Why trash T3 and T4 schools?

[mcleod13]

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.

Again, I have to disagree. I was in the Navy most of my undergrad. I went to school 12 credit hours a semester, was in the Navy, had a part time job, and was/am a father and a husband. I also graduated magna cum laude. The only thing separating me from those at top tier schools is that I didn't have the time to dedicated and study for the LSAT. Even if I did, I wouldn't have been able to attend a top tier. school.

I have no idea why people are getting so bent out of shape. I didn't say I have anything against those that go to top tier schools, just those clowns that think they have it made because they attend a top tier school and feel the need to criticize us that cannot go. I thought about transferring after my first year, not because I think that other schools are better because I don't, but because I am smart enough to know that might be the only way I can get out of Southern Illinois. However, I missed a month of law school due to my wife being in ICU, and I had to take care of her and my son until way after the second semester was over. However, I still passed and was above the median in all classes.

Again, I have said that the majority of those who talk bad about us are on other boards, however they are all over the place. You can see it on websites that talk about clerkships. I read a post by someone who was pissed because he got passed over by someone at a T3 school. He felt that he should have had it handed to him because he was in the top 10% of his class at a T20 school.

[NYC2L]

Huge Jass

Your personal analogy does not disapprove my assertion for two reasons. First, I stated that **on average** LSAT + GPA + work ethic + intelligence = good lawyer but noted that there are exceptions to this general rule. You may be an exception. Second, I only asserted that the LSAT is one of many factors that may indicate one's potential for success as a lawyer. Your post states that you had a high GPA and implies a strong work ethic and intelligence. Moreover, you note that you "didn't have the time to dedicate[] [to] the LSAT," suggesting that had you had sufficient time you likely would have excelled and mooted your own point. Finally, and please humor me on this, if you were charged with capital murder and had to choose representation based either on eye color or LSAT score, would you choose the blue-eyed lawyer of the green-eyed one or the 145 LSAT over 175?

I'm not bashing anyone's school. I'm merely pointing out that LSAT is a predictor of future success in the legal profession and that most people would feel more secure using it as an indicator than many other characteristics.   

[mcleod13]

I don't think I mooted my own point. By saying I didn't have time to prepare I was attempting to point out the fact that the LSAT can be studied and prepared for. That is why I don't think it is an accurate predictor.

As far as your question goes, I still would have to say that I don't believe that the LSAT is an accurate predictor at all. For Example, you ahve 2 graduates from 2 different law schools. One from a T25 and the other from a Third Tier school. They both have the same ranking. However, the one from the T25 received a 174 LSAT and the Third Tier a 153. Now, if you were charged with Capital murder, I am assuming you would choose the T25 law student. However, what if the T25 student received nothing more than a 2.7 in criminal law classes and specialized in Contracts or Tort law. The Third Tier student however, received 4.0's in all his crim law classes and specialized in Crim Law. Now who would you choose.

[Peaches]

The only thing separating me from those at top tier schools is that I didn't have the time to dedicated and study for the LSAT.

That's like walking in to an art gallery and saying "I could paint that."  The point is that you didn't.  Saying you could paint it doesn't mean you could actually do it. 

Few people really have time to study for the LSAT.  If you have good judgment, then you MAKE time to study for the LSAT.  And, hypothetically, if more time to prepare would have increased your LSAT score so dramatically, then really the thing that separates you from those at top tier law schools is JUDGMENT and prioritizing. And that IS important for being a lawyer.

Even if I did, I wouldn't have been able to attend a top tier. school.

What is that supposed to mean?  Cost?  Because the crap law schools charge almost as much as the fancy schools... and almost all of the people at the T14 pay for school the same way as everyone at T4 -- loans.  (And, well, high-paying summer jobs.) Nobody in the T14 has $100,000 to $200,000 shoved between the couch cushions.  Anyone can afford to go to a top tier law school if they want.

