How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
AdCommie
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:42 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby AdCommie » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:18 am

Z'Barron wrote:Medical education is not like this. Great med schools are well regarded, but unknown schools aren't necessarily frowned upon, as long as they don't come from a matchbook cover. Dental schools don't have this type of elitism. Architecture schools? Nope. Why law?


Because med school is a barrier to the profession itself. Law school, not so much. So many students are lured by the possibility of striking it rich after only three more years of school and you don't even need an LSAT score to get in! This exacerbates the generally poor condition of the legal industry: way too many lawyers and not enough demand.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:46 am

You Gotta Have Faith wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:+1000!

And there are bright people at ALL law schools. At what point is this all going to end? Medical education is not like this. Great med schools are well regarded, but unknown schools aren't necessarily frowned upon, as long as they don't come from a matchbook cover. Dental schools don't have this type of elitism. Architecture schools? Nope. Why law?


The only thing I will say about this is that the dental school you go to does not largely affect what you need to do to get your career going once graduated. There are only about 50+ dental schools, and most people just go to whichever one(s) they get into on a location preference.

Regarding medical schools, it isn't quite as important where you end up going if you only want to do some sort of general practice (school + residency). But medical research is a slightly different story and has some degree of "tiers" apparent, though with a lower level of elitism than law appears to have. There WAS a level of minimal bias against those with a D.O. degree (as opposed to an M.D. degree) at one time, but this has waned greatly in recent years. Grades/school do matter to a degree in the medical field, especially if you want a hot-shot residency or fellowship, but not seemingly as much as it does in law.

Architecture schools? I don't know anything about those and won't act like I do. But I do think that there is a feasible reason for the slightly higher degree of so-called "elitism" in law school:

The school you go to, as well as your class rank, actually does impact the ease with which you move your career forward in the beginning. Even though it IS possible to do well with any school if someone handles their career right, this is something to definitely take into account.

I'm not saying the "elitism" is right, but that's why it exists.


AdCommie wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:Medical education is not like this. Great med schools are well regarded, but unknown schools aren't necessarily frowned upon, as long as they don't come from a matchbook cover. Dental schools don't have this type of elitism. Architecture schools? Nope. Why law?


Because med school is a barrier to the profession itself. Law school, not so much. So many students are lured by the possibility of striking it rich after only three more years of school and you don't even need an LSAT score to get in! This exacerbates the generally poor condition of the legal industry: way too many lawyers and not enough demand.


TITCR. The reason law school is so tiered is because there is no preempting barrier to filter out the idiots (no offense to idiots). Medical schools and bio/chem related undergrad are sufficient to sort out those not capable of becoming competent doctors, surgeons etc. Architecture students also have rigorous mathematical classes to pass in their undergrad to be eligible for a masters in architecture. The only way for firms to sort the intellectually qualified from the unqualified is religiously to follow the prestige of the school. Sure there are exceptions, but for every 3.0/151 that makes partner there are 30 or 40 who simply aren't capable of succeeding. A soft generalization still makes for a valid generalization.

User avatar
onwisconsin25
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:09 am

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby onwisconsin25 » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:57 am

jtgain wrote:Okay, I came from a humble upbringing. Sure, I would like to go to Harvard/Yale, etc. but I realize that it probably isn't in the cards. So what is the real deal with going to a T4 law school; specifically Nova Southeastern University (just using that as an example)

So, I won't be a nationally known lawyer, and I won't get appointed to the Supreme Court one day. But can I use that education to get a decent, semi-well paying job as an attorney and live a happy life? Or am I doomed to a life of crippling debt while everyone laughs at me behind my back? Somewhere in between? Thoughts..



completely agree with you. some people (like myself) need to go to a t14 to be happy with their level of success and achievement. if you don't, then more power to you. some jobs don't require a t14 education. plus, your education is your starting point. where you end up is purely a function of your work ethic, networking skills, and personal goals/motivation.

User avatar
TonyDigital
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:15 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby TonyDigital » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:38 am

TonyDigital wrote:Going to a T4 the odds are against you compared to the competition. And if that dissuades a person from attending law school then that person probably would've been one of the ones that wouldn't succeed. IMO moreso because of that persons attitude and personality than the school they went to.

Cara wrote:
TonyDigital wrote:And if that dissuades a person from attending law school then that person probably would've been one of the ones that wouldn't succeed. IMO moreso because of that persons attitude and personality than the school they went to.

Usually the options aren't go to a T4 or not go to LS at all. It usually only takes a few points improvement on the LSAT for people to be able to avoid the T3 and T4 schools entirely.

If your theory holds true then the extremely poor employment outcomes for grads of T4 schools must be due to the attitude and personality of the people going there? It can't just be because of the poor reputation of the school in the legal community leading to very few firms recruiting there?


I bolded the section up top where we actually agree with each other Cara. I think a mistake you're making, or the mistake you assume I'm making, is believing I'm saying it's people's attitude and personality that causes poor performance out of T4's rather than the school's reputation and ranking. I bolded where I said "moreso". Since that means "more than" that means I believe the same as you that T4's don't offer great prospects for its students but I believe the graduate should be more responsible about his/her job prospects than the school.

Cara wrote:
TonyDigital wrote:But to blame ones failures (or future failures) on a school is a cop out if you ask me. Those people need to look in the mirror and start assigning some blame imo.


So assuming equal determination and good attitude of the student body graduates of all schools should do equally well? The vast difference between T4 employment outcomes and the T14 must be a result of poorer attitude by the T4 students? They should be blaming themselves because 15 firms attend their school's OCI versus 600 for Columbia's? They should blame themselves because the average salary for all graduates from their school is $45K instead of $155K?

I'm just as keen on taking responsibility for oneself and working hard as the next person. But there are competitions you enter where the odds are stacked against you from the outset and very few people can succeed. Going to a T4 is one of those competitions. You are taking on an enormous debt load in exchange for very poor prospects. That's got nothing to do with the grit and determination of the students. It's got everything to do with how the market for recruiting new lawyers works.

That's why I would implore people who don't have good law school options but who want to become a lawyer above all else to look at their LSAT and consider a retake if at all possible. Yes it's a hassle and wastes a few more months of your life but the time you spend working on that retake could be the best investment of your life.


Point taken. But it seems like you're perception of my comments are mistaken. I never said it was a good idea to go to a T4. I said it can be done and you can be successful. I'm not encouraging or discouraging the OP either way. I am, however, encouraging everyone to take more ownership of their lives and not try to blame future failures or even give credit for future successes to their schools solely. Failure and success are normally the product of the person...

User avatar
DOS
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:51 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby DOS » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:25 pm

I know many people who went to Touro and John Marshall which are the bottom schools of the NY and Chicago market respectively. Anecdotely the people who benefited the most are those who often shouldn't have been there in the first place. They typically are only going to a T4 for reasons of cost or geography or b/c they made an impulsive decision instead of doing the research.

For instance, a friend of mine scored 167 went to Touro on a scholarship (wanted to stay close to home, and I did not ask her why she did not go to Hofstra instead) and now has an elder law practice at around 70K. Still, she regrets going to Touro since she feels the degree limits her tremendously. A divorcee' of a successful Doctor who I met at the dentist's office wants to work but still collect her alimony. Solution: get a cheap (b/c of scholarship) degree at John Marshall and work PI in her hometown of Madison WI.

Every other T4 grad I have met hopes to get a local/state gov't job of some sort. None of them has one yet, but they all did internships and all were applying. They struck me as not stupid by any means - but very ordinary blue-collar folk. The first questions I ask myself after talking to a lawyer/law student is "Would I want this person representing me as my lawyer? Can I imagine this guy/gal as a Lawyer?"

I am sorry, the answer for these students is no.

User avatar
blackacre
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:02 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby blackacre » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:53 pm

DOS wrote:For instance, a friend of mine scored 167 went to Touro on a scholarship (wanted to stay close to home, and I did not ask her why she did not go to Hofstra instead) and now has an elder law practice at around 70K.


She's making $70K? I feel like that is below the poverty line in NYC?

But again, I feel like if people realize they would be saving $30-50K, what other motivation would you need to study hard for the LSAT. The test isn't difficult to do well on and it quite learnable.

I think the LSAT tests if you have the ability to dedicate yourself to something. The fact that you can study for months for one result is similar to law school tests, and the Bar for that matter. Really if you cant commit yourself to doing well on the LSAT, you will probably find law school and practice difficult as well. I really don't think there is any reason to go to a school out of the Top 100, and below 50 in certain situations. There's just no reason to take that kind of risk.

