For those OL's prepping, what are you using to Prep? Forum

[apper123]

There is probably some modest correlation between prepping and getting better grades. A few people here have totally rocked exams after doing so.

correlation = causation???

[cavebat2000]

Mass Effect 2 has really helped me understand the intricacies of international, interplanetary, and intergallactic politics.

I thought 0L prep had been debunked? Some 2L or 3L on these boards said it was like going on a scavenger hunt before you know what your looking for.

[Lane Meyer]

If you're intent on doing any work before 1L (and you've seen a lot of smart people in this thread advise against it), I would stay away from any substantive material (i.e., trying to learn torts).

In retrospect, there are two things that might have helped me and had little chance of doing harm.

The first would be to learn the Bluebook. You'd be crazy to do this, but there's little chance you'd do any real damage to your 1L studies. In retrospect, I'd give my left arm to avoid doing this. Don't do it.

The second thing (and something that wouldn't have driven me crazy) would be to go to Oyez.org, pick a few cases that are interesting, pull the audio of the oral argument, and then the written briefs and opinion. Read the parties briefs, listen to the oral argument and read the court's opinion. You shouldn't do this to learn the law; you would be doing this to introduce yourself to legal argument and for intellectual stimulation. I would avoid picking the famous cases (Roe, death penalty cases, etc) and any case where the court was divided (look for a 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2 decision) because you might get caught up in the substance of the argument or a series of confusing opinions. I seriously doubt this would help you in your 1L studies, but I doubt it would hurt. And, if you're like me, you might just find the arguments interesting.

[TTT-LS]

.

[apper123]

I thought 0L prep had been debunked? Some 2L or 3L on these boards said it was like going on a scavenger hunt before you know what your looking for.

Yes, this is the majority view. There are those who feel differently (e.g., Snooker), but I'll leave you to evaluate their posts to see if you think they're worth following or not.

The second thing (and something that wouldn't have driven me crazy) would be to go to Oyez.org, pick a few cases that are interesting, pull the audio of the oral argument, and then the written briefs and opinion. Read the parties briefs, listen to the oral argument and read the court's opinion. You shouldn't do this to learn the law; you would be doing this to introduce yourself to legal argument and for intellectual stimulation. I would avoid picking the famous cases (Roe, death penalty cases, etc) and any case where the court was divided (look for a 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2 decision) because you might get caught up in the substance of the argument or a series of confusing opinions. I seriously doubt this would help you in your 1L studies, but I doubt it would hurt. And, if you're like me, you might just find the arguments interesting.

I agree. Doing the above will not help you get better 1L grades. But it might be a good outlet for people who simply must do something as a 0L because they're so anxious.

on my first glance of your post i read "anxious" as "obnoxious" and lol'd

but i then reread it and was disappointed to see i had just failed at issue spotting

[Lawschoolman]

that is actually the purpose of the LSAT - to test your test-taking skills since it correlates so powerfully with exam performance, .33 or so for law exams but only .03 for legal memo grades.

This is a load of crap! No correlation whatsoever between LSAT and law school grades. I bombed the LSAT (below 160), yet somehow made it to a T14 (I had some pretty good soft factors, and am URM) where I have earned mostly A-s, some As and A+s, and very few B+s...

[acdisagod]

that is actually the purpose of the LSAT - to test your test-taking skills since it correlates so powerfully with exam performance, .33 or so for law exams but only .03 for legal memo grades.

This is a load of crap! No correlation whatsoever between LSAT and law school grades. I bombed the LSAT (below 160), yet somehow made it to a T14 (I had some pretty good soft factors, and am URM) where I have earned mostly A-s, some As and A+s, and very few B+s...

that is actually the purpose of the LSAT - to test your test-taking skills since it correlates so powerfully with exam performance, .33 or so for law exams but only .03 for legal memo grades.

This is a load of crap! No correlation whatsoever between LSAT and law school grades. I bombed the LSAT (below 160), yet somehow made it to a T14 (I had some pretty good soft factors, and am URM) where I have earned mostly A-s, some As and A+s, and very few B+s...

With those logical reasoning skills I'm not surprised you got less than a 160 on the LSAT. One counterexample is supposed to be viewed as a valid argument? Your argument is like saying there's no correlation between having a college diploma and obtaining a high salary because bill gates didn't finish college.

[T14_Scholly]

With those logical reasoning skills I'm not surprised you got less than a 160 on the LSAT. One counterexample is supposed to be viewed as a valid argument? Your argument is like saying there's no correlation between having a college diploma and obtaining a high salary because bill gates didn't finish college.

Dude. He's T14 with good grades.

[acdisagod]

Therefore all his arguments are sound?

[TTT-LS]

.

[Lawschoolman]

No, not all my arguments are sound; I too am fallible. I understand the need to quantifiably, and objectively compare prospective students for admissions purposes. I know many people who rocked the LSAT and whose grades aren't that good. I also know many people (aka me) who've bombed, and have good grades.

