Am I smart enough? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

Welcome to law school. Grades are for ranking, not assessing.

[totesTheGoat]

If you can't wrap your mind around the concept of a curve, maybe you aren't smart enough.

I understand it I just can't believe it. The curve basically forces you to compete with everyone else in the class and it seems like no matter how hard you work it doesn't really matter. Your grade will be what it is and not exactly what you earned. I'm still in undergrad I got a 98 on my business law test so I did well but in law school if I get a 98 an everyone gets a 100 I may end up with the lowest grade, I just think it's terrible having to compete with everyone I don't have to compete with anyone in my class so I can only imagine how difficult it might be to adjust.

This is why I recommended this:

I think a double major in LS and Phil will be infinitely better for you on both law school and career fronts than a single major in LS.

I did engineering for undergrad. I am used to getting a 35/100 on an exam and that being an A. I knew the feeling where I didn't even have half the exam completed when the time was up. These were really great skills for 1L, because I didn't panic when I walked out of a law school exam feeling like I could have spent another 3 hours on it.

You need to get into some challenging classes and learn what it's like to take a curved class. Learn what it's like to be completely overwhelmed by an exam that is intentionally written longer than the time you're given to do it. You're going to be in so deep over your head in law school if you spend the rest of your undergrad taking classes with no curve where you score 95-98 on all your exams.

Law school is (very) competitive. If you're not okay with that, you're going to struggle enormously.

[AReasonableMan]

If you can't wrap your mind around the concept of a curve, maybe you aren't smart enough.

I understand it I just can't believe it. The curve basically forces you to compete with everyone else in the class and it seems like no matter how hard you work it doesn't really matter. Your grade will be what it is and not exactly what you earned. I'm still in undergrad I got a 98 on my business law test so I did well but in law school if I get a 98 an everyone gets a 100 I may end up with the lowest grade, I just think it's terrible having to compete with everyone I don't have to compete with anyone in my class so I can only imagine how difficult it might be to adjust.

It can also work out in your favor. Your work absolutely helps you succeed. It's just not 100% certain it will lead to a better grade. As crazy as it sounds, the curve actually makes it more fair. A school's employment numbers will be what they will be, and some people will struggle.

If everyone who did good work got an A then employment or lack thereof will invariably turn on factors like socioeconomic status, attractiveness, luck, etc., basically stuff that most would argue is even less fair. While grades will never be an absolute determinant one way or other, it's one of the few areas where you're guaranteed to have the same opportunities as everyone else, and in this regard should be perceived as a blessing, not something unfair.

You probably don't think about things in this way, but you've been being graded on a curve your entire life. Every job you've had, date you've been on, item you've sold on Ebay, etc., etc. has involved you being evaluated against other people. It's just never been as formalized as it will be in law school.

[twenty 8]

The way I looked at the curve. If the question were 1+1=…and everyone said 2, some would receive an A and some would receive a B (or worse). When BL comes knocking on your door they’ll either choose you because you are deemed to be brilliant or else reject you because you are obviously an underachiever. Sorry to say, I am not making this stuff up.

[FullRamboLSGrad]

Read some caselaw.

A lot of it is available on the internet.

Law School is almost an endless series of reading caselaw for a 1L where you will be quizzed about how much you actually understood what you read.

Can you read this:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/ ... f_lirr.htm

Do you know what happened? Why did it happen? What test are they using? Why did they choose that test? What if we used a different test? Who is really at fault, was it the fireworks or was the RR Negligent for their faulty construction of the Scales that struck Plaintiff?

Why is Cardozo using the Duty element but Andrews (dissenting) using a proximate cause theory. Cardozo would hold that who owes a duty to who? What does that mean? How do the facts of this case lead to different conclusions if we treat similar hypotheticals and then apply the same tests and elements to them.

This will be your 1L in a nutshell. Most classes have similar patterns, this is a tort case that you will read many times.

I didn't do so hot on my LSAT and did alright in Law School and turned out alright. What is actually difficult about law school is the curve. I had a class final where I got 33/75 but the median grade for that same test was 25/75 so I was in the A- range eventhough I got less than 1/2 of the points available.

I just started reading that case you sent me. It's interesting. And I have a quick question about the curve, can you explain what exactly it does to your grade. I spoke to one law student who said something like this: if the whole class got a 95 on the final and I got a 90 that means I basically failed. Is that just a figure of speech? Did she actually fail or did she just get the lowest A in the class? So I'm a little confused.

When I was in law school the curve workedlike this

These aren't the exact numbers but the idea is the same


Top 5% A+
Next 15% A or A-
Next 30% B+
Next 20% B
Next 15% B-
Remaining 15% could be a Cs or Ds/Fs but not more than 7% could receive a D or lower without a request from the dean.

The top 1/3 of the class were then ranked. 2L and 3L grades weren't curved anymore.

[Sarahamelia]

Read some caselaw.

A lot of it is available on the internet.

Law School is almost an endless series of reading caselaw for a 1L where you will be quizzed about how much you actually understood what you read.

Can you read this:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/ ... f_lirr.htm

Do you know what happened? Why did it happen? What test are they using? Why did they choose that test? What if we used a different test? Who is really at fault, was it the fireworks or was the RR Negligent for their faulty construction of the Scales that struck Plaintiff?

Why is Cardozo using the Duty element but Andrews (dissenting) using a proximate cause theory. Cardozo would hold that who owes a duty to who? What does that mean? How do the facts of this case lead to different conclusions if we treat similar hypotheticals and then apply the same tests and elements to them.

This will be your 1L in a nutshell. Most classes have similar patterns, this is a tort case that you will read many times.

I didn't do so hot on my LSAT and did alright in Law School and turned out alright. What is actually difficult about law school is the curve. I had a class final where I got 33/75 but the median grade for that same test was 25/75 so I was in the A- range eventhough I got less than 1/2 of the points available.

I just started reading that case you sent me. It's interesting. And I have a quick question about the curve, can you explain what exactly it does to your grade. I spoke to one law student who said something like this: if the whole class got a 95 on the final and I got a 90 that means I basically failed. Is that just a figure of speech? Did she actually fail or did she just get the lowest A in the class? So I'm a little confused.

When I was in law school the curve workedlike this

These aren't the exact numbers but the idea is the same


Top 5% A+
Next 15% A or A-
Next 30% B+
Next 20% B
Next 15% B-
Remaining 15% could be a Cs or Ds/Fs but not more than 7% could receive a D or lower without a request from the dean.

The top 1/3 of the class were then ranked. 2L and 3L grades weren't curved anymore.

Sounds like you went to a good school, I should apply lol. I think that grading curve is fair it looks like you would have to do literally nothing to get anything less than a B or C. Sadly, not every school has a curve like that.

[SemperLegal]

Read some caselaw.

A lot of it is available on the internet.

Law School is almost an endless series of reading caselaw for a 1L where you will be quizzed about how much you actually understood what you read.

Can you read this:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/ ... f_lirr.htm

Do you know what happened? Why did it happen? What test are they using? Why did they choose that test? What if we used a different test? Who is really at fault, was it the fireworks or was the RR Negligent for their faulty construction of the Scales that struck Plaintiff?

Why is Cardozo using the Duty element but Andrews (dissenting) using a proximate cause theory. Cardozo would hold that who owes a duty to who? What does that mean? How do the facts of this case lead to different conclusions if we treat similar hypotheticals and then apply the same tests and elements to them.

This will be your 1L in a nutshell. Most classes have similar patterns, this is a tort case that you will read many times.

I didn't do so hot on my LSAT and did alright in Law School and turned out alright. What is actually difficult about law school is the curve. I had a class final where I got 33/75 but the median grade for that same test was 25/75 so I was in the A- range eventhough I got less than 1/2 of the points available.

I just started reading that case you sent me. It's interesting. And I have a quick question about the curve, can you explain what exactly it does to your grade. I spoke to one law student who said something like this: if the whole class got a 95 on the final and I got a 90 that means I basically failed. Is that just a figure of speech? Did she actually fail or did she just get the lowest A in the class? So I'm a little confused.

