nick417 wrote:Too many times these conversations turn into individual experiences, which are simply not helpful to a 0 L making a tough decision to attend law school. Law school is a risk, like gambling is a risk. Therefore, generalities about how to be successful or who is successful is more helpful then individual experiences. Example: If I told you to play video poker because I was just dealt a Royal Flush, is that helpful information? OR if I told you to play video poker because your return on investment is close to 99%, compared to 90% at a slot machine. Which is more helpful information?
Right, which is why we'd look at the outcomes of an entire class and be skeptical of the guy from Rutgers-Camden telling us that getting a great job is just about not being lazy.
nick417 wrote:Also, If grades are even remotely random, then logic dictates there would be no one with 4.0's, or even close to that. But yet, there are. Somehow, a group of students get "A's" and "A-" in every single class they take. I guess that is just random.....
You really don't understand how randomness works across a large group of people, do you?
nick417 wrote:By the way, "Hard working" doesn't mean hours your put in. It means knowing the material. Do you know the material better than everyone else in your school. The ones who are at the top of the class tend to work harder at knowing the material better than everyone else.
Oh ok now you're making some sense why didn't you just say that before? Working hard isn't about working hard it's about knowing the material better than everyone else so as long as you "work hard" (euphemism for actually not working hard at all but in fact doing better at "law school" and "law exams" than the other people on the forced curve) you'll do just fine.