Thoughts on a unique strategy for success in 1L Forum

[chrono1012]

Hello,

I have been hearing a lot about the massive amount of importance that 1L can have on one's career. Given this, I've been toying with an idea for succeeding in 1L. I don't know much about law school classes or the process so this might be totally off, but I figured I'd put it out there and see what you all think. Here it is:

Deferring enrollment for one year before 1L in order to "ghost" the classes. Ghosting classes is where you take classes that you are not enrolled in in order to learn the information without being given an actual grade (and sometimes without even being enrolled in the school). I've heard of it being done in undergrad and possibly MBA programs, but haven't heard of it in law school.

Ghosting would give the opportunity to get introduced to the course material, to experience the workload of law school and the study habits that are effective for it, and would allow you to begin to make the outlines. I've heard that the 1L class load is fairly similar across schools, so this may be effective even if you are ghosting at a different school than you plan to attend.

Given the immense importance 1L has on your career, it seems that having 2 years to study for it versus one would give someone a large advantage?

What do you guys think? Would this be feasible and possible to do in a law class setting? Thanks so much for the help!

[Anon.y.mousse.]

?? Do you not have anything else to do for an entire academic year?

[LeDique]

?? Do you not have anything else to do for an entire academic year?

seriously, this would only be feasible during your final year of undergrad if u just went to law schoolclasses instead of ur real classes.

[mjb447]

This wouldn't guarantee a good enough outcome to justify the time and effort you'd have to invest. (1) Law school course and exam content can actually be pretty professor specific and you may not know if you were sitting in on the correct classes even if you're at the correct school; (2) I bet you'd get driven out of smaller sections (at least) after a few classes; (3) your grades are also a function of the quality of other students' exams, which could vary a lot year to year.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

Man, if I had this much free time for a year... I would've gotten a perfect score on my LSATs, gotten accepted to HYS where "grades" don't really matter anymore.

[Mullens]

I honestly don't even know how you would do this. I go to a school where 1L sections are around 55 people and all the professors know all their students by name and face. I don't think you could get away with this at my school. Plus it's super weird and all the students would wonder who you are.

Also, 1L success is based on doing well on exams and that's a skill you're not gonna get to test in your "ghosting" strategy.

[LeDique]

i think u ppl are missing that this strategy would free op to do nothing but practice exams during 1l, but there r much easier ways to learn the doctrine and accomplish that same position. like, this idea is incredibly stupid, but if u have abundant free time, learning doctrine before 1l starts probably is advantageous assuming u then use that free time to do practice questions & exams. but rly 1l doctrine isn't so complicated as to preclude doing that anyway

[pancakes3]

it's a dumb idea because the trick to good grades isn't knowing the information - it's writing the exam. come Finals, everyone knows the black letter law well enough to write an A-exam. Off-the-record auditing a class isn't going to help the writing skills any.*

it's also a dumb idea for a number of other reasons.


*i suppose you could learn bluebooking in your down time but if you do that, you should just /self.

[chrono1012]

I think the value of ghosting classes hinges on 3 things:

1. How important class ranks and performance in 1L is. If the value of class rank is simply to add an accolade or for bragging rights, it makes very little since to take an additional year. However, there are a few scenarios where taking an additional year could be worth the time and money. For example, if ranking in the top 10% of your class means the difference between being competitive at a $160k big law job or a 70k associate job, one could make a strong case for the value of the additional year. If it makes a permanent impact on the trajectory of your career, that could be another worthwhile scenario. If it meant the difference between transferring to a T14 or T3 school, it may be worth the time. However, if class rank has little value, I see very little point in taking an additional year.

2. How feasible is it to ghost classes for a year? If professors won't allow it or the structure of law school makes it virtually impossible to ghost, then the idea is unfortunately out. If financial or personal reasons make it impossible or impractical to take a year to ghost, then it would be unfeasible. However, if the school and your personal circumstances allow it, it could be feasible.

3. How much would ghosting impact 1L outcomes? If ghosting for a year would have very little impact on the outcome of 1L, then it wouldn't make sense. However, of the added experience and knowledge could have a significant impact, then one could consider it.

In a scenario where 1L class rank matters a lot, where it is feasible to ghost, and where ghosting can have a significant positive impact on 1L results, then I would argue that it could be worth the time and money. If any of these 3 factors are missing, then I doubt it would be worth considering.

