ksllaw wrote:cinephile wrote:I'm not going to agree or disagree with this, but just wanted to make a couple of comments. Your IQ is irrelevant because most of your class will be composed of people similar to you in terms of intelligence.
I'm not sure how true this highlighted portion above is. It would be interesting to know (from a factual/empirical standpoint), but I don't think we'll ever have data on that. I think I just assumed that law school classes could be comprised of large percentages of students with significantly different IQs. Part of it has to do with what I see as the "learnability" of the LSAT and the "game-ability" (sadly) of GPA, which are the two main determinants of law school admissions.
I think most people would presume some kind of correlation between GPA/LSAT and IQ, even if it's not perfect, and the people in a given law school are generally going to fall within a very narrow GPA/LSAT band (with a few outliers on either end, I suppose). But I don't know that much about IQ.
(As to the creative issue: yes, there's creative and then there's creative. I think "don't get creative" is correct when you understand it as "do exactly what the prof asks you to do, no more and no less." Sometimes that will include being creative - I had a prof who expressly told us to come up with as many possible ways a plaintiff in a given set of circumstances could bring a claim under statute X, and to be as creative as possible. But deciding you're going to reinvent the wheel or blaze a completely new trail is not likely to be productive.)