Stories of TTT people who made it Forum

[dr123]

What is the point of this special snowflake thread?

[Anonymous User]

It might be that similar personalities befriend similar personalities, but at my t-14 nobody had a silver spoon. I have many friends who drive POS cars, and don't have $5 for a beer who are in the top 25% of the class. There is absolutely no truth to the t-14 students are from rich families, fancy prep schools and had everything handed to them. To the contrary, these people knew they had to be smarter coming in from a middle class background. I do not know anybody from the lower class in law school, but that's not a top 14 thing. Almost everyone I know at my t-14 could not afford that LSAT tutor to take them from a 150 to a 170.

[MoonDreamer]

This doesn't make any sense. I actually showed and explained LST to my 17 year old cousin who wants to eventually go to law school and she understood perfectly.

How does this not make any sense? You do know there are thousands and thousands of students who go to law schools with terrible job statistics, right? This shouldn't surprise you.

It's why your pissing and moaning about the "system" is falling on my very deaf ears. Most people at TTTs simply didn't do their homework, or they did their homework and didn't like what they found, so they chose to be willfully ignorant about it. I think a lot of people at TTTs were capable of more and sold themselves short.

Meanwhile, many of the "silver spoon" T14 biglaw snobs that you keep bashing on are people who worked their asses off to improve their lot, often foregoing mediocre offers in order to retake and put themselves in a position for success, despite pressure from parents and friends to just go. Hearing you rip on those people as "entitled" for doing the smart thing, working hard, and playing the game right is just hilarious to me. Your jealousy is palpable.

Perhaps they played the game "right" but it doesn't mean they're any more capable of doing the job.

[A. Nony Mouse]

This doesn't make any sense. I actually showed and explained LST to my 17 year old cousin who wants to eventually go to law school and she understood perfectly.

How does this not make any sense? You do know there are thousands and thousands of students who go to law schools with terrible job statistics, right? This shouldn't surprise you.

It's why your pissing and moaning about the "system" is falling on my very deaf ears. Most people at TTTs simply didn't do their homework, or they did their homework and didn't like what they found, so they chose to be willfully ignorant about it. I think a lot of people at TTTs were capable of more and sold themselves short.

Meanwhile, many of the "silver spoon" T14 biglaw snobs that you keep bashing on are people who worked their asses off to improve their lot, often foregoing mediocre offers in order to retake and put themselves in a position for success, despite pressure from parents and friends to just go. Hearing you rip on those people as "entitled" for doing the smart thing, working hard, and playing the game right is just hilarious to me. Your jealousy is palpable.

Perhaps they played the game "right" but it doesn't mean they're any more capable of doing the job.

It also doesn't make them any less capable of doing the job.

[MoonDreamer]

[/quote]
It also doesn't make them any less capable of doing the job.[/quote]

...okay...great. I generally feel like a better situation should be justified by an affirmative difference.

[ScottRiqui]

...okay...great. I generally feel like a better situation should be justified by an affirmative difference.

So are you saying that there's literally nothing a person can do prior to actually working as an attorney that provides a reasonable gauge of their potential as a lawyer? That if you took a thousand TTT graduates and swapped their identities with a thousand T14 graduates, that their future employers, on the whole, wouldn't know the difference?

[A. Nony Mouse]

It also doesn't make them any less capable of doing the job.

...okay...great. I generally feel like a better situation should be justified by an affirmative difference.

Yes. The affirmative difference is that generally speaking, they got better UGPAs and LSATs.

[MoonDreamer]

It also doesn't make them any less capable of doing the job.

...okay...great. I generally feel like a better situation should be justified by an affirmative difference.

Yes. The affirmative difference is that generally speaking, they got better UGPAs and LSATs.

A difference which does not justify the difference in outcome.

[Another]

.

[Anonymous User]

I am at a T14 as well. The vast majority is crippling in student loans. Two of my close friends worked two jobs each during 1L.

[MoonDreamer]

I am at a T14 as well. The vast majority is crippling in student loans. Two of my close friends worked two jobs each during 1L.

Perfect example of a T14 student who can't put a fully meaningful sentence together.

[dr123]

What is the point of this special snowflake thread?

[helfer snooterbagon]

I am at a T14 as well. The vast majority is crippling in student loans. Two of my close friends worked two jobs each during 1L.

Perfect example of a T14 student who can't put a fully meaningful sentence together.

As opposed to a partially meaningful sentence?

[ScottRiqui]

I am at a T14 as well. The vast majority is crippling in student loans. Two of my close friends worked two jobs each during 1L.

Perfect example of a T14 student who can't put a fully meaningful sentence together.

Well, you're certainly quick with the personal attacks. How about you answer some of the substantive questions that have been asked of you?

