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

[AVBucks4239]

The only thing that this thread demonstrates is that it makes no sense to make broad assumptions about any group of people with regard to law school success.

Every one of the following statements is true:

-Some people are brilliant, and get great grades without much effort.
-Some people are brilliant, but also put in a lot of effort to get great grades.
-Some people are brilliant, but don't get great grades at all.
-Some people aren't brilliant, but get great grades without much effort.
-Some people aren't brilliant, but put in a lot of effort to get great grades.
-Some people aren't brilliant, and don't get great grades at all.

This is starting to feel like an LSAT problem.

True. And to further complicate things, people are answering two completely different questions: how a person from a T1 would do at a T3 or T4, and how a top student at a T3 or T4 would do at a T1.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I expect any one of my classmates would be #1 at some of the bottom law schools. Any narrower a divide than that and it's like ehhh.

The complete lack of respect in this post for every single person at the bottom law schools is astounding. Some smart, hardworking people do happen to go to local TTT's.

You are also ignoring the role that luck and other random factors can play in grades. I'm not a "grades are random" person, but to deny that any arbitrariness exits is naive.

I don't doubt that most people at Harvard would be near the top of the class at many low ranked schools, but your statement makes you sound like an ass IMO.

[nleefer]

For what it's worth, I was top of the class at a lower end T2, transferred into the T14, and am now finishing up my third year somewhere around the top 5% mark (my best estimate of my rank).

[dreakol]

I expect any one of my classmates would be #1 at some of the bottom law schools. Any narrower a divide than that and it's like ehhh.

The complete lack of respect in this post for every single person at the bottom law schools is astounding. Some smart, hardworking people do happen to go to local TTT's.

You are also ignoring the role that luck and other random factors can play in grades. I'm not a "grades are random" person, but to deny that any arbitrariness exits is naive.

I don't doubt that most people at Harvard would be near the top of the class at many low ranked schools, but your statement makes you sound like an ass IMO.

[IAFG]

For what it's worth, I was top of the class at a lower end T2, transferred into the T14, and am now finishing up my third year somewhere around the top 5% mark (my best estimate of my rank).

I'm sure you know that your single datapoint is not worth anything. I won't even bother countering your anecdote with my own anecdotes in which transfers get pwnd.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I'm no math whiz, but this seems to suggest that using these numbers to represent anything remotely resembling "accuracy" is kind of a waste of time... But seriously- I'll defer to your obviously superior math skillz.

I'm saying that people are overestimating how median people at a Columbia would do at a Tier 4. I'm using a high correlation (0.7, one of the higher ones that appears in the literature) because I'm trying to show that even if you assume that law school grades are highly correlated with LSAT score, it still doesn't suggest that someone who was median at Columbia would be far above median at Georgetown, much less #1 at a Tier4.

TBF, one of the main reasons why LSAT is a pretty bad predictor of first year grades is b/c most everyone in that class has a pretty similar score. I think LSAT score would correlate better than it currently does if law classes were truly random in terms of LSAT scores.

[rayiner]

I'm no math whiz, but this seems to suggest that using these numbers to represent anything remotely resembling "accuracy" is kind of a waste of time... But seriously- I'll defer to your obviously superior math skillz.

I'm saying that people are overestimating how median people at a Columbia would do at a Tier 4. I'm using a high correlation (0.7, one of the higher ones that appears in the literature) because I'm trying to show that even if you assume that law school grades are highly correlated with LSAT score, it still doesn't suggest that someone who was median at Columbia would be far above median at Georgetown, much less #1 at a Tier4.

TBF, one of the main reasons why LSAT is a pretty bad predictor of first year grades is b/c most everyone in that class has a pretty similar score. I think LSAT score would correlate better than it currently does if law classes were truly random in terms of LSAT scores.

The 0.7 correlation is from an estimate of what correlation would be if LSAT wasn't used as an admissions criteria. The correlation for actual law school classes is like 0.4.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I'm no math whiz, but this seems to suggest that using these numbers to represent anything remotely resembling "accuracy" is kind of a waste of time... But seriously- I'll defer to your obviously superior math skillz.

