One approach to 1L success from someone ranked #1. Forum

[Holly Golightly]

I HATE to chime in here, but I feel that I must: am I really the only person ITT who thinks "I'm top 5%" and "I booked 75% of my classes" will produce substantively different opportunities, especially w/r/t transferring and/or clerking?

If so, my bad. If not, then why are y'all ignoring that in the spiteful rebuttals?

You are correct. The difference between #1 student and top 5% is marked in the clerkship and transferring arenas. No question. As for firm jobs, at most T1 schools, it's negligible.

I admittedly know nothing about this, coming from a school that doesn't even rank, much less give awards.

[somethingdemure]

.

[Verity]

I HATE to chime in here, but I feel that I must: am I really the only person ITT who thinks "I'm top 5%" and "I booked 75% of my classes" will produce substantively different opportunities, especially w/r/t transferring and/or clerking?

If so, my bad. If not, then why are y'all ignoring that in the spiteful rebuttals?

You are correct. The difference between #1 student and top 5% is marked in the clerkship and transferring arenas. No question. As for firm jobs, at most T1 schools, it's negligible.

That's just not true. Maybe at the top of T1 schools, but at most T1 schools, the most selective firms will look much more closely at #1 than top 5%.

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

If you want to transfer to HYS, there's an important difference between #1 and top 5%. Not really for employment, though. The most selective firms won't talk to you if you're at a TTT anyway.

[NYC Law]

I HATE to chime in here, but I feel that I must: am I really the only person ITT who thinks "I'm top 5%" and "I booked 75% of my classes" will produce substantively different opportunities, especially w/r/t transferring and/or clerking?

If so, my bad. If not, then why are y'all ignoring that in the spiteful rebuttals?

You are correct. The difference between #1 student and top 5% is marked in the clerkship and transferring arenas. No question. As for firm jobs, at most T1 schools, it's negligible.

That's just not true. Maybe at the top of T1 schools, but at most T1 schools, the most selective firms will look much more closely at #1 than top 5%.

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

If you want to transfer to HYS, there's an important difference between #1 and top 5%. Not really for employment, though. The most selective firms won't talk to you if you're at a TTT anyway.

Your statements are too definitive for you being a 0L. Try harder to make it sound like you don't know what you're talking about so people don't confuse you for a law student. That's what I do anyway.

[thecilent]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

Very well-said. Ty.

[Verity]

Your statements are too definitive for you being a 0L. Try harder to make it sound like you don't know what you're talking about so people don't confuse you for a law student. That's what I do anyway.

Well let's just wait until a law student disagrees with me. Otherwise, 0L regurgitating 1L advice = 1L advice. I've never read anything contrary to what I just said posted by a 1L. Every source I've read about transferring makes this distinction, and even then qualifies that HYS isn't a lock.

[Verity]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

I disagree with this. I think that you, and a lot of other posters ITT, are taking "shoot for #1" too literally. By this OP probably just means "do your very best," which will undoubtedly be helpful. OP isn't promising #1, or making a distinction between shooting for #1 and shooting for top 5% (a distinction which is practically nonsensical).

[fatduck]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

I disagree with this. I think that you, and a lot of other posters ITT, are taking "shoot for #1" too literally. By this OP probably just means "do your very best," which will undoubtedly be helpful. OP isn't promising #1, or making a distinction between shooting for #1 and shooting for top 5% (which is practically nonsensical).

are you sure about this? OP actually complained about not breaking the curve.

[Naked Dude]

Re: the minimal difference between #1 and #4, I'm sure that's usually the case. But based on my knowledge of my own gpa, that of the person ranked #2, and that of someone just outside the top 10%, #2 was closer to falling outside the top 10% than of catching me. Maybe doing as much a I did would have brought that person within .01 of me, maybe it would have propelled him/her past me, maybe destroying the equilibrium of work-life balance would have resulted in a median finish. There's no way of knowing.

The whole point of my last post was that if finishing @ #2 is good enough for you, then not killing yourself 1L year isn't necessary if you have the other requesites for success. You might finish first, you might not, but you'll be happy either way- this is fine and there's nothing wrong with being #2, #5, or #50.

But if you're going to be pissed at yourself for not putting in your best effort when #2 pops up on your transcript, then the question still remains- do you want to have finished behind someone because of an element outside your control (brains, luck, whatever), or because you spent every Sunday working on your fantasy football team instead of studying

Different people have different goals, and I feel as though mine didn't allow me to hang my fortunes on the .01 that usually separates people at the top. If I don't end up transferring, and I end up getting a clerkship that my relationships with profs and top 5% grades would have gotten me, then maybe the extra work won't be worth it. If I don't end up transferring, and I get a job that top 10% grades, my pre-law resume, my interviewing skill, and my ability to wear a suit would have gotten me, then maybe building up my IM softball skills would have been a better way to spend my Saturdays.

