control over 1L class rank Forum

[Bronte]

you didn't answer the question i wrote for you

You're so attached to your LSAT score that you're using an invented LSAT question to make a point. Just think about how sad that is.

[sheisrisen]

Listen, I'm curious. If you can put me in touch with someone who attended a top 50 school with a full ride + scholarship and ended up bottom 50%, I'll give you $20. just PM your address and I'll send you a bill. I'm not saying this to be an asshole at all, but literally I can't find any counter-evidence to the position I'm advocating.

I personally knew someone at T14 who had a full merit scholarship and ended up below median. This person just couldn't wrap their head around how to do well on law school exams. It happens. I'm not saying it's common, but I am saying I have personal knowledge that it happens.

I can't put you in touch with them because it'd violate their confidence, but it happens.

do we get $20 now?

[IAFG]

you didn't answer the question i wrote for you

You're so attached to your LSAT score that you're using an invented LSAT question to make a point. Just think about how sad that is.

Thought about it...

this sad:

[minnbills]

I wish my LSAT score indicated I'd be top quartile, I'd sleep so much better at night.

[Captain Hammer]

To OP:

Law school exams are nothing like any other testing process you've experienced. The kicker is, professors don't typically teach you how to do well on an exam. They teach you the law, but not how they expect you to express it on exam day. A lot of bright, smart, driven people get tripped up because they learn the law, get to exam day, and don't know how to answer. Or they've studied exam-taking but they just can't perform well under the intense time pressure and stress of knowing a series of 3-hour exams is dictating the rest of their life. Or they just choke.

You can only control how much preparation you do. You're on TLS, and you're reading this advice, which gives you slightly better odds of success. That's all they are, just odds. You can control things that can improve your odds of success, but literally nothing guarantees you'll do well. Until you actually get your first semester grades back, you won't know if you actually made the cut or not.

[IAFG]

A lot of bright, smart, driven people get tripped up because they learn the law, get to exam day, and don't know how to answer. Or they've studied exam-taking but they just can't perform well under the intense time pressure and stress of knowing a series of 3-hour exams is dictating the rest of their life. Or they just choke.

Or they learn how to answer, do a good job executing, don't panic, don't choke, but half the class does better anyway.

[sheisrisen]

A lot of bright, smart, driven people get tripped up because they learn the law, get to exam day, and don't know how to answer. Or they've studied exam-taking but they just can't perform well under the intense time pressure and stress of knowing a series of 3-hour exams is dictating the rest of their life. Or they just choke.

Or they learn how to answer, do a good job executing, don't panic, don't choke, but half the class does better anyway.

People with full rides need to know that this can happen to them too.

[Captain Hammer]

A lot of bright, smart, driven people get tripped up because they learn the law, get to exam day, and don't know how to answer. Or they've studied exam-taking but they just can't perform well under the intense time pressure and stress of knowing a series of 3-hour exams is dictating the rest of their life. Or they just choke.

Or they learn how to answer, do a good job executing, don't panic, don't choke, but half the class does better anyway.

This. This happens too.

[09042014]

Also, if you significantly prepped for the LSAT, your score doesn't mean jack shit. Think about that OP. Most people do no intensively prep for the LSAT, especially the further down the rankings chain.

[thelawyler]

Lol OP you kind of sound like an asshole. I hope you get really good grades because from the small sample size here, your personality isn't going to open that many doors.

EDIT: LOL sorry I mixed up people. whoops.

[indigomachine]

Suggested method for controlling class rank = not wasting time making posts on controlling class rank that could be spent studying / having a life? Yes?

ETA: nvm, didn't see that OP is a (L)0L. No studying I guess.

[thelawyler]

Suggested method for controlling class rank = not wasting time making posts on controlling class rank that could be spent studying / having a life? Yes?

ETA: nvm, didn't see that OP is a (L)0L. No studying I guess.

I think he's a 1L

[vanwinkle]

I think he's a 1L

That arrogant "Hutz_and_Goodman" dude is a 1L. OP is a 0L.

[thelawyler]

I think he's a 1L

That arrogant "Hutz_and_Goodman" dude is a 1L. OP is a 0L.

Oh okay I guess I failed.

[indigomachine]

I think he's a 1L

That arrogant "Hutz_and_Goodman" dude is a 1L. OP is a 0L.

Oh okay I guess I failed.

It's cool, that's what tripped me up initially too: fail across the full spectrum of 0L-1L = confusion upon quick reading.

Whole deal still seems moronic either way, but it feels not as bad from a 0L ostensibly looking for honest advice before taking the LS plunge.

[bk1]

you didn't answer the question i wrote for you

You're so attached to your LSAT score that you're using an invented LSAT question to make a point. Just think about how sad that is.

I'm not sure what's sadder, the fake LSAT question or the fact that he cited the number of page views of a thread he started as if that number was at all relevant to anything.

[180asBreath]

A lot of bright, smart, driven people get tripped up because they learn the law, get to exam day, and don't know how to answer. Or they've studied exam-taking but they just can't perform well under the intense time pressure and stress of knowing a series of 3-hour exams is dictating the rest of their life. Or they just choke.

