<p>i guess the difference is i think that the best preparation for law school is a) knowing why it is you want to be a lawyer -- which may really have little to do with how you end up doing in law school itself, but can keep you from being grossly disappointed once you complete those 3 years, and b) the academic preparation already done to get into the law school - not that it prepares one for the academic environment of law school, but that it makes the most opportunities available. </p>
<p>the op is going to boalt -- i would have to assume he/she worked pretty hard to get to that point already -- and that hard work will pay off by virtue of attending a top law school which will afford many opportunities. but law school is so different than the undergrad experience, I don't think you can really prepare for it -- no matter how many times you watch The Paper Chase. :)</p>
<p>i would have to say that i think someone attending a lower tier law school may be more likely to need more of a game plan to get them where they want to be after law school -- though i still wouldn't advocate trying to get a leg up on the coursework before law school even starts and i think that game plan may have to take shape during those 3 years.</p>
<p>Perhaps, but one ignores reality at one's peril.</p>
<p>I remember when I was in law school, some administrator discouraged us from purchasing commerical outlines. Probably that administrator felt bad that some students "game" the system. I think her judgment was colored by wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Fortunately, I had the sense to be skeptical. Those outlines allowed me to get better grades with a lot less aggravation.</p>
<p>Now, some people might say I was missing something by glossing over many of the lectures and reading assignments. Again, this ignores the reality that a lot of law professors are incompetent teachers.</p>
<p>i see nothing wrong with using review books while one is taking a class. at that point one is in a position to determine what will and will not help one in learning the course material as presented by the professor. but i think trying to use those books prior to starting classes in order to try to get a leg up on things is counterproductive.</p>
<p>one of my first year classes was taught by a prof who took an entirely non-conventional approach to the subject matter. students debated whether his class was of value or a waste of time - kids generally either loved the class or hated it. but at the end of the term he made the exam which reflected his approach -- parroting the conventional norms on the topic on the final exam would have done a student little good. anyone who had spent their summer reading the gilbert's on the subject would have not only wasted their time, but probably increased their frustration level trying to correlate what they'd "studied" over the summer with what was taught in the class. </p>
<p>i had other professors who were not quite so extreme but who certainly went well beyond what the review book outlines presented (and isn't that what one should expect at a top law school?) -- while those outlines may have been a useful supplement for someone in the class, anyone who walked into class at the beginning of the year thinking they understood things from having already read such an outline would have been destined to have been shot down within 30 seconds of opening their mouths. now, while it may not otherwise be uncommon for a first year to be shot down within 30 seconds of opening his or her mouth -- there is no need, i my opinion, to spend the summer preparing for that. :)</p>
<p>whether the professor is great or awful, inspiring or sleep inducing, he/she is the one who gets to determine what will be taught in the class and what will be tested on the final exam. if anything, i think at top law schools the chances are greater that this will not simply follow what the conventional basics for the subject are (at least that was my experience) -- all i am saying is whether or not a student needs to resort to study aids, or devise a plan for law school success -- those decisions should be made AFTER one is there, rather than the months before when one can only speculate as to what one may find in law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
one of my first year classes was taught by a prof who took an entirely non-conventional approach to the subject matter. students debated whether his class was of value or a waste of time - kids generally either loved the class or hated it. but at the end of the term he made the exam which reflected his approach -- parroting the conventional norms on the topic on the final exam would have done a student little good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may be your experience, but that's not typical. If the original poster is still reading this thread, I suggest you go down to your local law school library and take a look at old exams and model answers for a few first year classes: torts, civil procedure, contracts, whatever.</p>
<p>I expect you will see an astonishing degree of uniformity.</p>
<p>Moreover, it is very common for a teacher to seem "unconventional," but still give a very conventional examination. I was burned by this a little bit in my first year contracts class, which was taught by a leading critical race theorist. I still remember her arguing that if the UCC distinguishes between buyers and sellers, then why can't it also distinguish between black people and white people? But her exam was very standard.</p>
