Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
0831kf
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 1:25 am

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby 0831kf » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:38 pm

BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:48 pm

0831kf wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


The percentiles are for that sitting. Anyone that retakes can be 50th% one day and 2% the next. I agree 170+ is misguided, but 160+ is not: the premise is that if you cannot score into a range that makes your employment goals achievable, you probably shouldn't attend

0831kf
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 1:25 am

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby 0831kf » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:57 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
The percentiles are for that sitting. Anyone that retakes can be 50th% one day and 2% the next. I agree 170+ is misguided, but 160+ is not: the premise is that if you cannot score into a range that makes your employment goals achievable, you probably shouldn't attend


Exactly. That's why I said I hate it but it is hard truth of legal market.

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby Ti Malice » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:58 pm

0831kf wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


That's an oversimplification of the TLS message, the core of which is: "Don't take out debt in amounts that a given school's job prospects (and your preexisting debt/other obligations) can't justify."

For people who insist on having certain career goals (BigLaw, federal clerkship, etc.) with a 160 or a 150, the answer will be retake for a higher score for better schools/more money or simply don't attend law school. For someone who is not aiming for those employment outcomes, TLS is happy to endorse sticking with the 164 that gets that person a full ride at a regional with good placement located where they'd like to practice.

TLS doesn't tell people to retake for retaking's sake. It's nothing more than a possible answer for some situations offered in service of the message stated above.

BigZuck
Posts: 10871
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby BigZuck » Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:08 pm

0831kf wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


I feel like there is an LSAT-style flaw question at the root of your logic here.

Just because 1% of people score above a 172 does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that only 1% of people are capable of scoring above a 172.

Anyway, what Ti said. People don't say retake just because they think its fun or to be a jerk, they say retake because its the only smart course of action in a lot of situations. The school and the debt have to match up with the career goals. I don't necessarily think everyone is capable of a 170+. In fact I'm living proof that there is at least one person on this planet who couldn't do it. But some people just have to score in a certain range or change their career aspirations or just not go to law school.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:48 pm

Most of the people that get told to retake aren't looking to settle down in shitlaw or their local DA's office. They're people with scores in the 150s and low 160s, and TLS is telling them they won't be getting Biglaw with the score they have, so it would be unwise to take out debt when it's overwhelmingly likely there will be no benefit to doing so.

It is not "elitist" to say that someone who wants an elite job needs to get an elite score. TLS doesn't pester applicants with crappy scores if all they want is a crappy job (although it still tells people to stay away from schools where lots of students aren't getting any jobs at all). But it's usually people with a 155 who are expecting the Gatsby life. TLS does these people a favor by letting them know how farcical their Biglaw notions are from a TTT and how real six-figure debt is, even though many of them get special snowflake syndrome and are convinced they will outperform 95% of their peers, despite zero objective evidence suggesting as much.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby Nova » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:38 pm

0831kf wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


The lsat is not curved.

Look up how the percentiles have changed over time

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby Ti Malice » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:05 am

Nova wrote:
0831kf wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


The lsat is not curved.

Look up how the percentiles have changed over time


I wish the mods would pin an explanation of this to the top of the LSAT forum. People have explained it so well over there before, but with the constant turnover in that forum, institutional knowledge is lacking. At any given point, it seems like 80% of the people there think the LSAT is curved.

Not that this hurts anyone. Just gets under my skin a little.

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby Clearly » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:20 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
0831kf wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
0831kf wrote:Well, I somewhat hate the TLS "RETAKE" on pretty much anyone who has below 168~170ish. However, I have to say either "RETAKE" or change your goal.

Your chance of landing biglaw out of Brooklyn is less than 10%, out of Fordham is about 30%. If you really want biglaw, retake the test and go to Fordham at current Brooklyn price or Cornell.

Or change your goal. Otherwise, after your 2L OCI, very more than likely, you would regret that you did not listen to many people here.


Why do you hate that?


I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


The percentiles are for that sitting. Anyone that retakes can be 50th% one day and 2% the next. I agree 170+ is misguided, but 160+ is not: the premise is that if you cannot score into a range that makes your employment goals achievable, you probably shouldn't attend

Just like to make a slight clarification, the percentiles aren't actually for a sitting, percentile itself is calculated based on the three years surrounding any admin, and can actually change after scores are released.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:27 pm

Clearlynotstefan wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
0831kf wrote:
I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


The percentiles are for that sitting. Anyone that retakes can be 50th% one day and 2% the next. I agree 170+ is misguided, but 160+ is not: the premise is that if you cannot score into a range that makes your employment goals achievable, you probably shouldn't attend

Just like to make a slight clarification, the percentiles aren't actually for a sitting, percentile itself is calculated based on the three years surrounding any admin, and can actually change after scores are released.


Right, thank you for this -- what I meant was more that you may score 76% in that "sitting" (whether it adjusts up or down by a few pts), but you arent locked in as a 76% candidate. You could be 98% on the next attempt. The previous poster said 99% cant score above 172-173; I was refuting by saying many more than 1% can, they might just not do it every time they sat for an official administration. Sorry I wasnt clear

User avatar
Clearly
Posts: 4166
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: Brooklyn Law v. Fordham

Postby Clearly » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:32 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Clearlynotstefan wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
0831kf wrote:
I feel like a lot of people ignore 99% people cannot score 173 or above. It bothers me. By the LSAT grading system, only 1% of people can score above 172, 2% 170, and about 5% 167. That is it.

It's bothering to me that TLS only exists for 2% of the people, or at most 5%. The other 95~98% should just perish.

But, I know it is hard truth. Me hating it doesn't make me stop saying it.


The percentiles are for that sitting. Anyone that retakes can be 50th% one day and 2% the next. I agree 170+ is misguided, but 160+ is not: the premise is that if you cannot score into a range that makes your employment goals achievable, you probably shouldn't attend

Just like to make a slight clarification, the percentiles aren't actually for a sitting, percentile itself is calculated based on the three years surrounding any admin, and can actually change after scores are released.


Right, thank you for this -- what I meant was more that you may score 76% in that "sitting" (whether it adjusts up or down by a few pts), but you arent locked in as a 76% candidate. You could be 98% on the next attempt. The previous poster said 99% cant score above 172-173; I was refuting by saying many more than 1% can, they might just not do it every time they sat for an official administration. Sorry I wasnt clear

It's all good, I know you know your stuff, just wanted to clarify the ambiguous phrasing for the archives haha. For what it's worth as far as your message goes, I scored a 90th% and 99.7th%- it can be done.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carasrook, onceuopna1l and 9 guests