Are Some Law Schools more difficult then others? Forum

[ToTransferOrNot]

DF found something that says games is the least predictive.

That said, I don't think taking the subset of transfers is a great sample for what you are trying to prove, since they've shown themselves to be gunners as well as people who "get" law school exams. I don't think you can draw conclusions from their successes since they are probably exceptions rather than examples of the rule.

I haven't read anything for a month and haven't outlined for any of my classes yet. This is how I've been doing LS since 2nd semester 1L year. Just sayin'. Transfers vary in their study habits just as much as anyone else, so explaining it away with "they work harder" doesn't really work.

I do get the argument that taking a successful sub-group and saying they demonstrate a weakness in the LSAT is problematic; but the alternative is also problematic (and circular). You've said that transfers (people with low LSATs) "get" law school exams. But 99% of success on law school exams comes down to who "gets" them - what does the LSAT supposedly correllate to, if not law school exam gettage?

I do have to admit though, the argument that "there is 15% correlation to exam grades, within a group that has already been sifted out based on their LSAT" is a strong argument.

Edit: This is all to say that I honestly don't think you can say law schools are demonstrably harder or easier. In all cases, you're probably going to adopt the same study habits at whatever school you end up at. There are so many factors that go in to law school grading that I truly feel it's silly to choose a lower-ranked school with more money because you assume you will rock out at that school. The only real considerations, which have already been pointed out, are: (i) the few schools who have oddball grading systems designed to take the edge off grading; and (ii) the schools that intentionally have really harsh curves to weed people out.

[D. H2Oman]

I don't understand how you can ace a law school exam but can't figure out a simple logic game.

Looking forward to proving the inverse?

Like I've been saying all along, I'm going to start focusing and unleash my inner gunner on October 1st When we get back from October break As soon as the calender turns to November When daylight savings ends, it's really throwing me off ok, ok, one more week During Thanksgiving break The Monday as soon as we get back after thanksgiving


I got this under control.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I don't understand how you can ace a law school exam but can't figure out a simple logic game.

Looking forward to proving the inverse?

Like I've been saying all along, I'm going start focusing and unleash my inner gunner on October 1st When we get back from October break As soon as the calender turns to November When daylight savings ends, it's really throwing me off ok, ok, one more week During Thanksgiving break The Monday as soon as we get back after thanksgiving


I got this under control.

Story of my life.

[FlightoftheEarls]

I disagree completely with Spy, but the transfer I did wasn't quite the same jump, so who knows (i.e., I felt like my T40 school was far more competetive than my T6. I at least felt a need to study 1L year. 2L/3L, I haven't done anything for any of my classes prior to the week before the exam, and I've actually done better here than I did at my T40).

I think people underestimate how much the typical transfer story - because transfers, as a whole, end up killing things at their new school - undercuts how helpful the LSAT is.

Why do people consistently fail to factor in how much easier it is to get high grades once you're not taking 1L classes? If you don't have a forced curve and come in with top-notch 1L grades from a lower T1/T2 (or even if you start fresh), it really isn't all that difficult to pull a 3.6-3.7 average with upper level/practicums/seminars for your final two years. In fact that's probably around median for Michigan upper classmen (at least on Michigan's curve), but a GPA in that range will probably put you about top 10-15% in the class because you don't have 1L grades to sink your GPA. The average non-seminar "upper-class" GPA curve for Michigan is ~ 3.48, and the average "seminar" curve is ~ 3.80. When you factor in the fact that many of the larger upper-class "core" classes (which actually are curved) bring that "upper class" curve down further than it may typically be for most upper-class courses, it can actually be quite easy to come in 2L and 3L year and graduate Order of the Coif while still being "median" in all of your classes.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I disagree completely with Spy, but the transfer I did wasn't quite the same jump, so who knows (i.e., I felt like my T40 school was far more competetive than my T6. I at least felt a need to study 1L year. 2L/3L, I haven't done anything for any of my classes prior to the week before the exam, and I've actually done better here than I did at my T40).

I think people underestimate how much the typical transfer story - because transfers, as a whole, end up killing things at their new school - undercuts how helpful the LSAT is.

Why do people consistently fail to factor in how much easier it is to get high grades once you're not taking 1L classes? If you don't have a forced curve and come in with top-notch 1L grades from a lower T1/T2 (or even if you start fresh), it really isn't all that difficult to pull a 3.6-3.7 average with upper level/practicums/seminars for your final two years. In fact that's probably around median for Michigan upper classmen (at least on Michigan's curve), but a GPA in that range will probably put you about top 10-15% in the class because you don't have 1L grades to sink your GPA. The average non-seminar "upper-class" GPA curve for Michigan is ~ 3.48, and the average "seminar" curve is ~ 3.80. When you factor in the fact that many of the larger upper-class "core" classes (which actually are curved) bring that "upper class" curve down further than it may typically be for most upper-class courses, it can actually be quite easy to come in 2L and 3L year and graduate Order of the Coif while still being "median" in all of your classes.

I would argue that there is a lot of self-selection from high-ranked people in to many of the same classes (i.e., I kept seeing the same Law Review people in basically every class I took last year). People gunning for clerkships don't take the fluff classes, by and large.

On a personal level, aside from that multiple-choice debacle, my lowest grade came from my one seminar class, and my highest grades came in the largest classes that were bound to the same curve as 1L classes. But I don't really know what other transfers' course schedules are like at every school. From the transfers I know, transfers tend to focus on the non-seminar offerings; but there's obviously a bias (I know them better because they've taken the same classes, etc).


(Also, as an aside, you always start fresh with the GPA.)

Anyway, the transfer talk is rerailing the thread, partly my fault, sorry. Redux of the thread is "some schools may be harder than others, or maybe not, but there's no way to 'plan' for the difference, so don't bother."

[MrKappus]

I don't understand how you can ace a law school exam but can't figure out a simple logic game.

I'm piss-poor at moving letters/numbers around, but I can spot issues and write well. Guess which of those skills law school exams test?

HTH.

Edit: ignore ironic bolded grammar error.

[09042014]

Transfers don't prove the LSAT has no predictive validity, it just shows it isn't perfect. There are people it under predicts and people it over predicts. Transfers are almost entirely people it under estimates.

And To Transfer or Not has said that if it weren't for LG that he'd have a 177+ on the LSAT. Obviously something about the LG and him don't mix in a fashion that screws it up for him.

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Statistics don't lie.

[MrKappus]

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Median grades, or median LSATs? The answer ("they'd no longer be median") is equally valid for both, but isn't the discussion about how LSAT correlates to class rank?

[09042014]

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Median grades, or median LSATs? The answer ("they'd no longer be median") is equally valid for both, but isn't the discussion about how LSAT correlates to class rank?

If there was no correlation between class rank and LSAT taking a median person from Wisco and placing them in UChi, they'd be median at UChi too.

[MrKappus]

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Median grades, or median LSATs? The answer ("they'd no longer be median") is equally valid for both, but isn't the discussion about how LSAT correlates to class rank?

If there was no correlation between class rank and LSAT taking a median person from Wisco and placing them in UChi, they'd be median at UChi too.

I don't think that's right. There are a variety of attributes/characteristics, besides the LSAT, for which UChi students are admitted, and which would imply that a median UChi' student would beat median Wisc student, regardless of their LSATs. Higher GPAs, more prestigious UGs, better softs that show more drive, etc.

[ToTransferOrNot]

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Median grades, or median LSATs? The answer ("they'd no longer be median") is equally valid for both, but isn't the discussion about how LSAT correlates to class rank?

If there was no correlation between class rank and LSAT taking a median person from Wisco and placing them in UChi, they'd be median at UChi too.

I don't think that's right. There are a variety of attributes/characteristics, besides the LSAT, for which UChi students are admitted, and which would imply that a median UChi' student would beat median Wisc student, regardless of their LSATs. Higher GPAs, more prestigious UGs, better softs that show more drive, etc.

What does that have to do with anything, aside from the fact that most pretigious UGs are guilty of terrible grade inflation (thus cutting the other way)?

[MrKappus]

What does that have to do with anything, aside from the fact that most pretigious UGs are guilty of terrible grade inflation (thus cutting the other way)?

Don't start a UG prestige derail, dude. It's just one factor that some law schools (UChi specifically) consider.

[XxSpyKEx]

I disagree completely with Spy, but the transfer I did wasn't quite the same jump, so who knows (i.e., I felt like my T40 school was far more competetive than my T6. I at least felt a need to study 1L year. 2L/3L, I haven't done anything for any of my classes prior to the week before the exam, and I've actually done better here than I did at my T40).

I think people underestimate how much the typical transfer story - because transfers, as a whole, end up killing things at their new school - undercuts how helpful the LSAT is.

I think the distinction between t30 and t14 in terms of quality of the student body is a lot smaller than the distinction between t3 and t14. Typically you’re talking about a few LSAT points in difference between the classes (so what, 5-6 more questions that the t14 students got right on the LSAT?), and not that large of distinction in GPA either. Also, students at t30s, like your old school, used to get biglaw (at least the top 1/3 or so had a real shot back when we started law school in 08’). So it’s not like these students didn’t recognize the realities of the job market at that time (i.e. things were probably always competitive in the t30 schools to get biglaw), whereas something like 3% of the class at my old t3 got NLJ250 firms back in 07.

I had bad SAT/ACTs, too - so perhaps every transfer student is just bad at multiple choice.

I usually do pretty well on multiple choice exams. I did terribly on the LSAT though probably largely because of underprepping and generally disliking studying for the exam.

Personally, I think the "LSAT basically doesn't test the things law school exams test" theory is better. Particularly logic games - I still haven't figured out how logic games apply at all to law school exams, beyond some abstract statement of "you have to think logically on law school exams!"

Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out how the logic games section applies to law school. Or when you actually have to read as quickly as you do on the reading comprehension section of the LSAT – I mean you got to blow through those 4 sections. I actually don’t think I’ve ever felt as pressed for time as I did on the LSAT in law school. Not even the bar exam is anywhere near as time pressed as the LSAT. I’m not sure why they designed the LSAT the way they did… E.g. if you take the GMAT it has a similar section that combines the reading comp and logic reasoning sections and you have like 3 times the time you get on the LSAT to complete it.

On a personal level, aside from that multiple-choice debacle, my lowest grade came from my one seminar class, and my highest grades came in the largest classes that were bound to the same curve as 1L classes.

Same here! Those seminars and their deceptively high medians are bullshit. I got my first B (for the record it was a B+) since college the summer before I transferred out of my old school and it was in a seminar. What made it really bad was that the prof brought in pizza and beer to something like 50% of the classes. I still don’t understand how I ended up with a B+ in that class (and at my old school there was a forced curve that put 40-50% of the class in the A range in seminars).

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Median grades, or median LSATs? The answer ("they'd no longer be median") is equally valid for both, but isn't the discussion about how LSAT correlates to class rank?

If there was no correlation between class rank and LSAT taking a median person from Wisco and placing them in UChi, they'd be median at UChi too.

IMO, I wouldn’t be completely surprised if the median person at UWisconsin was also median at UChi… There’s no doubt that overall student body is smarter at better schools (there was definitely a noticeable difference between my old t3 and my current school), but when it comes down to it, it’s all about one exam in most classes and grades really don’t seem to have much to do with intelligence. It seems to have a lot more to do with 1) knowing the material that your prof taught well (and not the material located in the commercial supplement you outlined before law school – I always laugh when 0Ls think they can do this), and 2) being able to take a law school exam well.

[09042014]

If you took people with median grades from Wisconsin and threw them into UChi they probably wouldn't be median at UChi.

Median grades, or median LSATs? The answer ("they'd no longer be median") is equally valid for both, but isn't the discussion about how LSAT correlates to class rank?

If there was no correlation between class rank and LSAT taking a median person from Wisco and placing them in UChi, they'd be median at UChi too.

I don't think that's right. There are a variety of attributes/characteristics, besides the LSAT, for which UChi students are admitted, and which would imply that a median UChi' student would beat median Wisc student, regardless of their LSATs. Higher GPAs, more prestigious UGs, better softs that show more drive, etc.

Softs don't mean shit. And GPA is statistically worse of an indicator than LSAT. Furthermore GPA's at Wisco are pretty similar to UChi.

[dailygrind]

Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out how the logic games section applies to law school. Or when you actually have to read as quickly as you do on the reading comprehension section of the LSAT – I mean you got to blow through those 4 sections. I actually don’t think I’ve ever felt as pressed for time as I did on the LSAT in law school. Not even the bar exam is anywhere near as time pressed as the LSAT. I’m not sure why they designed the LSAT the way they did… E.g. if you take the GMAT it has a similar section that combines the reading comp and logic reasoning sections and you have like 3 times the time you get on the LSAT to complete it.

there was one contracts case we had that was especially annoying in terms of how many parties/agents there were, and what they were all doing, and that's been the only time i've ever that it would be helpful to be really good at games.

[09042014]

We actually have data for a group of people who have significantly lower LSAT scores than their peers. URMs. That Stanford professor took a look at the data. 50% of them ended up in the bottom 10% of their classes, just like their LSAT scores predicted. He found black people didn't do worse in law school when you normalized for LSAT score.

To me this suggests that 50% of Wisconsin students would be in UChicago's bottom 10%, since the LSAT difference would be about the same.

[ToTransferOrNot]

We actually have data for a group of people who have significantly lower LSAT scores than their peers. URMs. That Stanford professor took a look at the data. 50% of them ended up in the bottom 10% of their classes, just like their LSAT scores predicted. He found black people didn't do worse in law school when you normalized for LSAT score.

To me this suggests that 50% of Wisconsin students would be in UChicago's bottom 10%, since the LSAT difference would be about the same.

IBTL

This is a valid point, but we all know what's coming

[IAFG]

We actually have data for a group of people who have significantly lower LSAT scores than their peers. URMs. That Stanford professor took a look at the data. 50% of them ended up in the bottom 10% of their classes, just like their LSAT scores predicted. He found black people didn't do worse in law school when you normalized for LSAT score.

To me this suggests that 50% of Wisconsin students would be in UChicago's bottom 10%, since the LSAT difference would be about the same.

i don't think this data is as valuable as you assume, because URMs know their grades will not make/break them at OCI the way it goes for their peers. AA extends to hiring.

[dailygrind]

Softs don't mean shit. And GPA is statistically worse of an indicator than LSAT. Furthermore GPA's at Wisco are pretty similar to UChi.

if softs were meaningless lsp would be right every single time. they mean something, and maybe even more than we usually realize (possibly because they're positively correlated with gpa/lsat).

[XxSpyKEx]

We actually have data for a group of people who have significantly lower LSAT scores than their peers. URMs. That Stanford professor took a look at the data. 50% of them ended up in the bottom 10% of their classes, just like their LSAT scores predicted. He found black people didn't do worse in law school when you normalized for LSAT score.

To me this suggests that 50% of Wisconsin students would be in UChicago's bottom 10%, since the LSAT difference would be about the same.

Only if you assumed 50% of Wisconsin students are URMs and had the same characteristics and attributes as the URMs at Stanford... You gotta somehow control for all the other variables in play there (and there's a lot of them there).

EDIT: Also, you can't discount the fact that these are URMs at STANFORD law school. They are pretty much guaranteed good jobs regardless of how they do in school and most of them probably know that day 1.

[09042014]

Softs don't mean shit. And GPA is statistically worse of an indicator than LSAT. Furthermore GPA's at Wisco are pretty similar to UChi.

if softs were meaningless lsp would be right every single time. they mean something, and maybe even more than we usually realize (possibly because they're positively correlated with gpa/lsat).

I don't mean in getting into school, I mean at making someone a better student. Two years in the peace corp doesn't mean shit during finals.

[09042014]

We actually have data for a group of people who have significantly lower LSAT scores than their peers. URMs. That Stanford professor took a look at the data. 50% of them ended up in the bottom 10% of their classes, just like their LSAT scores predicted. He found black people didn't do worse in law school when you normalized for LSAT score.

To me this suggests that 50% of Wisconsin students would be in UChicago's bottom 10%, since the LSAT difference would be about the same.

i don't think this data is as valuable as you assume, because URMs know their grades will not make/break them at OCI the way it goes for their peers. AA extends to hiring.

The guy found that URM's did just as well as white people with their LSAT. The black people are lazy hypothesis doesn't work.

And yes that last line was trolling. IAFG loves brown people.

[09042014]

We actually have data for a group of people who have significantly lower LSAT scores than their peers. URMs. That Stanford professor took a look at the data. 50% of them ended up in the bottom 10% of their classes, just like their LSAT scores predicted. He found black people didn't do worse in law school when you normalized for LSAT score.

To me this suggests that 50% of Wisconsin students would be in UChicago's bottom 10%, since the LSAT difference would be about the same.

Only if you assumed 50% of Wisconsin students are URMs and had the same characteristics and attributes as the URMs at Stanford... You gotta somehow control for all the other variables in play there (and there's a lot of them there).

EDIT: Also, you can't discount the fact that these are URMs at STANFORD law school. They are pretty much guaranteed good jobs regardless of how they do in school and most of them probably know that day 1.

The study was of all students in most law schools IIRC. The professor was just from Stanford.

My point wasn't that Wisconsin people were 50% URM. It was the difference in lsat from median at Uchi to Wisco is about the same difference between the LSAT of normal student and a URM at most law schools. Probably less even.

[dailygrind]

Softs don't mean shit. And GPA is statistically worse of an indicator than LSAT. Furthermore GPA's at Wisco are pretty similar to UChi.

if softs were meaningless lsp would be right every single time. they mean something, and maybe even more than we usually realize (possibly because they're positively correlated with gpa/lsat).

I don't mean in getting into school, I mean at making someone a better student. Two years in the peace corp doesn't mean shit during finals.

it would take some serious argumentation on anybody's part to convince me that a 170 4.0 art major from big state u is, on average, going to have the same grades as a 170 4.0 econ major from harvard. obviously we're talking about extremes on that example, but i'm willing to put down good money that softs make a difference even in smaller increments. some of these softs are fairly quantifiable as categorical values too, ivy league, hard science, social science, etc. this must be in a study somewhere...maybe after finals.