Law School Discussion

Budlaw, Mqt, and pickle: how many would you say you've done and reviewed an answer explanation?  Do you find it helpful to do them without looking at an explanation?

I find that most of the ones I am missing, I can't just look at the right answer and know why I missed it, I have to review an explanation. 

i agree, i read the explanations of the ones i get wrong, and write out the rule if that was the reason i got it wrong. 

I've been about 8-10, but I'm mostly sitting on my couch typing up my final "review" outlines for each subject (seems to be one of the only ways I can learn things, apparently).  With law and order on the TV, I'm probably averaging less than 8.

Next week, when I'm going nothing but essays punctuated some mixed MBE sets, I'll aim for 8, but I really don't know how close I'll actually get to that.

This is precisely how I learn/remember stuff.  First I did outlines of barbri outlines, then I made flashcards of my outlines.  Next week, I'll probably rewrite the flashcards that I can't immediately recall from memory. 

Also, I'm averaging 8hrs.

any thoughts on curved penises?

Quote from: pickle on July 04, 2008, 12:44:58 PM

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/the-science-of-passing-the-bar-exam-does-first-year-torts-really-matter/

"To test this theory, Rush and Matsuo documented every student’s courseload for five different graduating classes at the St. Louis Law School, analyzing the number of bar topic courses taken against bar passage rates the first time the students sat for the exam. Their results were unequivocal: no relationship existed between law school courseloads and the passage rate of students ranked in the first, second or fourth quarters of their law school class, while only a weak relationship existed for students who ranked in the third quarter. Overall, Rush writes, “students in the upper two quartiles passed the exam at an extremely high rate and those in the fourth quartile failed at a high rate, regardless of which classes they took in law school.” The researchers repeated the test in 2007 using data from the Hofstra University School of Law, with identical results (which do not appear in the study)."

I think you might be misinterpreting the purpose, and thus the validly for your argument, of this study. The fact that a lower pass rate was found for 4th quartile was in passing, not the focus of the study. The focus of the study was whether or not taking “bar courses” in law school has any effect on bar passage rates. Therefore, the data on 4th quarter passage rates in general is suspect for the point you’re tying to make. This is because, as it was not the focus of the study, it’s not likely other factors were considered in making the conclusion. For example, my guess would be that a number of students in the 4th quartile by end of 3L are there because they have lost interest in the law, but did not want to walk away from law school/debt. It’s likely folks that really don’t want to practice law don’t put as much effort into preparing for the bar as those that do (regardless of GPA). If the study was looking at simple bar passage rates as they compare to GPA these and other issues would need to be accounted for, for the study to be a good measure. However, as I said, that was not what was being studied here.

My school has done similar studies with the same results, no bearing on bar passage to bar courses taken in law school (i.e. Those that took primarily Wills, Trusts, Estates and other bar tested courses in law school did not do any better than those that took primarily (or even exclusively at my school) courses that were not tested on the bar. I’m not necessarily discounting the idea that lower GPA means lower bar passage rate, but I think a study focused on that would have to factor in other variables than this study did for it to be the kind of measure you are trying to use it for.

I quoted the purpose of the study.  There is no slight of hand here.  It's not my study; discount it, distinguish it, scrutinize the missing variables.  It's pretty common knowledge that LS performance has a high correlation to bar passage (should OP doubt this he should ask the dean directly why the school dismisses low graded students).  One of the conclusions of the study is relevant and on point.  OP should not go back to JMLS because he will likely not pass the bar, and JMLS knew this and dismissed him. 

The correlation between LS performance and bar passage is very high.  You were dismissed because, based upon JMLS's numbers you are likely not to pass the bar.  The only advice you need:  move on, don't look back, and fuk JMLS.  Law is not for you.  Fuk your study buddy love and your professor love.  All that demonstrates is that you're not dumb.  No fukin shitt.   

The school dismissing 36 1L students demonstrates that the school took 36 too many.  They would be happy to take their tuition for 2 more years if those students were likely to pass the bar.  You went to a school with high attrition, and that school dismissed you.  It is what it is.  The worst thing you could do is go back for more.