WUSTL Recent Grad (and others) Taking Questions

[marcusme]

Isn't 2.5 the lowest you can get, after which you get an F? Not sure though.

The registrar must have changed their policy (or made an exception) because someone in Prof. Kim's Civil Procedure class got a 2.32...

It wouldn't surprise me. With the old grading system, you could theoretically do nothing in law school, type semi-decipherable gibberish on all your exams, graduate bottom of your class; and non-legal employers reading your resume would just see "2.75 from a top 20 law school." That ain't bad for doing almost nothing, especially when many tier 2 and tier 3 schools curve to a 2.5 or a 2.0. I wonder if some people were charting that course.

[G41u5]

Isn't 2.5 the lowest you can get, after which you get an F? Not sure though.

The registrar must have changed their policy (or made an exception) because someone in Prof. Kim's Civil Procedure class got a 2.32...

It wouldn't surprise me. With the old grading system, you could theoretically do nothing in law school, type semi-decipherable gibberish on all your exams, graduate bottom of your class; and non-legal employers reading your resume would just see "2.75 from a top 20 law school." That ain't bad for doing almost nothing, especially when many tier 2 and tier 3 schools curve to a 2.5 or a 2.0. I wonder if some people were charting that course.

What were they charting a course for? Unemployment?

[Jmart082]

Isn't 2.5 the lowest you can get, after which you get an F? Not sure though.

The registrar must have changed their policy (or made an exception) because someone in Prof. Kim's Civil Procedure class got a 2.32...

It wouldn't surprise me. With the old grading system, you could theoretically do nothing in law school, type semi-decipherable gibberish on all your exams, graduate bottom of your class; and non-legal employers reading your resume would just see "2.75 from a top 20 law school." That ain't bad for doing almost nothing, especially when many tier 2 and tier 3 schools curve to a 2.5 or a 2.0. I wonder if some people were charting that course.

What were they charting a course for? Unemployment?

Seriously. Even getting median at WUSTL is charting a course for unemployment, for all intents and purposes.

[chingwoo]

The grade distributions include LLM grades.

[Reid-Bailey]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

[G41u5]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

Neither, Chemerinsky is all you need.

[Reid-Bailey]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

Neither, Chemerinsky is all you need.

Please explain. I'm somewhat familiar with Chemerinsky as of late, but not sure what you mean? As in, the casebook is all I need?

Edit: Chemerinky's Principles & Policies supplement?

[Joscellin]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

This is basically impossible to answer before knowing your prof. Most will include a recommended supplement on their syllabus.

[Reid-Bailey]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

This is basically impossible to answer before knowing your prof. Most will include a recommended supplement on their syllabus.

Is that true for all classes? I've been under the impression that E&Es are recommended no matter what school, professor, etc.

[Joscellin]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

This is basically impossible to answer before knowing your prof. Most will include a recommended supplement on their syllabus.

Is that true for all classes? I've been under the impression that E&Es are recommended no matter what school, professor, etc.

I found it to be pretty true. Profs will vary *wildly* on how they teach certain subjects. For example, I can't imagine that a Contracts E&E will be super helpful if you get De Geest, since he focuses so heavily on policy.

[Cloture]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

This is basically impossible to answer before knowing your prof. Most will include a recommended supplement on their syllabus.

Is that true for all classes? I've been under the impression that E&Es are recommended no matter what school, professor, etc.

Yup you need to know your professor. La Pierre doesn't do individual rights, so it would be a waste of your time if you got him. Some property classes do IP, some don't. Etc., etc.

[jsmith345]

0L here, have a question about the grading scale. In the PDF's of the GPA % tables, it says the highest grade is 4.0, but the max grade on an exam is 4.3 - why the discrepancy?

[njdevils2626]

0L here, have a question about the grading scale. In the PDF's of the GPA % tables, it says the highest grade is 4.0, but the max grade on an exam is 4.3 - why the discrepancy?

If you finish with a cumulative GPA above 4.0 it will be reported as a 4.0, but you can get higher than that in individual classes

[jsmith345]

0L here, have a question about the grading scale. In the PDF's of the GPA % tables, it says the highest grade is 4.0, but the max grade on an exam is 4.3 - why the discrepancy?

If you finish with a cumulative GPA above 4.0 it will be reported as a 4.0, but you can get higher than that in individual classes

Got it, thank you.

[oshberg28]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

Neither, Chemerinsky is all you need.

No, not for Professor Law. He is not a fan of Chemerinsky...at all... and will call out students who cite him.

[oshberg28]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

This is basically impossible to answer before knowing your prof. Most will include a recommended supplement on their syllabus.

Is that true for all classes? I've been under the impression that E&Es are recommended no matter what school, professor, etc.

I found it to be pretty true. Profs will vary *wildly* on how they teach certain subjects. For example, I can't imagine that a Contracts E&E will be super helpful if you get De Geest, since he focuses so heavily on policy.

This really all depends on your studying style and the professor. If you pay attention in class, take great notes, and write a good outline, there may be no need for supplements (this varies, but I only picked up a supplement for one of my classes). The supplements may teach you the basics, but what comes out of your professor's mouth dictates what you need to be studying (in general). I did great in De Geest's class without a supplement and would actually advise against a supplement - he gives you an actual study guide (his version of contract-law).

[sublime]

My learning style (prefer to learn broad concepts then fill in the details) made supplements imperative to me. I've also seen people do extremely well without them. I recommend at least trying them to see if they are helpful.

