I can't decide if it really is a good idea to try and prepare yourself for an experience like the first year of law school. On one hand, knowing what's coming theoretically gives you the advantage of being able to prepare for it. On the other hand, the anxiety of knowing what you're about to go through could work against you. I came into law school painfully ignorant. I specifically remember saying to myself, "Oh, it's just school. You're good at school; you've done school all your life. How hard could it be?"
I was so naive.
Anyway, here's an interesting passage from the book:
Right now admissions at most American law schools are based on predictions of how well applicants will do in school, which is to say how high they will rank on exams. Those forecasts, based on statistical formulae that combine LSAT scores and college grades, are often quite accurate. But that amounts only to saying that American law schools admit people who will be good test-takers rather than good attorneys. Correlations between exam success and worthwhile achievements in the practice of law are speculative at best. Until that connection is better established, the narrow and arbitrary nature of exams will continue to dictate a narrow and arbitrary means of selection for training for the bar. And that is a peculiar state of affairs for a profession and an education which claim to concern themselves with rationality and fairness.
I'm not sure I fully agree with Turow here, but it is something to think about. How can we make law school exams better predictors of how great an attorney a person will turn out to be, rather than how great a student that person is now?