I think the reason a lt don't see them correlate is because law school tests and the LSAT can require a different skill. One could be really good at law school tests but not as good on the lsat

LSAT does correlate with law school performance though. It's not a huge correlation, but it's ok. LSAT+GPA is like .4 correlation. The rest is probably the factors I previously mentioned + luck.

Question is too vague. Tier 1 is roughly 50 law schools (maybe 35 if you want to be conservative and count the ones that are always in the top-50 and in no danger of ever falling out, e.g. no Arizona State). If the "tier 1" school is HYSCCN, I'd rather be the bottom student there. If it's, say, UC Hastings, I'd rather be #1 at a T4. But a better question is why wouldn't the T4 student have transferred.

False dichotomy is false.

Could the person ranked #1 at a tier 4 school really transfer to a tier 1 school? I figured that it would be more tier 2 or low tier 1 at sticker price, right? And for the record, I was referring to 20s-30s... but I suppose the question applies to the top 50 or whatever is called "tier 1" these days.

I wasn't implying you cannot be a million places between the two. I was simply inquiring about which you would rather be. So, which is it, romothesavior?

Number 1 at a T4 by a mile. Being below median at a non-T14 T1 is scary stuff, whereas #1 at a T4 shouldn't have trouble getting a job.

I really wouldn't think too much about this though because it shouldn't have a bearing on any decision.

not even #1 at tier 4 and I transfered into the t10.

Wow that is great! I had no idea law school was so transfer friendly.

I am unable to make a decision one way or the other, regardless. I have 4 days. I am strongly considering seeing a psychic as I have otherwise exhausted all options.

It is kind of a dirty little secret about law school. Check out the transfer forum, there are plenty of similar stories to my own. If you are top 5% anywhere you have the ability to make a big jump up.

EDIT: do not for a second think that going to a lower-tiered school will be any easier or the students won't be as smart.

I wouldn't know if they are or aren't. What is your take? Do you feel the competition is equal at both schools?

And therein lies the rub.

You really need to realize that no matter how hard you work, you run a high probability of being outside the top 5 percent. If you go in expecting this, you're likely to get burned. Don't go unless you are comfortable with your prospects being at median from a school IMO.

Maybe I misunderstood, I got the impression you were saying that it would be easier to get good grades at a lower-tiered school because the gpa/lsats we're lower.

My take is there is no way to predict if you will be good at law school or not. Nothing indicated I would do well and I did, I just worked really hard. A lot of transfers get top of the class type grades after transferring, law school is just funny like that. That is why the overwhelming sentiment on this board is to go to a top school or go somewhere with a full-ride, those are the lowest risk options.

If you can get into a school, you are smart enough to be #1 in the class. The biggest difference maker is the FOCUSED effort you put into it. Read some of the guides on this site and get an idea for what it takes to do well, then do it. Don't just think about doing it, actually go do it. Natural ability plays a role but not as big of one as you would think.

I generally agree that predicting grade success based on the LSAT is futile, and people shouldn't base their decisions on an assumption that going to a lower tier school will produce much better grades. Getting good grades requires a lot of things, and some people just aren't able to produce high quality exam answers, even really smart people. To some degree, doing well in law school is one of those things you just "get" or you don't. And obviously assuming better grades at schools that are close in student quality (like a lower T14 with a 170 LSAT median will be more difficult than a T30 with a 167 LSAT median) is just downright stupid, because the difference in scores is negligible.

But you really think there is no difference at all in the intelligence of the students or the difficulty of the curve between a T4 or a T1? You think the competition at an Ave Maria (150/3.2) is going to be anywhere near on par with a middle T1 school like, say William & Mary (165/3.7)? That just seems ridiculous to me. There is little doubt in my mind that if I or any of my colleagues at WUSTL were picked up and dropped into a T4, we would all have significantly better grades.

So yeah, I agree with your general conclusions (don't think going to a T4 will enable you to kill it and transfer), but let's not overstate it either.


And I'm sorry but this is just in no way my experience or the experience of any of my friends, both those on TLS and IRL. Most of the people I go to school with are fairly intelligent, but to say that any one of them has the capability to be #1 in the class is just ridiculous. And while a sufficient level of hard work is necessary to doing well in law school, it is by no means determinative. I'd even argue its not very correlative to the curve. The people who are at the top of my class aren't just there because they outworked everyone; they're there because they worked hard, are really smart, write reasonably well (and quickly), know how to channel that on a law school exam, and yes, had a bit of luck. They didn't just outhustle everyone. This mentality is such a myth and it is a dangerous one to perpetuate.

