Law School Discussion

LSAT Preparation => Studying for the LSAT => Topic started by: HerculePoirot on January 01, 2016, 06:33:49 PM

Title: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 01, 2016, 06:33:49 PM
Although it may be of no surprise, I tend to believe that you must score at least a 165 on the LSAT to "make it". 
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: EarlCat on January 02, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
"Make it" where?
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 02, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
In the USA, Canada, and a growing number of other countries.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: EarlCat on January 02, 2016, 01:53:39 PM
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 02, 2016, 02:56:23 PM
I think he means to get into lawschool. The question is WHICH schools is what Earl Cat is asking.

OP you would enjoy http://www.top-law-schools.com (people who have been posting for 6 years and yet still clueless on what reality is since they still somehow are too scared to sit the silly test)
but avoid http://www.all4jds.com (online students who refuse to even sit the dang test since their schools don't require it)


The reality is that with the current flood of law schools a 150 is a slamdunk at at least half of the schools, if not the vast majority. Even with a 2.1 GPA
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 02, 2016, 03:31:18 PM
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

Ummm...make 1 million dollars??? :)
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 02, 2016, 03:42:35 PM
I think he means to get into lawschool. The question is WHICH schools is what Earl Cat is asking.

OP you would enjoy http://www.top-law-schools.com (people who have been posting for 6 years and yet still clueless on what reality is since they still somehow are too scared to sit the silly test)
but avoid http://www.all4jds.com (online students who refuse to even sit the dang test since their schools don't require it)


The reality is that with the current flood of law schools a 150 is a slamdunk at at least half of the schools, if not the vast majority. Even with a 2.1 GPA


I have a feeling that indeed there are certain law schools out there that really matter.  The other ones are subpar.  I suppose you could start with the top 20 on US News and World Report.  However, Boston College appears pretty good and there not in the top twenty.  Who knows?  ;)
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: EarlCat on January 02, 2016, 05:38:01 PM
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

Ummm...make 1 million dollars??? :)

You don't need to take the LSAT to do that. Scoring higher than 160 is likely to set you back about a quarter mil anyway. :)
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 02, 2016, 07:09:18 PM
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

Ummm...make 1 million dollars??? :)

You don't need to take the LSAT to do that. Scoring higher than 160 is likely to set you back about a quarter mil anyway. :)


Valid point.  I attended USC law school for a semester and that put me back 15k.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 02, 2016, 08:56:10 PM
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

Ummm...make 1 million dollars??? :)
wait......................you didn't even finish law school?
And now you think LSAT Score alone makes money???

Are you going to tell us WHY you stopped going, or shall we be forced to make assumptions? What was YOUR LSAT score?

You don't need to take the LSAT to do that. Scoring higher than 160 is likely to set you back about a quarter mil anyway. :)


Valid point.  I attended USC law school for a semester and that put me back 15k.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 03, 2016, 08:47:00 AM
Um, this makes no sense. Can you define what exactly it means to "make it"?

Ummm...make 1 million dollars??? :)
wait......................you didn't even finish law school?
And now you think LSAT Score alone makes money???

Are you going to tell us WHY you stopped going, or shall we be forced to make assumptions? What was YOUR LSAT score?

You don't need to take the LSAT to do that. Scoring higher than 160 is likely to set you back about a quarter mil anyway. :)


Valid point.  I attended USC law school for a semester and that put me back 15k.

I didn't finish law school because I wanted to be a musician.  I scored a 166.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 03, 2016, 10:39:20 AM
At the risk of feeding trolls here, how far into law school did you make it and with what gpa?
HOW did dropping out become needed to be a musician?

And if you scored a 166 and FAILED at it, isn't that the POLAR OPPOSIT of your theory??????
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 03, 2016, 12:23:01 PM
At the risk of feeding trolls here, how far into law school did you make it and with what gpa?
HOW did dropping out become needed to be a musician?

And if you scored a 166 and FAILED at it, isn't that the POLAR OPPOSIT of your theory??????

I dropped out during finals week.  No gpa  :'(


Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 03, 2016, 10:04:13 PM
At the risk of feeding trolls here, how far into law school did you make it and with what gpa?
HOW did dropping out become needed to be a musician?

And if you scored a 166 and FAILED at it, isn't that the POLAR OPPOSIT of your theory??????

I dropped out during finals week.  No gpa  :'(
wait................whut?
Of first semester? Why finals week? This makes no sense. There is no refund for the term at that point and you might as well sit it and see how you do. Did you KNOW you'd fail?
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 04, 2016, 07:58:33 AM
At the risk of feeding trolls here, how far into law school did you make it and with what gpa?
HOW did dropping out become needed to be a musician?

