Rough out there... Forum

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Oh god, the thought of working anywhere that only hires for "prestige."

That's a blatant misinterpretation of what was said.

How so? A firm won't hire from in-state law schools because they don't have nearly enough "prestige as the applicants we're looking for?"

Given that the law firm knows they can find applicants from UF or FSU that are every bit as smart and hardworking as applicants from Harvard, and that this hiring partner specifically said that the in-state graduates lack "prestige," how would you like me to phrase my remark?

Oh god, I would never want to work at a place that would not hire a person because they were not "prestigious?"

Scalia's a douche, but this quote of his is pretty typical for legal hiring:

By and large, I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?

The quality of professors at FSU might be just fine compared to a T14 but the caliber of student attending is, by and large, not the same. These are people who got bad grades and bad LSAT scores. Sure, a few are probably undiscovered legal geniuses who could out-reason Learned Hand, but a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives, no matter how many of their professors went to Yale.

See, I wasn't talking to you. The problem here is that I wasn't talking to you then you went in and said something and completely missed the point. I was talking about not wanting to work around douchbags who only care about prestige. Then ironically you missed the point and simultaneously outed yourself as one of those douchebags.

But since we're talking, go fuck yourself with this mediocre minds bullshit. You don't know shit. The difference in students that go to my school and students that go to your school is the difference of a 164 vs. a 169 on the LSAT. That's like 6 or 7 questions. You pretty much need to calm down. You are not as special as you think you are.

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

I'm mediocre at my T14, and I've been one of the "smart" ones my whole life. I've never felt so average and dumb as I do here. It's fucking humbling. These people got good grades and/or great LSAT scores, some did amazing things before law school, and everyone here is just really fucking smart. I imagine it's even more pronounced at the tippy-top schools.

This is exactly what everybody says at nearly every law school. Even law schools like FSU are 1000x more challenging than the typical undergrad experience.

And even if I'm 100% wrong, it doesn't matter. It's how legal hiring works. There are too many graduates; they have to sift through them somehow.

No. Not how "legal hiring works." How legal hiring works, to a significant degree, for large firms and fed clerkships. Considering these two fields account for less than 10% of attorney jobs, you are wrong. Again. For the record, the other 90% of jobs are had by networking, including the phenomenon where Yale grads help Yale grads and FSU grads help FSU grads.

[Clearly]

Not jumping into this fight, but...source for this 90/10 split?

[Tiago Splitter]

Not jumping into this fight, but...source for this 90/10 split?

It's more like 25% (ETA: of people who actually get legal jobs) for entry level jobs. Don't know about law jobs as a whole.

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummCha ... of2011.pdf

[Clearly]

Not jumping into this fight, but...source for this 90/10 split?

It's more like 25% (ETA: of people who actually get legal jobs) for entry level jobs. Don't know about law jobs as a whole.

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummCha ... of2011.pdf

Yeah, that's closer to what I assumed.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Not jumping into this fight, but...source for this 90/10 split?

It's more like 25% (ETA: of people who actually get legal jobs) for entry level jobs. Don't know about law jobs as a whole.

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummCha ... of2011.pdf

Yeah, that's closer to what I assumed.

Of 35,000 jobs from 2011, only 3,500 got jobs from either fall or spring OCI. There is no way to know the exact figure of what percentage of jobs are had through "networking." Considering even a few of the OCI jobs are had through networking, I'll stick with 90% but of course this is just my estimate. I doubt it is as low as 75%, though.

[Clearly]

Not jumping into this fight, but...source for this 90/10 split?

It's more like 25% (ETA: of people who actually get legal jobs) for entry level jobs. Don't know about law jobs as a whole.

http://www.nalp.org/uploads/NatlSummCha ... of2011.pdf

Yeah, that's closer to what I assumed.

Of 35,000 jobs from 2011, only 3,500 got jobs from either fall or spring OCI. There is no way to know the exact figure of what percentage of jobs are had through "networking." Considering even a few of the OCI jobs are had through networking, I'll stick with 90% but of course this is just my estimate. I doubt it is as low as 75%, though.

Can I get a source on this one? I'm not even trying to be an asshole this just seems astronomically low. I strongly suspect your 10% biglaw+clerkship thing is off too. It's called biglaw for a reason, Baker & McKenzie alone staff over 3800 attorneys lol, DLA Piper over 3700...

[Tiago Splitter]

Can I get a source on this one?

Same source bro. Scroll down to the bottom.