But all of them being, as you say, highly intelligent doesn't mean all of them have equal ability to perform well on a law school exam...IMO even necessarily against a TTTT student.
It's not just hard work but how you study for an exam. You could study your butt off but do it horribly and inefficiently. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you cant really predict who would do well. I also dont think you can correlate it to "hard work." how the hell do you even measure how hard someone is working anyway? In my experience, a lot of people who think they work hard aren't actually working hard. They just think they are. Also, what I think he is saying by "FOCUS" is that practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. You have got to figure out how to play the game. Some people do and some people don't.

Edit: OP, I dont advise going to a lower ranked school expecting to do extremely well. However, if you do there is great great advice on this site on how to see your first year properly and study correctly (that is slaying the final is the only important thing. Figure out how to do so)

[Lawl Shcool/quote]If you can get into a school, you are smart enough to be #1 in the class. The biggest difference maker is the FOCUSED effort you put into it. Read some of the guides on this site and get an idea for what it takes to do well, then do it. Don't just think about doing it, actually go do it. Natural ability plays a role but not as big of one as you would think.[Lawl Shcool/quote]

I couldn't disagree more.

Oh good, this thread again.

You're taking what I'm saying too far. The t10 students, on the whole, are smarter. They don't necessarily all work that hard and nobody seems to be busting their asses like students were at the t4, but that could also be 1L year vs. 2L/3L. The curve is almost certainly harder at the t4, people actually fail. In the t10, grades are basically fake and you pass just for showing up.

If you got dropped into a t4 school, worked like you wanted to get good grades, then you probably would do a little better, but like you said there is a lot that goes into exams, including luck. The key is that you would still need to work for it.




I disagree with all of this, especially at the t4 I was at. I know that I did well because I outworked people. I don't just mean longer hours, I committed my outlines to memory, went over practice exams with professors, worked on improving my typing speed. I have never scored above the 70th percentile on a standardized test or had a gpa over 3.4 (until law school), natural ability just isn't there.

IMO, and where the sentiment that if you can get into a school, you can be #1 comes from, is that law exams aren't that hard. It isn't math where there is 1 correct answer. If you can spot the issues (easy if you know the issues from studying), write out full complete and correct rule statements (easy if you have your outline memorized cold), connect facts from the exam to the rule statements (the hard part - but still not that hard because there are only so many facts), and give a conclusion (which doesn't matter because there is no correct answer), then you will get good grades. I would guess most students don't do all of these fully, especially the memorizing.

At the t10, the student with the best grades I have heard of is a transfer that, by his own admission, isn't very smart but he just out grinds everyone. Most of what you say goes into an exam is learnable and you can get better at by practicing. Hence, the person who works the hardest (again this isn't just total hours) will win.

This is a more concise and better written version of what I am saying. A lot of people think they work hard but in reality are at the driving range getting ready for a football game.

I'm also going to add again that the person that works the hardest does not necessarily equal the person who works the smartest (adding more comment to your statement "not necessarily the longest hours wins).

Perfect analogy

Ya bro, we're on the same page.

Yep. Keep in mind that the effort of 2Ls at all schools, especially top schools where many students are employed after fall recruitment, is significantly less than during 1L year. Just go take a look at the "2L: No Motivation" thread. The difference is night and day.

As to the "anyone can be #1" thing, maybe it is just a function of the school you're at. Maybe at a T4 it is possible to simply outwork and outstudy all of your peers, but that's just not the case here and it's not the case at most T1 schools I'm familiar with. In my opinion, some threshold degree of hard work is a necessary, but it is by no means sufficient factor in doing well. I think that's what we disagree on, and I personally think it is dangerous for 0Ls to go in believing hard work, focus, etc. is sufficient.

Finally, I'm not trying to say that there aren't people at T4s who wouldn't be capable of competing with the T1 students. Far from it. I imagine a T4 student like yourself and many others like you could have done really well here or at a T1 during 1L year. People at the top of the class at a T4 would probably have very good grades at a T1 because they "cracked the code" for doing well on law school exams. But in the aggregate, the difference in talent between a T1 and a T4 is vast. There's just no way around it.

ETA: Let's just go back to the bros thread.