I'm saying that people are overestimating how median people at a Columbia would do at a Tier 4. I'm using a high correlation (0.7, one of the higher ones that appears in the literature) because I'm trying to show that even if you assume that law school grades are highly correlated with LSAT score, it still doesn't suggest that someone who was median at Columbia would be far above median at Georgetown, much less #1 at a Tier4.

TBF, one of the main reasons why LSAT is a pretty bad predictor of first year grades is b/c most everyone in that class has a pretty similar score. I think LSAT score would correlate better than it currently does if law classes were truly random in terms of LSAT scores.

The 0.7 correlation is from an estimate of what correlation would be if LSAT wasn't used as an admissions criteria. The correlation for actual law school classes is like 0.4.

Ah, was wondering were you had gotten the 0.7 from. Did someone else make that estimate or was it your own? (Sorry if you already answered this earlier in thread.)

[Geneva]

What is the correlation between LSAT score and bar passage?

[Blumpbeef]

I expect any one of my classmates would be #1 at some of the bottom law schools. Any narrower a divide than that and it's like ehhh.

what about the ~5% of T14 grads who can't pass the bar?

[kritarch]

<Quoted Material>
I'm curious about the extent TLS thinks classes are fungible at similarly-ranked schools. I'm top 25%-ish at DNGC and I started wondering about this after I met a few students from UVA and a few from NYU and realized "you know, I don't think they're actually that much smarter than me."

Obviously, the classes at HYS are on average smarter than the classes at DNGC; just as obviously, it's clearly not the case that every Yale student is better than every Stanford student, who's better than every Harvard student, and on down the line. There are people at the top of the class at my school who I'm pretty sure would still be near the top at HYS. But, in those upper-middle to lower-middle ranges - how much of a difference do you think it would make if you took a top-quartile Georgetown student and dropped her at Columbia? Still top quartile? Top third? Median? Below median? My sense, admittedly based on almost no evidence, is that the performances wouldn't shift too much one way or the other.

Thoughts?
</End Quoted Material>

Those students you met from UVA & NYU scored, what- maybe 5 more LSAT points than you did? That doesn't make them per se smarter. Sure, maybe different people have different LSAT ceilings, but how often has your LSAT experience had any affect on your class preparation whatsoever? How often do you even use the same part of your brain as you did for LSAT prep?

I concede that there are probably more gifted people at Yale than at a TTTT, but I don't think the divide even between those poles is anywhere near what your post suggests.

So the difference in LSAT median between Columbia and Georgetown is two points. With an R^2 of 0.5, LSAT would explain about one tenth of one standard deviation of grades. So someone who finished median at Columbia would, statistically, finish a hair above median at Georgetown.

Is this a joke?

No it's math. The point is that a 2-point LSAT difference will statistically result in barely any difference in grades.

Let me explain it another way. Let's assume an R^2 of 0.5 (a fairly high assumption). Now, say we compose a class with the full distribution of LSAT takers (not just law school admits, the whole range from 120-180). We give them all law school exams. The folks who got 170 on the exam are statistically only expected to finish one standard deviation above the median, or about top 15%.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this math is both wrong and misleading.

The explanatory power of LSAT and GPA cannot be compared across schools, period. The fact of the matter is, the only group of people for which we have any even remotely comparable data at all would be transfer students, and do to significant selection bias and endogeneity problems that sample will never have enough students in it to yield anything like comparative data.

Georgetown takes students with high LSATs and high GPAs that Columbia does not take. Often, those GPAs at Georgetown mean less than the GPAs of comparable students at Columbia. Moreover, GPA/LSAT splitting (i.e. "gaming the medians") is much more common, and much more possible, the lower the law school's rank.

A student at Yale or Harvard is not only more likely to have done extremely well both on the LSAT and in undergrad, but is much more likely to have gone to a school from which their high GPA is an extremely strong indicator of ability. Yet, of course, because of the nature of the data that LSAC can collect, all that we can discern is that those with 4.2/180s do better than 3.8/173s more often by some amount (explained by the correlation coefficient). What we cannot say, at all (and should not say) is that a 3.8/173 at Georgetown would have done just as well in the counter-factual situation, since that combination at Georgetown actually puts you near the tippy-top of their incoming GPA/LSATs, as opposed to the middle (moreover, that student's GPA is more likely to be from University of Phoenix, on average).

