This is Horrifying... Forum

[APHill]

By smart, you mean what? You're putting entirely too much faith in the LSAT.

^^ low LSAT sour grapes?

Actually a couple months of prep can do wonders for an LSAT score. Try making up for a shit GPA in one summer & get back to me.

Almost anyone can get an outstanding GPA with enough effort (greater than 3.. Not everyone can get an outstanding LSAT score (greater than 170). In other words, you can study nonstop and get a good GPA, but no matter how much someone studies, most people cannot get a 170.

true that, for me increasing my lsat score by studying was like trying to punch a hole with a fist in a brick wall, I have 3.91 in two double hard majors...

for those of you who are older (late twenties) - try to take LSAT as soon as possible as it has been proven that LSAT score deteriorates significantly with age. The test is developed for 21 yo kid brains. After all the partying and simple nerve cell decay happenning during the 20s you will be at an extreme disadvantage.

[hannibalhamlin61]

As informative as these forums can be it can be so hard to wade through all the shit sometimes. Everyone on here who got into a top 20 would like to think that their starting salaries out of law school will be twice that of a t4 student. All of their flaming and venting is their way of constantly reminding other posters why they should enjoy a more fulfilling career. I agree that a score in the forties doesn't bode very well for admissions, but none of you on here can say without a doubt that any of these t4'ers will be making crap salaries in the public field. Two of my friends who have graduated from t4 schools from different states are earning very decent starting salaries. I myself am now entering my fourth year in undergrad and my dec. score was a 168 and I plan to retake in the summer. Either way I would like to think that most of the posters on here would actually like to help others with helpful advice , instead of boosting their own egos.

they aren't boosting their own egos as much as they are stating the facts

Yes, there are some people on here that are merely stating the facts. However, there are many people that have taken it upon themselves to denigrate anyone not going to a top school at any chance they get. As if they are doing this because they're legitimately concerned about the career prospects of some random person on the internet. There is a difference from providing advice and trying to belittle others. Most people on here (that get into debates when people say that TTTs and TTTTs can be successful) are just trying to stroke their egos.

If someone was actually trying to give others the facts they would say something like, And if they couldn't convince that person they would leave it alone. But that's not what most people say. It's usually "You're so stupid for even considering going to a school outside of the top 14. How do you not understand that you're going to be a destitute loser by the time you're 50." Even if there is no convincing someone of their position, these people will continue to debate that person for some reason.

"The prospects coming from those schools are not good, and I would not advise attending." People argue with this because the people stating it are in no position to advise them. Even if it may prove true, the reality is that it's coming from snot-nosed clowns on the internet. The ammount of bullshit that is shoveled on this forum by 0L's that haven't been to law school & haven't worked in the legal field is incredible, so don't expect people to take your word for it. Because you word is absolutely worthless.

[honestabe84]

As informative as these forums can be it can be so hard to wade through all the shit sometimes. Everyone on here who got into a top 20 would like to think that their starting salaries out of law school will be twice that of a t4 student. All of their flaming and venting is their way of constantly reminding other posters why they should enjoy a more fulfilling career. I agree that a score in the forties doesn't bode very well for admissions, but none of you on here can say without a doubt that any of these t4'ers will be making crap salaries in the public field. Two of my friends who have graduated from t4 schools from different states are earning very decent starting salaries. I myself am now entering my fourth year in undergrad and my dec. score was a 168 and I plan to retake in the summer. Either way I would like to think that most of the posters on here would actually like to help others with helpful advice , instead of boosting their own egos.

they aren't boosting their own egos as much as they are stating the facts

Yes, there are some people on here that are merely stating the facts. However, there are many people that have taken it upon themselves to denigrate anyone not going to a top school at any chance they get. As if they are doing this because they're legitimately concerned about the career prospects of some random person on the internet. There is a difference from providing advice and trying to belittle others. Most people on here (that get into debates when people say that TTTs and TTTTs can be successful) are just trying to stroke their egos.

If someone was actually trying to give others the facts they would say something like, And if they couldn't convince that person they would leave it alone. But that's not what most people say. It's usually "You're so stupid for even considering going to a school outside of the top 14. How do you not understand that you're going to be a destitute loser by the time you're 50." Even if there is no convincing someone of their position, these people will continue to debate that person for some reason.