<p>In any event, you need to get a basic grasp on this stuff sooner or later if you intend to pass the bar exam and practice law.</p>
<p>By the way, I admit that studying in advance seems hypercompetitive and ugly. Kinda like how there are kids in my childrens' elementary school classes who get outside tutoring in advance. These are perfectly intelligent kids, their parents just want to give them an edge. And I wouldn't be shocked to learn that there are kids who are already being prepared for the SAT in second or third grade. But at the same time, I admit that these kids probably will have an advantage over mine when it comes time to apply to Harvard or whatever.</p>
<p>I think that the real issue here is that there are much better uses for one's time than reading commercial outlines (whether or not you think they may be helpful -- I always thought they were merely a regurgitation of the most basic facts about the caselaw, and my professors tended to go far beyond and/or take a different approach than that written in Emanuel's or Gilbert's) or tracking down and reading old law school exams during a five month hiatus between academic programs. I think that the invaluable experience and exposure to the world around them that one gains by taking an internship, volunteering, travelling or doing one of a zillion things other than preparing for law school, in whatever fashion, will pay off in terms of maturity and perspective, which will certainly help one do well in law school (and in later interviews for jobs) in ways that studying will not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that the real issue here is that there are much better uses for one's time than reading commercial outlines (whether or not you think they may be helpful
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree to a certain extent, because it's easily possible to volunteer, do an internship, work, whatever, and still find a few hours a week to do some advance study for law school. </p>
<p>Also, the question about what is a "better" use for your time depends on what your goals are. If you want to become a law professor, then you need to get really good grades to give yourself the best possible chance. If you want to hang a shingle straight out of law school, then your grades are much less important and it may make sense to spend your time -- even while in law school -- doing clinics and interning so you get experience and make connections, even if it hurts your studies a bit.</p>
<p>I humbly disagree. There are three whole years ahead of each law student when, semester by semester, they can painstakingly read cases, go to lectures, seek out additional help from their professors and review commercial outlines and old exams. Realistically, if a semester isn't long enough for a particular student to do this work and "get it", then they might want to consider another path. Yes, it sometimes takes a law student a semester or two for the proverbial lightbulb to go on, but studying a commercial outline over the summer isn't going to flip the switch any more quickly. Should a high school student who is considering law school begin memorizing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence the way so many kids seem to be memorizing SAT words beginning when they are toddlers these days? </p>
<p>When I sat down with all of my law school classmates for the beginning of law school orientation, one of our professors stood before us and terrified us with her words. She said that once we started law school, we would never be the same people again. We would never approach a problem or a news article or an argument the same way again. Our ways of thinking and relating to situations would be forever altered. To my knowledge, no one quit law school that day, but she was indeed correct. What you learn in law school is not so much about cases and statutes and regulations. You learn how to think critically, how to write persuasively and how to intelligently approach issues on topics known and unknown. You will not learn that from any book, and trying to do so may well be counterproductive. You need to approach the cases presented to you in law school using the critical thinking skills learned in law school (and elsewhere in life), not by merely reading for comprehension or memorization. The questions you will be asked in your law school classes often begin with, "Ms. Smith, what are the facts of the case at hand?" and end with "Was the judge correct?" or "Did the judge correctly apply the law to the facts of the case here?". Reading Emanuel's or Gilbert's (two of the major commercial outlines widely available) won't provide you with anwser to any but that first question. You need to learn how to come to answers to the second two questions on your own. </p>
<p>In my practice, I have become expert in certain areas and I am forced to provide advice to my clients each and every day on areas outside of my areas of expertise. Law firms and corporations (and judges and other employers) hire you because you are smart, diligent and willing and able to adapt and learn. Not until much later in your career (if ever) are you hired because of your stated expertise. My primary responsibilities in my job have varied wildly over the years because so many employers value the flexibility that comes with having learned how to approach a novel issue and how to think critically. A good lawyer has to be able at all times to at least realize that there are issues, whether or not those issues are within the areas you know. Often, you cannot defer to another expert, but must instead review information and come up with an answer for your client. It's all in the approach.</p>
