TwirlerGirl wrote:Okay, here is my reasoning for not re-taking. First of all, obviously I'm not lazy or I wouldn't have a 4.0. I'm good at exams, not standardized tests. Also, law school is all about being top of your class. I feel that these schools give me a chance at being a big fish in a smaller pond. I feel like I would drown if I got into Harvard and Yale and it wouldn't be worth it. Even if I got a full ride to a top 14, what if I can't even keep my scholarship past the first year? Maybe some of those schools only have an 8% chance at big law, I think I have a better chance at top 8% at those schools.
This is lazy thinking. I am the least snotty t-14 type of student, and frankly can't stand all of the bowtie wearing self-righteousness. These are the issues:
1.) You don't have a better chance of being top 8% at George Mason than you do at a t-14. That's asinine thinking. You probably have a better shot of being above median, but it's literally a few percentage points. Top 8% at GM is going to be above median at any law school in the country so at most you break even.
2.) It's very rare one can't break a 160, but will be a law school guru. Although many question the LSAT's predictive value, if you can't recognize argumentative gaps on a pretty easy test at an 80% success rate -> your exams aren't going to be great. Everyone is going to know the BLL. Most will be able to apply it. The difference between the bottom 25% and top 25% at any non-shit school is your logic. A 172 won't apply logic better than a 171 in all likelihood, but a 165 v. a 155 has much greater likelihood to.
3.) Even if you were top 8%, you're not necessarily in great shape. You need to be a perfect candidate in addition to getting top 8%. First off, someone's daddy is going to be a rainmaking partner at a major firm. Happens all the time. They're going to be a not so bright, kind of off kid who is going to get a big law job at another firm (because really, how hard is the work and this builds the firm's network) so some people at the top still get screwed. It's not a GPA:Offer game, but the ones who outperform their grades are generally privileged or did some awesome shit before law school. So will you get screwed at top 8%? You're a girl. Are you overweight? Do you have any disability - a limp, speech impediment, boring voice? Do you have business experience? If any of these is a yes you're probably more likely than not to be screwed even with top 8% grades at these places. These forums only discuss grades, but with the exception of racial/cultural diversity (and arguably even here in how this diversity is judged), there is more discrimination in this field than almost any other. At my school, none of the bubbly really good looking people are still dressing up when they come to class. Bare in mind, everyone, especially law students overrate themselves in this area. At a t-14 you can have imperfections, but make the cut as long as nothing is too off-putting.
4.) If you don't want to be bothered to retake the test, how are you going to be bothered to outwork everyone (think 72 hour weeks+) to compensate for not being a good standardized test taker (law school tests are more like standardized tests than college tests, because of the forced curve)?
5.) You immediately jump to a strawman argument that says, "No one makes it at these schools," which no one said. If you played a college sport, think about it in these terms. There's a draft. If you're a first round pick you might fail, but will get every chance to succeed. Pretend you're a late round pick or go undrafted. You also have a job offer at Goldman Sachs (let's call it the retake equivalent). Your response is, "I can make it playing the sport professionally. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Nevermind 99% of 6th and 7th round picks are out of the league in 3 years, and done. Tom Trump Supporter Brady made it. Therefore, I will make it." It's a crazy argument. It's like saying, "Fuck Wachtell. I'm going to work for a shady solo attorney who just got reinstated into the bar after being convicted of heroine possession. I can really stand out here, and then lateral to partner elsewhere. I'm sure 1 guy did it."
No one's saying you can't be a good lawyer. They're saying you're very likely never getting an opportunity. You can say it's unfair, but it's really not. How else would you do it? Whoever comes from the most $? Whoever can avoid excessive drinking, drug usage and fornication the best when they're 18 should have the best legal career at 40? This is the closest to = possibility that is possible, and the reason why special snowflake syndrome annoys people is you're basically saying, "Screw equal opportunity or merit based evaluations. Mommy and Daddy said I'm special. Therefore, statistics, objectivity and performance assessment don't apply to me."