And if you scored a 166 and FAILED at it, isn't that the POLAR OPPOSIT of your theory??????

I dropped out during finals week.  No gpa  :'(
wait................whut?
Of first semester? Why finals week? This makes no sense. There is no refund for the term at that point and you might as well sit it and see how you do. Did you KNOW you'd fail?

Well, I wasn't sure about dropping out.  But I was certain that I would flunk.  Better to drop out and get W's, then flunk out and get F's.  Yeah, it stinks that I lost money. 
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: loki13 on January 04, 2016, 09:08:27 AM
At the risk of feeding trolls here, how far into law school did you make it and with what gpa?
HOW did dropping out become needed to be a musician?

And if you scored a 166 and FAILED at it, isn't that the POLAR OPPOSIT of your theory??????

No offense, but ...

Not sure the best advice comes from someone who didn't even succeed at one semester of law school.

Personally, I think that the LSAT is a very good predictor of law school success. And law school success, in large part, drives practice success in many ways. But it's not the end-all, be-all, as it doesn't measure other qualities that also impact the practice. Oral advocacy skills. Work ethic. And, most importantly, networking/charisma.

I've personally known litigators that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag that were amazingly successful because they were rainmakers- they could drive business. They could counsel clients. Other people make up for, what they lack in pure legal reasoning, with an amazing work ethic. And so on. Of course, there's the flip side of that as well; people that can be brilliantly insightful, but lack in other areas and never fully take flight in the profession.

What does it mean? It means that if you don't score well on the LSAT, you should seriously consider your options. Because it does measure attributes which matter. Think about the cost/benefit. But you don't need a federal clerkship and BigLaw to be a great practicing attorney. Heck, the very wealthiest attorneys are usually a small subset of Plaintiff's attorneys- and they certainly aren't federal clerkship/Biglaw material.

I dropped out during finals week.  No gpa  :'(
wait................whut?
Of first semester? Why finals week? This makes no sense. There is no refund for the term at that point and you might as well sit it and see how you do. Did you KNOW you'd fail?

Well, I wasn't sure about dropping out.  But I was certain that I would flunk.  Better to drop out and get W's, then flunk out and get F's.  Yeah, it stinks that I lost money.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 04, 2016, 09:40:36 AM
At the risk of feeding trolls here, how far into law school did you make it and with what gpa?
HOW did dropping out become needed to be a musician?

And if you scored a 166 and FAILED at it, isn't that the POLAR OPPOSIT of your theory??????

No offense, but ...

Not sure the best advice comes from someone who didn't even succeed at one semester of law school.

Personally, I think that the LSAT is a very good predictor of law school success. And law school success, in large part, drives practice success in many ways. But it's not the end-all, be-all, as it doesn't measure other qualities that also impact the practice. Oral advocacy skills. Work ethic. And, most importantly, networking/charisma.

I've personally known litigators that couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag that were amazingly successful because they were rainmakers- they could drive business. They could counsel clients. Other people make up for, what they lack in pure legal reasoning, with an amazing work ethic. And so on. Of course, there's the flip side of that as well; people that can be brilliantly insightful, but lack in other areas and never fully take flight in the profession.

What does it mean? It means that if you don't score well on the LSAT, you should seriously consider your options. Because it does measure attributes which matter. Think about the cost/benefit. But you don't need a federal clerkship and BigLaw to be a great practicing attorney. Heck, the very wealthiest attorneys are usually a small subset of Plaintiff's attorneys- and they certainly aren't federal clerkship/Biglaw material.

I dropped out during finals week.  No gpa  :'(
wait................whut?
Of first semester? Why finals week? This makes no sense. There is no refund for the term at that point and you might as well sit it and see how you do. Did you KNOW you'd fail?

Well, I wasn't sure about dropping out.  But I was certain that I would flunk.  Better to drop out and get W's, then flunk out and get F's.  Yeah, it stinks that I lost money.

True.  It might be wise to take my advice with a grain of salt.  After all, I did drop out.  And you make some valid points.  The LSAT doesn't measure oratory skills.  However, I still believe that it could be THE most important exam for an aspiring attorney. 
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 04, 2016, 01:55:18 PM
So you DID NOT do it "to be a musician"
I heard about you, you were an urban legend for awhile-you are female aren't you?? (if so, I know people who know yoru real name, but don't worry I could out you publicly but feel free to PM me if you want)

Why didn't you go back? The school that you went to offers a 5 year plan on weekends/one night a week options.
Afterall, what difference does a W vs an F make it "better" if you never plan to go back??

