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

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 07, 2012 6:13 pm

AVBucks4239 wrote:Plenty of students at T14's, despite their intelligence, don't know what they're doing on a law school exam. Those at the top 10% of a TTT do, and I'd bet they'd finish comfortably above median. To do that well shows you have an aptitude for taking law school exams, which isn't necessarily guaranteed by a good LSAT score.

Furthermore, most TTT/TTTT schools have all closed book exams (mine does minus CivPro), so these students are trained to not rely on outlines. I think that gives them a nice boost when transferring.


Every time I've tried to use some TTT exam for practice it wasn't really like a t14 exam. Instead of being a huge issue spotter, it was more about just knowing the law. Which is why they are closed book.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

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

Postby Nova » Mon May 07, 2012 6:48 pm

AVBucks4239 wrote: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.

indo wrote: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.

kritarch
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:44 am

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

Postby kritarch » Mon May 07, 2012 7:40 pm

rayiner wrote:
kritarch wrote:
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


Again, this tells us that within the incoming class at Harvard, the highest LSATs are going to do better by some amount, and those with higher LSATs and higher GPAs are going to do even better on average than anyone else in some proportion. We know that this trend will hold up within the class at HLS, at CLS, at Georgetown, and NYLS, and everywhere.

What that correlation does not tell us, indeed cannot tell us, is what the outcome would have been if you had put the median Harvard student up against the median Georgetown student. For a variety of reasons I have already outlined (HLS students come from much tougher majors and better schools than students at lower ranked schools with the same numbers, and often also have stronger extracurricular achievements) it is likely they are not generally comparable. Moreover, and most important of all, the 173 students are "losing" in direct competition with the 180 students at higher ranked schools at about the same rate as the 165 students are losing to the 173 students at lower ranked schools. This should tell us, I think, that we should be very careful about saying that a 3.8/173 student who is median at Harvard is even remotely similar to a 3.8/173 student that is median at Georgetown. One of them came in and did as expected. The other underperformed.

Why would we ever think that the median 173 student who did about as expected at Harvard would underperform at a lower ranked school?

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 7:42 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
AVBucks4239 wrote:Plenty of students at T14's, despite their intelligence, don't know what they're doing on a law school exam. Those at the top 10% of a TTT do, and I'd bet they'd finish comfortably above median. To do that well shows you have an aptitude for taking law school exams, which isn't necessarily guaranteed by a good LSAT score.

Furthermore, most TTT/TTTT schools have all closed book exams (mine does minus CivPro), so these students are trained to not rely on outlines. I think that gives them a nice boost when transferring.


Every time I've tried to use some TTT exam for practice it wasn't really like a t14 exam. Instead of being a huge issue spotter, it was more about just knowing the law. Which is why they are closed book.

This. I think I'd probably do worse at a TTT because of this.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

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

Postby Lawl Shcool » Mon May 07, 2012 8:26 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
AVBucks4239 wrote:Plenty of students at T14's, despite their intelligence, don't know what they're doing on a law school exam. Those at the top 10% of a TTT do, and I'd bet they'd finish comfortably above median. To do that well shows you have an aptitude for taking law school exams, which isn't necessarily guaranteed by a good LSAT score.

Furthermore, most TTT/TTTT schools have all closed book exams (mine does minus CivPro), so these students are trained to not rely on outlines. I think that gives them a nice boost when transferring.


Every time I've tried to use some TTT exam for practice it wasn't really like a t14 exam. Instead of being a huge issue spotter, it was more about just knowing the law. Which is why they are closed book.


Not my experience at all. My TTT exams were all huge issue spotters where t14 exams have been a lot of policy (which is totally worthless).

EDIT - again, anecdotes vs. anecdotes. I think the main and most salient points have already been made ITT.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 8:29 pm

Lawl Shcool wrote:Not my experience at all. My TTT exams were all huge issue spotters where t14 exams have been a lot of policy (which is totally worthless).

EDIT - again, anecdotes vs. anecdotes. I think the main and most salient points have already been made ITT.

Why is policy worthless?

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

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

Postby Lawl Shcool » Mon May 07, 2012 8:43 pm

sundance95 wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote:Not my experience at all. My TTT exams were all huge issue spotters where t14 exams have been a lot of policy (which is totally worthless).

EDIT - again, anecdotes vs. anecdotes. I think the main and most salient points have already been made ITT.

Why is policy worthless?


its not on the bar and it is largely academic nonsense.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 8:47 pm

Lawl Shcool wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote:Not my experience at all. My TTT exams were all huge issue spotters where t14 exams have been a lot of policy (which is totally worthless).

EDIT - again, anecdotes vs. anecdotes. I think the main and most salient points have already been made ITT.

Why is policy worthless?


its not on the bar and it is largely academic nonsense.

Not if T14s train a large percentage of policymakers.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

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

Postby Lawl Shcool » Mon May 07, 2012 8:49 pm

sundance95 wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote:Not my experience at all. My TTT exams were all huge issue spotters where t14 exams have been a lot of policy (which is totally worthless).

