, 2010 2:44:22 PM
I had a student explain that alienation of affection was one of a group of "heart bomb" actions
Posted by: Marcia Zug | Dec 28, 2010 2:40:04 PM
My personal favorite: after concluding that the plaintiff could not recover in standard contract, the students explained that - having provided a benefit to the defendant - the "benefactor (plaintiff) is entitled to retribution." I guess no good deed goes unpunishied.
Posted by: Michael Helfand | Dec 27, 2010 11:44:36 AM
Miriam, keep them coming. Loved "disinterred." I'm laughing even after shoveling snow.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Dec 27, 2010 11:31:48 AM
Those are pretty good!
Posted by: Jen Kreder | Dec 27, 2010 10:54:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.