TTT

[brasky]

Well do I expect to make big money out of a T3?... no I don't .  I think there is a 10% probability of me landing in the top 10%.  Optimistically 10+5% as I can work incredibly hard if put under scholastic pressure.   In addition, I possess one of the higest LSAT scores in the entire school (there is a 0.4 correlation after all). 

There is a large probability of me working for 40-50k starting out, perhaps 40-50k forever... but that would also be unlikely to never make more than 40-50k for an entire career. 

Regardless, if I do end up making 40-50k for an entire career it will still be eqivalent to the money earned using BS degree (especially biomedical science).  At the same time I think I stand a better chance than my classmates with potential opportunities in IP law.  Are the chances fantastic?... no.

At this point I've made my mind up, so I might as well be optimistic.  I have the opportunity to eat, and have an education.  Really, it could be a lot worse. 

In addition, though most everyone on this board seems to feel they have everything nailed down about the legal occupation with 100% certainty... I'm sure we will all discover many things in our legal education we were completely wrong about.   

I'll see you T1's in court (I'm just kidding I know I won't). 

[RobWreck]

But if you're probably going to earn the same amount with a JD as you would with just your BS, does it pay to incur the $100k+ of law school debt that goes along with it? That's really up to you... how bad do you want to be a lawyer?
Rob

PS: Of course scholarships can help defer some of those costs... but take a good look at what the school's requirements to keep the scholarship is. 

[1LMan]

I don't think it would be unfair to impose a 3.0 157 cut-off to apply, but with most admissions having LSAT scores above 160.  Don't act like this is such a terrible idea.  Medical school applicants struggle to get in with 3.7's and 85th percentile MCAT scores. 

However, in the land of milk and honey, you can be whatever you want to be.....

[xferlawstudent]

Here's why your plan sucks.  I did poorly on the LSAT, went to a T4 and finished 1L in the Top 15%.  I transferred to a 40's T1 school and I'm now in the top 10% of this class.  My LSAT score is several points below the lower quartile at this school, yet I'm performing better than 90% of its students.  I'm sure this isn't a rare exception.

[1LMan]

Just as I'm sure there are students that could succeed in medical school that never got in because of grades or their LSAT score.  You determine how you do on these exams and in undergrad.  Don't expect people to feel sorry for you if it wasn't  to your fullest potential.

[xferlawstudent]

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.

[1LMan]

The reality is MOST T3/T4 students don't go on to be "good" lawyers necessarily.

[Lawbster]

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.

[StevePirates]

I don't think it would be unfair to impose a 3.0 157 cut-off to apply, but with most admissions having LSAT scores above 160.

I'd prefer a sliding scale.  With higher LSATs allowing for lower GPA, and vice versa.  Because someone shouldn't be barred from law school for youthful indiscretions that dinged their GPA.  Otherwise my 2.81 167 wouldn't have mattered.  Sure, I might have gotten a few D's and F's my first two years of college, but my band was awesome.  Plus, after I decided to leave my band and get serious about college, I maintained a 3.93 thereafter. 

[brasky]

Interesting... the person I was responding to has henceforce deleted their post... whateva...

but actually my school scholarship program is cool... just keep it above 2.0.  2.0 is also level for academic dismissal (only 0.41% of 2006 students fell into this category).  

I addition, I think the probability is high even going to a 3T I will make the investment back.  My brother went to Nebraska and was middle of the pack... first job was 40k but after 3 years it was over 100k.  Now he is has his own practice and doing very well.