<p>Those are the things that you must learn in law school. Everything else is just like memorizing SAT words for a regurgitation exam, and unfortunately, at top law schools, I'm afraid you won't find too many of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Realistically, if a semester isn't long enough for a particular student to do this work and "get it", then they might want to consider another path.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure that any reasonably smart person can show up to law school cold and get satisfactory grades. The question (to me) is whether extra preparation will help them get better grades? Or the same grades with less aggravation?</p>
<p>I'm pretty confident that the answer is "yes." Just about any area of human endeavor can be prepared for with better results attaining. I don't see why law school is unique.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you learn in law school is not so much about cases and statutes and regulations. You learn how to think critically, how to write persuasively and how to intelligently approach issues on topics known and unknown
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe you learn that, and maybe you don't . . . BUT . . . your grades -- especially first-year grades -- depend on a surprisingly narrow set of skills. It's wonderful if you happen to come out of law school with the skills you describe. But for some goals, it's practically a necessity to have good grades. If you want good grades (with less aggravation) then you must practice those narrow skills. And more and earlier practice will help you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Law firms and corporations (and judges and other employers) hire you because you are smart, diligent and willing and able to adapt and learn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They also hire you based on your grades. Better grades = more options. It's that simple.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The questions you will be asked in your law school classes often begin with, "Ms. Smith, what are the facts of the case at hand?" and end with "Was the judge correct?" or "Did the judge correctly apply the law to the facts of the case here?". Reading Emanuel's or Gilbert's (two of the major commercial outlines widely available) won't provide you with anwser to any but that first question. You need to learn how to come to answers to the second two questions on your own.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? I'm not saying that Emanuel's or Gilbert's should be a substitute for the law school experience, simply that (1) such outlines (combined with taking tests for practice) are good preparation for exams; (2) your grades depend heavily on your exams; and (3) grades can be very important.</p>
<p>do you actually know anyone who spent the months PRIOR to starting law school reading law outlines and reviewing old law school exams and did you actually see such efforts pay off in terms of higher grades and better job opportunities?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Better grades = more options. It's that simple.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually i found it just not to be as simple as that. there was a lot else going on besides a shear meritocracy based on grades -- there are just certain personal qualities that colleagues i saw rise to the top of the profession projected other than their gpa -- and those weren't qualities they perfected by reading gilberts before entering law school. i'm not claiming gpa is irrelevant, but i simply can't believe that studying prior to entering law school will really make a practical difference in terms of where new lawyer will ultimately end up in life.</p>
<p>students today entering top law schools have gotten their after a long haul -- they probably took sat review courses to get into the colleges they sought where they worked their rears off to get the grades they got. they studied for the lsat. all along the way there were probably people telling the best way to game the process to increase their chances of reaching their elusive goal of admission to a top law school. personally once they've reached that goal i think they have to realize that they are there and now they have to focus on being there and taking advantage of the opportunities their top quality law school has to offer them and not keep looking for the next means to game the system -- there are no gilberts to read to prepare you before the senior partner walks in the door and hands you an assignment. there is no prep course for winning the confidence of a client. </p>
<p>my guess is that you'll say what i'm calling gaming the system is just making a plan for success -- but i see a difference between planning based on what goals you want to accomplish and figuring out what will make you best able to meet those goals and looking for quick solution to give you a boost that doesn't address whether you have the innate ability to achieve your goal. you want to be a law professor? work your rear off in class and learn to write something that people think is worth reading - project yourself as intellectually geared to academia. win the respect of the faculty. don't think there's an easy gimmick that'll give you a leg up over your classmates.</p>
