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

[miamiman]

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.

thanks for this.

and lol @ gunner snacks. you've really upped your game these past few months, disco. i dare say you're damn near a certainty for a chuckle.

[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.

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.

These were people AT my own law school making fun of my alleged "meager intellectual capacity," as well as my clothing (can we say high school??). Lovely, cuddly times. However, I have pre-OCI interviews and these people, to my knowledge, do not. Funny how the world works.

Also, more on topic, most of the poeple I know who got good grades, with one glaring exception, studied hard. But those who didn't do well, didn't necessarily not study hard.

[Kohinoor]

in short, it was too much analysis and not enough exposition. the closest analogy I can come up with is when a grade-school math teacher tells you to "show your work." I spent too much time coming up with the right answer and finding what the legal outcome of a given fact pattern would be. So I would spend 2 paragraphs hashing out whether there was a battery and how that would affect the rest of the situation without ever clearly establishing the elements of batter (at least not in the direct way my professors wanted). Legal writing is just different than the type of thesis writing I did in college, and it took me a while to adjust. I wish I had read books on how to write LS exams before my first year, I think it might have helped.

edit to add: you asked how I improved. I took writing-intensive courses in my second year, including an advanced brief writing class. these classes were small and I had lots of feedback about my writing on a regular basis. practicing, talking with profs to find out what I did wrong.

Same. Doing 100% analysis fucked me first term.

[Anonymous User]

What I don't understand is how I won legal writing and oral argument awards for the entire class, and was way below median. Any explanation of that is welcome.

[SuichiKurama]

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.

These were people AT my own law school making fun of my alleged "meager intellectual capacity," as well as my clothing (can we say high school??). Lovely, cuddly times. However, I have pre-OCI interviews and these people, to my knowledge, do not. Funny how the world works.

Also, more on topic, most of the poeple I know who got good grades, with one glaring exception, studied hard. But those who didn't do well, didn't necessarily not study hard.

Please PM what school you attend.

[cavebat2000]

What I don't understand is how I won legal writing and oral argument awards for the entire class, and was way below median. Any explanation of that is welcome.

different skill sets maybe?

[270910]

What I don't understand is how I won legal writing and oral argument awards for the entire class, and was way below median. Any explanation of that is welcome.

different skill sets maybe?

Different skill set, precisely. Failing* your research / methods class is a badge of honor many otherwise high-achieving law students posses.

*usually not actually

[darkarmour]

Please PM what school you attend.

seconded, if anon wants.

[Ty Webb]

FWIW, fffff this thread. Brings up by far my greatest fear heading into this fall.

[Anonymous User]

I'd probably rank myself in about the bottom 10% of workers in terms of amount of time spent studying/caring about law school. Ended up w better than top 5% grades. I put it down to being a good test taker, no more, no less. Certainly wouldn't say I was smarter than the people I'm at school with.

[Anonymous User]

I suspect that the Xeoh method does work, though I never intend to try it because I'm too lazy. I studied probably less than 5 hours a week during 1L and wound up top-25% at a T1 (not T14) school. I attribute my grades almost wholly to good supplements (canned brief books especially--those cut down my overall study time immensely), strong writing ability, a bit of last-minute cramming, and a lot of luck.

Quite frankly, I think that natural ability and intellect determines whether you're going to be top half or bottom half before the game even starts, but beyond that, hard work is what moves the needle. I have no doubt that if I'd been less lazy, I'd be top-10% and not top-25%, but I made that choice and I'm happy to live with the consequences.

[yinz]

So, to recapitulate:
The amount of work one puts in does not directly correspond to exam grade;
Most of [poster's 1L] top 10% worked a significant amount;
Grades are based on luck and randomness;
Luck and randomness are not involved in grade;
Grades are partially determined by luck and randomness;
Innate intelligence determines grades;
Knowing how to take an exam is as important as knowing the material cold;
Grades depend on your professor's Freudian desires and your ability to satisfy them.
Gunners get treats!

[Anonymous User]

What I don't understand is how I won legal writing and oral argument awards for the entire class, and was way below median. Any explanation of that is welcome.

different skill sets maybe?

Different skill set, precisely. Failing* your research / methods class is a badge of honor many otherwise high-achieving law students posses.

*usually not actually

Fair, I guess. Although, it is frustrating to be good at (and enjoy writing and doing) the "practical stuff," and have shitty grades.

[Anonymous User]

I did very poorly my first semester (far below median), and killed my second semester (straight As), both by doing everything I was "supposed" to do according to TLS. The difference was all in my personal mental preparation going into the exams, and the way I approached working with my professors.

In my case it was me just over-thinking what I was doing on the exams, and one of my profs did a really great job helping me understand how to get my exam performance up. I'm actually very glad I did as poorly as I did 1st semester, because it pushed me to really reexamine my performance and work no it. I think the "luck factor" is your personal headspace heading into each exam.

[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

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.

i dont think "adapting to each class" is what someone would have in mind when they say "i studied roughly the same way for all of my classes"...... but i could be wrong

[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.

i dont think "adapting to each class" is what someone would have in mind when they say "i studied roughly the same way for all of my classes"...... but i could be wrong

Possible. It's precisely what people SHOULD be doing though. It gets said a lot around here: every prof, every exam, every class is different.

[edcrane]

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

[270910]

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 anywhere close to this level. Instead, they fail to study strategically and often get carried away with their intellectual curiosity

This seems very accurate.

I'll throw in the caveat that I know many people were led to the stream of studying intelligently but did not drink. They read GTM once, or they took some practice exams, but never really realized the nature of the exam game or extracted themselves from trying to memorize the intricate factual details of cases.

[Anonymous User]

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 anywhere close to this level. Instead, they fail to study strategically and often get carried away with their intellectual curiosity

This seems very accurate.

I'll throw in the caveat that I know many people were led to the stream of studying intelligently but did not drink. They read GTM once, or they took some practice exams, but never really realized the nature of the exam game or extracted themselves from trying to memorize the intricate factual details of cases.

The whole point of this thread is for people who to talk about their own personal experiences, not concoct B.S. theories about what other people must have done wrong (like just being stupid). It's an important distinction, because as someone that didn't do well the 1st semester I can tell you I didn't "get carried away with [my] intellectual curiosity," nor did I just try to memorize all the facts of all the cases.

If you didn't live it yourself, please don't make up stories about people that did.

[edcrane]

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 anywhere close to this level. Instead, they fail to study strategically and often get carried away with their intellectual curiosity

This seems very accurate.

I'll throw in the caveat that I know many people were led to the stream of studying intelligently but did not drink. They read GTM once, or they took some practice exams, but never really realized the nature of the exam game or extracted themselves from trying to memorize the intricate factual details of cases.

The whole point of this thread is for people who to talk about their own personal experiences, not concoct B.S. theories about what other people must have done wrong (like just being stupid). It's an important distinction, because as someone that didn't do well the 1st semester I can tell you I didn't "get carried away with [my] intellectual curiosity," nor did I just try to memorize all the facts of all the cases.

If you didn't live it yourself, please don't make up stories about people that did.

And would you say you studied "smart" during you first semester?

I definitely did not. I put in a lot of hours during my first semester and ended up with around a 3.3 (roughly median at NYU). I changed my strategy and ended up with a 4.1. As I did not work harder and did not become smarter during the second semester, I can only attribute my success to working smarter.

[slider]

FWIW, fffff this thread. Brings up by far my greatest fear heading into this fall.

This.

My Pre-1L worrying that "studying hard is not enough" just moved up a few notches.

[smalltown]

Sometimes you work hard and just aren't as good at understanding and applying the material. That's how it goes in lots of areas of life. No matter how hard you work, there are plenty of people who are better. I busted my ass to be a good athlete and just ended up being mediocre at best. You just do the best you can and make do with your results. My experience.

[DerrickRose]

"Luck" isn't exactly the right word. The thing about 1L is that a final exam for a first-year course is a comically small sample size to demonstrate that you learned everything during the semester.

You read a 1000 page casebook, god knows how much more in supplements, spend 3 classes a week furiously note taking a professor's thoughts, countless more hours talking about the material with your classmates, god knows how long outlining, god knows how long in study groups, and then a final month stretch of constant re-reading, outline re-figuring, and practice exam taking.

Then you walk in, type something on the spot that's usually shorter than TLS's famous "FOB" rant, and its all over.

Its like having a MLB season that's 10 games long. You don't get the chance to show everything you've got.

And of course, everybody says you need to focus on beating the test, rather than the class (which is really good advice), but at the same time, there is so much stuff that COULD be on the test but isn't, and there's always something in the test that wasn't it the class materials.

Its enough to turn one to drink, lemme tell ya.

[edcrane]

... and there's always something in the test that wasn't it the class materials.

Either your professors are douchebags or you haven't been studying that hard.

[prezidentv8]

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

+1. There is a large element of luck involved in law school grades.

While my overall performance has been respectable (top 1/3) there's been times where I've worked hard in a particular class yet scored below median for that class (B- on a B curve).
I worked just as hard at Criminal Law as a did in Contracts, yet got an A+ in contracts and a B- in crim.

Some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you.

Competing against the same group and (I think) working just as hard in each class, with a similar sense of understanding, one grade came out as an A, another as a B-.

So it's either a high degree of luck or I have no idea what I'm doing. And sometimes, it's this:

Sometimes you work hard and just aren't as good at understanding and applying the material. That's how it goes in lots of areas of life. No matter how hard you work, there are plenty of people who are better. I busted my ass to be a good athlete and just ended up being mediocre at best. You just do the best you can and make do with your results. My experience.

Maybe it just amounts to "shit happens."