A Message to Incoming T-14 Students Forum

[BigZuck]

Ok, the Fulbright thing made me chuckle

I'm really torn on this flame. Potential is definitely there though.

[Clearly]

I registered when I got my first LSAT score back. I got into Fordham. I was jumped on and told to retake. I did. I got into Northwestern. I was congratulated but was told to sit out anyway and reapply because I applied late. I listened. I got into Penn. Each step along the way I resisted the hive-mind but eventually listened, and each time my options got better. The reality is these people are giving good advice, and it saved my ass. Now, I stick around to give good advice to the next crowd.

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP, I said already why your post rubbed me the wrong way. I also think the limitations on who you would congratulate are elitist, which I also said already. Finally, I think whether someone should be congratulated on getting into a T14 and the use of sarcasm etc. in responding to questions about where to go are completely different issues, so well done in moving the goal posts.

[chuckbass]

Ron Howard feel free to make your own law school forum if you don't like the way things are done around here

[Ron Howard]

Ok first of all calling someone a lurker is not an insult.

OP was pretty clearly trying to get a rise out of the forum with his OP and he succeeded. But he wasn't done. Halfway down the first page he fired off a rambling diatribe about how TLS was misinformed because it was not negative enough and it killed the class of 2013 and now it's more informed and tries to warn against making those same mistakes but those warnings are fair but sometimes they come from 0L's who are just saying what they read from others so that's egregious and...

Seriously though it's that second post that got me and probably most others. If the old advice was misguided, and sticker is now 100k higher, why wouldn't the tone have changed?

As I have said, Tiago, I hold no issue with the general consensus on this site. But that consensus is also neither gospel nor based only any sort of exact science. And it is worth mentioning that many things that even science once held true––that, for example, the atom was the smallest substance in the universe––were later proven wrong. This is similar to the advice formerly given on this site. Posters believed their knowledge was sound, but it later turned out not be. It was just based on the best understanding at the time. Today be hold a different view, a different knowledge, and we give advice based on that knowledge, because it is the best we have. I have no problem with that. It is the best we can offer, and we ought to offer the best we can. But when posters give that advice with a cavalier attitude, with sarcasm, it undermines this understanding. It treats the advice as more than what it is--our current understanding of how things are--by making it seem as if the poster is all knowing. None are. Posters ought to give advice with respect, with the understating that they are giving the best advice they can--advice, I add, that may turn out not to be right for the individual to whom it is addressed. A little respect, and a little less sarcasm, is what I ask.

[Ron Howard]

I registered when I got my first LSAT score back. I got into Fordham. I was jumped on and told to retake. I did. I got into Northwestern. I was congratulated but was told to sit out anyway and reapply because I applied late. I listened. I got into Penn. Each step along the way I resisted the hive-mind but eventually listened, and each time my options got better. The reality is these people are giving good advice, and it saved my ass. Now, I stick around to give good advice to the next crowd.

Thank you for sharing your story. But I think you will agree that if posters can write in more accessible prose, then more readers can benefit as you did.

[Hikikomorist]

And it is worth mentioning that many things that even science once held true––that, for example, the atom was the smallest substance in the universe––were later proven wrong.

It's really not.

[Tiago Splitter]

As I have said, Tiago, I hold no issue with the general consensus on this site. But that consensus is also neither gospel nor based only any sort of exact science. And it is worth mentioning that many things that even science once held true––that, for example, the atom was the smallest substance in the universe––were later proven wrong. This is similar to the advice formerly given on this site. Posters believed their knowledge was sound, but it later turned out not be. It was just based on the best understanding at the time. Today be hold a different view, a different knowledge, and we give advice based on that knowledge, because it is the best we have. I have no problem with that. It is the best we can offer, and we ought to offer the best we can. But when posters give that advice with a cavalier attitude, with sarcasm, it undermines this understanding. It treats the advice as more than what it is--our current understanding of how things are--by making it seem as if the poster is all knowing. None are. Posters ought to give advice with respect, with the understating that they are giving the best advice they can--advice, I add, that may turn out not to be right for the individual to whom it is addressed. A little respect, and a little less sarcasm, is what I ask.

I'm usually one of the first to give the people who just quote "retake" all day a hard time. I always try to add a little more substance to my posts, and I agree that being a dick doesn't always work as intended.

But you're arguing something different here. You're saying that because we used to think the Earth is flat, and now we think the Earth is round, who knows who's right anymore?!?! But that's not how this works. Our knowledge is never going to be perfect, but we know a heck of a lot more than we used to thanks to LST and the scamblogs and the overall aggressive effort to push for more information. Posters are unquestionably more able to be sure of themselves now than at any time in the site's history.

I'd also add that things haven't changed that much. Sure, "retake" used to be "retake, ED UVA" and people were more comfortable with sticker, but that's not a huge difference, and it's mostly accounted for by the fact that sticker is significantly more than the already ridiculous price it was back then. Back when I first started lurking five years ago, I remember threads asking "which schools are worth sticker?" The responses were pretty similar to what you'd see today. Hell I even remember the people in my LSAT prep class from Spring 2011 joking about how intimidating TLS could be, so none of this is really new.

Again I agree we need to be careful not to scare people away from the good advice and it's easy to forget that each year new people come in to this process without any of the information we now take for granted. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the default remains that law school at anything near sticker price is a bad idea. And for most people, once they start down the path of studying for the LSAT and taking that test there's really no turning back. So maintaining a somewhat negative tone towards the whole process is key in making sure that college students and recent grads who think law school is a nice, safe option when they can't figure out what else to do don't rush down that path before really thinking things through.

[Ron Howard]

As I have said, Tiago, I hold no issue with the general consensus on this site. But that consensus is also neither gospel nor based only any sort of exact science. And it is worth mentioning that many things that even science once held true––that, for example, the atom was the smallest substance in the universe––were later proven wrong. This is similar to the advice formerly given on this site. Posters believed their knowledge was sound, but it later turned out not be. It was just based on the best understanding at the time. Today be hold a different view, a different knowledge, and we give advice based on that knowledge, because it is the best we have. I have no problem with that. It is the best we can offer, and we ought to offer the best we can. But when posters give that advice with a cavalier attitude, with sarcasm, it undermines this understanding. It treats the advice as more than what it is--our current understanding of how things are--by making it seem as if the poster is all knowing. None are. Posters ought to give advice with respect, with the understating that they are giving the best advice they can--advice, I add, that may turn out not to be right for the individual to whom it is addressed. A little respect, and a little less sarcasm, is what I ask.

I'm usually one of the first to give the people who just quote "retake" all day a hard time. I always try to add a little more substance to my posts, and I agree that being a dick doesn't always work as intended.

But you're arguing something different here. You're saying that because we used to think the Earth is flat, and now we think the Earth is round, who knows who's right anymore?!?! But that's not how this works. Our knowledge is never going to be perfect, but we know a heck of a lot more than we used to thanks to LST and the scamblogs and the overall aggressive effort to push for more information. Posters are unquestionably more able to be sure of themselves now than at any time in the site's history.

I'd also add that things haven't changed that much. Sure, "retake" used to be "retake, ED UVA" and people were more comfortable with sticker, but that's not a huge difference, and it's mostly accounted for by the fact that sticker is significantly more than the already ridiculous price it was back then. Back when I first started lurking five years ago, I remember threads asking "which schools are worth sticker?" The responses were pretty similar to what you'd see today. Hell I even remember the people in my LSAT prep class from Spring 2011 joking about how intimidating TLS could be, so none of this is really new.

Again I agree we need to be careful not to scare people away from the good advice and it's easy to forget that each year new people come in to this process without any of the information we now take for granted. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the default remains that law school at anything near sticker price is a bad idea. And for most people, once they start down the path of studying for the LSAT and taking that test there's really no turning back. So maintaining a somewhat negative tone towards the whole process is key in making sure that college students and recent grads who think law school is a nice, safe option when they can't figure out what else to do don't rush down that path before really thinking things through.

I think you are right that readers, especially those who see law school as a safe option, need to be made aware of the risks and dangers associated with attending, especially without the benefit of a substantial scholarship at a highly ranked school. Let me be clear, too, that my disagreement lies not in the negative outlook that is portrayed–-because that is the view best supported by our current understanding, however imperfect it may be---but in the manner in which this outlook is presented. For this reason, I am glad to hear that when you observe someone just quoting "retake" in a thread, you take positive action to explain to the original poster why that is the credited response, why the community believes that is the optimal course of action given the constraints and advantages presented in the post.