"Fortuna Audaces Iuvat!!!!!!!!!!!"
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 04, 2016, 02:22:44 PM
So you DID NOT do it "to be a musician"
I heard about you, you were an urban legend for awhile-you are female aren't you?? (if so, I know people who know yoru real name, but don't worry I could out you publicly but feel free to PM me if you want)

Why didn't you go back? The school that you went to offers a 5 year plan on weekends/one night a week options.
Afterall, what difference does a W vs an F make it "better" if you never plan to go back??

"Fortuna Audaces Iuvat!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, I am not a female.  And who knows?  Maybe I will go back.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 04, 2016, 03:06:32 PM
So you DID NOT do it "to be a musician"
I heard about you, you were an urban legend for awhile-you are female aren't you?? (if so, I know people who know yoru real name, but don't worry I could out you publicly but feel free to PM me if you want)

Why didn't you go back? The school that you went to offers a 5 year plan on weekends/one night a week options.
Afterall, what difference does a W vs an F make it "better" if you never plan to go back??

"Fortuna Audaces Iuvat!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, I am not a female.  And who knows?  Maybe I will go back.
ok,then you aren't the person I was thinking of. That's ok.

How long have you been out? Why only a "maybe". I still don't grasp this.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 04, 2016, 03:13:11 PM
So you DID NOT do it "to be a musician"
I heard about you, you were an urban legend for awhile-you are female aren't you?? (if so, I know people who know yoru real name, but don't worry I could out you publicly but feel free to PM me if you want)

Why didn't you go back? The school that you went to offers a 5 year plan on weekends/one night a week options.
Afterall, what difference does a W vs an F make it "better" if you never plan to go back??

"Fortuna Audaces Iuvat!!!!!!!!!!!"

No, I am not a female.  And who knows?  Maybe I will go back.
ok,then you aren't the person I was thinking of. That's ok.

How long have you been out? Why only a "maybe". I still don't grasp this.

Well, it's been nearly a decade.  I don't think I could get a 166 again.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 04, 2016, 08:22:28 PM
I'll rephrase this for you..........

WHY did you NOT sit it then if you had NO intent of needing the grades? Why not finish and see??????
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Citylaw on January 05, 2016, 01:06:14 PM
Well interesting thread that goes directly against the OP's statement.

OP scored a 166 and did not make it as a lawyer.

I scored under a 165 and am licensed in two jurisdictions and have won many trials and make a living as a lawyer as do most attorneys that did not finish in the top 10% of LSAT takers.

The LSAT is the first baby-step in the process and once your in a law school it does not matter. As OP has proven a variety of factors arise during law school and no matter what your score you might quit to become a musician, or any other situation could arise.

In short, plenty of people become practicing attorneys without scoring a 165 or higher.  There are also many people that score above a 165 and don't make it.

Certainly having a 4.0 and 180 LSAT is ideal, but it is not a guarantee of success.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 05, 2016, 03:58:27 PM
Well interesting thread that goes directly against the OP's statement.

OP scored a 166 and did not make it as a lawyer.

I scored under a 165 and am licensed in two jurisdictions and have won many trials and make a living as a lawyer as do most attorneys that did not finish in the top 10% of LSAT takers.

The LSAT is the first baby-step in the process and once your in a law school it does not matter. As OP has proven a variety of factors arise during law school and no matter what your score you might quit to become a musician, or any other situation could arise.

In short, plenty of people become practicing attorneys without scoring a 165 or higher.  There are also many people that score above a 165 and don't make it.

Certainly having a 4.0 and 180 LSAT is ideal, but it is not a guarantee of success.

I concede that I could be wrong, as your example suggests. 
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 05, 2016, 04:20:02 PM
Well interesting thread that goes directly against the OP's statement.

OP scored a 166 and did not make it as a lawyer.

I scored under a 165 and am licensed in two jurisdictions and have won many trials and make a living as a lawyer as do most attorneys that did not finish in the top 10% of LSAT takers.

The LSAT is the first baby-step in the process and once your in a law school it does not matter. As OP has proven a variety of factors arise during law school and no matter what your score you might quit to become a musician, or any other situation could arise.

In short, plenty of people become practicing attorneys without scoring a 165 or higher.  There are also many people that score above a 165 and don't make it.

Certainly having a 4.0 and 180 LSAT is ideal, but it is not a guarantee of success.

I concede that I could be wrong, as your example suggests.
"could be" isn't a concession................ but if you are posting here again there must be a reason. Are you just bored (that's fine) or seriously thinking about trying another shot at it.

-I still don't get why you didn't sit the finals if you didn't plan to re-enroll though. What type of "music" career are you doing that required you to drop out at the drop of a hat.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 06, 2016, 06:38:19 AM
Well interesting thread that goes directly against the OP's statement.

OP scored a 166 and did not make it as a lawyer.

I scored under a 165 and am licensed in two jurisdictions and have won many trials and make a living as a lawyer as do most attorneys that did not finish in the top 10% of LSAT takers.

The LSAT is the first baby-step in the process and once your in a law school it does not matter. As OP has proven a variety of factors arise during law school and no matter what your score you might quit to become a musician, or any other situation could arise.

In short, plenty of people become practicing attorneys without scoring a 165 or higher.  There are also many people that score above a 165 and don't make it.

Certainly having a 4.0 and 180 LSAT is ideal, but it is not a guarantee of success.

I concede that I could be wrong, as your example suggests.
"could be" isn't a concession................ but if you are posting here again there must be a reason. Are you just bored (that's fine) or seriously thinking about trying another shot at it.

-I still don't get why you didn't sit the finals if you didn't plan to re-enroll though. What type of "music" career are you doing that required you to drop out at the drop of a hat.

I still believe that 165 is important. 
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 06, 2016, 01:32:58 PM
1. Are you going to answer the questions that were asked of you?????????

2. HOW is it important and WHY do you think that??

(you do know that there are people with 140 range lsat scores and 2.0 liberal arts degrees from Greendale level quality undergrads who are licensed lawyers right now we enrolled after you left right????)
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Citylaw on January 06, 2016, 01:43:06 PM
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.

Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 06, 2016, 02:23:42 PM
I a 1650 or higher on the LSAT ..........

Extended Scale, BADASS!!!!!!!!! 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 06, 2016, 06:17:15 PM
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)

Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 06, 2016, 10:09:56 PM
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)
you...........think biglaw even asks in any way or fashion what your lsat score was???
and I can't stand people anyone who try to go "just my opinion" after random words with no reason come out. Did you EVER APPLY to "biglaw" or small law, or ANY law????

Apples come from potato plants...........just my opinion.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Citylaw on January 07, 2016, 12:13:26 AM
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.

Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 07, 2016, 02:17:39 AM
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.
I am pretty sure OP has a variety of (possibly not fully diagnosed) mental disabilities
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 07, 2016, 08:23:20 AM
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.
I am pretty sure OP has a variety of (possibly not fully diagnosed) mental disabilities

I am 99.9% healthy. 8)
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 07, 2016, 08:43:51 AM
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.

If you want a sports car, go Biglaw. 
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 07, 2016, 08:44:50 AM
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)
you...........think biglaw even asks in any way or fashion what your lsat score was???
and I can't stand people anyone who try to go "just my opinion" after random words with no reason come out. Did you EVER APPLY to "biglaw" or small law, or ANY law????

Apples come from potato plants...........just my opinion.

No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: loki13 on January 07, 2016, 12:16:41 PM
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners.

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 07, 2016, 12:39:36 PM
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners. No

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: loki13 on January 07, 2016, 01:13:03 PM

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.

Well, to start with, a 165 (top 9% of so) on your LSAT won't get you into a Top 14 by itself (that's what you mean, right) Law School by itself. Cornell and GULC, for example, have a median score of 167/8. The Yales and Harvards of the world are at 173 (anything from a 171 on is the 98th percentile of testakers).

Really, your comment makes no sense. Look, if you want to say that your best chance of a BigLaw job (assuming that's what someone wants) is to go to a T14 school, that's fine. That's not very interesting. On the other hand, BigLaw is filled with people that didn't go to T14 schools (that's almost like a logic game, there).

I believe your earlier statement was that if you didn't score a 165, you shouldn't even consider law school, which is also a bizarre statement- and this is coming from one of this board's foremost proponents of the "don't go to law school" line of argument.

If a person can get into a law school, wants to practice law, and can minimize their costs, it's a good choice.

Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Citylaw on January 07, 2016, 02:15:35 PM
I'm loving this thread very entertaining.

I think as OP says getting a 165 is great and might inevitably lead to a sports car, which he has left unspecified. You got a micro machine sports car without a 165 LSAT.

As Loki properly points out and what many 0L's don't understand is that these vague terms (Big-Law) (Mid-Law)(Boutique) etc are all undefined.

Cravath is the prototypical Big-law firm, but what is the actual definition of Biglaw Bryan Cave has 1,100 attorneys that seems big to me, Jackson Lewis has 800, Severson & Werson has 120.

Is Severson still Biglaw? 

If they want to classify themselves as that sure or they can say they are a Boutique financial services firm if they wanted.

