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

[SuichiKurama]

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).

[270910]

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

[bilbobaggins]

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.

[reverendt]

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.

[john titor]

i guess it happened to me. what's funny is, the classes that I was the most worried about were the ones I worked the hardest on - practice tests, reading old outlines, starting my outline way early, studying extra - were the ones I got killed in. my 3 1L C+'s were in the classes I busted my ass the most in. Really, I think my problem was with my writing style, which I changed over the course of 2L.

[Anonymous User]

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.

Is that luck? Not really. Professors well let onto that sort of thing if you pay careful attention. Not to say that no luck is involved, but rather that it's not just working hard and working smart, but also executing properly on test day.

[SuichiKurama]

Very helpful responses. It's amazing how differently people feel about 1L. I remember reading Wahoo and Xeoh's guide and them all saying that they felt like the whole thing about grades being "luck" based was way overplayed. If people feel comfortable sharing your school range would help as well.

[john titor]

uga

[mbusch22]

i guess it happened to me. what's funny is, the classes that I was the most worried about were the ones I worked the hardest on - practice tests, reading old outlines, starting my outline way early, studying extra - were the ones I got killed in. my 3 1L C+'s were in the classes I busted my ass the most in. Really, I think my problem was with my writing style, which I changed over the course of 2L.

What was wrong with your writing style and how did you improve it?

[d34d9823]

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.

[TCScrutinizer]

OL disclaimer.

Some people "get" concepts better than others. Some people perform well in testing situations. Some people are better than others at understanding and producing the type of work the professor wants. Some people are just more intelligent than others. But no matter to what degree you lack or excel in these traits, you're not going to maximize without working hard.

I don't think that people who work hard and "underachieve" are mostly exceptions to the rule that hard work leads to success. I think it more likely that they are people who would simply have been even worse had they not worked hard to get where they did.

[TCScrutinizer]

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.

Is that luck? Not really. Professors well let onto that sort of thing if you pay careful attention. Not to say that no luck is involved, but rather that it's not just working hard and working smart, but also executing properly on test day.

My father relayed a similar story to me about his experience in law school. He was among the top students in every class except for one in 1L, in which the teacher wanted a work product that was completely different from the other professors and he failed to intuit what it was.

[john titor]

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.

[Anonymous User]

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.

credited. "luck" in LS = reading professors. and thus, not luck at all.

my 1L: A+, A+, A+, A-; A+, A+, A, A, A-

A-'s were the two classes where i couldn't get my head around what the prof wanted.

re: OP's q, hard/smart workers @ median or below either:
1. came in w/ LSAT/UGPA @ or below median
2. are ESL
3. are unwilling to tailor their "brilliance" to situations

[270910]

Very helpful responses. It's amazing how differently people feel about 1L. I remember reading Wahoo and Xeoh's guide and them all saying that they felt like the whole thing about grades being "luck" based was way overplayed. If people feel comfortable sharing your school range would help as well.

Everyone studies very hard in law school. Very few people study noticeably less or differently for their different classes. At most schools, roughly 95% will fail to get As consistently. As a result, the idea that law school grades are arbitrary and/or random is pervasive. They are probably less based on 'luck' than people say, but the results certainly look and feel random to many students.

[Ty Webb]

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.

[Anonymous User]

I worked extremely hard, and did many of things recommended by 2Ls and people on this site (arrow, etc), and still finished well below median.

Honestly, I attribute it to a few things:
1) My classmates are overall naturally smarter than me. People's brains work faster than mine, at least when it comes to legal concepts.
2) I had never done an essay exam before law school.
3) I am EXTREMELY left-brained (read = good at math and nothing else).
4) I think naturally in another language besides English, although I wouldn't say I am ESL since I learned English when I was in grade-school.

Mostly #1, though.

[webbylu87]

re: OP's q, hard/smart workers @ median or below either:
1. came in w/ LSAT/UGPA @ or below median
2. are ESL
3. are unwilling to tailor their "brilliance" to situations

It's funny you say #1 as that's one of my concerns with the school I'm attending. I've asked around quite a bit on both TLS and with other law students and the overall response I've gotten is that while in a more macro way they can see that to be true of those entering with below median stats, generally lower stats don't doom you to below median performance as you might expect.

[SuichiKurama]

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.

[dbt]

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

[270910]

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

+1

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

[270910]

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.

[b1ue]

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

yes