what's the lowest ranked law school you would attend? Forum

[Aeroplane]

Also, FWIW, my boyfriend was a history & poli-sci double major in UG. Now a lawyer.

Awesome. I was a Poli-Sci and English major myself. Where did he go to school?

UG at Michigan, where I will be going this fall. LS at our local T2.

[dresden doll]

Also, FWIW, my boyfriend was a history & poli-sci double major in UG. Now a lawyer.

Awesome. I was a Poli-Sci and English major myself. Where did he go to school?

UG at Michigan, where I will be going this fall. LS at our local T2.

Yay for us wolverines. It's Michigan for me this fall, too.

[Aeroplane]

Also, FWIW, my boyfriend was a history & poli-sci double major in UG. Now a lawyer.

Awesome. I was a Poli-Sci and English major myself. Where did he go to school?

UG at Michigan, where I will be going this fall. LS at our local T2.

Yay for us wolverines. It's Michigan for me this fall, too.

Yay! I am really excited for school. Really nervous too. Are you doing MAP?

[dresden doll]

Yay! I am really excited for school. Really nervous too. Are you doing MAP?

I don't know yet - I'm in a little bit of a bind that would take too much space to relate here, so my plans are still in the air. I'd really like to, though.

[Helmholtz]

TCR = PCOL

[Aeroplane]

Yay! I am really excited for school. Really nervous too. Are you doing MAP?

I don't know yet - I'm in a little bit of a bind that would take too much space to relate here, so my plans are still in the air. I'd really like to, though.

Good luck with that. I've relocated a million times and I still hate the process. So many annoying things to decide & do.

[Cleareyes]

TCR = PCOL

Also the highest ranked school you will be invited to attend.

[rayiner]

I certainly do not consider the level of difficulty of a person's UG coursework to be any determinant of that person's intelligence, potential, work ethic, or anything else.

Really, when you think about it... grades do reflect intelligence, potential, work ethic, to some extent, but the degree of difficulty doesn't tell you anything other than maybe a little bit about someone who deliberately wants to challenge themselves. But, a lot of it comes down to interests. If you're really interested in what you learn in marketing classes, why should you take advanced differential geometry just to prove your intelligence or work ethic?

That's just the point. I've got years of physics, chemistry, biology and what have you behind me and all I can say is that they pretty much bored me to fucking tears (with the exception of biology and certain parts of math like trigonometry or logarithms). I didn't pick my majors because I couldn't hack it outside the lib arts domain (in fact, I did well in all my science courses) but because they interested me. Lots of judgments tend to be passed about lib arts majors around here, and while I've generally stayed out of them all, I gotta say I don't appreciate them too much.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to diminish the achievement of people like you that were top of their class in liberal arts programs. My point, while callously-made, was simply that someone coming from a liberal arts background really has no standing to criticize the qualifications of someone coming from an engineering background. A 3.1 at a rigorous engineering school is a solid GPA. It's above the median almost anywhere, and will get you into a decent graduate school. A 3.1 in a liberal arts, on the other hand, is in most places well below the median. Ergo, gatorlion's criticism of aeroplane was not just classless and unwarranted, but fundamentally ignorant. Nobody who pulls a 3.1 at a solid engineering school and then goes into a good MS program can justly be accused of not taking their studies seriously!

Also, to be entirely fair here, while I certainly do go off on liberal arts majors now and then, there are also lots of liberal arts majors who post tripe like "if you just show up to class you will pull a 3.3+". Coming from a program where that would've been top of the class, that peeves me...

[Helmholtz]

TCR = PCOL

Also the highest ranked school you will be invited to attend.

PCOL doesn't invite people to attend. You sort of just walk in one day and start taking classes.

[Cleareyes]

TCR = PCOL

Also the highest ranked school you will be invited to attend.

PCOL doesn't invite people to attend. You sort of just walk in one day and start taking classes.

Actually I think when you walk in they hand you a mop and a bucket. It's all part of their Mr. Miyagi style legal education method. You sweep the floor just as proper application of the law sweeps away injustice. You wash the windows just as an acquittal washes away the stain of accusation. You snake the toilets...well...that's just to get you used to the amount of shit you'll take as a PCOL grad in the L.A. legal market.

[sbalive]

I agree with both comments, but not the edit. I think someone who did very difficult coursework (which CAN be in the humanities) and did well, can be reasonably assumed to be talented. I do not think that the converse holds, i.e. that someone who did easy coursework well is less talented, for the reasons you give above. If there is such a thing as sum(Potential, intelligence, work ethic) = A + B + ... + Z, then I think difficulty of and performance in a hard curriculum can be a positive contribution to the sum. Good performance in an easy curriculum will not be a negative, but will also not be a positive, and presumably other variables will make up the sum.

