Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
acanadianpeanut

Hard Work v. Naturally Smart/Bright = Law school Success?

Recommended Posts

Definitely not the type to question what posters claim, but I am a little confused with swmel and her claim to be transfering to NYU.

 

 

 

To transfer to a US school, barring a formal joint degree program, it is pretty clear that you must be coming from another ABA approved law school. To be accepted somewhere like NYU, they likely only look for top students in the schools ranked about 10 or so below them (which UA would not qualify for). Furthermore, they base these decisions on your grades at the end of 1L - and given that you have yet to write exams, I don't see how they could be making such decisions yet.

 

 

 

It's possible that you are not tranfering, but actually starting 1L at NYU as a new student. If that is the case, why do you claim to be a transfer student?

 

 

 

This whole thing is VERY fishy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think swmel is trying to pull any kind of ruse here, he/she's been a longtime poster and it seems highly unlikely.

 

 

 

I can completely see where swmel's coming from though. Some people just needs to be continuously stimulated and challenged, not only by school content but by people around them. Some people need to be around other people of the same calibre to have motivation to accomplish. Some people don't. It's just individual preference and swmel's just stating it like it is. There's nothing fishy about someone realizing their unfit of an environment and trying to move to a better one, just cuz most ppl won't be able to do so does not make it fishy. I find that ppl always have doubt when someone's making a bad to good transition and not so much the other way around. If swmel was dropping out I bet no one would be doubting its reality. This whole ego thing annoys me.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think screwup was commenting on the arrogance that comes across in many of swmel's posts on this subject. I don't doubt that he/she is making the move, but I too have been put off by some of the posts. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and guess that the arrogance in unintentional, but for someone new to the board I can understand the reaction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is making a good point. I'm like poker, I wish I could've work harder and had that kind of motivation in undergrad, then maybe I would be going to NYU. I wouldn't hate on someone for not being as smart as me.

 

 

 

And sometimes people just don't get things you think are really simple. Like me, I'm a dumba$$ when it comes to statistical analysis. I just sat in the labs wondering if I was in the right place. But anyways, back to the point. Someone who is inherently intelligent and works smarter, rather than harder I think is most likely to succeed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like some have already said, I think those who have a solid balance of both "natural" intelligence and self-discipline have the best advantage.

 

 

 

I personally would prefer a lawyer who is hardworking and relentless in their research to be on my side than one who wings it based on last minute research.

 

 

 

While I'm not a lawyer yet, I imagine that law is a profession that requires a great deal of preparation and meticulous research. How can one except to be successful in the REAL WORLD if one is doesn't put the time or effort into the task at hand? I can see how it might be easy to get away w/ this sort of behaviour in school, whether it be UG or LS, however, what happens when you're suddenly thrust into the real working world? What happens when you work with people's lives? Surely you cannot wing it!

 

 

 

While LS is about learning the law and all of its applications, isn't it also about learning skills that prepare you for the legal world? Why would people skip out on this? It makes no sense to me.

 

 

 

Yellow

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When swmel talked about "transferring" I always thought of it as starting 1st year over. The fact that she termed it "transferring" may be misleading but could be an honest mistake. I mean, really, there is a great difference between Canadian and American jurisprudence, and of course different Constitutions.

 

 

 

As for the arrogance, I know some people on this board have found me arrogant. I don't intend to be and don't consider myself an "arrogant person". I think a lot is lost in the translation here - not talking in person or having a full perspective of opinions that underpin certain comments/beliefs.

 

 

 

I will be the first one to say that swmel and I have disagreed on many issues, but I respect his/her opinion anyway. At least she/he doesn't pussyfoot around - I prefer a straight shooter. Besides, a good debate engages the board.

 

 

 

Man, I really should be studying, later.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another dimension is that its not ALL about grades. Yes, I know that good grades are important for a variety of reasons, but another aspect is actual comprehension (i.e. fully mastering the subject, not just the angles needed to succeed on the exam). There will be individuals with a higher grade in a course, who may not actually have the highest actualy grasp of the subject.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transfer=moving schools; I have to redo courses from 1L and applied with my GPA and LSAT. But I can take 2L courses. I already said that in my other post prior to last week. It's just called a transfer because I consider that Ive already done one year of law school and am not a brand new student.

