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

[dbt]

imo not arbitrary. every person i know who got top grades at geedub worked for it. worked hard. see i thought i worked hard...i read all the e&es, hornbooks, etc, spent late nights when necessary - but there were people who literally spent every waking hour studying. i chose to go to the gym and bar review and other things and got what i deserved. people who put in the time and effort got what they rightly deserved too.

rofl. I got better grades than many people I know who studied harder, I know many people with grades as good or better than me who studied less. That's not it at all.

Same here. Law school really didn't feel fair. I know some people who fit that mold though (worked really hard, did very well, or didn't work at all and did pretty poorly). But for the most part, grades were weird.

[dood]

...

[dood]

...

[SuichiKurama]

imo not arbitrary. every person i know who got top grades at geedub worked for it. worked hard. see i thought i worked hard...i read all the e&es, hornbooks, etc, spent late nights when necessary - but there were people who literally spent every waking hour studying. i chose to go to the gym and bar review and other things and got what i deserved. people who put in the time and effort got what they rightly deserved too.

Before finals arrive what exactly does this mean? Constantly tightening up outlines, going through supplements, and rereading the casebook?

it means doing xeohs plan to the T. i cut too many corners - i.e. skimmed/didn't read cases and relied too much on E&E, did LEEWS but listened at 2X speed, etc

think of a situation.....say you have some free time to go to bar review. what do you do? if u chose anything else besides go to library and study, u are no assured an A grade. true, if u got natural smarts and some luck, u can still pull the A. but the only SURE way is to literally spend every fricken moment of ur day studying. i have two friends at geedubz, one with 3.97, one with 4.XX (for multiple A+s) - any time of the day i go to libraray, they are there studying. 7am? library. 2am? library.

That's sick but about what I expected. Also there seems to be NO consensus amongst you guys about whether grades truly are arbitrary---how do I input a poll?

[john titor]

grades are neither truly arbitrary nor truly systematic.

[Anonymous User]

I am about to head off to law school, and I get more and more worried about whether grades come from luck.

For what it is worth, I have taught at several colleges (undergrad, honors, and grad classes) in various states full time (I know, I'm an old bastard). I do think that if my students were being honest, the ones who got average or lower grades would characterize their grades as just unlucky. It is a kind of coping mechanism, for the most part. But I don't mean to suggest that my exams are identical to law school exams. For example, the IRAC method would work well for my exams, but many advise against it for law school exams.

My hunch is that their is a kernel of truth to the claim that grades in my classes are based on luck, but not in the sense that grades are random for each class (as though I throw the exams on a flight of stairs: those that land on the first step are As, those on the second are Bs, etc.). Rather, grades in my classes are not based on rote memorization, but rather analysis, which is only indirectly taught. In a way of speaking, it requires a knowing how to do something: not a knowing that something. Students who don't have these analytical skills can see no difference between their exams and their superior-performing peers, and so claim that grades are random.

Here's to hoping that law school is something like this and I will kill it . Thanks also to those who have given advice above!

[dood]

...

[SuichiKurama]

im out this bitch cause its 4pm and my judge just said goodbye. but yo, u can disagree, im not saying im 100% right in every situation. but im just saying from my experience and the people around me who did well at geedubz, my shit rings true. peace.

What school do you attend?

[miamiman]

Define doesn't do well. Are we talking about students who exert a tremendous amount of energy / study efficiently and pull median or significantly sub-median?

[Anonymous User]

Law school is a terrible experience because nearly everyone works hard, is smart, yet doesn't do as well as they'd like.

Ok, this is a little off topic, but I have never been in an environment where I felt like people were going out of their way to treat me (and others, i was unfortunately not special) like an idiot either. I openly admit that I am not as smart as most people in my school and probably don't belong there (I honestly believe my LSAT was a fluke, and I shouldn't have been admitted to a T10 school), but the attitude, comments, and talking behind my back I got from other 1Ls was disappointing and a bit unwarranted.

/rant.

[ZXCVBNM]

My grades came out kind of funny: A, A, A, A-; A, A, A, B.

Good overall, but that B is like bottom 20% on our curve while an A is like top 15%. I could attribute it to luck, but I really don't think that is what it was. Truth is, I used the same sort of exam style on all of my exams: heavy on analysis of the legal issues, light on policy. That last professor simply didn't want to read that sort of exam. She wanted a thorough analysis of the policy behind the law, and I didn't give it to her. I worked my hardest in that class, and I worked intelligently (learning the right material), but I didn't deliver the right stuff on exam day.

I think this really highlights the variation in how deep people perceive "working smart" to be. Studying professors and gearing answers toward them specifically is exactly the kind of "smart work" that would have been great here, but my intuition is that most people don't drill that deep.

the most underrated yet most important piece of advice

[Anonymous User]

I studied roughly the same way for all of my classes and got grades that varied quite a bit. Model-exam-good in Ks, Civ Pro and Property, and barely above median in Crim and Torts.

I wound up in the top 5%, and I think that's about 20% raw talent, 30% hard work, and 50% luck. I just think I lacked the raw talent (and possibly a bit of luck, but mostly lacked talent) in Crim and Torts. But I prepared exactly the same way.

[Anonymous User]

I am about to head off to law school, and I get more and more worried about whether grades come from luck.

For what it is worth, I have taught at several colleges (undergrad, honors, and grad classes) in various states full time (I know, I'm an old bastard). I do think that if my students were being honest, the ones who got average or lower grades would characterize their grades as just unlucky. It is a kind of coping mechanism, for the most part. But I don't mean to suggest that my exams are identical to law school exams. For example, the IRAC method would work well for my exams, but many advise against it for law school exams.

My hunch is that their is a kernel of truth to the claim that grades in my classes are based on luck, but not in the sense that grades are random for each class (as though I throw the exams on a flight of stairs: those that land on the first step are As, those on the second are Bs, etc.). Rather, grades in my classes are not based on rote memorization, but rather analysis, which is only indirectly taught. In a way of speaking, it requires a knowing how to do something: not a knowing that something. Students who don't have these analytical skills can see no difference between their exams and their superior-performing peers, and so claim that grades are random.

Here's to hoping that law school is something like this and I will kill it . Thanks also to those who have given advice above!

grades are NOT based on luck. that's why people who get A's usually get lots of them. how can grades be luck when the same students get a's in most or all of their classes. statistically impossible for it to be luck. there is a way to take a law school exam.

[sumus romani]

im out this bitch cause its 4pm and my judge just said goodbye. but yo, u can disagree, im not saying im 100% right in every situation. but im just saying from my experience and the people around me who did well at geedubz, my shit rings true. peace.

What school do you attend?

I assume that geedubz is GW, which is a strong school--around 20th in US News.

[Anonymous User]

imo not arbitrary. every person i know who got top grades at geedub worked for it. worked hard. see i thought i worked hard...i read all the e&es, hornbooks, etc, spent late nights when necessary - but there were people who literally spent every waking hour studying. i chose to go to the gym and bar review and other things and got what i deserved. people who put in the time and effort got what they rightly deserved too.

Before finals arrive what exactly does this mean? Constantly tightening up outlines, going through supplements, and rereading the casebook?

it means doing xeohs plan to the T. i cut too many corners - i.e. skimmed/didn't read cases and relied too much on E&E, did LEEWS but listened at 2X speed, etc

think of a situation.....say you have some free time to go to bar review. what do you do? if u chose anything else besides go to library and study, u are no assured an A grade. true, if u got natural smarts and some luck, u can still pull the A. but the only SURE way is to literally spend every fricken moment of ur day studying. i have two friends at geedubz, one with 3.97, one with 4.XX (for multiple A+s) - any time of the day i go to libraray, they are there studying. 7am? library. 2am? library.

That's sick but about what I expected. Also there seems to be NO consensus amongst you guys about whether grades truly are arbitrary---how do I input a poll?

the best kept secret about law school is that doing well on the exam is not about what you know. it's more about taking the exam properly. a decent amount of studying will get you to the place where you can get an A if you know how to take the exam properly. this will separate you from other students dramatically, especially outside the t14.

[270910]

I am about to head off to law school, and I get more and more worried about whether grades come from luck.

For what it is worth, I have taught at several colleges (undergrad, honors, and grad classes) in various states full time (I know, I'm an old bastard). I do think that if my students were being honest, the ones who got average or lower grades would characterize their grades as just unlucky. It is a kind of coping mechanism, for the most part. But I don't mean to suggest that my exams are identical to law school exams. For example, the IRAC method would work well for my exams, but many advise against it for law school exams.

My hunch is that their is a kernel of truth to the claim that grades in my classes are based on luck, but not in the sense that grades are random for each class (as though I throw the exams on a flight of stairs: those that land on the first step are As, those on the second are Bs, etc.). Rather, grades in my classes are not based on rote memorization, but rather analysis, which is only indirectly taught. In a way of speaking, it requires a knowing how to do something: not a knowing that something. Students who don't have these analytical skills can see no difference between their exams and their superior-performing peers, and so claim that grades are random.

Here's to hoping that law school is something like this and I will kill it . Thanks also to those who have given advice above!

grades are NOT based on luck. that's why people who get A's usually get lots of them. how can grades be luck when the same students get a's in most or all of their classes. statistically impossible for it to be luck. there is a way to take a law school exam.

+1.

And +1 to all of the 'study smart, not hard' crowd.

And a major 'wtf' to dood, who admits to getting mediocre grades but runs around tell everyone to just study like Xeoth or whatever and they'll be fine. That is not the case at all in my experience, and I DO know many people who put in those hours and didn't yield returns.

The MAJOR issue here is that you have to study how to do well on a law school exam, but most people just grind the law until their faces bleed.

That's what's key: If you don't prepare yourself through multiple intelligent iterations of practice tests, careful post mortem analysis, and a deep understanding of how to get points on a law school exam then your grades will largely be based on luck and intuition. Law school doesn't provide any meaningful feedback in most cases with respect to grades, meaning people have to figure it out on their initiative.

(In before rampant abuse of anonymous feature)

[RVP11]

I know a pile of people who worked hard and intelligently and wound up with lackluster 1L grades.

Yup.

And I know plenty who were top half, or even top quarter, who outlined at the last minute or did a variety of other things the "wrong" way.

[Anonymous User]

I studied roughly the same way for all of my classes and got grades that varied quite a bit. Model-exam-good in Ks, Civ Pro and Property, and barely above median in Crim and Torts.

I wound up in the top 5%, and I think that's about 20% raw talent, 30% hard work, and 50% luck. I just think I lacked the raw talent (and possibly a bit of luck, but mostly lacked talent) in Crim and Torts. But I prepared exactly the same way.

i remember reading on another thread (a post written by someone who did very well 1L year) that preparing the exact same way for every class is actually the reason why so many people get A's in some classes and C's in others. he said you have to adapt your strategy depending on your professor, and that idea seems echoed here by many of the above posts

[Anonymous User]

I am about to head off to law school, and I get more and more worried about whether grades come from luck.

For what it is worth, I have taught at several colleges (undergrad, honors, and grad classes) in various states full time (I know, I'm an old bastard). I do think that if my students were being honest, the ones who got average or lower grades would characterize their grades as just unlucky. It is a kind of coping mechanism, for the most part. But I don't mean to suggest that my exams are identical to law school exams. For example, the IRAC method would work well for my exams, but many advise against it for law school exams.

My hunch is that their is a kernel of truth to the claim that grades in my classes are based on luck, but not in the sense that grades are random for each class (as though I throw the exams on a flight of stairs: those that land on the first step are As, those on the second are Bs, etc.). Rather, grades in my classes are not based on rote memorization, but rather analysis, which is only indirectly taught. In a way of speaking, it requires a knowing how to do something: not a knowing that something. Students who don't have these analytical skills can see no difference between their exams and their superior-performing peers, and so claim that grades are random.

Here's to hoping that law school is something like this and I will kill it . Thanks also to those who have given advice above!

grades are NOT based on luck. that's why people who get A's usually get lots of them. how can grades be luck when the same students get a's in most or all of their classes. statistically impossible for it to be luck. there is a way to take a law school exam.

I'm the anon user you quoted. I think that my assertion that there is a kernel of truth to the claim that grades are based on luck, and my explanation of that kernel, are entirely compatible with repeat performances for high and low performers.

[let/them/eat/cake]

Law school is a terrible experience because nearly everyone works hard, is smart, yet doesn't do as well as they'd like.

Ok, this is a little off topic, but I have never been in an environment where I felt like people were going out of their way to treat me (and others, i was unfortunately not special) like an idiot either. I openly admit that I am not as smart as most people in my school and probably don't belong there (I honestly believe my LSAT was a fluke, and I shouldn't have been admitted to a T10 school), but the attitude, comments, and talking behind my back I got from other 1Ls was disappointing and a bit unwarranted.

/rant.

wait, did these people like find out your LS and then talk shit about it/you behind your back? now i really want to know what school this is.

[Blindmelon]

Luck is definitely a factor. I did none of the reading for my property class (not exaggerating) and didn't study until 3 days before and got an A - studied by ass off for another class, got a B.
My grade distribution also varies widely each semester - from A to below the curve and everything in between. I guess some professors love how I write exams, and some hate it. Oh well.

[270910]

I studied roughly the same way for all of my classes and got grades that varied quite a bit. Model-exam-good in Ks, Civ Pro and Property, and barely above median in Crim and Torts.

I wound up in the top 5%, and I think that's about 20% raw talent, 30% hard work, and 50% luck. I just think I lacked the raw talent (and possibly a bit of luck, but mostly lacked talent) in Crim and Torts. But I prepared exactly the same way.

i remember reading on another thread (a post written by someone who did very well 1L year) that preparing the exact same way for every class is actually the reason why so many people get A's in some classes and C's in others. he said you have to adapt your strategy depending on your professor, and that idea seems echoed here by many of the above posts

Well this is just meta. If the way you prep for any class is by adapting to the prof, you're preparing the same way for every class.

[miamiman]

Define doesn't do well. Are we talking about students who exert a tremendous amount of energy / study efficiently and pull median or significantly sub-median?

meekly bumping this for clarification

[SuichiKurama]

Define doesn't do well. Are we talking about students who exert a tremendous amount of energy / study efficiently and pull median or significantly sub-median?

meekly bumping this for clarification

To me both.

[270910]

Define doesn't do well. Are we talking about students who exert a tremendous amount of energy / study efficiently and pull median or significantly sub-median?

meekly bumping this for clarification

To me both.

It's a bit hard to peg because (for obvious reasons) it's much easier to tell who did well. They talk about it, they get on law review, professors toss them gunner snacks in class, etc.

I think for the most part anybody I know who I would say worked both "hard" and "smart" never fell much below median, but I know some who were definitely a little below. Small sample size though.