Thought I’d show you my exam…

I had my political science exam this morning (the class is titled "The American Judicial System" and is a 400-level course). The professor let us keep the exam itself afterwords and I thought I’d type it up and show it to you 😛

This is a 75 minute, closed book examination. Do both parts of the exam; be sure to answer all parts of the questions you choose. The exam will be evaluated on two criteria:

1. The cogency of your argument (including the possible counter arguments you recognize and are able to deal with).
2. The degree to which you are able to draw upon and integrate materials (both readings and lectures) from the course.

PART ONE (40%)

This section is identification of key terms, decisions, etc.  In two or three sentences respond to eight of the following (if more than eight are answered, I will count the best eight; grading scale; 8 right=A, 7=B, 6=C, 5=D, 4 or less =F).

1. the two hemispheres (of the bar)
2. mediation and arbitration
   
3. appellant and appellee
   
4. senatorial courtesy
   
5. discovery
   
6. plaintiff
   
7. "integrated" ("mandatory" bar)
8. ideological tipping
   
9. subject matter jurisdiction
10. legislative election
    
11. risk neutral and risk averse
    

PART TWO (60%)

Answer one of the following (be sure to justify and/or explain your answer):

1. State 1[State name deleted as it’s my home state] has just had an expensive election for the state supreme court. The election has been described as nasty and partisan, and some people have called for changing how juges in State 1 are selected.  Recently, a committee in State 2 (headed by a former governor), published recommendations that State 2 abandon its nonpartisan election system and adopt the "merit" system; one unique feature of the system proposed in State 2 is that a commission of laywers and laypersons will evaluate judges as they approach standing for retention elections, and publish those evaluations.  If such a system were proposed in State 1, what groups would support the change, and what groups would oppose it?  How would the electorate respond if asked to adopt a constitutional amendment for implementing such a change?  What difference, if any, would the evaluation process for sitting judges make in the politics of adopting the new system?

2. All of the appellate courts we have looked at engage in collegial decision-making.  Two of the major differences among the appellate courts are (1) discretionary vs. mandatory jurisdiction, and  (2) decision-making by panels vs. decision-making en banc.  Describe some of the effects you would expect to result from these two differences.  Which of these differences would you expect to have the most impact on the decisions a court would make? Why?

I answered the things you see underlined.  The test wasn’t fantastic, but it definitely could have been worse…