Law School Discussion

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.

Apparently not . . . but now I do. My apologies. 

http://www.elearners.com/guide-to-online-education/regional-and-national-accreditation.asp

I would advise against it. I don't put it on my resume because many people have strong negative feelings toward the organization (usually ignorantly) and it is not worth my time to explain to everyone who sees my resume that "no, I am not an extremist right-wing republican, no, I don't hate women and people of color," etc. Unfortunately, disinformation about fed soc is pervasive in law schools and the legal community in general.

An alternative reason not to put it on your resume, is that it does not really add anything to your credentials. It merely makes a political statement. Generally, your resume should reflect what you have achieved and joining an organization is not really an achievement.

Finally, ACS probably would not receive the same response. One, because it is of a lower profile than fed soc and two, to state the obvious, liberal things are far more acceptable in law schools than supposedly conservative things (although fed soc is not necessarily conservative--once again, though, I hate explaining this to people).

Were you at the student convention by any chance?

"I think a juris doctor at almost any law school is worth the investment if you work hard."

While I cannot agree with you on this point . . .

"I better get back to this beer I was drinking in celebration of Kansas winning the championship."

I completely agree and toast you on this one.

Seriously though, I'm not trying to be a jerk or insult your school or you for choosing to attend it. I'm merely a proponent of full-disclosure. Prospective law students should know what they are getting into before they decide to take on massive amounts of debt for what are generally dismal job opportunities. And *most* schools (not just T3 and T4) do not readily provide that information.

Finally, my "financial analysis" was not meant to be comprehensive and I recognize (obviously) that salaries increase. However, if you were to calculate out the return on investment using reasonable assumptions, you would find that it takes an awful long time to recoup that 100K investment and 3 additional years of school. That is not to say that the investment never pays-offs. It does for a select few students from T3 and T4 schools. My point is that students should be made aware that the odds are stacked against them.

I should note that I transferred. I did not do well on the LSAT.