Top Law Schools

TheZoid wrote:

Randomnumbers wrote:

dietcoke0 wrote:Cwe going to cost you more than a k easily. If you want bang for your buck, then delmar and Clayton.

dietcoke0 continuing his run as worst WUSTL poster? Paying more then ~800 to live anywhere in STL you are either overpaying or paying for luxuries that a law student really doesn't need (and definitely shouldn't be paying for with loans). Check out padmapper - there is a *ton* of stuff for 550-900 in the CWE.

Lol, absolutely +1ing that- check out the 1L fall grades waiting thread for a good hard chuckle.

I am STL-born and raised, and can personally attest to the possibility of living in the CWE for less than $500-600/month. I rented a nice, admittedly small (but cozy) studio apartment while in graduate school for $450/month, utilities included. It was a great place for one person.

Of course, as some have mentioned, a 1-br would increase the cost a bit more. But in my building I think a 1-br was still only around $535/mo. This is an area close enough to all of the activity of the CWE.

OK, what's everyone's initial reaction to the grading system change?

My thoughts:

- I think one of the biggest impacts will be on the 1Ls. Imagine the same employer looking at a stack of applications from 1Ls who have just finished their first semesters. Say, hypothetically, that 3 of them all have A, A, A, A for their substantive classes and LP. But one of them has a 3.94 and one has a 3.76, and one will have something in between. That will either irritate or confuse that potential employer. So the question is whether that scenario (maybe unlikely?) will counteract those employers' confusions about a completely different kind of system.

- For those at the high end, I've decided it's probably a good change. I think that a 4.0 will look better to judges/employers than a 95.xx. But maybe I'm wrong about that. However, it does fail to distinguish between people above that range, but those individuals can still report their class rank on their resume for differentiation.

- I'm glad they decided to preserve the granularity of our grading system. I think this is, overall, a positive change.

It's another grading system that I'm too lazy to understand and give zero fucks about. I think we had an advantage where employers also had no idea what our system meant and they were willing to give us some grades leeway in getting screeners. I'm gonna say this is gonna hurt the "lower" end of the class that doesn't make hard cutoffs.

Do the highest performers really need more help? Philosophical question I guess... invest more in those with "most potential" or make sure that the others don't get left behind.

But hey, like I said, I don't understand the grading system. It might as well be smiley faces and mauve dinosaurs (those who took the LSAT with me get that reference).

fl0w wrote:It's another grading system that I'm too lazy to understand and give zero fucks about. I think we had an advantage where employers also had no idea what our system meant and they were willing to give us some grades leeway in getting screeners. I'm gonna say this is gonna hurt the "lower" end of the class that doesn't make hard cutoffs.

Do the highest performers really need more help? Philosophical question I guess... invest more in those with "most potential" or make sure that the others don't get left behind.

But hey, like I said, I don't understand the grading system. It might as well be smiley faces and mauve dinosaurs (those who took the LSAT with me get that reference).

I'm not so sure it doesn't help those on the lower end of the spectrum. For example, an 88 feels a lot like a B something to me. But now you get to call it an A-.

TatteredDignity wrote:OK, what's everyone's initial reaction to the grading system change?

My thoughts:

- I think one of the biggest impacts will be on the 1Ls. Imagine the same employer looking at a stack of applications from 1Ls who have just finished their first semesters. Say, hypothetically, that 3 of them all have A, A, A, A for their substantive classes and LP. But one of them has a 3.94 and one has a 3.76, and one will have something in between. That will either irritate or confuse that potential employer. So the question is whether that scenario (maybe unlikely?) will counteract those employers' confusions about a completely different kind of system.

- For those at the high end, I've decided it's probably a good change. I think that a 4.0 will look better to judges/employers than a 95.xx. But maybe I'm wrong about that. However, it does fail to distinguish between people above that range, but those individuals can still report their class rank on their resume for differentiation.

- I'm glad they decided to preserve the granularity of our grading system. I think this is, overall, a positive change.

I mean, does anyone really look at the raw numbers? I figure they really only look at class rank anyway, and anything else is pretty marginal. The obvious exception would be the bottom half of the class since they don't really publish cutoffs below top third.

0L here

Does this mean WUSTL has now adopted a standard 4.0-scale grading system? I can't seem to find any info on the website. Any idea what the curve would be?

Thanks in advance!

Yeah, isn't the curve set at 87?** So the curve will be a B+ (1 point from an A-)? Seems like that would help the people at median. Even those way below median all the way down to 81 can still put B average (3.14) on their resume, which could be spun the right way in a cover letter.

But I have no experience looking for jobs yet, so I could be mistaken.

Also thanks to the people who explained the grading policy to me last week! smh...

ETA: fix median.

soccerfreak wrote:

TatteredDignity wrote:OK, what's everyone's initial reaction to the grading system change?

