0L Prep Forum

[QContinuum]

Ad hominem attacks against that poster’s reasoning simply because he is not a law student are illogical

It's entirely logical, in my view, to be skeptical of a 0L attempting to advise other 0Ls. This is especially so because so much of the legal world - from law school admissions, to law school grades, to legal hiring - runs contrary to what one might expect based on typical notions of common sense and logic.

The benefit to all this: with a loose textual and conceptual understanding already in place, the 0L-prepped 1L will be focusing on the contours of the doctrine as interpreted by the Professor during lectures, rather than focusing on remembering that reliance must be both “detrimental and justifiable.”

As law school exams are generally open-book, any 1L would be ill-served by a "focus on remembering" the elements of each doctrine. That's what you do for the bar, not what you do for a law school exam. Excepting those few law students with an eidetic or otherwise phenomenal memory, having an outline where one can quickly and accurately copy the relevant elements is far more effective on a law school exam than trying to extract the elements from memory.

it is delusional to assert that having a understanding of a thing you will be studying before hand will somehow not help you at all ... Some people might have no passion for the law ... Those people probably will see little if any benefit to 0L prep.

Weren't you just complaining about ad hominems earlier in your post? Why must those who disagree with you be "delusional", with "no passion for the law"?

What if during lectures, because your not straining to understand the concept like 60% of the class is, you have the ability to ask probing questions that test the bounds of the professor’s interpretation of that concept - without the remainder of the students even understanding why your question is relevant? You therefore don’t need to go to office hours. You therefore have more time to take practice exams. You therefore end up constantly ahead of the rest of your competition. At least that’s how it worked for me.

You're forgetting Logic 101: Correlation is not causation. You did extensive 0L prep. You ended up in the 48% of UCLA students who landed BigLaw. That does not mean your extensive 0L prep was the proximate cause of your academic success. Further, even if you actually succeeded because of your extensive 0L prep, and would not have succeeded otherwise, people have different learning styles. What worked for you is not necessarily going to be what works for the next 0L.

I also disagree that the typical 1L finds the black-letter law so confusing they "need to go to office hours" in order to grasp it. I mean, you learned the black-letter law as a 0L, sans office hours and sans lectures, no? Why do you think other 1Ls would be any less capable or intelligent?

[powerwhee]

(1) I suppose that your reasoning is not necessarily wrong, but my point still stands. Rather than attack the 0L’s logic, the 0L’s status as a 0L was used as the basis of refuting their assertions. That, in my view, is entirely illogical, especially when the reasoning, as here, is not entirely unreasonable.

Also, your forgetting logic 101. Some parts of the legal world can conform to logic and others don’t have to.

(2) Well, we can debate the most effective way to take law school exams or whether a 1L would be “ill served” to know the doctrine before hand or have it memorized. As you conceded, everyone learns differently.

And I agree with that, which is why I propounded a 3 factor test to determine whether the benefit of studying law before 0L is worth the cost.

Also, even assuming that every 1L exam will be open book and open notes, I think that there is a direct benefit in having, but not needing, an outline during the exam.

Namely, time-savings associated with not needing to look at the outline to create rule statements. As all 1L law school exams are timed and filled with more issues then the average student can analyze, time is precious and seconds matter, as I’m sure you know.

Not to mention the more indirect benefits I listed, which you conveniently glossed over: the ability to understand the lecture better and ask probing interpretative questions during it; the ability to begin practice exams earlier; and, a new one, the confidence that comes with knowing that you can intelligently argue with your professor utilizing legal principles.

(3) Yea, I was, but my style of argument was not an ad hominem, as that logical fallacy is commonly understood. My assertion was directed towards a conclusion, not the status of a specific proponent of that conclusion.

Conveniently characterizing my assertion as an attack against a class of people holding that conclusion does not turn my argument into an ad hominem style logical fallacy. Although I suppose an argument could be made that my assertion was broad enough to essentially be analogous to an ad hominem attack, I think that analogy is strained, as it would make every assertion against a conclusion held by a class an ad hominem attack.

(4) Nowhere did I assert or imply that my 0L prep caused (although in my view it was at least a substantial factor in) my success - an assertion which would be unprovable, lest I charge a jury with delineating the actual and proximate cause of my academic success - nor did I assert that the average 1L needs to go to office hours to grasp BLL concepts sufficiently to receive a median grade.

But I did imply that to receive above median grades, one must get into the head of the professor and understand the professor’s interpretation of certain phrases in BLL which can be construed narrowly or broadly. In my experience, the average 1L can do that in two ways without equalizing the curve: visit the professor during office hours to expressly ask questions about those phrases without others present, or ask probing questions during class which seem irrelevant but actually reveal the professor’s limitations on the ambiguous doctrinal phrases. Sounds harsh, but that’s capitalism for you.

[nixy]

I don’t agree that the point is somehow to get your prof’s understanding without tipping off your classmates to it (the seeming irrelevant comment bit would be ridiculously annoying), but 0L prep isn’t required to accomplish either of the last two items you list.

the confidence that comes with knowing that you can intelligently argue with your professor utilizing legal principles.

this sounds more like gunning than exam prep. (Also the word is “use.” “Utilize” should be stricken from everyone’s vocabulary.)

[powerwhee]

Yeah, 0L prep is not required to do either of those things; as I asserted earlier, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for 1L success. That principle extends to my latest post.

Also, quite frankly, I could care less whether I was annoying my peers in class. I am draining my savings to attend law school. My biggest interest is maximizing my return on investment, not conforming to my classmates’ expectations.

The plan I envisioned and executed worked out for me. Your free to disagree with my observations and experience. But I will be graduating with zero debt and a BigLaw salary, and I personally attribute that to my 0L prep. My point is only that 0L prep may work for someone else, like I think it worked for me.

In sum, no categorical rule on 0L prep that applies to every student can exist. But that is exactly what TLS suggests as to this topic. I disagree, and believe 0Ls would be better of applying my test

[nixy]

The point about gunning wasn't that you're annoying your classmates (though you probably were), it's that arguing with the prof in class isn't the same as actually prepping for exams. I agree that you need to know your prof, but plenty of profs love to entertain ridiculous tangents in class, then throw out the most traditional race horse issue spotter exams you've ever seen. I'm glad you ended up in a good place, but I really don't think whatever studying you did for 2+ years before school actually played a role.

[powerwhee]

The point about gunning wasn't that you're annoying your classmates (though you probably were), it's that arguing with the prof in class isn't the same as actually prepping for exams. I agree that you need to know your prof, but plenty of profs love to entertain ridiculous tangents in class, then throw out the most traditional race horse issue spotter exams you've ever seen. I'm glad you ended up in a good place, but I really don't think whatever studying you did for 2+ years before school actually played a role.

I’m sorry if I was not clear, but I would not argue with a professor in class. I could see how you could read my statement in that fashion, but it was meant to be construed narrowly.

“Arguing” with professors during office hours alone or after class is what I was eluding to. By arguing I mean asking probing questions about “why” the professor construes an ambiguous phrase in BLL broadly when it could be construed narrowly, and vice versa. And by why I mean the legal authority, public policy, or both, that the professor relies on to reach the result they deem required or “better.”

I also agree with your other point, which is why I asserted earlier that 0L prep is always a gamble, in the sense that it may not materially benefit a 1L in some circumstances. Your example fits into this category, like the example I gave.

I am by no means asserting that 0L prep is the “secret” to success - but, in my view, the costs are overstated on this forum. And saying that it played absolutely no role, i.e., provided absolutely zero benefit, is, respectfully, far fetched. From my experience, an absolute, unqualified statement like that is usually incorrect - in law and life.

I had classes where I feel like, due to reasons already mentioned by all of us, my 0L prep didn’t help much (torts, property, and criminal law), and others where it helped tremendously (contracts, civil procedure, and business associations). And I’ll leave it at that, as I think I sufficiently made my point and you both made yours.

We seemingly substantially agree on the cost and benefits of 0L prep, but assign different weights to those costs and benefits. Reasonable people could disagree in this fashion without being necessarily wrong, I think.

[acr]

The point about gunning wasn't that you're annoying your classmates (though you probably were), it's that arguing with the prof in class isn't the same as actually prepping for exams. I agree that you need to know your prof, but plenty of profs love to entertain ridiculous tangents in class, then throw out the most traditional race horse issue spotter exams you've ever seen. I'm glad you ended up in a good place, but I really don't think whatever studying you did for 2+ years before school actually played a role.

I’m sorry if I was not clear, but I would not argue with a professor in class. I could see how you could read my statement in that fashion, but it was meant to be construed narrowly.

“Arguing” with professors during office hours alone or after class is what I was eluding to. By arguing I mean asking probing questions about “why” the professor construes an ambiguous phrase in BLL broadly when it could be construed narrowly, and vice versa. And by why I mean the legal authority, public policy, or both, that the professor relies on to reach the result they deem required or “better.”

I also agree with your other point, which is why I asserted earlier that 0L prep is always a gamble, in the sense that it may not materially benefit a 1L in some circumstances. Your example fits into this category, like the example I gave.

I am by no means asserting that 0L prep is the “secret” to success - but, in my view, the costs are overstated on this forum. And saying that it played absolutely no role, i.e., provided absolutely zero benefit, is, respectfully, far fetched. From my experience, an absolute, unqualified statement like that is usually incorrect - in law and life.

I had classes where I feel like, due to reasons already mentioned by all of us, my 0L prep didn’t help much (torts, property, and criminal law), and others where it helped tremendously (contracts, civil procedure, and business associations). And I’ll leave it at that, as I think I sufficiently made my point and you both made yours.

We seemingly substantially agree on the cost and benefits of 0L prep, but assign different weights to those costs and benefits. Reasonable people could disagree in this fashion without being necessarily wrong, I think.

The biggest cost of 0L prep, which you haven't mentioned, is mental burnout. The first semester of law school is a stressful, slow grind and a complete overload of information starting on day one. Many 1Ls get very mentally fatigued by December, which is when studying is 10x more valuable than over the summer or even during the first few weeks of 1L. People are different, but you generally need to stay refreshed, motivated, and mentally healthy throughout the semester to give yourself the best chances of success. Adding ~3 months of low value studying that you might not retain and/or understand to an already grueling semester is not worth the possibility of burnout.