I may have spoke about the three levels of knowledge before on the Interwebs, but I’m getting to that point in my bar prep were I’m starting to wonder and worry about the three levels of knowledge, so I thought I would go over it again.
The three levels of knowledge is something I noticed when trying to explain why some people worked really hard, had a good command of the subject matter (or at least seemed to), but didn’t do well on exams. I think I came up with a pretty explanation why. Like the uncanny valley, there’s a point where you can know a little too much, but not enough to do well. A lot of these ideas are influenced by [Getting to Maybe](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890897603?ie=UTF8&tag=tacostopping-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0890897603), by Richard Fischl and Jeremy Paul (affiliate link).
**Level 1**
Level 1 knowledge is the basics. The overview. The framework. If we’re talking about a house, it’s the foundation, frame, studs, and walls. If we’re using the forest and trees, it’s just seeing the forest. As applied to law school, having level 1 knowledge means you understand the basic rules of an area of law. Using Evidence as our example, it would mean you get the basic ideas of relevancy, competency, authentication, character evidence, hearsay, etc.
**Level 2**
Level 2 knowledge is about the details. The fine print. Back to the house, we’re talking about the molding, window treatments, decorating, etc. In the forest, we’re now talking about the trees. In law school, it means you understand the exceptions or fine details of a rule. Back to Evidence, you would be able to rattle off the hearsay exceptions, the Best Evidence Rule, etc.
**Level 3**
Level 3 knowledge is the complete picture. Integration would be a good buzzword. In our house, it’s understanding why windows you chose work are appropriate given the basic shape of the house. Back to our forest, it’s being able to see the forest for the trees *and* to see the trees for the forest. In law school, it’s about knowing how the exceptions fit into the rule; at this point you’re probably going to get the policy down. And in Evidence, it would mean knowing which exceptions are applicable when, and when to ignore all of it.
**What’s the issue here?**
The issue here is that lots of law students get caught in Level 2. When I talk about a law school exam, I’m generally talking about the standard law school exam: issue spotting essay with moderate to severe time pressure. I know there are many other types of exams, but if you’re going to real well in law school,you’re going to need to know how to tackle a big issue spotter.
On an issue spotter, the danger with Level 2 is that you end up wandering off down some dead end path. Going back to Evidence, a student stuck at Level 2 might spend 10-15 minutes talking about the catch-all hearsay exception when it either wasn’t applicable or deserved only light treatment. Another problem comes up when the student tries to cram a square peg into a round hole by trying to bring in that obscure rule of law he learned a lot about.
**Level 1 is better than Level 2**
More knowledge isn’t always a good thing. At a certain point, if it becomes obvious that you’re not going to be able to integrate everything together, you should just stop and focus on making sure your foundation is super solid. I believe that students with really good Level 1 knowledge will never fail an exam, but a student with Level 2 knowledge might. Generally, issue spotters will reward identification and some treatment of all the issues better than in-depth treatment of only some of the issues.
If you have Level 1 knowledge, you can probably consistently hit and maybe beat the median by finding and touching on all the issues. If you’re constantly spending time down in unnecessary ratholes, it’s more likely that you’ll miss major issues and that’s what leads to a really bad grade on an issue-spotting exam. Not to mention that this can lead to bad multiple choice exam performance when you get distracted by keywords from the little details you learned.
The big word of advice here is to understand where you are in the process. Have you gotten the forest yet? Did you skip the forest and move straight onto the trees? Or have you lost the forest for the trees? Eventually, you hope to see the whole ecosystem, but if you can’t, best not to worry about every little detail and make sure you have the general thrust of what’s going on. That won’t get you an A, but being lighter and more flexible about the exam probably won’t get you a C either.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Level 2 is the process of going from Level 1 to Level 3. It is the level where you know, but don’t truly understand, which is why it might be the worst level to be at. The real life corollary to Level 2 is “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
The key to the bar exam is realizing that you will never get to Level 3 in a subject. If you are at Level 3 or even close to it, there is no need to study that material since you know more than enough to show sufficient knowledge. For the bar, you want a solid Level 1 in everything. The conflict comes because big time success in law school is largely about getting as close to Level 3 as you can. So bar exam takers stress about getting to Level 3 and get themselves lost in Level 2 when a strong Level 1 would suffice.