Do they deserve to be lawyers? Forum

[BitterSplitter]

.

[lukertin]

Hmm, the analogy isn't fully applicable tho. I should clarify that by 'top lawyers' I meant lawyers coming out of top(think tier 1 and tier 2 to a lesser extent) schools at the "top" of their class (top of class meaning different %s for different schools i.e. yale would be alot more % of their total student pop than GWU than Chicago-Kent etc. Services like prepaid legal are in fact lowering the rate that law firms are able to get away with charging. Since the proliferation of cheaper legal service entities, has the market rate lawyers are justifiable in charging gone up or down? I'm a 0L so I don't know 100% but my guess is that it is lower. Maybe the economy has something to do with it but the fact remains that legal services are necessary. As necessary as drugs for a drug addict- and the drug market price is not tied to the economy. It's supply and demand. Just like law degrees, lawyers and legal services. Corporations more than ever are arguing for better prices, and while they may not jump ship from you to a Cooley grad, that Cooley grads low ball price is definitely affecting the perception of your charge and is at least part of the reason that they demand lower prices

if the legal fees biglaw can charge decreases because of prepaid legal, biglaw wasn't justified charging what they did in the first place.

[BitterSplitter]

.

[BigZuck]

I actually think more schools is the solution. Once you have more "seats" in schools that there are potential law students the price at shitlaw mills (read as anything below Cornell) will drop like a rock because students will compare schools on cost. Shit MBA schools are more affordable than shitlaw schools.

It's not the solution so long as the government is willing to hand out education loans like free candy from the creepy dude in a van

It's not any worse of a problem than the bajillon masters in fine-ass fucking and other stupid degrees.

Is Desert Fox an Asschump (whatever the mod's name is) alt or are these actually two seperate people?

[bananapeanutbutter]

I actually think more schools is the solution. Once you have more "seats" in schools that there are potential law students the price at shitlaw mills (read as anything below Cornell) will drop like a rock because students will compare schools on cost. Shit MBA schools are more affordable than shitlaw schools.

It's not the solution so long as the government is willing to hand out education loans like free candy from the creepy dude in a van

It's not any worse of a problem than the bajillon masters in fine-ass fucking and other stupid degrees.

Is Desert Fox an Asschump (whatever the mod's name is) alt or are these actually two seperate people?

Is your mother a slut or does she just have sex for small amounts of money?

[09042014]

I actually think more schools is the solution. Once you have more "seats" in schools that there are potential law students the price at shitlaw mills (read as anything below Cornell) will drop like a rock because students will compare schools on cost. Shit MBA schools are more affordable than shitlaw schools.

It's not the solution so long as the government is willing to hand out education loans like free candy from the creepy dude in a van

It's not any worse of a problem than the bajillon masters in fine-ass fucking and other stupid degrees.

Is Desert Fox an Asschump (whatever the mod's name is) alt or are these actually two seperate people?

Epic anti-assketchup trolling for comparing him to me.

Epic anti-me trolling for calling me a ginger.

[MKC]

Epic anti-aschup trolling for calling him a fat.

[noodle64322]

Very, very strongly disagree that being "bested" over the course of three years should signify notable difference in competence. Especially at the top law schools, where nearly all students are very much capable of learning to practice law in the real world, rank should not be weighed too heavily. When you're ranking the best of the best, someone has to take the lower half. Consider a group of ten students taking a 100-question multiple-choice test: all of the students could score 97-100 questions right, but only 5 of those students would be ranked in the top half, despite their remarkable scores.

I think we can all agree that:
-There are too many law schools
-There are way too many bad law schools
-Law school is too expensive
-Too many people are going to law school

However, there is a chain of logic that is commonly purported on this website regarding the likelihood of practicing law after graduating. It usually reads as follows "Graduates from XYZ law school only have a 55% chance of becoming a lawyer". My question is not a defense of law schools or even reasoning for more people to go, it's more of a search for a general consensus of TLS; what chance should a school give you of practicing law after you graduate, what do they owe you for your time and money?

Should a law student in the bottom third or even bottom half of their class with a sub 3.0 GPA be guaranteed of anything? Obviously law school is substantially more challenging than undergrad, but bottom half of your class most likely means that 150+ kids just proved over the course of 3 years that they bested you. Sure you worked incredibly hard and paid a lot of money, but can you really expect to be hired with half of your competition outranking you? Not to mention the other 5+ schools that are likely feeding into your same market.

Again, I'm not trying to rationalize school's low employment numbers, just gauging TLSers expectations of their law degrees.

[untar614]

Very, very strongly disagree that being "bested" over the course of three years should signify notable difference in competence. Especially at the top law schools, where nearly all students are very much capable of learning to practice law in the real world, rank should not be weighed too heavily. When you're ranking the best of the best, someone has to take the lower half. Consider a group of ten students taking a 100-question multiple-choice test: all of the students could score 97-100 questions right, but only 5 of those students would be ranked in the top half, despite their remarkable scores.

Agreed. Yeah, there are likely top students at various lower rankings schools that could hit median or above at a higher rankings school cuz they are good at the law school game, but on average, I'd take someone on the cusp of the lower third of a T14 over the upper third at some TTTT

[laxbrah420]

someone needs to rep folks in traffic court.

Repping folks in traffic court requires bar passaged. 45% won't be able to do that preftigious repping.

You realize the 55% he was quoting was 9 month employment statistics, not bar passage, right?

I believe that was for 9 month, bar passage required employment. Doing traffic tickets requires bar passage, which means that 45% don't even get that job.

JFC

[MKC]

I don't really understand what you're frustrated with. Say 95% pass the bar. If only 55% hold bar passage required jobs, that means that 40% passed the bar, but still aren't practicing law, including dealing with traffic tickets. 45% can't even get the DUI job, even though they passed the bar.

[The Brainalist]

I can't think of anyone whose done something so bad before the bar exam that they really deserve to be a lawyer. I figure we are probably experiencing some sort of karma balancing for being a cereal killer in a past life or something.

Being a lawyer is not a reward. Being a lawyer the shit we do to get the money or the respect, or whatever the desired outcome is - that's the reward.

Whether we deserve the money or the respect, that's a different question - but not all lawyers get that anyway.

[Aroldis105]

I have to say, this has been a pretty productive discussion so far. I've been thinking about my own question throughout the day and thought I'd add in my two cents as well.

As far as I'm concerned, a law graduate should have three opportunities to secure a job:
1. Do well in undergrad and on the LSAT. If you can prove your worth in these two evaluators, you should have a strong shot at a T14 and as such, a real good chance at landing a job after graduation.

2. Do well in law school. So your undergraduate GPA wasn't what you had hoped for and/or you didn't really get the whole Logic Games thing. Well this is your chance to atone for that. If you attend a tier one or tier two (top 100, give or take a handful) and finish in the top third or top half of your class then you should have a good chance at landing a job after graduation.

3. Network/Interview/Impress as an intern: Maybe you didn't end up at the law school of your dreams, and you struggled as a 1L to get in the swing of things. Well if you really are destined to be a lawyer then surely you can prove that if you can get your foot in the door somewhere. Work hard, show off your skill set and be the best summer associate at your firm and you should have a decent chance at landing a job after graduation.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are an unemployed law school graduate, you've failed at least two of these tests. Of course there is going to be a large group of talented graduates who unfortunately fell through the cracks, as there is in every profession, however, I think we're a little too cynical of law schools and it's biasing our opinion of the situation. How many opportunities does a person need to prove their worth? If you didn't do well in undergrad or on the LSATs or in law school, how can you reasonable expect to be offered a job as a lawyer?

[NYstate]

I have to say, this has been a pretty productive discussion so far. I've been thinking about my own question throughout the day and thought I'd add in my two cents as well.

As far as I'm concerned, a law graduate should have three opportunities to secure a job:
1. Do well in undergrad and on the LSAT. If you can prove your worth in these two evaluators, you should have a strong shot at a T14 and as such, a real good chance at landing a job after graduation.

2. Do well in law school. So your undergraduate GPA wasn't what you had hoped for and/or you didn't really get the whole Logic Games thing. Well this is your chance to atone for that. If you attend a tier one or tier two (top 100, give or take a handful) and finish in the top third or top half of your class then you should have a good chance at landing a job after graduation.

3. Network/Interview/Impress as an intern: Maybe you didn't end up at the law school of your dreams, and you struggled as a 1L to get in the swing of things. Well if you really are destined to be a lawyer then surely you can prove that if you can get your foot in the door somewhere. Work hard, show off your skill set and be the best summer associate at your firm and you should have a decent chance at landing a job after graduation.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are an unemployed law school graduate, you've failed at least two of these tests. Of course there is going to be a large group of talented graduates who unfortunately fell through the cracks, as there is in every profession, however, I think we're a little too cynical of law schools and it's biasing our opinion of the situation. How many opportunities does a person need to prove their worth? If you didn't do well in undergrad or on the LSATs or in law school, how can you reasonable expect to be offered a job as a lawyer?

