Is there a way to start over again? Forum

[lavarman84]

You seem weirdly angry at all of the sage advice you're getting

"Just quit" is not sage advice. But, like I already said, I already got my answer in the second comment. The rest is basically me defending myself from rude little shits who say I should quit my profession.

Just quit is sage advice for a lot of people. For the people who are going deeply in debt at a bad law school and have bad grades, just quit is good advice. Most of them will struggle to ever find legal jobs and pay off their debt. If they have a job already lined up after graduation, it's a different story. But if they do not, it's good advice to tell them to quit after a bad 1L year and cut their losses.

2) I have a job lined up but I was hoping to one day teach afterwards. Therefore, the grades are kind of important. But even if I had no plans of teaching, the grades would still be personally important to me. Aren't they important to you?

3) Even is I didn't have a job afterwards, I would practice solo. Nothing will stop me from pursuing this profession, including rude little shits on the internet (not you though).

Based on you saying that the mean at your school is a "C," I'd say that you have no chance of teaching. It doesn't matter what grades you got. If you go to a low ranked law school, you need a miracle in order to be a professor. That's assuming that "teaching" means you want to teach law.

You could practice as a solo but it's very difficult to do straight out of law school. As you said, though, you already have a job lined up. So just get through law school rather than starting over, get your degree, and take the job. Your grades are what they are.

[Foghornleghorn]

2.8 isn't exactly "poor", its just mediocre. I feel like no one properly prepared me for Law School, and teachers did a shit job of actually letting us know what was testable and what wasn't. Now I understand. Now I can get A's, no problem. My tuition is 5grand a semester, so that's not a problem either. As for job opportunities, I already have one lined up after graduation. Not making the Law Review is a bummer because I was planning on teaching one day (not anymore). But no, "just quit bro" is not advice, its a way of saying "I'm too lazy to analyze this situation so I'll just insult your self worth."

1) You don't have a profession. You are a JD candidate. Plenty of people who graduate law school never get to practice.

2) Out your school rank and employment prospects. Then, go read the vale of tears. Read every page.

If you already have a job lined up, then by all means continue your education. But, for the vast majority of students with sub 3.0 GPAs post-1L, continuing law school will often saddle them with staggering amounts of debt and no career prospects.

[Clearly]

What you're failing to grasp is that we know the curves of schools generally. If you're at a school where C is average, that means some people fail out. Schools fail people out because they know the bottom part of the class won't pass the bar and they'll lose accreditation. In other words, you go to a shit school. Generally people are advised to not go to shit schools because your odds of a job are terrible and if you're spending money for them you're fucking up life.

As to why people are treating you like shit, it's because you're posting like shit. People here have collectively been through every experience law school can throw at you, and they genuinely like giving great advice. This place has saved my ass many times. But they can't help if you don't give them enough information. If your question was "hey I go to X school, and I'm only at median, I want to do this for a living, but I have this job lined up paying this, on the bright side my tuition is only 4k. I feel like if I could restart law school, I'd do better. Is that plausible?", then people would understand the situation and help you weigh your options. Perhaps even if you could get better grades, you'd be a fool to try. Maybe the job you have lined up is the best job possible from your school and putting it at risk by delaying graduation would be a terrible idea. Give people something to work with and you'll get great information.

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

I'm guessing this is OP?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7#p9354587

[peger]

At the risk of sounding like I'm clutching pearls, it would be incredibly poor form to "re-do" 1L after learning all the material without a compelling reason. You would have a massive leg up on your peers in a curved grading setting, and your rationale essentially is that you'd do better this time. Well, duh.

[stego]

In case OP is still wondering "scooped" means "oh darn, another poster already said what I just said."

[PeanutsNJam]

I guess I was expecting a little more maturity from my peers but it seems some of you are youtube comments come to life.

What's immature is acting as if you're entitled to great grades, and stating that your classmates wrote better exams than you because law school is worthless and doesn't teach anything of substance. And none of your peers were told what was going to be on the test either.

[Johann]

Hey everyone, I just finished my 2nd semester of 1L. My grades were less than stellar and I have a 2.8 GPA. I know this probably isn't good enough to transfer, but how about starting 1L over again? Is this possible (at, say, a different school)? My reasoning is that I now understand how to learn the law. And in my opinion, the purpose of Law School is not to teach law. They teach nothing at all, their purpose is only to weed people out. The way the entire profession is taught kind of disgusts me, and reveals exactly WHY there are so many incompetent lawyers.

