Top Law Schools

I'm considering a good scholarship at a TTT that places pretty well in a secondary market. My numbers would probably place me in the top 5-10% of incoming students. I'm also considering a lesser scholly at a more respected upper T2 where I would be a little below median for incoming students. Has anyone here chosen a school under the assumption that you would have a better chance at a high class ranking? How's it working out? I'd love some advice for this.

Use search to find the over 9000 threads which explain why this is a terrible idea.

And out of curiosity, which TTT?

rad law wrote:Use search to find the over 9000 threads which explain why this is a terrible idea.

Blatant rank-whoring

Never works. I have a friend who went to a local TTTT school with a 168/4.0 b/c of some family stuff. She is below median. LSAT/GPA are very poor predictors of law school success.

Take it for the $, but not for the supposed advantage. GPA and LSAT statistically do not have a very strong correlation to law school performance. It may be reasonable to assume a slight advantage if your LSAT is 10+ points over the median. That's about it IMO.

Cupidity wrote:Never works. I have a friend who went to a local TTTT school with a 168/4.0 b/c of some family stuff. She is below median. LSAT/GPA are very poor predictors of law school success.

So what does that say about going to a higher-ranked school? Are you saying that your friend is an outlier, or are you using her to prove that the two biggest factors in law school admissions are moot?

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

Cupidity wrote:Never works. I have a friend who went to a local TTTT school with a 168/4.0 b/c of some family stuff. She is below median. LSAT/GPA are very poor predictors of law school success.

So what does that say about going to a higher-ranked school? Are you saying that your friend is an outlier, or are you using her to prove that the two biggest factors in law school admissions are moot?

Moot.

I was at my schools 25's and did well. Law School grading is weird, it is something you are either good at or something that you aren't.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

Cupidity wrote:Never works. I have a friend who went to a local TTTT school with a 168/4.0 b/c of some family stuff. She is below median. LSAT/GPA are very poor predictors of law school success.

So what does that say about going to a higher-ranked school? Are you saying that your friend is an outlier, or are you using her to prove that the two biggest factors in law school admissions are moot?

They are the best factors for admissions to use, since they are objective and fair (at least the LSAT) and they are the best predictors of law school performance out there. However, they are not such good predictors that you should make decisions like this based on them.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

rad law wrote:Use search to find the over 9000 threads which explain why this is a terrible idea.

Blatant rank-whoring

wut

That depends, do you think an employer would prefer to hire someone who was in the top 10% at whittier or the top 30% at Harvard? Whatever your gut tells you from that, go with it. It's your money bro.

Anecdotal evidenc[quote][/quote]e. I have a friend from Harvard at my school on a scholarship, he is currently at median. He's smart, there's only so much you can do with a law school exam graded on a narrow curve. I also have a friend from a TTT undergrad at my school with admission numbers both at 75ths but no scholarship, he's in the top 10%.

2L2011 wrote:That depends, do you think an employer would prefer to hire someone who was in the top 10% at whittier or the top 30% at Harvard? Whatever your gut tells you from that, go with it. It's your money bro.

We're not dealing with such extremes. Its T3 vs. T2. While some may argue that both are bad options, the dichotomy is not a large as Whittier vs. Harvard.

OP, I guess you could say I sort of did what you are describing (going to a lower-ranked school in the hope that I would do better there), although this was far from my main reason for choosing the lower-ranked school. But it certainly factored into my decision. While I was scared of debt of the higher ranked school, I was equally scared by the prospect of finishing very low in my class at the same time. So while I picked the school I did so that I could graduate without much debt at all, I guess it all rested upon the implicit assumption that I would do better here.

That is a bad assumption for a number of reasons. Law school is like a game. Those who learn how to play the fastest will reap the rewards. It really doesn't matter how hard you work if you aren't playing the game right. I ended up doing quite well first semester and can hopefully keep it up next semester as well. And I'm pretty sure (now that I can look at it in retrospect) that I would have done very well at the higher-ranked schools I got into. So honestly, there was no need to ever make that a consideration.

My choices: Tennessee (in-state, waiting for decision), Kentucky (possible $), Mizzou ($ + 2 years in-state), Loyola New Orleans ($), Memphis (in-state). Debt isn't the biggest concern for me but I do weigh it in my decision. I'd prefer to keep it around 80k.

You are assuming that only dumb people will go to the slightly lower school.

Here is how the curve REALLY works. (Even if it WAS whittier vs Harvard)
Some JACKASS FREAK! Will ALWAYS show up just because he got a scholarship and his dad let him stay in his above garage apartment for free(or whatever other reason) and blows the damn curve, setting it high.

True, in Harvard it is a "tighter" curve since most are near him, and in lower T schools the rest are farther back and getting C's or flunking out(thats why they have such an insane attrition 51% at whittier, due to said curve setting freakish Aholes)

Point being, those same guys will blow the curve no matter where you go giving you the same damn grade the majority of the time.

It's like they taught us in Junior High Health Class "BEWARE, IT ONLY TAKES ONE!!!!"

dakatz wrote:OP, I guess you could say I sort of did what you are describing (going to a lower-ranked school in the hope that I would do better there), although this was far from my main reason for choosing the lower-ranked school. But it certainly factored into my decision. While I was scared of debt of the higher ranked school, I was equally scared by the prospect of finishing very low in my class at the same time. So while I picked the school I did so that I could graduate without much debt at all, I guess it all rested upon the implicit assumption that I would do better here.

That is a bad assumption for a number of reasons. Law school is like a game. Those who learn how to play the fastest will reap the rewards. It really doesn't matter how hard you work if you aren't playing the game right. I ended up doing quite well first semester and can hopefully keep it up next semester as well. And I'm pretty sure (now that I can look at it in retrospect) that I would have done very well at the higher-ranked schools I got into. So honestly, there was no need to ever make that a consideration.

dakatz wrote:OP, I guess you could say I sort of did what you are describing (going to a lower-ranked school in the hope that I would do better there), although this was far from my main reason for choosing the lower-ranked school. But it certainly factored into my decision. While I was scared of debt of the higher ranked school, I was equally scared by the prospect of finishing very low in my class at the same time. So while I picked the school I did so that I could graduate without much debt at all, I guess it all rested upon the implicit assumption that I would do better here.

That is a bad assumption for a number of reasons. Law school is like a game. Those who learn how to play the fastest will reap the rewards. It really doesn't matter how hard you work if you aren't playing the game right. I ended up doing quite well first semester and can hopefully keep it up next semester as well. And I'm pretty sure (now that I can look at it in retrospect) that I would have done very well at the higher-ranked schools I got into. So honestly, there was no need to ever make that a consideration.

Thanks for the advice. I have heard people say that the randomness of grading and increased competition at lower ranked schools makes predicting rank futile. It's just hard to believe that you wouldn't be in a better position to succeed if your LSAT is higher than 90% of your classmates. Consensus seems to be that such an advantage doesn't exist so I'll try to block that out in my decision making.

You seem to get it now. Its not the 90% that matter, its that other 10%(or in reality that one guy)

EricBerry wrote:

dakatz wrote:OP, I guess you could say I sort of did what you are describing (going to a lower-ranked school in the hope that I would do better there), although this was far from my main reason for choosing the lower-ranked school. But it certainly factored into my decision. While I was scared of debt of the higher ranked school, I was equally scared by the prospect of finishing very low in my class at the same time. So while I picked the school I did so that I could graduate without much debt at all, I guess it all rested upon the implicit assumption that I would do better here.

That is a bad assumption for a number of reasons. Law school is like a game. Those who learn how to play the fastest will reap the rewards. It really doesn't matter how hard you work if you aren't playing the game right. I ended up doing quite well first semester and can hopefully keep it up next semester as well. And I'm pretty sure (now that I can look at it in retrospect) that I would have done very well at the higher-ranked schools I got into. So honestly, there was no need to ever make that a consideration.

Thanks for the advice. I have heard people say that the randomness of grading and increased competition at lower ranked schools makes predicting rank futile. It's just hard to believe that you wouldn't be in a better position to succeed if your LSAT is higher than 90% of your classmates. Consensus seems to be that such an advantage doesn't exist so I'll try to block that out in my decision making.

I'm thinking of taking McGeorge over USD with similar scholly... insane?

caligulove wrote:I'm thinking of taking McGeorge over USD with similar scholly... insane?

Umm...yes. Show McGeorge your USD scholly and demand a fullride. But honestly ITE both of these schools aren't a good idea with anything less than 2/3 scholly.

BarbellDreams wrote:

caligulove wrote:I'm thinking of taking McGeorge over USD with similar scholly... insane?

Umm...yes. Show McGeorge your USD scholly and demand a fullride. But honestly ITE both of these schools aren't a good idea with anything less than 2/3 scholly.

well I was basing my decision on getting that full ride to be honest...

2L2011 wrote:You are assuming that only dumb people will go to the slightly lower school.

Here is how the curve REALLY works. (Even if it WAS whittier vs Harvard)
Some JACKASS FREAK! Will ALWAYS show up just because he got a scholarship and his dad let him stay in his above garage apartment for free(or whatever other reason) and blows the damn curve, setting it high.

True, in Harvard it is a "tighter" curve since most are near him, and in lower T schools the rest are farther back and getting C's or flunking out(thats why they have such an insane attrition 51% at whittier, due to said curve setting freakish Aholes)

Point being, those same guys will blow the curve no matter where you go giving you the same damn grade the majority of the time.

It's like they taught us in Junior High Health Class "BEWARE, IT ONLY TAKES ONE!!!!"

You don't really understand how law school curves work. If only one guy does better on the exam than you then you are still number 2 in the class.

OP, the real reason that your plan is not a solid one is what other people have already said- a high LSAT is not a good enough predictive factor to gamble on.

Yeah but you can be the #2 can with a C and a 2.0
If the one who sets the curve sets it a 90 and you get a 70.
If you want to only be #2 at the worst, try boxing. I hear guys end up #2 all time!

Kilpatrick wrote:

2L2011 wrote:You are assuming that only dumb people will go to the slightly lower school.

Here is how the curve REALLY works. (Even if it WAS whittier vs Harvard)
Some JACKASS FREAK! Will ALWAYS show up just because he got a scholarship and his dad let him stay in his above garage apartment for free(or whatever other reason) and blows the damn curve, setting it high.

True, in Harvard it is a "tighter" curve since most are near him, and in lower T schools the rest are farther back and getting C's or flunking out(thats why they have such an insane attrition 51% at whittier, due to said curve setting freakish Aholes)

Point being, those same guys will blow the curve no matter where you go giving you the same damn grade the majority of the time.

It's like they taught us in Junior High Health Class "BEWARE, IT ONLY TAKES ONE!!!!"

You don't really understand how law school curves work. If only one guy does better on the exam than you then you are still number 2 in the class.

OP, the real reason that your plan is not a solid one is what other people have already said- a high LSAT is not a good enough predictive factor to gamble on.

2L2011 wrote:Yeah but you can be the #2 can with a C and a 2.0
If the one who sets the curve sets it a 90 and you get a 70.
If you want to only be #2 at the worst, try boxing. I hear guys end up #2 all time!

Kilpatrick wrote:

2L2011 wrote:You are assuming that only dumb people will go to the slightly lower school.

Here is how the curve REALLY works. (Even if it WAS whittier vs Harvard)
Some JACKASS FREAK! Will ALWAYS show up just because he got a scholarship and his dad let him stay in his above garage apartment for free(or whatever other reason) and blows the damn curve, setting it high.

True, in Harvard it is a "tighter" curve since most are near him, and in lower T schools the rest are farther back and getting C's or flunking out(thats why they have such an insane attrition 51% at whittier, due to said curve setting freakish Aholes)

Point being, those same guys will blow the curve no matter where you go giving you the same damn grade the majority of the time.

It's like they taught us in Junior High Health Class "BEWARE, IT ONLY TAKES ONE!!!!"

You don't really understand how law school curves work. If only one guy does better on the exam than you then you are still number 2 in the class.

OP, the real reason that your plan is not a solid one is what other people have already said- a high LSAT is not a good enough predictive factor to gamble on.

Nice trollin'...

IBTL time yet?

2L2011 wrote:Yeah but you can be the #2 can with a C and a 2.0
If the one who sets the curve sets it a 90 and you get a 70.
If you want to only be #2 at the worst, try boxing. I hear guys end up #2 all time!

I don't know what school you go to but I have never heard of a law school that curves this way.