Feeling good- screwed? Forum

[spleenworship]

So I am several days in and I am feeling good. It is a lot of work, and figuring out what I need from a case is sometimes hard but not impossible. I feel like this is handle-able and not beyond me. While I am nervous about my tests, I don't feel like they aren't something I can't handle. While I am getting pwned in class by the people who actually do the full briefs of cases, I have yet to sound like a total idiot, either.

So, the question: am I screwed?

I have read on here again and again that the people who feel confident are the ones who get screwed during exam time with median pwnage or worse. I read GTM and I am doing LEEWS. In addition I have been reading TLS for over a year, and briefing cases on and off all summer, read some E&Es too. I am wondering if this is why I feel OK about this?

[Charles Barkley]

Way too early to be worried about that, imo. Just keep doing your reading.

[bk1]

In addition I have been reading TLS for over a year

Nothing could have doomed you more.

[JusticeHarlan]

So, the question: am I screwed?

Of course not. No one is "screwed" a week in to class, and nothing about feeling good about how things are going indicates you're on a path to doing poorly. Keep doing what you think works, keep things in perspective, and take a deep breath.

[spleenworship]

Thanks all. Yeah, the first week freakout was probably unnecessary, but it appears typical. My bad. And thanks again.

[evilxs]

You have already identified that you are getting pwned by those working harder. So... where do you want to end up in class rank? Don't work yourself to death, but don't let yourself get complacent. You can still be top 20% and put in half the work the number one ranked person did. Just always keep one cautious eye and how you feel like you're doing as it is very easy to start falling behind and you never really catch back up.

And no, one week into the semester you are not screwed.

[Heartford]

You have already identified that you are getting pwned by those working harder. So... where do you want to end up in class rank? Don't work yourself to death, but don't let yourself get complacent. You can still be top 20% and put in half the work the number one ranked person did. Just always keep one cautious eye and how you feel like you're doing as it is very easy to start falling behind and you never really catch back up.

And no, one week into the semester you are not screwed.

No, he said he was pwned in class, which is meaningless. Especially during the first few weeks of the first semester, any student's in-class-performance is in no way related to their overall performance by the end of the semester/year. In fact, I think most of the people who heavily participated during my first week ended up being pretty quiet by thanksgiving... It's often the more insecure students who are the most vocal at first. It's not a sprint. It's a marathon.

[NotMyRealName09]

As is said all over the place, ignore everyone else and trust your judgment. But just always remember - your class rank has a direct impact on your job prospects, so don't fuck up. So, be confident but non-complacent. Be confident so you don't panic, and work very hard to not be complacent. Being intelligent helps too.

[spleenworship]

Being intelligent helps too.

Well, I'm boned.

Seriously though, thanks.

[23402385985]

So I am several days in and I am feeling good. It is a lot of work, and figuring out what I need from a case is sometimes hard but not impossible. I feel like this is handle-able and not beyond me. While I am nervous about my tests, I don't feel like they aren't something I can't handle. While I am getting pwned in class by the people who actually do the full briefs of cases, I have yet to sound like a total idiot, either.

So, the question: am I screwed?

I have read on here again and again that the people who feel confident are the ones who get screwed during exam time with median pwnage or worse. I read GTM and I am doing LEEWS. In addition I have been reading TLS for over a year, and briefing cases on and off all summer, read some E&Es too. I am wondering if this is why I feel OK about this?

Who gives a shit about people doing full briefs, TBH? They are probably doing it more so they don't look dumb by not remembering the P's name or some other stupid fact that won't be relevant come exam time.

Get what you need out of the case (holding and law) and just don't be one who gets upset if the teacher is mad that you aren't overly interested in non-pertinent facts. This whole first week for me was spent listening to people discuss pointless and stupid parts about the cases and barely touching on the BLL and important things until the last few minutes. Don't be discouraged by the people who want to waste time briefing every little detail.

[truevines]

So I am several days in and I am feeling good. It is a lot of work, and figuring out what I need from a case is sometimes hard but not impossible. I feel like this is handle-able and not beyond me. While I am nervous about my tests, I don't feel like they aren't something I can't handle. While I am getting pwned in class by the people who actually do the full briefs of cases, I have yet to sound like a total idiot, either.

