Sports Law/ Politics

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
sanjola
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby sanjola » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:30 pm

NoleFin wrote:
sanjola wrote:Thanks for the entertaining post, guys! :mrgreen:

I noticed your post numbers keep rising as I keep reading along. Are all your posts within this one thread? If so, great way to start your TLS posting career!


Start and end most likely. Terrible atmosphere, a bit smoky if you will.



It's really not a terrible atmosphere by any means. I've learned a lot from this place and you can too if you just put your defenses down a bit.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:30 pm

OK so explain how you have enough money to go to law school and graduate without debt and also have start up capital for your sports agent dreams... but at the same time are not rich.[/quote]

Because tuition at FL State is roughly 60k. I have that. I do not know how much startup money is needed for that, nor have I ever claimed I do.[/quote]

What about living expenses? But seriously, if you have 60K of savings to just plunk down on law school, you're rich to me.[/quote]

Ya living expenses will cost money but Ive been working for the past year at a contracting company so I have a pretty good foundation to start with.

Well then ya there ya go, we just were on different pages again. I would never call myself rich if i wasnt in 6 figures in my acct.

User avatar
Ludo!
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:22 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby Ludo! » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:31 pm

NoleFin wrote:
Well then ya there ya go, we just were on different pages again. I would never call myself rich if i wasnt in 6 figures in my acct.


That sounds like something a rich person would say

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:32 pm

sanjola wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
sanjola wrote:Thanks for the entertaining post, guys! :mrgreen:

I noticed your post numbers keep rising as I keep reading along. Are all your posts within this one thread? If so, great way to start your TLS posting career!


Start and end most likely. Terrible atmosphere, a bit smoky if you will.



It's really not a terrible atmosphere by any means. I've learned a lot from this place and you can too if you just put your defenses down a bit.


Maybe its not terrible, but its a far cry from "welcoming." Unless you went to Harvard that is.

My defenses have been down this entire time. I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

vinnnyvincenzo
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:05 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby vinnnyvincenzo » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:32 pm

Ludovico Technique wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
Well then ya there ya go, we just were on different pages again. I would never call myself rich if i wasnt in 6 figures in my acct.


That sounds like something a rich person would say


This made me laugh.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:33 pm

Ludovico Technique wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
Well then ya there ya go, we just were on different pages again. I would never call myself rich if i wasnt in 6 figures in my acct.


That sounds like something a rich person would say


Lol i suppose. I guess we have different definitions of rich. Im not trying to act like my family isnt middle-class to above middle class. Rich though? I dont know.

vinnnyvincenzo
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:05 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby vinnnyvincenzo » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:33 pm

NoleFin wrote:
sanjola wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
sanjola wrote:Thanks for the entertaining post, guys! :mrgreen:

I noticed your post numbers keep rising as I keep reading along. Are all your posts within this one thread? If so, great way to start your TLS posting career!


Start and end most likely. Terrible atmosphere, a bit smoky if you will.



It's really not a terrible atmosphere by any means. I've learned a lot from this place and you can too if you just put your defenses down a bit.


Maybe its not terrible, but its a far cry from "welcoming." Unless you went to Harvard that is.

My defenses have been down this entire time. I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.


I got a 169 with a month and a half of studying, can I talk down to you?

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:34 pm

vinnnyvincenzo wrote:
NoleFin wrote:\

It's really not a terrible atmosphere by any means. I've learned a lot from this place and you can too if you just put your defenses down a bit.


Maybe its not terrible, but its a far cry from "welcoming." Unless you went to Harvard that is.

My defenses have been down this entire time. I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.


I got a 169 with a month and a half of studying, can I talk down to you?[/quote]

Yes.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby vanwinkle » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:06 pm

NoleFin wrote:I understand math. However going into school thinking that is the wrong attitude. Obviously you guys have no reason to believe me, so im not trying to persuade you, but I know personally if Im dedicated I will do it.

