Advice for doing well in law school (at a T2) Forum

[A'nold]

I would say most law schools everywhere use the same type of exams (issue spotter), since that is what people just seem to talk about and what professors want to see. There will always be exceptions, and only one of my professors was "non issue spotter" (and wanted policy), the other 6/7 went at it the traditional way.

My International Law class involved two group projects. Miserable.

I think I would actually die right then and there if this ever happens...........

It was my lowest grade (B+), and I was tempted to do an addendum for my transfer applications, but I decided not to. It was an absolutely horrible experience. If we could have picked our groups, it might have been tolerable, but they were assigned. PLUS, it was an elective, so there were all years. Needless to say, if you got a 3L in your group, you were screwed.

I am not this way inherently and I hate the idea of doing this, but I would turn into the biggest gunner douche, staying up until 3 a.m. doing my group's work and trying to motivate them. I would hate my life and my school for doing this to me. I couldn't imagine having your ls grades hinge on your group members. I hope that prof. is fired.

[anacbanana]

Great post Arrow. Here's a bit of a related question:

Conventional TLS wisdom (which is neither conventional, nor wise IMO) says that lower ranked (read: non-T14) schools can be extremely competitive because 100% of the students at T2's, for example, realize that they have to give the 4.0 effort to have shot at making money after school. It's insane to assume, or even dream of making top 10-15% at a T2, because EVERYBODY is shooting for top 10-15%

My understanding, however, from family members and friends who have been to law school, is that the effort from law students is largely similar to undergrad, i.e., you have your slackers, the middle-of-the-road kids, and then the folks that live in the library, study night and day, etc. The percentages might not be exactly the same (there are certainly more slackers in college than in law school), but the groups are there.

What's your opinion on the percentage of law school students that really give the "top 10%" effort? More specifically, is there a noticable difference between the effort of the top 10% and those that make top 30%, or can it mostly be attributed to "luck?"

Feel free to tweak the numbers to your liking if you must (e.g., "no difference in the 10% and 25% kids, but there's a big difference between top 25% and top 50%...)

I don't think it's luck with the exception of picking classes (my project class was definite bad luck). That said, I don't think there's necessarily a correllation between work put in and outcome. In my experience, very few law students are total slackers (although I'm sure not everyone is living up to their absolute potential), and everyone wants to do well.

Law school exams require a very specific skill set, which I think can be developed, but I think some people work very hard (throughout the semester AND studying for the test) but don't necessarily work smart.

[SoxyPirate]

Great post Arrow. Here's a bit of a related question:

Conventional TLS wisdom (which is neither conventional, nor wise IMO) says that lower ranked (read: non-T14) schools can be extremely competitive because 100% of the students at T2's, for example, realize that they have to give the 4.0 effort to have shot at making money after school. It's insane to assume, or even dream of making top 10-15% at a T2, because EVERYBODY is shooting for top 10-15%

My understanding, however, from family members and friends who have been to law school, is that the effort from law students is largely similar to undergrad, i.e., you have your slackers, the middle-of-the-road kids, and then the folks that live in the library, study night and day, etc. The percentages might not be exactly the same (there are certainly more slackers in college than in law school), but the groups are there.

What's your opinion on the percentage of law school students that really give the "top 10%" effort? More specifically, is there a noticable difference between the effort of the top 10% and those that make top 30%, or can it mostly be attributed to "luck?"

Feel free to tweak the numbers to your liking if you must (e.g., "no difference in the 10% and 25% kids, but there's a big difference between top 25% and top 50%...)

I don't think it's luck with the exception of picking classes (my project class was definite bad luck). That said, I don't think there's necessarily a correllation between work put in and outcome. In my experience, very few law students are total slackers (although I'm sure not everyone is living up to their absolute potential), and everyone wants to do well.

Law school exams require a very specific skill set, which I think can be developed, but I think some people work very hard (throughout the semester AND studying for the test) but don't necessarily work smart.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, all else equal (studying, effort, etc.), some people just have "it" and some people don't?

[A'nold]

Here's my two cents. I did my 1L at a T2 (70-80), got a 3.96 (school doesn't rank) and have applied to transfer. In at Berkeley so far.

