Do they deserve to be lawyers?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby NYstate » Tue May 14, 2013 9:44 pm

So do curves now no longer depend on other students in the class?[/quote]
No, no they don't. The mandatory curve magnifies tiny differences. The curve will fuck with everyone.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby Danger Zone » Tue May 14, 2013 10:44 pm

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

No, no they don't. The mandatory curve magnifies tiny differences. The curve will fuck with everyone.[/quote]
I get what you're trying to do, but wut dude? Of course the curve necessarily depends on other students' performances.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby laxbrah420 » Tue May 14, 2013 10:51 pm

MarkinKansasCity wrote: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.

Here's what you originally wrote shitbrains:
MarkinKansasCity wrote:
lukertin wrote: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.

User avatar
untar614
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby untar614 » Tue May 14, 2013 10:56 pm

Danger Zone wrote:
NYstate wrote:
untar614 wrote:So do curves now no longer depend on other students in the class?

No, no they don't. The mandatory curve magnifies tiny differences. The curve will fuck with everyone.

I get what you're trying to do, but wut dude? Of course the curve necessarily depends on other students' performances.

What is he trying to do? I know how a curve works, so I don't know where he's going with this.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby BigZuck » Tue May 14, 2013 11:30 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:
MarkinKansasCity wrote: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.

Here's what you originally wrote shitbrains:
MarkinKansasCity wrote:
lukertin wrote: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.


Brah. You need to learn to lax.

On a totally unrelated note: on a site full of some pretty good trolls you are consistently my favorite. You never fail me. And for that I sincerely thank you.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby reasonable_man » Wed May 15, 2013 12:29 am

Desert Fox wrote:
BitterSplitter wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Aroldis105 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.


Why are you so afraid to lose your job to a functional retard?


Some functional retards have more social skills than some smart people. Also, not all the those ppl are functional retards; they r able to work for companies like prepaid legal and lower the rates top attorneys can justify charging


Wedding bands aren't lowering the premium for what Queens of the Stone age charges for a show. So some shitlawyer doing traffic tickets isn't going to lower your rate IF you are worth more than him.

My firm could easily replace me with someone who makes 25% of what I will. But there is a reason they won't.


TITCR... My firm could fire me tomorrow and hire two first years for the same price. And then they could start to plan out their dissolution when they lose the three main clients that I service. The reality is that survival of the fittest exists in the law and so there is no use in trying to decide some arbitrary line in the sand that should be drawn in law school (to determine who should and should not be able to practice). That's going to happen shortly after LS is over - so don't worry about it.

noodle64322
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby noodle64322 » Wed May 15, 2013 12:47 am

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

No, no they don't. The mandatory curve magnifies tiny differences. The curve will fuck with everyone.[/quote]


Obviously... the crowd at Yale is on the same level as the crowd at Cooley...

User avatar
BitterSplitter
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby BitterSplitter » Wed May 15, 2013 2:42 am

.
Last edited by BitterSplitter on Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

lukertin
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:16 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby lukertin » Wed May 15, 2013 2:46 am

BitterSplitter wrote:The correct response to what, exactly?

shhh don't question him, he's reasonable.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby NYstate » Wed May 15, 2013 6:07 am

noodle64322 wrote:
NYstate wrote:So do curves now no longer depend on other students in the class?

No, no they don't. The mandatory curve magnifies tiny differences. The curve will fuck with everyone.



Obviously... the crowd at Yale is on the same level as the crowd at Cooley...[/quote]
You don't understand a mandatory curve. It doesn't depend on the other students in the class at all. The curve is mandatory so people who would otherwise get the same grade get different grades based on tiny minor points.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby NYstate » Wed May 15, 2013 6:14 am

Aroldis105 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 missed the OP here. If you think a professional school costing 6 figures shouldn't get you to a job, I completely disagree. People go to law school and pay the money to get a career. Many people attend because law schools lied for years about employment prospects. Now, and I mean this year, people are starting to understand how poor the job prospects truly are - but not enough people get it. If everyone understood employment figures, most of them wouldn't go or they would drop out after they received their grades. There are people on the this forum who see law school as their only chance at a highly paid career. The only reason they go to law school is to get a better job. And, yes, the schools are responsible for creating this situation through a combination of lies and continuing to raise tuition simply because they could.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby Danger Zone » Wed May 15, 2013 6:56 am

NYstate wrote:It doesn't depend on the other students in the class

Why do you keep saying this? It's wrong statistically and it's wrong in real life. The only time you arguably aren't affected by the other students on the curve is if you are setting the top or bottom of it, but even then your grade is only what it is because you serverely out- or underperformed your classmates.

NYstate
Posts: 1566
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby NYstate » Wed May 15, 2013 7:12 am

Danger Zone wrote:
NYstate wrote:It doesn't depend on the other students in the class

Why do you keep saying this? It's wrong statistically and it's wrong in real life. The only time you arguably aren't affected by the other students on the curve is if you are setting the top or bottom of it, but even then your grade is only what it is because you serverely out- or underperformed your classmates.

I keep saying it because the curve is set by the school not the students.Hence, mandatory curve. No one is setting the curve in the undergrad sense. There are a certain number of As that can be given. That is it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that the school sets the curve. It is already there. The other students in your class don't impact the curve because the school tells the professor the curve. You could have a class full of legal geniuses and only some of them will get As.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby reasonable_man » Wed May 15, 2013 7:37 am

lukertin wrote:
BitterSplitter wrote:The correct response to what, exactly?

shhh don't question him, he's reasonable.


I am reasonable. Thank you.

And its the correct response to this whole absurd inquiry into where to draw the line in the sand as to who "deserves" to practice and who does not. The thread is sort of ridiculous becuase the line in the sand is ultimately drawn by the market for attorney-tallent. Not arbitrary cut-offs based upon grades.

User avatar
untar614
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby untar614 » Wed May 15, 2013 7:45 am

NYstate wrote:
Danger Zone wrote:
NYstate wrote:It doesn't depend on the other students in the class

Why do you keep saying this? It's wrong statistically and it's wrong in real life. The only time you arguably aren't affected by the other students on the curve is if you are setting the top or bottom of it, but even then your grade is only what it is because you serverely out- or underperformed your classmates.

I keep saying it because the curve is set by the school not the students.Hence, mandatory curve. No one is setting the curve in the undergrad sense. There are a certain number of As that can be given. That is it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that the school sets the curve. It is already there. The other students in your class don't impact the curve because the school tells the professor the curve. You could have a class full of legal geniuses and only some of them will get As.

Yes, but the grade YOU get depends on how you do *relative to your classmates*. So yes, regardless of whether you are in a class full of idiots or legal geniuses, the same % get As, but if you're in a class of legal geniuses, you will likely do worse relative to all of them than you would in a class of idiots. As you stated, it amplifies small differences, so if you have a 75 and less than 5% of the class gets over 74, you're in good shape, but if 25% of the class got 76, now ur screwed, so being in a class of just somewhat better students on aggregate has a big impact on your grade.

So back to the original point, yeah the very top students at lower ranked schools would likely do well at higher ranked schools because they are good at law school, but if we are talking about people say on the cusp of top third at a low ranked school, that rank depends on how they do relative to the rest of the class, so they likely wouldn't be ranked as well relative to the rest of the class if they were at a top school because, even if its by a small margin, the students at top school are likely to do a bit better on aggregate.

Throttle
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby Throttle » Wed May 15, 2013 8:09 am

Schools that have Medians below 3.3/162 for its incoming class should have a limit of 200( or 13:1 max), and drop the bottom 20% from its class after 1L grades. I use 3.3 because that is B avg with A's and B-'s etc. I chose 162 because that is around 80-85 percentile. I chose 200 because i like that number :D.

3.4/165 Below should have class sized limited to 200 (or 13:1 max), and drop bottom 10%.

3.6/168 below should drop 5%.

All other schools should drop the bottom 1%. This will "help" people to not drown in debt. This will also make some employers feel a bit better about dipping below median for 2L OCI.
Also maybe these numbers could be harsher but i'd like to start at a non-inflammatory base, and allow you all to discuss it.

One of the biggest problem is the fact that almost anyone can get a loan for law school; this problem will never be fixed. The other problem is the prestige factor.

drive4showLSAT4dough
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 10:19 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby drive4showLSAT4dough » Wed May 15, 2013 9:20 am

The university affiliated with each law school profits immensely from its existence. Law schools are cash cows, 50% employment or not. What incentive to TTT/TTTTs have to cut class size?

Throttle
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby Throttle » Wed May 15, 2013 9:52 am

drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:The university affiliated with each law school profits immensely from its existence. Law schools are cash cows, 50% employment or not. What incentive to TTT/TTTTs have to cut class size?


I'm saying they should be forced.

Myself
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:36 pm

.

Postby Myself » Wed May 15, 2013 10:21 am

.
Last edited by Myself on Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stuckinthemiddle
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:24 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby stuckinthemiddle » Wed May 15, 2013 10:31 am

Wow.

NYState just CANNOT be serious with how wrong he is.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby sinfiery » Wed May 15, 2013 11:06 am

I agree with DFs analysis. There shouldn't be a discussion based on fear of no jobs for you. This is America, this is how shit is done here. Deal with it.


What concerns me is that the investment is so ridiculously high that some people are seriously ruining their lives.because there is no mandate that the numbers students rely on to attend cannot be adjusted for advertising purposes.

There needs to be a mandated form dictating what exactly the cost of law school entails with repayment scenarios tied to individual school employment numbers. It needs to be written by someone on TLS with the sole purpose of scaring the shit out of any applicant too. PAYE needs to be readjusted but I suppose not removed...maybe.

The best solution would be having law schools cosign their students loans with an income after graduation clause but...that seems unlikely to occur.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22805
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed May 15, 2013 11:21 am

stuckinthemiddle wrote:Wow.

NYState just CANNOT be serious with how wrong he is.

Eh, I think he has a point. It's the school that decides what the distribution of grades will be. Some schools do require that no more than X number of students in a class can get an A, B, etc. Other schools don't require fixed numbers but set other requirements for grade distributions. So schools determine the scale and how it's going to work.

At a school where it's mandated that 8% of the class gets As, 12 % gets A-, 24% gets Bs, etc., those requirements (the curve) don't depend on other students' performance - there is going to be a fixed number of As regardless of whether everyone does well or everyone tanks. Where you fall on the curve does depend on other students' performance.

However, if the school has a required median rather than a required grade distribution, I think the actual curve does depend more on students' performance - in that if everyone's exam clusters within a narrow band, you'll usually see a ton of Bs and very few As/Cs, whereas if there's a wider distribution, you might have more As/Cs. (I think. Curves are a PITA.) The whole point of a required median is that you don't have a set number of required As/Bs/Cs, which means the distribution of grades does depend on student performance.

I think the confusion comes from these different approaches (and I think the required median is more common than the fixed distribution of grades).

User avatar
untar614
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby untar614 » Wed May 15, 2013 11:35 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
stuckinthemiddle wrote:Wow.

NYState just CANNOT be serious with how wrong he is.

Eh, I think he has a point. It's the school that decides what the distribution of grades will be. Some schools do require that no more than X number of students in a class can get an A, B, etc. Other schools don't require fixed numbers but set other requirements for grade distributions. So schools determine the scale and how it's going to work.

At a school where it's mandated that 8% of the class gets As, 12 % gets A-, 24% gets Bs, etc., those requirements (the curve) don't depend on other students' performance - there is going to be a fixed number of As regardless of whether everyone does well or everyone tanks. Where you fall on the curve does depend on other students' performance.

However, if the school has a required median rather than a required grade distribution, I think the actual curve does depend more on students' performance - in that if everyone's exam clusters within a narrow band, you'll usually see a ton of Bs and very few As/Cs, whereas if there's a wider distribution, you might have more As/Cs. (I think. Curves are a PITA.) The whole point of a required median is that you don't have a set number of required As/Bs/Cs, which means the distribution of grades does depend on student performance.

I think the confusion comes from these different approaches (and I think the required median is more common than the fixed distribution of grades).


Yeah, that does clarify what he wa trying to talk about I think, so I get that how the distribution may vary depending on what the school sets. But the original argument was over whether a given percentile rank between high ranked and low ranked schools was comparable, so I was saying that except for the extreme ends, it likely wasn't, due to the enlarged sentence.

User avatar
BitterSplitter
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby BitterSplitter » Wed May 15, 2013 3:37 pm

.
Last edited by BitterSplitter on Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Do they deserve to be lawyers?

Postby reasonable_man » Wed May 15, 2013 4:26 pm

BitterSplitter wrote:
reasonable_man wrote:TITCR... My firm could fire me tomorrow and hire two first years for the same price. And then they could start to plan out their dissolution when they lose the three main clients that I service. The reality is that survival of the fittest exists in the law and so there is no use in trying to decide some arbitrary line in the sand that should be drawn in law school (to determine who should and should not be able to practice). That's going to happen shortly after LS is over - so don't worry about it.


reasonable_man wrote:
lukertin wrote:
BitterSplitter wrote:The correct response to what, exactly?

shhh don't question him, he's reasonable.


I am reasonable. Thank you.

And its the correct response to this whole absurd inquiry into where to draw the line in the sand as to who "deserves" to practice and who does not. The thread is sort of ridiculous becuase the line in the sand is ultimately drawn by the market for attorney-tallent. Not arbitrary cut-offs based upon grades.


OP said "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" and then asked a question basically about whether the entitlement of those in the bottom of their classes, who think that because they pay alot of money that they should be guaranteed (or just short of guaranteed) a job, is justified. DF strayed from the question by equating those people in question to functional retards and asked why he was worried about them. This effectively shifted the perception of OP's question to something along the lines of should they be allowed to fight for jobs with anyone in the first place[which is what the title kind of implies anyways (so it seemed to be a justifiable response to the uninitiated- but we are initiated are we not?! lol) - the pitfalls of trying to make a catchy title]. He was basically insinuating that these people have no effect on top 1st yr lawyers (see def in prev posts not typing it out again) so I interjected and showed one way these people could sneak a job away from top candidates (same def) and another where they effectively lower the justifiable market rate. He came back with a false analogy (fans going to see QoSA are not going to care what I charge for BitterSplitter Band to play even if I play only covers fo QoSA songs) and then let us know that he makes four times as much as lowly graduates. Then you proceeded to let us know that you not only make twice as much as first years but that your departure would directly lead to the dissolution of your firm (really? none of your bosses would be able to 'service' your clients like you do? what services do you provide? lol) So how this equates to TCR i have no clue. But in the repsonse I gave earlier ITT I did say that making arbitrary cut offs was stupid and unfair. That does not make this discussion stupid or unfair. It is relevant and while you may have a cushy job and no worries because of your servicability we lowly 0Ls have nothing else to worry about



I apologize. I took a little creative freedom. Would the firm dissolve? Probably not. But they would be in a pretty bad jam. I’m only a 5th year. But I do provide a pretty unique service in that I not only handle the bulk of the most complicated matters within the firm, but I also manage the docket of the rest of the cases. I took on the latter role after the departure of a service-type partner a few years back. Finding an associate capable of doing both at the same time is not so easy to do. Completely impossible? No. But pretty difficult nonetheless. Add to that the fact that 1/3 of the work is extremely specialized (very few attorneys practice this type of law) and that its not very closely related to the other 2/3s of the work and you have a situation where it would be very difficult to replace me. That, and I win a lot. And luckily that does count for something too.

So I misspoke. The firm wouldn’t dissolve. It would be in deep shit.

Better?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, tinafeyclone and 4 guests