I don't miss law school exams.
Eugene Volokh has a post about why law schools generally base grades on one end-of-semester exam. His post links to a few other comment-filled threads all about law school exams, and it's all relatively interesting. Volokh says that there's one exam because professors have to grade their own exams and don't like grading, but also because in the zero-sum world where the grade distribution is going to be the same regardless of how many exams, in the end students would rather only have to study for one exam than have to study for more than one.
It wasn't the one exam vs. multiple exams that I found unenjoyable about law school exams. What I found unenjoyable about law school exams was that, for the most part, they didn't play to my strengths. I think there's probably a case to be made that a lot of testing that goes on in elementary school and high school rewards speed and cleverness over a deeper understanding of what's going on. I did really well in high school math and science classes where the exams basically required memorizing some stuff, decoding which of the stuff you memorized was applicable to each question on the exam, figuring out how to apply it, and repeating, with some amount of time pressure, for a number of questions. But I don't think my genuine understanding of the material came close to matching my ability to do well on the exams.
I found that law school exams, for the most part, were striving for something else. Now, some of them thought they were striving for something else, but if you spit some stuff back and faked the big picture, you could grab a lot of the points and still do okay. But the long ones -- the eight-hour take-home exams, or the week-long take-home papers -- wanted comprehension and thought, not just memorization and application. And the lack of time pressure almost made me angry sometimes. I wanted the eight-hour exam to take eight hours, because I knew that if it took eight hours, some people wouldn't finish, and my surface-level understanding of the material would look better in comparison.
To some degree I'm selling myself short in this post. I did fine in law school, and I understood the material in most of my classes. But I expect that lots of my classmates -- at least the ones that were trying -- understood the material better than I did, and the ones who did better on some of the exams probably felt pretty pleased that at least not everything was based on speed and cleverness but that actually real comprehension and thought was valued.
I'm rambling without a real point here -- I don't know whether I think law school exams test the right thing, or certainly whether they're graded well or whether there should be one a semester or twelve. I just know I don't particularly miss them.