Post 9/11 GI Benefits for Law School Forum

[MCL Law Dean]

Accordingly, I think that many applicants, but specifically those of us on TLS with an acute awareness of this sort of stuff, no longer trust schools when they tout favorable outcomes without supplying the data to back it up.

I fully agree with you on this and the mistrust is warranted.

if your school really only has around 35 students per entering class, I don’t think that it would be that difficult to gather this data.

I am with you on this as well. Realistically, we just can't do it all at once. It seems like getting the core employment data is the first and most important step so we are doing this now. A 0L survey would be really interesting as well and might be something we can consider next year.

I spent another year studying with a tutor after that and finally broke 170, and then spent several more months on my own and got into the mid-170s

Here is the point where we see different parts of the elephant. You previously raised the point about the opportunity cost of "time". I think that it is more important to some applicants than you realize . . . particularly non-traditional students, such as veterans who are trying to make a complete transition from service to civilian employment. Waiting another year and paying for a tutor is a lot to ask. For some, if they qualify for full benefits, they also get housing and living expenses, but only if they are enrolled full-time. They may not have the "luxury" of sitting out a "gap" year while they study for the LSAT and pay for a tutor out of personal funds on the hope that their future scores will make a significant difference. I don't doubt . . . and am impressed with your personal achievement on the LSAT. However, if it was as easily "learnable" as you opine, the statistical distribution of LSAT scores would be skewed entirely in the 170 to 180 range. It is much more likely that you have a skill set that is not the norm and with proper tutoring your potential was realized. This is just not the case with the vast majority of applicants.

[Rahviveh]

Here is the point where we see different parts of the elephant. You previously raised the point about the opportunity cost of "time". I think that it is more important to some applicants than you realize . . . particularly non-traditional students, such as veterans who are trying to make a complete transition from service to civilian employment. Waiting another year and paying for a tutor is a lot to ask. For some, if they qualify for full benefits, they also get housing and living expenses, but only if they are enrolled full-time. They may not have the "luxury" of sitting out a "gap" year while they study for the LSAT and pay for a tutor out of personal funds on the hope that their future scores will make a significant difference. I don't doubt . . . and am impressed with your personal achievement on the LSAT. However, if it was as easily "learnable" as you opine, the statistical distribution of LSAT scores would be skewed entirely in the 170 to 180 range. It is much more likely that you have a skill set that is not the norm and with proper tutoring your potential was realized. This is just not the case with the vast majority of applicants.

I don't disagree that a 170+ and perhaps even 160+ score is not attainable for everyone, but the reason for the current distribution is because most people just don't prepare adequately. It has less to do with potential and more to do with effort.

[20141023]

.

[SemperLegal]

I didn't get a chance to closely read all of the points because its finals time, but I just want to express my appreciation to both the Dean for having a reasonable, informed debate extolling some of the legitimate values of an non-ABA private school. Also, Regulus is definitely bringing his A game, and I am sure vet applicants now and in the future will appreciate all of his hard work and research.

That being said, I just don't think that unless the employment states from MCL defy all reasonable expectations, a GI Bill eligible veteran would likely be justified in choosing MCL (~160/3.4) over a public law school with comparable admission requirements (whether it be UC-Hastings [3.3-3.7 157-165] or an out of state school).

[MCL Law Dean]

Regulus, I find points 2 and 3 very compelling and they should be carefully considered by applicants. Even though I don't think the data supports your belief that such high scores are within the reach of 95% of applicants (I'll skip a digression into standard deviation scoring protocol on standardized testing . . . it would bore even a data geek like me . . . but for the seriously data deranged, I have the link to the LSAC repeater analysis).

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... erdata.pdf

However, your points 2 and 3 are as equally insightful for the law school experience as well. T1 or TTT or non-ABA . . . excelling in law school is HARD work and I like the idea of challenging applicants to consider their commitment at the LSAT as a valid precursor of their commitment to the law school experience. Take out the focus on scoring and the overall points are the same that I would (and do) advise any applicant.

No surprise that I disagree with point 4, but we'll just need to let everyone consider their own personal issues to weigh that decision.

No need to repeat that I agree with point 1, but I think it is a distraction to the more direct concerns about assessing an individual's LSAT strategy.

SemperLegal, in the context of the very narrow hypo you present . . . I don't inherently disagree . . . my point is that there is more than UGPA and LSAT in play when GI Bill takes money out of the equation. P.S. quit screwing around and get back to finals prep.

[20141023]

.

[Cobretti]

Regarding the LSAT debate, I think TLS tends to strongly overestimate how much people can improve on the LSAT. Sure there are people that will make huge gains, but TLS conventional wisdom seems to be that most people could score 170+ if they really tried. Most people are not capable of scoring in the top 3 percentile, period. I think there actually is quite a bit of merit to the stats the dean has listed. Even TLS retakers don't tend to improve very much. When the June scores come out spend some time in the June Waiters thread and you'll find a handful of people that make the kind of huge gains TLS takes for granted, most people will still be within +/- 3 points, just like LSAC predicts (I was).

Back to the main argument:

That being said, I just don't think that unless the employment states from MCL defy all reasonable expectations, a GI Bill eligible veteran would likely be justified in choosing MCL (~160/3.4) over a public law school with comparable admission requirements (whether it be UC-Hastings [3.3-3.7 157-165] or an out of state school).

This is what I was driving at earlier, and I don't see how it can really be refuted. Same cost, same admissions requirements and staggeringly different job prospects. You're making arguments for things like small class size and location, and while they may have some merit I don't think anyone would say those would come close to overcoming the employment prospect gap between MCL and schools like Hastings/Davis/Irvine.

[20141023]

.

[slawww]

Regarding the LSAT debate, I think TLS tends to strongly overestimate how much people can improve on the LSAT. Sure there are people that will make huge gains, but TLS conventional wisdom seems to be that most people could score 170+ if they really tried. Most people are not capable of scoring in the top 3 percentile, period. I think there actually is quite a bit of merit to the stats the dean has listed. Even TLS retakers don't tend to improve very much. When the June scores come out spend some time in the June Waiters thread and you'll find a handful of people that make the kind of huge gains TLS takes for granted, most people will still be within +/- 3 points, just like LSAC predicts (I was).

I completely agree with this. That said, with re-takes, I increased my score 10 points, and about 20 from my original diagnostic. If I had re-takes left, I'd take it again. But I don't think everyone can significantly increase their score, and I certainly don't think everyone is capable of scoring in the top 3%. My diagnostic was atrocious and I knew it wasn't representative of my abilities, but I don't think that's the case for everyone. I think if everyone were to put in the amount of prep the average TLSer does, the average LSAT would probably be a bit higher, but I really don't think it would be anything drastic. I think the biggest factor in this - it definitely was for me - is the time limit. I think the ability to quickly synthesize the information in the exam is what separates the elite scorers from the rest. For example, I don't think there's a huge difference, intelligence-wise, between a 165er and a 170er, they're both obviously smart people. I think, generally speaking, that the 170er is able to answer questions quicker while maintaining accuracy. I think that ability to quickly read, synthesize, and answer is an inherent ability.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=208768

That person definitely needs to maximize their score, but that could be his/her ceiling regardless of the amount of prep s/he were to put in. There were a lot of people like that in my Testmasters class. They genuinely worked and tried hard, but only negligibly increased their score.