Students who work hard and smart during 1L yet don't do well Forum

[ToTransferOrNot]

2.) If your prof has that "participation" element, and sees your grade before you do, then it's not blind grading, period. People who think otherwise are silly.

It isn't black and white though. The professor will grade exam #A56, then see that it was an A. Then, if the person who wrote exam #A56 was a twat, he isn't going to downgrade the person to a C+, you know?

The point of the blind grading system is to eliminate subconscious bias, and it does so perfectly. It does not eliminate conscious bias, meaning a professor is more than welcome to after the fact dock or award points based on things like participation, twatitude, bribery, etc. The system attains that which is desired.

This is true, aside from the circumstances where profs end up recognizing an exam number (exam numbers stay the same throughout your law school career) or writing style--which, admittedly, is a very small aspect.

Not at all schools. We get new numbers each semester.

Huh, odd. That makes sense, though--apparently my two schools are just backwards on this point.

[270910]

"Blind grading" to me means the professor does not know your grade in the class until it is submitted. Any other system allows for bias that makes the process not blind, and arbitrary.

I don't know about EVERY school, but at ours professors DO NOT know your grades until you tell them. They submit your participation score, and the registrar does the math to come up with your final grade. I would imagine most schools operate with a similar system, and that system is BLIND.

Yep. And once again, many schools (including mine) assign new blind grading codes every quarter/semester.

And again, I reiterate as precisely as possible: Blind grading is designed to eliminate subconscious bias in grading, it is not designed to eliminate a professor's discretion based on what goes on in class.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up top of the thread, a poster said (in so many words) that a professor's subconscious impression may affect grading. That is impossible because of established blind grading. That conversation is done, sealed, and objectively over.

Whether or not you think allowing for conscious after the fact adjustment of blind grading defeats the purpose is a debate you all are welcome to engage in, but it is totally immaterial to what the above poster said and to my response. This, law students / TLS at large, is why we can't have nice things.

[SuichiKurama]

A few observations from 1L and this thread:

1.) The two classes I felt the worst about the night before the exam were the two highest grades. I think as someone said earlier, if you actually like a subject or feel confident, your "intellectual curiosity" gets the better of you. I felt totally on top of Crim all semester. Loved the class, participated often, got A+ on the sample exam...then median on the real thing a few days later. Walked out of the exam feeling like I crushed it.

2.) If your prof has that "participation" element, and sees your grade before you do, then it's not blind grading, period. People who think otherwise are silly.

3.) Graded legal writing SUCKS. I can say with no hesitation or reservation that if the school you are considering attending gives letter grades for legal writing, take one of two actions: A.) Give up ALL of your free time and LIVE in your writing prof's office during office hours or B.) Change schools. There are no other options. It was unbelievably frustrating to significantly improve my grades in core courses from fall to spring and then have my GPA torpedoed by legal writing. No class is more ridden with favoritism, confusion, and inanity. Furthermore, it DOESN'T MATTER. You will learn to do legal writing exactly ONE way - the way your employer wants it. My legal writing at my summer employment is TOTALLY different from how we were taught.

4.) There are plenty of anecdotes both ways. I know people who "studied smart" who are below median, and I know people who partied all week, skipped class, and took the exam off a borrowed outline they got during exam week who got As. Incoming 0Ls should absolve themselves of the romance that your class performance, participation, or study habits really matter all that much. They don't. If you write the exam that professor is looking for on that day, you win the game. Sample exams don't matter either - one prof all but admitted in the exam review post-grades that the samples were red herrings.



The people who scoff at the notion that law school grades are largely arbitrary are either in the top 10% or the bottom 10% and both of those populations are pretty much pre-destined before you ever walk in the door. For the middle 80%, law school grades (at least 1L) are largely arbitrary. Sorry.


Me: dead median, T14. LSAT was dead median, GPA was slightly below median.

The number one reason I chose to ED to UVA instead of Duke.

[09042014]

How much of a factor is participation?

[270910]

How much of a factor is participation?