[Kali the Annihilator]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

Neither, Chemerinsky is all you need.

No, not for Professor Law. He is not a fan of Chemerinsky...at all... and will call out students who cite him.

Law seems like a douche

[Joscellin]

For Con Law, which E&E does anyone recommend? Constitutional Law: Individual Rights or Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism? Or both?

Neither, Chemerinsky is all you need.

No, not for Professor Law. He is not a fan of Chemerinsky...at all... and will call out students who cite him.

Law seems like a douche

He sort of is.

He's also sort of amazing, so there's that too.

[PeanutsNJam]

For the 0Ls, I'll share the class/prof combos I had and whether supplements are helpful:

Greenfield/Contracts - Supplements are unhelpful. In fact, I think they may be counter productive. Greenfield is very particular.

Hollander-Blumoff/Civ Pro - Freer lectures/supplements are good and very helpful for me, even right up until exam time.

Drobak/Property - Didn't use supplements, didn't do as well as the other classes, but I still think they are unhelpful (I slept through a lot of this class because of its after-lunch timing)

LaPierre/Con Law - Chemerinsky is helpful only to the extent it provides big-picture overview of the doctrines. LaPierre spends half the semester on Commerce Clause and gets into super nitty gritty detail. The supplement won't provide the coverage you need, but does a good job of putting everything in perspective.

Tamanaha/Torts - Supplements are not necessary at all. Tamanaha is very good at telling you exactly what material will be on the exam and teaching for the exam. Just pay attention in class, take notes, and you'll be just fine.

I had a visiting professor for Crim Law, so I don't have helpful information there.

Remember: Supplements are only helpful to the extent they improve your retention/understanding of the material. If you pay attention in class, takes notes, and do the readings, you'll only need to turn to a supplement once in a blue moon, if at all (the better the professor, the less necessary a supplement is, generally).

[sublime]

I found chirelstein helpful for greenfield.

[lucretius_]

For the 0Ls, I'll share the class/prof combos I had and whether supplements are helpful:

Greenfield/Contracts - Supplements are unhelpful. In fact, I think they may be counter productive. Greenfield is very particular.

Hollander-Blumoff/Civ Pro - Freer lectures/supplements are good and very helpful for me, even right up until exam time.

Drobak/Property - Didn't use supplements, didn't do as well as the other classes, but I still think they are unhelpful (I slept through a lot of this class because of its after-lunch timing)

LaPierre/Con Law - Chemerinsky is helpful only to the extent it provides big-picture overview of the doctrines. LaPierre spends half the semester on Commerce Clause and gets into super nitty gritty detail. The supplement won't provide the coverage you need, but does a good job of putting everything in perspective.

Tamanaha/Torts - Supplements are not necessary at all. Tamanaha is very good at telling you exactly what material will be on the exam and teaching for the exam. Just pay attention in class, take notes, and you'll be just fine.

I had a visiting professor for Crim Law, so I don't have helpful information there.

Remember: Supplements are only helpful to the extent they improve your retention/understanding of the material. If you pay attention in class, takes notes, and do the readings, you'll only need to turn to a supplement once in a blue moon, if at all (the better the professor, the less necessary a supplement is, generally).

Thanks for this! I'll come back once we get our schedule/sections...which I'm hoping will be in the next week or so.

[PinkiePieOrDie]

Mod Edit: Hahaha nope.

[acr]

Hey WUSTL! I've been a long time lurker. I had a few questions about OCI. I only have one corporate class scheduled for next semester (Tuch) and I really want to do M&A work someday for Wachtell. Will this be a red flag to Wachtell or smaller M&A firms? Also, how important is summer reading going into 2L? Before 1L, I had read most of the supplements and started outlining by September, but OCI has me seriously behind. I took your advice and mass mailed early this summer and bid aggressively at OCI. I'm lucky to have 26 screeners scheduled so far, and I still have firms emailing me. I'm still a bit concerned because I've never been that great an interviewer and I slipped out of the top 5% last semester and I'm worried that some of the top New York M&A firms like Wachtell will see this as a red flag. I have a pre-OCI offer from a less prestigious firm (Cleary) but it's not my target city and I'm worried about last year's free fall in Vault rankings. If I don't get the firm I want for my 2L summer, how hard is it to trade up as a 3L or lateral into a New York firm like Wachtell? Have any WUSTL grads had this experience? Also, does the M&A practice value clerkships as much as litigation. My advisor says I have a strong shot at a clerkship with the Delaware Chancery or Supreme Court, and to a lesser extent, the Second Circuit, but it would be a huge pay cut from a firm like Wachtell and I would only do it if the firm put it toward their partner track. I spent this summer doing private M&A in a secondary market but I really want to do public M&A for a firm like Wachtell. Do firms accept written recommendations from 1L summer employers? I ran a small reverse triangular merger this summer and got positive feedback from the attorneys I worked with. I wonder if a personal recommendation would impress a firm like Wachtell. I know Wachtell typically only takes top 5% or Ivy Leaguers. I was wondering if I could negotiate a probational offer, conditioned on me getting my grades up. One last thing, is there a limit on the amount of offers you can get?

lol. You only mentioned Wachtell 8 times. troll needs some work.

[PeanutsNJam]

I'd remove the quote of the troll post. It'd be nice to keep this thread reasonably clean and helpful for 0Ls/1Ls.