The "In Nowhere" Club Forum

[Danteshek]

Next week is a big week for me.

I will find out about law review (I didn't grade on), and I will probably hear one or more transfer school. I found out that my rank was only top 20% (outside of the top 15%). I am preparing to be disappointed (yet again). I am also preparing to lower my expectations for my life (yet again).

I see two worst case scenarios:

(1) In at nowhere and I don't make law review, leaving me with a crappy secondary journal at a T3, or

(2) I don't make law review at my T3, and I get into Loyola-LA (only). I transfer but don't get any interviews at OCI

[traydeuce]

Well, I'm in nowhere but Georgetown, but that was a long time ago. That said, outside of Berkeley and Michigan (neither of which I applied to), doesn't the t14 always notify people between about the 7th and 27th of July? So really, many of us have nothing to worry about.

[A'nold]

Thanks to many of you. I really did create this thread for those that haven't heard and it really wasn't for sympathy, just fyi.

Also, even though I am feeling down, some people on this thread were WAY too pessimistic about my "life chances." For one thing, my school's grading is screwy and some schools have told me that I'm very competitive grade wise, which the Transferapps database clearly shows. For another thing, I have a paid 1L internship that pays very well and am making tons of connections, so no "craiglist" for me, lulz.

I mean, somebody at a low t2 on this board with "barely top 20% grades" got into ND and WUSTL, two schools I have applied to.

[MrKappus]

Also, even though I am feeling down, some people on this thread were WAY too pessimistic about my "life chances." For one thing, my school's grading is screwy and some schools have told me that I'm very competitive grade wise, which the Transferapps database clearly shows. For another thing, I have a paid 1L internship that pays very well and am making tons of connections, so no "craiglist" for me, lulz.

at the "my school's grading is screwy" comment...your school and everyone else's.

[Dman]

Figured I would chime in since I constantly update and monitor this forum. Still nothing yet, Top 5% T2 non-traditional with significant work expereince. Just got my ranking today. My current school held transcripts and ranks till yesterday, so I am hoping to get some movement in the coming weeks.

Been In review at Berkeley since 6/22 and sent unofficial transcript to 5 other schools with only silence as a response. The waiting is excruciating. Thank you for everyone's post, it gives me something to read and relate to.

[A'nold]

Mrkappus: why don't you try seeing who you are posting to before making such a stupid blanket statement? I am not a conspiracy theorist. Facts are facts. My section was screwed this year, plain and simple. How would you like it if you were put in a section that curved to like a 2.5 and the other section curved to a 3.0 and only like 4 out of the top 20 students were in your section and only 1 or 2 students from your section graded onto LR? Then, would you feel it was fair if you found out that your section had much higher LSAT scores on average + more schollies w/ a top 1/3 requirement?

[MrKappus]

Mrkappus: why don't you try seeing who you are posting to before making such a stupid blanket statement? I am not a conspiracy theorist. Facts are facts. My section was screwed this year, plain and simple. How would you like it if you were put in a section that curved to like a 2.5 and the other section curved to a 3.0 and only like 4 out of the top 20 students were in your section and only 1 or 2 students from your section graded onto LR? Then, would you feel it was fair if you found out that your section had much higher LSAT scores on average + more schollies w/ a top 1/3 requirement?

Chill out, man. Every school has idiosyncratic curves. Some profs at my school give A+ to the top one or two students, but despite two CALI awards, I've never gotten an A+. That's life.

[solidsnake]

Mrkappus: why don't you try seeing who you are posting to before making such a stupid blanket statement? I am not a conspiracy theorist. Facts are facts. My section was screwed this year, plain and simple. How would you like it if you were put in a section that curved to like a 2.5 and the other section curved to a 3.0 and only like 4 out of the top 20 students were in your section and only 1 or 2 students from your section graded onto LR? Then, would you feel it was fair if you found out that your section had much higher LSAT scores on average + more schollies w/ a top 1/3 requirement?

I agree that from your perspective it seems unfair. But there is an argument that lowered-tier schools do this "section-stacking" to deter the marginal applicant with an LSAT score 10 points above the median from taking a scholarship and cleaning house taboot. Schools paying students (with scholarship money) to destroy the other students (assuming lsat score is an accurate predictor), ls grade-wise, would not only eventually lower demand within their primary-market segment but seems unfair from those applicants' perspectives, as well.

[Bankhead]

What are the stipulations (if any) to keep the scholarships at your T3, A'nold? If there are certain GPA requirements, and the school can get away with paying less out less money if they section stack (by way of making it more difficult to keep the scholarship), then the school has an incentive to do so. This is the most commonly held explanation for section stacking --schools like Brooklyn and Cardozo are notorious for this practice.

However, if there are no stipulations, then solidsnake's argument seems more likely.

[solidsnake]

Bankhead: The issue is not "What incentives exist for schools to section stack?" but rather "Is it unfair that they do?" (taking A'nold's observations that they do in fact section stack as given, for now)

[Bankhead]

Bankhead: The issue is not "What incentives exist for schools to section stack?" but rather "Is it fair that they do?" (taking A'nold's observations that they do in fact section stack as given, for now)

If the school is doing it to save themselves money, then that lessens the possibility that the school is motivated by fairness. If they aren't saving themselves money, then the incentive is more likely to be fairness -- hence your argument.

My post was not a direct response to your post, hence why I didn't quote it.

[convicted]

solidsnake, is that really the "issue" -- if there is one? I would say the issue is: now that whomever has abdicated personal responsibility and failed to research whether the school they chose to matriculate at section stacked, and that whomever failed to do well at that school, what should that person do next? I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am pretty sure that it's not "whine on the internet."

[solidsnake]

If the school is doing it to save themselves money, then that lessens the possibility that the school is motivated by fairness. If they aren't saving themselves money, then the incentive is more likely to be fairness -- hence your argument.

I'm not really seeing the relevance between what motivates X's decision and whether the result of X's decision is "fair" to all parties involved (here, high LSAT section vs. the other sections).

If schools were only concerned w saving money, they would give none out. If schools gave none out, they wouldn't attract high-scoring applicants. High-scoring applicants raise entering stats, which in turn could raise school rankings, and therefore have positive externalities on all students attending, regardless of their individual entering stats. Thus, it might be fair to compensate these high-scoring applicants with scholarship money.

Otoh, if we assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite for a fair outcome, then should schools allow high-scorers to also compete with low-scoring students for the same limited amount of law school A grades (assuming ex ante that lsat score is an accurate predictor) on top of their already-subsidized education? Probably not. To remedy this, lowered-tier schools section stack to equalize opportunity. (They could be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, or more likely market incentives -- they don't want to lose their target segment of low-scoring applicants; either way, it's irrelevant. Fairness ultimately only evaluates the result of the decision from each perspective of those involved, using whatever criteria you want to adopt suggested by the political philosopher du jour)

But here we have people like A'nold who complain that it's unfair that his section was curved lower than the other sections. The school should have section-stacked to ensure fair competition, but mandated the curves be equal among the sections. Why it didn't do the latter was probably a combination of 1) it wanted to use the high stipulations to save money (to rinse and repeat with a new set of 0Ls) -- which again has positive benefits for people like A'nold; and 2) to increase the chances that low-scoring 0L applicants end up at the top of their 1L class with increased job prospects and therefore better goodwill among their target segment (assuming this becomes common knowledge). Whether this practice is fair depends on whether compensation via scholarship money extends here.

As an aside, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor when choosing to attend a tier 3 and frankly it's hard to listen to claims of unfairness, often confused with pleas for pity, when one voluntarily chose to take such a large risk for such a potentially small reward (knowing the employment/transfer prospects out of these schools). Ironically, some people view taking the scholarship and easy competition at a lowered-tier school as the less risky route. Schools that employ these practices are simply countering that assumption.

[Bankhead]

Barring any real interest in a theoretical argument re: the fairness of section stacking, I think your last paragraph (that you dubbed as an aside) hit the nail right on the head. Indeed, going to a TTT and complaining about section stacking/suspect grading practices is like going to Alaska and complaining about the freezing temperatures.

[A'nold]

Here's the thing: I agree with those that say that going to a t3 is risky in itself and that you should research these things first. I actually was not afraid of section stacking. I don't mind competing with the best the school has to offer. HOWEVER, also giving the "easy" section a 3.0 curve and giving the "best section" a 2.6 for the YEAR is probably one of the most sleazy and unfair things I've ever heard of in a law school.

Top 1/3 requirment. I easily met this. I did not do well enough to be the top student. I get that and congratulate everyone in my section that beat me (like 2 people). However, talking to the person that can't even keep up with a conversation that is in the top 10% of the school b/c they had the benefit of being in the other section and rocking their 152 LSAT pisses me off.

Regardless, I hope to leave this school, thus the whole point of the thread and my disappointment so far.

Convicted: You actually really just cheered me up bigtime. I sometimes forget that when I am down, all I have to do is thank my lucky stars that my a-hole is not the size of a grapefruit at the hands of bubba. Thanks for bringing some well needed perspective to this thread!

[thexfactor]

Anold, you know what, that s life. Foriegn students at my school get 50% "extra" time on their exam. I dont know how fair that is , but that is rule at my school. Also in my section, we had 3-4 students on full scholarships. I think my school was "stacking" too, but anyways there is nothing you can do about it now. Accept it and move on. Don't dwell on the past. I have this same problem too. I have to prevent myself from thinking " what if I didn't misread my civ pro exam?, I would be in the top 10% for sure. Not on the outside looking in.

Like golf, sometimes you hit a great shot and it somehow ends up in a divot. Other times you hit a terrible shot and get an undeserved kick into the fairway. Bad things happen to good people... Accept it and move on. That s life.

Here's the thing: I agree with those that say that going to a t3 is risky in itself and that you should research these things first. I actually was not afraid of section stacking. I don't mind competing with the best the school has to offer. HOWEVER, also giving the "easy" section a 3.0 curve and giving the "best section" a 2.6 for the YEAR is probably one of the most sleazy and unfair things I've ever heard of in a law school.

Top 1/3 requirment. I easily met this. I did not do well enough to be the top student. I get that and congratulate everyone in my section that beat me (like 2 people). However, talking to the person that can't even keep up with a conversation that is in the top 10% of the school b/c they had the benefit of being in the other section and rocking their 152 LSAT pisses me off.

Regardless, I hope to leave this school, thus the whole point of the thread and my disappointment so far.

Convicted: You actually really just cheered me up bigtime. I sometimes forget that when I am down, all I have to do is thank my lucky stars that my a-hole is not the size of a grapefruit at the hands of bubba. Thanks for bringing some well needed perspective to this thread!

[Danteshek]

In my school there are three day sections. There are six top honors in three competitions (best oralist and best writer for moot court, trial advocacy and negotiation). All six students with top honors were in my section. Do I think my school stacks sections? No.

[rahonlrck]

A'nold man, you're a good law student as evidenced by your grades - I think based on your statistics - so long as you didn't exclusively apply to t25 schools, you're GOING to get an acceptance unless there's a red flag on your app like a felony or academic irregularity or 'F' grades in undergrad or some crazy shit like that.

You'll be fine homie, I think these message boards are worthless - you're competing against a shitload of kids in t3 schools in the top 25% of their classes - attempting to get an upgrade - but at the same time, you kids are all good students who probably fucked up in college or the LSAT or whatever else happened, so there's prolly room for all you guys at better schools.

The more you post this kinda shit, the more people are gonna start f'ing with you, and the more stressed you're gonna be - the "encouragement" shit you're feeling good about is prolly not worth the stress that this message board adds to your life - just go to fuckin hawaii homie, check your email once every couple days, and you'll be in someplace better dude.

[A'nold]

If any of you knew me irl, you guys would never think I was just "whining" or whatever. I guess that's one of the hazards of a public message board. I'm not trying to gain sympathy or get encouragement, I just started this thread to see who else are batting 0.00 right now. People asked me about some stuff and I answered truthfully.

If it was even close, that'd be another story. But most of the most deserving kids at my school were royally raped by a school implemented policy of not only section stacking, which automatically would put the best students at a disadvantage, but then absolutely mathematically takes these students out of the running for things they deserve. If I was in the other section, I would feel blessed, but still just as indignent for the poor bastards in the other section that never had a chance. It's not even close.

This will be my last post on the topic. Hopefully we can get this thread back on point.

[interalia]

If the school is doing it to save themselves money, then that lessens the possibility that the school is motivated by fairness. If they aren't saving themselves money, then the incentive is more likely to be fairness -- hence your argument.

I'm not really seeing the relevance between what motivates X's decision and whether the result of X's decision is "fair" to all parties involved (here, high LSAT section vs. the other sections).

If schools were only concerned w saving money, they would give none out. If schools gave none out, they wouldn't attract high-scoring applicants. High-scoring applicants raise entering stats, which in turn could raise school rankings, and therefore have positive externalities on all students attending, regardless of their individual entering stats. Thus, it might be fair to compensate these high-scoring applicants with scholarship money.

Otoh, if we assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite for a fair outcome, then should schools allow high-scorers to also compete with low-scoring students for the same limited amount of law school A grades (assuming ex ante that lsat score is an accurate predictor) on top of their already-subsidized education? Probably not. To remedy this, lowered-tier schools section stack to equalize opportunity. (They could be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, or more likely market incentives -- they don't want to lose their target segment of low-scoring applicants; either way, it's irrelevant. Fairness ultimately only evaluates the result of the decision from each perspective of those involved, using whatever criteria you want to adopt suggested by the political philosopher du jour)

But here we have people like A'nold who complain that it's unfair that his section was curved lower than the other sections. The school should have section-stacked to ensure fair competition, but mandated the curves be equal among the sections. Why it didn't do the latter was probably a combination of 1) it wanted to use the high stipulations to save money (to rinse and repeat with a new set of 0Ls) -- which again has positive benefits for people like A'nold; and 2) to increase the chances that low-scoring 0L applicants end up at the top of their 1L class with increased job prospects and therefore better goodwill among their target segment (assuming this becomes common knowledge). Whether this practice is fair depends on whether compensation via scholarship money extends here.

