Top Law Schools

The real question is one of whether you WANT to practice law or not...if not, then completing JD requirements and sitting for the Bar seems a waste at this juncture. However, if you DO want to practice, remember that there are PLENTY of attorneys who make liveable sums outside of BigLaw and who DID NOT graduate from T14 or even second tier schools. Some of those doing well even graduated in the bottom third of their class at a TTT.

As I have indicated before, there are MANY offices where prospective clients care about RESULTS, not the pedigree of counsel representing them.

please explain how/why you were admitted to 2 top 30 schools and turned them down for idealistic reasons. what does that even mean? wouldn't it be more idealistic to go to a much higher ranked school and pay basically the same amount of money? that sounds pretty ideal to me.

theanswer wrote:you probably have ADD, and should see a doctor. If you can score in the 96th percentile on your LSAT, and as you say your LSAT put you in the upper quarter of your incoming class, there is frankly no reason why you should not be able to out perform them.

The LSAT is, first and foremost, a test of natural intelligence.

You are an elaborate troll.

HBK wrote:You shouldn't have gone to law school. It seems like you have never had any idea what you wanted to do when you grow up.

More like he seems like he had no idea how to be a grown up, and still doesn't.

OP: You were and still are decidedly immature. If plunking down almost 6 figures in debt isn't enough to get your ass in gear and not be lazy then you have a ton of growing up to do. You should have gotten a job before law school and actually learned to survive on your own. Sadly that time has passed and you're in a shitty situation with only shitty ways to get out.

MTal wrote:Drop out NOW. You will only incur more misery and debt by staying.

+1. You're not ready to be a lawyer.

tsutsik wrote:Will a year (or two) towards a JD qualify you to work as a paralegal?

I sincerely doubt it. I've never encountered a paralegal with JD credits in any of the biglaw firms I've worked at or any of the biglaw or smaller firms I've worked on litigations against. I'm a biglaw paralegal going on 6 years of experience, FWIW.

This thread should be stickied on the first page as a warning to 0Ls

Sympathetic to your situation though OP. Sounds like you should cut your losses and drop out now

school at any level is a rough time in general, and isn't that great of an indicator of your potential at a real job. i went through fire fighting school a few years ago, and i hated every minute of it. The people were nice enough, but it was fairly cut throat and the instructors were always mean and loud. I questioned it every day. But once you get out and get a job with people you enjoy and in an environment that rewards you with money and promotions as opposed to grades, you might find life as a lawyer to be much better than you thought. School sucks, just finish. Plus, if you really don't enjoy it after a few years, you can apply for a government job and make some good money just by having a degree. Depending on what the job, it might be a pretty laid back environment and will give you some free time to write.

I have said this before and will say it again, despite folks flaming me for it. The LSAT isn't a good measure for law school or lawyer performance. I do know that folks cite all these corelation statistics. However, as an accountant, I know that figures lie and liers figure. Most stats have come out from the same board that gives the LSAT. Even the American Bar Association study notes that the LSAT isn't that "reliable" and recommended elimination of the mandatory requirement for the LSAT.

Virtually every lawyer I have spoke to, and that includes a LOT of them since I did continuing education for lawyers, agree that the LSAT is marginal at best regarding any perfomance corelation. You are NOT the exception.

Moreover, I think you should SERIOUSLY rethink your reasons for attending law school. They don't seem very sound. If you had this dying desire to become a lawyer that would be one thing. However, from what I am seeing, this isn't the case. Attending a lower tier law school achieving crappy grades will make job searches VERY difficult. It really does sadden me to see folks paying huge sums to attend law school for the wrong reasons. Good luck to you.

taxguy wrote:I have said this before and will say it again, despite folks flaming me for it. The LSAT isn't a good measure for law school or lawyer performance. I do know that folks cite all these corelation statistics. However, as an accountant, I know that figures lie and liers figure. Most stats have come out from the same board that gives the LSAT. Even the American Bar Association study notes that the LSAT isn't that "reliable" and recommended elimination of the mandatory requirement for the LSAT.

Virtually every lawyer I have spoke to, and that includes a LOT of them since I did continuing education for lawyers, agree that the LSAT is marginal at best regarding any perfomance corelation. You are NOT the exception.

Moreover, I think you should SERIOUSLY rethink your reasons for attending law school. They don't seem very sound. If you had this dying desire to become a lawyer that would be one thing. However, from what I am seeing, this isn't the case. Attending a lower tier law school achieving crappy grades will make job searches VERY difficult. It really does sadden me to see folks paying huge sums to attend law school for the wrong reasons. Good luck to you.

How many times will you make the same stupid argument before you realize you are wrong?

And no, the ABA did not recommend eliminating the LSAT requirement for accreditation because it was unreliable, it recommended to eliminate it for entirely different reasons.

Lawyers really shouldn't be the judge of whether the LSAT correlates well with 1L grades, leave that sort of shit to statisticians and psychometricians (who have resoundingly refuted everything you just said).

paulinaporizkova wrote:please explain how/why you were admitted to 2 top 30 schools and turned them down for idealistic reasons. what does that even mean? wouldn't it be more idealistic to go to a much higher ranked school and pay basically the same amount of money? that sounds pretty ideal to me.

Scholarship to lower ranked school vs. sticker at T30s. Idealistic would be taking the scholarships thinking you will perform well enough to afford yourself the same opportunities as you would have coming out of a T30. Seems pretty clear cut.

You are callous and/or condescending in 95% of your posts, yet never know what the hell you're talking about. This guy's in a tough spot. If you want to criticize him rather than offer advice, fine, but at least call him out for something valid.

Upton Sinclair wrote:Scholarship to lower ranked school vs. sticker at T30s. Idealistic would be taking the scholarships thinking you will perform well enough to afford yourself the same opportunities as you would have coming out of a T30. Seems pretty clear cut.

You are callous and/or condescending in 95% of your posts, yet never know what the hell you're talking about. This guy's in a tough spot. If you want to criticize him rather than offer advice, fine, but at least call him out for something valid.

Taking the scholarship is always the realistic choice.

Taking the better school at sticker is idealistic because you are assuming you can pay off that debt.

taxguy wrote:I have said this before and will say it again, despite folks flaming me for it. The LSAT isn't a good measure for law school or lawyer performance. I do know that folks cite all these corelation statistics. However, as an accountant, I know that figures lie and liers figure. Most stats have come out from the same board that gives the LSAT. Even the American Bar Association study notes that the LSAT isn't that "reliable" and recommended elimination of the mandatory requirement for the LSAT.

Virtually every lawyer I have spoke to, and that includes a LOT of them since I did continuing education for lawyers, agree that the LSAT is marginal at best regarding any perfomance corelation. You are NOT the exception.

Moreover, I think you should SERIOUSLY rethink your reasons for attending law school. They don't seem very sound. If you had this dying desire to become a lawyer that would be one thing. However, from what I am seeing, this isn't the case. Attending a lower tier law school achieving crappy grades will make job searches VERY difficult. It really does sadden me to see folks paying huge sums to attend law school for the wrong reasons. Good luck to you.

I disagree. The LSAT showed what the OP was capable of. He failed in living up to his own potential.

bk187 wrote:Lawyers really shouldn't be the judge of whether the LSAT correlates well with 1L grades, leave that sort of shit to statisticians and psychometricians (who have resoundingly refuted everything you just said).

-Incoming Derail-

Have you seen the graph of a 0.18 correlation coefficient? It may be the "best" (see: relative) predictor of law school success, but it is far from perfect. Keep things in perspective.

BrownBears09 wrote:-Incoming Derail-

Have you seen the graph of a 0.18 correlation coefficient? It may be the "best" (see: relative) predictor of law school success, but it is far from perfect. Keep things in perspective.

