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

[Billy Batts]

Unless you're just stupid, I don't think it's possible to work smart and hard and yet do poorly. Working smart implies you've figured out how to "game" law school exams. In conjunction with working hard, you're basically talking about maxing out your potential. In my opinion, the vast majority of students are not operating at anywhere close to this level. Instead, they fail to study strategically and often get carried away with their intellectual curiosity

By "gaming" the exams, do you mean developing an understanding of exactly what will and what will not get you the most points on any given question?

[capitalacq]

Note: I know that this is not directly related to legal employment but it's a sensitive topic and I want to give those who answer the option of doing it anonymously.


I have noticed a trend amongst students who have not done well at their respective law schools on this board. It seems like almost none of them worked to their fullest potential by their own admission (ie unlike xeoh etc.) or they made mistakes that many successful students commonly lambaste (like not taking practice exams, relying on memorization, not reading Getting 2 Maybe, waiting until the last minute to outline etc.).

My question is: have any of you worked hard and done everything you were "supposed" to do and come out with poor grades? I know that this isn't something that people are proud of but it has to happen (actually according most of the current and past law students on this board this is what happens to almost everyone) and I'm curious what these students attribute their struggles to (and if they feel like they understand where they went wrong after having finished 1L).

Yeah-- WL admits / those below medians face this a lot, as do transfer students

[vanwinkle]

Note: I know that this is not directly related to legal employment but it's a sensitive topic and I want to give those who answer the option of doing it anonymously.


I have noticed a trend amongst students who have not done well at their respective law schools on this board. It seems like almost none of them worked to their fullest potential by their own admission (ie unlike xeoh etc.) or they made mistakes that many successful students commonly lambaste (like not taking practice exams, relying on memorization, not reading Getting 2 Maybe, waiting until the last minute to outline etc.).

My question is: have any of you worked hard and done everything you were "supposed" to do and come out with poor grades? I know that this isn't something that people are proud of but it has to happen (actually according most of the current and past law students on this board this is what happens to almost everyone) and I'm curious what these students attribute their struggles to (and if they feel like they understand where they went wrong after having finished 1L).

Yeah-- WL admits / those below medians face this a lot, as do transfer students

I don't understand. Are you insinuating there's a correlation between in-off-WL or transfer students and poor performance? Because nothing could be further from the truth, from everything I've gathered over the last couple years.

[vanwinkle]

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?

Learning how to apply law to facts.

Figuring out what that means, and doing it, will yield high grades and law school success more than anything. Those seven words are the key to law school stardom, I assure you.

[Anonymous User]

Note: I know that this is not directly related to legal employment but it's a sensitive topic and I want to give those who answer the option of doing it anonymously.


I have noticed a trend amongst students who have not done well at their respective law schools on this board. It seems like almost none of them worked to their fullest potential by their own admission (ie unlike xeoh etc.) or they made mistakes that many successful students commonly lambaste (like not taking practice exams, relying on memorization, not reading Getting 2 Maybe, waiting until the last minute to outline etc.).

My question is: have any of you worked hard and done everything you were "supposed" to do and come out with poor grades? I know that this isn't something that people are proud of but it has to happen (actually according most of the current and past law students on this board this is what happens to almost everyone) and I'm curious what these students attribute their struggles to (and if they feel like they understand where they went wrong after having finished 1L).

Yeah-- WL admits / those below medians face this a lot, as do transfer students

I don't understand. Are you insinuating there's a correlation between in-off-WL or transfer students and poor performance? Because nothing could be further from the truth, from everything I've gathered over the last couple years.

In-off-WL students are a completely different set of students than transfer students. Transfer students may even have a sort of advantage, in that they wouldn't have been able to transfer up unless they'd already proven that they understand how to do well on exams. WL admits may have difficulties, but probably only at lower-ranked schools. WL admits at highly-ranked schools tend to be highly qualified anyway, and their auto-admit peers probably don't have that much of an advantage over them.

[LoyolaLaw2012]

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?

Learning how to apply law to facts.

Figuring out what that means, and doing it, will yield high grades and law school success more than anything. Those seven words are the key to law school stardom, I assure you.

+1

[270910]

Learning how to apply law to facts.

Figuring out what that means, and doing it, will yield high grades and law school success more than anything. Those seven words are the key to law school stardom, I assure you.

+1

+2 (deleted the quote about T7-T14 law schools. Almost all law school exams are the same, and the same skills are necessary on them).

[keg411]

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.

From talking to law students anecdotally, I think this is where "luck" comes into play. For instance, one and her study partner decided to go over some articles that their crim professor gave out but never discussed and pretty much handed out and brushed off. A large part of the exam ended up relating to the articles and she crushed it and got an A+. If they hadn't just decided to go over that information on a whim, her grade may have turned out differently.

[Anonymous User]

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.

I think both depend on the professor. For most classes you should pay attention and for most classes you should take decent notes; however, there are some where it does not matter at all. Maybe I just had shitty professors, but 1/2 my professors for 1L did not contribute at all to my learning. I did not look at my notes at all for those classes, and I skipped them a lot. Despite this, I still did very well. It's all about the professor. Get the low-down from a smart 2L or 3L who had the prof before.

[LoyolaLaw2012]

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.

I think both depend on the professor. For most classes you should pay attention and for most classes you should take decent notes; however, there are some where it does not matter at all. Maybe I just had shitty professors, but 1/2 my professors for 1L did not contribute at all to my learning. I did not look at my notes at all for those classes, and I skipped them a lot. Despite this, I still did very well. It's all about the professor. Get the low-down from a smart 2L or 3L who had the prof before.

I agree with focusing on a professor's preference. Applying law to facts will definitely be the most important factor in getting the A. Added points will come from finding out your professor's personal views. For example, my Torts professor made a side comment about her frustration with the decision in Katko. Her family had a farm when she was younger, so she experienced problems with theft and vandalism. On the exam, I made sure I pushed a little bit more for what I thought she would like to hear concerning defense of property.

Also, our criminal law professor was the SA. I made sure that I did not push too hard for defenses on his exam, since he was all about prosecutions. Arguing both sides is still important. However, concluding with what your professor wants to see is a plus.

[12262010]

my transcript has two distinct grades. the only grade that was correlated to studying hard/smart was civ pro.

[zanda]

my transcript has two distinct grades. the only grade that was correlated to studying hard/smart was civ pro.

best 'tar ever

[12262010]

my transcript has two distinct grades. the only grade that was correlated to studying hard/smart was civ pro.

best 'tar ever

finally, someone acknowledged my surreally owl.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Note: I know that this is not directly related to legal employment but it's a sensitive topic and I want to give those who answer the option of doing it anonymously.


I have noticed a trend amongst students who have not done well at their respective law schools on this board. It seems like almost none of them worked to their fullest potential by their own admission (ie unlike xeoh etc.) or they made mistakes that many successful students commonly lambaste (like not taking practice exams, relying on memorization, not reading Getting 2 Maybe, waiting until the last minute to outline etc.).

My question is: have any of you worked hard and done everything you were "supposed" to do and come out with poor grades? I know that this isn't something that people are proud of but it has to happen (actually according most of the current and past law students on this board this is what happens to almost everyone) and I'm curious what these students attribute their struggles to (and if they feel like they understand where they went wrong after having finished 1L).

Yeah-- WL admits / those below medians face this a lot, as do transfer students

LOLWUT

Dear God, get your head checked. The last person to get highest honors at UChicago? A transfer student. I'm a transfer student and I'm shooting for it. Half of the K&E scholars are transfer students. Similar stories at other schools. The EIC at Wisconsin during my 1L year was a transfer student (from Cooley, at that).

And before you try to throw it out there: yes, perhaps classes in 2L are slightly less competitive. That said, everything I took was either on the curve or graded below the curve, so eh.

Transfer students have a very distinct advantage over the majority of people in any given law school, certainly not the other way around. To the extent that having an advantage is possible anyway--I still strongly believe that law school is largely a gambler's game.

/facepalm

[Anonymous User]

OP, I didn't read the whole thread, but wanted to offer my two cents as a waitlist admit. I did fine, and I'm happy with my grades, though I don't reside at the very top of my class. My flaw was inconsistency. I could get As, but I could also get a B- and a B. I do attribute my performance to luck, but only insofar as luck affected my state of mind when heading into exams, and how I handled curveballs. On one of my exams, I seriously panicked. Having had the tendency to panic that day, rather than deal calmly with my circumstances, was probably a matter of luck. On my next exam I felt a lot calmer, and performed to a much higher standard. So yes, I believe there will always be an element of luck, even though I'm not bemoaning my fate. I actually did far better than I expected I would do, because I bought into the whole notion that waitlisted kids were in for a rough time ahead. Granted, I haven't seen more than a bunch of anecdotes, but I strongly suspect that isn't true, at least where students are above a certain threshold for entering credentials. (Legends159 once said that anyone capable of a 160+ could handle law school, and I've never seen reason to doubt this.)

[Nom Sawyer]

Note: I know that this is not directly related to legal employment but it's a sensitive topic and I want to give those who answer the option of doing it anonymously.


I have noticed a trend amongst students who have not done well at their respective law schools on this board. It seems like almost none of them worked to their fullest potential by their own admission (ie unlike xeoh etc.) or they made mistakes that many successful students commonly lambaste (like not taking practice exams, relying on memorization, not reading Getting 2 Maybe, waiting until the last minute to outline etc.).

My question is: have any of you worked hard and done everything you were "supposed" to do and come out with poor grades? I know that this isn't something that people are proud of but it has to happen (actually according most of the current and past law students on this board this is what happens to almost everyone) and I'm curious what these students attribute their struggles to (and if they feel like they understand where they went wrong after having finished 1L).

Yeah-- WL admits / those below medians face this a lot, as do transfer students

LOLWUT

Dear God, get your head checked. The last person to get highest honors at UChicago? A transfer student. I'm a transfer student and I'm shooting for it. Half of the K&E scholars are transfer students. Similar stories at other schools. The EIC at Wisconsin during my 1L year was a transfer student (from Cooley, at that).

And before you try to throw it out there: yes, perhaps classes in 2L are slightly less competitive. That said, everything I took was either on the curve or graded below the curve, so eh.

Transfer students have a very distinct advantage over the majority of people in any given law school, certainly not the other way around. To the extent that having an advantage is possible anyway--I still strongly believe that law school is largely a gambler's game.

/facepalm

Sarcasm Fail

[ToTransferOrNot]

I'm going to defend my honor here and say that the failure was on the part of the poster, not me. A lot of (uninformed) people have a sense that transfers do poorly at their new schools--and analogize us to wait-list/medianish people.

It's a sore spot, because I feel like it costs transfer students job/clerkship opportunities. Sorry that I didn't notice the sarcasm.

[Nom Sawyer]

I'm going to defend my honor here and say that the failure was on the part of the poster, not me. A lot of (uninformed) people have a sense that transfers do poorly at their new schools--and analogize us to wait-list/medianish people.

It's a sore spot, because I feel like it costs transfer students job/clerkship opportunities. Sorry that I didn't notice the sarcasm.

haha i understand your feelings and yeah i don't think anybody in an actual hiring position believes waitlist/transfer students are inherently worse then other applicants.

however, I think transfers are often analogized to medianish applicants because its tough to do anything else. I mean you can't say they would have done worse then average but you can't say they would have done better either... i think employers know transfers would have been competitive at their new school, they just don't have enough information to make that decision either way.

[12262010]

I'm going to defend my honor here and say that the failure was on the part of the poster, not me. A lot of (uninformed) people have a sense that transfers do poorly at their new schools--and analogize us to wait-list/medianish people.