 

 

 

Does that clear things up or should I be scanning my acceptance letter for yall?

 

 

 

Edit to add: In addition to UG GPA and the LSAT, I also submitted my midterm marks from UA; with 4 reference letters from my current profs endorsing my "transfer."

 

 

 

Snowman:

 

 

 

I think challenging and learning is one in the same. If I am not challenged, I wont be motivated to learn; if not motivated, I'll slack and end up learning nothing. Give me a SUPER hard course however, and I'll work my ASS off to learn the stuff - feel completely fulfilled and be happy.

 

 

 

 

Edited by: swmel at: 4/7/05 5:22 pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swmel:

 

 

 

You are my hero. You deserve a trophy for putting up with all the hard working and unintelligent people you have studied with over the years. If i could be anyone, it would be you. I am quite sure we will all hear your name in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

DMS

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The students I met and sat with at NYU were completely opposite of my current classmates. They rarely read the cases, do not keep up with regular work and just rely on their "instincts" when it comes to exams. Obviously, they do listen in class and do reading where appropriate, and they understand the general concepts....I definitely feel that I belong more with this group and am much happier."

 

 

 

The students in second year UofA Law do the same thing. What I noticed is that people work harder in class to take good notes, and most peopel quit briefing cases. The workload doubles in second year and it makes it impossible to do everything you do in first year. A lot of people dont' read in second year. For most people, that cuts you out of the Dean's List but you can still do pretty well.

 

 

 

superx

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swmel:

 

 

 

i read your original post several days ago and have been "chewing" on it for some time. i've enjoyed the discussion that has resulted. i seem to find a slight contradiction in your situation...

 

 

 

Quote:

I think challenging and learning is one in the same. If I am not challenged, I wont be motivated to learn; if not motivated, I'll slack and end up learning nothing.

 

 

 

you're classes are so easy and your fellow classmates are so unintelligent that you are blaming THEM for not being motivated enough? it would seem, from your own opinion of yourself, that you are smart enough to see that perhaps they aren't the problem. but i do hope you feel surrounded with ppl more "like yourself" at nyu because everyone deserves to belong somewhere.

 

 

 

my opinion on the subject:

 

 

 

1. ppl who work hard and "don't get it", deserve respect. it might even be to your own benefit to help out a friend in this situation.

 

 

 

2. ppl who don't work hard and think that they deserve something, will always get what's coming to them in the end.

 

 

 

3. ppl who work hard and "get it", are the ppl to whom i enjoy talking. they are interesting, engaging and intelligent. without the hard work, they would only be a person like you, swmel. see #2 for my opinion on that subject.

 

 

 

good luck at nyu.

 

 

Edited by: jasontoronto at: 4/9/05 10:50 am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn....Im so tired of people trying to knock me for bringing up this subject.

 

 

 

I do hope I get whats coming to me jason. I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to interrupt the, well, whatever the hell it is you people are talking about...

 

 

 

I gotta agree with some previous posts on this one.

 

 

 

No more "Look at me, mom! I'm going to NYU" posts please. Ugh. Sorry you're so unmotivated by the vapid but hard working idiots at UofA. Please, by all means, go and join our apparently slack ass-ed neighbors to the south. Bitter much because you couldn't get into UofT and must therefore ego compensate?

 

 

 

"Yawn"?!?! Jesus. Then why post this? So you could receive some hearty congratulations and back-slapping from the awe-inspired unintelligentsia? What did you expect? It was a loaded question. What's this about trying? Consider yourself "knocked" sister.

 

 

 

On a personal note, I know I'd really want to be wherever the Olsen twins are (by the way, say hi for me and give them my number so I can confess my undying love... I LOVE YOU ASHLEY! I LOVE YOU!).

