Cooley Forum

[thegor1987]

Yea the LSAT is such a crappy admission gauge, you only have to think really hard for 3 hour at a time for 20+ practice tests + actual test

I am sure you were being condescending in your remarks;however, what you said isn't true for everyone. Not everyone will do well on the LSAT regardless of the work and effert that they put in. Roughly 50% of the test takers on each exam will get less than 150. Many will not see appreciable difference in scores from test to test regardless of the work and effort that they put in. Not everyone is like you who can practice 20 exams and get a 160+. In fact, most people aren't like that.

Yes that is true, nevertheless the test remains fair. I don't have much tolerance for people who turn to attack the integrity of the test because they cannot master it. Every answer always makes sense over all the other ones. Choosing the wrong answer is usually caused by lack of focus nothing more.

If you can't break 150 and want to practice at a small local firm and it's what you want to do that is completely fine.

But it is a whole different story when you can't break 150 and think you are better than Stanford because the LSAT and rankings are flawed, I.e. Cooley belief system that everything is flawed

Btw, if you multiply a 4.0 by 15 a 120 LSAT is still weighed twice as heavily as the GPA

[Woozy]

It's not weighted double just because the number is twice as big. The LSAT is on a 60 pt scale (180-120)

[ClayDavis]

It's not weighted double just because the number is twice as big. The LSAT is on a 60 pt scale (180-120)

lol

[danquayle]

Yeah, it may be easy to get into Cooley, but it's probably a lot harder to graduate out of there than from most law schools. They fail out a third of their class, so I'm sure the competition is brutal.

Of course, I'm sure most people who got into decent law schools to begin with are smart enough to past muster at Cooley, but the idea of being failed isn't a real pressure for most law students.

And for what it's worth, I know some highly successful trial lawyers who came out of Cooley. Not that they aren't the exception, but it is possible to do financially well. There are certain legal fields where Cooley isn't an apocalyptic choice, mostly those that can be done as a sole practitioner. Hey, the world needs DUI lawyers.

My biggest gripe with Cooley is that it churns out yet more unneeded lawyers. But that could be said for maybe a hundred law schools. Cooley isn't any more culpable than John Marshall or NY Law. Don't hate the player...

[fundamentallybroken]

socratingmethodman, you are entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't think that the majority of test takers could get a 160+ regardless of how hard they work.

Cite you facts.

For the June 2010 LSAT, a 160 was ~85th percentile. By definition, a majority did not score higher.

Learn you read.

[socraticmethodman]

socratingmethodman, you are entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't think that the majority of test takers could get a 160+ regardless of how hard they work.

Cite you facts.

For the June 2010 LSAT, a 160 was ~85th percentile. By definition, a majority did not score higher.

Learn you read.

I agree, but the poster said "regardless of how hard they work". Just because the average LSAT is below a 160 does not mean that those who take the test studied hard for it.

[danquayle]

socratingmethodman, you are entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't think that the majority of test takers could get a 160+ regardless of how hard they work.

Cite you facts.

For the June 2010 LSAT, a 160 was ~85th percentile. By definition, a majority did not score higher.

Learn you read.

Well, not that I care but if we're parsing what was actually said, you'd have to find the a sample of people who studied AS HARD AS THEY COULD on the LSAT that's also representative of the entire population.

The poster said a majority could not score higher than 160. The fact that a majority did not doesn't really prove the point.

I actually think most people could be trained, with great effort, to score highly on the LSAT. But the amount of time required would vary greatly. Like if someone were illiterate, you'd have to go through the massive effort of teaching them how to read, let alone comprehend, etc.

[danquayle]

socratingmethodman, you are entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't think that the majority of test takers could get a 160+ regardless of how hard they work.

Cite you facts.

For the June 2010 LSAT, a 160 was ~85th percentile. By definition, a majority did not score higher.

Learn you read.

I agree, but the poster said "regardless of how hard they work". Just because the average LSAT is below a 160 does not mean that those who take the test studied hard for it.

Beat me to it...

[AreJay711]

It's not weighted double just because the number is twice as big. The LSAT is on a 60 pt scale (180-120)

GPA is on a 2 pt scale. 2x15= 30. I guess if the admission index is sufficiently low it wouldn't matter as much. I know Michigan was effectively on a .1 GPA = 1 LAST starting at my numbers according to LSP (I'm not sure if it is linear) so compared to other schools GPA may be more important at Cooley but not overall.

[fundamentallybroken]

I agree, but the poster said "regardless of how hard they work". Just because the average LSAT is below a 160 does not mean that those who take the test studied hard for it.

True, but the test is written and weighted in such a way that a certain distribution is going to occur anyway. The 160 is arbitrary, because if everyone studied really hard and raised the average score, we would then be arguing over whether the majority could get over a 175 if they all worked harder.

I'm guessing that the vast majority of takers do study very hard for the LSAT. Unfortunately, not everyone can make it into the majority rankings.

(On the Cooley topic, there's a couple of associates at Denver's biggest firms that are Cooley alum. Just because you go to a lower ranked school doesn't mean all is lost once you're out.)

[TheTallOne0602]

Yea the LSAT is such a crappy admission gauge, you only have to think really hard for 3 hour at a time for 20+ practice tests + actual test

I am sure you were being condescending in your remarks;however, what you said isn't true for everyone. Not everyone will do well on the LSAT regardless of the work and effert that they put in. Roughly 50% of the test takers on each exam will get less than 150. Many will not see appreciable difference in scores from test to test regardless of the work and effort that they put in. Not everyone is like you who can practice 20 exams and get a 160+. In fact, most people aren't like that.

This is the POINT. Actually, the LSAT test makers intend to make their test such that studying does not affect performance. They fail, obviously, because it is very difficult to make a test that cannot be studied for, but to say the LSAT is flawed because not everyone can do it is... well, a lot of negative descriptive adjectives would fit the bill.

Not everyone should be a lawyer. Not everyone can do well on the LSAT. If you think the LSAT does not accurately reflect the former statement, that is worth complaining about. But saying that it is a bad test because not everyone can do well on it is missing the point.

[taxguy]

I am NOT promoting Cooley's ranking system,but I don't think that the USNWR rankings are so great either. As for my point that most people regardless of the preparation won't get above a 160, just check out the LSAT averages on the exam. They themselves note that the average or median score for LSAT takers is 150.5, if I recollect correctly. Thus, roughly 50% of the takers will score less than this. In fact, I think you have to be in the top 20-25%(don't remember which) to score a 160.

As for whether 50% of the kids who are taking the LSAT should go to law school, I don't abide by those statements. Each person's reason for attending law school is personal. Maybe they have a good reason, maybe not.

[nealric]

(On the Cooley topic, there's a couple of associates at Denver's biggest firms that are Cooley alum. Just because you go to a lower ranked school doesn't mean all is lost once you're out.)

Which firm are you speaking about?

Holland and Hart lists none
[homophobic language redacted] and Benson lists someone who transferred out of Cooley
Browstein Hayatt lists none
Sherman and Howard lists none

Even assuming that statement is correct, we are talking 1-2 people out of the largest graduating class of any law school. All isn't lost if you attend Cooley, but I can think of very few reasons as to why it would be a good decision to attend ex ante.

[fundamentallybroken]

(On the Cooley topic, there's a couple of associates at Denver's biggest firms that are Cooley alum. Just because you go to a lower ranked school doesn't mean all is lost once you're out.)

Which firm are you speaking about?

Holland and Hart lists none
[homophobic language redacted] and Benson lists someone who transferred out of Cooley
Browstein Hayatt lists none
Sherman and Howard lists none

Even assuming that statement is correct, we are talking 1-2 people out of the largest graduating class of any law school. All isn't lost if you attend Cooley, but I can think of very few reasons as to why it would be a good decision to attend ex ante.

(Didn't see the [homophobic language redacted] was a transfer.) Rothgerber Johnson lists an associate from Cooley.

I never claimed they weren't outliers - just wanted to show that not all is lost just because someone chooses to go to Cooley. Other factors always apply.

[TJISMYHERO]

Each person's reason for attending law school is personal. Maybe they have a good reason, maybe not.

Unfortunately, having a good reason for attending law school doesn't mean someone should become a lawyer. Some people are cut out for the work, and others are not. You're right in saying that the LSAT doesn't gauge all applicants correctly. Some people who score low will still be effective counsel, but the majority won't. The LSAT is pretty good at gauging a candidate's likely success in Law School, is it always right? No. Is it a flawed test? Absolutely not.

And the point as to whether or not the Cooley ranking system accurately assesses the quality of education from schools is moot. Hiring attorneys at the vast majority of firms are going to look at the USNWR system. While a Cooley education may be on par with other T4, maybe even t3, schools, their degree will be worth significantly less because those hiring them will have opinions that mirror the majority of posters on here.

[Moral_Midgetry]

socratingmethodman, you are entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't think that the majority of test takers could get a 160+ regardless of how hard they work.

Cite you facts.

For the June 2010 LSAT, a 160 was ~85th percentile. By definition, a majority did not score higher.

Learn you read.

No, learn you read. The important part is bolded to clear up any ambiguity. You can't really use something by definition to support this because it is tough (if not impossible) to quantify how people would score "regardless of how hard they work." I know of individual cases of people scoring 150s before and after studying and people going from low 140s to 170s. So spouting off about a majority of test takers is nothing more than speculation.

To make a long story short, if you can't improve into the 160s you should rethink law school. Obviously there are examples of those who defied this frame of thought, and there is certainly more to a person than their LSAT score, I agree, but in a highly competitive and over saturated market, going 150k+ into debt if you can't hang on the admissions test is not smart. Just my opinion.

[fundamentallybroken]

To make a long story short, if you can't improve into the 160s you should rethink law school. Obviously there are examples of those who defied this frame of thought, and there is certainly more to a person than their LSAT score, I agree, but in a highly competitive and over saturated market, going 150k+ into debt if you can't hang on the admissions test is not smart. Just my opinion.

I agree completely, if you can't get up there, you shouldn't necessarily be thinking about law school.

What I was trying to say is that the majority of people can't make it to the top 15% of the LSAT, no matter how hard they study, because it's a bar that just keeps moving. The actual score is arbitrary - it's the percentile ranks that matter for each session.

[Moral_Midgetry]

To make a long story short, if you can't improve into the 160s you should rethink law school. Obviously there are examples of those who defied this frame of thought, and there is certainly more to a person than their LSAT score, I agree, but in a highly competitive and over saturated market, going 150k+ into debt if you can't hang on the admissions test is not smart. Just my opinion.

I agree completely, if you can't get up there, you shouldn't necessarily be thinking about law school.

What I was trying to say is that the majority of people can't make it to the top 15% of the LSAT, no matter how hard they study, because it's a bar that just keeps moving. The actual score is arbitrary - it's the percentile ranks that matter for each session.

Right, but within the context of your first post, it really didn't apply to what he was saying. Although, you are right, a majority (51%) by definition cannot fit into the 85th percentile.

[fundamentallybroken]

To make a long story short, if you can't improve into the 160s you should rethink law school. Obviously there are examples of those who defied this frame of thought, and there is certainly more to a person than their LSAT score, I agree, but in a highly competitive and over saturated market, going 150k+ into debt if you can't hang on the admissions test is not smart. Just my opinion.

I agree completely, if you can't get up there, you shouldn't necessarily be thinking about law school.

What I was trying to say is that the majority of people can't make it to the top 15% of the LSAT, no matter how hard they study, because it's a bar that just keeps moving. The actual score is arbitrary - it's the percentile ranks that matter for each session.

Right, but within the context of your first post, it really didn't apply to what he was saying. Although, you are right, a majority (51%) by definition cannot fit into the 85th percentile.

Oh shit, we're dealing with context now? I much prefer to stay out of that.

[Aqualibrium]

(On the Cooley topic, there's a couple of associates at Denver's biggest firms that are Cooley alum. Just because you go to a lower ranked school doesn't mean all is lost once you're out.)

Which firm are you speaking about?

Holland and Hart lists none
[homophobic language redacted] and Benson lists someone who transferred out of Cooley
Browstein Hayatt lists none
Sherman and Howard lists none

Even assuming that statement is correct, we are talking 1-2 people out of the largest graduating class of any law school. All isn't lost if you attend Cooley, but I can think of very few reasons as to why it would be a good decision to attend ex ante.

(Didn't see the [homophobic language redacted] was a transfer.) Rothgerber Johnson lists an associate from Cooley.

I never claimed they weren't outliers - just wanted to show that not all is lost just because someone chooses to go to Cooley. Other factors always apply.

Are you serious?

Because 1-2 people out of the largest graduating class of any law school go on to big law jobs, all is not lost. What kind of logic is that?

[fundamentallybroken]

(On the Cooley topic, there's a couple of associates at Denver's biggest firms that are Cooley alum. Just because you go to a lower ranked school doesn't mean all is lost once you're out.)

Which firm are you speaking about?

Holland and Hart lists none
[homophobic language redacted] and Benson lists someone who transferred out of Cooley
Browstein Hayatt lists none
Sherman and Howard lists none

Even assuming that statement is correct, we are talking 1-2 people out of the largest graduating class of any law school. All isn't lost if you attend Cooley, but I can think of very few reasons as to why it would be a good decision to attend ex ante.

(Didn't see the [homophobic language redacted] was a transfer.) Rothgerber Johnson lists an associate from Cooley.

I never claimed they weren't outliers - just wanted to show that not all is lost just because someone chooses to go to Cooley. Other factors always apply.

Are you serious?

Because 1-2 people out of the largest graduating class of any law school go on to big law jobs, all is not lost. What kind of logic is that?

What are you trying to say? That people who graduate from Cooley don't get jobs?

[almightypush]

I will bet that once the ABA eliminates the LSAT as a mandatory requirement, some law schools will make the LSAT optional and will NOT notice any change in quality among applicants.

i can't imagine many (if any) T1 schools actually eliminating the LSAT as a mandatory requirement. of course schools in the 'Cooley range' will jump at the chance to do so, because they hardly place any weight on the LSAT as it currently stands.

[Aqualibrium]

What are you trying to say? That people who graduate from Cooley don't get jobs?

With regards to biglaw jobs, yes.

[fundamentallybroken]

What are you trying to say? That people who graduate from Cooley don't get jobs?

With regards to biglaw jobs, yes.

And biglaw is, of course, the only reason someone may want to go to law school?

[Deuce]

Hey, a Cooley thread!