"The prospects coming from those schools are not good, and I would not advise attending." People argue with this because the people stating it are in no position to advise them. Even if it may prove true, the reality is that it's coming from snot-nosed clowns on the internet. The ammount of bullshit that is shoveled on this forum by 0L's that haven't been to law school & haven't worked in the legal field is incredible, so don't expect people to take your word for it. Because you word is absolutely worthless.

Did you even read my post? You are in complete agreement with me.

[hannibalhamlin61]

Did you even read my post? You are in complete agreement with me.

I took issue with the bit about "If someone was actually trying to give others the facts they would say something like,'The prospects coming from those schools are not good, and I would not advise attending'.". Which is now mysteriously edited out.

These are not 'facts'...

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I took issue with the bit about "If someone was actually trying to give others the facts they would say something like,'The prospects coming from those schools are not good, and I would not advise attending'.". Which is now mysteriously edited out.

These are not 'facts'...

No, people are just pissed off at others for having to state the same shit to people who can't be bothered to do some elementary forum searching

[honestabe84]

Did you even read my post? You are in complete agreement with me.

I took issue with the bit about "If someone was actually trying to give others the facts they would say something like,'The prospects coming from those schools are not good, and I would not advise attending'.". Which is now mysteriously edited out.

These are not 'facts'...

Huh? Nothing is edited out.

I wasn't saying that the statement you quoted was true. I was saying that if someone was just trying to give others (what they personally think are) the facts then they would have said it in that way.

[hannibalhamlin61]

Did you even read my post? You are in complete agreement with me.

I took issue with the bit about "If someone was actually trying to give others the facts they would say something like,'The prospects coming from those schools are not good, and I would not advise attending'.". Which is now mysteriously edited out.

These are not 'facts'...

Huh? Nothing is edited out.

I wasn't saying that the statement you quoted was true. I was saying that if someone was just trying to give others (what they personally think are) the facts then they would have said it in that way.

Exactly, except we call this an 'opinion', which is why people continue to argue. Because the people making these blanket statements really feel like they are 'giving people the facts'...

[JTX]

for those of you who are older (late twenties) - try to take LSAT as soon as possible as it has been proven that LSAT score deteriorates significantly with age. The test is developed for 21 yo kid brains. After all the partying and simple nerve cell decay happenning during the 20s you will be at an extreme disadvantage.

is that what happened?? Thank you, Dr. ApHill.

[APHill]

for those of you who are older (late twenties) - try to take LSAT as soon as possible as it has been proven that LSAT score deteriorates significantly with age. The test is developed for 21 yo kid brains. After all the partying and simple nerve cell decay happenning during the 20s you will be at an extreme disadvantage.

jesus. is that what happened?? Thank you, Dr. ApHill.

just what i heard/read somewhere; which is the same for other areas, e.g. learning foreign languages.

[JTX]

for those of you who are older (late twenties) - try to take LSAT as soon as possible as it has been proven that LSAT score deteriorates significantly with age. The test is developed for 21 yo kid brains. After all the partying and simple nerve cell decay happenning during the 20s you will be at an extreme disadvantage.

jesus. is that what happened?? Thank you, Dr. ApHill.

just what i heard/read somewhere; which is the same for other areas, e.g. learning foreign languages.

i was wondering why i couldnt get into bigger numbers. now i will use this excuse.

i've devised a new formula.

age adjusted LSAT= actual LSAT + [(age- 21).75]

what do yall think?

[honestabe84]

for those of you who are older (late twenties) - try to take LSAT as soon as possible as it has been proven that LSAT score deteriorates significantly with age. The test is developed for 21 yo kid brains. After all the partying and simple nerve cell decay happenning during the 20s you will be at an extreme disadvantage.

jesus. is that what happened?? Thank you, Dr. ApHill.

just what i heard/read somewhere; which is the same for other areas, e.g. learning foreign languages.

i was wondering why my old ass couldnt get into bigger numbers. now i will use this excuse.

i've devised a new formula.

age adjusted LSAT= actual LSAT + [(age- 21).75]

what do yall think?

Write an addendum

[BaiAilian2013]

No matter what DH2O says, I make perfect sense...and I'm waaaaay better looking. I look like my avatar, and he looks like his avatar. lol. Typical coward...can't think, follows and doesn't lead...thinks of everything in terms of "white". Just a sad case really.

Dude, did you see his old selftar? He's fucking hot.

Overstatement appreciated


But seriously, I've always thought 180 LSATers had great taste in men.

We know exactly where to place your ultrasaur.

[Wooster33]

What do we now live in a nanny state? I guess the govt should step in?

Please, if market determines that it is profitable for a school to open up a law school, then they should do it. Period. Unless the legal community itself (including the ABA) chooses strength of education over financial gain nothing will change. Then again, that's not the American way....

Can't wait until I start my law school.....No. 500!

The tax payer provides for their student loans though. Free market? Hardly. If people had to convince a bank to loan them money to attend some TTTT start up law school, they would never ever be loaned over 100K. This isn't to disparage TTT students (they are a lot smarter than people on this board give them credit for), it's just the economics of the situation. Paying 150K for a TTT degree is a bad investment and absent government involvement very little lending of this kind would go on. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's a good or bad thing.

[D. H2Oman]

We know exactly where to place your ultrasaur.

Where the hell was that god damn mauve stegosaurus suppose go?!?

[BaiAilian2013]

We know exactly where to place your ultrasaur.

Where the hell was that god damn mauve stegosaurus suppose go?!?

You had a mauve stegosaurus? Yikes. I think there's a cream for that...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yes. I don't know a WHOLE lot about medical school, but I'm pretty sure you would not have chance at getting accepted with a 2.9 GPA (even though its in Bio) no matter what your MCAT score is. In law school you can major in psyche or criminal justice, get a 2.9, score a 173 on the LSAT, and still get into at least a tier 1.

Sorry, people with sub 3.0's don't just up and get a 170+ on the LSAT.

You're assuming it takes the same skills to get a high GPA as it does to get a high LSAT.
Hell no!! I'm not particularly driven or ambitious but I am a strong test taker. I have strong reasoning skills and am good at pointing out inconsistencies.
My GPA is currently shy of 3.0 and I've consistently have been scoring 173+ on practice exams.
Also not all law school applicants are in majors with 3.7+ averages, in my school, my major's average is about 3.3.

[r6_philly]

You're assuming it takes the same skills to get a high GPA as it does to get a high LSAT.
Hell no!! I'm not particularly driven or ambitious but I am a strong test taker. I have strong reasoning skills and am good at pointing out inconsistencies.
My GPA is currently shy of 3.0 and I've consistently have been scoring 173+ on practice exams.
Also not all law school applicants are in majors with 3.7+ averages, in my school, my major's average is about 3.3.

If the LSAT is easier to get than GPA I should have a 185.

The only argument you can make from your example is that GPA doesn't correlate with LSAT scores. If a person sub 50% GPA like you can score 99% and up on the LSAT they must not measure/represent the same qualities. So then one can't compensate another. LSAT can represent one's potential and GPA can represent one's potential to realize that LSAT potential through actual work. Make sense that law schools want to see both high.

[r6_philly]

i was wondering why my old ass couldnt get into bigger numbers. now i will use this excuse.

i've devised a new formula.

age adjusted LSAT= actual LSAT + [(age- 21).75]

what do yall think?

I would go with this! It will give me a 179!

[Dr. Strangelove]

You're assuming it takes the same skills to get a high GPA as it does to get a high LSAT.
Hell no!! I'm not particularly driven or ambitious but I am a strong test taker. I have strong reasoning skills and am good at pointing out inconsistencies.
My GPA is currently shy of 3.0 and I've consistently have been scoring 173+ on practice exams.
Also not all law school applicants are in majors with 3.7+ averages, in my school, my major's average is about 3.3.

If the LSAT is easier to get than GPA I should have a 185.

The only argument you can make from your example is that GPA doesn't correlate with LSAT scores. If a person sub 50% GPA like you can score 99% and up on the LSAT they must not measure/represent the same qualities. So then one can't compensate another. LSAT can represent one's potential and GPA can represent one's potential to realize that LSAT potential through actual work. Make sense that law schools want to see both high.

Depends on the major.
For instance, a lot of the Theater Studies majors I know with really high GPA's at my college aren't particularly hardworking. Some classes are literally like, "act in this play" or "help with some of the more technical stuff" and you get an A.
Every college student takes a different set of courses to achieve a certain GPA and GPA cannot be standardized in the same way LSAT can.

[r6_philly]

Depends on the major.
For instance, a lot of the Theater Studies majors I know with really high GPA's at my college aren't particularly hardworking. Some classes are literally like, "act in this play" or "help with some of the more technical stuff" and you get an A.
Every college student takes a different set of courses to achieve a certain GPA and ,therefore, GPA cannot be standardized in the same way LSAT can.

