Columbia 1Ls taking questions Forum

[dubunamjah]

jeez, it's not even february yet u_u

[swc65]

I would disagree with summer 0L studying. From my limited experience, professors can have their own versions of the law. If you fill your head with stuff in the summer, then it might make it more difficult for you to learn YOUR PROFESSOR's version of the class. And, she will be testing you on what she taught and not what you learned over the summer. For example, my torts professor had her very own definition of Assumption of the risk and her definition was completely at odds some of the supplements. If I had learned and practiced the sup. I might have mistaken its version of A/R with my professor's. If I had, she would have failed me fo sho!

[swc65]

jeez, it's not even february yet u_u

And this, don't be a gunner. Fo realz!

[Lem37]

Oh god, please don't start reading supplements now.

For me, succeeding in law school comes down to figuring out exactly what that particular professor wants on the exam, which will be 90-95% of your grade. Remember how you studied for the LSAT? You studied for the LSAT by teaching yourself how to answer LSAT questions. This is the same thing, but with Professor So-and-So. Professors will emphasize and de-emphasize certain concepts, but more importantly, they will provide you with their own unique structure for analyzing an issue, which they want to see you use on the exam.

Supplements do just that: they supplement your class. You use them when your ConLaw professor spent 2 full classes on the dormant commerce clause and you're still not sure what it is. My first semester as a 1L, I tried to do it the other way around (supplement what I was learning in my extra books with class, essentially) and did poorly. My boyfriend (a fellow CLSer) helped me to understand this professor-centric approach, and my grades have turned around completely.

Ultimately, you won't become a master of contract or tort law as a 1L. You can, however, become a master of Contracts with Chirelstein or Corporations with Goldschmid. And this is great, because these professors are brilliant, so you'll learn really valuable information in the meantime (and you obviously can't succeed on your contracts exam without knowing about consideration and peppercorns and whatnot). But ultimately, it's going to come down to taking that professor's exam - and take it from me that exams vary widely between different professors teaching the exact same subject at Columbia alone.

[swc65]

Oh god, please don't start reading supplements now.

For me, succeeding in law school comes down to figuring out exactly what that particular professor wants on the exam, which will be 90-95% of your grade. Remember how you studied for the LSAT? You studied for the LSAT by teaching yourself how to answer LSAT questions. This is the same thing, but with Professor So-and-So. Professors will emphasize and de-emphasize certain concepts, but more importantly, they will provide you with their own unique structure for analyzing an issue, which they want to see you use on the exam.

Supplements do just that: they supplement your class. You use them when your ConLaw professor spent 2 full classes on the dormant commerce clause and you're still not sure what it is. My first semester as a 1L, I tried to do it the other way around (supplement what I was learning in my extra books with class, essentially) and did poorly. My boyfriend (a fellow CLSer) helped me to understand this professor-centric approach, and my grades have turned around completely.

Ultimately, you won't become a master of contract or tort law as a 1L. You can, however, become a master of Contracts with Chirelstein or Corporations with Goldschmid. And this is great, because these professors are brilliant, so you'll learn really valuable information in the meantime (and you obviously can't succeed on your contracts exam without knowing about consideration and peppercorns and whatnot). But ultimately, it's going to come down to taking that professor's exam - and take it from me that exams vary widely between different professors teaching the exact same subject at Columbia alone.

So true. This is why we cannot even study with people from other sections. They learn something almost entirely different.

[annie2010]

jeez, it's not even february yet u_u

And this, don't be a gunner. Fo realz!

Dont tell me what to do!
Just kidding. I'm not a gunner. I am just trying to figure out if I will be able to actually do well in law school before I take out 150K in loans. I think that's totally fair and probably something everyone should spend a little time pondering.
(edited out mean comment because I was annoyed at the time of posting )

[annie2010]

Oh god, please don't start reading supplements now.