Taking notes & participating in class

I took notes by hand first semester and by computer second semester. My difference in grades (.04) between the two semesters was pretty negligible, so I don't think it mattered much. Becuase it was MUCH easier to outline with typed notes, I'd suggest that. That said, I disabled my internet--too big of a distraction. I also was a hyper-vigilant note-taker, and took notes in bulleted, almost outline-like format. I missed only 2-3 classes and I participated extensively, which I think definitely helped. That said, I got a rec from a prof who said he really appreciated my participation because I spoke succinctly, in contrast to many other participators. It's quality, not quantity. Nobody likes a gunner, not even the prof.

Supplements vs. casebook

I always got the CaseNotes, and never wrote a brief all semester. The briefs were a great way to review briefly before class and were uber-helpful when outlining. I also book-briefed and made notes in the margins that were super-helpful come class-time. In terms of supplements, besides CaseNotes/canned briefs, I didn't use outlines during the semester. I would always use the Emmanuel outlines/supplements during outlining time, though, as the information was great and condensed.

Outlining

I outlined every single class myself, even if I used others' outlines as an additional tool to Emmanuel. I found it helpful to do each one myself. I always started outlining about a week before the exam. The outlining process itself was studying, and it generally took me 5 days to outline a class. The 6th and 7th days before the exam I met with my study group and went over old exams and sample questions.

Gearing up for exams

I didn't stress. Stressing isn't healthy, and don't get caught up in the insanity. Write your own outlines, do not just use others', although you can use others' as a support to fill in the gaps. Get a good study group you really trust and can rely on.

Office Hours

Never went to office hours once, but I still got great LORs for transferring.

Exam Answers/Outlines

I was meticulous with my answers. My answers were like an outline. I would sub-number each section. So, each issue got a letter/number and then an explanation. I think the professors really appreciated that, and it kept me organized. I also always had very long outlines. Some people frown upon that, but I found it helpful. I then had a Table of Contents on the first couple of pages that would help direct me. I had everything in those outlines, they were 100+ pages, and with the ToC, I could get to things quickly, and everything was in there. I could literally just transcribe the law and then apply the facts. I always argued both sides of the coin, and rarely stated my opinion on the odds/best argument, unless the question explicitly requested it.

Have a social life

I didn't go out much on weekdays, but I definitely kept my studying on weekends to an absolute minimum, except when LRW papers were due. I also avoided bringing reading home as much as possible. In addition to your law school friends, try and stay in touch with friends who aren't law students to keep you grounded. Use your time on weekdays between classes to read, and this way, you can have your weeknights and weekends to yourself. I found treating law school like a job was very very effective in maintaining a good balance.

I know someone at the top of their 1L class that said the exact same thing as bolded above.



Soxy- I never put any stock in what these "experts" on here say about the subjectivity in 1L grading. I know FAR too many people that I said "they will finish at the top" (based solely on their intelligence and work ethic) and ALL OF THEM were in the top 10% after 1L year, just like clockwork. I have seen with my own eyes that many, MANY law student treat law school like UG and many are very uninformed about the real world in law. Tons of law students think that just graduating and passing the bar will guarantee them success as a lawyer. Many have connections. Many are just not very smart. I would say that if you put in as much effort as arrow did his 1L year and maybe even less but still a substantial amount of efficient, exam-based studying you are only truly competing with at most the top 1/3 of your class for the top 10%. Nay sayers fire at will.........

[A'nold]

Great post Arrow. Here's a bit of a related question:

Conventional TLS wisdom (which is neither conventional, nor wise IMO) says that lower ranked (read: non-T14) schools can be extremely competitive because 100% of the students at T2's, for example, realize that they have to give the 4.0 effort to have shot at making money after school. It's insane to assume, or even dream of making top 10-15% at a T2, because EVERYBODY is shooting for top 10-15%

My understanding, however, from family members and friends who have been to law school, is that the effort from law students is largely similar to undergrad, i.e., you have your slackers, the middle-of-the-road kids, and then the folks that live in the library, study night and day, etc. The percentages might not be exactly the same (there are certainly more slackers in college than in law school), but the groups are there.

What's your opinion on the percentage of law school students that really give the "top 10%" effort? More specifically, is there a noticable difference between the effort of the top 10% and those that make top 30%, or can it mostly be attributed to "luck?"

Feel free to tweak the numbers to your liking if you must (e.g., "no difference in the 10% and 25% kids, but there's a big difference between top 25% and top 50%...)

I don't think it's luck with the exception of picking classes (my project class was definite bad luck). That said, I don't think there's necessarily a correllation between work put in and outcome. In my experience, very few law students are total slackers (although I'm sure not everyone is living up to their absolute potential), and everyone wants to do well.

Law school exams require a very specific skill set, which I think can be developed, but I think some people work very hard (throughout the semester AND studying for the test) but don't necessarily work smart.

To elaborate on my last post and comment on this line of thinking, I will say that yes, many students "work hard". However, there is a HUGE difference from working hard and being informed (someone doing what arrow did and does) compared to someone that follows the sure route to mediocrity: briefs cases, listens to professor (while also checking the internet), starts a little outlining late in the semester when their friends start doing it, study your basic 4 hours a day, don't fully utilize supplements, don't fully utilize practice exams, rely on study groups, etc. Those people make up most of the median. Those below the median are definitely either missing some huge points or just aren't really law school material (I hope I do not fall into this group!).

[reasonable_man]

I liked arrows advice to a large extent.. On exams, I used to write out all of the issues and then very briefly bullet outline what I wanted to write about... As Arrow basically suggests.. I found this very helpful as well.

I also suggest on exams with large quantities of vocab words to just brain dump a little library of terms you might want to throw around for each question.. This was very helpful in classes like property (closed book).

So if the question had to do with what manner of Estate X had in a particular tract of land, I might write down:

Constructive easement
Easement by necessity
Fee Simple
Fee Tail (abolished in most jurs)
Life Estate
Joint tennancy
Tennancy by the entirety
Tennants in Common
Fee simple absolute
Fee simple determinable
Fee simple subject to a condition precedent, etc..

Or in contracts..
Consideration
terms
offer
acceptance
mutual assent
legality
in pari delicto
mitigate
breach
etc

I would tend to think that a person of average intellegence doing half of what arrow suggest can basically bet on staying above median for sure...

Lastly... What Arrow is saying is true... Some people do just have it and some don't. Some study to no end do all sorts of work and still fuck up on the test.. Others do half the work and do really well.. This is largely a factor of the grading system in law school.. A student can spot all the issues, but miss one tiny issue they he didn't even realize was relevent. However, everyone else spotted that issue and the prof ranked that issue as being way more important. Now you have an essay filled with great issue spotting that misses what the prof deams as the primary issue in the question.. Thats a problem..

[Arrow]

Great post Arrow. Here's a bit of a related question:

Conventional TLS wisdom (which is neither conventional, nor wise IMO) says that lower ranked (read: non-T14) schools can be extremely competitive because 100% of the students at T2's, for example, realize that they have to give the 4.0 effort to have shot at making money after school. It's insane to assume, or even dream of making top 10-15% at a T2, because EVERYBODY is shooting for top 10-15%

My understanding, however, from family members and friends who have been to law school, is that the effort from law students is largely similar to undergrad, i.e., you have your slackers, the middle-of-the-road kids, and then the folks that live in the library, study night and day, etc. The percentages might not be exactly the same (there are certainly more slackers in college than in law school), but the groups are there.

What's your opinion on the percentage of law school students that really give the "top 10%" effort? More specifically, is there a noticable difference between the effort of the top 10% and those that make top 30%, or can it mostly be attributed to "luck?"

Feel free to tweak the numbers to your liking if you must (e.g., "no difference in the 10% and 25% kids, but there's a big difference between top 25% and top 50%...)

First of all, I think you are right in that law school is more like undergrad. There are still slackers and epic gunners, as always. This spread is not surprising considering the range of LSAT/GPAs that a school takes.

In fact, at my school, I do not think that everyone is gunning for the top 10% (not at all). Many people have great connections already or realize that they are set for life. Others have public interest or government desires (or want to do IP), all of which are less GPA demanding. A few will probably have tons of money, so there are no financial risks. Some just do not realize just exactly how important 1L is. They hear about it but it really just does not sink in. The general mindset is that most of the students will get a job regardless, so it really is not that competitive.

In my section (I cannot speak for the other sections), I would say only about 2-3 people truly give in 10% work. When I say top 10% work, I mean really dedicating their entire lives to law school hardcore style work. Believe it or not, people outside of TLS believe that a 70k salary (which is about average/median for private practice) IS a good salary, so not everyone in law school is going on a big law or bust route.

There is some luck in law school, but you can take steps to MINIMIZE that luck. Sure, I think there is a noticeable difference between the top students (probably top 5-10%) and the top 25-30%. In fact, in my classes, a professor gives out about 5 "A"s per class and the same 2-3 people hog those A's in EVERY one of our classes. Depending on how your professor grades or how your school curves, you may get an A- or B+ every now and then. It is possible to consistently do well and to minimize your luck factors.

I think there is more luck going into the B+/B/B-/C+ range (which is like the mid 25-75 percentile probably). Here, your exam answers are less organized, your writing is less clear, and your analysis is well average. I can totally imagine professors not spotting your issues because it is buried in a paragraph, making it luck whether he really understands what you are talking about. Since the difference between a B+/B may be a few points on an exam (but results in a higher ranking difference, like top 20% to top 40%), the difference is less noticeable.

All this is really just my guess. I never looked at everyone's exams or figured out everyone's true intelligence. Seriously though, there is as much luck on law school exams as having an undergrad professor grade your final paper. However, the point remains that you can minimize luck. Is there a noticeable difference between someone who studies 4-6 hours a day and someone who studies 8-12?

Honestly though, keep telling yourself that everyone is gunning 110% for top grades so you can motivate yourself. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck is preparation meets opportunity. Luck is also a spectacular excuse for not doing as well as you hoped.

[anacbanana]

Great post Arrow. Here's a bit of a related question:

Conventional TLS wisdom (which is neither conventional, nor wise IMO) says that lower ranked (read: non-T14) schools can be extremely competitive because 100% of the students at T2's, for example, realize that they have to give the 4.0 effort to have shot at making money after school. It's insane to assume, or even dream of making top 10-15% at a T2, because EVERYBODY is shooting for top 10-15%

My understanding, however, from family members and friends who have been to law school, is that the effort from law students is largely similar to undergrad, i.e., you have your slackers, the middle-of-the-road kids, and then the folks that live in the library, study night and day, etc. The percentages might not be exactly the same (there are certainly more slackers in college than in law school), but the groups are there.

What's your opinion on the percentage of law school students that really give the "top 10%" effort? More specifically, is there a noticable difference between the effort of the top 10% and those that make top 30%, or can it mostly be attributed to "luck?"

Feel free to tweak the numbers to your liking if you must (e.g., "no difference in the 10% and 25% kids, but there's a big difference between top 25% and top 50%...)

I don't think it's luck with the exception of picking classes (my project class was definite bad luck). That said, I don't think there's necessarily a correllation between work put in and outcome. In my experience, very few law students are total slackers (although I'm sure not everyone is living up to their absolute potential), and everyone wants to do well.

Law school exams require a very specific skill set, which I think can be developed, but I think some people work very hard (throughout the semester AND studying for the test) but don't necessarily work smart.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, all else equal (studying, effort, etc.), some people just have "it" and some people don't?

I hope my answer didn't come off as obnoxious or know-it-all. I think that the skill of law school exam taking isn't elusive at all. I think that generally, when people get into an exam setting, there's a brain-dump mentality. People want to spit out all the information they have on the topic, which is how we've all learned to take tests in undergrad, but law school is about providing quality analysis of the law in relation to the questions.

Law school exams are about seeing what the issues are, briefly summarizing the point of law relative to the issue, and then analyzing all the possible outcomes. There are so many issues, sides and elements that I have never understood people who walk out of exams early--you can always write more.

Many people scoff at outlining answers, but I found that quickly writing a list (on my computer, on my exam) of the issues that then served as headings for each issue in the exam was a huge help for me and for my professors. In a 5-hour exam, you're bound to forget something if you don't stay organized.

I also think outlining preparation for exams is a skill, which is facilitated by good note-taking in class (avoiding the internet and not just typing what the prof says verbatim, but instead summarizing and note-taking in a bulleted format). Being well-organized and having the necessary information at hand (my outlines were always massive but had table of contents) is critical to success.

Again, I'm sorry if my posting came off as haughty. I know that I saw first-hand people from the same study group, with the same outline, where one person worked harder all semester and during exams and scored significantly worse than the other, more laid-back person. Hard work does not always equate to good grades.

[Tave]

Other times I motivated myself by appealing to my love for science fiction/fantasy. I remember times where I pretended I was Harry Potter or Raistlin Majere, and that I was studying tomes of magic. I analogized studying law to magic, and thought about all the cool power and intellectual satisfaction it could bring. Silly perhaps, but hey it worked and I continued studying.

This lends itself to super-flame. But people have done weirder shit, and the rest of your post seems quite informative. So..thanks!

Hey, it takes some balls to drop a Dragonlance reference to complete strangers.

[ChattelCat]

Props to Arrow for a job well done. I don't think the caveat of a T2 is necessary though. This is similar to the approach that most of the top 10% percent of my class at my T25 took as well (except, of course, for those people who just "get it" *sigh* if only I was one of those)

[RVP11]

Props to Arrow for a job well done. I don't think the caveat of a T2 is necessary though. This is similar to the approach that most of the top 10% percent of my class at my T25 took as well (except, of course, for those people who just "get it" *sigh* if only I was one of those)

FWIW, it seems to be the consensus on XOXO that LEEWS is FTL on exams at top schools, and most T14 upperclassmen here discourage 0Ls from substantive law prep.

Tons of Arrow's suggestions are mega credited and in accord with what a lot of other successful 1Ls have written, but I've been urged by multiple 2L/3L friends not to bother with any substantive prep and to avoid LEEWS.

[ChattelCat]

Props to Arrow for a job well done. I don't think the caveat of a T2 is necessary though. This is similar to the approach that most of the top 10% percent of my class at my T25 took as well (except, of course, for those people who just "get it" *sigh* if only I was one of those)

FWIW, it seems to be the consensus on XOXO that LEEWS is FTL on exams at top schools, and most T14 upperclassmen here discourage 0Ls from substantive law prep.

Tons of Arrow's suggestions are mega credited and in accord with what a lot of other successful 1Ls have written, but I've been urged by multiple 2L/3L friends not to bother with any substantive prep and to avoid LEEWS.

OOPS - I guess I should have qualified my comment. I was referring specifically to the DURING 1L year approach - and more in terms of dedication/necessary workload.

0L prep I would never advocate and as for LEEWS - "avoid" is a strong word - I don't think it can hurt, but as I've said elsewhere, it's not a miracle worker.

[SoxyPirate]

Props to Arrow for a job well done. I don't think the caveat of a T2 is necessary though. This is similar to the approach that most of the top 10% percent of my class at my T25 took as well (except, of course, for those people who just "get it" *sigh* if only I was one of those)

FWIW, it seems to be the consensus on XOXO that LEEWS is FTL on exams at top schools, and most T14 upperclassmen here discourage 0Ls from substantive law prep.

Tons of Arrow's suggestions are mega credited and in accord with what a lot of other successful 1Ls have written, but I've been urged by multiple 2L/3L friends not to bother with any substantive prep and to avoid LEEWS.

It may not help, but I don't think it can hurt.

Plus, some other kid in my class is probably studying that stuff right now, so I have to keep up! (maybe he/she is only studying because they think I am...oh no.)

[RVP11]

Plus, some other kid in my class is probably studying that stuff right now, so I have to keep up!

Gun away.

[SoxyPirate]

Plus, some other kid in my class is probably studying that stuff right now, so I have to keep up!

Gun away.

quietly.

[LawDog3]

Thanks! If I didn't already know that much of what you say is true, I would be suspicious. But you came through, and I'm going to take a lot of your advice.

[A'nold]

A few more thoughts:

I once asked a property law professor at at t2 school if this myth about subjective luck was true. He pretty much laughed and told me that anyone that says that does not truly understand how law exams work. The breakdown was like this: A's were deserved and were just that much above an A-. He said that there is a substantial gap between an A- and a B+ and that there was a huge, gaping abyss between a B+ and a B-. He said the same thing about a B- to a C.

That professor broke it down something like this: A is about perfect. A- missed a few small points but was generally on topic, organized, and hit on a few bonus kinds of ideas. A B+ missed out on some really obvious scoring opportunities but was an overall good exam. A B really missed some key parts but hit the main points of each fact pattern. B- was obviously struggling but made some decent points and found some facts. C's pretty much missed the point of the fact patterns and were poorly written.

