How successful do you think you'd be at a better school? Forum

[gwuorbust]

Personally, I wish I had gone to a worse school. I feel like I would have done better rank wise. Plus, I would have come out nearly debt free. fml.

[09042014]

Personally, I wish I had gone to a worse school. I feel like I would have done better rank wise. Plus, I would have come out nearly debt free. fml.

Dood I though you were hooked up for Skadden if you copped dat median or better.

[Geneva]

Personally, I wish I had gone to a worse school. I feel like I would have done better rank wise. Plus, I would have come out nearly debt free. fml.

Dood I though you were hooked up for Skadden if you copped dat median or better.

are you at gwu? if so, what do you think of your peers/the ethos of the school? sorry, unrelated to this thread.

[ninereal]

I meant percentage of all extant policymakers, not percentage of a school's class that ends up doing policymaking.

But the latter is more relevant to what is appropriate for a law school exam than the former.

No doubt, but I was challenging Lawl Shcool on his assertion that the T14s practice of teaching policy is 'worthless.'

ETA: If you accept the premise that top grades from a T14 are a requirement for working in high level legal policymaking (e.g., appellate advocacy/clerkships/judgeships), then it makes sense (at least, internal logical sense) to distinguish between the top 5% and the top quarter at T14s on the basis of policy and theory.

Judges aren't policymakers!

/idiot

[sundance95]

I meant percentage of all extant policymakers, not percentage of a school's class that ends up doing policymaking.

But the latter is more relevant to what is appropriate for a law school exam than the former.

No doubt, but I was challenging Lawl Shcool on his assertion that the T14s practice of teaching policy is 'worthless.'

ETA: If you accept the premise that top grades from a T14 are a requirement for working in high level legal policymaking (e.g., appellate advocacy/clerkships/judgeships), then it makes sense (at least, internal logical sense) to distinguish between the top 5% and the top quarter at T14s on the basis of policy and theory.

Judges aren't policymakers!

/idiot

[gwuorbust]

Personally, I wish I had gone to a worse school. I feel like I would have done better rank wise. Plus, I would have come out nearly debt free. fml.

Dood I though you were hooked up for Skadden if you copped dat median or better.

are you at gwu? if so, what do you think of your peers/the ethos of the school? sorry, unrelated to this thread.

emphasis on bust

[Void]

if you took ten students from the top of the class at a TTTT most of them would struggle to hit median at a T6.

I'd bet all my SA money that each would be well above median (with a few in the top 5-10%) in that situation, assuming by "top" you mean "top 5%"

I don't want to bet money, but I'm leaning towards your side of the conversation.

Remember: the top of the class at TTTT are not the kids who can't pass the bar exam. They're probably just like the top of the class anywhere else, at least in that they are hard-working, competitive, and smart.

I've been at a TT, and I've been at T6. If you took all the kids from the top 3-5% from the TT and grafted them into the 172 LSAT classes of the T6, many would be around median, some top 1/3, and a handful below median. Top 10-15%? Not so much.

If you're talking about a real stinking TTT/actualTTTT and in the 10% range, no way. They would struggle. The drop off at these schools from 'able' to 'not' in the T6 is well within the top 10%.

Sorry to hear you went from top 3-5% at your TT to significantly lower at your T6.

[keg411]

I dropped on my transfer, but there are plenty of people that did really really well (pretty sure there are some that have *better* grades on transferring even). It's a mixed bag, and it doesn't at all correlate with original school either.

[apl6783]

I'm too lazy to find it, but there was some bigass study done that showed that once your IQ is above a certain threshold all differences in achievement are related to effort/stamina/studying-shitloads-of-random-bullshit tolerance level.

FUCK YEA. I've been saying this to people for years. Damn, I knew I was a genius. Would you mind finding that link for me? I'd really appreciate it.

If you're over a certain baseline intelligence level required for X activity, then it becomes all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc. That's what I always say to people who are like "but they're all smarter than me," and I'm all like, "yea so what?"

[Void]

I'm too lazy to find it, but there was some bigass study done that showed that once your IQ is above a certain threshold all differences in achievement are related to effort/stamina/studying-shitloads-of-random-bullshit tolerance level.

FUCK YEA. I've been saying this to people for years. Damn, I knew I was a genius. Would you mind finding that link for me? I'd really appreciate it.

If you're over a certain baseline intelligence level required for X activity, then it becomes all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc. That's what I always say to people who are like "but they're all smarter than me," and I'm all like, "yea so what?"

I think you might be misunderstanding this a little. The study doesn't find that intelligence is irrelevant to success. It sounds like you're assuming that the "baseline" is low. What if the people you're referring to are below the baseline? If that's the case, it isn't "all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc."

Law school might be a good example of what I'm talking about. It doesn't take a genius to get through law school, but there is a baseline threshold that is probably higher than average intelligence. The point is that there are some people for whom effort, confidence, etc. will be insufficient.

[yngblkgifted]

I think once you've reached a certain level (Top 14-ish) the differences in quality of applicants and intelligence levels is negligible. We like to amplify what 3 points of the LSAT means just to make ourselves feel better. Essentially, the difference between a 169 and a 173 is so insignificant that it's stupid to say, well it's obvious that the 173 would destroy the 169 grade-wise. Or that the 169 couldn't handle the competition surround by 173s. I know PLENTY of people above the LSAT median, who are below the grade median and vice versa. Law school isn't always about "who is smarter?" It really comes down to how well you can play the game. In order to do this, you need to recognize what you need to do for yourself and learn how to work the system. You're LSAT score won't tell you what works for you. Neither will the prestige of your undergrad. Additionally, I am a firm believer that knowing how to take a law school exam is not something that takes a crazy amount of intelligence. But even if you wanted to put a heavy focus on intelligence, i don't think that the difference between the students at top schools will be that much different.

[ninereal]

But the latter is more relevant to what is appropriate for a law school exam than the former.

No doubt, but I was challenging Lawl Shcool on his assertion that the T14s practice of teaching policy is 'worthless.'

ETA: If you accept the premise that top grades from a T14 are a requirement for working in high level legal policymaking (e.g., appellate advocacy/clerkships/judgeships), then it makes sense (at least, internal logical sense) to distinguish between the top 5% and the top quarter at T14s on the basis of policy and theory.

Judges aren't policymakers!

/idiot

The slash means I was imitating an idiot. Like, for instance, anyone who would say that judges just call balls and strikes.

[sundance95]

My b, carry on.

ETA: +1 on the Chief Justice dig.

[sparty99]

......I think anyone can be successful at any school if they read the cases, make an outline, and study for four weeks. If you are top 25% at your school, I bet you would be top 25% at school xyz.

I'd be jelly of any law student who is top 25% at any law school, even Cooley. Law school exams are a joke and don't require any intelligence. Let's not act as if we are curing cancer. You are being asked to respond to a made-up-hypothetical that will never happen.

[Nova]

There are a lot of really smart people in my section at my TTT who just took the LSAT once, got a mid/high 150's score, and either didn't know any better or just said f-it and didn't want to take it again. There are also quite a few who didn't prep at all and got mid 150's type scores.

These are not the kinds of decisions really smart people make. Not knowing better = ignorant. Being ignorant about the realities of your future is stupid. If they did know about their prospects and still didnt retake, then I would chalk them up as not wanting it bad enough.

Whether it be lack of ability (low ceiling), ignorence, or laziness that led to a 15*... Ill bet on the lazy high scorer or the grinder that worked their ass off for a high score over someone with a 15* any day.

I DO NOT THINK SO. There are URM with low LAST and GPA. at Harvard , Yale , Stanford and etc.

Some top T 2 students has better GPA and LSAT than those URM in HArvard, yale, Stanford and etc.

Harvard URMs, this cycle:
4.0/165
3.7/165
3.9/164
4.1/161
3.4/167
3.9/167
3.7/165
3.9/170
3.6/168

Even if the TT has a few kids with better numbers, I dont doubt for a second that these URM applicants would have a great chance to be at the ttop of a TT class.

^this post got mostly ignored, and all I have to say is lol, no. Those LSAT scores aren't that much higher than the medians of plenty of tier 2 law schools. And not realizing how important lsat score does not make someone a dumbass--I might have tried to go to law school with a score in the high 150s if I hadn't randomly signed up for a powerscore class. That one decision played a large role in motivating to get a much higher score.

Thx for not ignoring my post. I would rather be disagreed with than ignored. The person with the 164 and 161 have 3.9/4.0... Everyone else is 165+ and that is the 75th percentile or better at ALL TT plus ~median GPA. If these kids were white, they would be getting legit scholarships at TT and would be expected to do well.