When I was in law school the curve workedlike this

These aren't the exact numbers but the idea is the same


Top 5% A+
Next 15% A or A-
Next 30% B+
Next 20% B
Next 15% B-
Remaining 15% could be a Cs or Ds/Fs but not more than 7% could receive a D or lower without a request from the dean.

The top 1/3 of the class were then ranked. 2L and 3L grades weren't curved anymore.

Sounds like you went to a good school, I should apply lol. I think that grading curve is fair it looks like you would have to do literally nothing to get anything less than a B or C. Sadly, not every school has a curve like that.

But the issue is, because all lawyer hiring is done by lawyers who know the curve system, most only look at where you place. For example, if I good to, for example UMich, and get a B ,where the average score is a B-, employers are more impressed then if got a B+ at UVA where the average of an A (this numbers are made up for the example).

So, forget about what percent you get "right" on an exam. Forget what letter grades you have. No one really looks at it. All that matters is where you rank in your class. The better your school, the lower you can rank and still be employable. Jobs go to the top 70% of Harvard/Stanford/etc., maybe the top 50% of other top schools, the top 20% of second-grade schools, and the top 1-2 PEOPLE at bad schools. Obviously these numbers are slightly arbitrary, but you get the idea.

Now, you're probably thinking "that's not fair, employers should value the fact that I can accurately spot and discuss eloquently 90% of the material. They shouldn't care what my classmates know." You are right. However, for various legitimate reasons (including, clients expect to have elite lawyers with intimidating credentials) and illegitimate reasons (classicism, racism, and generally poor management skills) legal hiring is... different.

[FullRamboLSGrad]

Read some caselaw.

A lot of it is available on the internet.

Law School is almost an endless series of reading caselaw for a 1L where you will be quizzed about how much you actually understood what you read.

Can you read this:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/ ... f_lirr.htm

Do you know what happened? Why did it happen? What test are they using? Why did they choose that test? What if we used a different test? Who is really at fault, was it the fireworks or was the RR Negligent for their faulty construction of the Scales that struck Plaintiff?

Why is Cardozo using the Duty element but Andrews (dissenting) using a proximate cause theory. Cardozo would hold that who owes a duty to who? What does that mean? How do the facts of this case lead to different conclusions if we treat similar hypotheticals and then apply the same tests and elements to them.

This will be your 1L in a nutshell. Most classes have similar patterns, this is a tort case that you will read many times.

I didn't do so hot on my LSAT and did alright in Law School and turned out alright. What is actually difficult about law school is the curve. I had a class final where I got 33/75 but the median grade for that same test was 25/75 so I was in the A- range eventhough I got less than 1/2 of the points available.

I just started reading that case you sent me. It's interesting. And I have a quick question about the curve, can you explain what exactly it does to your grade. I spoke to one law student who said something like this: if the whole class got a 95 on the final and I got a 90 that means I basically failed. Is that just a figure of speech? Did she actually fail or did she just get the lowest A in the class? So I'm a little confused.

When I was in law school the curve workedlike this

These aren't the exact numbers but the idea is the same


Top 5% A+
Next 15% A or A-
Next 30% B+
Next 20% B
Next 15% B-
Remaining 15% could be a Cs or Ds/Fs but not more than 7% could receive a D or lower without a request from the dean.

The top 1/3 of the class were then ranked. 2L and 3L grades weren't curved anymore.

Sounds like you went to a good school, I should apply lol. I think that grading curve is fair it looks like you would have to do literally nothing to get anything less than a B or C. Sadly, not every school has a curve like that.

Sort of, during OCI or regular interviews a hiring partner would ask about any grades below a B.

Since I went to a good state school almost every local firm was comprised of attorney's from the same school who knew how the curve worked.

When you go to school there's another consideration to make, where do you want to live. At least for the first couple years you'll be tied to a new area of the country. Unless you get into an actually elite program of course.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You can do almost nothing and get a B or a C. This might also place you in the bottom 10% of your class, and again, it is your rank, not the objective grade, that matters.