Law School Discussion

.

briTTT

  • ****
  • 104
  • ...but not to pass it!
    • View Profile
.
« on: September 27, 2005, 11:52:09 PM »
:)

tacojohn

  • ****
  • 983
  • "I voted. P. Diddy told us to vote"
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2005, 07:05:44 AM »
It depends on where you're getting your list of good and bad schools.  The "good" schools in USNEWS are largly determined by reputation among judges and large law firms, and the stats of the entering class.

Typically, the top tier law schools have better students, as measured by the LSAT and GPA.  However, they tend to have more generous curves, and much less attrition than the lower tier schools.  More work typically isn't expected, because the curriculum is the same, especially in the first year.  You may have to work harder because the quality of students is a little better.

There's a few people around here who say that if you're going to be at the top of the entry class at one school, and near the median at another, you should consider going to the lower ranked school because you have a better chance of finishing near the top of the class.  I don't buy that because the curriculum is so similar, and the quality of a student is typically more dependent on how committed they are and how well they understand the difficulty of law school, which you get a range of in every law school.

PettiFogger

Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2005, 09:15:45 AM »
Nope.  After talking to many attorneys, I have learned that it doesn't matter where you go.  Its about your grades and your skills. 

I am not gonna lie.  I got a 153 and am heading towards Ave Maria (a 1st/2nd tier borderline school).  But, I bet I could out argue anyone of these 170+. 

LSAT is a test that has many loopholes.  One of them is that they can't accurately measure people's potential.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that I have potential (my parents, friends, and teachers told me) but the LSAT could not measure that.

Bottom line, LSD people are stupid.  They think lawschool is proportional to salary.  None of them has a law firm experience and that is why they are speculating.  Don't listen to them.

Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2005, 09:32:15 AM »
I imagine the answer to your question about what makes a law school "good" depends of your priorities.  US News rankings certainly have their problems (i.e. reputation scores are self reenforcing and arn't a very good way to compare "national" and "regional" schools) but they can provide a rough guide to the sort of career options you're likely to have.  Some schools offer something unique that isn't well represented by a simple score, like Northeastern's Coop program.

What are you hoping to get out of Law School?  A lawyer friend of mine told me that in her opinion one of the biggest mistakes people make upon entering law school is that they treat it as if it were an extension of their undergraduate education rather than a trade school.

Lucky77

Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2005, 10:13:45 PM »
I hate worthless trolls. I only like cool ones - like that one from Harry Potter that found Herminie in the bathroom. Man, what I would give to be alone with Herminie in a bathroom. Wait, what? who said that?

SCgrad

Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2005, 04:30:33 AM »
Nope.  After talking to many attorneys, I have learned that it doesn't matter where you go.  Its about your grades and your skills. 

I am not gonna lie.  I got a 153 and am heading towards Ave Maria (a 1st/2nd tier borderline school).  But, I bet I could out argue anyone of these 170+. 

LSAT is a test that has many loopholes.  One of them is that they can't accurately measure people's potential.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that I have potential (my parents, friends, and teachers told me) but the LSAT could not measure that.

Bottom line, LSD people are stupid.  They think lawschool is proportional to salary.  None of them has a law firm experience and that is why they are speculating.  Don't listen to them.

You are right about grades and skills being very important. Now, on to what is wrong with your post.  The first problem with your post is you allude to the fact you could "out argue anyone of these 170+" as meaning you will be a better lawyer.  Go talk to all those lawyers again and ask them how important arguing  is in becoming a good lawyer.  It's not close to the top of the list.  Interpreting the law is the most important thing in law. If your such a good arguer, I would recommend being a political pundit or something.  Second, there are actual statistics for average salaries for graduates of various law schools.  I believe UVA is first and Harvard is second.  I could be wrong.  Third, I have talked to my own set of lawyers, and while they say things like "I would rather have a top 10 student from UT (Tennessee) than a bottom half student at UVA," they also say things like "I wouldn't higher the number one from Grundy (Appy School of Law) under any circumstances."  There is something to be said about a higher quality of education.  Whether you think the rankings many people use are correct or not is not so important.  Some schools are better than others, they can't be the same, it just isn't possible.  Bottom line, it does matter where you go, maybe not as much as some people think ("Oh my God, Harvard rejected me, I'll never be a good lawyer now that I have to go to Cornell."), but it does matter.  Also, I think  "loopholes" is not the word you were looking for.  A loophole is a way to get around the way something is supposed to be (someone else could probably define this better).  I think "flaw" is the word you were looking for.  And yes, it has several flaws.  Most of us score in ranges of at least 10 points on practice tests, if it were perfect, your score would be the same every time.  Hell, I took the LSAT twice and scored 4 points different, did I get 4 points smarter the second time?  Probably not.  The bottom line is it is as fair a way to judge all applicants that is plausable.  Do you have a better way?  Furthermore, what is a "law firm experience?"  If you are saying no one here has ever worked in a law firm, your wrong.  If you are saying no one here is a lisenced attorney, neither are you.  If you are saying something else, I missed it.  If are such a good arguer, leave your childish name calling at the door and try to make more thoughtful remarks.

Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2005, 06:32:45 AM »
Well, that piece of toast IS worth $1000 if someone is willing to pay it - if you have a better definition of financial worth I'd like to hear it ;D


...and please, please, please don't let this turn into some sort of "money can't buy happiness' thread!




Yeah, it just seemed to me that a school is ranked high because it accepts high lsat/gpa applicants, and as a result, higher lsat/gpa people want to go there and as a result, the school has higher lsat/gpa applicants.  It's sort of like saying that a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary burned into it is worth $1,000 simply because someone is willing to pay that.  I guess I'm getting the impression that going to a better law school won't necessarily make you a 'better' lawyer in the long run.  I'm babbling...

Thanks for the input though/


tacojohn

  • ****
  • 983
  • "I voted. P. Diddy told us to vote"
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2005, 09:47:01 AM »
Nope.  After talking to many attorneys, I have learned that it doesn't matter where you go.  Its about your grades and your skills. 

I am not gonna lie.  I got a 153 and am heading towards Ave Maria (a 1st/2nd tier borderline school).  But, I bet I could out argue anyone of these 170+. 

LSAT is a test that has many loopholes.  One of them is that they can't accurately measure people's potential.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that I have potential (my parents, friends, and teachers told me) but the LSAT could not measure that.

Bottom line, LSD people are stupid.  They think lawschool is proportional to salary.  None of them has a law firm experience and that is why they are speculating.  Don't listen to them.

You are right about grades and skills being very important. Now, on to what is wrong with your post.  The first problem with your post is you allude to the fact you could "out argue anyone of these 170+" as meaning you will be a better lawyer.  Go talk to all those lawyers again and ask them how important arguing  is in becoming a good lawyer.  It's not close to the top of the list.  Interpreting the law is the most important thing in law. If your such a good arguer, I would recommend being a political pundit or something.  Second, there are actual statistics for average salaries for graduates of various law schools.  I believe UVA is first and Harvard is second.  I could be wrong.  Third, I have talked to my own set of lawyers, and while they say things like "I would rather have a top 10 student from UT (Tennessee) than a bottom half student at UVA," they also say things like "I wouldn't higher the number one from Grundy (Appy School of Law) under any circumstances."  There is something to be said about a higher quality of education.  Whether you think the rankings many people use are correct or not is not so important.  Some schools are better than others, they can't be the same, it just isn't possible.  Bottom line, it does matter where you go, maybe not as much as some people think ("Oh my God, Harvard rejected me, I'll never be a good lawyer now that I have to go to Cornell."), but it does matter.  Also, I think  "loopholes" is not the word you were looking for.  A loophole is a way to get around the way something is supposed to be (someone else could probably define this better).  I think "flaw" is the word you were looking for.  And yes, it has several flaws.  Most of us score in ranges of at least 10 points on practice tests, if it were perfect, your score would be the same every time.  Hell, I took the LSAT twice and scored 4 points different, did I get 4 points smarter the second time?  Probably not.  The bottom line is it is as fair a way to judge all applicants that is plausable.  Do you have a better way?  Furthermore, what is a "law firm experience?"  If you are saying no one here has ever worked in a law firm, your wrong.  If you are saying no one here is a lisenced attorney, neither are you.  If you are saying something else, I missed it.  If are such a good arguer, leave your childish name calling at the door and try to make more thoughtful remarks.
Flaw is the still not the right word.  Loophole is probably closer.  System is the way I thought about it.  It doesn't test an aptitude for the law.  It tests test-taking ability, like every standardized tests.  You can figure out the LSAT and work it to your advantage.

Anyway, don't feed the trolls.

bruin

  • *****
  • 13570
    • View Profile
Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2005, 10:53:27 PM »
I know that any school is made mostly by how good the teachers are and how smart the kids are.  In college, a better school will expect more work and knowledge by the students.  The pace is quicker, and you learn more.  I guess my question is:  What makes a law school good or bad. Is more work expected from kids at a better school?  Do they go quicker?  Is the material harder? 

Judging by my month of experience in LS, no; the reverse is most likely true.

tacojohn

  • ****
  • 983
  • "I voted. P. Diddy told us to vote"
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Does it really matter- a question about what makes a law school "good"
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2005, 08:16:03 AM »
I know that any school is made mostly by how good the teachers are and how smart the kids are.  In college, a better school will expect more work and knowledge by the students.  The pace is quicker, and you learn more.  I guess my question is:  What makes a law school good or bad. Is more work expected from kids at a better school?  Do they go quicker?  Is the material harder? 

Judging by my month of experience in LS, no; the reverse is most likely true.
That's also something I noticed.  I think though that the top tier schools aren't giving you as much.  They sort of expect you to be sitting around talking about the law all day and figuring it out on your own.