sandwich wrote: twenty wrote: john1990 wrote:
twenty wrote:"Competitive" is a huge misnomer. Seriously, how is a law student going to compete with you? Hide stuff in the library that is easily available online? Refuse to give you notes for the class you missed when you can get an entire outline from the student group you're part of? "Study harder?"
I enjoy watching the NU TLSers. They exude a very entertaining combination of laid-back trollishness, hyper-sensitivity, and fatalistic sarcasm -- often all at the same time. That said, I wouldn't assume NU itself exhibits any of these personalities on an overarching basis.
They compete by spending more time studying. OP means which schools study the most and are hardest to excel in
Please don't peddle your bullshit on other people's threads, you end up wrecking them.
I'm honestly a little confused here. Twenty, you're seriously one of the best people on the planet in my opinion, but I also took the OP to mean exactly what john1990 thought.
When I think of a competitive school, I think of SOMETHING LIKE a school where it's difficult to excel because everyone studies much harder. Like, I figure that if a school is 'competitive', the students 'in general' are all trying to excel and so the average scores are higher and so good grades are harder to come by on a curve. I mean, I'm totally just a dorky 0L, so what do I know? But there's definitely (in my opinion) a way for a given class to be more or less competitive, and part of that is what was described in the rest of this thread: it can manifest as peer sabotage, it can manifest as people caring a whole lot about their grades and, say, getting totally bummed about an A- or something, it can manifest by people not sharing notes or working together, etc. But I also feel like the most likely/universal byproduct of this is how much people study... someone who is more competitive will likely spend more time studying, i think? And if there are more people who do this, that school in general will be harder to excel in, right? Or am I also just peddling bullshit... which is very possible! But I also wouldn't mind being set straight if I'm super wrong about everything
thanks twenty! and everyone!
I typically try to make an effort to be considerate of other people's feelings; but john's poor attempt at trolling/actual mental illness (honestly leaning towards the latter, truth to tell) sometimes gets the better of me, especially when it causes pitfalls for potential law students. His actual interactions with other posters can be entertaining at times, but it's kind of a sick interaction; like watching a dog chase down and tear apart a crippled weasel. But I really can't abide the idea that 0Ls are reading his dribble and, without any other background or knowledge, might actually take him seriously and make some really poor choices.
The whole "school x is harder" thing is a bit of a flame. First, sabotage just doesn't happen because of the sheer pointlessness of it. Short of getting your mono-ridden sister to make out with your section, there's really nothing you can do to your section to guarantee yourself artificially better grades. I'm certain at every school, there are people (mind, very few) that will be depressed at getting A-s.
My friend at a T14 described 1L as "feeling like you're always exactly two inches below in water. You're kicking yourself because you can see the surface, but you're drowning regardless." Law school is one of those things where you either get it or you don't. Everyone's going to be studying, and you're not going to get any real advantage by studying for 14 hours a day instead of 10 hours a day. Think of it this way, everyone going to a T14 school is realistically doing so on the basis of their numbers. The difference between a Columbia student and a Cornell student is misunderstanding a logic game.
The one notable exception to "all schools are the same" might be P/F LRW, but that's not really an indication of reduced competitiveness.