Law School Discussion

LSAT Score Theory

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2016, 10:09:56 PM »
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)
you...........think biglaw even asks in any way or fashion what your lsat score was???
and I can't stand people anyone who try to go "just my opinion" after random words with no reason come out. Did you EVER APPLY to "biglaw" or small law, or ANY law????

Apples come from potato plants...........just my opinion.

Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2016, 12:13:26 AM »
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.


Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2016, 02:17:39 AM »
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.
I am pretty sure OP has a variety of (possibly not fully diagnosed) mental disabilities

HerculePoirot

  • ****
  • 133
  • One must seek the truth from within--not without
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2016, 08:23:20 AM »
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.
I am pretty sure OP has a variety of (possibly not fully diagnosed) mental disabilities

I am 99.9% healthy. 8)

HerculePoirot

  • ****
  • 133
  • One must seek the truth from within--not without
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2016, 08:43:51 AM »
If you want to avoid people who say "just my opinion" an internet board that lets anyone offer their opinion about anything might not be an ideal place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvZBg7qLzU8 a little humor.

I get what your saying, but just kind of funny to think about.


The OP is just offering an opinion and I am sure there is a firm out there that asks what your LSAT score was and plenty that don't.

If you want a sports car, go Biglaw. 

HerculePoirot

  • ****
  • 133
  • One must seek the truth from within--not without
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2016, 08:44:50 AM »
I think OP is just being entertaining and I like it. Sure why not say 165 is necessary to succeed that is a good score.

I would also say you need to be at least 6'10 to make the NBA. There are countless examples of people under 6'10 that are in the NBA, but being 6'10 wouldn't hurt.

So yea if you are trying to attend law school I hope to get a 1650 or higher on the LSAT shoot for doing that why not, but even if you don't you can still succeed as an attorney.
Biglaw is where it's at.  I think you need a 165.  164 is a stretch.  Maybe there's exceptions.  This is just my point of view.  :)
you...........think biglaw even asks in any way or fashion what your lsat score was???
and I can't stand people anyone who try to go "just my opinion" after random words with no reason come out. Did you EVER APPLY to "biglaw" or small law, or ANY law????

Apples come from potato plants...........just my opinion.

No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #36 on: January 07, 2016, 12:16:41 PM »
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners.

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

HerculePoirot

  • ****
  • 133
  • One must seek the truth from within--not without
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2016, 12:39:36 PM »
No, but you can afford a sports car on a Biglaw salary.

Where do I even start. As someone who has actual experience with the matters being discussed, perhaps I can shed a little light onto this conversation.

Biglaw can come in many shapes and sizes ... well, shapes at least. Cravath and Quinn are not the same as, say, Jackson Lewis. Some BigLaw outfits are regional, some national, some international. Some are general practice, some are a little more specialized. It is a generic term used to roughly state that the place has a lot of attorneys, and pays well, and usually (but not always) is operating out of one or more of the larger legal markets.

Now, do you need a 165+ to work at BigLaw? No. You don't. I've worked at BigLaw, and I know that they don't ask for your LSAT. That doesn't quite end the discussion, however. The most prestigious BigLaw firms hire from the best schools. To get into the best schools, you need a high LSAT. In addition, some hires are made from the very top of other schools (those are usually the 10% plus law review to apply positions). As the LSAT is a decent predictor of law school success, there will be some correlation between doing well on the LSAT and getting a BigLaw job. But it's not close to a prerequisite, just as it's not a prerequisite to go to Harvard to work at Quinn (but it sure does help!).

Now, let's move to the sports car. Many boutique (that's law-speak for really, really small) law firms and mid-size firms will pay you more than enough to get that sports car. If you want to make the really, really big bucks, become a Plaintiff's Attorney. 33% (or whatever) of a bunch of settlements starts to add up. But the dirty secret of BigLaw is that almost none of those attorneys become partners within their own firm. You do the dirty work for a few years, pay off some bills, and then (hopefully) lateral to something more fulfilling. Many of those firms just poach attorneys that have built up their own book of business, or have gained other experience (say, as an AUSA) to become partners. No

Long story short- it's very hard to take your comment credibly.

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2016, 01:13:03 PM »

Yeah, maybe I'm half wrong.  I still think your best shot at getting into Biglaw is scoring a 165 and going to a top twenty school.

Well, to start with, a 165 (top 9% of so) on your LSAT won't get you into a Top 14 by itself (that's what you mean, right) Law School by itself. Cornell and GULC, for example, have a median score of 167/8. The Yales and Harvards of the world are at 173 (anything from a 171 on is the 98th percentile of testakers).

Really, your comment makes no sense. Look, if you want to say that your best chance of a BigLaw job (assuming that's what someone wants) is to go to a T14 school, that's fine. That's not very interesting. On the other hand, BigLaw is filled with people that didn't go to T14 schools (that's almost like a logic game, there).

I believe your earlier statement was that if you didn't score a 165, you shouldn't even consider law school, which is also a bizarre statement- and this is coming from one of this board's foremost proponents of the "don't go to law school" line of argument.

If a person can get into a law school, wants to practice law, and can minimize their costs, it's a good choice.


Re: LSAT Score Theory
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2016, 02:15:35 PM »
I'm loving this thread very entertaining.

I think as OP says getting a 165 is great and might inevitably lead to a sports car, which he has left unspecified. You got a micro machine sports car without a 165 LSAT.

As Loki properly points out and what many 0L's don't understand is that these vague terms (Big-Law) (Mid-Law)(Boutique) etc are all undefined.

Cravath is the prototypical Big-law firm, but what is the actual definition of Biglaw Bryan Cave has 1,100 attorneys that seems big to me, Jackson Lewis has 800, Severson & Werson has 120.

Is Severson still Biglaw? 

If they want to classify themselves as that sure or they can say they are a Boutique financial services firm if they wanted.

In short, 0L's read all these U.S. News Rankings, guidebooks, etc that don't have any practical application to the real world.

You graduate and pass the bar.

You then try to find a job as an attorney and apply to jobs that interest you, which hopefully hire you.