Law School Discussion

50% of Law Student Grads

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3678
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2008, 01:53:45 PM »
I have worked for many attorneys and I think it all comes down to determination.   I worked for a a succesful attorney that went to an online law school that is not even ABA approved.  He  had attorneys from Berkely, UCLA, etc working under him. He worked hard to make something of himself and did not sit around on law discussion boards talking about how unfair everything is. Life is hard and you are obviously intelligent people to have gotten through law school, but if you are wasting your time whining about how bad your life is on this discussion board you aren't spending your time out looking for jobs or working to change your situation.  Get out and change it for God's sakes. The mayor of Los Angeles didn't even go to an ABA approved school and never passed the bar he is doing well for himself, so stop whining and start doing.

You must be new here, thatís not how it works on LSD, there are a hierarchy of things you blame because you canít find a job first:

1. Your school
2. Your school padding career placement
3. The over abundance of T2/3/4 grads flooding the market
4. Your schools career services office
5. Everyone going to a school ranked higher than yours
6. The bad economy
7. The system
8. Your classmates
9. The high cost of stamps
10. Your gerbil dying that caused you to get two years of bad grades in law school that are not your fault
11. The unrealistic B+ curve that makes getting a A so hard
12. Minorities that should not be there taking your grades from you
13. ADD
14. Your school again for good measure
15. Anything and everything except yourself having any evolvement in your grades, interviewing skills or lack of employment.

x

Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2008, 02:34:45 PM »

You must be new here, thatís not how it works on LSD, there are a hierarchy of things you blame because you canít find a job first:
[/quote]

You just made my day.

SCK2008

  • ****
  • 1310
    • View Profile
Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2008, 03:11:42 PM »
I have worked for many attorneys and I think it all comes down to determination.   I worked for a a succesful attorney that went to an online law school that is not even ABA approved.  He  had attorneys from Berkely, UCLA, etc working under him. He worked hard to make something of himself and did not sit around on law discussion boards talking about how unfair everything is. Life is hard and you are obviously intelligent people to have gotten through law school, but if you are wasting your time whining about how bad your life is on this discussion board you aren't spending your time out looking for jobs or working to change your situation.  Get out and change it for God's sakes. The mayor of Los Angeles didn't even go to an ABA approved school and never passed the bar he is doing well for himself, so stop whining and start doing.

You must be new here, thatís not how it works on LSD, there are a hierarchy of things you blame because you canít find a job first:

1. Your school
2. Your school padding career placement
3. The over abundance of T2/3/4 grads flooding the market
4. Your schools career services office
5. Everyone going to a school ranked higher than yours
6. The bad economy
7. The system
8. Your classmates
9. The high cost of stamps
10. Your gerbil dying that caused you to get two years of bad grades in law school that are not your fault
11. The unrealistic B+ curve that makes getting a A so hard
12. Minorities that should not be there taking your grades from you
13. ADD
14. Your school again for good measure
15. Anything and everything except yourself having any evolvement in your grades, interviewing skills or lack of employment.


Eff you Matthies!  My school told me I'd be rich!  All I should have to do is show up daily, graduate, and then start collecting paychecks...they owe me!  I'm not paying for an education; I'm paying to get paid!

That's how it works in the real world!!


SCK2008

  • ****
  • 1310
    • View Profile
Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2008, 05:11:39 PM »
I have worked for many attorneys and I think it all comes down to determination.   I worked for a a succesful attorney that went to an online law school that is not even ABA approved.  He  had attorneys from Berkely, UCLA, etc working under him. He worked hard to make something of himself and did not sit around on law discussion boards talking about how unfair everything is. Life is hard and you are obviously intelligent people to have gotten through law school, but if you are wasting your time whining about how bad your life is on this discussion board you aren't spending your time out looking for jobs or working to change your situation.  Get out and change it for God's sakes. The mayor of Los Angeles didn't even go to an ABA approved school and never passed the bar he is doing well for himself, so stop whining and start doing.