What this simple example should show (I hope) is that at best we can discern nothing about how students would do comparatively from the GPA/LSAT correlation data. Moreover, if anything, we should in fact conclude precisely the opposite of what you're saying. That is, if you think about it, given that 4.2/178s are doing better than 3.8/172s in comparable ratios to the ratios at lower ranked schools where the distribution is more likely comparing 4.2/165s and 2.1/175s we should be more apt to conclude, at least heuristically, that these data indicate that at HYS/CCN, on average, students would absolutely destroy students at schools ranked significantly lower.

Food for thought. This is Top-Law-Schools.com. You would expect more love for top law schools, no?

[Scotusnerd]

I'm going to assume that the 'success' being discussed will be measured as grades.

A lot of jobs at TTT schools are not about what your GPA is, but rather who you know and how you get along with them. Sure, grades mean something, but if you don't know the customs and the social niceties in the area, you will be at a disadvantage, even if your grades are top-notch.

One of the reasons I moved to my area a year early was to learn the culture and understand it a bit more before I jump into the crucible of finding jobs. In this area, I would argue that an uptight Yankee, preppy law student with a 177 LSAT would be at a disadvantage over students with a score 20 points lower. They wouldn't know how to successfully interact with their peers, and I think a certain amount of alienation would take place. Here in the South, it's just as much about civility and getting along as it is skill and grades.

Of course, you could respond that the T14 students may very well have great social skills and can fit in perfectly. Well...yes, they could. But they also might not. That's a different argument than whether someone who made it into a top school with their grades and LSAT score could have success at a lower school.

[094320]

..

[BlueDiamond]

as someone who is unsuccessful, I do not feel qualified to assess how I'd fare at a better school

[rayiner]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this math is both wrong and misleading.

The explanatory power of LSAT and GPA cannot be compared across schools, period. The fact of the matter is, the only group of people for which we have any even remotely comparable data at all would be transfer students, and do to significant selection bias and endogeneity problems that sample will never have enough students in it to yield anything like comparative data.

Georgetown takes students with high LSATs and high GPAs that Columbia does not take. Often, those GPAs at Georgetown mean less than the GPAs of comparable students at Columbia. Moreover, GPA/LSAT splitting (i.e. "gaming the medians") is much more common, and much more possible, the lower the law school's rank.

A student at Yale or Harvard is not only more likely to have done extremely well both on the LSAT and in undergrad, but is much more likely to have gone to a school from which their high GPA is an extremely strong indicator of ability. Yet, of course, because of the nature of the data that LSAC can collect, all that we can discern is that those with 4.2/180s do better than 3.8/173s more often by some amount (explained by the correlation coefficient). What we cannot say, at all (and should not say) is that a 3.8/173 at Georgetown would have done just as well in the counter-factual situation, since that combination at Georgetown actually puts you near the tippy-top of their incoming GPA/LSATs, as opposed to the middle (moreover, that student's GPA is more likely to be from University of Phoenix, on average).

What this simple example should show (I hope) is that at best we can discern nothing about how students would do comparatively from the GPA/LSAT correlation data. Moreover, if anything, we should in fact conclude precisely the opposite of what you're saying. That is, if you think about it, given that 4.2/178s are doing better than 3.8/172s in comparable ratios to the ratios at lower ranked schools where the distribution is more likely comparing 4.2/165s and 2.1/175s we should be more apt to conclude, at least heuristically, that these data indicate that at HYS/CCN, on average, students would absolutely destroy students at schools ranked significantly lower.

Food for thought. This is Top-Law-Schools.com. You would expect more love for top law schools, no?

Undergraduate GPA is correlated for shit with law school grades. That's empirical fact.

Here's what you math-challenged retards don't seem to understand. Being in the top 2-3% of a law school class (much less #1) involves being two standard deviations above the mean. Yet, the average student at HY was only one standard deviation above the average student at U Alabama on the LSAT. Even the highest figures for LSAT + GPA correlation do not give you numbers higher than about 0.7, which means a one standard

[indo]

I expect any one of my classmates would be #1 at some of the bottom law schools. Any narrower a divide than that and it's like ehhh.