[ChattelCat]

A few more thoughts:

I once asked a property law professor at at t2 school if this myth about subjective luck was true. He pretty much laughed and told me that anyone that says that does not truly understand how law exams work. The breakdown was like this: A's were deserved and were just that much above an A-. He said that there is a substantial gap between an A- and a B+ and that there was a huge, gaping abyss between a B+ and a B-. He said the same thing about a B- to a C.

That professor broke it down something like this: A is about perfect. A- missed a few small points but was generally on topic, organized, and hit on a few bonus kinds of ideas. A B+ missed out on some really obvious scoring opportunities but was an overall good exam. A B really missed some key parts but hit the main points of each fact pattern. B- was obviously struggling but made some decent points and found some facts. C's pretty much missed the point of the fact patterns and were poorly written.

This sounds similar to feedback I got from one of my profs... but I'm pretty sure another one used this method:

[Tave]

A few more thoughts:

I once asked a property law professor at at t2 school if this myth about subjective luck was true. He pretty much laughed and told me that anyone that says that does not truly understand how law exams work. The breakdown was like this: A's were deserved and were just that much above an A-. He said that there is a substantial gap between an A- and a B+ and that there was a huge, gaping abyss between a B+ and a B-. He said the same thing about a B- to a C.

That professor broke it down something like this: A is about perfect. A- missed a few small points but was generally on topic, organized, and hit on a few bonus kinds of ideas. A B+ missed out on some really obvious scoring opportunities but was an overall good exam. A B really missed some key parts but hit the main points of each fact pattern. B- was obviously struggling but made some decent points and found some facts. C's pretty much missed the point of the fact patterns and were poorly written.

This sounds similar to feedback I got from one of my profs... but I'm pretty sure another one used this method:

Haha. No, that's Admissions at Harvard UG.

[RVP11]

I'm not sure how any professor can claim there's no arbitrariness or luck at all in exam grading when their grading is restricted by an enforced curve.

[A'nold]

A few more thoughts:

I once asked a property law professor at at t2 school if this myth about subjective luck was true. He pretty much laughed and told me that anyone that says that does not truly understand how law exams work. The breakdown was like this: A's were deserved and were just that much above an A-. He said that there is a substantial gap between an A- and a B+ and that there was a huge, gaping abyss between a B+ and a B-. He said the same thing about a B- to a C.

That professor broke it down something like this: A is about perfect. A- missed a few small points but was generally on topic, organized, and hit on a few bonus kinds of ideas. A B+ missed out on some really obvious scoring opportunities but was an overall good exam. A B really missed some key parts but hit the main points of each fact pattern. B- was obviously struggling but made some decent points and found some facts. C's pretty much missed the point of the fact patterns and were poorly written.

This sounds similar to feedback I got from one of my profs... but I'm pretty sure another one used this method:

Lol.

[A'nold]

I'm not sure how any professor can claim there's no arbitrariness or luck at all in exam grading when their grading is restricted by an enforced curve.

He did say that there was a tiny, tiny bit of subjectivity but there were clear cut lines between A-/B+, B/B-, B-/C kind of grades. He said that there wasn't a WHOLE lot of difference between an A and A- but he could definitely explain it to the two students if push came to shove because there were at least slightly enough differences to warrant an A- instead of an A, etc.

This guy had been a professor for over 20 years if I remember correctly so he'd obviously seen his fair share of exams. He made sure to point out that there were gigantic canyons between A-/B+ and B+/B- and B-/C.

[SoxyPirate]

I'm not sure how any professor can claim there's no arbitrariness or luck at all in exam grading when their grading is restricted by an enforced curve.

I think you'd be right if, in fact, the exams were so similar that the difference between an A- and a B+ was negligible. This professor left A'nold under the impression that there is a "substantial gap" between the two.

[carrowd3]

Congrats on your success! Thanks for the post.

I can't believe you mentioned Raistlin. He happens to be my favorite fictional character of all time! I will definitely pretend that I'm him.

Quiz time! This picture is the cover of which book? Are those hourglass eyes yet? I smell a black robe coming soon!!

[98234872348]

Congrats on your success! Thanks for the post.

I can't believe you mentioned Raistlin. He happens to be my favorite fictional character of all time! I will definitely pretend that I'm him.

Quiz time! This picture is the cover of which book? Are those hourglass eyes yet? I smell a black robe coming soon!!

Dragons of Spring Dawning?

Thanks for the helpful advice Arrow!