I got Biglaw from T2 AND YOU CAN TOO Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm at a lower T2 and just finished top 5%, practiced interviewing, and did just fine. Accepted an offer at a V20.

Yeah going to a t2 is no problem, just be top 5% guys! Seems like a lot of people who got biglaw from lower ranked schools just really want to say I TOLD YOU SO to TLS because they were told to retake and that their schools have shitty job prospects. See I really AM a special snowflake!!!

No one was ever denying that people in the top 5-15% with diversity/law review/etc have a decent shot at biglaw from those schools. Ranking that high in the class is fucking hard and requires quite a bit of luck. You gambled and got lucky, congratulations. That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

I took the non-14 gamble hoping to place well in the class. My first semester grades were easily top 10%. My first second grades were not: a close family member died during the finals period & it threw me off. You can't bet on anything.

[mr.hands]

This may depend largely on what type of "diverse" you are. Are you female-diverse or minority-diverse (this actually makes a difference)

[baal hadad]

Diverse person w top 15% grades and LR pulls a biglaw offer?

Move along folks nothing to see here

[mandimeoutof10]

Diverse person w top 15% grades and LR pulls a biglaw offer?

Move along folks nothing to see here

Strong this.

[mirage1287]

Diverse person w top 15% grades and LR pulls a biglaw offer?

Move along folks nothing to see here

Strong this.

This thread is nothing more than an annoying humblebrag. OP's story isn't noteworthy. Law students are insufferable.

*accidental anon - mirage1287

[Anonymous User]

I get that you're excited and all and I think that's great but I would take some issue with the "AND YOU CAN TOO" part if someone needs to be diverse, in the top 15%, and on Law Review to get big law from a school like that. Those qualifications just aren't an option for most schmos who attend T2s.

If the purpose of the thread is just to gloat, then that's fine, cool story. But if its a guide for other people to emulate, the vast majority simply won't be able to emulate you.

I agree. In addition... You have worked really hard and the following does not pertain to you abilities or skills but there might be an additional factor that most students do not have which allowed you to get big law job.

Be careful there. You [may have] suggested that her diverse background --> biglaw.....thin ice at best.

Quoted anon. I didn't suggest diverse background = big law, if that's what you thought I meant.

But yeah this thread seems like a humblebrag to me.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

It would be weird if a diverse student in the top 15% + LR failed to get big law from T2. Of course you got big law.

Edit: (am suggesting diversity helps with big law hiring, fwiw)

[Anonymous User]

This thread is a bit overblown. T2, median, LR, "diverse", IP. I got several CBs and one offer at biglaw.

It's an uphill battle and the odds aren't great, but its not the kind of unicorn that would warrant this thread (or at least the title) either.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

I disagree.

I started work in biglaw this month, at a firm that's a great fit for me, and in an area of law that I feel passionately about.

But, if I had followed TLS "wisdom" then I wouldn't be here, because I never would have gone to any of the schools I was accepted at. Instead, according to TLS, I should have either (1) gone to get a second BA in computer science (despite having no interest in that field) or (2) tried to use my econ degree to work in finance (despite having no interest in that field either).

In other words, it's worth pointing out that for some subset of law students, TLS "wisdom" is not going to get you where you want to be in life.

TLS approaches education as though passion for a career is meaningless, and the only consideration should be the likely pay out on degree completion. But while it's not wrong to look at employment stats, there's a case to be made that TLS has taken it WAY too far (especially with all the "Just do compsci, bro" posts that have no regard for what the person's underlying interests are).

To that end, there's merit in a thread like this one; reminding everyone that sometimes large risks pay off, and for many of us a small chance at the career of our choice beats certainty in a field we have no desire to enter.

[FSK]

That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

I disagree.

I started work in biglaw this month, at a firm that's a great fit for me, and in an area of law that I feel passionately about.

But, if I had followed TLS "wisdom" then I wouldn't be here, because I never would have gone to any of the schools I was accepted at. Instead, according to TLS, I should have either (1) gone to get a second BA in computer science (despite having no interest in that field) or (2) tried to use my econ degree to work in finance (despite having no interest in that field either).

In other words, it's worth pointing out that for some subset of law students, TLS "wisdom" is not going to get you where you want to be in life.

TLS approaches education as though passion for a career is meaningless, and the only consideration should be the likely pay out on degree completion. But while it's not wrong to look at employment stats, there's a case to be made that TLS has taken it WAY too far (especially with all the "Just do compsci, bro" posts that have no regard for what the person's underlying interests are).

To that end, there's merit in a thread like this one; reminding everyone that sometimes large risks pay off, and for many of us a small chance at the career of our choice beats certainty in a field we have no desire to enter.

This largely true, but the choice of law school usually isn't so unilateral of go & face risk, or don't go and "comp sci bro."

The most influential point of TLS advice is retake, and get into a better law school (better being a complex term) for less money. For the vast majority of people, this will reduce their risk going in, open up doors that weren't open before, and leave them with less debt.

I'm glad it worked out for you, and this person, and every other exception to the rule. And its good you're sufficiently risk tolerant to take the course you choose.

But when a board is giving advice blind to many facts, the best advice is often the "TLS" wisdom. In many cases of students going to non-top schools (myself included) the student doesn't face the reality of a retake, or time to gain work experience, or whatever it may be, and it kills them down the road.

/rant.

[Tiago Splitter]

That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

I disagree.

I started work in biglaw this month, at a firm that's a great fit for me, and in an area of law that I feel passionately about.

But, if I had followed TLS "wisdom" then I wouldn't be here, because I never would have gone to any of the schools I was accepted at. Instead, according to TLS, I should have either (1) gone to get a second BA in computer science (despite having no interest in that field) or (2) tried to use my econ degree to work in finance (despite having no interest in that field either).

In other words, it's worth pointing out that for some subset of law students, TLS "wisdom" is not going to get you where you want to be in life.

TLS approaches education as though passion for a career is meaningless, and the only consideration should be the likely pay out on degree completion. But while it's not wrong to look at employment stats, there's a case to be made that TLS has taken it WAY too far (especially with all the "Just do compsci, bro" posts that have no regard for what the person's underlying interests are).

To that end, there's merit in a thread like this one; reminding everyone that sometimes large risks pay off, and for many of us a small chance at the career of our choice beats certainty in a field we have no desire to enter.

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

That wasn't an option for me (I already had a 175, my GPA was the problem, and this was 4 years ago when application numbers were much higher, so splitters didn't do as well). In cases where retake is not an option TLS is pretty uniform about "find another career."

That would have been the wrong choice for me, and it's likely the wrong choice for some on others too. I think it's worth pointing that out.

[Tiago Splitter]

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

That wasn't an option for me (I already had a 175, my GPA was the problem, and this was 4 years ago when application numbers were much higher, so splitters didn't do as well). In cases where retake is not an option TLS is pretty uniform about "find another career."

That would have been the wrong choice for me, and it's likely the wrong choice for some on others too. I think it's worth pointing that out.

TLS would have told you to go to Northwestern, which has been accepting people with 2.5/175 type numbers for years. Again, if biglaw really was your passion (I think it's fair to be a little skeptical on that count) then you could have waited and gotten work experience or whatever was necessary to get into Northwestern.

The middle ground here is that it's probably not crazy for people with some interest in biglaw in a particular region to go to school in that region for low cost and try to kill it during 1L. If that doesn't work, just drop out after one or two semesters. If a school has 10-20% biglaw placement it's a reasonable risk and if more people dropped out after 1L much of the oversupply problem would be solved.

[WokeUpInACar]

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

That wasn't an option for me (I already had a 175, my GPA was the problem, and this was 4 years ago when application numbers were much higher, so splitters didn't do as well). In cases where retake is not an option TLS is pretty uniform about "find another career."

That would have been the wrong choice for me, and it's likely the wrong choice for some on others too. I think it's worth pointing that out.

Honestly this is fair and I don't disagree with your point. I just think many people who think or have convinced themselves that law is their passion without knowing exactly what being an attorney entails can use this line of reasoning to justify some shitty choices. Also I have way less of a problem with people's choices who have maximized their LSAT potential and taken the test 3 times after extensive study. That is what's to blame for the majority of terrible decisions to attend TTTs.

[Anonymous User]

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

That wasn't an option for me (I already had a 175, my GPA was the problem, and this was 4 years ago when application numbers were much higher, so splitters didn't do as well). In cases where retake is not an option TLS is pretty uniform about "find another career."

That would have been the wrong choice for me, and it's likely the wrong choice for some on others too. I think it's worth pointing that out.

Honestly this is fair and I don't disagree with your point. I just think many people who think or have convinced themselves that law is their passion without knowing exactly what being an attorney entails can use this line of reasoning to justify some shitty choices. Also I have way less of a problem with people's choices who have maximized their LSAT potential and taken the test 3 times after extensive study. That is what's to blame for the majority of terrible decisions to attend TTTs.

This. You don't have any idea what it's really like to be an attorney until you've been practicing for a while.

[Anonymous User]

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

That wasn't an option for me (I already had a 175, my GPA was the problem, and this was 4 years ago when application numbers were much higher, so splitters didn't do as well). In cases where retake is not an option TLS is pretty uniform about "find another career."

That would have been the wrong choice for me, and it's likely the wrong choice for some on others too. I think it's worth pointing that out.

Honestly this is fair and I don't disagree with your point. I just think many people who think or have convinced themselves that law is their passion without knowing exactly what being an attorney entails can use this line of reasoning to justify some shitty choices. Also I have way less of a problem with people's choices who have maximized their LSAT potential and taken the test 3 times after extensive study. That is what's to blame for the majority of terrible decisions to attend TTTs.

This. You don't have any idea what it's really like to be an attorney until you've been practicing for a while.

At my T2 basically everyone who gets big law has a massive scholarship. A lot of these people also chose this T2 over T1/gtown. So basically only take the t2 risk if you have a massive scholarship bc there are a few people in each class who are much smarter and will do better. And obviously no T2 is worth debt.

[A. Nony Mouse]

If for some reason your passion was to work in biglaw then TLS would have told you to retake the LSAT.

That wasn't an option for me (I already had a 175, my GPA was the problem, and this was 4 years ago when application numbers were much higher, so splitters didn't do as well). In cases where retake is not an option TLS is pretty uniform about "find another career."

That would have been the wrong choice for me, and it's likely the wrong choice for some on others too. I think it's worth pointing that out.

I get this, and kind of agree over all (I am someone who would have been told to retake, and should have retaken, and would have been told not to go where I did for the price I paid, but who had had a good outcome). But I'd still have a hard time advising someone to do what I did. I try to temper TLS credited wisdom by not saying "no one should ever go under those circumstances" and instead saying "here's why everyone says don't do that, because the bad outcomes are really bad, and in most cases you have to plan for the bad outcomes, and if you choose to go, make sure you really really are okay with a bad outcome." But it's still hard to say "yeah, go for it," especially since many people don't seem to grasp the reality of the bad outcomes (I know I didn't really. My excuse is just that it was pre-ITE, but it's not much of one).

(Though I agree about the "just do compsci bro" part. When I was applying, to the extent there was a "don't go" crowd, they kept saying "go into nursing!!!" And I kept thinking: what makes you think the vast majority of prospective lawyers wouldn't be HORRIBLE nurses???)

[GunnerBingo]

I'm at a lower T2 and just finished top 5%, practiced interviewing, and did just fine. Accepted an offer at a V20.

Yeah going to a t2 is no problem, just be top 5% guys! Seems like a lot of people who got biglaw from lower ranked schools just really want to say I TOLD YOU SO to TLS because they were told to retake and that their schools have shitty job prospects. See I really AM a special snowflake!!!

No one was ever denying that people in the top 5-15% with diversity/law review/etc have a decent shot at biglaw from those schools. Ranking that high in the class is fucking hard and requires quite a bit of luck. You gambled and got lucky, congratulations. That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

One thing I'll never fully understand about TLS

Use practice guides for the LSAT, Get 170+ --> hard work, smart decision

Try to get 170 using practice guides, gets a score in the mid 160s, go to a T1/T2 school because you still want to be a lawyer, use credited law school techniques, do a ton of practice exams, finish top 10% --> Gambled, got lucky

If having the mental disposition to get a 170+ on the LSAT with the right practice isn't luck, then having the mental disposition to get top 10% at a T1/T2 with the right practice isn't luck either. These situations aren't analogous, but there is always a certain amount of luck involved with how good one happens to be at any particular endeavor. To say that scoring high on the LSAT is always achievable, but getting good grades in law school is blind luck, is to completely discredit the achievement of many on this forum.

[A. Nony Mouse]

But the LSAT isn't being graded on a curve against people who are all pretty much as smart as you are (based on scores). You just can't control where you end up, grades-wise, during 1L. There's some correlation between work and results, but it's not close enough to bank on. (You also have a lot shorter period to learn how to do law shook exams, and you can't retake.)

Personally I think TLS overstates the extent to which hard work/study can get you a 170+, not the degree to which you can't predict LS grades.

[FSK]

But the LSAT isn't being graded on a curve against people who are all pretty much as smart as you are (based on scores). You just can't control where you end up, grades-wise, during 1L. There's some correlation between work and results, but it's not close enough to bank on. (You also have a lot shorter period to learn how to do law shook exams, and you can't retake.)

Personally I think TLS overstates the extent to which hard work/study can get you a 170+, not the degree to which you can't predict LS grades.

not to mention the difference in quality of options. Top 10% at a T2 can get biglaw (V100?), but median at T14 can snag V20. Not opining on the merit of that difference, but its there.

[moneybagsphd]

The LSAT is a multiple choice reasoning exam, whereas 1L exams are mostly issue spotters (even in classes with a MC component). For reasons that should be obvious, MC exams are more reliable at quantifying performance than essay-style exams. Also, there is an element of luck in doing well on 8+ exams because most people have "bad days." The more exams you take, the more likely you take one on a bad day.

[WokeUpInACar]

I'm at a lower T2 and just finished top 5%, practiced interviewing, and did just fine. Accepted an offer at a V20.

Yeah going to a t2 is no problem, just be top 5% guys! Seems like a lot of people who got biglaw from lower ranked schools just really want to say I TOLD YOU SO to TLS because they were told to retake and that their schools have shitty job prospects. See I really AM a special snowflake!!!

No one was ever denying that people in the top 5-15% with diversity/law review/etc have a decent shot at biglaw from those schools. Ranking that high in the class is fucking hard and requires quite a bit of luck. You gambled and got lucky, congratulations. That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

One thing I'll never fully understand about TLS

Use practice guides for the LSAT, Get 170+ --> hard work, smart decision

Try to get 170 using practice guides, gets a score in the mid 160s, go to a T1/T2 school because you still want to be a lawyer, use credited law school techniques, do a ton of practice exams, finish top 10% --> Gambled, got lucky

If having the mental disposition to get a 170+ on the LSAT with the right practice isn't luck, then having the mental disposition to get top 10% at a T1/T2 with the right practice isn't luck either. These situations aren't analogous, but there is always a certain amount of luck involved with how good one happens to be at any particular endeavor. To say that scoring high on the LSAT is always achievable, but getting good grades in law school is blind luck, is to completely discredit the achievement of many on this forum.

As I said, I rarely have an issue with someone's decision to attend a lower ranked school if they have truly maximized their potential on the LSAT. I just think that those lower ranked schools are largely filled with people who have not done so.

[hoos89]

I'm at a lower T2 and just finished top 5%, practiced interviewing, and did just fine. Accepted an offer at a V20.

Yeah going to a t2 is no problem, just be top 5% guys! Seems like a lot of people who got biglaw from lower ranked schools just really want to say I TOLD YOU SO to TLS because they were told to retake and that their schools have shitty job prospects. See I really AM a special snowflake!!!

No one was ever denying that people in the top 5-15% with diversity/law review/etc have a decent shot at biglaw from those schools. Ranking that high in the class is fucking hard and requires quite a bit of luck. You gambled and got lucky, congratulations. That doesn't mean your decision to attend that school was the correct one.

One thing I'll never fully understand about TLS

Use practice guides for the LSAT, Get 170+ --> hard work, smart decision

Try to get 170 using practice guides, gets a score in the mid 160s, go to a T1/T2 school because you still want to be a lawyer, use credited law school techniques, do a ton of practice exams, finish top 10% --> Gambled, got lucky

If having the mental disposition to get a 170+ on the LSAT with the right practice isn't luck, then having the mental disposition to get top 10% at a T1/T2 with the right practice isn't luck either. These situations aren't analogous, but there is always a certain amount of luck involved with how good one happens to be at any particular endeavor. To say that scoring high on the LSAT is always achievable, but getting good grades in law school is blind luck, is to completely discredit the achievement of many on this forum.

1. You can take (and retake) the LSAT with relatively little risk. You know what you got on it before committing hundreds of thousands of dollars to education.
2. Most people in law school work very hard. In law school you are competing with people in a set range of GPAs and LSATs. Even if you're at the top of that range, it's no guarantee that you have whatever it takes to do well on 3 hours issue spotter exams.
3. While you can predict how well you will do on the LSAT with practice tests, there is just no way to predict that you will be in the top 10%.

Your statement pretty much amounts to "people who don't do well in law school just didn't try hard enough." This is a classic 0L fallacy. Some of the hardest working people I know in law school also happen to be below median, and I know a few people who don't work terribly hard but are in the top 10%.


Also, going to a bad law school and doing well and getting a great job and then look back at it ex post and saying it was a great decision is like chasing a gut shot straight draw and hitting it on the river and saying that was a great decision. More often than not, it doesn't work out.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Personally I think TLS overstates the extent to which hard work/study can get you a 170+, not the degree to which you can't predict LS grades.

But there's really no reason to always link the ideas "hard work + talent = good LS grades" and "0Ls can accurately predict their grades."

I understand Gunner Bingo's frustration with having people who don't know you constantly dismiss your lived experience as "you just got lucky, bro."

If someone had both choices available, I would never tell them they should pick a T2 over a t14, because I agree that 0Ls cannot accurately predict their grades.

However, at some point we need to recognize that the kids at the top of the curve are not just winning a series of lotteries. It may be luck that they found something they are talented at, but that still means they are talented and putting in the hard work to exploit that talent (and to be clear, I mean "talented at LS exams" not "talented in the practice of law").

On TLS we don't talk about stuff like this because the inverse makes us uncomfortable (i.e. If the kids at the top show the right mix of hard work and talent, that implies the kids at the bottom are missing one of those ingredients); so it becomes easier to say "you just got lucky" because then the inverse is simply "you just didn't get lucky." But that doesn't make it accurate, nor does it fairly reflect what is actually happening at most law schools.

[BigZuck]

Love that Hastings students are coming out of the woodwork to tell us that attending a school with poor big law placement and just do work your butt off bro is a good decision.