Also, check out this chart. See how the schools with the higher GPA/LSAT numbers routinely outperform the schools with lower numbers when it comes to comparative bar passage rate? Or is passing the bar another item on your list of things that have no predictive value at all?

[sublime]

..

[paglababa]

I am at a T14 as well. The vast majority is crippling in student loans. Two of my close friends worked two jobs each during 1L.

Perfect example of a T14 student who can't put a fully meaningful sentence together.

Well, you're certainly quick with the personal attacks. How about you answer some of the substantive questions that have been asked of you?

Also, check out this chart. See how the schools with the higher GPA/LSAT numbers routinely outperform the schools with lower numbers when it comes to comparative bar passage rate? Or is passing the bar another item on your list of things that have no predictive value at all?

+1

Edit: But how'd this thread become one about T-14 students not deserving biglaw over TTT students? We're interested in hearing about TTT special snowflakes and any ingenuity or insightful/entertaining stories they may have had to overcome the system/odds.

[hephaestus]

What is the point of this special snowflake thread?

Agreed. Collecting anecdotes isn't helpful.

[MoonDreamer]

scoring high on the LSAT is cool and means something but it alone does not justify the difference in outcome. There's other skills that are critical to law practice that aren't being measured...writing skills, oral communication, creativity, business acumen, etc. I dont even know why i'm explaining this. Everyone knows that associates aren't worth 160k to start and that on average they aren't significantly better than a significant percentage of their non-biglaw counterparts.

[ScottRiqui]

Everyone knows that associates aren't worth 160k to start

Everyone except the firms paying those rates, obviously - unless you think their salary schedule is motivated by charity or something like that.

And I'll ask it again - do you think that there's so little difference between TTT and T14 grads that they could be swapped en masse without employers being able to tell a significant difference?

And how about the correlation between the GPA/LSAT numbers for a school's student body and those same students' bar passage rate?

[A. Nony Mouse]

scoring high on the LSAT is cool and means something but it alone does not justify the difference in outcome. There's other skills that are critical to law practice that aren't being measured...writing skills, oral communication, creativity, business acumen, etc. I dont even know why i'm explaining this. Everyone knows that associates aren't worth 160k to start and that on average they aren't significantly better than a significant percentage of their non-biglaw counterparts.

Sure. But clearly biglaw employers don't care about that or they'd change their hiring practices. As it stands, biglaw hiring sorts fairly successfully for intelligence and ability to work hard, because, generally speaking, either or both of those things are required to get in front of the most biglaw employers; good UGPA and LSAT (to get into a more selective school) and success in law school exams (to get good grades once there) generally require intelligence and/or the ability to work hard. Biglaw employers clearly figure that if they hire people who are smart/hard-working enough, they can learn those other skills. And they have to hire based on something, because there are too many applicants for too few jobs.

If people are snobs to you about their jobs, that's a personality flaw that has nothing to do with their lawyering ability or whether they "deserve" their job. But you so clearly have a chip on your shoulder about it, it may be that you invite that kind of treatment.

[MoonDreamer]

Everyone knows that associates aren't worth 160k to start

Everyone except the firms paying those rates, obviously - unless you think their salary schedule is motivated by charity or something like that.

And I'll ask it again - do you think that there's so little difference between TTT and T14 grads that they could be swapped en masse without employers being able to tell a significant difference?

And how about the correlation between the GPA/LSAT numbers for a school's student body and those same students' bar passage rate?

the salary is motivated by marketing. firms pay associates 160k not because they're worth it but because if they don't they wont be part of that elite class of firms that do pay their associates that kind of money. In essence, its a marketing tool. It's a joke that they're actually worth that. You must be a law student because no one in law practice actually thinks that.

[sublime]

..

[MoonDreamer]

Everyone knows that associates aren't worth 160k to start

Everyone except the firms paying those rates, obviously - unless you think their salary schedule is motivated by charity or something like that.

And I'll ask it again - do you think that there's so little difference between TTT and T14 grads that they could be swapped en masse without employers being able to tell a significant difference?

And how about the correlation between the GPA/LSAT numbers for a school's student body and those same students' bar passage rate?

the salary is motivated by marketing. firms pay associates 160k not because they're worth it but because if they don't they wont be part of that elite class of firms that do pay their associates that kind of money. In essence, its a marketing tool. It's a joke that they're actually worth that. You must be a law student because no one in law practice actually thinks that.

You are contradicting yourself. I believe you mentioned that your biglaw "friends" thought they should be paid more. They are presumably in law practice, no?

you must be a law student too. Good logical reasoning catch bro.

[Bildungsroman]

MoonDreamer = high-quality new troll. I like the anti-elitist shtick.

[helfer snooterbagon]

MoonDreamer = high-quality new troll. I like the anti-elitist shtick.

I think you are correct. Seems to be all over the place just inciting people.