Any one of your classmates? Even the bottom 10% of the class? Really?


Judging from the general attitude of this thread, I guess I should take a long, hard look in my T2 mirror and just accept that I'm not as smart at you guys. So sad.

By bottom I mean bottom.

Yeah, I understood what you meant. It's still quite a statement that you'd expect the worst student at Harvard to be the best at one of the bottom schools. I'm happy that you have such reverence for your classmates!

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.

[AVBucks4239]

I probably should've worded my statement to be less absolute, but I don't see why it's controversial to say that a student at a top school, transplanted to the very bottom of the heap, would probably be #1, if not, then at least very close to it, ignoring the people who chose to go to those schools for personal reasons.

The people who finish bottom 10% of a T14 likely don't know what they're doing on a law school exam. They'd finish median at any school, despite being "smarter" than all the other students.

And trust me, they wouldn't come close to finishing top of the class. I'd put the top 5% at my TTT up against any bottom 10% student from a top school. The top 5% are all very smart (a few are Ivy league undergrads coming back home for school), work their absolute asses off, and really, really, really know what they're doing on a law school exam.

I know that's not saying much, but your perspective is just so off.

[094320]

..

[Void]

Also wanted to point out that the curve isn't the only thing to consider here. For 1L, we basically all took the same classes in law school. The top 5% at the lowest-regarded law school in the country had to have done pretty well in Contracts, Civ Pro, Torts, and Property. The bottom of the class at Harvard took essentially the same classes and obviously flopped at some of them.

Isn't it possible that some Harvard kids couldn't maneuver their way around the Rule Against Perpetuities quite as well as the top kids at TurdPile College of Law? Or do we really believe that just because people are accepted to the best schools in the country, they automatically dominate over everyone at the worst?

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I expect any one of my classmates would be #1 at some of the bottom law schools. Any narrower a divide than that and it's like ehhh.

The complete lack of respect in this post for every single person at the bottom law schools is astounding. Some smart, hardworking people do happen to go to local TTT's.

You are also ignoring the role that luck and other random factors can play in grades. I'm not a "grades are random" person, but to deny that any arbitrariness exits is naive.

I don't doubt that most people at Harvard would be near the top of the class at many low ranked schools, but your statement makes you sound like an ass IMO.

I probably should've worded my statement to be less absolute, but I don't see why it's controversial to say that a student at a top school, transplanted to the very bottom of the heap, would probably be #1, if not, then at least very close to it, ignoring the people who chose to go to those schools for personal reasons.

It's controversial b/c there are lazy students or students who just aren't good at law school exams (or both) at all law schools. Saying your classmate Lazy Fred would crush it at shitty law schools b/c of the implied statement that those students are just so dumb is very insulting.

I've been a pretty medicore student for most of my life (medicore SAT, medicore UG with medicore grades), but I was able to do well on the LSAT b/c I put in a lot of time and effort. I've been able to do well at a pretty good law school b/c i've put in a lot of time and effort. I'm not smarter than prob a majority of my classmates, but I outwork most people. I'm sure there are plenty of ppl like me who just didn't realize how important their LSAT score was going to be and they're working thier ass of at TTT's. To think that bottom of the class could just waltz in and dominate is very disputable.

ETA: This might be a better way of stating what I think:
1) If I were to place a bet on whose going to do better (grades 1L year), I would bet on the hardworking 155 over the lazy 165.(We probably agree on this point.)
2) If I were to place a bet on whose going to do better, I would choose the field of ~200 students (whose LSAT scores are mostly in the 150s, but with some maybe in the 140s, prob a few 160s and maybe some 170s) over a lazy 175. That's an easy bet IMO, even if we adjust it to allow the 175 to win if he place top 5.

[AVBucks4239]

It's controversial b/c there are lazy students or students who just aren't good at law school exams (or both) at all law schools. Saying your classmate Lazy Fred would crush it at shitty law schools b/c of the implied statement that those students are just so dumb is very insulting.

