megagnarley wrote: vanwinkle wrote:
megagnarley wrote:But would you argue that those who maximized their commitment and ended up at the bottom were simply unlucky or were not cut from the proper cloth?
I would argue the latter and would see the first as fatalistic.
I think it's more of the latter, but here's the problem: As a 0L it's impossible to tell for certain whether you'll be "cut from the proper cloth" or not. A lot of people delude themselves into going by telling themselves, "I've always been really successful and hard working, these things will get me through as they have before. Besides, I'm attending a top law school, where my chances are success are good." Then they find themselves in a classroom full of other people who all graduated with honors from UG and earned 95th-percentile LSAT scores, and then get graded for the first time on a mandatory curve that assigns half of them with median-or-lower grades.
I'm telling you, as someone who actually did well in law school, you can't know what will make you do better or worse than your classmates. Everything that makes you likely to succeed, your classmates will also have in spades. You won't know for sure until you start getting grades back, and even then it won't be easy to understand what separates you from everyone else.
Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...
The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.
I will defer to the 3L's.
The other part of me is likely correct.
Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements.
And at that point, you'll actually understand how hard 1L because of how easy it is. You'll realize that no matter how hard you work, when you sit down at the exam table, all those 90 kids around you will have almost the same understanding of the material. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours doing the homework because you took time to understand every turn in logic in every case, you learned every view of the law from multiple hornbooks, or whatever 1Ls do. Because on that exam, there will be a negligence issue, and every single person will see it. Every single person will go through duty (reasonable person) breach, cause (proximate and cause in fact) and see a lot of the issues that a fact pattern brings out.
So yeah, tell yourself that the kids below median just didn't maximize their chances, even though some of them spent 10 hours a day in the library and wanted nothing more than to tell their parents they're on Law Review. And if you could watch over them an entire year, you would have no idea what they're doing wrong to get straight Bs and B+s on every single exam.