how much harder is law school than undergrad?

[GreyDude]

23 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

You probably want to indicate that you're an admitted student rather than a law student, then. 

 

1 hour ago, Warner Huntington III said:

oh oops I did not realize and I'm not entirely sure how to change that! I'm new to forum posting. thank you! 

Go to your profile (click on the "W" that's currently taking the place of an avatar) and then select "edit profile." You'll see the choices there, including "Law School Admit."

Edited November 27, 2021 by GreyDude

[GGrievous]

For me the hardest part has been figuring out what’s good enough and what these people want from me. I never had that issue in undergrad. It’s becoming slightly more clear as I go. I have high hopes that semester 2 will be easier to plan for, and less work on the back end than semester 1 has. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Barry

[Psychometronic]

2 hours ago, Barry said:

For me the hardest part has been figuring out what’s good enough and what these people want from me. 

Wait 'til you start articling 🙂

In all seriousness, that's what practice exams are for. Do practice exams and ask your prof to look over your answers (if they're willing to). You'll learn a lot more from that than CANning. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Psychometronic

[N. Mink]

It’s not so much the work, that’s very manageable. Rather it’s the anxiety and uncertainty. 
You just need to develop resilience to the latter. It’s going to ramp up in practise. 

[Pantalaimon]

15 hours ago, N. Mink said:

It’s not so much the work, that’s very manageable. Rather it’s the anxiety and uncertainty. 
You just need to develop resilience to the latter. It’s going to ramp up in practise. 

Hello fellow mustelid!

[SNAILS]

On 11/27/2021 at 12:33 PM, realpseudonym said:

I think the mistake I’ve seen applicants or 1Ls making is conflating workload with difficulty.

That is a very important point. I had not really categorized it that way before. If you put in a decent amount of  work, I doubt that any person with the credentials to get into law school will be at any risk of failing.

I would even go so far as to say that a person at my school could pull B's and C's by attending most lectures, reviewing a good upper year summary ("CAN"), and doing a couple of old final exams before the actual final exam. This strategy would probably not require much reading, if any, of the textbook(s).

I do still feel that attaining a strong understanding  of the material involves reading each and every reading, attending all lectures, taking reading notes as you read, and also doing practice exams and so on. This strategy can be quite time consuming (hence my 50 hour per week earlier estimate) but keep in mind that 8 hours per day, six days per week is already 48 hours, and this is not "hard work" by any objective standard (compared, for example, to working a regular job). I study in my own apartment as my own boss with no external pressure (though the usual anxiety and "self pressure" is present).

I do feel that a harder working strategy lends itself better to a student who either wishes to have a good understanding of the materiel for their own intrinsic satisfaction (as in my case) or for someone who is gunning for some of those more competitive articulating spots  / jobs (what people on here might call "Bay Street"). 

There are people that will pull straight A's with little effort, and my hat is off to them. That being said, if somebody tells me something on the internet (lol) then I take it with a grain of salt. (For reference, there are 10 people with LSATs over 175 right now in the forums asking for advice if they can get admitted to any law schools).

I also want to throw it out there that I think it does matter a bit how competitive your particular law school is. (Without naming any particular schools, some have higher admission requirements and hence attract more competitive students).

Edited December 11, 2021 by SNAILS

[Rashabon]

16 hours ago, SNAILS said:

I do still feel that attaining a strong understanding  of the material involves reading each and every reading, attending all lectures, taking reading notes as you read, and also doing practice exams and so on.

Yes, if you lack innate ability and understanding of the material. Many of us do not need anywhere near this level of work to achieve these grades because we quickly learn the right way to think about the law and how to write law exams and papers.

[bocuma]

It's interesting that so many 1Ls are weighing in on this, considering that none of us (myself included) have any grades to validate what we're doing yet.

I'm certainly not taking the same approach as @SNAILS but maybe my grades won't be as good. Who knows! I'll try to pop back in after midterms and share my $0.02, along with my grades. But until we have some assessment of our work, none of this is really meaningful.

THAT SAID, I feel like the hard part of law school is not knowing the law, but applying it and arguing it effectively. The legal rules are in the CANs and taught to you in class, everyone knows them and has access to them, and none of them are very complex. What's difficult is knowing how and when to use them, arguing well, etc. Analyzing and forming good arguments is a super abstract skill and it's not something you pick up from reading more cases.

[vbcoffee]

The most important aspect to success in my opinion is understanding how to answer fact patterns. Often times, this wouldn't require reading and re-reading the assigned material as the only thing you would need to cite in the exam is the ratio, and at times, the specific fact of the case. You can get the ratio from upper year maps and class lectures. You should also pay attention to the prof's interest (they will spend a long time on the topic or have a lot of enthusiasm), as this topic will almost always show up on the exam. Doing many practice exams, and comparing your answers to past solutions that did well, is really helpful. 

Personally, I did all the readings and made my own maps in first semester of 1L and ended up getting all Ps. I stopped reading in second term, and relied on upper year maps and did much better. 

However, everyone has their own learning strategy. If first term doesn't work out the way you intended, I recommend trying something new. 

[SNAILS]

On 12/11/2021 at 11:09 PM, Rashabon said:

Yes, if you lack innate ability and understanding of the material. Many of us do not need anywhere near this level of work to achieve these grades because we quickly learn the right way to think about the law and how to write law exams and papers.

I've often had my doubts about whether this dood is actually a lawyer, or has ever been to law school. You claim you did well in law school with very little work? I'm sure there are people out there that can truthfully say that. However, I have never seen a substantive or useful post from you on these forums ever - no useful commentary about how to succeed at law school, and not even a logical opinion on a political topic that you like to add your little useless posts to. All I have seen from you is little slights and disses. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

@SNAILS I think Rashabon has more demonstrated knowledge re: big law than any other poster on the site (although I think Jaggers and KOMODO are also quite knowledgeable on the topic). So if he’s not a lawyer, he’s fooled me. 

I similarly found law school exceptionally easy and it required essentially no work for me to do well. In fact, I know from experience that I could do no work and get an A. It was only if I wanted an A+ that I actually had to do work ahead of time.

I would suggest that if your experience was different, you just lack the innate ability others have. 

Edited December 25, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[SNAILS]

I'm totally willing to accept that some people are able to get A's in law school with very little effort. What I don't like is the unexplained jump from "It was easy for me" to "It is easy for everyone except people who lack innate ability."

That is totally contrary to my experience. People in my law school class, prior to exams, were all over Facebook talking about how hard they are studying. When we have meetings with upper year mentors (Dean's Fellows) people are talking about how hard they are studying. In class and during Zoom study sessions reviewing past years' exam, I have found that the other students do not have more knowledge than I do.

If law school was really that easy for people, how is it that people in the chances threads are posting GPAs of less than 4.0? I suppose you could make a claim that undergrad is harder than law school, but my experience was strongly contrary to that. Getting an A or an A+ in undergrad truly was a cake walk for me.

These forums are full of people who have not yet started 1L. I think that telling them that you don't have to work hard is simply a disservice to them.

Why the discrepancy between my experience and claims that law school is easy? It could be that the regular posters on this forum disproportionately yet legitimately consist of high achievers in law school. It could be that that people are de-emphasizing how hard they worked and inflating their performance in order to look cool on the internet.

Edited December 25, 2021 by SNAILS

[BlockedQuebecois]

There's no unexplained jump. Those statements are congruent and follow from each other. If law school is easy for those with innate ability, it follows that law school is only difficult for those who lack innate ability. 

Theycancallyouhoju, a poster on the old forum who similarly was an excellent law student without much work, used to talk about how law school was the stress olympics. People post about how hard they are studying on facebook not because how hard they are studying is tied in any way to their strength as a student, but because it's a way to make yourself feel in control and look impressive. That's why folks in your class are posting on facebook about how busy they are. The ones who have that innate ability just aren't posting about it, because they're secure in their abilities. 

I was also a Dean's Fellow at Osgoode for several courses, and I was hopelessly bad at it. Why? Because it's incredibly difficult to give meaningful advice to a bunch of 1Ls, most of whom will be deeply average law students, when in reality you were just good at law school. It's like when Wayne Gretzky tried to coach in the NHL, and he got frustrated that his players couldn't just see what he saw. 

Your Dean's Fellows are likely more or less the same, although we all put on a fake front and say you need to work hard at it, because that's the best advice we can give students who will otherwise be average. Contrast that with the advice I give top students who ask, which is that it's okay to ease off the gas and they likely won't see their results fall if they do so. The fact that I had to give students advice I didn't believe in is why I refused several DF positions in my third year. 

