What does it really take to get top 10%? Forum

[98234872348]

The question is flawed. What you should be asking is How can I do as well as possible? And the answer to that, of course, has been discussed to death on TLS.

Once you've put together an effective study strategy and execute it faithfully, there is quite literally only one thing that will get you into the top-10%: Luck.

That's it. Nothing more. Because you can only do as well as you can do, and where you fall vis-a-vis your classmates depends on how well they do, and you, of course, have no control whatsoever over that.

So relax, work hard, get lots of sleep, enjoy yourself, and stop worrying about whether you'll be top-10% since that part's not really in your hands.

I disagree with everything in this post.

So you argue students should stress out, work lackadaisically, practice sleep deprivation, hate life, and worry constantly about being top 10%? Sounds like a recipe for success.

[seespotrun]

The question is flawed. What you should be asking is How can I do as well as possible? And the answer to that, of course, has been discussed to death on TLS.

Once you've put together an effective study strategy and execute it faithfully, there is quite literally only one thing that will get you into the top-10%: Luck.

That's it. Nothing more. Because you can only do as well as you can do, and where you fall vis-a-vis your classmates depends on how well they do, and you, of course, have no control whatsoever over that.

So relax, work hard, get lots of sleep, enjoy yourself, and stop worrying about whether you'll be top-10% since that part's not really in your hands.

I disagree with everything in this post.

So you argue students should stress out, work lackadaisically, practice sleep deprivation, hate life, and worry constantly about being top 10%? Sounds like a recipe for success.

You know what I meant, Goft. Quit white-knighting SBL.

[98234872348]

The question is flawed. What you should be asking is How can I do as well as possible? And the answer to that, of course, has been discussed to death on TLS.

Once you've put together an effective study strategy and execute it faithfully, there is quite literally only one thing that will get you into the top-10%: Luck.

That's it. Nothing more. Because you can only do as well as you can do, and where you fall vis-a-vis your classmates depends on how well they do, and you, of course, have no control whatsoever over that.

So relax, work hard, get lots of sleep, enjoy yourself, and stop worrying about whether you'll be top-10% since that part's not really in your hands.

I disagree with everything in this post.

So you argue students should stress out, work lackadaisically, practice sleep deprivation, hate life, and worry constantly about being top 10%? Sounds like a recipe for success.

You know what I meant, Goft. Quit white-knighting SBL.

While I don't necessarily think there is no correlation between working hard and succeeding in law school, I think that you have to recognize that there is an element of luck in getting good grades and that your time would be better spent working hard and smart (i.e. figuring out your professor's preferences) rather than obsessing over what others are doing around you or planning how you're going to spend your first million.

[edcrane]

I think there's going to be major differences regarding the 'laundry list' approach. Certainly all profs will want good, detailed analysis of the main points. Some profs will allocate points to explaining why other statutes don't apply, even ones far removed, but at least one of my profs has explicitly stated that if something is not relevant, on a common sense basis, it will almost certainly not get any points. Insightful points - 'extras' need to come after an exhaustive dissection of the main question, and should be brief. That's what I've gotten from my profs. Upperclassmen have said "JUST THROW EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN ONTO THE PAPER AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, ARRRGHH!" and these are people with good grades. Lovely.

I think the biggest issue with the kitchen sink approach is that it can easily give the impression that you simply do not understand what works and what doesn't, which indicates that you're not applying the law well. It's especially dangerous if you're inclined to "argue both sides" of every single issue. It might not hurt you if you're able to do a great job delineating the important arguments that would actually merit discussion with a client/judge from the loser arguments that no one would make, but it's still a risky approach with little (and perhaps no) upside.

[keg411]

I think the biggest issue with the kitchen sink approach is that it can easily give the impression that you simply do not understand what works and what doesn't, which indicates that you're not applying the law well. It's especially dangerous if you're inclined to "argue both sides" of every single issue. It might not hurt you if you're able to do a great job delineating the important arguments that would actually merit discussion with a client/judge from the loser arguments that no one would make, but it's still a risky approach with little (and perhaps no) upside.

Both of the professors I've talked to individually so far agree with this.

[Ersatz Haderach]

The harder I work the luckier I get. I agree with seespotrun; luck has little to do with law school grades.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging that what we're calling 'luck' is a factor, but why even care? It's inevitable; just accept some degree of fate in your grades. Work hard anyway. Work harder, even.

[seespotrun]

You know what I meant, Goft. Quit white-knighting SBL.

While I don't necessarily think there is no correlation between working hard and succeeding in law school, I think that you have to recognize that there is an element of luck in getting good grades and that your time would be better spent working hard and smart (i.e. figuring out your professor's preferences) rather than obsessing over what others are doing around you or planning how you're going to spend your first million.

Our views aren't irreconcilable. But the whole "LS grades = LUCK" meme is a bunch of horse shit.

[seespotrun]

I think there's going to be major differences regarding the 'laundry list' approach. Certainly all profs will want good, detailed analysis of the main points. Some profs will allocate points to explaining why other statutes don't apply, even ones far removed, but at least one of my profs has explicitly stated that if something is not relevant, on a common sense basis, it will almost certainly not get any points. Insightful points - 'extras' need to come after an exhaustive dissection of the main question, and should be brief. That's what I've gotten from my profs. Upperclassmen have said "JUST THROW EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN ONTO THE PAPER AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, ARRRGHH!" and these are people with good grades. Lovely.

I think the biggest issue with the kitchen sink approach is that it can easily give the impression that you simply do not understand what works and what doesn't, which indicates that you're not applying the law well. It's especially dangerous if you're inclined to "argue both sides" of every single issue. It might not hurt you if you're able to do a great job delineating the important arguments that would actually merit discussion with a client/judge from the loser arguments that no one would make, but it's still a risky approach with little (and perhaps no) upside.

Credited, as usual. Well put.