Vale of Tears is the Most Horrifying Thread on TLS Forum

[bjsesq]

Too many times these conversations turn into individual experiences, which are simply not helpful to a 0 L making a tough decision to attend law school. Law school is a risk, like gambling is a risk. Therefore, generalities about how to be successful or who is successful is more helpful then individual experiences. Example: If I told you to play video poker because I was just dealt a Royal Flush, is that helpful information? OR if I told you to play video poker because your return on investment is close to 99%, compared to 90% at a slot machine. Which is more helpful information?

You literally provided anecdotal evidence and then said anecdotes are unhelpful. What the fuck?

[Tiago Splitter]

Too many times these conversations turn into individual experiences, which are simply not helpful to a 0 L making a tough decision to attend law school. Law school is a risk, like gambling is a risk. Therefore, generalities about how to be successful or who is successful is more helpful then individual experiences. Example: If I told you to play video poker because I was just dealt a Royal Flush, is that helpful information? OR if I told you to play video poker because your return on investment is close to 99%, compared to 90% at a slot machine. Which is more helpful information?

Right, which is why we'd look at the outcomes of an entire class and be skeptical of the guy from Rutgers-Camden telling us that getting a great job is just about not being lazy.

Also, If grades are even remotely random, then logic dictates there would be no one with 4.0's, or even close to that. But yet, there are. Somehow, a group of students get "A's" and "A-" in every single class they take. I guess that is just random.....

You really don't understand how randomness works across a large group of people, do you?

By the way, "Hard working" doesn't mean hours your put in. It means knowing the material. Do you know the material better than everyone else in your school. The ones who are at the top of the class tend to work harder at knowing the material better than everyone else.

Oh ok now you're making some sense why didn't you just say that before? Working hard isn't about working hard it's about knowing the material better than everyone else so as long as you "work hard" (euphemism for actually not working hard at all but in fact doing better at "law school" and "law exams" than the other people on the forced curve) you'll do just fine.

[fats provolone]

guys, law school grades can't be random. the universe is deterministic.

[Johann]

Too many times these conversations turn into individual experiences, which are simply not helpful to a 0 L making a tough decision to attend law school. Law school is a risk, like gambling is a risk. Therefore, generalities about how to be successful or who is successful is more helpful then individual experiences. Example: If I told you to play video poker because I was just dealt a Royal Flush, is that helpful information? OR if I told you to play video poker because your return on investment is close to 99%, compared to 90% at a slot machine. Which is more helpful information?

Also, If grades are even remotely random, then logic dictates there would be no one with 4.0's, or even close to that. But yet, there are. Somehow, a group of students get "A's" and "A-" in every single class they take. I guess that is just random.....

This "snow flake" example thing is also easily explainable: individuals don't realize they aren't as hard working or prepared for law school (i.e., the "snow flake") until they get here. Once here, a line is drawn between the ones who are prepared versus the ones who are not. By the way, "Hard working" doesn't mean hours your put in. It means knowing the material. Do you know the material better than everyone else in your school. The ones who are at the top of the class tend to work harder at knowing the material better than everyone else. Just because you "work hard" doesn't mean you have "worked harder" at knowing the material better than everyone else.

As for job prospects, we are talking in generalities. But, at my school, your job prospects are in correlation with your grades. Special circumstances play a role, but highers grades = higher job opportunities. Since my premise is grades are dictated by working harder at knowing the material than everyone else, my conclusion is the hardest workers succeed more often.

All those smarty pants that got that V20 Dewey Leboeuf may beg to differ. in "general" it may play out that way. But general doesnt matter if that doesnt include you.

[LeDique]

i don't think there's as strong of a correlation as you think there is between "knowing the material" and success on exams. if you could derive some measure of "most knowing the material" and line people up according to that and their grade, i don't think you'd find as strong of a correlation as you expect. after you reach a certain base level of knowledge (one that's pretty easy to obtain) then way more other factors related to exam taking and scoring come into play.

[fats provolone]

if you took away my outlines i definitely would not have known the material

[notgreat]

Too many times these conversations turn into individual experiences, which are simply not helpful to a 0 L making a tough decision to attend law school. Law school is a risk, like gambling is a risk. Therefore, generalities about how to be successful or who is successful is more helpful then individual experiences. Example: If I told you to play video poker because I was just dealt a Royal Flush, is that helpful information? OR if I told you to play video poker because your return on investment is close to 99%, compared to 90% at a slot machine. Which is more helpful information?