User avatar
Z'Barron
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Z'Barron » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:05 pm

Cost IS a very important consideration (never said it wasn't), however, the advice above, in consensus, says that T4 schools are always/almost always a bad choice. I am refuting that point only. There are instances when it could be a good choice...depending. Not flaming here, just playing devil's advocate. No need to name-call. I have never said that most people would not be better-off avoiding such schools, I just don't believe T4's are as bad as you make them out to be from an educational standpoint. As for the politics? We need to find a way to force a change.

User avatar
Z'Barron
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Z'Barron » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:10 pm

adh07d wrote:
You Gotta Have Faith wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:+1000!

And there are bright people at ALL law schools. At what point is this all going to end? Medical education is not like this. Great med schools are well regarded, but unknown schools aren't necessarily frowned upon, as long as they don't come from a matchbook cover. Dental schools don't have this type of elitism. Architecture schools? Nope. Why law?


The only thing I will say about this is that the dental school you go to does not largely affect what you need to do to get your career going once graduated. There are only about 50+ dental schools, and most people just go to whichever one(s) they get into on a location preference.

Regarding medical schools, it isn't quite as important where you end up going if you only want to do some sort of general practice (school + residency). But medical research is a slightly different story and has some degree of "tiers" apparent, though with a lower level of elitism than law appears to have. There WAS a level of minimal bias against those with a D.O. degree (as opposed to an M.D. degree) at one time, but this has waned greatly in recent years. Grades/school do matter to a degree in the medical field, especially if you want a hot-shot residency or fellowship, but not seemingly as much as it does in law.

Architecture schools? I don't know anything about those and won't act like I do. But I do think that there is a feasible reason for the slightly higher degree of so-called "elitism" in law school:

The school you go to, as well as your class rank, actually does impact the ease with which you move your career forward in the beginning. Even though it IS possible to do well with any school if someone handles their career right, this is something to definitely take into account.

I'm not saying the "elitism" is right, but that's why it exists.


AdCommie wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:Medical education is not like this. Great med schools are well regarded, but unknown schools aren't necessarily frowned upon, as long as they don't come from a matchbook cover. Dental schools don't have this type of elitism. Architecture schools? Nope. Why law?


Because med school is a barrier to the profession itself. Law school, not so much. So many students are lured by the possibility of striking it rich after only three more years of school and you don't even need an LSAT score to get in! This exacerbates the generally poor condition of the legal industry: way too many lawyers and not enough demand.


TITCR. The reason law school is so tiered is because there is no preempting barrier to filter out the idiots (no offense to idiots). Medical schools and bio/chem related undergrad are sufficient to sort out those not capable of becoming competent doctors, surgeons etc. Architecture students also have rigorous mathematical classes to pass in their undergrad to be eligible for a masters in architecture. The only way for firms to sort the intellectually qualified from the unqualified is religiously to follow the prestige of the school. Sure there are exceptions, but for every 3.0/151 that makes partner there are 30 or 40 who simply aren't capable of succeeding. A soft generalization still makes for a valid generalization.


You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:59 pm

Z'Barron wrote:
You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.


perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.

User avatar
wendyone
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby wendyone » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:12 pm

blackacre wrote:
She's making $70K? I feel like that is below the poverty line in NYC?

But again, I feel like if people realize they would be saving $30-50K, what other motivation would you need to study hard for the LSAT. The test isn't difficult to do well on and it quite learnable.

I think the LSAT tests if you have the ability to dedicate yourself to something. The fact that you can study for months for one result is similar to law school tests, and the Bar for that matter. Really if you cant commit yourself to doing well on the LSAT, you will probably find law school and practice difficult as well. I really don't think there is any reason to go to a school out of the Top 100, and below 50 in certain situations. There's just no reason to take that kind of risk.


Yikes! In all fairness, the LSAT is a specific type of test that assesses a specific type of thing. Some folks who ace the LSAT could study for years and years and would fail if the entire exam was framed as a series of written arguments.

I often wonder why they don't just nut up and score the writing section. It's a bit unfair to those who have verbal, writing, and arguing strengths but suck at logic games.

70k isn't below the poverty line in NYC! :D

...Depending on what neighborhood you live in and what your lifestyle is... :?
Last edited by wendyone on Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DOS
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:51 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby DOS » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:59 pm

She made 70K on Long Island which is where Touro (Suffolk county) is located along with Hofstra (Nassau County) and in Queens, St Johns and in Brooklyn, Brooklyn Law. I think the CUNY Public Interest law school might be on Long Island too, but I am not sure. In other words, each County/Burrough gets its own law school on an island 90 miles long and 30 across. By the the way they are opening a fifth law school on Long Island -SUNY Stonybrook b/c as you can see the area is clearly legally underserved. :roll:

Manhattan is uniquely expensive, and when people talk about prices in NYC this is what they really mean. Living in the surrounding suburbs is not as expensive as NYC by a long shot and is probably comparable cost wise to living in Chicago, except you need a car.

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby leobowski » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:20 am

blackacre wrote:
wendyone wrote:
cameronfraser88 wrote:
BTW Yes LSAC does accommodate LD's but here is the catch:

"Candidates who seek additional test time on scored sections of the test should pay particular attention to the following:

* If you receive additional test time as an accommodation for your condition, LSAC will send a statement with your Credential Assembly Service (LSDAS) or LSAT Law School Reports advising that your score(s) should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility."

From what I know this sends a red flag to adcomms.


It does. That is why I mentioned that so many students refuse to seek accommodations even though their scores will suffer. Ex: ld: ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, other cognitive processing disorders such as visual processing and sensory integration. But this thread isn't about testing accommodations, so I'm all for setting it down. Or discussing it elsewhere- but this hardly helps the OP :wink:


Jeeezus... This forum just breeds overbearing females... I honestly see a new "queen bee" on these forums every week with 20 posts a day. Don't you have anything better to do than post on a forum trying to prove people wrong? You, pearlegal, and Ddoll make me feel there is a street corner missing you with a cardboard sign with catchy sayings on it.

To the OP... It really isn't worth it to go to a law school that isn't at least in the T100. It is just too big of a gamble to take. Even if you have an irreversible GPA, the LSAT is something you can work on and is the most important thing in getting into law school.

Sure you can go eat at a restaurant that isn't approved by the health board. There's a possibility that you might even eat good food AND leave without food poisoning. But why risk it? Go to the restaurant with the good reputation and is certified by the health board as being a good choice to eat.

Going to a lower ranked school is normally much more expensive with less chance of meaningful employment. You could really save 30-50K by going to a better school. If someone where to pay you 30K to study harder and score better on the LSAT, how could you turn that down?



Why the arbitrary cutoff? You can make a viable argument for T14 or bust/ T17 or bust(depending on your desired salary and national mobility). But arguing for T100 or even T50 or bust is downright uninformed. Case in point: Hofstra cracked the top 100 this year. But a school like that in its saturated market is going to provide significantly less opportunities than a school which absolutely dominates its region (Wyoming, Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, etc). Not to mention the significant debt you would incur at a 40K+ private school like Hofstra, and the exorbitant cost of living.

User avatar
Z'Barron
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Z'Barron » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:39 am

adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.


perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.


Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.

Harvard is the greatest law school on the planet because...it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet.

Hence, those who teach at the greatest law school on the planet, which has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet, must be the greatest teachers on the planet.

And those who are taught by those teachers, who must be must be the greatest law teachers on the planet, because they teach at what is the greatest law school on the planet, because it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet...must be the greatest law students on the planet.

User avatar
wendyone
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby wendyone » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:19 am

DOS wrote:She made 70K on Long Island which is where Touro (Suffolk county) is located along with Hofstra (Nassau County) and in Queens, St Johns and in Brooklyn, Brooklyn Law. I think the CUNY Public Interest law school might be on Long Island too, but I am not sure. In other words, each County/Burrough gets its own law school on an island 90 miles long and 30 across. By the the way they are opening a fifth law school on Long Island -SUNY Stonybrook b/c as you can see the area is clearly legally underserved. :roll:

Manhattan is uniquely expensive, and when people talk about prices in NYC this is what they really mean. Living in the surrounding suburbs is not as expensive as NYC by a long shot and is probably comparable cost wise to living in Chicago, except you need a car.


Long Island can be expensive but 70k is totally livable and it still actually varies from area to area. I actually grew up in Stony Brook, coincidentally. I haven't been back in ages though because my parents moved while I was in undergrad. The high school I went to served a very economically diverse area. A lot of my friends' parents were lawyers too... So I guess I wouldn't say there's probably a deficit.

Really, SUNY? WTF?!

Great area to raise a family though... wouldn't mind practicing on Long Island for 70k. If they can fit any more lawyers on the Port Jeff ferry.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:55 am

Z'Barron wrote:
adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.


perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.


Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.



Your unrepresentative sample may illustrate a point . . . but if it's unrepresentative what good is it as an illustration? Your admittance of it being unrepresentative invalidates it as a means to support your conclusion. Because such scenarios exist does mean they are representative of the population to which you are arguing.

User avatar
Z'Barron
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Z'Barron » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:36 am

adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.


perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.


Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.



Your unrepresentative sample may illustrate a point . . . but if it's unrepresentative what good is it as an illustration? Your admittance of it being unrepresentative invalidates it as a means to support your conclusion. Because such scenarios exist does mean they are representative of the population to which you are arguing.


Stalemate! We can neither confirm nor deny that my scenario has or lacks merit, proves or doesn't prove a general point, or debunks or illustrates a general trend based on how representative it is or isn't.

User avatar
Moon_Man
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:12 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Moon_Man » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:46 am

Why are law schools more caught up in prestige than, say, medical schools? Well:
1.) Medical education is much more of a standardized thing. That is to say, there is vastly more difference between the curriculum, the goals, and the atmosphere at Yale Law School and Nova Southeastern than there is at Harvard Medical School and Southwestern Kalamazoo Medical School.
2.) Law is somewhat intangible, it is not like being able to remove someone's appendix. Regarding appendectomies, a person can either do it competently, or not. Legal work is more in shades of competence ranging from excellence to mediocrity, so credentials that are themselves not particularly important take on value as signifiers of competence and authority.
3.) Sure, there are gradations in prestige in medicine. All things considered, it is probably going to impress people more to be a neurosurgeon than to be a general practitioner. But a neurosurgeon and a general practitioner have a lot more in common than a partner at Skadden and a public defender. The neurosurgeon might get paid two or three times as much as the GP, but the Skadden guy might make TWENTY OR THIRTY times what the PD makes.
Ultimately, law is a larger and more varied cast of characters.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:01 am

We can confirm that your scenario lacks merit, does not prove a general point, and fails to illustrate a trend. Because you challenged the truth of a generally accepted concept, the legitimacy of school prestige, and failed to raitonally persuade anyone, I take victory away from this.
Last edited by Mickey Quicknumbers on Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cameronfraser88
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:24 am

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby cameronfraser88 » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:17 am

blackacre wrote:
wendyone wrote:
cameronfraser88 wrote:
BTW Yes LSAC does accommodate LD's but here is the catch:

"Candidates who seek additional test time on scored sections of the test should pay particular attention to the following:

* If you receive additional test time as an accommodation for your condition, LSAC will send a statement with your Credential Assembly Service (LSDAS) or LSAT Law School Reports advising that your score(s) should be interpreted with great sensitivity and flexibility."

From what I know this sends a red flag to adcomms.


It does. That is why I mentioned that so many students refuse to seek accommodations even though their scores will suffer. Ex: ld: ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, other cognitive processing disorders such as visual processing and sensory integration. But this thread isn't about testing accommodations, so I'm all for setting it down. Or discussing it elsewhere- but this hardly helps the OP :wink:


Jeeezus... This forum just breeds overbearing females... I honestly see a new "queen bee" on these forums every week with 20 posts a day. Don't you have anything better to do than post on a forum trying to prove people wrong? You, pearlegal, and Ddoll make me feel there is a street corner missing you with a cardboard sign with catchy sayings on it.

To the OP... It really isn't worth it to go to a law school that isn't at least in the T100. It is just too big of a gamble to take. Even if you have an irreversible GPA, the LSAT is something you can work on and is the most important thing in getting into law school.

Sure you can go eat at a restaurant that isn't approved by the health board. There's a possibility that you might even eat good food AND leave without food poisoning. But why risk it? Go to the restaurant with the good reputation and is certified by the health board as being a good choice to eat.

Going to a lower ranked school is normally much more expensive with less chance of meaningful employment. You could really save 30-50K by going to a better school. If someone where to pay you 30K to study harder and score better on the LSAT, how could you turn that down?



Okay so I don't know Wendy that well, but she seems like a fine person, but you talk shit on Ddoll and ESPECIALLY pearalegal and those are fighting words.

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

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Richie Tenenbaum » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:02 pm

Z'Barron wrote:
adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
adh07d wrote:perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.


Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.



Your unrepresentative sample may illustrate a point . . . but if it's unrepresentative what good is it as an illustration? Your admittance of it being unrepresentative invalidates it as a means to support your conclusion. Because such scenarios exist does mean they are representative of the population to which you are arguing.


Stalemate! We can neither confirm nor deny that my scenario has or lacks merit, proves or doesn't prove a general point, or debunks or illustrates a general trend based on how representative it is or isn't.


You have some of the worst fucking arguments I've ever seen. Please re-read over what you have said and try to concentrate on what you are trying to prove. If you can't see how horribly flawed your conclusion of "stalemate" is, I would recommend you avoid law school entirely.

User avatar
Skadden Stairs
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:47 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Skadden Stairs » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:19 pm

blackacre wrote:Jeeezus... This forum just breeds overbearing females... I honestly see a new "queen bee" on these forums every week with 20 posts a day. Don't you have anything better to do than post on a forum trying to prove people wrong? You, pearlegal, and Ddoll make me feel there is a street corner missing you with a cardboard sign with catchy sayings on it.

bwahahahahaha

AdCommie
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:42 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby AdCommie » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:28 pm

Please stop with the LSAT logical reasoning conventions. It's not impressing or convincing anybody.

User avatar
CE2JD
Posts: 929
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby CE2JD » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:44 pm

t4 law schools are ponzi schemes

User avatar
rondemarino
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:29 am

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby rondemarino » Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:54 pm

Z'Barron wrote:
adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.


perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.


Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.

Harvard is the greatest law school on the planet because...it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet.

Hence, those who teach at the greatest law school on the planet, which has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet, must be the greatest teachers on the planet.

And those who are taught by those teachers, who must be must be the greatest law teachers on the planet, because they teach at what is the greatest law school on the planet, because it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet...must be the greatest law students on the planet.


Man, I would have finished my thesis in two days if I could have convinced my research committee that a couple of data points illustrate a trend. I can't wait for law school!

User avatar
Rsrcht
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: How bad of a choice is going to a T4 law school..

Postby Rsrcht » Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:25 pm

rondemarino wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
adh07d wrote:
Z'Barron wrote:
You guys read and listen to too much Morse. I'm not buying that argument completely. The firms like the rankings because rankings save them time, effort and money. Recruiters can make what appear to be educated decisions and not have to be accountable for hiring idiots from top schools and missing hidden gems from lower-ranked schools. Part of this equation is sheer laziness and fugality. Like I said, I have seen the stooges Harvard and Penn are turning out...and too many of them are getting their asses kicked in court (by supposedly inferior attorneys, according to the general TLS logic) for this process to be so elitist.


perhaps you could provide a more accurate and cost-beneficial approach to finding the hidden gems and weeding out the idiots?

Correct me if i'm wrong but your entire critique of my argument is one anecdotal case of three lawyers. If you came up with an all-inclusive study or an extensive survey of the effectiveness of trial lawyers (one area of law mind you), and showed that the t14 had minuscule to no advantage post-collegiately then I would be much more persuaded by your proposition.


Ahh...the flaw in your reasoning is that you dismiss, outright, my "unrepresentative sample" simply on the basis that it is unrepresentative. It is an illustration of a general point, i.e., that such scenarios play themselves out every day and everywhere. And besides, I think the elitists who invented, subscribe to, and live and die by "T-14 Theory" (we all know what it's based on, but it has taken on a life of its own) carry the burden of formulating case studies proving that we should have gotten involved in this (arbitrary) mess in the first place.

Harvard is the greatest law school on the planet because...it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet.

Hence, those who teach at the greatest law school on the planet, which has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet, must be the greatest teachers on the planet.

And those who are taught by those teachers, who must be must be the greatest law teachers on the planet, because they teach at what is the greatest law school on the planet, because it has always been the greatest law school on the planet, namely because...back when it was the greatest law school on the planet, it was the greatest law school on the planet...must be the greatest law students on the planet.


Man, I would have finished my thesis in two days if I could have convinced my research committee that a couple of data points illustrate a trend. I can't wait for law school!


Hopefully the statistically inept won't be going.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests