Top Law Schools

If someone has 1) the stats to get into lower T13 at sticker, and 2) the goal of becoming a millionaire as fast as possible, would this person be smart in taking a full tuition scholly at the best T1 they can (GW & BU ED, UIUC, etc) or a similar school that places at least 20% in biglaw?

And don't give me the "oh but your chance of biglaw is only 20% at those schools because you never know what will happen BS." A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

.

Platopus wrote:No, Harvard is the only school the produces millionaires and this is a known fact.

Oh whoops yah I forgot

.

MrLions wrote: A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

Exactly correct. It has been proven time and again. In fact, no one with a higher LSAT/GPA than his or her classmates at a T1 has ever failed to get biglaw, at least since 2004 when such data began being collected. I highly recommend this strategy.

Retake

Misleading title, this is not unconventional. Most millionaires made this way.

Well, no one ever failed to achieve their dreams due to pure arrogance. Go for it!

theconsigliere wrote:

MrLions wrote: A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

Exactly correct. It has been proven time and again. In fact, no one with a higher LSAT/GPA than his or her classmates at a T1 has ever failed to get biglaw, at least since 2004 when such data began being collected. I highly recommend this strategy.

You're right. No one with a higher LSAT/GPA than most of the class ever gets sick or has a personal emergency around finals, either, so how could it go wrong?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

theconsigliere wrote:

MrLions wrote: A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

Exactly correct. It has been proven time and again. In fact, no one with a higher LSAT/GPA than his or her classmates at a T1 has ever failed to get biglaw, at least since 2004 when such data began being collected. I highly recommend this strategy.

You're right. No one with a higher LSAT/GPA than most of the class ever gets sick or has a personal emergency around finals, either, so how could it go wrong?

Actually, a corollary to the LSAC study showed that a higher LSAT/GPA boosts not only your immune system, but the immune systems of everyone in your circle of immediate family an friends. And at schools where they were above both 75ths, respondents reported that they visited by Hades, who worked his will upon the fates themselves, ensuring that those respondents' threads could not be cut by the sisters three. All hail those who matriculated with higher-than-median LSAT/GPA combos! All hail!

cavalier1138 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

theconsigliere wrote:

MrLions wrote: A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

Exactly correct. It has been proven time and again. In fact, no one with a higher LSAT/GPA than his or her classmates at a T1 has ever failed to get biglaw, at least since 2004 when such data began being collected. I highly recommend this strategy.

You're right. No one with a higher LSAT/GPA than most of the class ever gets sick or has a personal emergency around finals, either, so how could it go wrong?

Actually, a corollary to the LSAC study showed that a higher LSAT/GPA boosts not only your immune system, but the immune systems of everyone in your circle of immediate family an friends. And at schools where they were above both 75ths, respondents reported that they visited by Hades, who worked his will upon the fates themselves, ensuring that those respondents' threads could not be cut by the sisters three. All hail those who matriculated with higher-than-median LSAT/GPA combos! All hail!

The point is that the weaker/dumber your peers, the better you can expect to perform. If you're going to be a median student at HYS then obviously you're going to clean up at a T1 school. It's insane that TLS never acknowledges this.

jstanhope14 wrote:The point is that the weaker/dumber your peers, the better you can expect to perform. If you're going to be a median student at HYS then obviously you're going to clean up at a T1 school. It's insane that TLS never acknowledges this.

It's more insane when people don't understand how medians work.

cavalier1138 wrote:

jstanhope14 wrote:The point is that the weaker/dumber your peers, the better you can expect to perform. If you're going to be a median student at HYS then obviously you're going to clean up at a T1 school. It's insane that TLS never acknowledges this.

It's more insane when people don't understand how medians work.

Elaborate?

jstanhope14 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

jstanhope14 wrote:The point is that the weaker/dumber your peers, the better you can expect to perform. If you're going to be a median student at HYS then obviously you're going to clean up at a T1 school. It's insane that TLS never acknowledges this.

It's more insane when people don't understand how medians work.

Elaborate?

The group of students at the median for HYS (to the extent that those schools even have a median) is immense compared to regional law schools. At most regional schools, you can probably expect as many people to be below the median as above it, but at a lot of the top schools, many more people are above the median than below it. For example:

Group A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (median: 50)

Group B
10 50 50 50 50 50 80 90 90 100 (median: 50)

So while someone being admitted to HYS would be practically guaranteed to be a median student there, that doesn't mean that they would automatically outperform everyone at a lower-ranked school. An applicant's performance in law school can't be predicted based on where else they were admitted.

cavalier1138 wrote:

jstanhope14 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

jstanhope14 wrote:The point is that the weaker/dumber your peers, the better you can expect to perform. If you're going to be a median student at HYS then obviously you're going to clean up at a T1 school. It's insane that TLS never acknowledges this.

It's more insane when people don't understand how medians work.

Elaborate?

The group of students at the median for HYS (to the extent that those schools even have a median) is immense compared to regional law schools. At most regional schools, you can probably expect as many people to be below the median as above it, but at a lot of the top schools, many more people are above the median than below it. For example:

Group A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (median: 50)

Group B
10 50 50 50 50 50 80 90 90 100 (median: 50)

So while someone being admitted to HYS would be practically guaranteed to be a median student there, that doesn't mean that they would automatically outperform everyone at a lower-ranked school. An applicant's performance in law school can't be predicted based on where else they were admitted.

Group A's median is 55.

But really, is there enough data out there to support that top schools create more median students than lower ranked schools? And which are these top schools (only HYS)? If no data and just logic, I don't see how one can reach this conclusion -- why would one assume that students at top schools have less variance in their LS exam answers than those at lower schools?

coolestkidever wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:The group of students at the median for HYS (to the extent that those schools even have a median) is immense compared to regional law schools. At most regional schools, you can probably expect as many people to be below the median as above it, but at a lot of the top schools, many more people are above the median than below it. For example:

Group A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (median: 50)

Group B
10 50 50 50 50 50 80 90 90 100 (median: 50)

So while someone being admitted to HYS would be practically guaranteed to be a median student there, that doesn't mean that they would automatically outperform everyone at a lower-ranked school. An applicant's performance in law school can't be predicted based on where else they were admitted.

Group A's median is 55.

But really, is there enough data out there to support that top schools create more median students than lower ranked schools? And which are these top schools (only HYS)? If no data and just logic, I don't see how one can reach this conclusion -- why would one assume that students at top schools have less variance in their LS exam answers than those at lower schools?

Whoops, forgot to make it an odd number to avoid that issue.

And the grading policies at all law schools are public. HYS are outliers, because they don't do real grades, so it's almost impossible to compare them to a normal curve. But at NYU (random pick), for example, a class is curved to approximately 10% A, 20% A-, 25% B+, everyone else B, 5% B-, discretionary C/D/F <5%. By contrast, Miami (again, just a random pick) curves to about 20% A/A-/B+, 25% B,everyone else B-/C+/C, C-/D/F 5-15%. If the median at NYU is around a B average, and the median at Miami is around a B- (educated guesses), then you can see that more of the class is going to be grouped at median at NYU, just by virtue of how the mandatory curve is set for classes.

Or you could put in a few hundred hours of LSAT prep and get into a T13 on a full ride and have a much better shot at having a net worth of one million dollars (making a million dollars a year in law is almost impossible).

but your chance of biglaw is only 20% at those schools because you never know what will happen

cavalier1138 wrote:

coolestkidever wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:The group of students at the median for HYS (to the extent that those schools even have a median) is immense compared to regional law schools. At most regional schools, you can probably expect as many people to be below the median as above it, but at a lot of the top schools, many more people are above the median than below it. For example:

Group A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (median: 50)

Group B
10 50 50 50 50 50 80 90 90 100 (median: 50)

So while someone being admitted to HYS would be practically guaranteed to be a median student there, that doesn't mean that they would automatically outperform everyone at a lower-ranked school. An applicant's performance in law school can't be predicted based on where else they were admitted.

Group A's median is 55.

But really, is there enough data out there to support that top schools create more median students than lower ranked schools? And which are these top schools (only HYS)? If no data and just logic, I don't see how one can reach this conclusion -- why would one assume that students at top schools have less variance in their LS exam answers than those at lower schools?

Whoops, forgot to make it an odd number to avoid that issue.

And the grading policies at all law schools are public. HYS are outliers, because they don't do real grades, so it's almost impossible to compare them to a normal curve. But at NYU (random pick), for example, a class is curved to approximately 10% A, 20% A-, 25% B+, everyone else B, 5% B-, discretionary C/D/F <5%. By contrast, Miami (again, just a random pick) curves to about 20% A/A-/B+, 25% B,everyone else B-/C+/C, C-/D/F 5-15%. If the median at NYU is around a B average, and the median at Miami is around a B- (educated guesses), then you can see that more of the class is going to be grouped at median at NYU, just by virtue of how the mandatory curve is set for classes.

This is why letter grades are just insane. Didn't know curves are public; thanks for explaining that to me.

MrLions wrote:And don't give me the "oh but your chance of biglaw is only 20% at those schools because you never know what will happen BS." A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

You should begin trading stocks, where your strong work ethic and superior intelligence will guarantee that you outperform the majority of investors. This will allow you to become a millionaire quickly without the nuisance of attending law school.

How did you get involved with the Yakuza in the first place?

Lol alot of people take a full scholarship over T13. You just gotta be ready to live with your choice in the more than likely scenario that you don't score a biglaw gig. Also, you're chances of being a (multi) millionare in law will be lower than your chances of getting into harvard, so if that's your end goal I'd consider using your "superior intellect" to go pursue something else

rpupkin wrote:

MrLions wrote:And don't give me the "oh but your chance of biglaw is only 20% at those schools because you never know what will happen BS." A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

You should begin trading stocks, where your strong work ethic and superior intelligence will guarantee that you outperform the majority of investors. This will allow you to become a millionaire quickly without the nuisance of attending law school.

+1

MrLions wrote:If someone has 1) the stats to get into lower T13 at sticker, and 2) the goal of becoming a millionaire as fast as possible, would this person be smart in taking a full tuition scholly at the best T1 they can (GW & BU ED, UIUC, etc) or a similar school that places at least 20% in biglaw?

And don't give me the "oh but your chance of biglaw is only 20% at those schools because you never know what will happen BS." A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

Learn computational finance. Friend of a friend works at blackrock producing algorithims for their trading platforms and makes 500k a year at age 25.

MrLions wrote:And don't give me the "oh but your chance of biglaw is only 20% at those schools because you never know what will happen BS." A student with a strong work ethic and significantly better LSAT and GPA than most of the class will be fine.

AKA: "Just tell me yes."