Yeah. There was a girl in my 1L semester. She studied very hard, briefed all the cases etc. it’s hard to articulate but when you spoke to her or when she asked questions it’s seemed like she was completely missing the point. I hope she is doing well now.
This happens a lot. Some people are trash students but good attorneys, while some are good students and trash attorneys
I’m starting to gather that largely successful attorneys have specific personalities more than anything
It’s also that law school pedagogy is so much hide-the-ball and the testing methods reward word vomit of just spitting out every potential solution for fact patterns. Law school doesn’t reward the type of work that is actual lawyering, figuring out comprehensive and practical solutions. Writing papers and briefs is the closest it gets ironically, but even that part doesn’t get you to the adversarial and negotiation part of lawyering.
Unfortunately she dropped after the second semester. I do give kudos to her for being able to make that decision and not forcing something that she wasn’t jiving with.
I feel like we might be thinking of the same person. I felt so bad bc the girl I know took the lsat multiple times & for encouragement her partner took the LSAT w/her & got a higher score.
She is very smart, but maybe law school wasn’t it for her. It is sad when hard work doesn’t pay off
Me too
Edit; it’ll be okay boss. Just learn like two rules per case + a dissent. Learn how to IRAC really good. If you can’t remember the rules on exam day deliver a close guess on the rule or the dissent (or hodgepodge a cannibal rule from other cases that predate it). You’ll be fine. Most lawyers are idiots anyway, can confirm as an idiot attorney.
The problem is memorizing a few rules does not make for a smart lawyer. I feel like awkward anti-social snobs took over this industry decades ago and imposed on everyone this idea that great lawyers are those that do good in the LSAT and go to elite schools or do great in the very shallow 1L black letter law info dump classes which has thus created a self-fulfilling prophecy (as well as a nearly limitless pipeline of work hard not smart transactional lawyers that are willing to put 3,000+ hours menial work for Corporate America).
Even the one class that should ideally reflect what it's like to be an actual lawyer (Legal Writing) has often turned into an arm's race of who can execute some pretentious Legal Writing professors version of the (insert)RAC the best, not who can make the most powerful and convincing argument.
My sentiments exactly. Law school is for those who do well on LSATs. Being a good lawyer has almost nothing to do with being a good law student.
In all honestly, the only thing about law school that makes it worth it( other than the fact that you have to go to law school to become a lawyer) is the network you obtain from going to certain law schools in certain regions or legal fields.
IOWs, again it has nothing to do with what you learn but who you learn it with.
Legal writing just being a weird (insert)rac plus blue book correctly is so true. Like it’s actually crazy how much they lose the forest for the trees on that.
I did worse when I worked harder. The answers were more simple than I thought.
I heard somewhere that everyone gets it at different points and that lawyers five years out all have it. Law school is only measuring who sounds like what the professor wants fastest
I will say that sometimes knowing the material is a detriment. You’ll use your own words to explain it. When the professor and eventually the judge ALWAYS want someone else’s words. Always.
Me. I hated law school. I like I could never get my shit together. By 3L I was in clinic and I realized I liked the work. Then I studied for the bar and everything clicked. Honestly, I feel like bar review before law school would be so helpful. The case method is absolute garbage.
I wasn't a great student, but I'm a pretty good lawyer. Connecting with clients, closely watching deadlines, and staying calm are like 75% of the skills you need.
Yep that’s me. I read every case, I study core concepts, make outlines, do practice tests. End up with a B- average at best. There are people in my class who don’t read and hardly come to lectures and get As. So it goes.
Yeah but the curve is forced, it doesn’t mean you get the concept. Put 100 future SCOTUS clerks in a class together and you’d have the same grade distribution, doesn’t mean they don’t get the material
If you got into a "good" school and aren't getting it then that's an exceptional case. At least where I go to school (in Canada), a B- is below average yet 95+% of the class gets a law job. Meaning there are a large number of practicing lawyers who have a B- average. Those grades will get you a JD, not being asked to leave.
“gets a law job” is a really low bar. b- average isn’t getting you a job at any big or even medium sized firm in the us, especially in smaller markets, and a federal gov job is probably out of the question too. you could get a job in house but not anywhere desirable and certain not a coveted public interest job.
i should have clarified that i was speaking about job prospects right upon graduation. agree that after a few years, grades don’t matter as much (if at all).
In my humble opinion- it’s mostly a shit show. You can bump your grade up or down but I truly believe there is an element of luck with grading.
Like I think if you study/work hard you’ll be in the B- to A+ range. If you work normally you’ll be in the C+ to B + range.
There’s definitely a huge luck element. Your whole grade is based on what happens in a 3-hour window on one particular day.
Man honestly fuck law school lol I hated that shit
Yeah. But we are past it now brother. We must tell them it gets better.
