How hard is it? Forum

[r6_philly]

And, if that's not enough, you cannot simply "work hard and know the material and do well because I'm really smart." It does not matter how well you do on an exam, it matters how well you do compared to everyone else.

You can't simply work harder, you have to work better.

You could get a 99 on a test, but if everyone else gets a 100, you get a C.

You could get a 50 on a test, but if everyone else gets a 49, you get an A.

Engineering classes FTW!

So at 8PM on a Tuesday, when you've finished all your work or whatever for the next day, you always know that there's some guy in the top floor of the library who will be there till midnight every damn day of the week. And that guy isn't alone. There is always pressure that somebody everybody is working harder than you.

But working harder isn't always better. A lot of people psych themselves out. I have a lot less time to study than many others because of work and kids. Honestly I hope I had a lot more time, but I don't know it would have made any difference in grades, judging from the sample answers lol

Although it's FAR from necessary to gun the shit out of the semester in order to do well, the curved grading system just gives a lot more pressure to a standard studying routine.

On the other hand, if you just spend the last 4 weeks preparing how to write the exam, and do it well/on point, you wouldn't even need to show up for class the first two months.

tl;dr: The material isn't harder than anything you've probably done, even though it can be very difficult at times. But the legal hiring schedule and the curved grading system add all sorts of pressure to 1L year.

I agree, the material is pretty straight forward and common sense. The tough part is how they grade and what they want you to write on the exam. I have looked at all our sample answers and went like what? I doubt extra month of studying is going to steer me that way. The professor expects a certain way to solve an issue, where as in real life there could be 50 or more ways. Learning the law will ensure you won't get the worst grade, but to get better, you need to study smart.

[r6_philly]

I guess. But I think buried in your posts here is the idea that the AVERAGE Harvard student will win in the courtroom over the AVERAGE TT student. So how is that really different than saying that Harvard has more intellectual talent than a lower-ranked school?

I disagree with this. Courtroom skill and academic ability might be correlated, but not that much. In fact, given the average TTs emphasis on more practical skills, TT attorneys might be better in actual practice, at least at first. One of my Harvard graduate Profs admits his first several times in a courtroom he was soundly beaten by C students from the local TT. He got better, but I think that experience, people skills, hard work on prep, and quick wits - things that can be possessed by anyone, TT or T14, go a lot farther in the courtroom than academic ability.

But at the higher end of civil litigation practice, courtroom practice is not where the battle is fought. So you need to define what "actual practice" means. Many big law litigation matters takes 2 years or more to trial, and most don't make it there. Battles are fought and won by research and substantive arguments on paper.

[ajaxconstructions]

^
You worked during 1L?

[redbullvodka]

Anyone who disagrees with this should step into a courtroom and watch lawyers from so-called weaker law schools kick Harvard ass. For the record...I love Harvard and all of the top schools (deferred at a top school myself), but I am a realist. Take nothing for granted my friend. The LSAT is believed to be flawed by many people who do well on it.

Are you saying that in more than half of the cases between Harvard-types and non-Harvard-types, the latter wins? Or just saying that if want to see the Harvard-type get beaten, then this phenomena exists? With the amount of litigation in this country, you could likely see any one from any school beat someone from any other school? But so what?

That's exactly what. It means earning high test scores and attending an elite law school don't mean you will be a star in the profession. That's pretty much it. Our TLS peers seem to disbelieve this.

Read my post above. I believe the top-20% or so at law schools across the board would probably be equal in terms of potential for lawyer succcess. I also believe that there are more students with higher potential for the profession at top schools. This does not mean that each student at elite school X is necessarily "more intelligent" than a so-called average student at good school Y, but I do believe that, in the aggregate, you would find better students at the better schools.

...and you are 100% correct in saying that anyone can whip anyone else's ass in the real world.

I guess. But I think buried in your posts here is the idea that the AVERAGE Harvard student will win in the courtroom over the AVERAGE TT student. So how is that really different than saying that Harvard has more intellectual talent than a lower-ranked school?

This is stupid. The average TT student won't be in the courtroom. The average Harvard student will.

I don't care what the LSAT predicts -- it's a near certainty that a given score is going to get you into a certain set of schools, and that's all that matters for the vast majority of legal hiring. There's something to be said for finding an optimality between school rank and debt, but when push comes to shove, the average student from a t14 will find more success in the profession than the average student from a TT, because they actually got hired in the first place. Arguments about the practicality of the LSAT as a separator of applicants is pretty pointless when that's what law schools use. HTH

[uchi12]

.

[r6_philly]

^
You worked during 1L?

Yes and I did a lot of pro bono stuff too.

[TheGreatWhiteHorse]

This has been said before, but there is a tremendous lack of feedback, which is very frustrating and is very different from UG. You don;t have a clue how well you are doing the whole year long, and it doesn't even matter because in the end it boils down to how well you do for 3-4 hours in a room with everyone else.

Law school is hard because it isnt actually "school" at all. That is why hiring partners always consider how much actual learning the new hire still needs before he/she is practice ready.

It isnt "school" or even a real "education"...it is task-driven competition based on busy work, and it exists PURELY to produce numbers that will look good enough to bring in next year's round of tuitions.

[westie25]

If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

This is happening, if not already happened.

You're correct about the loss of prestige, but it is still a more difficult profession to enter than are most others.

Which professions? A cashier at McDs? Yes. An Administrative Assistant? Yes. A doctor? No. A tenured professor? No.

I've spent almost 7 years working in the legal field, and I've maybe come across a few practicing attorneys who accurately represent the "presitge" of law school and being an attorney. The other 90% were a bunch of tools lacking common sense who relied on their paralegals to tell them what to do.

[CardinalLaw]

^
You worked during 1L?

Yes and I did a lot of pro bono stuff too.

Thanks to its title, I thought this entire thread was going to be about our raging pro bonos

[shredderrrrrr]

tagaroni

[ilovesf]

This is stupid. The average TT student won't be in the courtroom. The average Harvard student will.

I don't care what the LSAT predicts -- it's a near certainty that a given score is going to get you into a certain set of schools, and that's all that matters for the vast majority of legal hiring. There's something to be said for finding an optimality between school rank and debt, but when push comes to shove, the average student from a t14 will find more success in the profession than the average student from a TT, because they actually got hired in the first place. Arguments about the practicality of the LSAT as a separator of applicants is pretty pointless when that's what law schools use. HTH

This is stupid. Most people don't even spend any time in the court room. As to the few that do, lots of SHITTY lawyers make it to court rooms. I have to read so much SPS briefs and watch lawyers make fools of themselves during CMCs and motions.

[06102016]

..

[r6_philly]

Something that seems overlooked here is that LSAT/GPA are pretty directly indicative of qualities required to be a "good attorney."

This is patently false.

[ilovesf]

Something that seems overlooked here is that LSAT/GPA are pretty directly indicative of qualities required to be a "good attorney." Qualities independent of intelligence, even. Mostly, the ambition, determination, and focus required to achieve high marks in either category could be expected to carry over into legal practice.

The idea that the test also reflects skills irrelevant to practice, like ability to take standardized tests, fitness under pressure, etc. is ridiculous. It discounts the fact that many high scorers addressed performance anxiety and learning difficulties to achieve their goals. Overcoming these difficulties is itself a good indicator of the type of persistence required for success as an attorney. While an imperfect indicator, the character traits which (may) contribute to LSAT/GPA success are clearly relevant to law school and legal practice.

This all seems retarded to me.

[06102016]

..

[RedBirds2011]

Something that seems overlooked here is that LSAT/GPA are pretty directly indicative of qualities required to be a "good attorney." Qualities independent of intelligence, even. Mostly, the ambition, determination, and focus required to achieve high marks in either category could be expected to carry over into legal practice.

The idea that the test also reflects skills irrelevant to practice, like ability to take standardized tests, fitness under pressure, etc. is ridiculous. It discounts the fact that many high scorers addressed performance anxiety and learning difficulties to achieve their goals. Overcoming these difficulties is itself a good indicator of the type of persistence required for success as an attorney. While an imperfect indicator, the character traits which (may) contribute to LSAT/GPA success are clearly relevant to law school and legal practice.

Lol ok. This post alone makes me want to go do something non-legal with my life.

[06102016]

..

[YankeeFan2]

tagaroni