Are Law Schools Getting Desperate? Forum

[chup]

I get why he riles law school administrators. What I don't understand is law students and 0Ls who reach for the smelling salts every time it is suggested that the vast majority of law schools are shit-awful money sinks that aren't worth even a percentage of what they charge for tuition.

Also seemingly none of you know what hypocrisy means.

[MrAnon]

So you're saying that the difference between a 165 LSAT and a 175 LSAT is readily apparent based solely on an interview?

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Many people who mastered the LSAT are grinders. Sure some are just that fucking smart, but most worked very very hard. I grinded 18 points up from my diagnostic. I dont really think I gained any IQ points (ok maybe 1 or 2...) or whatever you measure intelligence with. Some people studied a lot less and got my score. That just means I wanted it more. LSAT =/= How smart you are.

How do you plan to grind your way through the interview? You can't exactly practice for it for 8 months.

[MrAnon]

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Then there is the person whose LSAT practice scores are consistently +175 but only scores 165 on the actual test. Perhaps their LSAT study course was purchased on a budget. Had they been able to invest twice the $ for a better course, perhaps they would have nailed a real +175. Some LSAT courses are just flat out better than others. Ditto SAT.

And that person buckles under pressure. Probably will come across in an interview. Put him or her on the spot and they wither.

[Tiago Splitter]

MrAnon this isn't the first time law school applications have declined. Surely firms had the same reaction last time around, no?

[Mr. Pancakes]

So you're saying that the difference between a 165 LSAT and a 175 LSAT is readily apparent based solely on an interview?

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Many people who mastered the LSAT are grinders. Sure some are just that fucking smart, but most worked very very hard. I grinded 18 points up from my diagnostic. I dont really think I gained any IQ points (ok maybe 1 or 2...) or whatever you measure intelligence with. Some people studied a lot less and got my score. That just means I wanted it more. LSAT =/= How smart you are.

How do you plan to grind your way through the interview? You can't exactly practice for it for 8 months.

for fucks sake. LSAT and interview do not make a great analogy.

[mrwarre85]

If Paul Campos really believed in what he preaches, he'd resign from Colorado, a school which, according to its own website, left 36% of its 2010 class unemployed, with 3% employed in school-funded fellowships, and 7% with unknown employment statuses.

Undaunted by the near-50% (if not more, assuming no one in the "employed" category is underemployed) unemployed/underemployed placement rate at the school where he teaches, Campos naturally continues to rake in who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually as he watches a full one-half (or more) of his own students trade in their federal student loans for decades of debt servitude.

Uh.. So Mich offers way better access to prestigious law jobs than CU does, but did you just make up these numbers? 82.5% was the employment rate-- 151/183. If you take out the 10% of the class who was "not seeking," aka probably having a baby or living off a trust fund in a ski lodge, the pushes employment up to 91.6% employment.

Most of these jobs probably pay between 45k and 60k, so your point could have been made without totally making shit up. I think it's just weird that you did.. You could be trying communicate the failings of CU with regard to their at graduation employment, but your analysis would then suggest you don't know anything about legal employment beyond OCI and the T14. Grads at schools like CU often times have soft offers to work at a DA, PD, other Gov, or small firm, but have to pass the bar first. 31% of the class reported that they were "not seeking" at graduation, but the majority only because they had a gig lined up they just needed to pass the bar before starting work. Insinuating that everyone in this category is completely screwed just goes to show how little you know about what you are talking about.

As to whether he should quit.. would anyone listen to him if he did? No way, no one would. It is intellectually lazy to quickly assume he should quit and then disregard his points. He does far more good within the system than he would from outside of the system. Try thinking about that for a sec.

[ThreeRivers]

1. I think the cycle for most people seems to be going exactly as usual so idk where this "EPIC CYCLE" / "WORST CANDIDATES" at every school is coming from.

2. I say this even though I had 3 last minute re-offers from schools I withdrew from, but 2 of those were my insane safety schools if I somehow had an amazingly horrible cycle / they gave me a full-ride (which 1 ended up doing but I still didn't attend), and 1 of those was my local school (which although serious about attending / I came close to it was along the peers of my other safeties)... so, yea maybe schools tried to draw in some last second people with methods they normal don't do.. and MAYBE people will have more success off wait-lists, but in general classes will be about the same.

