Richie Tenenbaum wrote:Treating conversational english like the LSAT is annoying and, at times, unrealistic. Also, there's a problem with your critique since it looks like A. Nony Mouse was referring to her use of "a lot" versus your use of "not everybody," and from the context of both it's pretty clear that she was claiming to know more classmates that were very good at what they do than what you seemed to think would exist at a school in that range. (Compare "a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives . . . . Not everybody, but...yeah, to a certain extent" with "[I] had a lot of classmates who are fucking good at what they do.")
I'm actually on board with what seems like a more tame version of your claim, something like "the average student at a school like NU is smarter than than the average student at a school like FSU." But you seem to be saying the vast majority (as in there are a small amount of exceptions, but not many) of students at a school like FSU are mediocre in intelligence and will be mediocre at their jobs. I don't agree with that--from my experience, there isn't a big difference between the people who are around the top of their class (~5-10%) at a good range of schools.
(But maybe our views aren't far apart and people are just talking past each other in this thread.)
Yeah, this is all exactly what I meant.
Richie Tenenbaum wrote:Meh, a lot of people at T14s are there because 1) they realized how important the LSAT was, and 2) they realized the LSAT was a very learnable test, so they didn't settle for a lower score.
When I first started studying for the LSAT, I got a 155 on my diagnostic and decided that a score in the low 160s seemed like a reasonable goal. That seems to be a pretty typical experience (I taught the LSAT and a lot of students seemed to initially think they should shoot for a small increase over their diagnostic). If I hadn't taken a powerscore class with other students scoring in the 170s (which made me think that maybe I shoot higher) and found TLS (which confirmed that I should try to shoot for a much higher score), I would have stopped after taking the LSAT once and scoring a 163. Instead, I put in a lot more effort and finally ended up with a 174. Teaching the LSAT, I managed to push a decent amount of students into the high 160s and low 170s, when they were initially happy with small improvements over their diagnostic.
I'm not trying to argue that all the FSU students would be at NU if they had just taken the LSAT more seriously and studied more, but I do think there are a significant amount of people at lower ranked schools who didn't try to maximize their LSAT score when they could have. Shit, this is a TLS routine by now--trying to convince people not to settle for a lower LSAT score so they can go to a school with significantly better employment statistics.
And this too. I realize everyone here believes that "I should aim for a 163" approach is wrong. But it's not some kind of signifier of that person's ability to be a lawyer.
ETA: I really don't mean this as a defense of going to a lower T1 and I'ma shut up about it after this because I'm getting sucked in that direction. All I'm saying is that to claim that "a lot" of people [however many you want to spin this into] who attend a lower T1 have mediocre minds and will be mediocre at what they do for the rest of their life, especially when the person so claiming has never attended a lower T1, is fucking bullshit and reveals an incredibly narrow and elitist definition of intelligence and success. Whether people *should* attend a lower T1 - based on employment stats, cost, and portability of degree - is an entirely different question from the lawyering/life ability of people who *do* attend such a school. (Acknowledging that that ability may be less than that possessed by those in the beloved T14 - who are, you realize, people who generally scored in, say, the top 4% of LSAT-takers and are by definition exceptional on that scale.) Most of the time I think TLS does an adequate job of not eliding those two things, but this was a moment of absolute fail.