And yes, the posters on this forum are disproportionately high achievers. That's pretty clear when you look at the jobs we all have. We could be making it up, but enough people know my real identity here that if I was actually some scrub or a law school try hard they would call me out. 

[Rashabon]

5 hours ago, SNAILS said:

I've often had my doubts about whether this dood is actually a lawyer, or has ever been to law school. You claim you did well in law school with very little work? I'm sure there are people out there that can truthfully say that. However, I have never seen a substantive or useful post from you on these forums ever - no useful commentary about how to succeed at law school, and not even a logical opinion on a political topic that you like to add your little useless posts to. All I have seen from you is little slights and disses. 

Lol you caught me dude. I've been hanging around pretending to be a lawyer for years.

Just because you're demonstrably illiterate doesn't mean I don't make useful posts. They just aren't useful to you, because you're a conservative Jordan Peterson fan that's bad at law school, i.e. the opposite of me.

[mistertubby]

merry christmas everyone

[Federale]

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

 

I was also a Dean's Fellow at Osgoode for several courses, and I was hopelessly bad at it. Why? Because it's incredibly difficult to give meaningful advice to a bunch of 1Ls, most of whom will be deeply average law students, when in reality you were just good at law school. It's like when Wayne Gretzky tried to coach in the NHL, and he got frustrated that his players couldn't just see what he saw. 

 

Lol you're so full of shit, you definitely have little dick syndrome. With the way you gloat about yourself you're more like Jeff Skinner, overpaid and bad at your job. You can't seriously be in your mid 30's and as successful as you think you are, or claim that you are, and still have the need to anonymously boost yourself on here lol. LDS

Edited December 25, 2021 by Federale

[soundofconfusion]

17 minutes ago, Federale said:

Lol you're so full of shit, you definitely have little dick syndrome. With the way you gloat about yourself you're more like Jeff Skinner, overpaid and bad at your job. You can't seriously be in your mid 30's and as successful as you think you are, or claim that you are, and still have the need to anonymously boost yourself on here lol. LDS

This is a very professional attitude that I am confident will serve you well in your law career.

[Vizslaw]

26 minutes ago, soundofconfusion said:

This is a very professional attitude that I am confident will serve you well in your law career.

I also like how @Federale edited the comment to be even more inflammatory.

I can also say that, while I dont know @BlockedQuebecois personally, they have been a consistent source of intelligent and thought-provoking comments going back to LS.ca. and that there is absolutely no reason to doubt they are who they claim to be. Whether or not that's true, I don't really understand what's got you so butthurt about hearing that some people found law school a breeze and have coveted/lucrative jobs?

We don't have to prove anything to you. No one is forcing you to be here if you don't like the answers or insight you get from experienced lawyers or fellow students. If what you hear doesn't fit the narrative you have in your mind, go find some people who will echo your own prejudices dude. 

 

[Deadpool]

Calm down everyone. It's Christmas. No need to go all Ebenezer Scrooge on a day like this. 

If you are a law student or law applicant, you should be DM'ing the lawyers on here that have done well in school and/or in their career, for advice. That is one of the primary purposes that a forum like this exists. The arguments and ego clashing I see often here between applicants, law students, and lawyers is unnecessary. If people who have been posting here for years were not who they claimed they were, some of us would have called them out on it. When the old forum shut down this June, many forum posters made sure to exchange emails, phone numbers, and LinkedIns so that we stayed connected with each other. A lot of the lawyers posting on this forum know the real life identities of other lawyers posting here. 

The only qualification you need to be a Dean's Fellow is to perform well in that class in law school. We've all had tutorial assistants and teachers that excelled in their work, but were otherwise terrible at their jobs. This is no different for Dean's Fellows, who can only give you a broad overview in how to approach law school exams, but cannot ensure that you will beat the curve and be an above average or excellent student. And that is OK. People here seem to think that grades are the be all, end all. There are many people who were not great students in law school that have successful and meaningful legal careers. If academics are not your strong suit, focus your energy on building your profile in other ways such as through practical experiences and extracurriculars, and network with practitioners in the field you want to go into. 

Like all things in life, some things come easier to some people than others. Find what works for you in law school and hone those skills. I was never a great exam writer, but I made up for that by excelling in the clinic programs and extracurriculars I was involved in. I participated in clinics with people that went on to clerk at the SCC and appellate-level courts, and they often asked for my help when dealing with a particularly difficult client or a novel issue that came up in our work. I was a better client-facing student, and now lawyer, than they were; and in contrast, they were better at churning out legal memos and academic writing than I was. 

If you got into a Canadian law school, you will be ok. Try to see the end results of all the hard work you put in, and keep your eyes on the prize. Don't let disappointing grades or how difficult (or easy) law school is to dictate your experiences. Enjoy your Christmas everyone.

[123]

2 minutes ago, Deadpool said:

Enjoy your Christmas everyone.

1 hour ago, mistertubby said:

merry christmas everyone

56 minutes ago, Federale said:

like Jeff Skinner, overpaid and bad at your job.

Merry Christmas to everyone! Except Jeff Skinner, of course, because DOESN’T HE HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY

[lawschoolcanada22]

7 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's like when Wayne Gretzky tried to coach in the NHL, and he got frustrated that his players couldn't just see what he saw. 

 

7 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I refused several DF positions in my third year. 

You might be right in what you are saying, but your arrogance makes it hard to take it all seriously. As an academic superstar, why did you choose to go to Osgoode? Were U of T, Harvard, or Yale not options?

[Deadpool]

15 minutes ago, lawschoolcanada22 said:

You might be right in what you are saying, but your arrogance makes it hard to take it all seriously. As an academic superstar, why did you choose to go to Osgoode? Were U of T, Harvard, or Yale not options?

That isn't a good comparison because it presumes that someone cannot be an academic superstar in law school without excelling in undergrad and/or on the LSAT. The current Supreme Court justices in Canada attended these schools for their LLB/JD - Ottawa, U of T, Osgoode, Université Laval, University of Victoria, and McGill. There are very few Canadians that attend foreign law schools if they intend to practice in Canada, because it is an expensive proposition and you learn the law of a different jurisdiction than the one you want to practice in. 

Where you go to law school in Canada does not really matter after your first job. No one is asking the Windsor graduates clerking at the federal courts and working at the Department of Justice why they went to Windsor. No one is asking the Western graduates working on Bay Street why they went to Western and not U of T or Osgoode. No matter which law school you go to in Canada, if you perform well in your class there, you will have many opportunities. 

@BlockedQuebecois graduated in the top of their class in law school and has clerked. Absolutely no one in the legal profession will ever ask them why they went to Osgoode over U of T or the T14. If they wanted, they could very easily do their LLM and PhD/SJD at a T6, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. even now. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

Harvard and Yale probably would have thrown my applications in the trash without a second thought, because I was a much weaker undergrad student than law student. 

You could say I was the Jeff Skinner of undergrad: I had a couple good years, but nobody was building a (HYS) contender around me. 

I debated including a self-deprecating joke with the Gretzky analogy because I figured some folks would take it as me saying I was the Wayne Gretzky of law school.

But then I figured the folks who wanted to read my post in that fashion would do so regardless of the joke, and it’s a good analogy—when you’re naturally good at something, it’s hard to teach people how to do it. “Be better” is rarely helpful coaching. 

Anyways, Merry Christmas folks! I’m grateful to the regulars who came to my defence while I was out drinking a few pints and eating good food 😊 My apologies for ruining the Christmases of a couple of law school applicants, apparently. 

Edited December 25, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[CleanHands]

2 hours ago, soundofconfusion said:

This is a very professional attitude that I am confident will serve you well in your law career.

Hey, he'd fit right in in the crim bar.

[Rashabon]

1 hour ago, lawschoolcanada22 said:

 

You might be right in what you are saying, but your arrogance makes it hard to take it all seriously. As an academic superstar, why did you choose to go to Osgoode? Were U of T, Harvard, or Yale not options?

I don't know BQ's circumstances but U of T is extremely expensive, even relative to Osgoode. It also doesn't have the same clinical opportunities if that's something you want access to. Also his undergrad could have been weaker than his law school.

I did a STEM degree. I excelled in parts of it, but not others. Law school came far easier to me and I did a lot better in law school relative to my undergrad. I'm not unique in that respect.

But as BQ notes, being good at something doesn't mean you're good at teaching it. I scored very well on the LSAT. I could never try and teach it to others, because I can't teach "see the logic games in your head and get all the answers correct". I do far better at teaching and mentoring within my actual practice area. So not only can people be bad at teaching or passing along their skillset generally, people can be bad at specific areas of teaching while excelling in others. If you had asked me to tutor someone in law school, I would have said no, despite doing well. I couldn't teach what came innately.