How many people actually do 0L Prep? Forum

[071816]

Taxguy's advice

This is the first thing that came to mind when I read this:

Taxguy is a fuckin moron

The first thing I thought of was him forcing his son to read all the E&Es

LOL

[clone22]

Yea, for those of us who are too lazy to read GTM, can someone summarize it please? kthx

i hope you're going to my school

Are you going to siberia soon? If so, yes.

is this a metaphor?

from what i'm told, not nearly as metaphorical as I would like it to be

upstate ny

[paulinaporizkova]

upstate ny

Oh, no then. I'll be on THomas Jefferson's farm. Though I did consider Siberia

[lisjjen]

from what i'm told, not nearly as metaphorical as I would like it to be

upstate ny

This is why in a choice between UT and Cornell, I took flip flops and tex mex in November.

[dailygrind]

Taxguy's advice

This is the first thing that came to mind when I read this:

Taxguy is a fuckin moron

My opinion on taxguy's advice aside (I think that, in this instance at least, it's off the mark), unless you went to law school and dropped out or something I don't see how you're in a position to dispute it, since you're a 0L. Given that, calling him a fuckin moron is pretty fuckin inappropriate.

[JCougar]

If you're just going to sit around and play video games otherwise, it couldn't hurt to do 0L prep, simply because it will be less work to do during the semester. Reading the E&Es can give you a broad overview of the topics you will be studying so it will be easier to understand the cases later on during class, etc. With that said, there's plenty of time during the semester to do the same work.

People who think doing 0L prep have got it wrong, however. Law school exam grades are only maybe based 20% on preparation regarding the actual legal material, and another 15-20% on intellectual ability. The remaining 60-65% of your grade is based on typing a ton of words and stroking your professor's ego on the exam. If you go to a good school, about 75% of the class will be smart enough/prepared enough to to nail the legal analysis part of the exam. However, the professor is forced to curve the exams, so they have to find some reason -- any reason -- to differentiate median grades from top 10% grades. Since almost everyone gets the legal analysis correct, they are forced to resort to number of words typed (subconscious though it might be), whether you can push their particular buttons, etc. This requires a lot of paying attention in class and studying the little things your professor tells you "not to worry about." If your professor tells you not to worry about something, or only spends like 5 minutes in class covering it, it's almost for sure going to be on the exam. They have to pull tricks like this to make the grading easier: the people who still study the stuff they're not supposed to worry about or the tiny little issues based on one random class handout (that's not even in the casebook) are the kind of workaholics that big firms want.

Also, pay particular attention to whatever topic you cover on the very last day of class, or issues that come up during the voluntary review sessions before the exam.

The truth about law exams is that the material really is not that difficult to understand, and anyone with an LSAT north of 160 or so will be able to figure it out. Just because everything makes sense to you doesn't make you stand out. It's not like you're learning vector physics, multivariate statistics, or advanced calculus or something. And the very best law schools with the most talented students give the same level of difficulty of exams that Cooley gives out. Common sense would portend that better schools filled with 95th percentile or better students would give exams with more difficult legal analysis, but instead, you get exams that virtually the entire class gets right, yet still must be graded on a forced curve. This leaves petty little things as the main differentiator between top 60% or so and people getting CALI awards.

People might think this sounds absurd, but law school exams are pretty much a relic of tradition from a time before peole figured out how to really make valid and reliable assessment tests. They don't make much sense, and there's a reason why they drive people crazy. There's a reason why the amount of work you put into a class has little to do with how well you do on the exam. If you think that knowing the material better is going to get you an A, you're expending energy in the wrong place. Focus on getting to know the professor during office hours, pay attention in class, and figure out their psychology. 90% of people in your class will also be reading the E&Es, so that's only going to help you not fail, rather than rise to the top.

[dailygrind]

If you go to a good school, about 75% of the class will be smart enough/prepared enough to to nail the legal analysis part of the exam. However, the professor is forced to curve the exams, so they have to find some reason -- any reason -- to differentiate median grades from top 10% grades. Since almost everyone gets the legal analysis correct, they are forced to resort to number of words typed (subconscious though it might be), whether you can push their particular buttons, etc.

I disagree with this strongly. I had an extremely strong correlation between my knowledge of the course/my grade in the course. When I didn't get a good grade, it was pretty much always because I hadn't studied enough and didn't have all of the legal analysis down pat. When I got a good grade, it was because I'd busted my ass practicing and refining my application of the doctrine. I really do think that most of the tests I've had separated those who knew the material cold from those who didn't. The few where the separation wasn't on the basis of knowledge...well...I didn't get the impression that those professors put a lot of effort into their teaching.