 

 

 

 

Edited by: blah456 at: 4/10/05 3:01 am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

screwup1234,

 

 

 

i wasn't as clear as i should have been... i was trying to be case specific to make a point.

 

 

 

those that i was refering to by phrasing my statement in the manner of "those who don't work hard and think that they deserve something", were those ppl like swmel who brag about how little work they do and how smart they are. an important part of being smart is knowing when to keep his/her mouth shut. how long do you think the duration of someone like swmel would be in a firm with an attitude based on low work ethic and the inability to take responsibility for her own actions? bingo.

 

 

 

100% agreed on everything else you had to say. :)

 

 

 

best,

 

 

 

jason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by: jasontoronto at: 4/11/05 11:45 am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason,

 

 

 

Like I said, I'll let you know how it turns out after this summer.

 

 

 

Of course, not all of us are secure enough with ourselves to be threatened by an online poster and need to dig up the impossibility of being accepted by an American school, are we now screwup?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick:

 

 

 

I think that its very ignorant to assume that a high lsat is indicative of intelligence and a high gpa is indicative of hard work...fact is, imo you cant use someone's lsat or undergrad gpa as measures of intelligence. One can get through both solely on hard work or natural ability. I've seen people study their way from 130s to 170s and people totally wing 3.8s...

 

 

 

Also, the lsat is not a measure of one's nantual ability. It measures what it measures--reading speed, comprehension, logic, etc (and it does so pretty well)...It is a selective test and should be looked at as such. For example, if there was a math section (or whatever) I guarantee that many people's scores would change as a result of different strengths in different areas. I feel that by no means should one think that a 170 is "smarter" than a 160 or a 140 for that matter.

 

 

 

I also feel that hard work is the great equaliser...

 

just my 2 cents...but heck what do i know ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha.

 

 

 

