If you didn't type 6000+ words on your 3 hours exam you're f Forum

[usuaggie]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

somebody needs to work on their reading comprehension.

[beach_terror]

Or people just need to stop making blanket statements about things that aren't black or white.

[gwuorbust]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

somebody needs to work on their reading comprehension.

altering his statement to match what I think, brah

[Bildungsroman]

Hey OP where do you go to law school again? I always forget since you're so humble.

[ResolutePear]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

I'd like to amend this:

3k smarter words > 10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words.

Are you guys follow this pattern? It's the basis for your curve:

It's all about writing a better paper than anybody else - and they read content not length. Though, to be honest, everybody knows length is a great ego factor.. so write those 10k words and go get laid by your fellow peers.

[Ty Webb]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

I'd like to amend this:

3k smarter words > 10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words.

Are you guys follow this pattern? It's the basis for your curve:

It's all about writing a better paper than anybody else - and they read content not length. Though, to be honest, everybody knows length is a great ego factor.. so write those 10k words and go get laid by your fellow peers.

Far too many professors use a "point system" or "checklist" for this to be true at large. Law professors tend to generally "count up" rather than starting at 100 and starting down.

[BruceWayne]

Far too many professors use a "point system" or "checklist" for this to be true at large. Law professors tend to generally "count up" rather than starting at 100 and starting down.

This is an empirical point. Where's your evidence?

Unfortunately I know for a fact that this is what my Torts professor does; he gave out a copy of his grading rubric.

[Ty Webb]

Far too many professors use a "point system" or "checklist" for this to be true at large. Law professors tend to generally "count up" rather than starting at 100 and starting down.

This is an empirical point. Where's your evidence?

Unfortunately I know for a fact that this is what my Torts professor does; he gave out a copy of his grading rubric.

Mine as well. Same goes for my contracts professor.

I don't have evidence that it's this way across the board (I really don't give a shit, either). I'm simply saying that I know of enough examples of professors "pointing" that a hard rule that 3k better words > 10k good words is not compelling to me.

[Columbia Law]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

I'd like to amend this:

3k smarter words > 10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words.

Are you guys follow this pattern? It's the basis for your curve:

It's all about writing a better paper than anybody else - and they read content not length. Though, to be honest, everybody knows length is a great ego factor.. so write those 10k words and go get laid by your fellow peers.

LOL WTF?

Writing 10k smart words and spotting every issue is MUCH better than 3k.

Professors love to use checklists and even if they don't, a hardcore analysis will always win.

[ResolutePear]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

I'd like to amend this:

3k smarter words > 10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words.

Are you guys follow this pattern? It's the basis for your curve:

It's all about writing a better paper than anybody else - and they read content not length. Though, to be honest, everybody knows length is a great ego factor.. so write those 10k words and go get laid by your fellow peers.

LOL WTF?

Writing 10k smart words and spotting every issue is MUCH better than 3k.

Professors love to use checklists and even if they don't, a hardcore analysis will always win.

If you spot more issues with 3k words than with 10k words, who's better off?

[Ty Webb]

If you spot more issues with 3k words than with 10k words, who's better off?

I won't say this scenario is impossible - I'm just saying it's very unlikely. If you're spotting more issues with 3k words than a person with 10k, chances are your analysis is absolutely barren. It's a catch-22.

For some reason, people seem to think that people typing 10k+ words are off typing treatises about why they love tort law. Most people with the ability to type that quickly (meaning their mind is moving that quickly) know the law well enough that they don't have to stop typing. This assumption that the extra 4k or so words in these long exams is all about fairies and butterflies is unfounded, IMO.

I know personally my mind works in paragraphs. By the last sentence of the paragraph, my mind will prepare a new paragraph.

[seespotrun]

Actually, lots of profs will reduce your score for extraneous/incorrect arguments. For instance, if you wrote about strict liability for ultrahazardous activities when a product was involved (but no hazardous activity), my torts prof would've subtracted points.

While I generally agree that more analysis is better, there is no hard and fast rule, and OP's post is clearly just trolling.

TITCR.

I'll offer this: Law school exams should be written in pseudo stream of consciousness. I say "pseudo" because you shouldn't include irrelevant shit that's not implicated by the facts, but will inevitably cross your mind while you are narrowing the issue. Including this irrelevant shit is counter-productive even if you dismiss it with valid reasoning, and even if your professor doesn't deduct points for including irrelevant or incorrect info. This is so for at least two reasons: (1) The opportunity cost of spending your time on nonsense as opposed to relevant analysis that's implicated by the facts, and (2) the danger of confusing, boring, or appearing to your professor that you don't know what you're talking about.