Now one of the reasons that this is so important is because the answer "retake" is based on our collective understanding of the state of affairs. It is not a law of nature. It is what the evidence and our subjective experience best supports. We have not lived as the person asking the question, and we know not what the future holds, so our answer cannot be anything more than advice based on our beliefs about law school and the legal market as we understand it to be at the present (often the recent past). Consequently, it may be dangerous for posters to be too sure of themselves, as many seem to be. And so justification should be provided when an answer like "retake" is given, especially in those cases when the original poster already has good options.

In addition, a full explanation will help not only the original poster to understand why we believe this is the right course of action, but it will also empower them with something substantive to pass on to others. When students face parents and other "boomers" with little understanding of the legal market, this can be very helpful. A simple answer "retake" or "you're screwed" is not really going to cut it.

[BiglawAssociate]

I know it is a little early, but I want to take this time to congradulate all of our 0L posters and readers who are attending a T-14 this year. You've made it! While you don't yet have a job or even any grades, this still marks a significant achievement.

At times TLS has a way of demeaning this accomplishment. Posters who have been accepted to some of these schools are often told to retake the LSAT and reapply for more scholarship money and acceptances. Others are told that they should not attend altogether. In many cases these are the right calls. But let that not demean you. No matter what T-14 you are attending, no mater your scholarship, you should be proud of your accomplishment.

Good Luck!

T-14 is really easy to get into these years....it's not an achievement like it was a few years ago. It's a joke.

[BiglawAssociate]

I registered when I got my first LSAT score back. I got into Fordham. I was jumped on and told to retake. I did. I got into Northwestern. I was congratulated but was told to sit out anyway and reapply because I applied late. I listened. I got into Penn. Each step along the way I resisted the hive-mind but eventually listened, and each time my options got better. The reality is these people are giving good advice, and it saved my ass. Now, I stick around to give good advice to the next crowd.

Are you paying shitloads of money and/or owing tons of debt? If you are, then they didn't give you the right advice and you are still screwed.

[cotiger]

The concern about discouraging people who would actually really really love being a lawyer is way overblown. Most people dislike being a lawyer. It has lower job satisfaction than just about any other career.

Sure, there may be some who are dissuaded by TLS who would like doing the work. But if they're dissuaded that easily, it's probably because they've found something else that they're interested in pursuing! Not wallowing away in a pit of paralyzing depression.

The much larger problem is people who think they want to be a lawyer who really shouldn't (even if T14 w/ $$$ OMG ). Unless someone has parents or other close family members who are lawyers, it's very unlikely that they truly understand what it means to practice law. TLS gives the realtalk.

[Ron Howard]

The concern about discouraging people who would actually really really love being a lawyer is way overblown. Most people dislike being a lawyer. It has lower job satisfaction than just about any other career.

Sure, there may be some who are dissuaded by TLS who would like doing the work. But if they're dissuaded that easily, it's probably because they've found something else that they're interested in pursuing! Not wallowing away in a pit of paralyzing depression.

The much larger problem is people who think they want to be a lawyer who really shouldn't (even if T14 w/ $$$ OMG ). Unless someone has parents or other close family members who are lawyers, it's very unlikely that they truly understand what it means to practice law. TLS gives the realtalk.

(1) I never said that I was concerned about discouraging people who would actually like being a lawyer. I am not sure where you are getting this from. (2) On that point, however, I do agree with you--if they could easily be dissuaded they probably were not that dedicated in the first place. (3) I agree with you that a lot of people who think they want to be a lawyer are making a poor decision by going to law school. But I think the approach that I outlined earlier in this thread is a superior way of informing them of this fact than is the liberal use of sarcasm and statements in trollish tones that is so common here. As one poster commented, it is difficult to discern the true meaning--troll or serious--of such posts.

[anyriotgirl]

why do you write like you're writing an essay for your freshmen writing seminar?

