Is Any Optimism Justified? Forum

[manbear]

Hello All,

This is my first post and I'm interested in a specific question -- can anyone here who 1) choose to go to a lower ranked school over a t14 school due to scholarship offers and 2) had LSAT/GPA substantially above the 75th percentile for the lower ranked school comment on their success in law school? Obviously there are no guarantees, but do people coming into schools with LSAT/GPA substantially above their classmates generally end up with better grades? I'm more interested in the LSAT component than the GPA component, since GPA's must be put into the context of undergrad institution, major, course choices, etc.

I realize this question has been touched on in many places, but I have not seen it framed this way before. I'm not interested in whether or not vowing to "work hard" results in success. I doubt it does. I'm interested in knowing if grades in law school are honestly a completely unpredictable crapshoot (as some seem to suggest), or whether or not one's incoming LSAT/GPA percentile even roughly correlates with one's class rank percentile. It seems like at least some correlation should exist, unless law school grades are generated by a random number machine...

For example, suppose someone is coming from an Ivy League undergrad with a 173/3.8 and is considering to go to, say a tier 1 school in the 25-75 ranking range for free vs. a top 14 school for full sticker price. If this person is in the top 5% of the incoming class by LSAT/GPA, could this person reasonably expect to have grades in even the top 25% of the class? Would this person be a fool to expect that his or her grades will be anything other than completely unpredictable?

[ilovesf]

No. This is retarded and there have been a lot of threads on this topic.

[manbear]

No. This is retarded and there have been a lot of threads on this topic.

Can you explain why you think this question is retarded? If you did, your comments would actually be helpful to me and to others who have read the existing posts and found them inconclusive. I'm looking for more opinions than already exist, since I've found existing posts to be inadequate...

This question is only a small piece of my overall decision-making process; I don't see what's wrong with asking the question as long as answers are taken with a grain of salt.

[HeavenWood]

No. This is retarded and there have been a lot of threads on this topic.

Can you explain why you think this question is retarded? If you did, your comments would actually be helpful to me and to others who have read the existing posts and found them inconclusive. I'm looking for more opinions than already exist, since I've found existing posts to be inadequate...

This question is only a small piece of my overall decision-making process; I don't see what's wrong with asking the question as long as answers are taken with a grain of salt.

Yes, you probably will do better, but not necessarily better enough to make up for the difference in placement power. Which do you think takes more ability/effort: Top 10% at a decent regional school or median at a lower T14?

[ilovesf]

No. This is retarded and there have been a lot of threads on this topic.

Can you explain why you think this question is retarded? If you did, your comments would actually be helpful to me and to others who have read the existing posts and found them inconclusive. I'm looking for more opinions than already exist, since I've found existing posts to be inadequate...

This question is only a small piece of my overall decision-making process; I don't see what's wrong with asking the question as long as answers are taken with a grain of salt.

You should never go to a school where you would not be happy being median. There is no way to predict your grades. You would be foolish to think you will be the top 5% because you had a better UG gpa than some of your classmates.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Yes, there is reason for optimism. You may want to check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=187209

I'm about to start at a T1 with a full ride + stipend scholarship. I turned down several T14 with some money. Before accepting I got in touch with previous recipients of this scholarship from class of 2012, 2011, 2010 and I checked up on 2008 and 2009 people on the internet. Every single person graduated top 20% of the class, most graduated top 10%, and everyone either was in big law or very prestigious PI. Long story short, if you are in the top 5% of LSAT and GPA for a school you have a much better than random chance of grading on to law review and graduating order of the coif. Of course this is NOT a guarantee, but I concluded with my personal situation it was worth the gamble as opposed to $100k-150k of debt from a T14 where you're still not guaranteed a job.

p.s. In the above thread i advocate collecting statistics on the placement of full ride and full ride(+) students at tier one. The reason being that if you assume at a non HYS T14 you have a 1/2 or at best 2/3 shot of big law, I think there is close to that same chance when you accept a full ride scholarship from some T1s.

[HeavenWood]

Yes, there is reason for optimism. You may want to check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=187209

I'm about to start at a T1 with a full ride + stipend scholarship. I turned down several T14 with some money. Before accepting I got in touch with previous recipients of this scholarship from class of 2012, 2011, 2010 and I checked up on 2008 and 2009 people on the internet. Every single person graduated top 20% of the class, most graduated top 10%, and everyone either was in big law or very prestigious PI. Long story short, if you are in the top 5% of LSAT and GPA for a school you have a much better than random chance of grading on to law review and graduating order of the coif. Of course this is NOT a guarantee, but I concluded with my personal situation it was worth the gamble as opposed to $100k-150k of debt from a T14 where you're still not guaranteed a job.

p.s. In the above thread i advocate collecting statistics on the placement of full ride and full ride(+) students at tier one. The reason being that if you assume at a non HYS T14 you have a 1/2 or at best 2/3 shot of big law, I think there is close to that same chance when you accept a full ride scholarship from some T1s.

