Just read Don't Go to Law School (Unless) Forum

[Bronte]

This makes sense. I do not disagree.

But would you argue that those who maximized their commitment and ended up at the bottom were simply unlucky or were not cut from the proper cloth?

I would argue the latter and would see the first as fatalistic.

How is attributing something to luck any more fatalistic than attributing something to innate talent (i.e., the cloth from which you're cut)? Innate talent, after all, is just something you're luckily born with. Most important, innate talent for the law is mostly undiscoverable before going to law school. So we end up back at the same place we started: it's very hard to determine how you will perform in law school before the fact. Thus, it's rational to rely on statistics as to overall job placement performance at particular schools.

[vanwinkle]

But would you argue that those who maximized their commitment and ended up at the bottom were simply unlucky or were not cut from the proper cloth?

I would argue the latter and would see the first as fatalistic.

I think it's more of the latter, but here's the problem: As a 0L it's impossible to tell for certain whether you'll be "cut from the proper cloth" or not. A lot of people delude themselves into going by telling themselves, "I've always been really successful and hard working, these things will get me through as they have before. Besides, I'm attending a top law school, where my chances are success are good." Then they find themselves in a classroom full of other people who all graduated with honors from UG and earned 95th-percentile LSAT scores, and then get graded for the first time on a mandatory curve that assigns half of them with median-or-lower grades.

I'm telling you, as someone who actually did well in law school, you can't know what will make you do better or worse than your classmates. Everything that makes you likely to succeed, your classmates will also have in spades. You won't know for sure until you start getting grades back, and even then it won't be easy to understand what separates you from everyone else.

[megagnarley]

Pray tell...

And if you intend to say anything to the tune of "One has no bearing over his/her own odds of succeeding at OCI's" well...that is ludicrous.

To sum up: almost everybody who goes to the same law school is of more or less the same level of intelligence and works more or less just as hard as everyone else. You are not smarter than your classmates. You will not work harder than your classmates, nor will working harder guarantee you better grades.
You do not know how well you will do in law school until you're actually in law school (either you "get it" or you don't), therefore, before you start law school, you have no way of knowing if you're gonna be at the top or the bottom of the pile. Even then, while class rank correlates to employment prospects, you could strike out for a number of reasons (bad bid strategy, bad interview skills, bad luck, etc).
The only fact is that X% get biglaw and Y% get employed. Therefore, you should assume your chances of getting biglaw is X% and your chance of getting a job is Y%[/quote]

In principle, I disagree.

Assuming that everyone at the same law school (actually ALL law schools, as your argument implies), is of the same intelligence is simply not true. There are far more things that factor into intelligence than is able to be quantified by the adcoms, meaning there is unequivocally varying levels of intelligence, especially given the fact that even in that incredibly narrow scope there exists variance. (Ex. Just because a student with a 3.3/175 and a 3.9/169 got into the same school only implies they are of equal intelligence in the vaguest of situational standings).

Beyond that, there are myriad factors which contribute to success, many of which are determined by your approach while in law school and not simply by number of hours logged.

Yes, luck undoubtedly plays a role in many circumstances, but that does not mean the individual is incapable of effecting his/her own circumstance. Beyond law school, that holds true in any personal/professional undertaking.[/quote]
My argument doesn't imply everyone at every law school is of the same intelligence, but rather that every student at the same law school is of the same intelligence. However, even that's a straw man. most people are within a narrow band of each other (pro-tip: the difference between the bottom 25% and top 75% LSAT at, e.g. NYU, are within 1 percentile of test takers (97-98 percentiles). Yes, there are exceptions, but they're few and far between. If you're one of those exceptions, good for you (and you're a dumbass for turning down a better school)
There are a myriad of factors which contribute to success, I agree. The problem is, you don't know which factors are going to work in your favor until you're there. Practically everyone will memorize the black letter law - that should be considered a given. However, not everyone will be equally adept at understanding how to apply the law. It's not just a matter of practice. It's like how some people are really good with numbers and others are really good at languages. It's a talent, which some people have more of than others. Unfortunately, there's very little else that correlates to talent at law school exams, so you don't know if you've got it or not.
So, you don't know if your grades are going to be near the top or near the bottom, until you've actually taken a law school exam and learned whether or not you've got a talent for taking law school exams.

