The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Law Students Suffer From Lake Wobegon Effect
95% of incoming 1Ls believe they would be top 50% of class.
In the fictional town of Lake Wobegon, "all the children are above average." It seems many of those wee Wobegonians have been admitted to law school. Two authors surveyed more than six-hundred incoming law students at the University of Illinois College of Law. Their findings suggest that 1Ls vastly over-estimate their ability to perform well:
The average student predicted that they would finish close to the top 25% of the class (74.9 percentile). Virtually all students (94.9%) predicted that they would finish at the 50th percentile or higher. More than three-quarters (78.2%) of students predicted they would finish in the top 30% of the class, half (53.1%) predicted they would finish in the top 20% of the class, and nearly one-quarter (22.4%) of students thought they would finish in the top 10% in the class. Just 6.2% of students thought they would finish in the top 5% of the class, but thirteen students (2.1%) predicted they would finish at the very top of the class.
Unsurprisingly, 95% of the students were not in the top 50% of the class. Students did not accurately predict their performance. But some students predicted worse than others. As it turns out, the students who ended up performing better underestimated their grades, while students who performed worse overestimated their grades:
Given the high estimates made by students across the board, and consistent with the prior literature, the gap between predictions and outcomes was the biggest for those students who performed the least well. Overconfidence is substantial, in particular, for those in the bottom 25% percent of the 1L class. In contrast, and also in line with earlier studies, students finishing in the top quartile slightly underestimated their eventual 1L ranking.
My sense is that most law students were at the top of their undergraduate classes, and generally did well. When they arrive at law school, they bring that same level of confidence. And in some cases, that overconfidence might lead students to under-prepare for class.
On a personal note, I did quite well in undergraduate, and never received a B. I expected I would do well as a law student. My first semester in law school, when I was an evening student working full-time, was not pleasant. I had no idea what I was doing (see my essay on my 1L year). After the first semester ended (as the numbers would suggest) I was in the 50th percentile. I quickly figured out what I was doing wrong, completely changed my student habits, and finished the 1L year in the top 25%. By the end of my second year I was in the top 10%, and I graduated very close to the top 5%. (For these reasons, I am skeptical of judges who hire law clerks who have only received one semester of grades; they systematically exclude prospects who needed more runway to take off).
Students can improve, but they must have realistic expectations about the process. This study should be presented to all 1Ls at orientation. Students need to recognize that their performance in undergraduate is a thing of the past, and says nothing about their future law school grades.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
?
It makes more sense if he had written: "Unsurprisingly, fewer than 95% of the students were in the top 50% of the class."
But in his rush to get a hot take on this critically-important topic, he missed the chance to make those clarifications.
Forgive me, I was not a math major, but that sounds statistically and mathematically impossible.
Poor writing, turned into a culture war battle by Prof. Blackman’s fans.
Anything at the Volokh Conspiracy that doesn't include a vile racial slur is a small blessing, though.
Which is the point. 95% of students cannot be in the top 50%....
"never received a B"
Note the careful wording. Doesn't claim he got all A's.
What part of 'lawyer' didn't you understand?
This reminds me of the children’s book, “The Bully Brothers Make the Grade”, where they are in the habit of modifying their report cards before they bring them home to their parents. It’s hard to change a B or a C or a D to an A, but it’s easy to change an F to an A (just add the downstroke), so they made sure they got all F’s. The plot involves a crisis when somehow despite their best efforts they got a D.
It also reminds me of the parody of Encyclopedia Brown, Wikipedia Brown. Every time he thinks he's got a case solved, Bugs (or whoever the villain was but I think that was his name) goes onto Wikipedia and changes the underlying scientific or logical fact that the boy detective relies on.
Ha!
I loved those book as a kid. That's hilarious!
Was a great "Leave it to Beaver" episode also, that Rat Eddie Haskell changed Beavers grades to A's (without Beaver knowing), Ward got Beaver a Bicycle, then it all came apart when Ward told Beaver's teacher how happy they were with his grades, amazing that Eddie never got his ass kicked (In real life a genuine Hero with the LAPD, back when LAPD Officers were considered Heroes)
Frank "Ward, you were really hard on the Beaver last night!"
This is what happens when you grow up receiving participation awards.
That's basically what a system is that allows a student to get all A's for years on end. At that point grades lose all meaning.
Welcome back.
I have no problem with participation trophies, as long as there are bigger trophies for winning.
To be fair, this is what happens at every competitive filter. Big fish in small pond suddenly in bigger pond with bigger, more aggressive fish to contend with.