You must be new here, thatís not how it works on LSD, there are a hierarchy of things you blame because you canít find a job first:

1. Your school
2. Your school padding career placement
3. The over abundance of T2/3/4 grads flooding the market
4. Your schools career services office
5. Everyone going to a school ranked higher than yours
6. The bad economy
7. The system
8. Your classmates
9. The high cost of stamps
10. Your gerbil dying that caused you to get two years of bad grades in law school that are not your fault
11. The unrealistic B+ curve that makes getting a A so hard
12. Minorities that should not be there taking your grades from you
13. ADD
14. Your school again for good measure
15. Anything and everything except yourself having any evolvement in your grades, interviewing skills or lack of employment.


Eff you Matthies!  My school told me I'd be rich!  All I should have to do is show up daily, graduate, and then start collecting paychecks...they owe me!  I'm not paying for an education; I'm paying to get paid!

That's how it works in the real world!!

Responding to all three posters:  here's the bottom line:  From certain schools, it's easy to get a job.  From most schools, it's not.  From some schools, it's very hard. 

These are simple realities.  Students who know about these facts should not whine about the unfairness of USNews or employer perceptions if they graduate from a school with weak placement.  They will have to hustle to find any job, and may have to open their own practice.  That's just the way it is.  They may well end up working in other fields.

However, it would be better if there was more open and honest disclosure about placement realities, especially from lower-ranked schools.  That information is not in fact esay to find, and it is often covered up or distorted by schools.  Saying that every 22 year old applicant should become an investigative journalist to determine actual placement is unrealistic and unnecessary. 

Bottom line, everyone suffers when the law school (and legal) population is overpopulated.  It's harder to find work, people create unnecessary litigation to make money, etc.  Society overall would benefit from more accurate placement data, as would the students in question. 

That's all.

Lol, DS.

But Linny- please get real.  I know we're going around in circles here but if the 22 year old is going to drop 100k he/she better be able to do some f-ing research...

hth...

Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2008, 01:19:13 AM »

I think you're right that your class might be more diverse than most, for the reasons noted, and I think a study of classes like yours would be helpful in determining actual correlation, because of that greater numerical diversity.  And I accept your statements regarding class rank not corresponding precisely to LSAT.  However, as noted, one of the top 5 was in fact someone with a very high LSAT.  Secondly, we don't know how many 170's (or 160's) were actually in the class. Finally, in a PT program, there's probably also a great deal of diversity in terms of how much time people are willing to study. Many people may just be getting the JD to advance in their current job, and therefore won't worry much about grades. 

I'll also note that most students are not attending PT programs, and are basically "fresh out of undergrad", and will therefore have that mentality.

Ultimately, I think the LSAT is an imperfect measure of LS aptitude.  I do think LR, AR, and RC are important components in LS success, but I believe there are other components that matter as well, with determination and diligence key among them.  There are also people with strong LR,AR, and RC skills who just freeze up on standardized tests for whatever reason.  And while I think those skills can also be important for lawyers, there are even more skills that matter in practice, making the LSAT even less predictive in that area.  (Although biglaw associate work is mostly backroom research and writing that doesn't usually require much schmoozing skill -- it's more like LS than operating your own practice is.)

Again, my point is simply that a class filled with stellar LSAT's and GPA's is generally going to be pretty solid, at least outside the bottom 10%, and that achieving a stellar LSAT is very difficult for most students, regardless of prep.  People with more modest numbers can still excel academically and professionally, which is why big firms still hire the top students from lower-ranked schools.

Both Matthies and Lindbergh both seem to have some valid points. I believe that Matthies is entirely correct in asserting that the original intent of the writers of the LSAT was for it to be taken cold to be a true measure of aptitude. Lindbergh's point that a 180 is a 180 regardless of how much prep was invested to earn the score is also sound. If the US Olympic Basketball Team has nothing but NBA Allstars and gets destroyed by Lithuania because their team works better together as a unit and spent more several months prepping for the tournament, is it any less of a win? No.

