nealric wrote:Considering the overwhelmingly pompous crowd that inhabits this forum, and the perpetual claims of their 'genius' you would think they'd be capable of answering a simple question. Out of the 100+ posts on this thread, I think 4 of them have been on the topic of T3 success stories. Flame on.
Apologize in advance for the rant:
I don't understand what the point of asking for "T14 success stories" is. I'm sure anybody can find a brothers, friend's, sister's, former college roommate's study partner who is now a multi-millionaire after attending (Insert T3/T4 school here). To me, that's like asking for day trading success stories in an advice thread about dumping one's life savings into speculative penny stocks.
To the OP: I hate to break it to you, but it's very unlikely that your VC experience is going to get you into a firm that does substantial VC work unless you have very high grades from the T3. It is unfair and elitist, but that's the way it works. The cold hard fact is that it is more likely than not that you will not get those grades, just like it is more likely than not that you will not become a millionaire by dumping your life savings into penny stocks. Everybody thinks they will be at the top of the class going into law school, and just about everyone backs that up with commensurate work. The vast majority are disappointed.
What I don't understand is why people think they will work super hard in law school, when they did not work super hard studying for the LSAT. The LSAT is the easy part of law school. You can easily put a solid 200 hours of LSAT studying into lunch breaks and spare minutes over the course of a year. That amount of studying is plenty for a decent score. I'm all for the work hard and be ambitious part, but why to some people insist on doing it the hard way?
Here's an analogy: you are trying to cross a swiftly flowing river. There is a bridge across the river, but it is protected by a 6 foot high brick wall. Otherwise you will have to swim (and possibly drown). The people who refuse to properly prepare for the LSAT are refusing to climb the wall in favor of trying to swim for it. Sure, you can possibly swim across the river, but why would you swim when there is a perfectly good bridge? I'm all for ambition, but ambition needs to be sensibly directed if it is going to do any good.
As an aside, I think a big problem with the discussions about T3/T4 is the ex-ante/ex-post problem. For someone thinking about attending such a school, it's important that they understand that for the vast majority of folks, the school will be a terrible investment. For someone already attending or who has graduated from such a school, it's indeed elitist and childish to try to denigrate them. The problem is that those who already attend or who have graduated from T3/T4 schools often think the ex-ante advice is an ex-post attack on their decision.
This is where economics falls short of behavioral economics and consumer choice - economics assumes a purely rational decision based upon assigned value in the vacuum of emotion.
Just because you didn't take time to work on the LSAT's does not have a causal relationship with how hard you work in school. Is it likely pretty highly correlated? Yes.
If you really want to make this into a purely economic question, consider other career fields. I would say that the risk inherent in schools is likely a poor economic decision for most law students, even some in the T14 (because, the bottom of the class isn't necessarily going to find great employment and they may well be saddled with $180k in debt).
I find it funny that those looking to attend the T14 acknowledge the utils in all of the non-economic, fuzzy-touchy-feely stuff that they chide those applicants looking at T2 and below consider.
Not everyone is going to be rich. Not everyone is going to be happy. Not everyone is going to be powerful.
It seems foolish for one to assign such economic consideration to a probabilistic outcome that has so many qualitative measures that are difficult to consider.