I understand it. It is also one of the strongest correlations on any standardized test and one of the highest you will find in the social sciences. Yes, GPA and LSAT account for only 20% or so of your law school grades, but that is a damn good amount and the other 80% is shit that is not really controllable/knowable before hand.

I never implied it was perfect, but to say it isn't strong is just plain incorrect.

To say that the the LSAT statistics are lying or that the correlation is marginal or that people who do well on the LSAT but have bad gradesare the exception are just exceedingly ignorant statements (ones that were in taxguy's post). And there were many more of them in his post.

And no, the ABA did not recommend eliminating the LSAT requirement for accreditation because it was unreliable, it recommended to eliminate it for entirely different reasons.

Lawyers really shouldn't be the judge of whether the LSAT correlates well with 1L grades, leave that sort of shit to statisticians and psychometricians (who have resoundingly refuted everything you just said).[/quote]


Response:OH, I knew someone on the ABA panel who made the recomendation. They themselves noted that the preferred a "more reliable test."

If you are at all interested:
http://www.all-about-teaching-english-in-japan.com/

Sounds pretty fun and should be a cool way for you to support yourself while figuring out what you want to do with your life.
Since you are 2/3 done with your JD, it might be a good idea to finish the 3rd year so you have the option to sit for a bar exam when/if you decide to come back to the US and practice law.
And honestly, law school debt isn't the worst thing in the world. There's IBR (so that if your income is zero, you pay zero), and there's public interest loan forgiveness after 10 years (120 monthly payments of your IBR).

Cheer up dude, definitely invest in adderall, and just slug through your remaining law school work. Oh, and stop reading this thread/TLS forums and go do your work.

On a side note, definitely spend your free time chilling around your school's career development office to see what kind of a job you can line up for this summer.

taxguy wrote: Response:OH, I knew someone on the ABA panel who made the recomendation. They themselves noted that the preferred a "more reliable test."

Desiring a more reliable test does not make the original test unreliable.

I too would prefer a more reliable test, but I know that the LSAT is a pretty reliable test as is.

Upton Sinclair wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:please explain how/why you were admitted to 2 top 30 schools and turned them down for idealistic reasons. what does that even mean? wouldn't it be more idealistic to go to a much higher ranked school and pay basically the same amount of money? that sounds pretty ideal to me.

Scholarship to lower ranked school vs. sticker at T30s. Idealistic would be taking the scholarships thinking you will perform well enough to afford yourself the same opportunities as you would have coming out of a T30. Seems pretty clear cut.

You are callous and/or condescending in 95% of your posts, yet never know what the hell you're talking about. This guy's in a tough spot. If you want to criticize him rather than offer advice, fine, but at least call him out for something valid.

i believe he said he was paying the same amount of money as he would have been at a T30, but maybe i read incorrectly

oh, and FTR i wasn't trying to be callous and/or condescending. i think that is a valid question considering what i thought i read in the OP, and i actually was looking to get some kind of answer from the original poster regarding this. i'm sorry that my posts seem to piss you off so much, but i actually do know what i'm talking about some of the time

these questions are the basis for something that i have heard time and time again: all else being equal, go to the highest ranked school you can get into for the best job prospects. LS is somewhat different than other graduate schools in this regard, so it's a valid question

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Upton Sinclair wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:please explain how/why you were admitted to 2 top 30 schools and turned them down for idealistic reasons. what does that even mean? wouldn't it be more idealistic to go to a much higher ranked school and pay basically the same amount of money? that sounds pretty ideal to me.

Scholarship to lower ranked school vs. sticker at T30s. Idealistic would be taking the scholarships thinking you will perform well enough to afford yourself the same opportunities as you would have coming out of a T30. Seems pretty clear cut.

