Top Law Schools

When I applied to law school I was young and dumb. I had a very high GPA and did not take the LSAT seriously. Had I put in the time, I could have scored much higher and gone to a better school. Things worked out for me, but if you are considering going to law school put in the time with the LSAT because your school follows you the rest of your career, sadly

Many thanks for checking in and sharing your perspective with current 0Ls - this is very helpful.

Qtc wrote:When I applied to law school I was young and dumb. I had a very high GPA and did not take the LSAT seriously. Had I put in the time, I could have scored much higher and gone to a better school. Things worked out for me, but if you are considering going to law school put in the time with the LSAT because your school follows you the rest of your career, sadly

I’ll add that the Lsat is a much easier test than law school exams. And when I say that, I’m not even necessarily specifically referring to the tests’ respective content. It’s more that you can literally directly track your ability to perform and your weaknesses and strength as intensely as you want for as long as you want on the Lsat. For law school exams, though many try and have varying degrees of success (and believe me it’s worth practicing and trying to get feedback), it’s very difficult to track and correspondingly improve your law school exam taking ability to the degree it is possible for the Lsat.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

Qtc wrote:When I applied to law school I was young and dumb. I had a very high GPA and did not take the LSAT seriously. Had I put in the time, I could have scored much higher and gone to a better school. Things worked out for me, but if you are considering going to law school put in the time with the LSAT because your school follows you the rest of your career, sadly

I’ll add that the Lsat is a much easier test than law school exams. And when I say that, I’m not even necessarily specifically referring to the tests’ respective content. It’s more that you can literally directly track your ability to perform and your weaknesses and strength as intensely as you want for as long as you want on the Lsat. For law school exams, though many try and have varying degrees of success (and believe me it’s worth practicing and trying to get feedback), it’s very difficult to track and correspondingly improve your law school exam taking ability to the degree it is possible for the Lsat.

Improving law school exam-taking ability is made even trickier by the fact that most students don't take multiple courses with the same prof. I think it's rare to have the same prof for more than 2 classes. More typically, folks will have a new prof for every single class (as was the case for me). And of course different profs don't grade exams the same way.

And on the LSAT side of things, improving on the LSAT is made even easier by the fact that only your highest score counts. It's not like law school exams where even if you improve dramatically over the course of your law school career, you will already have been limited by your first-semester and 1L grades. For folks "betting on themselves" to land BigLaw from a T2, for example, they will have permanently locked themselves out if they "merely" end up in the top 33% after 1L (outperforming two-thirds of their classmates) - and it won't matter if they get straight As in 2L and 3L. The BigLaw boat will be gone. But for the LSAT, if you manage to hit, say, a 170 on your fourth try, it doesn't matter if you previously scored a 152, a 157, and a 165. Schools don't look at your "average" LSAT or hold your previous takes against you.

ITT mods give good advice

objctnyrhnr wrote:ITT mods give good advice

*pats self and nyrhnr on back*

If also add that if you don’t go to a top school, this doesn’t matter as much. Most people don’t go to top schools. But they key is to set yourself up for success, which means minimizing debt and maximizing employment prospects

Qtc wrote:If also add that if you don’t go to a top school, this doesn’t matter as much. Most people don’t go to top schools.

No, it matters across the spectrum. A 0L whose goals are achievable from a T2 would still be much better-served by attending the T2 at, say, half-price than attending the T2 at sticker. (It's almost never a good idea to attend a sub-T1 law school at sticker, barring extreme wealth.)

And of course, that hypothetical student would also be better-served if they could attend a T1 at reasonable cost instead of a T2 at reasonable cost (assuming both schools are in the same region) - say, Fordham vs. Cardozo. Never hurts to keep more doors open.

Most schools outside the top are fungible. The marginal gains you get from attending T50 v t100 are so small that the difference is neglible

Qtc wrote:Most schools outside the top are fungible.

They are not. Geography is king. For schools outside the T20, it's critically important to attend school in the market where you plan to practice for the rest of your career.

Qtc wrote:The marginal gains you get from attending T50 v t100 are so small that the difference is neglible

If both schools are in the same region, there is a real difference. Take Dallas. SMU is a far stronger law school than A&M and UNT Dallas. (A&M in turn is much stronger than UNT Dallas.) It would absolutely make sense for a 0L to retake for the purpose of getting into SMU at a reasonable cost. SMU has a reputation in the Dallas legal community that A&M and UNT Dallas just don't have.

Of course, as noted above, it doesn't make sense to compare a T1 in one region with a T2 in a different region, as both schools place locally and their graduates won't compete with each other.

Finally, of course, "T1", "T2" etc. are crude generalizations. There is no sharp "cliff" in placement power between school #50 (a "T1 school") and school #51 (a "T2 school"). But if you're talking about a school in the 30s or 40s, vs. a school in the 80s or 90s, and the schools are in the same market, there are going to be real differences in their reputation and placement power.