<p>my guess is that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. as for the op -- getting into berkley should be a cause for celebrating and relaxing for now -- not the immediate start of the next round of anxiety.</p>
<p>Well this thread has certainly taken on a life of it's own and I'm definitely following the debate!</p>
<p>What originally motivated me to ask this question was the fact that I did go into college with a 'game plan', consisting of a number of goals that I wanted to achieve in order to put myself in the best possible position for whatever graduate school or career I would choose in the future. Achieving a 4.0 gpa was part of that plan, so when I decided I was interested in law school, I was already in a strong position to compete. I hate to sound like such a strategical nut, but this is the reality of what students have to do these days to survive. I cried as a high school senior when I was rejected from UC Berkeley's undergraduate program because for whatever reason my application didn't make the cut. From that point on, I vowed to always do my best to prepare myself as early as possible. I realized that sometimes in life you only have one chance to do things right. </p>
<p>Now, after years of hard work, discipline, and bit of luck, I have been accepted to the law school of my dreams. I certainly don't want to be a law professor, I just want to graduate with decent grades and find a job at a medium-sized firm that will pay a decent wage and not make me work 80hrs/wk. At the same time, I want my 3 yrs at law school to be a rewarding experience that will open my mind without burning me out after my 1st year. After reading much of the advice here I will definitely find time to relax and enjoy my break-time. But, for my own peace of mind, I have to prepare myself in some way (at least psychologically) for what is to come. I would appreciate any help you can offer as to specific ways to give myself a small 'edge' for the years ahead.</p>
<p>lskinner: I am a native New Yorker but did not have any strategy for law school when I began. And yes, all of us were clueless intially. However, those of us who succeeded developed strategies during the first year or the first semester, once we had some idea of what we were dealing with (Yes, only "some idea"). And those strategies varied quite a bit from student to student.
So I stick with my recommendation to not spend any time getting ready for law school, and to not bother reading any books on law school in advance either because even they won't make sense until reality strikes.</p>
<p>idardik: I don't know you so as to give you advice that will best suit your personailty and your ways of doing things. So my general advice to you is: be alert! Keep your eyes open to what's going on in school so that you can make adjustments, because that is what you will find you have to be doing.</p>
<p>And one more thing. Some years ago my employer had us all go through various training courses in which we learned a number of different ways to work. In all of those courses they taught us that any plan for any action should always include one particular component: make sure that you plan to have some fun. That's correct - your plan has to include a plan for having some fun; otherwise when you work hard on the work plan it can turn into a drudge and make all of you feel like slaves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
do you actually know anyone who spent the months PRIOR to starting law school reading law outlines and reviewing old law school exams and did you actually see such efforts pay off in terms of higher grades and better job opportunities?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. My thoughts are based on my general knowledge and experience. In my experience, one of the most helpful ways to get good grades was to study certain aspects of the law and to practice writing old exams. It stands to reason that doing more of this -- and making use of the months before law school, if one is so inclined -- would be helpful.</p>
<p>Again, it seems to me that the people who are arguing against me are making the somewhat extraordinary claim that first year of law school is unique among human endeavors in that it cannot be prepared for.</p>
<p>
[quote]
actually i found it just not to be as simple as that. there was a lot else going on besides a shear meritocracy based on grades -- there are just certain personal qualities that colleagues i saw rise to the top of the profession projected other than their gpa -- and those weren't qualities they perfected by reading gilberts before entering law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me you're attacking a strawman here. I'm not saying that grades are the only thing that matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i simply can't believe that studying prior to entering law school will really make a practical difference in terms of where new lawyer will ultimately end up in life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure what your point is: Are you saying that grades don't have much of an impact on where you end up? Or are you saying that studying prior to law school won't have much of an impact on grades?</p>
<p>
[quote]
lskinner: I am a native New Yorker but did not have any strategy for law school when I began. And yes, all of us were clueless intially. However, those of us who succeeded developed strategies during the first year or the first semester, once we had some idea of what we were dealing with (Yes, only "some idea"). And those strategies varied quite a bit from student to student.
