afterglow99 wrote:They exist because the LSAT is an imperfect test. This whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that the kid who scores 155 will never have what it takes to be a thoughtful and successful lawyer and that the school he goes to won't provide him with the skills to be a successful lawyer (or at least not as well as the kid with a 165 at a T30.). These are deeply flawed presumptions and assume that the LSAT actually tests the skills needed to be a successful lawyer.
Also, i don't think anyone can dispute the fact that cheap, state schools are a VERY smart option for many people. They are highly regarded within the state, charge a reasonable tuition, and offer local options for students who don't want to move too far away from home.
You DEFINITELY aren't stuck in a tier 3 or 4 with a 155. I am living proof of that considering my acceptances. I do have a 3.8 and am part Mexican though, that probably helped.
I had a 3.8 from a top international undergrad, but couldn't break 160 on the LSAT so ended up at a cheap state school that is at risk of falling out of the top 100. After 3/4 of 1L I can tell you that the LSAT, especially logic games, is pretty much BS for predicting law school grades. Without TTTs I may not have been able to go to law school, but now I'm sitting pretty in the top 10% and looking at a good shot of a transfer acceptance to Georgetown.
What I DO think needs to change is the asymmetry of information regarding lower ranked schools. They should all be honest and transparent about the fact that most graduates will be starting out making 50k. I have far too many friends that definitely think law school=$$$, regardless of the school. If TTTs become more transparent, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't be given the chance
to take the gamble, even if the odds may be against them. After all, the cream always rises to the top.