0L prep correlation to 1L grades Forum

[MCRemix]

This poll sucks. There should be two options, "0L prep helped" and "0L prep didn't help."

Respectfully disagree, there are other threads for that. Arguably you could reduce it down to Exam Prep vs No Prep options, removing the third set. I'll concede that, but it is obvious that 0L prep helps, the question is how prep style correlates to grades.

That said, my fatal flaw in the poll seems to be that few will admit to being <20%. Or alternatively TLS is just that uber-law that no one on TLS gets <20%? Are 2L/3Ls in the bottom 80% of their classes just too embarrassed to return to TLS after 1L?

[09042014]

This poll sucks. There should be two options, "0L prep helped" and "0L prep didn't help."

. . . but it is obvious that 0L prep helps, the question is how prep style correlates to grades.

No it's not.

[TTH]

but it is obvious that 0L prep help

When I was a 0L, I was always frustrated by the snark with which law students responded to half of the points raised by 0Ls. Now I understand.

[dakatz]

This poll sucks. There should be two options, "0L prep helped" and "0L prep didn't help."

Respectfully disagree, there are other threads for that. Arguably you could reduce it down to Exam Prep vs No Prep options, removing the third set. I'll concede that, but it is obvious that 0L prep helps, the question is how prep style correlates to grades.

That said, my fatal flaw in the poll seems to be that few will admit to being <20%. Or alternatively TLS is just that uber-law that no one on TLS gets <20%? Are 2L/3Ls in the bottom 80% of their classes just too embarrassed to return to TLS after 1L?

Its obvious that 0L prep helps? Did you not read through most responses? The overwhelming (and correct) consensus is that 0L prep does NOT help. Sure, it may be beneficial to read something like Getting to Maybe, improving your resume, speeding up your typing skills, getting yourself organized, prioritized and ready to go, etc. But 0L prep is largely useless. I shouldn't have to remind you about the kid earlier in the thread who had the arrogance to "disagree" with the usefulness of 0L prep when actual current students were clearly telling him clearly that it is not useful.

[dr123]

I'm a zero L so bear with me, but...

I really don't see how 0L prep for law school could possibly help, correct me if I'm wrong but isnt class itself essentially prep for the final, which the majority of your grade is based off of?

[AreJay711]

I find it interesting that 70% of people on TLS are in the top 20% of their respective classes. I'm a bit skeptical but w/e

[dakatz]

but it is obvious that 0L prep help

When I was a 0L, I was always frustrated by the snark with which law students responded to half of the points raised by 0Ls. Now I understand.

Same here. To their credit, I had that same attitude last year. I thought to myself "how can it possibly not help to do substantive prep". And it is sort of hard to articulate and explain. But now that I understand why its useless, its sort of frustrating that all of us will be ignored, just like a number of us ignored the 1L's before us.

[MCRemix]

I believe I've been misinterpreted. I said that it is obvious 0L prep helps, not that 0L substantive prep helps. I should have been clearer and noted that I was referring to exam and general law school prep, not E&Es or other substantive prep.

A few TLS References supporting my assertion lest I be disregarded as a 0L:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=77628
http://www.top-law-schools.com/law-scho ... icle1.html
http://www.top-law-schools.com/loyola-study-advice.html

However, my previous statements in this thread should make it clear that I'm not trying to gauge the result of solely, or even
primarily, substantive prep. It is clear to me that TLS consensus says that substantive prep is at best a minor boost for a few weeks and at worst a total waste of time.

[TTH]

I find it interesting that 70% of people on TLS are in the top 20% of their respective classes. I'm a bit skeptical but w/e

People who answered the poll =/= the entire law student population of TLS

Same here. To their credit, I had that same attitude last year. I thought to myself "how can it possibly not help to do substantive prep". And it is sort of hard to articulate and explain. But now that I understand why its useless, its sort of frustrating that all of us will be ignored, just like a number of us ignored the 1L's before us.

I was always anti-0L prep, but it was more out of laziness/working full time than anything else. I understand the desire to want to do everything possible to put oneself in the best position possible, but so much of it is wasted effort.

More importantly (and the only reason I get involved in these threads), I think substantive prep probably hurts most people that do it. Learning random bits of the law, without context, and not knowing what the professor thinks about it means a student may have to spend time unlearning shit they've read over the summer instead of focusing on the exam.

Honestly, the best 0L prep I can recommend it updating the resume, researching employers, and writing draft cover letters for December 1. I didn't do this and sorely wish I had because it sucked trying to send stuff out during finals.

[Alex-Trof]

I find it interesting that 70% of people on TLS are in the top 20% of their respective classes. I'm a bit skeptical but w/e

My guess is that TLS is filled with 0L like myself, who unconditionally believe that they will inevitably end up in the top 20%. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones mostly answering the poll.

[KingRajesh]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

[Patriot1208]

I find it interesting that 70% of people on TLS are in the top 20% of their respective classes. I'm a bit skeptical but w/e

This says to me that my massive amount of useless time on this website assures I kick ass in LS.

[09042014]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

[MCRemix]

People who answered the poll =/= the entire law student population of TLS

And as such, my hope to see a statistical correlation between prep and grades is shot. Maybe the longer it goes, the more people will be honest and respond, but so far it's clear bias on the part of those choosing to respond.

[TTH]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

Also, PLS is the Gunner's Guide to Law School. No one puts much stock in it.

[KingRajesh]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

Also, PLS is the Gunner's Guide to Law School. No one puts much stock in it.

Why is that? It seems that most of the advice threads read it and recommend the same things. Maybe not to the same degree, but they do advocate prep.

[Nicholasnickynic]

Doing 0L prep for my Civ Pro or Torts would be at best useless, and at worse harmful because the professors had very unique views.

I don't think October prep is useful, let alone June.

I had the highest grade in my class in civ pro. I can attribute a big part of that to substnative prep- i understood subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction going into class. People spent all semester trying to get a grip on that while I was practing the nitty gritty and going through absurd hypos.

That being said:
Torts- About 75% of my summer study was intentional torts. We only covered negligent torts.
Criminal Law- I focused on CL/MPC. He was all about statute interpretation. It did not help at all.
Contracts- Lol. Any advantage I had quickly dissapted.

I spent 40 hours a week studying, probably 1/2 of which were substantive. So 20 hours a week, and the vast majority was irrelevant or wasted. (so actually what you said is still valid )

HOWEVER, I struck gold in my Civ pro class, and it jumped me from top 30-top 20%, which Is a pretty crucial difference at low T1.

So... yeah i have no idea what to say on the subject of substantive prep. If you are excited about it... do it, it might help. But if you are dreading the idea, don't do it- the burn out will likely ruin any advantage.

That being said, exam prep is, IMO, crucial. I have a hard time imagining someone doing leews/gtm/a few practice exams b4 school starts and not getting top 1/2.

[Nicholasnickynic]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

Also, PLS is the Gunner's Guide to Law School. No one puts much stock in it.

Why is that? It seems that most of the advice threads read it and recommend the same things. Maybe not to the same degree, but they do advocate prep.

I tried to kind of follow PLS... meh, it was okay. But it definitely dropped a lot of truth bombs about how are legal education system sucks, how professors play hide the ball, why you shouldn't talk a lot in class etc... stuff like that I think is great to know going in. I think its the most realistic Welcome to Law School book because its overly harsh analysis is much closer to the truth than the 1 million other books that are overly positive.

[Nicholasnickynic]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

Objectively false.

There are a lot of reasons why not to do prep, but teaching you wrong things is not one of them. You really think that after a semester of being taught by a professor and about a month of intense cramming of the professor's view, you are going to all of a sudden remember something from half a year ago and put it on your exam?

Hell no. You are so busy learning and synthesizing new material once law school starts that anything that conflicts with what you learn or is irrelevant is immediately dropped from your memory.

I see this argument dragged out all the time against 0L prep, but I have never seen a single post where someone claims they got points off an exam because they recited something that was wrong that they had learned via 0L prep

[beachbum]

So what I'm thinking for 0L summer prep:

Read Getting to Maybe
Read Guerrilla Tactics (Worth it or not?)
Update/Revise Resume
Research potential employers (how many should I target?)
Draft some generic cover letters

I've also been told to skim over the Bluebook, just to get a sense of what it's about. Thoughts on this? Any other useful books out there?

[Nicholasnickynic]

So what I'm thinking for 0L summer prep:

Read Getting to Maybe
Read Guerrilla Tactics (Worth it or not?)
Update/Revise Resume
Research potential employers (how many should I target?)
Draft some generic cover letters

I've also been told to skim over the Bluebook, just to get a sense of what it's about. Thoughts on this? Any other useful books out there?

LEEWS > Everything you just listed.

[AreJay711]

So what I'm thinking for 0L summer prep:

Read Getting to Maybe
Read Guerrilla Tactics (Worth it or not?)
Update/Revise Resume
Research potential employers (how many should I target?)
Draft some generic cover letters

I've also been told to skim over the Bluebook, just to get a sense of what it's about. Thoughts on this? Any other useful books out there?

LEEWS > Everything you just listed.

You trying to sell the cds second hand?

[09042014]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

Objectively false.

There are a lot of reasons why not to do prep, but teaching you wrong things is not one of them. You really think that after a semester of being taught by a professor and about a month of intense cramming of the professor's view, you are going to all of a sudden remember something from half a year ago and put it on your exam?

Hell no. You are so busy learning and synthesizing new material once law school starts that anything that conflicts with what you learn or is irrelevant is immediately dropped from your memory.

I see this argument dragged out all the time against 0L prep, but I have never seen a single post where someone claims they got points off an exam because they recited something that was wrong that they had learned via 0L prep

My torts professor rips exams apart that talked about proximate cause.

[Nicholasnickynic]

So what I'm thinking for 0L summer prep:

Read Getting to Maybe
Read Guerrilla Tactics (Worth it or not?)
Update/Revise Resume
Research potential employers (how many should I target?)
Draft some generic cover letters

I've also been told to skim over the Bluebook, just to get a sense of what it's about. Thoughts on this? Any other useful books out there?

LEEWS > Everything you just listed.

You trying to sell the cds second hand?

Personally no, I like reviewing them (Nerd alert!) But im sure you can find them used on this site.

[Nicholasnickynic]

I'd look at it like PLS says:

0L prep could be a giant waste of time, but what if it DOES give you an edge? Why not give it a chance? Especially ITE.

It could teach you wrong things.

Objectively false.

There are a lot of reasons why not to do prep, but teaching you wrong things is not one of them. You really think that after a semester of being taught by a professor and about a month of intense cramming of the professor's view, you are going to all of a sudden remember something from half a year ago and put it on your exam?

Hell no. You are so busy learning and synthesizing new material once law school starts that anything that conflicts with what you learn or is irrelevant is immediately dropped from your memory.

I see this argument dragged out all the time against 0L prep, but I have never seen a single post where someone claims they got points off an exam because they recited something that was wrong that they had learned via 0L prep

My torts professor rips exams apart that talked about proximate cause.

Were people talking about proximate cause on the exam beause they learned it 5 months ago, before school started? Or were they talking about it because its mentioned in every supplement and probably many of the cases you read?