But if I don't end up transferring, or getting the clerkship, or the job, or whatever else I'm driving towards, it won't be because I didn't give my full effort. At the end of the day, that's all I can really ask for.

I finished #3 in my high school class. The salutatorian was just...incredibly, astonishingly bright so I didn't feel bad about him "beating" me. The valedictorian was a gunner to the extreme. Now, this isn't law school, but I think the analogy holds. People very rarely push themselves to the limit-no matter what they tell themselves 99% of the time they can work harder, they're just burning out and need a little more motivation, etc. I never thought it was worth it to catch up to him.

Who am I to speak? I am not in law school. Correct, but I can still present a thought experiment. It's all about how you value your time. If I can be #5 (or hell even #10) in my class, at only 60-70% effort, whereas, to beat the real smartypants/gunners I'd have to amp it up to 99% effort, a rational person is going to do the former. Pursuing the latter is purely pride. If you're intelligent enough to be top 5-10% without extreme effort, and time to pursue other activities and professional contacts, then that's what you should do. Only difference to me seems like #1 would guarantee at most places that you'd grade onto Law Review, which might not be a guarantee at "only" top 5%.

The problem with this argument is that you can't quantify this or know ahead of time how hard you " need" to work, nor can you isolate variables after the fact. If the #1 student gets a job the #10 student didn't get, how do you know it was grades alone?

[Kabuo]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

Very well-said. Ty.

You two have completely misunderstood the OP, which is pretty sad considering there's also the opinion in this thread that he's talked about this overmuch anyway. He didn't say shooting for top 5% and #1 produce substantively different results. He's been deferential enough to all of the TLS platitudes. He's saying if you would be happy with top 5% and don't feel a pressing NEED to be #1, then you probably won't feel a need to "kill yourself" to be #1, and that's fine. I don't know how you get from that that you can't be #1 without leaving it all on the table.

I'll add my voice to those thanking OP again, and Jesus Christ, gtfo out of the thread if you're not going to do anything but repeat things that have already been said or make petulant protests against one person who says that working to the bone worked for him. He's acknowledged that it might not be necessary or even desirable for everyone. What more do you want?

[Naked Dude]

How do you even shoot for number 1? Law school is like golf. While you are in competition with people, it's only really in indirect competition. Nothing you do has any effect on other people, and vise versa.

Don't golfers still shoot to be first? Yeah you can't affect anyone else, but you can give it your best shot to do whatever to be 1st.
Too many analogies ITT.

When I play (and I mean when I compete in something with actual stakes, not a round of golf or tennis with friends) I play to win. I put up "180" signs and the like while studying for the LSAT as a motivational thing, but I didn't beat myself up or get yelled at by tiger mom when I didn't get a perfect score. I think aiming for the top is good for motivation as long as you manage expectations.

[Verity]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

I disagree with this. I think that you, and a lot of other posters ITT, are taking "shoot for #1" too literally. By this OP probably just means "do your very best," which will undoubtedly be helpful. OP isn't promising #1, or making a distinction between shooting for #1 and shooting for top 5% (which is practically nonsensical).

are you sure about this? OP actually complained about not breaking the curve.

He can talk about this in retrospect, because he has the facts concerning the gap between himself and the #2, #3, etc. This is of no use to a new 1L, because you have no idea where you'll be, or how you can get there. All you know is that hard work is a crucial factor to success, and the one factor you have most/any control over.

[NYC Law]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

Very well-said. Ty.

You two have completely misunderstood the OP, which is pretty sad considering there's also the opinion in this thread that he's talked about this overmuch anyway. He didn't say shooting for top 5% and #1 produce substantively different results. He's been deferential enough to all of the TLS platitudes. He's saying if you would be happy with top 5% and don't feel a pressing NEED to be #1, then you probably won't feel a need to "kill yourself" to be #1, and that's fine. I don't know how you get from that that you can't be #1 without leaving it all on the table.

I'll add my voice to those thanking OP again, and Jesus Christ, gtfo out of the thread if you're not going to do anything but repeat things that have already been said or make petulant protests against one person who says that working to the bone worked for him. He's acknowledged that it might not be necessary or even desirable for everyone. What more do you want?

This.
This thread has quickly delineated into one of the most herp derpish threads on TLS.
I know you all want to be lawyers, but you don't have to argue about every fucking minuscule thing.

[Verity]

What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that shooting for #1 will produce substantively different results than shooting for top 5%. Or that everyone who didn't work like OP wasn't really shooting for #1. It's needlessly pedantic, and it begs the question by assuming that hard work correlates directly with GPA.

Very well-said. Ty.

You two have completely misunderstood the OP, which is pretty sad considering there's also the opinion in this thread that he's talked about this overmuch anyway. He didn't say shooting for top 5% and #1 produce substantively different results. He's been deferential enough to all of the TLS platitudes. He's saying if you would be happy with top 5% and don't feel a pressing NEED to be #1, then you probably won't feel a need to "kill yourself" to be #1, and that's fine. I don't know how you get from that that you can't be #1 without leaving it all on the table.

I'll add my voice to those thanking OP again, and Jesus Christ, gtfo out of the thread if you're not going to do anything but repeat things that have already been said or make petulant protests against one person who says that working to the bone worked for him. He's acknowledged that it might not be necessary or even desirable for everyone. What more do you want?

That's very well-said. Twirps, gtfo.

[romothesavior]

God good, why is this still going on?

0Ls... just work hard, follow the advice that works for you, and have fun. There's law school in a nutshell.

[thecilent]

Why the fuck are people mad about the replies in this thread and the fact that there is still arguing. This is fucking tls and this shit happens every day

[thecilent]

But also i should thank op too, bc there was some stuff in the op that I think seems pretty neat and useful. So ty ty

[somethingdemure]

.

[Verity]

Your statements are too definitive for you being a 0L. Try harder to make it sound like you don't know what you're talking about so people don't confuse you for a law student. That's what I do anyway.

Well let's just wait until a law student disagrees with me. Otherwise, 0L regurgitating 1L advice = 1L advice. I've never read anything contrary to what I just said posted by a 1L. Every source I've read about transferring makes this distinction, and even then qualifies that HYS isn't a lock.

I'm sorry, this made me laugh a little. I'm a law student, and what you said was specifically disagreeing with me. And I don't believe it's a mere difference of opinion. Yes, at the very top schools, #1 and top 5% is a negligible difference for 99% of jobs. For every school, say, T20 and downward, #1 and top 5% can be a very large difference for the very selective firms.

I truly didn't mean to offend either OP or the swarm of 0Ls with my comments. I don't think OP has given any bad advice at all. What I'm taking issue with primarily is the few posters (I think MyPseudonym is the first one I responded to) who've extrapolated from OP that 1L is like the Thunderdome, or that hard work made the difference between #4 & #1 for OP or anyone else.

Um...that's exactly what the hell I said. And OP said that he can't be sure whether it was just hard work that got him #1. Why should that be "disagreeing" to you?

[somethingdemure]

.

[Verity]

If you want to transfer to HYS, there's an important difference between #1 and top 5%. Not really for employment, though.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Sounded like you were saying there's not really an important difference between #1 and top 5% for employment purposes.

Yeah, in most cases. If you're gunning for V10, well, then there is a difference. But they'd probably only be looking at people from T14 anyway, especially ITE, and OP was T30-40. Like I said.

[gsat]

What an awesome post. I definitely read it in its entirety, printed it, and am using it as my guide. Extremely insightful, thank you!

[somethingdemure]

.

[thecilent]

If you want to transfer to HYS, there's an important difference between #1 and top 5%. Not really for employment, though.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Sounded like you were saying there's not really an important difference between #1 and top 5% for employment purposes.

Yeah, in most cases. If you're gunning for V10, well, then there is a difference. But they'd probably only be looking at people from T14 anyway, especially ITE, and OP was T30-40. Like I said.

Dude i wouldn't even say shit like this and i couldn't give a fuck about 1Ls telling me stop im an 0L. Too far.

[Verity]

If you want to transfer to HYS, there's an important difference between #1 and top 5%. Not really for employment, though.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Sounded like you were saying there's not really an important difference between #1 and top 5% for employment purposes.

Yeah, in most cases. If you're gunning for V10, well, then there is a difference. But they'd probably only be looking at people from T14 anyway, especially ITE, and OP was T30-40. Like I said.

OP has a shot at V10 and most everywhere else no shit. Top 5% from his school has a significantly lower shot no shit, if we're talking V10, but that doesn't mean that a lot of biglaw, all midlaw and shitlaw are really going to turn a blind eye to a top 5% when they would take #1.

I really didn't want a spitting match here, so I'll bow out.