You do realize there are grads with top grades from decent schools who don't get jobs. There aren't enough jobs.

[NYstate]

Very, very strongly disagree that being "bested" over the course of three years should signify notable difference in competence. Especially at the top law schools, where nearly all students are very much capable of learning to practice law in the real world, rank should not be weighed too heavily. When you're ranking the best of the best, someone has to take the lower half. Consider a group of ten students taking a 100-question multiple-choice test: all of the students could score 97-100 questions right, but only 5 of those students would be ranked in the top half, despite their remarkable scores.

Agreed. Yeah, there are likely top students at various lower rankings schools that could hit median or above at a higher rankings school cuz they are good at the law school game, but on average, I'd take someone on the cusp of the lower third of a T14 over the upper third at some TTTT

What? Do you understand that law schools teach the same stuff?

[The Brainalist]

I have to say, this has been a pretty productive discussion so far. I've been thinking about my own question throughout the day and thought I'd add in my two cents as well.

As far as I'm concerned, a law graduate should have three opportunities to secure a job:
1. Do well in undergrad and on the LSAT. If you can prove your worth in these two evaluators, you should have a strong shot at a T14 and as such, a real good chance at landing a job after graduation.

2. Do well in law school. So your undergraduate GPA wasn't what you had hoped for and/or you didn't really get the whole Logic Games thing. Well this is your chance to atone for that. If you attend a tier one or tier two (top 100, give or take a handful) and finish in the top third or top half of your class then you should have a good chance at landing a job after graduation.

3. Network/Interview/Impress as an intern: Maybe you didn't end up at the law school of your dreams, and you struggled as a 1L to get in the swing of things. Well if you really are destined to be a lawyer then surely you can prove that if you can get your foot in the door somewhere. Work hard, show off your skill set and be the best summer associate at your firm and you should have a decent chance at landing a job after graduation.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are an unemployed law school graduate, you've failed at least two of these tests. Of course there is going to be a large group of talented graduates who unfortunately fell through the cracks, as there is in every profession, however, I think we're a little too cynical of law schools and it's biasing our opinion of the situation. How many opportunities does a person need to prove their worth? If you didn't do well in undergrad or on the LSATs or in law school, how can you reasonable expect to be offered a job as a lawyer?

Proving your worth as a lawyer does not start and end with what you do in law school or on an LSAT. It has to do with grinding away and putting up with bullshit that destroys your soul. Odds are, the legal profession will grind you up and spit you out, and its going to have nothing to do with your little internship or summer associate position. A lot smarter people than you, with better grades and LSATs than you, will be worse lawyers than you. Even if they aren't, they aren't going to last just due to a lack of emotional resilience. It is an ugly stupid profession. T14 students burn out of it all the time, especially after a couple years of big law.

[MKC]

You do realize there are grads with top grades from decent schools who don't get jobs. There aren't enough jobs.

--ImageRemoved--

Prices are currently above market equilibrium. Alternatively, supply is greater than the quantity demanded at the current level of demand. There are not "not enough jobs."

[LionelHutzJD]

I think the term TTT is way too general and should not apply to EVERY law school ranked lower than 100. Just my two cents. Some schools have fantastic alumni networks and great reputations.

[BitterSplitter]

.

[Keasbey]

I think we can all agree that:
-There are too many law schools
-There are way too many bad law schools
-Law school is too expensive
-Too many people are going to law school

However, there is a chain of logic that is commonly purported on this website regarding the likelihood of practicing law after graduating. It usually reads as follows "Graduates from XYZ law school only have a 55% chance of becoming a lawyer". My question is not a defense of law schools or even reasoning for more people to go, it's more of a search for a general consensus of TLS; what chance should a school give you of practicing law after you graduate, what do they owe you for your time and money?

Should a law student in the bottom third or even bottom half of their class with a sub 3.0 GPA be guaranteed of anything? Obviously law school is substantially more challenging than undergrad, but bottom half of your class most likely means that 150+ kids just proved over the course of 3 years that they bested you. Sure you worked incredibly hard and paid a lot of money, but can you really expect to be hired with half of your competition outranking you? Not to mention the other 5+ schools that are likely feeding into your same market.