[pancakes3]

people are telling you categorically that "ghosting" fails to satisfy your second and third criterions, and is not up for debate.

[lymenheimer]

I don't know much anything about law school classes or the process

This is the most accurate part of your post (edited for accuracy)

[chrono1012]

i think u ppl are missing that this strategy would free op to do nothing but practice exams during 1l, but there r much easier ways to learn the doctrine and accomplish that same position. like, this idea is incredibly stupid, but if u have abundant free time, learning doctrine before 1l starts probably is advantageous assuming u then use that free time to do practice questions & exams. but rly 1l doctrine isn't so complicated as to preclude doing that anyway

What other/better ways are there to learn the doctrine? I really don't know much about 1L, but I'm assuming that getting a large head start on the material would put you at a significant advantage. Are there better ways to do get a head start? Hhow significant would previous knowledge of the material be?

[mjb447]

Yes - first criterion will almost always be satisfied (grades/class rank can be important anywhere depending on what you want to do, and you have to go for this strategy before you even officially start law school) and second and third won't be. Good talk.

[chrono1012]

people are telling you categorically that "ghosting" fails to satisfy your second and third criterions, and is not up for debate.

Ok. I'm not attached to the idea and was simply throwing it out there. It obviously didn't go well lol. What would you recommend as the best things one could do before starting 1L to get ahead?

[mjb447]

i think u ppl are missing that this strategy would free op to do nothing but practice exams during 1l, but there r much easier ways to learn the doctrine and accomplish that same position. like, this idea is incredibly stupid, but if u have abundant free time, learning doctrine before 1l starts probably is advantageous assuming u then use that free time to do practice questions & exams. but rly 1l doctrine isn't so complicated as to preclude doing that anyway

What other/better ways are there to learn the doctrine? I really don't know much about 1L, but I'm assuming that getting a large head start on the material would put you at a significant advantage. Are there better ways to do get a head start? Hhow significant would previous knowledge of the material be?

The "settled law" and obviously correct answers aren't very hard to learn and they aren't tested that heavily at most schools (or at least don't help sort the class that much). Differentiation comes more at the less settled edges of the law. Different profs focus on and think about those edges differently, and how good the differentiation is depends on the student body.

[pancakes3]

people are telling you categorically that "ghosting" fails to satisfy your second and third criterions, and is not up for debate.

Ok. I'm not attached to the idea and was simply throwing it out there. It obviously didn't go well lol. What would you recommend as the best things one could do before starting 1L to get ahead?

Do your absolute best on the LSAT.

The problem with 1L grading is that the grade isn't necessarily a reflection on you or your ability. Everyone knows the law equally well, and yet there's a curve. That means in a class where everyone scores between a 90% and 100% on a test, a 93% comes out as a flat B. Is that fair? No. Not at all, especially since the skills it takes to take a law school exams doesn't translate to practice very well. The time limit is arbitrary. There are many B exam takers that would be A exam takers (and vice versa) if time wasn't a consideration. It depends on your professor's sensibilities (some profs like concise answers, others give points for word vomit and don't take points off for irrelevant facts).

Now, of course there's a "skill" to writing a law school exam but it varies subject by subject, prof by prof that there's really no practical way to "prep" for it.

So when TLS gives the advice: "Assume median, and don't attend a law school you don't feel comfortable graduating from" - it's not just abject pessimism.

[chrono1012]

Interesting. Ok, well thank you all for the advice. I'll focus on doing well on the LSAT and perhaps some other methods of preparing for 1L.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The thing is, it's not just that pre-1L prep isn't sufficient, it's also not necessary. Some huge percentage of people who end up the top 5-10% of their law school class didn't do any law school prep.

[PeanutsNJam]

What other/better ways are there to learn the doctrine? I really don't know much about 1L, but I'm assuming that getting a large head start on the material would put you at a significant advantage.

There is no need for a better way to learn the doctrine. A semester is plenty of time to learn the doctrine with some free time to spare. The differentiation in law school is about how well you apply the doctrine to a set of facts, not how well you know your shit.

Do your readings and pay attention in class. Then outline. There, you have the secrets to knowing the doctrine.

[LeDique]

eh i disagree - imagine if u took all the time reading/learning doctrine to refine learning how to take exams only. yea ur probably hitting diminishing returns, but if you have nothing better to do with ur time and don't mind maybe looking dumb when u get called on in class, why not? ur going to be better than most ppl at taking exams that require applying pretty simple doctrine (whoever earlier said that exams aren't on basic doctrine is dead wrong. that's exactly what they're on. see eg, that classic glannon quote). and i think u have to know some doctrine before u can learn "taking exams" again, to be clear, there's plenty of time in 1l to hit the point of diminishing returns on "taking exams" no matter what, but if ur that into the idea of getting a head start…

i also disagree with whoever said that exam taking depends on prof to prof. first of all, i dont think most profs really actually know what they pref on exam taking. as a dumbly simple example: the prof says she doesn't care if you cite the case by name, but if the prof is picking between exam w/case name vs exam w/o, u know who is going in the a pile and a- pile. i also don't kno of any profs that provides enough model answers to understand what that prof is looking for. you can sort of get a sense of "what my prof thinks" by paying attention in class, but that's decidedly different (and hey, something you're going to appreciate more if you already understand the basic doctrine and are more alert to these things!)

again, op's idea is dumb, but i think this board has gotten way too into the idea of "no 1l prep ever!" admittedly, there's good reason for that – ppl here like op do need to chill the fuck out before and during 1l, and it's really probably not worth that much as an advantage goes - but i think ur being misleading if u say there is no upshot to it and no ways to make it worthwhile. it absurd that people here shlicked (are they still?) to some worthless supplement for the lsat but act like pre-1l studying is so worthless that it should never ever b considered

[ToGetIntoTheBoysHole]

Lol @ what is essentially "should I do 1L twice?"

[chrono1012]

Lol @ what is essentially "should I do 1L twice?"

Lol, essentially. In theory it doesn't seem all that different from taking an extra year in undergrad to pull up GPA or taking a year off to study for the LSAT if it was effective. I still don't really see why it wouldn't be effective. You would be learning the same material, taking the same classes, reading the same cases, and taking the same practice tests, and making the same outlines as anyone who is actually in 1L. The only difference is that you wouldn't be actually taking the final at the end of the course.

Twice the exposure to course material and two shots at preparing for finals sounds like it would be pretty effective to me. I think I'd be up for delaying graduation for a year and some social stigma for a good shot at transfer from T14 to HYS, or from T30 to T14.

[Mr. Archer]

I really think this is a troll post, but why not just read Emanuel Law Outlines for the common 1L classes? 1L classes are really to get notes to make outlines anyway. Explanation from professors can help you grasp concepts, but you need to be able to get most things on your own.

[ToGetIntoTheBoysHole]

1L sucks. Please do not think about putting yourself through it twice. If you are really considering taking a whole year to do a trial run on the whole 1L process (everything but sitting for exams) I think there is a 95% chance you burn yourself out by the time you actually have to start the real thing. Take the time & relax, maybe look over some 1L related material if you absolutely feel the need to do something to prep. Just know, it will most likely give you no real advantage over doing nothing at all.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I do think sitting through all your law school classes twice would probably help (this is the same reason why people say that people who drop out after 1L and start over somewhere else have an unfair advantage). Certainly with different profs you'd probably get less benefit (depending on how idiosyncratic the profs are), but I think it would reasonably helpful.

But again, I don't think it's necessary, and more the point, I don't think it's feasible. I don't think law profs will let you do this, and I honestly don't think someone could pull off doing all the work of 1L without actually being registered and taking the class. I just don't think you'd end up putting the same kind of work in and you wouldn't reproduce the experience. It's kind of like, I've taken Spanish, and if you put Spanish in front of me I can read a fair amount. If you ask me to actually understand a Spanish speaker or write/speak in Spanish I'm screwed. I think this plan would be like someone being able to read Spanish and then getting an exam where they have to translate spoken Spanish and speak it themselves.

(I also really don't think prelearning doctrine is especially helpful - partly because I did try reading E&Es before 1L and they didn't make any sense to me. Law school is of limited utility, but I think one of the things it does do is walk you into the whole legal thing. I just didn't really have enough context before 1L for reading about things like consideration or proximate cause to make any sense. I had to relearn all of it through classes.)