Summary: Columbia Law = Troll

[Borhas]

You get it. Don't be smart and all like "OMGZ MY PROFESSOR PUT A WORD LIMIT YOU'RE WRONGZ!!".

Standard issue spotter. No limit. If you didn't have over 5000-6000 words you have ZERO shot at an A/A-. Drop out now.

I spit 4000 words a minute all over your 70wpm TTTyping

[skoobily doobily]

It's NEVER counter-productive to type more. Either you're stupid or you're not.

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

I'd like to amend this:

3k smarter words > 10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words.

Are you guys follow this pattern? It's the basis for your curve:

It's all about writing a better paper than anybody else - and they read content not length. Though, to be honest, everybody knows length is a great ego factor.. so write those 10k words and go get laid by your fellow peers.

LOL WTF?

Writing 10k smart words and spotting every issue is MUCH better than 3k.

Professors love to use checklists and even if they don't, a hardcore analysis will always win.

FWIW Resolute Pear is a 0L

[JCougar]

[ResolutePear]

TITCR

10k words by a dumb as fuck person is going to be dumb as fuck

10k words by a smart person is probably going to be smart


10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words

I'd like to amend this:

3k smarter words > 10k smart words > 3k smart words > 10k dumb words > 3k dumb words.

Are you guys follow this pattern? It's the basis for your curve:

It's all about writing a better paper than anybody else - and they read content not length. Though, to be honest, everybody knows length is a great ego factor.. so write those 10k words and go get laid by your fellow peers.

LOL WTF?

Writing 10k smart words and spotting every issue is MUCH better than 3k.

Professors love to use checklists and even if they don't, a hardcore analysis will always win.

FWIW Resolute Pear is a 0L

Your face is a 0L. FWIW.

[180orbust]

It doesn't require many words to identify the issue and make your point, or to deeply and intensively analyze these points. Professors do often use checklists, but not all items on their checklist are weighted equally. You might only get one or two points for something you spend a page blabbering on and on about, when the point you are making is only incidental to the main focus of the exam question.

If you approach your points calmly and methodically, then you are more likely to recognize which issues are most significant, how best to present them, and you're also less likely to forget about important, subtle details. I learned this the hard way when I got back several exams in which there were entire pages that I received no credit.

I do believe non-stop typing can be counter-productive. If you are dumb, then trying to produce 3,000 words of quality answer is probably a more manageable task than wasting your precious (and much needed, if you are dumb) time typing out 10,000 words of every stupid thought that crosses your mind. If you are smart and know the material cold, then typing a lot is fine so long as you are actually producing more content, rather than just a fluffier, more redundant way of making a simple point. The only way to make sure you are producing content rather than fluff is to slow it down and think. Its a lot easier to write what you have figured out than figuring it out as you go.

[dailygrind]

my prof's noted to the class that every year there are a handful of tests that are "tight as a laser beam," and extremely good. definitely don't need to be verbose to score points.

[doyleoil]

Shit ton of useless words in here. Kinda makes you wonder about the "advice" or "analysis" or whatever the hell this nonsense is supposed to be.

For more, see, e.g.: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/795 ... acy-gossip

[nealric]

Lol.

Just did a 3-hour corporate tax II exam: 1200 words.

[Baylan]

Lol.

Just did a 3-hour corporate tax II exam: 1200 words.

Time to drop out? Thats what OP would have you believe...

[seespotrun]

Lol.

Just did a 3-hour corporate tax II exam: 1200 words.

You had an exam on a Sunday morning? Harsh.

[nealric]

Time to drop out? Thats what OP would have you believe...

Lol- a little late for that. I graduate with my tax llm this semester.

[Baylan]

Time to drop out? Thats what OP would have you believe...

Lol- a little late for that. I graduate with my tax llm this semester.

You obviously have no idea how to take a law school exam...

[ResolutePear]

Time to drop out? Thats what OP would have you believe...

Lol- a little late for that. I graduate with my tax llm this semester.

Not to derail this fascinating topic ... but,

How are job prospects for the tax LLM? And, did you think that accounting courses/experience would have helped, or have helped you?