I guess I just don't believe in the concept of "intelligence" or "aptitude" in a general sense. I think the skills that people have that allow them to do well in academic subjects - whether innate or learned or a combination - are distinct & can't be lumped together. I know lots of people who were brilliant in certain Physics classes, but miserable in general engineering classes, and people great at both who were mediocre at best in business or liberal arts classes. There is no generally "hard" or "easy" curriculum. Different classes require different skills, different kinds of work ethic (studying for exams, attending classes, doing reading, writing papers, and doing homework assignments are all very different tasks). They also require different kinds of intellectual aptitude.

I honestly can't come up with a general interpretation for any given GPA based on the associated undergrad major. If someone got a 4.0 in Physics or ECE out of undergrad, then I'll assume they will do well in grad school classes - but that's about it. Can't really say anything about how they'll do on the dissertation, can't say anything about their creativity, ability to do research, or anything else. But, since I don't want to hire someone who might fail their qualifying exam, or have to study and work on classes rather than get into the advanced literature - I'd rather recruit the 4.0. That is all. It's the same thing for law schools - you want a reasonable guarantee that the person will show up to class, take notes, do the reading, and not bomb the exams, and a GPA is a reasonable proxy for functioning in an educational environment. Any interpretation of "intellectual aptitude" is probably misguided.

[darkknight2000]

Full price? - t30 is where I'd draw the line (though even some schools in the t30 wouldn't be worth sticker)

Full ride? - t100, with somewhat lenient scholly requirements

[sbalive]

TCR = PCOL

Also the highest ranked school you will be invited to attend.

PCOL doesn't invite people to attend. You sort of just walk in one day and start taking classes.

Actually I think when you walk in they hand you a mop and a bucket. It's all part of their Mr. Miyagi style legal education method. You sweep the floor just as proper application of the law sweeps away injustice. You wash the windows just as an acquittal washes away the stain of accusation. You snake the toilets...well...that's just to get you used to the amount of shit you'll take as a PCOL grad in the L.A. legal market.

Or, you could be elected mayor and date hot chicks on the side.

[gatorlion]

I certainly do not consider the level of difficulty of a person's UG coursework to be any determinant of that person's intelligence, potential, work ethic, or anything else.

Really, when you think about it... grades do reflect intelligence, potential, work ethic, to some extent, but the degree of difficulty doesn't tell you anything other than maybe a little bit about someone who deliberately wants to challenge themselves. But, a lot of it comes down to interests. If you're really interested in what you learn in marketing classes, why should you take advanced differential geometry just to prove your intelligence or work ethic?

That's just the point. I've got years of physics, chemistry, biology and what have you behind me and all I can say is that they pretty much bored me to fucking tears (with the exception of biology and certain parts of math like trigonometry or logarithms). I didn't pick my majors because I couldn't hack it outside the lib arts domain (in fact, I did well in all my science courses) but because they interested me. Lots of judgments tend to be passed about lib arts majors around here, and while I've generally stayed out of them all, I gotta say I don't appreciate them too much.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to diminish the achievement of people like you that were top of their class in liberal arts programs. My point, while callously-made, was simply that someone coming from a liberal arts background really has no standing to criticize the qualifications of someone coming from an engineering background. A 3.1 at a rigorous engineering school is a solid GPA. It's above the median almost anywhere, and will get you into a decent graduate school. A 3.1 in a liberal arts, on the other hand, is in most places well below the median. Ergo, gatorlion's criticism of aeroplane was not just classless and unwarranted, but fundamentally ignorant. Nobody who pulls a 3.1 at a solid engineering school and then goes into a good MS program can justly be accused of not taking their studies seriously!

Also, to be entirely fair here, while I certainly do go off on liberal arts majors now and then, there are also lots of liberal arts majors who post tripe like "if you just show up to class you will pull a 3.3+". Coming from a program where that would've been top of the class, that peeves me...

1) In no way do I mean to denigrate engineering majors for taking upon themselves a rigorous courseload. Some of my best friends are engineers. However, they managed GPAs above 3.1.

2) Regarding graduate school, I believe we are experiencing a miscommunication. I did not mean to suggest that someone with a 3.1 GPA in engineering could not earn acceptance into an engineering graduate program. I was referring to graduate programs in social sciences, humanities, and policy. I am fully aware that when applying to graduate programs in engineering, applicants will be judged on an entirely different scale than they would if they were to apply to other types of graduate programs.

3) My criticism of Aeroplane, while admittedly harsh, stems from the de facto insistence that he/she wants to pursue a career in legal academia with an undergraduate GPA of 3.1 in any field. Such an assertion is highly presumptuous. I think you would be hard pressed to find law professors at any law school who had a 3.1 GPA in engineering in undergrad. Law professors are more likely to be the top students from any discipline. In this sense, grade inflation of liberal arts major aside, a 3.1 GPA as an engineering student does not automatically ring "top of the class." Basically, I am asking Aeroplane to give law professors a little more credit for their achievement. The assumption that he/she can waltz into legal academia with a 3.1 GPA in any field is simply naive.

4) Attacking me based on my number of TLS posts? Seriously? By that logic, 1,000 irrational, babbling posts would trump one person's well-thought out contribution.

5) I only really flew off the handle when the rigor of my minor was questioned (nice ad hominem, btw). I felt the need to justify what I had done as an undergraduate because clearly my criticism of Aeroplane warranted an unsubstantiated attack of my minor. Even if geography is assumed to be the underwater basket-weaving of the social sciences, I felt that I had a right to give evidence of the discipline's rigor according to natural science standards, which should be unnecessary. In brief, it's not like it was communications or "family, youth, and community sciences."

6) When backed into a corner, I will defend myself and the social sciences on charges of ease and grade inflation. While I would not dispute the fact that earning a 3.3 GPA in the social sciences or humanities is not equivalent to performing at that numerical level in the natural sciences or engineering, achieving a high GPA in any discipline requires some measure of skill and talent.

7) There is also some selection bias in the field of law. Many who are intrigued by law have their training in fields relating to textual analysis of some kind or another (i.e. the most common majors of law school students are political science, english, and history). Unless an engineering major took substantial coursework in the dreaded liberal arts, he/she would likely be at a strategic disadvantage in a setting where the art of words and persuasion do not invoke the need to employ calculations or measurements. More bluntly, anyone who spent 4 (or in the case of engineering 5) years crunching numbers (accounting majors are not exempt from this criticism either) cannot be said to have been adequately prepared for schooling that involves rigorous argument and public speaking. I would also like to point out that of the current supreme court justices, who I think we can all agree (even if we don't agree with their opinions) are all brilliant minds and tremendous legal scholars, not a single one majored in the natural sciences or engineering. Just sayin'.

Thanks to dresden doll for coming into my corner.

[Cleareyes]

Actually I think when you walk in they hand you a mop and a bucket. It's all part of their Mr. Miyagi style legal education method. You sweep the floor just as proper application of the law sweeps away injustice. You wash the windows just as an acquittal washes away the stain of accusation. You snake the toilets...well...that's just to get you used to the amount of shit you'll take as a PCOL grad in the L.A. legal market.

Or, you could be elected mayor and date hot chicks on the side.

Not if you pass the bar!

HEY HO!

[sbalive]

3) My criticism of Aeroplane, while admittedly harsh, stems from the de facto insistence that he/she wants to pursue a career in legal academia with an undergraduate GPA of 3.1 in any field. Such an assertion is highly presumptuous. I think you would be hard pressed to find law professors at any law school who had a 3.1 GPA in engineering in undergrad. Law professors are more likely to be the top students from any discipline. In this sense, grade inflation of liberal arts major aside, a 3.1 GPA as an engineering student does not automatically ring "top of the class." Basically, I am asking Aeroplane to give law professors a little more credit for their achievement. The assumption that he/she can waltz into legal academia with a 3.1 GPA in any field is simply naive.

I fail to understand this. If someone can gain admission to a T10 school, then UGPA doesn't really matter. Of course it'll be tougher than someone who got a 4.0 and managed to get into Yale, because Yale has certain structural advantages that help with getting academic positions. But, beyond this your statement is absurd. What you did or didn't do as an undergrad has little bearing on legal academia.

I would also like to point out that of the current supreme court justices, who I think we can all agree (even if we don't agree with their opinions) are all brilliant minds and tremendous legal scholars, not a single one majored in the natural sciences or engineering. Just sayin'.

I will also point out that there are a number of relatively young legal scholars who do have technical backgrounds and are quite accomplished. Tim Wu and Eugene Volokh right off the top of my head, but there are others. There also aren't any Hispanic women on the Supreme Court (maybe soon of course), but that doesn't mean they have any less potential for scholarly work. They're just rarer, and more recently started coming into the profession - just like the engineers and scientists making the leap. In fact, I'd argue that non-traditional undergrad/grad backgrounds like that will have a bit of an advantage in academic hiring.

[Aeroplane]

Post at 2:54pm

Yes, the topic is one with a lot of nuanced areas. That's why I see UG major, curricular difficulty, etc as only one piece. Others could be stuff like original research, winning competitions, innovative enterpreneurship, student government, blah blah. I think there are many ways for a person to show evidence intellectual aptitude. I agree with you that there is really no precise way to quantify stuff like that.

[particleman]

"My top schools where I want to apply to are Oxford and the Sorbonne. My safety is Harvard."

[dresden doll]

3) My criticism of Aeroplane, while admittedly harsh, stems from the de facto insistence that he/she wants to pursue a career in legal academia with an undergraduate GPA of 3.1 in any field. Such an assertion is highly presumptuous. I think you would be hard pressed to find law professors at any law school who had a 3.1 GPA in engineering in undergrad. Law professors are more likely to be the top students from any discipline. In this sense, grade inflation of liberal arts major aside, a 3.1 GPA as an engineering student does not automatically ring "top of the class." Basically, I am asking Aeroplane to give law professors a little more credit for their achievement. The assumption that he/she can waltz into legal academia with a 3.1 GPA in any field is simply naive.

You have misread Aeroplane's post if you think she imagines she can waltz into academia. I think both her and I, as future Michigan students, understand that, no matter what our grades end up being, we will face an uphill battle in terms of academia, as will anyone not attending HYSC. I don't believe she has ever imagined it would be easy, 3.1 notwithstanding.

Furthermore, I'd contend that one's UG GPA matters none once law school starts. What will count is LS performance alone. Now, you might contend that Aeroplane's 3.1 betrays lack of work ethics necessary for stellar LS performance - but given the rigor and difficulty of her major, that isn't a strong argument.

I will toss myself in here for an example. I graduated with a 4.0 in English. Why should you imagine that I'd have a better shot at academia than Aeroplane? Our curricula don't compare in the least bit and all that matters right now is that we have both been accepted to a T10. Whether or not either one of us ever breaks into academia will in no way be impacted by our previous UG GPAs, and it seems to me there's as little reason to speculate that her 3.1 positions her badly as there is to imagine that my 4.0 gives me any advantage as far as that specific career path is concerned.

[gatorlion]

3) My criticism of Aeroplane, while admittedly harsh, stems from the de facto insistence that he/she wants to pursue a career in legal academia with an undergraduate GPA of 3.1 in any field. Such an assertion is highly presumptuous. I think you would be hard pressed to find law professors at any law school who had a 3.1 GPA in engineering in undergrad. Law professors are more likely to be the top students from any discipline. In this sense, grade inflation of liberal arts major aside, a 3.1 GPA as an engineering student does not automatically ring "top of the class." Basically, I am asking Aeroplane to give law professors a little more credit for their achievement. The assumption that he/she can waltz into legal academia with a 3.1 GPA in any field is simply naive.

I fail to understand this. If someone can gain admission to a T10 school, then UGPA doesn't really matter. Of course it'll be tougher than someone who got a 4.0 and managed to get into Yale, because Yale has certain structural advantages that help with getting academic positions. But, beyond this your statement is absurd. What you did or didn't do as an undergrad has little bearing on legal academia.

Correction: Correlation, not causation. Having a 4.0 in English does not mean that you WILL get into legal academia, but there are few (if any) legal scholars who boast a whopping 3.1 undergraduate GPA. For instance, Justice Breyer was a Marshall Scholar. He would not have won the Marshall Scholarship with a 3.1 GPA as applicants must attain at least a 3.7 GPA in ANY field. Someone who does well in their undergraduate major, later wins a national scholarship, and intends to go into law, is infinitely more likely to grasp the brass rings of success in the legal profession compared to your run-of-the-mill 3.0-ish science major who wants a change of pace. Every science major who wins a Marshall Scholarship had to have achieved a 3.7+ GPA, just as English or History majors. Quite simply, legal scholars are people who have excelled in their academics, no matter what field they came from. More often than not legal scholars majored in liberal arts, but I'm willing to bet that the few who have hard science backgrounds didn't ascend to the ranks of law professor with a 3.1 GPA. I would like to see any evidence to the contrary.

I would also like to point out that of the current supreme court justices, who I think we can all agree (even if we don't agree with their opinions) are all brilliant minds and tremendous legal scholars, not a single one majored in the natural sciences or engineering. Just sayin'.

