WUSTL Recent Grad (and others) Taking Questions Forum

[aesth24]

So are any of you friends with the med school students, or intertwine with them at all? Or are you the two schools pretty segregated in the social scene?

Not really, but their campus is in the CWE so ppl who live there may. I would love nothing more than to get with a female WUSTL med student.

I have chilled with many more MSW's, but there isn't any money in that.

haha basically the reasoning behind my question.

[MKC]

So are any of you friends with the med school students, or intertwine with them at all? Or are you the two schools pretty segregated in the social scene?

Not really, but their campus is in the CWE so ppl who live there may. I would love nothing more than to get with a female WUSTL med student.

I have chilled with many more MSW's, but there isn't any money in that.

With all due respect, that's because you're a bleeding heart hippie. (who has made your peace with selling your soul)

[PepperJack]

That really doesn't explain why there are people who do consistently well to excellent in classes with several different professors. I guess your theory is that they are somehow experts at figuring out which arguments the professor wants, but I would argue that they are just better at putting forth arguments in general. Also I think you might be overestimating how many issues most exams pick up on; there really is a pretty sizeable difference in terms of raw points (in most classes) between the CALI(s) and the median.

I think most of that difference is driven not by issue spotting, but by "analysis" points, which are driven by typing speed/word count, etc., as well as the subjective criteria I was talking about above.

I'm kind of surprised that this is all that controversial. My career before law school was developing reliable and valid talent and skill assessment tests. If I would have come up with something as crude, unreliable, and invalid as a law exam, I would have been fired instantly. I'm not the only one that has brought this up.

http://www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/lawr ... /crane.PDF

In 1976, the Law School Admission Council published the results of a study by Stephen P. Klein and Frederick M. Hart supporting the idea that factors other than substantive knowledge affect essay grades. One factor that correlated highly with success on law school essay examinations was legible handwriting. Another leading indicator of higher grades was length. Longer answers were viewed by law professors as better.

Law schools have an obligation to use the most accurate and internally consistent, or reliable examination methods. The essay exam is inherently capricious not only because of the number of subjective factors used in scoring that influence the student's overall grade; but also because they compare law students based on too few samples of each student's knowledge of a given domain of material to be reliable or statistically valid.

The traditional law school essay exam is mathematically unsound and unable to consistently measure the law student's proficiencies within the law school's curriculum. This is due to an inability to either accurately sample the same amount of material or to render the same number of samples of a given domain of material as an objective exam can within a comparable time period. Therefore, single-shot essay exams used to measure numerous domains of information within each larger law school subject are notoriously subjective and unreliable. Accordingly, they are also invalid for their intended purpose. This is especially true given the enormous importance placed on the results of law school essay examinations and because those results are used to compare students' performances.

The essay exam format is inherently incapable of affording law students an adequate opportunity to demonstrate proficiency in an entire subject. It is infeasible for the professor to draft an essay exam that is capable of sampling a sufficient quantity of information from various the domains of a complex subject. If the professor were to draft successfully an essay examination that was lengthy enough to contain enough questions for the examination to be considered valid, it would be impossible for the student to actually complete the examination within normal time constraints; and various physical and psychological phenomenon would hinder the students ability to perform well during the course of completing such an arduous task. Critics of essay examinations doubt that their unreliability can be lowered to a level that makes them valid.

I can't seem to find a copy of the actual Klein and Hart study anywhere online, but their analysis was done on issue-spotter essay exams that were essentially the same as the exams we see today in law school. Obviously, handwriting as a confounding variable has been eliminated due to SoftTest--but this has probably only exacerbated a different confounding variable: word count (which is largely a function of typing speed).

I'm not going to hijack this thread any further, and I've made my points clear by now. I didn't even mean to respark this contentious debate. I just though I made a fairly obvious and innocuous comment that's pretty much in line with the conventional TLS wisdom. I just don't like my view on this matter dismissed as "sour grapes." That's an ad hom attack lacking any logos-based value. I ended up getting the job I always wanted out of law school anyway, so I have no reason to be bitter. I like to speak up on this issue because it's an area where I have a lot of particular expertise and work experience--and if an 0L asks for honest advice regarding the realities of going to law school, this is the most honest advice I can think of.

The flip side of the "sour grapes" argument is that there's no doubt an inclination for people to defend a system they are so deeply invested in, and there's doubly an incentive to defend that system if it tells you you are much better than others--despite objective evidence showing that system isn't worth much in the empirical sense. It's possible that I am biased myself, but everything I've read suggests that I'm not far off.

