Stop Telling People to Retake Forum

[poptart123]

Can't believe we are almost at page 9.

Edit: Page 9.

[Mikey]

Can't believe we are almost at page 9.

Edit: Page 9.

9 pages strong


shout out to OP

[Hennessy]

how the fuck are you not gonna retake if your worst section is logic games
I see this so often, even tho its the most learnable section
Its just math, literally, it has a solution

retake is like the best option possible

[Future Ex-Engineer]

How does one score 137 on the LSAT.

Were they a native English speaker?

Yes they are. They said they just winged it(which goes without saying).

Just an idiot then I guess.

One of the smartest people I've ever met. I was surprised. The point is the LSAT is not an IQ test, it does not say how smart someone is or isn't!

I know this was stated wayyyyy back in the thread, but ferris, you're just wrong. The LSAT is the *ONLY* standardized test that still qualifies you to take the Mensa membership test. So while it may not be an IQ test, it's one of the best open standardized indicators still around.

[Johann]

Again no one is saying not to use your initial retakes if you have them. The guy here has used all 3 retakes and has a 156. Time to give some real advice now tls.

If "the guy here" is referring to the OP, that's not true. The OP specifically said in another thread that they had only taken the LSAT once without doing any substantive prep work. Their worst section was LG, and they're refusing to retake, even though that section is objectively the most beatable portion of the test.

And my real advice for someone with a 156 who refuses to wait a year is to not pay a cent for tuition and to be prepared for an alternate career path.

Seems dumb. Lawyers give opinions everyday about the merits of a transaction To huge corporations with less certainty than TT(T) employment prospects and the companies still go through with the transaction. Might not be cut out for advising for a living if you can't stomach some risk.

[cavalier1138]

Again no one is saying not to use your initial retakes if you have them. The guy here has used all 3 retakes and has a 156. Time to give some real advice now tls.

If "the guy here" is referring to the OP, that's not true. The OP specifically said in another thread that they had only taken the LSAT once without doing any substantive prep work. Their worst section was LG, and they're refusing to retake, even though that section is objectively the most beatable portion of the test.

And my real advice for someone with a 156 who refuses to wait a year is to not pay a cent for tuition and to be prepared for an alternate career path.

Seems dumb. Lawyers give opinions everyday about the merits of a transaction To huge corporations with less certainty than TT(T) employment prospects and the companies still go through with the transaction. Might not be cut out for advising for a living if you can't stomach some risk.

Yes, because corporate lawyers are known for high risk-tolerance.

Seriously, I know not to bug you about debt tolerance, because we just have different views of that. But now you're just being willfully obstinate because you didn't bother to read all the posts that directly dealt with the OP's situation.

[Johann]

I've moved on past the OP (who I told to retake) to ferrisjso who has 156 and is out of retakes for 2 years. He studied. He's not doing any better. Retake isn't an option without a serious time opportunity cost.

Dude should just go to the school that gives him the best CHANCE at achieving his goals.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I am actually fine with ferrisjo doing that. I just don't think he should extrapolate from his own experience to everyone on this site.

[cavalier1138]

I've moved on past the OP (who I told to retake) to ferrisjso who has 156 and is out of retakes for 2 years. He studied. He's not doing any better. Retake isn't an option without a serious time opportunity cost.

Dude should just go to the school that gives him the best CHANCE at achieving his goals.

My advice for Ferrisjso is the same as it has always been: really consider whether you want to go to law school on the chance of having the job you want. And to just generally stop spreading nonsense like the idea that there is no good reason to take time between undergrad and law school.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

I've moved on past the OP (who I told to retake) to ferrisjso who has 156 and is out of retakes for 2 years. He studied. He's not doing any better. Retake isn't an option without a serious time opportunity cost.

Dude should just go to the school that gives him the best CHANCE at achieving his goals.

I don't think anyone here has/will tell ferrisjo to put his life on hold for 2 years to get a chance to retake again. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone on here tell someone to wait 2 years for ability to have more retakes.

The further along this goes, it looks more and more like ferrisjo has accepted his lot/place as far as LSAT is concerned and to help himself be happy with that outcome, is pushing back pretty forcefully against the (most of the time accurate) advice to retake. Essentially, it looks like trying to rationalize his situation by encouraging others in very dissimilar situations to accept the same path/options he is forced to accept.