Hiring is mostly a matter of grades, although connections and hustling do count. the big problem is that employers often have cutoffs. For example, a firm might have a rule in place that they will not interview anyone who isn't at least top 25% at school X, at least top 1/3 at school Y and at least above median at school Z. Doesn't matter if you're an equity partner's son (anti-nepotism rules), if your grades aren't above the cutoff they won't talk to you. Hustling is great as it gives you more options, but, most people will also be hustling, so it's more like not hustling is a disadvantage, rather than hustling being an advantage. Now there are some positions that are open if you have connections, and good for you if you have them. But for everyone else, that possibility is irrelevant.
The gist is, for the vast majority of people, there's very little they can control about the hiring process, and until you go through it, you don't know how you'll fare (particularly the luck factor). So again, the hiring statistics are a good proxy for what a typical incoming 1L's chances are.[/quote]

Again, I agree for the most part. Your notions are well constructed.

I still disagree with the notion that most people at the same law school are of near-equal intelligence, simply because I don't believe intelligence can be quantified int he ways that adcoms see it because intelligence takes so many more complex forms than the LSAT and GPA. That being said, perhaps it is more work that one must do in understanding oneself and one's strengths before going to law school that make the difference. Those who work furiously and finish in the lower 10% might have realized their skillset was not a perfect fit for law but their dreams blinded them to this. Someone with an immense propensity to reading, writing, oration, critical thinking etc. would seem to be better off. In this way, bending the numbers to your favor is as simply as knowing that you will maximize your potential through having done the due-diligence necessary to know that you will belong, not ensuring success but mitigating some risk of failure.

Does this follow?


edit: the bold is all previous quotes

[megagnarley]

But would you argue that those who maximized their commitment and ended up at the bottom were simply unlucky or were not cut from the proper cloth?

I would argue the latter and would see the first as fatalistic.

I think it's more of the latter, but here's the problem: As a 0L it's impossible to tell for certain whether you'll be "cut from the proper cloth" or not. A lot of people delude themselves into going by telling themselves, "I've always been really successful and hard working, these things will get me through as they have before. Besides, I'm attending a top law school, where my chances are success are good." Then they find themselves in a classroom full of other people who all graduated with honors from UG and earned 95th-percentile LSAT scores, and then get graded for the first time on a mandatory curve that assigns half of them with median-or-lower grades.

I'm telling you, as someone who actually did well in law school, you can't know what will make you do better or worse than your classmates. Everything that makes you likely to succeed, your classmates will also have in spades. You won't know for sure until you start getting grades back, and even then it won't be easy to understand what separates you from everyone else.

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

[Bronte]

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

How is it a losing attitude? Vanwinkle and the rest of us are not saying, "Oh, just don't even try in law school, you're destined to fail." This is a discussion about choosing a law school and choosing whether or not to attend law school. In that context, you should be thinking rationally: you should evaluate your choices as if your success were a random variable. This is entirely separate from your attitude toward succeeding in law school once you're there.

[megagnarley]

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

How is it a losing attitude? Vanwinkle and the rest of us are not saying, "Oh, just don't even try in law school, you're destined to fail." This is a discussion about choosing a law school and choosing whether or not to attend law school. In that context, you should be thinking rationally: you should evaluate your choices as if your success were a random variable. This is entirely separate from your attitude toward succeeding in law school once you're there.

"The other part of me is likely correct."

Meaning the part of me you are arguing is the part I already indicated was wrong.

Convincing, though.

[dingbat]

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

Disclosure: not a 3L

[megagnarley]

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

Disclosure: not a 3L

Correction: Those with more experience with myself.

[Bronte]

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

Disclosure: not a 3L

Well I'm a 3L. Pretty sure vanwinkle is a 3L or a graduate. In any event, it doesn't matter. The logic stands on its own.

[NoodleyOne]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

[Bronte]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

It's fine to think you're going to crush law school, as long as you don't use that to rationalize going to a law school with poor employment prospects and massive debt. I certainly thought I was going to crush law school.

[megagnarley]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Approve.

[Ruxin1]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Approve.

You don't even know what school you're going to bro

[RPK34]

But would you argue that those who maximized their commitment and ended up at the bottom were simply unlucky or were not cut from the proper cloth?

I would argue the latter and would see the first as fatalistic.

I think it's more of the latter, but here's the problem: As a 0L it's impossible to tell for certain whether you'll be "cut from the proper cloth" or not. A lot of people delude themselves into going by telling themselves, "I've always been really successful and hard working, these things will get me through as they have before. Besides, I'm attending a top law school, where my chances are success are good." Then they find themselves in a classroom full of other people who all graduated with honors from UG and earned 95th-percentile LSAT scores, and then get graded for the first time on a mandatory curve that assigns half of them with median-or-lower grades.

I'm telling you, as someone who actually did well in law school, you can't know what will make you do better or worse than your classmates. Everything that makes you likely to succeed, your classmates will also have in spades. You won't know for sure until you start getting grades back, and even then it won't be easy to understand what separates you from everyone else.

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements.

And at that point, you'll actually understand how hard 1L because of how easy it is. You'll realize that no matter how hard you work, when you sit down at the exam table, all those 90 kids around you will have almost the same understanding of the material. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours doing the homework because you took time to understand every turn in logic in every case, you learned every view of the law from multiple hornbooks, or whatever 1Ls do. Because on that exam, there will be a negligence issue, and every single person will see it. Every single person will go through duty (reasonable person) breach, cause (proximate and cause in fact) and see a lot of the issues that a fact pattern brings out.

So yeah, tell yourself that the kids below median just didn't maximize their chances, even though some of them spent 10 hours a day in the library and wanted nothing more than to tell their parents they're on Law Review. And if you could watch over them an entire year, you would have no idea what they're doing wrong to get straight Bs and B+s on every single exam.

[megagnarley]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Approve.

You don't even know what school you're going to bro

Besides being unwarranted, this personal attack is relevant to my comment in what capacity?

[NoodleyOne]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Approve.

You don't even know what school you're going to bro

Don't care. I'm a cocky motherfucker.

[megagnarley]

But would you argue that those who maximized their commitment and ended up at the bottom were simply unlucky or were not cut from the proper cloth?

I would argue the latter and would see the first as fatalistic.

I think it's more of the latter, but here's the problem: As a 0L it's impossible to tell for certain whether you'll be "cut from the proper cloth" or not. A lot of people delude themselves into going by telling themselves, "I've always been really successful and hard working, these things will get me through as they have before. Besides, I'm attending a top law school, where my chances are success are good." Then they find themselves in a classroom full of other people who all graduated with honors from UG and earned 95th-percentile LSAT scores, and then get graded for the first time on a mandatory curve that assigns half of them with median-or-lower grades.

I'm telling you, as someone who actually did well in law school, you can't know what will make you do better or worse than your classmates. Everything that makes you likely to succeed, your classmates will also have in spades. You won't know for sure until you start getting grades back, and even then it won't be easy to understand what separates you from everyone else.

Part of me wants to say that's a losing attitude...

The other part of me sees that there is validity to what you are saying.

I will defer to the 3L's.

The other part of me is likely correct.

Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements.