Maybe it's impossible for there to be 100% objectivity on any test, but again it's remarkably consistent across classes. Look, I have read many other people's exams. That's part of how my friends and I improved from first to second semester. In the extremes, there was definitely a major difference between the B's and the A's. Even slight fluctuations had better writing ability, fewer mistakes, more creative arguments.

[JCougar]

Just because it's consistent among classes doesn't mean it's valid, though. I actually eventually found the Klein & Hart study on Google Books. It's page 850:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XQgrjw ... dy&f=false

While there seems to be good reliability across law professors as to what kinds of exams are "good" and which aren't, it seems that the grades are best predicted by a combination of a) word count and b) a layman's impression of correctness (in this case, two English majors who never went to law school were the "laymen"). So basically, if you can write a lot of words and impress an English major, you're in good shape. Both these factors combined predicted about 50% of the grading variance (r = .70). That's a huge number. And, as the authors note, its artificially low, because they only had two English majors give ratings, which depressed inter-rater reliability, which in turn artificially depressed that variable's validity measure.

Basically, if you had a bigger group of English majors give ratings, you could predict nearly 60% of a law exam's grade based only on those ratings alone and word count. And none of those factors have anything to do with knowing and applying the law, since the English majors never took a single law class in their life. And knowing/applying the law is what law exams are supposedly measuring.

The study does note that LSAT predicts something like 16 additional percentage points of variance, but at most schools where the top 51% of the class is jammed into an LSAT range of about 2-3 points, this measure of intelligence probably loses a lot of its predictive power.

Overall, we're talking about not much more than one third of your law exam grade is actually knowing and applying the law--at best. The rest is word count and writing ability. If you can crank out 7-8K words in three hours, and it's at least superficially good writing, you're probably in good shape.

[patogordo]

Overall, we're talking about not much more than one third of your law exam grade is actually knowing and applying the law. The rest is word count and writing ability. If you can crank out 7-8K words in three hours, and it's at least superficially good writing, you're probably in good shape.

this explains so much. that's a really interesting study.

[hoos89]

.

[PepperJack]

Yeah, look at least a lot of words is a somewhat objective criterion. Also, word vomit doesn't get good grades. It's just if the analysis is the same, and there's more it gets a better grade. For what it's worth, when I typed less and focused on good writing I got better grades (i.e. made fewer points, but wrote better with bigger words and more phony lines). It's not a 1:1 link between writing more, and getting better grades. If 2 exams are similar caliber, it's not crazy for the longer one to get a better grade. The biggest complaint with lawyers and lawyering are billable hour requirements. If one can do more work at a similar level in the same hour - they deserve a better grade IMO. It's unfair to people with ADD, but life is unfair in that regard. A client isn't going to say, "Well, this should cost me 2k, but because he has ADD, it's only fair I should have to pay 3k." The client isn't going to give a fuck about the lawyer's ADD. He'll go to a different firm. The only people who get boned unfairly are the LLM's, but from what I gather from them, they don't need to be at median.

And if you're saying, similar analysis but more words -> better grade - that's a pretty fair criterion. Look at hiring. 2 people have similar grades, 1 is really obese or 1 is older or 1 is in a wheelchair. The 1 without the negative trait is going to get the job with lower grades as long as it's not like a .3 difference. Seems less fair.

Let's look at college. Your professor is crazy anti-abortion. You subtly express your opinion in class, and get a D on the final without ever being able to see your exam. That's common enough. In law school, that professor never gets hired in the first place or if he does, the exam makes above the law. There's public outcry, etc.

It's not 100% fair, but nothing in class is. Lawyers don't fill out a multiple choice exam, and file it as a complaint. Writing is crucial. Just because it's in writing doesn't mean it's subjective. With the English SAT, some Harvard whiz kid wrote a perfect essay according to what they said they're looking for, but made it pro-Nazi and argued that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves. He didn't actually believe any of this, but wanted to prove there was a subjective component to the grading so wrote a KKK type thesis. He got an 800. Law school might be different, but the professors do a pretty good job of grading according to what they say they are looking for.

I might be biased, because I am incapable as presenting myself as a white shoe type, have limited academic knowledge and all in all probably come off as someone out of GoodFellas. Law school and standardized testing are the only two forums in which I feel I was judged objectively, which allows me to study differently in that at least my grade is somewhat in my control and not pre-written. I truly believe in everything else, 90% of your grade is predetermined.

[patogordo]

And if you're saying, similar analysis but more words -> better grade - that's a pretty fair criterion. Look at hiring. 2 people have similar grades, 1 is really obese or 1 is older or 1 is in a wheelchair. The 1 without the negative trait is going to get the job with lower grades as long as it's not like a .3 difference. Seems less fair.

congratulations, you just hired Hitler.

