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

[bwv812]

.

[deneuve39]

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%).

Top 30% at CLS is competitive everywhere else? Shit.

And CLS breaks down its stats into transfers and non-transfers?

CLS has a doc they keep in the Career Services Officer that lists the number of offers given to those who are Kent/Stone out of total offers; they also have a column that lists the percentage of offers to Kent/Stone out of total "adjusted for transfers." So by comparing the two percentages, you can see which firms took a lot of transfers. My impression, and I haven't actually looked super closely at all the data, was that the super prestigious V10ish firms gave only a couple offers to transfers (and sometimes none at all).

And yeah I would say top 30% is competitive everywhere else, maybe Cravath prefers higher Stone, but I know someone at S&C (non-URM, no work experience) who was, in her words, "barely Stone." A lot of the bigger firms are giving 20-30 offers, and top 30% is only about 130 people, all of whom are looking at different markets and some of whom aren't even doing EIP.

[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.

I don't believe that transfers are treated as median students, because this makes no sense. The dude who transfers into GULC with top 5% from random TTTT is treated the same as the chick from WUSTL who was top 10%? Don't think so.

Also, medianish Mich students aren't competitive for clerkships, and Mich places well under 20% of its class in clerkships... but ~20% of Mich transfers get clerkships (see http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestu ... dents.aspx).

In fairness, by the time you're in to clerkship season, you have a year of grades under your belt. I have no doubt that I would no longer be treated as a median student... because I'm not a median student.

That said, for OCI.. I don't know, you probably can't make any equivalencies. Like I said, we had one transfer get in to every major Chicago firm aside from Skadden or Latham (I can't remember which, at this point)--and Skadden/Latham don't have a huge presence in Chicago. But then, many transfers only got one offer (I'm not the only one in that situation,) and several had to go outside of OCI to find anything. I imagine work experience might have meant more for transfers? I think another reason the transfers may have gotten a bit rocked was that many of us focused on the Chicago market, and the Chicago market got curbstomped in general last year.

Anyway, to stop de-railing the thread: I know several people from my 1L school who worked incredibly hard, and I'd like to think they worked smart (they did the same things I did, just more of it and more diligently). They didn't do particularly well--though none of them are sub-median, either (some are dead-on at median, though).

[somewhatwayward]

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

best 'tar ever

+180....love the surreally owl

[Anonymous User]

One thing that always shines through in threads about luck/grades is that I've never heard a student say he got top 10%/15% grades because of "luck". Those students always seem to feel as if their work habits/techniques/ability produced those grades.

Almost across the board, it seems that the "law school grades are arbitrary" crowd is comprised of people looking to ascribe a digestible explanation to their failures.

2 cents.

Although this post is extremely harsh, the bolded is basically what I'm getting at and it's a trend that I have definitely noticed.

I was top 15% following my first year. I attribute it to a lot of luck (and non-luck). So there you go.

[zanda]

One thing that always shines through in threads about luck/grades is that I've never heard a student say he got top 10%/15% grades because of "luck". Those students always seem to feel as if their work habits/techniques/ability produced those grades.

Almost across the board, it seems that the "law school grades are arbitrary" crowd is comprised of people looking to ascribe a digestible explanation to their failures.

2 cents.

Although this post is extremely harsh, the bolded is basically what I'm getting at and it's a trend that I have definitely noticed.

I was top 15% following my first year. I attribute it to a lot of luck (and non-luck). So there you go.

Also, nothing in Ty Webb's post cuts against the opposite explanation of his alleged data (to which you provide a counterexample), that those who get top grades want to make it about some ability they have or some work ethic they showed, not realizing that others worked just as hard and just as smart and did not get the same results. My guess? It's probably some combination of the two.

[edcrane]

One thing that always shines through in threads about luck/grades is that I've never heard a student say he got top 10%/15% grades because of "luck". Those students always seem to feel as if their work habits/techniques/ability produced those grades.

Almost across the board, it seems that the "law school grades are arbitrary" crowd is comprised of people looking to ascribe a digestible explanation to their failures.

2 cents.

Although this post is extremely harsh, the bolded is basically what I'm getting at and it's a trend that I have definitely noticed.

I was top 15% following my first year. I attribute it to a lot of luck (and non-luck). So there you go.

Also, nothing in Ty Webb's post cuts against the opposite explanation of his alleged data (to which you provide a counterexample), that those who get top grades want to make it about some ability they have or some work ethic they showed, not realizing that others worked just as hard and just as smart and did not get the same results. My guess? It's probably some combination of the two.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much more than a rudimentary grasp of combinatorics to understand why "luck" is a largely unsatisfactory explanation of academic success or failure in law school.

[zanda]

2 cents.

Although this post is extremely harsh, the bolded is basically what I'm getting at and it's a trend that I have definitely noticed.

I was top 15% following my first year. I attribute it to a lot of luck (and non-luck). So there you go.

Also, nothing in Ty Webb's post cuts against the opposite explanation of his alleged data (to which you provide a counterexample), that those who get top grades want to make it about some ability they have or some work ethic they showed, not realizing that others worked just as hard and just as smart and did not get the same results. My guess? It's probably some combination of the two.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much more than a rudimentary grasp of combinatorics to understand why "luck" is a largely unsatisfactory explanation of academic success or failure in law school.[/quote]
This is true, but a separate argument, and at that only an argument that "luck" isn't the only thing at play, rather than an argument that it doesn't play a decent role.

[Always Credited]

Luck can play a role in anything at any time - that doesn't mean the results wouldn't have been the same without it, or that every student wasn't the beneficiary of some luck in one capacity or another.

[edcrane]

This is true, but a separate argument, and at that only an argument that "luck" isn't the only thing at play, rather than an argument that it doesn't play a decent role.

I'm not sure what a "decent role" means. But it is pretty clear that the same reasoning is applicable in gradations (admittedly, requiring slightly more complicated math), and that luck almost certainly cannot explain a majority of the variation of law school grades.

I think that the misconception here is that "not luck" implies intelligence or lawyering ability. In fact, there may be a lot of unimpressive non-random factors that explain a great deal of the variation in grades.

[270910]

On the other hand, it doesn't take much more than a rudimentary grasp of combinatorics to understand why "luck" is a largely unsatisfactory explanation of academic success or failure in law school.

Quoted for truth + style.

[Matthies]

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).

I dunno, I had a very different experience than many others on here. I did not do ANY of those things in law school, hell I did not take notes or pay attention in class. I'm not supper smart or anything, I just knew by now what worked for me, and that was careful reading, taking reading notes and looking up stuff that I did not understand and trying to teach it to myself. Some of my friends did everything you list, and some did not, seems to me, at least for me, once I figured out what worked best for ME, everything was pretty easy after that. First semester I was all b+ on a B curve, after I stopped doing everything the way everyone else told me to do it, I got great grades and ended up 13th in my class while playing WoW during lectures. Figure out what works best for you as quick as you can, then do that. The actualy law parts not that hard, figuring out how to do the law school part the right way for you, is the hard part.

[Blindmelon]

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).

I dunno, I had a very different experience than many others on here. I did not do ANY of those things in law school, hell I did not take notes or pay attention in class. I'm not supper smart or anything, I just knew by now what worked for me, and that was careful reading, taking reading notes and looking up stuff that I did not understand and trying to teach it to myself. Some of my friends did everything you list, and some did not, seems to me, at least for me, once I figured out what worked best for ME, everything was pretty easy after that. First semester I was all b+ on a B curve, after I stopped doing everything the way everyone else told me to do it, I got great grades and ended up 13th in my class while playing WoW during lectures. Figure out what works best for you as quick as you can, then do that. The actualy law parts not that hard, figuring out how to do the law school part the right way for you, is the hard part.

Amen. I actually found the hardest part is being confident enough to not allow others to influence how you study. For me, just thinking through things and tweaking the hypo and re-thinking it is what works. Outlining, etc. doesn't do much for me, but everyone talks constantly about their outlines and blah blah. It drove me to outline for 2 of my finals 2nd semester - they turned out to be my worst 2 grades.

[prezidentv8]

Not sure if I mentioned it in this thread yet, but the variables that seemed explanatory regarding higher or lower grades were:

-time available for exam
-whether class was allowed to use laptops for note taking
-presence of non-issue spotters on exam

[sperry]

Law school exams can be pretty bogus. Plus your classmates are likely really intelligent and hardworking too, and someone has to make the poor grades. The difference between an A- and B in most of my classes was incredibly slim, like 2 questions out of 35 on a multiple choice section. Some people really blew the exam out of the water, and like 70% did basically the same work, yet can't receive the same grades.

[NotMyRealName09]

I have to say that in my experience, the most intelligent people tend to get the best grades.

So, accept it. Life is harsh, and 90% of the people in your class were wrong about being in the top 10%.

"I actually found the hardest part is being confident enough to not allow others to influence how you study."

This is the absolute most crucial point. You're going to see people going fricken CRAZY, with the E&E books, flashcards, 90 page outlines, siting in the library all day, looking stressed the hell out. When you see them, your instinct is to be like "holy crap, I am NOT doing enough!" Well, what you don't know is that person struggles to get Bs, and is wasting their time on the minutiae.

Of course, this is easy for me to say, because I kicked ass. I'm sure there were people just like me who thought they had it figured out, and those first Bs must have hurt.

LAST TIP: For any law beginning law student - spend a fair amount of time at the beginning of law school studying HOW to study. Don't just do what you did in undergrad. It won't work.

[jawsthegreat]

[wiscohopeful]

I have to say that in my experience, the most intelligent people tend to get the best grades.

So, accept it. Life is harsh, and 90% of the people in your class were wrong about being in the top 10%.

"I actually found the hardest part is being confident enough to not allow others to influence how you study."

This is the absolute most crucial point. You're going to see people going fricken CRAZY, with the E&E books, flashcards, 90 page outlines, siting in the library all day, looking stressed the hell out. When you see them, your instinct is to be like "holy crap, I am NOT doing enough!" Well, what you don't know is that person struggles to get Bs, and is wasting their time on the minutiae.

Of course, this is easy for me to say, because I kicked ass. I'm sure there were people just like me who thought they had it figured out, and those first Bs must have hurt.

LAST TIP: For any law beginning law student - spend a fair amount of time at the beginning of law school studying HOW to study. Don't just do what you did in undergrad. It won't work.

+1 My experience was eerily similar. I would also add that while studying like you did in undergrad will get you C's, study groups (if you did them in undergrad) can be immensely helpful. Just be ware of the free riders and know that you can't just sit around reading together...you have to actively talk through every topic. We spent half the time of people who were living in the library with EE, flashbooks, and 5 different versions of an outline and did very well.

Also to note an earlier post...there is always going to be some element of luck. Some professors dig the way your write and others are kinda weirded out by it. I spent equal time on Contracts and Crim Law and got the Cali and a B respectively...its all about what the teacher thinks they taught you that semester...

[edcrane]

Also to note an earlier post...there is always going to be some element of luck. Some professors dig the way your write and others are kinda weirded out by it. I spent equal time on Contracts and Crim Law and got the Cali and a B respectively...its all about what the teacher thinks they taught you that semester...

There is an element of "luck" (i.e., things that affect your grade that are out of your control), but writing style should not be part of it. Students who know how to game LS grades adapt their exam writing styles to each professor. A much better example of luck is class composition. Particularly after 1L, it's possible to get stuck in a class with a disproportionate number of top-of-the-class students, which can make it a bit harder to get to top of the grading heap.

[edcrane]

I have to say that in my experience, the most intelligent people tend to get the best grades.

How do you know who the "most intelligent people" are?

[doyleoil]

I have to say that in my experience, the most intelligent people tend to get the best grades.

How do you know who the "most intelligent people" are?

Read his post:

1) Kicked ass on exams, therefore
2) Most intelligent, therefore
3) the Most intelligent get the best grades

Rock solid.

[truffleshuffle]

LAST TIP: For any law beginning law student - spend a fair amount of time at the beginning of law school studying HOW to study. Don't just do what you did in undergrad. It won't work.

Well how did you study during undergrad? Did you not read? procrastinate and cram? What exactly are you doing differently?

[prezidentv8]

LAST TIP: For any law beginning law student - spend a fair amount of time at the beginning of law school studying HOW to study. Don't just do what you did in undergrad. It won't work.

Well how did you study during undergrad? Did you not read? procrastinate and cram? What exactly are you doing differently?

The only possible answer to this is practice exams.

The material itself is not that friggin hard and any pretty much any technique works just fine for that sort of thing.

[PDaddy]

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).

No matter what, talent has to influence performance at some time. There must be many students who do all of the right things, but just don't have the stuff. Not all smart, hard-working people are meant to be lawyers.

I have to say that in my experience, the most intelligent people tend to get the best grades.

How do you know who the "most intelligent people" are?

Read his post:

1) Kicked ass on exams, therefore
2) Most intelligent, therefore
3) the Most intelligent get the best grades

Rock solid.

I believe that the people most suited for the study of law get the best grades. There are freakishly brilliant students who won't do all that well in law school, b/c they just don't know how to think the way a law student or lawyer thinks. It's about orientation, not just aptitude. Many of these people should be doctors, teachers, artists, or maybe scientists.

[12262010]

I have to say that in my experience, the most intelligent people tend to get the best grades.

How do you know who the "most intelligent people" are?

Read his post:

1) Kicked ass on exams, therefore
2) Most intelligent, therefore
3) the Most intelligent get the best grades

Rock solid.

MSU law. Lulz.