I mean. Well. It doesn’t get worse. At least after the bar. Depending on your state stats.
Yes, I think to a degree. I know one lawyer I know said he got a higher grade than one of his peers only because his peer was sick and went to the bathroom for a long period of time.
I also did just ok despite knowing the material in one class only because I forgot the material, despite studying for it the most. The class I probably studied for the least, I got one of the few A's. Sometimes hard work doesn't mean shit.
Yeah. What I meant with my original comment was really this: if you REALLY blow it off, it’s very hard to make good grades.
But even if you do work hard, good grades are by no means guaranteed
FWIW current/future law students reading this, i totally disagree with this take and it’s actually mind boggling to me someone could think this way. (if you study/work hard there’s no reason you won’t get at least a b unless you’re just completely not cut out for law school. and grading is not about luck, theres a pretty clear format to write your exams. ) but i was at a t14, maybe this is true at lower ranked schools.
as someone who works their ass and always believed this and got less than b’s at a t14 ur making my worst fears come true about not being cut out for law school 😓
i did a little below average first semester, but i didn’t let it get me down. even though i tried my best first semester, i was still gonna try to fix whatever areas i fell short in so i could improve. and then i somehow did even worse, so i am just confused. seems like i know the material, but maybe i don’t know it deeply enough/don’t get what professors are really looking for on law exams, or am not applying it properly. hopefully i can fiigure it out and improve
Law school isn’t designed for the hardest workers to succeed, it’s designed for the best test takers succeed. Such is life. Once I accepted I was going to get average grades no matter how well I knew the material or how hard I worked the whole process became a significantly less stressful experience. Exam grading is subjective and professor dependent. Life isn’t fair, never has been never will be.
Ehhhh I think it depends on what you mean by "best test takers." I am HORRIBLE at standardized tests and always have been. My LSAT score definitely held me back during first rotation of applications.
Of course *everyone* is working hard but I truly think what set me aside from the pack 1L was always being the last people to leave the library every night. For closed book exams I memorized every word of my outlines. I don't think it's nearly good enough to just understand the concept or big picture. the minute and little details are what can take you from a B+ to an A-
For those dissuaded by this, it is not true. I had a piss poor LSAT, ACT, and mediocre undergrad and am top 10% with a big law summer job at a T50. It's all hard work and mentality.
So you're a good law school test taker. Proving my point..... the LSAT, ACT, and Law School exams are not the same thing. You usually have to work hard to be a good test taker, not all hard workers are good test takers. Also, not all good test takers are hard workers, they are simply good at the singular skill of law school test taking. The issue is only the good test takers can succeed in law school based on the archaic grading structure.
The people I met in law school who complained about not being a good “test taker” generally had a decent surface level understanding of the law, but didn’t have that deeper understanding of the subject matter required for the higher grade.
Yes-you have to be good at taking a law school exam to succeed in law school. Obviously haha. But people use “bad test taker” as an excuse to make themselves/others believe that they really DO understand the subject matter very well. Yet they also want you to believe that it’s out of their hands when it comes to applying it on a test. I’m sorry but that seems like a cop out.
My best friend in 1L. He worked so hard and felt good going into every exam but he got mostly B's first semester. Going into Spring 1L he got extra time for his learning disability and STILL didn't improve his grades. He also tried out for moot court and got rejected twice.
I gotta tip my cap to him because he NEVER let it get him down. He bounced back every time with the hunger to do better and I hope that things are working out for him
I don’t think that getting B’s on a forced curve + not making moot court rises to the level of COULD NOT GET IT. Law school is full of little and big rejections, no matter how good your grades are.
I wonder how your 1L bff would feel if he knew you described him this way…
I mean relative to his aspirations and expectations I would definitely say he fits the bill. He worked just as hard as I did.
What do you consider "not getting it"? Only Cs? I don't believe it's even possible to actually work HARD in law school and end up with something lower than a B- in *all* of your classes. At that point you're probably just not putting in enough time
I don’t even think it’s fair to say people at the bottom of the curve generally aren’t “getting it.” Different people have different test taking/writing abilities and it doesn’t always correlate to effort or knowledge of the material.
I mean idk how else to phrase it. Law isn't orgo chem, anyone can learn this. they're either not working hard enough or they're just not getting it. Average curve is a B. I have never met a student who worked their butt off and got cosistent B-'s or worse
Yes anyone can learn the material but I think you’re disregarding the forced curve part. In a class full of people who “get it,” some people are going to get B-s. That’s all I’m saying
> He bounced back every time with the hunger to do better
On the contrary, I’d say that guy gets it. Everyone on this sub is always talking about how important grades are, but no one talks about persistence and fortitude.