So I stick with my recommendation to not spend any time getting ready for law school, and to not bother reading any books on law school in advance either because even they won't make sense until reality strikes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's see if I understand you . . . are you saying it's basically impossible for a person to make an effective plan for law school until the person has personally experienced law school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you saying that grades don't have much of an impact on where you end up? Or are you saying that studying prior to law school won't have much of an impact on grades?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i am saying that i think that trying to read law outlines and review old exams prior to starting law school is more likely to raise anxiety without much likelihood of sufficient, if any , impact on ones future career to warrant putting ones self through it, especially given the risk of it actually being counterproductive (ie risk of increasing their confusion, frustration and anxiety; or possibly even worse, providing them with false self assurance which will be rudely undermined once they enter the classroom).</p>
<p>personally - i think it is an incredibly specious argument to claim that it will improve job options by improving grades. you are attempting to rely on some claim of apparent causality among length of time studying, material studied, marginal ( if any ) impact on gpa, and ultimate career success, that i simply don't believe exists. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In my experience, one of the most helpful ways to get good grades was to study certain aspects of the law and to practice writing old exams. It stands to reason that doing more of this -- and making use of the months before law school, if one is so inclined -- would be helpful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>no it doesn't stand to reason that the same studying techniques that might help some students who are actually already taking a class will be helpful to students before that class has even begun. it stands to reason that a student should actually be in a class to determine what and how they need to study for it. </p>
<p>i think we've gone around on this pretty much long enough. i get it -- you think these steps will help. i don't. others who have posted don't. as far as i can see, no one else who has already completed law school has agreed with you. you can keep saying that you believe this is a wise course of action for a future law student. you will not change my opinion on this. i don't expect to change yours. i have been responding only in the hopes of convincing some future lawyers reading this who are probably already suffering from enough self induced anxiety without having to start thinking that they have to begin their legal studies before they've even stepped in the door of their law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
personally - i think it is an incredibly specious argument to claim that it will improve job options by improving grades. you are attempting to rely on some claim of apparent causality among length of time studying, material studied, marginal ( if any ) impact on gpa, and ultimate career success, that i simply don't believe exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are -- of course -- entitled to your opinion. However, there can be no doubt that for some job goals -- such as becoming a law professor -- grades are very important. If any potential law students happen to be reading this, please observe that nobody has denied this.</p>
<p>Moreover, at some law schools, even the possibility of working at BIG(f?)LAW will be limited if your grades are not excellent.</p>
<p>Last -- if any potential law students happen to be reading this, keep in mind that for most human endeavors, you can improve your chances of success by preparing in advance. </p>
<p>Is law school unique? Well, you may have to decide for yourself.</p>
<p>But . . . believe it or not, there was once a time when many guidance counselors advised against preparing for the SAT. "It will cause you stress and anxiety, won't help you very much -- if at all -- on the test, and won't have much impact on your future life" was the thrust of the argument. It was also supposed to be a waste of time and money.</p>
<p>i will also add -- even if one thinks one should have a "plan" for law school, it doesn't mean that a bad plan is a good idea because it is a "plan". a bad plan is not better than no plan.</p>
<p>i think trying to learn material by reading law outlines and reviewing old exams before one has even begun law school is a bad plan for all the reasons stated previously.</p>
<p>if a future law student want to make plans -- plan to keep one evening a week free from law related activities to maintain your sanity; plan to not fall behind in your work because it makes things harder; plan to try to get to know some profs well since their mentoring can mean more a grade may; plan to try to learn early on which classmates you think you will be able to rely on for moral support; plan to expect it to be hard -- really hard. </p>
<p>don't confuse the issue by saying having a plan is good, therefore the plan you propose is good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's see if I understand you . . . are you saying it's basically impossible for a person to make an effective plan for law school until the person has personally experienced law school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NO. </p>
<p>What I said was that it is not a good use of time to enage in the activities you mentioned. The material in law school, how it is taught, what you will be expected to gain from it and what you will be expected to do with it is different from most college courses. At the most, if one wants a leg up on a course, one could read the textbook that will be used for that course, just as advance reading of the materials for a college course could be helpful. However, I suggest the OP use the time between schools to do something that he/she won't have a chance to do for the next few years or longer, which will give time for recharging the batteries.</p>
<p>Studying old exams is not a good use of one's time until one has seen what students are supposed to do with the material they are taught.</p>