scifiguy wrote:But can two mere semesters of work completely and accurately tell who will be a great biglawyer? I can see if maybe you had like everyone do a UG degree in law/pre-law and track them over a longer period of time...but just seems kind of short to me. One year. Then bam! Judgement is made. YOU deserve this and YOU don't. Seems kind of dubious to me.
I disagree. Your chances of getting into BigLaw are similarly affected by your UnderGrad GPA / LSAT, which determines which school you can attend. The LSAT is a reasonably accurate test of your analytic and reasoning skills, and your 1L performance is a reasonable indicator of your ability to adapt to a new environment involving a lot of reading, documenting, and applying concepts to fact patterns. And while your LSAT and 1L performance may not tell them how good of a lawyer you'll be 10 years from now, and while there is a big difference between 1L course material and the actual practice of law, that snapshot is a reasonable indicator of how good you are at the time they have to make a decision. It's certainly far better than any other indicators available to them between your 1L and 2L year.
Ii think what I was getting at and what people may have been missing is that law school is a different game.
Back to my "wal-ball" example, it's a different game than football, basketball, golf, tennis, etc.
So, even if there were a "GPA" that measured your athletic talents in these sports in high school, that GPA wouldn't measure your talent in wal-ball. As I tried to illustrate earlier, there may be certain aspects of wal-ball that overlap with football, basketball, etc., but it's just a different game.
The LSAT, while it does predict a decent % of success in law school, is also not a perfect measure. It's predicts less than 50% of law school success and starts to become even less accurate when a classes scores are tight.
So, back to my original exmaple with wal-ball, it'd be like throwing these high school varsity football, golf, tennis, track, etc. athletes onto a college team and having them play wal-ball (a totally new/diff sport) for one year and then drafting them into the pros based on who came out on top or showed most potential. Would ONE year of wal-ball be enough?
I'm aware that only 1L is standardized in terms of course work and so it makes more sense to use that as a cut-off. But I guess that wasn't so much my point. I was asking regardless of that whether that one year of law school is truly a good measure of legal talent (sort of like my wal-ball analogy)?
beautyistruth wrote:But that's the thing, she couldn't get in and she had to retake it. It would be like law school in that somebody bombed the LSAT, studied, retook, and got a good score. That still limits who can get into med school.
The problem is that with law schools, you can do poorly on the LSAT and go to a TTT crap school anyways.
Also, you can maybe argue that pre-med is often on average a "tougher" UG track. The curved/weeder physics, bio, chem, etc. classes are arguably tougher than, say, a history or education major's track.