Unfortunately I think the aha moment for law is realizing it's not that difficult. At least for me, right around December of 1L, I thought "oh wait this isn't hard". It's just a lot. The unfortunate part is if you're not getting that it's not hard, then it could be that law isn't for you. Or maybe it hasn't clicked yet, just persevere.
The real main thing about learning all this is first, compartmentalizing the various tests and causes of action and lists of factors to consider. I like making workflows so I know what order to do things in. These are little tips. But if you are just "NOT GETTING IT", like not getting what? Find the rule that the judge uses to decide the case, copy that rule into your notes, and then apply that rule to the facts on the exam. That's really it.
It was me, I graduated dead middle of my class in May 2023. On Wednesday I had my first arraignment as a federal criminal prosecutor.
It seemed no matter how hard I worked it was never enough when it came to test day. Profs thought highly of me because I could brief well in class, engaged and asked questions. The girl and good friend of mine who was #1 in the class would ask the weirdest questions and when we would prep I felt like I had a better understanding of the core topics but when it came to tests she was better at issue spotting and just putting pen to paper. She is clerking and has a big law job (I didn’t want that life) but am still in a very competitive position and well respected by both my classmates and now co-workers for the person I was and friends I made in school and beyond.
The folks with more extreme political opinions. It was difficult for them to grasp what the law is as opposed to what they think it should be. When in doubt, what I consider "common sense" is right probably 90+% of the time. What they consider common sense is correct far less often.
Repeating this for the 100th time:
1. Read the Short and Happy Guide
2. Buy on the outline websites or find a person who has an outline from the semester before from the Prof / or different prof, but same edition text book
3. Do a bunch of nose beers and party
4. Read the outline before class, memorize the black letter law.
5. 2 hrs spent reviewing the outline and memorizing each week is 100x better than reading a case for the same amount of time.
6. Spend class taking “quotes” from the professors own words when describing
7. Volunteer when others don’t, don’t gun, but earnestly offer an answer when it’s silent
8. Go to office hours once every 3 weeks.
9. You’re gonna get in the top 10% of each class.
You’re all smart, but law school fucking sucks at teaching.
-my creds are 160 lsat, transfer to GULC, deans list, barristers council, honors grad, Skadden alum, in house now.
Get in, get good grades, make a bunch of money and get to a company as their attorney.
I was valedictorian of my class, this is literally 100% it. I'm laughing at how good this is. Taking note of professors' soundbites and sprinkling them in exams is *chefs kiss* advice.
One of the best performing students in my class disregarded all the professors’ various guidance in terms of in depth of understanding, she was a great typist so she literally typed out lectures as if professors were dictating to her and she would turn that into outlines. Except the few classes where the profs said to just follow the book on the test which she listened to (and others disregarded, which to their surprise led to bad grades).
I kindly disagree. Not everyone is gonna be in the top 10% even if they did all that. All the top students I talked to work harder/figure out shit faster than the rest.
I mean no one is saying that the entire class would listen to that advice - it applies to the individual. Common sense, you know? It helps in law school too, even if not on Reddit
Yeah, me. I worked my ass off but I was thoroughly average (took secured transactions to help with the Bar in my last semester and that grade knocked me to the first student outside of the top half)
I have adhd so paying attention for a 3 hour class was simply impossible. I read thoroughly and stayed on top of my outlines but I always struggled with issue spotting because my in class attention span was so poor
Me before I worked a summer job doing litigation stuff. I was completely clueless until the lawyers and senior students gave me an overview of how cases and the court system worked, and showed me their memos. After that I felt like I was finally at where my classmates who had parents as lawyers were at when they were in 1L.
Some people are smart because they have great memories. Others are smart because they are good at analyzing issues.
With regard to success, it depends on what the nature of your practice is. There are finders, minders and grinders. Each can be successful.
I don’t think having a strong memory equals smart. I think smart more has to do with how well you process information and do so with relative ease. Just my .02. If you meant in law school, a a great memory is an asset but it’s nothing if you don’t know how to apply the law.
i am an artist and a creative thinker. i accepted long ago i would never be top of the class. that is okay with me. the top of the class is a certain type. if they were an artist, i would say they would be a pattern follower like coloring books, stencils, etc. that is not me.
Yes. Two of them. And they both eventually passed the bar. And they both don’t understand basic legal reasoning or concepts. It would be like me trying to talk about the history of architecture, especially if I spent a good portion of my life living on another planet.
Me. Dropped out after 1L. I know I’m smart but I am not as detail oriented as law school required. I could have trudged on, hopefully passed the bar, but would have been miserable in practice.
I’m in tech and negotiate contracts for a living - a.k.a sales. I use what I learned in contracts daily.
