The whole "forest for the trees" thing...

[jacy85]

Top 3%.

[Matthies]

I'm a 1L
I know that grades are pretty personal, but can you 2Ls and 3Ls give us an idea of how well you did?  A little credibility would be nice.

Also, I've heard a students who did well say that the commercial flash cards are great for torts, but they are useless for the other traditional 1L classes.
I've been in law school for a whopping 3 weeks, but that kind of makes sense to me.

I imagine it is important to remember that each course is different, each teacher is different, and each student is certainly different.

number 13 in my class

[jack24]

Thanks!

3 of my 4 teachers, who are probably natural geniuses (I'm not), say that all we really need to do is, brief every case, take notes in class, make a good outline, and maybe take a few practice tests.
The consensus among the faculty at orientation was that supplements were, more often than not, a waste of time and money.
They were especially opposed to commercial outlines and outlines from previous years.

Your thoughts?

[jacy85]

Thanks!

3 of my 4 teachers, who are probably natural geniuses (I'm not), say that all we really need to do is, brief every case, take notes in class, make a good outline, and maybe take a few practice tests.
The consensus among the faculty at orientation was that supplements were, more often than not, a waste of time and money.
They were especially opposed to commercial outlines and outlines from previous years.

Your thoughts?

Sift through some of my prior posts if you have time - I do think that most supplements are a waste of time and money, and you really do learn all the substance of what you need to know in the cases and in class.

I've written much more in depth in other threads on my study strategy that worked well for me, and you'd probably get a lot more info if you read through some of those older posts than if I tried to write a summary here.

[OldCraig]

Yellow, my T14 is better than yours. 

By the way, unless the professor expressly dictates this, there are ALWAYS two kinds of "A's": 1) Efficient/Succinct/say only what needs to be said 2) Write like hell and analyze every possible scenario... I  knew I wasn't in group number 1 b/c I'm a writer -- that being said, if you're a business type, you might suck at #2... maybe you can't pull it off - BUT - the moral of the story is that law school success is not directly attached to any sort of "intelligence quotient" - it's just how much work you put in. And, yellow, i'd love to be in the same class as you so i'd have some competition  - A clash of the titans would be inspiring. My treatise versus your hyku.

[Matthies]

Yellow, my T14 is better than yours. 

the moral of the story is that law school success is not directly attached to any sort of "intelligence quotient" - it's just how much work you put in.

I don’t think this is universally true. For some people it is, they do well because they work very hard, but there are others who work just as hard and don’t do well. And there are people who put in a medium amount of work and do fine. I’m not joking when I say I don’t pay attention in class at all, I don’t take any notes and I have never done a single practice test in law school. I’ll agree that its not due to sheer intelligence, I would not consider myself half as smart as many of my classmates, but its certainly not due to working hard either, at least in my case.

I mean yea I do most of the reading and do prepare for exams, I’m not a slacker, but law school is certainly not the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I work, clerk and go to law school all at the same time. I think, based purely on what I have seen its just that some people’s method of thinking (about anything), the way they analyze things, is just naturally more transferable with less practice to law exams than other people.

Not that one is better or worse, just easier adaptable to “thinking like a lawyer” than maybe someone else. Because of the way they have analyzed issues in the past they already understand how to analyze issues in law school. They just had pre-practice at thinking the way you need to do to do well on law school exams. I don’t think its coincidence that all of my good friends in law school are all within 10 ranking spots of me. We became friends not because we were ranked similarly but because we think the same way as each other. At least that is my thoery on it.

[pig floyd]

Not that one is better or worse, just easier adaptable to “thinking like a lawyer” than maybe someone else. Because of the way they have analyzed issues in the past they already understand how to analyze issues in law school. They just had pre-practice at thinking the way you need to do to do well on law school exams. I don’t think its coincidence that all of my good friends in law school are all within 10 ranking spots of me. We became friends not because we were ranked similarly but because we think the same way as each other. At least that is my thoery on it.

I think this is it, really.

You can extend it a bit, too... Some people are just better pre-prepared to think in ways that specific professors want you to think.  Some people are better pre-prepared to think in ways demanded by certain classes (conlaw vs. civpro, for example). 

In the end, really, it's not the amount of work you put in.  It's the amount you get out of that work that matters. 

[OldCraig]

I think there's a disconnect here somewhere, you MAKE your OWN flash cards out of POINTS you want to MAKE on the EXAM - and it's not just regurgitation because you have to apply it to the question on the exam. so, I think we're miscommunicating here.

The people who are working hard who don't do well, they're trying to read three different supplements for one course, which is ill-advised because they won't have anything original to say. If you work solely from the text, and CREATE YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS - you will be rewarded.

As far as "being predisposed to thinking like a professor wants you to", I think that's a load. Everything can be prepared for - preparedness is the key to top grades every time. Any one who says they work just as hard as you and are in the bottom of the class is doing something horribly wrong, like spending 4 hours out of the day tearing their hair out instead of reading/reducing/synthesizing.

But, think what you want, tell someone it's "magic that you either have or don't". I don't believe that though, I think that's the biggest myth in education, that students are just naturally smart. That intelligence is static. Absurd. And to be quite honest, it's how the upper class has held the lower-middle to lower classes down for a long time - getting them to believe they can't achieve because they got a 150 on some LSAT that a rich kid paid $3000 for a prep course for w/o batting an eye because he could, then got a 179 or whatever. blah blah blah.

It's simple. Read/Reduce/Synthesize. Practice writing your arguments. You will do well. Please don't buy into this "magic" malarky.

Vote McCheese for president yall, I'm outty.

[OldCraig]

I think there's a disconnect here somewhere, you MAKE your OWN flash cards out of POINTS you want to MAKE on the EXAM - and it's not just regurgitation because you have to apply it to the question on the exam. so, I think we're miscommunicating here.

The people who are working hard who don't do well, they're trying to read three different supplements for one course, which is ill-advised because they won't have anything original to say. If you work solely from the text, and CREATE YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS - you will be rewarded.

As far as "being predisposed to thinking like a professor wants you to", I think that's a load. Everything can be prepared for - preparedness is the key to top grades every time. Any one who says they work just as hard as you and are in the bottom of the class is doing something horribly wrong, like spending 4 hours out of the day tearing their hair out instead of reading/reducing/synthesizing.

But, think what you want, tell someone it's "magic that you either have or don't". I don't believe that though, I think that's the biggest myth in education, that students are just naturally smart. That intelligence is static. Absurd. And to be quite honest, it's how the upper class has held the lower-middle to lower classes down for a long time - getting them to believe they can't achieve because they got a 150 on some LSAT that a rich kid paid $3000 for a prep course for w/o batting an eye because he could, then got a 179 or whatever. blah blah blah.

It's simple. Read/Reduce/Synthesize. Practice writing your arguments. You will do well. Please don't buy into this "magic" malarky.

Vote McCheese for president yall, I'm outty.

[Visual Dictionary]

Eh.  Your professors say that supplements are a waste of time because students often tackle the entirety of Torts rather than tackling the issues you cover in the class, which will be on the exam.

I think that law school tests for original analytical thinking.  So many people are going to argue the same old s*** on the exams with the same old issues.  It's the rare person who manages to come up with a few "neat" insights here and there that shows that he's capable of being a good lawyer.  You don't hire an attorney to think inside the box; you hire an attorney because your problem lies out of it.

I think.  I'm a lowly 1L, so feel free to correct my ideas.  This was just an idea I had on the freeway while looking at a particularly puffy cloud.