National Spaghetti Day and Bar Essays: Untangling the Mess for Success
If you follow my blog, you understand that I always look for unique and unconventional ways to enhance students’ learning. Well, on National Spaghetti Day, what better way to do so than using my favorite pasta to provide some writing tips for bar exam essays?
So, grab your fork and let’s twirl into this analogy.
First, avoid the spaghetti-on-the-wall approach.
A common mistake some examinees make when responding to bar exam essays is “rule dumping”—that is, throwing every possible rule at the question, hoping something sticks. This approach is much like the old saying, “throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.” It’s a common way to describe the process of testing many different arguments at the same time in order to identify what works (sticks) and what doesn’t work (falls to the floor).
While examinees might consider this to be a safe strategy, it’s ineffective and messy. It’s also a massive time waster.
Imagine serving a plate of spaghetti by flinging it against a wall. Sure, some will stick, but it's hardly the way to present a meal. Similarly, in your essay, simply dumping rules without considering their relevance clutters your response, making it hard for the examiner to find the tasty bits of your argument.
Even examiners have warned against rule-dumping. As cautioned by the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners in its “Suggestions for Answering Essay Questions”:
Don’t pad your answer with abstract, unrelated statements of general legal principles. Addressing rules of law and issues that are clearly not being tested do not increase your score and waste valuable time that could be spent formulating adequate responses in a cogent manner.
What’s the better approach? Just as you choose the right ingredients for your spaghetti to enhance its flavor, select only the relevant rules for your essay. Discuss these rules in the context of the question, ensuring they are directly applicable to the issues presented. This focused approach not only demonstrates your understanding of the law but also your ability to apply it concisely and effectively.
Second, avoid tangled spaghetti by ensuring rules and analysis are perfectly aligned.
Think of a disorganized essay like a plate of tangled spaghetti. Each strand of pasta, much like your thoughts, should be distinct yet part of a coherent whole. In many disorganized essays, however, the rule explanations within the rules section don’t align with the discussion contained in the analysis section. You might find specific rule explanations in the rules section that aren’t discussed in the analysis or, conversely, you might find analysis points that aren’t backed up by specific rule explanations in your rules section. This mismatch—or lack of connection between the rules and the analysis sections—creates confusion, like trying to eat a plate of spaghetti that’s knotted and intertwined.
Let’s look at an example that I typically use to illustrate this mismatch of rules and analyses:
Remember that you always want to examine the rule explanations you discussed in your rules section in your analysis section. Take negligence, for example. Negligence broadly requires the following elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages.
A well-structured response would explain or define each of the four elements in the rules section and then methodically examine each element in the analysis section. As my PowerPoint slide highlights, each element identified in the rules section is established with specific facts in the analysis section. In this situation, there’s a clear and systematic connection between the rules and the analysis.
Now, let’s take a look at a different (bad) example. The next PowerPoint slide is what you don’t want to do. In this illustration, notice how Element 3 is identified in the rules section, but it isn’t addressed in the analysis. This could mean that the rule explanation for Element 3 is not relevant and, thus, should not have been included in the rules section. Alternatively, this could mean that the rule explanation for Element 3 is necessary, but the analysis section failed to include a discussion of Element 3. Either way, the response is deficient.
Similarly, the discussion of Facts 2 in the analysis section is not supported by any rule explanation in the rules section. This means that any discussion of Facts 2 is not supported by any legal principle and, thus, would likely receive little to no credit.
When preparing spaghetti, we aim for perfectly cooked, well-separated strands that are easy to twirl and enjoy. Apply this principle to your essay structure. Make sure that every rule explanation you mention in the rules section is directly connected to a point in your analysis. This clear, logical flow of information is like serving a beautifully plated spaghetti dish, where everything comes together in a delightful, cohesive manner.
So, on National Spaghetti Day, let's embrace these culinary lessons in our bar exam preparation. Avoid the scattergun approach of rule dumping and ensure your essay has a structured, coherent flow, much like a well-prepared plate of spaghetti. Remember, the key to a successful bar exam essay, much like a delicious spaghetti dish, lies in thoughtful preparation and organized presentation.
