Top Law Schools

PeanutsNJam wrote:
It seems if one does the preparation correctly and puts in the time, you can dictate where on the class rank spectrum you lie by how much work you put in.

PeanutsNJam wrote:Sooo... is this bullshit?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html

srs question

PeanutsNJam wrote:Generally, when you do things, your success in doing said thing is a function of the work you put in, your innate talent for said thing, and luck.

I've read all the "how to succeed in law school" posts for TLS. They all say similar things (which is a good sign I suppose). Basically, "luck" becomes a factors in the margins. They suggest it'll affect your class rank +/- 3%, or something like that. Luck will get you an A when it most likely would have been an A-, or vice versa. Talent also comes secondary to preparation. The articles talk about reading books such as Getting to Maybe and Law School Confidential as a 0L, and then starting to lightly read E&E's to get a feel for the material. They've outlined the best ways to prepare for the final exam that is 100% of your grade, such as taking practice tests and starting your outline early, and making your outline concise.

It seems if one does the preparation correctly and puts in the time, you can dictate where on the class rank spectrum you lie by how much work you put in. Too lazy to read the hornbooks? Too bad, lower rank. Decided to read the hornbooks, E&E's, do questions, visit office hours, take practice tests, cross reference outlines with high-scoring upperclassmen, etc? Higher rank. Yeah, if you're striving for top 5% at a T20 to transfer or something, luck and talent are probably necessary.

But why the "yeah it doesn't matter how hard you work, you might as well roll a dice to find out what your 1L grade will be"/"assume median outcomes" rhetoric?

PeanutsNJam wrote:Sooo... is this bullshit?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/success- ... chool.html

srs question

The weaknesses in the typical student’s approach are numerous. I would estimate, based on the law students I know, that 75% or more of the first-year students in my class followed the road outlined above. Some extremely bright students follow this road and get A’s. This is a measure of their brilliance, not a justification for their study system. I would wager that using a smarter system would allow them to fare even better.

The first major issue here is failure to respect an exam worth 100% of your grade. It is essential that you always budget enough time in your schedule for exam preparation. You should not be spending time doing things that do not contribute to an increase in your exam score until you have completed all of those things that do increase your exam score.

A professor may open a class and welcome you to law school and to her class. She may inform you about the lengthy readings and level of preparation she expects from you. She may inform you of the test at the end worth 100% of your grade, but tell you not to worry about it because it is too early. She may tell you to brief every case and not to read study guides.

You need to hear beyond her words, into the reality and implications of what she is saying. This is what I hear:

“Welcome to Contracts; I am Professor Smith. I am going to talk about what I am interested in because this is my class and I am going to teach the way I want to. I am not going to advise you on how to play tricky games to maximize your grades because when the end of the semester comes I am going to give out a fixed number of A’s, B’s, and C’s anyway. I care about my research, not about how you guys fight it out amongst yourself for the 5 A and 15 A- grades I will be awarding. I don’t want you to read study guides or for you to practice tests all year long, even though doing so will get the select few of you that do it better test grades. Reading these books and practicing sample tests may get you great at taking tests, but you are short-cutting past all of the hard work that will make you better suited for a career in legal academia in the long run.”

Or sometimes this:

“Welcome to Contracts; I am Professor Smith. I am completely out of touch with what it is like to be an average law school student with typical abilities relative to my peers. When I was at Harvard Law School in 1972 we used the Socratic Method, and I stand by that tradition. It doesn’t matter that I was a 178 LSAT and 3.98 student in undergrad, with a 172 I.Q. and that I could have only studied ten hours a week and still have made Harvard Law Review. I am completely out of touch with what it would take for the typical law student to read or practice in order to do well on my exam.”

ymmv wrote:To paraphrase DF (because I can't find his post), the brutality of the curve is not because law school is hard; it's because it's easy. A law exam is like a math exam where the goal is to see who can solve the highest number of simple math problems in 3 hours. Except sometimes the professor might prefer you spend more time adding 2+2 than subtracting 1 from 3, so you'd better hope you guess right and get more of the 2+2 problems written in.