Thank you. This is exactly right. Moreover, there really is not much direct competition in undergrad; one doesn't really know the grades most others are receiving. Furthermore, most classes don't require participation (or, if they do, its only minimal participation). Therefore, many people leave college figuring they are just as smart as anyone else. When one gets to law school and are forced to answer questions aloud and hear other students addressing issues that you've prepared (or tried to prepare for), you finally learn that there are some people who are just plain smarter than you.
"Unsurprisingly, 95% of the students were not in the top 50% of the class. "
This is some impressively bad writing.
Maybe you are expecting too much from a personal journal entry.
"This is some impressively bad writing."
No its not. Its quite clear what is meant. That no more than 50% could be in the top 50%.
You guys just hate him.
I had no issue understanding what Blackman meant the first time I read the sentence. On first reading, I didn't even notice that there might be an issue. After multiple subsequent readings, maybe Blackman could have worded it better. But this is an extremely pedantic criticism that has nothing to do with the substance of the post.
As written, it says that only 5% were in the top 50%. From context, it is possible to see what is meant, but it's not correctly expressed.
Surprised nobody mentioned Dunning-Kruger, in light of "As it turns out, the students who ended up performing better underestimated their grades, while students who performed worse overestimated their grades", although this could also indicate overconfidence hurting performance as Blackman suggests.
I have two US coins in my hand totaling 30 cents. One of them is not a nickel. What are they?
A quarter and a nickel. Although one of them is not a nickel, the other is.
Dammit! I spent 30 minutes trying to find if there was ever a 29 cent or 20 cent coin.
And Didya know there was a 20 cent coin minted from 1875-1878???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)
Frank
No....
It says 95% of students cannot be in the top 50%.
Only 50% of students can be in the top 50%....
It's the math version of Murphry's Law.
Obviously only 50% of the students were not in the top 50% of the class, not 95%.
But it's a terrible mistake to make in this context.
There's no mistake.
It's obvious that 95% of students couldn't be in the top 50%, even if 95% of students believe they are in the top 50%.
Which is the point.
Anyone who had a problem with that sentence must be a lot of fun at parties.
Perhaps, though, there is hope for such people if CRISPR-Cas9 technology evolves to the point that it can be used to implant their missing humor genes.
Are you using new, woke math where 2+2=5 or whatever so it is surprising to you that greater than 50% of the class is not in the top 50%?
The proper complaint here is ambiguity, not error. The sentence can be read to mean "Nearly all of the students were not in the top half", which would be impossible, or "Of the students who thought they would be in the top half (nearly all of them), many of them were wrong", which is not only possible, it has to be true.
Given that one of the readings is impossible and the other has to be true, it's really not that difficult, but yes, it could have been written in a way to exclude the misreading.
I wouldn't call that "impressively bad".
Were they over-estimating their own performance, or under-estimating that of their classmates?. Had they been asked to estimate their performance in terms of grade points, would the results have been different?
This is a good question, IMO.
I doubt Blackman's assertion that most law students are at the top of their class in undergraduate school, even if we allow "top" to mean say, top 5%.
Still they were likely well above average, and are possibly making their prediction on an unconscious assumption that the rest of the law school class will perform like their undergraduate classmates.
Agreed. Law school grading is another possible issue. Such grading is extremely subjective, especially in classes that only have essay exams at the end of the quarter/semester. It's hard to imagine entering 1Ls understanding this paradigm.
Much depends on the law school. Students at elite law schools are much more likely to have been at or near the top of their undergraduate classes, so ending up well below that in law school, the inevitable result for most of them, is a shock.
indeed.
Although there some like me who partied their way through college, got into law school on the strength of their board scores, settled down (some), and did better in law school than in college.
Life is pass/fail -- reality is that you could be at the absolute bottom of your class, pass the bar, and then do quite well as an attorney after winning "the big one" -- or be quite secure in a state or federal bureaucracy.
What I wonder is how many students are recruited on the presumption that they will be the middle of the class and instead flunk out. Most law schools are hurting for warm bodies and have been since 2009 or so, how many are being recruited on false dreams and the institutional knowledge that the kid has no chance of making it -- but they'll take his/her/its money anyway...
Flunking out isn't the issue. If anything, most schools in most disciplines don't flunk out nearly as many people as they should.
OTOH passing licensing exams and getting a job, yeah, there are some false dreams being sold.
At the risk of being too Frank: What do you call the guy who graduated at the bottom of his med school class?
Doctor.
(That’s Dr. Drackman to you!)
Edited to add: never mind, I'm late to this party.
Totally off-topic.
Hunter Biden Pleads Not Guilty after Judge Puts ‘Unusual’ Deal with DOJ on Hold
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hunter-biden-agrees-to-more-limited-plea-deal-that-keeps-possibility-of-future-prosecution-open/
To paraphrase Shakespeare, there is something rotten at the DOJ.
Yeah, having the president's son get offered a plea deal involving non-standard terms involving immunity certainly isn't a good look.
I wonder why they didn't just give him a standard plea deal.
He probably wouldn't accept it if there was any chance of jail time.
It's worse than that. He wanted immunity for a whole host of other things. The bigger problem with the deal is not the punishment for what he is pleading guilty to, but what he is being let off of.
(And yes, I know I twice ended with a preposition. To quote Winston Churchill, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put.")
It was a pretty sweet deal; Not only was he getting off light on the tax charges, the deal included reducing the felonies to misdemeanors to begin with.
I'm not optimistic that this actually represents the Biden crime family's immunity wearing thin, but a guy can hope. Probably was a BIG mistake for Hunter's defense to defraud the court that way in their effort to get some of the amicus briefs taken off the record.
That's just the bigotry, the autism, the disaffectedness, and the gullibility talking.
Arthur...POTUS Biden and his drug adilpated son are corrupt as the day is long. You know it, I know it.
You believe many fairy tales are true. At some point, you can no longer blame that on childhood indoctrination.
Ken White has been unwilling to opine on this issue until he actually has some data to work with and is able to review the relevant materials, and he is a former AUSA and current defense attorney. It would be nice if folks here were as wise. Edited to add that Abbe Lowell is a smart guy. I would bet zero dollars on him trying to defraud the court. It may be related to the fact that the prosecutorial team has changed in the recent past, but I don't know.
Not only was he getting off light on the tax charges,
Experienced with these sorts of cases, are you?
bersnark?
Yeah.
I mean, come on.
Brett is not a lawyer, much less a tax guy. I doubt he has any real knowledge of how these cases go.
I don't either, of course, but I'm not pontificating about it. I'm amazed by how many experts on criminal tax law we have running around here.
IMO Hunter Biden deserves no harsher or more lenient treatment than others in his situation.
Yes, pissing off a judge always works out so well for you...
You did not quote Winston Churchill.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001715.html
That's what happened; Enough stuff came out that the, I presume informal, guarantee of non-prosecution for unrelated crimes had to be denied, and Hunter wouldn't sign the dotted line without it.
Then they whipped up a new plea deal, and the judge wouldn't sign off on it; The judge actually thought the new deal might be unconstitutional!
Unsurprisingly, Reason is a bit put out that Hunter's not skating.
You presume!
Brett Knows Everything.
This is a great example of a judge doing their job - there was no meeting of the minds on the plea deal.
Then, of course, deal was back on because Biden's team said it wasn't null after all.
Then the judge asked for additional proceedings before she would approve the deal.
I don't see anything Hunter Biden Pleads Not Guilty
Also, yet again, the only Conspirator to do federal criminal work notes that while this plea is irregular, Hunter would never have been charged at all were he not the President's son:
Noscitur a sociis 1 month ago
For what it’s worth, as someone who does practice federal criminal law:
Most people who committed these crimes don’t come to the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s office, and Hunter Biden probably only did because of his father.
On the other hand, once the U.S. Attorney’s office decides to prosecute someone for these crimes, it is extremely unusual for them to agree to a misdemeanor plea, and I have never heard of a § 922(g) charge being granted pretrial diversion.
(Delaware is one of the many districts I have never appeared in, and if other practitioners have a different experience I would welcome their feedback.)
My first thought was also "a great example of a judge doing their job".
She basically just asked a question and found that the two parties had a major disagreement on the what the deal meant WRT immunity. Then she reasonably took steps to begin resolution of this discrepancy. This may save a lot of court time and political fury in the future as investigations on unrelated topics into Hunter Biden's activities continue.
I suspect the ambiguity was well known to both parties and was intentional. However when the judge questioned it, the Feds couldn't stand in open court and say anything but what they said as that would reveal the "sweetheart" privileged nature of how they promised "off the record" to treat the deal using the ambiguity of the plea agreement to justify their inaction.
(The next time President Biden calls for more gun control laws, perhaps someone should ask him why people, including his own son, were not prosecuted under his administration to the fullest extent of the law for breaking existing gun control laws. Although I will admit that as I recall the question on the form about being addicted to drugs is unclear on time frame - today?, last week?, last month?, 20 years ago?)
Intentional is a thought…I had assumed Hunter’s lawyers were just bad and unprepared. I don’t know enough about actual practice to know how often such ambiguity shenanigans happen.