Or they learn how to answer, do a good job executing, don't panic, don't choke, but half the class does better anyway.

This is the first sentence that actually made me question my desire to go to law school (sorry for hijacking "Ask a Law Student").

[IAFG]

A lot of bright, smart, driven people get tripped up because they learn the law, get to exam day, and don't know how to answer. Or they've studied exam-taking but they just can't perform well under the intense time pressure and stress of knowing a series of 3-hour exams is dictating the rest of their life. Or they just choke.

Or they learn how to answer, do a good job executing, don't panic, don't choke, but half the class does better anyway.

This is the first sentence that actually made me question my desire to go to law school (sorry for hijacking "Ask a Law Student").

Wait, I actually found a way of explaining the curve that had an impact?

[crumpetsandtea]

The best predictor for grades is how you have fared in a similar environment. If you have consistently gotten A's in writing-heavy classes in undergrad (poli sic, philosophy, history, etc.) at a school like an Ivy, Duke, Chicago, UVa, Michigan, Cal, or one of the top liberal arts colleges, there's no reason why hard work shouldn't get you well into the top half of a T14. In this circumstance, undergrad GPA has a decent correlation to law school GPA.

As much as it might help your admission, high GPAs from less consistent schools or majors that don't require analytical writing on timed exams have much less predictive value. LSAT by itself is meaningless because it doesn't test your writing ability or work ethic.

I have no sources for any of this other than personal experience and observation at my law school.

I think this flew under the radar with all the hutz derpalerp and I wanted to address it - apologies if someone else already made this point.

1) Statistically, the LSAT has a HIGHER correlation with LS grades than UG GPA. This makes sense if you think about it - the LSAT is everyone compared to each other, UG GPA is subjective based on major/school/etc. (ETA: with that said, neither of them REALLY correlates enough to safely say that a high GPA/high LSAT will guarantee any sort of grades)

2) If we're going to go anecdotally here, I know at least 5-10 people from my school alone who were sub-3.0 splitters in UG and are now top third of their class. Low GPA, high LS rank, YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT. ( XP )

3) The key here is not what your stats were, but how you apply yourself and learn from whatever mistakes you made when taking the LSAT/studying in college. If you had a 2.9 and you don't change your study habits, then yeah you're fucked. If you had a 2.9 and you learn from it and change/improve, then things will be different.

4) But honestly, in the end...no one can predict their grade. The most you can do is work hard, listen in class, do the readings, and study smart.

[thelawyler]

The best predictor for grades is how you have fared in a similar environment. If you have consistently gotten A's in writing-heavy classes in undergrad (poli sic, philosophy, history, etc.) at a school like an Ivy, Duke, Chicago, UVa, Michigan, Cal, or one of the top liberal arts colleges, there's no reason why hard work shouldn't get you well into the top half of a T14. In this circumstance, undergrad GPA has a decent correlation to law school GPA.

As much as it might help your admission, high GPAs from less consistent schools or majors that don't require analytical writing on timed exams have much less predictive value. LSAT by itself is meaningless because it doesn't test your writing ability or work ethic.

I have no sources for any of this other than personal experience and observation at my law school.

I think this flew under the radar with all the hutz derpalerp and I wanted to address it - apologies if someone else already made this point.

1) Statistically, the LSAT has a HIGHER correlation with LS grades than UG GPA. This makes sense if you think about it - the LSAT is everyone compared to each other, UG GPA is subjective based on major/school/etc

2) If we're going to go anecdotally here, I know at least 5-10 people from my school alone who were sub-3.0 splitters in UG and are now top third of their class. Low GPA, high LS rank, YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT. ( XP )

3) The key here is not what your stats were, but how you apply yourself and learn from whatever mistakes you made when taking the LSAT/studying in college. If you had a 2.9 and you don't change your study habits, then yeah you're fucked. If you had a 2.9 and you learn from it and change/improve, then things will be different.

4) But honestly, in the end...no one can predict their grade. The most you can do is work hard, listen in class, do the readings, and study smart.

Well to be fair to Wahoo, the way he phrased the statement is that a high GPA at a top school may be sufficient to predict above median grades, not that they were necessary.

But honestly, I think the LSAT is a better indicator statistically because there is an assumption that you tried your hardest to maximize that score. For uGPA, this is not necessarily the case and people dick around in college a lot. So if those people who are obviously smart enough to score high on the LSAT change their habits and apply themselves in their studies, then that will make up for that GPA. After all, in college GPA largely accounts for effort (this isn't to say that you'll auto get a 4.3 or whatever, but you will definitely do well in ugrad if you put in the effort you do during 1L or LSAT). Thus the "talent gap" in the LSAT may show a higher statistical correlation because the thing that the GPA measures, largely effort, is usually negated at most respectable law schools. If there was something like 95% employment of great jobs at law schools, then perhaps GPA would be a much better indicator of performance as I bet people who are predisposed to be lazy will continue to be so in a higher statistical amount.

[crumpetsandtea]

Well to be fair to Wahoo, the way he phrased the statement is that a high GPA at a top school may be sufficient to predict above median grades, not that they were necessary.

But honestly, I think the LSAT is a better indicator statistically because there is an assumption that you tried your hardest to maximize that score. For uGPA, this is not necessarily the case and people dick around in college a lot. So if those people who are obviously smart enough to score high on the LSAT change their habits and apply themselves in their studies, then that will make up for that GPA. After all, in college GPA largely accounts for effort (this isn't to say that you'll auto get a 4.3 or whatever, but you will definitely do well in ugrad if you put in the effort you do during 1L or LSAT). Thus the "talent gap" in the LSAT may show a higher statistical correlation because the thing that the GPA measures, largely effort, is usually negated at most respectable law schools. If there was something like 95% employment of great jobs at law schools, then perhaps GPA would be a much better indicator of performance as I bet people who are predisposed to be lazy will continue to be so in a higher statistical amount.

That's a fair point. I wasn't trying to argue with him, per se, I just didn't want someone to read his post and misinterpret that being a splitter = auto-failure or something.

I don't really think either of them are a particularly good indicator. As DF said, there are lots of people who work their ass off for their LSAT and lots of people who don't even try, which diminishes its ability to gauge 'logical ability' or whatever. On the other hand, GPA is an incredibly hard factor to rely on because 1) different schools give out different ranges of GPAs, 2) different majors give out different ranges of GPAs, 3) some people do/don't try in college, just like in the LSAT.

So, basically: it doesn't matter what you did before. What matters is what you do IN law school.

[sunynp]

Don't forget the effect of the mandatory curve. I saw people who were A students in undergrad get crushed by the curve.

I think there really is no good predictor. You just have to take the exam and hope for the best.

[Captain Hammer]

Don't forget the effect of the mandatory curve. I saw people who were A students in undergrad get crushed by the curve.

This is basically IAFG's (excellent) point, made differently.

To illustrate, I'm going to pick on UC-Hastings. (It's not anything bad toward the school, I just need someone in the bottom of the T1 to illustrate, and they fit the bill. This isn't unique to them, though.)

Imagine that you have taken the LSAT and gotten a 163 or higher. A 163, according to a number of results on Google, is around the 90th percentile for the LSAT. 90th percentile sounds very good, overwhelmingly good in fact. Most UG students will think of the 90th percentile and translate it into an "A" grade automatically. You've also earned a number of A's while accruing your 3.x GPA, so this feels like a validation of your potential success.

So you take your 163+ LSAT and apply to schools. You get into Hastings, and you decide to enroll there. During orientation, they announce that like in many past years, your class has a 163 median LSAT score. You don't really ponder what this means, because you're already in your "I'm 'A' material, my LSAT said so" mindset.

The truth, though, is that "163 median" means at least half your class was in the 90th percentile or higher on the LSAT. When exam day comes, all those people who you "beat" on the LSAT have been weeded out. You're up agsinst other champions who've already proven themselves, just like you. The LSAT was just the regular season, and now you're in the playoffs. And like the playoffs, there are a fixed number of winners. Playoffs pit winners agsinst each other, and make some into losers for the first time.

That 163 median means that at least 50 percent of your classmates were 90th percentile material on the LSAT. Even if it's just 50%+1 of your classmates who had a 163+, that means it's statistically guaranteed that at least one median-or-better-LSAT student will finish below median in class rank.

And even if you avoided being that person, you still could end up just at or just above median. It's not that you were wrong about yourself; it's not that you weren't smart and driven and hard-working like you told yourself. It's just that most of your classmates are also those things, too.

[sheisrisen]

Another thing I'd think about is how you got the LSAT score you got. Did you study full time for months? Did you take 10-20 practice exams? If it took that effort to get your LSAT score, which we all admit is the best predictor of law school success, then you need to be prepared to put that much effort into each one of your law school exams to get similar results. Something I learned the hard way.

For example, I had a 75% LSAT score through crazy studying. Other people in my classes had median LSAT scores from no studying. When we all study a solid amount, there is a good chance that median LSAT scorer is going to beat me on the curve.

[minnbills]

I have to reject the LSAT as a reliable indicator of someone's performance.

At the end of the day it's just a snapshot in time. For example:

First time I took it, I didn't sleep the night before. I struggled all the way through the second half and snagged a 162, well below my PT range.

The second time, I made it into the 3rd section before getting a wicked headache, I battled on but dropped 8 questions on the final section to snag a 168.

Now, assuming the LSAT is even a reliable indicator, which of these scores is indicative of my potential? the 162? 168? What about the 172+ I might have had without the headache? Maybe it's an indicator that I wasn't smart enough to take it a third time?

The point is, that 168 was my reported score, so compared to my class I'm at the 75%. But who's to say the other people in my section are accurately represented by their LSAT scores? Maybe half of them didn't study at all and should have snagged 175+?Maybe a bunch of them scored highly on a fluke? Consider, like others have said, that the LSAT itself isn't all that mutable to exams too.