I've been a pretty medicore student for most of my life (medicore SAT, medicore UG with medicore grades), but I was able to do well on the LSAT b/c I put in a lot of time and effort. I've been able to do well at a pretty good law school b/c i've put in a lot of time and effort. I'm not smarter than prob a majority of my classmates, but I outwork most people. I'm sure there are plenty of ppl like me who just didn't realize how important their LSAT score was going to be and they're working thier ass of at TTT's. To think that bottom of the class could just waltz in and dominate is very disputable.

ETA: This might be a better way of stating what I think:
1) If I were to place a bet on whose going to do better (grades 1L year), I would bet on the hardworking 155 over the lazy 165.(We probably agree on this point.)
2) If I were to place a bet on whose going to do better, I would choose the field of ~200 students (whose LSAT scores are mostly in the 150s, but with some maybe in the 140s, prob a few 160s and maybe some 170s) over a lazy 175. That's an easy bet IMO, even if we adjust it to allow the 175 to win if he place top 5.

The bolded is also something to really consider.

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.

[Void]

It's controversial b/c there are lazy students or students who just aren't good at law school exams (or both) at all law schools. Saying your classmate Lazy Fred would crush it at shitty law schools b/c of the implied statement that those students are just so dumb is very insulting.

I've been a pretty medicore student for most of my life (medicore SAT, medicore UG with medicore grades), but I was able to do well on the LSAT b/c I put in a lot of time and effort. I've been able to do well at a pretty good law school b/c i've put in a lot of time and effort. I'm not smarter than prob a majority of my classmates, but I outwork most people. I'm sure there are plenty of ppl like me who just didn't realize how important their LSAT score was going to be and they're working thier ass of at TTT's. To think that bottom of the class could just waltz in and dominate is very disputable.

ETA: This might be a better way of stating what I think:
1) If I were to place a bet on whose going to do better (grades 1L year), I would bet on the hardworking 155 over the lazy 165.(We probably agree on this point.)
2) If I were to place a bet on whose going to do better, I would choose the field of ~200 students (whose LSAT scores are mostly in the 150s, but with some maybe in the 140s, prob a few 160s and maybe some 170s) over a lazy 175. That's an easy bet IMO, even if we adjust it to allow the 175 to win if he place top 5.

The bolded is also something to really consider.

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.

Also, what about people who attend TTT/TTTTs because they don't have the freedom to just pick up and move someplace else? What do you do if you score over 173 on the LSAT, you're married, your spouse has a successful career where you live in Vermont or New Hampshire, and you would like to spend your lives there? You go to VT Law or UNH- both TTTs.

[rayiner]

I will say that as a 3L finishing up, that hard work does play a role for people who end up top 10%. I know lots of people who didn't work that hard and ended up top quarter, but the top 10% is by and large composed of gunners who even as 2L's and 3L's are putting a ton of time into exams. What largely separates top 10% from top 25% is consistency, and that isn't easy to achieve without putting in time. You can do none of the reading, study from supplements, and nail 6/8 exams, but still get tripped up by the a curve ball where your professor refers to a case in the book notes you didn't read. A lot of people do not have the stamina to gun that hard for three straight years.

At the end of the day, what LSAT/GPA tell you is how a group of people is expected to perform, on average, relative to another group of people. I'd bet a lot of money that if you gave the same exam to 50 HLS students and 50 NYLS students, the average score of the HLS students would absolutely destroy the average score of the NYLS students. In fact, there was a professor who had taught at both a higher-ranked school and a lower-ranked school who noted that exam answers at the former were a full third longer than exam answers at the latter. What this thread is about, however, is the performance of outliers. Median LSAT/GPA tells you nothing about the relative performance of typical students at HLS versus the outliers at low-ranked schools.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

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.

[rayiner]

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.

That's also a great HBS study done by the folks at Bell Labs (back when it was around) that showed that performance as an engineer was pretty much uncorrelated with any measure: grades, prestige of schooling, etc.

I'm all for taking advantage of arbitrary signaling mechanisms (wait I do well on this 3 hour test and am immediately catapulted ahead of 95% of everyone trying to break into the legal field?) but it's silly to read more into them than is warranted.