So, the question: am I screwed?

I have read on here again and again that the people who feel confident are the ones who get screwed during exam time with median pwnage or worse. I read GTM and I am doing LEEWS. In addition I have been reading TLS for over a year, and briefing cases on and off all summer, read some E&Es too. I am wondering if this is why I feel OK about this?

It's only the first week.
Law school is never about the workload. It's the curve that kills people.
How do you know where you stand in the curve by your own feeling?
No one really knows whether you are screwed until you get your grades next January or February.
So, I will say, try as hard as you can.

[JCougar]

Class discussion has very little to do with exams. So no one is screwed based on class discussion.

Some classes you could basically skip the entire first two months and learn the entire doctrine in the last month and do well (Torts, for example).

Success on law exams has very little to do with whether or not you know or can apply the doctrine or not. You need to do this to succeed, but it's easy enough that basically everybody gets it, and the curve can't differentiate based on doctrine knowledge (although Contracts and CivPro can be tricky and may be a slight exception). It's way more about responding in the style that your professor wants.

[Naked Dude]

Class discussion has very little to do with exams. So no one is screwed based on class discussion.

Some classes you could basically skip the entire first two months and learn the entire doctrine in the last month and do well (Torts, for example).

Success on law exams has very little to do with whether or not you know or can apply the doctrine or not. You need to do this to succeed, but it's easy enough that basically everybody gets it, and the curve can't differentiate based on doctrine knowledge (although Contracts and CivPro can be tricky and may be a slight exception). It's way more about responding in the style that your professor wants.

So in other words-if your professor allows you to do a "graded" practice exam-do it and study the shit out of her comments?

[JCougar]

Class discussion has very little to do with exams. So no one is screwed based on class discussion.

Some classes you could basically skip the entire first two months and learn the entire doctrine in the last month and do well (Torts, for example).

Success on law exams has very little to do with whether or not you know or can apply the doctrine or not. You need to do this to succeed, but it's easy enough that basically everybody gets it, and the curve can't differentiate based on doctrine knowledge (although Contracts and CivPro can be tricky and may be a slight exception). It's way more about responding in the style that your professor wants.

So in other words-if your professor allows you to do a "graded" practice exam-do it and study the shit out of her comments?

That's the first step. The second step is to simply realize that the fastest way to accumulate points is not to write a sensible analysis of the legal question. It's to really stroke the professor's ego and type an enormous amount of words. Simply analyzing comments from a practice exam is not enough. You have to get into their head by reading their writings outside of class. Most law professors have no training in the fields of education and/or assessment. They are unaware of how subjectively they give out grades. They think that anything that makes them feel good is a good legal analysis. Whatever that is is totally subjective.

[D'Angelo]

so are you saying there is no correlation between the actual application of doctrine and grades? or that it is simply very little?

[FuManChusco]

Class discussion has very little to do with exams. So no one is screwed based on class discussion.

Some classes you could basically skip the entire first two months and learn the entire doctrine in the last month and do well (Torts, for example).

Success on law exams has very little to do with whether or not you know or can apply the doctrine or not. You need to do this to succeed, but it's easy enough that basically everybody gets it, and the curve can't differentiate based on doctrine knowledge (although Contracts and CivPro can be tricky and may be a slight exception). It's way more about responding in the style that your professor wants.

So in other words-if your professor allows you to do a "graded" practice exam-do it and study the shit out of her comments?

That's the first step. The second step is to simply realize that the fastest way to accumulate points is not to write a sensible analysis of the legal question. It's to really stroke the professor's ego and type an enormous amount of words. Simply analyzing comments from a practice exam is not enough. You have to get into their head by reading their writings outside of class. Most law professors have no training in the fields of education and/or assessment. They are unaware of how subjectively they give out grades. They think that anything that makes them feel good is a good legal analysis. Whatever that is is totally subjective.

as a fresh 1L, this is amazing.

