Am I smart enough? Forum

[Sarahamelia]

Hi everyone, I'm 22 years old and I'm a junior in college. I don't want to get into the long story of how many times I changed my major...needless to say I changed it ALOT. I decided to do business law 1 to see how I like it. I ended up really liking it so I'm majoring in legal studies and minoring in philosophy.. I'm not very good at math I'm OK at science but I don't really like it. I've considered majoring in nursing, nutrition and other things in healthcare until I realized that it's just not for me and I have no interest at all in the science classes.

My mom is the paralegal and she suggested that I try out some law classes to see how I like it because so far the other traditional majors that colleges offer I didn't really have an interest in any of that. So basically I decided to major in legal studies and I really like the law classes but my problem is that I've never been a straight A student I don't have Above average intelligence but I would really like to go to law school. I know some people may ask and so the reason why I'm choosing to major in legal studies is if I don't end up going to law school or I don't succeed in law school at least I know that the bachelors degree can get me a job as a paralegal or something that way I have something to fall back on and I wouldn't have to go back to school for another two or three years.

So all in all before I start barking up this tree to pursue law school I decided to purchase some LSAT prep books to see how I would do but is there any other way other than taking the LSAT to figure out if I'm smart enough to succeed in law school?

BTW I have been doing surprisingly well in these law classes and I've been getting A's for anyone who is curious. I also would be interested in working in: torts, family law, Immigration law and maybe contracts. I love criminal law but I don't think I'm cut out for that.

[JimmieWhisper]

Only you can decide if you want to, and are mentally and financially ready to attend law school. Aside from that, and assuming you have a decent GPA, taking the LSAT is really the only way to know if Law School is a realistic possibility. People who are "smart" in a variety of undergrad fields succeed and fail in Law school, and no one on the internet can tell whether or not you want to be a lawyer better than you can.

[Maplesyrup]

take a strictly timed lsat diagnostic and look at the percentile distribution to get an idea of where you stand. Are you getting less than perfect grades while trying as hard as you can to do well? most people make bad grades in undergrad because of a lack of effort.

[totesTheGoat]

Not being smart enough is something that you can work through with extra effort in law school. I don't think that law school is a particularly demanding study when it comes to intelligence. Instead, it requires time management skills, writing skills, critical thinking and reading skills, and more. Except for a complete lack of effort, nobody walks into a law exam without understanding the material at a pretty high level, so unless you have sustained issues getting decent LSAT scores, I don't think you need to worry about not being smart enough. You need to worry about whether you have the other skills that are bigger factors in your law school grades.

I think the biggest "red flag" that sticks out in your original post is that you've hopped majors a few times. It's not necessarily an issue, but it can sometimes be an indicator that a student hasn't developed the maturity and self-discipline to be able to succeed in law school. You can't switch mid-stream in law school... it's entirely too expensive. In my opinion, you need to do some self-reflection to make sure that you changed majors for the right reasons, and not for reasons that could lead to you doing poorly in law school.

Another red flag is the legal studies major. Legal studies majors are generally considered worthless and rather easy, so while it may not be something that hinders your admissions to law school, it's really not preparing you for the difficulty of law school. Further, what happens when you graduate and you either decide that law school isn't really for you, or that you can't get into a school that is good enough to justify the costs? A legal studies degree is not going to unlock many career doors.

To tie all of this together, law school isn't an end goal, it's a means to an end (a career). You need to make sure that the decisions you are making now in UG are putting you in the best position not only for law school, but primarily for a career. So many people regret going to law school because they worked so hard and took on so much debt just to be stuck in a job making almost the same as they would have out of UG, working awful hours doing mind-numbing things.

I don't write this to scare you, but to make sure you think very hard about where you want to be in the future. Your decisions now in UG will have a profound effect on your enjoyment of life in 5 and 10 years.

[AReasonableMan]

I had a piss poor SAT score and in my old career would sometimes be told I was very smart technically, but not smart in scholarly pursuits... dumb even. I had a pretty limited vocabulary, and never did well in school. I started reading a wikipedia article on a new topic a day in my free time, then would think about it for a little while and did this for about a year. After that I broke the 170 LSAT barometer, and placed around the top ten or fifteen percent 1L at a t-14 school and passed the bar without much studying. At the end of the day, as long as you know you're smart, your brain is just another muscle that can sift and develop to do whatever you want it do. Just don't get complacent and lazy, and you can shoot by most of our generation. I also think imagining yourself failing on a given test and playing out the reality of it can make you realize it's not such a big deal, and get you ahead of most people who get overwhelmed by anxiety.

[Sarahamelia]

Not being smart enough is something that you can work through with extra effort in law school. I don't think that law school is a particularly demanding study when it comes to intelligence. Instead, it requires time management skills, writing skills, critical thinking and reading skills, and more. Except for a complete lack of effort, nobody walks into a law exam without understanding the material at a pretty high level, so unless you have sustained issues getting decent LSAT scores, I don't think you need to worry about not being smart enough. You need to worry about whether you have the other skills that are bigger factors in your law school grades.

I think the biggest "red flag" that sticks out in your original post is that you've hopped majors a few times. It's not necessarily an issue, but it can sometimes be an indicator that a student hasn't developed the maturity and self-discipline to be able to succeed in law school. You can't switch mid-stream in law school... it's entirely too expensive. In my opinion, you need to do some self-reflection to make sure that you changed majors for the right reasons, and not for reasons that could lead to you doing poorly in law school.

Another red flag is the legal studies major. Legal studies majors are generally considered worthless and rather easy, so while it may not be something that hinders your admissions to law school, it's really not preparing you for the difficulty of law school. Further, what happens when you graduate and you either decide that law school isn't really for you, or that you can't get into a school that is good enough to justify the costs? A legal studies degree is not going to unlock many career doors.

To tie all of this together, law school isn't an end goal, it's a means to an end (a career). You need to make sure that the decisions you are making now in UG are putting you in the best position not only for law school, but primarily for a career. So many people regret going to law school because they worked so hard and took on so much debt just to be stuck in a job making almost the same as they would have out of UG, working awful hours doing mind-numbing things.

I don't write this to scare you, but to make sure you think very hard about where you want to be in the future. Your decisions now in UG will have a profound effect on your enjoyment of life in 5 and 10 years.

Totesthegoat, thank you for your input your advice is very useful and I'm definitely taking into consideration. I still would like to major in legal studies because I really enjoy the law classes. However I could double major in legal studies and something else that can help with those critical thinking and writing skills. I do have an interest in logic and philosophy would perhaps double majoring in legal studies and philosophy be better? What major do you think would help with those other skills that that is needed in law school?

Understand your concern about me changing my major so many times however I brought that up because it is something to consider but it happened a few years ago when I first started college because I didn't know what to major in and I didn't know what I really liked.

[Sarahamelia]

I had a piss poor SAT score and in my old career would sometimes be told I was very smart technically, but not smart in scholarly pursuits... dumb even. I had a pretty limited vocabulary, and never did well in school. I started reading a wikipedia article on a new topic a day in my free time, then would think about it for a little while and did this for about a year. After that I broke the 170 LSAT barometer, and placed around the top ten or fifteen percent 1L at a t-14 school and passed the bar without much studying. At the end of the day, as long as you know you're smart, your brain is just another muscle that can sift and develop to do whatever you want it do. Just don't get complacent and lazy, and you can shoot by most of our generation. I also think imagining yourself failing on a given test and playing out the reality of it can make you realize it's not such a big deal, and get you ahead of most people who get overwhelmed by anxiety.

That was really motivational thank you. I have been told similar things as well and I never did that well in high school and I did not like school. I started to enjoy reading, school and learning when I started college a few years ago.

[AReasonableMan]

I had a piss poor SAT score and in my old career would sometimes be told I was very smart technically, but not smart in scholarly pursuits... dumb even. I had a pretty limited vocabulary, and never did well in school. I started reading a wikipedia article on a new topic a day in my free time, then would think about it for a little while and did this for about a year. After that I broke the 170 LSAT barometer, and placed around the top ten or fifteen percent 1L at a t-14 school and passed the bar without much studying. At the end of the day, as long as you know you're smart, your brain is just another muscle that can sift and develop to do whatever you want it do. Just don't get complacent and lazy, and you can shoot by most of our generation. I also think imagining yourself failing on a given test and playing out the reality of it can make you realize it's not such a big deal, and get you ahead of most people who get overwhelmed by anxiety.

That was really motivational thank you. I have been told similar things as well and I never did that well in high school and I did not like school. I started to enjoy reading, school and learning when I started college a few years ago.

I think that most people judge other's intelligence by how they talk - what words they use and what topics they discuss. I had an English teacher in high school who made us learn seldom used big words every day, because "it would make us look smart as caviar parties." Now I've never been to a caviar party, but truly smart people will judge you based on how you think and why you arrive at the opinions you arrive to. I'd suggest just reading a lot, and always thinking why did this happen? Why does the writer have this opinion? Etc. Just lots of why's, and you'll find academic pursuits quickly becoming easier.

[totesTheGoat]

I do have an interest in logic and philosophy would perhaps double majoring in legal studies and philosophy be better? What major do you think would help with those other skills that that is needed in law school?

If you have an interest in philosophy (I assume you do given that it's currently your minor), do it! 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.

Understand your concern about me changing my major so many times however I brought that up because it is something to consider but it happened a few years ago when I first started college because I didn't know what to major in and I didn't know what I really liked.

Sounds like you're in the "not an issue" side of things. There are quite a few people who changed majors 7 times in 8 years because any time a class got remotely tough, they would drop and look for an easier major. I was just making sure you weren't in that situation.

[Ajren Robben]

LSAT is a good indicator of aptitude for law. If you can get your score into 160s (after studying) I think that means you are smart enough.

GPA is an indicator of your work ethic for most majors/undergrads.

[pancakes3]

gotta get over this inferiority complex before you start law school. 1L already lends itself to aptitude paranoia. going into the fray like this, is a severe handicap from a mental health/well-being perspective.

[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.

[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.

[rnoodles]

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.

It's accurate. You end up with the lowest grade in that situation, unfortunately. That's why 1L year is so important and competitive.

[Hand]

You really don't need to be that smart; thanks to infilaw, these days there is a law school for everyone!

[Sarahamelia]

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.

It's accurate. You end up with the lowest grade in that situation, unfortunately. That's why 1L year is so important and competitive.

But if I get a 90 on the test, that means I passed...?

[rnoodles]

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.

It's accurate. You end up with the lowest grade in that situation, unfortunately. That's why 1L year is so important and competitive.

But if I get a 90 on the test, that means I passed...?

So I might be wrong about this, but I think all law schools give very few Ds or below. So it could just come out to a C. Maybe it's a particularly hardass prof, though, and you get the F because it's the lowest grade. I doubt that would happen though, unless you just didn't try at all on the exam.

[TheSpanishMain]

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.

It's accurate. You end up with the lowest grade in that situation, unfortunately. That's why 1L year is so important and competitive.

But if I get a 90 on the test, that means I passed...?

Everyone passes. You'd have to deliberately try to fail. The thing is, just passing is not really sufficient to get you a decent job at the vast majority of schools

[Big Red]

did someone really just assign palsgraf? jfc

no one on this board can tell you whether you're smart or sadistic enough to do well in law school, but if it's actually something you're interested in you should probably just take a diagnostic (understand what a diagnostic score means) and go from there

if you can sift through some of the philosophy bs you get in your minor you're going to be fine with the material in law school, but success in law school does kind of depend on being quick mentally... which is why they LSAT you

one step at a time, not the time to be worrying about this - plenty of time for insecurity in life

[Sarahamelia]

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.

It's accurate. You end up with the lowest grade in that situation, unfortunately. That's why 1L year is so important and competitive.

But if I get a 90 on the test, that means I passed...?

Everyone passes. You'd have to deliberately try to fail. The thing is, just passing is not really sufficient to get you a decent job at the vast majority of schools

So a 90 isn't a good enough grade? I'm still in awe because it seems like getting the 90 is a bad thing, yet it's an A. What grades are considered sufficient enough?

[rnoodles]

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.

It's accurate. You end up with the lowest grade in that situation, unfortunately. That's why 1L year is so important and competitive.

But if I get a 90 on the test, that means I passed...?

Everyone passes. You'd have to deliberately try to fail. The thing is, just passing is not really sufficient to get you a decent job at the vast majority of schools

So a 90 isn't a good enough grade? I'm still in awe because it seems like getting the 90 is a bad thing, yet it's an A. What grades are considered sufficient enough?

The highest grade is sufficient enough. Sometimes even a 20 is an A+ when everyone else got a 19 or lower.

[A. Nony Mouse]

A 90 may not be an A. I knew someone who got 95/100 on a multiple choice test, and it ended up as a B+. Grading on a curve means that grades are handed out based on the relationship of the submitted exams to each other, not an objective standard. So in the 100 question multiple choice test, if you get a 95, but everyone else in the class gets a 96 or higher, you have the lowest grade in the class, and you will get whatever the school has deemed is the bottom of the curve (at T14s that's probably a B-, at TTTT schools that would be an F). Conversely, if you got 50/100 right, but everyone got fewer right than you did, you would have the highest grade available on the curve and would have an A.

(There are a couple of ways of doing this - schools can require profs to hand out grades on a fixed distribution - say, 10% A, 10% A-, 20% B+, 30% B, 20% B-, 10% C+. Or they can set a required median, like, the median grade must be B+, or the same number of grades must be above a B+ as below it. That could have a lot of different variations.)

[totesTheGoat]

So a 90 isn't a good enough grade? I'm still in awe because it seems like getting the 90 is a bad thing, yet it's an A. What grades are considered sufficient enough?

1) If everybody is getting 90% or more on the exam, that's more of an indictment of the professor writing a bad exam than the students all deserving As. The chance of you getting 90% of the available points is approximately zero.
2) Most curved exams have at least one subjective portion. Those subjective portions are often open ended when it comes to the number of points you can score. The professor just gives you a point when you write something that is important. Then the prof just compares the number of points to one another without a "perfect score" in mind.
3) I've had a 1L class where the professor put his foot down and said that he was going to curve it above the school's recommended median. he was a tenured and well-respected professor who thought that our class had an abnormally good grasp on the material, so he didn't want to punish the good students just because there was a glut of great students.


In the situation where you score 90% of the available points and everybody else scores 95%, your professor will be jumping for joy and trying to give you all As. In reality, you'll be scoring 20-40% of the available points unless it is a multiple choice only exam, which is somewhat rare in 1L curved classes.

[pancakes3]

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

[Sarahamelia]

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.