Bad Grade Forum

[gradesrback]

Long-time poster using a different account here...
I just got my Contracts exam grade back, and I'm incredulous to have done so poorly. I'm a few percentage points below the median (probably in the bottom third), and I find it hard to believe that I bombed the test so thoroughly considering my preparation methods. Before school started, I'd read GTM, did LEEWS midway through the semester,
and generally thought I was ahead of the curve as far as the test-taking strategies are concerned. To kick-it, having taken a bunch of undergrad courses in Econ helped me flesh out a number of principles taught in the course. I felt that I'd organized my thoughts well on the exam, avoided rambling, and displayed a decent grasp of black letter law/principles highlighted by the prof.

Aside from the fact that I could have just completely missed a number of major issues, I have a suspicion that my exam displayed preparation methods frowned upon by our professor. We covered a very large amount of material in comparison to other courses, and the prof prescribed to super old-school methods of teaching (he discouraged us from reading hornbooks/commercial study guides and instead urged us spend our time reading the cases several times over before the class). Obviously I'm speculating and will have to see the test for myself, but am I wrong to think that I was downgraded for resorting to outside materials? Or is my result simply a reflection of the inadvertent nature of the curve? Can any TLSers chime in on how they dealt with an incredibly-unexpected bad grade?

[freegaladvice]

Your exam displayed methods you knew were frowned upon by your professor? I'm incredulous you would question the result. Shitty though, hope your other classes went well.

[TTT-LS]

.

[gradesrback]

Your exam displayed methods you knew were frowned upon by your professor? I'm incredulous you would question the result. Shitty though, hope your other classes went well.

The prof never explicitly discouraged us from reading GTM or doing something like LEEWS. He only made a point to discourage us from reading hornbooks/using other commercial study aids. As far as I know, there's nothing on my exam that would suggest that I got most of my understanding of the law from sources other than lectures and assigned reading. As as the actual test-taking methods, the prof just alluded to the fact that re-reading the cases over and over and then IRACing the exam are best strategies for the performing well. This was in stark contrast to other profs who openly offered the students to come into their office hours and discuss the effectiveness of different study aids/test preps. So my organization might hint that I learned a bunch of test-taking strategies -- not necessarily what he warned us against, but something the might irk an old-school prof. So what I'm proposing is a possibility of something that negatively impacted my grade.

[john titor]

obviously you shoudl wait until your other exam grades come in. you will know if it is an anomaly.

however, be prepared for the prospect that you are just in the bottom half of your class. no matter how well you prepare, sometimes it just shakes out like that. someone has to be below median...in fact, 1 out of 2 people in every law school class is below median. You just might be one of those people. I know that being in the bottom half of your class is a prospect that TLSers never acknowledge, let alone prepare for, but here we are.

[thesealocust]

In my extremely limited experience, people who thought they did alright then got bad grades often found that while they had addressed large numbers of issues, they often did so in a conclusory manner. My private hypothesis (and I'll stress again that I have very few data points) is that it's a pitfall especially for those who feel like they have a commanding grasp of the material: they stop putting all of the 'work' on paper, and instead do it in their head. The result is that even if you get to the correct position (and even if that position is 'maybe') you don't rack up points for having undertaken a thorough analysis.

Realistically though, comparing answers to another student or seeing the prof is going to be the only way to figure it out. I highly doubt that GTM/LEEWS/Alphabetsoupwhatever somehow undid you though.

[sperry]

Long-time poster using a different account here...
I just got my Contracts exam grade back, and I'm incredulous to have done so poorly. I'm a few percentage points below the median (probably in the bottom third), and I find it hard to believe that I bombed the test so thoroughly considering my preparation methods. Before school started, I'd read GTM, did LEEWS midway through the semester,
and generally thought I was ahead of the curve as far as the test-taking strategies are concerned. To kick-it, having taken a bunch of undergrad courses in Econ helped me flesh out a number of principles taught in the course. I felt that I'd organized my thoughts well on the exam, avoided rambling, and displayed a decent grasp of black letter law/principles highlighted by the prof.

Aside from the fact that I could have just completely missed a number of major issues, I have a suspicion that my exam displayed preparation methods frowned upon by our professor. We covered a very large amount of material in comparison to other courses, and the prof prescribed to super old-school methods of teaching (he discouraged us from reading hornbooks/commercial study guides and instead urged us spend our time reading the cases several times over before the class). Obviously I'm speculating and will have to see the test for myself, but am I wrong to think that I was downgraded for resorting to outside materials? Or is my result simply a reflection of the inadvertent nature of the curve? Can any TLSers chime in on how they dealt with an incredibly-unexpected bad grade?

If you go to a decent school you were probably competing against a bunch of people who are extremely smart and know the material well. I knew all my shit, and 90% of the people in my section knew all their shit. That means a lot of smart well prepared people aren't going to do well, most likely myself included.

[steve_nash]

.

[Bankhead]

What school range are we talking about here?

[gradesrback]

What school range are we talking about here?

T20

[freegaladvice]

T20

As in T15-T20...wouldn't happen to be WashU?

[Bankhead]

What school range are we talking about here?

T20

Yeah, most people at your school are pretty smart/studied their asses off.

Well, I'm sure I'll be joining you in your misery in a week or two.

[superserial]

Hi Snooker!

<3

[gradesrback]

I wouldn't panic just yet. Yes, the grade sucks, but sometimes grading can be very strange. I had a friend who received an A+ and a C+ in the same semester.

Without seeing the exam, perhaps you focused on the wrong thing. The prof might have wanted more discussion of the issues he discussed in class; I say this because your mention of economic principles. Did you go on tangents on the exam? Did you discuss in full detail the immediate issues rather than less important ones? Did you get cocky in your preparation? As a poster above noted, sometimes it's easy to skip over issues because you know the material so well that it makes sense in your head, and you forget to thoroughly explain it on paper.

Go meet with the professor and see what you did wrong so you don't do it again.

Sure thing. The caveat is that I did a fair amount reading/prep-work to avoid the usual test-taking pitfalls that most posters mention, and by the time exams rolled around I was fairly conscious of the typical exam faux pas. Obviously I still did not manage to avoid them.

[mac.empress]

This sh*t's just freaking me out. I don't have any grades yet but the possibility of bombing doesn't sit well with me.

[gradesrback]

T20

As in T15-T20...wouldn't happen to be WashU?

PM me if you'd like to know.

[Big Shrimpin]

This sh*t's just freaking me out. I don't have any grades yet but the possibility of bombing doesn't sit well with me.

+1

OP: bummer, dude. The fates probably have the same design for me. FML.

[Snooker]

Hi Snooker!

<3

A more probable theory is that this is actually TTT using a separate account, given how he replied so quickly to the OP. This wouldn't be the first gimmicky post he's made either. The OP is pretty inconsistent with my postings, so any suggestion that it might be the same person as me is pretty unrealistic.

[superserial]

Hi Snooker!

<3

A more probable theory is that this is actually TTT using a separate account, given how he replied so quickly to the OP. This wouldn't be the first gimmicky post he's made either. The OP is pretty inconsistent with my postings, so any suggestion that it might be the same person as me is pretty unrealistic.

The Snooker doth protest too much.

[steve_nash]

.

[thesealocust]

I have to say that I thought the same thing as TTT after reading the OP's post. And I'd like to at least pretend that TTT has better things to do than create separate accounts on TLS.

I'm a creepy stalker: Snooker posted in early August about doing LEEWS while OP mentioned doing it mid-semester. I doubt OP is Snooker.

[CE2JD]

I have to say that I thought the same thing as TTT after reading the OP's post. And I'd like to at least pretend that TTT has better things to do than create separate accounts on TLS.

I'm a creepy stalker: Snooker posted in early August about doing LEEWS while OP mentioned doing it mid-semester. I doubt OP is Snooker.

Unless he did it AGAIN mid-semester.

[steve_nash]

I have to say that I thought the same thing as TTT after reading the OP's post. And I'd like to at least pretend that TTT has better things to do than create separate accounts on TLS.

I'm a creepy stalker: Snooker posted in early August about doing LEEWS while OP mentioned doing it mid-semester. I doubt OP is Snooker.

Unless he did it AGAIN mid-semester.

If we're doing the creepy stalker thing: this is pretty funny.

I wrote 20 pages in my concise style without a word-vomit on my K's exam. I am pretty sure I covered everything thoroughly, cited every case, UCC section etc. I didn't write that much on practice tests. It was pretty intense.

Quoted for when you get a slightly-below-median grade, just because that is how the karma of law school grading works.

[superserial]

because I just had oral surgery and can't do anything but chill in bed... moar stalking and exhibits of why karma wants the OP to be Snooki.

I wrote 20 pages in my concise style without a word-vomit on my K's exam. I am pretty sure I covered everything thoroughly, cited every case, UCC section etc. I didn't write that much on practice tests. It was pretty intense.

Quoted for when you get a slightly-below-median grade, just because that is how the karma of law school grading works.

I figure the average answer is actually closer to 3,500 words in length (12 pages); TLS is just a place full of gunners.

the 4k range sounds right. I have taken a lot of contracts ultra-dense hypos and going through every single issue in the book, hitting every issue on there (40+ I am sure), I'm still around 1,500 or so words per hour. I use the concise format of GTM which may be a reason. There is zero redundancy in my exams. Even my 1500 - 2000 words per hour is 15-20 pages, a crap load to read. My profs also give points for style, and I always make sure things look good.

I am not actually working very hard, I worked like 5 hours today and I am going hiking tomorrow. I don't really need to review anything other than practice exams and multiple choice. My main strategy this year has been efficiency, so it seems like I am getting a lot done, but it's in a small time frame. Everyone else is reviewing and cramming and I'm past that. Practice tests are important and useful, and I am glad I ordered my study strategy to give myself lots of time to do them. I am becoming something of a bar review celebrity. (I believe I have attended 20 times as many bar reviews as you now!)

What third world countries allow you to avoid debt by the way?

I read HBs and spend 1/2 the time reading as my classmates do. not such a big effort imo

I wrote the first two questions of today's exams - short ones with harsh time allocations, at 40 words per minute. They were followed by a really long, ultra uber complicated hypo / policy type question. The kind of question you see in hell. I wrote that at 24 words per minute, but had very good structure in there, organization and flow, since it was a 1 1/2 hour question. The directions to the question were such a clusterfuck that many people didn't even follow it. In all I typed 1,700 words per hour!

I think I did pretty well despite the relatively low word rate on the last question because I structured the thing to address the professor's pet topic that she wrote in her best law review article and has brought up in class. I am sure virtually nobody addressed this extremely important issue because you more or less have to build the whole essay up like a ladder as to the top of a christmas tree you want to put a star on. I am not sure that the execution was very pretty, the issue is ultra convoluted, but at least I got at some compelling arguments and addressed both sides.

[gradesrback]

nice work. though i could use some more 2L/3L advice concerning my question.