[JusticeHarlan]

That's the first step. The second step is to simply realize that the fastest way to accumulate points is not to write a sensible analysis of the legal question. It's to really stroke the professor's ego and type an enormous amount of words. Simply analyzing comments from a practice exam is not enough. You have to get into their head by reading their writings outside of class. Most law professors have no training in the fields of education and/or assessment. They are unaware of how subjectively they give out grades. They think that anything that makes them feel good is a good legal analysis. Whatever that is is totally subjective.

I disagree with most of this. Solid legal analysis is the most reliable way to earn high grades. Scribe's note on exam writing is the best advice I have seen lately, so that's one place to look.

I rarely if ever read a prof's outside work or tried to get inside a prof's head. Despite those omissions, I ended up doing quite well in LS. I am sure the same holds true for many others.

As for OP, chill out. Unlike in the NFL, week 1 counts for nothing in law school. This mostly holds for the rest of the semester, too -- the "regular season," as it were, is mostly inconsequential. Keep your eye on what it takes to do well in the playoffs.

+1, especially for the shout-outs to scribe (who wrote my favorite how to do well in law school guide) and Jim Mora (who had one of my favorite press conference meltdowns).

[JCougar]

That's the first step. The second step is to simply realize that the fastest way to accumulate points is not to write a sensible analysis of the legal question. It's to really stroke the professor's ego and type an enormous amount of words. Simply analyzing comments from a practice exam is not enough. You have to get into their head by reading their writings outside of class. Most law professors have no training in the fields of education and/or assessment. They are unaware of how subjectively they give out grades. They think that anything that makes them feel good is a good legal analysis. Whatever that is is totally subjective.

I disagree with most of this. Solid legal analysis is the most reliable way to earn high grades. Scribe's note on exam writing is the best advice I have seen lately, so that's one place to look.

I rarely if ever read a prof's outside work or tried to get inside a prof's head. Despite those omissions, I ended up doing quite well in LS. I am sure the same holds true for many others.

As for OP, chill out. Unlike in the NFL, week 1 counts for nothing in law school. This mostly holds for the rest of the semester, too -- the "regular season," as it were, is mostly inconsequential. Keep your eye on what it takes to do well in the playoffs.

The caveat is that it obviously depends on the professor, and their exam-grading technique.

But the people I know that killed it did a lot of reading of the professors' work outside of class to "get inside their head."

[23402385985]

That's the first step. The second step is to simply realize that the fastest way to accumulate points is not to write a sensible analysis of the legal question. It's to really stroke the professor's ego and type an enormous amount of words. Simply analyzing comments from a practice exam is not enough. You have to get into their head by reading their writings outside of class. Most law professors have no training in the fields of education and/or assessment. They are unaware of how subjectively they give out grades. They think that anything that makes them feel good is a good legal analysis. Whatever that is is totally subjective.

I disagree with most of this. Solid legal analysis is the most reliable way to earn high grades. Scribe's note on exam writing is the best advice I have seen lately, so that's one place to look.

I rarely if ever read a prof's outside work or tried to get inside a prof's head. Despite those omissions, I ended up doing quite well in LS. I am sure the same holds true for many others.

As for OP, chill out. Unlike in the NFL, week 1 counts for nothing in law school. This mostly holds for the rest of the semester, too -- the "regular season," as it were, is mostly inconsequential. Keep your eye on what it takes to do well in the playoffs.

The caveat is that it obviously depends on the professor, and their exam-grading technique.

But the people I know that killed it did a lot of reading of the professors' work outside of class to "get inside their head."

3 questions ahead?

[mths]

So I am several days in and I am feeling good. It is a lot of work, and figuring out what I need from a case is sometimes hard but not impossible. I feel like this is handle-able and not beyond me. While I am nervous about my tests, I don't feel like they aren't something I can't handle. While I am getting pwned in class by the people who actually do the full briefs of cases, I have yet to sound like a total idiot, either.

So, the question: am I screwed?

I have read on here again and again that the people who feel confident are the ones who get screwed during exam time with median pwnage or worse. I read GTM and I am doing LEEWS. In addition I have been reading TLS for over a year, and briefing cases on and off all summer, read some E&Es too. I am wondering if this is why I feel OK about this?

oh jesus fuck

[Adjudicator]

Regarding exams, I seem to have drawn professors who believe in transparency. That has its pros and cons; on the one hand, it makes it easier for me to figure out what they're looking for. On the other hand, it also makes it easier for everyone else.

One of my professors included in his electronic supplement an essay that he wrote that basically lays out what he is looking for on exams. It is pretty much solid gold, stuff like using clear and concise language instead of trying to get creative, and thoroughly disposing of the obvious issues before moving on to the more subtle ones.

I'm just hoping that the other students don't pay much attention to it.

[23402385985]

Regarding exams, I seem to have drawn professors who believe in transparency. That has its pros and cons; on the one hand, it makes it easier for me to figure out what they're looking for. On the other hand, it also makes it easier for everyone else.

One of my professors included in his electronic supplement an essay that he wrote that basically lays out what he is looking for on exams. It is pretty much solid gold, stuff like using clear and concise language instead of trying to get creative, and thoroughly disposing of the obvious issues before moving on to the more subtle ones.

I'm just hoping that the other students don't pay much attention to it.

I'm sure the syllabus and accompanying supplement has been overanalyzed like everything else by your fellow classmates. Probably printed off and highlighted, too.

[dailygrind]

That's the first step. The second step is to simply realize that the fastest way to accumulate points is not to write a sensible analysis of the legal question. It's to really stroke the professor's ego and type an enormous amount of words. Simply analyzing comments from a practice exam is not enough. You have to get into their head by reading their writings outside of class. Most law professors have no training in the fields of education and/or assessment. They are unaware of how subjectively they give out grades. They think that anything that makes them feel good is a good legal analysis. Whatever that is is totally subjective.

I disagree with most of this. Solid legal analysis is the most reliable way to earn high grades. Scribe's note on exam writing is the best advice I have seen lately, so that's one place to look.

I rarely if ever read a prof's outside work or tried to get inside a prof's head. Despite those omissions, I ended up doing quite well in LS. I am sure the same holds true for many others.

As for OP, chill out. Unlike in the NFL, week 1 counts for nothing in law school. This mostly holds for the rest of the semester, too -- the "regular season," as it were, is mostly inconsequential. Keep your eye on what it takes to do well in the playoffs.

The caveat is that it obviously depends on the professor, and their exam-grading technique.

But the people I know that killed it did a lot of reading of the professors' work outside of class to "get inside their head."

I think most of them just have rubrics for issues spotted and the depth to which each spotted issue was analyzed. I've done well in several of my classes, and where I excelled it was through knowledge and application of the doctrine, not through some crazy "stroke the professor's ego" strategy. The point I will grant is that it is indeed important to determine what the professor thinks is important, because this is likely what will be tested, but you can get that from the direction they take the class rather than any outside readings.

[23402385985]

As for OP, chill out. Unlike in the NFL, week 1 counts for nothing in law school. This mostly holds for the rest of the semester, too -- the "regular season," as it were, is mostly inconsequential. Keep your eye on what it takes to do well in the playoffs.

It's more like the NHL. Half the teams make the playoffs, so the regular season isn't that big of a deal.

Only four teams make the Conference Finals (pretty big deal).

Only two teams make the Cup (really big deal).

Only one team wins the Cup (just lay prestige, say the #2).

[Adjudicator]

Regarding exams, I seem to have drawn professors who believe in transparency. That has its pros and cons; on the one hand, it makes it easier for me to figure out what they're looking for. On the other hand, it also makes it easier for everyone else.

One of my professors included in his electronic supplement an essay that he wrote that basically lays out what he is looking for on exams. It is pretty much solid gold, stuff like using clear and concise language instead of trying to get creative, and thoroughly disposing of the obvious issues before moving on to the more subtle ones.

I'm just hoping that the other students don't pay much attention to it.

I'm sure the syllabus and accompanying supplement has been overanalyzed like everything else by your fellow classmates. Probably printed off and highlighted, too.

Dang; well I'll just have to hope that they aren't very perceptive. But that reminds me of something funny that happened in Contracts the other day.

The professor cold-calls one student and asks him to read a particular passage of the court opinion out loud.

Professor: "Now when you read that the first time... did you understand it?"
Student: "...... I had it highlighted."
Everyone: