1L below median GPA t20 looking for biglaw Forum

[Yea All Right]

I'm far from a test-taking authority, but I think that it's important to pay very close attention to the facts your professor gives you on an exam. Any sentence/phrase can be significant and link to an issue which you can analyze. Don't miss out on valuable points, make sure to address all legal issues, especially the ones that are easy to miss because they're implied by just a few words (someone chime in if they disagree).

[cowgirl_bebop]

OP here.

Nony I think you are correct. For the first exam, the question was asking about a specific party, so I didn't address a lot of the issues I saw as I thought that it was not related (1page worth of facts). My friend who aced the exam addressed it regardless.
Second exam on civil procedure I went too heavily into rules and very little facts from the actual prompt. Torts I'm not sure what went wrong.

I will definitely do more than one practice this time around. I will do all of them.

Only thing I can think of to do differently is to go more in depth into analysis. Does anyone else see a flaw in my approach from what I have said so far?

I don't think it is necessary to do all of the practice exams, but you should do enough to get a good idea of what the professor wants. As other posters have suggested, you should meet with your past professors to see where you could have done better. Sometimes the issue is that you didn't go into depth enough with your analysis, and sometimes it's as simple as not delivering your answer in a "format" that the professor likes. Practice exams with sample answers will give you a pretty good idea of what to shoot for.

As far as not addressing issues, many times the key is to simply acknowledge that they are there, even if they seem tangental or without merit. If you are not addressing an entire page worth of facts chances are you're missing something.

[Anonymous User]

I would recommend doing ALL of the prof's available practice exams, or at least issue spot ALL of them. It's a lot of work, but it's worth it. I was a student at UCLAw, and for Bar classes in which the prof had made more than 4/5 past exams available (I did every single one), I never got a grade below A-. Whereas for Bar classes in which the prof had less than 5 practice exams (sometimes 0!), I received B's.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.
Point very well taken about the facts, for con law the question asked about a specific party, but we had a whole page about the President s foreign actions, but since it wasn't the party in question, I didn't address it at all(I was supposed to).
Should have known better.
As far as taking all the practice exams, I'm already used to be studying all day, taking a couple more hours to do all of the ones available isn't an issue for me, I should have done that instead last time, and it seems that's very useful from what you guys are telling me.

Anon above, or anyone else for that matter, any other exam taking tip? I started reading getting to maybe, and it seems good, but I'm afraid of following it completely. Any suggestions? Does anyone use or has used a completely different approach?

I truly want to thank everyone who posted here so far. It really does suck to devote yourself so much into something and get minimal returns, and getting your(mine) dreams crushed is pretty hard, but I'm trying to stay optimistic, and I think I have it in me to bring it up this next semester if only I learn from my mistakes.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Not sure why you're suspicious of getting to maybe? It's pretty generally applicable to issue spotters. Certainly use your judgment as to whether it's what a specific prof wants, based on looking at their exams.

And I don't think you need to add exams on top of all you listed, I would do exams instead of some of the things you listed (like, with civ pro I get why Freer is so helpful, but generally I would only use supplements to clarify things that are confusing, not as a general requirement).

There's also no need to memorize your outlines.

[BmoreOrLess]

I'm far from a test-taking authority, but I think that it's important to pay very close attention to the facts your professor gives you on an exam. Any sentence/phrase can be significant and link to an issue which you can analyze. Don't miss out on valuable points, make sure to address all legal issues, especially the ones that are easy to miss because they're implied by just a few words (someone chime in if they disagree).

As always with exams, it all depends on your professor and knowing their exams. I wholeheartedly agree with this in general for exams, but i got killed on this (and my professor specifically told me this after the fact) on my torts exam because he was looking for deeper analysis on the broader issues and hitting all the small issues just ate up time.

[Yea All Right]

I'm far from a test-taking authority, but I think that it's important to pay very close attention to the facts your professor gives you on an exam. Any sentence/phrase can be significant and link to an issue which you can analyze. Don't miss out on valuable points, make sure to address all legal issues, especially the ones that are easy to miss because they're implied by just a few words (someone chime in if they disagree).

As always with exams, it all depends on your professor and knowing their exams. I wholeheartedly agree with this in general for exams, but i got killed on this (and my professor specifically told me this after the fact) on my torts exam because he was looking for deeper analysis on the broader issues and hitting all the small issues just ate up time.

Ah true, I think we would agree that your mileage will always vary in regards to all of the advice being posted here. It's best to ask 2Ls/3Ls who had that professor (and maybe even the professor themselves) what the professor likes on their exams and how to be successful on them.

[Anonymous User]

OP here.

Thank you guys for the comments. I will try to follow the advice given.

Nony, I figured I would have to do something with the extra time. But I see what you mean. As far as Getting to maybe, I was a little hesitant, mostly because I am afraid of any methods right now, but it does seem pretty good, although, I would change some areas based on what my professors have said.

[Glasseyes]

If at all possible, talk to your professors at some point before the exam to try and figure out exactly what they're looking for. Some profs won't talk about the exam when your classmates aren't around, but figure out a way to get them to open up about how they grade. These are a few key points to clarify:

-BOTH SIDES OR NOT: Do they want you to argue both sides? Getting To Maybe advocates always doing this, but some professors would rather you draw a conclusion and stick to it. If an issue could come out either way, you mention both possibilities then look to policy justifications for why one outcome might be preferable. Often a professor won't come right out and say which they prefer, but if they provide any kind of best answers or model answers to past exams, figure out what they like by studying those. A related question is whether a professor thinks his or her questions actually have right answers; if they expect you to draw a correct conclusion, you need to focus harder on getting the analysis right (or getting your analysis to mirror your professor's thoughts on the subject). Other professors will accept any conclusion so long as your reasoning holds up to some degree of scrutiny.

-WIDE/SHALLOW v. DEEP/NARROW: Are you better off hitting every microscopic issue that might be buried, or should you focus on the bigger issues and go into deeper analysis? Some professors won't really clarify what they want in this regard, in which case they probably want a combination of both. But if they prefer one over the other, this is hugely important. Also worth noting: professors usually think the way they grade exams is the only correct way to do it, yet I've never had a professor that graded the same way as another one.

-FACTS: Is every fact included for a reason, or do they throw in a lot of red herrings? Some professors never throw in red herrings; others love to try and trip you up. If you ask some nuanced questions in advance of the exam (and take lots of practice exams for sure), you can often figure out their approach. Typically if they don't believe in using red herrings, they'll usually just tell you that in advance; the reverse is less likely to be true.

-CLARITY: How much do they value clarity? Some professors are sticklers for well-organized, well-written exams. Others only care about the points that you're hitting. Figuring this out in advance can help you allocate your time appropriately.

-MISCELLANEA: We had one (awful) 1L professor who made a big deal about the importance of creative presentation. One kid in our class claims he didn't study at all but threw in some clip art and crushed the exam. And I've had a few profs who insisted that you carefully play the role assigned to you in the question. So if the question says you're a supreme court clerk writing a memo to Scalia or whoever, they wanted you to write the exam completely in character. Other profs hate that stuff.

-Edited to add: CITATIONS: ask how your professor likes things cited in an exam. Almost no one will ask you to do bluebook cites, but some profs appreciate different levels of formality. It's also great if you can figure out if they actually give points for citing to the correct case, which means you should focus more on that. Some professors only give points for analysis/applying-the-rules and never for stating rules or citing cases; others give points for rule statements and accurate citations. Ask in advance, and prosper.

[BmoreOrLess]

And I've had a few profs who insisted that you carefully play the role assigned to you in the question. So if the question says you're a supreme court clerk writing a memo to Scalia or whoever, they wanted you to write the exam completely in character. Other profs hate that stuff.

Also had this, and hilariously that professor was easily the least organized/professional professor I've ever had by a good margin. Law profs are (generally) the worst.

[Anonymous User]

exactly my situation last year.

slightly below median, at UT/Vandy/UCLA, had extensive AND relevant past WO. Had 4 call backs and several Spring OCI interviews. In short, got f**ked by my GPA.

Did all that I could and got a diversity fellowship then split between court and biglaw.

It can be done. Just remember to do whatever it takes!! You can do it man!

[Anonymous User]

OP Here.

Wow, glasseye, thank you so much for this post. It's incredibility helpful!!

^ I have been trying diversity ones. A lot of them require top 25%.... I'm still applying regardless, but seems very hard considering my grades.

[Anonymous User]

Hi OP here.

So I did a bit better this semester. I got two A-. But then two Bs and one B-(lowest grade yet). The two As were in hard classes like property. My GPA went up to 3.2, still below the curve. What could I do now?

Please help guys... Thank you.

[Londonbear]

All you can do now is mass mail, practice interviewing, network, and bid smartly (there's so much advice on this in the forum). If you strike out 2L OCI, you should try to improve your grades significantly and then repeat everything in the first sentence.