Also, If grades are even remotely random, then logic dictates there would be no one with 4.0's, or even close to that. But yet, there are. Somehow, a group of students get "A's" and "A-" in every single class they take. I guess that is just random.....

This "snow flake" example thing is also easily explainable: individuals don't realize they aren't as hard working or prepared for law school (i.e., the "snow flake") until they get here. Once here, a line is drawn between the ones who are prepared versus the ones who are not. By the way, "Hard working" doesn't mean hours your put in. It means knowing the material. Do you know the material better than everyone else in your school. The ones who are at the top of the class tend to work harder at knowing the material better than everyone else. Just because you "work hard" doesn't mean you have "worked harder" at knowing the material better than everyone else.

As for job prospects, we are talking in generalities. But, at my school, your job prospects are in correlation with your grades. Special circumstances play a role, but highers grades = higher job opportunities. Since my premise is grades are dictated by working harder at knowing the material than everyone else, my conclusion is the hardest workers succeed more often.

This is the most ill-informed and dumb thing I have read about law school. It's the opposite of the truth.

[fats provolone]

actually i think the best indicator of law school success is how good you are at TLS

lot of similar skills

[LeDique]

actually i think the best indicator of law school success is how good you are at TLS

lot of similar skills

i hear there is a strong correlation between survivor finish and law school class rank

[thisone2014]

.

[ymmv]

guys, law school grades can't be random. the universe is deterministic.

Exam papers are graded in black boxes by uranium-poisoned cats.

[Desert Fox]

Also law exams are pretty retarded. You can get points by just arguing both sides. So you really don't need to know how to apply stuff correctly.

[FairchildFLT]

But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

Dude, this is an extremely stupid post. All it does is encourage 0Ls to think, "I'M not a social loser, I won't have any problems at all!" And that's not how it works.

(I'm not saying social skills don't play a role in getting a job. I'm saying that not getting a job doesn't say anything about someone's social skills.)

Also, you seem to assume you're only talking to heterosexual men.

If a 0L is dumb enough to base their assessment of their ability to competently navigate law school based off of a post on TLS, they probably have some other issues coming their way.

[notgreat]

Don't know if grades are random, but based on the evidence and anecdotal experience you cannot predict how you will do. I went to a top 20 UG, all my classes were curved because it was a technical major and I was top 5%. 99th percentile LSAT. Got well below median pwned first semester (like 20th percentile owned) despite working 65 hours a week and maybe more. Did almost no work second semester of 1L and was top third. Good luck in predicting how you will do.

These responses make sense, but I wasn't saying that I think 0Ls can predict how they will do based on UG/LSAT. i was more saying that it seems law school exams are a) very high pressure b) a very specific learned skill c) not always correlated to time spent studying d) subjective, insofar as they are graded based on the professor's preferences. But none of those things suggests to me that they are any more "random" than curved tests some people take in UG, which are often equally subjective.

I never read your post, I was piling on to what YMMV and DF were saying.

[Desert Fox]

I don't know of any majors that curve subjective exams.

[A. Nony Mouse]

These responses make sense, but I wasn't saying that I think 0Ls can predict how they will do based on UG/LSAT. i was more saying that it seems law school exams are a) very high pressure b) a very specific learned skill c) not always correlated to time spent studying d) subjective, insofar as they are graded based on the professor's preferences. But none of those things suggests to me that they are any more "random" than curved tests some people take in UG, which are often equally subjective.

I think they are for most people, bc most people don't have curved exams in UG. I agree they're not strictly random, just impossible to predict.

If a 0L is dumb enough to base their assessment of their ability to competently navigate law school based off of a post on TLS, they probably have some other issues coming their way.