You understand math, but you don't seem to understand what the math means. Let me explain:

Law school classes are graded on a curve, and since all classes at a school are graded on the same curve, it's easy to develop a class rank. (This is why employers don't care about your letter grades, just whether you were "top x%" in your class). If you ended up in the top 10% of your class, mathematically it's because you did better than 90% of your classmates in most, if not all, of your classes (you can have an outlier class or two and still make top 10%). This is the math part, the part you know.

Here's the part I think you don't get. How many people do you think go to law school saying, "I'm not dedicated"? How many go, "even in this terrible job market, I will just coast and not care if my poor grades make me unemployable"? How many go, "I've decided to spend 3 years of my life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, but I'm just not dedicated to it"?

I'm not saying that everyone will be as dedicated as you are. There are probably at least a few people in each law school who don't care about grades because they'll go work for daddy's law firm when they graduate, and there are also some who are just going to law school because they don't know what else they want to do. But law schools are filled with students who, just like you, are telling themselves that they may not have a strong GPA or LSAT score to get into a top school, but they'll still succeed because they're "dedicated".

The only way your "I'll make top 10% because I'm dedicated" theory works is if 1) you think that only 10% of the class or less will be truly "dedicated" and 2) dedication is what separates top-performing law students from the rest. Both of those assumptions are wrong, but even just focusing on the first one illustrates how you're ignoring the meaning behind the math.

If 50% of a law school's class are filled with people who are "dedicated" and determined to finish in the top 10%, then at least 40% of them will be disappointed.

NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.

People aren't telling you this to be dicks. They're telling you to help you. In the legal industry, and also in the world of agents from what I understand, what matters most are your connections. If you don't already know people it's extremely hard to break in, and one of the few ways you can make new connections are through the school you attend and the weight that it carries. This makes going to the best school possible important, and doing that means doing well on the LSAT.

"Retake" is the best advice people have for you. If you're going to reject that, then that's your loss.

User avatar
tony2167
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:04 am

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby tony2167 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:12 pm

Mqt wrote:
bk1 wrote:
NoleFin wrote:We may just have to agree to disagree, because I believe it is very much the wrong attitude. Just because I go in knowing I will succeed doesnt mean im not cognizant of the reality that it may not happen. But I promise you winners dont go in to games thinking they might lose. Its just not winner mentality.


You're basically saying that being optimistic is going to serve you well. Ironically the exact opposite may be true. See http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... udy_finds/


Am I the only one amused by the paradox of becoming more optimistic of one's chances in the legal profession after reading that and thinking of how pessimistic one is?


Haha, I had the same realization. Just when my pessimism might serve me well for once I get optimistic at reading that article. Damn it.

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby nickb285 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:16 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.



All fuckery aside, this is the right response. My initial diagnostic test was a 160; after I completed it, I then took a 5-week prep class--not an expensive one, just a continuing ed class offered by my UG. After that five weeks, I got a 169 on the real thing, and had I timed it just a couple seconds better, I'd have broken the 170 barrier. Study, retake, go somewhere better or with heavy scholarships and use the money you save as startup capital.

Of course, it's also necessary to not be a self-important special snowflake rich kid douchenozzle, so you should work on that too.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:25 pm

nickb285 wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.



All fuckery aside, this is the right response. My initial diagnostic test was a 160; after I completed it, I then took a 5-week prep class--not an expensive one, just a continuing ed class offered by my UG. After that five weeks, I got a 169 on the real thing, and had I timed it just a couple seconds better, I'd have broken the 170 barrier. Study, retake, go somewhere better or with heavy scholarships and use the money you save as startup capital.

Of course, it's also necessary to not be a self-important special snowflake rich kid douchenozzle, so you should work on that too.


Lol right when i thought you were gonna be the bigger man, you show your true colors again. Have a good life bro. I have a feeling you need all the friends you can get.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:31 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
NoleFin wrote:I understand math. However going into school thinking that is the wrong attitude. Obviously you guys have no reason to believe me, so im not trying to persuade you, but I know personally if Im dedicated I will do it.

You understand math, but you don't seem to understand what the math means. Let me explain:

Law school classes are graded on a curve, and since all classes at a school are graded on the same curve, it's easy to develop a class rank. (This is why employers don't care about your letter grades, just whether you were "top x%" in your class). If you ended up in the top 10% of your class, mathematically it's because you did better than 90% of your classmates in most, if not all, of your classes (you can have an outlier class or two and still make top 10%). This is the math part, the part you know.

