Top Law Schools

DaRascal wrote:I feel so bad for everyone in there who went to truly elite schools, did well, and couldn't find employment. Then I see people who went to T1's and were in the top 20% of their classes and they also struggled to find employment. Law school is a really scary proposition. Let me share a quick anecdote that some posters on here might be familiar with. It's not the most riveting tale, but I think it's one of extreme transformation. A few months after I graduated from college, I nearly made an awful decision to attend Notre Dame; I was accepted off the waitlist on August 2nd, 2013. The only thing that stopped me were the e-mails I got from Duke and NU a few days later asking me to confirm my interest in attending, if admitted off either waitlist, so I banked on getting into one of them. I had to respond to ND with a seat deposit by mid-August, but I didn't have a lot of money because I had worked a crappy retail job that summer and gambled away half of my summer earnings on a well-known offshore site throwing down money on sports and poker. I could only afford the ND seat deposit, but I couldn't afford to throw that one down and pay for another seat deposit if I had gotten off the WL at Duke or NU.

Anyway, I'm so grateful that I neither matriculated at ND (sticker price) nor was accepted by Duke or NU. I could have made the worst decision of my life! I never improved my best LSAT score and I hurt myself with some things I did between the beginning of my last year as an undergrad at UVA and the present so I can't pretend that my law school options improved from two years ago, but my life perspective certainly has.

With my GPA, I really couldn't expect much in terms of acceptance AND scholarship money at the top schools unless I saw a really significant improvement on the LSAT (6+ points), so I can't feel like I came up just short of the promised land; what I came up just short of was soul-crushing debt. I would have never considered taking a full-ride at a T30 two years ago. My mind was so set on going to a T14, any T14, at any cost and I was assured I'd work hard there and pay off any debt I would have assumed. How naive of me!


Do you 0L's realize what we're in for? You could go to a law school on a full-ride and end up at the median or worse even after investing every iota of effort into excelling! Law school is a gamble of the highest degree. I might call this a... polemic against bad decision making. We all need to realize that we're human beings and we're prone to this fallacious line of thinking that deludes us into believing we can avert disaster by outworking each other. That might hold true for some, but most of us are not the "special snowflakes" we think we are and we can't assume we'll be top of our law school classes with enough effort by going to schools where our numbers are stronger than most of the rest of the classes' numbers. There's little statistical correlation. We just have to put forth our best effort with few expectations and accept who we are when the grades come back. That's all there is to it!


We can do this, my friends. Let's all make wise decisions and go to (at least) T1 schools with a bunch of scholarship or family money. Look in the mirror and find yourself. There's a tempest ahead and you have to either find a way to brave it or at least be able to bring the ship safely back to the harbor if you can't get through it. We need to sift carefully through the "Vale of Tears" thread and through the threads in the legal employment forum and understand the pitfalls of going to law school before we can choose a law school.

Arad wrote:I am a special snowflake.

ZyzzBrah wrote:

Arad wrote:I am a special snowflake.

borderline t1/t2 non-top 10% with v30 checking in but srsly I'm an idiot for going to lawl school

Arad wrote:I am a special snowflake.

In all seriousness, nothing in life is a guarantee... It is critical that you be brutally honest with yourself before embarking on this adventure that could very well lead to the depths of hell. If you have no personality (unfortunately this applies to a large amount of law students) and are not of exceptional intelligence (when you're competing with brilliant minds, being smart just isn't good enough sometimes), there is a possibility that you will end up in an subpar scenario, stricken with debt and jobless. With that being said, cynicism that manifests in anxiety will slowly eat you away. Relax and hustle--work hard, work efficiently, network hard, network efficiently. Enjoy the ride, focus on the process and hope that your pre-law school analysis of yourself was accurate and you are as capable/sociable as you thought.

NOTE: I am not encouraging anyone to go into law school unaware of the reality of legal hiring, but after understanding that there is no guarantee that you will excel and walk away with a desirable job, that certain schools place better and that debt is a real thing, there is only so much that you can accomplish from further contemplating negative hypotheticals... I'd be willing to bet that many of you underperformed on your LSAT the first 1 or 2 times you took it on account of anxiety induced by your cynicism which ostensibly is a byproduct of your over-analysis the reality of law school.

onionz wrote:I read these threads and wonder if I go to law school in the same country as everyone else. Although doing well in LS isn't a sure thing, I think the whole idea that it's a "total gamble" is false. The distribution at my school worked out about as I expected based on the effort put in by various students. Granted, there were outliers and certainly students who thought they would work harder than they ended up doing, but ultimately there seems to be a strong correlation between hours work and results. (Especially in things like the writing class where most people wait until the weekend before to start their briefs).

That's not to say there isn't some randomness, and students who work hard but luck out. The story also changes the further from YHS you go. There are a ton of bad law schools charging a lot of money for bad outcomes. And of course law school isn't for everyone. (A lot of the arguments for advising people to postpone law school and see if it's what they really want also apply toward encouraging a gap year in undergrad, which I think would also help solve the problem).

But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

There are other hurdles to jump through-students who did do well and don't have jobs, but again it was the students who didn't mass mail, network, cast a wide net or practice interviewing who had a problem.

I guess ultimately I'm just surprised to keep seeing espoused the accepted view that it's all "a gamble." Like anything in life, there's *some* risk, but the more you put into it the more likely you'll get something out of it. I think running a marathon is a good example. If you train a lot more than someone else, you'll probably do better than them- but you could also have a shitty day, which is less likely if you trained well. But someone else might do better than you without training nearly as hard. Finally, it's probably very likely you didn't train as hard as you expected or wanted, and you didn't cut back on other things like you thought you would. What did you expect?

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

thisone2014 wrote:Do people who had UG majors where exams were curved feel that law school grading is as "random" as the OP seems to suggest? It seems possible that the cliche that the "exam I felt best about, I got the lowest grade in" comes from people not used to being graded on a curve.

Arad wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

Arad wrote:
Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

Arad wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

ymmv wrote:

Arad wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

MODS PLZ.

Arad wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

Arad wrote:

bjsesq wrote:

onionz wrote:But the idea that it's totally random or you individually only have 10% to be top 10% is wrong. You should know yourself and what you can commit to. This is not to give hope to what I think is well-described "special snowflake" syndrome. As has been repeated-there are a lot of smart kids with similar credentials around you. Typically you can't just turn it on and be someone else if that's not your MO.

How in the blue fuck can you possibly assess your ability to compete before you've even stepped in the ring?

Young padawan, you are right in assuming you can't assess your ability to compete in an academic manner, but you can pretty accurately assess your social skills. I created an algorithm to help people like you determine whether or not you have what it takes socially

If:
-you've been turned down by every girl you've ever tried to pull
-your "crew" looks like they could be the cast of the Big Bang Theory
-you're saltier than the Dead Sea
-you get nervous conversing with new people/your crush
-you're just ugly (repulsive is more approriate)
-your mom picks your clothes still
-you don't have the confidence to approach new people (especially those of higher stature than you)
-you've banged under 10 girls (and tried over 150 times)
-you are a depressing person to be around (If you're as cynical as you are on these forums in real life, this probably applies to you)
-you complain too much (aka annoying b_tch)
-people don't have a tendency to gravitate towards you

AND

-your grades are mediocre:

You are probably getting knocked out in the first round

thisone2014 wrote:Do people who had UG majors where exams were curved feel that law school grading is as "random" as the OP seems to suggest? It seems possible that the cliche that the "exam I felt best about, I got the lowest grade in" comes from people not used to being graded on a curve.