2.8 is pretty average. Just try to raise your grades next year and start getting experience in the area of law you hope to practice in.

[Johann]

Deep breath. Ok.

First, you can't ask people to analyze a situation taking into account information that you haven't given them. As a general rule, the situation for a person with a 2.8 gpa after 1L can have their situation summed up in one word: FUCKED. The reason for this is simple. If the mean grade is a 3.3, as is typical, then the person is far enough down the curve that the fact that there are more graduating lawyers than entry level legal jobs will jump up and bite them in the ass. But you already have a job lined up, so good for you. But how would anyone here have possibly known that.

Second, if you already have a job lined up, what does it matter? Coast through to your degree and enjoy gainful employment.

Edit: Scooped. Twice. I should post faster.

Stop giving advice about things you don't know about. Grades do not correlate with jobs at TTTs outside of law review. The person with a 3.5 that misses law review is in the same boat as the person with a 2.4 -- what skills do you have and how well do you interview. I know plenty of people with sub 3.0s that ended with better jobs than people on law review.

[pleaselistentome]

Two things, OP:
(1) I hate to break it to you, but this isn't your profession. First you have to take the bar exam, an exam with an unbelievably low pass rate. You seem to assume that you're going to pass the bar with ease. If you have average grades (and I don't think a 2.8 is average anywhere) at a TTTTT school, you're almost certainly going to struggle with the bar exam.
(2) Dropping out is a legitimate career move. Shortly after graduation, most people in your situation come to regret their decision to go to law school. What makes you think that you're somehow different?

[A. Nony Mouse]

To be fair, 2.8 can absolutely be average depending on the curve. Lots of lower-ranked schools set their curves much lower than the grade-inflation loving T14s. And Johann's right about hustle from a lower-ranked school (I get why lots of people said "drop out" but don't think that's necessarily the only option for OP).

[Mr. Peanutbutter]

To be fair, 2.8 can absolutely be average depending on the curve. Lots of lower-ranked schools set their curves much lower than the grade-inflation loving T14s. And Johann's right about hustle from a lower-ranked school (I get why lots of people said "drop out" but don't think that's necessarily the only option for OP).

True, although it does seem like throwing good money after bad could be a really bad idea. OP's "As for job opportunities, I already have one lined up after graduation" turned out to be "I planned to work BigLaw for a year or two and then open up my own practice with family (also lawyers)", so I'm skeptical that any of the other reasons for staying in are actually true.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm with you.

[GoesWithTheTerritory]

.

[NotMyRealName09]

I have to comment on something that is bothering me on this one - OP, you're not a professional yet, you don't have a profession, you're not a member of my profession, you're not a lawyer. You're a law student.

Something about the way you said you were rejecting advice to quit "your" profession, it struck my ear wrong as a practitioner admitted to the Bar. You gotta earn admission to my profession, but the entire premise of your original post was to ask whether it was ok to try and game the system and have a do over because you did terrible your 1L year and think you could (easily) do better if you got a mulligan. (1) No, that is not ok, its bush league, and (2) you did terrible your 1L year at a bad law school . . . that means something.

You actually wrote something about how no one "prepared" you for success in law school, completely deflecting blame from yourself onto everyone else. The fact that you wrote that and believed it would garner sympathy or understanding (and not realizing it shows a weird arrogance and entitlement despite doing badly in law school) - that speaks volumes. In real life you don't get do overs.

A bunch of your peers in the same school taking the same classes had the same opportunity as you to succeed and did far better than you. You're not a victim of the system, you tried and showed you weren't that good. Clearly you don't want to hear that and have rejected it - ok, but being stubborn isn't going to change the GPA you told all of us.

Also, the fact that you thought you had prospects teaching law after going to your law school shows you really don't have a realistic view of the legal profession. If you're going to continue on and become a lawyer, you need to learn to recognize when you're wrong and adjust. Refusing to listen and learn is a bad thing.

[clshopeful]

Redoing 1L... Even asking about that raises serious judgment concerns. You really want to drop out, reapply, and then take all the classes you have already taken, read the same cases, go to classes all over again (since no two professors will teach everything exactly the same), spend a YEAR of your life doing this, just to try and get a higher 1L GPA?