Has LSAC compensated for the proliferation of test prep companies by ramping up the difficulty of the test and varying the types of questions throughout the past decade or so? I'm simply not qualified to offer an opinion of how strong a predictor of success in law school that the LSAT is or is not. I will, however, say in defense of the LSAT, it is the one constant in the admissions process. No matter how flawed it is, it's equally flawed for everyone. It is impossible to solve an equation without a constant, and it's also nearly impossible to compare applicants from such dissimilar backgrounds without some common factor that applies to all.

I do struggle with the applicability of LR and AR to law school. How exactly do the skills tested in these sections correlate to law school success? RC and the WS I get, since that is the bulk of law school (reading and writing). From my perspective, the LR and AR seem to just set a curve for the test. Correct me if I am wrong. The LR, especially, is structured with such tight time constraints and is designed to be tricky. How is this reproduced in law school? Critical thinking skills and the recognition of fallacies are sound basic tools, but do you really encounter such contrived problems in law school? Maybe someone with more experience can answer that.

At the end of the day, all of this matters only to people who want to attend T14 schools and get jobs at large firms. I won't knock those goals, but they are not for me. For people who could care less about such things, the LSAT is little more than an annoying hoop to jump through in the admissions process. There is no T14 that I could stomach attending... for one, the debt load would give me ulcers. Secondly, one has to consider a very important metric when choosing a T14: the A$$hole index. The biggest A$$holes that I have met in life came from T14 schools and will never miss an opportunity to remind you of it. I would rather saw off my genitals with a puddy knife than be stuck in a section of those tools. That is not to say that everyone or mostly everyone who attends a T14 is a repugnant toad. Many are cool... but the magnitude of feminine hygiene product-bags seems to be much greater, from my experience. Knowing me, they would boot me out for getting into too many fights with the pompous, trust-fund brigade.

SCK2008

  • ****
  • 1310
    • View Profile
Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2008, 11:48:57 AM »
I have worked for many attorneys and I think it all comes down to determination.   I worked for a a succesful attorney that went to an online law school that is not even ABA approved.  He  had attorneys from Berkely, UCLA, etc working under him. He worked hard to make something of himself and did not sit around on law discussion boards talking about how unfair everything is. Life is hard and you are obviously intelligent people to have gotten through law school, but if you are wasting your time whining about how bad your life is on this discussion board you aren't spending your time out looking for jobs or working to change your situation.  Get out and change it for God's sakes. The mayor of Los Angeles didn't even go to an ABA approved school and never passed the bar he is doing well for himself, so stop whining and start doing.

You must be new here, thatís not how it works on LSD, there are a hierarchy of things you blame because you canít find a job first:

1. Your school
2. Your school padding career placement
3. The over abundance of T2/3/4 grads flooding the market
4. Your schools career services office
5. Everyone going to a school ranked higher than yours
6. The bad economy
7. The system
8. Your classmates
9. The high cost of stamps
10. Your gerbil dying that caused you to get two years of bad grades in law school that are not your fault
11. The unrealistic B+ curve that makes getting a A so hard
12. Minorities that should not be there taking your grades from you
13. ADD
14. Your school again for good measure
15. Anything and everything except yourself having any evolvement in your grades, interviewing skills or lack of employment.


Eff you Matthies!  My school told me I'd be rich!  All I should have to do is show up daily, graduate, and then start collecting paychecks...they owe me!  I'm not paying for an education; I'm paying to get paid!

That's how it works in the real world!!

Responding to all three posters:  here's the bottom line:  From certain schools, it's easy to get a job.  From most schools, it's not.  From some schools, it's very hard. 

These are simple realities.  Students who know about these facts should not whine about the unfairness of USNews or employer perceptions if they graduate from a school with weak placement.  They will have to hustle to find any job, and may have to open their own practice.  That's just the way it is.  They may well end up working in other fields.