I do not mean to say 15* makes someone a dumbass. Of course, 158/159/160/161 are all basically the same. I’m just trying to say that, for whatever reason, they did not do as well on an entrance exam that supposedly correlates with 1L success. Sure, really smart people make bad decisions, but going to law school without maximizing one’s LSAT score is either pretty short sighted, ignorant, or lazy.

[apl6783]

I'm too lazy to find it, but there was some bigass study done that showed that once your IQ is above a certain threshold all differences in achievement are related to effort/stamina/studying-shitloads-of-random-bullshit tolerance level.

FUCK YEA. I've been saying this to people for years. Damn, I knew I was a genius. Would you mind finding that link for me? I'd really appreciate it.

If you're over a certain baseline intelligence level required for X activity, then it becomes all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc. That's what I always say to people who are like "but they're all smarter than me," and I'm all like, "yea so what?"

I think you might be misunderstanding this a little. The study doesn't find that intelligence is irrelevant to success. It sounds like you're assuming that the "baseline" is low. What if the people you're referring to are below the baseline? If that's the case, it isn't "all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc."

Law school might be a good example of what I'm talking about. It doesn't take a genius to get through law school, but there is a baseline threshold that is probably higher than average intelligence. The point is that there are some people for whom effort, confidence, etc. will be insufficient.

I said "If you're over a certain baseline intelligence level required for X activity, then it becomes all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc."

Which means that yes, if you're below the baseline then it is not all about hard work, attitude, confidence, etc. None of what I said is inconsistent with any of the obvious things you are saying. If you were joking and I missed it, which is not unlikely, then I apologize.

[thesteelers]

The kids at the top schools aren't smarter, they're just insanely good at working harder and more effectively. I know lots of law students at HYS and T-10 schools. They just know the best way of studying for them and have ridiculous discipline. But I don't think they're actually exceptional. They're exactly like the top 5% at my TTT30.

[quiver]

I'm a T2 to CCN transfer. When I was at my T2 I asked one of the professors about the difference in students between T2 and T14 (he had taught several years at a few different T14s too). He said that the top students at T2s can compete with the students at T14s but that outside those top kids, the students are generally lower quality at T2s. In sports terms: T14s have a "deeper bench."

That's not to say a top student at a T2 will also finish at the top of a T14, just that they compete on an equal playing field; they could finish at the top, median, or bottom of a T14 just like anyone else there. Having the hindsight of a year at CCN and a year at a T2, I think he was dead on. I also agree completely with what TToN said about not being able to adequately judge transfers against the rest of the class since there are so many differences between 1L and 2L/3L. That said, transfers in our class have generally done well.

[keg411]

I'm a T2 to CCN transfer. When I was at my T2 I asked one of the professors about the difference in students between T2 and T14 (he had taught several years at a few different T14s too). He said that the top students at T2s can compete with the students at T14s but that outside those top kids, the students are generally lower quality at T2s. In sports terms: T14s have a "deeper bench."

That's not to say a top student at a T2 will also finish at the top of a T14, just that they compete on an equal playing field; they could finish at the top, median, or bottom of a T14 just like anyone else there. Having the hindsight of a year at CCN and a year at a T2, I think he was dead on. I also agree completely with what TToN said about not being able to adequately judge transfers against the rest of the class since there are so many differences between 1L and 2L/3L. That said, transfers in our class have generally done well.

I'd agree with this. And it's basically exactly how our transfer class went in that people finished all over the place.

[chasgoose]

This game is fun, but not always fruitful. Both semesters as I was going through past exams I have taken practice exams that were given at HLS with model answers. On one of them, one of the Harvard model answers was actually incredible, like way beyond what I would be capable of doing (despite getting one of the higher grades in that class that semester). Others, however, were no better than the NYU model answers from other tests, if not worse. That said, I imagine there are some in the CCN tier that may have been "ranked" higher at YHS than they were at their schools, but only due to the quirks in the grading systems. Lets say someone at CLS/NYU (I don't understand the grading system at Chicago) got 5 A-'s and 1 B. They would be pretty highly ranked with around a 3.5-3.6, but at HLS or SLS they would have only received 1 P and the rest HP's, which probably looks a little bit better... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.