Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby GATORTIM » Wed May 05, 2010 2:59 pm

Always Credited wrote:Preemptive argument against the anecdote of Little Lucy, the wondergirl with a 2.5GPA and 154 LSAT who was just bad at tests but WTFROCKED law school somehow, and she wouldn't have had a chance but for TTT's - life isn't fair, sorry. Little Lucy can go to hell. Think of the T14 grads who worked their ass off for 3 years and are now unemployed...that isn't ever cited as being "unfair".


I think its fkn hilarious when somebody creates hypos for the sole purpose of setting themselves up for the kill....get 'em tough guy

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:01 pm

GATORTIM wrote:
Always Credited wrote:Preemptive argument against the anecdote of Little Lucy, the wondergirl with a 2.5GPA and 154 LSAT who was just bad at tests but WTFROCKED law school somehow, and she wouldn't have had a chance but for TTT's - life isn't fair, sorry. Little Lucy can go to hell. Think of the T14 grads who worked their ass off for 3 years and are now unemployed...that isn't ever cited as being "unfair".


I think its fkn hilarious when somebody creates hypos for the sole purpose of setting themselves up for the kill....get 'em tough guy


I think its fucking hilarious when people use the same example so many times to prop up their shitty arguments that I can predict it accurately.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby General Tso » Wed May 05, 2010 3:08 pm

Always Credited wrote:
Borhas wrote:so what does the profession being grossly overpopulated have with the scary thought that people who do shitty on the LSAT get to become lawyers?

Would it be a scary thought for a patient to have access to many doctors? No, that's what the patient wants.

My point was that the Bar at least works as a minimum requirement filter. There's a difference between what's bad for lawyers, and what's scary for the rest of society.

BTW I do think the profession is grossly overpopulated, and it sure as hell would be in my interest if it where otherwise.


Lets continue the example you gave about doctors.

If 10 'New Med Schools' were opened in the US and filled their classes with subpar MCAT/GPA students, the top 15% of those students would still likely qualify as doctors. Say each new class was 100 students. That's still 150 new doctors entering into the medical profession - as you say, this is good for patient and bad for doctors.

The next year, emboldened by the money the New Med Schools have made, 10 'Even Newer Med Schools' are opened. Again, they fill their classes with even less qualified students, and only the top 10% on average goes through to medical practice. This is now 100 more doctors added to the field. Several of these doctors are highly qualified professionals who took $$$ at the Even Newer Med School over, say, Hopkins, and has no trouble securing a job over candidates from higher ranked schools...

You can extrapolate the cycle from here. Eventually the medical profession would become overpopulated and actually a POOR investment to make in most cases, as law has now become. But it won't - why? Because new schools aren't allowed to open at will, with ridiculously sub-par standards of operation and accreditation relative to today's realistic standards.


Your premise is faulty. Even though the population of the US has gone up, and the number of med school applicants has gone up, the acceptance rate at med schools has stayed relatively flat. So many of the borderline MCAT/GPA people you call "subpar" would have been accepted in earlier years, say a decade or so ago.

FWIW only 3 new med schools have opened since 1980, and there is no reason to think that allowing ONE NEW MED SCHOOL is going to open the floodgates to oblivion. The AMA is allowed to restrict the supply of doctors and there is no reason to think they would discontinue this practice any time in the near future. Interesting site re: supply of doctors in US --> http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medic ... es-so-high

User avatar
pany1985
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:08 am

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby pany1985 » Wed May 05, 2010 3:10 pm

Obviously America needs lawyers more than doctors. It's just common sense. Our healthcare is already too good, and hardly anyone ever gets sued. The ABA is merely trying to restore balance to our society.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:13 pm

General Tso wrote:
Always Credited wrote:
Borhas wrote:so what does the profession being grossly overpopulated have with the scary thought that people who do shitty on the LSAT get to become lawyers?

Would it be a scary thought for a patient to have access to many doctors? No, that's what the patient wants.

My point was that the Bar at least works as a minimum requirement filter. There's a difference between what's bad for lawyers, and what's scary for the rest of society.

BTW I do think the profession is grossly overpopulated, and it sure as hell would be in my interest if it where otherwise.


Lets continue the example you gave about doctors.

If 10 'New Med Schools' were opened in the US and filled their classes with subpar MCAT/GPA students, the top 15% of those students would still likely qualify as doctors. Say each new class was 100 students. That's still 150 new doctors entering into the medical profession - as you say, this is good for patient and bad for doctors.

The next year, emboldened by the money the New Med Schools have made, 10 'Even Newer Med Schools' are opened. Again, they fill their classes with even less qualified students, and only the top 10% on average goes through to medical practice. This is now 100 more doctors added to the field. Several of these doctors are highly qualified professionals who took $$$ at the Even Newer Med School over, say, Hopkins, and has no trouble securing a job over candidates from higher ranked schools...

You can extrapolate the cycle from here. Eventually the medical profession would become overpopulated and actually a POOR investment to make in most cases, as law has now become. But it won't - why? Because new schools aren't allowed to open at will, with ridiculously sub-par standards of operation and accreditation relative to today's realistic standards.


Your premise is faulty. Even though the population of the US has gone up, and the number of med school applicants has gone up, the acceptance rate at med schools has stayed relatively flat. So many of the borderline MCAT/GPA people you call "subpar" would have been accepted in earlier years, say a decade or so ago.

FWIW only 3 new med schools have opened since 1980, and there is no reason to think that allowing ONE NEW MED SCHOOL is going to open the floodgates to oblivion. The AMA is allowed to restrict the supply of doctors and there is no reason to think they would discontinue this practice any time in the near future. Interesting site re: supply of doctors in US --> http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medic ... es-so-high


How does that show my premise to be faulty..? The Med students would've been accepted years earlier, sure - but not now. Likewise, law applicants with 152's would've been accepted to T1 programs years ago, but not now - the difference being, and the one I pointed out, the ABA has accredited new law schools which opened to accommodate these lower-scoring students. I didn't say NO Med schools have opened, I simply said that they restrict the supply of MD's to protect the value of the degree, something the ABA does not do for JD's.

User avatar
evilgenius
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:18 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby evilgenius » Wed May 05, 2010 3:16 pm

Here's my take: I think many people on TLS don't understand that some aren't worried about getting a a big law (or even mid-small law) position. Many applicants (like the OP) already have happy, established careers. Some people attend law school for the purpose of advancing in this career or approaching their field from a different angle. Those students aren't worried about job prospects so it doesn't matter where they attend law school. ITE if they are unable to get a legal job, they will go back to their former careers with an additional credential. I don't know if this is worth the $200K investment, but if someone in this situation doesn't have to pay, I'd say go for it.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend that the average law school applicant - the 23 yr old, pol. sci major, with no real world experience - attend a T3 or T4.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:19 pm

evilgenius wrote:Here's my take: I think many people on TLS don't understand that some aren't worried about getting a a big law (or even mid-small law) position. Many applicants (like the OP) already have happy, established careers. Some people attend law school for the purpose of advancing in this career or approaching their field from a different angle. Those students aren't worried about job prospects so it doesn't matter where they attend law school. ITE if they are unable to get a legal job, they will go back to their former careers with an additional credential. I don't know if this is worth the $200K investment, but if someone in this situation doesn't have to pay, I'd say go for it.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend that the average law school applicant - the 23 yr old, pol. sci major, with no real world experience - attend a T3 or T4.


There's no reason why the person you described can't attend a Top100 program. Unless, of course, they can't score high enough on the LSAT - in which case, they should not be allowed to hold a JD, no matter how much they may want one.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby GATORTIM » Wed May 05, 2010 3:21 pm

Always Credited wrote:How does that show my premise to be faulty..? The Med students would've been accepted years earlier, sure - but not now. Likewise, law applicants with 152's would've been accepted to T1 programs years ago, but not now - the difference being, and the one I pointed out, the ABA has accredited new law schools which opened to accommodate these lower-scoring students. I didn't say NO Med schools have opened, I simply said that they restrict the supply of MD's to protect the value of the degree, something the ABA does not do for JD's.


Where do you draw the line (or more specifically the LSAT score) for this ABA eutopia you speak of? I would be willing to bet there are plenty of 168+ students at T-14's that couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag and have absolutely no business practicing law.

savagecheater
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby savagecheater » Wed May 05, 2010 3:23 pm

Lawyerwannabe18 wrote:
ilovelawapps wrote:I agree with what derrickrose said. It sucks to put it that way, but t3 and t4 law schools do lessen the value of the degree overall. If you look at med schools for example, getting into ANY med school is about as difficult as getting into a t14 for law. You have to have top grades in hard science, rock the mcat (30 is hardly competitive now, you're looking at 34+, which I imagine is roughly equivalent to scoring 169+ on the lsat), have solid extra curricular activities, physician shadowing, lab work etc. The pay off is that no matter where you go to med school (in the US) you're guaranteed a solid position.

As far as law school goes, all you need is a loan to be a lawyer. Of course lawyers don't have as much or as important an effect over other people's lives as doctors do, but they still play an important role in people's lives and society as a whole. It seems that if you want to be a lawyer then no problem you can be one. If you want to be a doctor you have to prove you deserve it. You can get more than half the lsat wrong and still get a JD. I know the correlation isn't perfect, but how would you feel if your doctor got half the med school entrance exam wrong?


Scary to think about. The ABA should just remove every school outside of the top 100


I hesitate to admit it, because I'm of the belief that the more educated a society is as a whole, the better off it will be, but I agree.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby DoubleChecks » Wed May 05, 2010 3:27 pm

why are ppl arguing w/ Always Credited? Isnt his screen name Always Credited? im confused

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:27 pm

GATORTIM wrote:
Always Credited wrote:How does that show my premise to be faulty..? The Med students would've been accepted years earlier, sure - but not now. Likewise, law applicants with 152's would've been accepted to T1 programs years ago, but not now - the difference being, and the one I pointed out, the ABA has accredited new law schools which opened to accommodate these lower-scoring students. I didn't say NO Med schools have opened, I simply said that they restrict the supply of MD's to protect the value of the degree, something the ABA does not do for JD's.


Where do you draw the line (or more specifically the LSAT score) for this ABA eutopia you speak of?[strike]I would be willing to bet there are plenty of 168+ students at T-14's that couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag and have absolutely no business practicing law.[/strike]


I personally draw the line after the top 100 programs+several T3/T4 schools that serve a direct regional interest, i.e. Duquesne for Pittsburgh. Approximately 50-60 schools should, in my opinion, have their accreditation revoked.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:29 pm

DoubleChecks wrote:why are ppl arguing w/ Always Credited? Isnt his screen name Always Credited? im confused


:lol: :lol:

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby romothesavior » Wed May 05, 2010 3:30 pm

Always Credited wrote:
GATORTIM wrote:
Always Credited wrote:How does that show my premise to be faulty..? The Med students would've been accepted years earlier, sure - but not now. Likewise, law applicants with 152's would've been accepted to T1 programs years ago, but not now - the difference being, and the one I pointed out, the ABA has accredited new law schools which opened to accommodate these lower-scoring students. I didn't say NO Med schools have opened, I simply said that they restrict the supply of MD's to protect the value of the degree, something the ABA does not do for JD's.


Where do you draw the line (or more specifically the LSAT score) for this ABA eutopia you speak of?[strike]I would be willing to bet there are plenty of 168+ students at T-14's that couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag and have absolutely no business practicing law.[/strike]


I personally draw the line after the top 100 programs+several T3/T4 schools that serve a direct regional interest, i.e. Duquesne for Pittsburgh. Approximately 50-60 schools should, in my opinion, have their accreditation revoked.


+1. There are also some state schools that are very cheap (Northern Illinois and Southern Illinois come to mind in my homestate) that fill a niche. If your goal is to be a smalltown PD, prosecutor, small claims lawyer, DUI attorney, etc. and you can go to a school like this for dirt cheap, then knock yourself out. I have a few friends going this route and they are likely to be in decent shape. I also have a few friends going to JMU in Chicago and I want to shake the sense into them.

The rank isn't the overriding factor. Its the cost-benefit analysis that should be guiding. Some T3/T4 schools are decent investments if you really want to be a lawyer, while others are financial suicide.

User avatar
evilgenius
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:18 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby evilgenius » Wed May 05, 2010 3:33 pm

Always Credited wrote:
evilgenius wrote:Here's my take: I think many people on TLS don't understand that some aren't worried about getting a a big law (or even mid-small law) position. Many applicants (like the OP) already have happy, established careers. Some people attend law school for the purpose of advancing in this career or approaching their field from a different angle. Those students aren't worried about job prospects so it doesn't matter where they attend law school. ITE if they are unable to get a legal job, they will go back to their former careers with an additional credential. I don't know if this is worth the $200K investment, but if someone in this situation doesn't have to pay, I'd say go for it.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend that the average law school applicant - the 23 yr old, pol. sci major, with no real world experience - attend a T3 or T4.


There's no reason why the person you described can't attend a Top100 program. Unless, of course, they can't score high enough on the LSAT - in which case, they should not be allowed to hold a JD, no matter how much they may want one.


That where the problem comes in - what's "high enough" on the LSAT? 150? 160? It seems as though most TLS'ers scored a 165+ - is that the standard?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18406
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby bk1 » Wed May 05, 2010 3:36 pm

evilgenius wrote:
Always Credited wrote:
evilgenius wrote:Here's my take: I think many people on TLS don't understand that some aren't worried about getting a a big law (or even mid-small law) position. Many applicants (like the OP) already have happy, established careers. Some people attend law school for the purpose of advancing in this career or approaching their field from a different angle. Those students aren't worried about job prospects so it doesn't matter where they attend law school. ITE if they are unable to get a legal job, they will go back to their former careers with an additional credential. I don't know if this is worth the $200K investment, but if someone in this situation doesn't have to pay, I'd say go for it.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend that the average law school applicant - the 23 yr old, pol. sci major, with no real world experience - attend a T3 or T4.


There's no reason why the person you described can't attend a Top100 program. Unless, of course, they can't score high enough on the LSAT - in which case, they should not be allowed to hold a JD, no matter how much they may want one.


That where the problem comes in - what's "high enough" on the LSAT? 150? 160? It seems as though most TLS'ers scored a 165+ - is that the standard?


The bar doesn't have a problem setting a line for pass/fail.

User avatar
GATORTIM
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby GATORTIM » Wed May 05, 2010 3:37 pm

AC, fair enough, but I think it's silly line-item my 2nd point. I would argue that schools (limited amount of TTT's) should exist for the mid-range LSAT as this test does not encapsulate the entire skill-set of an effective attorney.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:37 pm

evilgenius wrote:
Always Credited wrote:
evilgenius wrote:Here's my take: I think many people on TLS don't understand that some aren't worried about getting a a big law (or even mid-small law) position. Many applicants (like the OP) already have happy, established careers. Some people attend law school for the purpose of advancing in this career or approaching their field from a different angle. Those students aren't worried about job prospects so it doesn't matter where they attend law school. ITE if they are unable to get a legal job, they will go back to their former careers with an additional credential. I don't know if this is worth the $200K investment, but if someone in this situation doesn't have to pay, I'd say go for it.

That being said, I wouldn't recommend that the average law school applicant - the 23 yr old, pol. sci major, with no real world experience - attend a T3 or T4.


There's no reason why the person you described can't attend a Top100 program. Unless, of course, they can't score high enough on the LSAT - in which case, they should not be allowed to hold a JD, no matter how much they may want one.


That where the problem comes in - what's "high enough" on the LSAT? 150? 160? It seems as though most TLS'ers scored a 165+ - is that the standard?


The standard is whatever the schools set. If Cardozo lets you in with a 152, good for you. If Brooklyn dings you with a 171, you're up a creek; it's simply at their discretion. But the power of discretion cannot be granted so broadly that there's literally an ABA accredited law school to fit ANY score, which is the situation we currently have.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:41 pm

GATORTIM wrote:AC, fair enough, but I think it's silly line-item my 2nd point. I would argue that schools (limited amount of TTT's) should exist for the mid-range LSAT as this test does not encapsulate the entire skill-set of an effective attorney.


That would be a fair compromise to make if we were the group deciding the fate of American law schools (lulz). Leaving 2-3 bigger, cutthroat TTT's open for the people who REALLY, REALLY want a JD but just can't meet the conventional credentials isn't a terrible idea - so long as those schools 1.) have a completely static class size every year to prevent "JD inflation", and 2.) are [forced to be] completely up front about what they do, what happens if you fail, and possibly worse - what happens if you graduate.

Also, just for full disclosure - I think several TTT's actually have more value than certain schools in the top 100. However, because this is a message board and we're going for more arbitrary cutoffs to make a point, there's no need to get into all that.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Borhas » Wed May 05, 2010 3:45 pm

Always Credited wrote:The problem is that the minimum requirement has not been updated to match current trends - this affects law more than medicine because law (ironically) took advantage of this situation to open a multitude of schools for pure profit, whereas medicine strictly regulated itself (again, ironic) to retain the value of the MD. No one can possibly argue that an MD is not worth more than a JD, and these differing tactics played a big role in that.


dude, stop conflating the worth of a JD to the lawyer (investment) with the worth of the lawyer's JD to society (whether they meet minimum reqs to be a competent lawyer).

That's not what this argument is about. At all.

Now, our issue is whether or not the "minimum requirements" are good enough. Most on TLS seem to feel they are not, and that's why TTT's serving only to profit from tuition dollars should be shut down by the ABA.


yes, this is the issue,

However, you make some serious errors.

First of all Most of TLS is made of 0L's, there are a few upper level law students, and VERY FEW actual lawyers.

The scope of TLS' conventional wisdom:
1. which law schools are prestigious
2. how to game admissions
3. what are the employment prospects of these law schools
4. how to do well on law school
5. how to get jobs from law school

none of that includes anything about what it takes to actually practice law. you will see info on how to be a competent applicant, and sometimes, very rarely you will see information on how to be a competent student... Even more rarely you'll see info about how to get a certain job. But almost nobody here talks about actually practicing law... because there are VERY FEW practicing attorneys here.

What does this all mean? Conventional wisdom may say that the low ranked schools will have bad employment prospects, but it won't say that graduates from those schools are too incompetent to practice law, it says that there are just not enough law jobs to go around.

Those are two very different ideas.

Their operation devalues the JD's from legitimate schools. And yes, I'll go so far as to call many of those shitholes illegitimate. To the bleeding hearts of TTT's, I don't care. If a student is intelligent enough to succeed at a TTT, that student is intelligent enough to attend a better school and therefore should do so.

Preemptive argument against the anecdote of Little Lucy, the wondergirl with a 2.5GPA and 154 LSAT who was just bad at tests but WTFROCKED law school somehow, and she wouldn't have had a chance but for TTT's - life isn't fair, sorry. Little Lucy can go to hell. Think of the T14 grads who worked their ass off for 3 years and are now unemployed...that isn't ever cited as being "unfair".


now you are just rambling

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Always Credited » Wed May 05, 2010 3:55 pm

Borhas wrote:
Always Credited wrote:The problem is that the minimum requirement has not been updated to match current trends - this affects law more than medicine because law (ironically) took advantage of this situation to open a multitude of schools for pure profit, whereas medicine strictly regulated itself (again, ironic) to retain the value of the MD. No one can possibly argue that an MD is not worth more than a JD, and these differing tactics played a big role in that.


dude, stop conflating the worth of a JD to the lawyer (investment) with the worth of the lawyer's JD to society (whether they meet minimum reqs to be a competent lawyer).

That's not what this argument is about. At all.

Now, our issue is whether or not the "minimum requirements" are good enough. Most on TLS seem to feel they are not, and that's why TTT's serving only to profit from tuition dollars should be shut down by the ABA.


yes, this is the issue,

However, you make some serious errors.

First of all Most of TLS is made of 0L's, there are a few upper level law students, and VERY FEW actual lawyers.

The scope of TLS' conventional wisdom:
1. which law schools are prestigious
2. how to game admissions
3. what are the employment prospects of these law schools
4. how to do well on law school
5. how to get jobs from law school
6. The current status of legal employment, explained by 1L's and 2L's at various schools currently going through or having completed OCI and job searches.

none of that includes anything about what it takes to actually practice law. you will see info on how to be a competent applicant, and sometimes, very rarely you will see information on how to be a competent student... Even more rarely you'll see info about how to get a certain job. But almost nobody here talks about actually practicing law... because there are VERY FEW practicing attorneys here.

What does this all mean? Conventional wisdom may say that the low ranked schools will have bad employment prospects, but it won't say that graduates from those schools are too incompetent to practice law, it says that there are just not enough law jobs to go around.

Those are two very different ideas.

Their operation devalues the JD's from legitimate schools. And yes, I'll go so far as to call many of those shitholes illegitimate. To the bleeding hearts of TTT's, I don't care. If a student is intelligent enough to succeed at a TTT, that student is intelligent enough to attend a better school and therefore should do so.

Preemptive argument against the anecdote of Little Lucy, the wondergirl with a 2.5GPA and 154 LSAT who was just bad at tests but WTFROCKED law school somehow, and she wouldn't have had a chance but for TTT's - life isn't fair, sorry. Little Lucy can go to hell. Think of the T14 grads who worked their ass off for 3 years and are now unemployed...that isn't ever cited as being "unfair".


now you are just rambling


You forgot a key point, so I added it in for you. And that wisdom has a direct impact on the argument at hand. 30,000 legal jobs for 40,000+ qualified graduates. The effects of this are being felt down the entire line of schools, from top to bottom. Your argument of more JDs being "good for society if not for lawyers" is odd - when was the last time 10,000 unemployed lawyers was good for society?

I never said a TTT grad would be worse at practicing law. I only said that the TTT schools are making it harder for ALL law graduates to actually have an opportunity to practice the law.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18406
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby bk1 » Wed May 05, 2010 3:59 pm

Borhas wrote:What does this all mean? Conventional wisdom may say that the low ranked schools will have bad employment prospects, but it won't say that graduates from those schools are too incompetent to practice law, it says that there are just not enough law jobs to go around.

Those are two very different ideas.


I think AC is arguing that a 2.0/140 (and thus whose only options are T3/T4) is not likely to become a competent law practitioner. I could be wrong on my interpretation of this.

lawschoollll
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby lawschoollll » Wed May 05, 2010 4:03 pm

Always Credited wrote: The standard is whatever the schools set. If Cardozo lets you in with a 152, good for you. If Brooklyn dings you with a 171, you're up a creek; it's simply at their discretion. But the power of discretion cannot be granted so broadly that there's literally an ABA accredited law school to fit ANY score, which is the situation we currently have.


False:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/junior201

User avatar
dvd
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby dvd » Wed May 05, 2010 4:04 pm

`
Last edited by dvd on Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18406
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby bk1 » Wed May 05, 2010 4:04 pm

lawschoollll wrote:
Always Credited wrote: The standard is whatever the schools set. If Cardozo lets you in with a 152, good for you. If Brooklyn dings you with a 171, you're up a creek; it's simply at their discretion. But the power of discretion cannot be granted so broadly that there's literally an ABA accredited law school to fit ANY score, which is the situation we currently have.


False:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/junior201


Not false: Pending at Cooley. :P

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Why is there continual bashing of T3 & T4 schools?

Postby Borhas » Wed May 05, 2010 4:07 pm

bk1 wrote:
Borhas wrote:What does this all mean? Conventional wisdom may say that the low ranked schools will have bad employment prospects, but it won't say that graduates from those schools are too incompetent to practice law, it says that there are just not enough law jobs to go around.

Those are two very different ideas.


I think AC is arguing that a 2.0/140 (and thus whose only options are T3/T4) is not likely to become a competent law practitioner. I could be wrong on my interpretation of this.


Those #'s may be extreme, but some variation of crappy numbers... yeah that's what I thought he was saying too, but that's what I was arguing against. If the 2.0/140 is too incompetent to practice law then they probably wouldn't 1. graduate from an accredited LS, and 2. pass the bar.

I never said a TTT grad would be worse at practicing law. I only said that the TTT schools are making it harder for ALL law graduates to actually have an opportunity to practice the law


then I don't know why you think you are disagreeing with me

My first post on this issue was aimed at pointing that if a 2.0/140 can graduate from an accredited law school, and can pass the bar then YES THEY PROBABLY ARE COMPETENT ENOUGH.

But it turns out that Always Credited wasn't even disagreeing with me. He instead wanted to harp on how allowing 2.0/140's to practice law (even if they could graduate and pass the bar) would devalue the JD to the point that it is hard for lawyers to find jobs (which I agree with).




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest