IU Bloomington for CHI? Forum

[RodneyRuxin]

ITT: Anyone who doesn't believe in the vale ideology that grades/employment is all about luck is spreading boomer propaganda.

I would disagree that it's ALL about luck. Luck inevitably plays a large part of it, but how you work, hustle, your background, previous work experience, and how well you interview will play SOME part in finding employment. Those things alone are not enough, but it would be equally delusional to believe that no one has any control over their personal success.

The best thing any person can do is maximize their chances for the employment outcome they desire (read: get into best school possible for that outcome), while minimizing cost, work your butt off (like most everyone will) and pray that what you've done and how you've done it is enough to get the outcome you want.

That's fine but don't rag on the guy for saying it's possible.

I've seen what goes on at CCN, where people choose to party instead of study for a final, etc. Those people typically are the ones at the bottom of the curve. I have been told by people at T1/T2s that this is the norm, rather than the freakish people who study 24/7(the norm at my CCN).

Sure ability to take tests plays a factor, but nothing replaces the ability to punish yourself by studying day in and day out. And TLS goes way overboard with the "if the school has 80% employment you have a 80% chance of getting a job" mantra.

I wish we'd go back to the days where people constantly quoted arrow's guide that talked about working non-stop. Rather than feeding this defeatist bullshit down our throats.

[TheSpanishMain]

I wish we'd go back to the days where people constantly quoted arrow's guide that talked about working non-stop. Rather than feeding this defeatist bullshit down our throats.

I sort of agree with this, although I'm a 0L so I don't argue the point much. That said, I think TLS in general does a very good job of pointing that uniquely good outcomes are just anecdotes, and you shouldn't count on being special...but then, uniquely bad outcomes are just anecdotes too, and sometimes people forget that.

[BigZuck]

ITT: Anyone who doesn't believe in the vale ideology that grades/employment is all about luck is spreading boomer propaganda.

I would disagree that it's ALL about luck. Luck inevitably plays a large part of it, but how you work, hustle, your background, previous work experience, and how well you interview will play SOME part in finding employment. Those things alone are not enough, but it would be equally delusional to believe that no one has any control over their personal success.

The best thing any person can do is maximize their chances for the employment outcome they desire (read: get into best school possible for that outcome), while minimizing cost, work your butt off (like most everyone will) and pray that what you've done and how you've done it is enough to get the outcome you want.

That's fine but don't rag on the guy for saying it's possible.

I've seen what goes on at CCN, where people choose to party instead of study for a final, etc. Those people typically are the ones at the bottom of the curve. I have been told by people at T1/T2s that this is the norm, rather than the freakish people who study 24/7(the norm at my CCN).

Sure ability to take tests plays a factor, but nothing replaces the ability to punish yourself by studying day in and day out. And TLS goes way overboard with the "if the school has 80% employment you have a 80% chance of getting a job" mantra.

I wish we'd go back to the days where people constantly quoted arrow's guide that talked about working non-stop. Rather than feeding this defeatist bullshit down our throats.

If you think you have to study all the time in law school to do well then you're either trolling or never been in law school. It's not rocket science dawg.

I'm pretty pessimistic (just as a human) but I'm not Brucewaynecougaring it here. Come on bro. I'm assuming that the average person is going to be the average law school applicant and therefore get the average outcome from their school. Why would I think differently? Just because they have "strongfaith" in their username? Just because they are a double URM? Just because they insist they are special just like everyone else insists they are special? If everyone says it, then after a while that word loses all meaning.

If you work harder than other people in law school you probably have a better chance than average of doing well. But A) there is still a pretty solid luck component to law school grades and B)Thats all relative and it's not something you can definitively say you will be better at than your peers when you're just a 0L. Attractiveness, likeability, interviewing skills, natural intelligence, work experience, and a number of other factors make a difference in your success in law school and/or the job search. But should I assume that every person has an objective standard to rate themselves against or even if they did that they would accurately assess where they fell in regards to those characteristics? Come on dude.

[Ramius]

ITT: Anyone who doesn't believe in the vale ideology that grades/employment is all about luck is spreading boomer propaganda.

I would disagree that it's ALL about luck. Luck inevitably plays a large part of it, but how you work, hustle, your background, previous work experience, and how well you interview will play SOME part in finding employment. Those things alone are not enough, but it would be equally delusional to believe that no one has any control over their personal success.

The best thing any person can do is maximize their chances for the employment outcome they desire (read: get into best school possible for that outcome), while minimizing cost, work your butt off (like most everyone will) and pray that what you've done and how you've done it is enough to get the outcome you want.

That's fine but don't rag on the guy for saying it's possible.

I've seen what goes on at CCN, where people choose to party instead of study for a final, etc. Those people typically are the ones at the bottom of the curve. I have been told by people at T1/T2s that this is the norm, rather than the freakish people who study 24/7(the norm at my CCN).

Sure ability to take tests plays a factor, but nothing replaces the ability to punish yourself by studying day in and day out. And TLS goes way overboard with the "if the school has 80% employment you have a 80% chance of getting a job" mantra.

I wish we'd go back to the days where people constantly quoted arrow's guide that talked about working non-stop. Rather than feeding this defeatist bullshit down our throats.

Is simply pointing toward arrow's guide enough though? When the data supports that ~50% of the class is gainfully employed as lawyers (as is the case with IUB), are you really suggesting that half the class is BSing their way through school?

I completely agree that with hard work, the right attitude and the right credentials, you give yourself better than a 50% chance of having at least a median outcome, but it's not as simple as "just work hard and it'll work out, stupid." Unless you can point me to data that suggests these classes of T1 and below with <60% employment scores are really filled with 40% unmotivated imbeciles, I'm forced to conclude that it's more than just arrow's guide=success.