Here's the part I think you don't get. How many people do you think go to law school saying, "I'm not dedicated"? How many go, "even in this terrible job market, I will just coast and not care if my poor grades make me unemployable"? How many go, "I've decided to spend 3 years of my life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, but I'm just not dedicated to it"?

I'm not saying that everyone will be as dedicated as you are. There are probably at least a few people in each law school who don't care about grades because they'll go work for daddy's law firm when they graduate, and there are also some who are just going to law school because they don't know what else they want to do. But law schools are filled with students who, just like you, are telling themselves that they may not have a strong GPA or LSAT score to get into a top school, but they'll still succeed because they're "dedicated".

The only way your "I'll make top 10% because I'm dedicated" theory works is if 1) you think that only 10% of the class or less will be truly "dedicated" and 2) dedication is what separates top-performing law students from the rest. Both of those assumptions are wrong, but even just focusing on the first one illustrates how you're ignoring the meaning behind the math.

If 50% of a law school's class are filled with people who are "dedicated" and determined to finish in the top 10%, then at least 40% of them will be disappointed.

NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.

People aren't telling you this to be dicks. They're telling you to help you. In the legal industry, and also in the world of agents from what I understand, what matters most are your connections. If you don't already know people it's extremely hard to break in, and one of the few ways you can make new connections are through the school you attend and the weight that it carries. This makes going to the best school possible important, and doing that means doing well on the LSAT.

"Retake" is the best advice people have for you. If you're going to reject that, then that's your loss.


First of all let me preface this by saying I really appreciate your input and how well thought out of a post this is. Fact of the matter though is that doesnt change what I was getting at. I understand what your saying, and I know i cant mathematically prove why I think I can be top 10%....but 10% of students will be. Why cant it be me? I know your going to say, it can be you, its just a 10% chance.

My point is you dont know any of the variables that go into making me who I am. It sounds silly, im sure, to most of you, but if in my head i truly believe i can excel at something...well thats my opinion. We wont know if Im right or wrong for 3 1/2 more years.

The "retake" advice just isnt realistic for me right now, i feel like im ready. If i couldnt get into FSU, sure I would probably have to. But I wont be dissapointed at all about getting in to FSU.

User avatar
FattyMcFatFat
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby FattyMcFatFat » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:33 pm

I don't really like this NoleFin person. That is all.

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby Rahviveh » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:34 pm

NoleFin wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
NoleFin wrote:I understand math. However going into school thinking that is the wrong attitude. Obviously you guys have no reason to believe me, so im not trying to persuade you, but I know personally if Im dedicated I will do it.

You understand math, but you don't seem to understand what the math means. Let me explain:

Law school classes are graded on a curve, and since all classes at a school are graded on the same curve, it's easy to develop a class rank. (This is why employers don't care about your letter grades, just whether you were "top x%" in your class). If you ended up in the top 10% of your class, mathematically it's because you did better than 90% of your classmates in most, if not all, of your classes (you can have an outlier class or two and still make top 10%). This is the math part, the part you know.

Here's the part I think you don't get. How many people do you think go to law school saying, "I'm not dedicated"? How many go, "even in this terrible job market, I will just coast and not care if my poor grades make me unemployable"? How many go, "I've decided to spend 3 years of my life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, but I'm just not dedicated to it"?

I'm not saying that everyone will be as dedicated as you are. There are probably at least a few people in each law school who don't care about grades because they'll go work for daddy's law firm when they graduate, and there are also some who are just going to law school because they don't know what else they want to do. But law schools are filled with students who, just like you, are telling themselves that they may not have a strong GPA or LSAT score to get into a top school, but they'll still succeed because they're "dedicated".

The only way your "I'll make top 10% because I'm dedicated" theory works is if 1) you think that only 10% of the class or less will be truly "dedicated" and 2) dedication is what separates top-performing law students from the rest. Both of those assumptions are wrong, but even just focusing on the first one illustrates how you're ignoring the meaning behind the math.

If 50% of a law school's class are filled with people who are "dedicated" and determined to finish in the top 10%, then at least 40% of them will be disappointed.

NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.

People aren't telling you this to be dicks. They're telling you to help you. In the legal industry, and also in the world of agents from what I understand, what matters most are your connections. If you don't already know people it's extremely hard to break in, and one of the few ways you can make new connections are through the school you attend and the weight that it carries. This makes going to the best school possible important, and doing that means doing well on the LSAT.

"Retake" is the best advice people have for you. If you're going to reject that, then that's your loss.


First of all let me preface this by saying I really appreciate your input and how well thought out of a post this is. Fact of the matter though is that doesnt change what I was getting at. I understand what your saying, and I know i cant mathematically prove why I think I can be top 10%....but 10% of students will be. Why cant it be me? I know your going to say, it can be you, its just a 10% chance.

My point is you dont know any of the variables that go into making me who I am. It sounds silly, im sure, to most of you, but if in my head i truly believe i can excel at something...well thats my opinion. We wont know if Im right or wrong for 3 1/2 more years.

The "retake" advice just isnt realistic for me right now, i feel like im ready. If i couldnt get into FSU, sure I would probably have to. But I wont be dissapointed at all about getting in to FSU.


You don't know any of the variables for your classmates either. So what makes you conclude you'll do so much better than them?

User avatar
Ludo!
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:22 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby Ludo! » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:35 pm

What is unrealistic about retaking other than being "ready"

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby nickb285 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:38 pm

NoleFin wrote:
First of all let me preface this by saying I really appreciate your input and how well thought out of a post this is. Fact of the matter though is that doesnt change what I was getting at. I understand what your saying, and I know i cant mathematically prove why I think I can be top 10%....but 10% of students will be. Why cant it be me? I know your going to say, it can be you, its just a 10% chance.

My point is you dont know any of the variables that go into making me who I am. It sounds silly, im sure, to most of you, but if in my head i truly believe i can excel at something...well thats my opinion. We wont know if Im right or wrong for 3 1/2 more years.


Look at it this way then: Let's say your variables, whatever they are, actually do have an effect. Let's say it's a huge effect, and they make you twice as likely as the average law school student to be in the top 10% of your class. That means you have a 20% chance of being in the top of your class, and an 80% chance that you'll be somewhere else. Would you bet $60k on a six number range in roulette? I wouldn't.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:38 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
NoleFin wrote:I understand math. However going into school thinking that is the wrong attitude. Obviously you guys have no reason to believe me, so im not trying to persuade you, but I know personally if Im dedicated I will do it.

You understand math, but you don't seem to understand what the math means. Let me explain:

Law school classes are graded on a curve, and since all classes at a school are graded on the same curve, it's easy to develop a class rank. (This is why employers don't care about your letter grades, just whether you were "top x%" in your class). If you ended up in the top 10% of your class, mathematically it's because you did better than 90% of your classmates in most, if not all, of your classes (you can have an outlier class or two and still make top 10%). This is the math part, the part you know.

Here's the part I think you don't get. How many people do you think go to law school saying, "I'm not dedicated"? How many go, "even in this terrible job market, I will just coast and not care if my poor grades make me unemployable"? How many go, "I've decided to spend 3 years of my life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, but I'm just not dedicated to it"?

I'm not saying that everyone will be as dedicated as you are. There are probably at least a few people in each law school who don't care about grades because they'll go work for daddy's law firm when they graduate, and there are also some who are just going to law school because they don't know what else they want to do. But law schools are filled with students who, just like you, are telling themselves that they may not have a strong GPA or LSAT score to get into a top school, but they'll still succeed because they're "dedicated".

The only way your "I'll make top 10% because I'm dedicated" theory works is if 1) you think that only 10% of the class or less will be truly "dedicated" and 2) dedication is what separates top-performing law students from the rest. Both of those assumptions are wrong, but even just focusing on the first one illustrates how you're ignoring the meaning behind the math.

If 50% of a law school's class are filled with people who are "dedicated" and determined to finish in the top 10%, then at least 40% of them will be disappointed.

NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.

People aren't telling you this to be dicks. They're telling you to help you. In the legal industry, and also in the world of agents from what I understand, what matters most are your connections. If you don't already know people it's extremely hard to break in, and one of the few ways you can make new connections are through the school you attend and the weight that it carries. This makes going to the best school possible important, and doing that means doing well on the LSAT.

"Retake" is the best advice people have for you. If you're going to reject that, then that's your loss.


First of all let me preface this by saying I really appreciate your input and how well thought out of a post this is. Fact of the matter though is that doesnt change what I was getting at. I understand what your saying, and I know i cant mathematically prove why I think I can be top 10%....but 10% of students will be. Why cant it be me? I know your going to say, it can be you, its just a 10% chance.

My point is you dont know any of the variables that go into making me who I am. It sounds silly, im sure, to most of you, but if in my head i truly believe i can excel at something...well thats my opinion. We wont know if Im right or wrong for 3 1/2 more years.

The "retake" advice just isnt realistic for me right now, i feel like im ready. If i couldnt get into FSU, sure I would probably have to. But I wont be dissapointed at all about getting in to FSU.


You don't know any of the variables for your classmates either. So what makes you conclude you'll do so much better than them?


Correct. Hence why Ill never be able to prove to any of you what im saying. Kinda like no one believed Joe Montana when he said he WOULD win the superbowl. Silly comparison I know, but hopefully you get the gist.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:39 pm

FattyMcFatFat wrote:I don't really like this NoleFin person. That is all.


I hear he doesnt like fat people. Maybe thats your problem.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:40 pm

Ludovico Technique wrote:What is unrealistic about retaking other than being "ready"


Unrealistic was perhaps the wrong word. Nothing in unrealistic about. I just dont see why I would if I can get into FSU and its perfectly affordable.

User avatar
Ludo!
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:22 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby Ludo! » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:40 pm

NoleFin wrote:
Correct. Hence why Ill never be able to prove to any of you what im saying. Kinda like no one believed Joe Montana when he said he WOULD win the superbowl. Silly comparison I know, but hopefully you get the gist.


That analogy would be fitting if Joe Montana only had one year in the NFL and only got one chance to win a Super Bowl.

User avatar
dextermorgan
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby dextermorgan » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:40 pm

NoleFin wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
NoleFin wrote:I understand math. However going into school thinking that is the wrong attitude. Obviously you guys have no reason to believe me, so im not trying to persuade you, but I know personally if Im dedicated I will do it.

You understand math, but you don't seem to understand what the math means. Let me explain:

Law school classes are graded on a curve, and since all classes at a school are graded on the same curve, it's easy to develop a class rank. (This is why employers don't care about your letter grades, just whether you were "top x%" in your class). If you ended up in the top 10% of your class, mathematically it's because you did better than 90% of your classmates in most, if not all, of your classes (you can have an outlier class or two and still make top 10%). This is the math part, the part you know.

Here's the part I think you don't get. How many people do you think go to law school saying, "I'm not dedicated"? How many go, "even in this terrible job market, I will just coast and not care if my poor grades make me unemployable"? How many go, "I've decided to spend 3 years of my life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on something, but I'm just not dedicated to it"?

I'm not saying that everyone will be as dedicated as you are. There are probably at least a few people in each law school who don't care about grades because they'll go work for daddy's law firm when they graduate, and there are also some who are just going to law school because they don't know what else they want to do. But law schools are filled with students who, just like you, are telling themselves that they may not have a strong GPA or LSAT score to get into a top school, but they'll still succeed because they're "dedicated".

The only way your "I'll make top 10% because I'm dedicated" theory works is if 1) you think that only 10% of the class or less will be truly "dedicated" and 2) dedication is what separates top-performing law students from the rest. Both of those assumptions are wrong, but even just focusing on the first one illustrates how you're ignoring the meaning behind the math.

If 50% of a law school's class are filled with people who are "dedicated" and determined to finish in the top 10%, then at least 40% of them will be disappointed.

NoleFin wrote:I just will not be talked down to by someone just because they probably studied a year to get there 169.

You had a 162. A gain from 162 to 169 is only 7 points. It shouldn't take anywhere near a year of study to gain 7 points on the LSAT. Typically people who haven't done serious study can gain 10-15 points over 2-3 months. I studied for two months and gained around 15 points. If you didn't do serious study, then you really should study and retake.

People aren't telling you this to be dicks. They're telling you to help you. In the legal industry, and also in the world of agents from what I understand, what matters most are your connections. If you don't already know people it's extremely hard to break in, and one of the few ways you can make new connections are through the school you attend and the weight that it carries. This makes going to the best school possible important, and doing that means doing well on the LSAT.

"Retake" is the best advice people have for you. If you're going to reject that, then that's your loss.


First of all let me preface this by saying I really appreciate your input and how well thought out of a post this is. Fact of the matter though is that doesnt change what I was getting at. I understand what your saying, and I know i cant mathematically prove why I think I can be top 10%....but 10% of students will be. Why cant it be me? I know your going to say, it can be you, its just a 10% chance.

My point is you dont know any of the variables that go into making me who I am. It sounds silly, im sure, to most of you, but if in my head i truly believe i can excel at something...well thats my opinion. We wont know if Im right or wrong for 3 1/2 more years.

The "retake" advice just isnt realistic for me right now, i feel like im ready. If i couldnt get into FSU, sure I would probably have to. But I wont be dissapointed at all about getting in to FSU.

You have just as much of a chance as your classmates, which is to say they have just as much of a chance as you. Law schools put together classes that are incredibly similar in achievement and ability. That is why it is a crap shoot.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:41 pm

nickb285 wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
First of all let me preface this by saying I really appreciate your input and how well thought out of a post this is. Fact of the matter though is that doesnt change what I was getting at. I understand what your saying, and I know i cant mathematically prove why I think I can be top 10%....but 10% of students will be. Why cant it be me? I know your going to say, it can be you, its just a 10% chance.

My point is you dont know any of the variables that go into making me who I am. It sounds silly, im sure, to most of you, but if in my head i truly believe i can excel at something...well thats my opinion. We wont know if Im right or wrong for 3 1/2 more years.


Look at it this way then: Let's say your variables, whatever they are, actually do have an effect. Let's say it's a huge effect, and they make you twice as likely as the average law school student to be in the top 10% of your class. That means you have a 20% chance of being in the top of your class, and an 80% chance that you'll be somewhere else. Would you bet $60k on a six number range in roulette? I wouldn't.


Fair enough. I dont like agreeing with you tho because of how big of an asshole youve been.

I dont look at it like that though. Its not that extreme. I dont "lose a 60k spin" if i dont make it top 10%. I think I will accomplish that, but even if i dont, its not like law school becomes a COMPLETE waste.

NoleFin
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby NoleFin » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:42 pm

Ludovico Technique wrote:
NoleFin wrote:
Correct. Hence why Ill never be able to prove to any of you what im saying. Kinda like no one believed Joe Montana when he said he WOULD win the superbowl. Silly comparison I know, but hopefully you get the gist.


That analogy would be fitting if Joe Montana only had one year in the NFL and only got one chance to win a Super Bowl.



Lol well first of all i now realized i wrote it wrong. Was supposed to be Joe Namath. I couldnt come up with a good comparison of the top of my head so thats the best I had.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18402
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Sports Law/ Politics

Postby bk1 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:43 pm

NoleFin wrote:Correct. Hence why Ill never be able to prove to any of you what im saying. Kinda like no one believed Joe Montana when he said he WOULD win the superbowl. Silly comparison I know, but hopefully you get the gist.


Then how do you prove it to yourself? You are competing against people you don't know yet you're sure you'll beat 90% of them. It seems to me that the fatal flaw is that even if you know yourself you know nothing about your future classmates, which means you shouldn't be confident in your outcome.

Vanwinkle is right, you should retake the LSAT. You have a lot to gain and little to lose (a year is not a big deal). Yes you could be in the same position a year from now, but your odds of gaining are high (much higher than your odds of being top 10%) and the costs are low (the LSAT is cheap compared to 1 year of law school tuition).




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger and 3 guests