ToTransferOrNot wrote: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.
ToTransferOrNot wrote: 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.
ToTransferOrNot wrote: 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.
ToTransferOrNot wrote: 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).
Desert Fox wrote: MrKappus wrote:
Desert Fox wrote: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.