[BigZuck]

You can't even follow your own convolutions now bro

Give it up

[Ron Howard]

You can't even follow your own convolutions now bro

Give it up

I think you are confusing my interest in not making people overly anxious and confused with worrying about them being scared away from law school all together. While that may occasionally be the result, I think the far more likely result of some noxious posts, is that they will be ignored--people will proceed with their current course of action, while also questing it. This is not a good outcome. It would be better if readers could be fully convinced through well reasoned analysis why they ought to change course.

[Ron Howard]

why do you write like you're writing an essay for your freshmen writing seminar?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[A. Nony Mouse]

why do you write like you're writing an essay for your freshmen writing seminar?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

She's not wrong.

I would also like to see an example of a thread in which "retake" and sarcasm are the only responses that a poster gets. The level of sarcasm/trolling is usually directly related to how reasonable/polite the OP is. Genuine question get genuine answers. People who are looking to get their worldview confirmed tend to get "retake."

[LawsRUs]

No need for ad hominem though.

[Ron Howard]

why do you write like you're writing an essay for your freshmen writing seminar?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

She's not wrong.

I would also like to see an example of a thread in which "retake" and sarcasm are the only responses that a poster gets. The level of sarcasm/trolling is usually directly related to how reasonable/polite the OP is. Genuine question get genuine answers. People who are looking to get their worldview confirmed tend to get "retake."

First, I would genuinely like an explanation on why my writing seems like an essay written for a freshman writing seminar. Second, I don't have an example to that specification for your at the moment. But, as I have said, I will provide an example to you as soon as I find one. Most threads, I will cede, are not entirely comprised of sarcastic or trollish posts, but a large share have enough of those sort of posts within them to sour the thread.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Some of your posts do sound like you sat down to write an essay for class. Which may point to the possibility that your expectations for Internet discourse are different from those held by most people here. Different communities, different expectations.

[Ron Howard]

Some of your posts do sound like you sat down to write an essay for class. Which may point to the possibility that your expectations for Internet discourse are different from those held by most people here. Different communities, different expectations.

I think you may be on to something. As I have said, it is the language used, not the message conveyed, that often concerns me. If the majority of readers are not of the same option as me, and are not negatively impacted by the language used, then I think I would be comfortable with how business is usually conducted on this site. I am not entirely convinced that is the case, but if it is then I would be happy to reevaluate my some of my positions laid out in this forum.

[thesealocust]

Preaching to TLS about its behavior is a little odd. This website isn't centrally planned - it's just a bunch of random people (often hyper-analytical and socially maladjusted people) mouthing off about this crazy educational system and industry of ours.

People here can absolutely be snarky to a fault, but I'm not sure what grounds you have to expect them to do anything differently. Somebody made a cheap joke about starting your own law school discussion forum, but it's a good point that there are other places you can have these discussions if you don't like it here. Autoadmit is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, law school discussion at least used to exist, reddit.com/r/lawschool seems a little like TLS used to be back when it was cute and innocent, etc.

I think the general attitude of TLS is doing the world a huge favor by partially correcting the otherwise catastrophic market failure brought about by the combination of unlimited guaranteed student loans, unregulated school marketing materials, a recession, and a generation of people raised by watching Law & Order.

[Ron Howard]

Preaching to TLS about its behavior is a little odd. This website isn't centrally planned - it's just a bunch of random people (often hyper-analytical and socially maladjusted people) mouthing off about this crazy educational system and industry of ours.

People here can absolutely be snarky to a fault, but I'm not sure what grounds you have to expect them to do anything differently. Somebody made a cheap joke about starting your own law school discussion forum, but it's a good point that there are other places you can have these discussions if you don't like it here. Autoadmit is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, law school discussion at least used to exist, reddit.com/r/lawschool seems a little like TLS used to be back when it was cute and innocent, etc.

I think the general attitude of TLS is doing the world a huge favor by partially correcting the otherwise catastrophic market failure brought about by the combination of unlimited guaranteed student loans, unregulated school marketing materials, a recession, and a generation of people raised by watching Law & Order.

I just checked out those websites, and I was thoroughly disgusted with each and every one of them. Some of the advice given was truly abhorrent. For all its shortcomings, TLS is a great community. I just believe it could benefit from some posters putting a little more care into their posts. You, for instance, rarely, if ever, phrase things in an unnecessarily coarse fashion.

[Calbears123]

Nice twist on a humble brag