Valid advice or just a recruiting pitch? Forum

[AZ123]

I've been debating attending a T-14 I was accepted to, or a regional school in a region where I wouldn't mind working after I graduate. On a recent visit to the regional school, a law professor told me that I shouldn't go to the T-14 since I would likely end up in the bottom of the class (since my stats are near or below the school's medians). She said no one should ever go to a school to which they are "just barely" accepted since there is a high likelihood of graduating in the bottom of the class. Is there any truth to this statement, or was she just trying to get me to attend her school? Am I less likely to be competitive at the T14 since my stats are below median, or is it basically a level playing field once law school begins and undergrad stats don't matter?

[chuckbass]

That's generally bullshit

[dabigchina]

This is pretty bullshit from what I have heard.

[NonTradLawHopeful]

Did HS GPA and SAT predict undergrad performance? There are a lot of factors that go into how successful you'll be in law school.

[03152016]

This is pretty bullshit from what I have heard.

what school do you go to dabigchina

[pamphleteer]

The reality of range restriction in law school admissions makes this seem like bullshit. Sure, you might be a bit below the median LSAT at a certain school but it's likely ~50%+ of the students at that school scored within 3-4 points of you. Taking a 153 to a school with a 170 median might (*might*, there's still a lot of randomness involved) be an uphill battle but no school has that large a range among their accepted students. Your 167 or whatever isn't going to put you at a material disadvantage when competing against 169s.

[Ron Don Volante]

that's a horseshit sales pitch and you should out the school here (unless you're planning to go there (which depending on your goals is quite possibly a good idea because barely getting accepted into a low T14 means sticker which is generally a terrible idea))

[Patent2014]

That's complete bull. Case in point: my stats put me at the bottom of my entering class (at or below the 25th percentile for each stat) but after the first semester I'm top 10%. Similarly, I know someone who bragged about entering with top stats in the class and now he's below median.

[Tiago Splitter]

Just retake the LSAT so you aren't barely above T-14 medians anymore problem solved

[dabigchina]

This is pretty bullshit from what I have heard.

what school do you go to dabigchina

not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you brut. great contribution to the thread as per usual though.

[03152016]

yes, your contribution of "This is pretty bullshit from what I have heard" was very insightful!
thank you for your great contribution to the thread "as per usual"!

[mike0331]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

[JazzOne]

The reality of range restriction in law school admissions makes this seem like bullshit. Sure, you might be a bit below the median LSAT at a certain school but it's likely ~50%+ of the students at that school scored within 3-4 points of you. Taking a 153 to a school with a 170 median might (*might*, there's still a lot of randomness involved) be an uphill battle but no school has that large a range among their accepted students. Your 167 or whatever isn't going to put you at a material disadvantage when competing against 169s.

+1

OP: Here is some good advice that was given to me right before I went to a biglaw interview:

Don't ever trust someone who is trying to impress you.

[starry eyed]

Lol that sales pitch may be morally questionable but i bet it registers with a lot of people trying to decide between going somewhere at sticker vs on a scholarship.

[ms9]

I've been debating attending a T-14 I was accepted to, or a regional school in a region where I wouldn't mind working after I graduate. On a recent visit to the regional school, a law professor told me that I shouldn't go to the T-14 since I would likely end up in the bottom of the class (since my stats are near or below the school's medians). She said no one should ever go to a school to which they are "just barely" accepted since there is a high likelihood of graduating in the bottom of the class. Is there any truth to this statement, or was she just trying to get me to attend her school? Am I less likely to be competitive at the T14 since my stats are below median, or is it basically a level playing field once law school begins and undergrad stats don't matter?

To answer technically, I think LSAT + Undergraduate GPA is highly unlikely to have an R of .25 and an R-squared of .5 for 1st year performance at any given school. Or at least I have not seen it. Also, as someone else pointed up, every other person there will be below a median entering metric.

Tell that to the law professor and watch her squirm when she starts hearing numbers.

[Nathanael]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

This flame irks me so much.

[Ron Don Volante]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

This flame irks me so much.

Present some data to refute it.

[Mack.Hambleton]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

This flame irks me so much.

Le STEM masterrace face

[chuckbass]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

You're*

How ironic

[mike0331]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

You're*

How ironic

What's ironic is I tested out of college writing. I even mixed up affect and effect in my PS.

Mike

[Ron Don Volante]

wow impressive

[encore1101]

There's just too many factors for undergrad GPA to be a predictor of law school success. Not only do you have different majors which vary in difficulty and type of work (i.e. Mathematics versus History versus Fine Art), but undergraduate institutions themselves will vary in difficulty.

As far as LSAT goes, I think everyone can agree that LSAT is a just as poor, if not moreso, indicator of law school aptitude.

[PeanutsNJam]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

This flame irks me so much.

Spotted the communications major

[MarkfromWI]

There's just too many factors for undergrad GPA to be a predictor of law school success. Not only do you have different majors which vary in difficulty and type of work (i.e. Mathematics versus History versus Fine Art), but undergraduate institutions themselves will vary in difficulty.

As far as LSAT goes, I think everyone can agree that LSAT is a just as poor, if not moreso, indicator of law school aptitude.

+1

[Nathanael]

Unless your stupid and got in on some fluke I don't see how this matters. Everyone here loves to say the LSAT isn't a good predictor of performance. Also, an engineer with a 3.5 I will generally assume to be more brilliant than a communications major with a 4.0, neither of which, from what I have gathered, have a ton to do with law.

Sounds like some nutso sales pitch, but what do I know.

Mike

This flame irks me so much.

Present some data to refute it.

Come on, where would I find data that relates GPA, major, and IQ?

Spotted the communications major

Nope, not quite. I started out in engineering and made it about 6 semesters before switching to the "cushy" a language program. The bottom line is, the STEM courses were no more difficult than the classes I took in the humanities. They definitely weren't difficult enough to justify the smugness of my fellow engineering students. They simply test different skills. I personally think verbal skills, if they are not innate, are harder to develop than quantitative skills, but I could be wrong on that front. I do know, however, that a couple of my braggart engineering buddies who trashed liberal arts majors could barely write at a middle school level and would've really struggled through a liberal arts program, just as I'm sure a lot of liberal arts majors would struggle in engineering.

As far as GPA goes, I would question any notion that there is a strong correlation between IQ and GPA. But, excepting students who are in programs where their acceptance is basically predicated on brilliance anyways, I don't see why you'd see a 3.5 GPA as an indicator of brilliance in any major.