For me, succeeding in law school comes down to figuring out exactly what that particular professor wants on the exam, which will be 90-95% of your grade. Remember how you studied for the LSAT? You studied for the LSAT by teaching yourself how to answer LSAT questions. This is the same thing, but with Professor So-and-So. Professors will emphasize and de-emphasize certain concepts, but more importantly, they will provide you with their own unique structure for analyzing an issue, which they want to see you use on the exam.

Supplements do just that: they supplement your class. You use them when your ConLaw professor spent 2 full classes on the dormant commerce clause and you're still not sure what it is. My first semester as a 1L, I tried to do it the other way around (supplement what I was learning in my extra books with class, essentially) and did poorly. My boyfriend (a fellow CLSer) helped me to understand this professor-centric approach, and my grades have turned around completely.

Ultimately, you won't become a master of contract or tort law as a 1L. You can, however, become a master of Contracts with Chirelstein or Corporations with Goldschmid. And this is great, because these professors are brilliant, so you'll learn really valuable information in the meantime (and you obviously can't succeed on your contracts exam without knowing about consideration and peppercorns and whatnot). But ultimately, it's going to come down to taking that professor's exam - and take it from me that exams vary widely between different professors teaching the exact same subject at Columbia alone.

Thanks for this! Seems like really solid advice.

[of Benito Cereno]

Oh god, please don't start reading supplements now.

For me, succeeding in law school comes down to figuring out exactly what that particular professor wants on the exam, which will be 90-95% of your grade. Remember how you studied for the LSAT? You studied for the LSAT by teaching yourself how to answer LSAT questions. This is the same thing, but with Professor So-and-So. Professors will emphasize and de-emphasize certain concepts, but more importantly, they will provide you with their own unique structure for analyzing an issue, which they want to see you use on the exam.

Supplements do just that: they supplement your class. You use them when your ConLaw professor spent 2 full classes on the dormant commerce clause and you're still not sure what it is. My first semester as a 1L, I tried to do it the other way around (supplement what I was learning in my extra books with class, essentially) and did poorly. My boyfriend (a fellow CLSer) helped me to understand this professor-centric approach, and my grades have turned around completely.

Ultimately, you won't become a master of contract or tort law as a 1L. You can, however, become a master of Contracts with Chirelstein or Corporations with Goldschmid. And this is great, because these professors are brilliant, so you'll learn really valuable information in the meantime (and you obviously can't succeed on your contracts exam without knowing about consideration and peppercorns and whatnot). But ultimately, it's going to come down to taking that professor's exam - and take it from me that exams vary widely between different professors teaching the exact same subject at Columbia alone.

Thanks for this! Seems like really solid advice.

eh, there really is no harm in reading some to get a basic overview of the fields you will study. working in depth and focusing on detailed studies of concepts can be problematic but it helps a lot to have a general sense of the contours of each field before beginning first semester

[Lem37]

Oh god, please don't start reading supplements now.

For me, succeeding in law school comes down to figuring out exactly what that particular professor wants on the exam, which will be 90-95% of your grade. Remember how you studied for the LSAT? You studied for the LSAT by teaching yourself how to answer LSAT questions. This is the same thing, but with Professor So-and-So. Professors will emphasize and de-emphasize certain concepts, but more importantly, they will provide you with their own unique structure for analyzing an issue, which they want to see you use on the exam.

Supplements do just that: they supplement your class. You use them when your ConLaw professor spent 2 full classes on the dormant commerce clause and you're still not sure what it is. My first semester as a 1L, I tried to do it the other way around (supplement what I was learning in my extra books with class, essentially) and did poorly. My boyfriend (a fellow CLSer) helped me to understand this professor-centric approach, and my grades have turned around completely.

Ultimately, you won't become a master of contract or tort law as a 1L. You can, however, become a master of Contracts with Chirelstein or Corporations with Goldschmid. And this is great, because these professors are brilliant, so you'll learn really valuable information in the meantime (and you obviously can't succeed on your contracts exam without knowing about consideration and peppercorns and whatnot). But ultimately, it's going to come down to taking that professor's exam - and take it from me that exams vary widely between different professors teaching the exact same subject at Columbia alone.