[PepperJack]

And if you're saying, similar analysis but more words -> better grade - that's a pretty fair criterion. Look at hiring. 2 people have similar grades, 1 is really obese or 1 is older or 1 is in a wheelchair. The 1 without the negative trait is going to get the job with lower grades as long as it's not like a .3 difference. Seems less fair.

congratulations, you just hired Hitler.

Hitler was short, socially awkward, only had a background in art and came from a poor family. He himself was homeless at one point, and had mediocre test scores. He would not have done well in the big law market. He might have done better post WW1 when he had a "revelation", and became much more aggressive and charismatic. The classic Aryans would have done well, but they'd probably also do well today assuming they come off as American and not as crazy Nazis.

In the trenches, other German soldiers described Hitler as isolated, strange and desperate for approval. While the guys joked around and told stories, he'd draw pictures alone in the corner. He would have been labeled a weirdo, and prob would have struck out. Even when he became aggressive, we really only see him yelling. He lacks the cool confidence and phoniness that cleans up in big law.

[goldeneye]

You guys really know how to buzzkill a thread. Who cares? Study and you get a grade. If you don't study, you still get a grade.

[bouakedojo]

You guys really know how to buzzkill a thread. Who cares? Study and you get a grade. If you don't study, you still get a grade.

I agree. I don't want to be a dick, but can you guys set up another thread to do this back-and-forth? You're really jacking up this one.

[patogordo]

And if you're saying, similar analysis but more words -> better grade - that's a pretty fair criterion. Look at hiring. 2 people have similar grades, 1 is really obese or 1 is older or 1 is in a wheelchair. The 1 without the negative trait is going to get the job with lower grades as long as it's not like a .3 difference. Seems less fair.

congratulations, you just hired Hitler.

Hitler was short, socially awkward, only had a background in art and came from a poor family. He himself was homeless at one point, and had mediocre test scores. He would not have done well in the big law market. He might have done better post WW1 when he had a "revelation", and became much more aggressive and charismatic. The classic Aryans would have done well, but they'd probably also do well today assuming they come off as American and not as crazy Nazis.

In the trenches, other German soldiers described Hitler as isolated, strange and desperate for approval. While the guys joked around and told stories, he'd draw pictures alone in the corner. He would have been labeled a weirdo, and prob would have struck out. Even when he became aggressive, we really only see him yelling. He lacks the cool confidence and phoniness that cleans up in big law.

but he was half-jewish.

[Randomnumbers]

You're making the assumption that word count should have no impact on grades, which is flawed at best. A lot of times people write more because they have more to say, not just because they are able to write faster. Also, 7-8k is a gross over estimation of the amount that people write on 3 hour exams. I've heard of, I think, one person who got to 7k on a 3 hour exam, but for the most part the top grades are probably in the 4500-5500 range on a lot of no-word limit 3 hour exams. Also, just about everyone in law school is "capable" of typing 8k words in 3 hours (that's 45 words per minute if all you do is type). Obviously faster typing is helpful because it allows for more time to read and plan, but I think that most law students these days are competent typists.

I know several people who regularly hit ~7k+ words on 3 hour exams, for what it's worth. It's not a guarantee of doing well, but it definitely helps to put a floor on how poorly you can do (assuming, of course, you actually have a clue what you are talking about).

[DoveBodyWash]

You're making the assumption that word count should have no impact on grades, which is flawed at best. A lot of times people write more because they have more to say, not just because they are able to write faster. Also, 7-8k is a gross over estimation of the amount that people write on 3 hour exams. I've heard of, I think, one person who got to 7k on a 3 hour exam, but for the most part the top grades are probably in the 4500-5500 range on a lot of no-word limit 3 hour exams. Also, just about everyone in law school is "capable" of typing 8k words in 3 hours (that's 45 words per minute if all you do is type). Obviously faster typing is helpful because it allows for more time to read and plan, but I think that most law students these days are competent typists.

I know several people who regularly hit ~7k+ words on 3 hour exams, for what it's worth. It's not a guarantee of doing well, but it definitely helps to put a floor on how poorly you can do (assuming, of course, you actually have a clue what you are talking about).

I had 12k words on my contracts exam and 17k words on my torts exam (lots of copying and pasting for Tamanaha). Someone actually had more than me for torts. But it depends on the type of exam-taker you are. My strength came from burying my classmates in analysis (hence the high word count). My worst grade was Mandelker's property...which was 1500 total words for 5 questions, basically impossible to put any distance between you and your peers with that word limit. But i agree that high word count isn't necessary or sufficient for doing well on these exams. One of the guys in my study group had 5k less words than me in torts, and we got the same grade.

[sublime]

..

