Did any "median pwned" people actually raise their marks after first semester of 1L? Forum

[pancakes3]

I never got better than a B+ on any exam that was the standard law school exam, e.g., 3 hours to vomit as much bullshit onto a paper as possible. I did significantly better in the rest of my classes by taking classes that had grades depend on other kinds of testing: multiple choice tests, papers, take homes, etc.

If for some reason you care about trying to get some A-'s (not sure why you would at this point) just take some seminars or something with a paper and try really hard to write a good paper.

Surprisingly, I think I do worst at multiple choice exams. My evidence exam this semester was half multiple choice and I completely bombed it. The two multiple-choice exams I had 1L year were also my two worst exam scores in law school.

if it makes you feel any better, I've never received an honors-range grade on a multiple choice law school exam either (with one weird exception, tax, which wasn't really MC)

multiple choice is really fucking stupid IMO

I just talked to a prof about this and it seems that the prevailing LS administrative wisdom is pushing MC because MC is the best way to test doctrine, and pushing doctrine is the best way to keep bar pass rates afloat. It's also easier for the Prof to set a curve.

[03152016]

.

[jrass]

I have had several 1L classmates and upperclassmen say that they've gone up every semester, some considerably.

I have done just the opposite lol

So either is possible.

#medianproud

I think after the first year, it's much more about why you studied hard as a first year. People who don't see law school exams as anything more than a game to get a job who have jobs do not try, and those without them either give up or try really hard. Those who base their self worth partly on grades continue trying. If you spoke to a given person for 20-30 seconds you could probably predict if they'll go up or down after 1L with >95% accuracy.

[rcharter1978]

j/w if this is possible or likely in case i get "median pwned" after exams.

I raised my marks after 1L. My POV is this: 1L classes seem very element focused, and have some of the better professors.

When a class has material that can be easily broken down into elements, and is taught by good professors there is a good chance that everyone is going to understand the material. Even if they didn't do the reading. And if everyone understands the material, then most everyone is going to understand it enough to get most of the points on the exam. In that case, the A's go to the best writers. And, my 1L had a legal writing class, and I knew I wasn't getting anywhere NEAR an A in that class.

To me, and perhaps just me, the subjects after 1L were not quite as element driven, or the elements weren't quite as clear and easily definable. And, once they have your money, the law school can throw a more difficult professor your way knowing that you aren't leaving. So now, students have to do more of the work themselves to understand the subject matter. And you had a little more time on the exams to make creative arguments (if that was your thing) which a professor might give another points or two for. But ultimately, there were ways for people other than the best writers in the class to get an A. And once you start taking electives, you have a chance to shine because those top, top level students may not be in class with you.

So, I think its possible.

[patfeeney]

patfeeny, how did u study?

For my evidence class this semester:

- Did about 80% of class readings, save for two weeks when I had a major club event I had to plan. Attended every class but one.
- Kept incredibly close notes during class and tried to use only those when outlining. The professor provided his own examples of rule application, so I made sure to take those all down carefully.
- Used the E&E to fill in gaps that came up; occasionally using the professor's own hornbook.
- Completed outline two weeks before final.
- For the next two weeks, systematically ran through LexisNexis' Q&A book, carefully reviewing each question. Got to roughly 85% correct answers with those.
- Went over other professors' multiple choice exams (our professor provided us with only one). Again, carefully went over each answer. Paid special note to answers that either contradicted my outline, or were not in my outline. Reconciled those problems and added them to my outline. Did maybe 6-7 practice tests by the time I went into the exam.

My outline going in was, I think, 37 pages. My focus was not on the outline - my focus was on the practice exams, then trying to master/sorta memorize my outline so I could spend more time doing analysis on the actual exam.

Ended up on the bottom 30% of the curve when grades came back.

[03152016]

.

[brokenconundrum]

I was median after first semester 1L, graduated top 25%. Focus on your weaknesses and do more practice tests.

[Thrive]

Relax and welcome to Law School

My guess is that you probably need to do the same level of work. A decent part of the process is frankly luck, especially for people are tend to be of th average intelligence found in the school. Certainly, there are natural law exam takers in your school that will ALWAYS kill it on the exams. But for a decent majority, they study very hard and state the same stuff in the exams. My Civ Pro professor gave me a B+ last Fall and told me not to change anything regarding my prep and my writing!

However, I think it tends to average out over the course of both semesters. Those who got lucky and received A-'s in the fall may get unlucky and get B+'s in the spring and vice versa. So chill. Meet with your professors, read your essays again, and read the model answers. Work hard. The rest, imho, is out of your hands. That's what I did and my grades jumped in the spring.

More importantly, start interacting with attorneys and start working on your interview skills.

[lacrossebrother]

patfeeny, how did u study?

For my evidence class this semester:

- Did about 80% of class readings, save for two weeks when I had a major club event I had to plan. Attended every class but one.
- Kept incredibly close notes during class and tried to use only those when outlining. The professor provided his own examples of rule application, so I made sure to take those all down carefully.
- Used the E&E to fill in gaps that came up; occasionally using the professor's own hornbook.
- Completed outline two weeks before final.
- For the next two weeks, systematically ran through LexisNexis' Q&A book, carefully reviewing each question. Got to roughly 85% correct answers with those.
- Went over other professors' multiple choice exams (our professor provided us with only one). Again, carefully went over each answer. Paid special note to answers that either contradicted my outline, or were not in my outline. Reconciled those problems and added them to my outline. Did maybe 6-7 practice tests by the time I went into the exam.

My outline going in was, I think, 37 pages. My focus was not on the outline - my focus was on the practice exams, then trying to master/sorta memorize my outline so I could spend more time doing analysis on the actual exam.

Ended up on the bottom 30% of the curve when grades came back.

Can you post your legal writing memo/brief and maybe we can see if the issue is your writing?

[maroon175]

Relax and welcome to Law School

My guess is that you probably need to do the same level of work. A decent part of the process is frankly luck, especially for people are tend to be of th average intelligence found in the school. Certainly, there are natural law exam takers in your school that will ALWAYS kill it on the exams. But for a decent majority, they study very hard and state the same stuff in the exams. My Civ Pro professor gave me a B+ last Fall and told me not to change anything regarding my prep and my writing!

However, I think it tends to average out over the course of both semesters. Those who got lucky and received A-'s in the fall may get unlucky and get B+'s in the spring and vice versa. So chill. Meet with your professors, read your essays again, and read the model answers. Work hard. The rest, imho, is out of your hands. That's what I did and my grades jumped in the spring.

More importantly, start interacting with attorneys and start working on your interview skills.

It seems helpful and intuitive to meet with professors and review past exams, but is the exercise helpful when we're faced with a whole new set of classes and professors with different styles in 2nd semester?

[skri65]

OP: I went from top 40-ish % first semester to top 10% after second semester. For me I just started outlining earlier but your areas of improvement may be different. You can do this.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Re: talking to profs - There are general styles that exams tend to fall into. The more you talk to profs, the more you get an understanding of the possibilities out there.

[gaddockteeg]

I did.

3.1 at after first semester 1L. Felt like an idiot, because I actually studied a ton. Median is 3.2

My grades afterwards were 3.4, 3.7, 3.5, 3.5, 3.5

[patfeeney]

patfeeny, how did u study?

For my evidence class this semester:

- Did about 80% of class readings, save for two weeks when I had a major club event I had to plan. Attended every class but one.
- Kept incredibly close notes during class and tried to use only those when outlining. The professor provided his own examples of rule application, so I made sure to take those all down carefully.
- Used the E&E to fill in gaps that came up; occasionally using the professor's own hornbook.
- Completed outline two weeks before final.
- For the next two weeks, systematically ran through LexisNexis' Q&A book, carefully reviewing each question. Got to roughly 85% correct answers with those.
- Went over other professors' multiple choice exams (our professor provided us with only one). Again, carefully went over each answer. Paid special note to answers that either contradicted my outline, or were not in my outline. Reconciled those problems and added them to my outline. Did maybe 6-7 practice tests by the time I went into the exam.

My outline going in was, I think, 37 pages. My focus was not on the outline - my focus was on the practice exams, then trying to master/sorta memorize my outline so I could spend more time doing analysis on the actual exam.

Ended up on the bottom 30% of the curve when grades came back.

Can you post your legal writing memo/brief and maybe we can see if the issue is your writing?

I would, but I'm pretty convinced it's not my writing. I got a high pass in my legal writing class (grades ranging Fail - Low Pass - Pass - High Pass, graded on a similar curve). I also got an A- in my externship, which wasn't a lot of work but I did it with several dedicated criminal law and judicial students on a fed courts-heavy subject. I'm also not sure if I'm allowed to share the piece. All I do know is that I was at the top of the curve for my legal writing class, and received some enthusiastic feedback from the professor.

One suspicion I have is that the multiple choice law exams kill me. The only two Bs I've gotten in law school have been half-multiple choice tests. The only A- I've gotten in a blackletter course has been on an all-essay exam.

Another suspicion is that I'm just really, really horrible at doing exams. I got a B+ on my corps exam - and I know that wasn't because I didn't know the doctrines cold. My fear is that I just did not explain the doctrinal splits properly on the exam (like Unocal, Revlon... I knew the difference but maybe I did not argue each side properly?)

[YYC]

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to study when the profs don't post any past exam answers (there are about 5 past essay exams, none with sample answers).

Something I noted from last semester was that I learn well by taking apart sample answers from past years. I did approx. 50% of all readings for CivPro, didn't outline, no supplements, mainly relied on past exams and answers and got A. By contrast, I did 90% of all readings in Torts, took great notes, outlined, skimmed past exams and answers, got low B.

What good are the past exams without sample answers?
Please help! Thanks!

[rcharter1978]

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to study when the profs don't post any past exam answers (there are about 5 past essay exams, none with sample answers).

Something I noted from last semester was that I learn well by taking apart sample answers from past years. I did approx. 50% of all readings for CivPro, didn't outline, no supplements, mainly relied on past exams and answers and got A. By contrast, I did 90% of all readings in Torts, took great notes, outlined, skimmed past exams and answers, got low B.

What good are the past exams without sample answers?
Please help! Thanks!

Would your professor give you feedback if you just wrote out a sample exam? It could be that is what he/she wants you to do, and thats why they won't post a sample answer. Just a thought.

[Edur]

Recent T14 grad here; I finished 1L year slightly above median (mostly B+s with two A-s). After that, I averaged a 3.9 for my final four terms with no grade below an A-, graduated right around the top 10% of my class, and now have a federal district court clerkship lined up for 2016--so yeah, it is possible to raise your grades, even quite significantly.

I think half the battle is figuring out what's holding you back. Do you struggle with learning/retaining the material during the semester, or is it taking exams that's your hurdle? For me it was the latter--1L year I didn't feel lost or out of my depth and I was perfectly able to work through sample exams and practice questions in preparation for the exam, but when it came down to the actual exams, I just didn't do well. I didn't write enough and my answers weren't organized/methodical enough. I made appointments with all my 1L profs to review and discuss my exams and spent a lot of time pouring over them afterward to figure out what I was doing wrong, and then tried to fix it going forward. I also spent much, much more time 2L and 3L year on figuring out my profs' idiosyncrasies and how they felt about big-issue topics, so I could--hopefully--work that into exam answers. Another luxury you have 2L and 3L year is control over your schedule. I was able to fit in 4 graded research credits and took a decent amount of seminars that--although writing intensive and pretty substantive--weren't graded on a curve, so it was easier to do well.

My #1 piece of advice is take sample exams. Write, write, write, and write some more. Time yourself. And self-evaluate--critically--constantly.

[RedGiant]

Yep. Was top 10 in my class second year, after a very mediocre first year. It can be done.

Choose your classes wisely. Never take more than two 4-unit classes. Play to your strengths. You got this!

[pancakes3]

what are my strengths?

[totesTheGoat]

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to study when the profs don't post any past exam answers (there are about 5 past essay exams, none with sample answers).

Write out the exam answer as if you were in the exam taking environment. Go to one or more office hours and have your professor go over your exam answer with you. Take copious notes on everything your professor says. Apply those notes when the real exam comes.

That advice applies whether or not you have past exam answers. Nothing better sets you up to blow the curve out of the water than getting a practice run, complete with feedback from the person who will be grading the real thing.