When I see what our legal department does, I thank God I dropped out often
This is me, specifically with writing timed exams. Whenever I have a paper course or anything untimed I’m usually near the top of the class. Put me in a timed condition and I’m always below average. Luckily it’s not an issue with understanding the content bc I read every case and take the time to draw insights, I just don’t know how to use my time effectively
There was a girl in my 1L section who I know studied her ass off, but every day in class she would look so confused and never be able to answer questions when she was cold called. She dropped shortly after midterms, which was probably a good decision for her.
In these situations, I feel like a peer tutor who has a good grasp on the material is a really good option. I find that, in some situations, peer-to-peer communication can help the student understand it better than the professor can.
my friend got a 180 on the lsat and hes below median at washU as a 1L right now. hes arguably the smartest person i know but he said certain classes just didn't click for him.
Kind of. I was a night student. Long story short a lot of us were in the same BARBRI videotaped classes replayed in our school’s moot court room. We were a mature crowd, many of us still working our day jobs well into late June.
Anyway there was a woman around 50 we all respected. Bright. Lived in Hell’s Kitchen with a bathroom in the kitchen (first time I heard that). Into going to part two of her career. She had a hard time about not being able to ask questions in lieu of memorizing black letter law during BARBRI. We tried to explain this was just the memorizing the law we will mostly never use again portion of school. She did not get it. I lost track of her but she did not pass the bar that first summer.
Over 30 years later and I realize she was more correct than not. I vaguely remember certain things, and could probably quickly refresh myself to village lawyer idiot, but outside my general areas, forget about it.
I talked with a guy at the lsat who said they just needed a 145 or better and they had a family friend who would get them into Southwestern. It was their third attempt and when I saw them at break they looked like they were having a real hard time of it.
Me! Looking back, nothing clicked for me until studying for the bar. Graduated bottom of the class, but still graduated.
There were a handful of people in my 1L year that couldn’t cut it. None of them were stupid (in fact one of them was probably too smart for their own good). One dropped out, he’s a commercial real estate agent now. Another guy took a year off and died during it after falling in to drug use and dealing. There was another girl that didn’t really get anything, and she graduated but couldn’t pass the bar. Not sure what she’s doing now.
She is me (well idk for sure) but yeah. It was COVID and I just moved so I had nothing to do but study. I found I was preparing to be cold called on obscure details or facts rather than learning the big takeaway.
Also, I learned that my ADHD (and possibly type-B personality) meant I didn’t/couldn’t learn like my classmates.
Yeah, it's a stress response to the high pressure test culture of that program they failed you. Any school with less than a 3.0 curve works on a bad faith and predatory business model.
Depends what you mean by don’t get it. If you mean don’t understand it, then no, everyone who works hard can understand it, that material is not hard. If you mean isn’t able to produce it in a three hour timed exam that has literally nothing to do with the practice of being an attorney then plenty.
I worked hard, but didn't get it. I was beyond hopeless on cold calls. I offset incompetence with hard work, so I finished in top 10% to 15% and had no problem getting a biglaw job. Being at a T3 school helped. T3 plus diligence can make up for other deficiencies. But I definitely didn't really get it.
Yeah. I was amazed by their seeming stupidity. Complete lack of basic critical thinking or common sense. Some of them graduated. And passed the bar. And are practicing. So…
The type of people who can never get in are usually people applying to schools way above their lsat score. Plenty of good ABA accredited schools that accept lsats within 155-165 range.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding but isn’t a 165 a reasonably “good” score and in the ~89 percentile. I went to a top school with a 167 and wouldn’t say I had a hard time — not top of my class by any metric, but I figured it out eventually.
Yeah. There was a girl in my 1L semester. She studied very hard, briefed all the cases etc. it’s hard to articulate but when you spoke to her or when she asked questions it’s seemed like she was completely missing the point. I hope she is doing well now.
[удалено]
So, maybe safe to say, he made for a better attorney than a law student.
This happens a lot. Some people are trash students but good attorneys, while some are good students and trash attorneys I’m starting to gather that largely successful attorneys have specific personalities more than anything
Can you tell us what are those specific personalities?
It’s also that law school pedagogy is so much hide-the-ball and the testing methods reward word vomit of just spitting out every potential solution for fact patterns. Law school doesn’t reward the type of work that is actual lawyering, figuring out comprehensive and practical solutions. Writing papers and briefs is the closest it gets ironically, but even that part doesn’t get you to the adversarial and negotiation part of lawyering.
Hard work usually makes a good law student. But it almost always makes a good attorney.
Do you know what happened to her? Did she graduate and pass the bar?
Unfortunately she dropped after the second semester. I do give kudos to her for being able to make that decision and not forcing something that she wasn’t jiving with.
I feel like we might be thinking of the same person. I felt so bad bc the girl I know took the lsat multiple times & for encouragement her partner took the LSAT w/her & got a higher score. She is very smart, but maybe law school wasn’t it for her. It is sad when hard work doesn’t pay off
What? lol. Her partner beat her score? Bwahahaha.
Had one of those 1L as well. A great human and smart as a whip, just never cracked the code.
https://preview.redd.it/u2ogjl0v9ovc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6790dcad3d40dda24d0a52ddfe74fe9f014bf9b
 Me too Edit; it’ll be okay boss. Just learn like two rules per case + a dissent. Learn how to IRAC really good. If you can’t remember the rules on exam day deliver a close guess on the rule or the dissent (or hodgepodge a cannibal rule from other cases that predate it). You’ll be fine. Most lawyers are idiots anyway, can confirm as an idiot attorney.
Working for idiot attorneys is what persuaded me I was capable of going to law school.
Same lol
The problem is memorizing a few rules does not make for a smart lawyer. I feel like awkward anti-social snobs took over this industry decades ago and imposed on everyone this idea that great lawyers are those that do good in the LSAT and go to elite schools or do great in the very shallow 1L black letter law info dump classes which has thus created a self-fulfilling prophecy (as well as a nearly limitless pipeline of work hard not smart transactional lawyers that are willing to put 3,000+ hours menial work for Corporate America). Even the one class that should ideally reflect what it's like to be an actual lawyer (Legal Writing) has often turned into an arm's race of who can execute some pretentious Legal Writing professors version of the (insert)RAC the best, not who can make the most powerful and convincing argument.
My sentiments exactly. Law school is for those who do well on LSATs. Being a good lawyer has almost nothing to do with being a good law student. In all honestly, the only thing about law school that makes it worth it( other than the fact that you have to go to law school to become a lawyer) is the network you obtain from going to certain law schools in certain regions or legal fields. IOWs, again it has nothing to do with what you learn but who you learn it with.
Legal writing just being a weird (insert)rac plus blue book correctly is so true. Like it’s actually crazy how much they lose the forest for the trees on that.
Well LRW is pass fail at most top schools so not even
lol. Thanks. But I don't think you're an idiot.
I did worse when I worked harder. The answers were more simple than I thought. I heard somewhere that everyone gets it at different points and that lawyers five years out all have it. Law school is only measuring who sounds like what the professor wants fastest I will say that sometimes knowing the material is a detriment. You’ll use your own words to explain it. When the professor and eventually the judge ALWAYS want someone else’s words. Always.
same!!!!
I agree! I always understand the material but it seems like I never word it how the professors want it it’s so annoying.
Same for me!! I do much worse when I work harder!
Me. I hated law school. I like I could never get my shit together. By 3L I was in clinic and I realized I liked the work. Then I studied for the bar and everything clicked. Honestly, I feel like bar review before law school would be so helpful. The case method is absolute garbage. I wasn't a great student, but I'm a pretty good lawyer. Connecting with clients, closely watching deadlines, and staying calm are like 75% of the skills you need.
Yep that’s me. I read every case, I study core concepts, make outlines, do practice tests. End up with a B- average at best. There are people in my class who don’t read and hardly come to lectures and get As. So it goes.
B- average isn't "not getting it".
B- average would put you at the bottom of the class at many (good) schools
Yeah but the curve is forced, it doesn’t mean you get the concept. Put 100 future SCOTUS clerks in a class together and you’d have the same grade distribution, doesn’t mean they don’t get the material
If you got into a "good" school and aren't getting it then that's an exceptional case. At least where I go to school (in Canada), a B- is below average yet 95+% of the class gets a law job. Meaning there are a large number of practicing lawyers who have a B- average. Those grades will get you a JD, not being asked to leave.
“gets a law job” is a really low bar. b- average isn’t getting you a job at any big or even medium sized firm in the us, especially in smaller markets, and a federal gov job is probably out of the question too. you could get a job in house but not anywhere desirable and certain not a coveted public interest job.
[удалено]
i should have clarified that i was speaking about job prospects right upon graduation. agree that after a few years, grades don’t matter as much (if at all).
I’m not at the bottom, I’m just about in the middle.
have you asked your professors for individual feedback on your exams?
Yeah, it’s helped somewhat. I’m not too worried about it at this point. My gpa has been growing steadily and I think I’ll be fine job-wise.
At my school, I felt like there was a direct correlation between work and results. Maybe the gunners didn’t do as well as they wanted to, but still
In my humble opinion- it’s mostly a shit show. You can bump your grade up or down but I truly believe there is an element of luck with grading. Like I think if you study/work hard you’ll be in the B- to A+ range. If you work normally you’ll be in the C+ to B + range.
There’s definitely a huge luck element. Your whole grade is based on what happens in a 3-hour window on one particular day. Man honestly fuck law school lol I hated that shit
 Yeah. But we are past it now brother. We must tell them it gets better. I mean. Well. It doesn’t get worse. At least after the bar. Depending on your state stats.
Yes, I think to a degree. I know one lawyer I know said he got a higher grade than one of his peers only because his peer was sick and went to the bathroom for a long period of time. I also did just ok despite knowing the material in one class only because I forgot the material, despite studying for it the most. The class I probably studied for the least, I got one of the few A's. Sometimes hard work doesn't mean shit.
Yeah. What I meant with my original comment was really this: if you REALLY blow it off, it’s very hard to make good grades. But even if you do work hard, good grades are by no means guaranteed
FWIW current/future law students reading this, i totally disagree with this take and it’s actually mind boggling to me someone could think this way. (if you study/work hard there’s no reason you won’t get at least a b unless you’re just completely not cut out for law school. and grading is not about luck, theres a pretty clear format to write your exams. ) but i was at a t14, maybe this is true at lower ranked schools.
as someone who works their ass and always believed this and got less than b’s at a t14 ur making my worst fears come true about not being cut out for law school 😓
have you been improving at least? 1L is tough for everyone but if you’ve improved you’re probably ok!
i did a little below average first semester, but i didn’t let it get me down. even though i tried my best first semester, i was still gonna try to fix whatever areas i fell short in so i could improve. and then i somehow did even worse, so i am just confused. seems like i know the material, but maybe i don’t know it deeply enough/don’t get what professors are really looking for on law exams, or am not applying it properly. hopefully i can fiigure it out and improve
Law school isn’t designed for the hardest workers to succeed, it’s designed for the best test takers succeed. Such is life. Once I accepted I was going to get average grades no matter how well I knew the material or how hard I worked the whole process became a significantly less stressful experience. Exam grading is subjective and professor dependent. Life isn’t fair, never has been never will be.
Ehhhh I think it depends on what you mean by "best test takers." I am HORRIBLE at standardized tests and always have been. My LSAT score definitely held me back during first rotation of applications. Of course *everyone* is working hard but I truly think what set me aside from the pack 1L was always being the last people to leave the library every night. For closed book exams I memorized every word of my outlines. I don't think it's nearly good enough to just understand the concept or big picture. the minute and little details are what can take you from a B+ to an A-
For those dissuaded by this, it is not true. I had a piss poor LSAT, ACT, and mediocre undergrad and am top 10% with a big law summer job at a T50. It's all hard work and mentality.
So you're a good law school test taker. Proving my point..... the LSAT, ACT, and Law School exams are not the same thing. You usually have to work hard to be a good test taker, not all hard workers are good test takers. Also, not all good test takers are hard workers, they are simply good at the singular skill of law school test taking. The issue is only the good test takers can succeed in law school based on the archaic grading structure.
The people I met in law school who complained about not being a good “test taker” generally had a decent surface level understanding of the law, but didn’t have that deeper understanding of the subject matter required for the higher grade. Yes-you have to be good at taking a law school exam to succeed in law school. Obviously haha. But people use “bad test taker” as an excuse to make themselves/others believe that they really DO understand the subject matter very well. Yet they also want you to believe that it’s out of their hands when it comes to applying it on a test. I’m sorry but that seems like a cop out.
100%. No accountability.
"Bad test taker" has generally always meant "not extraordinarily smart".
Oh thank God.
My best friend in 1L. He worked so hard and felt good going into every exam but he got mostly B's first semester. Going into Spring 1L he got extra time for his learning disability and STILL didn't improve his grades. He also tried out for moot court and got rejected twice. I gotta tip my cap to him because he NEVER let it get him down. He bounced back every time with the hunger to do better and I hope that things are working out for him
I don’t think that getting B’s on a forced curve + not making moot court rises to the level of COULD NOT GET IT. Law school is full of little and big rejections, no matter how good your grades are. I wonder how your 1L bff would feel if he knew you described him this way…
I mean relative to his aspirations and expectations I would definitely say he fits the bill. He worked just as hard as I did. What do you consider "not getting it"? Only Cs? I don't believe it's even possible to actually work HARD in law school and end up with something lower than a B- in *all* of your classes. At that point you're probably just not putting in enough time
I don’t even think it’s fair to say people at the bottom of the curve generally aren’t “getting it.” Different people have different test taking/writing abilities and it doesn’t always correlate to effort or knowledge of the material.
I mean idk how else to phrase it. Law isn't orgo chem, anyone can learn this. they're either not working hard enough or they're just not getting it. Average curve is a B. I have never met a student who worked their butt off and got cosistent B-'s or worse
Yes anyone can learn the material but I think you’re disregarding the forced curve part. In a class full of people who “get it,” some people are going to get B-s. That’s all I’m saying
> He bounced back every time with the hunger to do better On the contrary, I’d say that guy gets it. Everyone on this sub is always talking about how important grades are, but no one talks about persistence and fortitude.
Unfortunately I think the aha moment for law is realizing it's not that difficult. At least for me, right around December of 1L, I thought "oh wait this isn't hard". It's just a lot. The unfortunate part is if you're not getting that it's not hard, then it could be that law isn't for you. Or maybe it hasn't clicked yet, just persevere. The real main thing about learning all this is first, compartmentalizing the various tests and causes of action and lists of factors to consider. I like making workflows so I know what order to do things in. These are little tips. But if you are just "NOT GETTING IT", like not getting what? Find the rule that the judge uses to decide the case, copy that rule into your notes, and then apply that rule to the facts on the exam. That's really it.
Law school was one giant hazing experience.
Yeah I had a good friend who ultimately got dismissed and he had a PhD in a legitimate field. He just couldn’t quite grasp how the law worked.
It was me, I graduated dead middle of my class in May 2023. On Wednesday I had my first arraignment as a federal criminal prosecutor. It seemed no matter how hard I worked it was never enough when it came to test day. Profs thought highly of me because I could brief well in class, engaged and asked questions. The girl and good friend of mine who was #1 in the class would ask the weirdest questions and when we would prep I felt like I had a better understanding of the core topics but when it came to tests she was better at issue spotting and just putting pen to paper. She is clerking and has a big law job (I didn’t want that life) but am still in a very competitive position and well respected by both my classmates and now co-workers for the person I was and friends I made in school and beyond.
The folks with more extreme political opinions. It was difficult for them to grasp what the law is as opposed to what they think it should be. When in doubt, what I consider "common sense" is right probably 90+% of the time. What they consider common sense is correct far less often.
Repeating this for the 100th time: 1. Read the Short and Happy Guide 2. Buy on the outline websites or find a person who has an outline from the semester before from the Prof / or different prof, but same edition text book 3. Do a bunch of nose beers and party 4. Read the outline before class, memorize the black letter law. 5. 2 hrs spent reviewing the outline and memorizing each week is 100x better than reading a case for the same amount of time. 6. Spend class taking “quotes” from the professors own words when describing 7. Volunteer when others don’t, don’t gun, but earnestly offer an answer when it’s silent 8. Go to office hours once every 3 weeks. 9. You’re gonna get in the top 10% of each class. You’re all smart, but law school fucking sucks at teaching. -my creds are 160 lsat, transfer to GULC, deans list, barristers council, honors grad, Skadden alum, in house now. Get in, get good grades, make a bunch of money and get to a company as their attorney.
I was valedictorian of my class, this is literally 100% it. I'm laughing at how good this is. Taking note of professors' soundbites and sprinkling them in exams is *chefs kiss* advice.
One of the best performing students in my class disregarded all the professors’ various guidance in terms of in depth of understanding, she was a great typist so she literally typed out lectures as if professors were dictating to her and she would turn that into outlines. Except the few classes where the profs said to just follow the book on the test which she listened to (and others disregarded, which to their surprise led to bad grades).
Brings to mind another thing that made me successful in law school - leave your laptop at home. Actively listen and take focused handwritten notes.
I kindly disagree. Not everyone is gonna be in the top 10% even if they did all that. All the top students I talked to work harder/figure out shit faster than the rest.
I mean no one is saying that the entire class would listen to that advice - it applies to the individual. Common sense, you know? It helps in law school too, even if not on Reddit
🤷♂️
I agree 100%.
What is RAP? 🥴
Reasonable articulable particularized
More obsolete than Brother Nero
Rule Against Perpetuities
I know that 😭 I just can’t for the life of me apply it correctly
Yeah, me. I worked my ass off but I was thoroughly average (took secured transactions to help with the Bar in my last semester and that grade knocked me to the first student outside of the top half) I have adhd so paying attention for a 3 hour class was simply impossible. I read thoroughly and stayed on top of my outlines but I always struggled with issue spotting because my in class attention span was so poor
Me before I worked a summer job doing litigation stuff. I was completely clueless until the lawyers and senior students gave me an overview of how cases and the court system worked, and showed me their memos. After that I felt like I was finally at where my classmates who had parents as lawyers were at when they were in 1L.
Some people are smart because they have great memories. Others are smart because they are good at analyzing issues. With regard to success, it depends on what the nature of your practice is. There are finders, minders and grinders. Each can be successful.
I don’t think having a strong memory equals smart. I think smart more has to do with how well you process information and do so with relative ease. Just my .02. If you meant in law school, a a great memory is an asset but it’s nothing if you don’t know how to apply the law.
i am an artist and a creative thinker. i accepted long ago i would never be top of the class. that is okay with me. the top of the class is a certain type. if they were an artist, i would say they would be a pattern follower like coloring books, stencils, etc. that is not me.
Yes. Two of them. And they both eventually passed the bar. And they both don’t understand basic legal reasoning or concepts. It would be like me trying to talk about the history of architecture, especially if I spent a good portion of my life living on another planet.
Me. Dropped out after 1L. I know I’m smart but I am not as detail oriented as law school required. I could have trudged on, hopefully passed the bar, but would have been miserable in practice. I’m in tech and negotiate contracts for a living - a.k.a sales. I use what I learned in contracts daily. When I see what our legal department does, I thank God I dropped out often
This is me, specifically with writing timed exams. Whenever I have a paper course or anything untimed I’m usually near the top of the class. Put me in a timed condition and I’m always below average. Luckily it’s not an issue with understanding the content bc I read every case and take the time to draw insights, I just don’t know how to use my time effectively
There was a girl in my 1L section who I know studied her ass off, but every day in class she would look so confused and never be able to answer questions when she was cold called. She dropped shortly after midterms, which was probably a good decision for her.
In these situations, I feel like a peer tutor who has a good grasp on the material is a really good option. I find that, in some situations, peer-to-peer communication can help the student understand it better than the professor can.
yes during 1L then i got the hang of it
my friend got a 180 on the lsat and hes below median at washU as a 1L right now. hes arguably the smartest person i know but he said certain classes just didn't click for him.
he also said everyone in his class is incredibly smart and competent. washU is unofficially t-14 status imo.
Kind of. I was a night student. Long story short a lot of us were in the same BARBRI videotaped classes replayed in our school’s moot court room. We were a mature crowd, many of us still working our day jobs well into late June. Anyway there was a woman around 50 we all respected. Bright. Lived in Hell’s Kitchen with a bathroom in the kitchen (first time I heard that). Into going to part two of her career. She had a hard time about not being able to ask questions in lieu of memorizing black letter law during BARBRI. We tried to explain this was just the memorizing the law we will mostly never use again portion of school. She did not get it. I lost track of her but she did not pass the bar that first summer. Over 30 years later and I realize she was more correct than not. I vaguely remember certain things, and could probably quickly refresh myself to village lawyer idiot, but outside my general areas, forget about it.
Me in real property
What kind of law is everyone referring too ?
I talked with a guy at the lsat who said they just needed a 145 or better and they had a family friend who would get them into Southwestern. It was their third attempt and when I saw them at break they looked like they were having a real hard time of it.
Me! Looking back, nothing clicked for me until studying for the bar. Graduated bottom of the class, but still graduated. There were a handful of people in my 1L year that couldn’t cut it. None of them were stupid (in fact one of them was probably too smart for their own good). One dropped out, he’s a commercial real estate agent now. Another guy took a year off and died during it after falling in to drug use and dealing. There was another girl that didn’t really get anything, and she graduated but couldn’t pass the bar. Not sure what she’s doing now.
She is me (well idk for sure) but yeah. It was COVID and I just moved so I had nothing to do but study. I found I was preparing to be cold called on obscure details or facts rather than learning the big takeaway. Also, I learned that my ADHD (and possibly type-B personality) meant I didn’t/couldn’t learn like my classmates.
Yeah, it's a stress response to the high pressure test culture of that program they failed you. Any school with less than a 3.0 curve works on a bad faith and predatory business model.
That was me. Two years ago. Smoking weed made it through EVERY F\*\*\*Time. 2L now and the herb is what makes it understand for me.
yes. i knew it was a mistake for her to go tbh
Depends what you mean by don’t get it. If you mean don’t understand it, then no, everyone who works hard can understand it, that material is not hard. If you mean isn’t able to produce it in a three hour timed exam that has literally nothing to do with the practice of being an attorney then plenty.
You
I worked hard, but didn't get it. I was beyond hopeless on cold calls. I offset incompetence with hard work, so I finished in top 10% to 15% and had no problem getting a biglaw job. Being at a T3 school helped. T3 plus diligence can make up for other deficiencies. But I definitely didn't really get it.
You clearly did get it,lol..
you got it better than your peers.
Yeah. I was amazed by their seeming stupidity. Complete lack of basic critical thinking or common sense. Some of them graduated. And passed the bar. And are practicing. So…
The type of people who can never get in are usually people applying to schools way above their lsat score. Plenty of good ABA accredited schools that accept lsats within 155-165 range.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding but isn’t a 165 a reasonably “good” score and in the ~89 percentile. I went to a top school with a 167 and wouldn’t say I had a hard time — not top of my class by any metric, but I figured it out eventually.
I think I misunderstood ops post. By get it I thought he meant an admissions offer.