However, it would be better if there was more open and honest disclosure about placement realities, especially from lower-ranked schools.  That information is not in fact esay to find, and it is often covered up or distorted by schools.  Saying that every 22 year old applicant should become an investigative journalist to determine actual placement is unrealistic and unnecessary. 

Bottom line, everyone suffers when the law school (and legal) population is overpopulated.  It's harder to find work, people create unnecessary litigation to make money, etc.  Society overall would benefit from more accurate placement data, as would the students in question. 

That's all.

Lol, DS.

But Linny- please get real.  I know we're going around in circles here but if the 22 year old is going to drop 100k he/she better be able to do some f-ing research...

hth...

I'm not sure why you're correlating the ability to borrow $100K (actually more like $150K) with the ability to perform investigative research.  Almost everyone can borrow the money, but not everyone is that bright.

SHOULD students be more skeptical, and more carefully investigate placement realities at their planned school?  Yes.  However, I think you'll also agree that it would be better if that information was more freely available, and not distorted/hidden by schools.  That's all we're saying. 

Should people be able to wipe their own asses?  Everybody wants a government handout these days huh?  Help me Uncle Sam?  I can't do *&^% on my own...hold my hand! 

These are very liberal ideas you're spewing; I hope you're proud of yourself.  What we need is deregulation/freedom/and less government intervention dammit...

I mean, the government really needs to step in and help the sub-prime mortgage assholes/f-ing idiots from losing their homes right?  Bail them out b/c they're too stupid to understand they're going to get screwed in a few years?  (though nobody was complaining about the booming economy at the time)...

These people (and people preparing to go to law school) had the tools in front of them and chose to ignore them- that is what this is about...

The school's job is to get you to enroll.  The bank's job is to get you to borrow.  The infomercial's job is to get you to buy...

YOUR job is to decide what you're paying for...

THIS HORSE HAS BEEN BEATEN BADLY/AGREE TO DISAGREE

Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #56 on: August 14, 2008, 12:39:54 PM »
"I do struggle with the applicability of LR and AR to law school. How exactly do the skills tested in these sections correlate to law school success? RC and the WS I get, since that is the bulk of law school (reading and writing). From my perspective, the LR and AR seem to just set a curve for the test. Correct me if I am wrong. The LR, especially, is structured with such tight time constraints and is designed to be tricky. How is this reproduced in law school? Critical thinking skills and the recognition of fallacies are sound basic tools, but do you really encounter such contrived problems in law school? Maybe someone with more experience can answer that."

I didn't want to copy the whole reply/post - these are getting long.

Kenpost, what you should do is google "sample exams" or "sample hypos" or "law hypos/hypotheticals".  I just did it and your best source will be American University.  It will list professors and professors by course/year.  Download a sample test for torts with what they usually call "ideal response" IE - an answer key. 

Basically what you'll find is that a hypo (which is the dominant form of testing in law school) is EXTREMELY similar, on a base level, to the analytical reasoning section of the LSAT.  A hypo requires three things that logic games require:  Finding the relevant information within the presented situation (issue spotting), organizing that information into something that coherently represents the larger issue, and then drawing the conclusions required by the question or questions presented.  The only difference between the hypo and logic games on the LSAT is that hypos will require knowledge of black letter law and how it will apply to the issues that you've spotted in the hypo.  Logic games of course don't require that.  But I'm sure once you read through a hypo and an ideal answer, the relevance of the LSAT will seem pretty clear.  You'll also pick up the relevance of the reading comprehension section.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3678
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #57 on: August 14, 2008, 01:10:18 PM »
"I do struggle with the applicability of LR and AR to law school. How exactly do the skills tested in these sections correlate to law school success? RC and the WS I get, since that is the bulk of law school (reading and writing). From my perspective, the LR and AR seem to just set a curve for the test. Correct me if I am wrong. The LR, especially, is structured with such tight time constraints and is designed to be tricky. How is this reproduced in law school? Critical thinking skills and the recognition of fallacies are sound basic tools, but do you really encounter such contrived problems in law school? Maybe someone with more experience can answer that."

I didn't want to copy the whole reply/post - these are getting long.

Kenpost, what you should do is google "sample exams" or "sample hypos" or "law hypos/hypotheticals".  I just did it and your best source will be American University.  It will list professors and professors by course/year.  Download a sample test for torts with what they usually call "ideal response" IE - an answer key. 

Basically what you'll find is that a hypo (which is the dominant form of testing in law school) is EXTREMELY similar, on a base level, to the analytical reasoning section of the LSAT.  A hypo requires three things that logic games require:  Finding the relevant information within the presented situation (issue spotting), organizing that information into something that coherently represents the larger issue, and then drawing the conclusions required by the question or questions presented.  The only difference between the hypo and logic games on the LSAT is that hypos will require knowledge of black letter law and how it will apply to the issues that you've spotted in the hypo.  Logic games of course don't require that.  But I'm sure once you read through a hypo and an ideal answer, the relevance of the LSAT will seem pretty clear.  You'll also pick up the relevance of the reading comprehension section.

As someone who missed every single game on the LSAT yet managed, has 12 credits left in LS and managed to  make number 13 in his class in law school, I strongly disagree. Games haveing nothing to do with law school exams. Games are stupod eveil things that you will never have to worry about again. 

Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2008, 01:50:24 PM »
"As someone who missed every single game on the LSAT yet managed, has 12 credits left in LS and managed to  make number 13 in his class in law school, I strongly disagree. Games haveing nothing to do with law school exams. Games are stupod eveil things that you will never have to worry about again." 

Deficiency on the LSAT (or disdain for it - or both) does not necessarily translate to deficiency on hypos or the study of law in general.  I never made that assertion - it would be rediculous.  I knew quite a few people who scored notoriously low on the lsat and were great successes in law school - many who ranked higher than me.

But I don't think that fact negates the widely held observation that games, reading comprehension, and to a degree, logical reasoning, have a fundamental thread in common with law school examinations and the broader study of law. I don't buy the success predictor model, but I do see the fundamental similarities.  It tests a certain aptitude, yes, but anything can overcome that initial lack of aptitude, even a subtle change in the way the aptitude is tested.

It could very well be that your growing familiarity with black letter law and how it is applied sort of de-clouds the hypothetical in a way that the randomness of the logic game topics were clouded. In that sense, it would follow that you (or anyone) could concievably do better.

Matthies

  • ****
  • 3678
    • View Profile
    • Tell me where you are going to school and you get a cat!
Re: 50% of Law Student Grads
« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2008, 02:32:10 PM »
"As someone who missed every single game on the LSAT yet managed, has 12 credits left in LS and managed to  make number 13 in his class in law school, I strongly disagree. Games haveing nothing to do with law school exams. Games are stupod eveil things that you will never have to worry about again." 

Deficiency on the LSAT (or disdain for it - or both) does not necessarily translate to deficiency on hypos or the study of law in general.  I never made that assertion - it would be rediculous.  I knew quite a few people who scored notoriously low on the lsat and were great successes in law school - many who ranked higher than me.

But I don't think that fact negates the widely held observation that games, reading comprehension, and to a degree, logical reasoning, have a fundamental thread in common with law school examinations and the broader study of law. I don't buy the success predictor model, but I do see the fundamental similarities.  It tests a certain aptitude, yes, but anything can overcome that initial lack of aptitude, even a subtle change in the way the aptitude is tested.

It could very well be that your growing familiarity with black letter law and how it is applied sort of de-clouds the hypothetical in a way that the randomness of the logic game topics were clouded. In that sense, it would follow that you (or anyone) could concievably do better.

I don't think the LSAT skills translate at all to law school exams , but they do translate to the skills you need to understand the materail as your reading it and learning it, and understanding why the court when one way or the other. They relate to the skills need to understand the materail, but not in my view to the skills needed to asnwer exam questions on the material, one is objective the other very subjective. Learning yes, testing no in my view.