You are callous and/or condescending in 95% of your posts, yet never know what the hell you're talking about. This guy's in a tough spot. If you want to criticize him rather than offer advice, fine, but at least call him out for something valid.

i believe he said he was paying the same amount of money as he would have been at a T30, but maybe i read incorrectly

oh, and FTR i wasn't trying to be callous and/or condescending. i think that is a valid question considering what i thought i read in the OP, and i actually was looking to get some kind of answer from the original poster regarding this. i'm sorry that my posts seem to piss you off so much, but i actually do know what i'm talking about some of the time

these questions are the basis for something that i have heard time and time again: all else being equal, go to the highest ranked school you can get into for the best job prospects. LS is somewhat different than other graduate schools in this regard, so it's a valid question

I think the reason he is paying the same amount at the T2 vs. T30 is because he lost his scholly.

not to mention, the tenor of this original post is a bit ridiculous. OP sounds like he thinks he's entitled to top 10% of his class composed of people not as smart as him, yet he hates studying so has bad grades and now he's like, what gives? if this wasn't implicit in the OP, then why is the beginning of the thread title "168 LSAT"?

paulinaporizkova wrote:not to mention, the tenor of this original post is a bit ridiculous. OP sounds like he thinks he's entitled to top 10% of his class composed of people not as smart as him, yet he hates studying so has bad grades and now he's like, what gives? if this wasn't implicit in the OP, then why is the beginning of the thread title "168 LSAT"?

He sounds entitled? Really? Sounds like he's pretty defeated to me. And I'm no psychologist, but OP sounds like he's dealing with issues stemming from more than just law school, issues that I happen to know quite a bit about. I don't like the way you came at him, and I don't like the way you're assuming you know where he's coming from. But I'm over it. I don't want to hijack OP's thread.

Upton Sinclair wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:not to mention, the tenor of this original post is a bit ridiculous. OP sounds like he thinks he's entitled to top 10% of his class composed of people not as smart as him, yet he hates studying so has bad grades and now he's like, what gives? if this wasn't implicit in the OP, then why is the beginning of the thread title "168 LSAT"?

He sounds entitled? Really? Sounds like he's pretty defeated to me. And I'm no psychologist, but OP sounds like he's dealing with issues stemming from more than just law school, issues that I happen to know quite a bit about. I don't like the way you came at him, and I don't like the way you're assuming you know where he's coming from. But I'm over it. I don't want to hijack OP's thread.

Well I read it completely differently, for the record. To me it sounded condescending, so I threw some condescension back (yes, I admit it now).

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Upton Sinclair wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:not to mention, the tenor of this original post is a bit ridiculous. OP sounds like he thinks he's entitled to top 10% of his class composed of people not as smart as him, yet he hates studying so has bad grades and now he's like, what gives? if this wasn't implicit in the OP, then why is the beginning of the thread title "168 LSAT"?

He sounds entitled? Really? Sounds like he's pretty defeated to me. And I'm no psychologist, but OP sounds like he's dealing with issues stemming from more than just law school, issues that I happen to know quite a bit about. I don't like the way you came at him, and I don't like the way you're assuming you know where he's coming from. But I'm over it. I don't want to hijack OP's thread.

Well I read it completely differently, for the record. To me it sounded condescending, so I threw some condescension back (yes, I admit it now).

I agree with Upton Sinclair; I think you read it wrong.

Perhaps you are projecting a little of your own insecurity?

Adjudicator wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:

Upton Sinclair wrote:

paulinaporizkova wrote:not to mention, the tenor of this original post is a bit ridiculous. OP sounds like he thinks he's entitled to top 10% of his class composed of people not as smart as him, yet he hates studying so has bad grades and now he's like, what gives? if this wasn't implicit in the OP, then why is the beginning of the thread title "168 LSAT"?

He sounds entitled? Really? Sounds like he's pretty defeated to me. And I'm no psychologist, but OP sounds like he's dealing with issues stemming from more than just law school, issues that I happen to know quite a bit about. I don't like the way you came at him, and I don't like the way you're assuming you know where he's coming from. But I'm over it. I don't want to hijack OP's thread.

Well I read it completely differently, for the record. To me it sounded condescending, so I threw some condescension back (yes, I admit it now).

I agree with Upton Sinclair; I think you read it wrong.

Alright, I stand corrected. And now, back to doing actual work at work