Vale of Tears is the Most Horrifying Thread on TLS Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

I know I'm not Professor Campos, but some of these are addressed in the study I cited. #1 is essentially law exam's reliability measure. The Klein & Hart study suggests that while law school exams are rough around the edges, there is some level of reliability. It's not totally like rolling the dice. But this is inter-rater reliability on the same exams. I need to see the whole study, so I don't know what the reliability is from class to class. I think it is probably fairly decent as well. But I also think there is some level of noise in here as well. Possible signal-to-noise ratio of 60/40. Maybe even 70/30.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument about whether exams predict lawyering success/test skills relevant to lawyering, although those are rather different arguments than whether law school grades are subjective. But really, why are you citing to a study from 1976? That's a really long time ago.

I understand you will not agree with me. But I am providing an alternative voice so that 0L's don't make the faulty assumption that law school is random. You have control over your law school grades.

You put these last 2 sentences together like they're connected somehow. They're not. And law school isn't random; it's unpredictable. But you don't have control over your law school grades - because you're graded on a curve, and you don't have control over your classmates' performance. I'm glad it worked out for you, but your argument about hard work --> good grades is totally a post-hoc-propter-hoc thing. For one thing, there are tons of people out there who end up with excellent grades without doing the kind of work you describe.

[lawsearcher]

You are completely missing my point if you think I'm trying to act better than other people. I am saying just the opposite, that there is room for most people to succeed just by working hard. That doesn't mean staring at your outline repeatedly, but following the guides on TLS, working on your test taking skills and your BLL, etc.

There is a reason people end up at the top of the class. You can believe there is some magical law school test taking skill but that should be debunked by the sheer variety of exams out there. The knowledge and skill comes from hard work that most people do not commit to in some form or another.

In the 10% or so chance that you're not a troll or just drunk:

Let's be honest here. Your ability to craft a persuasive argument sucks. 1) Your logic is bad, and full of fallacious reasoning. 2) You fail to support this bad reasoning with any sort of evidence pertaining to its assumptions or assertions. 3) Your writing skills are terrible.

I know this is an internet messageboard, so it's not anyone's best work, but if you really did as well as you claim to in law school, your posts on here only confirm what I've been thinking all along.

Your argument has basically been "if you work hard enough, you can achieve anything." This isn't sage advice--this is a meaningless platitude that lacks any reasoning content at all. Anyone can see that it's wrong when the number of applicants outstrips the number of successful positions. The whole "bootstraps" argument doesn't create more jobs total. So if there's 10 applicants for every 1 good job (or 10 law students for every 1 magna cum laude spot, if 50% of the people work themselves to the death, then 40% of the total is going to do so and still fail.

Again, I have a different viewpoint so I am attacked. I repeatedly told you I am not a good writer, which seems to fly against your theory that law school grades are all about your ability to impress english professors. Not to mention the fact I've taken several multiple choice and short answer exams, etc.

Your bootstrap argument doesn't apply because what I am saying is no one is truly bootstrapping. I am saying that at a T1, not everyone is pulling up as hard as they can. In fact, very few are truly maxing out their time on law school. The median exam is very flawed and the 25% exam is also flawed. If you work hard enough, you can greatly increase your chances of doing well on the exam. Of course if everyone did that it wouldn't work, but it doesn't happen. For various reasons, that might not apply at a T14, but at my T1 there is room to succeed through hard work. Just like I bet the same applies the further you go down the scale.

[LeDique]

you guys can trust lawsearcher he has a lot of experience grading exams

[lawsearcher]

I know I'm not Professor Campos, but some of these are addressed in the study I cited. #1 is essentially law exam's reliability measure. The Klein & Hart study suggests that while law school exams are rough around the edges, there is some level of reliability. It's not totally like rolling the dice. But this is inter-rater reliability on the same exams. I need to see the whole study, so I don't know what the reliability is from class to class. I think it is probably fairly decent as well. But I also think there is some level of noise in here as well. Possible signal-to-noise ratio of 60/40. Maybe even 70/30.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument about whether exams predict lawyering success/test skills relevant to lawyering, although those are rather different arguments than whether law school grades are subjective. But really, why are you citing to a study from 1976? That's a really long time ago.

I understand you will not agree with me. But I am providing an alternative voice so that 0L's don't make the faulty assumption that law school is random. You have control over your law school grades.

You put these last 2 sentences together like they're connected somehow. They're not. And law school isn't random; it's unpredictable. But you don't have control over your law school grades - because you're graded on a curve, and you don't have control over your classmates' performance. I'm glad it worked out for you, but your argument about hard work --> good grades is totally a post-hoc-propter-hoc thing. For one thing, there are tons of people out there who end up with excellent grades without doing the kind of work you describe.

You're right in a specific sense that you do not know who else is attending your law school. But we realistically know the average caliber of students at any given school based on their ranking/lsat/gpa. I'm not guaranteeing you can be #1, but you can be top 10%.

[lawsearcher]

For one thing, there are tons of people out there who end up with excellent grades without doing the kind of work you describe.

I agree, and I think it's possible to pass at least some of these people by outworking them. That's my whole point: there's more room for people that try hard. If people max out their ability they could do better, but most aren't maxing out.

I think it's weird that almost everyone here agrees you can do much better on the LSAT through effort, but not a law school exam.

[lawsearcher]

you guys can trust lawsearcher he has a lot of experience grading exams

Why do you all insist on knocking me? Your counter-argument is backed by the same problem: you do not grade exams. So why am I wrong and you're right?

[LeDique]

you guys can trust lawsearcher he has a lot of experience grading exams

Why do you all insist on knocking me? Your counter-argument is backed by the same problem: you do not grade exams. So why am I wrong and you're right?

there's a person who does telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about you imbecile

[A. Nony Mouse]

For one thing, there are tons of people out there who end up with excellent grades without doing the kind of work you describe.

I agree, and I think it's possible to pass at least some of these people by outworking them. That's my whole point: there's more room for people that try hard. If people max out their ability they could do better, but most aren't maxing out.

I think it's weird that almost everyone here agrees you can do much better on the LSAT through effort, but not a law school exam.

Well, the LSAT isn't graded on a curve (it's scaled), you get 3 shots at it, and you can study for it as long as you like before taking it.

[lawsearcher]

you guys can trust lawsearcher he has a lot of experience grading exams

Why do you all insist on knocking me? Your counter-argument is backed by the same problem: you do not grade exams. So why am I wrong and you're right?

there's a person who does telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about you imbecile

Really? More name calling? The only professor you cite is the leading representative of the anti-law school movement.

[lawsearcher]

For one thing, there are tons of people out there who end up with excellent grades without doing the kind of work you describe.

I agree, and I think it's possible to pass at least some of these people by outworking them. That's my whole point: there's more room for people that try hard. If people max out their ability they could do better, but most aren't maxing out.

I think it's weird that almost everyone here agrees you can do much better on the LSAT through effort, but not a law school exam.

Well, the LSAT isn't graded on a curve (it's scaled), you get 3 shots at it, and you can study for it as long as you like before taking it.

With only 1 test and a more limited study period, wouldn't hard work up front result in a higher score relative to the group? The differences you list only seem to take away some of the hard work advantages.

Edit- I guess I can see both sides. But I do not think any of those differences materially alter the concept.

[JCougar]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument about whether exams predict lawyering success/test skills relevant to lawyering, although those are rather different arguments than whether law school grades are subjective. But really, why are you citing to a study from 1976? That's a really long time ago.

Because--unlike in a responsible industry that's actually concerned about the utility of the work they do--the legal education industry has decided not to follow up with other studies confirming or denying a study that should have, in all reality, raised a number of alarm bells.

It's not my fault nobody has done a follow up since.

I'd rather not cite that lone study, but I've been given no choice. And I don't have the faculties myself to conduct a follow up.

[JCougar]

Unfortunately, having a different view is not acceptable on TLS. For disagreeing with my personal results, I get attacked repeatedly and told to be quiet. Is this a forum for discussion and ideas or a forum for a few select people to talk amongst themselves and lecture others?

Actually, I am interested in your viewpoint. As long as you support it with persuasive logic and/or data. And not just banal platitudes and anecdotes.

Listen, nobody in this thread is stupid. These same anecdotes and platitudes you repeat have already passed through our minds countless times. We've already contemplated them and mostly tried them out. They're not 100% untrue, but they're also a lot more dumb than you think they are when applied to a sample size of greater than 1.

[rpupkin]

there's a person who does telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about you imbecile

Really? More name calling? The only professor you cite is the leading representative of the anti-law school movement.

I don't agree with most of lawsearcher's conclusions ITT, but folks could be a bit more civil. Also, I think his or her writing is fine.

[romothesavior]

It's incredibly arrogant to say "I worked hard and got good grades, so almost everyone else can too."

It's incredibly arrogant to claim that the people who disagree and think law school grades involve far more than hard work and intellect are just jealous they didn't get good grades.

It's incredibly arrogant to say (and this is essentially a direct quote) that people who didn't get grades just didn't dedicate to hard work.

Basically, lawsearcher is an arrogant, self-righteous douche who keeps repeating the same tired mantra without substantively engaging the well thought out responses he's gotten, so I really can't blame people for getting testy and uncivil.

[prezidentv8]

I worked hard and it made a difference in both my knowledge of the material and my ability to recall it.

I don't think anyone is disputing that hard work helps. Random here isn't meant in the strict, literal sense broheim. hth.

[prezidentv8]

If people max out their ability they could do better

insightful

[prezidentv8]

you guys can trust lawsearcher he has a lot of experience grading exams

Why do you all insist on knocking me? Your counter-argument is backed by the same problem: you do not grade exams. So why am I wrong and you're right?

there's a person who does telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about you imbecile

Really? More name calling? The only professor you cite is the leading representative of the anti-law school movement.

ok

[AReasonableMan]

deleted

[AReasonableMan]

You can believe there is some magical law school test taking skill but that should be debunked by the sheer variety of exams out there.

The "sheer variety" actually raises yet another red flag: there's no standardized method for assigning points to law exam answers. Even skilled talent evaluators have difficulty making valid and reliable subjective judgements as to someone's ability. Look at how bad baseball scouts are when it comes to the draft. Look at how bad managers are at picking good workers through informal interviews alone (hint: they're mostly better off picking names out of a hat).

But law school professors are never trained how to teach or trained how to professionally evaluate--even at a subjective level. They're left to make up their own standards, and these standards vary from professor to professor. Contrary to what you would say, this makes grades even less reliable--and as a result, less valid. It also shows that nobody has a clue as to what they're doing. I don't blame them: a degree in education/assessment is not a job requirement for law professor.

But the data shows that someone who gets A in Class 1 is likelier to get an A in Class 2 than is someone who got a B so there's some merit behind it. At least it's blind grading. Many people had UG classes where it's really just about how much you kiss up to the professor. Unless you do multiple choice how would it be fairer than the current model?

[JCougar]

But the data shows that someone who gets A in Class 1 is likelier to get an A in Class 2 than is someone who got a B so there's some merit behind it.

Reliability ≠ validity.

At least it's blind grading. Many people had UG classes where it's really just about how much you kiss up to the professor. Unless you do multiple choice how would it be fairer than the current model?

Well, I agree to the extent that without blind grading, it would be many times worse. But all that blind grading solves is that it turns an evaluation from one that is essentially biased to one that is mostly random and/or invalid.

I think the real problem is that it's nearly impossible to evaluate the merit of any potential lawyer outside of a real work environment. And given this impossibility, law schools shouldn't pretend like they're doing so.

[JCougar]

In their current form, law exams are maybe good for screening out the bottom 10-25% or so that just don't want to put forth any effort. And even at that level, they're probably somewhat imprecise. I don't see them adding much utility to anything beyond that.

[wolfie_m.]

.

[hdunlop]

I dunno about attempt but I know lots who didn't

[hdunlop]

Not that it makes any difference on exams

[JCougar]

The bottom line is that legal education is run mostly by people who are either 1) greedy, 2) don't think well, or 3) have no capability of introspection or self-criticism.

And the ones that don't fall into one of the above categories find themselves vastly outnumbered and likely shouted down or scorned upon to the point that any well-thought-out thing they say will be uncritically undermined, doubted, or ignored by a pack of unqualified, histrionic narcissists that are too lazy to do cumbersome things like thinking anymore.

On an unrelated topic, what has Brian Leiter been up to lately?