That is very *socratic* of you to answer my question with another question, but I'm game. In response to your more rhetoric hypo, you are correct I would select the T25 grad over the T3 grad, but more so because they performed equally well and T25 grad's school would have been more competitive in the sense that *on average* the caliber of students would have been better. At that point the LSAT would mean less because the people had demonstrated their abilities in law school. As you might expect, I would choose the T3 grad because of his or her stellar performance in law school and focus in just the area of law important to me at the moment.

However, that does not speak to whether or not the LSAT is indicative of success in the legal profession. All you have done is thrown in additional variables to confuse the issue. Clearly, law school performance is also a factor in legal success. I think we agree on that. It follows, then, that if LSAT performance correlates with law school success (it does) then by transitive property the LSAT also correlates with legal success. Unless you now don't buy the predictive value of law school.

Further, you did not answer my question because, I can only assume, you would select the person with the higher LSAT. And why not? If faced with a partially correlative indicator and an irrelevant one, only a blithering idiot would select eye color over LSAT. My point was not to put the LSAT on a pedestal, but merely to argue that a relationship exists between it and legal success. If you refuse to grant me that, you are just being stubborn.

"If you go to a top tier school your probably pretty smart? Hmm, lets see, to me it seems that you are likely a better LSAT tester and I have yet to see anyone prove that the LSAT is a good predicter of how one will be as a lawyer."

Give me a break. Going to a top tier school reflects work ethic and intelligence--both of which *are* good predictors of one's future success as a lawyer. Would you say the combination of a high LSAT score, graduating magna cum from a top undergrad, working post graduate, etc., are indicators of the potential for success as an attorney? I would. And granted, there will be outliers--the brilliant student who coasted through undergrad, aced the LSAT and law school but cannot cope with the stress of the legal world; the hard working yet poor test taker who goes to a lower tier school but through sheer force of will rises to the top. Many other generic examples could be offered but, and here is the key, *on average*, LSAT + GPA + work ethic + intelligence = good lawyer. In that sense, LSAT is *a* good predictor of one's potential for success as a lawyer.

Ave Maria is an invalid example because it is as much s***hole as New College of Law. Any school that struggles with accreditation--the most basic component of a law school--should be avoided like the plague. The fact that one is only accredited nationally while the other only locally merely indicates that they are both awful.

There is a similar discussion going on at abovethelaw.com for all those who can't get enough of this one.

I think dewayne_wayne's last point is valid. In fact, I was thinking about this same thing last night. More law students = more affordable legal services. While I agree with this from an economic standpoint there is still the issue of the quality of legal services. If these attorneys are not competent (not saying that all T3 and T4 grads are not competent) then those people who need public legal services are not getting effective representation. In other words, they are f***ed.

On the other hand, if these attorneys were eliminated from the marketplace, then people who desperately need services of that sort would have absolutely no low-cost option. In other words, they will be doubly-f***ed.

As with most segments of our society, the poor get shafted. This is no different.

You are a credit to your school I'm sure and you may have had legitimate reasons for attending it. You also may be completely satisfied with your future job. However, unless you received a significant scholarship throughout law school, you invested upwards of 100K and 3 years for a 60K return. Now, if you had started working right out of undergrad, you probably could have made 40-60K. That means that your "investment" in law school netted you a negative return . . . economically. Of course I realize that you may truly love the law. But for the average person deciding between law school and something else, that is an awful investment.

My major concern with T3 and T4 (and practically all schools for that matter) is that they are not honest with naive students about employment opportunities. Hence, students enter these law schools with certain expectations that, in the vast majority of cases, go unfulfilled. I am incredibly happy for you because you seem content and that is more than can be said for most law students. Still, there are issues with these schools that go beyond your success story.

Finally, USNEWS rankings do impact your education because the higher ranked schools get the best professors and attract the most qualified students who get high paying jobs and donate money to the school. That windfall enables those schools to build better facilities and institute clinics and other ancillary programs. Then, all these things combine together to attract even better professors and even more qualified students. Hence, USNEWS rankings, although self-fulling, drastically affect the educational quality of the schools. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.