Why is everyone so anti T3?

A forum for applicants and admitted students to ask law students and graduates about law school and the practice of law.
User avatar
thepunisher24
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:34 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby thepunisher24 » Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:10 am

T3?

--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby im_blue » Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:14 am

citrus2010 wrote:And someday you'll all eat your opinions when I make it to the supreme court! haha


Not likely!

"By and large,” he said, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?”

The data bear out the hard truth the justice delivered.

Over the last six years, the justices have hired about 220 law clerks. Almost half went to Harvard or Yale. Chicago, Stanford, Virginia and Columbia collectively accounted for 50 others. No one from Washington College of Law made the cut."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=1

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

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:29 am

im_blue wrote:
citrus2010 wrote:And someday you'll all eat your opinions when I make it to the supreme court! haha


Not likely!

"By and large,” he said, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?”

The data bear out the hard truth the justice delivered.

Over the last six years, the justices have hired about 220 law clerks. Almost half went to Harvard or Yale. Chicago, Stanford, Virginia and Columbia collectively accounted for 50 others. No one from Washington College of Law made the cut."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=1


The funny thing is, I don't think OP was referring to the lofty goal of being a SCOTUS clerk--rather he was referring to arguing a case before the SC....something I would think is way more difficult (and much more of a crap-shoot). In any case, he seems delusional.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby vanwinkle » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:33 am

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:The funny thing is, I don't think OP was referring to the lofty goal of being a SCOTUS clerk--rather he was referring to arguing a case before the SC....something I would think is way more difficult (and much more of a crap-shoot). In any case, he seems delusional.

The way I read it I thought it meant he expects to be appointed to SCOTUS someday, which would prove he's definitely delusional.

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

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:34 am

ITT: A person asks a question and then ignores all answers.

If you already had your mind set, why ask? If you want to think of the responses as elitist, go ahead (i'm sure some are). There are plenty of answers that were motivated by those who are attempting to have a realistic view of the legal job market. Feel free to ignore those too, just be aware that warnings existed if you do end up finding yourself drowning in debt in a few years.

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby GeePee » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:39 am

citrus2010 wrote:thanks to all for your responses. I did phrase my question the wrong way. Feel free to look down upon those attending T20 or lower... I'm moving on. I'll see you all out in the real world once reality catches up and you find responsibilities outside of TLS forums and school. And someday you'll all eat your opinions when I make it to the supreme court! haha

As a venture capitalist, you really should look at this as a case to analyze your return on investment. If you have a 95% chance of being able to get some kind of job where you basically work as an apprentice for an 8-10 attorney firm or as an ADA in East Bumblefuck, and a 5% chance of getting either high-paying or meaty legal work, would you really say you can expect to get much out of a T3 JD? Especially considering the fact that it seems like you're at least somewhat comfortable without your legal degree, this seems to be a really bad investment currently. You really should do some more research on job prospects, and be wary of the percentage of graduates that report data.

For some people, it makes sense to gamble on a T3 JD. A businessman with 2 kids just isn't one of those people.

User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby im_blue » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:55 am

GeePee wrote:
citrus2010 wrote:thanks to all for your responses. I did phrase my question the wrong way. Feel free to look down upon those attending T20 or lower... I'm moving on. I'll see you all out in the real world once reality catches up and you find responsibilities outside of TLS forums and school. And someday you'll all eat your opinions when I make it to the supreme court! haha

As a venture capitalist, you really should look at this as a case to analyze your return on investment. If you have a 95% chance of being able to get some kind of job where you basically work as an apprentice for an 8-10 attorney firm or as an ADA in East Bumblefuck, and a 5% chance of getting either high-paying or meaty legal work, would you really say you can expect to get much out of a T3 JD? Especially considering the fact that it seems like you're at least somewhat comfortable without your legal degree, this seems to be a really bad investment currently. You really should do some more research on job prospects, and be wary of the percentage of graduates that report data.

For some people, it makes sense to gamble on a T3 JD. A businessman with 2 kids just isn't one of those people.


Ah, but you're forgetting the fact that his hard work and determination pretty much guarantees that he'll make it to the top 5%! You'll be sorry for calling his law school a bad investment when he makes it to the supreme court! :roll:

insidethetwenty
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby insidethetwenty » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:43 pm

I love the assumption that people here don't have real lives and responsibilities. And that if we did, we'd all be going T3 like him...

