Are Some Law Schools more difficult then others? Forum

[im_blue]

i was wondering about the above. is there some kind of job requisite while you're there? i mean if you can transfer into full time after a year seems like having a really laid back job and busting your ass off studying all day could be a route to success?

No job requisite whatsoever.

Can you take loans for living expenses? I mean, you're going to drop a fortune on Gulc anyway. What's another year if you can pwn your grades?

I think if you factor in some opportunity cost, you may reconsider this though. I mean if you can graduate above the school median after 3 years and earn a reasonable amount of money in the 4th year, it is better so than staying in school for 4 years.

Except only the top 1/3 of Georgetown is getting a job at OCI.

[JazzOne]

i was wondering about the above. is there some kind of job requisite while you're there? i mean if you can transfer into full time after a year seems like having a really laid back job and busting your ass off studying all day could be a route to success?

No job requisite whatsoever.

Can you take loans for living expenses? I mean, you're going to drop a fortune on Gulc anyway. What's another year if you can pwn your grades?

I think if you factor in some opportunity cost, you may reconsider this though. I mean if you can graduate above the school median after 3 years and earn a reasonable amount of money in the 4th year, it is better so than staying in school for 4 years.

I think you have a better chance of getting top grades with fewer classes. Call me crazy.

[tea_drinker]

I think you have a better chance of getting top grades with fewer classes. Call me crazy.

Possibly, but no guarantee though. Having more time to study doesn't mean you will study all these times.

[tea_drinker]

Except only the top 1/3 of Georgetown is getting a job at OCI.

Even so, graduate after three years will save at least $12K COL

[prismz]

Except only the top 1/3 of Georgetown is getting a job at OCI.

Even so, graduate after three years will save at least $12K COL

school or no school, there will be COL

[09042014]

You gotta also consider that probably 5% of people at many law schools are people who didn't research law school at all, took the LSAT cold dropped a 160, and went to their local school. Another 20% probably massive underperformed their lsat.

So even if getting median at Michigan State is much easier than median at Michigan, getting top 5% that you need for a big law job is still really fucking hard.

Hell on a tight curve, something like a below median grade in LWR (something the LSAT doesn't test) could tank your shot at big law from a school that doesn't place well.

If you want big law, fed gov, or anything worthwhile going to anything but a T17 is insane.

[r6_philly]

You gotta also consider that probably 5% of people at many law schools are people who didn't research law school at all, took the LSAT cold dropped a 160, and went to their local school. Another 20% probably massive underperformed their lsat.

So even if getting median at Michigan State is much easier than median at Michigan, getting top 5% that you need for a big law job is still really fucking hard.

Hell on a tight curve, something like a below median grade in LWR (something the LSAT doesn't test) could tank your shot at big law from a school that doesn't place well.

If you want big law, fed gov, or anything worthwhile going to anything but a T17 is insane.

What you don't like them big numbers USC puts out?

[keg411]

If you want big law, fed gov, or anything worthwhile going to anything but a T17 is insane.

From the creator the T13 (and T12), this is a disappointment.

[OGR3]

You gotta also consider that probably 5% of people at many law schools are people who didn't research law school at all, took the LSAT cold dropped a 160, and went to their local school. Another 20% probably massive underperformed their lsat.

So even if getting median at Michigan State is much easier than median at Michigan, getting top 5% that you need for a big law job is still really fucking hard.

Hell on a tight curve, something like a below median grade in LWR (something the LSAT doesn't test) could tank your shot at big law from a school that doesn't place well.

If you want big law, fed gov, or anything worthwhile going to anything but a T17 is insane.

I would say the percentage of law students who did not research law school at all is significantly higher than 5%.

[IAFG]

You gotta also consider that probably 5% of people at many law schools are people who didn't research law school at all, took the LSAT cold dropped a 160, and went to their local school. Another 20% probably massive underperformed their lsat.

So even if getting median at Michigan State is much easier than median at Michigan, getting top 5% that you need for a big law job is still really fucking hard.

Hell on a tight curve, something like a below median grade in LWR (something the LSAT doesn't test) could tank your shot at big law from a school that doesn't place well.

If you want big law, fed gov, or anything worthwhile going to anything but a T17 is insane.

I would say the percentage of law students who did not research law school at all is significantly higher than 5%.

yes, but DF is trying to say a significant portion of people at lower schools did not really prepare for the LSAT, so their score is not the same sort of predictor as someone who prepped.

[20160810]

You gotta also consider that probably 5% of people at many law schools are people who didn't research law school at all, took the LSAT cold dropped a 160, and went to their local school. Another 20% probably massive underperformed their lsat.

So even if getting median at Michigan State is much easier than median at Michigan, getting top 5% that you need for a big law job is still really fucking hard.

Hell on a tight curve, something like a below median grade in LWR (something the LSAT doesn't test) could tank your shot at big law from a school that doesn't place well.

If you want big law, fed gov, or anything worthwhile going to anything but a T17 is insane.

I would say the percentage of law students who did not research law school at all is significantly higher than 5%.

yes, but DF is trying to say a significant portion of people at lower schools did not really prepare for the LSAT, so their score is not the same sort of predictor as someone who prepped.

Not to mention that the LSAT isn't the world's greatest predictor of 1L success. I know people with LSAT scores way above my school's 75th who finished below median, and people in the top-5% who didn't crack 160. Obviously that's anecdotal, but I think it's probably misleading to presume the correlation between LSAT and grades is all that strong. For one thing, the LSAT fails to control for the kinds of kids who aren't all that smart but work really, really, really hard. Assuming they're at least relatively articulate and can type rapidly, the law school grading system tends to reward these types pretty well (and deservedly so, I'd reckon - I'm pretty much the opposite of the ultra-hard-working type, but I think that busting your ass to achieve more than you probably have the raw intellectual horsepower to do is a pretty admirable way to go through life).

[Lawl Shcool]

I am a big believer that the LSAT proves nothing in law school. At lower T1/2/3/4 schools you get a lot of people who slacked hard in UG, got shit bag gpas, aren't the best standardized test takers, and want to use law school as a means to prove themselves. That's how I would describe myself and most of the top 5% at my old school.

Also, the lower amount of available jobs at lower ranked schools raising competition is credited.

[D. H2Oman]

I think you have a better chance of getting top grades with fewer classes. Call me crazy.

Possibly, but no guarantee though. Having more time to study doesn't mean you will study all these times.

Who told you?

[jwrash]

than*

[XxSpyKEx]

Low ranked schools, like T3's and T4's are incredibly difficult. Let's face it, the kids at Michigan may be five times as smart as the kids at Cooley, but the kid's at Cooley study 10 times more. T4 students aren't blind to the facts; they know that the top 1-5% get jobs or transfer up, and everyone wants to be in it. Also remember, everyone at any law school is a college graduate, these are Taco Bell employees.

Never think because you got into a T-14 and went to a Tier 2/3/4 you will automatically finish top of your class, or even above median. Besides, you ability to pull that 170+ doesn't help you on law school exams at all.

I'd wagor that baylor is harder than say, UVA, simply because baylor's students are all fighting each other for the 10-20 big law jobs that the school can get.

I think this is the generalization of TLS, which probably reflects the fact that most people on TLS at least are somewhat educated as to how the legal job market works and most attend the t14 or better. However, having gone to both a t3 and a t10 law school, I can definitely say the t10 is way more competitive.

I think it’s a huge overstatement to say that the t4 students aren’t blind to the facts. I’m not completely sure what it is, but a lot of people at my old t3 didn’t feel the need to work very hard. Hell, most of my friends were partying during the study period the weekend before finals started second semester (I wasn’t quite that ballzy). I’d say the typical person at my old t3 did not understand how biglaw hiring works at all. I recall taking a seminar the summer before I transferred out and this 3L (I believe that summer was last semester) asking the prof about whether large firms hire based on how well students score on the bar exam. I still keep in touch with a some people from my old school, and I recall my one buddy thinking that he had a shot at large firms as a 3L because he got a couple callbacks as a 2L (and just in case you don’t know this already, the answer is no because almost all law firms nowadays are hiring out of their summer classes leaving next to no entry level positions open for 3Ls).

Low ranked schools, like T3's and T4's are incredibly difficult. Let's face it, the kids at Michigan may be five times as smart as the kids at Cooley, but the kid's at Cooley study 10 times more. T4 students aren't blind to the facts; they know that the top 1-5% get jobs or transfer up, and everyone wants to be in it. Also remember, everyone at any law school is a college graduate, these are Taco Bell employees.

I'd wagor that baylor is harder than say, UVA, simply because baylor's students are all fighting each other for the 10-20 big law jobs that the school can get.

While there is definitely a degree of truth to these statements, the reality is that most students at T10 schools are still working extraordinarily hard these days now that biglaw is no long guaranteed. There may almost be more pressure, since many of us came in believing that the quality of the school will ensure decent options, and that safety net seems to have vanished significantly while tuition has remained sky high. As odd as it may seem, a 50/50 chance may push people much harder than a 10/90 chance since the goal feels more attainable and nearly every person in your class seems ridiculously talented and accomplished. Also, there are motivations apart from biglaw that push people to do their best to get good grades (whether that's the quality of the law firm/exit options, chances at an Article III, academia prospects, etc).

While it was true in 2007 that T10 schools were laid back and nobody was concerned, that might be a luxury only afforded to Yale these days.

I think this might be the explanation of why t14s are really competitive nowadays. I heard about how 3Ls (at my current school), back when I was a 1L, would never go to class. I think the general perspective a couple years ago was that if you go to a t14 and are near the median then you are going to get biglaw. Also, most students figured they didn’t need to work very hard to get biglaw (and seeing as how the vast majority of students got biglaw offers a few years back, that sounds pretty accurate – some large law firm offer was almost an entitlement by simply attending the t14). And most students figured after your 1st year you could just completely blow off law school for the next 2 years (unless you were shooting for a clerkship/gvt/academia) because you would basically be guaranteed a biglaw offer at the end of the summer unless you got caught sleeping with a partner’s wife. If you actually look at the offer rates back then (if can get the info), that sounds like it was pretty accurate as well.

Oh, how things have changed.

[09042014]

Not to mention that the LSAT isn't the world's greatest predictor of 1L success. I know people with LSAT scores way above my school's 75th who finished below median, and people in the top-5% who didn't crack 160. Obviously that's anecdotal, but I think it's probably misleading to presume the correlation between LSAT and grades is all that strong. For one thing, the LSAT fails to control for the kinds of kids who aren't all that smart but work really, really, really hard. Assuming they're at least relatively articulate and can type rapidly, the law school grading system tends to reward these types pretty well (and deservedly so, I'd reckon - I'm pretty much the opposite of the ultra-hard-working type, but I think that busting your ass to achieve more than you probably have the raw intellectual horsepower to do is a pretty admirable way to go through life).

The LSAT is nowhere perfect but when you get a large sample size (like a law school class) you can start to generalize from it.

The problem is you can't generalize from a small unrepresentative sample (like the top 5% at a T2).

And trying to generalize from a single data point (one's own LSAT score) is pretty much impossible.

[D. H2Oman]

The fact that there's any correlation between LSAT and grades when

1. LSAT is the biggest factor when determining who's in the class (very narrow range; 3/4ths of the class is between 167-173 (95th-99 percentile over one take of test)
2. The lower LSAT scores in the class have better other credentials in the aggregate


tells me that LSAT probably predicts it really god damn well.

[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.

[IAFG]

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.

Did you prepare for the LSAT?

[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.

Did you prepare for the LSAT?

Not as much as I could have, though I did put in 2-3 hours a week for a month and a half or so. But are you going to argue that that's the case for every transfer student?

Seriously, three transfers at UChicago are in the top 5% of the class (based on the K&E scholar designation,) and there are quite a few just under the threshold/in Coif range. You can't just write that off as "people underprepared for the LSAT."

[IAFG]

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.

Did you prepare for the LSAT?

Not as much as I could have, though I did put in 2-3 hours a week for a month and a half or so. But are you going to argue that that's the case for every transfer student?

Seriously, three transfers at UChicago are in the top 5% of the class, and there are quite a few just under the threshold. Many more are in Coif range. You can't just write that off as "people underprepared for the LSAT."

sure I can, watch me

[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.

Did you prepare for the LSAT?

Not as much as I could have, though I did put in 2-3 hours a week for a month and a half or so. But are you going to argue that that's the case for every transfer student?

Seriously, three transfers at UChicago are in the top 5% of the class, and there are quite a few just under the threshold. Many more are in Coif range. You can't just write that off as "people underprepared for the LSAT."

sure I can, watch me

That would be an interesting theory - every transfer student just didn't prep for the LSAT, and would have gotten 10-15-20 points higher had they prepped. I can't refute it though.

Edit: On a personal note, I have always done horribly on multiple choice exams. My GPA is actually currently skewed downward because I epic-fail sub-medianed my one full-multiple-choice law school exam (evidence). I had bad SAT/ACTs, too - so perhaps every transfer student is just bad at multiple choice.

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!"

[IAFG]

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.

[D. H2Oman]

That would be an interesting theory - every transfer student just didn't prep for the LSAT, and would have gotten 10-15-20 points higher had they prepped. I can't refute it though.

Edit: On a personal note, I have always done horribly on multiple choice exams. My GPA is actually currently skewed downward because I epic-fail sub-medianed my one full-multiple-choice law school exam (evidence). I had bad SAT/ACTs, too - so perhaps every transfer student is just bad at multiple choice.

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!"

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

[IAFG]

That would be an interesting theory - every transfer student just didn't prep for the LSAT, and would have gotten 10-15-20 points higher had they prepped. I can't refute it though.

Edit: On a personal note, I have always done horribly on multiple choice exams. My GPA is actually currently skewed downward because I epic-fail sub-medianed my one full-multiple-choice law school exam (evidence). I had bad SAT/ACTs, too - so perhaps every transfer student is just bad at multiple choice.

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!"

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?