Rather than consider that ridicuously expensive and time consuming idea, I'd suggest just trying to KILL your 2L year. You can salvage your GPA. Also network the hell out of the school. I know students at my school with bad grades, but they are personable and are part of like 5 organizations, and now have a paid 1L position.

Also, I've noticed that in law school, some people just "have it" and some just dont. I know really smart people who get average grades because they just view certain issues from a different perspective, and talk about things that aren't what are most important. Law school exams require you to see the issue the correct way, not just any way. It's strange and unfair; it's like some students have the innate ability to interpret the issue correctly, or some do not, and I think it's very hard to go from being a non-viewer to a viewer. What I am saying is, redoing 1L would not, in any way, guarantee high grades.

Also, people in this thread can be brutal, and in the end, you are the one calling the shots, not anyone here.

[Danny Mothers]

If OP is so confident, the real answer here is to get two years of 4.0 and bring that 2.8 up to a 3.6. Sounds like you'll have no problem doing that.

[stillwun]

Man up or quit. There are no do-overs in life.

[emkay625]

"A 2.8 is poor. If you're not willing to admit that and want to keep sugar coating things, then you're not willing to receive and implement honest advice."

A 2.5 is a dead C, which means average. A 2.8 is a C+, which is slightly (SLIGHTLY) better than average. When you say "poor," I'm picturing a C- or below, which is below the average.

"I can't tell if you're trolling or just throwing a tantrum."

And I'm honestly beginning to wonder what kind of forum this is.

"And yes, there are problems with the structure of legal education."

That's perhaps the biggest understatement I've heard since I began law school.

"I studied my heart out for my Con Law exam all semester and the professor tested probably 10% of the material in the form of an opinion question."

What the...so you're complaining that your exam was too easy?

"And you will not be successful in law school or the legal profession with that kind of arrogance. "

The arrogance that I not quit my profession? Wow, I'm so arrogant. Maybe tomorrow morning I'll be super arrogant and feel entitled to eat breakfast.

"Just because you've gone through 1L once does not mean you can "get A's no problem."

Well, not "no problem." Obviously it takes hard work. But now I know how to: something I had no idea how to do before.

"If you have a job lined up after graduation, then who gives a shit what your grades are?"

I DO. Why would you NOT give a shit about your grades?! That's CRAZY talk.

"Finally, saying "just quit" IS legitimate advice. "

In that it is legitimately bad advice, sure.

"Search these forums. They are littered with people advising others to drop out with poor 1L grades."

The only way this makes sense is if your version of "poor" means "only slightly better than average"

Your school has a C median? What school? Most schools have a B or B+ median.

Edited to add: asking because it will genuinely help us give you better advice.

I also do not think most schools would allow what you're proposing. It seems very unethical and unfair to the other people at whatever your new school would be—that they would have someone who has already taken all of these classes before in their curve. My understanding is that people who redo 1L do so because they failed the first go round or because they had to withdraw for medical/family reasons.

[HonestAdvice]

2.8 isn't exactly "poor", its just mediocre. I feel like no one properly prepared me for Law School, and teachers did a shit job of actually letting us know what was testable and what wasn't. Now I understand. Now I can get A's, no problem. My tuition is 5grand a semester, so that's not a problem either. As for job opportunities, I already have one lined up after graduation. Not making the Law Review is a bummer because I was planning on teaching one day (not anymore). But no, "just quit bro" is not advice, its a way of saying "I'm too lazy to analyze this situation so I'll just insult your self worth."

Everyone has this problem. While having a parent who went to law school is helpful, most people have to figure out what's tested and what isn't on their own. There are plenty of resources available to everyone that make it an even playing field, but one of the tricks of law school is to locate and use these materials to your advantage. It's also not the professor's job to teach you, which is something you clearly didn't understand. You can say it's unfair, but I had many college classes where not blindly agreeing with crazy professors got you docked a full letter grade. For example, I commented on a paper in one ridiculous class that it's not conclusive the Bush administration planned 9/11 with citation, but was docked because the CIA reports weren't credible evidence when juxtaposed with the professor's online blog, which was conclusive evidence. In law school, all you have to do is figure out how to take tests, and not offend the professor.

[encore1101]

2.8 isn't exactly "poor", its just mediocre. I feel like no one properly prepared me for Law School, and teachers did a shit job of actually letting us know what was testable and what wasn't. Now I understand. Now I can get A's, no problem. My tuition is 5grand a semester, so that's not a problem either. As for job opportunities, I already have one lined up after graduation. Not making the Law Review is a bummer because I was planning on teaching one day (not anymore). But no, "just quit bro" is not advice, its a way of saying "I'm too lazy to analyze this situation so I'll just insult your self worth."

Everyone has this problem. While having a parent who went to law school is helpful, most people have to figure out what's tested and what isn't on their own. There are plenty of resources available to everyone that make it an even playing field, but one of the tricks of law school is to locate and use these materials to your advantage. It's also not the professor's job to teach you, which is something you clearly didn't understand. You can say it's unfair, but I had many college classes where not blindly agreeing with crazy professors got you docked a full letter grade. For example, I commented on a paper in one ridiculous class that it's not conclusive the Bush administration planned 9/11 with citation, but was docked because the CIA reports weren't credible evidence when juxtaposed with the professor's online blog, which was conclusive evidence. In law school, all you have to do is figure out how to take tests, and not offend the professor.

Wait, your professor was a 9/11 truther?

[Manali]

Hey everyone, I just finished my 2nd semester of 1L. My grades were less than stellar and I have a 2.8 GPA. I know this probably isn't good enough to transfer,but how about starting 1L over again? Is this possible (at, say, a different school)? My reasoning is that I now understand how to learn the law. And in my opinion, the purpose of Law School is not to teach law. They teach nothing at all, their purpose is only to weed people out. The way the entire profession is taught kind of disgusts me, and reveals exactly WHY there are so many incompetent lawyers.

I transferred with a shitty GPA. It was above a 3.0, but barely. I was in the bottom half of the class. Difficult, but not impossible.

[heythatslife]

Hey everyone, I just finished my 2nd semester of 1L. My grades were less than stellar and I have a 2.8 GPA. I know this probably isn't good enough to transfer,but how about starting 1L over again? Is this possible (at, say, a different school)? My reasoning is that I now understand how to learn the law. And in my opinion, the purpose of Law School is not to teach law. They teach nothing at all, their purpose is only to weed people out. The way the entire profession is taught kind of disgusts me, and reveals exactly WHY there are so many incompetent lawyers.

I transferred with a shitty GPA. It was above a 3.0, but barely. I was in the bottom half of the class. Difficult, but not impossible.

But you transferred down, which is not the goal here or for most people

[bretby]

2.8 isn't exactly "poor", its just mediocre. I feel like no one properly prepared me for Law School, and teachers did a shit job of actually letting us know what was testable and what wasn't. Now I understand. Now I can get A's, no problem. My tuition is 5grand a semester, so that's not a problem either. As for job opportunities, I already have one lined up after graduation. Not making the Law Review is a bummer because I was planning on teaching one day (not anymore). But no, "just quit bro" is not advice, its a way of saying "I'm too lazy to analyze this situation so I'll just insult your self worth."

Everyone has this problem. While having a parent who went to law school is helpful, most people have to figure out what's tested and what isn't on their own. There are plenty of resources available to everyone that make it an even playing field, but one of the tricks of law school is to locate and use these materials to your advantage. It's also not the professor's job to teach you, which is something you clearly didn't understand. You can say it's unfair, but I had many college classes where not blindly agreeing with crazy professors got you docked a full letter grade. For example, I commented on a paper in one ridiculous class that it's not conclusive the Bush administration planned 9/11 with citation, but was docked because the CIA reports weren't credible evidence when juxtaposed with the professor's online blog, which was conclusive evidence. In law school, all you have to do is figure out how to take tests, and not offend the professor.

Wait, your professor was a 9/11 truther?

This is definitely burying the lede.

[Manali]

Hey everyone, I just finished my 2nd semester of 1L. My grades were less than stellar and I have a 2.8 GPA. I know this probably isn't good enough to transfer,but how about starting 1L over again? Is this possible (at, say, a different school)? My reasoning is that I now understand how to learn the law. And in my opinion, the purpose of Law School is not to teach law. They teach nothing at all, their purpose is only to weed people out. The way the entire profession is taught kind of disgusts me, and reveals exactly WHY there are so many incompetent lawyers.

I transferred with a shitty GPA. It was above a 3.0, but barely. I was in the bottom half of the class. Difficult, but not impossible.

But you transferred down, which is not the goal here or for most people

Transfer down in terms of rankings, but better career prospects.