User avatar
CKuleba
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:11 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby CKuleba » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:56 pm

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.

User avatar
sawwaverunner
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:28 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby sawwaverunner » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:58 pm

Kiersten1985 wrote:
For those out there with JDs and looking at jobs you could have had as an undergrad, what is the real problem?


DEBT

I'm pretty sure no one on this board is afraid of hard work. I'm confused about your statement "once placed in a successful firm." That's the hard part. If you're taking out loans to pay for a T3 school, you're going to have one hell of a time paying those loans back. Even if you graduate from a T14, it's going to take a lot of hard work to get where you want to be. Your chances of ever reaching your goal diminish GREATLY when your degree is from a T3. It's fact.


Finally! Someone who gets it, rather than just bashing lower ranked schools.

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby scionb4 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:03 pm

Because T3 Rise of the Machines was a vastly inferior movie to T1 and especially T2 Judgement day. The Terminatrix was just annoying, John Connor was a huge pussy, and the introduction of "destiny" blatantly contradicted the whole idea of the original story, that "the future isn't set." I don't even count T4 Salvation as an actual Terminator movie, that's why there's a lot of T4 hate on this site. It was absolute shit.

Mr. Pablo
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:21 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby Mr. Pablo » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:07 pm

scionb4 wrote:Because T3 Rise of the Machines was a vastly inferior movie to T1 and especially T2 Judgement day. The Terminatrix was just annoying, John Connor was a huge pussy, and the introduction of "destiny" blatantly contradicted the whole idea of the original story, that "the future isn't set." I don't even count T4 Salvation as an actual Terminator movie, that's why there's a lot of T4 hate on this site. It was absolute shit.


You, sir, have won +1 (one) internets.

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby scionb4 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:29 pm

Mr. Pablo wrote:
scionb4 wrote:Because T3 Rise of the Machines was a vastly inferior movie to T1 and especially T2 Judgement day. The Terminatrix was just annoying, John Connor was a huge pussy, and the introduction of "destiny" blatantly contradicted the whole idea of the original story, that "the future isn't set." I don't even count T4 Salvation as an actual Terminator movie, that's why there's a lot of T4 hate on this site. It was absolute shit.


You, sir, have won +1 (one) internets.


Gracias, Señor Pablo.

LSAT N00b
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby LSAT N00b » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:30 pm

scionb4 wrote:Because T3 Rise of the Machines was a vastly inferior movie to T1 and especially T2 Judgement day. The Terminatrix was just annoying, John Connor was a huge pussy, and the introduction of "destiny" blatantly contradicted the whole idea of the original story, that "the future isn't set." I don't even count T4 Salvation as an actual Terminator movie, that's why there's a lot of T4 hate on this site. It was absolute shit.

:lol:

mhernton
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby mhernton » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:35 pm

scionb4 wrote:Because T3 Rise of the Machines was a vastly inferior movie to T1 and especially T2 Judgement day. The Terminatrix was just annoying, John Connor was a huge pussy, and the introduction of "destiny" blatantly contradicted the whole idea of the original story, that "the future isn't set." I don't even count T4 Salvation as an actual Terminator movie, that's why there's a lot of T4 hate on this site. It was absolute shit.


Completely disagree with your assessment of T4, Conner had to come across as a godlike messianic figure that talks about destiny. That the only way a character of that type could unite all humanity. Secondly T3 was crap, I put it in the same category as Highlander 2. We just act like it didn't happen, so "vastly inferior" understates the case. Thirdly T4 was intended to be the first in a new trilogy, so unfortunately it can't stand alone, even though it does, albeit not as well T1. Not many people can really follow James Cameron's work, just look at the rest of the Aliens series. In short T4 was a nice continuation of the original series, it had all of the important elements, the fake help call by the terminator, the final battle in an industrial setting etc. I think we got what was needed and what we paid for....I'm just sayin'....

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby ruleser » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:40 pm

cubswin wrote:
citrus2010 wrote:It frustrates me that people are telling me to wait a year and retake the LSAT. I want to be an attorney! I don't want to wait a year and I'm not convinced that I can't be every bit as successful coming from a T3. Hard work? Yes. Doable? Yes.


Italicized text sounds like a whiney child. No offense intended here, and you're probably more of an adult than I am.

Assuming your LSAT score sucks, I would still retake if I were in your shoes. Even if I had settled on a T3, I would certainly want the highest score I knew I could possibly achieve knowing that it could mean tens-of-thousands less in debt I would have to pay off. A T3 education probably isn't that that bad of an investment if your tuition is free and you aren't of the biglaw-or-bust mentality.

Well. As I've shared on the board before, adding 6 points to my LSAT last June was changed me from WL at T30 to a full-ride offer, from no schol at a T2 I was accept at to an $84K schol, throw in min. $25K schols at a number of other T30-T40 schools - needless to say, it was worth a retake - and didn't have to wait a year, though I ended up choosing to do so.

If OP is not a flame, having been in the working world for some time, the difference between a T1 ed and T2 ed, never mind T3, is enormous. It just is. T2 to T3 maybe not as big a diff, except for the very Top T2 per region, which would be closer to T1ish. For the rest of your life, you will be labeled by your ed background. You can still get ahead - hell, I have an arts degree from a basic state school and have a fine career - but it is much, much more difficult, not just to get in the door, but when it comes to breaking through mid-level - the people who are at the top will want a peer of theirs, and are much more inclined to move forward someone from a big-deal school than even a better employee from an unknown one. It is like a club.

If you can only get into T3, everyone here just warns don't do it on big debt - I'd rather do T4 cheap than T3 with lots o debt, as there's not much difference.

As for the Terminnator movies, you are forgetting the most recent.... T5, Arnold terminates California...

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:40 pm

mhernton wrote:Not many people can really follow James Cameron's work, just look at the rest of the Aliens series.

Lol, you do realize the first Alien movie wasn't James Cameron, right?

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby scionb4 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:53 pm

mhernton wrote:
scionb4 wrote:Because T3 Rise of the Machines was a vastly inferior movie to T1 and especially T2 Judgement day. The Terminatrix was just annoying, John Connor was a huge pussy, and the introduction of "destiny" blatantly contradicted the whole idea of the original story, that "the future isn't set." I don't even count T4 Salvation as an actual Terminator movie, that's why there's a lot of T4 hate on this site. It was absolute shit.


Completely disagree with your assessment of T4, Conner had to come across as a godlike messianic figure that talks about destiny. That the only way a character of that type could unite all humanity. Secondly T3 was crap, I put it in the same category as Highlander 2. We just act like it didn't happen, so "vastly inferior" understates the case. Thirdly T4 was intended to be the first in a new trilogy, so unfortunately it can't stand alone, even though it does, albeit not as well T1. Not many people can really follow James Cameron's work, just look at the rest of the Aliens series. In short T4 was a nice continuation of the original series, it had all of the important elements, the fake help call by the terminator, the final battle in an industrial setting etc. I think we got what was needed and what we paid for....I'm just sayin'....


You have no cred. James Cameron only directed the sequal to Alien. The first was directed by Ridley Scott. And if you like Salvation, you have terrible taste. I thought it was unwatchable. None of the fun of the first two movies was there. What the fuck was Sam Worthington's character there for? Why did a teenaged Kyle Reese say, "Come with me if you want to live?" Why did they cast the worst actess in history to play Sam Worthington's love interest? Why was the color pallette so boring? Why did the whole movie have the exact same story as the two matrix sequals, complete with John Connor visiting the machine city? Absolutely horrible dogshit, dude. It was so bad that the film makers had to auction off the rights and they are going to "reboot" the series with a new cast yet again.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby Stringer Bell » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:59 pm

scionb4 wrote:
You have no cred. James Cameron only directed the sequal to Alien. The first was directed by Ridley Scott. And if you like Salvation, you have terrible taste. I thought it was unwatchable. None of the fun of the first two movies was there. What the fuck was Sam Worthington's character there for? Why did a teenaged Kyle Reese say, "Come with me if you want to live?" Why did they cast the worst actess in history to play Sam Worthington's love interest? Why was the color pallette so boring? Why did the whole movie have the exact same story as the two matrix sequals, complete with John Connor visiting the machine city? Absolutely horrible dogshit, dude. It was so bad that the film makers had to auction off the rights and they are going to "reboot" the series with a new cast yet again.


I found T4 to be strangely watchable despite being absurd, pointless and littered with plot holes. It's a decent blu-ray/surround sound watch since it was shot decently and has some cool explosions. Outside of that and Sam Worthington (dude is a pimp), I can't really point to anything to support it.

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby scionb4 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:05 pm

Stringer Bell wrote:
scionb4 wrote:
You have no cred. James Cameron only directed the sequal to Alien. The first was directed by Ridley Scott. And if you like Salvation, you have terrible taste. I thought it was unwatchable. None of the fun of the first two movies was there. What the fuck was Sam Worthington's character there for? Why did a teenaged Kyle Reese say, "Come with me if you want to live?" Why did they cast the worst actess in history to play Sam Worthington's love interest? Why was the color pallette so boring? Why did the whole movie have the exact same story as the two matrix sequals, complete with John Connor visiting the machine city? Absolutely horrible dogshit, dude. It was so bad that the film makers had to auction off the rights and they are going to "reboot" the series with a new cast yet again.


I found T4 to be strangely watchable despite being absurd, pointless and littered with plot holes. It's a decent blu-ray/surround sound watch since it was shot decently and has some cool explosions. Outside of that and Sam Worthington (dude is a pimp), I can't really point to anything to support it.


I found it ironic that Sam Worthington starred in both a sequal in a franchise that James Cameron created but doesn't want anything to do with anymore, and the film that James Cameron has been working on for the last 11 years. That had to be interesting.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:22 pm

scionb4 wrote:I found it ironic that Sam Worthington starred in both a sequal in a franchise that James Cameron created but doesn't want anything to do with anymore, and the film that James Cameron has been working on for the last 11 years. That had to be interesting.

I saw an interview with James Cameron recently where he said that he'd "moved on" from Terminator a long time ago and doesn't care what people do with it now, it's taken on a life of its own. He also commented that he'd never go back to it because "too many cooks have pissed in the broth", haha.

But I doubt it caused any problems on the set of Avatar. Cameron knows that people gotta work for a living. If he had a problem with it he probably would've cast someone else.

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby A'nold » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:14 pm

insidethetwenty wrote:
citrus2010 wrote:taking you in court? priceless.


All variations of this line are my absolute favorite flame/troll moments on TLS.

Troll: ______TTT/T2 is just as good as Harvard. I mean they are all JD's and licenses to print money.

TLSer: Um, no, that really doesn't reflect the reality of the legal market...empirical data...hard evidence...sincere effort to help troll...

Troll: Well me and my T3 degree are going to beat you one day in court!

TLS, collectively: LOL wut?


180.

democrattotheend
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:04 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby democrattotheend » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:39 pm

citrus2010 wrote:To those obsessed with my absence from the discussion, I apologize for working. I spend a very small portion of my time online, unlike some of you. I work a lot and spend most of my spare time with my newborn son and two year old daughter. I would shoot for Harvard if I had the time to do so, but I would have to sacrifice my family's well being. I am the sole provider and pride myself in that fact. To do better on the LSAT would require quitting my job and ignoring my family beyond that which I am willing.

It is not that it is difficult. It is that I have real responsibilities.

Along with my TTT education I bring a business background and am entirely confident in my abilities to join the legal side of the venture capital field. A JD is a huge door, whether it's a Harvard JD or a Barry JD. I side with those who respect the person, not the school because everyone here knows there's Harvard grads that didn't earn an ounce of their "clout."

I respect all of the opinions and the solid advice to retake the LSAT. The truth is, however, that I cannot wait another year (though I admit it would be beneficial and jump start my career).

THAT SAID.... I'd like to hear from those of you who know of success stories from 3rd or 4th tier schools. I've read enough of these forums to know all the crap people have to say.

P.S. from a business background, I'm well aware of the importance of a cost/benefit analysis and ROI.


If you are not looking for a law firm job and believe a JD would help you move up within your current job, that makes your situation different from a lot of people here and it might matter less where you go to school. From your post, I am assuming you plan to keep working and go to school part time?

No matter where you go, you're in for a tough ride. I have a coworker who goes to Georgetown part time while working full-time, and she said it's hellish. Doing that with 2 little kids seems impossible (although I do know someone who did it, though her kids were a bit older).

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby nealric » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:07 pm

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.

User avatar
brigun
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Why is everyone so anti T3?

Postby brigun » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:24 pm

nealric wrote:
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.


Not arguing with the substance of what you wrote, but that's a lame analogy - and bit melodramatic. Then again, I won't be elitist about it. :twisted:




Return to “Ask a Law Student / Graduate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests