Law School Discussion

Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.

Jolie Was Here

  • ****
  • 2397
  • 3L. Meh.
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2008, 07:04:31 PM »
A lot of us are choosing $145k in secondary markets or boutique firms, but literally any of us could have the $160k if we can get through a cocktail party without vomiting on a partner. 

Then it drops to $130k but no bonus

Except for the ones who are into that sort of thing.  Emetophilia to 190K!

Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2008, 07:16:35 PM »
My school is T3, not a T4 -- get ir right. And maybe I don't know how it goes as far as the search in T14 ... but half of all new BigLaw associates are gone in five years, so maybe it's better that I don't. SO ... you're saying you can be a lazy, unaccomplished boob and still make top dollar leaving a T14. If that's true, that's horrendous.

Give the emetophiliac a $35K bonus ... now!!

Jolie Was Here

  • ****
  • 2397
  • 3L. Meh.
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2008, 07:20:01 PM »
My school is T3, not a T4 -- get ir right. And maybe I don't know how it goes as far as the search in T14 ... but half of all new BigLaw associates are gone in five years, so maybe it's better that I don't. SO ... you're saying you can be a lazy, unaccomplished boob and still make top dollar leaving a T14. If that's true, that's horrendous.

Give the emetophiliac a $35K bonus ... now!!

Who're you calling unaccomplished, kitty cat?

Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2008, 07:23:51 PM »
I vote gain. And Jolie, you can pee in my cornflakes any time (metaphorically, at least)

My school is T3, not a T4 -- get ir right. And maybe I don't know how it goes as far as the search in T14 ... but half of all new BigLaw associates are gone in five years, so maybe it's better that I don't. SO ... you're saying you can be a lazy, unaccomplished boob and still make top dollar leaving a T14. If that's true, that's horrendous.

Give the emetophiliac a $35K bonus ... now!!

There are a lot of reasons people leave BigLaw, and many of them are unrelated to competence, if that's your suggestion.

Further, while I may be a lazy, unaccomplished boob, I've seen few others in my class. Not being at the top of your class at a T14 - and even being at the bottom of the class - does not necessarily suggest that one is lazy and unaccomplished, when pretty much everyone in the class is accomplished and intelligent.

That's not to suggest that everyone who makes their way into a highly ranked schools is destined to be an awesome lawyer...plenty of highly intelligent, hard working, accomplished people aren't. And some people who aren't cut out for law school and/or legal work slip by - the measures law schools use are imperfect. But still.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3677
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2008, 07:51:46 PM »
I donít disagree with anything my esteemed and more intelligent ivy leaguers are saying. But I think there is one possibility that never gets mentioned. Given the high rewards for even being last in your class, and the fact that some T14 schools will take a less than seemingly able student (perhaps a very low UGPA and right from UG) in exchange for a high LSAT. The fact that test prep is so readily available, that people take the test multiple times, that people study for six months to take the test, that some people won't go to any school but the T14 and will keep trying until they get in.

Is it possible that top schools may have realse into the market for longer more than their fair share of people who otherwise would not be great attorneys?  Certainly not many, but the rewards so great, and the fact they will take bottom of the barrel from top law schools seems to me to mean that given two lawyers, both crappy, the guy from  Harvard is going to last longer than the guy from Pace. Not because one sucks more than the other, but simply because as YBR points out the firms are hiring some folks more for the name on their diploma than their skills, they can afford for you to be dead weight till year 4 or so then cut you and repalce you with cheaper new T14 fodder. The Pace guy does not have the luxery, if he sucks he will not likley make it past the first review. So the moral of this story is if you think youíre going to suck at being an attorney, prep to the point you can get into a T14 and pay off your loans within five years. Win at life. 

Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2008, 07:53:47 PM »
BigLaw is NOT going to hire anyone for those oh so competitive jobs whose credentials aren't sterling

On what are you basing this assertion?

Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2008, 08:12:32 PM »
Matthies, while I agree with you that prepping may somewhat skew the ability to analyze the applicant pool, I think you overestimate its effects. (And I know that, to some extent, your comments are tongue-in-cheek, but this is something you bring up pretty frequently, so I'll go ahead and address it). There are a few reasons this is the case:

1. For many people who prep, it's about learning to apply techniques others may have learned to apply in other ways. That is, it may be that some (or perhaps many) of those who are learning things that help them score higher on the LSAT via prep have the same capacity as someone whose educational background has given them the same tools. I prepped rather halfheartedly for about 3 weeks before the test (with some practice a few years prior). Do I think that I'm any more qualified than someone else who got the same score but prepped more extensively, who had an educational background that didn't necessarily focus on the kinds of skills particularly suited to answering LSAT questions? Doubtful.

2. For some who prep extensively, they will apply the same zeal to their education and to their work. This can, to some extent, make up for a difference in natural ability, particularly in conjunction with...