My point is merely to tell those who did not do well on the LSAT that they are not doomed to failure in law school. Similarly, good grades in law school have little correlation with being a good lawyer. I agree that the grades are not totally "random." However, the skills needed to do well on a law school exam are different from those needed in practice.

Lastly, a word about grades. They're definitely important - particularly if you're at a lower ranking school. I will tell you, though, that even ITE employers look for more than just grades. If you're an ass (or come across as an ass), you could have the best GPA in the world, but won't get a job. There are some TLS posters to whom this has happened....

[acdisagod]

No, not all my arguments are sound; I too am fallible. I understand the need to quantifiably, and objectively compare prospective students for admissions purposes. I know many people who rocked the LSAT and whose grades aren't that good. I also know many people (aka me) who've bombed, and have good grades.

My point is merely to tell those who did not do well on the LSAT that they are not doomed to failure in law school. Similarly, good grades in law school have little correlation with being a good lawyer. I agree that the grades are not totally "random." However, the skills needed to do well on a law school exam are different from those needed in practice.

Lastly, a word about grades. They're definitely important - particularly if you're at a lower ranking school. I will tell you, though, that even ITE employers look for more than just grades. If you're an ass (or come across as an ass), you could have the best GPA in the world, but won't get a job. There are some TLS posters to whom this has happened....

No one argued that doing poorly on the LSAT means someone won't do well in law school. We were saying there is a correlation. You know perfectly well if you had to pick who was going to succeed between two people, and all you knew is that one had a 180 on the LSAT and one had a 145 you would pick the guy who had a 180. Does the guy with the 180 always do better, no, will he usually do better, yes.

[Lawschoolman]

Of course I'd pick the guy with the 180, but for a different reason: to boost my school's rankings. If both were admitted, I'd have no idea who'd perform better on the sole basis of the LSAT score.

[acdisagod]

Supposedly the correlation between LSAT score and first year grades is .4 so you would be a fool to not go with the guy with a 180. You know someone with a 180 has some solid analytical skills, the individual with a 145 could have those skills but you just don't know.

[Lawschoolman]

Supposedly the correlation between LSAT score and first year grades is .4 so you would be a fool to not go with the guy with a 180. You know someone with a 180 has some solid analytical skills, the individual with a 145 could have those skills but you just don't know.

And where does this .4 number come from? Something you read somewhere? What methodology was used to arrive at that number? You're just taking somebody's word that that number is true. I question your analytical skills.

Some people do well on the LSAT and get bad grades. Some people do poorly on the LSAT and get bad grades. Some people do well on the LSAT and get good grades. Some people do well on the LSAT, and get bad grades. There's just as much a correlation between the LSAT and law school grades as there is between the SAT and undergraduate grades. On that note, I'm signing off.

[acdisagod]

The number comes from our friends at the LSAT. Obviously they are a biased source and may have tilted the numbers their way, but they wouldn't be so bold as to make up a .4 correlation when none exists. Someone would call them on it.

[Mr. Matlock]

Supposedly the correlation between LSAT score and first year grades is .4 so you would be a fool to not go with the guy with a 180. You know someone with a 180 has some solid analytical skills, the individual with a 145 could have those skills but you just don't know.

And where does this .4 number come from? Something you read somewhere? What methodology was used to arrive at that number? You're just taking somebody's word that that number is true. I question your analytical skills.

Some people do well on the LSAT and get bad grades. Some people do poorly on the LSAT and get bad grades. Some people do well on the LSAT and get good grades. Some people do well on the LSAT, and get bad grades. There's just as much a correlation between the LSAT and law school grades as there is between the SAT and undergraduate grades. On that note, I'm signing off.

I think I know of someone else who needs to follow my summer study plan.

[98234872348]

Supposedly the correlation between LSAT score and first year grades is .4 so you would be a fool to not go with the guy with a 180. You know someone with a 180 has some solid analytical skills, the individual with a 145 could have those skills but you just don't know.

And where does this .4 number come from? Something you read somewhere? What methodology was used to arrive at that number? You're just taking somebody's word that that number is true. I question your analytical skills.

Some people do well on the LSAT and get bad grades. Some people do poorly on the LSAT and get bad grades. Some people do well on the LSAT and get good grades. Some people do well on the LSAT, and get bad grades. There's just as much a correlation between the LSAT and law school grades as there is between the SAT and undergraduate grades. On that note, I'm signing off.

It, along with the complete methodology is on the LSAC data and research site. There is actual, statistical research. Your analogy to SAT and UG grades is absolutely atrocious, unless you can point to the source that shows a .4 (or whatever the exact correlation is now — as data does slightly vacillate over time).

I highly question your analytical and reading comprehension abilities now. I mean your post is devoid of all signs of intellectual or rational thought.

Isn't such a test sort of nebulous/uncertain in the sense that there are so many other factors to attribute (i.e. quality of school, study habits employed, whether you were sick for 2 weeks during the semester, etc) that can influence one's grades? I mean, if verifiable data exists that shows this correlation, more power to high scorers, but the LSAT certainly is not outcome determinative of one's LS grades by any stretch of the imagination.

[Aloha4]

Both of you bring up some excellent points. However, I do agree SLIGHTLY with lawschool man. I believe their is strong correlation between a high LSAT score and the ABILITY to succed in law school. However, having the ability to do something, and actually being succesful at that, don't always go hand in hand.

While there surely is some correlation between a high LSAT score and good grades, there is a higher correlation between hard, effective work, and good grades.

[keg411]

Talk to my 3L sis and talk to my parents (both lawyers).
Learned from sis so far: resistance is futile, you WILL have to highlight (though not necessarily in technicolor)
Learned from parents so far: E&E's are teh suck

I don't plan to do any 0L prep except probably to read "Guerilla tactics..." (no job, no like; especially since I'll probably be going to a T2). May read GTM once I'm in school. Will brush up on IRAC and Blue Booking from the LR&W course I took.

I'd suggest not listening your parents, at least when it comes to Torts and Civil Procedure.

I know; but they subscribe to the approach of "learn through the casebook" and your professors, not E&E's. I'll personally see which approach works best for me, but that's what they told me.

[Aeroplane]

Talk to my 3L sis and talk to my parents (both lawyers).
Learned from sis so far: resistance is futile, you WILL have to highlight (though not necessarily in technicolor)
Learned from parents so far: E&E's are teh suck

I don't plan to do any 0L prep except probably to read "Guerilla tactics..." (no job, no like; especially since I'll probably be going to a T2). May read GTM once I'm in school. Will brush up on IRAC and Blue Booking from the LR&W course I took.

I'd suggest not listening your parents, at least when it comes to Torts and Civil Procedure.

I know; but they subscribe to the approach of "learn through the casebook" and your professors, not E&E's. I'll personally see which approach works best for me, but that's what they told me.

Yeah just give it a try, then decide. I tried to use the Torts E&E but ended up not using it, except for the section in the back w/the exam tips and long exam-length hypos. I didn't see the value of the little hypos. They're arranged by topic and "zoomed in" so that the issues present and relevant facts jump out immediately, which is way easier than anything you're likely to get on an exam (unless your prof does short-answers, and even then he probably won't put a big fat topic heading on them).

Then again, other people swear by it and my torts professor was a big fan of the Torts E&E. Good luck!

[Lawschoolman]

The most important thing to know going into law school is that THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. The most common mistake very smart people make on law school exams (and the reason they do poorly) is that they try to "get it right." As one of my professors once said, doing well on law school exams is like pinball -- try to rack up as many points as possible in the time allotted. You rack up points by spotting as many different issues as you can. You spot issues by looking at the fact pattern from as many different perspectives as possible (something that is hard to do when you are intent on finding the right answer). If you remember this as you start law school, you'll be leaps and bounds ahead of your classmates.

[Kobe_Teeth]

Do law school exams ask questions such as (after long case or fact pattern as I guess its called) who do you think is at fault? Or did the judge make the correct ruling?

I'm sure I'm a bit off here, but don't the questions ask you to make some sort of qualitative judgement? If that's true, is the challenge still just to spot as many issues, discuss them, possibly connect them to other issues and just come to a conclusion?

How far off am I?

[Lawschoolman]

Do law school exams ask questions such as (after long case or fact pattern as I guess its called) who do you think is at fault? Or did the judge make the correct ruling?

I'm sure I'm a bit off here, but don't the questions ask you to make some sort of qualitative judgement? If that's true, is the challenge still just to spot as many issues, discuss them, possibly connect them to other issues and just come to a conclusion?

How far off am I?

Yes, such questions are asked. In a torts exam, for example, you might have a long fact pattern and then a question as to who is at fault. You should try to come down on one side; however, you need to address what arguments might be made for the other side. You might state, A is at fault because he was negligent. B might have a valid claim that he owed no duty to A but this claim will likely fail for X, Y, and Z reason. Even if the Court finds that A wasn't negligent, A is still liable because this is a case of strict liability.

The poinit is to find as many urelevant legal issues as you can, regardless the question. The call of the question determines relevance, so it is often helpful to read the question before getting to the fact pattern!

[Kobe_Teeth]

Cool. That's how I had it pictured.

OL prep +1. Kidding.

To weigh in on the issue at hand though, I doubt it helps to any weighty degree but for me personally I know I do better when I am even a little familiar with what I will be doing. I like to know the language that I will be dealing with, terms I might see and have a very broad picture of what I will be doing in a class. I bought the Civ Pro E & E's just to get an idea of some of the stuff I will be doing in law school. I check it out every now and then and will probably continue to do so. Its interesting and I'm excited about school. I do the same with GTM and Thinking Like a Lawyer. However, I've been reading lots of other stuff as well. I just like to read. So peppered in with everything else I dont feel it will skew my view of the law so bad I won't be able to adapt and it also won't burn me out.

So, yes, I am doing 0L prep, but I would consider it light and just for fun while I wait for the real thing. I don't think a little prior knowledge can hurt.