3. Firms will hire what they need to hire, I highly doubt they're going to say SCREW ANYONE FROM MICHIGAN.. I HEARD THEY HAD TO GO DEEP INTO THEIR WAIT-LIST!

[Dale]

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Then there is the person whose LSAT practice scores are consistently +175 but only scores 165 on the actual test. Perhaps their LSAT study course was purchased on a budget. Had they been able to invest twice the $ for a better course, perhaps they would have nailed a real +175. Some LSAT courses are just flat out better than others. Ditto SAT.

And that person buckles under pressure. Probably will come across in an interview. Put him or her on the spot and they wither.

Let’s see. . .u missed the entire point.

A LSAT budget study program, versus a more expensive and better study program can make the difference in your score. As proven repeatedly on SAT results. An ez to grasp analogy, the best driver at the race with the Prius always loses to the Porsche.

[MrAnon]

Yes. Someone who scored 175 is quite a bit more intelligent than someone who scored 165. In addition they handle pressure situations more adeptly, either because they are so bright the pressure isn't there for them or because they know how to deal with pressure. Grinders can't really grind their way through an interview.

Then there is the person whose LSAT practice scores are consistently +175 but only scores 165 on the actual test. Perhaps their LSAT study course was purchased on a budget. Had they been able to invest twice the $ for a better course, perhaps they would have nailed a real +175. Some LSAT courses are just flat out better than others. Ditto SAT.

And that person buckles under pressure. Probably will come across in an interview. Put him or her on the spot and they wither.

Let’s see. . .u missed the entire point.

A LSAT budget study program, versus a more expensive and better study program can make the difference in your score. As proven repeatedly on SAT results. An ez to grasp analogy, the best driver at the race with the Prius always loses to the Porsche.

Yes you can game the LSAT....and work your way into a better school....but because hiring lawyers everywhere are aware that competition for law school is less keen anyway, they are less apt to take you seriously....and when they interview you it will most likely confirm their suspicion that you ultimately are not so bright, but instead are the beneficiary of less keen competition for law school.

[Dale]

Yes you can game the LSAT....and work your way into a better school....but because hiring lawyers everywhere are aware that competition for law school is less keen anyway, they are less apt to take you seriously....and when they interview you it will most likely confirm their suspicion that you ultimately are not so bright, but instead are the beneficiary of less keen competition for law school.

This is super lazy trolling. Are you even trying anymore?

+1. You called it.

[AntipodeanPhil]

I would like to apologize to the TLS community for starting this train-wreck of a thread. We got about three on-topic posts before the insult-fest. Even the trolling was bad quality. I'm putting myself in time-out for a few days.

ITBL? Please?

[Fark-o-vision]

I would like to apologize to the TLS community for starting this train-wreck of a thread. We got about three on-topic posts before the insult-fest. Even the trolling was bad quality. I'm putting myself in time-out for a few days.

ITBL? Please?

If you want reasonable, on-topic, insult-free discourse then the internet might be the wrong place for you.

[Mr. Pancakes]

Yes you can game the LSAT....and work your way into a better school....but because hiring lawyers everywhere are aware that competition for law school is less keen anyway, they are less apt to take you seriously....and when they interview you it will most likely confirm their suspicion that you ultimately are not so bright, but instead are the beneficiary of less keen competition for law school.

This is super lazy trolling. Are you even trying anymore?

+1

I would like to apologize to the TLS community for starting this train-wreck of a thread. We got about three on-topic posts before the insult-fest. Even the trolling was bad quality. I'm putting myself in time-out for a few days.

ITBL? Please?

Anything over 3 pages turns into this, numbnuts.

[JCFindley]

Ya know, in general, the "super smart" in general do not have great people skills..... Ever talked to someone with a 180 IQ? I do all the time as my brother is in that range... That is the type of person that could take the LSAT cold and score in the high 170s.....

Do you REALLY think that someone with a good work ethic and the forethought to study would do worse on an interview? Keep thinking that...... It will work out well for ya.....

(Proof, watch any episode of the Big Bang Theory..... )

[Odd Future Wolf Gang]

Twist: smart people never went to law school to begin with.