3. Considering highly ranked schools in particular, the scores necessarily to be admitted require you to be in the top what, 5-10% of test-takers? While redemption and others may disagree, I rather suspect that it takes more than a little natural ability to get that score, even if one does prep extensively.

4. Concerning retakes, it's been awhile, but I took a look at LSAC's retake chart awhile ago and many people who retake don't, in fact, improve their score. I don't find it entirely improbable that for those who do increase their scores, the original score really isn't representative of their true ability. (Note: it would, however, be interesting to see if those statistics have changed/do change with the change in policy)


Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2008, 08:44:59 PM »
I'm not at Harvard, but anyone who is not socially retarded at my T14can get a job starting at $160k.  A lot of us are choosing $145k in secondary markets or boutique firms, but literally any of us could have the $160k if we can get through a cocktail party without vomiting on a partner.  There are at least 2 firms per student in my class coming to OCI.  Half of the 1L class has firm gigs paying around market.

I certainly don't think T4s are completely worthless, but the difference in opportunities is pretty astounding.  Your broad statements only show that you have NO idea how the job search goes in the T14.

I know plenty of T14s who can begin with 160k as a minimum salary.  I also know plenty of T14s who can begin with no more than 100k as a minimum salary.  And even if the tendency is for T14s to begin with higher salaries than non-T14s, their success after the career begins is dependent not on the school they graduated, but their competence at the job.  I know plenty of T14s who have lagged behind and plenty of 2Ls who now have higher salaries than the T14s despite the fact that the 2Ls began a few years later.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3677
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2008, 09:07:31 PM »
Cady,

I think you bring up some interesting points. And yes you have heard this all before, I have my opinions on this subject, and I have been making the same argmenent for as long as I have been on this baord. Its as unpopular as awlays, but I've put some thought into it, and I think at least as theory goes I can argue it, but can';t prove it, even though I take *&^% for doing so by people who wdon't put as much thought into attacking (not you, you make arguemnts I actually feel the need to counter). Some things Iíll add to flesh out why I see it differently.

The LSAT was originally designed to test aptitude, not performance. I.E for most of its history it was a test that was not  prepped for as it was designed to measure your raw aptitude for law school, not what your aptitude would be after prepping for it. Its only in the last ten to fifteen years or so we have seen an explosion of test prep companies in every city, LSAT releasing old tests from which to practice on, bibles, books, CD Roms galore. Yet the test has not been adapted to this trend. I think this has eroded its actually predictive ablity. I would really like to see a correlation study done following a group of heavily prepped vs. little prep with similar scores over a period of 1L. If there is not difference in performance, then two things are possible: 1-Preping does not affect actual preditiveness of the 1L GPA, or 2 the LSAT is not predictive.

The preparation argument = same zeal they will put into law school is probably the biggest challenge to my argument. On first glance it seems to be logical. Until you look at what the LSAT tests and what law schools test. Prepping for six months for a completely objective, multiple choice test, where you can lkearn the question stems, the answer types ect. and where one of four answers is always right is the LSAT. That does not in my mind automatically mean someone who does that will necessary be able to translate that into prepping for five, subjective, class specific essay exams in the same time period. Additionally, if success in getting a high paying job is all but a given once your into school X, and all you need to do to get there is bust your ass on one exam to get there, why not work harder than you plan to ever again and just coast in school? Likewise I think there is something to be said for splitters (some - not all - many have good reasons for this) being able to peak perform on the test but falter in long run performance (for whatever reason).

The point is I donít think there is a single predictor for law school success, or for that matter being a good lawyer. I do however think the present focus on the LSAT as being that, is misplaced. I donít think it effectively measures what it was originally designed to measure because it is now treated as performance test, while its still trying to test aptitude. An IQ test is an aptitude test, its not designed to be prepped for, nor do I think anyone would place much faith in my results if I study to the test then took it. Yet we look at the LSAT now as a performance test, even though the test has not changed to reflect that.
 
Believe me I know my view is unpopular, I have said about the worst thing one could say on here, Iíve basically attacked everyone personally, attacked the idea that the hard work of preparing for a tough exam might, maybe, just possible not mean as much as they want to think their score will predict their success. Thatís not my intent, I donít want to rain on anyoneís parade or in anyway discount the huge effort they have put in to get their scores. Nor is it my intent to change the system. I simply see the prep vs. aptitude situation as a 6000 pound gorilla in the room no one wants to discuss, not even tangentially. One no one wants to change, or wants to be true, especially LSAC who profits from by being able to sell their old tests, making more money now doing that then they likely did in just charging for the exam before. I may very well be completely wrong, its happened once, a few years ago when I was really drunk, but I may, just possibly, be somewhat right about something in all that junk.

goaliechica

  • *****
  • 6178
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think 2L might be more important than 1L.
« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2008, 09:12:56 PM »
I may very well be completely wrong, its happened once, a few years ago when I was really drunk


I'll never believe it!