It's a sore spot, because I feel like it costs transfer students job/clerkship opportunities. Sorry that I didn't notice the sarcasm.

haha i understand your feelings and yeah i don't think anybody in an actual hiring position believes waitlist/transfer students are inherently worse then other applicants.

however, I think transfers are often analogized to medianish applicants because its tough to do anything else. I mean you can't say they would have done worse then average but you can't say they would have done better either... i think employers know transfers would have been competitive at their new school, they just don't have enough information to make that decision either way.

based on the CLS employment stats I looked at, transfers are treated more like top 1/3.

[Nom Sawyer]

I'm going to defend my honor here and say that the failure was on the part of the poster, not me. A lot of (uninformed) people have a sense that transfers do poorly at their new schools--and analogize us to wait-list/medianish people.

It's a sore spot, because I feel like it costs transfer students job/clerkship opportunities. Sorry that I didn't notice the sarcasm.

haha i understand your feelings and yeah i don't think anybody in an actual hiring position believes waitlist/transfer students are inherently worse then other applicants.

however, I think transfers are often analogized to medianish applicants because its tough to do anything else. I mean you can't say they would have done worse then average but you can't say they would have done better either... i think employers know transfers would have been competitive at their new school, they just don't have enough information to make that decision either way.

based on the CLS employment stats I looked at, transfers are treated more like top 1/3.

really? thats interesting, i haven't looked at a lot of stats, but from the couple of schools I did see it was usually median/ slightly above median for transfers.

hmm why do you think that happens to be so at CLS?

[00TREX00]

-

[deneuve39]

I'm going to defend my honor here and say that the failure was on the part of the poster, not me. A lot of (uninformed) people have a sense that transfers do poorly at their new schools--and analogize us to wait-list/medianish people.

It's a sore spot, because I feel like it costs transfer students job/clerkship opportunities. Sorry that I didn't notice the sarcasm.

haha i understand your feelings and yeah i don't think anybody in an actual hiring position believes waitlist/transfer students are inherently worse then other applicants.

however, I think transfers are often analogized to medianish applicants because its tough to do anything else. I mean you can't say they would have done worse then average but you can't say they would have done better either... i think employers know transfers would have been competitive at their new school, they just don't have enough information to make that decision either way.

based on the CLS employment stats I looked at, transfers are treated more like top 1/3.

really? thats interesting, i haven't looked at a lot of stats, but from the couple of schools I did see it was usually median/ slightly above median for transfers.

hmm why do you think that happens to be so at CLS?

Booya's right, transfers did very well, but they also got offers at less grade-competitive firms (think not Vault 10, and more like V15-50). So, in that sense, they are not in the same shape as non-transfers who are top 30%, who are competitive at every firm save W&C, Wachtell, Munger, and Susman (where you need top 5-10%).

[miamiman]

LOLWUT

Dear God, get your head checked. The last person to get highest honors at UChicago? A transfer student. I'm a transfer student and I'm shooting for it. Half of the K&E scholars are transfer students. Similar stories at other schools. The EIC at Wisconsin during my 1L year was a transfer student (from Cooley, at that).

And before you try to throw it out there: yes, perhaps classes in 2L are slightly less competitive. That said, everything I took was either on the curve or graded below the curve, so eh.

Transfer students have a very distinct advantage over the majority of people in any given law school, certainly not the other way around. To the extent that having an advantage is possible anyway--I still strongly believe that law school is largely a gambler's game.

/facepalm

Transfer students, as evidenced by this poster, are also the biggest douchetards to walk the face of the planet. Nothing, not highest honors earned by staying up all night to grind out As in Fed Courts while your classmates live their lives, nor a house on the French Riviera earned through thirty years of 100-hour weeks and two divorces, nor a lifetime's worth of relentless consumerism without ever once looking at yourself in the mirror, will make up for being a transfer.

Joke, right?

[Anonymous User]

Before say halfway through isn't it too early to be taking practice exams?

yes

[bwv812]

.