I will also point out that there are a number of relatively young legal scholars who do have technical backgrounds and are quite accomplished. Tim Wu and Eugene Volokh right off the top of my head, but there are others. There also aren't any Hispanic women on the Supreme Court (maybe soon of course), but that doesn't mean they have any less potential for scholarly work. They're just rarer, and more recently started coming into the profession - just like the engineers and scientists making the leap. In fact, I'd argue that non-traditional undergrad/grad backgrounds like that will have a bit of an advantage in academic hiring.

I bet that whomever is selected to be the next Supreme Court Justice, Hispanic woman or not, will have an excellent academic background (i.e. not a 3.1 GPA). An in terms of academic hiring of people from science backgrounds, I will contend that they will be the absolute cream of the crop within their respective disciplines. Hence, those with a 3.1 GPA (even in engineering!) are not likely to make the cut.

[Aeroplane]

1) Did your friends also get admitted to T10 law schools? If so, good luck to them. Hopefully they will make new friends there.

3) Please show me where I assumed I would "waltz" into legal academia. I actually said in my original post “I can deal with the odds being against me and if I fail at academia, I will fashion some kind of workable backup plan.”

4) Obviously not seriously, since my next sentence began "Seriously though..."

7) You don't know anything about my verbal skills. Items 3 & 4 tell me that you will need to work on your RC before law school.

[gatorlion]

1) Did your friends also get admitted to T10 law schools? If so, good luck to them. Hopefully they will make new friends there.

3) Please show me where I assumed I would "waltz" into legal academia. I actually said in my original post “I can deal with the odds being against me and if I fail at academia, I will fashion some kind of workable backup plan.”

4) Obviously not seriously, since my next sentence began "Seriously though..."

7) You don't know anything about my verbal skills. Items 3 & 4 tell me that you will need to work on your RC before law school.

People who go into legal academia were stellar performers in undergraduate, as evidenced by their numerous accomplishments even before entering law school. What about that is so hard to understand? If you earned a 3.1 GPA, you probably did not win many substantial awards in undergrad, which means you have fewer accolades than your high-performing colleagues coming from the liberal arts. HYS are not full of nose-grinding 3.1 GPA students, they are the best students from all disciplines. Therefore, they will have a substantial advantage if they choose to enter legal academia. The adage about scholarships in academia, "Money follows money," could be paraphrased to mean "success begets success." The best of the best will become legal scholars. End of story.

[Aeroplane]

Now, you might contend that Aeroplane's 3.1 betrays lack of work ethics necessary for stellar LS performance - but given the rigor and difficulty of her major, that isn't a strong argument.

Thanks for the help DD. I did not take my UG studies as seriously as I should have, but have changed a lot in the 4-5 years since then. Completing a Master's in <2 years while working full-time has given me more confidence in that area, but I still worry about what will happen in law school.

I would not have been offended had gatorlion raised that issue in a non-douchey way that did not make unwarranted assumptions about my past or future.

[sbalive]

eople who go into legal academia were stellar performers in undergraduate, as evidenced by their numerous accomplishments even before entering law school. What about that is so hard to understand? If you earned a 3.1 GPA, you probably did not win many substantial awards in undergrad, which means you have fewer accolades than your high-performing colleagues coming from the liberal arts. HYS are not full of nose-grinding 3.1 GPA students, they are the best students from all disciplines. Therefore, they will have a substantial advantage if they choose to enter legal academia. The adage about scholarships in academia, "Money follows money," could be paraphrased to mean "success begets success." The best of the best will become legal scholars. End of story.

You seem unable to comprehend the difference between correlation and causation. This may cause difficulty in future academic endeavours.

[rayiner]

Gatorlion,

Your post implied that a 3.1 in engineering suggested a lack of effort and work ethic. That's just not true. A 3.1 isn't a top student by any measure, but it is very possible for a 3.1 in engineering to correspond to around a 3.5 in a liberal arts program with a comparable student body. At my UG, both would be roughly top 1/3 in their respective programs. Both would be good, reasonably hard-working students. I highly doubt if you had seen someone's profile with a 3.5 going to Michigan that expressed interest in academia, you would've gone off like that.

Beyond that, you're reading all sorts of things into my posts that aren't there. Quote my post where it says anything that could be construed to indicate that I thought law professors, supreme court justices, etc, weren't brilliant? Even in my completely drunken state all I said is that a 3.1 in engineering from a top school is much more impressive to me than a 3.5 in liberal arts from a run of the mill school.