As an aside, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor when choosing to attend a tier 3 and frankly it's hard to listen to claims of unfairness, often confused with pleas for pity, when one voluntarily chose to take such a large risk for such a potentially small reward (knowing the employment/transfer prospects out of these schools). Ironically, some people view taking the scholarship and easy competition at a lowered-tier school as the less risky route. Schools that employ these practices are simply countering that assumption.

From an apparently smart poster (you're top 2% at a t50 AFAIK), this is probably the stupidest thing I've read in a long while.

What you are basically espousing is an anti-meritocratic philosophy: It is unfair for the most promising TTT students (lol) to compete with the average TTT students in the same school. That makes no sense.

The entire idea of 1L is to put the incoming students in the curved curriculum and see who rises to the top, who drifts in the middle, and who sinks to the bottom. This way, evaluators down the line (potential employers, judges, and higher-ranked schools) can look at a student and assess his credentials based on his school and class rank.

Putting all the highest LSAT scorers into one section obfuscates the purpose of 1L. It is primarily a sorting mechanism.

I am really surprised to hear you argue an anti-meritocratic philosophy, especially since you are definitely a beneficiary of meritocracy. Law school is supposed to be about merit.

Nevertheless, the caveat emptor definitely holds. TTT schools aren't known to be the most honest (just look at their employment statistics), and you get what you get.

Good luck to A'nold and all students moving forward.

/

[Bankhead]

In solidsnake's defense, he said "assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite to a fair outcome." He didn't say he agreed with it.

[accent]

Hello,

I just wanted to say that I am a foreign born student, but I think that 50% extra time sounds unfair. English is not my 1st language, but I would NEVER ask for extra time even if I had the option to. I guess these students will have to submit a special request to the judge. "Your Honor, I am foreign born, so I would like to request that you extend the answer deadline until...."

[interalia]

In solidsnake's defense, he said "assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite to a fair outcome." He didn't say he agreed with it.

He said schools should "probably not" let higher scorers compete with lower scorers.

[megaTTTron]

If the school is doing it to save themselves money, then that lessens the possibility that the school is motivated by fairness. If they aren't saving themselves money, then the incentive is more likely to be fairness -- hence your argument.

I'm not really seeing the relevance between what motivates X's decision and whether the result of X's decision is "fair" to all parties involved (here, high LSAT section vs. the other sections).

If schools were only concerned w saving money, they would give none out. If schools gave none out, they wouldn't attract high-scoring applicants. High-scoring applicants raise entering stats, which in turn could raise school rankings, and therefore have positive externalities on all students attending, regardless of their individual entering stats. Thus, it might be fair to compensate these high-scoring applicants with scholarship money.

Otoh, if we assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite for a fair outcome, then should schools allow high-scorers to also compete with low-scoring students for the same limited amount of law school A grades (assuming ex ante that lsat score is an accurate predictor) on top of their already-subsidized education? Probably not. To remedy this, lowered-tier schools section stack to equalize opportunity. (They could be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, or more likely market incentives -- they don't want to lose their target segment of low-scoring applicants; either way, it's irrelevant. Fairness ultimately only evaluates the result of the decision from each perspective of those involved, using whatever criteria you want to adopt suggested by the political philosopher du jour)

But here we have people like A'nold who complain that it's unfair that his section was curved lower than the other sections. The school should have section-stacked to ensure fair competition, but mandated the curves be equal among the sections. Why it didn't do the latter was probably a combination of 1) it wanted to use the high stipulations to save money (to rinse and repeat with a new set of 0Ls) -- which again has positive benefits for people like A'nold; and 2) to increase the chances that low-scoring 0L applicants end up at the top of their 1L class with increased job prospects and therefore better goodwill among their target segment (assuming this becomes common knowledge). Whether this practice is fair depends on whether compensation via scholarship money extends here.

As an aside, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor when choosing to attend a tier 3 and frankly it's hard to listen to claims of unfairness, often confused with pleas for pity, when one voluntarily chose to take such a large risk for such a potentially small reward (knowing the employment/transfer prospects out of these schools). Ironically, some people view taking the scholarship and easy competition at a lowered-tier school as the less risky route. Schools that employ these practices are simply countering that assumption.

From an apparently smart poster (you're top 2% at a t50 AFAIK), this is probably the stupidest thing I've read in a long while.

What you are basically espousing is an anti-meritocratic philosophy: It is unfair for the most promising TTT students (lol) to compete with the average TTT students in the same school. That makes no sense.

The entire idea of 1L is to put the incoming students in the curved curriculum and see who rises to the top, who drifts in the middle, and who sinks to the bottom. This way, evaluators down the line (potential employers, judges, and higher-ranked schools) can look at a student and assess his credentials based on his school and class rank.

Putting all the highest LSAT scorers into one section obfuscates the purpose of 1L. It is primarily a sorting mechanism.

I am really surprised to hear you argue an anti-meritocratic philosophy, especially since you are definitely a beneficiary of meritocracy. Law school is supposed to be about merit.

Nevertheless, the caveat emptor definitely holds. TTT schools aren't known to be the most honest (just look at their employment statistics), and you get what you get.

Good luck to A'nold and all students moving forward.

/

God I hate posts like this. This is not a scholarly article, it's an online forum. SO f-ing pretentious.

[interalia]

If the school is doing it to save themselves money, then that lessens the possibility that the school is motivated by fairness. If they aren't saving themselves money, then the incentive is more likely to be fairness -- hence your argument.

I'm not really seeing the relevance between what motivates X's decision and whether the result of X's decision is "fair" to all parties involved (here, high LSAT section vs. the other sections).

If schools were only concerned w saving money, they would give none out. If schools gave none out, they wouldn't attract high-scoring applicants. High-scoring applicants raise entering stats, which in turn could raise school rankings, and therefore have positive externalities on all students attending, regardless of their individual entering stats. Thus, it might be fair to compensate these high-scoring applicants with scholarship money.

Otoh, if we assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite for a fair outcome, then should schools allow high-scorers to also compete with low-scoring students for the same limited amount of law school A grades (assuming ex ante that lsat score is an accurate predictor) on top of their already-subsidized education? Probably not. To remedy this, lowered-tier schools section stack to equalize opportunity. (They could be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, or more likely market incentives -- they don't want to lose their target segment of low-scoring applicants; either way, it's irrelevant. Fairness ultimately only evaluates the result of the decision from each perspective of those involved, using whatever criteria you want to adopt suggested by the political philosopher du jour)

But here we have people like A'nold who complain that it's unfair that his section was curved lower than the other sections. The school should have section-stacked to ensure fair competition, but mandated the curves be equal among the sections. Why it didn't do the latter was probably a combination of 1) it wanted to use the high stipulations to save money (to rinse and repeat with a new set of 0Ls) -- which again has positive benefits for people like A'nold; and 2) to increase the chances that low-scoring 0L applicants end up at the top of their 1L class with increased job prospects and therefore better goodwill among their target segment (assuming this becomes common knowledge). Whether this practice is fair depends on whether compensation via scholarship money extends here.

As an aside, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor when choosing to attend a tier 3 and frankly it's hard to listen to claims of unfairness, often confused with pleas for pity, when one voluntarily chose to take such a large risk for such a potentially small reward (knowing the employment/transfer prospects out of these schools). Ironically, some people view taking the scholarship and easy competition at a lowered-tier school as the less risky route. Schools that employ these practices are simply countering that assumption.

From an apparently smart poster (you're top 2% at a t50 AFAIK), this is probably the stupidest thing I've read in a long while.

What you are basically espousing is an anti-meritocratic philosophy: It is unfair for the most promising TTT students (lol) to compete with the average TTT students in the same school. That makes no sense.

The entire idea of 1L is to put the incoming students in the curved curriculum and see who rises to the top, who drifts in the middle, and who sinks to the bottom. This way, evaluators down the line (potential employers, judges, and higher-ranked schools) can look at a student and assess his credentials based on his school and class rank.

Putting all the highest LSAT scorers into one section obfuscates the purpose of 1L. It is primarily a sorting mechanism.

I am really surprised to hear you argue an anti-meritocratic philosophy, especially since you are definitely a beneficiary of meritocracy. Law school is supposed to be about merit.

Nevertheless, the caveat emptor definitely holds. TTT schools aren't known to be the most honest (just look at their employment statistics), and you get what you get.

Good luck to A'nold and all students moving forward.

/

God I hate posts like this. This is not a scholarly article, it's an online forum. SO f-ing pretentious.

Great, please enlighten us with your guide to acing 1L. It was so moving: I felt like I was right in the trenches with you.