My thoughts:

- I think one of the biggest impacts will be on the 1Ls. Imagine the same employer looking at a stack of applications from 1Ls who have just finished their first semesters. Say, hypothetically, that 3 of them all have A, A, A, A for their substantive classes and LP. But one of them has a 3.94 and one has a 3.76, and one will have something in between. That will either irritate or confuse that potential employer. So the question is whether that scenario (maybe unlikely?) will counteract those employers' confusions about a completely different kind of system.

- For those at the high end, I've decided it's probably a good change. I think that a 4.0 will look better to judges/employers than a 95.xx. But maybe I'm wrong about that. However, it does fail to distinguish between people above that range, but those individuals can still report their class rank on their resume for differentiation.

- I'm glad they decided to preserve the granularity of our grading system. I think this is, overall, a positive change.

I mean, does anyone really look at the raw numbers? I figure they really only look at class rank anyway, and anything else is pretty marginal. The obvious exception would be the bottom half of the class since they don't really publish cutoffs below top third.

True. I dunno, I'm sure an employer can't help but feel better about someone who has a 3.8 and is in the top whatever % of the class than someone who has (random number they can't put in context) and is in the same percentile. But who knows.

what it means is nearly half the class will have an A- average (requires mean for 1Ls is 87, with most profs bumping it up to 87.5)

I'm not sure I'm ok with that. There will still be % cutoffs, but it certainly screams grade inflation. I pretty much liked the current system- it was unique (helping people at the low end spin) and helped people differentiate themselves...but whatever, it's not going to affect me that much really.

IMO this'll help people in two ways, and I think it'll have some impact on the whole class.

First off, it'll help in applying to employers who are less sophisticated, eg small firms outside of OCI and in-house stuff. If you aren't looking for a % rank automatically (see eg job postings requiring at least a 3.5 etc - pretty sure I've seen these, but I may be confusing those w/ my next point), being median with a 3.6 is going to look better than an 87/88 a) because they understand it ( or think they do) as being pretty good and b) because a 3.6 looks "better" on a conventional scale than an 87.5, which most people understand to be a high B or a low B+. I haven't compared the old and new systems in terms of what is and isn't an A+ etc, but if nothing else it's plausible that it could get more of our resumes on employers' desks, and you won't have to do the conversion to a letter scale so it's at least simpler.

Second, it'll help down the road for people lateraling in-house. Again, I haven't conpared the old and new systems, but the grades are curved in our favor (3.6 for median when most places curve to B+, including most T14s) like Northwestern does, and I've seen plenty of job listings asking for experienced attorneys that have numerical grade cutoffs on a 4.0 scale. It a) gets your resume in the door when you have a 3.5 that would have been a 3.1 on most schools' curves, and b) can only help if they don't ask about rank.

Long story short, if nothing else, median WUSTLers have 0.3 GPA points worth of a leg up on Michigan, Illinois and the like, and 0.6 on TTTs that curve to 3.0, which I believe is the case for our in-city "competition."

Plus, I'm pretty sure this makes it easier for me to get my good student discount on my car insurance, which requires either a 3.5 or something or top 20-30 something percentile (and god knows where I'll be in the class after this semester of 3LOL mode), so I'm all for it.

Randomnumbers wrote:

dietcoke0 wrote:Cwe going to cost you more than a k easily. If you want bang for your buck, then delmar and Clayton.

dietcoke0 continuing his run as worst WUSTL poster? Paying more then ~800 to live anywhere in STL you are either overpaying or paying for luxuries that a law student really doesn't need (and definitely shouldn't be paying for with loans). Check out padmapper - there is a *ton* of stuff for 550-900 in the CWE.

I live with someone...

Okay after reading the email explaining everything, I don't see any downside to the change. With such a high baseline, it tricks employers who don't look deeply into grades into thinking we have much better grades, and every person in school will have over a 3.0.

soccerfreak wrote:Okay after reading the email explaining everything, I don't see any downside to the change. With such a high baseline, it tricks employers who don't look deeply into grades into thinking we have much better grades, and every person in school will have over a 3.0.

The only risk is that word gets out about our grade inflation, and then no one trusts any of our grades.

TatteredDignity wrote:

soccerfreak wrote:Okay after reading the email explaining everything, I don't see any downside to the change. With such a high baseline, it tricks employers who don't look deeply into grades into thinking we have much better grades, and every person in school will have over a 3.0.

The only risk is that word gets out about our grade inflation, and then no one trusts any of our grades.

Yeah, like is someone came to TLS and did a search on WUSTL grades and found, say, a thread talking about how our grading system is trying to trick them.

But they'll never find out.