I'd divide the 3500 jobs from OCI into the total number of full time bar passage required gigs, but maybe some of the OCI jobs aren't bar-passage required so who knows.

[boblawlob]

-

[Micdiddy]

That's a blatant misinterpretation of what was said.

How so? A firm won't hire from in-state law schools because they don't have nearly enough "prestige as the applicants we're looking for?"

Given that the law firm knows they can find applicants from UF or FSU that are every bit as smart and hardworking as applicants from Harvard, and that this hiring partner specifically said that the in-state graduates lack "prestige," how would you like me to phrase my remark?

Oh god, I would never want to work at a place that would not hire a person because they were not "prestigious?"

Scalia's a douche, but this quote of his is pretty typical for legal hiring:

By and large, I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?

The quality of professors at FSU might be just fine compared to a T14 but the caliber of student attending is, by and large, not the same. These are people who got bad grades and bad LSAT scores. Sure, a few are probably undiscovered legal geniuses who could out-reason Learned Hand, but a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives, no matter how many of their professors went to Yale.

See, I wasn't talking to you. The problem here is that I wasn't talking to you then you went in and said something and completely missed the point. I was talking about not wanting to work around douchbags who only care about prestige. Then ironically you missed the point and simultaneously outed yourself as one of those douchebags.

But since we're talking, go fuck yourself with this mediocre minds bullshit. You don't know shit. The difference in students that go to my school and students that go to your school is the difference of a 164 vs. a 169 on the LSAT. That's like 6 or 7 questions. You pretty much need to calm down. You are not as special as you think you are.

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

I'm mediocre at my T14, and I've been one of the "smart" ones my whole life. I've never felt so average and dumb as I do here. It's fucking humbling. These people got good grades and/or great LSAT scores, some did amazing things before law school, and everyone here is just really fucking smart. I imagine it's even more pronounced at the tippy-top schools.

This is exactly what everybody says at nearly every law school. Even law schools like FSU are 1000x more challenging than the typical undergrad experience.

And even if I'm 100% wrong, it doesn't matter. It's how legal hiring works. There are too many graduates; they have to sift through them somehow.

No. Not how "legal hiring works." How legal hiring works, to a significant degree, for large firms and fed clerkships. Considering these two fields account for less than 10% of attorney jobs, you are wrong. Again. For the record, the other 90% of jobs are had by networking, including the phenomenon where Yale grads help Yale grads and FSU grads help FSU grads.

Maybe the difference between a 164 and a 169 is the 164 read this and think "that's logical," whereas the 169's think "wow that's a steaming pile of anti-elitist bullshit full of internal contradictions and straw men."

[A. Nony Mouse]

And even if I'm 100% wrong, it doesn't matter. It's how legal hiring works. There are too many graduates; they have to sift through them somehow.

No. Not how "legal hiring works." How legal hiring works, to a significant degree, for large firms and fed clerkships. Considering these two fields account for less than 10% of attorney jobs, you are wrong. Again. For the record, the other 90% of jobs are had by networking, including the phenomenon where Yale grads help Yale grads and FSU grads help FSU grads.

Jumping in here because rink edited her post after I initially responded. The implication of the original post was that people who went to FSU were more likely to perform at a mediocre level because they're less smart than people at better schools, not that they weren't going to have mediocre opportunities because they're at a lower-ranked school. Yes, there's a correlation between doing well in school your whole life and being smart. Again, I'm very willing to believe everyone at HYS is brilliant. But that doesn't mean the reverse is true - that not doing (as) well (as those going to the T14) means you're not smart. And it also doesn't show that ability to succeed in school correlates directly to ability to succeed in your chosen career. Again, apart from the kinds of opportunities available, but that's completely different from ability, which was very clearly what the original post was about.

I'm just honestly offended by the idea that people in the T14 are brilliant but people in the lower T1 are mediocre. Not absolutely fucking brilliant, sure, I can buy that. Yes, I am sure that all you amazing T14 people are smarter than I am. But there are a lot more alternatives before you get to mediocre. Though I guess it's good to know that that is how I will appear to those who went to better schools than mine (in case I'd forgotten). There are a lot of reasons why you can criticize going to a lower T1 like mine that I'll agree with - employment stats, portability of degree, cost - but because we're mediocre minds is not one of them.

[star fox]

Oh god, the thought of working anywhere that only hires for "prestige."

That's a blatant misinterpretation of what was said.

How so? A firm won't hire from in-state law schools because they don't have nearly enough "prestige as the applicants we're looking for?"

Given that the law firm knows they can find applicants from UF or FSU that are every bit as smart and hardworking as applicants from Harvard, and that this hiring partner specifically said that the in-state graduates lack "prestige," how would you like me to phrase my remark?

Oh god, I would never want to work at a place that would not hire a person because they were not "prestigious?"

Scalia's a douche, but this quote of his is pretty typical for legal hiring:

By and large, I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?

The quality of professors at FSU might be just fine compared to a T14 but the caliber of student attending is, by and large, not the same. These are people who got bad grades and bad LSAT scores. Sure, a few are probably undiscovered legal geniuses who could out-reason Learned Hand, but a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives, no matter how many of their professors went to Yale.

I agree people should gun for T14 to give themselves the best possible employment outcomes but this is one of the most obnoxious, elitist statements I have ever read. Easy to see why so many people hate lawyers/law students.

[sublime]

..

[oldschool123]

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

For real??? So people who get 164s only do so because they don't want to be tools and don't "need" a better score on a test that has a huge impact on, if not the rest of their lives, the next several years of their lives (not only by deciding which schools you get into but, often more importantly, how much $$$ you get from them)?? So all these kids hold themselves back purposely from getting a better score just so they're not tools?

I agree that saying that "all students at mediocre schools are mediocre students who will only do mediocre things with their lives" is a completely ridiculous/elitist/offensive thing to say and a huge over-dramatization, but to say that people get 164s basically as their own personal choice to do so is also pretty ridiculous. And even if it is true in some cases, that's damn sad that someone would sell themselves short on an opportunity to make an investment in their future just because they don't want to be seen as a tool.

[pocket herc]

Some of the difference is relative laziness, as very few people I know drilled for the LSAT like so many do here. But a lot of the people attending FSU and similar schools are more than smart enough to succeed, if not in law then in other fields, and the whole "condemned to mediocrity thing" is ridiculous. But in the legal realm, however, with the obsession with prestige and the rigid hierarchy, a mediocre legal career is clearly far more likely for those attending non-elite schools. But "mediocre minds" is just obnoxious. I did pretty damn well on the LSAT, but I wouldn't for a moment dismiss others like that.

[Randomnumbers]

ITT mediocre minds get butthurt.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

For real??? So people who get 164s only do so because they don't want to be tools and don't "need" a better score on a test that has a huge impact on, if not the rest of their lives, the next several years of their lives (not only by deciding which schools you get into but, often more importantly, how much $$$ you get from them)?? So all these kids hold themselves back purposely from getting a better score just so they're not tools?

I agree that saying that "all students at mediocre schools are mediocre students who will only do mediocre things with their lives" is a completely ridiculous/elitist/offensive thing to say and a huge over-dramatization, but to say that people get 164s basically as their own personal choice to do so is also pretty ridiculous. And even if it is true in some cases, that's damn sad that someone would sell themselves short on an opportunity to make an investment in their future just because they don't want to be seen as a tool.

Not at all what I said.

[moonman157]

The quality of professors at FSU might be just fine compared to a T14 but the caliber of student attending is, by and large, not the same. These are people who got bad grades and bad LSAT scores. Sure, a few are probably undiscovered legal geniuses who could out-reason Learned Hand, but a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives, no matter how many of their professors went to Yale.

Wow. Really?

Not everybody, but...yeah, to a certain extent.

I'm mediocre at my T14, and I've been one of the "smart" ones my whole life. I've never felt so average and dumb as I do here. It's fucking humbling. These people got good grades and/or great LSAT scores, some did amazing things before law school, and everyone here is just really fucking smart. I imagine it's even more pronounced at the tippy-top schools.

I just have a hard time saying that anyone who's at a mediocre law school is going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives. In fact, I think that's bullshit. (As someone who went to a school ranked fairly close to FSU and had a lot of classmates who are fucking good at what they do. And I know smart people, even if I'm not one of them - I've been around a LOT of them.)

ETA: Not saying the people at the tippy top schools aren't brilliant, just think you're drawing too direct a correlation between success in law school and success in life.

Literally the first two words you quote are "not everybody" and then go on to treat Rink's argument like he said that all people at mediocre law schools are mediocre. I also have a hard time buying the argument that what separates FSU and T14 kids are that T14 kids are only obsessed with name dropping, and FSU kids are down to Earth and passed up more prestigious options because they care about more than impressing people with the name on their degree. And if they did do this, than maybe they aren't too smart

But really, even though the LSAT and uGPA aren't perfect as indicators of success in law school and the legal field, there's something to be said about succeeding by a significant margin in both. Is every kid who scores a 170 smarter than every kid who scores a 160? Absolutely not, though quantifying intelligence is impossible in any sort of metric. But on the who are they smarter in the aspects that matter for legal hiring? Most likely.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

For real??? So people who get 164s only do so because they don't want to be tools and don't "need" a better score on a test that has a huge impact on, if not the rest of their lives, the next several years of their lives (not only by deciding which schools you get into but, often more importantly, how much $$$ you get from them)?? So all these kids hold themselves back purposely from getting a better score just so they're not tools?

I agree that saying that "all students at mediocre schools are mediocre students who will only do mediocre things with their lives" is a completely ridiculous/elitist/offensive thing to say and a huge over-dramatization, but to say that people get 164s basically as their own personal choice to do so is also pretty ridiculous. And even if it is true in some cases, that's damn sad that someone would sell themselves short on an opportunity to make an investment in their future just because they don't want to be seen as a tool.

I don't think it's that they don't want to look like tools. But if a 164 will get you into the flagship state school in your state and you know you want to practice in that state and you know lots of lawyers who went there, why do you need to get something higher? You do what you have to do to get in and no more. Until recently money wasn't even that big an issue because the flagship was cheap and you knew you could get a job from it. That's less the case now, but attitudes change slowly. And as much as I think TLS generally provides a great resource for applicants, I think it has a huge blind spot about flagship regionals and the goals of some of the people who go to them. There are still a lot of people out there who are very happy with good enough. Because they're in a part of the world that has no T14 schools and where there's almost nothing that looks like NYC/DC biglaw doesn't make them stupid.

(And yes, it's convenient to say we're mediocre minds who are butthurt. Nothing like ignoring anything that disturbs your sense of entitlement.)

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

[rinkrat19]

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

lol. LSAT logic fail right there. "A lot" is entirely subjective and could be anything greater than zero, depending on the context. "not everyone" could be everyone except one person. It's perfectly possible for "not everyone" to be way, way more than "a lot."

[moonman157]

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

For real??? So people who get 164s only do so because they don't want to be tools and don't "need" a better score on a test that has a huge impact on, if not the rest of their lives, the next several years of their lives (not only by deciding which schools you get into but, often more importantly, how much $$$ you get from them)?? So all these kids hold themselves back purposely from getting a better score just so they're not tools?

I agree that saying that "all students at mediocre schools are mediocre students who will only do mediocre things with their lives" is a completely ridiculous/elitist/offensive thing to say and a huge over-dramatization, but to say that people get 164s basically as their own personal choice to do so is also pretty ridiculous. And even if it is true in some cases, that's damn sad that someone would sell themselves short on an opportunity to make an investment in their future just because they don't want to be seen as a tool.

I don't think it's that they don't want to look like tools. But if a 164 will get you into the flagship state school in your state and you know you want to practice in that state and you know lots of lawyers who went there, why do you need to get something higher? You do what you have to do to get in and no more. Until recently money wasn't even that big an issue because the flagship was cheap and you knew you could get a job from it. That's less the case now, but attitudes change slowly. And as much as I think TLS generally provides a great resource for applicants, I think it has a huge blind spot about flagship regionals and the goals of some of the people who go to them. There are still a lot of people out there who are very happy with good enough. Because they're in a part of the world that has no T14 schools and where there's almost nothing that looks like NYC/DC biglaw doesn't make them stupid.

(And yes, it's convenient to say we're mediocre minds who are butthurt. Nothing like ignoring anything that disturbs your sense of entitlement.)

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

What you're talking about here are some very specific circumstances. Sure, if you have strong ties to an area, and if a 164 gets you into the best school in that region, and if your connections are strong enough to come close to guaranteeing you a job at graduation, and if your family is wealthy enough to fund law school, then it may be fine to settle for a 164. The problem is that there are so many "ifs" there that this scenario doesn't apply to most T2 students. Most T2s have high enough LSAT medians that a 164 will not get you the kind of money needed to justify going to a T2, let alone the ties and connections that also justify going to a T2.

[moonman157]

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

lol. LSAT logic fail right there. "A lot" is entirely subjective and could be anything greater than zero, depending on the context. "not everyone" could be everyone except one person. It's perfectly possible for "not everyone" to be way, way more than "a lot."

This, plus the fact that Rink clearly said that not everyone at a mediocre school has a mediocre mind, but you treated it like (s)he did.

[rinkrat19]

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

lol. LSAT logic fail right there. "A lot" is entirely subjective and could be anything greater than zero, depending on the context. "not everyone" could be everyone except one person. It's perfectly possible for "not everyone" to be way, way more than "a lot."

This, plus the fact that Rink clearly said that not everyone at a mediocre school has a mediocre mind, but you treated it like (s)he did.

Rink is a she, yes.

[moonman157]

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

lol. LSAT logic fail right there. "A lot" is entirely subjective and could be anything greater than zero, depending on the context. "not everyone" could be everyone except one person. It's perfectly possible for "not everyone" to be way, way more than "a lot."

This, plus the fact that Rink clearly said that not everyone at a mediocre school has a mediocre mind, but you treated it like (s)he did.

Rink is a she, yes.

I shamefully assumed so because of the pony, but I didn't want to project that publicly and reinforce gender stereotypes. Damn our language and its lack of a genderless pronoun!

[rinkrat19]

Rink is a she, yes.

I shamefully assumed so because of the pony, but I didn't want to project that publicly and reinforce gender stereotypes. Damn our language and its lack of a genderless pronoun!

Before I had the pony on there, I was mistaken for a guy more often than not. 'sokay, I don't take offense.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Finally, and here is where mind = blown, the reason that most of my buddies got a 164 and the people that hate you in class got a 169 is not because my buddies have "mediocre minds." It is because people are like, different, from one another, with a wide range of goals and aspirations. So while it is probably true that on the aggregate there are slightly smarter and harder working people at your school, the reason for the 6 or 7 question difference in the LSAT is much more likely that people like me who attend schools like mine never needed your LSAT score-- we do not want biglaw, do not like dropping names at parties, do not constantly adjust our own self-worth based on what others may think of us, etc. Thinking that everyone else on earth shares your ideas about success is childish and stupid. Maybe stop doing that.

By the way, that isn't to say there is something inherently wrong with wanting to work at a large firm, or selling yourself at a party, or having goals that require others to see you a certain way, etc-- I want to make it clear that I'm attacking you, as a tool, and not others who happen to do what you do for completely different reasons.

For real??? So people who get 164s only do so because they don't want to be tools and don't "need" a better score on a test that has a huge impact on, if not the rest of their lives, the next several years of their lives (not only by deciding which schools you get into but, often more importantly, how much $$$ you get from them)?? So all these kids hold themselves back purposely from getting a better score just so they're not tools?

I agree that saying that "all students at mediocre schools are mediocre students who will only do mediocre things with their lives" is a completely ridiculous/elitist/offensive thing to say and a huge over-dramatization, but to say that people get 164s basically as their own personal choice to do so is also pretty ridiculous. And even if it is true in some cases, that's damn sad that someone would sell themselves short on an opportunity to make an investment in their future just because they don't want to be seen as a tool.

I don't think it's that they don't want to look like tools. But if a 164 will get you into the flagship state school in your state and you know you want to practice in that state and you know lots of lawyers who went there, why do you need to get something higher? You do what you have to do to get in and no more. Until recently money wasn't even that big an issue because the flagship was cheap and you knew you could get a job from it. That's less the case now, but attitudes change slowly. And as much as I think TLS generally provides a great resource for applicants, I think it has a huge blind spot about flagship regionals and the goals of some of the people who go to them. There are still a lot of people out there who are very happy with good enough. Because they're in a part of the world that has no T14 schools and where there's almost nothing that looks like NYC/DC biglaw doesn't make them stupid.

(And yes, it's convenient to say we're mediocre minds who are butthurt. Nothing like ignoring anything that disturbs your sense of entitlement.)

(And moonman, "a lot" is way more than "not everybody.")

What you're talking about here are some very specific circumstances. Sure, if you have strong ties to an area, and if a 164 gets you into the best school in that region, and if your connections are strong enough to come close to guaranteeing you a job at graduation, and if your family is wealthy enough to fund law school, then it may be fine to settle for a 164. The problem is that there are so many "ifs" there that this scenario doesn't apply to most T2 students. Most T2s have high enough LSAT medians that a 164 will not get you the kind of money needed to justify going to a T2, let alone the ties and connections that also justify going to a T2.

A 175/3.5 ups the median no more than a 164/3.5 at all T2s. Usually these two applicants get the same scholarship offer. ( actually, many schools would yield protect the 175 ). Medians and shit. Check law school numbers.