Does it matter what a judge had for breakfast?

It’s eye-catching, isn’t it?

It’s hard not to do a double-take when encountering such a question. It’s even harder not to take a stab at an answer, even subconsciously.

So, why have I chosen this as the title of my latest blog post?

Firstly, to get your attention – this probably worked, since you are reading this sentence.

Secondly, and more importantly, to use it as an example of how to answer open-ended essay questions.

Please keep in mind that the exact same question was included in the general paper of the 2014 All Souls Examination Fellowship. Thought to be “the hardest exam in the world”, according to the Guardian, this exam has been … tormenting the brightest Oxford graduates for almost a century now.

So, how would one go about answering this question?

To begin with, the actual answer (yes or no, it matters or it doesn’t) is of no real significance, in the sense that your final answer per se doesn’t tell the examiner much about your analytical ability and your clarity of thought and expression. What matters is how you answer the question, i.e. how you break it down, identify its keywords, unravel its assumptions and construct a compelling argument.

So, here is the question again: does it matter what a judge had for breakfast?

Firstly, a bit of context. It is noteworthy that this is not a normative question. There is no “should it matter”, but simply “does it matter”. It is more of a descriptive/evaluative question. This question is actually based on an old adage that “justice is what the judge had for breakfast”, used mostly as a way of criticizing the legal realists’ school of thought. According to this school, the quality of judicial decision-making does not depend heavily on legal factors (case law, knowledge of the law, proper representation), but on non-legal factors, such as…judges’ postprandial mood.

Regardless of whether this is accurate or not, one must endeavour to answer it without any recourse to relevant research you might be unaware of (and yes, it exists), since, for the purposes of this exercise we are assuming that this is a closed-book exam and we are more interested in your way of arguing rather than your arguments per se.

So, what are the keywords in the essay question? I would assert that there are three: “matter”, “judge”, and “breakfast”. The keywords need to be defined by the examinee, in a reasonable manner. For instance, “does it matter” could be translated into “does it have an impact on judicial decision making”. A “judge” can reasonably limited to “normal” judges, i.e. members of the judiciary in a State, arbitrators and other individuals passing judgment being excluded. Finally, “breakfast” isn’t literally… breakfast but could (obviously) be lunch, if we are referring to an afternoon court session, and anything else that is non-legal and could arguably affect a judge’s disposition before entering the courtroom (e.g. a car accident, heavy traffic, arguing with their spouse etc.).

Moving on, following the essay-writing strategy I have detailed in my free PDF guide (you can get it by simply subscribing to this blog), you need to Paraphrase and Argue (PA). Paraphrase what? The question! How do you do that? By using synonyms to restate the question and show the reader you comprehend its meaning. A good attempt to paraphrase “does it matter what a judge had for breakfast?” could be: “The essay question invites us to consider whether non-legal factors such as postprandial mood affect a judge’s decision-making ability and/or the quality of her decisions”.

Then, you need to state your essay thesis. For instance, assuming you think it does matter, you can say: “In this essay, it is asserted that this does, in fact, matter”.

Paraphrase and Argue. That’s it. This is all you need for a succinct and complete introduction. The examiner/reader now knows two key things: she is going to read an essay that is not off topic (since you have shown that you have understood the question) and she knows where the essay is going, i.e. that you will be arguing in a particular direction.

There is a piece of advice that I received as a student in Oxford and which I will never forget: essays are not mystery novels! We don’t want to have to wait till the end to find out what’s going on. You are not Agatha Christie (although that would be cool, right?). State your argument from the beginning, so that the reader knows where this is going and can more easily follow…the plot.

Then, what is left is the main body of your essay and the conclusion. The purpose of your essay’s main body is to justify and substantiate the claim you made in your introduction. Why is it that you have taken this particular approach? What primary and secondary sources are you engaging with in order to make your case?

As for the conclusion, its purpose is to come full circle and complete what the introduction started. For instance, you can say: in this essay, it has been argued that non-legal factors such as postprandial mood do affect a judge’s decision-making ability and/or the quality of her decisions.

That’s it! Click submit and…enjoy your First Class mark 😊

On a more serious note, the purpose of this blog post was to demonstrate one of the many ways in which one can tackle open-ended essay questions. I hope it was interesting and fun.

Best wishes for the festive period to all readers and subscribers!