The switch is good for those looking to get hired in other cities/states where 4.0 is the norm. While our grading system may be easier to "spin" with those unfamiliar with our system, it still helps to have "normal" grades sometimes. If anything it just helps all the kids at bottom end of the class because a 3.1-3.3 looks better than an 80-86 GPA. Kids at the top still have good looking grades (3.8-4.3) etc and still have a calculated class rank. If anything kids in the middle get the least benefit, as GPAs like 83-84 and 87-88 get "compressed" into similar GPA on the 4.0 Scale.

Oban wrote:Kids at the top still have good looking grades (3.8-4.3) etc and still have a calculated class rank.

Except that the bold isn't possible, because they'll only report up to 4.0. So less distinction for the people at the top. Flow's point that the top people don't need as much help getting jerbs is well-taken, but it could still matter for clerkships.

Has anyone taken, or knows someone who has taken, products liability? I enrolled for it because my firm is really big into that, but looking through the syllabus is really making me want to drop. Looks like Torts part 2. But if Norwood does it well, then I suppose it could be ok.

I would probably pick up Remedies in its place, if anyone knows something about that, too.

TatteredDignity wrote:

Oban wrote:Kids at the top still have good looking grades (3.8-4.3) etc and still have a calculated class rank.

Except that the bold isn't possible, because they'll only report up to 4.0. So less distinction for the people at the top. Flow's point that the top people don't need as much help getting jerbs is well-taken, but it could still matter for clerkships.

I believe they said they'll still rank the top 5%...and I'd imagine that will include anyone at or above a 4.0.

I am only on page 46 of this thread so I apologize if this question has already been answered, but which supplements would WUSTL'ers recommend to a 0L gunner seeking to prep for 1L fall courses (which I believe are Contracts, Property, and Torts).

I am aware of the pro's and con's of this type of 0L prep, please don't waste good advice trying to guide me in a new direction. Thanks in advance.

elderpisimo wrote:I am only on page 46 of this thread so I apologize if this question has already been answered, but which supplements would WUSTL'ers recommend to a 0L gunner seeking to prep for 1L fall courses (which I believe are Contracts, Property, and Torts).

I am aware of the pro's and con's of this type of 0L prep, please don't waste good advice trying to guide me in a new direction. Thanks in advance.

Actually, this past year they changed everything up: all 6 1L courses will be offered the first semester, so you can't know until they actually send out course schedules.

This immediately doubles my intended 0L prep work, sigh. Still, any specific supplements you would recommend?

elderpisimo wrote:This immediately doubles my intended 0L prep work, sigh. Still, any specific supplements you would recommend?

There are no pros to trying to do substantive class prep as an 0L, unless you count the false belief that you are doing something as a "pro". At best it will give you zero leg up, at worst it will teach you differently than the professor did and you will be stuck trying to work your way back and doubling your workload during the year.

Please please please read around this site and look at the 99% of people who have tried to do what you are planning and had it backfire instead of help in any way shape or form.

Once you have your professors then come back and I'm sure people will be more than willing to suggest supplements that are helpful in that particular prof's class, until then there are a million other uses of your time/money that will better prepare you to jump into 1L head first. Start with the plethora of "How to do well in law school" guides written by users of this site, and then go from there. They will tell you the prep work you can be doing that will actually help you get ahead during 1L. (I know people who swear by LEEWS/Getting to Maybe/ 1L of a Ride type books, those might be good places to start)

ETA: link to start you off, one that helped me quite a bit in my first year thus far http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=123699

elderpisimo wrote:This immediately doubles my intended 0L prep work, sigh. Still, any specific supplements you would recommend?

Buy a copy of BarBri's Conviser MiniReview (Any state will do, they're all the same for your purposes).

Begin MBE prep by studying the outlines.

elderpisimo wrote:I am only on page 46 of this thread so I apologize if this question has already been answered, but which supplements would WUSTL'ers recommend to a 0L gunner seeking to prep for 1L fall courses (which I believe are Contracts, Property, and Torts).

I am aware of the pro's and con's of this type of 0L prep, please don't waste good advice trying to guide me in a new direction. Thanks in advance.

I love this post. "I'm aware that everyone says not to do this, but if I was going to do it anyways, how should I do it". If you are aware of the general consensus, this means you've done at least some research - so what is it you want from us? We can give you the general 'best' supplements for each class, but so can every thread on 1L success in these forums. You don't know what classes you will be taking. You don't know what professors you'll have. You don't know what casebooks you'll be using. What possible school specific advice do you think we can give you? And if what you want is generic 0L knowledge - considering that you seemed to have already read most of the threads that say don't do what you are doing - how have you not been able to figure out what the common 1L supplements are?

Sure, we can describe the snipe for you, we can tell you where the snipe lives, and we can give you good advice on how to catch it. It still wouldn't change the fact that you are on a snipe hunt.