I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. I don't even feel sorry for me. I'm simply pointing out that the biggest difference between T1 and T4 students is the LSAT score and that the LSAT is a bad indicator of one's ability to be a good lawyer.
The LSAT may be a bad indicator of law school performance, but I would wager that the majority of those people that do poorly aren't that smart. Anecdotally from teaching LSAT classes with a prep company, I can say that there was a big difference when I taught for Kap than when I taught for PS.
The Kap students usually started out below the median, some classes I taught had an average score below 135. There was a distinct difference just talking to these students (who did improve btw, usually about 8-10 points) and talking to students in my PS classes. Generally the PS students started closer to 155-160 and seemed much sharper, more intelligent, and well-rounded.
The LSAT doesn't measure future law school success, but seems to be a pretty good indicator of intelligence.
However, the law has little to do with intelligence. If any one of us were truly smart, we'd probably be doing physics or cosmology. Law is easy and I see how a TTT grad can do well by handling speeding ticket/dui cases in a solo practice. Those take very little brainpower and it's pretty much the same thing every time.