I think this is advice is fine if you're not dead-set on big law, because you are most definitely looking at a reduction in chance at snagging a big firm job, the size of which depends on the non-T14 in question.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Yes, there is reason for optimism. You may want to check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=187209

I'm about to start at a T1 with a full ride + stipend scholarship. I turned down several T14 with some money. Before accepting I got in touch with previous recipients of this scholarship from class of 2012, 2011, 2010 and I checked up on 2008 and 2009 people on the internet. Every single person graduated top 20% of the class, most graduated top 10%, and everyone either was in big law or very prestigious PI. Long story short, if you are in the top 5% of LSAT and GPA for a school you have a much better than random chance of grading on to law review and graduating order of the coif. Of course this is NOT a guarantee, but I concluded with my personal situation it was worth the gamble as opposed to $100k-150k of debt from a T14 where you're still not guaranteed a job.

p.s. In the above thread i advocate collecting statistics on the placement of full ride and full ride(+) students at tier one. The reason being that if you assume at a non HYS T14 you have a 1/2 or at best 2/3 shot of big law, I think there is close to that same chance when you accept a full ride scholarship from some T1s.

I think this is advice is fine if you're not dead-set on big law.

I think of it as a hedge against the declining big law jobs and the fact that it is possible to be 3.7+ and 170+ at a T14 and be unemployed at graduation. Also, there are some T1s where this strategy makes much more sense. For instance, full ride at Cardozo: if you are at the tippy top of the class you're probably fine, but your still competing in a market with many many better schools (NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Fordham, etc). Same goes for T1s in other major markets (LA, SF, chicago). It's a riskier choice than attending a T1 in a secondary market where you want to practice, since the degree goes further regardless of class rank.

[HeavenWood]

Yes, there is reason for optimism. You may want to check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=187209

I'm about to start at a T1 with a full ride + stipend scholarship. I turned down several T14 with some money. Before accepting I got in touch with previous recipients of this scholarship from class of 2012, 2011, 2010 and I checked up on 2008 and 2009 people on the internet. Every single person graduated top 20% of the class, most graduated top 10%, and everyone either was in big law or very prestigious PI. Long story short, if you are in the top 5% of LSAT and GPA for a school you have a much better than random chance of grading on to law review and graduating order of the coif. Of course this is NOT a guarantee, but I concluded with my personal situation it was worth the gamble as opposed to $100k-150k of debt from a T14 where you're still not guaranteed a job.

p.s. In the above thread i advocate collecting statistics on the placement of full ride and full ride(+) students at tier one. The reason being that if you assume at a non HYS T14 you have a 1/2 or at best 2/3 shot of big law, I think there is close to that same chance when you accept a full ride scholarship from some T1s.

I think this is advice is fine if you're not dead-set on big law.

I think of it as a hedge against the declining big law jobs and the fact that it is possible to be 3.7+ and 170+ at a T14 and be unemployed at graduation. Also, there are some T1s where this strategy makes much more sense. For instance, full ride at Cardozo: if you are at the tippy top of the class you're probably fine, but your still competing in a market with many many better schools (NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Fordham, etc). Same goes for T1s in other major markets (LA, SF, chicago). It's a riskier choice than attending a T1 in a secondary market where you want to practice, since the degree goes further regardless of class rank.

I repeat, getting top 10% at Cardozo is almost definitely a good bit harder than getting median at NYU.

[PaulKriske]

For example, suppose someone is coming from an Ivy League undergrad with a 173/3.8 and is considering to go to, say a tier 1 school in the 25-75 ranking range for free vs. a top 14 school for full sticker price.

this is nonsensical.

[JCFindley]

Depends, did you get a 178 without studying or did you start out with a 148 and work your way up even sitting out a year to increase your LSAT? You can't sit out a year and wait because you aren't ready for finals and you can't take them three times and then have them only consider your highest score. How many of those other students took the LSAT once with minimal preparation and were happy enough with school X? Do you have an advantage over them?

Lets talk GPAs. We all know that admissions only cares about what the GPA is and not the major but in the real world, That guy with the double major in math and physics with a 3.5 is probably formidable competition to the social studies major with a 4.1. Or the dude with an MBA that has a 4.0 in grad school but that doesn't count towards admissions.

Also, while your LSAT may be top 75% at school X there just isn't that much difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles at most schools.

I am all for taking a full ride at a lower ranked school to minimize debt and open up options but just because you did well on one LSAT does NOT give you a huge leg up as there are too many variables to say for sure.

[HeavenWood]

For example, suppose someone is coming from an Ivy League undergrad with a 173/3.8 and is considering to go to, say a tier 1 school in the 25-75 ranking range for free vs. a top 14 school for full sticker price.

this is nonsensical.

And that's because...

I repeat, getting top 10% at Cardozo is almost definitely a good bit harder than getting median at NYU.

[ilovesf]

I think of it as a hedge against the declining big law jobs and the fact that it is possible to be 3.7+ and 170+ at a T14 and be unemployed at graduation. Also, there are some T1s where this strategy makes much more sense. For instance, full ride at Cardozo: if you are at the tippy top of the class you're probably fine, but your still competing in a market with many many better schools (NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Fordham, etc). Same goes for T1s in other major markets (LA, SF, chicago). It's a riskier choice than attending a T1 in a secondary market where you want to practice, since the degree goes further regardless of class rank.

I repeat, getting top 10% at Cardozo is almost definitely a good bit harder than getting median at NYU.

You're talking to someone who hasn't even started 1L yet. 0Ls have no idea how difficult it can be to be in the top 10% at any school, let alone a lower T1 school where everyone knows if they aren't in the 10% they won't get biglaw.

[JJW]

You should never go to a school where you would not be happy being median. There is no way to predict your grades. You would be foolish to think you will be the top 5% because you had a better UG gpa than some of your classmates.

Maybe I do not understand the point. Other than HYS or the upper T-14, I do not think there is a school I would be happy at with median since median might mean under/unemployment.

To OP: As far as LSAT having a bearing. I had practice scores of 177 and the day before the LSAT I practiced and had a 165 result. How does one gauge those outcomes?

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Yes, there is reason for optimism. You may want to check out this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=187209

I'm about to start at a T1 with a full ride + stipend scholarship. I turned down several T14 with some money. Before accepting I got in touch with previous recipients of this scholarship from class of 2012, 2011, 2010 and I checked up on 2008 and 2009 people on the internet. Every single person graduated top 20% of the class, most graduated top 10%, and everyone either was in big law or very prestigious PI. Long story short, if you are in the top 5% of LSAT and GPA for a school you have a much better than random chance of grading on to law review and graduating order of the coif. Of course this is NOT a guarantee, but I concluded with my personal situation it was worth the gamble as opposed to $100k-150k of debt from a T14 where you're still not guaranteed a job.

p.s. In the above thread i advocate collecting statistics on the placement of full ride and full ride(+) students at tier one. The reason being that if you assume at a non HYS T14 you have a 1/2 or at best 2/3 shot of big law, I think there is close to that same chance when you accept a full ride scholarship from some T1s.

I think this is advice is fine if you're not dead-set on big law.

I think of it as a hedge against the declining big law jobs and the fact that it is possible to be 3.7+ and 170+ at a T14 and be unemployed at graduation. Also, there are some T1s where this strategy makes much more sense. For instance, full ride at Cardozo: if you are at the tippy top of the class you're probably fine, but your still competing in a market with many many better schools (NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Fordham, etc). Same goes for T1s in other major markets (LA, SF, chicago). It's a riskier choice than attending a T1 in a secondary market where you want to practice, since the degree goes further regardless of class rank.

I repeat, getting top 10% at Cardozo is almost definitely a good bit harder than getting median at NYU.

I have no idea, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true but you're probably right. Basically, either way there's risk: either financial risk or grade risk. But i mean if you go to a T1 with full scholly and get below median, I'd advocate you walk away after the first year since all you've lost is the time. If you do the same at a T14 you've invested the time plus $$$.

[HeavenWood]

I have no idea, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true but you're probably right. Basically, either way there's risk: either financial risk or grade risk. But i mean if you go to a T1 with full scholly and get below median, I'd advocate you walk away after the first year since all you've lost is the time. If you do the same at a T14 you've invested the time plus $$$.

That's a different argument entirely, and one which, as I said before, makes sense for someone who really isn't that gung-ho about getting a big firm job.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

I think of it as a hedge against the declining big law jobs and the fact that it is possible to be 3.7+ and 170+ at a T14 and be unemployed at graduation. Also, there are some T1s where this strategy makes much more sense. For instance, full ride at Cardozo: if you are at the tippy top of the class you're probably fine, but your still competing in a market with many many better schools (NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Fordham, etc). Same goes for T1s in other major markets (LA, SF, chicago). It's a riskier choice than attending a T1 in a secondary market where you want to practice, since the degree goes further regardless of class rank.

I repeat, getting top 10% at Cardozo is almost definitely a good bit harder than getting median at NYU.

You're talking to someone who hasn't even started 1L yet. 0Ls have no idea how difficult it can be to be in the top 10% at any school, let alone a lower T1 school where everyone knows if they aren't in the 10% they won't get biglaw.

Point taken. My view is to collect data to help with the decision. If there are two or three people in each class with the full ride, and every person who's had it in five years has been in whatever rank in the class (top 10% top 20% whatever) I'd take that as some confirmation, even though its a small sample size. Basically, on TLS you hear from a lot of T14ers without jobs who are below median but you really don't hear from T1 full scholarship people who are below median.

[ilovesf]

You should never go to a school where you would not be happy being median. There is no way to predict your grades. You would be foolish to think you will be the top 5% because you had a better UG gpa than some of your classmates.

Maybe I do not understand the point. Other than HYS or the upper T-14, I do not think there is a school I would be happy at with median since median might mean under/unemployment.

To OP: As far as LSAT having a bearing. I had practice scores of 177 and the day before the LSAT I practiced and had a 165 result. How does one gauge those outcomes?

I think you understood my point. A lot of people here would not go to schools that aren't in the t-14. I happen to attend a lower T1. Thankfully I am above median, otherwise I would have probably dropped out.

[manbear]

Thanks everyone, these answers have been helpful. After graduating from Dartmouth for undergrad and seeing many of my classmates struggle to find employment, I'm wary of paying big money to go a prestigious school. Perhaps prestige matters more in the legal profession, but my experiences at Dartmouth have made me interested in going to a lesser school where I will (hopefully) have a better chance of standing out from the crowd. I'm trying to figure how realistic this hope is.

I think the advice that nobody should go a law school where they would find median grades unacceptable is excellent. The caveat for me is that I'm not sure which is more unacceptable: median grades, considerable debt, and OK job prospects at a prestigious school, or median grades, no debt, and weak job prospects at a lesser school. I'm not particularly interested in biglaw; in fact, I'd like to go a more regional school specifically so I don't have to compete with the hordes of smart, motivated people trying to work in NYC and DC. I'd be much more happy with a modest job in a smaller city and no pressure to pay back loans. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I don't think it's any less realistic than gunning for biglaw.

An expected value analysis is difficult for me because I have no idea what my employment prospects really are. Un-stipulated scholarships are attractive to me because the reduction in tuition is a certainty. Honestly I can't imagine taking out 6 figures of debt unless a high-paying job is a given, and this doesn't seem to be the case. I know everyone thinks that he or she will do well in law school, and of course doesn't, but the thought of lots of debt and no job sends considerably more chills down my spine than the thought of no debt and no job, even if the 2nd scenario is more probable.

[sunynp]

Two things- totally agree with you on the debt issue. But don't underestimate how motivated students will be at a regional school. Everyone is fighting for as job.

You didn't mention -do you really want to be a lawyer? Maybe take some time to decide what to do.

[manbear]

Two things- totally agree with you on the debt issue. But don't underestimate how motivated students will be at a regional school. Everyone is fighting for as job.

You didn't mention -do you really want to be a lawyer? Maybe take some time to decide what to do.

I've been interested in joining the legal profession for several years, but I've been taking my time to apply to school. While I do find law fascinating, I'm not passionate enough to want to be a poor lawyer. The underemployment in the legal industry is very troubling to me. You might say that my desire to be a lawyer is conditional on law school being a wise investment. Otherwise, I'd rather pursue something that's both interesting to me and lucrative. I was a math major in college. Admittedly, it was mostly theoretical math and I find the law more appetizing, but I'm not beyond ditching law school to study engineering if my law school choices are something like $200,000+ debt and ~70-80% chance of getting a job or 0 debt and ~5-10% chance of getting a job. These numbers are made up, but that last percentage depends a lot on the likelihood of me getting excellent grades.

[JCFindley]

Thanks everyone, these answers have been helpful. After graduating from Dartmouth for undergrad and seeing many of my classmates struggle to find employment, I'm wary of paying big money to go a prestigious school. Perhaps prestige matters more in the legal profession, but my experiences at Dartmouth have made me interested in going to a lesser school where I will (hopefully) have a better chance of standing out from the crowd. I'm trying to figure how realistic this hope is.

I think the advice that nobody should go a law school where they would find median grades unacceptable is excellent. The caveat for me is that I'm not sure which is more unacceptable: median grades, considerable debt, and OK job prospects at a prestigious school, or median grades, no debt, and weak job prospects at a lesser school. I'm not particularly interested in biglaw; in fact, I'd like to go a more regional school specifically so I don't have to compete with the hordes of smart, motivated people trying to work in NYC and DC. I'd be much more happy with a modest job in a smaller city and no pressure to pay back loans. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I don't think it's any less realistic than gunning for biglaw.

An expected value analysis is difficult for me because I have no idea what my employment prospects really are. Un-stipulated scholarships are attractive to me because the reduction in tuition is a certainty. Honestly I can't imagine taking out 6 figures of debt unless a high-paying job is a given, and this doesn't seem to be the case. I know everyone thinks that he or she will do well in law school, and of course doesn't, but the thought of lots of debt and no job sends considerably more chills down my spine than the thought of no debt and no job, even if the 2nd scenario is more probable.

If you aren't gunning for biglaw I personally think a strong regional school with no debt is an excellent choice. All you have to lose is time and with no debt you do have more options since you don't have to have biglaw to pay off loans.

I don't disagree with that logic at all. I just am not dead sure I buy good LSAT and good GPA = success in LS as there are just too many other variables that law schools don't look at or post because they don't report them US News. OTH if you got a 178 cold without studying AND have a 4.0 in a math/physics double major then OK, enjoy they higher end of your class.

Edit: I now see you WERE actually a math major which for me makes a top 75% GPA a lot more impressive.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Thanks everyone, these answers have been helpful. After graduating from Dartmouth for undergrad and seeing many of my classmates struggle to find employment, I'm wary of paying big money to go a prestigious school. Perhaps prestige matters more in the legal profession, but my experiences at Dartmouth have made me interested in going to a lesser school where I will (hopefully) have a better chance of standing out from the crowd. I'm trying to figure how realistic this hope is.

I think the advice that nobody should go a law school where they would find median grades unacceptable is excellent. The caveat for me is that I'm not sure which is more unacceptable: median grades, considerable debt, and OK job prospects at a prestigious school, or median grades, no debt, and weak job prospects at a lesser school. I'm not particularly interested in biglaw; in fact, I'd like to go a more regional school specifically so I don't have to compete with the hordes of smart, motivated people trying to work in NYC and DC. I'd be much more happy with a modest job in a smaller city and no pressure to pay back loans. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I don't think it's any less realistic than gunning for biglaw.

An expected value analysis is difficult for me because I have no idea what my employment prospects really are. Un-stipulated scholarships are attractive to me because the reduction in tuition is a certainty. Honestly I can't imagine taking out 6 figures of debt unless a high-paying job is a given, and this doesn't seem to be the case. I know everyone thinks that he or she will do well in law school, and of course doesn't, but the thought of lots of debt and no job sends considerably more chills down my spine than the thought of no debt and no job, even if the 2nd scenario is more probable.

If you aren't gunning for biglaw I personally think a strong regional school with no debt is an excellent choice. All you have to lose is time and with no debt you do have more options since you don't have to have biglaw to pay off loans.

I don't disagree with that logic at all. I just am not dead sure I buy good LSAT and good GPA = success in LS as there are just too many other variables that law schools don't look at or post because they don't report them US News. OTH if you got a 178 cold without studying AND have a 4.0 in a math/physics double major then OK, enjoy they higher end of your class.

Edit: I now see you WERE actually a math major which for me makes a top 75% GPA a lot more impressive.

I think LSAT/gpa well above seventy fifth percentile is an important factor but not absolutely determinative. I've heard also that work experience between undergrad and JD can be a plus, as can being in a committed relationship (less time spent out and better support structure at home).

[Borhas]

I think you are justified in thinking you'll probably do better, but by better I mean above median not top 15% or anything. Still, can't beat no debt.

[quiver]

I think LSAT/gpa well above seventy fifth percentile is an important factor but not absolutely determinative. I've heard also that work experience between undergrad and JD can be a plus, as can being in a committed relationship (less time spent out and better support structure at home).

This is so dumb.