And at that point, you'll actually understand how hard 1L because of how easy it is. You'll realize that no matter how hard you work, when you sit down at the exam table, all those 90 kids around you will have almost the same understanding of the material. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours doing the homework because you took time to understand every turn in logic in every case, you learned every view of the law from multiple hornbooks, or whatever 1Ls do. Because on that exam, there will be a negligence issue, and every single person will see it. Every single person will go through duty (reasonable person) breach, cause (proximate and cause in fact) and see a lot of the issues that a fact pattern brings out.

So yeah, tell yourself that the kids below median just didn't maximize their chances, even though some of them spent 10 hours a day in the library and wanted nothing more than to tell their parents they're on Law Review. And if you could watch over them an entire year, you would have no idea what they're doing wrong to get straight Bs and B+s on every single exam.

This has been explained and I agree fully.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Ruxin1]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Approve.

You don't even know what school you're going to bro

Don't care. I'm a cocky motherfucker.

My comment was to the other dood, my point was there's such a vast difference in schools employment stats that megagnarley could finish above median and still strike out

[RPK34]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Nah, it's not hubris. It's someone who's really bad at math.

[megagnarley]

My comment was to the other dood, my point was there's such a vast difference in schools employment stats that megagnarley could finish above median and still strike out

[/quote]

Still failing to see what point of mine you have contention with or what provoked you to launch a personal attack.

Lack of propriety, really.

[NoodleyOne]

Eh, I know it's probably hubris, but I think I'm going to crush law school. Still making sure I play the best odds possible though.

Nah, it's not hubris. It's someone who's really bad at math.

Of course I'm bad at math. Why do you think I'm going to law school?

[dingbat]

Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements

Is it odd that I understood RAP, no problem, think it's fairly straightforward and don't see what the big deal is? (my professor had a special session of Q&A on RAP and it appears maybe 1 other student isn't struggling with it)

[prezidentv8]

Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements.

And at that point, you'll actually understand how hard 1L because of how easy it is. You'll realize that no matter how hard you work, when you sit down at the exam table, all those 90 kids around you will have almost the same understanding of the material. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 hours doing the homework because you took time to understand every turn in logic in every case, you learned every view of the law from multiple hornbooks, or whatever 1Ls do. Because on that exam, there will be a negligence issue, and every single person will see it. Every single person will go through duty (reasonable person) breach, cause (proximate and cause in fact) and see a lot of the issues that a fact pattern brings out.

So yeah, tell yourself that the kids below median just didn't maximize their chances, even though some of them spent 10 hours a day in the library and wanted nothing more than to tell their parents they're on Law Review. And if you could watch over them an entire year, you would have no idea what they're doing wrong to get straight Bs and B+s on every single exam.

Aside from the top 1% part, I could've written this. Should be required reading for the younguns.

[prezidentv8]

Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements

Is it odd that I understood RAP, no problem, think it's fairly straightforward and don't see what the big deal is? (my professor had a special session of Q&A on RAP and it appears maybe 1 other student isn't struggling with it)

Junior college real estate courses for the win.

That's what helped me with RAP anyway. Been through the weird examples already.

[bk1]

Trust me about the following (and I say this as someone in the top 1% of his class). Some day during torts, it might be when you finish up intentional torts or negligence, you're going to look at what you've learned. You're going to look at the elements of battery (intentionally causing a harmful or offensive contact) and negligence (breach of duty causing harm), and you're going to realize that this crap almost every single person in the room understands. And then some day during contracts, you're going to look at what you've learned, and you're going to realize consideration is extremely easy (bargained for exchange) and offer and acceptance are difficult to define, but easy to argue about. And again, you're going to realize every single person in the room understands it. And in property, you'll learn the elements of adverse possession, easements, covenants, and it's all really straight forward (with the exception of RAP). And you'll again realize how every single person can see what it takes to fulfill those elements

Is it odd that I understood RAP, no problem, think it's fairly straightforward and don't see what the big deal is? (my professor had a special session of Q&A on RAP and it appears maybe 1 other student isn't struggling with it)

RAP's complexity is exaggerated (and I think perpetuated as a myth by law students).