Within the next three weeks I will make my final 1L post. I should know whether I have been invited onto Law Review or the Journal of Public Law by then (I already have an invitation to Moot Court, though I have not decided whether to accept). Today we'll talk about grades again--and how to improve them.

I was not super-pleased with my first semester grades. As I said before, my grades were not poor. But law school grades on a curve. Imagine taking the finest students from a variety of backgrounds--at BYU law school, the average undergraduate GPA hovers around a 3.7--and telling them that, going forward, at least half of them must receive a 3.3 or lower in any given class. The reasons for such an approach are highly suspect, but this is not a post on the ridiculousness of grading at the graduate level. A curve is a curve, even when it woefully understates the ability and intellect of virtually everyone on it.

At any rate, my GPA was fine but not where I wanted it to be. First semester was a learning experience; while many 2L and 3L students were happy to give advice, until I actually sat down and took my finals, I had no idea what I was getting into.

To give you some idea of how this plays out, my second semester GPA improved .48 over my first semester, for a .24 boost in my overall GPA. I would be perfectly happy to repeat this semester's performance for the next four semesters. So what did I do differently? Let's make a list!

One: Participating in class, reading assigned materials, and understanding core concepts is necessary, but wholly insufficient if you want better-than-average grades. It's all about that all-important final. All the professors give the same two pieces of advice: give breadth and depth, and don't outline-dump.

(An "outline dump" is where you just start writing down every concept you covered in class, with very little consideration for which concepts best apply to the question as presented.)

The second piece of advice is a filthy lie. My first semester finals were filled with in-depth analysis, but I spent too much time on the depth and not enough on the breadth. I avoided mentioning concepts that didn't have a straightforward application to the problem. This semester, I outline-dumped. I did whatever it took to twist, tease, or contort the rule of law to apply every conceivable principle to the problem at hand. It was, frankly, a little ridiculous; like adding 2+2 with calculus. But it worked. Lesson learned.

Two: I took my own advice. Namely, briefing cases is all well and good, but it's more important to outline, make flashcards, or otherwise look to the "big picture" from the beginning. This varied from class to class; in Contracts, it meant outlining principles thoroughly. In Constitution Law, it meant memorizing case names from the start.

Three: I played to my strengths. My highest grade this semester was in Contemporary Legal Theory, a fabulous class that I chose because the subject matter interests me and because I have a background in philosophy. This course also required me to write a paper instead of taking a final. I actually learned a great deal from this course, but I am sure that my academic background and writing ability contributed significantly to my grade. I already plan to register for paper-writing courses rather than final-exam courses wherever possible. It's more work, but I'm better at it, and honestly a lawyer who can write well is probably better than a lawyer who knows how to cram for finals.

So the year appears to be ending on a high note, and I think I've finally figured out how to meet my own personal expectations in terms of law school grades. Ironically enough, after attending workshops on grade improvement, talking with my peers, quizzing my professors, and ranting against the system in general, what finally worked was doing things my own way, taking courses I enjoyed, and applying the lessons of first semester's finals to my second semester efforts.

Also, my wife was merciless with my flashcards. d^_^b