[brasky]

Because of low self esteem / because they are jerks / becaues they are arrogant / because they want a response

(I have known at least 3 people that just go to sites specifically to get a reaction)

School rank will not necessarily indicate success.  At a low ranked school to work in a law firm, you will have to work harder and be better than the majority of your peers. 

However class rank is still important for all schools outside of T14.  I know of a University of Minnesota graduate (top 20 school)... who was in bottom 50% of class started off making 40,000 a year at a collection agency... he graduated seven years ago and is still making about 60,000 (he is really smart... but also kind of lazy... I think potential employers are able to determine this).   

Name of school is important, but it certainly isn't a guarantee of success (unless t14).  Law school doesn't seem to be about intelligence, it is about working hard.  The LSAT, in all honesty, has a god awful correlation with law school grades (ooooo 0.4... wow... look up a chart with a 0.4 correlation and tell me what you think).  The person with the lowest LSAT was 1st in his class at my brother's university.  Why?  He worked his balls off. 

Most law firms arn't going to want to hire students at the bottom of the class no matter where they go (once again t14 is the exception).  They want people who they think can bring in a profit.  It doesn't matter if that student attended a T2, T3, or T4 school... they will hire them if they feel they can make the law firm money.  Law after all, is mostly about money.

In the end law firms will dig deeper into higher ranked schools... but if you are in the bottom 50% anywhre outside the T14, it probably will not be champagne, fast cars, big houses, monthly vacations to tuskany etc... 

[candlelight01]

I warned ya pal.

[NYC2L]

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.

[nocomply]

"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."

I love how you say "law school performance is also a factor in legal success."  "Also"?  Law school performance is one of the only factors (besides people skills/personality) in legal success...is it not?  Who cares about the LSAT once first day of 1L starts?  It's ancient history.  Law school grades, and class rank, are all that matter.

You are making a baseless assumption that the LSAT correlates with law school success.  I won't bother fleshing out why.

I'll say this much is true:  the LSAT correlates with legal success,  in the sense that the higher the LSAT score then the better chances in getting into a higher ranking school, and as a result there are better chances in getting a high paying job.  Is "correlate" the right word though?

I'd say the LSAT, if anything, definately helps pave the wave for "legal success," but I can't see any sort of correlation.  Hard work, dedication, and intelligence paves the way for legal success - not doing well on a face-paced, multiple choice test.

If there is any "correlation" between the LSAT and legal success, I can maybe see it in studying for and taking the bar exam (i.e., answering multi-state multiple choice questions under timed conditions).  However, the bar exam tests knowledge of the law (opposed to the LSAT, which requires no studying of substantive material), so I scratch that thought.

 

[brasky]

It seems certain that a higher LSAT score will correlate to a higher degree of success in law.  It is not certain if the correlation is strong or weak. 

For instance, I recieved a 162... do I feel 100% confident I will be more sucessful than 70% of my peers (or whatever percentile I fall in)... hell no.  Am I confident that I will graduate... hell no.  LSAT for those outside of t14, I believe, correlates weakly with legal success.  Work hard and catch a few breaks... that is the name of the game.   

[NYC2L]

Yes, correlate is the right word and my assumption is far from baseless.

"The national correlation between LSAT scores and first-year grades tends to be around +0.4. By comparison, the national correlation between undergraduate and law school grades tends to be around +0.25. The correlation for both variables combined is approximately +0.5." http://www.napla.org/LSAT.htm

Furthermore, I find it ironic that you view 3 hour law school exams as "one of the only factors (besides people skills/personality) [relevant to] legal success" but you blithely reject the predictive value of the LSAT. Why is the act of vomiting onto paper a semester's worth of material clearly so much more predictive of legal success than other factors? However, assuming that law school success = legal success and LSAT success = law school success (as stated above), it follows that LSAT success = legal success. Hence, if you accept your own proposition, you are logically bound to mine.

Finally, I should note that I am not defending the LSAT because it particularly benefited me (I transferred), but because it has demonstrated predictive value, is not hopelessly inflationary (like GPA) and weeds knuckle-draggers out of the profession.