[094320]

..

[paulinaporizkova]

Fellow 0L here, I'm not doing any. Tried to read GTM, but I got bored and stopped.

ATL where you goin to school?

[vanwinkle]

If you go to a good school, about 75% of the class will be smart enough/prepared enough to to nail the legal analysis part of the exam. However, the professor is forced to curve the exams, so they have to find some reason -- any reason -- to differentiate median grades from top 10% grades. Since almost everyone gets the legal analysis correct, they are forced to resort to number of words typed (subconscious though it might be), whether you can push their particular buttons, etc.

I disagree with this strongly. I had an extremely strong correlation between my knowledge of the course/my grade in the course. When I didn't get a good grade, it was pretty much always because I hadn't studied enough and didn't have all of the legal analysis down pat. When I got a good grade, it was because I'd busted my ass practicing and refining my application of the doctrine. I really do think that most of the tests I've had separated those who knew the material cold from those who didn't. The few where the separation wasn't on the basis of knowledge...well...I didn't get the impression that those professors put a lot of effort into their teaching.

I will also add that some of my worst grades were my longest answers. If I just took off running and created a 7,000-word exam answer, sometimes I didn't do so well. If I stopped, thought hard, and planned things, I could get a much higher grade even though I didn't have as much time to type and ended up with a substantially shorter answer. I'm saying this definitively: I could get better grades with shorter answers, because of the substantive differences between the shorter and the longer answers. Professors do look for real legal analysis, and it is something recognizable to those who understand it.

There is some truth to the fact that generally, the more you type, the more legal issues you'll analyze, and the more points you get. But a well-written, focused answer will always get you better grades than a rambling and less cohesive answer, even if that rambling answer is much longer.

[094320]

..

[lisjjen]

Fellow 0L here, I'm not doing any. Tried to read GTM, but I got bored and stopped.

ATL where you goin to school?

PM'ed.

Not to be nosy, but I'd be interested to know this as well.

[JCougar]

If you go to a good school, about 75% of the class will be smart enough/prepared enough to to nail the legal analysis part of the exam. However, the professor is forced to curve the exams, so they have to find some reason -- any reason -- to differentiate median grades from top 10% grades. Since almost everyone gets the legal analysis correct, they are forced to resort to number of words typed (subconscious though it might be), whether you can push their particular buttons, etc.

I disagree with this strongly. I had an extremely strong correlation between my knowledge of the course/my grade in the course. When I didn't get a good grade, it was pretty much always because I hadn't studied enough and didn't have all of the legal analysis down pat. When I got a good grade, it was because I'd busted my ass practicing and refining my application of the doctrine. I really do think that most of the tests I've had separated those who knew the material cold from those who didn't. The few where the separation wasn't on the basis of knowledge...well...I didn't get the impression that those professors put a lot of effort into their teaching.

+1.
JCougar is spouting bullshit. I actually wrote some of the shortest essays, and turned out quite alright.

I'm not spouting bullshit. For me, there was practically an inverse correlation between how much I studied and how I did. Maybe that hasn't happened to everyone, but I've heard plenty of stories of people who have done the same.

I only had one professor where typing a lot of words didn't help...and I ended up doing okay. The rest were an inverse correlation b/t how much I studied. My highest grade outside of this class was the one I studied least for, and didn't even read the cases/prepare for class until after spring break.

[IrwinM.Fletcher]

I really, really hate how people on this forum act like you can just dick around all semester and luck into an A at the end without significant effort. 0L's read this crap and think they're going to be that special snowflake. It is absolutely horrible advice.

[lisjjen]

I really, really hate how people on this forum act like you can just dick around all semester and luck into an A at the end without significant effort. 0L's read this crap and think they're going to be that special snowflake. It is absolutely horrible advice.

.

[IrwinM.Fletcher]

Most will tell you that doing any prep during the summer before law school is a waste of time. However, Not only do I not agree with that,but some of the top people in law schools wouldn't agree either. See Arrow's excellent posting found in TLS's "Forum for Law Students."

If "the people who had the best results in law school" was the relevant test for whose opinion mattered re: 0L prep, the clear answer would be not to do it.

But really, that's no basis on which to decide the question. On the merits, 0L prep is utterly useless for most people, as has been pointed out in detail countless times previously here on TLS.

EDIT:

Answering OP's question: Too many.

Also, this. Seriously.

I think it depends on what 0L prep means. Reading Getting to Maybe was huge for me. Memorizing E&E's on the other hand would be retarded.

[nelaw2010]

LEEWS!!!!

I already read GTM, and EE on Torts was good. I'm now doing LEEWS, and it seems really helpful so far. I think the most difficult part of the law school exams I have seen is organizing the info (assuming you know the law). LEEWS seems to do a great job teaching how to quickly and effectively organize the info.

What I also realized is that LEEWS and GTM are methods that must be practiced. It seems critical to practice the methods throughout the semester. I think what has helped me the most is realizing that being a good lawyer involves being able to extrapolate the key issues from a given situation, and then applying law to fact to make your argument. It seems like that's what law school exams are supposed to test, your ability to isolate the relevant facts, then apply law to the facts.

From my personal experiences in dealing with legal matters, it can be difficult to apply law to facts (and to know which facts you should focus on).

[vamedic03]

I think it depends on what 0L prep means. Reading Getting to Maybe was huge for me. Memorizing E&E's on the other hand would be retarded.

Oh, sure. I guess I was just mentally equating 0L prep with more than a quick perusal of GTM or something else like that, based on the tenor of the preceding discussion. But if someone wants to polish their resume, read GTM or Volokh, or do other minor stuff like that, then more power to them.

Am I the only one who thinks of Voltron whenever I hear Volokh?

[JusticeHarlan]

Far more people than this website would have you believe. And looking back on it, the whole thing about it being "hurtful" etc. is BS. Frankly, as much as people on here like to make law school classes out to be this ivory tower intellectual exercise that can't be prepared for...it's basically memorization of an enormous amount of rules, followed by applying those rules in a really short time frame at a really rapid rate (the exam--assuming we're talking about an issue spotter, which most exams are). If you can get those rules memorized early and get a grasp on them early, then you might as well do it.

You remembered what you read in July/August come December? I'm kinda doubtful; I bet you relearned them. And how can you get a grasp on them without understanding the nuance that your professor wants? You can familiarize yourself with the most basic details but that's the easy stuff to glean from class/reading anyways.

I'm biased though, I didn't find hornbooks helpful even during the year, but I can't see them being any more helpful during the summer.

[typ3]

Both camps on this argument have it wrong imo.

0L prep is not as useful as its proponents claim it to be. Likewise, it isn't completely worthless like it's made out to be by some.

0L prep isn't an answer in itself. It can help ease your transition from summer into classes, but it likely will not make or break you. (It may make or break you from being the top student in your class ie. rank #1 vs rank #2 .) Yet not doing 0L prep will not keep you from being top 5 or top 10%.

If I had to wager, I would say that most Rank #1 students do some sort of 0L prep; whether that be reading GTM, skimming E&E, doing LEEWS etc. Most of these students are so type A that they are constantly doing something or plowing through another unnecessary supplement though so that should be taken with a grain of salt.

[theturkeyisfat]

Yea, for those of us who are too lazy to read GTM, can someone summarize it please? kthx

doing well on a law school exam is all about finding the one right answer to each of the issues brought up by the fact pattern.

trust me, i read it

[JamMasterJ]

I really, really hate how people on this forum act like you can just dick around all semester and luck into an A at the end without significant effort. 0L's read this crap and think they're going to be that special snowflake. It is absolutely horrible advice.

Or they can be like me and think that no matter how hard they work, they're screwed

[cinephile]

I really, really hate how people on this forum act like you can just dick around all semester and luck into an A at the end without significant effort. 0L's read this crap and think they're going to be that special snowflake. It is absolutely horrible advice.

Or they can be like me and think that no matter how hard they work, they're screwed

I like this kind of thinking, because you're never disappointed -- and if you do well, it's a pleasant surprise.

[JamMasterJ]

I really, really hate how people on this forum act like you can just dick around all semester and luck into an A at the end without significant effort. 0L's read this crap and think they're going to be that special snowflake. It is absolutely horrible advice.

Or they can be like me and think that no matter how hard they work, they're screwed

I like this kind of thinking, because you're never disappointed -- and if you do well, it's a pleasant surprise.

If 100% of students think they'll end up in the bottom 10%, 90% will be happy.

[die Zauberflote]

As a 0L, I strongly recommend my own summer prep strategy: read whatever the hell you want to read, as long as it's fun.

I got LEEWS because I heard it was good. I thought the exercises were fun and his lectures were interesting, so I finished the program. Same with Getting to Maybe.

I bought Law School Confidential and 1L of a Ride: that shit sucks = straight back to the bookshelf. Law 101 by Feinman: boring as hell = back to the bookshelf. Law in America by Friedman...finished it in 3 hours...pretty interesting. E&E Torts? Get that shit out of my face. The Bramble Bush held my attention and got me thinking, so I finished it.

Get it? Read what you like and don't read what you don't like. Will it help? I hope so, but if it doesn't I'm not out anything because I've enjoyed myself.