EDIT - again, anecdotes vs. anecdotes. I think the main and most salient points have already been made ITT.

Why is policy worthless?


its not on the bar and it is largely academic nonsense.

Not if T14s train a large percentage of policymakers.


Well my disdain for it could be from a desire to be as far away from that type of work as humanly possible. I also usually do bad on those questions and enjoy things I'm generally better at.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 07, 2012 8:51 pm

kritarch wrote:
rayiner wrote:
kritarch wrote:
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


Again, this tells us that within the incoming class at Harvard, the highest LSATs are going to do better by some amount, and those with higher LSATs and higher GPAs are going to do even better on average than anyone else in some proportion. We know that this trend will hold up within the class at HLS, at CLS, at Georgetown, and NYLS, and everywhere.

What that correlation does not tell us, indeed cannot tell us, is what the outcome would have been if you had put the median Harvard student up against the median Georgetown student. For a variety of reasons I have already outlined (HLS students come from much tougher majors and better schools than students at lower ranked schools with the same numbers, and often also have stronger extracurricular achievements) it is likely they are not generally comparable. Moreover, and most important of all, the 173 students are "losing" in direct competition with the 180 students at higher ranked schools at about the same rate as the 165 students are losing to the 173 students at lower ranked schools. This should tell us, I think, that we should be very careful about saying that a 3.8/173 student who is median at Harvard is even remotely similar to a 3.8/173 student that is median at Georgetown. One of them came in and did as expected. The other underperformed.

Why would we ever think that the median 173 student who did about as expected at Harvard would underperform at a lower ranked school?


You are overestimating the difference between a 170 and 173. That is well within the margin of error of the LSAT.

We can predict the difference in class quality fairly easily. 170-173 is about .25 of a standard deviation on the LSAT. Assuming r=.7 (which is the highest estimation, it very well might be a lot lower). r^2= .49. So that means that Harvard is about .1225 standard deviations above Georgetown. Look that up on your trusty Ztable and you get that the average Harvard student would be at the 56th percentile at Georgetown. Those three LSAT points made up a whopping 6%. And that percentile goes down very quickly when you go to the top of the class. The top 5% people would do just as well basically.

If you do Georgetown against a T30 with a 165 the difference is 20%. When you get into TTT (LSAT 158) range the difference is 30%. So median at Gtown is probably going to rock dat top top20% at a TTT. Median at Harvard would rock dat top 14%.

But the way the math works says that a top 2% at a TTT (with LSAT 158) would be about top 15% at Harvard.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 8:55 pm

I might be misinformed, but in my LSAT teaching training I was taught that the LSAT correlated only extremely weakly with law school GPA (.16). We were taught that the LSAT is the strongest correlation relatively speaking (i.e., its better than UGPA), but its still objectively a weak correlation.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Mon May 07, 2012 8:57 pm

kritarch wrote:
rayiner wrote:
kritarch wrote:
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


Again, this tells us that within the incoming class at Harvard, the highest LSATs are going to do better by some amount, and those with higher LSATs and higher GPAs are going to do even better on average than anyone else in some proportion. We know that this trend will hold up within the class at HLS, at CLS, at Georgetown, and NYLS, and everywhere.

What that correlation does not tell us, indeed cannot tell us, is what the outcome would have been if you had put the median Harvard student up against the median Georgetown student. For a variety of reasons I have already outlined (HLS students come from much tougher majors and better schools than students at lower ranked schools with the same numbers, and often also have stronger extracurricular achievements) it is likely they are not generally comparable. Moreover, and most important of all, the 173 students are "losing" in direct competition with the 180 students at higher ranked schools at about the same rate as the 165 students are losing to the 173 students at lower ranked schools. This should tell us, I think, that we should be very careful about saying that a 3.8/173 student who is median at Harvard is even remotely similar to a 3.8/173 student that is median at Georgetown. One of them came in and did as expected. The other underperformed.

Why would we ever think that the median 173 student who did about as expected at Harvard would underperform at a lower ranked school?


Harvard is as much of a numbers whore as any other T14, and has a smaller percentage of "tougher majors" (i.e. STEM majors) than many of the other T14.

The only salient difference between the students at any of the T14 besides Y/S/B are GPA and LSAT, and we can account for who those are correlated to law school grades. And as for Y/S/B, none of the soft factors they look for have any bearing on how well someone might do at a law school exam.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Mon May 07, 2012 8:58 pm

.
Last edited by rayiner on Mon May 07, 2012 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Mon May 07, 2012 9:03 pm

sundance95 wrote:I might be misinformed, but in my LSAT teaching training I was taught that the LSAT correlated only extremely weakly with law school GPA (.16). We were taught that the LSAT is the strongest correlation relatively speaking (i.e., its better than UGPA), but its still objectively a weak correlation.


R = 0.7 (R^2 = 0.5) is an estimate from a Stanford study a few years back on the what sorts of correlation you would see if law school classes weren't composed of the full spectrum of people who took the LSAT rather than the narrow range of 5 points you see in a typical law school class. The correlation in the latter situation is around R = 0.4 (R^2 = 0.16).

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:03 pm

rayiner wrote:
sundance95 wrote:Not if T14s train a large percentage of policymakers.


No T14 trains a large percentage of policymakers except maybe Yale and Stanford. Even at Harvard the vast majority go into big law.

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

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:04 pm

sundance95 wrote:I might be misinformed, but in my LSAT teaching training I was taught that the LSAT correlated only extremely weakly with law school GPA (.16). We were taught that the LSAT is the strongest correlation relatively speaking (i.e., its better than UGPA), but its still objectively a weak correlation.


the problem with the .16 number is that it doesn't take into account the fact that schools select from a very small range of LSAT scores. If you are playing basketball and everyone is 6'2"-6'4" height won't correlate to performance. But that doesn't mean when you play with people 5'1-6'6 height won't be a significant factor.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:04 pm

I've only had 1 test with any policy at all.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
sundance95 wrote:I might be misinformed, but in my LSAT teaching training I was taught that the LSAT correlated only extremely weakly with law school GPA (.16). We were taught that the LSAT is the strongest correlation relatively speaking (i.e., its better than UGPA), but its still objectively a weak correlation.


the problem with the .16 number is that it doesn't take into account the fact that schools select from a very small range of LSAT scores. If you are playing basketball and everyone is 6'2"-6'4" height won't correlate to performance. But that doesn't mean when you play with people 5'1-6'6 height won't be a significant factor.
rayiner wrote:R = 0.7 (R^2 = 0.5) is an estimate from a Stanford study a few years back on the what sorts of correlation you would see if law school classes weren't composed of the full spectrum of people who took the LSAT rather than the narrow range of 5 points you see in a typical law school class. The correlation in the latter situation is around R = 0.4 (R^2 = 0.16).

Ah, that makes sense.

User avatar
Lawl Shcool
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:44 pm

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

Postby Lawl Shcool » Mon May 07, 2012 9:05 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I've only had 1 test with any policy at all.


consider yourself lucky

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

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

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:07 pm

Lawl Shcool wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I've only had 1 test with any policy at all.


consider yourself lucky


I take that back, my corps exam was 100% policy. Got DAT B. Fuckin' policy.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

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

Postby rayiner » Mon May 07, 2012 9:07 pm

sundance95 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
sundance95 wrote:Not if T14s train a large percentage of policymakers.


No T14 trains a large percentage of policymakers except maybe Yale and Stanford. Even at Harvard the vast majority go into big law.

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.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

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

Postby sundance95 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:09 pm

rayiner wrote:
sundance95 wrote: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.

User avatar
AVBucks4239
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:37 pm

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

Postby AVBucks4239 » Mon May 07, 2012 9:36 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
AVBucks4239 wrote:Plenty of students at T14's, despite their intelligence, don't know what they're doing on a law school exam. Those at the top 10% of a TTT do, and I'd bet they'd finish comfortably above median. To do that well shows you have an aptitude for taking law school exams, which isn't necessarily guaranteed by a good LSAT score.

Furthermore, most TTT/TTTT schools have all closed book exams (mine does minus CivPro), so these students are trained to not rely on outlines. I think that gives them a nice boost when transferring.


Every time I've tried to use some TTT exam for practice it wasn't really like a t14 exam. Instead of being a huge issue spotter, it was more about just knowing the law. Which is why they are closed book.

Again, it all depends on the professor.

For my first semester in CivPro (jurisdictional stuff), we had a 3.5 page hypo covering every jurisdictional more in depth than you could possibly imagine. I think I wrote 7,000 words on subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue. You name a sub-sub-sub test, and it was on there. Second semester (pleadings/answers/motions/rules) we switched professors (fall prof. had sabbatical), and on the exam we had to amend a complaint, draft a 12(b)(6), and do 10 MC's.

We also switched professors in Torts. First semester exam was a three hour, two essay test with about 2 page long fact patterns each. I don't think anybody finished, as there was so much to discuss it was impossible. Second semester, we had two one-hour essays (products liability and defamation), and I don't think anybody used all two hours.

Point is, students who know what they're doing know what to look for in past exams know how to prepare for that particular exam style. I think that's a skill that transfers to different schools.

User avatar
Richie Tenenbaum
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:17 am

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

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Tue May 08, 2012 12:42 am

Nova wrote:
AVBucks4239 wrote: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.

indo wrote: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.

User avatar
Vronsky
Posts: 829
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:24 pm

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

Postby Vronsky » Tue May 08, 2012 12:57 am

Void wrote:
Lawl Shcool wrote:
redsoxfan2495 wrote: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%.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArtistOfManliness, Fed_Atty, Harry Belafonte, malleus discentium, MarkinKansasCity, mazatec, narddawg, pd_1023, wyattg and 25 guests