Again, I'm not trying to rationalize school's low employment numbers, just gauging TLSers expectations of their law degrees.

Stop wasting your energy hating on those at lower ranked schools and use that energy to concentrate on the LSAT/class. The glut of law schools will sort itself out, just worry about you.

[untar614]

Very, very strongly disagree that being "bested" over the course of three years should signify notable difference in competence. Especially at the top law schools, where nearly all students are very much capable of learning to practice law in the real world, rank should not be weighed too heavily. When you're ranking the best of the best, someone has to take the lower half. Consider a group of ten students taking a 100-question multiple-choice test: all of the students could score 97-100 questions right, but only 5 of those students would be ranked in the top half, despite their remarkable scores.

Agreed. Yeah, there are likely top students at various lower rankings schools that could hit median or above at a higher rankings school cuz they are good at the law school game, but on average, I'd take someone on the cusp of the lower third of a T14 over the upper third at some TTTT

What? Do you understand that law schools teach the same stuff?

Do you understand that where you are ranked in a given school depends on who else goes to that school?

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Law school success is about more than just grades. Making good grades in law school doesn't mean than you will be a good attorney.

[NYstate]

Very, very strongly disagree that being "bested" over the course of three years should signify notable difference in competence. Especially at the top law schools, where nearly all students are very much capable of learning to practice law in the real world, rank should not be weighed too heavily. When you're ranking the best of the best, someone has to take the lower half. Consider a group of ten students taking a 100-question multiple-choice test: all of the students could score 97-100 questions right, but only 5 of those students would be ranked in the top half, despite their remarkable scores.

Agreed. Yeah, there are likely top students at various lower rankings schools that could hit median or above at a higher rankings school cuz they are good at the law school game, but on average, I'd take someone on the cusp of the lower third of a T14 over the upper third at some TTTT

What? Do you understand that law schools teach the same stuff?

Do you understand that where you are ranked in a given school depends on who else goes to that school?

No, it depends on the curve. See people who do well at a lower ranked school can do well at T14 schools if they get in. But I just realized this is an 0L thread, so I will back away slowly.

[untar614]

Agreed. Yeah, there are likely top students at various lower rankings schools that could hit median or above at a higher rankings school cuz they are good at the law school game, but on average, I'd take someone on the cusp of the lower third of a T14 over the upper third at some TTTT

What? Do you understand that law schools teach the same stuff?

Do you understand that where you are ranked in a given school depends on who else goes to that school?

No, it depends on the curve. See people who do well at a lower ranked school can do well at T14 schools if they get in. But I just realized this is an 0L thread, so I will back away slowly.

So do curves now no longer depend on other students in the class?

[timbs4339]

What annoys me about the tttt types who don't get jobs, and complain it's not fair if they have this unyielding feeling that despite all objective evidence to the contrary they are special and better at this stuff than other people who place way above them. Maybe some are, but the special snowflakes in general tend to be jerks and when there's no data supporting their cockiness, there's just nothing to respect. I can dig assholes, but the type that have some data supporting their behavior.

It's almost like people who do shitty on a test of logical reasoning have shitty logical reasoning skills.

wrote:
I think we can all agree that:
-There are too many law schools
-There are way too many bad law schools
-Law school is too expensive
-Too many people are going to law school

However, there is a chain of logic that is commonly purported on this website regarding the likelihood of practicing law after graduating. It usually reads as follows "Graduates from XYZ law school only have a 55% chance of becoming a lawyer". My question is not a defense of law schools or even reasoning for more people to go, it's more of a search for a general consensus of TLS; what chance should a school give you of practicing law after you graduate, what do they owe you for your time and money?

Should a law student in the bottom third or even bottom half of their class with a sub 3.0 GPA be guaranteed of anything? Obviously law school is substantially more challenging than undergrad, but bottom half of your class most likely means that 150+ kids just proved over the course of 3 years that they bested you. Sure you worked incredibly hard and paid a lot of money, but can you really expect to be hired with half of your competition outranking you? Not to mention the other 5+ schools that are likely feeding into your same market.

Again, I'm not trying to rationalize school's low employment numbers, just gauging TLSers expectations of their law degrees.

I'd sure like to give them all $34,540,300 of taxpayer money each just so we can find out!