The "I'm just not good at law school exams" defense/Bringing up grade in an interview Forum

[Anonymous User]

I worked really fucking hard last year and did laughably poorly. I mean, I think people would be shocked if they knew my grades. I'm always on top of my shit, I study in a group and never felt behind, it really doesn't make any sense to me why I did poorly since I worked hard and I knew the material. I know people who studied much less than I did and did significantly better, hell I know a kid who knew NOTHING about this class (I read through his outline) and even he did better than me!

But I guess what's done is done and I'm trying to movie forward. My only explanation is that I can't do law school exams (even though I read the books and even did some graded mock exams on which I did fine according to professor feedback). Maybe it's nerves? Whatever. Any i'm wondering what TCR is on the "I can't do law school exams" defense. I have some decent evidence to back this up (I got discretionary A+s in two classes with non traditional exams, the lowest grade in all my other exams), so I'm hoping to weave a narrative on that.

"Look these classes allowed me to demonstrate my ability to understand and apply the law in a non-exam setting and I got the highest grade in the class, so while I don't think I deserve an A+ in all my classes I do know that I understood the material as well as everyone else in my study group and I worked as hard as everyone else in my study group, I just wasn't able to perform well on test day." Something like that. Thoughts?

Also, what's TCR on bringing up your grades in an interview? People say don't do it unless they do, but I'd rather address the elephant (especially in interviews where I would generally have little/no shot with my grades) than just let them humor me for 20 minutes and toss my resume in the trash when I leave. I thought I could bring it up when the ask the "how'd you like law school?" question, since any answer other than "I think it's archaic and the grading system is bullshit" would be disingenuous.

[Young Marino]

Although I completely understand you're point, I don't think you should bring it up. People don't want to hear about your shortcomings and your explanation for it the first time they interview you. Do you have prior legal experience on your resume? Did you join any organizations that reflect your interest in a particular field of law? If so I would sell them on that and why those experiences make you a valuable asset to the firm. You should focus on other things that you think make you competitive for this job. Your grades shouldn't define you

[Anonymous User]

I think you need to take a hard look at what you're doing wrong for law school exams. It seems like you're working really hard, but something is going wrong that can be fixed. Being bad at taking exams as a defense in undergrad is more acceptable than in law school, because firms care so much about grades. Like the other advice given, really focus on selling the other aspects of your resume. Have an answer prepared if the interviewer brings it up.

[DELG]

Your goal in every interview is to never, ever talk about grades. If they bring it up, it's because you're sunk. If you bring it up, you just sunk yourself.

Air all this out with a therapist, not an interviewer.

Find something other than law school to talk about. Your summer internship. Conversations you've had with practitioners. What you love about sailing. Anything, anything else.

[Anonymous User]

Your goal in every interview is to never, ever talk about grades. If they bring it up, it's because you're sunk. If you bring it up, you just sunk yourself.

I talked to a biglaw partner in the midwest who does interviews at his alma mater. He told me that if you have a steep upward trajectory between semesters in your grades you should definitely bring it up in an interview and point out your improvement, even if averaged out your grades are median. He made it a point to tell me this when I asked him for interview advice. Is he an anomaly then?

[pancakes3]

Were your A+'s in legal writing?

[lawschoolftw]

Were your A+'s in legal writing?

This. If so, I wouldn't make excused about "being a bad exam taker," but instead that your performance in your LRW class is indicative of your abilities.

That said, OP read some of the success in law school posts and articles that are floating around TLS. Your post reads as someone who just doesn't quite get that doing well in law school is much different than doing well in UG and isn't about following conventional methods (i.e., "I did all the reading and worked in my study group!"). I think you need to continue to work as hard, but rethink the way you're prepping your courses.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Do you have a steep upward trajectory? You didn't mention that, and your proposed explanation doesn't reference that. Saying something about learning from the mistakes of your first semester is very different from saying you can't do law school exams.

(I agree about prepping. Working hard and knowing the material isn't really what law school exams are about.)

[Anonymous User]

Your goal in every interview is to never, ever talk about grades. If they bring it up, it's because you're sunk. If you bring it up, you just sunk yourself.

I talked to a biglaw partner in the midwest who does interviews at his alma mater. He told me that if you have a steep upward trajectory between semesters in your grades you should definitely bring it up in an interview and point out your improvement, even if averaged out your grades are median. He made it a point to tell me this when I asked him for interview advice. Is he an anomaly then?

Different anon than OP:

Is this CR? I understand that 1) talking about improving one semester to the next IF ASKED is way better than saying your bad at law school exams and 2) if you don't have a steep increase, never bring up your grades unless they do, but what if you DO have a steep increase and they DON'T bring up grades or the increase? Should you make a point of bringing up the upward trajectory and pointing it out?

[Anonymous User]

Were your A+'s in legal writing?

No. Our legal writing class isn't graded.

Do you have a steep upward trajectory?

No. I had this conversation back before I had received all of my 2nd semester grades and had only received the As. My other two grades ended up being shitty, so his advice became irrelevant. I do have an upward trajectory, but it went from being really bad to being less bad.

That said, OP read some of the success in law school posts and articles that are floating around TLS. Your post reads as someone who just doesn't quite get that doing well in law school is much different than doing well in UG and isn't about following conventional methods (i.e., "I did all the reading and worked in my study group!"). I think you need to continue to work as hard, but rethink the way you're prepping your courses.

I did read everything on here about law school success. I read every book and every article, then I re-read them after my terrible first semester. This whole experience has really turned me off law school. If I don't get biglaw I'll probably drop out and if I do get biglaw I'm probably not going to put much effort into school anymore.

[Anonymous User]

I did read everything on here about law school success. I read every book and every article, then I re-read them after my terrible first semester. This whole experience has really turned me off law school. If I don't get biglaw I'll probably drop out and if I do get biglaw I'm probably not going to put much effort into school anymore.

This is 100% what happened to me (including the re-reading part). Also went over my exam answers with all of my professors. Everyone in law school knows that LS exams are very different from UG. You can be super motivated, and read GTM/LEEWS 100 times, but I think that some people just aren't wired for law school exams. People with good/great grades just don't understand.

You shouldn't bring up your grades in your interviews, though.

[fxb3]

I'm a V20 interviewer and have done at least 80 screening interviews and 50-75 callback interviews over my years at the firm. I have never seen someone successfully bring up grades like this. (I've never seen someone try at the callback stage, because they don't make it that far.)

Whether you're gunning for a V10, a regional firm, or some smalllaw firm, the principle is the same. Show, don't tell. Want to show them that you really do know about law and are engaged with the possibility of practicing in this profession? Great, then have a kick-ass way of explaining why. Let your substantive discussion of the firm, your interests, etc. be your way of showing them that you do have what it takes to practice there. Trying to be defensive about grades is always, 100% of the time, eyeroll inducing.

Imagine your interviewer talking to the firm's Recruiting Committee if you're an on-the-fence candidate:

Conversation 1: "But Bill, her grades are atrocious. Is she an imbecile?" "Well, she talked at length about how law school grading is a sham and how only her LRW instructor really understood her true talents, and I'm convinced. Those other professors probably just didn't understand her exams. I didn't really get a chance to talk to her about substantive stuff beyond that."

Conversation 2: "But Bill, her grades are atrocious. Is she an imbecile?" "You know, I noticed that, too, and was ready to coast through the interview and auto-ding her. But she really knows her stuff about financial institutions regulation and is really passionate about it. I think we should give her a chance."

Good luck. It's an uphill climb for you. You need to get a job, yes, but the much bigger goal has to be to figure out why you aren't testing well. Law school grading is arbitrary and BS, maybe, but it's the ship you've tied yourself too so you have to play that game. Whether you strike out for a job next summer, you have to find a way to get A's next year. (Obviously I have no idea what the problem is in your case, but a lot of the time law students try to write with too much complexity or flair. Maybe the rockstar students who get their professors to call Judge Kozinski on their behalf do something different, but a solid B+/A- exam answers the question in a totally straightforward way, no creativity, no reinterpreting the question asked. So think about whether you've tried to be too "clever" in a way that just doesn't work when profs spend 5 minutes grading each exam.)

[timmyd]

Whats your school range? I mean at some schools you can totally fuck up and you still will get the benefit of the doubt. Law school exams are really just about embracing the ambiguity for the most part in my experience. Knowing the law is a prerequisite but not sufficient. The most crucial thing is using the facts, this is more true on essay exams (I've had complete multiple choice exams where knowing the law was where you made your money, and when I say knowing the law, I mean knowing it backwards and forwards with all the nuances.) As you get into your second and third year it should become easier. The most crucial thing you can do in my opinion is to understand the exam as soon as the class starts (i.e. is it MC, essay, combination?) and study accordingly. I study differently on MC exams than for essay exams and made good grades. I don't really know how I made good grades a lot of the times because my papers weren't brilliant or anything, just know the rules and understand the arguments the parties will likely make. Your conclusion is basically irrelevant. Good luck. Because you are on TLS, I assume you go to a good if not great school. If this is the case, its not the end of the world. If you go to anything but a T1 school I would just drop out unless your passion for law is true and you just want to practice, no matter the pay or substantive nature of the work.

[fxb3]

Your goal in every interview is to never, ever talk about grades. If they bring it up, it's because you're sunk. If you bring it up, you just sunk yourself.

I talked to a biglaw partner in the midwest who does interviews at his alma mater. He told me that if you have a steep upward trajectory between semesters in your grades you should definitely bring it up in an interview and point out your improvement, even if averaged out your grades are median. He made it a point to tell me this when I asked him for interview advice. Is he an anomaly then?

Different anon than OP:

Is this CR? I understand that 1) talking about improving one semester to the next IF ASKED is way better than saying your bad at law school exams and 2) if you don't have a steep increase, never bring up your grades unless they do, but what if you DO have a steep increase and they DON'T bring up grades or the increase? Should you make a point of bringing up the upward trajectory and pointing it out?

I generally wouldn't bring up a steep upward trajectory. If it really is steep, they'll notice and conclude whatever they want. Some people conclude that it's a good thing and speaks well of you, others just assume that it's nice but you'll eventually revert back to the mean. Because different interviewers treat upward trajectory differently, bringing it up could be risky. (You don't want them sneering after you leave, "he thinks that B to B+ is really an upward trajectory!?" even if, given the steepness of the curve, it really might be.)

That said, you might subtly hint at the point when they ask what you think about law school. Something like, "I was shocked at how different it was from undergrad. It really is a totally different way of learning. But after the first semester, I started to get the hang of it and am really enjoying it." The key is a very light touch that doesn't explicitly mention grades.

In general, they have your transcript and there's not much you can do about it. My operating assumption is that everyone has a bad day sometimes, everyone has life stressors that crop up, and that the ones you tell me about aren't any worse than the ones that other people aren't telling me about.

[N.P.H.]

DELG is spot-on.

I had a particularly bad grade and I developed what I considered to be the best TLS-advised defense possible to it (I owned the grade, explained why it wasn't representative of me, how I addressed/fixed it and how it wouldn't happen again, etc.) and it still sunk me in interviews where it came up.

Just be as personable as possible and try to come off as confident nonetheless.

[Anonymous User]

Whats your school range? .

MVP.

Just be as personable as possible and try to come off as confident nonetheless.

Yeah I like to think I'm charming and a good interviewer (or atleast that's the feedback I've gotten), so I guess I'll just ride out OCI and see what happens.

[trebekismyhero]

If you're at MVP you still have a shot at some firms. Just bid smart and definitely don't bring up your grades. Not the equivalent of being at the bottom of my class, but I had a really bad grade in a 1L class that I thought would sink me at a good chunk of firms. It lowered my GPA, but it never came up in my interviews. If I had brought it up, it would have been awkward and I probably would have gotten dinged at the firm I am at now because I was still below their avg GPA. Instead we just talked about my resume and the firm.

You probably are out at V50 and the like, but if you are personable and have a solid resume, you still have a shot at OCI.

[Mad Hatter]

A bit of advice for you and other OCIers:

If there is one overarching piece of advice for OCI, it's this: play up your strengths and hide your weaknesses at every opportunity. If your personality/work experience/some other factor (e.g., law review write-on) are good but your grades are bad, then your job is to convince the firm to ignore your grades focus on the positives. Conversely, if you have good grades but shitty personality/work experience etc., your goal is to get them to focus on your grades. Applicability of this advice runs the gamut from resume formatting (emphasize interesting WE) to bidding (choose fewer fit-based firms if you are a shitty interviewer) to when to schedule callbacks (if you're awkward, don't pick the two-hour lunchtime slot).

Needless to say, mentioning your poor grades at the outset is, as many have pointed out above, a huge mistake. No explanation will excuse them in the interviewers mind. If you make it obvious that you let your grades define your desirability as a candidate, the interviewer has no choice but to follow suit.

[los blancos]

I think that some people just aren't wired for law school exams. People with good/great grades just don't understand..

I think the far more likely probability is that they're just bullshit and a straight up lottery. The only reason anyone pays attention to grades is that it's a self-perpetuating system and there are too many of us.

[rpupkin]

Your goal in every interview is to never, ever talk about grades. If they bring it up, it's because you're sunk. If you bring it up, you just sunk yourself.

I talked to a biglaw partner in the midwest who does interviews at his alma mater. He told me that if you have a steep upward trajectory between semesters in your grades you should definitely bring it up in an interview and point out your improvement, even if averaged out your grades are median. He made it a point to tell me this when I asked him for interview advice. Is he an anomaly then?

I think so. If an interviewer really cares about an upward grade trajectory, then they'll look at your transcript. You don't need to tell them about it.

I strongly agree with those advising you not to bring up your grades unless asked about them. Whether done offensively ("notice my excellent grades!") or defensively ("let me explain why my grades are bad"), mentioning grades always seems to go poorly for the interviewee.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't have a spiel prepared in advance that explains your grades. No doubt you'll get at an interviewer or two who will ask about them. But don't bring up your grades spontaneously.

[papercut]

I think that some people just aren't wired for law school exams. People with good/great grades just don't understand..

I think the far more likely probability is that they're just bullshit and a straight up lottery. The only reason anyone pays attention to grades is that it's a self-perpetuating system and there are too many of us.

This is a bad attitude to have about anything, especially law school exams. You can prep for the exams.

IMO, reading everything on the syllabus is not the best way to use your time, and may hurt you.

Reducing the class to a short, manageable list of issues, takeaways, and rules and then taking practice exams as early as you can manage while ignoring the bulk of the assigned reading is a much better use of your time.

You also need to spend time trying to understand why your professor thinks the model answers are so good, and then give him what he wants to see.

It's not easy, and it does take a lot of work, but you can prep for law school exams.

[lavarman84]

I think that some people just aren't wired for law school exams. People with good/great grades just don't understand..

I think the far more likely probability is that they're just bullshit and a straight up lottery. The only reason anyone pays attention to grades is that it's a self-perpetuating system and there are too many of us.

If that were true, the same people wouldn't be doing well on nearly every exam. It's not a lottery. It's a game. Some people know how to play the game. Others don't.

[Anonymous User]

How bad is bad? I got pretty terrible grades (sub 3.0 first semester, and 3.2 second semester for a final gpa of 3.1). I'm at CCN and I probably will just try not to bring up my grades at all. Try to solidify your resume and interview and have a good story of what type of work you're interested in and how everything on your resume relates to that.

[Desert Fox]

[papercut]

It's clearly not random each time you take an exam. However, I'm pretty convinced it tests arbitrary skills. It favors quick, shallow analysis over slower, deep analysis. And it's not a conscious decision to do that. It's just the limits of the crappy test format.

This is definitely true for some professors, and definitely wrong for others. You should be able to tell which camp your professor falls into based on the model answers. There's no really one way to take an exam, other than your professor's way.