At least at my UG, even music/theater majors need to take 50+ credits of gen ed with multple writing intensive requirements. It is easier to get a higher GPA than hard majors but you still have to do work. Gen ed out of major classes are also harder to get an A in, prof. usually pick on students in those 100 level classes, at least at my UG.

GPA doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) standarized. It should be viewed as an indicator of ability and willingness to follow instructions and perform in a structured environment. It should tell the schools your ability to realize your potential as indicated by your LSAT score.

I do have to admit that the law profession may be different than the science professions. A quick thinking and extremely smart lawyer is probably more preferrable to a hardworking but rigid and slow witted lawyer. You can depend on others to do the intense work but no one can substitute quicking thinking and being smart.

[APHill]

[/quote]

I do have to admit that the law profession may be different than the science professions. A quick thinking and extremely smart lawyer is probably more preferrable to a hardworking but rigid and slow witted lawyer. You can depend on others to do the intense work but no one can substitute quicking thinking and being smart.[/quote]

If the unspoken assumption that dividing counsellors and boyscouts between two boats or placing red astronaut in a yellow spaceship equals smart then you are absolutely right.
However, one thing crucial for attorney LSAT does not measure is memory. For example, I might not be the fastest thinker, but I am a lighting fast memory recoverer. I might not be able to build an argument quickly, but recover a strong argument from a similar case I read 4 years ago. Which may help me prevail over an attorney who forgot all about that casebook case but would have been able to build an argument from scratch faster than me.

[leraa6587]

Please let us graduate law school before it becomes a total joke. These new schools shouldn't be allowed to award J.D.'s, some lesser degree should be invented... I vote B.L.- Bachelor of Law.

The US is the only country (well Australia, too, in few, few programs) where schools award "doctoral" degrees as the first, entry-level law degree. All the other Western nations award the Bachelor of Law.

By the way, I understand you had a scare from a bad practice score, but there has to be a better way to recover your self-esteem than hating on low-ranked schools?

Why does it matter what the degree is called? No one goes to law school to be called 'doctor'. As I'm sure you know, the LLM and JD switched names around 25 years ago anyways (older lawyers have LLMs and not JDs). Having said that, your are right about bad practice scores and self-esteem

Haha wow haven't read this in awhile. I didn't start this thread to hate on lower ranked current schools. I started it to hate on schools that shouldn't exist. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough??

[invisiblesun]

At the very least, I think that these type of schools definitely dilute the market value of a J.D.; it's not like an M.D. where if you get one it's inherently prestigious and automatically signifies financial success as well.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If the unspoken assumption that dividing counsellors and boyscouts between two boats or placing red astronaut in a yellow spaceship equals smart then you are absolutely right.
However, one thing crucial for attorney LSAT does not measure is memory. For example, I might not be the fastest thinker, but I am a lighting fast memory recoverer. I might not be able to build an argument quickly, but recover a strong argument from a similar case I read 4 years ago. Which may help me prevail over an attorney who forgot all about that casebook case but would have been able to build an argument from scratch faster than me.

Clearly not an understatement of what the LSAT is supposed to test...

[APHill]

If the unspoken assumption that dividing counsellors and boyscouts between two boats or placing red astronaut in a yellow spaceship equals smart then you are absolutely right.
However, one thing crucial for attorney LSAT does not measure is memory. For example, I might not be the fastest thinker, but I am a lighting fast memory recoverer. I might not be able to build an argument quickly, but recover a strong argument from a similar case I read 4 years ago. Which may help me prevail over an attorney who forgot all about that casebook case but would have been able to build an argument from scratch faster than me.

Clearly not an understatement of what the LSAT is supposed to test...

it may be an understatement of what it is supposed to test but i do not think it is much of an understatement of what actually is being tested. What logic games test IMO is whether you are a world class puzzle solver. Never been a great puzzle solver, but it never hindered my ability to have the guys who were to bite the dust in either work or school. There is certainly some overlap between "being smart" and doing well in LG, LR or RC, but that overlap is significantly lower than 100%. Correlations between LSAT score and class rank are weak, and the whole test is scheduled to be scrapped by LSAC in a few years (doubt that will happen, but they are seriously considering it).

Of course great LSAT takers will climb on the fence and start yelling that I am totally wrong. No problem, if I was a great LSAT taker I would be yelling about how important and reliable it is all over the place. also.