[DoveBodyWash]

Yea, I don't type that fast lol.

I may try to increase my wpm over spring break (anybody have any tips on how to do this?- Like I don't really touch type)

Like you said, it means that you have a lot less room for error and what you do get down has to be pretty good.

Exception for Greenfield though bc 1) word limit and 2) The raw score for the CALI was like a 57.

Honestly the only reason i typed that fast on my exams was because i took enough practice exams where i was using the same phrasing over and over again for certain applications of the law. So it became kinda robotic and my fingers could type the phrases out without really thinking about it. Like i phrased the application the exact same way every time I talked about option K's or every time I ran through negligence elements. I was just plugging in different facts.

Copying and pasting helped jack up the word count for torts, but i think that was specific to Tamanaha because his exams just lended themselves to that.

Anyway, i really do think the best way to jack up WPM on our exams is to just know beforehand how you're going to phrase the application. Because if that's robotic, then you don't have to sit there and think about how to phrase things before you execute.

[hoos89]

.

[sublime]

..

[DoveBodyWash]

I'm sorry...I thought you said you just said you had 17k words on an exam.

my roommate had like 20k...or whatever 100k characters is. We literally took like 10 practice exams for that class and phrased everything the exact same way every single time. We just never stopped typing

Cuse is a special breed of gunner.

And yea man, how many practice exams did you take? Seems like it would be a good idea for me to do that this semester.

10 for torts, i think 6-7 for contracts, and 3 for property.

[hoos89]

.

[DoveBodyWash]

Wow. Consider my mind blown. I'm guessing you could cut about 10-12k of those words and not lose any points. Incidentally...are you still icing your wrists?

I'm never typing the words "D's failure to ..." again. NEVER AGAIN.

[chuckbass]

I'm sorry...I thought you said you just said you had 17k words on an exam.

my roommate had like 20k...or whatever 100k characters is. We literally took like 10 practice exams for that class and phrased everything the exact same way every single time. We just never stopped typing

Cuse is a special breed of gunner.

And yea man, how many practice exams did you take? Seems like it would be a good idea for me to do that this semester.

10 for torts, i think 6-7 for contracts, and 3 for property.

Did you both do well with grades?

[JCougar]

I had 12k words on my contracts exam and 17k words on my torts exam (lots of copying and pasting for Tamanaha). Someone actually had more than me for torts. But it depends on the type of exam-taker you are. My strength came from burying my classmates in analysis (hence the high word count). My worst grade was Mandelker's property...which was 1500 total words for 5 questions, basically impossible to put any distance between you and your peers with that word limit. But i agree that high word count isn't necessary or sufficient for doing well on these exams. One of the guys in my study group had 5k less words than me in torts, and we got the same grade.

I was the complete opposite. If you take my GPA on exams with word limits, I'd have been magna cum laude (though it's a small sample size, so it may not mean much).

My non-word-limited exams, I averaged significantly below median.

I studied equally for each exam, so there wasn't really any difference in effort or understanding the law on my part. But on the non-word-limited exams, I generally only typed about 3K words. I just like to be exact and precise when I write, and that's not something I could really change. When I did study groups, I did them with people from the very top of the class, and when we did practice exams together, I spotted everything they did, if not more. Except I always used about half the words to explain it.

After three years of law exams, I never could get myself to come up with all that extra analysis...it all seemed like unnecessary, speculative, and irrelevant word salad to me, even though it sounded good. When reviewing one of my exams with one of my professors 1L year, and comparing it to the model answer, I said, "I don't get it...I said everything they did, but they just used more words." She responded, "well, if you would have just wrote a few more words here and there, I could have given you more points." I think my jaw dropped in disbelief.

I think clearly there's a difference of opinion between me and the general consensus of law professors as to what constitutes "analysis" that is actually relevant to the issues. What I see as mostly useless, frivolous details, they see as stuff you get points for. But when everyone is forced to be efficient with their words, my "analysis" is right on. My writing is good, too. I wrote onto a journal, my note got published, and I've gotten more than one internship/job via my writing sample.

It all seems pretty sloppy and disorganized to me, and this is why I would caution any prospective law student not to count on anything grade-wise when entering law school. Studying, knowing, and applying the law only go so far.

[hoos89]

.

[JCougar]

3000 words really is not that many for a 3 hour exam with no word limit. Depending on the exam, I am skeptical that you could sufficiently analyze every issue in that amount of words, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had some conclusory or non-objective analysis (i.e. not looking at both sides). Spotting the issues is a relatively small portion of the grade compared to analysis, so the fact that you were finding the same issues as your peers is borderline irrelevant if they were doing more detailed analysis.

Maybe, but I did just fine when there was a word limit.