Well, duh, but 0Ls read here looking for advice, so I prefer to see helpful things posted.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

This board overestimates how arbitrary law school grades are
yes, you may work hard and underperform
however, if you are above both 75th percentiles and are a decent/strong writer you have a much better than 1/10 chance of being top 10%
the best mindset is to take nothing for granted and keep working hard all three years
also, only attend law school if you are able to get into a T14 or for free somewhere

[A. Nony Mouse]

This board overestimates how arbitrary law school grades are
yes, you may work hard and underperform
however, if you are above both 75th percentiles and are a decent/strong writer you have a much better than 1/10 chance of being top 10%
the best mindset is to take nothing for granted and keep working hard all three years
also, only attend law school if you are able to get into a T14 or for free somewhere

There are kind of a lot of contingencies in this post.

[ymmv]

"You are ALL WRONG under these very specific hypothetical circumstances."

[bjsesq]

This board overestimates how arbitrary law school grades are
yes, you may work hard and underperform
however, if you are above both 75th percentiles and are a decent/strong writer you have a much better than 1/10 chance of being top 10%
the best mindset is to take nothing for granted and keep working hard all three years
also, only attend law school if you are able to get into a T14 or for free somewhere

So, if you have knowledge of where you stand relative to your law school classmates in certain areas, you eliminate some of the arbitrariness. Good stuff, very helpful for a 0L.

[Desert Fox]

The difference between median and top 75% LSAt/GPA is so small I seriously doubt it changes the chances all that much. Especially since people on TLS game the shit out of the LSAT.


If you study more than 2 weeks for the LSAT i assume it loses all predictive value.

[Paul Campos]

I'm speculating here, but I strongly suspect that a lot of law faculty don't exactly kill themselves grading exams. Reasons:

(1) Traditional issue-spotters are a really bad way to measure anything worth measuring. As has been mentioned ITT, if you're at a halfway decent law school, 95% of the 1Ls (which are the only grades that count) have read all the assigned material, used supplements and outlines etc. They've done all the work, and the work's not hard, intellectually speaking -- it's just time-consuming and tedious -- so a huge number of exams are going to be impossible to distinguish from each other. Law schools solve this little problem with a generous grading curve, which gives most of the class a B+, and everybody else, with rare exceptions, fairly small variations from that grade. This makes grading relatively easy. In a large class there will be a handful of exceptionally strong and weak exams, but most of them are practically identical for grading purposes.

(2) We're talking about people (law faculty) who have jobs that feature almost no unpleasant requirements. The biggest such requirement by far is grading. People who are rarely forced to do anything unpleasantly difficult at their jobs are, generally speaking, not going to do a great job at such unpleasant tasks, because they hurt a lot more when you're not used to having to do anything even mildly unpleasant. It's like forcing a couch potato who spends 14 hours a day eating Doritos and playing video games to get up and run a 10K once a semester. Sure he might run a decent time but I wouldn't bet on it.

[prezidentv8]

D) the material is easy. No concept in law school is difficult to understand. So good luck standing out when competing against other people with similar skills. It would be like if Math School was just who could do the most multiplication and addition problems in 3 hours.

Apt.

[DrSpaceman]

I know that lawyers aren't math people, but can't we use a chi square test to determine how random law school grades are in actual fact?

ETA: I don't know what course grade breakdowns look like on a law school curve (I'm a 0L) but someone who does, and took stats should be able to do this. Could be interesting since there seem to be intense anecdotal opinions on the subject, and everyone here is always talking about the data in other contexts.

[BruceWayne]

Desert Fox's description of exams, what makes getting high grades so difficult, and just the uniqueness of the grading system itself was downright amazing. Bu I think it's such an odd concept to grasp for someone who hasn't gone through law school that they just refuse to accept it. Really the law school grading process is unlike any other in American education. You just can't compare it to any other academic field of study. Honestly that someone said "isn't it similar to a curved engineering class" shows just how hard it is to compare--as it's almost nothing like that. Imagine if engineering had some form of subjectivity to it, wasn't actually that difficult in terms of comprehending the doctrine, but you somehow had to concoct something that stands out from your competitors who are all sifted from the vary top of the pile of applicants who have already completed prior post secondary education.

I think the closest comparison is actually sports. Imagine you've already earned a gold medal in last years Olympic sprinting event and you are racing against 9 other people who won the medal the previous 9 years. Everyone who places worse than 5th place is now deemed "below median" and will be forever identified as such when applying for anything. The 10th place person is "bottom of his class" in speed. Please also note that the difference in the actual speed of each sprinter in the race is actually less than a second. Welcome to law school grading, ranking, and culture as a whole.