Thanks for this! Seems like really solid advice.

eh, there really is no harm in reading some to get a basic overview of the fields you will study. working in depth and focusing on detailed studies of concepts can be problematic but it helps a lot to have a general sense of the contours of each field before beginning first semester

I disagree. I find it best to start where that professor wants you to start, for the same reasons that I explain above. But to each his own, I suppose.

[vertex]

Annie's a gunner! And that's ok Annie... as long as you promise to study with me.

[piccolittle]

Annie's a gunner! And that's ok Annie... as long as you promise to study with me.

I was actually trying to restrain myself from asking about study groups already... but we can all be gunners together

[vertex]

Annie's a gunner! And that's ok Annie... as long as you promise to study with me.

I was actually trying to restrain myself from asking about study groups already... but we can all be gunners together

That would be awesome. But I think it depends on whether we're in the same section. And if I recall, there's like 6 sections. So the chances of the three of us being in the same section is 1 in 36.

[annie2010]

Annie's a gunner! And that's ok Annie... as long as you promise to study with me.

I was actually trying to restrain myself from asking about study groups already... but we can all be gunners together

That would be awesome. But I think it depends on whether we're in the same section. And if I recall, there's like 6 sections. So the chances of the three of us being in the same section is 1 in 36.

My peeps! I want to study together! Or if we are not in the same section, just get beers and commiserate about studying together!

To me, a gunner is that really annoying person in class who asks questions in a way so they aren't really questions but just a vehicle to show off to the professor. I am not one of those people. I don't think I've ever raised my hand in class unless forced by participation grading.

Me = person who wants to do well so I can get a job and not be in debt for 8 million years. The end.

[piccolittle]

My peeps! I want to study together! Or if we are not in the same section, just get beers and commiserate about studying together!

+1. I like beers.

[vertex]

My peeps! I want to study together! Or if we are not in the same section, just get beers and commiserate about studying together!

+1. I like beers.

Picco have you been drinking all day again?

[swc65]

Does anybody have any ideas what the curve is here at Columbia? I just found out last week that they do not even assign GPAs which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I mean I know law students are not typically great at math, but I am sure we can all do weighted averages.

Anyway, I just do not even know what a bad/good grade or GPA is.

[swc65]

Also I like how this thread has more 1Ls asking each other questions than 0Ls asking us questions.

[Unemployed]

Does anybody have any ideas what the curve is here at Columbia? I just found out last week that they do not even assign GPAs which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I mean I know law students are not typically great at math, but I am sure we can all do weighted averages.

Anyway, I just do not even know what a bad/good grade or GPA is.

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

[swc65]

Does anybody have any ideas what the curve is here at Columbia? I just found out last week that they do not even assign GPAs which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I mean I know law students are not typically great at math, but I am sure we can all do weighted averages.

Anyway, I just do not even know what a bad/good grade or GPA is.

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

Nice I will enjoy my awesome spot on the curve until my last grade comes in! Thanks!

[huckabees]

Also I like how this thread has more 1Ls asking each other questions than 0Ls asking us questions.

Haha...

On that note, can someone at CLS explain to me blind grading and how profs taken into account participation? Do profs grade blindly and then change the grade at their discretion?

Also, for profs who don't explicitly say that they will adjust grades up and down for class participation, do they do so anyway? For the profs who explicitly allocate a percentage (e.g., 25%) to class participation, have people felt this actually changed their letter grade from their exam grade (as opposed to participation generally being a wash bc everyone participates to some degree)?

Thanks

[pissantvache]

Also I like how this thread has more 1Ls asking each other questions than 0Ls asking us questions.

Haha...

On that note, can someone at CLS explain to me blind grading and how profs taken into account participation? Do profs grade blindly and then change the grade at their discretion?

Also, for profs who don't explicitly say that they will adjust grades up and down for class participation, do they do so anyway? For the profs who explicitly allocate a percentage (e.g., 25%) to class participation, have people felt this actually changed their letter grade from their exam grade (as opposed to participation generally being a wash bc everyone participates to some degree)?

Thanks

You know, I've been wondering this too. I guess they might give a list to the registrar before the exam? although that's weird since the couple of my professors who have mentioned it also said that it would probably only be for borderline cases, which would mean that they would have to know your grade. Do their assistants help/have access to the grades?

Does anybody have any ideas what the curve is here at Columbia? I just found out last week that they do not even assign GPAs which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I mean I know law students are not typically great at math, but I am sure we can all do weighted averages.

Anyway, I just do not even know what a bad/good grade or GPA is.

3.9 = top 1%

3.85 = top 2%

3.8 = top 3% (Kent)

3.75 = top 4%

3.7 = top 6%

3.65 = top 8%

3.6 = top 11%

3.55 = top 15%

3.5 = top 20%

3.45 = top 25%

3.41 = top 30% (Stone)

3.35 = top 37%

3.3 = top 45%

3.26 = Median

3.2 = top 58%

3.15 = top 66%

3.1 = top 72%

3.05 = top 77%

3.0 = top 82%

Apparently based on the # of kent scholars, # of stone scholars, and assuming normal distribution.

Thank you for this, although I need to ask: is this for 1Ls only, or across the whole school?

[imchuckbass58]

Also I like how this thread has more 1Ls asking each other questions than 0Ls asking us questions.

Haha...

On that note, can someone at CLS explain to me blind grading and how profs taken into account participation? Do profs grade blindly and then change the grade at their discretion?

Also, for profs who don't explicitly say that they will adjust grades up and down for class participation, do they do so anyway? For the profs who explicitly allocate a percentage (e.g., 25%) to class participation, have people felt this actually changed their letter grade from their exam grade (as opposed to participation generally being a wash bc everyone participates to some degree)?

Thanks

The way it works is the professor submits exam numbers (blindly) with corresponding grades. The professor then independently submits the names of people whose grades he wants adjusted up or down a notch. The registrar matches the exam number with the student's name, then applies the adjustment.

[Unemployed]

Haha...

On that note, can someone at CLS explain to me blind grading and how profs taken into account participation? Do profs grade blindly and then change the grade at their discretion?

Also, for profs who don't explicitly say that they will adjust grades up and down for class participation, do they do so anyway? For the profs who explicitly allocate a percentage (e.g., 25%) to class participation, have people felt this actually changed their letter grade from their exam grade (as opposed to participation generally being a wash bc everyone participates to some degree)?

Thanks

NM. CB has it right.

Thank you for this, although I need to ask: is this for 1Ls only, or across the whole school?

I'm pretty sure the curve is for 1L only - I base this conclusion on the percentile scores of Kent and Stone.

[pissantvache]

Thank you for this, although I need to ask: is this for 1Ls only, or across the whole school?

I'm pretty sure the curve is for 1L only - I base this conclusion on the percentile scores of Kent and Stone.

gotcha. Thank you!

[huckabees]

The way it works is the professor submits exam numbers (blindly) with corresponding grades. The professor then independently submits the names of people whose grades he wants adjusted up or down a notch. The registrar matches the exam number with the student's name, then applies the adjustment.

Thanks. Do you know how often this actually occurs? I know it will depend on the prof, but I've heard different things on this front. Also, how would this work in light of the mandated curve? (I.e., it seems they would have to potentially rank the students in some order of grade adjustment if they wanted to be sure that they stay within the mandated curve ranges. If they already have the max number of people within a certain family of grades, and their adjustments yield more people at that grade range, they would end up giving grades outside the confines of the curve.)

Also, do you know if this is done on a letter grade level, or a point level? E.g., Submits letter grades for all exams and says bump down 1/3 of a grade, vs "change student X's grade by Y%." I can imagine some unfairness if this were done on a letter grade level if the student had already missed a certain grade by a narrow margin, and then gets bumped down yet another fraction of a letter grade after that.

(Sorry to get all technical here...)