Top Law Schools

c3pO4 wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:

blowhard wrote:The amount of time you put in is in no way relational to how well you do. Sad but true. All of the hardest studiers I knew 1L did not make LR. It's a marathon not a race.

This sounds good and it's partly true, but I think it's misleading for 1Ls. In fact, it's not at all what I saw back in 1L. The people who studied hard did fine. The people I knew who failed 1L were to a person individuals who took every shortcut that anybody ever suggested, skipping the cases and thinking that they could rely on Gilbert and Fleming to absorb the material by finals. They came to class chronically unread, unprepared, and unfamiliar with the material for that day. When our professors discussed the concepts underlying the cases, they were hearing it all for the very first time. If you're in law school and you haven't got the time or inclination to brief the cases before class, then what are you doing all day? (I know that some students work. I'm not talking about them.) When the people I'm talking about finally got around to writing practice tests, even that didn't help them. Somehow in the end, all the tricks and canned briefs, commercial outlines, supplementals and study aids they'd collected could not teach them to IRAC thoroughly a simple fact pattern. The reason was because they had told themselves all year long, "Oh, it's a marathon, not a sprint!" Funny, but two weeks before finals, they were right there, treating law school like a sprint, trying to cram like they did in college. And golly! It didn't work.

I don't get it.

We who made it through 1L have figured out what we need to do and how much time we need to put into it. But 1Ls don't have the advantage of hindsight. Giving them little witticisms to marinade on like "it's a marathon, not a race," or my other favorite line of BS, "work smarter, not harder," only convinces students that they don't really need to study, or that if they spend any substantial amount of time putting in the work, then they're doing something wrong. I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

You sound jealous of those of us who can do well without working hard.

Yvonnella wrote:

blowhard wrote:The amount of time you put in is in no way relational to how well you do. Sad but true. All of the hardest studiers I knew 1L did not make LR. It's a marathon not a race.

This sounds good and it's partly true, but I think it's misleading for 1Ls. In fact, it's not at all what I saw back in 1L. The people who studied hard did fine. The people I knew who failed 1L were to a person individuals who took every shortcut that anybody ever suggested, skipping the cases and thinking that they could rely on Gilbert and Fleming to absorb the material by finals. They came to class chronically unread, unprepared, and unfamiliar with the material for that day. When our professors discussed the concepts underlying the cases, they were hearing it all for the very first time. If you're in law school and you haven't got the time or inclination to brief the cases before class, then what are you doing all day? (I know that some students work. I'm not talking about them.) When the people I'm talking about finally got around to writing practice tests, even that didn't help them. Somehow in the end, all the tricks and canned briefs, commercial outlines, supplementals and study aids they'd collected could not teach them to IRAC thoroughly a simple fact pattern. The reason was because they had told themselves all year long, "Oh, it's a marathon, not a sprint!" Funny, but two weeks before finals, they were right there, treating law school like a sprint, trying to cram like they did in college. And golly! It didn't work.

I don't get it.

We who made it through 1L have figured out what we need to do and how much time we need to put into it. But 1Ls don't have the advantage of hindsight. Giving them little witticisms to marinade on like "it's a marathon, not a race," or my other favorite line of BS, "work smarter, not harder," only convinces students that they don't really need to study, or that if they spend any substantial amount of time putting in the work, then they're doing something wrong. I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

blowhard wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:

blowhard wrote:The amount of time you put in is in no way relational to how well you do. Sad but true. All of the hardest studiers I knew 1L did not make LR. It's a marathon not a race.

This sounds good and it's partly true, but I think it's misleading for 1Ls. In fact, it's not at all what I saw back in 1L. The people who studied hard did fine. The people I knew who failed 1L were to a person individuals who took every shortcut that anybody ever suggested, skipping the cases and thinking that they could rely on Gilbert and Fleming to absorb the material by finals. They came to class chronically unread, unprepared, and unfamiliar with the material for that day. When our professors discussed the concepts underlying the cases, they were hearing it all for the very first time. If you're in law school and you haven't got the time or inclination to brief the cases before class, then what are you doing all day? (I know that some students work. I'm not talking about them.) When the people I'm talking about finally got around to writing practice tests, even that didn't help them. Somehow in the end, all the tricks and canned briefs, commercial outlines, supplementals and study aids they'd collected could not teach them to IRAC thoroughly a simple fact pattern. The reason was because they had told themselves all year long, "Oh, it's a marathon, not a sprint!" Funny, but two weeks before finals, they were right there, treating law school like a sprint, trying to cram like they did in college. And golly! It didn't work.

I don't get it.

We who made it through 1L have figured out what we need to do and how much time we need to put into it. But 1Ls don't have the advantage of hindsight. Giving them little witticisms to marinade on like "it's a marathon, not a race," or my other favorite line of BS, "work smarter, not harder," only convinces students that they don't really need to study, or that if they spend any substantial amount of time putting in the work, then they're doing something wrong. I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

I'm not saying don't work hard. Nor does a marathon imply doing the minimum. A marathon would take forever if one was crawling or even walking. That doesn't translate to doing ridiculous amounts of work though.

Yvonnella wrote:I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

I still don't see what the point is of calling out people who go to social events. Read Arrow's guide, even with all the time he put in studying he still advocates for going to bar reviews and the like. It should take nothing away from studying, unless you're gonna be in the library at midnight on a Saturday, in which case you're doing it wrong.

The post you responded to that said "the amount of time you put in is in no way relational to how well you do" is a bit too absolute, so I can see a response, but there is a certain point of diminished returns.

BruceWayne wrote:A lot of this debate hinges on thinking that there is one surefire way to do well. One side is assuming that by studying extremely hard you will do well (which is downright absurd; almost everyone at these elite law schools studies very hard. It's more a matter of extremely hard vs. downright berserk, and yet many don't do well). The other is assuming that by learning as many "tricks" as possible one will do well. Law school is in many ways, poorly structured and pretty ridiculous. It's not like many other graduate disciplines where a lot of effort/focus is put into the teaching process and the testing structure. Basically you just attend 3-4 months of lectures by academics who are very into philosophy and ivory tower law topics, read an amalgam of records of judges making decisions on various disputes, and at the end you're given a 3-4 hour exam where you have to read and digest about 5 hours worth of information and are expected to spit out as much as possible over that time frame. That setup is going to lend itself to very divergent results for different people, regardless of the approach that each person takes. You basically have to teach yourself subjects that you've never had experience with in 4 months and then compete with others in the same boat on the exam. There's no set way to guarantee success in that sort of environment.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

I still don't see what the point is of calling out people who go to social events. Read Arrow's guide, even with all the time he put in studying he still advocates for going to bar reviews and the like. It should take nothing away from studying, unless you're gonna be in the library at midnight on a Saturday, in which case you're doing it wrong.

The post you responded to that said "the amount of time you put in is in no way relational to how well you do" is a bit too absolute, so I can see a response, but there is a certain point of diminished returns.

Yvonnella wrote:I didn't call out anybody for going to social events. Social events even find their way onto my calendar now and then because, as you say, they take nothing away from my studying. What I said was, "...going to parties instead of studying hard." The implication seems obvious to me.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:I didn't call out anybody for going to social events. Social events even find their way onto my calendar now and then because, as you say, they take nothing away from my studying. What I said was, "...going to parties instead of studying hard." The implication seems obvious to me.

The point I was trying to get at, which I think you also acknowledge, is that there isn't really a dichotomy between studying hard and attending social events. It seems weird to say people do one instead of the other when doing one doesn't in any way take away from doing the other.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:I didn't call out anybody for going to social events. Social events even find their way onto my calendar now and then because, as you say, they take nothing away from my studying. What I said was, "...going to parties instead of studying hard." The implication seems obvious to me.

The point I was trying to get at, which I think you also acknowledge, is that there isn't really a dichotomy between studying hard and attending social events. It seems weird to say people do one instead of the other when doing one doesn't in any way take away from doing the other.

Yvonnella wrote:I would submit that any 1L who thinks she's going to rise to the top by taking shortcuts and going to parties instead of studying hard is delusional. And for every five people who might be an exception, there will be 80 who ain't, honey.

Yvonnella wrote:What I meant was not terribly unclear: the student whose social priorities are misplaced is likely to experience more difficulty reaching the top of the class than she who gives priority to her studies and attends parties afterwards, as time permits.

johansantana21 wrote:Really? 1L so far but I think I can already tell the law review/top 25% of the class. They are the people who are always a week ahead in readings, have their outlines updated by the end of every week, and still have time to go out and get hammered every week.

I'm not one of these people. But I will be shocked beyond belief if these people do not end up in the top quarter of the class...at least.

Renne Walker wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:What I meant was not terribly unclear: the student whose social priorities are misplaced is likely to experience more difficulty reaching the top of the class than she who gives priority to her studies and attends parties afterwards, as time permits.

I would say your reflection is crystal.

Even though my weekend was divided into two 12 hour days of studying I know that over the course of the week I will slip in a couple guilty pleasures. We have two law firm mixers I will likely attend (90 minutes at each) and there are three TV shows I have on DVR I always watch. Considering BigLaw, if one is so lucky, is jammed with 12 hour days, including weekends, this 1L work load will seem like a vacation.

Yvonnella wrote:Yes, I would acknowledge that. Of course. You're nitpicking my semantics for pleasure without regard for the greater context within the sentence and the overall commentary of my post. What I meant was not terribly unclear: the student whose social priorities are misplaced is likely to experience more difficulty reaching the top of the class than she who gives priority to her studies and attends parties afterwards, as time permits. That's the approach that worked for me, and I consider it reasonable. But I do believe that 2Ls, 3Ls, and others who tell 1Ls that there are ways to get through law school without having to work harder than they ever imagined in college do a disservice to 1Ls. The more realistic advice we should be giving 0Ls and 1Ls is that doing well in law school — for most people — requires an enormous amount of work and they will be better off in the long run if they accept that they may have to miss a party now and then to complete their studies.

IrwinM.Fletcher wrote:

johansantana21 wrote:Really? 1L so far but I think I can already tell the law review/top 25% of the class. They are the people who are always a week ahead in readings, have their outlines updated by the end of every week, and still have time to go out and get hammered every week.

I'm not one of these people. But I will be shocked beyond belief if these people do not end up in the top quarter of the class...at least.

You'll be surprised, I promise.

JusticeHarlan wrote:They should be going out to parties. They should be studying, and hard. There's no reason the one has anything to do with the other.

JusticeHarlan wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:Yes, I would acknowledge that. Of course. You're nitpicking my semantics for pleasure without regard for the greater context within the sentence and the overall commentary of my post. What I meant was not terribly unclear: the student whose social priorities are misplaced is likely to experience more difficulty reaching the top of the class than she who gives priority to her studies and attends parties afterwards, as time permits. That's the approach that worked for me, and I consider it reasonable. But I do believe that 2Ls, 3Ls, and others who tell 1Ls that there are ways to get through law school without having to work harder than they ever imagined in college do a disservice to 1Ls. The more realistic advice we should be giving 0Ls and 1Ls is that doing well in law school — for most people — requires an enormous amount of work and they will be better off in the long run if they accept that they may have to miss a party now and then to complete their studies.

OK, I still don't get why you keep drawing this dichotomy between studying and socializing. But it seems we're arguing past each other, so I'll just state my point, hopefully clearly, and be done with it:

There are any number of ways to go about 1L. You can read and brief every case, or you could bury your nose in E&Es. Or you could do both. You could spend 5 hours a day (or even more), or you could spend 3 hours a day (or even less). What works will depend on the person, and no one solution will solve things.

But, I've never heard anyone say "I shouldn't have gone to that bar review last Friday" the way I've heard people say "I should probably have cracked open of the Glannon for Civ Pro" or "I should go back to briefing everything." It seems an unrelated point to figuring out the way to handle the material of 1L. I know plenty of people who never turn down a drinking event and finished on law review.

My point isn't semantic wrangling, it's about the right mindset for the 1Ls. They should be going out to parties. They should be studying, and hard. There's no reason the one has anything to do with the other.

Renne Walker wrote:

Yvonnella wrote:What I meant was not terribly unclear: the student whose social priorities are misplaced is likely to experience more difficulty reaching the top of the class than she who gives priority to her studies and attends parties afterwards, as time permits.

I would say your reflection is crystal.

Even though my weekend was divided into two 12 hour days of studying I know that over the course of the week I will slip in a couple guilty pleasures. We have two law firm mixers I will likely attend (90 minutes at each) and there are three TV shows I have on DVR I always watch. Considering BigLaw, if one is so lucky, is jammed with 12 hour days, including weekends, this 1L work load will seem like a vacation.

Kendi wrote:IMHO: Since schools utilize GPA and LSAT for admission, most classmates are [theoretically] of comparative intelligence. With this in mind, why wouldn’t extra study time provide a huge advantage?

Kendi wrote:IMHO: Since schools utilize GPA and LSAT for admission, most classmates are [theoretically] of comparative intelligence. With this in mind, why wouldn’t extra study time provide a huge advantage?

c3pO4 wrote:

Kendi wrote:IMHO: Since schools utilize GPA and LSAT for admission, most classmates are [theoretically] of comparative intelligence. With this in mind, why wouldn’t extra study time provide a huge advantage?

YHO is wrong. Many people underperform/overperform on the LSAT due to not studying hard/studying hard. It doesn't measure intelligence.