Question: If the folks at UA are too dumb to hang-out with people like you, then why do you come and talk to us peons on here? We all appreciate being in the presence of greatness and all, but why not spend your spare time working on a PhD in quantum physics or something?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • You just completed your articles in insurance defense and yet claim to have vast knowledge in the field of medical and health law. You've also got an  LLM that focused on 11 different topics unrelated to insurance or civil lit.  But the type of law you are really interested in is IP law.   And you intend to tell employers about your poly marriage?  During interviews I assume?  Only way it could be a red flag is if you told someone unless your last name is Blackmore.  
    • The reason many 1Ls get crushed after grades come out is because they mistakenly carried the "hard work means good grades" mentality into law school. The bolded part of your post is me pointing out that you're making the same mistake. What I think you really need to do is change how you prepare for exams. My advice to you FOLLOW AT YOUR OWN RISK I'm a fellow slow worker. When I prepared for midterms like everyone else, I got the same marks as everyone else. When I prepared for final exams like a slow worker, I beat the curve in 6/7 courses. The only course where I didn't beat the curve was also the only class I made the mistake of not doing the aforementioned. Understand that you can't do all of the assigned work. It may take other people 1 hour to do a 30 page reading while it takes you 4 hours (I personally need to read every word on the page). Doing all of the assigned work is just not feasible for you because its not an efficient use of time. There is absolutely no shame in admitting this or accepting this. Doing all of the assigned work is just one of many different ways to prepare for the exam. You should let my exam grade determine whether your unique method of preparation is right or wrong. Understand that doing all of the assigned work doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing any work or even less work, it just means you should be doing the work that helps you best prepare for the exam. Doing the readings - Your main focus should be to make the most efficient use of your time (i.e. doing the type of work that helps you, as an individual, best prepare for the exam) First, check the syllabus to understand the place of this reading in the class (you'd be surprised how many people overlook the value of the course syllabus). The question here is: what am I reading? What topic is this reading on? How many days will you be dealing with this topic? How many pages is it? Is the topic a standalone topic or one piece of a bigger topic? This will give you a rough idea of how much time and concern you should give to this topic and also generally primes you for the work you need to do. Second, very briefly skim the reading while paying attention to the structure of the reading. Read the headings, intros, conclusions, etc. This will help you understand the skeleton of the reading.  Third, once you understand what you're reading (i.e. after completing the first two steps) your next question is: why am I reading this? Why has the professor assigned this reading? In other words, what does your professor want you, as a student, to get out of this reading for the purposes of their class? To answer these questions, look to course summaries/CANs from upper years who have taken the same course with the same professor.  Fourth, now you know what you're reading and why you're reading it. The question now here is: what does this reading say about that? If you're a person who's comfortable relying on a summary/CAN, then rely on your summaries/CANs to provide answer the answer to this question. If you're a person who's more comfortable doing the reading, then let the summaries/CANs create the signposts of what's important in the reading so you can focus on that and allocate your time effectively.  For example, if you're dealing with the topic of sexual assault in 1L criminal law, then you're probably going to want to read all of Ewanchuk and only focus on the bare essentials in every other case (e.g. R v Chase - only matters because it tells us how to interpret the sexual nature element of the AR; R v Cuerrier - only matters because it tells us when fraud vitiates consent and what L'Heureux Dube and McLachlin say in their respective dissents, respectfully, doesn't matter for the strict purpose of your exam unless your professor cares about policy; R v Mabior - only matters because it tells us when non-disclosure of HIV status vitiates consent/constitutes fraud; R v JA - only matters because it tells us to how interpret consent and, respectfully, Fish's dissent doesn't matter unless your professor cares about policy; etc)  Lectures - The purpose of lectures isn't for the professor to spoon-feed you the material, for you to practice your skills as a typist and copy the lecture verbatim or for you to get your online Christmas shopping done. The purpose of the lecture is for the professor to: Confirm to you that you're on the right track (i.e. you've done the aforementioned Reading stage correctly and understand what the topic is, why you're doing the reading, and that you know what you need to know) Clarify anything in the readings and/or correct any mistakes/things missing from your understanding/notes or the summaries/CANs you've relied on Provide you with their unique perspective/opinion/approach to the topic at hand. You're going to keep this in mind when writing your exam in order to cater to their beliefs, prejudices. For example, if you have a feminist professor, don't argue that sex work should be criminalized on an exam. Present both sides to the argument, and in one sentence say that you support it even if you don't. As a future lawyer, you're going to be arguing a lot of things you don't agree with or believe in for your own personal gain. Might as well start early   Give you any hints about the exam. Professors notice if/when the herd thins out during the school year and some times will be inclined to reward students for attending. There have been multiple times that I've gotten useful hints about exams from a professor simply for being present during a boring lecture in the middle of October Exams - Exam-writing is a skill. Learn it. Read books on how to develop the skill. My recommendation is "Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades" by Alex Schimel. Create your own outline. In your 5 to 15 page outline, you should have every piece of the "what you need to know" part of each of your readings. There should be absolutely no superfluous bullshit, fluff or fat on your outline. You've literally condensed the entire course into those 5 to 15 pages. Your casebook, other peoples outlines/CANs, etc were all just tools for you to arrive at your own outline.  Learn your outline cold. I mean cold. This doesn't only mean just memorizing it. You should be able to open up ExamSoft and type out the blackletter law part of your future exam answer on demand and at near-lightning speed. The only class that I actually did this properly for was the one I finished at the top (and despite missing a major issue on the exam) and the other class that I did this, but sort of half-assed, I got an A- despite writing one paragraph for a question worth 33% question because I blanked out. Once you've learned the outline cold, take a few old exam questions and do timed exams on ExamSoft. Your focus is to type out the blackletter law as you've been doing and then actually apply it to the facts. Review your answer by yourself, then with a professor (if you can reach them/they'll allow this) and finally compare against old exam answers. Many people will disagree with this but once you do a few of these timed exams, you'll start to notice repeating patterns in terms of the issues tested, answer structures, etc (there can only be so many and also many professors are creatures of habit). 
    • Had a similar thing happen: What can you tell me about person X? Should I know person X? They mentioned you in their interview... I have no idea who this person is...
×
×
  • Create New...