In short, 0L's read all these U.S. News Rankings, guidebooks, etc that don't have any practical application to the real world.

You graduate and pass the bar.

You then try to find a job as an attorney and apply to jobs that interest you, which hopefully hire you.





Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 07, 2016, 03:13:42 PM
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners. No

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.
admits he has no way of knowing what he talks about, but keeps talking

"There are two types of speakers in the world. Those who speak when they have something to say. And those who just have to say something."

oh, and if you had undiagnosed mental illness.........you wouldn't know.........oh forget it. Troll on.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Citylaw on January 07, 2016, 03:15:49 PM
I don't think he ever said he knew what he was talking about he is just saying random stuff on the internet that doesn't make a lot of sense and probably laughing at how much discussion is being generated talking about it. Donald Trump like really.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on January 07, 2016, 03:24:20 PM
Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up.

If you graduate from a T14 with good grades (or a T5 with almost any grades), then yes, of course you will have a much better shot at high paying biglaw jobs as opposed to the average graduate of Unknown State U. This is stating the obvious.

Loki's quote above, however, is something that most 0Ls are clueless about. The wealthiest attorneys I've met are guys who learned a particular field of law very well, like consumer class action suits, and struck out on their own. They make the kind of money that would make a biglaw partner tear up. I know a very unassuming divorce lawyer with a small, low key office and a stellar reputation. That guy is a multimillionaire.

The point is that you are unlikely to get wealthy (I mean truly wealthy, not just well off) working for someone else. In law, business, whatever, people can get a good salary working for someone else. They usually don't get rich until they find a way to work for themselves.

Does that mean that you can't get rich as a biglaw partner? Of course not! But, as Loki pointed out, it is unlikely that a newly hired associate will stick around long enough to make partner.

Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 07, 2016, 04:42:46 PM
Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up.

If you graduate from a T14 with good grades (or a T5 with almost any grades), then yes, of course you will have a much better shot at high paying biglaw jobs as opposed to the average graduate of Unknown State U. This is stating the obvious.

Loki's quote above, however, is something that most 0Ls are clueless about. The wealthiest attorneys I've met are guys who learned a particular field of law very well, like consumer class action suits, and struck out on their own. They make the kind of money that would make a biglaw partner tear up. I know a very unassuming divorce lawyer with a small, low key office and a stellar reputation. That guy is a multimillionaire.

The point is that you are unlikely to get wealthy (I mean truly wealthy, not just well off) working for someone else. In law, business, whatever, people can get a good salary working for someone else. They usually don't get rich until they find a way to work for themselves.

Does that mean that you can't get rich as a biglaw partner? Of course not! But, as Loki pointed out, it is unlikely that a newly hired associate will stick around long enough to make partner.

You can purchase a lot more with a six figure salary.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: HerculePoirot on January 07, 2016, 04:44:56 PM
I don't think he ever said he knew what he was talking about he is just saying random stuff on the internet that doesn't make a lot of sense and probably laughing at how much discussion is being generated talking about it. Donald Trump like really.

Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: Maintain FL 350 on January 07, 2016, 05:48:52 PM
Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.

No, it doesn't.

Most of your clients will have no clue where you went school, nor will they care. As far as most clients are concerned, Harvard and Arizona State are pretty much the same thing. They will come to you either via referral, because you have a good rep, or because you were the first name in the Yellow Pages. Not because of where you went to school.

At a big firm where the clients themselves might be Ivy League grads, there could be a preference for pedigrees among the clientele. But even so, I can tell you this: I worked at a firm with both Ivy League grads as well as lawyers who went to no-name schools, and I never once heard of a clent saying "No, I don't want that guy. I want a Harvard grad." Never happened. At a small firm or solo practice, even less so.
Title: Re: LSAT Score Theory
Post by: 🍟💵🌲🍥 on January 07, 2016, 09:27:52 PM
Prestige is important.  It attracts reliable clientele.  Nobody wants crummy clients.

No, it doesn't.

Most of your clients will have no clue where you went school, nor will they care. As far as most clients are concerned, Harvard and Arizona State are pretty much the same thing. They will come to you either via referral, because you have a good rep, or because you were the first name in the Yellow Pages. Not because of where you went to school.

At a big firm where the clients themselves might be Ivy League grads, there could be a preference for pedigrees among the clientele. But even so, I can tell you this: I worked at a firm with both Ivy League grads as well as lawyers who went to no-name schools, and I never once heard of a clent saying "No, I don't want that guy. I want a Harvard grad." Never happened. At a small firm or solo practice, even less so.
I suspect you may be right about this being Donald Trump