PeanutsNJam wrote:But are all law students within a class really equal?

The weaknesses in the typical student’s approach are numerous. I would estimate, based on the law students I know, that 75% or more of the first-year students in my class followed the road outlined above. Some extremely bright students follow this road and get A’s. This is a measure of their brilliance, not a justification for their study system. I would wager that using a smarter system would allow them to fare even better.

The first major issue here is failure to respect an exam worth 100% of your grade. It is essential that you always budget enough time in your schedule for exam preparation. You should not be spending time doing things that do not contribute to an increase in your exam score until you have completed all of those things that do increase your exam score.

A professor may open a class and welcome you to law school and to her class. She may inform you about the lengthy readings and level of preparation she expects from you. She may inform you of the test at the end worth 100% of your grade, but tell you not to worry about it because it is too early. She may tell you to brief every case and not to read study guides.

You need to hear beyond her words, into the reality and implications of what she is saying. This is what I hear:

“Welcome to Contracts; I am Professor Smith. I am going to talk about what I am interested in because this is my class and I am going to teach the way I want to. I am not going to advise you on how to play tricky games to maximize your grades because when the end of the semester comes I am going to give out a fixed number of A’s, B’s, and C’s anyway. I care about my research, not about how you guys fight it out amongst yourself for the 5 A and 15 A- grades I will be awarding. I don’t want you to read study guides or for you to practice tests all year long, even though doing so will get the select few of you that do it better test grades. Reading these books and practicing sample tests may get you great at taking tests, but you are short-cutting past all of the hard work that will make you better suited for a career in legal academia in the long run.”

Or sometimes this:

“Welcome to Contracts; I am Professor Smith. I am completely out of touch with what it is like to be an average law school student with typical abilities relative to my peers. When I was at Harvard Law School in 1972 we used the Socratic Method, and I stand by that tradition. It doesn’t matter that I was a 178 LSAT and 3.98 student in undergrad, with a 172 I.Q. and that I could have only studied ten hours a week and still have made Harvard Law Review. I am completely out of touch with what it would take for the typical law student to read or practice in order to do well on my exam.”

This is at NYU, fyi.

ymmv wrote:To paraphrase DF (because I can't find his post), the brutality of the curve is not because law school is hard; it's because it's easy. A law exam is like a math exam where the goal is to see who can solve the highest number of simple math problems in 3 hours. Except sometimes the professor might prefer you spend more time adding 2+2 than subtracting 1 from 3, so you'd better hope you guess right and get more of the 2+2 problems written in.

Then can't you give yourself and edge by sitting at home practicing speed-math all day, instead of studying the calculus the teacher is teaching, which isn't even on the test? Guessing what the professor wants is fine, but if you can answer 2x more questions than the "average" student (because while they were learning theoretical math, you sat home doing 2+2 as fast as you can), then aren't you setting yourself apart?

PeanutsNJam wrote:

ymmv wrote:To paraphrase DF (because I can't find his post), the brutality of the curve is not because law school is hard; it's because it's easy. A law exam is like a math exam where the goal is to see who can solve the highest number of simple math problems in 3 hours. Except sometimes the professor might prefer you spend more time adding 2+2 than subtracting 1 from 3, so you'd better hope you guess right and get more of the 2+2 problems written in.

Then can't you give yourself and edge by sitting at home practicing speed-math all day, instead of studying the calculus the teacher is teaching, which isn't even on the test? Guessing what the professor wants is fine, but if you can answer 2x more questions than the "average" student (because while they were learning theoretical math, you sat home doing 2+2 as fast as you can), then aren't you setting yourself apart?

PeanutsNJam wrote:Outside of T6, (and even in CCN), are the students really shoulder-to-shoulder? Both in intelligence and work ethic?

fats provolone wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:Outside of T6, (and even in CCN), are the students really shoulder-to-shoulder? Both in intelligence and work ethic?

why does that matter

PeanutsNJam wrote:Ok well I guess if I'm going to be curved against 199 clones of myself then I'll go ask the fortune teller down the street how I'll do in law school.