[Johann]

If people want to pull the lst data from Chicago TTTs I'll discuss my anecdotes against them anytime. You're not going to get rich. I've never claimed that. But for the people that really really want it, I still have yet to see a failure by the way TLS talks i.e. Never gets a job lives in basement/only does doc review forever. Upper middle class is 60k paired with another 60k income in case you didn't know.

And yeah i was a hustler while in law school and somewhat social so I def met and know at least that number throughout 3-5 years.

According to this: https://www.lstreports.com/schools/john ... l-chicago/

11.2% of 1Ls fail out of John Marshall
1/4 to 1/3 of those that do graduate every year are underemployed

and they don't provide salary data so read into that what you will.

I didn't think about immigration but yeah if you're bilingual and that's something you're passionate about it might be a viable path too. But that just cycles back to the larger point which is that the lower down the rankings you go the more you really need to know what you want to get out of law school to justify the risk.

Strongly agree with the last sentence. And yeah of course those stats are accurate. I'd estimate 30-50% of the people I graduated with were underemployed and barely employed even a year later. The next year saw a lot of decent moves though. At the end of 1 year my wife was making $15/hour part time for 2 different guys. After a year and some experience, she negotiated 25/hr from those guys and got full time work and found a side hustle that paid 50/hour for in court. Went from earning like sub 30k to 60k. The job I quit after a year (which was making 35k), I turned down 45k and got my friend the job who was doing doc review. After a few months in the job she leveraged up to get a job at the states attorneys making 55k (dog shit pay raises so she'll make that foreve) but with pslf and unlimited job security and a 35 hour work week. Also pension. Other friends doing the doc review cycle decided to go into compliance at a big bank and then like 5 of my friends followed suit to do compliance work for like 60k. Few years later and they're climbing to 100k. Overall a year out most were struggling. Lot of salaries literally doubled that 2nd year. 5 years later, not most, but a lot are over 6 figures. Most are over 75k. These are investments over a career which I think a lot of people forget. And these would be the failures according to tls standards. Got several friends who are midlaw and biglaw still killing it years later. Lot of the small law guys learned the ropes in shitlaw for 2 years and went solo. The solos are absolutely killing it. 30 hour work weeks. 6 figures. And now their big cases that they've been sitting in the pipe since they started are starting to materialize.

Yes it's tough. But if you don't fucking give up like tls wants you too, you can get clients. I had a couple clients within a year of graduating. Wife had multiple clients a couple years out.

If this is true then your sample is either completely out of whack with the median experience in the country or you're only selectively thinking about the ones that made it big or the people you know at solo shops are fucking lying to you.

http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-c ... eed-2015-6

By 2012, solo practitioners had seen their incomes fall to $49,130, a 34% decrease, while partners earned $349,000, a 100% increase.

$49,130 is not the starting salary for solo practitioners. It is the average income of all 354,000 lawyers who filed as solo practitioners in 2012, including those who have practiced law their whole lives.

By comparison, the average starting salary of a 2012 college graduate was $44,000 and the median household income in the U.S. was over $51,000 that year.

I mean I'm not saying that going to a John Marshal or a DePaul is necessarily doom or gloom, but I think you're not really putting yourself in a better position than you would be pursuing other careers. This is a response to your more recent post too. I think that spending 3 years working in some other field and making money/climbing up the corporate ladder/gaining experience is a better use of time than rushing to law school. If you're smart enough to work your way up in the legal field in the ways you describe above, you're smart enough to do the same thing in corporate America and you get a three year head start. And law school will always be waiting for you if that's what you want to pursue.

I've explained these solo stats in past threads. A solo that remains a solo (i.e. Does not partner up with someone or hire more attorneys) are by definition the failed solos. Successful solos quickly grow. Out of the 10 people I know who started solos 3-5 or so years ago, only 1 remained a solo. The rest hired attorneys because they grew and weren't solos. 6 figures is the norm. Explain how someone charging $200/hr (which is the very very cheap end for an attorney) makes less than 100k a year. It's damn near impossible if they have any work flow at all or collect any bills at all. The success story I've seen - 2 solos that went on their own in 2011, 2012 merge, hire 1 associate, 2013 hire 2 assc. 2016 hit 1 million in collections. Now 2017 5-6 years later, they have 10 associates and will probably collect gross revenue approaching 2 million. A successful solo by definition stops being a solo. That is a wild success obviously but the 100k 2-3 person firm is the average/norm.

Edit - I'll also say 70-80k in rural Iowa might be more normal for tiny firms but, that's like 150-200k in NYC buying power. My numbers are for /secondary cities.

[BlendedUnicorn]

If there are 354,000 attorneys filing as solo practitioners out of 1.2 million total attorneys in the country that certainly suggests a large percentage of solo practitioners are failed solos using your standards then.

e. and plenty of solos don't charge hourly rates and there's no fucking way that $200/hour is the low end of the scale.

[Johann]

Cavalier to criminal defendant with 50% trial success - dude just take the plea and go to jail for 15 years. Trial is too risky!!

Cavalier to business about to acquire startup - dude only 1% of startup acquisitions work out. Don't do it! It's too risky!

Cavalier to multinational about to reorganize in Asia - dude Asia courts and laws are crazy it's too risky!! You can't find a workforce! There might be a tsunami!

[Johann]

If there are 354,000 attorneys filing as solo practitioners out of 1.2 million total attorneys in the country that certainly suggests a large percentage of solo practitioners are failed solos using your standards then.

e. and plenty of solos don't charge hourly rates and there's no fucking way that $200/hour is the low end of the scale.

Yeah it's also people with side jobs. I worked at a small firm and did something on the side for a couple clients which required me to create my own self employed business and tie the income to that.

You really think 33% of attorneys are solos!?

[cavalier1138]

Cavalier to criminal defendant with 50% trial success - dude just take the plea and go to jail for 15 years. Trial is too risky!!

Cavalier to business about to acquire startup - dude only 1% of startup acquisitions work out. Don't do it! It's too risky!

Cavalier to multinational about to reorganize in Asia - dude Asia courts and laws are crazy it's too risky!! You can't find a workforce! There might be a tsunami!

Again, where did you get this idea that lawyers are all about taking on risk? That's literally the opposite of most non-plaintiff's lawyers in the country.

I get that you have this weirdly axiomatic belief that all really good people take the exact level of risk that you deem appropriate. Because they're mavericks. Or Americans. Or whatever idiotic idea you're using to back that up.

Risk-taking is not a sign of a good/bad person any more than risk avoidance is. And I have no idea why you feel the need to become so unbelievably petty about this particular issue.

[Johann]

It's also IRS data where people are actively trying to push their total income down. So yeah I'm a data point in that as a solo in 2012 that earned 1,000 of income. I'd estimate 10% of Attorney's tops are solos. Which means you're looking at 3:1 ratio of side hustles to actual solos and the side hustles weighin the solos down.

My dad is using a lawyer in po dunk Virginia right now with no specialty that is 300/hr because the specialist was 500/hr. His personal attorney for wills and stuff is 400/hr. I've helped him price shop them. You can't beat 200 anywhere in the country.

[BlendedUnicorn]

Cavalier to criminal defendant with 50% trial success - dude just take the plea and go to jail for 15 years. Trial is too risky!!

Cavalier to business about to acquire startup - dude only 1% of startup acquisitions work out. Don't do it! It's too risky!

Cavalier to multinational about to reorganize in Asia - dude Asia courts and laws are crazy it's too risky!! You can't find a workforce! There might be a tsunami!

But it's not a binary decision. Obviously saying something is risky isn't the end of the analysis but you should be considering the risk/reward compared to other possible options. It's not like the world divides into law or blue collar drudgery and unemployment.

[BigZuck]

Johann is mentally ill and a liar and worst of all an idiot why are you guys engaging him?

Just let him spew, it's fine. A non-idiot can read what he says and easily discard it. If he hooks a few people oh well, they were going to get hooked sooner or later. You were never going to save them.

[Paul Campos]

Per the most recent ABA statistics, 49% of all lawyers in private practice are solos, and 75% of lawyers are in private practice.

A lot of solos aren't really managing to make an economic go of it as lawyers, which is why the mean income for the cohort is so low (Of course the median is going to be lower). If you exclude all the people who are trying to make a living in private practice and not managing it, that certainly will help pump the income stats for lawyers.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Cavalier to criminal defendant with 50% trial success - dude just take the plea and go to jail for 15 years. Trial is too risky!!

Cavalier to business about to acquire startup - dude only 1% of startup acquisitions work out. Don't do it! It's too risky!

Cavalier to multinational about to reorganize in Asia - dude Asia courts and laws are crazy it's too risky!! You can't find a workforce! There might be a tsunami!

This is strawmanning to an extreme degree.

And I'm glad Campos provided stats because your estimate about solos is way too low.

[bk1]

Cavalier to criminal defendant with 50% trial success - dude just take the plea and go to jail for 15 years. Trial is too risky!!

Cavalier to business about to acquire startup - dude only 1% of startup acquisitions work out. Don't do it! It's too risky!

Cavalier to multinational about to reorganize in Asia - dude Asia courts and laws are crazy it's too risky!! You can't find a workforce! There might be a tsunami!

This is strawmanning to an extreme degree.

And I'm glad Campos provided stats because your estimate about solos is way too low.

In JDM world, all decisions are the same and the only difference between them is the percentage downside risk.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's also IRS data where people are actively trying to push their total income down. So yeah I'm a data point in that as a solo in 2012 that earned 1,000 of income. I'd estimate 10% of Attorney's tops are solos. Which means you're looking at 3:1 ratio of side hustles to actual solos and the side hustles weighin the solos down.

My dad is using a lawyer in po dunk Virginia right now with no specialty that is 300/hr because the specialist was 500/hr. His personal attorney for wills and stuff is 400/hr. I've helped him price shop them. You can't beat 200 anywhere in the country.

(Has never heard of flat fees/contingency fees.)

[bk1]

Re anecdote of "all I see from my TTT is success as far as the eye can see": successful people (for a variety of reasons) are likely to surround themselves with/be surrounded by other successful people.

[Npret]

It's also IRS data where people are actively trying to push their total income down. So yeah I'm a data point in that as a solo in 2012 that earned 1,000 of income. I'd estimate 10% of Attorney's tops are solos. Which means you're looking at 3:1 ratio of side hustles to actual solos and the side hustles weighin the solos down.

My dad is using a lawyer in po dunk Virginia right now with no specialty that is 300/hr because the specialist was 500/hr. His personal attorney for wills and stuff is 400/hr. I've helped him price shop them. You can't beat 200 anywhere in the country.

You are completely wrong. Even in NYC the home of biglaw most attorneys are solo or very small firms. This has been pointed out by the association of the bar frequently as they create programs and services for small firms.

[Johann]

Cavalier to criminal defendant with 50% trial success - dude just take the plea and go to jail for 15 years. Trial is too risky!!

Cavalier to business about to acquire startup - dude only 1% of startup acquisitions work out. Don't do it! It's too risky!

Cavalier to multinational about to reorganize in Asia - dude Asia courts and laws are crazy it's too risky!! You can't find a workforce! There might be a tsunami!

Again, where did you get this idea that lawyers are all about taking on risk? That's literally the opposite of most non-plaintiff's lawyers in the country.

I get that you have this weirdly axiomatic belief that all really good people take the exact level of risk that you deem appropriate. Because they're mavericks. Or Americans. Or whatever idiotic idea you're using to back that up.

Risk-taking is not a sign of a good/bad person any more than risk avoidance is. And I have no idea why you feel the need to become so unbelievably petty about this particular issue.

I'm pointing out that tlsers are some of the most risk averse people in the world. Stack up the worst law school (John Marshall) and run the employment outcomes against decent public schools (Illinois undergrad) and law would be on top. A shitty law education that gives you a chance and credential to charge hundreds of dollars an hour for your work is better than so many educations. People that can do medicine, engineer, tech, sure law scuks. But law does not suck for middle class people who want a middle class outcome which includes run of the mill TT and TTT schools. The point is you actually suck at analyzing risk because you're so risk averse that you just don't do risky things whereas people who do analyze risk because everything they've done is a risk because they've never had anything handed to them understand risk analysis.