People popping pills Forum

[bruss]

acrossthelake Do you have all H's or a majority of H's? if not your doing it wrong

Lol. Those are high standards. What is that, like top 20% of the class at H? By those standards almost all of us are doing it wrong.

That's the whole point. He/She is going around saying stuff is so easy yet He/She doesn't almost always receive top marks.

[dailygrind]

That's not a comment on ATL's grades; it's a comment on the ludicrousness of that position.

Her argument, from what I can see, boils down to a disbelief in the strength of correlation of prior work with grades. Something which, personally, I have found varies a great deal from person to person. There are many classmates of mine who barely do any work (until the last month) and get great grades, and people who work their asses off and do poorly. Then there are people who have the reverse relationship. So, if prior work doesn't translate into stronger grades, then addy is "doing it wrong.'

[dresden doll]

That's not a comment on ATL's grades; it's a comment on the ludicrousness of that position.

Her argument, from what I can see, boils down to a disbelief in the strength of correlation of prior work with grades. Something which, personally, I have found varies a great deal from person to person. There are many classmates of mine who barely do any work (until the last month) and get great grades, and people who work their asses off and do poorly. Then there are people who have the reverse relationship. So, if prior work doesn't translate into stronger grades, then addy is "doing it wrong.'

+1. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend that some find the curve, not the material difficult.

[birdlaw117]

I feel like addy might help someone to learn the BLL. But learning the BLL isn't usually very difficult and isn't how you differentiate yourself on the exam. Basically just +1ing the above.

[bruss]

That's not a comment on ATL's grades; it's a comment on the ludicrousness of that position.

Her argument, from what I can see, boils down to a disbelief in the strength of correlation of prior work with grades. Something which, personally, I have found varies a great deal from person to person. There are many classmates of mine who barely do any work (until the last month) and get great grades, and people who work their asses off and do poorly. Then there are people who have the reverse relationship. So, if prior work doesn't translate into stronger grades, then addy is "doing it wrong.'

Also to your point of showing up or not showing up to class, or studying for one month vs the whole year: These people clearly show that having Superior study habits are needed; Addy helps you get there.

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

[bruss]

I feel like addy might help someone to learn the BLL. But learning the BLL isn't usually very difficult and isn't how you differentiate yourself on the exam. Basically just +1ing the above.

so being able to focus longer wont help you in thinking of complex legal arguments on an exam?

[dresden doll]

Also to your point of showing up or not showing up to class, or studying for one month vs the whole year: These people clearly show that having Superior study habits are needed; Addy helps you get there.

I'll believe it helps you catch up when you've procrastinated for months, but I disbelieve it's particularly helpful for anyone that's had lawl school under control all semester/quarter long.

[bruss]

Also to your point of showing up or not showing up to class, or studying for one month vs the whole year: These people clearly show that having Superior study habits are needed; Addy helps you get there.

I'll believe it helps you catch up when you've procrastinated for months, but I disbelieve it's particularly helpful for anyone that's had lawl school under control all semester/quarter long.

wow. So what you are saying is that addy doesn't work?

Addy helps boost brain performance so I'm pretty sure if you had law school under control the whole time then started taking addy you would have law school in a choke hold. Yes I know it might not work for all, but to say that because some one is good at something that means that that person could not be better at it is ridiculous.

[birdlaw117]

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

Sure, if you control all the variables except for the one you want to measure you're going to see something that looks like a correlation. But that's just because you're ignoring the variables that are really doing the work.

[bruss]

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

Sure, if you control all the variables except for the one you want to measure you're going to see something that looks like a correlation. But that's just because you're ignoring the variables that are really doing the work.

which variables would be doing all the work?

[birdlaw117]

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

Sure, if you control all the variables except for the one you want to measure you're going to see something that looks like a correlation. But that's just because you're ignoring the variables that are really doing the work.

which variables would be doing all the work?

Writing ability. Reading comprehension (spot issues). Ability to think on your feet/analyze a complex set of facts. Knowing how your professor approaches a particular issue. Etc.

There are so many variables that to try and distill it down to 1 is an exercise in futility.

[094320]

..

[Bless]

Yeah, yeah, here's another alt. Go ahead and make it a permanent ban, I'll just make another name. But just give me a better understanding of what has happened here, as you've seemed to sully Dr.Guano's good name without much reason other than he made "homophobic remarks."

All Dr. Guano did was call a user with a name related to Tony Romo, Tony Homo. Tis a name that many a non-Cowboy fan uses to poke fun at the Dallas QB who chokes under pressure constantly. Yeah, sure, in the strictest sense of homophobia, that's homophobic, but really? I think even in the insanely PC, though contradictory, times we live in, at least an Internet message board can stomach someone calling Tony Romo Tony Homo. So all I would like to know is really? Is that worthy of punishing Dr. Guano? Certainly many more things, even malicious things, have been said on TLS without receiving a ban.

I guess in the end it doesn't matter. I'll have a different name and the point will be moot. But, really all this over calling Tony Romo Tony Homo?

ROFLZ


Dude got banned for THAT? This site is mad gay, yo.

[Bless]

P.S.

I'm on an addy right now and I'm straight up destroying crim. #TFM #gunning #druggie #addicted



Side Note: Failed leg reg yesterday having consumed no adderall while studying.

[dowu]

Yeah, yeah, here's another alt. Go ahead and make it a permanent ban, I'll just make another name. But just give me a better understanding of what has happened here, as you've seemed to sully Dr.Guano's good name without much reason other than he made "homophobic remarks."

All Dr. Guano did was call a user with a name related to Tony Romo, Tony Homo. Tis a name that many a non-Cowboy fan uses to poke fun at the Dallas QB who chokes under pressure constantly. Yeah, sure, in the strictest sense of homophobia, that's homophobic, but really? I think even in the insanely PC, though contradictory, times we live in, at least an Internet message board can stomach someone calling Tony Romo Tony Homo. So all I would like to know is really? Is that worthy of punishing Dr. Guano? Certainly many more things, even malicious things, have been said on TLS without receiving a ban.

I guess in the end it doesn't matter. I'll have a different name and the point will be moot. But, really all this over calling Tony Romo Tony Homo?

ROFLZ


Dude got banned for THAT? This site is mad gay, yo.

lol IBTB.

[094320]

..

[dresden doll]

Writing ability. Reading comprehension (spot issues). Ability to think on your feet/analyze a complex set of facts. Knowing how your professor approaches a particular issue. Etc.

There are so many variables that to try and distill it down to 1 is an exercise in futility.

Concur.

[bruss]

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

Sure, if you control all the variables except for the one you want to measure you're going to see something that looks like a correlation. But that's just because you're ignoring the variables that are really doing the work.

which variables would be doing all the work?

Writing ability. Reading comprehension (spot issues). Ability to think on your feet/analyze a complex set of facts. Knowing how your professor approaches a particular issue. Etc.

There are so many variables that to try and distill it down to 1 is an exercise in futility.

You get all these abilities from studying except the variable Knowing how your professor approaches a particular issue. And even this is learned from paying attention in class which addy will help you with.

[JCougar]

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

In my experience, writing ability has almost no correlation. I mean, my writing ability doesn't change from exam to exam, but my grades are all over the map.

I almost dropped out of my law journal because I really, really didn't want to write my note -- it was just such a frustrating experience. But I got a one-week extension and pretty much wrote 30 pages in 3 days, and it turns out it's getting published. I got an "A" on my midterm paper for one class, where the professor went out of his way to say I write very well -- but ended up getting below median on the exam after knowing the material cold. And in general, my grades are mediocre.

Most people on this board go to a school where 80-90% of the class is smart enough to understand the logic of the BLL and how it applies to facts. And even if you don't understand it, you just buy a commercial outline or an E&E and it's pretty much spelled out for you. The thing that differentiates people on exams is 1) ability to relax, focus, and be yourself during a extremely pressured time crunch, 2) having a good outline that is short yet thorough, and 3) typing speed -- which only helps with the time crunch aspect, but again, if you're typing about stuff that everyone understands already, it can only help to say more about it as long as you can stay somewhat relevant. I've seen model answers from past exams that had horrible, terrible writing -- run-on sentences, typos, misspelled words, bad grammar, etc. As long as the professor can figure out what you mean, you will probably get points.

I took Ritalin in high school to motivate me to do my calculus and advanced physics homework, and I have to admit that it worked. But that stuff was way harder than anything you learn in law school, and there was no "commercial outlines" that you could just buy and have your work done for you. Plus, good grades on law exams are about being a little bit relaxed and creative -- not about being extremely focused and disciplined. I just can't see how uppers would help, but to each his own.

[Bless]

P.S.

I'm on an addy right now and I'm straight up destroying crim. #TFM #gunning #druggie #addicted



Side Note: Failed leg reg yesterday having consumed no adderall while studying.

Well, you don't know that yet, your grades aren't out. That being said, if you "fail" legreg instead of simply doing "ok" because of not using adderrall then you're probably not doing law school right. But perhaps it was hyperbole.

It was meant to be, but I guess time will tell. (Please God, help me.)

And I don't blame my crappy-grade-to-be in leg reg on not taking adderall. I'm just busting chops.

[bruss]

Also I believe that variable is writing ability. if one were to control that then I'm pretty sure that we would all come to the conclusion that if someone study's harder and smarter than others, that person will receive a better grade.

In my experience, writing ability has almost no correlation. I mean, my writing ability doesn't change from exam to exam, but my grades are all over the map.

I almost dropped out of my law journal because I really, really didn't want to write my note -- it was just such a frustrating experience. But I got a one-week extension and pretty much wrote 30 pages in 3 days, and it turns out it's getting published. I got an "A" on my midterm paper for one class, where the professor went out of his way to say I write very well -- but ended up getting below median on the exam after knowing the material cold. And in general, my grades are mediocre.

Most people on this board go to a school where 80-90% of the class is smart enough to understand the logic of the BLL and how it applies to facts. And even if you don't understand it, you just buy a commercial outline or an E&E and it's pretty much spelled out for you. The thing that differentiates people on exams is 1) ability to relax, focus, and be yourself during a extremely pressured time crunch, 2) having a good outline that is short yet thorough, and 3) typing speed -- which only helps with the time crunch aspect, but again, if you're typing about stuff that everyone understands already, it can only help to say more about it as long as you can stay somewhat relevant. I've seen model answers from past exams that had horrible, terrible writing -- run-on sentences, typos, misspelled words, bad grammar, etc. As long as the professor can figure out what you mean, you will probably get points.

I took Ritalin in high school to motivate me to do my calculus and advanced physics homework, and I have to admit that it worked. But that stuff was way harder than anything you learn in law school, and there was no "commercial outlines" that you could just buy and have your work done for you. Plus, good grades on law exams are about being a little bit relaxed and creative -- not about being extremely focused and disciplined. I just can't see how uppers would help, but to each his own.

Ok when i say writing ability im talking about being able to put your thoughts on paper. I believe that we all can agree that if you study harder and smarter, then you thoughts will be better than what they were before. With you being able to think better the only thing that stops you from getting top marks is that you cannot write what you are thinking. I'm not talking about run-on sentences or junk like that. I'm talking about being able to present a complex argument on paper and having your professor understand what the hell you are talking about.


Edit: Congrats on being published!

[094320]

..

[JCougar]

Ok when i say writing ability im talking about being able to put your thoughts on paper. I believe that we all can agree that if you study harder and smarter, then you thoughts will be better than what they were before. With you being able to think better the only thing that stops you from getting top marks is that you cannot write what you are thinking. I'm not talking about run-on sentences or junk like that. I'm talking about being able to present a complex argument on paper and having your professor understand what the hell you are talking about.


Edit: Congrats on being published!

The thing is, most legal analysis isn't all that complex at all. Maybe a few sub-sections of CivPro and the estates part of Property are a bit convoluted. But Crim Law, Torts, Contracts (except for maybe UCC) and Con Law are mostly straightforward. I mean, 80% of cases in law boil down to some 3-part test, or a "balancing test." How hard is it to copy out the three factors from your outline and then say how each one applies to the facts? The points you get lie in whether your professor thinks your analysis is relevant -- and a lot of professors have different views on that. I'm more straightforward and practical in the way I think, so I do much better with professors who are oriented that way as opposed to the more academic-minded ones that want layers of speculation and sophistry.

I've seen harder logic on the LSAT than I have on any law exam. The only thing that's come close that's actually been on one of my exams is the complex joinder/Exxon Mobile rules in CivPro, a few concepts in Securities Regulation such as Rule 144, and 8b4/DiBartolo issues in Labor Law.

[FantasticMrFox]

this thread makes me want to try adderall to see its effects on my actual performance

[bruss]

Ok when i say writing ability im talking about being able to put your thoughts on paper. I believe that we all can agree that if you study harder and smarter, then you thoughts will be better than what they were before. With you being able to think better the only thing that stops you from getting top marks is that you cannot write what you are thinking. I'm not talking about run-on sentences or junk like that. I'm talking about being able to present a complex argument on paper and having your professor understand what the hell you are talking about.


Edit: Congrats on being published!

The thing is, most legal analysis isn't all that complex at all. Maybe a few sub-sections of CivPro and the estates part of Property are a bit convoluted. But Crim Law, Torts, Contracts (except for maybe UCC) and Con Law are mostly straightforward. I mean, 80% of cases in law boil down to some 3-part test, or a "balancing test." How hard is it to copy out the three factors from your outline and then say how each one applies to the facts? The points you get lie in whether your professor thinks your analysis is relevant -- and a lot of professors have different views on that. I'm more straightforward and practical in the way I think, so I do much better with professors who are oriented that way as opposed to the more academic-minded ones that want layers of speculation and sophistry.

I've seen harder logic on the LSAT than I have on any law exam. The only thing that's come close that's actually been on one of my exams is the complex joinder/Exxon Mobile rules in CivPro, a few concepts in Securities Regulation such as Rule 144, and 8b4/DiBartolo issues in Labor Law.

Not saying that the exam questions are complexed, I'm saying your arugment should be, less you become median.