In most classes, it is explicitly 0%. In some few classes, it's a threat - profs reserve the right to bump a grade up or down. Most who have this policy admit to using it less frequently than once per year, it's a manner of retaining some control over attendance and class conduct. A very, very, very small percentage of professors explicitly award or deduct points and assign a portion of the total grade to participation. I heard of 2 or 3 classes out of the dozens of 1L professors at my school who had such a policy. Even then, it tends to not matter - most people participate a similar amount, most people have similar participation scores, and the curve winds up mostly based on the exam anyway.

[bwv812]

.

[xyzbca]

How much of a factor is participation?

As has been stated by others, most professors only use it as a threat.

I had a professor during 1L that reserved the right to deduct up to 10% of a student's grade for failing to be prepared if called upon. We came to a portion of our textbook which he explicitly stated we did not need to read nor would it be covered in the exam. I skipped the 20 some odd pages.

He called on me to discuss those pages and since I was in no position to BS my way through it I just told him I didn't read it. The prof made some snarky comment about that fact that my lack of preparation would be noted at grade time and moved on to the next student. This hurt pretty badly as I am that dork who reads every single word of assigned reading.

I made an appointment with his TA who later bailed me out by reminding the professor that he had specifically told the class not to read that portion of the casebook. The professor sent me an email advising me that while he was disappointed by my lack of preparation, it would be unfair to hold it against me. He then made it clear that there would be no mercy shown if I was called upon again.

Two weeks later the guy started class off by calling on me and continued to grill me for the entire 80 minute class session. He sent me a follow up email advising me that I had "acquitted" myself nicely and there would be no participation penalty assessed against me.

The lessons here:

1. Be prepared.
2. If you aren't prepared, try to BS your way through it.

[edcrane]

How much of a factor is participation?

At NYU, I think there's a hard cap (for lectures) of half a grade (B to B+, for example), but many professors either apply the bump very, very broadly (e.g., if you raise your hand three times in class, you get the bump) or not at all. The school makes the professors explain the participation component of grading by the second class, so people who dislike it can drop the class.

Anyway, I've only raised my hand two or three times during 1L and 2L and it doesn't seem to have affected me appreciably.

[Anonymous User]

the class i did the best in (i.e. con law, which i got an A in), I studied the least for. I honestly did the first day of reading and then never opened up my case book again. My point is that law school grades are grossly unpredictable and are in large part based on factors outside of one's control.

[09042014]

Thanks guys.

[Oban]

How much of a factor is participation?

As has been stated by others, most professors only use it as a threat.

I had a professor during 1L that reserved the right to deduct up to 10% of a student's grade for failing to be prepared if called upon. We came to a portion of our textbook which he explicitly stated we did not need to read nor would it be covered in the exam. I skipped the 20 some odd pages.

He called on me to discuss those pages and since I was in no position to BS my way through it I just told him I didn't read it. The prof made some snarky comment about that fact that my lack of preparation would be noted at grade time and moved on to the next student. This hurt pretty badly as I am that dork who reads every single word of assigned reading.

I made an appointment with his TA who later bailed me out by reminding the professor that he had specifically told the class not to read that portion of the casebook. The professor sent me an email advising me that while he was disappointed by my lack of preparation, it would be unfair to hold it against me. He then made it clear that there would be no mercy shown if I was called upon again.

Two weeks later the guy started class off by calling on me and continued to grill me for the entire 80 minute class session. He sent me a follow up email advising me that I had "acquitted" myself nicely and there would be no participation penalty assessed against me.

The lessons here:

1. Be prepared.
2. If you aren't prepared, try to BS your way through it.

That's some PLS style horror story there

[steve_nash]

I would agree with the "luck" factor to the extent that it makes the difference between getting an A- instead of an A, or landing the one prof who doesn't give out A+'s. However, most of the people at the top of my class continued to stay at the top. Consistent repeat performance does not, in my opinion, indicate luck.

[Anonymous User]

I would agree with the "luck" factor to the extent that it makes the difference between getting an A- instead of an A, or landing the one prof who doesn't give out A+'s. However, most of the people at the top of my class continued to stay at the top. Consistent repeat performance does not, in my opinion, indicate luck.

+1

Although grading may be arbitrary in the strictest sense of the word, it's definitely not luck, or random. Randomness does not often repeat itself. My grades were remarkably consistent between the first and second semester.

Fall/Spring of each class as follows (B- curve, no A+s are given, I'm ranked in the top 10):
A/A-
A-/A-
B+/B+
B+/B-
B/B
0/A (only had this class second semester)

As you can see, my grades were pretty consistent given the wide spread of our curve. My GPA was essentially the same between fall and spring.

Did I work harder than my fellow students? I worked hard, but I doubt I worked appreciably harder. Smarter, probably, but not harder. I did all the readings. In class, I didn't surf the net (much). I paid attention to the professor - not just what s/he said but how s/he explained answers. I took copious, but targeted, notes.

Many of my classmates were still briefing cases in October (what a waste of time and resources). Briefing cases past the first week is the ANTITHESIS of working smart unless it really helps you for some reason. Also, LRW, which is graded at my school, took up an excessive amount of time for a lot of people. I did enough work to make sure I was turning in passable material, but I didn't waste an inordinate amount of time on it, and I made sure not to neglect my doctrinal courses. I think LRW will absorb as much time as people want to give it and with very little reward. It was a huge time sink and stumbling block for a lot of my classmates.

Some people were in the library until 7 or 8 every night, but usually they weren't hardcore studying. Your effectiveness and intensity wane after a while, and eventually you're just Facebooking and drooling rather than getting things done. I did my work, got out of there, and went home. I spent almost zero time with supplements - this was probably a mistake that just happened not to hurt me that much this year. Also, many of my classmates would post on FB how hard they were studying or post pictures of their stacks of supplements or study space in the library, but I didn't let it bother me because I knew I was doing what I needed to be doing. Very few of those people made law review.

My classmates don't talk about grades that much, but I haven't heard of any real disconnects between results and how smart/hard the individual worked. The people who failed out were pretty much the slackers or maybe people who shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. People tended to get out of it what they put into it, at least at my school (a T3). I can't speak for the T14 study madness.

[2009 Prospective]

I would agree with the "luck" factor to the extent that it makes the difference between getting an A- instead of an A, or landing the one prof who doesn't give out A+'s. However, most of the people at the top of my class continued to stay at the top. Consistent repeat performance does not, in my opinion, indicate luck.

+1

Although grading may be arbitrary in the strictest sense of the word, it's definitely not luck, or random. Randomness does not often repeat itself. My grades were remarkably consistent between the first and second semester.

Fall/Spring of each class as follows (B- curve, no A+s are given, I'm ranked in the top 10):
A/A-
A-/A-
B+/B+
B+/B-
B/B
0/A (only had this class second semester)

As you can see, my grades were pretty consistent given the wide spread of our curve. My GPA was essentially the same between fall and spring.

Did I work harder than my fellow students? I worked hard, but I doubt I worked appreciably harder. Smarter, probably, but not harder. I did all the readings. In class, I didn't surf the net (much). I paid attention to the professor - not just what s/he said but how s/he explained answers. I took copious, but targeted, notes.

Many of my classmates were still briefing cases in October (what a waste of time and resources). Briefing cases past the first week is the ANTITHESIS of working smart unless it really helps you for some reason. Also, LRW, which is graded at my school, took up an excessive amount of time for a lot of people. I did enough work to make sure I was turning in passable material, but I didn't waste an inordinate amount of time on it, and I made sure not to neglect my doctrinal courses. I think LRW will absorb as much time as people want to give it and with very little reward. It was a huge time sink and stumbling block for a lot of my classmates.

Some people were in the library until 7 or 8 every night, but usually they weren't hardcore studying. Your effectiveness and intensity wane after a while, and eventually you're just Facebooking and drooling rather than getting things done. I did my work, got out of there, and went home. I spent almost zero time with supplements - this was probably a mistake that just happened not to hurt me that much this year. Also, many of my classmates would post on FB how hard they were studying or post pictures of their stacks of supplements or study space in the library, but I didn't let it bother me because I knew I was doing what I needed to be doing. Very few of those people made law review.

My classmates don't talk about grades that much, but I haven't heard of any real disconnects between results and how smart/hard the individual worked. The people who failed out were pretty much the slackers or maybe people who shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. People tended to get out of it what they put into it, at least at my school (a T3). I can't speak for the T14 study madness.

This is more or less credited at the T2 school I attended.

[Anonymous User]

All my studying is done on weekends now. Definitely was inefficient my first year, but others have let off the throttle since 1L. Easier curves and less competion definitely help.

[Blindmelon]

All my studying is done on weekends now. Definitely was inefficient my first year, but others have let off the throttle since 1L. Easier curves and less competion definitely help.

Random Anecdote - one of my professors said that in the past year hes seen a big increase in the quality of exams since prior years and its making finals harder to distinguish. His big advice to someone on how he could have hit the curve or above was was to just work on his writing style. Said he said everything that needed to be said, just that others said it better. Yikes. I think the economy has everyone freaked and everyone is studying like crazy.

[Action Jackson]

All my studying is done on weekends now. Definitely was inefficient my first year, but others have let off the throttle since 1L. Easier curves and less competion definitely help.

Random Anecdote - one of my professors said that in the past year hes seen a big increase in the quality of exams since prior years and its making finals harder to distinguish. His big advice to someone on how he could have hit the curve or above was was to just work on his writing style. Said he said everything that needed to be said, just that others said it better. Yikes. I think the economy has everyone freaked and everyone is studying like crazy.

It's great to know that we're being judged not by what we say but how we say it, huh?

[afterglow99]

The single best piece of advise I would give for outperforming your peers is stay focused at all times in class. Don't zone out EVER and take copious amounts of notes. I was one of a few people that never brought a laptop to class and thus wasn't distracted by internet bs. I used almost zero supplements, didn't do practice exams (I would just read over old exams the night or two before the test), didn't do study groups, and studied for finals by reviewing my class and reading notes veryy carefully. I finished 1L with a 3.8.

I also read all the cases and had a pretty good idea of the rough facts from many of them off the top of my head. Even for profs who said cases didn't matter much for their exams, the more fact patterns you can apply to a legal doctrine the easier it will be to analogize and distinguish questions on your exam to past precedent.

[prezidentv8]

The single best piece of advise I would give for outperforming your peers is stay focused at all times in class. Don't zone out EVER and take copious amounts of notes. I was one of a few people that never brought a laptop to class and thus wasn't distracted by internet bs. I used almost zero supplements, didn't do practice exams (I would just read over old exams the night or two before the test), didn't do study groups, and studied for finals by reviewing my class and reading notes veryy carefully.

I also read all the cases and had a pretty good idea of the rough facts from many of them off the top of my head. Even for profs who said cases didn't matter much for their exams, the more fact patterns you can apply to a legal doctrine the easier it will be to analogize and distinguish questions on your exam to past precedent.

My worst grades were in the two classes where laptops were not permitted.

I don't know if that says something about me, my peers, or both, or anyone...but that happened.

[270910]

The single best piece of advise I would give for outperforming your peers is stay focused at all times in class. Don't zone out EVER and take copious amounts of notes. I was one of a few people that never brought a laptop to class and thus wasn't distracted by internet bs. I used almost zero supplements, didn't do practice exams (I would just read over old exams the night or two before the test), didn't do study groups, and studied for finals by reviewing my class and reading notes veryy carefully. I finished 1L with a 3.8.

I also read all the cases and had a pretty good idea of the rough facts from many of them off the top of my head. Even for profs who said cases didn't matter much for their exams, the more fact patterns you can apply to a legal doctrine the easier it will be to analogize and distinguish questions on your exam to past precedent.

Spent large amounts of time doing shit on the internet or playing games in several classes that I got good grades in. I'd say paying attention to the important parts of class is definitely important, however.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or be contrary for the sake of being contrary- it's just worth pointing out that after a year of law school one person might say XYZ is the key to success! and it's worth mentioning for 0Ls reading that many people never do XYZ and still do well (as you mention with study groups).

[Anonymous User]

Did I work harder than my fellow students? I worked hard, but I doubt I worked appreciably harder. Smarter, probably, but not harder. I did all the readings. In class, I didn't surf the net (much). I paid attention to the professor - not just what s/he said but how s/he explained answers. I took copious, but targeted, notes.

Many of my classmates were still briefing cases in October (what a waste of time and resources). Briefing cases past the first week is the ANTITHESIS of working smart unless it really helps you for some reason. Also, LRW, which is graded at my school, took up an excessive amount of time for a lot of people. I did enough work to make sure I was turning in passable material, but I didn't waste an inordinate amount of time on it, and I made sure not to neglect my doctrinal courses. I think LRW will absorb as much time as people want to give it and with very little reward. It was a huge time sink and stumbling block for a lot of my classmates.

Some people were in the library until 7 or 8 every night, but usually they weren't hardcore studying. Your effectiveness and intensity wane after a while, and eventually you're just Facebooking and drooling rather than getting things done. I did my work, got out of there, and went home. I spent almost zero time with supplements - this was probably a mistake that just happened not to hurt me that much this year. Also, many of my classmates would post on FB how hard they were studying or post pictures of their stacks of supplements or study space in the library, but I didn't let it bother me because I knew I was doing what I needed to be doing. Very few of those people made law review.

My classmates don't talk about grades that much, but I haven't heard of any real disconnects between results and how smart/hard the individual worked. The people who failed out were pretty much the slackers or maybe people who shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. People tended to get out of it what they put into it, at least at my school (a T3). I can't speak for the T14 study madness.

I had a similar experience at a T2. I never briefed a case, didn't make my own outline except for 2 classes where I couldn't find outlines from 2Ls, and never really touched supplements. I ended up top 10% for 1L. Tough to say what was the secret to my success, because it's difficult to weigh innate ability and writing style.

Personally, I did some trial and error based upon things that worked for others. If I felt like something was a waste of time, I didn't do it and I tailored my studying to the professors. As a rule, I read the cases, attended class and paid attention. I pretty much ignored legal writing assignments unless they were being turned in and even then I didn't kill myself on them; though, I have strong writing skills.

During the semester, I just read the cases but really prepare for class. I could get by when called upon but I really didn't stress over not being 100% on point since participation did not matter. It quickly became apparent that it was helpful to listen to some professors, and not so helpful to listen to others. I paid attention more for the ones where it was helpful, and let myself surf the web for the most part with the unhelpful ones, but I did listen for the important parts. Not listening was a gamble. My intuition was pretty spot on, but it's tough to say how important lectures will be on the exam until afterward. For one class, I missed probably 30% of the classes because the professor was terrible. It ended up being my best grade, but I got lucky in the sense that my intuition was on point. My hours were usually 9-6:30 M-TH, cut out around 4pm on Friday and a light half day on Sat or Sun.

About 3-4 weeks before exams, I started going over outlines that I got from upperclassmen who did really well 1L. I got lucky that I happened to befriend a couple of them by chance (wasn't gunning). For the couple of classes I needed to make my own outlines I had them done 3 weeks before the exam. During those weeks leading up I just reviewed the outlines, took practice exams and talked it over with a couple of classmates who I knew were smart, ambitious and seemed to have similar learning styles. Otherwise, I never set foot in a study group. I usually started around 9-10 and ended around 8. I will admit that I took ADD meds the entire year. I was prescribed them before law school, but rarely took them until 1L and have stopped taking them since. I think they did help me though, but don't think they are a godsend to everyone (only those that legitimately need them).

I always got about 8 hours of sleep and let myself sleep in or cut out early when I felt that I needed the rest. I still had a social life because that helped me relax. I probably hung out with friends 2-3 times per week with 1 night of wildness, except I cut back the socializing and drinking about 3-4 weeks before finals. I lived with my girlfriend so we hung out every night. It's all about keeping a steady course and listening to what works for you. Other than that, you can't control it. Some people will never be top 30%, never mind top 10%, no matter how smart/hard they work.

That said, from my observations the classmates that I saw in the library pulling long hours like I was around finals and had put time in during the year did the best. A few of us in the top 10% got by on ability. I did not work as hard as most of the people in top 10%, but most pulled slightly longer hours, and did whatever it took. A few even borderline cheated (inserting questionable materials into their outlines).

I know plenty of people that worked pretty hard and ended up with average grades. My main study partner was girl that I studied with for every exam was about the same intelligence level as me, thought similarly, worked the same hours and in the same style. By the end we knew the material the same for every exam. Overall our GPA average was almost dead on, but there were some classes I got a B and she got an A or vice versa. No real rhyme or reason, other than being a little more on point on the test day I guess. Get sleep before the exam day and try to avoid artificial means of relaxation (booze, meds, etc.) because they can make you groggy on test day.

EDIT: final note, I took careful notes, but did not find them to be terribly helpful in preparing. Do not write down every word the professors says. The act of taking notes was more to help solidify my understanding. I'm not sure that I even looked over all of my notes before exam time. And I didn't think zoning out was a problem for some classes (it helped me relax and hit the books hard after class), though as I mentioned earlier it is a gamble.

[BobSacamano]

I really don't think there's a whole lot of luck involved in exam grading. If you write about something that is or could be relevant, you'll get points. Perhaps your professor won't give as many points for stuff that he wasn't really looking for, but you'll be fine. However, I don't think there's much discussion about the element of luck in the exams themselves. Your classes are going to cover a LOT of material. And while you may be a very bright, focused student who is on top of the course all semester, there will probably be areas of the course that you just "get" more than others topics that you studied more than others. Your exams likely will not cover every little thing you learned in the class. So, there's a chance a significant portion of the exam will cover a topic that you're not quite as comfortable with as some other topic, or in the alternative, a portion of the exam will be right in your wheelhouse. And of course, your classmates may be experts on the topic you're weak in or total dolts in the area you find to be a piece of cake. Likely you will be on both sides of the coin.

In one class that got an A+ in about half of the exam was a bit of a curveball. Not once in the professor's past exams (there were at least 10) did he test this subject. For whatever reason I had a really good handle on this topic and totally crushed it (hence the A+).

Then I got punched in the face by Con Law second semester. Basically one giant issue and that issue was definitely not my strong suit. Oh well, it happens.

[manutd]

For those who attend t14 law schools, especially those between # 14 and # 7, what are in your view the habits that tend to yield highest grades?

In relation to my previous post with regards to class participation and student overall attitude: I did not mean to say that such factors are the main reason behind highest grades, not even that they are significantly important. I meant to say that the perception proffesors have of students may affect grades, and that it is thus important to take them in account, something which was not done in previous posts. Even when professors cannot see names some posts have noted that there may be events in which class participation bumps a grade from a B + to an A or from an A to a B -. A post even noted that the user was part of the class where participation was 30 % of the overall grade.

[thexfactor]

+1

Dont EVER GO on FB or TWITTER during class!

The single best piece of advise I would give for outperforming your peers is stay focused at all times in class. Don't zone out EVER and take copious amounts of notes. I was one of a few people that never brought a laptop to class and thus wasn't distracted by internet bs. I used almost zero supplements, didn't do practice exams (I would just read over old exams the night or two before the test), didn't do study groups, and studied for finals by reviewing my class and reading notes veryy carefully. I finished 1L with a 3.8.

I also read all the cases and had a pretty good idea of the rough facts from many of them off the top of my head. Even for profs who said cases didn't matter much for their exams, the more fact patterns you can apply to a legal doctrine the easier it will be to analogize and distinguish questions on your exam to past precedent.

[helfer snooterbagon]

I agree with the not zoning-out part. I don't necessarily agree with the taking of copious notes. It is easy to fall inot the trap where you are simply acting as a stenographer without actually understanding what is going on. Best way, if possible, is to get an outline ahead of time, and flesh it out as the course progresses.