That “essay on his 1L year” he links to is peak Blackman. Virtually every other word in the thing is “I.” (To be sure, he's the subject of the essay, so it's a bit more defensible than his usual habit of making stories about Supreme Court decisions about him. But it still reads like he wrote all the "I"s first and then filled in the rest later.)
You're surprised?
No. I read it like I crane my neck as I pass a car accident on the highway.
Law students are arrogant? This is certainly a surprising finding.
Graduated 64th out of 68 (Better than George Custer who was 34 out of 34, and look how he did), know how often people ask me that? Never. Got the same Diploma #1 got.
OK, it would have been a problem if I'd wanted to do Ortho/Ophthalmology, as it was, nobody wanted to go into Anesthesia in the mid 90's, it was considered a dead end specialty that the CRNA's would take over, now it's one of the highest paying and most competitive.
Frank "
it would have been a problem if I’d wanted to do Ortho/Ophthalmology,
Really? An orthopedic surgeon once asked me,
"Do you know what it takes to be an orthopedic surgeon?"
"You have to be strong as an ox, and twice as smart."
Yeah, the Bone Docs always play dumb, and most of them were High Screw-el/College Ath-uh-letes (My dad picked the guy to do his Hip Replacement(s) because he'd played in the NBA)
But you pretty much have to be AOA (Med School Version of "Law Review", Alpha Omega Alpha AKA Assholes Of Amurica, limited to top 10% of the Class (and a few "others" AKA Minorities) and Otho's not all "Broke Bone/Fix Bone" lots of Physics and Biomechanics, but nobody likes dealing with Insulin/Blood Pressure so they do usually consult Internal Medicine for anything that doesn't have a bone or ligament involved.
Reducing a dislocated Hip can take some muscle, but I know some petite Chick Orthopods that can do it as well as the former Left Tackle from Michigan...
Frank
Three years of chatting with my fellow 1Ls, 2Ls then 3Ls led me to the conclusion that the “top” students tended to be shallow and uninformed. They knew their outlines but nothing past that. There were exceptions of course.
Not my experience. The best students were very smart, I don't remember anyone I was surprised about.
I'm not saying they weren't smart. They were just too overly focused on the grades, at the expense of an understanding of the law or what it would take to be a good lawyer.
You have described many Conspirators quite well.
Is this really a surprise? Being in the top 50% is about the bare minimum to make getting a degree from a school like Illinois financially viable (though the calculus would be different for Yale, Harvard, etc.). If you don't expect to be in the top half going in, why would you even attend and pay the tuition?
Because of unethical recruiting practices that failed to mention this.
I wouldn't be surprised if recruiters failed to mention this. What surprises me, and this is probably a function of age, is the existence of recruiters. In my day, back when the law was inscribed on stone tablets, law schools didn't recruit people. Prospective students researched their odds of getting into various schools and sent out applications.
What inducements could recruiters for a non-brand-name law school offer anyway? A big enough financial package would defeat the purpose of signing the student up.
Considering there are more people missing toes and fingers than there are people with extra, the vast majority of people (those with 10 toes and 10 fingers) have more than the average number of toes and fingers.
What???
Similarly, the average number of bones humans have is slightly lower than 206 (some humans have amputations - for example, losing a single leg below the knee drops a person to 180 bones).
So most people have higher than the average number of bones.
I do something similar in my "statistics are fun" bit, but with arms and legs.
Also, the average human has about one tit and one ball.
To be candid, if they are going to that law school, they did not perform impressively in undergrad.
What do the impressive students do?
The phenomenon described here is not unique to law students. It is just an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect-- properly understood per recent research (see https://theconversation.com/debunking-the-dunning-kruger-effect-the-least-skilled-people-know-how-much-they-dont-know-but-everyone-thinks-they-are-better-than-average-195527).
Most people think they are above average in most areas and the likelihood of academic success in law school is just one of those areas.
There is a vast difference between thinking your children _are_ above average and asking students whether they _will_ _be_ above average: the former is a poor understanding of reality and the latter is simply confidence. I’d worry more about the students that entered law school thinking they’d be in the 95th percentile.
Judges and employers should also recognize that some students bloomed later in college, couldn't get into a T-20 school, and yet are excellent law students and are worthy of clerkships/law firm positions.
Indeed they should, but identifying those people instead of using the T-20 law school's reputation as a screening device is much more work.
Prof. Blackman: you're not wrong. But law school pedagogy is stuck in the dark ages. So many classes are ungraded...until the exam. Smart 1Ls receive essentially no feedback about how to succeed in classes until their exam because there are no other grades. They find out after their only grading event for an entire semester that they got a B-minus, with no opportunity to correct it. And we complain that they didn't "figure it out."
Try giving them more data points along the way. Some of them are smart enough to modify their approach.